Media coverage of the CA wildfires is designed to do 2 things: 1) Get us to ignore the fundamental role of "green" forest mismanagement in causing the out-of-control fires. 2) Get us to ignore the CA blackouts and the fundamental role of "green energy" policies in causing them.
California is experiencing blackouts because of "green" policies that reward or mandate unreliable electricity from solar and wind and punish or outlaw reliable electricity from nuclear, natural gas, coal, or hydro. We need to understand and apply this lesson this election.
Fact: electricity producers know how to produce enough reliable electricity for virtually any situation--certainly plenty for the heat wave CA has been experiencing this year. All you need to do is build enough reliable power plants: nuclear, natural gas, coal, or hydro.
CA, attempting a mini-mini-Green New Deal, decided to mandate that a lot of the electricity generated in the state had to come from unreliable, "renewable" solar and wind electricity. We shut down reliable gas and nuclear plants to hit our renewable targets.
While California was boasting about its increasing use of "unreliables"--@KamalaHarris called it a "model"--the reality was that it was becoming an electricity parasite, hugely dependent on reliable gas, nuclear, and coal plants from neighboring states such as AZ, NV, and UT.
What happens to a state trying to rely on "unreliables" when there’s a regional heat wave? The wind dies down. The sun dies down daily. This meant CA needed more electricity from the states with “reliables”--but they need more, too, so they sent CA less. Surprise...blackouts!
Everyone needs to learn from CA's blackouts--and fast. Policies mandating unreliable solar and wind electricity are making our electricity grid more unreliable every year. If we do not make reliability a priority we will become a third-world grid with frequent blackouts.
Nationally we face the prospect of frequent "green blackouts" thanks to a cocktail of 3 bad policies: 1) mandating unreliables (solar and wind), 2) prematurely shutting down ultra-reliable coal and nuclear plants while 3) stopping the construction of natural gas infrastructure.
What is @JoeBiden's answer to the CA blackouts? His "plan" would make them nationwide and frequent via 1) more mandating unreliable solar and wind, 2) more shutdowns of ultra-reliable coal and nuclear plants, and 3) more obstacles to urgently-needed natural gas infrastructure.
Blackouts aren't the only problem with green energy policies. The main problem is cost. Because wind and solar are unreliable they can’t replace our reliable power plants, only duplicate or supplement them at tremendous cost. Even when CA electricity is working it's expensive.
Every candidate who supports mandating "unreliables," let alone the Green New Deal or @JoeBiden Plan, should be reminded of the utter failure the mini-mini-GND/Biden-Plan has caused in California. I hope @realDonaldTrump raises this in the debates and uses the term "unreliables."
There is no world in which mandating "unreliables" makes sense. If you want to lower CO2 emissions, decriminalize reliable nuclear energy--something the @JoeBiden plan completely fails to do. For a real, pro-freedom, pro-nuclear energy policy go to EnergyTalkingPoints.com.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) liberate domestic industry to mine and process them cost-effectively 2) encourage friendly trading partners to do the same 3) stop artificially driving up demand before supply chains are ready
🧵👇
America’s economy and its national security depend on the secure availability of numerous “critical minerals”—such as lithium, copper, cobalt, and various “rare earth” elements—that, due to their unique chemical properties, are essential for many of today’s leading technologies.
Take cobalt, an important ingredient in the high-tech alloys used in many batteries, jet engines, and permanent magnets. Without a secure supply of cobalt, production of significant portions of high-tech industry and high-performance military equipment are jeopardized.
Congress won't support Biden's anti-fossil-fuel agenda.
So he's circumventing the legislative process by having the SEC coerce companies into spouting anti-FF propaganda and committing to anti-FF plans in the name of “climate disclosure.”
🧵👇
The SEC's new "climate disclosure rules"—now paused by the Fifth Circuit—have been rightly criticized for forcing companies to do endless, costly paperwork, which discourages companies from going public and thus contradicts the SEC's goal of increasing opportunity for investment.
Sadly, most critics of the SEC's rules are missing the biggest, most dangerous problem: they're not actually “climate disclosure rules”—those already existed—they are *anti-fossil-fuel propagandizing and planning rules* that violate freedom of speech and endanger our economy.
Q: What should government do to address climate change?
A: “Climate change” is the wrong target; we want to *reduce climate danger*. And the proven way to do that is: *master* climate danger by letting us use all forms of cost-effective energy, including fossil fuels.
🧵👇
Asking how government should “address climate change” assumes that us impacting climate must be a bad thing.
But it’s only bad if it endangers us by creating challenges we can’t master.
And so far, our climate mastery has far outpaced any new climate challenges.
It’s an irrefutable but little-known fact that as the world has warmed 1° C, humans have become safer than ever from climate danger. The rate of climate-related disaster deaths—from storms, floods, temperature extremes, wildfires, and drought—has fallen 98% in the last century.
@JoeBiden has halted LNG expansion, which the world needs for low-cost, reliable, secure energy.
He pretends it's to lower prices or GHG emissions, but it will do neither.
Halting LNG is pure electioneering. And we'll all pay the price.
🧵👇
We live in a world that needs much more energy. Energy poverty is rampant, and even the wealthy world has chronic energy shortages.
Natural gas can dramatically help because it is low-cost, reliable, versatile, clean, and secure. And America can lead.
America has a virtually limitless supply of natural gas and an incredible ability to ramp up production quickly. E.g., between 2017 and 2018 we were able to increase gas production by 10B cubic feet per day—the equivalent of 1.7M barrels of oil (72M gallons) per day.
For decades climate catastrophists have portrayed climate disasters as getting deadlier and deadlier.
Now that I and others have documented that we're safer than ever from climate, catastrophists are saying that disaster deaths don't matter!
Reuters says “Drop in climate-related disaster deaths not evidence against climate emergency.”
But a drop in deaths from something—here, a 98% drop—is obvious evidence against it being an emergency.
Would Reuters say: “98% drop in flu deaths not evidence against flu emergency”?
Why does Reuters, along with @nytimes, @politifact, and @USATODAY, claim that a 98% drop in climate disaster deaths doesn't contradict their climate emergency narrative? Because it obviously does, and they can only save their narrative by intimidating us into denying the obvious.
If this year's holiday discussions veer toward energy and climate issues, I've got you covered. Here are 25 facts that will make any honest person think twice about today's anti-fossil-fuel narrative.
1) Annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) have declined 98% over the last 100 years, even as CO2 levels have risen.
2) Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer in the last century, deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15x. Cold is more dangerous than heat on every continent. Even in especially hot countries such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.