“This year’s races are the first major electoral test for the Green New Deal, which was thrust into the national spotlight following the 2018 midterm elections. And so far, few Democrats in the most competitive races think it’s a winner.”

“… Democrats in close races are denouncing both the Green New Deal and quickly banning hydraulic fracturing when they get the opportunity, and are instead laying out their own, less aggressive plans to fight climate change.” (E&E News, below)

In a ‘Campaign 2020’ essay (October 20, 2020), Timothy Cama of E&E News indirectly documents the obvious: Americans like their energy affordable convenient, and reliable. And what is true today will always be, putting the Green Agenda of energy scarcity and inconvenience on the defensive against nature and reality.

Jerry Taylor–libertarian-turned-statist (see here and here)–warned back in March 2019 when the Green New Deal emerged:

… the strategies and tactics you are pursuing through the Green New Deal amount to political malpractice.

“The bill would significantly increase logging across America’s federal forests, convert millions of acres into industrial tree plantations, increase carbon emissions, increase wildfire risk, and harm wildlife and watersheds.” (Re: Progressive Letter of Opposition to The Trillion Trees Act, February 25, 2020)

Planning the climate means planning the economy, from energy production and usage to forestry and agriculture. With three trillion trees on earth, and each involved with the carbon cycle, there is much to do for climate planners.

A Republican-introduced climate bill—the 59-page Trillion Trees Act (H.R. 5859)—has rightly been criticized by conservatives and libertarians. But its major thrust and specifics have also attracted trenchant opposition from the Left.

The Proposal

The Trillion Trees Act, introduced by Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), and promoted by President Trump himself, is subtitled

To establish forest management, reforestation, and utilization practices which lead to the sequestration of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes

H.R.…

“Many inside the company, including Tony Hayward, had long thought that [John] Browne was distracted by his pet issues of climate change and environmentalism, and by his flirtations with the public spotlight. They thought he had been obsessed with branding the company and lowering its carbon footprint at the expense of BP’s real business, producing and selling oil.” – Abrahm Lustgarden, Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (2012), p. 203.

“The world’s carbon budget is finite and running out fast. We need a rapid transition to net zero.” – Bernard Looney. CEO, BP, quoted in Financial Times, February 12, 2020

British Petroleum Company, then BP Amoco, then BP, has had a troubled history since it went political in the 1990. That history deserves revisiting given its latest rebranding effort.…

” … for the first time in over 40 years, today we are issuing a proposed new rule under the National Environmental Policy Act to completely overhaul the dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created these massive obstructions. Now, we’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly. And if it doesn’t pass, it’s going to not pass quickly.” 

“… our new One Federal Decision policy — it’s called “One Federal Decision” — requires agencies to work closely together to promptly deliver one decision. Yes. The entire process will be completed; the entire federal government approval process will be done.

– President Donald J. Trump, January 9, 2020

The most free-market President in US energy history has added to his winning ways. Last week, he put into play a powerful proposal to depoliticize infrastructure spending under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA).…