On Energy Policy, Kamala Harris Is Clueless

Now that it seems that Vice President Kamala Harris appears to be a lock for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination, Americans should become familiar with Harris’ stance on energy policy.

Although energy policy is not as exciting and politically intriguing as some of the other issues on the table in the 2024 election, it certainly has a profound effect on the lifestyle and budget of every American.

During the Biden-Harris administration, the price of energy has increased across the board. In fact, according to a new report by The Heartland Institute, the Biden-Harris administration’s energy policies have directly cost U.S. households $2,548 since 2021.

Specifically, over the past three-and-half years, residential electricity prices have increased 23 percent, industrial electricity prices have increased 19 percent, home heating oil prices have increased 69 percent, oil prices have increased 52 percent, natural gas prices have increased 32 percent, and gasoline has increased $0.97 per gallon, or 42 percent.

In short, the sudden spike in energy prices under the Biden-Harris administration is largely due to the fact that President Biden nixed the Keystone XL Pipeline project; delayed new leases for oil and gas drilling on federal lands; implemented a slew of new regulations on fossil fuel production; embraces environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing metrics; and supports so-called renewable energy with massive subsidies.

While those policies have resulted in a steep rise in the price of energy over the past few years, they absolutely pale in comparison to what Kamala Harris would have in store should she become the next president of the United States.

Like most of her Democrat colleagues, Kamala Harris clearly believes that climate change is an “existential threat.” However, her policy agenda to combat climate change makes her far more radical than President Biden, and most other Democrats.

For starters, Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking nationwide. “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” Harris declared at a CNN town hall when she was seeking the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination. Of course, banning fracking would cripple U.S. production of natural gas, sending the price of this baseload energy source through the roof. What’s more, it would decimate an entire industry, leaving thousands of Americans jobless, while simultaneously undermining our allies abroad and enriching adversarial nations like Russia.

Kamala Harris was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, which would transition the U.S. economy to “100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050.” According to The Heritage Foundation, the Green New Deal would result in energy prices skyrocketing by 30 percent per year over the foreseeable future. Moreover, it would reduce household incomes substantially, to the tune of $7,964 per year for a family of four.

Kamala Harris firmly supports practically all federal government efforts to enact “environmental justice,” which is nothing more than a huge wealth redistribution ploy under the guise of social justice.

During her ill-fated run for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, Harris also endorsed a plan that included $10 trillion in new initiatives to fight climate change as well as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

The timing of Harris’ unflinching support for unaffordable and unreliable renewable energy coupled with her antipathy towards abundant, affordable, and reliable fossil fuels could not come at a worse time for the American people or the U.S. economy at large.

As previously stated, the American people are already struggling with higher energy prices across the board. Almost assuredly, under a Harris administration, energy prices would continue to climb.

However, at a more macro level, Harris’ energy policies could potentially doom the future of the U.S. economy. The rise of data processing centers, AI, quantum computing, and other associated developing technologies will require unprecedented amounts of dependable and affordable baseload energy. As of now, the anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy agenda advocated by Kamala Harris is not compatible with the huge demand for constant energy flow that the technologies of the future will inevitably need.

Kamala Harris is all-in on intermittent wind and solar power undergirding the grid as proposed under the Green New Deal and abhors the use of oil, coal, and natural gas as baseload energy sources. Because of this fundamental flaw in logic and lack of commonsense, it is extremely apparent that Kamala Harris is totally clueless on energy policy.

https://heartland.org/opinion/on-energy-policy-kamala-harris-is-clueless/

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

New Study: ‘Extreme COLD Events In Antarctica’ Shattered Records In July, Aug 2023

The Chinese Academy of Sciences found that the Antarctic cold spells shattered records amid global heat waves in late winter 2023, something we never heard from the mainstream media.

In a report appearing in the online Phys.org journal, 2023 “brought an unexpected twist with extreme cold events in Antarctica” – according to a new study published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.

“Record cold temperatures were observed in our Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) network as well as other locations around the region,” said Matthew A. Lazzara of the Antarctic Meteorological Research and Data Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison).

“These phases were marked by new record low temperatures recorded at both staffed and automatic weather stations, spanning East Antarctica, the Ross Ice Shelf, and West Antarctica to the Antarctic Peninsula.”

Kunlun Station recorded its lowest temperature ever observed at -79.4°C, nearly 5°C colder than the old record.

“These extreme cold events were unprecedented and had significant operational impacts,” said David E. Mikolajczyk, the corresponding author of the study.

https://principia-scientific.com/new-study-extreme-cold-events-in-antarctica-shattered-records-in-july-aug-2023/

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

Buildings – The Achilles Heel of Net Zero

No matter the pious pleas for more action to achieve a net-zero emissions economy for 2050, the world is simply not going to get there. Indeed, it is going to fall far short.

In some areas, people overstate the progress that has been made, proclaiming, for example, the few minutes at a time when wind (mainly) and solar provide for our electricity needs. No-one caveats such claims with the highly restricted conditions, or notes that electricity is less than a quarter of our total energy use.

Gas provides the bulk of our electricity at times – the majority – when the wind is not blowing sufficiently, or at all. That is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Electricity storage, the carbon-free alternative pushed by Net Zero advocates, is currently a pipedream because it is far too expensive. Most serious analysts think we will still rely on gas for much of our electricity in 2050.

Even if we retain gas-fired power for when the wind isn’t blowing, Net Zero looks unachievable. So far we have partially decarbonised the grid and little else. If the whole economy – heat and transport and all the rest – is to be weaned off fossil fuels, the generation capacity of the grid will need to triple. Investment in generation capacity from 2030 to 2050 will need to be twelve times higher than over 1990–2020. Investment in grid infrastructure will need to grow almost as much.

In other words, the decarbonisation spending spree, which is already causing severe pain across the economy, will have to be hugely expanded.

If there was enough green electricity to go round, we would not have to worry much about energy efficiency. But it is precisely because of the green electricity shortage and its high costs that we have to worry about the efficient use of energy in buildings.

Buildings are, and have always been, major sources of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2020, they represented about 44% of UK emissions, almost unchanged since 1990.[1] However, over that period the volume of emissions has halved, from 600 to 300 MtCO2e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).[2] If we were to continue to improve the energy efficiency of buildings at the same rate, we would just about reach the target.

But that is a big if. All the easy things have been done: industry has almost all gone offshore, a decade of austerity and steep rises in energy prices the last few years have resulted in sharp demand reduction. This has been painful: industrial and public services output have both been constrained, the economy is less healthy and, as a result, there is less money available for investment in the energy transition.

The amount of money that will be required to complete the task of decarbonising the building stock is extraordinary. Consider first what is needed for retrofits. A major pilot project, focusing on 45 social (smaller than average) houses during 2009–2012, achieved a 60% average reduction in CO2 emissions at an average expenditure of £85,000 each. Achieving a 100% reduction in all 26 million homes and also all the other buildings in the country (offices, hospitals, hotels, warehouses etc) might therefore cost over £4 trillion. Efficiencies and learning might – optimistically – half that figure.

However, the limiting factor is not actually money, but human resources. Based on 100 person-days per house, we would need of order 300,000 retrofitters for the next 30 years. The requirements for related manpower in the supply chain and design teams might take the number towards 500,000 – as many as work in the whole education sector.

In spite of 20 years of warning, there has been no substantial recruitment into the retrofit sector needed to get the job done. The national retrofit project has been much talked about, but is not being undertaken at the scale needed to achieve Net Zero.

New buildings must also be considered; demand for housing is already very high, creating an urgent requirement for extra resources that is in direct competition with the Net Zero project.[3]

These new buildings either replace old ones or expand the housing stock. Replacing 1% of the homes more than a century old, and 0.5% of those built in the interwar years suggests we need to replace nearly 300,000 new homes per year just to stand still. But the annual increase in population is about 1%. If we are to maintain the UK average household at around 2.35 people, we must build another 300,000 homes per year, for a total of 650,000 homes per year. for the next decade. The average rebuild or replacement cost for a house (excluding land and utilities) is about £290,000 for a two- bedroom house or £340,000 for a three-bedroom one. That means that 650,000 homes, at current prices) will cost over £160 billion per annum up to 2035, or 6–7% of GDP. If these are to be Net Zero homes, they may be around 20% more expensive.

Currently we spend less than £60 billion per year on new homes!

And even if the finance could be found, the 1.5 million workers required will not be. This is equivalent to the numbers working in the NHS. All this has to be found within existing resources.

When the whole housing sector is taken together, retrofit and new build, it is impossible on four grounds, finance, human resources, materials and public buy-in, that a Net Zero target will be achieved by 2050. Even a command economy will not be enough, as the training of the required professional and skilled trade engineers will take far too long starting from now.

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/buildings-the-achilles-heel-of-net-zero

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

No, Governor Inslee: Repeal of Washington State’s Climate Commitment Act Won’t Hurt the Climate

Washington State’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) faces the possibility of repeal this fall. Governor Jay Inslee and others claim the CCA will reduce pollution and help stop climate change. But the CCA isn’t having the slightest effect on the climate, while it is boosting the cost of living for Washington residents.

Washington’s Climate Commitment Act passed in 2021, implementing a cap and invest program designed to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. Businesses with emissions of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year must purchase allowances equal to their emissions and turn them in to state agencies. The act also established CO2 auctions, encouraging companies to trade allowances and reduce emissions.

But the CCA has helped to raise Washington State’s cost of living to amongst the highest in the nation. Gasoline and diesel prices now rank as the third highest behind Hawaii and California. The cost of emissions allowances to businesses drives up fuel, food, and utility prices for residents.

On January 16 of this year, the Washington Secretary of State certified Initiative 2117 for the ballot on November 5, 2024, having received more than 400,000 supporting signatures. Initiative 2117 would repeal the Climate Commitment Act and prevent the state from implementing cap and trade or cap and tax carbon trading programs. Governor Inslee is concerned that his signature climate change program may be struck down by the people.

When speaking in Spokane recently in defense of the Climate Commitment Act, Governor Inslee said, “ … families in Washington State are against pollution. They are against smoke coming into their neighborhoods where they can’t go out, their kids can’t go out and play. They’re against early death caused by pollution and they don’t want to remove our protection against pollution.”

However, the governor’s statements are wrong. The Climate Commitment Act strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide is an odorless, invisible gas that does not produce smoke. Nor does breathing of CO2 cause early death.

We inhale only a trace of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but continuously produce CO2 as we burn sugars in our bodies. Every time we exhale, we exhale 100 times the concentration of the CO2 that we inhaled. The governor is mistakenly talking about the effects of breathing in real pollutants such as carbon monoxide or smoke particles, which can cause people harm, and instead wrongly attributes harmful health effects to carbon dioxide.

In fact, carbon dioxide should not be called a pollutant. Along with water and oxygen, CO2 is one of the three substances essential for life. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers show that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 help the world’s food crops grow bigger and yield more food. Carbon dioxide is one compound we can put into the environment that is great for the biosphere.

The human emissions of carbon dioxide from Washington are estimated to be about 100 million metric tons per year. World CO2 human emissions are estimated at 37,000 million metric tons per year. This means that global emissions are 370 times as large as the emissions from Washington State.

In addition, human emissions of CO2 are small compared to the CO2 naturally exhausted from oceans and the biosphere. Every day, nature puts about twenty times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as human industry and removes about the same amount. Washington emissions are less than insignificant as part Earth’s climate. The Climate Commitment Act will have a negligible effect on the climate, but if not repealed, it will continue to significantly raise fuel, food, and utility prices in Washington.

Why is it that climate policies never have a measurable goal? None of our leaders can say that a given policy will reduce temperatures by so many degrees, or reduce sea level rise by so many inches, or reduce the number of storms by a tangible amount, even if added to other policies. Fighting climate change is like raising an army and never taking a hill or building a hospital and never serving a patient. Yet more and more money must be endlessly spent to serve the ideology of Climatism.

This fall, the citizens of Washington State should reject Climatism and vote in favor of the resolution to strike down the Climate Commitment Act.

https://heartland.org/opinion/no-governor-inslee-repeal-of-washington-states-climate-commitment-act-wont-hurt-the-climate/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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