Brain-dead Biden and his gang of neocon controllers want to “green” the economy. They use the phony “climate change” hoax, aka “global warming,” as the excuse to do this. Their plans will destroy America’s economy, which is dependent on fossil fuels. They talk a lot about helping the poor and arouse people to hate the rich. But destroying our country’s economy won’t help the poor.
Brain-dead Biden’s proposed Inflation Reduction Act ( IRA) is supposed to give us cheap “green” energy. But it will, in fact impose limitless costs. As fossil-fuel expert Alex Epstein points out, “We were told that the IRA would give us cheap ‘green’ energy for ‘only’ $400 billion in subsidies.
In reality, the IRA has a limitless price tag due to its 1) a limitless number of years, 2) limitless dollars per year, and 3) limitless harm to our grid.
The promise that for just $400 billion the IRA would give us cheap ‘green’ energy never made sense.
If the ‘green’ sources the IRA was subsidizing were actually on the verge of being cheap, they wouldn’t need to be subsidized.
If the IRA was trying to make low-carbon energy cheap—which is the only way to lower global CO2 emissions long-term—it would have focused on liberating low-carbon energy production from the anti-development ‘green’ regulations that hold back nuclear, geothermal, and natural gas.
The real goal of the IRA was to pretend to do something about global CO2 so as to wildly enrich ‘green’ companies that are unable/unwilling to compete on a real market—above all solar/wind companies, who successfully lobby to be paid a (subsidized) premium for unreliable power!
Given that the IRA’s promise of $400 billion in subsidies leading to lower costs was a lie, it should be no surprise that the $400 billion number is a total lie.
The IRA’s cost is limitless:
It lasts a limitless number of years
It costs limitless dollars per year
It does limitless harm to our grid.
The IRA lasts a limitless number of years
While we were led to believe the IRA’s ‘green” subsidies, mostly for solar and wind, would last 10 years, they actually continue indefinitely until America reaches an emission level even the Biden Admin says we won’t reach by 2050!
The IRA specifically states that its stream of lavish subsidies for green energy projects will last at least until 2032, but it will only end if the CO2 emissions of the electricity sector are below 25% of their 2022 levels.That is very likely to be far, far more than 10 years.
Recent projections by the Biden Admin’sEnergy Information Administration (EIA) indicate that the CO2 emissions of the electric sector will not go down to 25% of current emission levels before 2050! That means the IRA subsidies will last more than 26 years!
Any calculation of the IRA’s cost needs to be based on a realistic projection of when electricity CO2 emissions will go below 25% of their current levels. And given the Biden Admin’s biases their after-2050 estimate should be suspected to be overly optimistic.
2. The IRA costs limitless dollars per year.
While IRA advocates and the CBO have calculated government expenditures on the order of $400 billion for the IRA’s energy and climate policies over the next 10 years, that could easily be an underestimate by a factor or 3 or more.
When the public hears a number like $400 billion in subsidies, few know that this is not a fixed number. It is an estimate based on how many companies choose to take advantage of the subsidies.
As Al Gore celebrated at the recent World Economic Forum, companies are scarfing IRA subsidies. Gore said he was ‘very encouraged’ by the prospect of ‘actually open-ended’ subsidies. Gore being ‘very encouraged’ about subsidies means we should be ‘very discouraged’ about cost.
While the CBO and partisan analysis projected that the IRA’s green energy and climate provisions would cost less than $400 billion over a decade, analysis by Goldman Sachs indicates that the uncapped subsidies could balloon 3 times to $1.2 trillion.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, by ‘Goldman’s estimate, the IRA tax credits will cost tens to hundreds of billions more than CBO estimated over 10 years.’ This includes almost $400 billion of additional EV subsidies alone and over $80 billion more for solar and wind electricity generation
In addition, investors in solar and wind are incentivized by the IRA to use particularly costly solar panels and wind turbines manufactured in the hostile environment of US regulations, which means higher subsidies for every project.
3. The IRA does limitless harm to our grid.
Not only will the IRA’s subsidies last far longer than the decade we were pitched, and not only will those subsidies likely be far higher per year than we were pitched, but—worst of all—the IRA has a limitless ability to harm our grid.
We’re in a growing electricity crisis caused by shutting down reliable power plants and not replacing them with reliable power plants.
The IRA’s response to this crisis is to double down on one of its main causes: subsidies for unreliable solar and wind.
Alex Epstein—Electricity Emergency
Why is America shutting down too many reliable power plants?
Two of the chief villains are the subsidies known as the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC). These subsidies had expired. But the Inflation Reduction Act restored and extended them.7
The ‘ITC’ and ‘PTC’ solar and wind subsidies pay utilities to shut down or slow down reliable gas and coal plants whenever the sun shines or the wind blows. This defunds reliable plants, causing many to be shut down.
The IRA extends these ruinous subsidies indefinitely.
The IRA pretended to be pro-nuclear by adding nuclear to its subsidized forms of energy. But since nuclear overregulation makes new plants cost-prohibitive, the Inflation Reduction Act’s endless ‘clean energy’ subsidies = endless solar and wind subsidies.
By expanding and extending subsidies to unreliable solar and wind, the IRA provides even greater incentives to retire reliable capacity in favor of unreliable green energy. This means more reckless endangerment of our grid’s reliability.”
Not only will greening the economy impose limitless costs. It will destroy our economy, which is based on fossil fuels. Here again Epstein is a good guide. “Why do I believe the world needs to increase fossil fuel use when so many tell us to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use?
Because it follows from 3 irrefutable principles for thinking about fossil fuels that I, as a philosopher and energy expert, follow—and most ‘experts’ don’t.
My 3 irrefutable principles for thinking about fossil fuels, which no opponent has ever challenged:
1 Factor in fossil fuels’ benefits
2 Factor in fossil fuels’ ‘climate mastery benefits’
3 Factor in fossil fuels’ negative and positive climate side-effects with precision
Irrefutable principle 1: Factor in fossil fuels’ benefits
When we’re evaluating what to do about any technology we must factor in not only its negative side-effects but also its benefits.
E.g., oil-powered equipment and natural gas fertilizer are crucial to feeding 8 billion people.
Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels’ benefits, not just their negative side-effects, most designated experts totally fail to do this.
E.g., ‘expert’ Michael Mann 100% ignores fossil fuels’ unique agricultural benefits in his book on fossil fuels and climate.
Irrefutable principle 2: Factor in fossil fuels’ ‘climate mastery benefits’
One huge benefit we get from fossil fuels is the ability to master climate danger—e.g., fossil fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels’ negative climate impacts.
Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels’ climate mastery benefits, our designated experts totally fail to do this.
E.g., the UN IPCC’s multi-thousand page reports totally omit fossil fueled climate mastery! That’s like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.
Irrefutable principle 3: Factor in fossil fuels’ negative and positive climate side-effects with precision
With rising CO2 we must consider both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact.
Even though we obviously need to factor in both negative and positive impacts of rising CO2 with precision, most designated experts ignore big positives(e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).
If you follow my 3 irrefutable principles for thinking about fossil fuels—factoring in fossil fuels’ 1) benefits, 2) climate mastery benefits, and 3) precise negative and positive climate side-effects—the facts show that we need a Fossil Future.
Consider 10 undeniable facts
5 undeniable facts about fossil fuels’ benefits
1 Human flourishing requires cost-effective energy
2 Far more energy is needed
3 Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective
4 Unreliable solar and wind are failing to replace fossil fuels
5 Fossil fuels give us an incredible climate mastery ability
Undeniable energy fact 1: Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing
Cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, versatile, scalable energy—is essential to human flourishing because it gives us the ability to use machines to become productive and prosperous.
Thanks to today’s unprecedented availability of cost-effective energy (mostly fossil fuel) the world has never been a better place for human life. Life expectancy and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to <10% today
Undeniable energy fact 2: The world needs much more energy
Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood/dung for heating/cooking. Much more energy is needed
The desperate lack of life-giving, cost-effective energy means that any replacement for fossil fuels must not only provide energy to the 2B who use significant amounts of energy today but to the 6B who use far less. Restricting fossil fuels without incredible alternatives is mass-murder.
Undeniable energy fact 3: Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective
Despite 100+ years of aggressive competition, fossil fuels provide 80%+ of the world’s energy and they are still growing fast—especially in the countries most concerned with cost-effective energy. E.g., China.
Fossil fuels are uniquely able to provide energy that’s low-cost, reliable, and versatile on a scale of billions of people. This is due to fossil fuels’ combo of remarkable attributes—fossil fuels are naturally stored, concentrated, and abundant energy—and generations of innovation by industry.
There is currently only one energy tech that can match (actually exceed) fossil fuels’ combo of naturally stored, concentrated, abundant energy: nuclear. Nuclear may one day outcompete all uses of fossil fuels, but this will take radical policy reform and generations of innovation + work.
Recent price spikes in fossil fuels do not reflect some new lack of cost-effectiveness on the part of fossil fuels, but rather the devastating effects of ‘green energy’ efforts to artificially restrict the supply of fossil fuels on the false promise that unreliable solar/wind can replace them.”
Paul Diessen sums up what will happen under the Biden gang’s plans. “Let me say it again: Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. But harnessing this diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization definitely is not. And every bit of ‘renewable’ power must be backed up with other power—so double our cash and material investments.
The Green Lobby and its legislator and regulator friends really seem to think they can just pass laws and earmark subsidies, demanding energy transformations by 2050—and it will just happen. The raw materials will just be there, perhaps with a little MAGIC: Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change. That is, they simply assume the necessary raw materials will also just be there.
Not one of these luminaries has given a moment’s thought to—much less attempted to calculate—what this net-zero transition would require:
How many millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of EV and backup batteries, millions of transformers, thousands of miles of transmission lines—sprawling across how many millions of acres of wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, and people’s once-placid backyards?
How many billions of tons of copper, steel, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, lithium, concrete, rare earths, composite plastics and other materials? How many trillions of tons of ores and overburden? How many mines, across how many more acres—with how much fossil fuel energy to operate the enormous mining equipment, and how much toxic air and water pollution emitted in the process? Where will it be done?
To cite just one example, just those 2,500 wind turbines for New York electricity (30,000 megawatts) would require nearly 110,000 tons of copper—which would require mining, crushing, processing and refining 25 million tons of copper ore … after removing some 40 million tons of overlying rock to reach the ore bodies. Multiply that times 50 states—and the entire world—plus transmission lines.
How many processing plants and factories would be needed? How much fossil fuel power to run those massive operations? How many thousands of square miles of toxic waste pits all over world under zero to minimal environmental standards, workplace safety standards, child and slave labor rules?
How many dead birds, bats, and endangered and other species would be killed off all across the USA and world—from mineral extraction activities, wind turbine blades, solar panels blanketing thousands of square miles of wildlife habitats, and transmission lines impacting still more land?
How many will survive hurricanes like Ian or Andrew? Where will we dump the green energy trash?
Not only do the luminaries and activists ignore these issues and refuse to address them. They actively suppress, cancel, censor and deplatform any questions and discussions about them. They collude with Big Tech companies and news agencies, which too often seem all too happy to assist.
The hard reality is, there are not, will not be, and cannot be, enough mines, metals and minerals on the entire planet—to reach any ‘net-zero’ US economy by 2050, much less a global ‘green’ economy.
Here’s another issue: electric vehicle and backup lithium-ion battery modules can erupt spontaneously into chemical-fueled infernos that cannot be extinguished by conventional fire-fighting means. That raises an important analog to rules Alec Baldwin should have kept uppermost in mind a year ago. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Never point your muzzle at anything you are not prepared to destroy.
In the Biden-Newsom-Kerry-IPCC energy arena: Treat every electric vehicle and backup battery system as if it is loaded and ready to ignite. Never park an EV, install a PowerWall or locate a backup power facility near anything you are not prepared to destroy.
That includes in your garage; near other vehicles; in parking garages under apartment and office buildings; in residential neighborhoods and highway tunnels; or on cargo ships like the Felicity Ace.
And yet we’re supposed to go along with Green Energy schemes—as we did with masks, school lockdowns and vaccinations to stop covid—because our government, media and ‘public interest’ groups insist that we ‘follow the science,’ on which there can be no doubt (certainly none permitted) that we face a ‘manmade climate crisis’ that threatens the very existence of humanity and ‘the only Earth we have.’
Because we have to destroy the planet (with green energy) in order to save it (from climate change).
It’s time to short-circuit this electricity nightmare, by asking these questions, demanding answers, and ending the notion that governments can simply issue edicts and compel reality to change in response.”
Let’s do everything we can to stop brain-dead Biden and his gang of neocon controllers from destroying America.