Biden’s false climate promises

Biden’s multi-trillion dollar climate action plan is full of promises that the law says he cannot keep. Promising to do what you cannot do is a false promise. Here are some big ticket examples.

Biden says “If I am elected I will do the following:

Create millions of good, union jobs rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure from roads and bridges to green spaces and water systems to electricity grids and universal broadband…

Create 1 million new jobs in the American auto industry, domestic auto supply chains, and auto infrastructure, from parts to materials to electric vehicle charging stations…

Provide every American city with 100,000 or more residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options through flexible federal investments with strong labor protections that create good, union jobs and meet the needs of these cities…”

What is wrong with these grand promises? Simple. The President of the United States has no authority, or the money, to do any of these things. That authority (and money) belongs solely to the U.S. Congress. So here is what these promises really amount to.

Biden really says “If elected I promise to do the following:

Beg Congress to do something about America’s crumbling infrastructure. I will propose a big plan but what they do is up to them.

Implore Congress to somehow create a lot of jobs in the American auto industry. How they do it is up to them.

Repeatedly ask Congress to build a lot of zero-emissions public transit stuff. I will bug the hell out of them. (What they do is up to them.)”

Not quite so grand sounding, are they? In fact they are pretty humble, because Congress, not the President, runs the U.S. Government. That who is President is all important is just a myth, albeit a seemingly universal myth.

Nor is the Congress likely to do much of this hugely expensive stuff, even if the Democrats win both houses, which is also unlikely. Unlikely + unlikely = very unlikely. This is especially true because Biden’s undocumented cost estimate of two trillion dollars is way low. It is more like twenty trillion.

It would require trillions of dollars in new taxes, which is political suicide, especially in the House where every seat is voted on every two years. The symbolic House Climate Crisis Committee put out an even grander plan than Biden’s, but like the toothless Committee that plan is just symbolic.

Note by the way that there is no mention of all these jobs being union in the real promises. Even Congress cannot make that happen. There are “Buy American” clauses in Federal contracts, but no “Only Unions Shops Can Bid On This” clauses. That would be truly unconstitutional.

It has been suggested that all this pro-union rhetoric is to make up for Biden’s unacceptably truthful admission that killing the fossil fuel industry would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs. Or it may be because AOC, who is hot on unions, is his top climate plan planner. In any case it is yet another false promise.

People running for President should only promise to do what Presidents can actually do. They cannot speak for Congress so should not pretend to. Biden’s climate promises are so false they are absurd. You can’t get there from here.

SOURCE 





Lord Monckton Delivers His Most Important Intelliqence Report Yet: CO2 is Saving Earth

This is from a year ago but is a very thorough coverage of the whole scientific picture.  The fact that the video is on Infowars simply reflects the difficulty skeptics have in getting published on mainstream platforms





Climate misanthropes

Most of the doomsaying elites are candid about their contempt for the value of human life and about their political endgame. They are defined by the term misanthropes, “people who dislike humankind”.

Liberal ideologues preach that an all powerful central government on a Global scale is necessary to save the planet. It is also necessary to equitably distribute the worlds financial and physical resources.

Christina Figueres, former chief of The international Panel on Climate Change, called communism the optimal system for avoiding dangerous global warming in an article in the Daily Caller on January 15, 2014. A year later on February 3, 2015 at a European conference she acknowledged that the UN’s climate program has provided the political and organizational wherewithal to replace the economic system that made modern economic growth possible. She said : “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

That is a “frighteningly arrogant statement” said Steve Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White in their brilliant 2016 book FUELING FREEDOM. This requires central planning with uncompromising faith in the power of government and an even stronger belief that personal freedom need not be present in society. It actually describes all the groups battling against our current government. Could they all be misanthropes?

The economic development model that the UN climate czar consigns to the dustbin of history allowed a middle class to flourish. The hallmarks of that model, private property rights, a competitive market and personal freedom are today intertwined with the availability and and creative conversions of fossil fuels.

In the 1970s when the politics of environmentalism emerged, The Club of Rome published a dystopian manifesto titled Limits To Growth predicting the end of growth and the need for a centrally controlled economy. Mr. Biden is building on that plan in his platform for the nation.

In the Club of Rome’s 1991 publication The First Global Revolution, the organization unashamedly revealed their misanthropic world view. It said, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famines and the like would fit the bill.” Yes you read that correctly.

Not to be outdone in misanthropy Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote in a report to The Federation of American Scientists in 1978 “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

The Marxist founder of the United Nations Environment Program, the late Maurice Strong, contended that “the only hope for the planet” is the collapse of industrialized civilizations. The planetary management advocated by these alarmists is to be carried out by those sanctioned by the elites rather than by the consent of the people.

Few Americans on either side of the political spectrum appear to be aware of this dark side of the global warming issue, and few public officials seem willing to risk the wrath that the mainstream media reserves for climate heretics. Yet opinion polls consistently show that a strong majority of the U.S. citizens abhor the idea of global governance. Europeans may be accustomed to their governments social engineering. We doubt that a critical mass of Americans are willing to surrender to green mandates that will limit the number of miles they drive until they purchase an electric car. If our democratic form of government is to endure, energy policies must be made to satisfy the desires of the public. This could well end Nov 3.

Given the weakening evidence for any concern about climate change and the counterproductive consequences of climate policies, surely economic growth offers the best bet for adaptation to what ever change the Earth might experience. America’s future may not offer a climate any different from today’s, but the future that the alarmists propose is a regression toward the pre-industrial era devoid of the freedoms and prosperity afforded by plentiful energy.

Today it would be hard to argue that no one other than George Soros is the worlds most powerful and effective misanthrope. It would take a team of psychiatrists to figure out why a man with a billion dollars who has made his home in America would so despise this country as to devote decades and his few remaining years at 89 to destroying his adopted homeland.

Perhaps an undiagnosed brain tumor or premature dementia brought on this psychosis. Why else would he finance people intent on undermining all this country has stood for. Why else would he help elect the politicians who allow thugs to run wild burning , looting and vandalizing to their heart’s content.

We are told that Soros is a socialist, but what is a Socialist’s idea of a perfect socialist state: a dictatorship modeled on the old Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela? Or perhaps Nazi Germany, where though he was a Hungarian Jew , he cast his lot with the barbarians. He identifies with them still.

SOURCE 




Australia: More funding needed in government push to cut 'green tape': industry

Resource and agricultural industries are welcoming plans to cut "green tape" and speed up project development by handing control of some elements of national environment laws to state governments, but they say changes cannot come at the expense of wildlife protection.

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley announced in July plans for a "one-touch" regime that transfers to states the Commonwealth's legal responsibilities for protecting threatened species and ecosystems in assessments of major projects that come under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Ms Ley has ruled out financial support to help the states conduct extra work under a new system. But she has said states would have to show they could meet the standards required under the act, which include assessing complicated, long-term impacts of activities such as land clearing, coal mining or sinking wells for gas production, and impacts on flora, fauna and the water table.

Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable welcomed the opportunity to speed project approvals and said the mining industry relied on a "strong social licence" and for environmental assessments "to be done properly".

"The single-touch system is a huge opportunity because it gets rid of duplication and complexity in different systems that exist between state and federal governments," Ms Constable said. "But the department or body that has carriage of compliance must have the right amount of resources."

Federal administration of the act has fallen short since it was created in 1999. The list of threatened species and ecosystems has grown by a third – from 1483 to 1974. More than 8 million hectares of threatened species' habitats have been cleared in that time, mostly for project development, but 93 per cent of these were not assessed under the legislation.

A report last month from the Commonwealth Auditor-General found the Environment Department failed to protect endangered wildlife or manage conflicts of interest in development approvals, and 79 per cent of approvals were non-compliant or contained errors.

National Farmers Federation chief executive Tony Mahar said green tape was a "huge concern" for the farm sector, with uncertainty about different state and federal processing discouraging investment in activities that should be simply and quickly assessed, such as clearing regrowth of invasive species from a property.

"It is limiting innovation and expansion of farms. Put simply, people don't know what they can and can't do," Mr Mahar said.

He also called for more funding to bolster the system.

"Of course there needs to be more funding, for better engagement with industry about the act, and to make sure the regulations are working they way they were intended," Mr Mahar said.

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association said the proposed changes could "improve certainty and flexibility for business, environmental groups and communities" and "provide greater flexibility when circumstances change while ensuring environmental protection is maintained".

The government's plans were announced in response a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by former competition regulator Graeme Samuel, who found the national laws were “not fit to address current or future environmental challenges” and that for industry they are "ineffective and inefficient".

Last week Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his initial meeting with state leaders had been "really positive" and he was confident that negotiations with state governments would lead to agreement for a new regulatory regime.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************