What Our Betters Have In Mind For Us In The Era Of Fossil Fuel Suppression


Francis Menton

As you undoubtedly know, back in January 2021 newly-inaugurated President Biden ordered the entire federal bureaucracy into full-battle mode in the crusade to suppress production and use of fossil fuels, aka “carbon emissions” (or maybe “climate pollution”). From Biden’s January 27, 2021 Executive Order (“Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad”):

It is the policy of my Administration to organize and deploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector of the economy. . . .

And thus we have every federal agency, under orders from the boss, whether or not its statutory mission has anything to do with “climate,” diligently devising schemes to outdo the other agencies in the fossil fuel suppression game. It’s not just EPA scheming to force closure of perfectly good power plants, but also Interior imposing a “moratorium” on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore; and FERC putting out new standards of review to make it impossible for any new gas pipeline to get approved; and the Department of Energy imposing costly new efficiency standards on mobil homes; and even the Federal Reserve promising to make life difficult for banks that lend to fossil fuel producers; and the SEC imposing new and costly “climate” disclosure requirements on issuers; and on and on.

And now, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, add the goal for both the U.S. and Europe of rapidly reducing purchases of oil and gas from Russia. Surely then the government-wide war against fossil fuels must at least be put on hold or slowed for some period.

If you think that, you are not thinking like a true-believing climate crusader. On March 14, with the recent energy price spike reaching crisis levels, Biden gave a speech to a DNC fundraiser in Washington where he doubled down on his fossil-fuel-suppression promises. Actually, it was worse than that. Biden, in his usual eloquent way, promised to end “fossil fuel dependency” by aggressive build-out of so-called “renewables.” From the official White House transcript of the event:

Imagine where we’d be right now if, in fact, Europe was in fact energy- free of fossil fuels and was — we were in a situation where — (coughs) — excuse me — where — where we — it was all renewables. It’d be a different world. And — and so, we have to get off the dependency on fossil fuels . . . . I mean, literally, not figuratively — meaning both here [U.S.] and there [Europe].  And the dependence of Europe on fossil fuels is — way exceeds any dependence we have.  And so, it’s not an immediate solution to the crisis, but it’s all about the future if we were to change the fossil fuel dependency.

So Biden — who appears to be completely unaware that the intermittent renewables cannot replace fossil fuels without massive amounts of battery or other storage that are totally unaffordable and don’t even exist as a technological matter — keeps the government-wide fossil fuel suppression campaign going at full tilt.

If wind and solar don’t work without fossil fuel backup, and we are to have an intentionally-imposed shortage of the fossil fuels courtesy of government orders, what is the result? We have come to the place where a government command economy always leads: obviously, you must rein in your comfortable lifestyle, peasant. Yesterday the UN’s International Energy Agency came out with its “10 Point Plan to Cut Oil Use.” The key message is that only by your reducing your excessive consumption can we “pave the way” to putting oil use on “a more sustainable path”:

In the face of the emerging global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the IEA’s 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use proposes 10 actions that can be taken to reduce oil demand with immediate impact – and provides recommendations for how those actions can help pave the way to putting oil demand onto a more sustainable path in the longer term.

The UN geniuses think that they have come up with ways that almost effortlessly can reduce oil consumption by some 2.7 million barrels per day. (Since oil consumption is currently running about 97 million barrels/day worldwide, this would come to less than a 3% reduction.). So what exactly do they have in mind? It’s a medley of great ideas from the good socialists. Here is a sample:

  • Reduce speed limits on highways by at least 10 km/h. Your time has no value in the coming utopia.
  • Work from home up to three days a week where possible. Note that this will be by government order, rather than by your choice.
  • Car-free Sundays in cities. Did you think you were going to take your kids to the zoo on Sunday? Think again.
  • Make the use of public transport cheaper and incentivise micro-mobility, walking and cycling. It’s bicycles for you in January from now on. Remember, it’s to save the planet!
  • Alternate private car access to roads in large cities. This is one of my favorites. “Alternative access” means that use of roads by private cars will be restricted “to those with even number-plates some weekdays and to those with odd-numbered plates on other weekdays.” Do you have a deadline you need to meet by the 15th? Too bad, you cannot use your car that day.

It goes on and on from there. All items on the list constitute serious reductions in your freedoms, and to save a big 3% of oil use. Oh, and by the way these reductions are only to come from the 47 million barrels/day of oil usage (out of the total of 97 million) that occur in the “advanced economies.” After all, we wouldn’t want the likes of China to have to contribute to the sacrifice.

And if you want someone to go one better than even the UN in the category of insufferable condescension toward ordinary people, try Bloomberg. Over at Bloomberg CityLab on March 15, they have a big piece calling on the federal government at this time of energy shortage to go all in on promoting electric bicycles:

Every time an e-bike or e-cargo bike is used lieu of a car, society receives a cascade of benefits. Greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically lower, even if the car being replaced is electric. A two-wheeler consumes little street space and poses a negligible safety risk to other road users. And even with the motor providing some of the muscle, the cyclist will receive a surprisingly good workout.

You will recognize Mike Bloomberg as one of the true world champions of travel by private jet. From the Daily Caller, February 5, 2021:

Bloomberg . . . took nearly 1,700 trips in private jets over a four year period from August 2016 to August 2020, a Business Insider analysis claimed. Those 1700 trips are responsible for emitting at least 10,000 metric tons of CO2, Business Insider reported. To put the level of those emissions in perspective, a standard car emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year. . . .

But just think, you can reduce your car’s 4.6 metric tons of CO2 emissions down to maybe 2 metric tons by switching over to an electric bike under government coercion.

Read the full post here.

5 25 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 20, 2022 2:06 pm

No, the peons get sturdy sandals. Let the peasant scum walk!

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2022 5:00 pm

Sandals?!? Pure luxury. We’ll not be getting those.

Reply to  H.R.
March 20, 2022 5:37 pm

Right. Sturdy sandals are expensive.

Bryan A
Reply to  AndyHce
March 20, 2022 8:51 pm

They’ll have repurposed car tires for soles because we won’t be able to use our cars (they won’t need their tires)

Reply to  Bryan A
March 21, 2022 12:28 am

But the straps always tear loose or break their bonding, making the sandals useless.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AndyHce
March 21, 2022 4:07 am

And they leave marks on your feet.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 21, 2022 4:06 pm

Those are just Skid Marks

Reply to  Bryan A
March 21, 2022 9:00 am

Ho Chi Minh sandals
comment image

Don Perry
Reply to  AndyHce
March 21, 2022 2:37 am

Then you’ll get them; government doesn’t care about spending.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2022 10:15 pm

Most sandals these days probably contain materials made from petroleum.

alastair gray
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2022 11:47 pm

From what will we make our sandals. Leather? Haven’t you heard about cows and methane. Plastic? That is made from oil. No sandals for you peasant. Walk barefoot as befits a repentant sinner, and wear a sackcloth to atone , and eat bread and water.

Reply to  alastair gray
March 21, 2022 9:41 am

Nahhh… if we have anything to cover our feet, it will be rags we have scavenged up.

We could also use tree bark, if there are any trees left that we haven’t burned to keep warm.

Reply to  alastair gray
March 21, 2022 10:26 am

You forgot the self flagellation as you walk, because, you know, you deserve it.

But clean off the blood before you enter the home of the royals to serve them!

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 29, 2022 10:17 pm

The peasant scum have to walk to free up CO2 allowances so Bloomberg can keep flying.

March 20, 2022 2:11 pm

I can believe that people will own nothing, but they won’t be happy starving in the cold and dark.

lee riffee
Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2022 3:45 pm

That’s right….and a starving/suffering populace has, historically, made for some serious rebellions and revolutions against governments.

Reply to  lee riffee
March 20, 2022 10:49 pm

Somehow these clowns can’t wrap their heads around history.
If you have nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose by taking from those that do.

Maybe they think that with modern crowd control methods they’ll finally get an authoritarian oligarchy to work under the guise of socialism, communism, Gaia worship, or “progressivism”.

They have managed to get a considerable percentage of the population to comply with a lot more than I thought was possible just a couple of years ago. There are a lot of sheep out there.

I’m wondering when the wolves start attacking each other to see who becomes leader of the pack, if we’ll find out who really is pulling the strings.

Reply to  Brad-DXT
March 21, 2022 9:03 am

They don’t know real history because of the revisionist crap they were taught that they call history these days. It has been going on for quite a long time. Even back in the mid 70s when I was going to Indiana University.

Reply to  rah
March 21, 2022 9:25 am

You are correct sir.
Was Orwell writing cautionary tales or providing a study guide for the leftists?

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2022 4:26 pm

Excellent comment by Francis Menton.
For the record, I recently updated my latest paper on the Climate and Covid scams here:
October 20, 2021. Update March 18, 2022
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”

We are being enslaved by global elites.
1 Global warming alarmism is a decades-old scam, exposed by a currently-cooling world.
2 The Covid-19 lockdowns and vaccines were never justified – ineffective and harmful.
3 The Ukraine conflict looks like a deliberate diversion, to distract the sheep from 1 and 2.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 21, 2022 5:26 am

Here’s a link that will lead you to a video of an interview with Reiner Fuelmich, Viviane Fischer and Harley Schlanger.
My apologies for the source of this valuable information. If you scroll down, you’ll find the video I’m referring to. It looks as though the larger picture of this Grand Jury investigation includes this scam.

Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2022 4:47 pm

Based on a conversation my wife just had with her brother, Ds can be easily adjusted to be happy owning nothing and freezing in the dark. There’s a massive number of people out there that accept whatever the MSN dishes out and likes it.

Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2022 5:38 pm

You might not own it but you will pay through the nose to use it.

Reply to  AndyHce
March 21, 2022 4:51 am

Who said anything about using it?

G Mawer
March 20, 2022 2:13 pm

“promised to end “fossil fuel dependency” by aggressive build-out of so-called “renewables.””

Does not the build out of renewables “depend” on fossil fuel use????

Gregory Woods
Reply to  G Mawer
March 20, 2022 2:41 pm

No, unicorn farts and pixie dust will do…

John Pritchard
Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 20, 2022 4:15 pm

Surely unicorns don`t fart methane?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  John Pritchard
March 21, 2022 12:41 am

Of course not, they just fart pixies!!!

John Bell
Reply to  G Mawer
March 20, 2022 3:19 pm

EXACTLY! They will try to build a house of cards under which they simultaneously dig out support, typical liberal idiots at work with our money. EEEKK!

Reply to  G Mawer
March 21, 2022 7:46 am

It appears you lack an understanding of general physics. Nothing is gone just because it’s burned. Burning fossil fuels doesn’t destroy something valuable, rather it releases the energy locked away, and returns the carbon back to the cycle. This is pretty basic science.


Reply to  ripshin
March 25, 2022 3:34 pm

Yep. As I understand it, using petroleum is just using the sun’s energy that was locked away by those plants millions of years ago. So ultimately, my 3/4 ton Ford pickup that makes 385 hp is just as solar powered as your Tesla (which isn’t solar powered either, there has yet to be a solar installation, on any scale, that can function without a backup, and what usually powers that backup, boys and girls?).

Sweet Old Bob
March 20, 2022 2:20 pm

BOHICA . Not going to go over well at all in flyover country . Maybe we won’t send food ? F J B

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
March 20, 2022 3:24 pm

The forgotten people had the American dream yanked out from under their feet. The result was President Trump. The Democrats learned nothing from that mild rebuke.

The French queen is supposed to have said, “Let them eat cake.” That didn’t turn out so well for her.

The French impoverished the German people by enforcing reparations after WW1. That also didn’t turn out so well.

Anyone who impoverishes the American people on the pretext of Climate Change or The Great Reset, is playing with fire.

Reply to  commieBob
March 22, 2022 3:11 pm

The part about reparations is not true. Versailles demanded reparations from Germany, true, but far less harsh reparations than the Germans demanded from Russia in the Treatycof Brest-Litovsk or the Entente demanded of Hungary when that country tried to continue fighting separately from Austria.

Reply to  commieBob
March 25, 2022 3:36 pm

“Let them eat cake” has been updated to “let them drive an electric vehicle”!

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 29, 2022 11:27 pm

Can’t afford $2/L gasoline for your 10 year old Mazda 5 2.5L van? (it’s getting personal…)

Then go out and buy a new Tesla or other EV! Really that’s what the lemming media has been spewing lately, taking advantage of the disaster in Europe of course.

Rud Istvan
March 20, 2022 2:25 pm

One of the hallmarks of senile dementia is confused thought ‘logic’. Any doubts about Biden’s mental condition are removed by this example alone.

Other hallmarks include lack of situational awareness (related to short term memory problems), irritability, Sundowning, and gait impairment. Biden shows them all. Which is why former White House physician now Rep. Ronnie Jackson keeps asking for a cognitive assessment. He knows. After all, he cared for Obama and Biden from early 2009 to early 2017. And he can see the differences between then and now.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 20, 2022 3:00 pm

Sundowning :

Difficulty separating reality from dreams.

JB in a nutshell .

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
March 20, 2022 11:52 pm

Difficulty separating reality from dreams.

Progressivism in a nutshell .

Albert H Brand
March 20, 2022 2:26 pm

Newer cars get good fuel economy at speed. My Toyota Camry got better than 40 MPG coming back from Florida last week at 65 and 70 MPH. Three weeks above 80 degrees what is there not to like.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 20, 2022 2:56 pm

Older hybrids also got and still get good fuel economy—at any speed. Our MY 2007 Ford hybrid Escape with AWD and class 1 tow hitch still gets 32 city and just under 28 hwy at 70MPH with AC on. Uses Regular, so our cash savings to date (88k miles) over comparably capable V6 premium gas is now over $12k, $15k if include the hybrid tax credit we got day 1.

EVs still make no economic sense to me despite GND hype. Too expensive for limited capability (range, interior space) and battery life (max ten years IF no rapid charging).

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 20, 2022 4:50 pm

That’s awfully similar to what my 2021 Subaru Forester gets without any hybrid nonsense.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Spetzer86
March 20, 2022 7:28 pm

True. But mine is a larger, heavier, and more tow capable AWD vehicle. And after 14 years, it’s hybrid NiMH still going strong traction battery is NOT nonsense.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 20, 2022 9:00 pm

Gas formulation matters too. We drove our 2008 Dodge Charger from Santa Rosa to Seattle in 15 hours. We filled up in Redding and got 21-22 mpg on California gas. We filled up in Medford and was still at 21-22 mpg. Then we refilled in Portland and realized 34 mpg on Oregon Gas. Didn’t have to refill until leaving Seattle to head back home

I’d like to see an electric that can make it 734 miles in 15 hours

Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2022 10:18 pm

I recently did a round trip of 2900 kilometers, [1800 miles], in 3 days, picking up a son coming out of hospital, & not permitted to fly or drive himself. In my 41 year old Triumph TR7 sports car, with an equal mixture of highway & city driving my fuel consumption averaged 6.7 liters/100kilimeters, or 35 US MPG.

I certainly don’t need an electric car, or bike thanks all the same.

Reply to  Hasbeen
March 21, 2022 12:52 pm

I get similar performance from my MG Midget. It can even be adjusted to run on 50% ethanol, tested personally.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 25, 2022 3:43 pm

…and how much more did you have to pay to get that hybrid nonsense as opposed to a plain old internal combustion engine (nothing added to additionally wear out, break, go wrong, etc.)? Even if it was less than the $15k you allegedly “saved” on gasoline(? did you really? what the gas mileage of the Escape model without the “hybrid” s*** getting in the way?), taking 15 years to pay back is pretty poor. And who pays the price for “premium” gas anyway? Calculate that savings based on the price of regular gasoline, and at the varying prices that were in affect over this last 15 years, not today’s price at the pump. Don’t try pull the wool over my eyes, or blow sunshine up my butt, or anything else you want to call it, I do economic analysis (full Life Cycle Cost Analysis) of various equipment choices for a living, I know when I’m being lied to.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 20, 2022 5:48 pm

My 2003 Toyota Celica got about 40 mpg on a July trip from CA to Iowa and back again, shortly after purchase, high speed and air conditioner all the way, which says it isn’t only the newer models (depending upon one’s definition of newer, of course).

Reply to  AndyHce
March 23, 2022 3:52 pm

I remember my folks talking about “39 miles per gallon” with our ~1973 Datsun 510 when it was new. IIRC it had the Japanese version of the inline 4 ~1275-1375 BMC motor, the transmission was certainly similar. Side-draft Hitachi (Skinner-Union) British carbies on it, too, just like my Midget!

Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 20, 2022 7:35 pm

Vehicles are geared, engines are most efficient operating between a small range of RPM (Revolutions per Minute).

Each gear range coupled with keeping engine’s smoothly turning RPM during that engine’s most efficient conversion of fuel and air into vehicle movement provide a speed range.

Quite often that sweet spot of engine RPM and gear translates into quite fast speeds for the most efficient fuel use. A major benefit of tachometers is that they teach drivers to keep the engine in that narrow band of RPM.

When Nixon issued the 55MPH speed limit it was a curse. 55MPH ran my engine at high RPM in 4th gear while the engine lugged in 5th gear.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
March 21, 2022 7:06 am

Made radar detectors hot goods.

Reply to  ATheoK
March 25, 2022 3:46 pm

Nixon? Hell, it was that genius Jimmy Carter that issued the 55 mph regulation.

Ben Vorlich
March 20, 2022 2:34 pm

When affected by smog Paris uses the alternate access system.
They also have a system called Crit-air whi h classifies vehicles by their emissions. Electric top, old diesel bottom. I think there are 5 or possibly 6 categories. As Air quality drops the rating for access gets tighter. Been in operation for a few years now, In several cities. Although it could have changed during lockdown

March 20, 2022 2:38 pm

I don’t consider liars and cheats my betters.

March 20, 2022 2:44 pm

The American idea of a socialist is really interesting. According to this article, you are a socialist if you think speed limits on roads are a good idea. I wonder if it’s socialist to make drivers drive on the left/right side of the road. After all, that’s a ‘serious reduction in your freedom.’ By this kind of test every politician is a socialist.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Alba
March 20, 2022 3:37 pm

By this kind of test every politician is a socialist.” You are more correct than you might realize, Alba.

Reply to  Alba
March 20, 2022 11:31 pm

Speed limits for safety are one thing. Speed limits to make progressives squeal with delight at the feeling of totalitarian power and control over every citizen is another.
American socialism is best described as “better living through use of the government to make ‘somebody else’ pay for it.”
Sadly, half of this country doesn’t realize that they are ‘somebody else.’

Don Perry
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
March 21, 2022 2:52 am

Speed limits don’t seem to work even for safety. Very few people obey them and, here in northern Illinois, there are no police on the highways to enforce them.

Reply to  Don Perry
March 21, 2022 9:05 am

Think of speed limits as government provided safety guidelines so that when you wrap your new Tesla around a telephone pole doing 70 on a tight curve, you can’t sue the city for not informing you of the safe speed limit for that section of road. This is so you can’t claim ignorance in place of stupidity.

Foley Hund
Reply to  Alba
March 21, 2022 8:45 am

Speed limits are like gun control. A means to elevate the citizen into a felon and confiscate your wealth.

Reply to  Alba
March 22, 2022 3:20 pm

Bernie Sanders was a Socialist when he was in the house, and hasn’t actually changed in the Senate. Can we at least say that anyone who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders is a socialist? This is how I know Obama was a socialist, BTW.

Dave Bufalo
March 20, 2022 2:46 pm

We went through this inanity back in the 70s. We don’t have a climate crisis. We don’t have an energy crisis. We have a crisis in government stupidity.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Dave Bufalo
March 20, 2022 3:53 pm

With Republicans now registering voters at gas stations, I think those in
power will be told early & often where to park it! They cried “wolf” one too
many times & people are blaming Brandon for the high prices which he
caused by his stupid policies. People aren’t listening to the Bee Ess

Steve Case
Reply to  Dave Bufalo
March 20, 2022 6:21 pm

They aren’t stupid, they know exactly what they are doing.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Steve Case
March 23, 2022 1:56 pm

It’s almost as if it’s “National Apoptosis” or something….

Regards to all,


March 20, 2022 2:47 pm

The good news is that Joe Biden’s policies make Jimmy Carter’s look reasonable.

Remember, drive 55 to reduce oil imports and set your thermostat to 65 overnight.

Reply to  Doonman
March 20, 2022 3:02 pm

The 55 mph speed limit was signed by Pres Nixon.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 20, 2022 3:30 pm

Do you still add that extra blanket so you don’t have to turn up the thermostat or is it getting so hot you don’t need it 😉

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 20, 2022 4:06 pm

The 55 mph speed limit was signed by Pres Nixon.

Which was probably a good move for the road toll when ‘yank tanks’ ran on 6-inch wide tyres, had drum brakes all round, and no head rests.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Mr.
March 20, 2022 6:04 pm

There is some truth to that, but now in Texas some roads that should be 55 are 75mph, even at night. Vehicles and roads are much better, but the laws of physics aren’t. That is also along with the diminishing wisdom of those who long ago set limits, including lower speeds at night. Maybe they use models instead of driving the roads?

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
March 25, 2022 3:56 pm

I can recall Texas posting 4 signs for every speed limit, max daylight for big rigs, max daylight for all others, max nighttime for big rigs, max nighttime for all others. I notice they now post one and only one speed limit sign at any location. I guess reality revealed that it’s safer that way.

Robert D Overcash
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 20, 2022 5:23 pm

President Nixon also introduced price controls.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Robert D Overcash
March 20, 2022 6:38 pm

Nixon’s ‘problem’ was that he began his political career as a ‘red baiter’. For that, he was eternally hated and hounded by the left, even though he acceded to every policy they asked for during his presidency.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 21, 2022 4:24 am

Nixon was a Republican and had political power. That’s why the Left went after him.

The Left goes after every Republican who has, or might have, political power. It’s not about personalities. It’s all about political power.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 21, 2022 7:10 am

Got yer Jimmy-approved sweater on?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 21, 2022 10:56 am

The 55 mph speed limit was passed by the Democrat controlled Senate and House, introduced by a NJ Democrat Senator. Nice nit to pick!

The 55 mph national maximum speed limit KILLED thousands across the rural areas of the country. The “per mile driven” death toll went DOWN after the repeal, less people falling asleep, less single car accidents, etc. Unsurprisingly there appear to be NO government funded studies that show this to be true, since it would show a leftist idea was crap and government leftists won’t fund such studies.

But as with about everything leftists stand for, whatever they do will cause MORE DEATH AND MISERY.

“Global Warming” fixes, CHECK
“police brutality/racial profiling” fixes CHECK
“55 mph fuel savings” fixes, CHECK
“changing vagrancy laws against criminal scum on the streets to WE MUST HELP THE HOMELESS” fixes CHECK

Now Nick: I only know that you are for causing society as a whole to waste HUUUGH amounts of resources to address the non-problem of Catastrophe Anthropogenic Global Warming. SO, the death and destruction caused by such unnecessary diversion of resources from use for “whatever” that could actually benefit the world’s population as a whole will be on your conscience, not on mine. That is if you have one.

Reply to  Drake
March 21, 2022 1:32 pm

“The 55 mph speed limit was passed by the Democrat controlled Senate and House, introduced by a NJ Democrat Senator.”

I think you mean Howard, James [D-NJ3] (not a senator). The two other sponsors were Cleveland, James [R-NH2] and Snyder, Marion [R-KY4].

But whatever, it wasn’t Jimmy Carter.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 21, 2022 6:43 pm

Speaking of whatever, no one here ever said he did. You invented that all by yourself.

Reply to  Doonman
March 21, 2022 7:50 pm

Your memory is short:
“The good news is that Joe Biden’s policies make Jimmy Carter’s look reasonable.
Remember, drive 55 to reduce oil imports…”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 22, 2022 10:38 am

Your memory is poor.

WASHINGTON, Nov..26, 1977 (UPI)—President Carter has approved a proposal to set new Federal standards for enforcement of the 55‐mileinaninhour speed limit, White House spokesman said.

Reply to  Doonman
March 22, 2022 5:17 pm

Yes, the law was enforced from 1973 to 1995. But Nixon introduced it, and then Ford made it permanent in 1974.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 23, 2022 11:03 am

So then, Jimmy Carter’s policies were exactly as I said they were, drive 55. Thank you for admitting your argument about who signed the law was just a strawman.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 24, 2022 11:10 am

“The good news is that Joe Biden’s policies make Jimmy Carter’s look reasonable.

Policies …

(Keep the thread going Nick … or admit you have a reading comprehension problem, based on your emotional bias.)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 25, 2022 3:54 pm

OK, I went and looked it up. I refuse to reveal my findings.

Reply to  Doonman
March 21, 2022 10:40 am

I always set my thermostat in my cabin, which has only heat, to 65 degrees at night.

IMO, that is the best temperature at which to sleep. I always turn the t-stat up to 72 in the morning if not starting a fire, since my wife likes it warm. Myself, I would probably keep the temp. at 65 all day. I am warm blooded and don’t need the extra heat.

March 20, 2022 3:06 pm

the UN’s International Energy Agency”
The IEA is not an agency of the UN

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 20, 2022 3:57 pm

So what? Its 10-point energy policy recommendations are still insane.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 20, 2022 4:05 pm

True. And shows that well intentioned skeptical commenters need to be as careful as possible.
But, I also wrote several essays about IEA in ebook Blowing Smoke. Based in Paris so usually an EU green perspective. Very UN like founding charter. So the attribution is metaphorically if not factually ‘correct’.
Prove me wrong after reading essay ‘IEA Fictions’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 20, 2022 4:54 pm

If it was an agency of the UN it would have another 50 points (with many sub headings) added on to it. And they would be even more unhinged than the IEA ones are.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 21, 2022 7:12 am

Does it really matter, Nitpick Nick?

March 20, 2022 3:11 pm

A comment on this snippet: “intermittent renewables cannot replace fossil fuels without massive amounts of battery or other storage that are totally unaffordable”

Solar and wind were also “totally unaffordable” not that long ago. But the latest solar and wind installations now produce the lowest cost electricity of any technology. Battery storage costs are now on the same kind of long term downtrend. It should be only a matter of time until cost effectiveness is achieved.

Seems to me that this railing against Biden’s comments is more about striving to continue living in the past and to ignore technological innovation than it is about anything else.

Smart Rock
Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 3:25 pm

Do you honestly think that there will be enough (and big enough) batteries to power an entire industrial nation on a windless night in the middle of winter?

You can’t rely on technology that hasn’t been invented yet, before you abandon the technology you have now.

These “low costs” only apply if you don’t allow for backup (battery or otherwise) and because they get away with the “must take” clauses in their contracts.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Smart Rock
March 20, 2022 6:45 pm

The point is they have no intention of powering an industrial nation. The Rousseauian ideal is for mankind to return to a primitive ‘state of nature’.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Smart Rock
March 21, 2022 4:31 am

“You can’t rely on technology that hasn’t been invented yet, before you abandon the technology you have now.”

And that’s exactly what Joe Biden wants us to do. Stupid ideas from a stupid man.

John Bell
Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 3:37 pm

What is the next step down in energy density but much safer than Lithium ion batts, maybe nickel metal hydride? I can also see sticking with proven technology and have lead acid batteries as big as houses, neighborhoods of them, but then they could only be made by using fossil fuels, as with anything ANYTHING else! It is all accomplished with fossil fuels, there really is no savings at all, as the only way to keep it sustainable is to use more fossil fuels to keep it all running, if it is to be sustainable, only fossil fuels can sustain it. But flaming hypocrite liberals don’t see it that way.

John Bell
Reply to  John Bell
March 20, 2022 3:40 pm

Hey you little people! Hurry up and pump some more oil so we can power this green revolution of teaching you how to do without fossil fuels, hurry, pump more oil, and stop pumping too!

Mark Broderick
Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 3:56 pm


Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 4:11 pm

There’s a critical step you omitted in the journey to the nirvana of 100% wind & solar –

“and then a miracle occurs . . .”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr.
March 21, 2022 4:38 am

Love that cartoon! And so appropriate here in this context.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 4:20 pm

Your assertion about now affordable intermittency is provable nonsense. As shown several years ago over at Judith’s in guest post ‘True cost of wind’. We corrected the EIA ‘official’ LCOE estimates for onshore wind compared to SCC and CCGT. The empirical, rather than political ‘equivalent’ answer: CCGT about $58/MWh, onshore wind about $146/MWh. Read it, then try to disprove it.
You cannot, because wind still requires massive subsidies for ‘investment’.

You want to bring GND assertions here at WUWT, better also bring facts and logic. You did neither, so just more BS. Bye.

Steve Case
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 20, 2022 6:35 pm

Good God! From your post:
Do you ever consider that your target readers have to look up a significant percentage of what it is that you are trying to say?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Steve Case
March 20, 2022 7:35 pm

Yup. And you just explained why my target readers should, rather than think I am just ‘Blowing Smoke’. I gave all the references to explain the shorthand. NOT the shorthand itself.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 22, 2022 8:31 am

I would like to suggest a different way to consider this. You as the writer should want to ensure that the reader understands what you are saying. Yes, you can argue that the reader should know these acronyms but you are not only writing a reply to a particular user but also to the wider audience who reads these comments. You are not likely going to change the mind of the person to whom you respond but others who are reading this may be influenced.

I find it much more valuable to use the full words the first time I use an acronym in order to help the reader understand what they are reading. Such as Watts Up With That (WUWT). The extra time is minimal and yet the value is significant.

Interestingly, I work in an organization that may use acronyms more than any other organization in the world (US Military). It is amazing the number of times that I ask others what an acronym means and they aren’t sure.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 22, 2022 8:33 am

By the way, I generally enjoy reading your comments.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 25, 2022 4:05 pm

Actually, Rud, it sounds like both Steve Case and StevenF are trying to help you present a more rapidly digestible argument. Give it some thought? Now me being a conservative might also say, …but you can do whatever you want.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2022 11:07 am

Steve, if you spent any time here a WUWT, you would KNOW what all of those mean. I know that you comment here ALL THE TIME, so you know what they mean.

Rud’s target reader, MGC, was claiming tripe that would require HIM to know what they mean to be able to back up his claims. Of course his very claims show that he has no clue. Rud was just pointing out that fact.

You, on the other hand, were just trying to change the subject. Typical of any leftist.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 21, 2022 4:59 am

Thanks for setting the record straight, Rud.

So wind is almost three times as expensive as an equivalent gas powerplant.

And wind needs fossil fuels before they can even be built.

And wind needs fossil fuel or nuclear backup when the wind doesn’t blow, so using wind means you have to build not only enough windmills to supply all your electricity, but you also have to build enough fossil fuel or nuclear plants to make up for the loss of the wind power when the wind doesn’t blow, so you have to build twice as much infrastructure if you use wind as your primary source of electricity. Needless to say, it’s a really stupid idea.

Look at the confusion sown by the Temperature Data Mannipulators. They have half the population living in a scary, CO2 nightmare world, which causes these deluded people to make very poor decisions which are counterproductive for humanity.

The “Unprecedented Temperatures” Lie started out small and look at how Big it has become. Michael must be really proud of himself and his deceptions. His science fraud has adversely affected half the world and cost us dearly. The half with the stupid, and/or conniving, politicians.

Demonizing CO2 is the biggest science fraud in human history. And the most harmful. All because of Michael and Company and their manipulation of the historical temperature records.

And unbelievably, the fraud is still going strong. This Climate Change Mass Delusion has a lot of momentum, money and ego behind it. It moves forward even in the face of contradicting evidence.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 25, 2022 4:03 pm

LCOE is fraud, plain and simple. At least, it would be if we had actual, trained engineers.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 4:58 pm

“solar and wind installations now produce the lowest cost electricity of any technology”
Do give us the link to the financial numbers for your assertion. We could all do with a good laugh.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
March 21, 2022 1:22 am

Can somebody supply the numbers on electricity costings for this retired engineer, as here in the UK Wind & Solar only make huge profits for rich landowners who are already rich, by massive taxpayer/energy bill payers subsidies, not terribly Free-Enterprise nor Capitalist!!! The father-in-law of former UK Prime Minister David Cameron used to earn around £250,000/year from such sources, probably still does!!!

Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 7:36 pm

Wind and solar are only “cheap” when you ignore most of the costs of wind and solar.
Batteries have come down a tiny bit, but no where close to the levels advocates have bee claiming.

If wind and solar were actually the game changer that the acolytes keep claiming it is, the government wouldn’t have to subsidize and mandate it in order to force people to use it.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 7:44 pm

Battery storage costs are now on the same kind of long term downtrend. It should be only a matter of time until cost effectiveness is achieved.

“The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth ofannual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed forevery pound of battery produced”.
There is no equivalent ‘Moore’s Law’ for battery development.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 21, 2022 5:15 am

Battery backup of the Grid is an illusion.

It’s the only thing the alarmists can hang their hat on if they want to promote wind, so they hang on tight, but battery backup on the scale they are talking about is not going to happen.

Plunging ahead as if it will happen is a recipe for disaster.

Reply to  MGC
March 20, 2022 11:59 pm

Why do countries with the highest proportion on Renewables have the most expensive electricity?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 21, 2022 5:20 am

That’s why: Because they have the highest proportion of Renewables.

Windmills and Solar are not the solution for the Grid or humanity. Alarmists are trying to force it to work, but all they are doing is driving up all the costs of everything.

We may be near the tipping point on wind and solar. We are hitting the Unreliable Wall right about now. Alarmist happy talk won’t change matters.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 21, 2022 4:33 am

“Solar and wind were also “totally unaffordable” not that long ago.”

They still are. You are living in a dreamworld if you think solar and wind can power society.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  MGC
March 21, 2022 4:56 am

Show us some numbers that back up your claim that battery storage costs are on a long term downward trend. I’m sure you will find any lower costs are from economies of scale, which are finite and exhausted quickly, or from government subsidies.

Reply to  MGC
March 21, 2022 3:47 pm

I enjoyed former correspondence, for years. Please find Andy May’s multiple posts on sea level rise. He is promising to provide actual data, after his pre data opining is complete, and I am looking forward to it.

Since you have a fundamental understanding of treating this data, I thought it would interest you. Since we last spoke I learned a lot about how to evaluate this data, with any combination of confidence intervals, and will be dong so.

Best to you….

Reply to  MGC
March 22, 2022 3:45 pm

If you ignore those external costs of building, maintaining, and then disposing of the hazardous waste, then sure they’re cheap. Even then they have to be directly subsidized with preferential loading regulations to be economically viable.

Reply to  Kemaris
March 25, 2022 4:08 pm

Even after you ignore all those, it’s still not cheap.

Reply to  MGC
March 25, 2022 4:01 pm

My biggest point… if solar and/or wind was a good idea, they would use only solar and/or wind to build solar and/or wind installations.

March 20, 2022 3:19 pm

Spare me the problems of the deplorables. The bally investments in the dominions aren’t working out and they’re being cannabilised with all their ruddy rooftop solar-
Fund says Australian solar output slumps 20 pct below budget in 2021, prices cannibalised | RenewEconomy
This simply isn’t cricket and needs some rule changes to better the climate.

March 20, 2022 3:20 pm

Odd and even number plates? Just have two cars. Most of the elite hypocrites probably do already, and it’s easy to sell a car and buy another if they’re both idd or both even. There’s a long waiting list for Porsches etc, so it might be necessary to buy a lesser car for a while, but hey we are all having to make sacrifices.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 20, 2022 4:40 pm

What happens on a long drive when midnight comes? Do you change cars, change number plates????? Nuts. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 20, 2022 7:38 pm

If you can’t afford to fly, then you aren’t important enough to have a vacation.
That’s the new government position.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 21, 2022 5:23 am

You need one of those James Bond plate rotators, which can rotate a new number into position on command.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 25, 2022 4:10 pm

In the state of Alabama, the owner keeps the plate, and puts it onto the new vehicle. No help there, buddy.

Eric Vieira
March 20, 2022 3:28 pm

I don’t even think one will have to think about a car. Most people will have trouble even getting enough food to survive. Without energy, no fertilizer, very low crop yields and widespread famine.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Eric Vieira
March 20, 2022 6:20 pm

Quote:”Financial journalist Martin Lewis, founder of the MoneySavingExpert website, has described fuel and energy price rises as “catastrophic” and causing “absolute panic” in British consumers.


Quote:”Fertiliser price sky-high as Ukraine war worsens energy fears

lee riffee
March 20, 2022 3:41 pm

It seems that Biden is too stupid (or senile) to realize that if all of Europe was fossil fuel free right now, the notion of wanting to cut Russia off would be the least of their worries. No, what instead would be the case would be lots of tv ads by charities looking for donations to help all of the cold, starving European children who would be dying right and left. Kinda like the ones you see for helping children in destitute African countries like Ethiopia.
They (like said African countries) wouldn’t have to worry about fueling Russia’s war on Ukraine because they’d have almost no fuel of any kind to speak of. Scrounging for food (and fuel to cook it, and heat if you are lucky) would be what most residents of Germany and the UK would have to deal with each day.

lee riffee
Reply to  lee riffee
March 20, 2022 3:42 pm

And I would add that those tv spots would be shown in countries that choose not to embrace energy suicide.

March 20, 2022 3:43 pm

Just like Groundhog Day, the movie. Except we’re back to 1973.

Joe Crawford
March 20, 2022 3:56 pm

Tell you what… Lets power the White House and the Congressional Office Building on renewables, and only renewables. And, if there are none available, guess they will have to shut down. Then, see how long that lasts. I’ll even buy the popcorn. Doubt if I’ll have to buy much, ’cause it ain’t gonna last long :<)

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 21, 2022 8:48 am

Why stop there? Every federal building should be powered that way. No cheating with carbon credits either

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Matt Kiro
March 21, 2022 12:48 pm

Quoting from Biden’s speech to the DNC fundraiser: “Imagine where we’d be right now if, in fact, Europe was in fact energy- free of fossil fuels and was — we were in a situation where — (coughs) — excuse me — where — where we — it was all renewables.

As a friend of mine use to say: “You can tell a kid not to play with fire over and over again, but it only takes 5 minutes of field experience for him to learn.” I figure a little practical experience for Biden and for Congress might quiet down the CO2 mania a bit.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 25, 2022 4:13 pm

Seems to me, the biggest mistake any new Congress-critter makes upon going to D.C., is thinking they must pass legislation. Sometimes, maybe even all the time, the smartest thing a Congress-critter could do is make sure a specific piece of legislation never passes!!!

March 20, 2022 4:44 pm

IEA is not part of the UN. It is part of the OECD, which is 30+ developed countries. If anything the IEA is goofy greener than the UN.

March 20, 2022 5:31 pm

So far we have been able to mollify the Green machine with promises and little action. If we go down the road they demand it will undoubtedly cause massive inconveniences at first but lead to economic and lifestyle disasters. That won’t last long.

Reply to  markl
March 20, 2022 11:30 pm

Won’t last long? I don’t think you fully understand the situation. Massive inconvenience, economic and lifestyle disasters etc are not bugs, they are design features. For the masses, though, not for the elites who will continue to fly private jets, drive flash cars, etc, and, above all, RETAIN POWER.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 21, 2022 5:07 am

I think he means that if it gets down to lifestyle disasters, the peons will make sure that the number of elites will drop drastically.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
March 25, 2022 4:15 pm

One can hope, but will they really? That does explain the Lefties obsession with eliminating the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

March 20, 2022 6:16 pm

You gotta dig baby dig to change the climate stoopids-
Silica mining exploration in WA’s South West prompts fears for environment (msn.com)
Besides the settled climate dooming will get ya long before silicosis kicks in won’t it? Not another denier are you nursey? Explain it to her griff.

Paul Johnson
March 20, 2022 6:24 pm

If wind and solar don’t work without fossil fuel backup…”
It’s ironic that fossil fuel power plants are referred to as “backups” to wind and solar when they need to operate 60%-70% of the time to keep the lights on. Fossil fuels provide the real power, with heavily subsidized wind and solar intermittently skimming off power demand and profitability.

Frank from NoVA
March 20, 2022 6:56 pm

“As you undoubtedly know, back in January 2021 newly-inaugurated President Biden ordered the entire federal bureaucracy into full-battle mode in the crusade to suppress production and use of fossil fuels, aka “carbon emissions” (or maybe “climate pollution”).”

The real problem here is that Brandon’s (and Obama’s) executive orders were always given the full weight of law by the Federal bureaucracy and courts, while Trump’s were routinely ignored or opposed.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 21, 2022 7:16 am


March 20, 2022 9:19 pm

As has been correctly noted, the IEA is an agency of the OECD, principally consisting of Europe and Western economies. The front page of the IEA website ( https://www.iea.org ) prominently displays wind, solar, hydro and bicycles. So they are a central force in pushing unreliables, but now they are having to admit, by their 10-point plan, that they are a total failure as an energy policy advisor. They should have seen this supply pinch coming long ago, and it isn’t about Russia. It is about drinking the CAGW Kool-Aid and pushing the West toward a costly, parasitic and unsuitable “renewable” energy mix. Fools!

Here is a quote from their press release ahead of COP26 in Glasgow:
A new energy economy is emerging around the world as solar, wind, electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies flourish. But as the pivotal moment of COP26 approaches, the IEA’s new World Energy Outlook makes it clear that this clean energy progress is still far too slow to put global emissions into sustained decline towards net zero, highlighting the need for an unmistakeable signal of ambition and action from governments in Glasgow.

In that press release, the word “nuclear” is nowhere to be found. On IEA’s nuclear power page, there is, at best, a tepid recognition that nuclear power can help rather than be the primary baseload alternative as fossil fuels eventually, slowly wane. If these so-called energy policy experts could do even simple math, it would be clear that throwing away vast sums on unreliables is a fool’s errand.

Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 25, 2022 4:20 pm

I continue to question that solar, wind, or even electric vehicles are at all “low-carbon technologies”. Is there a true life-cycle cost analysis of the carbon production of electric powered vehicles vs. ICE powered vehicles? Include all the required inputs to construct that vehicle, of either type, so we can honestly compare them. Did I see somewhere that the carbon emissions to construct an all-electric vehicle, regardless of the size, push the life-cycle production of CO2 of that all-electric vehicle up to the equivalent of the life-time CO2 production of a large SUV? So, despite their vagueness, they are still lying.

Wayne Moore
March 21, 2022 12:22 am

What about the 24 hour industries that require people at 2 hours notice. Shipping in particular would grind to a halt if only public transport were to be used. Shades of Prohibition in the United States or 6 o clock closing in Australia after zWorld War One

glenn holdcroft
March 21, 2022 12:54 am

The scariest thing is who is running the country , let alone the world . They really believe they are saving us and the world from the dreaded CO2 as though it is more damaging than what their own actions are doing to civil liberties and general well being and lifestyles .
Sending us back to the dark ages on the way o the stone age .
Incredible the population is allowing us to be treated this way .

Reply to  glenn holdcroft
March 25, 2022 4:22 pm

The only way Humanity gets back to the energy consumption of the Dark Ages would be if we kill off 90% of the human population. And the policies I see in such things as the “Green New Deal” forces me to believe that’s what they’re working on. I believe I have just proven the “Social Cost of Carbon” is not only negative (i.e., a net benefit), but it’s value may be infinite.

March 21, 2022 2:00 am

We’re beset by morons at every level of government.

Reply to  Roaddog
March 25, 2022 4:25 pm

Only on our lucky days. I submit, if the Brandon Administration were merely incompetent, chances are their policies and pronouncements would help at least half the people at least half the time. Since ALL policies and pronouncements from the Brandon Administration have been continuously destructive, I must conclude that not only is that the objective, but that the Brandon Administration has been wildly successful at accomplishing its goals!

March 21, 2022 3:10 am

Interesting article on why a two car city slicker household could only afford one EV in the family at best at present-
Why this car-guy isn’t ready for an EV (msn.com)
Strictly city shopping trolley and work commuters at present assuming you’ve got your own home charger and qualify for the repayments.

Tom Abbott
March 21, 2022 4:06 am

From the article: “It is the policy of my Administration to organize and deploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector of the economy. . . .

And thus we have every federal agency, under orders from the boss, whether or not its statutory mission has anything to do with “climate,” diligently devising schemes to outdo the other agencies in the fossil fuel suppression game. It’s not just EPA scheming to force closure of perfectly good power plants, but also Interior imposing a “moratorium” on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore; and FERC putting out new standards of review to make it impossible for any new gas pipeline to get approved; and the Department of Energy imposing costly new efficiency standards on mobil homes; and even the Federal Reserve promising to make life difficult for banks that lend to fossil fuel producers; and the SEC imposing new and costly “climate” disclosure requirements on issuers; and on and on.”

That’s exactly what is happening.

Biden wants to pretend the high prices are not his fault. Biden is an accomplished liar.

Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2022 5:33 am

The war on fossil fuels has always been an act of self-sabotage, weakening economies, which makes countries weaker militarily. Both China and vile Russia have of course applauded these efforts of self-sabotage. But we are now engaged in an undeclared (so far) WWIII, and self-sabotage, for whatever reason or motive can only be viewed as acts of treason. Now Biden’s competence is suspect which might excuse his traitorism somewhat, but certainly not that of his advisors, and all of those traiterous hordes within government and without who continually bombard us with their Greenie cruise missiles. Strength is what is required to beat the evil Putin regime.

March 21, 2022 8:12 am

You have got to be one of the most stupid, ignorant climate alarmists, BareRant. What are you, 12 years old? Roads are made of asphalt, a left-over product from refining all that petroleum that gets burned. Stop making petroleum distillates to burn, and you also stop asphalt production.

The dominance of unreliable renewables won’t be possible until something gets invented to back them up when the wind isn’t blowing (frequent) and the sun isn’t shining (every night). Right now that backup doesn’t exist and there’s nothing on the horizon. All postulated backup is either not efficient, not affordable, materials limited, or limited to unique locations. Even if something that’s actually doable gets invented, you still need to deal with the extremely bad environmental effects of widely expanding renewables like how windmills kill rapters and bats.

Pull your head out, BareRant.

Foley Hund
March 21, 2022 8:53 am

Fuel is something someone sells for a profit like ice cream; who cares how much I purchase. Why all the BS crap about conservation. No response necessary.

Beta Blocker
March 21, 2022 1:31 pm

Last week, I posted a comment/essay which uses the conceptual framework of the
Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) as a vehicle for examining the following question:

How far could Joe Biden go in quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels using his own authorities as President — authorities already granted to him under current law?

It is impossible to install enough wind turbines, enough solar panels, enough energy storage facilities, and enough new transmission lines nearly as quickly as President Biden and progressive members of Congress say it must be done. Energy conservation must carry most of the burden of getting America from here to there in reaching Biden’s highly ambitious greenhouse gas and fossil fuel reduction targets.

That said, Joe Biden does in fact have all the authority he would need as President to unilaterally impose a strict program of energy conservation measures on the American economy, doing so without another new word of legislation from Congress.

The odds are that Joe Biden will be President at least until January 20th, 2025. Unless the Republicans gain veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate, nothing could stop Biden from adopting a plan like the SSCECP if he were determined to pursue a highly coercive program for fulfilling his promises to the climate activists.

But the Biden Administration has a patron constituency which goes well beyond the climate activists and their environmental NGO’s. His patron constituency includes a variety of high tech corporations, Wall Street investment firms, government agencies at the local, state, and federal level, and a number of non-governmental organizations of various kinds which stand to gain from his economic, fiscal, and energy policies.

Many of Biden’s most senior advisors are sourced from these high tech and Wall Street corporations, from these governmental agencies, and from these NGO’s.

The SSCECP caters directly to these kinds of people. It is structured in a way which guarantees that the profits of fossil fuel corporations will actually rise as carbon fuel production and consumption falls, thus incentivizing their voluntary participation in the plan. The SSCECP also has the potential for generating enormous new revenue streams for the federal government and for the fifty state governments.

At a high conceptual level, here is a list of the methods and means through which the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) can be implemented without additional legislation from the Congress:

A – Establish a unified energy policy framework for carbon emission reductions and for fossil energy conservation measures which is highly resistant to legal challenges in the courts.
B – Integrate the President’s environmental protection authorities with his national security authorities under the umbrella of an Energy & Climate Crisis Response Plan (ECCRP).
C – Re-prioritize those policy goals addressing quick reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions and in our fossil fuel energy consumption, placing them above all other environmental, social, and economic policy goals.
D – Incentivize energy conservation through imposing higher prices for all forms of energy and through imposing direct rationing of fossil fuel energy.
E – Redirect capital investments away from fossil fuels and towards wind and solar energy technologies backed by grid scale energy storage technology.
F – Consolidate all currently existing greenhouse gas reduction plans and agreements into the ECCRP and place these plans and agreements under direct federal control.
G – Identify yearly reductions in America’s carbon emissions as the primary metric for measuring progress in fighting climate change.
H – Identify yearly reductions in America’s consumption of fossil fuels as the primary metric for measuring progress in achieving American energy security and independence.
I – Expand and extend federal regulation of all greenhouse gases by classifying carbon emissions as criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
J – Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
K – Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
L – Establish a carbon fuel rationing program which directly constrains the production and distribution of all fossil fuels.
M – Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
N – Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
O – Indemnify and insulate carbon energy corporations against climate change lawsuits brought in the courts.
P – Ban the export of coal, liquefied natural gas, and crude oil to nations outside the North American continent after December 31st, 2029.
Q – Identify those lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, which are to be reserved by the federal government for wind, solar, energy storage, and power transmission development.
R – Bypass or remove any and all regulatory review and planning obstacles to the siting and construction of new wind and solar energy facilities.
S – Establish a hard-target schedule for closing the greater portion of America’s legacy fossil fuel energy production and support infrastructure.
T – Continuously monitor and assess America’s progress in achieving President Biden’s climate change and energy security policy goals.

One key strategy of the SSCECP is to use credible threats of extreme regulation against the fossil energy corporations as leverage in gaining their full cooperation in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.

This would be done using production control agreements with fossil fuel producers in which these corporations systematically reduce their production and distribution volumes in return for a guaranteed schedule of profits, profits which equal or even exceed those they earned prior to signing the production agreements.

Another key strategy of the SSCECP is to establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. These ‘fines’ would offer the federal government and the fifty state governments the prospect of a massive new revenue stream which can then be directed towards their environmental and social spending priorities.

Assuming Joe Biden remains as President another three years, and assuming that the Republicans can’t gain veto-proof majorities in the House and in the Senate, nothing could stop Biden from adopting a plan like the SSCECP if he were determined to push the envelope in exerting his Executive Branch authorities to their outer limits.

In any case, the SSCECP is the ultimate expression of how government agencies and private corporations can work together to achieve their mutual profit making objectives.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
March 22, 2022 8:46 am

Interesting conjecture. Makes for an intellectual exercise. But no plan survives contact with the enemy. Even if tried, it’s not going to happen once the costs become apparent.

March 22, 2022 3:08 pm

Without oil, there is neither fuel for farm equipment nor fertilizer. Crop yields per acre will fall drastically. Everyone too poor to afford armed guards will either starve in the cities or be forced out into the countryside. Maybe our “betters” send their army out to impose order in the countryside, but I doubt it. Those who do not starve to death will gradually make their way out into flyover country, looking for some room to grow food for their own family. Eventually, what is left of the population will be engaged in subsistence agriculture among all the windmills making ele tricity for our “better” and searching each morning among the windmills for bird and bat carcasses for protein.

March 22, 2022 4:05 pm

Funny how the party of diversity (Democrats) don’t want energy diversity.
And funny how the party of renewable energy doesn’t want to admit to us that lithium and other minerals needed for this “green revolution” are not renewable.

March 22, 2022 4:07 pm

Of course all of these restrictions in the 10 point plan don’t apply to government officials, their donors and well off liberal friends.

March 22, 2022 4:11 pm

When it comes to alleviating the shortage of oil (as it is with water in CA), the Democrats plan is for you, the consumer, to use less, not for the government to help produce more.
However, when it comes to government budgets, there is no way politicians plan to use less money when times are tight – you, the taxpayer, are to produce more money for the government.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights