Replacing the energy we have with the energy we don’t is going to leave the world a colder, darker, poorer place. From Daniel Turner at realclearwire.com:
First they came for the cars. Then the gas stoves. Next was meat and dairy products. The latest on the chopping block? Wood-fired pizza. These types of tactics grab the headlines, but make no mistake: climate alarmism courses through the veins of the highest levels of government leaders and regulators.
As President Joe Biden would say, “I’m not joking, folks.”
Give Biden credit for one thing: he has been honest about his intentions. As garbled as his public remarks can be, Biden has left no doubt as to where he stands on the climate debate.
As president-elect, he listed climate change as one of the four most pressing threats facing our nation. As president, he called for a net zero emissions economy by 2050, going even further than his old boss Barack Obama. Facing a tough reelection and a restless liberal base, he has no incentive to change course.
Should the climate crew get its way, the consequences extend far beyond pizza or steaks (as unpleasant as that may be).
In May 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) publicized a report, “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” It was portrayed as a roadmap for Biden and other climate zealots.
Because of its noble-sounding intentions and a sympathetic mainstream media, the preposterous nature of a world without carbon rarely gets the scrutiny that it deserves.
Until now.
For these reasons, the RealClearFoundation asked the Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRF) to analyze the feasibility and consequences of a carbon-neutral world.
The results of the meticulous 92-page report weren’t pretty.
