Eight House Democrats Vote to Pull the Plug on Biden’s EV Rule
Meanwhile, the Harris-Walz campaign is silent on climate policy, which is odd because Harris was tie-breaking vote in the Inflation Reduction Act that was, in reality, the Green New Deal that brought policies like the EV mandate.
Another green energy domino is falling, and we have bipartisanship to thank for it!
Eight Democrats voted with the House GOP to overturn a Biden administration rule that forces automakers to make a significant portion of their fleet electric.
The Democrats who voted in favor of overturning the rule were Reps. Yadira Caraveo (Colo.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), and Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska).
All eight Democrats represent districts that are highly competitive in this fall’s election.
One Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), voted with the rest of the Democrats against axing the rule. Fitzpatrick also represents a competitive district, though it is rated as likely Republican by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
The action comes as EV sales, a keystone of compliance with this nonsense, have begun to slow.
“The EPA’s latest tailpipe emissions rule is not really about reducing air pollution. It’s about forcing Americans to drive electric vehicles,’’ said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
She called the rule “unreasonable” and “just another example of how the Biden-Harris administration’s rush-to-green agenda is handing China the key to America’s energy future, jeopardizing our auto industry and forcing people to buy unaffordable EVs they don’t want.’’
The effort is not expected to eliminate the rule. If the resolution that passes makes it past the Senate, Biden (or his designated minder of the day) will veto it.
However, it is still a positive sign that real climate science is chipping away at “consensus” science. In fact, The New York Times recently ran a story about how green-energy activists were fine with Vice President Kamala Harris’s silence on climate change during the campaign.
Unfortunately for Harris, the paper did remind readers she was the deciding vote for the poorly named “Inflation Reduction Act”, which Biden admitted was essentially the Green New Deal in disguise.
In fact, they used a quote from Obama’s toxic EPA chief, Gina “Animas River” McCarthy, to support Harris’ silence.
Gina McCarthy, President Biden’s former climate change adviser and a former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said activists are not demanding more details on climate from Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz because they each have well-known accomplishments.
As vice president, Ms. Harris cast the tiebreaking vote for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate investment in United States history. Mr. Walz signed a law requiring Minnesota to get all of its electricity from wind, solar and other carbon-free sources by 2040.
“Nobody’s worried about how many times she talks about climate change,” Ms. McCarthy said, calling Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz “climate champions.”
The climate scam is now so unpopular that even the New York Times is openly admitting that it's a vote-loser: "Climate die-hards openly admit that it will cost them votes if [Kamala Harris] talks about the climate. They know the voters don’t want it, and the only way keep the… pic.twitter.com/NdgxYvKBmL
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) September 22, 2024
The New York Post offered this analysis of Harris’ climate silence.
If you’re wondering why, there’s a one-word answer: Pennsylvania.
“I think they are worried if [Kamala Harris] takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Kevin Book, managing director of Clearview Energy Partners, told reporters.
“It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”
For Democrats, talking about climate and its flip-side issue, fracking, is a lose-lose proposition just now.
If Harris pushes anti-carbon policies, she might lose Pennsylvania.
If she supports fracking, she risks alienating young climate voters.
But Pennsylvania is clearly the more important prize.
Hopefully, Pennsylvanians will learn from Californians.
Dear Pennsylvania…take it from this Californian, don’t let Kamala Harris anywhere near your energy sources.
She’s a radical environmentalist even for California.
Even Obama eventually read the science and agreed to fracking.
As Attorney General, Kamala worked overtime to… pic.twitter.com/YgjEAnWknZ
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) July 22, 2024
It will take a long time to chip away in piecemeal fashion all the economic damage done under Harris and her green energy minions. But the House vote is a good sign that even more dominoes will fall.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
the trump pro american effect is working
How about a compromise? Have all those promising minority youths paint thunderbolts across the car bonnets.
just give them a spray can and a knife and let the grant money start a flown
The whole green program is fundamentally flawed. It cannot be deployed on a massive scale. As this subject gets very technical, explaining it to the general public gets very difficult.
In essence it’s pipes versus wires. Electric cars, wind turbines, solar cells are all aimed at replacing chemical energy flows with electrical energy flows. The US is riddled with pipelines that carry oil, gasoline, natural gas, and slurries. The energy thruput, which can be expressed in watts is enormous. When you pump gasoline into your car, the energy transmission reaches megawatts. Even with the largest wire gauge (AWG 0000) with about a half inch diameter, you couldn’t “charge” your tank in the usual 2-minute pump time. That’s why it takes more than 12 hours to charge a Tesla Model S. Even with the Tesla supercharger it takes a half hour to charge the battery to 80%. Supercharging also degrades battery life. Such big service times will cause massive tie ups at service stations. To understand why you need queueing theory. Any large scale replacement of ICEs with EVs is not feasible.
Here is another example (my own calculation). The Alaska pipeline is four feet in diameter and at maximum can transmit 2.136 million barrels a day. We can turn this chemical energy flow into a wattage. If we divide the total yearly electrical energy consumption of New York City by the number seconds in a year we get the average energy flow. The wattage of Alaska pipeline is 19 times that number. A mere four-foot pipe! Of course I’m over simplifying because electrical energy is high quality compared to chemical energy. Nevertheless these example show the contrast between pipes and wires.
Pipes versus wires reminds me of the early 20th Century was between AC and DC, or Edison versus Tesla. Don’t fight the physics! Our legislators understand none of this, nor do they care.
“If you’re wondering why, there’s a one-word answer: Pennsylvania.”
Here’s an even shorter word: Germany.
If democrats are paying attention, they’ve got to be crapping their pants over Germany’s elections.
Everybody that voted yay on the inflation production act should lose their job this fall. They probably won’t but they should.
Leave a Comment