Trudeau gives Quebec special treatment on carbon tax


From the Frontier Center for Public Policy

By Elizabeth Nickson

All the money is wasted. Wind and solar energy as well as the various battery projects have not managed to significantly support the power grid and average around 4 percent.

The most egregious theft of collective wealth and well-being – and it is a real theft – is the turn to “alternative” forms of energy production. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said in an interview with Steve Bannon last week that the U.S. has spent about $7 trillion over budget in the last three years, and 25 percent of that went to “climate change” projects. They're all like Solyndra, massively subsidized and massively failed within a decade. “The investors take a tax loss,” Tuberville said, “and then move on to the next attempt where they plunder the public again.” This is salted through all the investment banks and retirement accounts. It represents all supposed growth.

In June 2023, the Department of Energy admitted that it had allocated $1.3 trillion to “clean energy” investment support since 2020 and that spending increased 25 percent from 2021 to 2023. That's a fraction of what was actually spent. Furthermore, this money is not only in debt, which increases inflation, but also drives up energy prices. This is the main reason why nearly 25 percent of us were forced to choose between heat and food this winter, according to economist Peter St. Onge.

What a choice.

$1,750,000,000 in annual donations to the rich. The World Economic Forum predicts that climate spending in the United States will triple over the next decade. Biden’s “climate” budget is $5.7 trillion. Triple that to $20 trillion. No wonder the market is booming. The US has pledged another half trillion for “low-carbon electricity” as part of this year’s Paris climate agreement. And further:

  • Among all policies pursued since 2020, direct incentives for manufacturers aimed at boosting domestic production of “clean” energy now total around $90 billion.
  • Since the start of the global energy crisis, governments have also committed $900 billion to short-term consumer affordability measures, in addition to existing support programs and subsidies. Around 30 percent of this “affordability” spending was announced in the last six months, and despite calls to better target the households and industries that need it most, only 25 percent of affordability measures target low-income and middle-income households sectors most affected.

Much of that final $900 billion is direct subsidies to the rich in the form of annual clean energy subsidies. Again, this is an annual subsidy, so look at the last twenty years. President Obama launched this program, so we're looking at a $10 to $20 trillion gift to the rich since the Lightbringer took office. What these budgets do not take into account are the losses caused by the failure of “green energy” projects, i.e. the loss to the taxpayer.

Last year, investors caught up in Spain's green energy collapse took the government to court to claw back subsidies from a dead industry in a country whose debt is 400 percent higher than GDP. No wonder millions on the streets want to ban socialism. As seen in Spain, when the state runs out of money, the first thing it has to do is resort to subsidizing green energy, after which the company immediately fails.

In my neck of the Canadian woods, you can install a solar system for $20,000 and get a 25 percent subsidy, as does the installer whose business the government built through “free” “investment.” I live in a rainforest. This means that solar energy is not available when it rains in winter and is not needed in summer. Recently, anyone who has a little more money left has accepted the government's offer to install heat pumps, which are also subsidized by 50 to 75 percent. Rainforests mean hydropower, which is essentially greenhouse gas-free and the lowest cost “fuel,” but a near-free heat pump? Another victory/victory for the upper middle class, because no one in Canada's ever-growing working class can afford it.

This model was invented by politicians in power. The first person to notice it was Peter Schweizer; In Throw them all out, he describes the billionaire investors who funded Obama and who were paid out through various solar and wind projects. Hundreds of billions of dollars were lost on Obama's various “clean energy” projects.

This year, every government agency is “investing” in clean energy, a quick Google search shows. Pages of boastful press releases follow. Every agency is bankrupt. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have signed a collaboration agreement to advance climate technology. Aside from the fact that “climate change” is neither imminent nor dangerous, the government should not create patents. Innovation should be carried out by the private market, where there are controls.

As we discovered during the coronavirus crisis, government patents on both the virus and the vaccine were not subject to legal challenge, double-blind review, or feasibility review. There is no number assigned to NOAA's “initiative,” but it represents tens of thousands of such projects that have been rolled out across government offices. All the money is wasted. Wind and solar energy as well as the various battery projects have not managed to significantly support the power grid and average around 4 percent. Despite this incredible waste of money, in September last year former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged an additional $500 billion to shut down the equivalent of 40 percent of the total electricity consumption of nine states, including California, Florida, New York, Illinois and Texas .

What was the result of pouring trillions of public money into “clean,” “green” “energy” on the actual energy grid? Robert Bryce, a recognized expert, shows that it fails. A speech he gave at the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners showed astonishing, blanket failures on every conceivable metric.

“Climate policy” is considered the greatest risk. As Bryce describes, “green energy” led to the de-industrialization of Europe, Ford lost $64,731 for every electric vehicle sold, and the IEA says global coal consumption will hit another new record of 8.5 billion tons. Coal consumption rose 35 percent during last summer's heat wave. Winds decreased by 21 percent.

Climate policy is destroying everything. It is destroying communities, it is encouraging widespread theft of public funds, it is starving productive work and production, it has squeezed the disadvantaged, and it is destroying the fabric of our lives. And for what?

First published in, March 24, 2024.

Elizabeth Nickson is a senior fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy.