In essence, they’re suggesting that the damage is done, the investments are made, so they need to somehow generate a return on those investments before Trump pulls the plug on the mandates.

A report by Brady Knox over at Washington Examiner, commenting on a NY Times article, suggests car companies may ask President Trump to keep Joe Biden’s rules in place for now:

According to a report from the New York Times, the Biden administration’s actions to boost domestic EV manufacturing may have already set the auto industry past the point of no return. Following Biden’s initiatives, automakers have already invested billions of dollars in transitioning to electric vehicles. If Trump were to scrap the initiative, major automakers fear they could be undercut by smaller manufacturers producing cheaper, internal combustion engine cars.

Three of the country’s largest automakers, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, are already lobbying Trump against scrapping the rules.

Some had hoped that one of the biggest proponents of electric cars, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, would be able to sway Trump to keep those rules in place, but now, his priorities seem to be cutting regulations. He expressed opposition to the $7,500 tax credit for buyers of electric cars, saying he opposes all subsidies.

“In my view, we should end all government subsidies, including those for E.V.’s, oil and gas,” Musk said last week.

Musk’s calculation was more cynical in a July earnings call, speculating that the end of the subsidy would hurt Tesla somewhat, but hurt its competitors much more.

Is it worth keeping the mandates so the big three U.S. automakers can prevent smaller competitors from eating their lunch?

Nope, Not Worth It

As horrible as the situation is for major U.S. automakers, keeping the mandates in place would be far worse. Americans need relief far more than automakers right now. Getting the price of vehicles down to a manageable level is crucial if America is going to have any chance of recovering from the financial decimation we’ve felt for the last four years.

But there’s actually a good business reason for pulling the mandates immediately. The Biden-Harris regime forced automakers to try to usher in a future that was too far off, but that doesn’t mean OPTIONAL electric vehicle adoption isn’t part of the future.

The damage has been done by the mandates, but there have also been significant investments into research and development that can flourish if they’re allowed to transition without government interference. In other words, they can return to internal combustion engines as the primary driver for now to get their revenues back while reducing costs for American consumers. Simultaneously, they’ll be expanding on what they’ve built in EV infrastructure, albeit without mandates forcing the issue. They’ll be able to work at the speed of the market instead of the mandates.

It’s a sour consolation for the biggest automakers because it means they’ll have to wait years or even decades to realize benefits from their electric vehicle investments, but the long-term returns should be worth the wait… if they can survive long enough to see them.

Rather than using the current rules to stifle competition, they should hope that President Trump immediately sides with the free market and the consumers to allow enough short-term benefit for U.S. automakers to recover.

One short film has shined the light on the kind of future the left sees for you.

To be fair, I think this film was pretty generous. This is nothing compared to what these people want for us.

Firstly, it starts off with the dude telling his son he’s only allowed a two-minute shower followed by the son’s disappointment in not being able to visit Grandma on Christmas. That part was probably accurate, as flying to visit family would likely be reserved for politicians and elites.

Secondly, the cat food at the office was also pretty generous, as everyone knows you will eat zee bugs. We are also supposed to own nothing and live in pods so it’s unclear why he’s driving to and from his townhome.

Lastly, I think the most accurate part was “lowering your carbon admission” to have a steak dinner, as well as the lights turning off from reaching your energy limit.

The left wants to dictate every aspect of your life, from how much you drive to what you eat. And although the film does a pretty good job of what these people want, it does not do their perceived dystopian future justice. Subsequently, this film only begins to represent how miserable your life would be if these climate tyrants got their way.

Trump has never bought into their delusions about manmade climate change and can’t be bullied the way liberals can into supporting their profitable green measures. Not only has he ridiculed some of their more outlandish claims in the past, but he has also promised to continue the practice of extracting fossil fuels and back out of the highly flawed Paris climate accord.

Clean technology proponents are already in damage control mode, with United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell trying to allay market fears by stating: “Those investing in clean energy are already enjoying huge wins in terms of jobs and wealth, and cheaper, more secure energy. This is because the global energy transition is inevitable and gathering pace, making it among the greatest economic opportunities of our age.”

Reuters, meanwhile, reported that Trump’s win “has darkened the outlook for a strong deal at the COP29 climate summit” scheduled for next week in Azerbaijan. The participating countries are expected to set a new target for climate aid that may surpass $1 trillion annually; climate alarmists are worried that other countries won’t provide funding if the U.S. doesn’t get on board.

Reuters was also quick to point out that he has called out climate change for being a hoax and that his policy advisers considered removing the U.S. from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many are worried that he will try once again to withdraw from it when he retakes office, which could also set the stage for other countries being reluctant to participate.

Centre for European Reform Senior Research Fellow Elisabetta Cornago implied that the outcome of the election could spell disaster for climate change funding. She said: “Pushing for more ambitious climate finance is going to be almost impossible without the U.S. buy-in, which will de-motivate developing countries from taking seriously the climate ambitions of the West.”

One Latin American climate minister told the AP that Trump’s return to the Oval Office is a big setback.

“The election feels like a slap in the face to climate progress, but it won’t stop the global push for clean energy. Sticking with fossil fuels is a dead end,” the official stated.

Trump is expected to boost fossil fuel production

Trump has stated his intention to increase the production of fossil fuels, and he is expected to prop up the industry through regulation and potentially opening more federal lands up for drilling. He may also roll back some policies that pertain to emissions and fossil fuels, something he did during his first term in office as well. In addition, he plans to support new liquefied natural gas export terminals. This is something that Biden has been actively working against.

Climate change alarmist Sam Ricketts said that Trump’s presidency will make the planet unsafe for children.

“This is obviously a difficult result to stomach for those of us who care about our democracy as well as healthy communities and a safe and livable planet for our children. There’s no sugar-coating it: This is a gut punch,” he said.

Trump has yet to release his official climate agenda, but he has said that he will repeal the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which spends billions of dollars on greening the economy.

Sources for this article include:

• ClimateDeport.com
• Reuters.com
• Politico.com

With Election Day right around the corner, one of the issues voters are voting on this election cycle is energy policy. Donald Trump talks a big game about reinvigorating America’s energy independence through the expanded use of native fossil fuels while Kamala Harris wants more climate authoritarianism, which in the end will only lead to the destruction of America’s economy.

California’s Kern County – Kamala used to be attorney general in California – is a gold mine for fossil fuels. It boasts some of the world’s largest oil fields with an estimated reserve of somewhere around 27 billion barrels. Since that oil is considered “heavy” oil, making it more difficult to extract and refine, California developed some of the cleanest and most advanced methods of purifying that oil without destroying the environment – a win-win, right?

The problem is that, thanks to the climate policies of Democrats, California currently imports around 75 percent of its oil and 90 percent of its natural gas. On top of that, Democrats in California are also forcing the state’s residents to subsidize expensive “renewable” energy programs based on wind and solar.

It is a mess, in other words, and one that Kamala wants to replicate on a national scale. Should she end up getting installed into the White House, Kamala will turn the entire country into California, but in all the wrong ways.

“Californians are victims of a special interest-driven regime that is determined to keep the state on the bleeding edge of so-called renewable energy technology,” writes Edward Ring for AMGreatness.com.

“It is naïve to think Kamala Harris is going to deviate from these energy policies if she ends up getting elected U.S. president. Across the entire nation, the result will be higher energy costs than ever, costing taxpayers and consumers not hundreds of billions, but literally trillions of dollars. Most of this money will be wasted.”

(Related: Kamala Harris is doubling down on her climate conspiracy theories, which she is trying to leverage as a means to force America into accepting “net zero” carbon tyranny.)

Kamala: an enemy of cheap, domestic energy

The situation in California is disturbing in that the Golden State sits atop virtually limitless amounts of cheap and abundant energy that is increasingly staying trapped in the ground as state officials refuse to issue new drilling permits. The latest “green” laws in the state have made it steadily more impossible for the state to be energy independent, which is what Kamala wants for the entire country.

It turns out that only a select few are given access to the gold mines full of energy as beneficiaries of the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris regime’s “Green New Deal.” Special subsidies and grants are made available only to those with these special connections while everyone else is simply out of luck.

“Expect streamlined zoning and tax subsidies for solar and wind farms,” Ring writes about what Americans can expect under a Kamala regime.

“Expect restrictions not only on conventional fuels but also on every imaginable petroleum derivative, including fertilizer. Expect therefore to see every business that lacks the economies of scale to withstand the new regulations to die a slow death, while ‘green’ financiers and ‘green’ monopolists – i.e., Kamala Harris’s donors – consolidate and dominate every sector of the American economy.”

Climate fanaticism is a mental illness. Learn more at Climate.news.

Sources for this article include:

• ClimateDepot.com
• NaturalNews.com

The title of the research article is: Effects of system-sanctioned framing on climate awareness and environmental action in the United States and beyond. Sounds pretty heady, I know. But I bought it and read it so you don’t have to.

The purpose of the study is to determine whether people are more likely to get on board with climate action if they are first exposed to “patriotic” and “system-sanctioned” messaging. My Spidey sense is already tingling, because there’s a hypothesis embedded in that purpose and it doesn’t feel right.

They didn’t go into the study wondering whether people might be influenced by some sort of messaging (that would sound like objective science). They began with a specific message—which means someone wanted to know whether that particular message would have the desired effect. That sounds like an agenda.

So let’s consider the inciting incident for such a story. The authors note that planetary concern alone has failed to inspire enough people to make the sacrifices needed to avert an alleged disaster. It seems many of us, like the poor R2 unit, have a bad motivator. So we need something else. Something more visceral. Something that really moves us.

That something, it turns out, is the status quo. Here in America we care deeply about preserving our way of life. And we should—it’s a good way. In fact, the authors suggest the status quo is what keeps many people from taking action. Their version of supposedly saving the planet requires changes that impact our way of life, and we naturally resist such changes—especially if we’re not convinced the cause is real. So someone hatched a plan to use our defense against us. And they tested their idea with this study.

Here’s how they did it. They presented participants with a series of statements and sentimental photos that connect environmental themes with happiness and life in America. It ends with Let’s keep the United States as it should be. Shrewd.

After looking at the “messaging,” the participants answered questions about the severity of climate change and what should be done about it—from raising taxes to government-mandated “sustainable” energy. The control group, who only read a random passage from Great Expectations, answered the same questions.

And now for the exciting conclusion:

In a large, nationally representative U.S. sample, we found that the system-sanctioned change intervention successfully increased liberal-leftists’ as well as conservative-rightists’ belief in climate change; support for pro-environmental policies; and willingness to share climate information on social media.

Sounds Orwellian? I thought so too.

It’s probably no coincidence this study was published on September 9 and the presidential debate was one day later. Kudos to the Harris team for picking it up and weaving it in so quickly—unless perhaps they had an advance copy, since it was accepted by PNAS in June.

There’s a lot I could say about the study itself and how the “messaging” is constructed using the principle rules of propaganda. But few of us are truly innocent of that charge, even for honorable purposes. Nonetheless, the mission for this sort of message is not to win on logical grounds. In the words of the research article:

We tested an experimental manipulation derived from system justification theory in which pro-environmental initiatives were framed as patriotic and necessary to maintain the American “way of life.”

From the text it is objectively clear that someone wants to manipulate us. Someone wants us to hear something that makes us go along with what they want.

If the intention were genuinely about protecting our way of life, then the environment is a consideration. But in today’s world the chief factor is affordable, reliable energy—without which everything stops. If we truly want to keep the United States as it should be, then it all starts with energy. And the only proven solution at this time comes from cheap, abundant oil and natural gas. We have plenty of that in America to maintain our way of life for a long time. At least until someone perfects dilithium crystals.

This allegedly scientific study is not about preserving our way of life. But it certainly provides a base from which to launch a barrage of new messaging.

Coming soon to a campaign near you.

Michael O’Sullivan is Program Director and COO for Blue Energy Nation, a non-profit committed to educating young people on energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and an advocate for smart energy choices.

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket, which is made up of expedited cases from applicants seeking immediate action, currently features 18 applications, with 11 of them pertaining to the agency’s aggressive power plant regulations finalized in April. The flood of emergency applications seeking immediate relief from landmark EPA rules is a sign of things to come in the wake of the court’s June ruling that overturned Chevron deference, a precedent that formerly gave federal agencies broad power to essentially interpret the law themselves in instances of statutory ambiguity, former high-ranking EPA officials told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I do think we’re going to see more of this in a post-Chevron world, particularly when an agency tries to go beyond the congressional intent or the longstanding regulatory practices of the agency,” Andrew Wheeler, who served as EPA administrator for former President Donald Trump, told the DCNF. “This power plant rule is supposed to be fuel switching, and this section of the Clean Air Act has not done that in the past. I think when you deviate from standard practices, you’re going to see more post-Chevron challenges.”

‘Entirely Unachievable’: Biden EPA Locks In Stringent Emissions Rule For Heavy-Duty Vehicles To Fight Climate Change https://t.co/hTI7251lp1

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 30, 2024

Each of the 17 cases pending against the EPA were filed in the weeks that followed the court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference, according to SCOTUSblog. Beyond the 11 applications that pertain directly to the EPA’s power plant regulations, there are also six taking aim at the agency’s May 7 action establishing new National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and one application does not have to do with the EPA.

If enforced, the EPA’s power plant rules will require existing coal plants to control 90% of their emissions by 2032 if they want to run after 2039, and the regulations will also mandate new natural gas-fired plants to do the same in order to stay open past 2039, according to the agency. Critics of the EPA’s power plant rules have characterized the regulations as a de facto attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which overturned the Obama EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan.”

Plaintiffs in the various applications sitting on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket — sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket” — include states, such as Oklahoma and North Dakota, and industry stakeholders like Continental Resources and America’s Power. While it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up all or even many of these cases, it has the opportunity to seize on at least one of the opportunities in the emergency docket to take on one of the most aggressive regulations promulgated during President Joe Biden’s term in office.

“To me, it’s very exciting, because it is an available legal tool that I think will be really important to push back against this administration’s continued disregard for clear lines of the law,” Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff for the Trump EPA, told the DCNF regarding the post-Chevron deference legal landscape.

Dems’ Climate Bill Overrules Supreme Court, Expands EPA’s Control Over Energy Industryhttps://t.co/mhG3FJvxoz

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 25, 2022

Gunasekara likened the Biden EPA’s approach to major regulations as “a little bit of the spaghetti-against-the-wall approach,” but also gave the agency some credit for generally being strategic in pursuit of its agenda. However, the agency may have made a miscalculation by rushing to finalize major rules quickly in hopes of avoiding possible Congressional Review Act (CRA) actions if a second Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress came into power in November, according to Gunasekara and Wheeler.

“They are giving the Supreme Court numerous opportunities to take a shot at fundamental legal problems with this administration’s regulatory activity,” Gunasekara said of the EPA.

Wheeler agreed that the EPA may have blundered in rushing out major rules to beat CRA deadlines at the expense of being able to hedge their work against a post-Chevron deference future.

“I think the Biden administration made a strategic error in trying to push these regulations out prior to the artificial deadline of the Congressional Review Act,” Wheeler told the DCNF. “I said this at the time, they should have waited for the Loper decision so that they could incorporate the Supreme Court’s decision into their cases to make their regulations stronger. They made a conscious decision to try to get as many of these regulations through the process before the artificial Congressional Review Act deadline, knowing that the Loper decision was coming. And I think they should have waited.”

The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The EU in particular has been aggressive in expediting similar programs which now threaten the agricultural base of half of Europe. This has led to rising farmer protests and given momentum to “far-right” movements, a prospect that the social engineers at the EU Commission seem to fear more than anything else.  Their solution?  They are attempting to bribe farmers with subsidies and have offered to lessen the number of visits farms would receive from bureaucratic agents armed with fines and red tape.  How nice of them…

As Jeremy Clarkson has cleverly proven in his show ‘Clarkson’s Farm’, trying to operate an agricultural business almost anywhere in Europe or the UK is a regulatory nightmare that would put most farmers in the US out of business immediately (America is headed in this direction).  And that’s without the benefit of carbon emissions rules.  Subsidies are the only thing keeping them alive, but the real trick is that the strict regulations force farmers into a position where they need subsidies.  It’s a government enforced racket.

Europeans suffered supply chain collapse and true famine during and after WWII and the experience is still burned into their collective cultural memory.  It’s hard to say if the bribery scheme will work out the way the EU elites hope.  Once carbon rules are passed and accepted as the norm, though, there’s no chance that they will be rescinded.  They will continue to be enforced even when food inflation skyrockets again and mass starvation becomes a reality.

In the US, staunch opposition from conservatives prevented the direct passage of the Green New Deal.  Biden denied his administration had any intention of pursuing GND policies in 2020 during a debate with Donald Trump.

Biden was asked by moderator Chris Wallace if he supported the Green New Deal:

• “No, I don’t support the Green New Deal,” Biden said. 
• “Oh you don’t? Oh, well, that’s a big statement,” Trump interrupted. 
• “I support the Biden plan that I put forward,” Biden said, “which is different than what (Trump) calls the ‘radical’ Green New Deal.” 

Of course, Biden would later covertly embed carbon policies into his “Inflation Reduction Act” – A piece of legislation that utterly failed to accomplish its name (CPI measurements have gone down, but inflation has not), but succeeded in launching the first stage of climate controls outlined in the GND.  Biden has continued to deny that the GND is a goal of his administration, but Kamala Harris seems to have spilled the beans in her first major media interview since she became the Democratic candidate.

Holy Shlit this is so bad

In the first clip, Kamala just admitted that the Inflation Reduction Act was a backdoor way to get the Green New Deal passed

She totally forgot the cover story they've been saying all alongpic.twitter.com/MeijpHA5lX

— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) August 29, 2024

“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed…You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed – and I have worked on it – that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”

Running damage control, the Harris campaign claimed after the interview that she “does not” support the Green New Deal.  Except, she just said that her “values have not changed” in reference to the Green New Deal.  The ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ was a Trojan horse, and it’s only the beginning if Harris becomes president.

Man-made climate change theory is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud in our modern era, with absolutely no hard evidence that global warming is caused by human industrial or agricultural activity.  Official temperature records used by climate scientists only date back to the 1880s; this is a tiny sliver of time in the Earth’s climate history.  When we examine the long term temperature record there have been numerous warming periods long before human created emissions.

When we compare long term temperature records to the long term carbon record, it becomes clear that carbon-based emissions have little to no influence over the Earth’s climate.  Correlation is not proof of causation, and in many cases there isn’t even evidence of correlation.

The Green New Deal has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with environmental communism.  One of the primary reasons why the GND failed to gain public support was because it included “Climate Justice” protocols which are designed to redistribute the wealth of richer nations over to poor nations.  This same agenda has been promoted by globalist institutions like the Summit For A New Global Financing Pact, which has called for the IMF and World Bank to “administrate” these carbon taxes.

In other words, the globalists get billions (or trillions) in funds annually through carbon regulations, then they use that cash as leverage to pressure nations to adopt whatever policies they want.  In the meantime, richer western nations break down economically until everyone is equally poor and the globalists control the planetary pocket book.  In essence, it’s a modern-day form of feudalism in the name of a climate crisis that doesn’t exist.