Posted on 05/15/2022 4:08:41 AM PDT by MtnClimber
It’s high time that the greenies are forced to prove their case and justify the destruction their actions are causing.
The UN IPCC and associated green activist groups; Federal, state, and local entities; universities; foundations; non-profit groups; and many corporations argue that the world will be destroyed without policies designed to turn on their heads the current energy system and American economy. However, the green agenda that is designed to eradicate fossil fuels will inflict enormous economic damage on America’s ordinary citizens and overall economy—and will do the same to other countries as well. This is true even though the “climate change” models have never been fully and objectively vetted, so there is no solid evidence to justify these upheavals.
Nevertheless, American Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and, indeed, almost every federal agency and their federally funded cohorts in many state agencies are committed to decarbonization. This is true for a commitment that they admit that they do not know how to implement, as to which they cannot ascertain the final cost, and they’re unable to determined the overall consequences of their policies.
Denial Yergin, in his The New Map, explains that the current energy system took 100 years to develop. To turn it on its head within a few decades is simply not possible. He predicts that we will move towards decarbonization, though at a slower pace than currently targeted. Further he claims that the “climate change” debate is over, even if the green winners are found to be grossly wrong and trillions of dollars are wasted. But should we accept that a debate that never really took place is over?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good luck finding an attorney that is not an indoctrinated marxist. The control of the means of production is at the top of the marxist wish list.
Perhaps the easiest way to defeat these agendas is to go after the clauses, which I believe exist in statute, that they must take economic impact into account.
All you’d have to show is that both the cost of implementing a regulation directly as well as the cost of the side effects are sorely underestimated.
E.g. A state implements an HOV program predicated on a nunber of drivers using it, even though some would be stuck in slower traffic. Changes in fuel purchases (detected through gas tax) in the locality, would show an increase, not a decrease in fuel taxes.
For emissions type regulations, it should also be easy to show how they have impacted the cost of vehicles in reality compared to original estimates.
There is no such a thing as a fossil fuel
Complex, but best solution. Do a proof of concept of a city built and operated solely on alternative energy. That means NOTHING will contain fossil fuels, from plastic to furniture to medical equipment, to construction material. First occupants will be the UN. I suggest Sinai as the location, since there is a water source for desalination and year round sunshine for an endless supply of solar power.
Every company around the world can work on the project to test their technology. Based on their successes, the technology can be integrated into projects anywhere on the planet. There will be no political agenda.
As subprojects are completed, people who are working on projects can move their families there. Farmers can start to build greenhouses. Scientists can begin baselining local climate and weather patterns. STEM programs to support new technology developed for the new generation of students who will be the guardians of our future.
That’s the way this will work.
I am confused.
My statement was, “There is no such a thing as a fossil fuel”.
How does what you have stated tie into this statement?
It doesn’t. My bad.
I just watched the old movie VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA in which the Van Allen Radiation Belt catches fire and earth temps rise dramatically.
I wonder, since the promised COMING ICE AGE never appeared in the 1970s, if the psudo-scientists did not fall back on this movie and declare Global Warming the new threat.
Oh well...
Easy come...
Easy go...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.