Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

Biden-Sanders climate plan:

- unscientifically blames climate change for flood, storm, & fire, damage

- would raise energy prices & increase unemployment

- would kill off nuclear, largest source of clean nrg

- would increase killing of bald eagles & whooping cranes

THREAD

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1280964109098455043

Climate change is not making disasters worse. How could it be? *Disasters aren't getting worse.* They are getting better. Deaths from disasters has declined 90+%. Costs of disasters not rising, when one accounts for rising wealth. Just look at Miami Beach

environmentalprogress.org/apocalypse-nev…

Both the IPCC & a major new study for the leading journal, Environmental Hazards, finds “little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales can be attributed to human-caused changes in climate"

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

environmentalprogress.org/apocalypse-nev…

The entire first paragraph of the Biden-Sanders climate plan is total and utter pseudoscience, on par with astrology and the belief that wifi and 5G are giving us cancer

The document literally claims that dams failed in Michigan because of climate change.

Biden-Sanders plan calls for massive expansion of solar and wind, which increased energy costs

- 6x more in Calif. than in rest of US

- 50% in Germany over last decade

- by $125 *BILLION* in US states with renewable energy standards, according to Univ. of Chicago study

Nuclear-heavy France generates electricity that is 10x less CO2-intensive than Germany for nearly half the cost

But Biden-Sanders climate plan would kill off nuclear energy, which is 55% of zero-emissions energy

Thus B-S climate plan is not about reducing emissions or climate

The Biden Climate Plan falsely claims investing "tens of billions" into energy efficiency will pay for itself

But the last time the government did this, "the upfront investment costs [were] about twice the actual energy savings," according to major study

academic.oup.com/qje/article-ab…

Powering the US on 100% percent renewables would increase the amount of land required for energy from 0.5% today to 25-50%, according to the largest study to date, by Vaclav Smil, the widely respected analyst

amazon.com/Power-Density-…

Massively expanding industrial wind turbines and the "supergrid" through the pristine Nebraska Sandhills would devastate whooping cranes, bald eagles, condors, and other endangered species

forbes.com/sites/michaels…

Industrial wind and transmission projects are being blocked by grassroots environmentalists — often Democrats — seeking to save endangered species.

What you're proposing, @AOC @JohnKerry @JoeBiden @BernieSanders is extremely radical, terrible for workers, and terrible for the environment.

And we tried it already. Before the Green New Deal, I helped create the New Apollo Project. It was a disaster:

The Biden-Sanders climate plan is identical to the climate plan of @JohnKerry when he ran for president in 2004. You might recall how that turned out.

Please consider learning from the past rather than making the same mistakes Democrats have been making for decades

/END