Expensive Green New Deal

 

The election is a referendum on the Green New Deal.  If fracking is outlawed, natural gas prices will triple, and gasoline prices will double or triple.  Do people really want to vote for $4.50 a gallon gasoline?  About 87% of US electricity generation isn't renewable.  About 63% is fossil fuels.  Do you really believe we can scrap and replace 63%, or 87%, of US electricity generation withing 15 years?  It would be impossibly expensive.

The US has gradually substituted natural gas for coal in electricity generation, based on fracking natural gas.  As a result, the US is the only major economic power to have declining CO2 emissions since the Kyoto Agreement.  Outlawing fracking will force us back to coal, or turn the lights off in the US.

Renewable energy is intermittent.  There are times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.  At the moment, the technology for storing energy from renewable sources to fill in for when they are not generating is both inefficient and prohibitively expensive.  The end result of strong ideology and weak engineering is California rolling blackouts.

The US is the only country that has met its goals for reducing carbon emissions.  The US did this by switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation.  The increase in natural gas came from fracking.  The Green New Deal eliminates fracking.

The Green New Deal will outlaw gasoline cars.  Less than 1% of US cars are battery driven now.  It will take a tremendous amount of investment to switch from gas stations to electric charging stations.California and New York already have versions of the Green New Deal.  Democrats have a history of running as moderates then switching to their real progressive positions once elected.  Leftists try to block every pipeline they can.

The bottom line is that you're smoking wacky tobaccy if you believe that Democrats won't implement major parts of the Green New Deal if elected. 

Do you expect the woke to be rational about their goals?  They have shown they have no rationality when it comes to canceling anyone who deviates even slightly from their ideology.  Do you think women are people who menstruate?  Wrong and unwoke!

Global Warming Doesn't Meet Its Burden Of Proof

How accurately do the man-made global warming models predict future climate temperatures? Is there any statistical significance to the predictions?

The burden of proof is on the man-made global warming alarmists. They are the folks who want to spend huge amounts of money to fight the phantom menace, so they have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that global warming is occurring, that man's activities are causing the global warming and that their solution, getting all of our energy from renewable energy sources, is the most cost effective solution to the global warming problem. So far, I don’t think global warming alarmists have met any of their burden of proof.

If global warming was a scientific theory without a political program attached to it, it might be easier to believe that its proponents were not cooking the books.  However, when you read something that says initially the data didn't fit the hypothesis, so the data was adjusted, it tends to lessen scientific credibility a lot.  That's exactly what this sentence says: "the apparent slowdown was due to measurement errors that, when corrected, show that global temperatures have risen steadily."  If you also notice that the Climate Research Unit fought off a Freedom of Information lawsuit requesting a copy of their unadjusted raw data by saying that it had accidentally been erased, you begin to think something very unscientific is going on.  Then you notice that scientific papers that find evidence that global warming is not happening are suppressed and their authors' careers are destroyed, global warming begins to look more like a religion that science. 

The cost of changes that the alarmists want to impose is staggering. In the US, 33% of our electricity is generated from burning coal. To meet the Paris climate goals, we will probably have to scrap all coal fired generators. This represents trillions of dollars in investment. Another 33% of electricity in the US is generated from burning natural gas. Mean green organizations want all of these generators closed as well. The US gets 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Almost all nuclear generators in the US are over 20 years old. Over half are over 30 years old. The number of nuclear plants decommissioned in the last several years easily outnumbered the new nuclear generators.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Assuming that any global warming we see is man-made, the answer is nuclear power, which emits no carbon at all. But alarmists don’t like nuclear power. Assuming you don't like nuclear power, then we have to build a lot of dams, probably killing a lot of snail darters and other endangered fish. We also have to carpet sunny places like Death Valley with solar collectors without regard to the possible extinction of obscure lizards. We also have to build wind turbines and kill literally tons of migratory birds and ruin the view from Martha's Vineyard. We also have to build a lot of high voltage transmission lines through everybody's back yards to move the renewable power from where it’s generated to where it’s used. But the environmentalists, who fervently believe in global warming, fight all of these things. 

Assuming you don't like any of these options, you have to assume a miracle happens in order to stop the carbon. Or we can go back to 19th century technology and live in an Amish paradise. I’ve personally mucked out barns. Horses have a major pollution problem. The expense of all of this gets obscene. The flimsy justification for the economic ruin that the fight against global warming will cause, is a statistically insignificant anomaly. Good luck with the politics of flimsy justification, miracles and economic ruin!