Biden’s Climate Plans Are Unsustainable

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,594
31,674
1
Lewisville, NC
...and this from an academic, former Democrat advisor who considers himself an environmentalist


Ironically, the greatest threat to this progress—particularly in the critical realm of climate—comes not from such emerging mega-emitters as China and India, although they certainly play a role. It comes from the energy and climate initiatives promoted by the Biden White House, which are themselves unsustainable—so aggressive and unduly optimistic that they risk a backlash that would set back the cause of environmental sustainability for generations. To avert this, the administration must shift to a more pragmatic set of policies. Encouraging more natural-gas production and a moon-shot approach to fusion energy would embolden America to lead the world toward a green future.

But the administration first needs to reckon with the peril of the moment. America’s announced climate goals seek a transition to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050. This aggressive timeline is increasingly at odds with three hard realities: economic, geostrategic and political. Each sets a major hurdle for climate action, and together they expose the unsustainability of the Democratic Party’s climate agenda.

To begin with, the agenda is economically unsustainable.
According to the federal Energy Information Administration, global demand for energy will rise nearly 50% by 2050, with fossil fuels still accounting for roughly 75% of world supply. Though many Democrats insist this simply proves the urgency of making the transition, there are no economic models showing how that could occur without causing massive harm to the underlying economy. A McKinsey & Co. report shows that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would require nearly $6 trillion in new spending globally every year for the next 30 years—roughly equal to one-third of all tax receipts by every government in the world. Even if that were possible, it wouldn’t resolve the severe economic costs of energy-supply volatility throughout the transition, particularly for the poor.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,656
23,130
1
...and this from an academic, former Democrat advisor who considers himself an environmentalist


Ironically, the greatest threat to this progress—particularly in the critical realm of climate—comes not from such emerging mega-emitters as China and India, although they certainly play a role. It comes from the energy and climate initiatives promoted by the Biden White House, which are themselves unsustainable—so aggressive and unduly optimistic that they risk a backlash that would set back the cause of environmental sustainability for generations. To avert this, the administration must shift to a more pragmatic set of policies. Encouraging more natural-gas production and a moon-shot approach to fusion energy would embolden America to lead the world toward a green future.

But the administration first needs to reckon with the peril of the moment. America’s announced climate goals seek a transition to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050. This aggressive timeline is increasingly at odds with three hard realities: economic, geostrategic and political. Each sets a major hurdle for climate action, and together they expose the unsustainability of the Democratic Party’s climate agenda.

To begin with, the agenda is economically unsustainable.
According to the federal Energy Information Administration, global demand for energy will rise nearly 50% by 2050, with fossil fuels still accounting for roughly 75% of world supply. Though many Democrats insist this simply proves the urgency of making the transition, there are no economic models showing how that could occur without causing massive harm to the underlying economy. A McKinsey & Co. report shows that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would require nearly $6 trillion in new spending globally every year for the next 30 years—roughly equal to one-third of all tax receipts by every government in the world. Even if that were possible, it wouldn’t resolve the severe economic costs of energy-supply volatility throughout the transition, particularly for the poor.
This “environmental extremism” by these left wing nut jobs is total insanity and is destroying this country.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,688
8,729
1
This “environmental extremism” by these left wing nut jobs is total insanity and is destroying this country.

They don't care. Their interest is power. Always has been about power. They care most about how they appear in front of other world leaders. They always show up with some form of US sellout. They don't represent US citizens. They represent their own egos.

A sane government would actually consider what the Op posted. They either did not do this, or it's like I said. They care only about power and prestige.

They will create issues that they know are at odds with their political rivals in order to make their political party relevant in some way. But this requires keeping the population ignorant. With Education, the Media, and even corporate elites in their pockets, that's easy.

The people will remain stupid and uninformed while behaving like uneducated zombies. They will then vote for government to send a check.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,656
23,130
1
They don't care. Their interest is power. Always has been about power. They care most about how they appear in front of other world leaders. They always show up with some form of US sellout. They don't represent US citizens. They represent their own egos.

A sane government would actually consider what the Op posted. They either did not do this, or it's like I said. They care only about power and prestige.

They will create issues that they know are at odds with their political rivals in order to make their political party relevant in some way. But this requires keeping the population ignorant. With Education, the Media, and even corporate elites in their pockets, that's easy.

The people will remain stupid and uninformed while behaving like uneducated zombies. They will then vote for government to send a check.

Too many stupid and naive people support these charlatans .
 

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,594
31,674
1
Lewisville, NC
Too many stupid and naive people support these charlatans .
Just watch the Alphabet networks nightly news over the last few weeks --- stories about high temps, drought, storms, and floods -- and the reporter and anchor talking heads nearly always throw in how these are the effects of climate change.

Why, of course, everyone must know this is "settled science" and our government must take immediate steps to stop this existential threat to the planet. Really?
 

GregInPitt

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
13,388
9,605
1
Yep, and I'm hoping that gas is $7/gallon in October and November so Biden and his Lib children handlers pay a very steep price at the polls......