the green grift is not about solving problems

it's about making them permanent because that's where the money is

the green grift is not about saving the world. it’s about robbing it.

the pervasive mantra is: “anything to combat climate change except for “anything that will actually work”.”

witness witless germany demanding to move away from the oil and cheap russian gas that has powered their industrial sector by, wait for it, shutting down nuclear. this is shuttering their economic engines.

it’s absurd and senseless.

and of course it is. because this is not about “solving the crisis,” it’s about perpetuating the problem to profit from perpetual subsidy sucking.

kittens know the truth

the “watermelon” moniker (green on the outside, red on the inside) exists for a reason and like all forced collectivism it’s not about the common good, it’s about entrenching a small group of profiteers and tyrants atop the populace that they may not only extract legal plunder but erect the facile moral codes that demand societal gratitude for having done so. the whole thing is a manipulative song and dance number used to justify wholesale robbery and the very fact that the proposed “new energy solutions” don’t work is what makes it such a great grift. after all, if it actually solved a problem, the robbery would end.

estimates vary, but the basic idea that alt energy subsidies have run amok is essentially inarguable. (note that these “subsides” are not net of tax, so oil, gas, coal are actually huge payors)

robert bryce is quite literally correct to compare this to willie sutton robbing banks because “that’s where the money is.”

Solar Energy Is Getting 200 Times More In Federal Subsidies Than Nuclear

the numbers are stark.

$/EJ is likely an unfamiliar term to most. EJ = exajoule (10¹⁸ joules) = 278 TWh (terawatt hours)

and the stunning lies about efficiency, cost, durability, and availability are laid bare by one simple issue: (bold mine)

First, these numbers prove, yet again, that the alt-energy sector continues to be fueled by corporate welfare. For years, advocates for wind and solar energy have claimed that their schemes are cheaper than traditional forms of electricity generation. Last year, John Kerry, the Biden administration’s climate envoy, claimed that “Solar and wind are less expensive than coal or oil or gas. They just are less expensive.” If that were true, and solar energy is too cheap to meter, then the industry shouldn’t need tax credits.

this is an argument longtime readers may seem to recall certain internet felines muttering under their breath from time to time.

the simple fact is that the made up metrics used to pretend that energy source like wind and solar are cost competitive are (to borrow a colloquialism from one of their champions) “utter malarkey.”

and it’s a funny thing but as our favorite green chicken and longtime gatopal™

Doomberg

is fond of saying:

"In the war between platitudes and physics, physics is undefeated."

and here comes physics, making its move:

the letter sent by the governors is stark:

Absent intervention, these near-term projects are increasingly at risk of failing. Without federal action, offshore wind deployment in the U.S. is at serious risk of stalling because States’ ratepayers may be unable to absorb these significant new costs alone.

wattsupwiththat continues:

The outcome is far from clear but my guess is the largess is unlikely to appear, especially given the ongoing federal budget battles. Maybe later. However most of the requests also likely require major regulatory changes, which could take years. They might even take legislation which could be never.

But the need is urgent as the offshore developers are demanding immediate power price increases of around 50% lest they leave for better opportunities elsewhere. They can do this because offshore wind is a global boom. Even mid-income developing countries like Indonesia are talking big offshore numbers.

the costs are out of control and the output never amounts to anything like what was promised and cannot live up to billing. and solar is often worse and obviously cannot function well more than about 8 hours a day even in best case scenarios. using made up levelized power figures to assess intermittent sources is simply an invalid exercise.

and the answer here is, of course, going to be a massive bait and switch that makes building high speed rail in groovy gavin’s west coast ecotopia look like a well thought out agenda. (if you have not seen that calamity, take a look. it was obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that it was going to be a hilarity of cost overruns to no useful end. ever.) and wind and solar are heading for the same fate but no one wants to derail the gravy train because the size of it is estimated at $900 billion in subsidies for solar alone (and i’ll bet you a nickel this is wildly low).

but even a “mere” $50bn a year is plenty of dosh to instigate mass misbehavior.

(funny way to reduce inflation…)

and this is the daylight robbery that they seek to weave into the warp and weft of the entire regulatory and banking sector (and frankly, the distinction between the two is being, with malice aforethought, deliberately effaced.)

The U.S. Treasury Department this week announced its “Principles for Net Zero Financing & Investment,” which pushes banks, insurance companies, and asset managers to unite behind U.N. climate goals. 

The principles, issued on Sept. 19, state that “Treasury and the Biden-Harris Administration welcome robust net-zero commitments made by financial institutions. Treasury hopes financial institutions will use the Principles to support the implementation of their commitments.” (LINK)

let’s engage the “government to english” translation engine, shall we?

“nice banking license you got there. be a shame if someone came along and yanked it because you weren’t onside in our public-private team-totalitarianism global governance initiatives.”

see also:

“you seem like the kinda guy who’d like to keep using the fed funds window…”

it’s another perfect setup where the demand that banks lend for reasons other than creditworthiness destabilizes banks and makes them ever more dependent upon the Fed and treasury to aid and backstop them which, in turn, makes them ever more pliable for the next set of lending demands.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”

-Mayer Amschel Rothschild

indeed.

These principles, which the Treasury Department says are “voluntary,” direct banks, insurance companies and asset managers to focus particularly on “Scope 3” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Scope 3 entails those emissions from a company’s customers and clients. 

“voluntary.” yeah, just like censoring regime detractors and those with views out of step with narrative was “voluntary” when everyone from the white house to the alphabet soup agencies to the groupthink tanks and stanford center for internet manipulation leaned on social media to erect vast regimes of censorship.

note that the SEC is looking to get into the game too. (and this will expand the climate regime to cover all the major funding sources outside of private equity funds)

it’s easy to dismiss the greens as deeply unserious hippy dippy “i failed science” ideologues and dupes and perhaps many of the useful idiot ideological core thereof may be so, but those atop the green grift are very serious people indeed and they are making serious moves to grab serious money.

even if this ESG banking and equity capital markets regime were “voluntary” does anyone want to bet it stays that way and that once the scaffolding of such structures is in place that it will not be tightened like a noose in the most involuntary fashion imaginable?

because this is always the way of it, no?

this alleged “massive crisis” of “global boiling” is so serious that only unserious solutions that we swear are cost competitive but mysteriously need massive and ever increasing subsidies to implement must be pushed and serious solutions that could actually solve such a problem (if indeed it exists) must be not only ignored but opposed and the very concept of “if this is indeed true, is adaptation a better/cheaper/more effective course?” rendered verboten.

this is not protection, it’s plunder.

it’s just another form of negative-sum forever-war profiteering.

and you know the next step after “i am changing the rules” right?