Monday, October 26, 2020

The Biden Family Green New Deal

Some will profit, while most people’s life, living standards and environment take a big hit

Paul Driessen

Some 90% of all US wells are now hydraulically fractured. Fracked wells in shale formations open up vast supplies of oil, natural gas and petroleum liquids that previously were locked up and inaccessible. Fracking conventional wells expands and prolongs production, leaving less energy in the ground.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, the Democrat Party and US environmentalists are determined to make climate change, the Green New Deal, and replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, battery and biofuel power the centerpiece of their foreign and domestic policies. They would ban fracking outright – or price and restrict it out of existence through a slow, painful death of a thousand regulatory cuts.

That would cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars in annual royalty and tax revenues, send energy prices soaring, and end America’s newfound status as the world’s foremost oil and gas producer.

It would also hammer environmental quality, especially in sunny and windy locations, such as Western, Midwestern and coastal states. Their fossil fuel revenues would disappear; their wind and sunshine would be exploited; their open spaces, scenic areas and wildlife habitats would be blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and warehouses filled with backup power batteries.

But some would benefit greatly – including those with financial and other interests in mining, mineral processing and manufacturing related to wind, solar and battery technologies.

Hunter Biden’s email trove and growing cascades of other evidence continue to reveal fascinating Biden Family connections to China, Russia and Ukraine: countries that would profit mightily from a US Green New Deal, because they supply most of the metals, minerals and components that are absolutely essential under any GND vision.

Many news media, social media and search engines routinely spike, censor or bury stories that could harm the Biden candidacy, sow doubt about manmade climate chaos, or undermine claims that the GND transition would be easy, affordable, ecological, sustainable and painless. It would not be.

Wind and sunshine are certainly clean and renewable. Harnessing them to power America is not.

Fossil fuels still provide 80% of US energy. In 2018, they generated 2.7 billion megawatt-hours of electricity. Another 2.7 billion MWh worth of natural gas powered factories, emergency power systems, and furnaces, ovens, stoves and hot water heaters in restaurants and homes. Cars, trucks, buses, semi-trailers, tractors, bulldozers and other vehicles consumed the equivalent of another 2 billion MWh.

That’s 7.4 billion megawatt-hours per year that the GND would have to replace! We’d also have to generate another 142 million MWh per year to charge batteries for each week of windless, cloudy days.

The more we try to do so, the more we’d have to put turbines and panels in low quality wind and solar sites, where they’d generate electricity only 15-20% of the year: 80-85% below “nameplate capacity.”

That means this transformation to an all-electric nation would require millions of onshore wind turbines, thousands of offshore turbines, billions of solar panels, millions of vehicle battery modules, billions of backup energy storage battery modules, thousands of miles of new transmission lines, millions of vehicle charging stations, tens of billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earth elements and countless other materials – and digging up hundreds of billions of tons of overburden and ores!

Even if the United States and world could somehow mine, process and smelt enough metals and minerals – and manufacture, transport and install all those turbines, panels, batteries and transmission lines – the GND would require the greatest expansion of mining, manufacturing and land use in human history.

With Democrats and Greens still adamantly opposed to mining anywhere in the USA – even though the USA likely has all those metals and minerals literally beneath our feet – America would be dependent on China, Russia and Ukraine for the critical materials that make wind turbines, solar panels and rechargeable batteries possible. US foreign and domestic policies would be held hostage.

Nearly all this mining, processing and manufacturing would require gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal ... in foreign countries ... because those operations cannot be conducted with wind, solar and battery power. Global CO2 and other emissions would increase. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would continue to rise. They would simply come from locations outside the USA.

Moreover, that overseas mining, processing and manufacturing would mostly take place under nearly nonexistent workplace safety, fair wage and child labor laws. The horrors we already see Africa’s Congo region would be minor compared to what would accompany GND demands for cobalt and other materials.

Replacing oil and gas for petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics would require importing those feed stocks or planting millions of acres in canola, soybean and other biofuel crops. The water, fertilizer, pesticide, tractor, harvester, processing and transportation requirements would be astronomical.

The wind, solar, battery and biofuel facilities would impact hundreds of millions of acres of America’s croplands, scenic areas, and plant and animal habitats. Raptors, other birds, bats, and forest, grassland and desert wildlife would suffer substantial losses and even be driven into extinction in many areas.

The GND would also mean ripping out perfectly good natural gas appliances, replacing them with electric models, installing rapid charging systems for vehicles, and upgrading household, neighborhood, state and national electrical systems to handle the extra loads. That would require still more raw materials.

Would Biden AOC & Co. require “responsible sourcing” for all GND materials and components, meaning certified compliance with all US wage, workplace safety, child labor and environmental laws?

Would they require that wind and solar companies go through an extensive, multi-year NEPA environmental review process for every industrial installation and transmission line? Demand compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean Water Act and other laws that have been strictly enforced for decades for other industrial facilities?

Or will they claim all those turbines, panels, batteries and power lines are needed to “save the planet from imminent climate cataclysms,” and thus must be exempted from wildlife and environmental laws? Will they claim killing birds, bats and other wildlife is “inadvertent” and “unintentional,” and thus should be excused or legalized – exempting even the massive slaughter associated with GND-scale installations?

Families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses accustomed to paying 7-11¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity would pay 22¢ per kWh as they already do in “green” US states – or even 35¢ a kWh as families now pay in Germany. Gasoline and natural gas prices would also skyrocket, until the GND banished those fuels. How many businesses would survive? How many jobs would disappear? How many people would have to join the ranks of those who must choose between heating and eating?

When electricity supplies cannot meet demand, or when California-style rolling blackouts hit, who would get cut off first? Politicians who imposed the GND and Deep State bureaucrats who operate it? Big Tech servers? Environmentalist groups and schools whose teacher unions backed the Biden-Harris-AOC Deal? Or innocent hospitals, factories, workers and families? Who would get to make those decisions?

If states or counties are forced to erect wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines, can they decide to meet their own needs during shortages, before exporting electricity to progressive states and cities? Could they declare themselves fossil fuel sanctuaries and refuse to close mines and power plants?

Who will design and enforce the GND income confiscation and redistribution schemes, in the name of “social, environmental and economic justice” – with much of the redistribution likely going to ruling elites and their corporate and activist allies? Do we really want to further enrich the originators of COVID?

All these issues demand open, robust debate – which too many schools and universities, news and social media outlets, corporate and political leaders, and Antifa mobs continue to censor and cancel. America deserves answers, before November 3, and before any actions are taken on any Green New Deal.

Via email

EU to pass law to change the weather, they hope

EU leaders may flatter themselves that they’re doing something that matters, but it’s wildly optimistic to think the climate could be changed – at vast expense – by passing laws based on unproven shaky theories. What planet are they on?
– – –
European Union environment ministers meet in Luxembourg on Friday to seek a deal on a landmark climate change law, but they will leave a decision on a 2030 emissions-cutting target for leaders to discuss in December, reports Yahoo News.

The climate law will form the basis for Europe’s plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions, which will reshape all sectors, from transport to heavy industry, and require hundreds of billions of euros in annual investments.

It will fix in law the EU target to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and define the rules for how future EU climate targets are decided, if new scientific evidence requires more ambitious aims.

Ministers, who take decisions by majority, will seek a deal on these parts of the law on Friday.

A decision on the most politically sensitive part of the bill – a new 2030 emissions-cutting target for the EU – will be left for EU leaders to agree, unanimously, at a meeting in December.

The law will give Brussels “the legal possibility to act when those who make promises don’t deliver on the promises,” said EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans at Friday’s meeting, which is taking place in person, despite much of the continent restricting gatherings as coronavirus infections surge anew.

The price of permits in the EU carbon market climbed by more than 5% on Friday in anticipation of the ministers’ deal. The EU’s climate targets are expected to tighten the supply of permits in the market.

Minnesota just suffered its Largest Early-Season Snowstorm in Recorded History

Global cooling

By the close of Tues, Oct 20, many Minnesotans had received a taste of what the Grand Solar Minimum has to offer, as a record-busting early-season shot of polar cold and snow blasted the Midwestern U.S. state.

As of late Tuesday evening, the Minnesota State Patrol reported that 1,100 crashes and spinouts had occurred amidst the unseasonable conditions: between 11AM and 8:30PM, there had been 493 crashes, 614 spinouts, and 22 jackknifed semi-trucks — all resulting in 48 injuries.

The wintry storm system, which dropped up to 9 inches of snow in parts of metro, has officially gone down as Minnesota’s largest early-season snowstorm in recorded history, in books dating back around 140 years.

As reported, 9 inches were reported in Lakeville; 8.9 inches in Ellsworth, Wisconsin; 8 inches in Granite Falls; 8 inches in Red Wing, 7.4 inches at MSP Airport; and 7.1 inches in Woodbury.

In addition to this being the largest early-season accumulations in history, Tuesday’s dumping was also the second largest October snowstorm on record, coming a close second to 1991’s historic Halloween blizzard.

All this fresh powder only adds to the heavy falls witnessed in MN over the past week-or-so, it also contributes to an already above average start to the Northern Hemisphere’s 2020-21 snowpack season.

And just look at what’s on course to hit starting this weekend (linked below). There’s every chance this next round of early-season snow could break the all time October record held by the historic Halloween blizzard of 1991.

The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.

Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.

Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall.

It’s Not Just Fracking

The second and final debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday, October 22 covered several concerns of interest to the American public. One of the most important issues discussed was the issue of “fracking,” which is colloquial shorthand for hydraulic fracturing – a method of extracting petroleum resources deep-seated in geological formations via high-pressure liquid blasting.

The topic was part of a larger discussion about “climate change,” energy policy and where the two candidates stand in terms of vision and approach. When the subject of fracking came up, the former vice president seemed caught in past conflicting statements – an opening which President Trump seized, and where a number of commentators and analysts have suggested Biden fumbled. As Biden attempted to clarify shifting positions on the future of fracking, the president went on to name several states where fracking – and the fossil fuel energy business writ large – constitutes a significant portion of the economy. At least one of these states – Pennsylvania – has emerged as perhaps the most pivotal state this election cycle.

Targeted messaging in energy states is critical politically, particularly when a candidate has not been clear on their position and how their approach would impact real people.

But it’s not just fracking.

The purposeful dismantling of one particular industry – or, in more palatable but deceptive parlance, “transitioning” – would result in wide-arcing circles of economic erosion. What about the truckers, and railroads who transport the oil from the fields to the refineries? Or the mechanics and machinists who service the oil-fields – or the H.R. and placement companies who help find good people to work good jobs? Or the geologists who identify and sample new fields? How about the miners, processers and transporters of silica sand – which is used as a medium in the hydraulic fracturing process – along the Mississippi River? What about the manufacturers of specialized equipment and tools – who form a part of the economy that we’re trying desperately to rebuild – and their role in the energy business? The list of affected businesses and people goes on and on.

In fact, when you start to look at how important American energy independence is – and the contribution of fracking to that independence – one quickly realizes how dependent the rest of the economy is, across all 50 states, on this entire industry. One need look no further than the global economic slowdown and its impact on an energy state like North Dakota to see what a purposeful dismantling of the energy business across the country would look like.

In any modern dynamic free market economy, one particular industry or business does not exist in a vacuum. They are interdependent, where the exchange of goods and services is both competitive and complimentary, and where other companies develop and expand to support one another and meet demand. Out of this, communities grow, roots are cemented, and livelihoods flourish. Reversing that course through the systematic elimination of a core industry – such as fossil fuel extraction – can be devastating.

And let’s be honest – “transitions” are never as easy as they’re made out to be. Fanciful are the notions that when a core industry is eliminated, everyone previously employed will immediately find a job, or that ancillary businesses can simply be re-directed to other markets in a short amount of time. Some trades might be able to shift to new ground – but only if that alternative prospect already exists and is looking to hire – and not everyone laid off will find a new gig. Even if a business transition took six months – a relatively short time – for a person out of work, that’s six months of bills, anguish, and pressure. The natural competition of business in America is tough enough – why should politicians make things more difficult by instituting policies that target parts of the economy – often arbitrarily – for “transition?”

And this is where the rubber of Washington DC policy meets the real road in America: What sounds great on paper in a government or campaign office on Pennsylvania Avenue doesn’t always play out in Pennsylvania the State. And it doesn’t play out in other states that weave together America’s energy sector – California, Alaska, New Mexico, Louisiana, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas, or Mississippi, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota – or Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio as the President suggested in the debate.

The oil and gas business has always been an extraordinarily complex, lifeblood industry that has made fortunes, built nations, driven prosperity, and determined the course of wars. For anyone who has read “The Prize”, Daniel Yergin’s monumental and outstanding Pulitzer Prize winning history of the oil industry, these facts should not be foreign. And so, when politicians suggest or hint they are open to eliminating or reducing American industries through government policy, don’t forget that with those purposeful changes come innumerable consequences for a multitude of Americans.

We all need to remember that it’s not just fracking.




No comments: