Joe Biden's Green New Deal is actually a real-life nightmare

Joe Biden's Green New Deal agenda is as foolish as it sounds. It's both aspirational and impossible. That's the gospel according to Steve Milloy's WSJ op-ed that starts by focusing on the slogan "Net-Zero by 2050."

Milloy's op-ed is eye-opening on multiple fronts, starting with the cost of putting such a plan in place. It's more than the Biden administration has admitted to by orders of magnitude. According to Milloy's op-ed, "Carbon removal technologies' aren’t possible to scale up, and if they were, it would cost about $1 quadrillion—a million billion dollars—at today’s prices to remove the 1.6 trillion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide that U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said needs to be sucked 'out of the atmosphere even after we get to net zero.'"

That's just the biggest obstacle standing in the way of "Net-Zero by 2050." It isn't the only obstacle. Here’s what else stands in the way of achieving that goal:

In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry, released a report titled "Net-Zero 2050: U.S. Economy-Wide Deep Decarbonization Scenario Analysis."

The EPRI report concludes that the utility industry can’t attain net zero. "This study shows that clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency . . . are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions."

In other words, no amount of wind turbines, solar panels, hydropower, nuclear power, battery power, electrification of fossil-fuel technologies or energy-efficiency technologies will get us to net zero by 2050.

Milloy isn't the only expert saying that Net-Zero by 2050 is impossible. This segment from Sky News Australia reached the same conclusion:

How a net-zero grid could be built and function would be an issue worth studying if it were possible in the first place. But it simply isn't. So, barring some unforeseen miracle technology, "net zero by 2050" won't happen.
How do we avoid this catastrophe? Here's one option:
Congress should hold hearings on "net zero by 2050" goals before real disaster happens. It should bring in witnesses from utilities, public-service commissions, grid operators, regulators and the ESG cartel and have them explain under oath how they plan to accomplish the impossible.
Bring in both sides' scientists to duke it out. Let's see how the legacy media labels the realists' opinions as misinformation. Let's have the information equivalent of a free-for-all. Then Republicans, joined by a few red state or energy-rich districts join together to craft legislation getting rid of this net zero by 2050 foolishness.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more