The Circle Of Green — Big Money, Big Democrats, And Climate Change

The Green Fleecing of America

Remember the Beatles’ song, “Day Tripper”? You know, the 1965 tune, forever in rotation somewhere, that includes the lyric, “It took me so-o-o long, to find out. And I found out.”

Well, that’s the way I feel about green energy. I found out. Call me slow if you wish, but I can explain. [emphasis, links added]

You see, I was always puzzled as to why the greens—starting from the top with Joe Biden and his must-hire from the donor class, climate envoy John Kerry—have been so adamant about “decarbonizing” the U.S. and yet have been so uninterested when the rest of the world keeps “carbonizing.”

If someone wants to use a gas stove in the U.S., the greens are noisy in opposition, and yet when China builds a slew of new coal plants, they are silent. And, as some say, silence means consent.

According to a new study from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, China permitted 50 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity in 2022, up 50 percent from the year before. (A gigawatt is a billion watts, enough to power a few hundred thousand homes, depending on the weather.)

And Semafor adds: “all signs indicate that the surge will continue this year,” such that China will be building new coal plants, every two years, equivalent to existing U.S. capacity.

So what’s the Biden administration doing about this coaling up? Nothing! (Unless you count waiting a week before shooting down an intruding Chinese balloon as something.)

But seriously, why the silence? If, as Biden likes to say, “Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world,” doesn’t that call for doing something drastic? And shouldn’t China be equally alarmed? Doesn’t Beijing follow the science?

Yet the Chinese communist regime has managed to stay calm, even as it engages in what Semafor calls a “frenzy” of coal-plant building.

The Chinese communists say they’re going to deal with climate change, on their own timetable.

In 2021, maximum leader Xi Jinping said to the United Nations, “China will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030.” Got that? He said they “will strive.” As in, we’ll keep building more coal plants like crazy till 2030, and then we’ll “strive” to stop. You trust us, right? Now, no more questions.

When the Chinese communist regime talks like this, what does the Biden administration do in response? It says something nice about China’s good intentions, albeit maybe they still have some work to do. That’s it.

And then the Bidenites go back to work on what they really care about—killing carbon energy in the U.S.

Just on February 24, PJM, a consortium of power companies from the Mid-Atlantic to the Midwest supplying 65 million customers, issued a report finding that new Biden environmental rules would force the “retirement” of coal and natural gas plants between now and 2030. (You know, the way Blade Runners “retired” Replicants in the 1982 Harrison Ford movie.)

As PJM put it, “Retirements are at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources.” Other close observers make the same finding; as Brian Gitt says, “Expect soaring electricity prices & more frequent power blackouts.”

We’re witnessing a slow motion train wreck.

Expect soaring electricity prices & more frequent power blackouts.

Over reliance on wind & solar cause suffering to the poorest among us—a high cost for false moral comfort. https://t.co/i0MdUMRi9c

— Brian Gitt (@BrianGitt) March 4, 2023

And there’s still more zealotry from the greens, of course. We are supposed to get rid of our gas stoves, and our cars (even the electric ones) and adjust all our appliances. Again, why?

So we can reduce our CO2 by a piddling amount while the Chinese are swamping the atmosphere with oodles more CO2? What’s up with that? What sense does that make?

Here’s what I used to think about green thinking: I thought they were sincere but misguided, focusing on strange distant goals as opposed to real-world needs.

Furthermore, I thought many of them were moved by a kind of spiritual belief. In fact, back in 1997, I wrote a piece in which I argued that the greens were ensorcelled by New Age romantic poetry, which I dubbed “enviromanticism.”

We all know or have read about green activists who are genuinely moved by some lyrical, mystical faith. It’s hard to argue with them, for the same reason it’s hard to argue religion with anyone.

And we can add that this sort of metaphysical thinking has penetrated deep into the elites, and even into middle-class suburbia. And of course, some are simply hysterical, as in the case of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who blurted out in 2019, ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

But if the green movement were nothing but hippies, housewives, heiresses, and hysterics, it wouldn’t be nearly as strong or as big as it actually is.

One green consultancy calculated in 2020 that the green economy was worth $1.3 trillion and projected it to increase by 2050 to $10.3 trillion.

You don’t get to that kind of money by thrumming in a drum circle or carrying a picket sign. And just on March 1, Elon Musk, in cheerleading words of Bloomberg News, “outlined his vision for a switch to electric vehicles; as Bloomberg News put it, “driven by $10 trillion in spending to develop sustainable energy worldwide.”

Hmmm. One guess where that $10 trillion is going to come from. (Hint: The rich get richer by risking other people’s money.)

So maybe it’s time to think some more about Uber-Green motivations. And, as they say, Follow the money.

Like others at Breitbart News, I’ve written a lot about BlackRock and other big finance outfits. How they’ve used ESG (environmental social governance) investing, as well as other opaque tricks, to deploy some $17 trillion in a green direction.

For a look at how these companies operate, we can consider BlackRock’s “Investment Stewardship Annual Report,” released in September 2020. The report pats itself on the back for all the good deeds BlackRock had done and will do:

In 2020, we identified 244 companies that were making insufficient progress integrating climate risk into their business models or disclosures. Of these companies, we took voting action against 53, or 22%. We have put the remaining 191 companies “on watch.” Those that do not make significant progress risk voting action against management in 2021.

Such wokeness might be fun power-tripping for BlackRock, but it is not the same thing as green money for investors as a whole. For instance, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) warned last month that ESG was costing investors money:

[A] study conducted by the University of California-Los Angeles and New York University found that, over the past five years, ESG funds underperformed the broader market, averaging a 6.3percent return compared to 8.9 percent return respectively. Additionally, in comparison to other investment plans, ESG investors generally end up paying higher costs for worse performance.

Gee, is it possible that BlackRock and the rest have been getting fewer returns for their investors by seeking out woke green investments?

Messing with, maybe, their fiduciary duty? Such corporate wokeness is a puzzlement. For sure, it doesn’t work to disinvest from proven energy sources and invest instead in speculative energy sources that don’t provide power in a crunch.

But all that begs the question: Doesn’t work for whom? Perhaps overall returns are lower–so the retired school teacher in Dubuque may see less money in her pension check–but perhaps at the same time certain sectoral returns are higher.

And so perhaps certain insiders are doing better even as outsiders are doing worse.

Read rest at Breitbart