How's that global warming going, eh?

Say, how's that fight against global warming going?

If you listen to Democrat pols, or the "newz" from the Mainstream Media, you've heard Dems tell you that we're all gonna die in ten years! unless we pass a law NOW to give even higher subsidies to rich Dem virtue-signalers to help them buy electric cars!

Ah, so I guess they've concluded that the planet is still warming at an alarming rate, eh?

I mean, you DO know how much the planet warmed last year, right?  And if you're a good liberal lemming you believe--beyond any doubt--that any warming is due to the dreaded "carbon dioxide," which in turn is emitted by humans driving non-electric cars and heating their homes, right?

And of course you know--because the NY Times and CNN and MSNBC have all repeatedly *implied* it--that most of the CO2 produced by humans is produced by Americans, cuz we use lots of electricity, and in the U.S. a lot of that electricity is made by burning carbon fuels.

So short answer is, when the ocean submerges Hussein's beachfront estate on Martha's Vinyard, it'll be your fault.

(Wait, you're supposed to be devastated by that, not laughing!)

And of course you "know"--courtesy of the Mainstream Media--that one of the absolute proofs that the planet is warming dangerously is that "all the glaciers are retreating when humans started burning a lot more fossil fuels!," right?  And since they said glaciers didn't start this sad retreat until humans started using exponentially larger amounts of fossil-fuel after about 1945, that's all the proof you need, right?

Wait:  We have eyewitness accounts that many glaciers in Alaska were retreating as early as 1780.  

If global warming is caused by CO2 (NYTimes: "yes") due to human activity (Mainstream Media: "yes"), how could the retreating Alaska glaciers--first noted after 1780--have been caused by humans burning fossil fuel, eh?

Take all the time you need to answer that.

While you're working on that, let's take a look at how the war on coal is going: During his first presidential campaign Hussein told an audience of wealthy donors in liberal San Francisco that his plans would make the cost of energy skyrocket.  And for once in his lie-filled life he was telling the truth:  Your energy costs have risen outrageously since he was installed in 2008.  

And guess what?  You ain't seen nothin' yet, because Obozo got his EPA to declare that CO2 was a "pollutant," which was necessary if they wanted to "regulate" it.  And regulate they did, passing a rule requiring outrageously expensive modifications to existing plants, or else the EPA would order them shut down.  

Of course you never heard that.  I'm not surprised.

So...how many coal plants did we have before Obozo got CO2 declared a pollutant, and how many are left?

Before Obozo's CO2 "rule" kicked in, the U.S. had 531 coal-fired powerplants.  Today we have 241.  In the nine years between the "pollutant" decree and 2019, 290 of those generating plants closed--wiping out 40% of all coal-fired electrical production.

(If you're fluent with numbers you quickly noticed that 290 closed plants are more than half of the 531 that were running in 2009.  Reason is that utility companies shut down their oldest plants first, and older plants are smaller.)

Liberals and Democrats cheered wildly, and made plans to go after the rest.  Cuz "CO2 is killing the planet, thru Global Warming!"

Normally losing that much electrical generating capacity due to the forced closings would have caused shortages, but fortunately (!), thanks to oil and gas companies having brought lots of natural gas on-line (because of "fracking), utility companies were able to build gas-fired plants as they shut down the coal-fired plants.

So by good luck, the U.S. could switch to natural gas without a huge spike in the cost of electricity.  Europe isn't so lucky.

Oh, and if you're curious: China has 1000 coal-fired plants, and as the rest of the world shut down 17 gigawatts of coal capacity last year, China's government ADDED more than double that amount (38 gigawatts), and plans to add 105 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity next year, or SIX TIMES the capacity shut down by western nations.

And yet if anyone mentions this in the Mainstream Media or on a college campus, western fake-green eco-freaks accuse the speaker of being raaaacist!

Starting to see the pattern yet?  You've been hit with a one-two punch:  First Hussein had his EPA decree that CO2 is a "pollutant," so they further DECREE that U.S. utilities must either do a costly remodel of coal-fired plants or shut down any they don't remodel.  Faced with that "choice" utilities are forced to shut down 290 coal-fired plants between 2009 and today, and switch to natural gas.

Now the second part of the plan: The bidenfail regime has already issued DECREES ("executive orders") drastically cutting the amount of drilling in the U.S., and thus the amount of gas (and oil) discovered each year.  When the supply of gas drops to even a bit less than demand, utilities will be able to pay more for gas than most Americans, since utilities can pass the higher cost along to consumers.  You can't do that.
 At that point what's left?  Nuclear?  Hahahahaha!  The eco-freaks have learned how to stop any new nuke from being built in the U.S.  Which leaves...wind and solar.

But both wind and solar are *intermittent, and when they stop generating the required amount of electricity, utilities have to have steam turbines already spinning to keep the grid powered up.  Of course that wastes energy.  The eco-freaks are either too uneducated to know this, or don't care--because the real issue was never "conserving energy."

The real goal was to force the cost of electricity up so much that middle-class Americans would need a government subsidy to keep the lights on.  Obama knew this, and sought it--since a population that depends entirely on government payments to live can't criticize that government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States

Let's take