Those who can, do; those who can’t and are crazed with hate develop Green New Deal economic models

A Stanford economist named Mark Jacobson recently quarterbacked an analysis of the costs of going 100% renewable in support of the US Green New Deal…a socialist fantasy, so his work is at least consistent with the economic prowess shown by the former Soviet Union as they economically modeled themselves into oblivion – a disaster waiting to happen. Read on…

36 Replies to “Those who can, do; those who can’t and are crazed with hate develop Green New Deal economic models”

  1. Lies, damm lies and statistics all conveniently hidden from view among 1,000,000 lines of poorly written and undocumented code.

    1. Climate Change AKA Global Warming is not a real thing. It’s very distressing to know that 77% of Canadian buy into this BS and their kids are living in fear and misery because of it. They think they aren’t going to get to grow up … Greta says they are all going to die in about 10 years if nothing is done.

      Well I can tell you now, there isn’t anything that can be done. You cannot control nature. IE the Sun, ocean currents, cloud covers etc.

      An acquaintance said the other day the the issue was not Global Warming, but rather it was Climate Change. I asked him to tell me then … if the climate is changing there are only two ways it can go … warming or cooling … so which is it … a blank look came over his face.

      How stupid can people be to not understand what they are living in fear of and why they are no longer allowed to use a plastic straw to drink their milkshakes with.

      After about 30 years of ZERO global warming Zero sea level rise, they had to change the name to ‘climate change’ to bamboozle the populace.. They couldn’t just change position and say … “well it appears it’s cooling rather than warming” …. because it’s not actually cooling either …In fact, the climate is doing what it has always done … provide us with ….


  2. Of course, practically all the real environmental catastrophes of the industrial era—from acid rain to the dessication of the Aral Sea to the Chernobyl disaster—were symptoms of the globalists’ pet project in central planning in Russia.

    Economic modelling? Terry Etam gives Stalin too much credit. His understanding of economics never exceeded that of the pig-ignorant Georgian peasant he was. (Even Lenin questioned Stalin’s grasp of Marxism.) He saw anybody with the wits to grasp how difficult socialist calculation really was even in principle as a subversive to be murdered or sent to Siberia to die.

    Even later, Russians and other eastern Europeans who devised proposals for improvements to central planning were lucky to just be ignored, and not be fired from their teaching jobs or encouraged to go into exile. Adopting their proposals would be a tacit admission that the Party could be wrong.

    What else? Yes.

    The $73 trillion the Stanford engineer (not economist) pulled out of his asymptote amounts to a good 84 percent of annual global GDP. To put it another way, you are being asked to cough up a year’s gross income to pay for his mad scheme—more, actually, because the Chinese and their Wall Street pals won’t be coughing up a penny.

    Pay for itself? Maybe in Beijing or Manhattan it will.

  3. Consider the electric airplane…

    A Tesla 85 kWh battery weighs 540 kg (6.35 kg/kwh).

    A gallon of gas produces 36 kwh of electricity (ideally) and weighs 6 pounds (2.7 kg). 75 grams/kwh.

    In other words, to scale up a Tesla battery to produce the same energy as a gas engine would require about 85 times the weight (battery to gas). This is why you don’t see any electric powered 737s (undergoing software upgrades).

    Now for the caveats. Gas is not 100% efficient. Assuming it is about 30% efficient (at converting heat to mechanical energy) and pretending battery power is 100% efficient (it’s not) you are still left with a 25:1 weight advantage of gas over battery power. This suggests that electric SUVs and pick-up trucks are feasible, less so transport trucks and definitely not large aircraft.

    A 737 will burn up to 10,000 gallons in a single flight (360,000 kwh). That is equivalent to 4,200 Tesla batteries or 2,287,000 kg of batteries – or about 28 times heavier than a fully loaded 737.

    We need at least a 10:1 (1,000%) improvement in the power to weight ratio of battery technology before a commercial electric aircraft can even be considered. By then your Tesla will go about 3,000 miles between charges and you might charge it on the weekend – if you need to, just to be safe. Remembering of course that lithium ion batteries were invented about 50 years ago and many of the world’s smartest people are working every day to improve their efficiency by 25%, with little to no breakthroughs.

    1. This doesn’t even take into account that the aircraft, while burning off fuel during flight, becomes lighter and more efficient as it does so.. A battery powered aircraft taking off at Max gross weight will always be at Max gross weight! Some planes can take off weighing more than they can land at and have to dump fuel before doing so. All the efficiencies modern aircraft have gained over the 100 or so years of the development of modern flight, would have to be re written with a battery powered aircraft. Strong enough to fly at Max gross weight all the time, efficient enough to be able to fly at high altitude while still at Max weight and support the weight of the aircraft in rarefied air at such altitudes. Add that to recharge times, maintenance and inspections, it’s hard to imagine it’s even possible, without a quantum leap in battery technology, even if the wings and fuselage are covered in solar panels!
      If you want to research and develop such things, that is fine, but don’t force your ineptitude’s and in efficiencies on us in the meantime, by trying to force the round peg in the square hole, over what works fine now!

    1. I will NEVER forget what business columnist, David Lazarus, said just prior to the dot.con economic collapse. He was all over the media claiming that there was a “new economic paradigm in America”. He insisted that all the “rules of capitalism” had become outmoded and invalid. He claimed businesses no longer “needed to make a profit” to thrive. He said “investors” are causing “capitalism interrupted”. Of course his comments, opinions, and expertise were burned to dust just a few months later.

      Oh! And Lazarus’s economic “expertise”? He has a bachelors degree in “History” from UC Berkeley. Yet, the LA Times identifies him as an economic “expert”. Read; Marxist.

  4. Why does one engineer recommending wind and solar projects in Alberta still have their license? 100% of these projects are not cost effective because they need 100% backup and the major cost is in capacity, not operation. To get one unit of reliable solar we have to invest in plants capable of producing 2 units and there is no escaping it.

    1. Alberta should build a nuclear reactor and process all their oil & gas using electricity. Then sell all oil & gas off-shore. No CO2 emissions to declare.

      Quebec sells almost $1 billion hydro electricity out of province and it’s not even considered a resource.

      1. What Alberta needs are hydro dams on the Peace River, from the BC border to the Slave River rapids. BC dams have already regulated the flow. Instead of spending a penny on solar, wind, jiggery, or pokery spend every dollar you would otherwise spend on hydro. Hydro and nuke are the most practical sources of power but if Alberta went totally green nothing would change. We would still be shat upon.

    2. And that’s leaving out using solar in a northern climate that has snow, but gorebull warming should solve that problem any day now.

  5. “… if the US ever comes close to implementing it, we’d all best get subscriptions to Prepper magazine.”
    Don’t kid yourself, these bastards are hateful and crazy enough. If you live in a cold climate and don’t have a plan B for heat then you’re just as delusional as these peckerheads.

  6. Take the language back.

    There is no such thing as “renewable” energy. Anyone who uses this term is a liar and needs to have wrenches thrown at their head (is Trudeau coming to a Canadian Tire near you?). They are not mistaken, they are lying. They are not simply incorrect, it is malice.

    There are only two kinds of energy in the universe:

    The benefits of reliable energy include low cost, dispatchable, schedulable, plentiful, …
    The benefits of unreliable energy include high cost, rolling blackouts, scarcity, …

    “Control healthcare and you control the people” ~ Saul Alinsky
    Pretty clear that you control energy, you control the people as well.

    No ICE to allow you to go where you want, when you want, with whomever you choose to be with? To be replaced with the limited utility and limited range of the electric car, coupled with rationed electricity because of unreliable power generation. Looks like in 2020, you will have to start requesting permits for your road trips, and a bureaucrat gets to decide that “no one NEEDS to travel to Banff National Park”…

    “Oh, because of energy shortages, it looks like we have to cut the power to that iron lung; for the good of the planet and society… Society collapses if a clerk at the court house has to wear a sweater, dontcha know…”

    “No one needs X_ _ _ _X …” where have we heard that before….

    1. All forms of energy are unreliable when controlled by leftists bent on dictating all aspects of how you live.

    2. Ya know, Kevin, it’s the same way with leftists and FOOD. They demonize the food which caused mans evolution … energy-dense fats. Vital fats and protein which power brain growth and development. No … the leftists demonize these foods and insist you eat rabbit food. The parallels to their demonization of energy dense natural resources in favor of their curated energy choices are uncanny. It’s as if they they worship inefficiency and malaise.

      Control FOOD, and you control the people. Hell, you can even force them to stand in bread lines … or eat zoo animals in Venezuela

  7. We’ll be turning the eco-marxists into carbon sinks before the current climate crisis idiocy runs its course, because if we don’t, we’re toast

  8. Electric engine air flight? Harbour Air in Vancouver did their first test flight last week. The CEO was very positive about electric flight on short hauls. He expects less operating and maintenance cost. Not sure about cost.

    1. Harbour Air retrofitted a Beaver and flew an electric version for 15 minutes with no passengers (4.5 minutes in the air). They estimate a maximum one-way flight distance of 100 miles with 6 passengers. This would not make a dent in CO2 emissions from air travel. Their partner in this (Magnix) manufactures electric motors and makes no mention of batteries anywhere on their web-site. Electric motors have been around for almost 200 years. They are remarkably efficient (have been for a long while). The issue is not motors, it is battery power and their weight to power ratio.

      BTW a Beaver airplane (1,360 kg) weighs 50% less than a typical SUV. 50% LESS. And it stayed in the air for 4.5 minutes – with no passengers on-board. I wish Harbour Air well but the problem is in battery technology.

      1. In a related story … 5 people drive automobiles powered by bio diesel, aka stale French fry grease. When our FIRST “green” POTUS was elected in 2008 … this was going to be the “fuel of the future”. Haven’t heard so much about it lately, despite the dirty hippies trying to make it into ‘a thing’ since about 1971.

        1. Bio Fuels are a collosal JOKE – ALL of them.

          As per your Navy Captian Ike Keifer who was tasked with seeing if Bio Fuels were a potential fuel source for USN shipping…..he concluded it was simply not feasible for a number of reasons:

          EROEI: Energy Return on Energy Invested

          Bio-Fuels (all) 1.3 : 1
          Fossil Fuels (all) 8 : 1

          The 2nd issue was that going full tilt biofuel would significantly reduce the amount of feed-in product for the food supply chain.

          BIO Fuels, as pretty much all of the other Eco Friendly crap being purveyed is a lot of trumped up BULLSHIT.. Sold by Shit salesmen with mouths overflowing with samples.

          Going this route means to me, they want us dead. There is no other outcome….Which I firmly believe

        2. A friend of mine uses french fry and fried chicken grease in his Volkswagen van and Mercedes sedan diesels. I spend $250 a week on gas. He doesn’t.

          He does spend his nights picking up grease from fast food joints and filtering it before putting it in his tank. His biggest problem is clogged filters. His biggest expense is more filters. His garage is a greasy disaster area.

          My gas is tax deductible. I have watched his biodiesel song and dance for 15 years. I have listened to him curse cold thick fuel and clogged filters the whole time.

          We are still friends. We no longer debate this.

      2. Have to keep things in perspective. I will take an electric golf cart over a gas golf cart anytime. That said, analysis of the flights I have taken with both would indicate that cart path design was a larger contributor to disaster than the mode of propulsion, however the weight of batteries obviously limits the capability to jump a smallish stream, ergo challenging courses should use gasoline powered carts, ungoverned of course!

    2. Up front, there will be clear savings from no Avgas to pay for, nor the frequent engine maintenance. How does that balance from the upfront transition to a specialized conversion to electric? Only the company knows, but for this limited application it just might work. The owner also claimed they could recharge quickly while embarking/disembarking at the dock. Hmmmmmm.
      Unless they have been subsidized by Big Green Gov, which so far has not been disclosed, then good luck to them.
      This does have limited applications though, as usual, range is a problem, a big problem. Coastal planes need to be able to access small camps and villages along the east and west coast of the island, that far exceed the capabilities presented.
      It’s pretty clear Harbour Air is only aiming at the puddle jump route, between the big cities. This is a heavily used route, it might pay for itself.
      For my money, I would never ride it. Without a maximum range for unexpected circumstances or conditions in flight, it’s risky. It should be limited to a 1,000 ft ceiling, so it can glide onto the water to land, with minimal chance of a bad outcome.

  9. Interesting history this Jacobson guy has. A thin skinned zealot is probably the best description. No one with any sense should find him remotely credible or honest:

    Stanford environmental professor Mark Z. Jacobson made a big splash in 2015 with a paper predicting that renewable sources could provide 100% of the energy needed in the 48 contiguous states by 2050.

    But he made an even bigger splash last September, when he responded to a critique of his claim published in a leading scientific journal by filing a $10-million defamation lawsuit.

    After taking months of flak for what seemed to be an effort to stifle legitimate scientific debate by bringing it into the courtroom, Jacobson withdrew the lawsuit Thursday.

    1. The audacity to sue someone, because they disagree with a theory and assumptions, in other words, unproven works.
      These kinds of disagreements, used to be a vital and necessary part of the scientific method, in order to further explore, thoroughly the theory, to prove or disprove.
      The envirowarriors unilaterally declare victory now, they don’t have to be terribly accurate or correct, but as long as they try hard, and mean well, they achieve THEIR victory.
      Is it any surprise, the education system has been spitting out this nonsense for 30 years now.
      Trying hard and meaning well has been equivocated (incorrectly) to SMART.

      1. I’ve made the comparison between catastrophic climate change science and Lysenkoism before. Bad science is easily disproven so those who are skeptical or dissent from the approved narrative must be silenced in other ways. Since you can’t just “disappear” dissenters like you could in the USSR, dissent must be crushed through other means : lawsuits, character assasination, career destruction, de-platforming, protests, boycotts, etc. Threats and intimidation Although Suzuki and a few others did say the wanted to throw critics and skeptics in jail.

        Not allowing critiques of research is a big warning sign. Legitimate, credible research can stand own it’s own merit. Politicized research and faith based science cannot.

      2. its a good thing I finished my public edjukaySHUN when I did.
        with my autism and concomitant lilt towards factual, provable, statistics and numbers numbers numbers,
        I would most likely be ridiculed and set upon even worse than I was.

  10. I think people misunderstand the purpose of these type of “experts” and their research. It is not to provide realistic scenarios or rational solutions.

    The purpose is to give zealot politicians, zealot journalists and zealot activists “expert” support. Then other researchers use the zealots research to do their own, even more unrealistic scenarios and irrational solutions. Which then form the basis for sillier political policies, scarier media stories, more militant activism and more bad research/reports.

    It’s a viscous circle of bad research, bad politics, alarmist media stories and increasingly militant activists that amplifies with each cycle.

    1. LC,that is Post Modern Science,otherwise known as policy based evidence manufacturing.
      Or to quote our beloved government;”Environment Canada’s Science”.
      What an approach to science, “assuming that manmade climate change is occurring we speculate in this study..”.
      They never examine the base premise,no measurement of this AGW,yet they then claim their “study”, a fine work of speculation,is Proof of manmade global warming.
      No error bars,no knowledge of natural processes nor cycles.
      The new rules are great,find a trace gas guilty,without evidence, defined terms or trial and then tax the citizen into slavery..
      The parasites dream Taxing Air.

      1. Science has always had charlatans and those who ass kiss political leaders to gain advancement. It’s too bad educators and journalists weren’t more sophisticated so they had the ability to detect and counter such obviously bad science. Most of them seem unable to understand anything that’s even a bit complicated.

  11. Any Doomer that hasn’t turned off their hot water heater and turned their home thermostat down to 5C is stealing Greta’s childhood.
    How dare they!

    We might as well ask the Doomers why they haven’t turned the heat down in all public buildings and in all school and university buildings too.
    There is no Planet B you know….

    Maybe Assistant Prime Minister Blackie Trudeau should get on that and issue a decree forcing all government and school buildings to turn their heat way down.
    We only have 12 years according to the Doomer cult.

    It would be pretty easy and cost nothing: Just turn down the thermostats and flip the breaker on the AC unit and electric hot water heaters or turn the gas valve off on the gas water heaters.
    They could do it tomorrow.

    1. No, that is what Poilievre and Ambrose and Raitt, Rempel and all the rest should have done within 30 seconds of the Liberals declaring a climate emergency.

      If they actually wanted to fight anything, if they actually held any belief that you hold, they would be tabling legislation to turn off all the heat and all the lights at all government property.


      Legislation that there is no more air travel for the PM, he has to hoof it to Vancouver, or ride a horse to the Caribbean for his vacations.

      But you haven’t seen any actual action by any of them, have you. One of them did something; one of them left the party over the lack of principle. And they are still spending all their time attacking that instead of fighting the Liberals or the NDP, or the Greens in any way…

      1. You’re right.
        The Gutless Wonder Party wouldn’t want to put anyone on the spot or hurt their feelings.

        Or maybe they are just too dumb to see the obvious way to throw it back in the Doomer’s faces.
        If you agree with the Blackie about the Climate Emergency and tell them to turn down the heat etc then they can’t really hang the climate change denier sign around your neck.
        Hell, you’re agreeing with them.
        It’s really not that complicated.

      2. They needed a leader that was afraid to hurt any ones feelings especially his {Sheers} pals at the Quebec Milk Marketing cartel. Why do you suppose they supported him in the leadership race? They were always hard core Liberals previously, but they were afraid of what would happen if Bernier got to be Prime Minister. Sheer was theirs and Trudeaus insurance policy.