$555 billion to fight the fake climate crisis
8 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:19 p.m.

Climate Change Became the Largest Part of Biden Spending Bill

As paid family leave and other priorities were taken out of the president’s plan, the largest piece became a $555 billion plan to fight climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/climate/climate-change-framework-bill.html

WASHINGTON — Climate has emerged as the single largest category in President Biden’s new framework for a huge spending bill, placing global warming at the center of his party’s domestic agenda in a way that was hard to imagine just a few years ago.

As the bill was pared down from $3.5 trillion to $1.85 trillion, paid family leave, free community college, lower prescription drugs for seniors and other Democratic priorities were dropped — casualties of negotiations between progressives and moderates in the party. But $555 billion in climate programs remained.

If enacted, it would be the largest action ever taken by the United States to address climate change. And it would enshrine climate action in law, making it harder to be reversed by a future president.

"The centerpiece of the climate spending is $300 billion in tax incentives for producers and purchasers of wind, solar and nuclear power, inducements intended to speed up a transition away from oil, gas and coal. Buyers of electric vehicles would also benefit, receiving up to $12,500 in tax credits — depending on what portion of the vehicle parts were made in America."


Comments
By metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:20 p.m.
Like Reply


Where do they think all the extra electricity is going to come from to power all these cars?  Magic green fairy dust?

Without fossil fuels, we will greatly struggle to provide electricity needs that we have now!

    This Winters potential energy crisis            

                            Started by metmike - Oct. 6, 2021, 1:32 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75856/


How we generate electricity                                      

                Started by madmechanic - Aug. 7, 2021, 2:17 p.m.         

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73293/

   

                Wind/ solar/batteries            

                            16 responses |               

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69028/


This is the REAL green energy..........and it serves as its own, natural storage unit. The oil and gas itself  IS the battery........the energy is IN THE FUEL already.  Batteries to store electricity have very limited capacities and lose a tremendous amount of the energy in generating it, then transforming it to a form that can be stored. Gasoline in your tank has all the energy stored in the actual fuel.

Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!           

                  Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

By metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 5:58 p.m.
Like Reply

Texas State Geologist Scott Tinker: The Bad Assumptions Underpinning COP26 and the Impending Energy Train Wreck

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/01/texas-state-geologist-scott-tinker-the-bad-assumptions-underpinning-cop26/


"The world is already in an “energy crisis” of sorts due to the tremendous misallocation of capital from functioning energy infrastructure to mythical energy infrastructure.  This has largely been driven by the false perception that a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to save our planet (cue George Carlin).  As if this wasn’t bad enough, the COP 26 path “to net-zero emissions” is “paved with” nothing other than “bad assumptions”.

As global leaders at COP26 prepare to commit trillions of dollars, guided by this roadmap, it is important to understand how confusing, and even implausible, are some of the roadmap’s key 2050 assumptions. 

Assumption No. 1: No new oil and gas fields, and no new coal mines or mine extensions.

In the roadmap, unabated coal demand declines by 98 percent, when in fact coal in Asia continues to expand significantly. Oil consumption declines by 75 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent.

These fuels are replaced within the roadmap in part by expanding wood, biomass and biofuels, even though bioenergy has been shown by many studies not to be particularly “green.” 

Assumption No. 2: While population and the global economy continue to grow, global energy use actually declines.

Assumption No. 3: Two-thirds of total energy supply in 2050 will come from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro.

Assumption No. 4: In the roadmap, per capita CO2 emissions in developed economies, currently around 10 tons, and in emerging and developing economies – for the more than 6 billion people other on Earth – currently around 4 tons, decline to zero. 

Assumption No. 5: Investments in end-use energy, energy infrastructure, electricity generation and low emissions fuels rise from just over $1 trillion annually to $4 trillion; cumulatively around $120 trillion in the next 28 years. Staggering. 

Achieving any single assumption will be very difficult – but taken in the aggregate, it’s highly unlikely.

Yet, many academics, think tanks, advocacy organizations and government officials continue to propound IEA roadmap-type thinking and produce reports with 80 percent or more solar and wind. Reality can be a harsh teacher as we witness the many self-inflicted global energy crises today, in systems with considerably less than 80 percent. Weather-dependent wind and solar can’t deliver reliable energy at scale without extensive and expensive backup.

The road to green should not be paved with bad assumptions. 

Scott W. Tinker is director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, a professor holding the Allday Endowed Chair at The University of Texas at Austin and produces global energy documentary films.

metmike: These people have no clue about energy and they are wrong about the climate crisis.........and they are the ones making the decisions and spending all the money!

By metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 8:57 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 9:33 p.m.
Like Reply


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/02/cop26-and-the-hubris-of-our-political-overlords/

There is a very reasonable argument to be made that the climate-related Conferences of Parties (COPs) that occur annually under UN auspices are terrible things. They cost (i.e., waste) enormous resources, and they have the potential to do great damage to the world economy and the well-being of the people. Fair enough. But on balance, my view is that it’s a good thing we have them. I can think of no other comparable activities that put on such dramatic and widely-viewed display the immeasurable foolishness and hubris of our political overlords.



By metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 9:34 p.m.
Like Reply

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked    PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989:


https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


metmike: They actually took the title and date of that 1989  article OFF earlier this year(it had been there for 15 years) so that people could not look it up and when they found it, they wouldn't see when the article came out.

Seriously, they did that.

I inserted the title and date for you above it because I've been using it for 15 years and have it saved. 

By metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 9:42 p.m.
Like Reply

metmike: This is news to me.

USDA tries an end-run around law to enable a climate agenda

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/01/usda-tries-an-end-run-around-law-to-enable-a-climate-agenda/

Suggested points in a brief comment

– Section 5 of the Charter Act expressly says that any environmental program must be authorized.  This program has not been authorized.
– Trying to use 5(e) ignores the plain language of 5(g) dealing specifically with environmental programs.
– The program can’t be created just because it would allegedly be marketing “climate-friendly” commodities when it is obviously an environmental program focused on environmental issues, with this alleged marketing benefit being an obvious pretext to get around the statute.
– By the CCC’s logic, the USDA could always create unauthorized environmental programs inconsistent with the plain language of the statute if the USDA can claim some benefit to the marketing of commodities.  This would render the environmental provision superfluous.
– The CCC is trying to do an end-run around Congress and the plain language of the Charter Act.

By metmike - Nov. 3, 2021, 2:39 a.m.
Like Reply

COP26: Biden attacks China and Russia leaders for missing summit

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59138578

In a speech on Tuesday night, Mr Biden said climate was "a gigantic issue" and China "walked away" - adding it was the "same thing with Russia and Putin".

Neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor Chinese leader Xi Jinping are at the summit. 

Both countries however have sent delegations to the talks, which are due to run for two weeks until 14 November.

China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, followed by the US. Russia is the fifth largest after the EU and India. 

More than 120 leaders turned up at the conference in Scotland's largest city. 

metmike: China and Russia know its a farce. Global warming is the best thing that could ever happen to Russia and China benefits too by the current climate optimum and the beneficial CO2 to boot.


By metmike - Nov. 5, 2021, 11:19 p.m.
Like Reply

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/03/sierra-club-exec-on-energy-exactly-backwards/


At a time when the anti-environmental climate movement should be collapsing alongside renewable energy, the Old Guard is doubling down. And Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, is in denial as judged by his recent op-ed in Salon, “Is there an ‘energy crisis’? Not really — fossil fuels are collapsing, and it’s high time (October 25, 2021).

 

Pope’s subtitle says it all: “Why are energy prices spiking? Mostly because we’re not making the transition to wind and solar fast enough.” That’s exactly wrong as blackouts and conservation alerts in Texas, California, and around the world demonstrate.

The final word does not belong to Carl Pope. He needs to change course and realize that the gargantuan wind/solar bet has hurt the Planet and injured the least able to afford modern energy. David Middleton stated:

 

The world is already in an “energy crisis” of sorts due to the tremendous misallocation of capital from functioning energy infrastructure to mythical energy infrastructure. This has largely been driven by the false perception that a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to save our planet (cue George Carlin). As if this wasn’t bad enough, the COP 26 path “to net-zero emissions” is “paved with” nothing other than “bad assumptions”.