McClaughry: Biden’s new climate czar

By John McClaughry

President-elect Biden has named former Secretary of State John Kerry, whose greatest accomplishment was the Paris Climate Accord, as his White House Climate Czar. He will lead Biden’s campaign to stamp out the carbon dioxide emissions that he believes are causing climate change with all its terrors.

Apparently Biden didn’t notice the irony in appointing a climate czar who has his own private jet, two yachts, several fancy houses, and who knows how many carbon dioxide producing vehicles.

Let us recall the remarkable speech Kerry gave to a climate gathering in Indonesia in February 2014. In it he made the astounding statement:

[There is a] very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity — that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years — we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet — trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here. That  is what’s causing climate change. It’s a huge irony that the very same layer of gases that has made life possible on Earth from the beginning now makes possible the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen.

This is utterly ridiculous. Earth to Kerry: there is no half-inch-thick spherical blanket of anything around the upper atmosphere, you puffed-up ignoramus.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Dave Winer
Spread the love

9 thoughts on “McClaughry: Biden’s new climate czar

  1. John,

    Your article pre-dates the Texas lawsuit.
    Biden, President-elect, as proclaimed by the US media, may not become US President.
    Kerry may not become Climate Czar.
    Big, earth-shaking events are happening.
    History is being made.


    Seventeen states have joined the Texas SCOTUS suit, regarding violations of the US Constitution, related to the elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

    More states may follow.
    Stay tumid while the US hand-maiden Media eats crow.


    If Dem/Progs win control of the US Government, the US future, and the US people way of life, would be in danger.

    They would have power to lord it over other states that ran free and open elections, tell them what to do, such as end fracking, not pump oil, not mine coal, and how REAL AMERICANS are to live their lives.

    That power would damage/destroy private enterprise to enable a SOCIALIST agenda, a la Bernie and THE QUAD.

    That power would put the US back in Paris, with annual obligations of about $100 billion per year, to be spent by UN bureaucrats in Brussels and Geneva, FOR STARTERS.

    That power would have thousands of environment-disturbing wind turbines all over Maine, etc., that produce electricity only when the wind is blowing.

    That power would have many square miles covered with solar panels, that produce electricity only at midday, and go asleep the rest of the time.

    That power would have shut down our high-efficiency, clean-burning gas power plants, as the RE yahoos did in California, leading to rolling blackouts.

  2. If more people were informed about things like climate change, GWSA, greenies who tout carbon reduction policies while being a part of the cause, maybe they’d demand change. Leaders of those causes should have their feet held to the fire which they have built. As leaders, they should be setting the example not saying, “do as we say, not as we do.” In the days of kings and lords they made laws for the serfs and imposed taxes and tributes. Any serfs who didn’t comply felt the wrath of the lords, backed by the king. That’s where Vermont is going with GWSA.
    People need to start posting accredited studies, and articles about the realities of solar PV panels, and windmills. And keep posting old and new articles. They have to be everywhere; Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, etc. When liberal Dems, and GWSA members travel in a manner that is in conflict with their initiatives it needs to be published. If the rest of Vermont is expected to comply with GWSA then they should lead the way or suffer exposure. It’s one thing to be concerned about climate change, and making solutions that will really work. It’s another to initiate regulations that will only exacerbate the CO2 problem.
    As a final thought… If a green house has 1/8″ glazing to let sunlight in and it performs as intended, will a 6″ thick glazing be even better? Take Kerry’s example of a thin blanket of CO2 that reflects back just generated by sunlight, well a thicker layer reflect more?

  3. I did some rudimentary research to see if there is any correlation between California wildfire history and solar fields. Here is what I found. The top twenty worst wildfires documentation appears to support my suspicion. Take out four wildfires which occurred before 2006. Now you have fourteen, beginning in 2006. Why 2006? Because, that is the year after California’s GWSA was started. It was also the year that commercial production solar complex installations were ramped up and accelerated every year thereafter. 2006 is also a pivotal year for the increase in wildfire activity and damage. Global warming is blamed for the wildfires, but what if GWSA initiatives have disturbed the normal atmospheric architecture that was mostly sculpted by the ocean, hills, mountains, valleys and seasons. There are over 68 thousand acres of black solar panels in CA, not including those on building rooftops.
    I haven’t looked at a time correlation with windmills. My suspicion is they interrupt what used to be the natural wind currents of years past.

  4. This is a guy that parked his 74 foot yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying Massachusetts taxes..

    He’s got a long history of being a scumbag.. and that is a generous word.
    He’s living off the wealth of his wife’s dead husband.
    Great people huh?
    Real high quality.

  5. The new climate Tzar will be spending a lot of money, if the US under Biden rejoins Paris.

    Here are some numbers.


    World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration. EIA.
    See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

    Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

    Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.


    China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.

    They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

    Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
    However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.
    Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

    If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.
    The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.
    The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
    The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.


    The analysis in this article includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
    The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

    50% RE by 2050

    World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
    World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
    World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y

    US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
    US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
    US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

    100% RE by 2050

    World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
    World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
    World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y

    US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
    US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
    US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y


    The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.

    This more-inclusive report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world CAPEX at $100-TRILLION to $150-TRILLION, over the next 30 years, about $3 TRILLION to $5 TRILLION per year.
    For reference, world CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

    NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:

    Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
    Nuclear plants about 60 years
    Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
    Wind turbine systems about 20 years
    Solar systems about 25 years

Comments are closed.