global warming fetish runaway

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications. May 04, 2023 At a May 3 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy took Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk to the woodshed for his refusal to directly answer some pointed, relevant questions about the enormous cost of the Biden energy and climate policies. During a 5-minute exchange, the video of which went viral across social media, Kennedy repeatedly asks Mr. Turk a pair of key questions, the first of which had to do with the Department of Energy’s estimate of the total price tag to the American taxpayers needed to achieve the Biden goal of U.S. carbon neutrality by 2050. It was a question that Kennedy posed multiple times, and which Turk steadfastly refused to answer. Finally, having had enough of the obfuscation, Sen. Kennedy noted some of the “experts” to which Turk had referred earlier in his testimony had estimated an all-in cost of $50 trillion. Nodding his head and making no attempt to dispute the number, Turk replied, “It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it.” The somewhat stunning $50 trillion estimate thus tacitly confirmed, Kennedy then moved onto his next question: “If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Here is how the exchange went from there: Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…” Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.” Turk: “So, first of all, it’s a net cost. It’s what, um, benefits we’re having from getting our act together and reducing all of those costs and climate benefits…” Kennedy: “Let me ask you. Maybe I’m not being clear. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Turk: “This is a global problem, so we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything to, uh…” Kennedy: “How much of we do our part is it going to reduce global temperatures?” Turk: “So, we’re 13% of global emissions…” Kennedy: “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?” Finally, his point avoidance and obfuscations having apparently been exhausted, Turk resorted to saying, “In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.” And there we have it. Americans are being asked to accept the force-feeding of an incredibly radical set of policies with a price tag that is unprecedented in global history to achieve a “carbon neutrality” goal, whose benefits are so nebulous, negligible and wholly reliant on the cooperative actions of other countries beyond U.S. control that they cannot be measured in any reliable way. Instead, we are being told by senior political appointees forcing those policies into being that we should simply trust them because they think it is the right thing to do in their “heart of hearts.” This is madness. For some context, $50 trillion is an amount that exceeds the gross domestic product of the U.S., China, India, Germany and Japan, combined. It is a number that drastically exceeds total U.S. national debt. It is more than 135 times the $369 billion in green energy subsidies contained in last year’s Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That is five new IRAs each year for the next 27 years. Madness. Yet, the Biden administration proposes that the U.S. spend that amount of money over that time frame on a bet that if we “lead” down this road to certain economic ruin, China, India and other nations whose interests do not align with our own will just willingly follow along. It strains credibility to the breaking point that Mr. Turk, his boss — Secretary Jennifer Granholm — or any other official in the Biden administration really believes this sophistry. This is third grader logic, built on a foundation of naivete’ and, frankly, silliness. Good for Sen. Kennedy for exposing it during that hearing. If only a single one of his Democratic colleagues could summon the personal integrity to do the same, our country might be spared the coming calamity. David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications. https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/04/opinion-sen-john-kennedy-debunked-bidens-climate-agenda-in-epic-fashion-david-blackmon/ ……………. JASON ISAAC: The Great Carbon Capture Scam -Public Policy Foundation May 06, 2023 it seems the United States has sold out to the net-zero fantasy. Legions of celebrities, influencers and politicians are crying for a magical, turn-key solution to climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now plans to unilaterally mandate carbon capture for all natural gas and coal power plants — an act of bureaucratic overreach that, because of its exorbitant cost, will force many of our most reliable electric generators to close. The modern elite turn up their noses at the legions of the unenlightened, with their gas-guzzling trucks and single-use plastics, surely the cause of all our problems. If we could just get rid of all that CO2, climate change would be solved, right? But net-zero is as nonsensical — and as evil — as the sham witch trials of the Middle Ages. Here’s why it’s nonsense. Capturing even half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would require capturing, transporting and storing 50 trillion cubic feet of gas annually, which is more than the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the United States produces each year. To put this in perspective, just one trillion cubic feet, a quantity generously described as “out of the grasp of human imagination,” would wrap around the equator in a 30-by-30-foot band three times. It’s also nonsense because even the absolute best-case carbon capture scenario would result in, if you’ll forgive my scientific jargon, diddly squat. If the United States eliminated every molecule of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, the global temperature difference at the end of the century would be less than 0.2°C. And that’s if the data models used by the climate wing are accurate — which they’ve never been to date. They’ve overestimated warming every single time. Even the most successful decarbonization does nothing to mitigate a changing climate. So why are so many corporations buying into the sham? From chocolate to crafts to even fossil fuels themselves, it seems like every big brand is preaching about carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, it’s not out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s not even because sustainability pledges make affluent consumers feel warm and fuzzy. It’s because of cold, hard cash. Much of that money comes from the government (which, of course, means from our own pockets through tax dollars). The Inflation Reduction Act increased the federal handout for carbon capture from $50 per ton to $85 per ton and allowed direct cash payments. It allows up to $180/ton for capturing carbon directly from the air instead of from a power plant. Even the Biden EPA, using a lot of fuzzy math, has so far only managed to peg the average social cost of carbon at around $51/ton, so why are we paying up to three times that much to capture and bury it? While subsidies act as a carrot to incentivize corporations to go woke, businesses also have to fear the stick — that’s Wall Street. Woke capital has almost total control over the world’s wealth, with big name investment firms like BlackRock pressuring companies that don’t kowtow to the progressive political agenda. Last year, BlackRock voted against 176 directors for “climate-related concerns.” Responsible American energy producers face denial of service and limited access to the capital and insurance they need to function at best, termination of existing contracts at worst. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)  is nearly universal now, and it’s bullying corporate boardrooms into engaging in political posturing. In fact, almost three-quarters of S&P 500 companies now base C-suite paychecks on ESG. And it’s no wonder, when they face the threat of losing banking and investment services they need to make their bottom line. And yet, as described in the data above, the anti-fossil fuel movement would have almost no effect on climate change. Sadly, the modern climate industrial complex is almost entirely driven by greed for the other type of green. Since traveling by broom isn’t possible and cooking with a cauldron over an open fire is tricky, the best path forward for our planet and those who live on it is to embrace a high-carbon lifestyle and work to help others achieve it. Affordable, reliable energy translates to economic prosperity, which translates to environmental stewardship. We’ve come a long way since the Middle Ages, but, without energy, we would fall right back into them. Let’s abandon the sham of carbon capture and instead focus on fighting poverty and reducing barriers to the affordable, reliable energy that powers our modern lives. The people’s elected leaders in Congress must put a stop to the EPA’s madness by reforming the Clean Air Act to restrain the EPA’s powers and force it to focus on its job of protecting public health and welfare. Jason Isaac is the Director of Life:Powered, a national initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives. https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/06/opinion-the-great-carbon-capture-scam-jason-isaac/  …………. JACKSON: Gavin Newsom’s Carbon-Neutral Grid Plan Looks To Be Going The Way Of The Bullet Train To Nowhere California’s planned transition to a carbon-neutral electricity grid by 2045 relies heavily on offshore wind power. It might take a miracle to get there. The growth of offshore wind will have to accelerate faster than a Tesla Model S, which goes from zero to 60 in less than two seconds. As of 2023, there is no offshore wind in California. But, as the Los Angeles Times reports, “state and local governments are banking on offshore wind to help reach their renewable energy goals.” CalMatters environment reporter Nadia Lopez says “California is betting on giant wind farms in the ocean to strengthen the grid and meet [the state’s] renewable energy goals.” The potential is there. So are the hurdles. “The California coast is home to some of the best offshore wind resources in the country,” says the energy and environmental blog of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates there is the potential to generate 201,000 megawatts of power off the coast. Plans call for the state to harness from 2,000 to 5,000 megawatts of it by 2030, then 25,000 megawatts (25 gigawatts) by 2045, generating enough electricity for 25 million homes. (There are currently about 14.5 million housing units in California, according to the Census Bureau). But this is California, where building anything, in particular massive public works projects — say, a bullet train — is a task that is grueling, protracted and in some instances impossible. https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/06/jackson-gavin-newsoms-carbon-neutral-grid-plan-looks-to-be-going-the-way-of-the-bullet-train-to-nowhere/ ……….