The democrats, having appeared to be on the verge of losing on their Climate Bill, renamed the same bill the "Inflation fighting bill" because Americans are most concerned (and for good reason) with inflation.
Reality is this is the inflation CAUSING bill.
This is what these dishonest people do.
They manufacture a fake world and sell that to the people to get their counterproductive, self serving political agenda passed.
Just like them renaming the current scientific Climate Optimum for life on this planet from slight beneficial warming and the increase in the beneficial gas, CO2 a political Climate Crisis based on junk science and DISinformation.
If what they were selling was the truth........they wouldn't have to name it the complete opposite of what it is/does.
Actually I think the Dems were on their game
Changing the name and then having it pass with a one vote majority takes some smarts
Even if their motive was scrapping the bottom of the barrel
It worked and that is what politics is all about
Winners and losers
Tax payer be dammed
Thanks Wayne,
That view requires the observer to place a higher value on cleverness and scheming than they do on truth/honesty and integrity.
The later will always define moderator messages here.
No need for a long winded explanation….objective truth/honestly and integrity speak loudly to those who want to hear it.
Perhaps Wayne you could comment on what the Canadian government is doing to your farmers about nitrogen?
Wonderful point cutworm!
It's mind boggling the way that they have twisted interpretations of science and environmentalism using DISinformation and fake crisis's to push their political agenda.
Here's the crazy situation in Canada.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86882/#87070
I have no expectation that sanity and authentic science will return in the near future as this fake climate crisis choo choo train left the station over a decade ago and there's too much to be gained by using junk science and DISinformation to push anti green energy, anti environmental energy that tears up the earth to get the minerals and destroys the environment with millions of wind turbines..........that turn into junk and have to be replaced every 25 years.
The sun and wind may be renewable but not the parts and and metals that make wind turbines up...........that only last 25 years, then go into the landfill.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-materials-are-used-make-wind-turbines
To compliment the dems at being smart with this fraudulent bill would be like complimenting the terrorists on 9-11 because they pulled off a brilliant scheme that accomplished it's goal.
So, as seen in the figure below provided by Lomborg, we get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009°F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.
At that rate, simple math (see Excel sheet below) suggests the amount of money required to achieve the much desired 1.5°C (2.7°F) reduction in temperature using the best case reduction of 0.028°F would be $38,571,428,571,428 or approximately 39 Trillion dollars. The worst-case temperature reduction of 0.0009°F would cost a staggering 1,200,000,000,000,000 dollars or ONE QUADRILLION TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS.
cost-of-temp-reduction.xlsxDownload
To put that number in perspective, according to the World Bank, the 2020 world economy in U.S. dollars was approximately $84.7 trillion. Assuming it would actually work, to have a meaningful effect on climate, the world would have to spend about half the global annual economy for the best-case scenario. If you think inflation is bad now, just wait for those sorts of numbers.
The worst-case scenario is out of reach of world wealth.
President Biden had this to say:
Now, let me be clear: This bill would be the most significant legislation in history to tackle the climate crisis and improve our energy security right away. And it’ll give us a tool to meet the climate goals that are set — that we’ve agreed to — by cutting emissions and accelerating clean energy.
There are just no words to describe this sort of disconnect between believing you’re a climate superhero and climate reality, especially when you’re a Nobel winning economist. Kudos to WSJ and Lomborg for pointing out the climate folly of the “Inflation Reduction Act.”
Mike Maguire
August 11, 2022 9:17 pm
“For several years now, advocates of “decarbonizing” our energy system, along with promoters of wind and solar energy, have claimed that the cost of electricity from the wind and sun was dropping rapidly and either already was, or soon would be, less than the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil fuels. These claims are generally based on a metric called the “Levelized Cost of Energy,” which is designed to seem sophisticated to the uninitiated, but in the real world is completely misleading because it omits the largest costs of a system where most generation comes from intermittent sources. The large omitted costs are those for storage (batteries) and transmission. But as we now careen recklessly down the road to zero emissions, how much will these omitted costs really amount to?
A guy named Ken Gregory has recently (December 20, 2021, updated January 10, 2022) come out with a Report at a Canadian website called Friends of Science with the title “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.” A somewhat abbreviated version of Gregory’s Report has also appeared at Watts Up With That here. Gregory provides a tentative number for the additional storage costs that could be necessary for full electrification of the United States system, with all current fossil fuel generation replaced by wind and solar. That number is $433 trillion. Since the current U.S. annual GDP is about $21 trillion, you will recognize that the $433 trillion represents more than 20 times full U.S. annual GDP. In the post I will give some reasons why Gregory may even be underestimating what the cost would ultimately prove to be.”