Democrats Slip Green New Disaster Language Into Take It Or Leave It Spending Bill

Republicans should slip language into a bill that says that all members of Congress who vote for climate crisis scam legislation should no longer be given any travel reimbursements when they take fossil fueled trips, and that the heat will be set to 65 and AC set to 82 in their Congressional offices. For a start (via Watts Up With That?)

The Stealth Green New Deal

As negotiations continue on a year-end government funding bill as well as a new round of coronavirus relief spending, bad energy policy is looking to hitch a ride. The zombie Manchin-Murkowski energy bill, which we call the American Energy Bureaucracy Act, has staggered back into the picture. In the fall, the bill got even worse after an agreement was reached to enrich big corporations at the expense of small businesses and individual consumers. A marriage of corporate bootleggers and green Baptists, with regular Americans forced to foot the bill.

The word on the street is that there are negotiations taking place to try and jam a pre-negotiated energy bill into the year-end spending bonanza. AEA obtained a page from the discussion draft that appears to include a provision from the House Green New Deal lite version of energy legislation, H.R. 4447, making is a “Sense of Congress” that calls for 100% of power demand to come from “clean, renewable, or zero-emission” energy sources. While these terms are conveniently not defined, from the wider messaging of environmental activists we know what they mean by that: replace electricity from natural gas and coal with expensive, unreliable wind and solar power. If included, this amounts to a backdoor 100% renewables mandate, snuck into a huge omnibus spending bill that they hope no one notices.

Forcing renewables onto the grid raises electricity costs and makes the grid less reliable. We only have to look at what has happened repeatedly this year in California to see the 100% renewable future: rolling power cuts at times of high demand and low renewable generation. And the California disaster is with a grid that is only partially renewable. Imagine facing power shortages because of dependence on renewables and deciding that we should become even more dependent on renewables.

This 100% provision “Sense of Congress” makes no sense whatsoever. Putting Congress on record supporting 100% renewables is a major statement of policy. It cannot be tacked onto a massive spending bill with no discussion or debate. Perhaps the drafters (and we call on you to reveal yourselves) wanted to make it sound bland, but the very vagueness of the language is especially dangerous. This provision basically gives the Secretary of Energy a blank check authorization from Congress to impose 100% renewables in whatever way he can.

Let’s require all the Congressional buildings in D.C. and their offices across the country to operate on 100% renewable within 1 year. Let’s see how well they do. Let’s see if they can operate using only non-fossil fueled means of transportation. Should be fun driving back to California and Oregon in a plugin electric vehicle, right? But, hey, #Unity, right?

Anthony Watts also notes

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement:

“While most Americans are eagerly looking for news about access to a COVID-19 vaccine, or juggling their expenses and schedules this holiday season, some unnamed Members of Congress are making a last-minute attempt to to sneak bad energy policy into a take-it-or-leave it spending bill before checking out for the year. It’s shameful and should be rejected outright.

“Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are negotiating behind closed doors to jam a a stealth Green New Deal provision into a massive year-end bill to fund the entire federal government. Language uncovered in a “discussion draft” would give the Secretary of Energy the authority to effectively change the Department of Energy into the Department of Climate Policy.

The Democrat controlled House hasn’t bothered to vote on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. They haven’t even bothered discussing in committee. Now the question becomes “will they keep the provision, or remove it?” Because department heads already have way too much latitude to just create policy out of thin air due to being given that latitude by Congressional legislation, when that power should remain with the Legislative branch.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Democrats Slip Green New Disaster Language Into Take It Or Leave It Spending Bill”

  1. Hairy says:

    CA’s electrical power comes from a for profit corporation that tries to generate the most short term profits possible for its sharehokders
    Only 1/3 of the electrical cost goes onto electrical generation
    Please remember that Buffet signed a mega solar contract saying he would provide power at less than 4 cents per kWh
    How much lower can you go?

  2. Hairy says:

    And isn’t it nice the way solar provides power in the day and the wind blows most at night !

  3. Jl says:

    Then what happened to that solar farm that went bust in Nevada, John? Too much snow on the solar panels…?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      The solar farm in NV didn’t have solar panels, it had mirrors. As the cost of actual solar panels continues to drop, other solar based technologies are being squeezed out. Basic capitalism! It’s likely that much of our electrical service will be decentralized, i.e., rooftop solar with grid backup.

  4. Hairy says:

    Solar and wind power combined now provide about 1/2 of what coal does
    But coal costs are going up and % of power is going down while solar and wind costs are decreasing and power generated is going up
    Duke power wants to go carbon neutral
    Teach when are you a true believer in coal going to heat your own home with coal?

Pirate's Cove