Before and during COP 26, I have claimed that it is not a scientific conference but a pseudoscientific, anti-human conference that is pursuing mass-genocide.
The COP 26 Agreement has proven me right. Here are the top 5 reasons the Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human.
👇
Reason 1 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It calls for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels—the source of 80% of the world’s energy—without addressing the *cost* of doing so. In fact, the word “cost” is not mentioned once in the Agreement!
Reason 2 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores the benefits of low-cost, reliable energy in general and fossil fuels in particular. The word “energy” is not mentioned once, even though COP 26 is trying to eliminate 80% of the world’s energy!
Reason 3 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It portrays the world as destroyed by human impact, even though by the standard of human flourishing today’s world is the best ever. Why? Because COP 26 is based on the anti-human dogma that human impact is evil.
Reason 4 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores any positives of CO2 emissions, treating emissions as all-negative. But this is clearly untrue given that our emissions contribute to “global greening” and prevent cold-related deaths.
Reason 5 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally denies the fact that adaptation and mastery have made us far safer from climate than we've ever been. No mention of the fact that climate-related disaster deaths are down 98% over the last century!
Here's what I said about COP 26 on the 2nd day of the conference. I was ridiculed, yet the COP 26 Agreement did exactly what I predicted: called for the mass-genocidal policy of fossil fuel elimination, invoking pseudoscience and driven by anti-humanism.
Why Congress's new budget should eliminate all IRA "tax credits"
1. They are subsidies 2. They promote inferior energy 3. They raise energy costs 4. They make energy unreliable 5. They increase our debt 6. They make our economy less productive 7. They don't lower CO2 emissions
*Truth 1: IRA energy tax credits are really just subsidies*
Real tax credits let productive industries keep/reinvest more of their profits.
Most IRA "tax credits" are transferable tax reduction certificates that unprofitable industries trade for cash. I.e., subsidies.
A tax credit lets productive industries pay less tax on profits, which enables them to reinvest in additional productivity.
But most IRA "tax credits" support activities that are unprofitable on a free market—e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen—and therefore have no taxes to reduce with credits.
How can unprofitable activities be set to get a trillion dollars in IRA "tax credits"?
Because they are aren't really tax credits but *transferable tax reduction certificates* that can be easily sold for cash to profitable companies (and sometimes the government itself).
Giving a trillion dollars in transferable tax cut certificates to unprofitable activities that pay no taxes is no different than giving transferable tax reduction certificates to individuals who pay no taxes.
It's a trillion dollar subsidy, not a tax credit.
*Truth 2: Every IRA subsidy promotes inferior energy*
Every subsidy has lobbyists who say it's somehow improving American energy.
But the fact is, they are demanding subsidies because the energy they are pushing is inferior and couldn't survive or thrive on a free market.
The IRA's "45Y" and "48E" subsidies will give $241-901 billion to companies for "clean electricity," mostly intermittent solar and wind—which would be used far less in a free market because they are so unreliable. E.g., CA has chronic reliability problems from depending on solar.
The IRA's "45X" Advanced Manufacturing Production subsidies will give companies $132-193 billion to inefficiently manufacture batteries, as well as the solar panels and wind turbines that are created huge reliability problems on our grid and increasing the cost of electricity.
The IRA's "30D," "25E," and "45W" subsidies will give $117-393 billion to companies for EVs—whose mix of cost and (in)convenience most consumers won't pay market prices for, and therefore need huge subsidies as well as mandates to buy.
The IRA's "45Q" subsidies will give companies $34-210 billion to capture CO2 and pump it underground—a process companies would use very little on a free market since it's so costly. E.g., carbon capture for a coal plant costs 4 times the price of the coal!
The IRA's "45V" subsidies give companies $33-100 billion for hydrogen fuel—which would exist very little in a free market because it's so expensive to make. Hydrogen costs 10 times what gasoline does for the same energy! And favored "green" hydrogen is even more!
The IRA's "45Z" subsidies will give companies $43 billion for various "clean fuel" projects, mostly biofuels—which would be used far less in a free market since they are expensive to produce and compete with food for cropland.
The IRA's "25C" and "25D" subsidies will pay (mostly wealthy) property owners $28-276 billion to use government-favored "energy efficiency" technologies like solar panels and heat pumps that they wouldn't otherwise use or be willing to pay for.
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America
Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.
Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.
Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline!
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.
The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.
COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.
In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.
Good people should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom. 🧵👇
The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.
This is 180° wrong.
COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:
1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life 2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.