The highlight of my news week, and the Give a Mouse a Cookie reference floored me.
One issue I'm watching is the MSM reaction to the SCOTUS ruling on West Virginia v EPA. Predictably, the developing official narrative is that a rogue Supreme Court "weakened" EPA. Missing from most of the coverage, of course, is the actual basis for the …
The highlight of my news week, and the Give a Mouse a Cookie reference floored me.
One issue I'm watching is the MSM reaction to the SCOTUS ruling on West Virginia v EPA. Predictably, the developing official narrative is that a rogue Supreme Court "weakened" EPA. Missing from most of the coverage, of course, is the actual basis for the ruling--EPA did not have the authority from Congress to do what it tried to do when it adopted the Clean Power Plan.
The bigger picture is that, in our moment, many seem terrified of the actual separation of powers established by the Constitution. They would rather rely on a Supreme Court or the administrative state to accomplish their policy goals, without the messy business of negotiating something the old fashioned way. Because if you negotiate, you may not get everything you want. I'm not naive enough to think that this will automatically lead to re-balancing of power among the branches of government, but it is something to strive for.
Even if we stipulate, for the sake of argument, that climate change poses a serious threat, what is very clear is that the global elite’s plan is to create energy poverty for large swaths of humanity. This apocalypse mentality is a historical feature of the environmentalist movement. This is why they are often against things that might actually help, such as nuclear.
I don't think he was commenting on renewable or their validity, just the process the EPA deployed and what the SC had to say about it. I agree with his comment and with yours.
I don’t have a problem with renewable energy. I don’t think we should be ruling out ANY energy source. I’m pro oil and gas, pro wind pro solar, pro nuclear and even pro coal in some cases. I am pro American energy.
Renewables without batteries are useless virtue signaling, you pay to build an entire second grid worth of generation that runs part of the time, so the reliable grid needs to be there spinning unloaded in the background running inefficiently
That is why even though renewables use “free” fuel, adding them to the grid always means far more expensive electricity and less reliability
The highlight of my news week, and the Give a Mouse a Cookie reference floored me.
One issue I'm watching is the MSM reaction to the SCOTUS ruling on West Virginia v EPA. Predictably, the developing official narrative is that a rogue Supreme Court "weakened" EPA. Missing from most of the coverage, of course, is the actual basis for the ruling--EPA did not have the authority from Congress to do what it tried to do when it adopted the Clean Power Plan.
The bigger picture is that, in our moment, many seem terrified of the actual separation of powers established by the Constitution. They would rather rely on a Supreme Court or the administrative state to accomplish their policy goals, without the messy business of negotiating something the old fashioned way. Because if you negotiate, you may not get everything you want. I'm not naive enough to think that this will automatically lead to re-balancing of power among the branches of government, but it is something to strive for.
If you don't think that the push for renewables will weaken America and destroy our economy then you're not paying attention.
Even if we stipulate, for the sake of argument, that climate change poses a serious threat, what is very clear is that the global elite’s plan is to create energy poverty for large swaths of humanity. This apocalypse mentality is a historical feature of the environmentalist movement. This is why they are often against things that might actually help, such as nuclear.
There is no climate emergency
And renewables are net negative
Bingo!
I don't think he was commenting on renewable or their validity, just the process the EPA deployed and what the SC had to say about it. I agree with his comment and with yours.
Renewables are a dead end unless and until the magic batteries are invented (nowhere on the horizon today).
Yes, renewables will inevitably weaken all of us
I don’t have a problem with renewable energy. I don’t think we should be ruling out ANY energy source. I’m pro oil and gas, pro wind pro solar, pro nuclear and even pro coal in some cases. I am pro American energy.
Renewables without batteries are useless virtue signaling, you pay to build an entire second grid worth of generation that runs part of the time, so the reliable grid needs to be there spinning unloaded in the background running inefficiently
That is why even though renewables use “free” fuel, adding them to the grid always means far more expensive electricity and less reliability
Always.
Useless crap
A cost
That is my understanding. In short that they gum up the works.
Until windmills and solar are made and transported without fossil fuels then they’re not green. They’re just another tax subsidized grift.