Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

6 Truths About The Environment The Biden Administration Would Like To Censor
The Federalist ^ | 06/22/2022 | Elie McCue

Posted on 06/22/2022 10:45:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy took left-wing censorship a step further by proposing tech companies must shut down conversations that challenge the administration’s narrative on energy last Thursday.

“The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation,” McCarthy said in an interview with Axios.

Let’s play along with McCarthy’s hypothetical in which “disinformation” means the facts and opinions not specifically spoon-fed to Americans by the government. Here are six truths about the environment that the Biden administration would probably censor.

1. The Green New Deal could harm the environment.

The left’s plan to employ “WWII-type mobilization to address the grave threat posed by climate change” is not only too radical to garner widespread support, but also introduces problems for the ecosystem. Even put aside the $5 trillion price tag that switching from coal and nuclear to 100 percent renewable energy would cost.

Policies that would drastically reduce production of fossil fuels domestically would not stop consumption of these fuels globally. Alternatively, production of these fossil fuels will continue to happen in places where standards are not as high as in the United States, resulting in more toxins being released into the environment.

In addition, so-called “green energy” requires rare earths and other components that currently are controlled by countries that destroy the environment for political and economic gain, such as China. Wind farm components and electric car batteries contain many major toxins and require huge amounts of energy to assemble and put online, while providing low-quality energy in return.

2. A mass shift towards low-gas cars is only immediately feasible for the rich, and never for transportation.

Electric vehicles (EVs) are around $10,000 more expensive than the average car, and the costs don’t stop there. Installation of an at-home charging station can cost anywhere between $300 for extremely basic charging hardware to $35,000 for more advanced chargers. Additional costs also include added costs to household electrical bills, special EV permits, and special renovation costs.

And where do unthinking environmentalists expect the electricity generation to fuel these cars comes from? Sometimes coal, sometimes gas. Certainly not reliably from wind farms.

While Biden claims “the typical driver will save $80 a month” when switching from driving a gas car to an EV, his statement neglects the high costs of purchase and upkeep of EVs that make them an unrealistic choice for most Americans. It also ignores that electric work trucks, farm vehicles, semi trailers, and the like are completely unfeasible. Even if they were to be mass-engineered in the future, their components run into all the energy and rare earths problems of other EVs.

What “green” energy really means is “low energy.” And a low-energy society is a poverty-stricken one.

3. Not all fracking is detrimental.

Fracking natural gas as a form of fossil fuels is a way in which America has harnessed our natural resources without expelling excessive carbon into the atmosphere. It has also helped stimulate our economy by producing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry.

However, President Biden has promised time and time again to eliminate fracking and plans to eradicate fossil fuels in a costly switch to completely “clean” energy.

4. Chemical abortions introduce hazardous waste into water systems.

At-home abortions that chemically starve, disintegrate, and expel unborn babies from their mother’s wombs have environmental repercussions in addition to their obvious moral problems and health risks. In the final stage of the abortion in which the broken-down flesh and bone of the unborn baby are expelled from the womb, the pro-aborts at Planned Parenthood tell women to treat the remains as a “heavy, crampy period” and flush them down the toilet.

Students For Life President Kristan Hawkins notes that, with chemical abortions making up nearly 40 percent of all abortions, there is rising concern over the hazards flushing human remains introduces into our water systems.

With the FDA’s decision to allow abortion pills to be mailed, this environmental side effect of the chemical abortion pill would surely get silenced.

5. Intermittent energy is not ready to replace fossil fuels.

Around 1.2 million megawatts of wind and solar power have been installed over the past 10 years, but the world still runs on 80 percent fossil fuels. Why? It’s greatly due to the unreliability of intermittent energy forms.

Consider the many factors that affect the capacity of energy these renewable resources are actually able to produce: inconsistent wind, angle and power of the sun, and other factors. While those 1.2 megawatts have been installed, only a fraction have been actually produced by these renewable sources.

As Biden promises a complete switch to renewable energy sources, the reality is that these sources are not as reliable as fossil fuels and the complete replacement of fossil fuels with “green energy” will have devastating effects on our country and the world. A low-energy economy means more hungry Americans, worse medical care, worse education, and more.

6. Disposable masks are toxic for the environment.

The number of masks produced since the start of Covid-19 is well into the tens of billions, and many of them have found their way into our oceans. Harmful toxins such as lead, copper, and antimony were found to be released from these masks when coming in contact with water. On top of all that, it is estimated that it will take about 450 years for this wave of discarded face masks to degrade.

This fact does not bode well with the Biden administration’s perpetuation of Covid panic, most recently with the claim that one-third of Americans are in areas experiencing a high volume of cases. Despite their admission that this is not as dire as the omicron variant, their call to Americans to continue masking up only sustains the environmental harms from masks.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0wrongforum; bloggers; censorship; climatechange; climatechangehoax; environment; fossilfuels; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greenenergy; newsforumabuse; notnews; stoppostinginnews

1 posted on 06/22/2022 10:45:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gina McCarthy is just another EPA mini-MARXIST that began with Democratic Socialist Carol Browner and her successor. Obama’s Marxists.

McCarthy is just nastier and would make a great Green Commizar under a hardcore communist dictatorship.


2 posted on 06/23/2022 1:03:06 AM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper (Figures )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nobody is arguing against the need to transition from fossil fuels, but the technology is slow to develop and perfect and the supply of fossil fuels, albeit finite, is in no danger of running out anytime soon.

The problem is politicians, especially the ones on the Left. They are attempting to push unrealistic solutions in an unrealistic timeframe without considering the potential detrimental effects of doing so.

No politician is ever rewarded by their base for delivering incremental results, so they have to speed things up and use apocalyptic rhetoric and draconian measures.


3 posted on 06/23/2022 2:33:58 AM PDT by Apparatchik (If you find yourself in a confusing situation, simply laugh knowingly and walk away - Jim Ignatowski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ll add some more:

- A lot of “green” energy components such as solar panels, lithium batteries and windmills are not only extremely environmentally and financially costly to produce, they all have a limited service life. After their relatively short service lives they are literally TOXIC WASTE. So now comes the expense of disassembling them for their components which could be recycled or the cheaper option of burying them in a landfill somewhere but did I mention this is toxic waste? Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of being supposedly more “green” to begin with?

- pushing energy intensive industries (metal smelting for example) to 3rd world countries with less technology and less efficient means of production and much lower environmental standards is not a net win for the environment. In fact, its a net loss for the environment since more pollution is created for the same level of consumption. It may make very shallow and ignorant virtue signalers in this country feel good about themselves for lowering carbon emissions in this country, but that’s just a shell game. The same products are being produced and consumed. Its just happening elsewhere.

- Along the same vein, why is it better for the environment to pump a barrel of oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria or Venezuela all of which have dirtier processes and lower environmental standards than we do AND then ship that barrel of oil halfway around the world (burning oil to do so) rather than pumping that barrel of oil out of the ground here in the US? Its one atmosphere. Ergo a ton of carbon (if you believe its a pollutant) pumped into the atmosphere in Nigeria does every bit as much harm as that ton of carbon pumped into the atmosphere in the US. Again, this is just a virtue signaling shell game. That barrel of oil is still being consumed. Its not only more expensive, its NOT a net “win” for the environment.

- how can you possibly be serious about the whole carbon thing yet reject nuclear energy which produces zero carbon and which produces large amounts of energy reliably - unlike wind and solar? You can’t. You not serious if you do not incorporate nuclear energy into the mix.

- having done consulting work for energy companies....remember when calculating the supposed “savings” from “green” sources like wind and solar, you must include secondary costs such as having to beam that energy down expensive power lines which you are going to have to install. Remember you lose a percentage of the energy you beam down those power lines. Remember you have to have 100% backup capacity on standby at all times (that invariably means a coal fired power plant sitting there waiting to be fired up). When you include the cost to build all of this...the windmills/solar panels, the extra power lines, the entire power plant you must have on standby at all times, and the cost to recycle/dispose of these things when they wear out, you are spending a lot of extra money and you are causing a lot of environmental damage. You’d have been a lot better off on both fronts had you just used coal or natural gas or nuclear.


4 posted on 06/23/2022 3:08:25 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

“ It may make very shallow and ignorant virtue signalers in this country feel good about themselves for lowering carbon emissions in this country, but that’s just a shell game.”

Your entire post was well thought, concise and to the effing point. This sentence above describes so many to a tee. That sentiment seems to fit the way leftards live their pathetic lives.


5 posted on 06/23/2022 3:33:59 AM PDT by bigfootbob (Arm Up and Carry On!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

Good post, thank you.


6 posted on 06/23/2022 3:55:40 AM PDT by Rusty0604 (" When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." -Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Well done.

I would add the additional environmental and fiscal costs of replacing the batteries for EVs which will occur once or more in the lives of those vehicles. $15,000 -$25,000 each plus the problems of disposal of the components of those old batteries.

And once they have mandated a majority of EVs, people won't have the ability to move about for any significant ranges, so people will be limited in commuting distances, traveling independently, moving at will. It's all about control of the populace.

The whole "Green" thing is a Leftist ploy to control/inhibit the petroleum industry, which is the largest capitalist force in the world.

Without oil, a country cannot fight a war, or produce/transport/preserve food inexpensively, or move people any great distances, keep people warm on the winter, etc.,etc.

Damn lying Marxists.

7 posted on 06/23/2022 4:52:33 AM PDT by Chainmail (Harrassment, to be effective, must be continuous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

With EV’s you simply turn off the electricity and everything comes to a stand still. You can’t even make a molotov cocktail out of any extra fuel you may have.


8 posted on 06/23/2022 6:01:22 AM PDT by Neverlift (When someone says "you just can't make this stuff up" odds are good, somebody did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson