At our Congressional hearing on Wednesday, @AOC confidently said that a @Siemans report supports shutting down "tomorrow" the coal plant that provides 20% of Puerto Rico's power.
100% false. The report *does not even consider* a shutdown before 2027.
The smoking gun quote @AOC attributes to @Siemens is "No adverse impacts were identified on the transmission system with the retirement of AES coal." But I couldn't find any phrase like that in the report Siemens prepared for Puerto Rico.
In fact I can't find @AOC's "quote" of @Siemens--"No adverse impacts were identified on the transmission system with the retirement of AES coal"--anywhere on the Internet.
While @AOC claims that the @Siemens report supports a shutdown of Puerto Rico's coal plant "tomorrow," the report in its dozens of scenarios, *does not even consider a shutdown before 2027*. And all its shutdown scenarios involve *building new fossil fuel infrastructure*!
Not only does @Siemens not support @AOC in shutting down the PR coal plant "tomorrow," it has publicly clarified that it does supporting any shutdown even in 2027 and that a shutdown "is more costly than the option of continuing operations, resulting in higher costs"!
To give @AOC every benefit of the doubt, I made a 34-minute video refuting every single claim she and her energy witness (an environmental lawyer) made in support of the deadly closure of the reliable coal plant that provides 20% of PR's electricity.
I have now demonstrated definitively that @AOC's energy claims from our hearing Wednesday were 100% false--and that her advocacy for the immediate shutdown of PR's coal plant is deadly. If she truly cares about the people of PR she will publicly recant.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Despite massive subsidies and favoritism, EV sales dropped in Q1 of 2024 compared the previous quarter.
Economics be damned, EPA recently announced pollution standards that require car makers to sell >50% EVs by 2032.
My talking points on Biden's dictatorial EV mandate 🧵👇
Biden's de facto mandate of >50% EVs by 2032 is a dictatorial attack on the American driver and the US grid that will
1. Force Americans to drive inferior cars.
2. Place massive new demand for reliable electricity on a grid that is declining in reliable electricity supply.
The EPA has finalized new pollution standards so restrictive that in order to comply, car manufacturers will have to sell 56% EVs by 2032, plus at least 13% plug-in hybrid or other partially electric cars, as well as more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars.
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.