Does anyone realize just how insane the administration’s energy policy is?  The industrialized world runs on energy; and reliable energy is essential for most activities of modern society because without energy nothing happens.  And perhaps the most cogent phrase I’ve ever heard on the matter is, “its use or consumption is generally taken as an index of standard of living.” Bingo!

It stands to reason then, that whoever controls the most energy sources have a distinct advantage over those who do not.  It follows then that an energy-rich nation should be able to provide both a higher standard of living and more opportunity for its citizens when contrasted with nations not as energy rich.  It also stands to reason that wise leadership would want to have access to as much reliable energy as possible.

The United States has more exploitable gas and oil in the ground than any nation on earth. Meanwhile, our #1 competitor and ideological adversary China, isn’t as rich in fossil fuels (save for coal) and get much of its energy from Russia and other sources.  It’s a win-win for both because Russia makes up for the energy revenues it lost after invading Ukraine and the Chinese get the much-needed oil and coal at bargain basement prices.

During the Trump years America was energy independent, but the Biden administration squandered that advantage because he wants to go green without ever defining what going green entails.  He’ll likely get away with the canard because an incurious media does its best to ensure the gullible understand it’s about “saving the planet.”

Our leaders promote windmills and solar panels that are made in China.  But one of the problems with these so-called “renewables” is they aren’t really renewable when one considers that 500,000 pounds of earth must be moved to manufacture just one (1) EV car battery.

To illustrate the magnitude of this folly if we multiply the amount of earth that’s moved for just one EV battery (500,000 pounds per) by the number of vehicles in the world (1.47 billion) we get roughly 37 trillion tons of earth that must be moved to put an EV battery in every vehicle on earth.   So, allow me to ask, have you ever heard a greenie talk about that carbon footprint?  Taking this a step further, even if that were logistically possible, it’s not hard to figure out where all the materials for “green energy” would come from because China controls roughly 90% of the precious metals used in solar panels and wind turbines.

Exacerbating matter; there is not an environmentally sound way to recycle either batteries or windmill blades.  The greenies like John Kerry will talk about saving the planet and keeping global temperatures below such & such, which is pure nonsense!

I tire of trying to refute the “99% of UN scientists say…”  argument because greenies will not listen; you may as well argue with a can of tuna.  But I also use their intractability to have some fun.  Sometimes I’ll ask a greenie if he or she believes the ocean levels are rising.  And when they say, “Of course it is,” I respond with, “Why then, do you suppose Barack & Michelle Obama bought two multi-million-dollar ocean-front properties, one on Oahu and a second one on Martha’s Vineyard?” – the reactions of the greenies are priceless!  And if you really want to get under a greenie’s skin, ask them to tell you what the ideal temperature of planet earth is, and during what geologic period it occurred.  BTW, regarding the Obamas Martha’s Vineyard mansion, they equipped it a 2,500-gallon industrial propane tank—you can’t make this stuff up.

The #1 question every American should be asking themselves is, if we’re capable of energy independence why is the Biden administration knowingly putting us on a path where we will eventually become dependent upon our primary economic competitor and geopolitical adversary? This is insanity!

America is at a crossroads.  And while the green movement has made enormous inroads in our society it is nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris climate accords because A) the Accords are voluntary & unenforceable and B) two of the three largest emitters of carbon, China, and India, aren’t interested in controlling their emissions.  As the expression goes, “Actions speak louder than words” and our Chinese friends have built more than 500 new coal-fired power plants in the last year alone, each with an expected useful life of 35-40 years–so what does that tell you?

So, here’s a novel idea – the world’s climate has been changing for 4 ½ billion years and my guess is it’s going to continue to do so whether we like it or not.  And since real-life science does not know the extent of man’s influence on climate, nor what if anything we can realistically do about it, wouldn’t it make sense to have a realistic transition plan with those two facts in mind before we destroy our economy?

There is not a scientist alive that can tell us that if we do A, B will occur.  For example, if the world reduced its carbon emissions by 50% in 2023, what effect would that have upon the climate, and in what time frame?  If a nation is going to bet trillions of dollars on unproven energy, wouldn’t it be smart to know the answer to that question? Meanwhile you won’t get anyone in the green movement to answer it for the simple reason they can’t!

There’s an old saying, as one door closes, another opens.  So, for a moment, let’s suppose the climate alarmists are right and the planet warms to the point of changing whole regions of the earth as has been predicted.  Doesn’t it seem reasonable then that the farmland that was turned into desert due to climate change will be replaced by frozen tundra that turning into farmland?

I realize this is a long blog—almost a rant, but this climate change nonsense has about as much veracity as did the Russian collusion hoax.

Quote of the day: “The appetite for environmental purity in general is high only when its true costs are hidden — or when such costs are supposedly going to be borne by greedy billionaires.”—Richard Morrison