The Green Agenda was/is corrupt and anti-environment.

Share this with anyone who needs to understand the anatomy. It's worth reading, especially for those who genuinely care about how to leverage so-called 'clean energy.'

I’m NOT saying we don’t need to do SOMETHING.

I AM saying that enriching elites, governments, and corporations — while impoverishing us must end.

This Green Agenda is a backdoor to digital tyranny, food poisoning, medical fascism, and poverty.

The Paris Accord? A complete farce...

This, from the Wall Street Journal —>

Green Elites, Trumped

The big beautiful bill ends the corrupt embarrassment known as ‘climate policy.’

---

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

July 8, 2025 4:34 pm ET

Voters hadn’t decided the 2016 election yet when I said an unlikely Trump victory would achieve one useful outcome. It would dismiss a certain elite that, as Cromwell said, could make itself scarce for any good it was doing.

This was the green-energy elite.

In last week’s big, semi-beautiful bill, gone is the 50-year experiment in fuel-economy regulation as the fines for noncompliance are reduced to $0. The Transportation Department was already obliged to admit the program produced no net benefit. GM and other carmakers stopped playing along and increasingly were willing to miss the targets even at the risk of being labeled lawbreakers.

Gone is the leverage government used to force Detroit to lose tens of thousands of dollars each on electric vehicles the public didn’t want.

Gone is the waiver that let California and other states impose even more onerous requirements.

Barring any nonsense from the courts, thus ends one of the most fatuous, misguided or unguided regulatory enterprises of government. Its ending won’t have any effect on climate, but it will mean car companies can go back to making cars that are profitable to the builders and desirable to the public.

The coming years should also be great for wind and solar. Electricity demand is booming. The gas turbines that power a global industry are in short supply. So why does the renewables lobby predict doom from the sunsetting of federal tax credits? This is like saying the only lemonade stand in the desert needs a tax break just as a thirsty caravan pulls up.

Until the last minute, the Senate threatened to undo the good work with a new tax on Chinese wind and solar components. This was dumb, though not uniquely dumb. The Biden administration told you to buy electric cars and then piled on tariffs lest the Chinese make an electric car you found attractive.

Study after study confirms a National Research Council project in 2013, ironically funded by congressional Democrats: Subsidies are a “poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases.” Subsidies predictably end up encouraging more energy consumption overall, including fossil fuels to make EVs, windmills and solar farms that wouldn’t exist without the subsidies.

In a New York Times op-ed last week, Obama administration economist Jason Furman tosses off a line about how the “law repeals much of what Joe Biden did for climate change.”

This is best understood as learned helplessness, professional self-advancement edition.

Expect to read and hear more foolishness in coming days. China isn’t “capturing the future.” The U.S. isn’t “living in the past” by investing in fossil fuels (as will be shown when these investments prove profitable).

China subsidizes EVs, wind and solar out the wazoo and will reap the result when these low-margin manufacturing jobs flee to lower-wage countries. The U.S. has fossil fuels and China doesn’t (except for coal, which it also invests in). This is the real difference. High-paying oil and gas jobs will stay in the U.S. and become more high-tech, including the technology to reduce the carbon outflow from producing and consuming such fuels.

The patterns of pundit unwisdom are surprisingly unchanging. If you remember, the U.S. also committed hara-kiri in the 1990s by shipping supposedly advanced computer assembly jobs (low wage, numbing) to Asia while keeping supposedly backward agricultural production (actually high tech, world-beating) in the U.S.

My guess remains that the world will gradually take up carbon taxes the way it took up payroll taxes a century earlier—to solve a fiscal problem.

This won’t come in time to alter the path of climate change. It won’t spare us having to consider cheap geoengineering for cooling the planet once we’ve seen how today’s dart-throwing climate forecasts play out.

It won’t spare us having to address a question somewhat ducked by scientists, the possibly diminishing effect of additional CO2 once the atmospheric doubling benchmark has been met that underlies today’s “climate sensitivity” estimates.

In his now defunct New York Times column, Paul Krugman once breezily acknowledged that the Obama administration arrived and immediately short-circuited a long-running congressional effort on a carbon tax. Down the toidy went a decade’s worth of intellectual and log-rolling investment. Why? Mr. Obama wanted lobbyist-pleasing climate pork instead.

The only reason this wrong turn didn’t have meaningful consequences for the planet is that no collective and necessarily global effort to cut carbon was in the cards anyway. And possibly no institution was more invested in dishonesty on this subject than the Times itself. A new green elite now has a chance to arise and deal in adult fashion with the climate puzzle, not only its scientific uncertainties but its difficult yet bridgeable political intricacies.

If so, President Trump, the disrupter-in-chief, will have done humanity and the planet a favor.