Overcoming the Green Religion


The Center of the American Experiment has done a comprehensive study finding that a 50% renewable goal is simply not a feasible goal for Minnesota, and the center’s president, John Hinderaker, summarizes some of the findings on PowerLine.  Basically, the technology isn’t there, and the costs aren’t reasonable, considering that:

Greenies will tell us, of course, that $80.2 billion, a declining economy and tens of thousands of jobs lost are a small price to pay to save the planet. But in fact, the reduction in CO2 emissions would be infinitesimal. Using the Obama administration’s highly questionable assumptions, achieving the 50% renewable target would reduce the Earth’s average temperature by 0.0006 degree Centigrade by 2100–an amount that is far too small to detect with even the most sophisticated equipment.

Liberals don’t actually believe that global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is an “existential threat” to mankind, as they like to say. If they really believed it, they would be campaigning to invade China and India, or to bomb their hundreds (if not thousands) of coal-fired power plants from the air. But I think that we can all agree that reducing global temperatures by 0.0006 of one degree isn’t saving anything.

Please consider a voluntary, tax-deductible subscription to keep the Current growing and free.

Of course, if climate change really were the target of these policies — rather than less existential considerations like virtue signalling, socialism, and crony capitalism — advocates would be advocating to get the West over its fear of nuclear power.  (Although, we should make some allowance, on this count, because even if it would solve the problem, cult-like environmentalists tend to see nuclear technology as a Dark Power in opposition to the Light Power of wind and sun and trees and furry animals.)

Be that as it may, readers would do well to read through Hinderaker’s list of findings, if only for the reminder that these adventures in green virtue really do have harmful effects on economies and families.

  • D. S. Crockett

    My response to Senator Reed who sent me an email touting the need for green energy:
    Dear Senator Reed:
    I live in an all-electric building. Our electric costs are already
    unaffordable. Please stop this green nonsense.before you put us all on
    Medicaid. Rhody cannot afford green energy unless you want to reduce the
    Rhode Island population to zero. Stop reiterating the DNC talking points
    and do what’s best for Rhode Islanders – lower energy cost not increase
    Thank you,

    • Christopher C. Reed

      Pound sand, peon.
      /s/Senator Reed
      (no relation)

      • Rhett Hardwick

        The answer is simple and obvious, get yourself on a “donator’s list”. I’ve seen judgeships go for as little as $500.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    “an amount that is far too small to detect with even the most sophisticated equipment.” This never bothers the government. A friend was recently denied use of his well water because it contained 2 parts per billion of something, rather than the 1 part per billion allowed. Show me the machine that can measure that.

    I pay cartage for two residential dumpsters in Mass, 40% cheaper privately than the city/Waste Management. But still creeping up steadily. I believe they must claim to recycle, but I doubt it. They explain that Mass is down to one land fill, and no effort is being made to find another. That may mean cartage to Cow Hampshire. I had an uncle with a pig farm near Norfolk, VA. He “bought” the garbage from the Navy base to feed the hogs. Can that still be done? He made a small profit on the stainless flatware the Navy threw in the garbage. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but worth salvaging.

    I am told that PA, and a few other states are creating landfills along the interstates. These are converted to sound barriers. Since the sound barriers they are putting up along 95 in Mass are well over a million a mile, this seems worth thinking about.

  • ShannonEntropy

    Back in the 70’s all the libtards were screaming about


    Now these same self-professed “experts” insist that Global Warming is “settled science” Dat-so ?? https://www.climatedepot.com/

    So obviously they’re lying about that. So anyone with more brain cells than God gave a turnip knows the whole “Global Warming” scam is just a buncha bull carp

    • Rhett Hardwick

      I remember that, and the Newsweek cover that went with it. I cannot presently recall the name but the chief proponent was the same “NASA Scientist” who was later constantly quoted in favor of “Global Warming”.

      I can also remember my kid being cautioned by her teachers not to eat at MacDonald’s because they were “destroying the rain forest”. I remember asking the teacher “which rain forest” she was amazed to discover there was more than one.

  • Merle The Monster

    Looks to be a circle jerk with all the usual suspects


  • BasicCaruso

    Meanwhile, back on planet Earth…

    “Climate change could make insurance too expensive for most people – report”

    Insurers have warned that climate change could make cover for ordinary people unaffordable after the world’s largest reinsurance firm blamed global warming for $24bn (£18bn) of losses in the Californian wildfires.

    Ernst Rauch, Munich Re’s chief climatologist, told the Guardian that the costs could soon be widely felt, with premium rises already under discussion with clients holding asset concentrations in vulnerable parts of the state.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      I wonder if they may not be looking to escape liability under the usual “act of god clause”.

    • Joe Smith

      About 84 percent of wildfires in the USA are started by people, according to a comprehensive study in 2017 published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

      Eliminate people, eliminate most of those fire losses..

      Stop building in flood prone areas (and then bailing them out)..that’s been an issue for years with or without any “climate change” issues.