Green New Scam: The Dirty Little Secret

You’ve no doubt heard about the “New Green Deal” — a set of government proposals designed to fight the “climate change crisis.”

If enacted, these laws would impose radical changes on nearly every facet of society, costing companies billions of dollars while diminishing our standard of living.

But anyone who examines the scientific facts instead of the pseudo-science and phony models knows that these government-mandated sacrifices are in vain.

The fact is, there is no climate crisis…the ”renewable energy” being pushed on us can’t replace fossil fuels… and the policymakers who aren’t willfully ignorant of these facts have something much more devious in mind.

So in these pages, you’ll learn exactly why the Green New Deal is actually a Green New Scam… as well as how to position your portfolio for what’s really going on.

We’ll start with a little background…

The New Green Deal takes its name from the 1930s’ “New Deal” — President Franklin Roosevelt’s legally dubious initiatives to create work during the Great Depression.

(In fact, it can be argued that the New Deal would have actually prolonged the Depression if the nation hadn’t been distracted by World War II. But that’s a story for another time.)

The New Green Deal was first proposed by Howie Hawins of the Green Party, who ran for governor of New York in 2010.

In 2018, the Democrats appropriated the idea, led by Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

The New Green Scammers
(Source: Senate Democrats)

In its current form, it’s just a list of goals for the U.S. government to strive for.

Of course, the centerpiece is to make the country completely reliant on renewable energy sources. But it also covers social concerns like universal employment and health care.

There aren’t many specifics in the proposal, however — most notably, how to pay for any of it.

Still, that hasn’t stopped bits and pieces of the New Green Deal from popping up in various legislation.

For example, the Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with stopping inflation… but did devote $1 trillion for subsidies on electric vehicles, solar panels and offshore windmill farms.

And it’s only a matter of time before we start seeing full-blown mandates that will hamstring businesses and reduce our standard of living.

These extreme measures are touted as the only way to end the climate change crisis.

But in reality, there is no crisis.

Earth’s climate is changing. It’s always changing.

I used to live on Long Island Sound, which has a rocky coast.

The reason it’s rocky is that 10,000 years ago, it was a glacier. Glaciers push rocks to one side (called moraine). Then, when the glacier melts, you have a nice body of water with a rocky coast.

This used to be a glacier — 10,000 years ago

That’s real climate change. But it took 10,000 years and carbon dioxide (CO2) had nothing to do with it.

Instead it has more to do with sunspots, ocean currents, volcanoes, the jet stream and other natural forces we cannot control.

In fact, climate change is one of the most complex phenomena ever addressed by science — and one of the most difficult to model and predict. The modeling alone requires sophisticated tools and incredible computational power.

A climate model begins by dividing the surface of the planet into a grid with squares of about 360 square miles over land surfaces and 36 square miles over the oceans.

That’s about 101,000,000 grids.

Each grid is then extrapolated into a stack about 30 miles high extending to the outer edge of the stratosphere.

All weather occurs in this zone, with most of the weather occurring within 10 miles of the earth’s surface in the troposphere.

The vertical stacks are then sliced horizontally into thin layers like pancakes. Each layer must be analyzed separately for climate conditions in that pancake, as well as how that pancake impacts — and is impacted by — adjacent pancakes.

All of that goes on before we even get to feedback loops and recursive functions.

You get the picture. If each pancake is one-mile thick, that comes to 3.03 billion pancakes.

Analyzing one pancake is tricky. Analyzing 3.03 billion pancakes is mind-boggling.

Analyzing the interaction of each of the 3.03 billion pancakes with each of the other 3.03 billion pancakes (even allowing for attenuated interaction at a distance) is a super-linear function that borders on the impossible in terms of computational complexity.

One scientist estimates that if we had supercomputers one thousand times faster than today’s computers, the run time on the problem described above would be several months.

So how do scientists actually work with models that cannot be run with today’s computers?

They make assumptions. Lots of assumptions.

It’s impossible to make direct observations of every pancake in a climate model.

Sure, we have satellites and weather stations recording temperature and precipitation.

But those inputs only include a tiny fraction of the surface areas and stack heights just described.

So the computer needs to make assumptions about the data, using parameters set by the researchers running the model.

And that’s the problem.

Scientists can get almost any result they want by tweaking the inputs and running multiple scenarios.

It also means that the outputs are mostly worthless because of unfounded assumptions, computational complexity and flawed model design.

I have studied them and understand the math and complex dynamics, so I know why most of the models are garbage.

For one thing, they are so defective they can’t even simulate the past based on known data. If a model can’t backtest correctly, why on earth should it be relied on to forecast?

And yet these are the models that are routinely touted as showing an “existential threat to mankind” and “climate catastrophe coming.”

Then they have been amplified by a largely ignorant media and opportunistic politicians looking to increase their own power.

This is not to say that all climate science is garbage.

There are honest scientists using solid data and robust models to make more accurate assessments of the current state and future path of climate change

The list includes Michael Shellenberger, Bjorn Lomborg, Bruce C. Bunker, M. J. Sanger, Steven E. Koonin and many others.

Koonin’s voice is especially impactful because he was Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama administration. So he’s a liberal Democrat who happens to be an honest scientist who presents data honestly.

Together, these sober voices are working to counter some of the more ludicrous claims from the group of pseudo-scientists using badly flawed models and selected data.

Let’s look at some of the most dire warnings you may have heard… and what the science really says.

Flawed assumptions lead to flawed models on Earth’s rising temperatures. But the problem is compounded by extrapolating what higher temperatures will do to the planet.

Here’s just a sample of the dire predictions that get a lot of media attention — regardless of what the data says is actually happening.

• Surging sea levels will inundate the coasts.

  This is false. Sea levels have been rising at the same pace for 100 years, unaffected by climate change or human activity.

  The rate of increase is about 7 inches per 100 years — barely enough to get your feet wet in 2121.

• Hurricanes are becoming more powerful and more frequent.

  This is false. The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment said, “There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has there been any trend identified in the number of U.S. land-falling hurricanes.”

  There is evidence that property damage from hurricanes is increasing. Does this mean hurricanes are getting stronger? Not at all.

  It just means that rich owners with subsidized insurance are building mansions on sandbars where they don’t belong. That’s not climate change. It’s stupidity.

• Tornadoes are more powerful and more frequent.

  This is false. The strength of a tornado can be measured using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale. The scale starts at EF0 and goes up to EF5.

  According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records, between 1954 and 2014, the number of EF1 or greater tornadoes has been fairly consistent per year, with spikes in 1973, 1982, 2008 and 2011.

  The number of tornadoes measured as EF3 or greater has been steady, too, except for spikes in 1957, 1965, 1973 and 2011.

  To date, no correlation has been shown between tornado strength and CO2 emissions.

• Snowstorms are becoming more frequent with greater accumulation of snow.

  This is false. Snowstorms are highly localized so, of course, measurements vary with some locations getting more snow, some less.

  A chart of annual snowfall in Washington, D.C., from 1889–2018 shows the annual snowfall in inches has been trending downward for the entire 130-year period.

  Snowfall figures have been falling for 129 years.
  (Source: Unsettled by Steven E. Koomin)

  If climate change has any impact at all, it is causing less snow.

  And there is no correlation between any climate change and an increase in CO2 emissions.

• Wildfires are destroying larger areas more frequently than ever before.

  This is false. Satellite data from NASA reveals that the global area burned annually by fires from 1998 to 2015 has declined by about 25%.

So much for the fear.

Scientists who aren’t looking to needlessly alarm anyone generally agree that slight global warming is detectable — but it’s not a crisis and won’t be in the foreseeable future.

They also admit that carbon emissions have been rising. In fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 410 ppm today.

A lot of that is from natural sources, however, that have little to do with human fuel use.

And besides, science can’t be sure if CO2 emissions are the main cause of the warming we are seeing… or even if it is a contributing cause.

In fact, rising temperatures could be attributed to many potential causes, including solar cycles, ocean salinity, ocean currents, cloud cover, aerosols, volcanos, agricultural practices and natural methane release.

Numerous official reports that reach the same conclusion (although you may have to scan the footnotes to find that out; official reports support scary headlines then heavily diluted by the detailed content).

Regardless, there is no existential threat. At worst, climate change is a relatively mild phenomenon with little or no impact on temperature, severe weather or sea levels.

What’s worse, the alarmists are pushing for an immediate end to all use of fossil fuels — even though the “renewable” energy sources they tout simply aren’t ready for prime time.

Here’s the truth about so-called “green” electricity…

There’s no question solar panels have come a long way since they were first created in 1881.

And solar panels can reduce your reliance on the centralized power grid.

As a matter of fact, my farm in New England has the largest off-grid, non-commercial solar panel system in the state.

The pylons have a cranking system so that each array can be tilted to face the sun at an optimal angle depending on the time of year.

Your editor’s humble solar farm

While the system generates plenty of power, I wouldn’t exactly call it free.

I cleared two acres of land to provide a suitable location… which now cannot be used for any other purpose.

Building it easily ran into the six figures — and this was before supply chain problems and increased demand pushed prices much higher.

Even as an early-mover, the amount of money I’m saving in electricity costs hasn’t exceeded my investment.

I won’t live long enough to fully amortize the cost of my system.

But that’s not why I built it.

It’s designed to provide power in case the U.S. electric grid fails.

If that sounds too alarmist, remember that the Southeast U.S. temporarily ran out of gasoline due to a hacked pipeline operating system. These catastrophes will happen more frequently in the future.

Also note that my house doesn’t “run” entirely on solar power. My system produces about 7kWh, (that's 7 kilowatt hours, or 7,000 watts of usage for one hour) on a continuous basis when the sun is shining.

Of course, the sun isn’t always shining at full strength. It goes down at night, and even during the day their output can be affected by rain, snow or clouds.

That’s why our panels are hooked to 40 Blue Ion lithium batteries stacked in five glass-fronted cabinets. When fully charged, the stored electricity can last us three days at normal use levels.

But these batteries add to the expense, maintenance and footprint of the system. They are also filled with poisonous chemicals, which will complicate disposal when they reach the end of their life.

Moreover, batteries have a fixed capacity. Once they’re full, any extra electricity generated from my panels is wasted.

Keep in mind, this is all just a local solar system powering a single farm.

Creating a system that can provide enough electricity for entire cities is exponentially more complicated and expensive.

The rooftop solar panel systems you see in the suburbs don't power the homes they're installed on. They feed power to the grid and the owner gets a credit on her electric bill.

The owner also pays for the system over ten-years and the unpaid costs are a lien on the house in the meantime, similar to a second mortgage

And, yes, the output helps. But it's rarely enough power for a single home, let alone a town or city.

The bottom line on solar power is that it's efficient and can make a valuable contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

It is most useful in remote locations and for powering single buildings or complexes where the system is in close proximity to the facility.

When used at scale, solar power is an inefficient contributor to the grid. It requires tying up huge plots of land. Any electricity that is not immediately used is wasted, unless it is stored in expensive batteries — which will eventually need to be disposed of in a safe manner.

In the end, solar has its place, but the contribution is marginal. It cannot replace carbon-based fuels.

Wind turbines and wind farms are another frequently cited replacement for fossil fuels.

There is no doubt that wind turbines are capable of generating significant amounts of energy without carbon emissions in their operation.

But there is an enormous amount of carbon-based energy used in the manufacture, transportation and installation of turbines.

In other words, wind turbines are responsible for fossil fuel emissions before they ever contribute to a reduction in emissions.

Once in place, they can be an efficient substitute or alternative to solar power systems in terms of the amount of space utilized relative to electrical output.

The biggest challenge is where to put them.

In most cases, the optimal locations for wind turbines are far from the urban centers that use the most electricity. That means building extra infrastructure for carrying the power from where it’s generated to where it’s needed.

And wherever they end up, there’s no getting around the fact that wind turbines are unsightly.

I have driven through spectacular terrain all over the world only to round a curve and be confronted by a row of wind turbines atop a formerly beautiful vista.

A great way to ruin a beautiful view.

They kill a fair share of birds, too, including endangered species.

There’s been a push lately to put them offshore — requiring infrastructure that can stand up to saltwater. And, of course, anchoring them in the ocean disrupts the wildlife, including fisheries

Perhaps that’s why alarmist elites always propose wind farms in areas where they do not live or vacation. You won't find them off the Hamptons, or Malibu or in the mountains near Vail.

You will find them in more blue-collar stretches of the Jersey Shore or the Appalachians where everyday Americans live. That's typical of the elite double standard.

And, of course, these ugly monsters only produce electricity when the wind is blowing.

Even the windiest corridors can see stretches of calm. So a power grid cannot depend on a constant stream of energy from windmills.

There is also the problem of wasted capacity. If the blades are producing more electricity than the grid currently needs, the excess is lost. Once again the only way to solve the problem is with expensive batteries that are impractical at large scale.

Perhaps the biggest drawback to relying on the wind is how fragile these systems are.

In February 2021, ice storms ravaged parts of Texas. Reuters reports that nearly half of the states’ wind farms were frozen in place — putting extra strain on the power grid when people needed electricity to stay warm.

The resulting blackouts and brownouts killed at least 151 people and caused over $195 billion in damages… making it the most expensive disaster in the history of Texas.

As with solar power, the most that can be said is that wind turbines have a place in the energy mix. Still, wind turbines are not a scalable alternative to the continued use of oil and natural gas.

Other ways cited by climate alarmists to cut down carbon emissions also have massive barriers to entry.

Nuclear power could easily provide emission-free power. But fears of radioactive waste and potential meltdowns severely limit its adoption. Opening a new plant in the United States requires miles of red tape and huge cash investments.

The United States hasn’t seen a new nuclear power plant go online since 2016. The one before that started operations in 1996 — a 20-year gap.

Then you have hydroelectric plants, which create power using running water from rivers. And to be fair, they are efficient and useful.

The Hoover Dam in Nevada and the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State are not only engineering marvels but are substantial contributors to the energy requirements of their regions.

Quebec, Canada, has among the largest and best-developed hydro-electric generating capacity in the world.

And unlike solar and wind sources, hydroelectric power is constant and can be increased or decreased as needed by managing spillways and reservoir capacity.

When the wind doesn’t blow, water still flows

The problem, of course, is that building a hydroelectric plant requires damming a river, which has major effects up- and downstream.

As recently as 1948, entire towns in Tennessee were wiped off the map due to dam construction.

Improper planning and construction also sets the stage for catastrophe. In 2020, Chinese officials warned that the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze river could collapse — putting 400 million people at risk.

Again, the folks pushing for more hydroelectric power plants would sing a different tune if their homes were in danger.

Another darling of the green movement is geothermal power, which uses the Earth’snatural heat to create the steam needed for electricity generation.

But it is only feasible in certain areas of the world. Even then, it is the most expensive form of renewable energy.

Given the locational limitations and high costs, it will not be a major contributor to the elimination of carbon-based energy.

And while we’re talking about unworkable ways to end carbon emissions, let’s consider electric vehicles (EVs).

The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to support EVs, with subsidies to companies producing them and tax breaks for people driving them.

But EVs are not an efficient solution to carbon emissions, either.

For one thing, they need to be charged — and that electricity comes from an energy grid that is still largely powered by oil, natural gas and coal.

Just look at China, which has the largest potential market for EVs.

Yet over 50% of China's domestic energy comes from coal-fired plants. China is adding to their coal burning capacity continually.

Just look at their energy supply over the last few years…

So the “clean” EV is really just a battery-powered intermediary for coal-generated electricity.

The other major problem with EVs is batteries. As we’ve explained, there is nothing environmentally friendly about making or disposing of these expensive power sources.

They limit a vehicle’s range, and recharging them isn’t nearly as fast as filling up your gas-powered car at a nearby station.

Yet policymakers still push the “climate crisis” narrative — jeopardizing our entire standard of living by insisting we switch to inferior power sources and modes of transportation.

Some of these alarmists may be “true believers”... men and women who have deluded themselves into thinking the world needs saving.

In truth, they are just repeating things they’ve heard from other media or political leaders without independent inquiry or investigation.

For the rest of the alarmists, however, something much more nefarious is at play…

There is a lot of money to be made by perpetuating the New Green Scam.

Scientists who espouse alarmist positions on climate change are in line for large research grants from activist foundations and NGOs.

Executives who take alarmist positions may find their stock prices boosted by institutions making Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) investments.

Wealth advisors who promote ESG funds profit from management fees and performance fees as the money rolls in.

Academics who caution that the climate threat is overblown may be denied tenure or publication and be subject to cancel culture disparagement.

Media anchors who promote climate alarmism can improve ratings.

Websites that feature climate catastrophe stories get clicks.

Politicians can get votes by appearing to “do something” about a supposed existential threat.

Central bankers want to claim that climate is a threat because it’s a basis for garnering even more power. They can comb through a bank’s books to see if they are lending to “bad” industries such as oil and gas or to “good” industries such as solar panel manufacturers.

At that point, the bankers themselves will fall into line in order to appease their regulators.

And the rest of the world sees an opportunity to guilt wealthier countries into handing over truckloads of cash.

In November 2022, the United Nations held its regular climate change conference — known as COP27 — at the resort town of Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

What’s powering all these lights?
(Source: Expedia.com)

Most of the attendees arrived in private planes and drove to and fro in gas-powered vehicles. So clearly the goal wasn’t to curb carbon emissions.

But the real scam was revealed when the parties agreed to transfer over $230 billion to poorer countries as “climate reparations.”

In other words, wealthy nations are handing over money because of the damage they’ve supposedly done.

Yet China — one of the largest polluters in the world — will not be contributing to the fund.

And thus the true motive is revealed — to transfer wealth from rich western nations to poor nations all over the world.

That’s the dirty little secret behind the climate alarmist agenda.

It’s not about saving the planet.

It’s about transferring your tax dollars to socialist kleptocrats abroad. It’s about imposing world taxation, world governance and ultimately the demise of democracy and individual autonomy.

What better way to impose global control than to rely on a global catastrophe, even an invented catastrophe?

All you have to do to see through the deception of the New Green Scam is to follow the evidence. Then you need an action plan.

Protecting yourself from the rhetoric and harmful policies of the New Green Scam starts by understanding the truth behind their hysterical claims.

1. Yes, the climate is changing. It always has and it always will. But it's a slow process and quite complex. What's needed is observation and experimentation, not hysteria.
2. Yes, carbon emissions are increasing. But most of that increase occurred before significant consumption of oil and gas… and most of the increase is from natural causes. So, humans are contributing to carbon emissions. However, they are not the sole source and the impact on total warming is unclear.
3. Yes, sea levels are rising. But they have been rising for 100 years at about the same pace — about 7 inches per century. That’s far from an existential threat… and there’s no evidence it’s being caused by global warming.

Far from the hysterical claims of climate alarmists, the prospect for climate change is straightforward. Climate change will continue, but on its own will have almost no economic costs.

It may even create economic benefits as certain regions become more productive in terms of agricultural output due to longer, warmer growing seasons.

Hurricanes, tornados, wildfires and droughts will continue as they have in the past, unaffected by climate change or even global warming.

The bigger danger is from policymakers looking to enrich themselves while reducing the standard of living for everyone else. We will also see plenty of political posturing and virtue signaling.

The Biden administration has already shut down pipeline projects and has said it won’t support further oil and gas exploration. Expect to hear more about global carbon taxes and caps on carbon emissions as well.

In the end, however, these schemes will fail in the face of reality.

Energy demands will grow as developed economies continue to grow in order to support aging populations. Developing economies will grow even faster to support a huge youth cohort looking for at least a middle-income lifestyle.

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind will be part of that mix, as will hydropower and geothermal, where available.

Nuclear reactors are another option, though objections to nuclear power are even more strident than the objections to hydroelectric.

In the end, however, it will become clear to everyone that oil and gas are not going away. They are too important, have too many embedded structural advantages and have huge economies of scale.

Once politicians and the media become more aware of the real science of climate change, they will distance themselves from the false science of the climate alarmists.

Then the oil and gas industries will regain their footing.

So the smart thing to do is invest in a mixture of companies developing carbon-based and renewable energy sources.

And where we see the most opportunity is in the traditional hydrocarbon-based sectors of the market.

Here are three specific stocks that we are highly confident will deliver outstanding total returns to shareholders for decades to come. By total returns, I am referring to stock price appreciation plus dividend income.

Please note: These are unofficial recommendations, so they will not be tracked in a portfolio. They are intended as long-term investments to profit from rising energy demands.

One is a disciplined oil and gas producer, one is a high-tech oil services provider, and one owns some of the most valuable pipelines in America.

Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN)

Devon Energy Corp. (NYSE: DVN) owns some of the best shale oil acreage in the U.S. It’s located in the Permian Basin of West Texas. This basin is large enough and extends far enough below the ground to produce oil profitably for decades to come.

Devon’s management team has shown impressive discipline. It was one of the first oil and gas producers to focus on high profitability rather than production growth. Now, Devon is set up to deliver high free cash flow. This cash flow will fund a regular dividend, variable dividends, and stock buybacks.

In 2022, Devon reported $6 billion in free cash flow. That’s enormous relative to its market cap. Temporary disappointment over higher capital spending, announced in February 2022, created a buying opportunity for patient investors. DVN is a smart long-term holding. A combination of dividends and stock price appreciation could return multiples of today’s stock price over the next decade.

SLB Inc. (NYSE: SLB)

Much to the chagrin of the Green New Deal crowd, the global market will demand a sustained high rate of oil production for decades to come. This gives SLB Inc. (NYSE: SLB), formerly known as Schlumberger, a wonderful opportunity set. This blue-chip oilfield services company has managed the recent difficult environment well. Now, demand for its services is rising fast.

SLB’s reputation for technical expertise means it's the top choice for executing complex oil and gas projects for industry giants like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Saudi Aramco. With investment growth potential in offshore and Middle Eastern projects, SLB's earnings per share could approach $10 by the late 2020s. With the company’s commitment to return half of its free cash flow to its shareholders, I foresee a decade of excellent returns for SLB shareholders.

Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI)

Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) owns one of the most valuable pipeline networks in America. We’ve followed KMI since the 2015 crash in pipeline stocks. That crash was caused by excessive, debt-funded growth. But that’s ancient history. Since 2015, KMI cut its dividend to a sustainable level and reduced its net debt load by over $11 billion. Management has rebuilt shareholder value on a much stronger base.

Today, Kinder Morgan’s oil and gas pipelines and storage terminals are irreplaceable assets with long remaining useful lives. These assets produce steady, consistent cash flows that are used to pay a reliable dividend. Many income-seeking investors will come to view KMI as a must-own dividend stock in the years ahead.

I like Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN), SLB Inc. (NYSE: SLB), and Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) as three long-term plays on Energy Armageddon. I expect all three to deliver market-beating total returns (including dividends) over the next decade.

The greatest opportunities are in beaten-down energy companies today that will rally in the years ahead as the continuing need for carbon-based energy becomes clear.

You also want to own well-managed wind and solar companies.

Opportunities in hydro- and nuclear energy are limited mostly to debt because the plants themselves are sponsored by governments.

The least attractive opportunities are in geothermal (because of costs) and EVs (because of batteries and subsidies).

So keep with us for the specific stocks to add to your portfolio.

They will help you build wealth as the New Green Deal is exposed for the sham it is.