Just saw his latest commercial. It says he will end climate change. That should be interesting.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/13/how-bloomberg-would-tackle-climate-change-084498
It calls for replacing all coal plants with clean power plants by 2030, according to a fact sheet, and would aim to get 80 percent of U.S. electricity from clean sources by 2028.
How would it work?
"Bloomberg would set stringent emissions and pollution limits that would force the closure of not only coal-fired power plants but also those using natural gas. A Bloomberg administration would expedite clean energy and electricity transmission site permitting, quadruple to $25 billion annually federal funding for clean energy research, expand solar and wind tax credits and create tax incentives for battery storage and hydrogen fuel technology."
To believe this, one would have to be totally ignorant of the physical laws of the real world, especially those that relate to energy production. This is a complete fairly tale and off by such a wide margin from reality that there is no way that he can possibly believe it. He just can't be that dumb. The only thing that makes sense is that he realizes that to compete with the other dems, he has to play their game..........making stuff up about the future being worse and worse and having magical solutions that promise more and more.
We have all heard about the (fake)apocalypse to the planet in the year 2030 if we don't cut back emissions by then.
I can almost promise you that the planet will be even greener in 2030 if climate change and increasing CO2 continue like they have been (best weather and climate for life on this greening planet in the last 1,000 years).
I can absolutely promise you that there be no apocalypse from the fake climate emergency(its a climate optimum).
We should note that Bloomberg is telling us that his ludicrous, impossible plan will fix most of the fake climate crisis by 2028(2 years earlier than the other ludicrous, impossible plans proposed by the other dems he is trying to outdo)"
The other dem plans will cost double digit or more trillions and they acknowledge much of this.
The cost of Bloomberg's plan?
The only figure in the plan is the $25 billion dedicated to R&D — which would be a tiny fraction of what the plan's total cost.
How would he pay for it?
A Bloomberg administration would halt all subsidies for fossil fuel development, which it says cost “billions of dollars.” No other funding source is mentioned. "
I guess he understands the rules well about running for the democratic nomination for president in 2020. Who ever can make up the most extreme scenarios and make the most impossible promises wins the nomination. BS is part of politics but the American people are not dumb enough to fall for this amount of BS.
Bloomberg's world of stupid that also eliminates natural gas production ignores this:
Another secret about fossil fuels
Started by metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 10:55 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
The increase in crop yields and world food production from the beneficial global warming and increasing CO2 is estimated to be close to 25%.
The increase in crop yields from fertilizer produced with natural gas is probably at least that much and with corn it's responsible for probably more than 50% of the increase in production.
If we were to eliminate natural gas produced fertilizer, within 3 years, there would likely be at least a billion people that starved to death. Food prices would at least triple as we rationed the widespread crop shortages. Ironically, we would need to cut down more forests and expand agriculture much more rapidly to make up for the yield deficits.
Another interesting fact. If we were able to turn back the CO2 and global temperature clock to 100 years ago........down 1 Deg. C and CO2 back down from 410 parts per million to under 300 ppm , this would also cut world food production by 25% and result in the above, human starvation scenario.
The way that this planet will be able to feed 10 billion people by the end of this century is by continuing the beneficial warming and massively beneficial, increasing CO2 and continue to maximize our use of natural gas produced fertilizers.
We live in a world where we are being told that up is down and down is up to perpetrate schemes like the Climate Accord which is entirely designed to impose global socialism and would do nothing to affect the climate.
Even if doing what Bloomberg suggests wasn't horribly counterproductive(starving over a billion people and depriving them of energy to power their world) for the human race and we actually wanted this..............what he proposes is impossible.
Renewable energy: When can it replace fossil fuels? August 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/35846/
The information from that discussion is from the experts in the energy industry, including the EIA here in the US. The disconnect between what they show factually and what the dems and global socialists/UN are saying with words(some trying to scare us about a fake climate crisis with schemes like using a 16 year old climate emergency high priestess of climate religion/cult) is so profoundly and monumentally wide that its mind boggling that such a thing can exist in this world where we can access accurate information about anything by spending a bit of time doing our own research.
Don't have the time to do all that?
That's ok, as an atmospheric scientist, I spent thousands of hours doing the research for you..........
Climate Reality discussions
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
BTW,
I'm a PRACTICING environmentalist. I had the heat turned off in our house until a short while ago(like I always do when my wife is at work). The temperature was 54 when I turned it on to warm the house for her. The highest I ever set it at is 64 degrees, even when she is here.
WOW! 54 inside. My wife would be upset. She's freezing at 68.
We actually have a huge house(6,000 sq feet) with 3 furnaces.
The one heating the 2nd/3rd floor is always off(except my son is staying with us for awhile and now its at 59 for him but heat from the 1st floor rising usually does most of the work heating there).
The main furnace for the basement and 1st floor is the one that I turn off or as low as 50 when Deb is at work.
The 3rd one is in our bedroom, which I turn down to 45 during the day and heat to 62 at night.
Over a decade ago, before I started turning down the heat this low, we had a couple of Winter, monthly bills over $1,000. Ouch!
This last month was $353.95 which was high for the 3 of us and lack of heat but there was some cold during that period. It's been coming in at $250 or less since the end of last Winter.
I wear my Winter jacket and sometimes an extra pair of wool pants during the cold spells.
One year, I let it get down into the 40's and it damaged her tropical plants, so I know that 50 is the downside limit.
In the Summer, the AC is NEVER on when Deb is not here. She is not happy if I forget to turn it on an hour before she gets home and its set at 76 for the lowest then. You seriously get used to it.
We keep the bedroom at 68 in the Summer though. We don't want to mess up being able to get restorative sleep and its a small room.
We are looking forward to downsizing very much!
Not quite your size, but we have 4200 sq ft with three furnaces. We let it cool down to 62 at night and never higher than 68 during the day. Of course, here in the south, my bill has never been over 200. Summer cooling is where we get hit, but when home, we're at the pool most of the daylight hours and the house is at about 80. We cool to 74 at night