The "electrification" of our economy is a scam

Climate change communists keep talking about electrifying our economy because it is the only way to conceivably get to zero or near zero carbon emissions. Beege wrote a must-read post on this yesterday. Must. Read.


Now I have no problem, in principle, with reducing the carbon footprint of the economy, as long as it can be done with inexpensive, abundant, and reliable power sources that perform the job as well or better than fossil fuels. And that is the promise that is made by the advocates of electrifying our economy.

Perhaps someday that dream can be achieved, but that day is way way off in the future. In the here and now a fossil fuel-free future isn’t even a pipe dream. It’s a nightmare.

Earlier today I wrote about the reasons why the Biden administration is pushing for the elimination of natural gas stoves and the dangers associated with that move, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The activists pushing for uber-electrification (I won’t call them climate alarmists, because I suspect many of them aren’t actually alarmed, but play-acting for effect) absolutely know that our current and near-future electrical generation and transmission cannot conceivably produce enough power to keep our economy going.

They simply don’t care. Or rather, they care, but the immiseration and impoverishment of millions of Americans is a feature, not a bug of these policies.

In recent months the electrical grid has sagged and even broken under the strain of electrification. Heat pumps in the South drew more power than was available due to cold weather, and of course California is utterly incapable of delivering enough electrical power to its citizens reliably.

As they push for 100% electrification of transportation, they also mandate energy policies that create shortages that will strand people at home, without air conditioning or heat, and of course with the lights out. This is as predictable as a sunrise.


Unsurprisingly, the wealthier will have backup generation and will be able to afford massive battery backups for their own use, but the average person doesn’t have the same resources. And, if they did, the price for such systems would skyrocket due to the lack of enough available minerals to build them.

Minerals that are mined through child labor in countries with little to no environmental protection. Can’t let any mining go on in the US, you know.

In The Telegraph Andrew Orlowsky wrote about how lack of electricity generation capacity could doom the electrification of cars. He pointed to comments made by Toyota president Akio Toyoda, who questioned the wisdom of diving head first into an all-electric future. He also noted the declining reliability of the power grid in the UK, which applies to the US as well.

But the real issue Mr Toyoda has opened up is this: Western societies are charging into the electrification of transport and heating without actually providing the electricity. This cannot be wished away.

In January, the then secretary of state for trade, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, told Parliament that “we are going to be requiring up to four times as much electricity” to meet demand for electrified heating and transport. Yet we are not building four times as much electric generation capacity.

The energy legacy of the Conservatives will be the loss of reliable energy. For example, only two years ago, the UK was running 15 operational nuclear reactors, but by 2030 it will be just three, and that’s assuming no further delays. The reality is that we have created two parallel energy systems; one of which works, while the other does not. The politicised grid mashes them together, making the one that provides reliable and low cost energy both expensive and unstable.

And then along comes a genuine cold snap which exposes our new reliance on nature, and sub-prime energy technologies. Climate change campaigners who are inclined to view any weather event as a policy message dictated personally by an Earth deity should remember this trick works both ways.

During our recent dunkelflaute – a period of high pressure, freezing temperatures and no wind – our onshore wind blades stood still for three weeks, consuming power, but not generating any. What wind power we got, and it wasn’t very much, all came from offshore facilities.


The problem with Mr. Olowsky’s and Mr. Toyoda’s analysis is that they assume that for policymakers the decline in reliable power and hence the threat to mobility are seen as a pressing problem. So, too, with Secretary Trevelyan. Yet by their actions these policy makers have shown that they are at best indifferent to the problem, and even perhaps welcome it.

I simply don’t believe that the people in power care much about whether the electricity is there to keep our economy going. If they did, they wouldn’t rush headlong into the full electrification of the economy without ensuring that there is electricity to power it. If you are pushing electric cars while closing 4/5ths of your nuclear power plants, ensuring reliability is not a major concern of yours.

The forced electrification of cars, in particular, reveals their intentions: if you can’t charge your vehicle, you are utterly reliant on the government-run transit systems. These systems are collapsing due to reduced use by consumers, so the easiest way to get people to use them is ban fossil fuel cars and then restrict charging of electric vehicles, as California has already done at times. And if your mobility relies on regulated transit, the government owns your mobility.


An all-electric economy is an easily controlled economy. The infrastructure is there to control your thermostats, your car charging, your cooking times (if you go electric, as they demand). We have wired our houses to be “smart,” and those smarts don’t reside in your home, but in the cloud.

You are at their mercy.

Does this sound crazy? It should, because it is diabolical. But is it plausible? Of course it is. We already know that power companies can turn your thermostats up and down at will (right now people generally opt-in, but the tech is right there when the power supply runs out). We already know the Left has been at war with air conditioning. That they want “15-minute cities” without private cars.

You will own nothing and like it.

We still trust our lawmakers too much, because 20-30 years ago this sort of thing would have been unthinkable. But as we now live in the “emergency” economy where government has nearly unlimited power over us, a “climate emergency” is on the table.


When there is an “emergency,” governments can do anything they want. We know that because we have been living through it for the past 3 years.

Still, is it fair to say that the people in power are indifferent to or even want to see an immiseration of millions of people? That sounds kind of kooky. Who would do that?

Well, look at the history of the 20th century. Lots of leaders have done it, and  benefited mightily in the process. Every socialist, fascist, big government ideologue in the world has pushed or achieved policies that immiserate citizens. Hugo Chavez–whom you recall was a favorite of many on the Left–did so and became a billionaire in the process. Daniel Ortega entered power as a communist rebel, but now is super-wealthy.

There is a ton of money to be made in failing to solve these problems, and when people begin to solve them in reality they are reviled by the elites. If the problem goes away, the grift ends.

Look at Elon Musk, who now building over a million electric cars a year and ramping up; he is now a hate object on the Left, despite having done more to electrify the economy than anybody. He just has done it well, so Biden literally won’t even acknowledge his company exists.


Instead Biden points to Ford and GM, despite their manifest failures to produce electric cars at scale and with massive subsidies. Succeeding isn’t the point. It is dividing up the spoils and accumulating power.

Look at sales numbers:

Among GM’s electrified vehicles, Bolt EV and Bolt EUV (electrified utility vehicle) sales totaled 16,108 in the fourth quarter, up from 25 vehicles a year ago, while 72 Hummer EV Pickups sold after only 1 sold a year ago and 86 Cadillac LYRIQs sold versus zero last year.

72 Electric Hummers. 86 Cadillacs.

Tesla delivered 405,000 vehicles during the same time period. Yet Biden touts GM, ignores Tesla. Because power. He doesn’t give a whit about anything but increasing his power, as is the same for all the Elite. That’s why nuclear power–the most obvious solution to our electricity woes–is being passed over in favor of solar and wind, which are less abundant and reliable, and need backup (of which there is much too little).

Electrification of the economy is not inherently bad, but doing so without ensuring inexpensive and reliable electricity is. Since the Elite clearly doesn’t care about affordable, abundant, and reliable power with appropriate backup to ensure 100% uptime, then they have a different agenda than they claim.


That agenda is getting more money and control over your life.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos