Delingpole: Biden’s Green New Deal Is an ‘Impossible Cluster****’

“Getting rid of fossil fuels to ‘go green’ is naïve, expensive and misleading.”

“President Joe Biden’s Green New Deal is an ‘impossible clusterf***,” says James Delingpole. “You probably knew this already but below are the raw details.”

If the world is to wean itself off fossil fuels and go “carbon neutral” by 2050, here is what might possibly need to be done:

To summarize: to get the world to zero emissions by 2050, our options are to build, commission, and bring on-line either:

 One 2.1 gigawatt (GW, 109 watts) nuclear power plant each and every day until 2050, OR

 3,000 two-megawatt (MW, 106 watts) wind turbines each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming there’s not one turbine failure for any reason, OR

 96 square miles (250 square kilometres) of solar panels each and every day until 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half until 2050, assuming not one of the panels fails or is destroyed by hail or wind.

The calculations come courtesy of Willis Eschenbach at Watts Up With That? Feel free to check the math yourself.

So if we are going to zero emissions by 2050, we will need to replace about 193 petawatt-hours (1015 watt-hours) of fossil fuel energy per year. (There follows a bunch of mathematical calculations which I’m not including here.)

The cost will, of course, be stupendous:

The nuclear plants alone will cost on the order of US$170 trillion at current prices. And wind or solar plus 75 per cent nuclear will be on the order of US275 trillion, plus decommissioning and disposal costs for wind turbines and solar panels.

But maybe the most stupid thing of all is no-one, apart from the crony capitalist troughers who are going to make like bandits from this scheme, and a few doctrinaire eco-fascist loons, actually wants any of this stuff. It’s being pushed by the Climate Industrial Complex on the basis of claims which turn out to be completely untrue. The “most significant public health issue of our time” line being promoted by White House climate advisor Gina McCarthy, for example, is false:

“Climate change most significant public health issue of our time” says McCarthy.

But is it?

Heart disease kills 33% of all Americans and cancer kills 26%, says Bjorn Lomborg on Twitter.

Heat kills 0.3% and declining.

Cold kills 6.4% and increasing

Yes, at 0.3% heat may be a problem, but it is certainly not our biggest challenge.

And guess which country is going to be the biggest beneficiary of all this green boondoggling…

“China controls 50-70% of lithium, cobalt and polysilicon and is aggressively acquiring other materials to make batteries and solar panels,” says Matt Ridley. “As we move to electric vehicles, we are essentially shifting control of transportation fuels from OPEC to China.”

To quote from Scott Tinker on The Hill, “getting rid of fossil fuels to ‘go green’ is naïve, expensive and misleading.”

See entire article:

Here’s Matt Ridley on Twitter:

Here’s Scott Tinker on The Hill:

Here’s Bjorn Lomborg on Twitter:

7 thoughts on “Delingpole: Biden’s Green New Deal Is an ‘Impossible Cluster****’”

  1. To Biden and those who are all pushing the Green Code I would just say this: ‘Don’t be silly, dear!’

  2. The U.S. Not Prepared for Mini Ice Age: Wake Up
    By Devvy 4-12-21

    “Saying that a state or regime is a murderer is a convenient personification of an abstraction. Regimes are in realty people with the power to command a whole society. It is these people that have committed the kilo- and megamurders of our century, and we must not hide their identity under the abstraction of the ‘state,’ ‘regime,’ ‘government,’ or ‘communist.’”
    ~ Rudolph Rummel (1994) “Death by Government”

  3. except the calculations don’t take into account the bulk of the remaining population (serfs) (after the great reset completes) will live without power or plumbing in their mud/stick hovels when they’re not working the fields, hauling carts, or sweeping the roads. the fortunate few working directly for the elites (someone has to make iphones) will likely have some form of bathing and basic power/plumbing as a benefit of being “house-serfs”…

  4. Thought I’d put up this part of a discussion I was having on a forum where the debater has now left the building. Take especial notice of the last sentence.

    I will fess up that I’m not a meterologist or climatologist myself, so I googled Watts and found he’s a prominent climate change denier who has connections to conservative and libertarian think tanks. That in itself of course does not invalidate his opinion or activities, so I will have to trust secondary sources that say that his opinions are at variance with the current scientific consensus.

    About Greta’s person or circumstances, I don’t really care either way; I’m neither a fan of hers nor do I detest her, or her parents. As I’m not convinced by Mr. Watts, I’m happy for any action on behalf of the cause.

    His riposte that anyone would know he meant civilized actions did not convince me considering the actions of these people across the Globe. Chilling.

  5. and you can bet your last cent that even IF they did start the run to nukes theyd be placed well away from the rich folks land n homes of course
    not in my backyard syndrome
    ditto the bloody birdshredders n solar farms already.
    friend just looked at a decent home n land then looked up n saw windmills all over the nearby hills 5km or so away
    = no sale!

Comments are closed.