By Paul Homewood
A hilarious excerpt from a US Senate hearing on Joe Biden’s climate spending plans.
The Senator is John Kennedy, the GOP Senator for Louisiana. The guy being grilled is the EPA Administrator, Michael Regan:
[Starts at 3.49 mins in]
Comments are closed.
 | Gamecock on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
 | ralfellis on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
 | glenartney on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
| ralfellis on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
 | John Bowman on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
| ralfellis on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
 | Martin Brumby on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
 | Nigel Sherratt on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
 | It doesn't add up... on Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still… |
| Gamecock on AEP Needs To Read The CCC… |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
So much for the “science” that they keep harping on about if they cannot produce a number which we all know they cannot do because this is all smoke and mirrors.
33 years of funding of the worthless IPCC and they are no closer to finding the proof to support their demonizing of CO2 than they were when they started so the politicians just skipped the need for a scientifically credible justification and pretend it exists and carry on with the left wing agenda using lots and lots of meaningless buzz words.
The genie is out of the bottle. It is what we have known for years that this is nothing to do with any scientifically identified anthropogenic originating problem, it always was, is and will continue to be exploited as a way to force a rabid left wing political agenda on us all though fear and intimidation and yes brainwashing (children). .
If this was not so serious it would be the stuff of a black comedy.
“What do we actually get for our $3trillion?” would seem to be a simple and essential first question to logical people: the same question should be asked in the UK – the answer would be the same – smoke and mirrors and some sort of twisted virtue!
Great questioning and completely clear questions – incredible b****** answers!
Nice to see a politician prepared to challenge the bullsh*t for what it is. Why are none of the UK’s politicians prepared to put their heads above the parapet?
Well found. Well skewered by John Kennedy. I have not looked it up in Wikipedia but JK sounds like a Republican senator from the South. The US does have a masive deficit on the modernisation of its infrastructure which is the fault of successive administrations . The probelem is that the Republicans cannot stomach the cost to corporate stockholders of an increase in corporation tax which will be the cost of doing the work. The temperature issue seems to be an emotional hook on which to hang a job creation argument which itself is unconvincing. This job cretion speculation was wheeled out again on the programme on the BBC this am.
Mistake in the above. It was the programme starting at 9am
This Kennedyisn’t part of the Kennedy dynasty is he?
Ben, you are correct. Senator John Kennedy from Lousiana is not related to the Kennedys (JFK, RFK, Chappaquiddic Ted, etc.) from Massachusetts.
Regards,
Bob
I have asked my council how much their spending of council taxpayers’ money on the climate crisis and net zero will reduce global temperature (have they done a cost benefit analysis?) No answer!
You’re not alone. They don’t care because they’ve been given licence (and money) by national politicians.
The answer John Kennedy and the rest of us were looking for was ‘ none’. Regan could have saved himself from the excruciating replies.
Note to Mr Regan: the answer you were looking for was ‘none’.
I’ve written many, many times to the DT trying to get someone to make sense of the totalitarian pursuit of NZC programs. No joy. The so-called free press in this country isn’t interested in the coming impoverishment of those not in the higher echelons of society (my spell-check saved my writing ‘soviety’: would have been a serendipitous moment!!)
Rep. Kennedy is another who confuses and conflates a reduction in CO2 emissions with a reduction in atmospheric CO2 with the presumption of a lowering of global temperature. Reducing emissions does little but keep carbon stored in the ground and destroy economies… as the travel lockdowns have shown very clearly.
Sen. John Kennedy wants to know what he is getting for the taxpayers’ money. That is his job.
The proposers say it is to combat Global Warming, so he wants to know some figures.
But do they have an overall plan, so they can come to some conclusions, such as determining the overall cost and resources used as well as the projected temperature reduction.
Of course they have no answers, because the only answers they have are estimates, so not worth a fig, and even then they’d be so tiny as to be irrelevant.
How excruciatingly embarrassing. What a racket.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that most of our media are lying to us most of the time. A reckoning is long overdue.
Democratic EPA administrators have form for their ignorance in the climate debate. I recall one of Regan’s predecessors, Gina McCarthy, being similarly skewered at a congressional hearing when asked what percentage of the earth’s atmosphere comprised co2. Hardly a trick question, one would think, for the leader of an organisation then introducing a raft of legislation to limit co2 emissions. Needless to say, she was completely clueless until rescued by an aide. McCarthy now occupies the position of Biden’s ‘Climate Czar’. What with John ‘we have to get rid of all co2’ Kerry occupying the travelling climate alarmist salesman role for the current US administration, I’m sure the US public are delighted to have such a triumpherate of scientific ignorance at the helm of government policy. Unfortunately, our equivalents are equally ignorant.
McCarthy also had a secret email address in a man’s name in order to hide things from FOI requests.
Has anyone who contributes to these columns any convincing explanation for the almost unanimous media bias?
It militates not only against truth but against good (common) sense and business competitiveness.
Not a scooby! It defies logic. Possibly they’re just scared of being called a climate denier.
“Economist Julian Simon always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they‘d been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days ‘experts’ spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.” [interview with Ed Regis WIRED 1993]
Yes: collective insanity. Lemmings are well known for it.
It’s the outcome of Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” which began in the late ’60’s with Trotskyist entrism into the Labour Party, continued with the co-option of the Greens/Ecologists into the “new left” (former Communist Party) movement and has resulted in the colonisation of every major public, academic and media body in the West by said Trotskyists (and their “useful idiots”). It has nothing to do with science, “climate change” or anything else that could be put forward for rational debate. It’s about the Revolution.
Capitalism, as ever, just continues to give people what they want within the law. If that means the current madness they don’t mind.
Gramsci doesn’t explain how Marxists picked up such a profoundly anti-Marxist dogma as green blobbery on their long march. If Marx were alive today he’d be a Matt Ridleyan Rational Optimist and a keen reader of this blog. What’s needed is a Marxist diagnosis of the class nature of green ideology. Unfortunately, the good folk here who see through the nonsense are the last people to go in for sociological analysis.
The “new left” absorbed every single issue protest group (greens, gays, women, CND, civil liberties, you name it) on the assumption that they could reform their “false consciousness” and convince them that their aims could not be met within the capitalist system.
They did this after they became convinced by Gramsci and the “European Communism” movement that the old style working class couldn’t see the need for revolution because they had been bought off with pay rises and foreign holidays.
Hence “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). It’s no mystery that the good science and good sense displayed on this blog is not more widely shared. The BBC, other media, civil service, et al are not universally stupid; they are seditious.
Conversely, “capitalism” is just people buying and selling things. It’s not an ideology and has no problem adapting to this nonsense.
Since the topic was over over the pond it seems 6 media companies own all the outlets in US.
https://www.exposingtruth.com/6-media-corporations-everything-watch-hear-read/
But these 6 all get their news from Reuters which is owned by?
http://www.luckinlove.com/rothmedia.htm
lefallois:
“..just people buying and selling things.” Unless those people are living in a country like Cuba or Venezuala which favours free education and medical care, and rejects the right of a dominant power to buy them up wholesale, in which case the dominant capitalist power will ban all buying and selling of things in order to starve them into submission.
A little political realism please. Capitalism is an ideology like any other, which is not to deny its benefits. Just to point out that citing Gramsci does nothing to explain the media bias mentioned by cajwbroomhill. Even if all journalists were Trots (unlikely) it wouldn’t explain why they’ve swallowed the Green pill, which is as far from marxism as is possible.
Kennedy should have stuck with the “How much reduction in earth’s temp will we get for this colossal expenditure….” question. He was giving them a get out by asking about the amount of CO2 reduction. The two are not linked in any provable way. Presumably he’d have been happy if they’d said “A 15% reduction in CO2”, which is meaningless. These politicians haven’t got a clue about why they’re committing economic suicide.
More unbiased reporting from BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-57204325
about a chap (an ex miner) in Leeds giving up his coal fire “Their fire is being replaced with a combi-boiler, which in future, could be made to run on cleaner hydrogen gas”
“BBC Radio 5 Live launches a project to ask how a major city reduces its carbon emissions..” – Leeds: city on a mission
The Carbon Trust have just issued their “Flexibility in GB report” on their route to “net-zero”. A 201 page “fantasy-glossy” that made me think of Ka the python’s “Trust in me….” It is full of modelled outputs that are so glossy that they are not to be questioned.
Apparently by 2050 we will have 228 GW generation capacity mainly offshore wind (130 GW at 55% Capacity factor), and loads of clever batteries and hydrogen which will save us £ 16.7 b / year compared with some scenario. We’ll also have 220 GW of CCGTs for the bad days when the wind does not blow: that is about £220 b worth of plant that works for a few days per year. I’d guess that it was written by believing-scientists, for believing-scientists: certainly not engineers!
According to Julia Hing’s forward “the race to achieve net zero is on” and there will be “some stress on the energy system in the transition”.
Frightening that no one asks the costs of this nonsense or whether any benefits thatwill accrue from the madness.
We could do with a Senator Kennedy here!
Jack
I would like to use dome of your stats. above in objecting to 2 more windfarms to be added to the existing arrays off the Norfolk Coast. What figure would be an acceptable approximation of the overall installed off-shore capacity and what is the approx. net output on an annualised bases, please? The 2 page public notice in The Times on 28th April refers a proposed generating capacity of the Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon extensions as 100Mw each. At least they did not give the usual wild guess about xx,000 households which will be serviced by the new installations.
That report is a projection of a possible future.
Actual current stats can be found here
https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors
Total capacity seems to be 9.2 GW and average capacity factor comes at 42%, giving an annual generation of 33.85 TWh.
Although there are other sources that claim that total offshore capacity is 10 GW, 10.4 GW or even 11 GW.
The costs are around 130-150 per MWh.
120 GW of offshore wind is $780bn, 132 GW of gas is $130bn more, and 80GW/320GWh of batteries is another $96bn, just in overnight capital costs. Batteries will wear out in 10 years, wind turbines in 20, optimistically, CCGT will probably last 40. That already adds up to $52bn/year, excluding o&m and fuel. Then there’s 125GW of hydrogen production capacity (in the hybrid heating scenario) and 211GW/895GWh of thermal storage, on which it’s hard to put a price on. And finally there’s some truly mythical beasts like 20 GW interconnectors importing nonexistent power from Europe, and energy rationing schemes like V2G and DSR. So they are probably not wrong to estimate the total cost in the range of £88-124bn annually. That will accrue to 3 trillion dollars in just 20 years by the way.
Thanks, Sobaken, I’d almost lost the will to live by page 5, (Julia Kings drivelling intro). The report claims massive “savings” compared with some totally unclear option. It is frightening what fools can do with spreadsheets and “models” then get the output past so-called peer reviewers.
Sobaken, your response is greatly appreciated.. I’m a bit worried about your mythical beasts. They seem to be supplying 11%-12% to the UK recently from France, Belgium and the Netherlands a according to Gridwatch.. There are many commentators among us who are on the ball regarding sources , physics and stats generally. I am repeating myself but I still; think that a handbook compiled by ‘us’ is long overdue with information such as that which you have kindly supplied and a collection of facts, graphs ( with clear attribution) and explanations which, with Paul’s guidance, could be our combined efforts. The distribution of such a document would be fairly straightforward and I would be glad to meet some of the cost of production and get the recipeints’ list assembled. Currently the BBC seem to be open to the truth in view of he recent debacle in which R. Harrabin seems to have no part — at least.
Foundations were made ‘tax exempt’ in the U.S. as ‘charitable’ organisations by the Revenue Act of 1917. This enabled the wealthiest people on Earth to fund their various social engineering projects without the need to pay any income tax. Income tax is only for the little people.
So climate change is planned and acted out over the long game. Over generations if necessary.
Money is never an issue.
https://in-this-together.com/who-are-the-new-world-order-a-brief-history/
Michael Regan:
Basically Senator (John Kennedy), we will implement a jobs scheme on the back of saying it will lower our CO2 emissions, thereby the government’s new powers will allow them to exchange everything you got for nothing you want.
This is what ‘Build Back Better’ means.
~~~~~~
Note most of Europe and the UK has already implemented, or are in process to implement, such statues to cripple their industrial base while causing the necessary social havoc.
Haven’t laughed so much for ages 🙂
Thanks for posting the video, Paul. That was entertaining.
Regards,
Bob