HAROLD HUTCHISON
REPORTER
Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano blasted President Joe Biden for bypassing American voters to enact his environmental agenda.
The Biden administration signed on to a pledge to start “transitioning away from fossil fuels” at the United Nations COP28 climate summit Dec. 13. “Do we need to abolish the gas-powered car? We’ve never voted on it in the United States,” Morano told former Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin and “The Bottom Line” guest host Kelly O’Grady. (RELATED: ‘This Is A Total Scam’: Fox News Contributor Blasts Proposals Being Discussed At UN Climate Gathering)
“We never had a vote. It’s all been decided with executive orders, mid-level bureaucrats, corporate-government collusion, executive agencies,” Morano continued. “Do we need to start limiting meat eating? That’s the other question. The answer’s no to both, but even if you believed it, you’re absolutely right, you would have democracy involved, people voting, you would have timetables. I’m not arguing we should do that, I’m arguing we need to challenge this entire premise.”
WATCH:
Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which spends $370 billion to combat climate change and is loaded with green energy provisions, including a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, into law in August 2022. Electric vehicle sales have faltered, despite the tax credit and other subsidies provided by the Biden administration.
Only 10% of Americans who responded to an October BlueAnalytics poll said they would purchase an electric vehicle, while 40% of respondents said they knew “nothing at all” about the tax credit.
Biden also cancelled oil leases in Alaska granted late in the Trump administration in September, according to CBS, while proposing new regulations to limit energy production from fossil fuels. Economic and energy experts have criticized Biden’s hostility to domestic fossil fuel production, which some say has caused higher energy prices.
Morano also noted the track record of “green” policies in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.
“It’s climate policy, not climate change, that is going to drive migration, and the same was true with COVID, by the way,” Morano said. “People in droves leaving California and other states. What we’re finding is people in Sri Lanka followed climate policy to the collapse of their government, their presidential palace was overrun. The farmers in the Netherlands were subjected to climate policy, and they almost crushed all the small family-run farms.”
Morano also hit at former Vice President Al Gore for his rhetoric.
“They are using climate fear to literally restrict and collapse energy, agriculture, transportation, go right after our freedom of movement,” Morano said.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Couldn’t the Right President wipe out most of the current administration’s Wacky Climate Policy with the stroke of a pen?
They could but, unless they also dealt with the way in which those policies are implemented and who supports them, it’ll have little or no actual effect and the policies will be put back “with the stroke of a pen” by the next Democrat to occupy the office.
maybe not- because the improved policies will be seen as beneficial
Doesn’t matter what the President says. It’s the Bureaucratic Hegemony that is in charge. Till it is neutered it will do what it wants.
What about all the industries that get put out of business? How are you getting them back? How about all the jobs lost.
I’d play my Trump Card
Some of those industries will stay in business – by moving to China and other countries that aren’t so friendly to the US and don’t give a rat’s behind about “emissions”. But either way, jobs here in the US will be permanently lost.
When was a president ever supposed to have the power decide who is in business and who isn’t. When were they ever supposed to have the power to make arbitrary decision based on an undeclared emergency. What these people are doing is usurping the power granted to congress and no one seems to care.
Why is it thought sensible to have a single powerful executive heading the nation with a coterie of similar ideologues fulfilling the wishes of his financial enablers? Even the president of a corporation must take into account the thoughts of his board of directors. Wouldn’t it be wiser, and a better demonstration of the concept of democracy, to have executive power in the hands of a council made up of an odd number of members, elected at different intervals, accepting or rejecting possible courses of action? The US Supreme Court isn’t made up of a single constitutional law expert, although it could be.
It seems likely that the holy founding fathers, in their establishment of a governing triumvirate, simply opted to continue a tradition of thousands of years that included Ramses II, Holofernes, Alexander, Caesar, Louis XIV, and many others. Installing a decaying mentality with a predetermined end of use date can’t be the best possible way to control an immense, complicated society, especially when the validity of his selection is determined by advanced methods of persuasion, finance and perhaps dishonesty. This isn’t working out all that well.
‘It seems likely that the holy founding fathers…’
Notwithstanding his role in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton never gave up his real desire to implement a highly centralized government lead by a powerful executive. It’s no coincidence that Hamilton is held in very high esteem by the Left and their fellow travelers.
It’s taken a while, including several ‘setbacks’, but here we are today.
What is even better is to have elected representatives deciding what is to happen and for those elected representative to be subject to regular turnover.
The FF’s never envisioned this nation being run by professional politicians and unelected bureaucrats. Yet that is what we have morphed into.
Term limited politicians wouldn’t have the same fear of the bureaucracy that the professionals have today. Term limited politicians could rein in the idiotic leanings of the Bureaucratic Hegemony.
Unfortunately, ‘term limits’ apply to the good guys, as well as the bad. While it’s somewhat tempting to erect procedural impediments, the only thing that stands between self-governing ourselves or being ruled over by a collectivist mob is the morality of the people themselves.
I would hope that fewer bad guys would be elected if there was a quick turnover. Bad guys are typically looking for power and money. Limited access makes the job less attractive. Easier to con old ladies.
‘I would hope that fewer bad guys would be elected if there was a quick turnover.’
Therein lies the problem – if they only have a term or two, they’re going to grab for as much they can, as quickly as they can. Ironically, there actually were ‘benign’ monarchs, not because they were nice guys, but because, as hereditary monarchs, they wanted to leave a wealthier realm to their heirs.
I respectfully disagree. Term limits will kill the ease with which someone can grab for the money. No one will be in power long enough to make it worthwhile to buy them and with limits on seniority you remove the power centers that cause so much problem. No more Nancy Pelosi spending 35 years in the House getting rich.
That’s precisely the latest weapon the Left is using against DJT.
They have long been saying Trump would be a dictator if elected.
When asked by reporters to respond, he sarcastically replied he would be a dictator on Day One, reversing two Biden EOs that Joe issued on HIS day one – regarding climate and immigration.
Cue the MSM who now blare that Trump confirmed “he intends to be a dictator“
correction: DJT said “ONLY on Day One” … when he would reverse 2 of Biden’s EOs.
Two-thirds of adults in the US have been brainwashed and support the “climate change” agenda.
Two thirds of adults in the US think women who inject hyaluronic acid and collagen into their lips are more beautiful and therefore more desirable to have around.
The truth is when these women start screaming hysterical nonsense continually at you the entire charade is exposed and the fat lips become entirely meaningless.
The same is true of those who scream climate hysterical nonsense at you. Since they didn’t improve your life at all the solutions they espouse are also meaningless.
The money would be better spent powering up the military given the issues with Russia, Iran and China. They see our decline caused by the climate and net zero distraction and are taking advantage by increasing their imperialist ambitions.
One nuclear bomb from Iran could take out most of our Middle East carrier battle group’s effectiveness. Leaving Iran free rein to destroy Israel and any other ME nation that stands up to them. And the Dems think Iran doesn’t know this? You can’t appease a serial killer and that describes Iran pretty succinctly.
Israel has more nuclear bombs than Iran and they will use them if Iran twitches in the wrong way, but only if necessary. Israel has already bombed Iran once to destroy part of a nuclear processing system just as they destroyed Iraq’s ‘Osiris’ nuclear reactor – they are perfectly capable of dealing with the more obvious threats.
Iran cannot deliver a nuclear bomb to any carrier group without it being targeted and destroyed first so I’m not sure what your point might be.
The question is will Israel kill Iran if Iran attacks a US carrier group? If they don’t take out Iran totally then Iran will remain the big dog in the ME. Saudi Arabia won’t have a choice but to go nuke as well and then all hell breaks loose in the region.
Iran can certainly get a nuke to the carrier group. It doesn’t have to be delivered by missile or ICBM. Supposedly the USS Cole was invulnerable too.
How much more do you want to spend? If they’re as awful as you say they are, maybe we should just let them self-destruct. We need to deal with the interventionist monsters in our own midst.
It goes beyond the green agenda. We never got a vote on whether to erase the US southern border, either. Biden was vice president when the guy with “the pen and the phone” basically said that he’d do whatever the hell he wanted, bypassing the legislative process. None of this surprises me.
Nobody has been given a vote on these policies, be it the USA, UK, Europe or Canada. All have been imposed by the controlling parties with little or no consultation or democratic process.
Obama also started the trend of by-passing the Constitution.
He (and others) admitted he did not have the authority to pass DACA (since confirmed) but then went ahead and did it.
Biden repeated the act, when he admitted he did not have the authority to “forgive” student loans and then went ahead and did it.
Was it not weird that, once the general public started taking note of the WEF, and it became common knowledge that Klaus the Schwabb is running a massive criminal takeover of the world, and people started asking where Davos actually is…
…suddenly you needed a special permit to get onto a plane….
How many people know that last time, that hotel in Davos actually had anti-aircraft defences installed? Who the heck gets air defences for their meetings? Who paid for that?
I saw the other day where people celebrated the Mask coming off our oppressor. No, friend, those are the flying shreds of the velvet glove, ripped to tatters under the incessant pounding of the iron fist.
Tedros is also a piece of work, coming after food.
What a nasty piece of work. Fine, if he wants this – start by example, let the UN bureaucrats and delegates all move across to his diet then, after a few years we’ll see how well they’ve done. Otherwise, not a chance.
We Americans are a bit naive thinking that we should be able to vote on things. Congress has handed off its legislative function to the Administrative Branch of government, progressively, over the last century.
The vehicle Congress used to abandon its duty and ability to legislate has been the passing of laws that give administrative offices the right to regulate, using such language as, “. . . as the Secretary of [X] shall determine,” and so on. In 2022 Congress passed 248 bills. In the same time period the Administrative Branch of government created 3,168 “rule makings” – regulations that have the force and penalty of law.
All of that rule making was done out of sight, by unelected denizens of “the swamp,” guided or purchased by lobbyists from K Street, and generous donors. (The question of who some of those donors, or donor countries, may be is now under investigation.) Unless you read the Federal Register every day, you don’t hear about any of it.
Here’s an example: On April 20, 2023 Sen. Markey (D -MA) and AOC (D-NY-14) re-introduced The Green New Deal legislation. Here is a link to the text of the resolution. (*WARNING* clicking on this link is not for the faint of heart!) Notice that everything the Green New Deal legislation, if passed by Congress and signed by the President, will not be accomplished by actual wording within the law itself, but by regulations, to be created by “rule making” in the Administrative Branch of government.
Americans never voted on everything President Biden is doing – things that some people are starting to notice and become upset about – because Americans have allowed Congress to give away its right, its duty, and its ability to make law. Most legislative ability now resides with whoever sits in the White House with “a phone and a pen.” Perhaps we should consider changing that.
They should bring back some of the large factories that were moved to China and place them south of the border.
That would reduce our dependence on China, greatly slow the number of illegal border crossings, provide relatively good jobs at a low cost to the companies, and provide good profits for the companies.
“We Americans are a bit naive thinking that we should be able to vote on things. Congress has handed off its legislative function to the Administrative Branch of government, progressively, over the last century.”
It’s called the Bureaucratic Hegemony. It is a *living* thing. It’s goals are to survive, grow, and become the strongest predator in the jungle. It’s well on its way to doing just that.
Yes. Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating power structures. Max Weber’s Bureaucratic Theory is worth studying. Once they incorporate a political doctrine, that doctrine is almost impossible to dislodge. It’s like trying to open an oyster with a plastic spoon.
“We Americans are a bit naive thinking that we should be able to vote on things”
US is a Republic…the meaning in ancient Greek politics, that citizens, because they can’t spend time researching details, elect representatives they feel are honest and competent to represent them for passing laws, collecting and spending taxes, authorizing police and military actions.
The technology now exists that every citizen could vote on every law to “pass” it or not. But then we would simply have unenlightened majority rule, likely with confiscation of the minority’s rights and money, and probably result in riots in the streets.
There are now too many laws, too many politicians, too many elected representatives, too many unelected administrators, too many opposing political philosophies, too many people at the government trough. There needs to be some sort of pragmatic rationalization happen in governments worldwide. Phoning McKinsey and company for a report, checking your WEF handouts, hiring more people in your department have become the norm for bureaucrats and it has to be reined-in somehow. Historically society has dealt with excessive government issues by overthrow and hangings, followed by a century of poverty and strife before a new leadership regime emerges. We need to try to avoid the hangings and century of poverty somehow.
it’s a revolution- time for a counter revolution!
This has always been about controlling people and reducing global population, never about the environment, climate or weather.
It’s really about money.
Bloomberg’s green energy research team estimated it will cost around $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050. The rich would get a large piece of that in profits.
The rich who own the media, control the politicians through campaign contributions, and influence the universities and researchers through grants are the ones pushing “Climate Change” to the people.
Again, all of this is about stealing money and controlling people. Period. Full stop.
Very true, but if the author means to imply that if we DID have a vote, everything would be fine, I would disagree. Humans are highly susceptible to mass hysteria and have repeatedly shown a willingness to violate the rights of others by majority vote. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Americans could be snookered into voting for a ban on gasoline-powered cars, which it seems clear to me would result in an economic and environmental disaster.
Voting should never be elevated to something sacred or some kind of panacea for anything.
I don’t think you’ve thought that all the way through . . .
According to Pew Research two-thirds of adults support finding alternate energy sources.
Not having a vote is certainly a part of the problem, but another thing is ignorance. The old boiling frog analogy comes to mind. Better yet, a wild hog trap. Each day, a section of the wall of the pen is added, and the hogs (which will not enter an area they think they cannot get out of) feel safe going inside of the incomplete pen. Well, when the last panel is added (along with the trapdoor), the herd, having been conditioned to feel safe, enter the trap, totally ignorant of what is about to befall them. Then they are trapped and it is too late….
I’d bet that you could send a journalist (better yet, a bilingual one who also speaks Spanish) out into the streets in any major city and ask random people if they are aware of these rules and regulations. Like states that have banned gas powered cars (and other gas powered equipment, like California). And federal CAFE regulations that will (unless scaled back) will make gas and diesel powered vehicles much more costly and also scarce.
I have no doubt that if I went into Baltimore (closest big city to me) and asked random people if they knew about this stuff (Maryland is also a state that has banned gas-powered cars after 2035) those in the know would be less than 5%.
The problem is how do you educate people on these things? Personally I think that going around (for the time being) trying to demonstrate that the CAGW doctrine is false and just getting straight to the point would work. For governors who have signed off on such bans, the next time they are up for election, the opposition should run ads saying in effect “this is the guy who signed off on limiting your personal choice of what kind of car to drive”. These sorts of ads could easily be done but for some reason they aren’t being made. The word “choice” can be a big buzz word for those on the left. Think abortion.
Perhaps many white soccer moms will vote for a pro-abortion candidate (or a pro-abortion law that is put to the people to vote yes or no on). But how many of them will vote for someone who will restrict their other personal choices in life – cars they drive, stoves they cook on, what kind of household appliances they are allowed to buy? My bet is that, if they were made aware of these things (and not just soccer moms – how about blacks and Latinos?) they would not vote for candidates who push these sorts of draconian rules and regulations.
That’s why the popular, vote-winning, policies are trumpeted loudly and plastered across their manifesto in large, bold print but the unpopular ones are buried in the small print on the back page. We vote for a party with a package of policies, often without realising exactly what we are voting for. With some of them a slight difference is ok, differences in economic policies or something like that. However with something as far-reaching and devastating as the net-zero policies this should never have been brought in without full public consultation and a referendum. The political parties are well aware of what they have done, as well as the stealth and deceit with which they’ve done it.
The media is owned by the rich who stand to benefit from “climate change” spending.
Bloomberg estimates $US200 trillion to meet the 2050 goals.
In the US we elect ithers to make regulations and laws.
The Constitution is supposed to limit their power but leftists do not care for limits
Elections are for changing leaders but I believe th 2020 election proved legal voters may have lost that right
The Congress and Senate, whom the people elected, gave the President the powers to fight so-called “Climate Change.”
This is a “war.”
We don’t take a popular vote on going to war, our legislature does that.
The last time the US Congress issued a formal “declaration of war” was on the 8th of December 1941.
From Wikipedia’s [ Yes ! … I know, I know … ] “Declaration of war by the United States” page :
You get what you voted for – Republicans and Democrats. The military/industrial complex is heading us to WWIII. This new power group, the climate/industrial state is heading the USA to a 3rd world poverty state and the rest of the nations to a “one world order” dictatorship.
Maybe we should be encouraged by current “negotiations” concerning aid to Israel and Ukraine and some kind of immigration changes. I have my doubts that the only outcome will be to throw billions at something.
What good would a vote do?
Two-thirds of adults support the so-called “Climate Change” agenda, anyway.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
You seem to be unaware of the fact that “polling” can be influenced by the phrasing of the questions asked, as well as by the “patter” used by the pollster(s) between each question.
_ _ _ _ _
Option 1
The Climate Change “agenda” is designed to “save the planet”.
Are you in favour of the CC agenda ?
_ _ _ _ _
Option 2
In order to “save the planet” you will have to :
1) Replace your gas cooker with a combination of an electric (or microwave) oven and/or induction hobs
2) Replace your gas boiler with a ($15K-$25K, plus extra insulation) heat pump system
3) Replace your ICE car (/ truck ?) with a ($30K-$50K / $60K-$90K) BEV
4) Completely stop flying for your holidays
5) Completely stop eating meat … your options are to either go “full-on vegan” or just “eat ze bugs” …
6) Agree to electricity bills at least 3 to 5 times higher than now, and accept rolling blackouts as “a price worth paying”
Are you in favour of the CC agenda ?
_ _ _ _ _
Asking different questions will give the pollster’s client whatever percentage(s) they want to see between those two extremes.
Why should the climate be treated differently than the coronavirus? We have a President who shined so brilliantly at the (successful, he says) retreat from Kabul.
When the WEF/UN gets authority without responsibility where will their capital be, if there is one? Davos? It’s remote enough but is it that pleasant for most of the year? Indonesia is building a new capital called Nusantara, supposedly moving the government there sometime in 2024. Use of the present UN complex in NYC will probably continue in some subdued form but likely won’t be the center. A completely new and rebuilt Gaza might work, nice climate. Better something a little more isolated from the riff-raff. Would the Chinese approve of Taipei?
Nothing burger … nothing to say. Welcome to representative Democracy, you are not allowed to vote directly. Want to change the course, vote for your representative and vote the loony tunes out of office. 🙂
At the time of writing it looks like the choice that will be available on your side of “The Pond” on November 5th [ Guy Fawkes Day in the UK, look it up … ] 2024 will be : “Donald Trump or Joe Biden“.
How many recent polls in the good old US of A have included a “None of the above / A plague on all your houses” option ?
The democrats behave that if they hold a one vote majority in the house and a one vote majority in the senate and hold the WH they have a mandate even if the house seat is in a red district they know they’ll lose next election. The republicans behave in a way that if they hold majorities in the senate and house and hold the WH they can’t do anything that pisses off the MSM or the vocal minority.
It is pretty much that simple. Demon-crats are evil weasels with backbones of stainless steel, while pubbies can be in armor plated houses inside of concrete bunkers and they are still jellyfishes with no spines whatsoever.