Your Tax Dollars At Work

A few quotes about taxpayer money spent on useless climate studies from a fascinating site called Open The Books.

Quote The First — Bogus Warnings From The Future (emphasis mine in all cases)

Here is an eerie way to spend $5.7 million from the government: create fake voicemails from people as far in the future as 2065, when climate change has devastated the Earth and Alaska and California are without water.

In 2012, Columbia University’s Climate Center received the taxpayer-funded grant from the National Science Foundation to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

This dystopian project, called Future Coast, also includes a game where people search for fictional fallen “chronofacts” that fall out of time.

These “immersive stories” are supposed to warn the public of the destruction that will befall the Earth if climate change continues on its course.

The university’s climate center’s Polar Learning and Responding Climate Change Education Partnership (PoLAR CCEP) received the funds to “to inform public understanding of and response to climate change,” according to the Future Coast website. How do fictional “chronofacts” and voicemails advertising tsunami insurance help inform people?

The only “real” aspect of all this was the $5.7 million cost, funded by the American taxpayer.

Great. You too can scare your kids with false warnings for only $5.7 million.

Quote The Second—What Passes For Infrastructure These Days

Here are just a few of the “earmarks” in the Democrats’ so-called “Infrastructure Bill”. Recall that “infrastructure” used to mean roads, bridges, freeways, and the like, projects that benefitted everyone. Here is what is called “infrastructure” today.

$4 billion earmarked for states, cities, villages, and county government projects. Recently, these localities already received $350 billion through the American Rescue Plan. Earmarks included

• $400,000 to the City of Harvey in Illinois to demolish 40 vacant homes.
$159 million on 119 earmarks for homeless services including $42 million to build housing for the California homeless in the San Gabriel Valley, Los Angeles, Oakland, etc.

$52 million on 52 earmarks to combat the effects of climate change including $2 million to establish the “Virginia Climate Center” at George Mason University (Rep. Gerald Connolly D-VA) – to “increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.”

• $40 million for museums including a $3.75 million request by Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) to upgrade the Waukegan Carnegie Museum through the local park district. In fact, there were 29 earmarks with the word “museum” in the description and requests included a new $6.4 million Gandhi museum (Rep. Al Green D-TX); $2.2 million for the new Bahamian Museum of Art & Culture in Coconut Grove (Rep. Frederica Wilson D-FL); and $792,000 to repair the New England Motorcycle Museum (Rep. Joe Courtney D-CT).

People of goodwill can debate each of these goals, but is it truly the purpose of Congress to fund the projects on the local wish list?

Sigh … call me crazy, but on what planet is repairing the “New England Motorcycle Museum” part of “infrastructure”?

Quote The Third—White House Pluted Bloatocrats

Today, on July 1st, the Biden administration released the annual Report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. President Biden hired czars, expensive “fellows,” “assistants,” and spent on a much larger First Lady (FLOTUS) staff.

The payroll report included the name, status, salary and position title of all 567 White House employees costing taxpayers $49.6 million. (Search Biden’s White House payroll and Trump’s four years posted at OpenTheBooks.com.)

Since January, the Biden administration has quickly staffed up. Here are some key findings from our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com:

• There are 190 more employees on White House staff under Biden than under Trump (377) and 80 more than under Obama (487) at this point in their respective presidencies.

• $9.6 million increase in payroll spending vs. the Trump FY2017 payroll. In 2017, the Trump White House spent $40 million for 377 employees, while the Biden payroll amounts to $49.6 million for 567 employees. All spending amounts are inflation adjusted.

• Hires include 320 female staffers ($28.9 million salaries) vs. 240 male staffers ($20.8 million salaries). In terms of top staffers — Special Assistants — there are 52 female ($6.3 million salaries) vs. 10 males ($1.2 million).

• Currently, there are 12 staffers dedicated – at least in part – to Dr. Jill Biden vs. five staffers who served Melania Trump in her first year (FY2017).

• Counts of the “Assistants to the President” – the most trusted advisors to the president – are the same (22) in for the Biden administration and the Trump and Obama administrations. This year, these advisors make $180,000. 

Special Initiative Czars

Starting in 2009, President Obama came under fire for hiring special initiative czars. From 2017-2020, we found no evidence of “czars” on Trump’s payroll. 

However, Biden has czar(ed) up – naming at least 21 czars to date, with plans to fill 55 positions. These include:  National Climate Advisor Regina McCarthy ($180,000) and a Special Envoy for Climate, John Kerry – who is listed in press accounts, but doesn’t appear in the payroll data. Others include Jeff Zients ($36,000), the COVID-19 czar.

Critics at Politico have already questioned, “How many czars does the Biden administration need?”

A “National Climate Advisor” making ninety dollars an hour … and folks wonder what keeps climate alarmism alive and well? Simple answer? You and I keep it going with our taxpayer dollars, via government funding of politicians, universities, and scientists.

Quote The Fourth—University Megabucks

TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: Climate Smart Cities Pilot Project: New York City Green Infrastructure and Coastal Protection for Staten Island and Jamaica Bay. $127,280.00

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN PROVIDENCE IN STATE OF RI: Reconstruction of the Climate History of Mars shows that in past history, significant volumes of water are predicted to be transported from polar ice deposits. $501,566.00

KEY FINDINGS: $27.9 million in contracts funded different variations of ‘climate’ and ‘climate change’ studies.

Half a megabuck to “reconstruct the climate history of Mars”? Nice work if you can get it, but I’m not seeing that as a pressing problem when we are trillions of dollars in debt … and the idea that Mars is part of US “infrastructure” is totally out of this world.

Quote The Fifth—The Environmental Protection Racket

The EPA loves lawyers. Nearly $1.2 billion in salary flowed to more than 1,000 lawyers since 2007. In fact, more money was spent on “General Attorneys” than on chemists, general health scientists, ecologists, chemists, microbiologists, geologists, hydrologists, toxicologists, biologists, physical scientists, and health physicists combined.

When the EPA is sued, the Department of Justice defends the EPA in court. So, why does the EPA need 1,020 lawyers? One reason is to advance the EPA’s anti-capitalist Environmental Justice movement and it’s $32 million in grants. Environmental Justice essentially declares that corporations are bad because the pollution from capitalism, through the effects of climate change, disproportionally harms minorities and the poor.

While the EPA self-righteously promotes Environmental Justice, the agency isn’t treating its senior workforce with economic justice. Nearly $1 billion was spent on the Senior Environmental Employment Program (SEE) to hire retired or unemployed seniors to use their life experience to better the environment. Under EPA directives, a senior civil engineer in Iowa is paid $12.87 per hour and many seniors make as little as $7.87 per hour.

This ‘senior pay’ program stands in stark contrast to the highly compensated EPA regular workforce. Seven out of every 10 EPA employees make over $100,000 per year and $144 million in performance bonuses were awarded since 2007. A few bonuses reached $60,000 a year.

The EPA also makes sure its enviro-warriors enjoy stylish accommodations. Last month at Forbes, we showcased the EPA purchase of over $92 million in luxury, high-end furniture leases, purchases, moving, and expenses.

Last week during the debate, Sanders issued a “climate change” clarion call. Little did taxpayers know the EPA already was amassing weapons. Now it’s time for taxpayers to arm themselves with facts and expose the EPA’s spending habits before we lose even more freedom to this overzealous and bloated federal agency.

Quote The Fifth—EPA Redux

I’m still trying to figure out how exactly it happens. How do you give someone billions of dollars and not check up on how it’s spent?

The government watchdog group OpentheBooks.com released some ugly data, detailing the fact that over the last decade, the Environmental Protection Agency spent $94.2 million on office furniture. We can’t fix Medicaid, we can’t fund healthcare for veterans, we can’t even give our soldiers the weapons they need to fight a 21st century war. But we sure can spend on comfortable chairs.

Actually, the chairs don’t even look that comfortable. You can go to HermanMiller.com, type in scissor chair and see what $2,683 per item will buy. Now I’m the first to admit I’m a penny pincher. I have a hard time spending more than $50 on furniture. I can’t even imagine dropping more than $2,000 on one piece. That’s the thing. It’s not enough the EPA spent money on new furniture. They had to go to designer companies, where things cost an insane amount. The swivel chairs you use at work? How much did they cost, $50? The EPA bought a set for $730 each. A pencil drawer, a simple case that holds the items, they spent $813.57 for each one.

And yet, the department and its supporters say the $8.139 billion budget isn’t enough. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said more money was needed to work on improving air quality, climate change and the health impacts of toxic chemicals. Without a budget increase, McCarthy told Congress, that couldn’t happen.

“The proposed budget of $8.6 billion seeks to further key work in addressing climate change and improving air quality, protecting our water, safeguarding the health and safety of the public from toxic chemicals, supporting the environmental health of communities, and working toward a sustainable environmental future for all Americans,” reads the EPA’s note to Congress, explaining why the department needs the extra money.

Now see, I look at all this and I do the math. You need at least $46.1 million more than Congress allocated, but you’ve had enough money over the last decade, roughly $9.4 million per year, to buy furniture. Maybe spend that on the actual needs and just go buy a regular chair? I mean, what could $94.2 million buy? You could more effectively monitor coal ash facilities by hiring more inspectors, so there’s not another coal ash spill like across the border in Eden or a situation like in Durango, Colorado last fall. Even if you hired extra inspectors for each of the 50 states, that wouldn’t add up to more than $10 million. The EPA wants to expand emissions testing, but doesn’t know how it could be funded. You know, I think that $94.2 million could help. It’s hard to argue that the EPA is looking out for the environment, when some of their largest purchases have been hardwood tables and a few sets of chairs. And now they want more money, with no restrictions on what to spend it on? I’m sure that’s all about addressing climate change and has nothing to do with buying a new $4,500 designer couch.

Note that this barely scratches the surface of the taxpayer money spent on a useless attempt to stop the climate from changing. Overall, from 1993 to 2014, just the US alone spent about $150 BILLION dollars on “climate science”.

From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.

If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.

The amount going to international assistance via UN groups grew from $201 million to $893 million in 2014—a 440% growth in annual expenditures.

When the budgets for FY 2015 & FY 2016 of the U.S. Global Change Research Program are included, the total expenditures for “climate science” from FY 1993 to FY 2016 come to $147.56 billion, with international assistance amounting to $8.24 billion.

SOURCE

Let me close with a mention that the “infrastructure” bill includes $7.5 billion dollars for electric car charging stations. When the US went from horse and buggy to gasoline cars, the government didn’t build the service stations. Why is the government in the charging business now? To make Elon Musk even wealthier, I suppose …

And that $7.5 billion is on top of existing things like tax rebates for charging stations, which can run up to a rebate of half the cost of the installation … paid for by you and me.

In any case, a Level II commercial charging station costs on the order of $10,000. So that’s enough to install 750,000 charging stations … paid for by you and me, of course. They charge at a rate of about 20kW, and if they’re running say a third of the time, it will take five new 1 GW nuclear plants to power them.

And how much will that change the charging equation? Well, Level II commercial chargers charge at a rate of 25 miles of driving per hour of charging. Assuming again that they are used a third of the time, that’s 54 billion miles worth of driving per year.

Which sounds like a lot … until you compare it to the 3.13 trillion miles driven in the US annually. Those chargers will cover a percent and three-quarters of the miles driven. And that in turn means that to switch over to 100% electric, the charging stations alone will cost almost half a trillion and will require 285 one gigawatt nuclear power plants to provide the power. And those plants will cost about $9 billion each, so toss in another $2.5 trillion for the plants.

Who’s gonna pay for all of that? Seems the genius climate alarmists haven’t factored any of that into their brilliant plans … and the answer is, likely nobody will want to pay for that. So prepare yourselves for more electrical brownouts and blackouts.

And what have we gotten for all those trillions of dollars? As our British cousins say, “Sweet Fanny Adams”, which translates into The Original Real Actual Authentic ‘Murican English as “Sweet F-All”

Taxpayer dollars are the lifeblood of the climate alarmism scam. If those dried up, so would all of the hysteria and shouting.

Why would the hysteria stop? Because the real truth is, there is no climate emergency, and people are waking up and noticing that fact. Don’t be the last to get the memo …

My very best to everyone,

w.

4.8 31 votes
Article Rating
109 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Hultquist
August 5, 2021 10:24 am

Great post, thanks.
Start out laughing, end crying.
I think I’ll find a porcelain throne and upchuck!

The Saint
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 5, 2021 12:31 pm

And to think, even on this website there are idiots who still don’t believe Man Made Global Warming (i.e. Climate Change) is a democrat scam to fleece us of our money.

commieBob
August 5, 2021 10:26 am

In Canada we have the auditor general who writes a report every year that is usually extremely uncomfortable for the sitting government. As far as I can tell, the existence of the auditor general’s annual report keeps the government from doing even more stupid stuff than it already does.

Surely the US has something like an auditor general. Shouldn’t the crap reported in this story be front page news?

Last edited 2 months ago by commieBob
MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2021 11:06 am

When a Republican is in the White House, government waste is front page news.
When a Democrat is in the White House, as far as the media is concerned, government can do no wrong.

Just look how hard they have worked to cover up for Cuomo.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 11:55 am

Cuomo should have been jailed for k!lling those nursing home patients 😡

Mr.
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2021 12:01 pm

I read where the Canadian governments at all levels have hired an extra 180,000 public servants since the pandemic was announced.

Of that total, approx 55,000 were admin wallahs.

During this same period, approx 550,000 private sector workers have been laid off.

And “equity” is supposed to be one of Trudeau’s virtues?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Mr.
August 5, 2021 4:14 pm

I think 180k is too low

It the Bahrain approach to unrest
Borrow money to pay people to do nothing

Works great until it collapses

.KcTaz
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 5, 2021 5:09 pm

Speaking of collapsing, can’t wait for our streets to be littered with cash like the streets of Venezuela are. See? Bernie and AOC were right!
Oh, wait…

Socialism Works so Well in Venezuela That the Streets Are Lined With Cashbit.ly/3wHgAcF3/13/19

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2021 4:12 pm

I don’t recall the auditor’s report doing anything constrain stupidity.
His latest report said is would be 2070 before we saw a balanced budget, Trudeau said he’d get back to us as his plan shows that as “never”.

commieBob
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 5, 2021 4:20 pm

There was the sponsorship scandal that brought down the Liberals. link

.KcTaz
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2021 5:59 pm

Bob, thank you so much for that article. It was such a pleasure to read something about government that was working and where the good gal won! Is the Auditor General still doing as good a job today as Fraser did back then?

Scissor
August 5, 2021 10:27 am

This is a voicemail from yourself in 2050.

“Two more weeks to flatten the curve for CV-49.”

Ron Long
August 5, 2021 10:35 am

Good comments, Willis. The green wienies have got the five nuclear power plants you mentioned in their minds, they will dismantle five nuclear power plants! Some day (I hope I see it) Reality is going to smack these idiots.

Philo
Reply to  Ron Long
August 11, 2021 3:23 pm

California has the jump on closing reactors. CA closed the San Onofre. There was more concern than just climate. The reactor did lie very close to an active fault. It still put a big dent in their instate generation. They’re rapidly going broke on overspending and non-productive spending. Much like the Biden administration(kind of an oxymoron).

H. D. Hoese
August 5, 2021 10:39 am

It’s not only the government.
https://apnews.com/article/science-seaweed-4c080baa307da7b99808c922f93f7af1
They might find out that there are more cows than seaweeds. Or burbing cows? From Shelby Cullom Davis Charitable Fund

But they are on top of diversity, inclusion and equity without knowing the word’s definitions.
https://alabamanewscenter.com/2021/08/01/nasa-awards-alabama-state-university-1-2-million-grant-to-advance-engineering-stem/

However this shows their appreciation for the government money.
https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/keyed-in/post/keyed-in/2021/07/27/sigma-xi-speaks-u.s.-science-and-technology-on-the-precipice-of-change
From the Executive Director of Sigma Xi that publishes American Scientist
“Earlier this year, I reported on the Endless Frontier Act, which was legislation winding its way through Congress that would result in a dramatic influx of research funding to create a new Directorate for Technology and Innovation in the National Science Foundation (NSF) and increase the overall NSF budget. The bill has since been integrated into the United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), which was passed by the Senate in June. ”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260

Last American Scientist published an article on Ground Rules for Ethical Ecology which had a section on “Call to Action” “…..Social science research on persuasion and messaging over the past 50 years has demonstrated repeatedly that providing people with ostensibly objective facts typically fails to elicit behavioral change…..” An on and on about the “ethics” of using “values” to solve climate change. His examples are about carbon sequestration. Nothing about doing homework or worrying about being accused of bigotry.

However, their heart is in the “right place,” problem is that it has been going on for decades.
“Teachers are worn out – they’re overwhelmed, overworked, and underpaid. They feel unheard and the exit rate is climbing”

Kevin kilty
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
August 5, 2021 12:21 pm

Most teachers may whine a great deal, but they never find another job.They know they could not do as well elsewhere.

markl
August 5, 2021 10:43 am

The United States has allowed the foxes to watch the chicken coops and as long as people are relatively happy it will continue. Politics today is a license to steal. A Convention of the States can’t happen soon enough.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  markl
August 5, 2021 3:30 pm

Please explain why the representatives at a Convention of States would be less “Progressive” than current elected Representatives and Senators.

RickWill
Reply to  Robert Alfred Taylor
August 5, 2021 9:04 pm

If US is like Australia. Locating the Federal Government within it own exclusion zone removes the rule makers from reality. In Australia there is Canberra. The green/socialist vote runs in the 90% there. Canberrans literally hate the conservative government with a vengeance. They simply cannot understand how unwoke representatives can gain a seat and invade their cozy world.

From what I have read, Washington DC has many of the same attributes – primarily administrators disconnected from the reality of making a living. These parasites produce nothing but obstacles for wealth producers to hurdle and pay themselves exorbitant salaries.

By comparison, State representatives are closer to home and not in an isolated colony separated from reality.

MarkW
Reply to  RickWill
August 6, 2021 8:27 am

In the US, the ration of representatives to citizens is not set by law.
In the early days, the ratio was originally around 50,000 citizens per representative. The total number of representatives increased as the country grew. This was allowed to continue until the House reached 425 members. At that point the number of representatives was fixed and the ratio increased.
If I had my way, we would return to the ratio of 1 representative per 50,000 citizens. That would result in there being around 6400 members in the House.

Obviously there’s no way that many people could be squeezed into the current House. With modern technology, they wouldn’t have to be.

Meetings and voting can easily be done electronically.

This way representatives can stay in their districts, where the voters can keep an eye on them.
You also wouldn’t need to collect a small fortune in order to run for office.
Being a representative could become a part time position (especially if their wages were cut dramatically). Most representatives could keep the job they had prior to being elected.
Having representatives scattered all over the country would be a nightmare for lobbyists. Right now all the politicians are conveniently concentrated in a single place. With the representatives scattered across the country, lobbying firms would either have to hire thousands of lobbyists, or those lobbyists would have to spend all of their time on the road.

For the people, I don’t see any downside to doing this.

c1ue
Reply to  MarkW
August 6, 2021 8:51 am

Naive in the extreme.
More representatives means less money needed to buy each one.
The internet works great for that too.

TonyG
Reply to  c1ue
August 6, 2021 11:15 am

based on that line of argumentation, why not just dump congress and just have one person running everything?

c1ue
Reply to  c1ue
August 7, 2021 8:21 am

@TonyG
Sure, if you can figure out how to pick the right 1 person.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
August 6, 2021 11:14 am

with 6400 members, congress would also get almost nothing done, which would be a nice side benefit.

Philo
Reply to  TonyG
August 11, 2021 3:32 pm

The House would probably split itself in a couple hundred subgroups and divvy out the responsibilities. That would end up with most everything done behind closed doors.

It would also separate the functions into such a crazy quilt even they couldn’t keep track of who was on first, much less the constituents.

Derg
August 5, 2021 10:48 am

Remember, Fiat currency with a Federal Reserve means your tax dollars are meaningless to this point. The government can spend any amount of money they want and the Federal Reserve of the US or any other country’s Federal Reserve can buy that debt….with money they don’t have.

A beautiful system for government.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Derg
August 5, 2021 12:09 pm

It’s worse than most folks realize. We could consider ourselves lucky if the government just ‘honestly’ printed money straight off. But under our Federal Reserve System, the Fed first creates ‘reserves’ through the purchase of government debt (and now mortgages), which then enables the member banks of the system to pyramid addition debt (i.e., loans) on top of these reserves to buy additional government debt and mortgages. The money supply is inflated in both cases, but the latter scheme has the pernicious effect of charging the suckers interest on top of decreasing the purchasing power of their dollars.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 5, 2021 5:08 pm

It works….as long as everyone BELIEVES their loans will be paid back….if they start feeling payment will be in 10 cent dollars, things will unravel faster than Venezuela…..

c1ue
Reply to  Derg
August 6, 2021 8:52 am

Other countries stopped buying US debt around 2012. Net foreign central bank holdings are flat over that period and overall holdings are up only a bit – and not clear if that increase is foreign or American insurance/hedge funds offshoring…

Arjan Duiker
August 5, 2021 10:49 am

LOL !!! Sure I’ll settle that science for ya…whaha.
Great cartoon.

Beta Blocker
August 5, 2021 10:49 am

For $100 million or so, the Biden administration could buy a fairly detailed energy infrastructure transition study which assesses what resources — stated in time, money, technology innovation, and materials procurement — it will take to reach Biden’s targets of a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030, net zero in the electricity sector by 2035, and net zero for the entire economy by 2050.

Here are just a few of the many items a credible energy infrastructure transition study would cover:

— How many wind turbines of what size and where these will be located.
— How many solar panels of what types and where these will be located.
— How many grid scale energy storage facilities of what type, and where these will be located.
— How many upgrades to the power transmission infrastructure, of what types, and where these upgrades will be made.
— The role of nuclear power, if any, in the transition.
— The role of gas-fired generation as it evolves through the transition process.
— Which lands and which offshore coastal waters will be reserved for energy infrastructure development.
— Policies and processes for quickly resolving land use conflicts.
— Policies and processes for expediting environmental permitting reviews.
— Reasonably detailed schedule and cost estimates for the major elements of a full blown energy infrastructure transition project.
….
— etc., etc.

Once again, these are just a few of the items a credible energy transition study would have to cover. And there is no reason why the study couldn’t be developed in phases with each succeeding phase carrying more detail.

But then we must ask the question. Would Biden’s people ever go so far as to tell the truth about what their energy policies will actually cost?

Last edited 2 months ago by Beta Blocker
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 5, 2021 1:46 pm

You nailed it with this question “Would Biden’s people ever go so far as to tell the truth about what their energy policies will actually cost?”. It applies to all politicians who vote for net zero fantasies.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
August 5, 2021 3:57 pm

Roger, among those who have been involved in the feasibility planning for ambitious high technology projects, it’s been said that he who controls the assumptions also controls the decisions.

Anything is possible if you want to think big and are willing to push the planning assumptions to their absolute limits.

Among the items I didn’t include is a legacy energy infrastructure closure plan which lists each specific coal-fired, gas-fired, and nuclear power plant which is targeted for retirement, and a definitive schedule for those retirements.

Can we imagine John Kerry putting his name to an energy infrastructure transition plan which specifically identifies which pieces of the legacy infrastructure are to be shuttered, and when?

It is hard for us to imagine him doing that. But if John Kerry and his staff don’t step up to the plate with the specific details of just how they intend to transform America’s energy landscape, then he will have net-zero credibility as our climate czar.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 5, 2021 3:46 pm

I’ll do it for $90,000,000

Philo
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 11, 2021 3:39 pm

A possible approach to a useless goal. There is no global warming. There is no incipient climate catastrophe. There never was. The whole thing is primarily a United Nations sham in order to get control of a large, reliable flow of dollars for their salaries and whimsical programs.

Look up the origin of the Unite Nations Environment Program(UNEP) and the influence of Maurice Strong- a former Canadian oil millionaire with a desire for control.

Last edited 2 months ago by Philo
Tony Sullivan
August 5, 2021 10:50 am

Considering the complete lack of math proficiency of the kids in our public education system (with many ending up in government jobs), I’m not surprised at all at the sheer lack of math skills when it comes to government outlays.

Derg
Reply to  Tony Sullivan
August 5, 2021 11:57 am

They hire sociology, English, gender studies majors….

Rud Istvan
August 5, 2021 10:52 am

About those 1020 EPA attorneys. Apparently quantity rather than quality. According to Bloomberg Law, in recent years they have won only about 20% of their EPA cases. Which is probably a good thing.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 5, 2021 11:08 am

How many of those loses were of the sue and settle variety.
I suspect that many of those “loses”, the EPA wanted to and intended to lose from the start.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 12:40 pm

As Mark Steyn says –
“the process is the punishment”

2hotel9
August 5, 2021 10:58 am

And the perpetual gravy train with biscuit wheels rolls on!

john
August 5, 2021 11:16 am

Carbon taxation and inflation: Evidence from Europe and Canada

https://voxeu.org/article/carbon-taxation-and-inflation

Last edited 2 months ago by john
john
Reply to  john
August 5, 2021 11:19 am

This is why countries should be joining international carbon market ‘clubs’

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/join-the-club/

Last edited 2 months ago by john
john
Reply to  john
August 5, 2021 11:22 am

Just keeping tabs on the carbon fiasco…

john

.KcTaz
Reply to  john
August 5, 2021 6:22 pm

Key word here, CHINA.

  • Some experts believe that countries should strike bilateral deals and form coalitions to trade carbon credits in an international carbon market ‘club’.
  • China’s emissions trading system was launched in July 2021, which is set to be the largest carbon market in the world.
  • Carbon markets will be a key point of discussion at the international climate conference COP26, to help solve the climate crisis.

NO THANKS!

.KcTaz
Reply to  john
August 5, 2021 6:21 pm

“Model-based studies on the effect of carbon taxation point to sizeable inflationary effects. This column uses evidence from Canada and Europe over the past three decades to show that carbon taxes changed relative prices but did not increase the overall price level. Instead, they were slightly deflationary. In the case of British Columbia, the driver may have been a fall in household income depressing the prices of non-energy goods, which more than offset rising energy prices. The income compression was most pronounced among the richest households, suggesting that the redistribution scheme achieved its intended aim of favouring low-income households.”
…Panel A highlights the fall in household income on average (dark solid line) and across income groups (coloured lines) in British Columbia after the introduction of the tax. After five years, the cumulative difference of average real household income in British Columbia is 10 percentage points below that of the counterfactual economy. 
The same pattern holds for household expenditures (panel B) and is most pronounced for high-income households (red line). By contrast, the lowest income group increased expenditures following the taxation, potentially related to the progressive redistribution scheme in British Columbia.”

What this is saying, if I am reading it correctly, is that the carbon tax reduced income for the vast majority of the people except for those getting government handouts. Do I have that right?
If yes, why would anyone in their right mind consider carbon taxes a good thing?

Fran
Reply to  .KcTaz
August 6, 2021 2:13 pm

You got it!

Fran
Reply to  john
August 6, 2021 2:12 pm

Obviously these guys are not buying groceries. I am, and can say BC prices have risen substantially. The “basket” used to compute inflation is fiddled to minimize the effect.

Clyde Spencer
August 5, 2021 11:28 am

You need at least $46.1 million more than Congress allocated, but you’ve had enough money over the last decade, roughly $9.4 million per year, to buy furniture.

You misunderstand, Willis! They need that $46.1 million to buy more and better furniture.

Last edited 2 months ago by Clyde Spencer
ResourceGuy
August 5, 2021 11:37 am

At least the Pentagon got some toilets and hammers for their over-priced contracts, not political science fiction virtual writings from the future.

I wonder what all they actually spent this money on in the big city or at the beach.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 5, 2021 3:06 pm

Those examples are no where near as “unjustified” as the left wishes to believe.
For example, the toilet seat covers were for submarines. In subs you don’t just put the lid down, you have to clamp it as well. The seats are metal and have to form a water tight seal capable of handling a fair amount of pressure.
The coffee pot that is also mentioned was for an unpressurized bomber. So to make the coffee hot, the unit itself had be pressurized. Not something you are likely to pick up at Wal-mart.
I suspect the hammer was also something specialized.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 3:57 pm

In other words, it was “Brass Fleece,” not “Golden Fleece.” 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 6, 2021 8:32 am

How much do you think it would cost to design and construct a specialized toilet lid, such as the one I mentioned. I should also mention that the development costs will only be spread over a dozen or so units?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 7:27 pm

No, Mark, you are perfectly correct. Proxmire was attempting to curtail waste, but he didn’t always look at things in context.

Thomas Gasloli
August 5, 2021 11:42 am

Worse than the charging stations is the government paying to create internet access. Why can’t ATT, Verizon, TMobile, Comcast, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple with their combined assets in the trillions build their own d@mn internet system.

The government did NOT build the railroads, the telegraph or telephone systems, or most of the power grid, but todays robber baron oligarchs need the Fed to borrow to pay for what they want.

It is easy to get rich on other people’s money.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 5, 2021 3:49 pm

We’ve got ‘the government’ creating our new internet. It’s called The National Broadband Network, or NBN.

Do I need to mention that to call it “a day late and a dollar short” would be a massive compliment?

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 12:10 pm

Just to be fair perhaps you should include the costs of the Afghanistan war — over two trillion dollars, hundred of thousands of lives lost and the Taliban is still running the country and growing opium in every increasing amounts. The amount spent by the EPA on chairs is tiny by comparison.

Mr.
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 12:44 pm

Yeah Izaak, who cares about dirt-poor, downtrodden Afghan women, girls and children?

“Whatta we want – COMFY CHAIRS!
Whenna we want ’em – NOW!”

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 12:55 pm

No kidding Izaak, they gave Obama a peace prize while he bombed brown people in the Middle East. Talk about your brown lives don’t matter.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 3:07 pm

Why do I suspect that Izaak was rooting for the Taliban since day one?

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 3:59 pm

cuz that’s the kinda guy he is.

if the shoe smells ….

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 4:07 pm

Izaak, what is your point? That money in Afghanistan was wasted so why worry about these other trillions wasted on nothing?

Congratulations, you’re a liberal.

You could easily be prime minister of canada

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 5, 2021 5:10 pm

Pat,
My point is that prior to COVID the US governement’s annual budget was about 4 trillion out of which roughly 3 trillion coming from taxes and one trillion being financed by borrowing. Out of that 4 trillion budget roughly 1/2 is allocated as non-discretionary spending and of the 2 trillion in discretionary spending about 50% is the US military budget.

So if you want to reduce the government waste and reduce the annual deficit the place to start is with the biggest item of spending which is the military budget. Stopping the EPA from buy a few chairs while a good idea is nothing compared to stopping the joint strike fighter program for example.

And of course you can’t stop the JSF program any more than you can stop NASA’s budget because the contractors have ensured that it is spread around all 50 states and as many congressional districts as possible so that the pork keeps rolling in.

meab
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 9:29 pm

The biggest item of spending is not the military budget. Not even close. You’re trying to deceive by calling out just the “discretionary” spending.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Rv5UHrNsvcucvflDwwz_pqEjjHnbQeE_HoAgEM44mGOwutlLCyMopUBTlKW_j1krJ775qI5DGZLYlEB8z7I3mD5BllP27Iq4URRWPE-vV3hfqv4wYgLtmDm3D_Z_hAlEMc-s1yA

You try to deceive all the time, Isick. There’s something really wrong with you.

meab
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 5:57 pm

Isick,

Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. The Afghans were harboring him when Bush led an international coalition against them and took the Taliban out of power. Remember that? Didn’t think so.

Obama ended up spending 3.6 times more than Bush on the Afghanistan war. There is that.

Oh, and Trump negotiated the US withdrawal. There’s that too.

There’s something really wrong with you, Isick.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  meab
August 5, 2021 9:27 pm

Meab,
that works out at a cost of $300 million per US citizen killed in the original attacks. Is that really the best use of that money or could it have been put to better use?

meab
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 6, 2021 11:56 am

You’re trying to mislead again, Isick. Most of that money was spent by Obama on a failed attempt at country building, NOT on prosecuting the necessary war against the enemy.

Does anyone (even you, Isick) really think that the attacks against the US would have stopped with 9/11 had we (and the international coalition) not removed the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan’s government?

August 5, 2021 12:11 pm

Typo

I hope!

“already received 350 billion…”

Should be

“already received 350 million…”

garboard
August 5, 2021 12:11 pm

do the people building the Gandhi museum know that statues of Gandhi have been torn down in Africa because Gandhi was an unrepentant racist ( and pedophile ) ? why not put his museum next to a Jeff Davis memorial maybe .

Fran
Reply to  garboard
August 6, 2021 2:21 pm

And, because of Gandhi, there was a bloody partition. He was very much for a Hindu state.

Mr.
August 5, 2021 12:13 pm

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

In the case of Climate Activism, I don’t agree with this truism.

I think the participants ABSOLUTELY EXPECT THE SAME RESULTS.

That is – full-fare, all-paid, meaningless conferences at exotic luxury locations / venues.
And these are just a bonus to top off high-paid, all-benefits sinecures at unaccountable government departments and universities.

How many bureaucrats turn up at CoP conferences now – north of 40,000?

August 5, 2021 12:31 pm

$7.5 billion dollars for electric car charging stations.”

That’s simply “welfare for the wealthy” since most long distance EVs, where the chargers will be installed on Interstate highway system, cost in the range $80,000 to $125,000.
Reverse Robin hood, robbing from the people to give to the rich, which is the real Democratic Party way.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 5, 2021 4:00 pm

long distance EVs

Isn’t that an oxymoron?

When travelling across Europe, which I (used to) do twice or 4 times a year, I discovered that some service stations on the motorways were completely chock full of cars continually circling the car park. It takes about 10 or 15 minutes just to find a parking spot, or give up and leave.

Why? Because so many EVs are desperately trying to get the next available charging station. About 10 times as many EVs as charging stations.

Basically, taking an EV on a long haul journey like mine, maybe 1,500 miles, would need weeks, most of the time spent circling in service stations waiting for a charger. Even if there were enough chargers, the tune spent charging would probably double your journey time. Remember that it’s practically impossible to find a charging station near your night-time hotel too, at least when staying anywhere pleasant and not in a grimy city centre.

I quickly learned to avoid any service stations with EV chargers.

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
LdB
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 6, 2021 5:56 am

Always love a good peak oil story in the morning … let the oil price climb a bit and see how peak your peak is. Fact is there are simply price points for production targets.

MarkW
Reply to  LdB
August 6, 2021 8:08 am

Every drop in production, regardless of the reason, is proof positive of that peak oil is finally at hand.
Just like every heat wave is proof positive that CO2 is going to destroy the planet.

Philo
Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2021 4:21 pm

An amazing fantasy!

Mr.
August 5, 2021 12:47 pm

I thought peak oil was supposed to occur in about 2000?

Reply to  Mr.
August 5, 2021 2:59 pm

How do you define “food supply”? Where do your data come from?

Reply to  Curious George
August 5, 2021 5:56 pm

I did not ask for “citations”. No data. Your echo chamber.

Last edited 2 months ago by Curious George
LdB
Reply to  Curious George
August 6, 2021 5:57 am

ROFL love the source … you are an idiot go away.

Derg
August 5, 2021 12:56 pm

Hey is this the 70s again?

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
August 5, 2021 3:09 pm

Some people just can’t let go of whatever conspiracy theory moves them. It gives their lives meaning.

LdB
Reply to  MarkW
August 6, 2021 5:58 am

The only reason for a banning would be gross stupidity and generally the MODS let it play out.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
August 6, 2021 8:10 am

Yea I get it. Any drop in production is because we are about to run out of oil.

BallBounces
August 5, 2021 2:01 pm

OK, but I like the voicemails from the future one. We can use it to study how accents change over the next 40 years!

Michael S. Kelly
August 5, 2021 2:28 pm

The citation for “Open the Books” is great. Thanks for that!

Chris Hanley
August 5, 2021 3:07 pm

The US government debt is now 108% of GDP and rising, the highest since the Second World War when it topped at about 120% (Trading Economics).
However the war years caused a huge supply and demand potential that over the following years generated an economic boom that rapidly corrected the debt.
That ain’t going to happen this time probably the reverse if the GND insanity proceeds, instead the debt will continue grow until … what?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 5, 2021 4:03 pm

Rampant runaway inflation. It’s almost inevitable when you print more money than the resources that you have.

Haven’t they already started raising interest rates?

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 5, 2021 6:01 pm

That is hardly surprising given that Trump cut taxes and massively increased military spending. Similarly Bush managed to turn the Clinton era budget surpluses into massive deficits thanks to his pointless wars.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 5, 2021 6:06 pm

Nonsense:
comment image

RickWill
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 5, 2021 9:43 pm

the debt will continue grow until … what?

US debt ends up as international assets or private citizen savings.

China spent a small slice of their US assets to ensure Biden won the presidency. So you could say well spent on their part.

The money in US bank accounts is OK providing it is not spent too fast to fuel inflation.

The Covid billions created in Australia has fuelled spectacular house price inflation.

With clamps being applied on US internal fossil fuel supplies, energy price inflation is on the cards. Carbon pricing is inflationary.

US enjoys a unique global position by creating the world currency. Most global trade is denominated in USD. Trading countries and international trading businesses hold USD assets so they can operate in the world economy. So some of the new money just gets soaked up by the increasing world trade.

Nearly all US international debt is denominated in USD so its debt can always be repaid when due; just by creating more debt at no cost. The problem only emerges if the rest of the world decide they do not need USD. I think China and Russia are working on that.

c1ue
Reply to  RickWill
August 6, 2021 8:59 am

US dollar debt can always be repaid by the US government by printing, true.
But it doesn’t mean there isn’t a cost. That cost is the repatriation of the trillions of US dollars being used by non-Americans around the world today.
As Greenspan said: we can always repay, but we cannot guarantee the value of the dollars used to repay.

c1ue
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 6, 2021 8:57 am

Let’s put it this way: US federal debt = $28T. It was $9T in 2007.
Total world GDP = $80T.
Do you see a problem here? We are well past the point where the rest of the world, in total, would have problems repaying just the US federal debt. Of course, they have their own debt as well.
We are getting to the point where the benefits of having debt denominated in US dollars becomes a problem: if foreigners stop using the US dollar for trade, petrodollar, hedge against their own governments etc – all those dollars are going to come flooding back.
That will make the past year plus inflation look like a picnic.

MarkW
August 5, 2021 3:08 pm

Perhaps because we are no where near peak oil?

John Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 10:37 pm

The first car I bought got about 13 mpg.
The last one (a 2016 model) got 32 mpg. That same 2021 model does better, and many other autos are better still.
I’ll stop with that, because I really don’t understand the burr under your saddle.

Philo
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 11, 2021 4:42 pm

A 1955 Chevrolet cost about $1750-1850. That was a high end Chevy.
Adjusted for inflation that is about $17,000 today. Effectively that is equality. A good new car has always been a substantial purchase for a middle class family in the USA.
P.S. despite the plastic, current cars are of MUCH higher quality than the old Bel Air. Gas mileage is just one improvement. It is just a huge difference in engineering, materials, methods of manufacture between then and now.

.KcTaz
August 5, 2021 4:59 pm

I liked this from the Future Planet link in the article.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2014/03/31/environmental-disaster-human-resiliency-is-this-a-glimpse-into-a-cloud-of-possible-futures/

“Consider this sampling of voicemail topics: A doctor’s office calling a patient to report they have Chikungunya fever, a mosquito-borne illness familiar to Africa and Asia, found in Michigan in 2022; reminiscences from a young adult about the City Fields Mets stadium, now returned to marshland from chronic flooding, New York in 2030; a son calling home from JFK airport noting the elevated runways allowing the airport to remain operational as sea level rises, New York in 2033; marketing calls for incineration protection as firestorm season approaches in Sacramento 2041; food riots in Chicago in 2057…and the chronofacts keep coming in with more and more reports from the future.”

The histrionics are quite amusing. I wonder why they think NYC would build elevated runways if the city is flooded? Will the passengers be taking gondolas to hotels raised on stilts?
Michigan already has tons of mosquitoes and, worse, No-see-ums.
How do they survive now?

Riots in Chicago? So, same as now.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 5, 2021 7:06 pm

From the above article’s information attributed to the Open The Books website: the Biden administration “Hires include 320 female staffers ($28.9 million salaries) vs. 240 male staffers ($20.8 million salaries). In terms of top staffers — Special Assistants — there are 52 female ($6.3 million salaries) vs. 10 males ($1.2 million).”

Hmmmm . . . in terms of looking for gender equality, that’s a ratio of 1.33 females for every male at the staff level and 5.2 female Special Assistants for every male Special Assistant.

Furthermore, assuming uniform pay for each gender class, female staffers are being paid $90,313 each whereas male staffers are being paid only $86,667 each, or about 4% less. And Special Assistant females average $121,154 each in salary versus Special Assistant males averaging $120,000 each in salary.

Both Biden and Harris made great speeches and promises to the US public about striving for gender equality and equal pay for equal work as part of their campaign “promises to America” if elected to high office. Clearly, it simply is not happening.

Oh, well, the gullible US citizens should have known better . . . as the saying goes, “their lips were moving”.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 6, 2021 12:32 pm

Equality is so yesterday. Equity is the fashion. You don’t know what it is? Kamala Harris had a beautiful illustration on her Twitter page – unfortunately, it has been replaced with something not as idiotic. Equality means an equal opportunity, but equity means equal results – everybody will be a famous footballer.

Craig from Oz
August 5, 2021 8:17 pm

This dystopian project, called Future Coast, also includes a game where people search for fictional fallen “chronofacts” that fall out of time.

Includes a game… Wow…

You know what else includes games? STEAM.

Seriously, why get government funding to create a game when you could just spend a lazy hour on Steam shifting through the indy developers until you find one pushing the same themes (and yes, those games do exist) and then contracting out that dev team to do what they are already doing.

Oh wait, government funding… aka Money you never have to justify. Sorry, forget all I suggested.

Shawn Marshall
August 6, 2021 4:09 am

Government destroys everything it controls. Since the demise of Federalism post Civil War, since the execrable Federal Income Tax, since the rise of non-term limited careerist politicians the US has imploded into a totalitarian State with command and control of its corporate collaborators i.e. fascism. There can be no peaceful resolution to this problem as the history of mankind shows.

Olen
August 6, 2021 7:41 am

Impress the young learners with buildings with climate change written all over and departments dedicated to fear might work. Drain the public’s income with taxes to pay for the impossible to achieve rather than allow the market place to decide will not work.

The idea that government is supreme over the people is in stark contrast to the first truth put forth in the US Constitution! We the people. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,

The founders did not ordain uncontrolled power to themselves as a king but to the people. Limited power applied with integrity is.

eyesonu
August 7, 2021 4:59 am

In the bizarre world of Biden, bizarre czars don’t seem to be too bizarre so far! He and the progressives are on a roll. What can they possibly think up next?

%d bloggers like this: