Having solved all other problems in the nation and the world at large, the Democrats have begun finalizing their platform for the big Philadelphia convention and Hillary Clinton’s general election campaign. They’re going after the big fish in the pond, too. Why worry about little things like ISIS supporters shooting up night clubs or rising murder rates in our cities when you can investigate Exxon? (Inside Climate News)

The committee drafting a platform for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party unanimously called on Friday for the Justice Department to investigate fossil fuel companies, such as ExxonMobil Corporation. The oil company has been accused of misleading shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change…

The effect of the session, one of several forums around the country, was to intensify the partisan heat around criticism of Exxon’s climate record, while allowing the Clinton camp to stake out political territory that is not quite so harsh on oil, coal and natural gas companies.

Yes, you read that correctly. In what seems to indeed be a continuation of the Obama administration’s policies, the DNC will be promising another term where the White House will politicize federal law enforcement and use the Justice Department to punish their political enemies and score points with their base. But what’s nearly as interesting as what Bernie’s army and the green energy warriors got out of the deal was what they didn’t get.

Much to the chagrin of the far Left, the platform does not call for a complete ban on fracking. That one is a no brainer since fracking has been absolved of pretty much all of its ecological sins, even by the EPA. But even more to the point, it’s keeping a lot of people employed in several key swing states. We wouldn’t want to lose an election over something like that, now would we?

Also, there’s no carbon tax in the platform. Bernie Sanders managed to scare off enough of their own base with his massive tax plans (which made even Hillary’s look tame by comparison) and a huge hit to lower and middle income consumers on their energy bills wasn’t going to go over very well. The also refused to include a “climate test” for the approval of future energy projects like Keystone XL. In place of that they dangled another carrot in front of the green energy crowd. (Emphasis added)

But the platform panel, according to RL Miller, founder of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, did accept a goal of obtaining all U.S. energy from renewable fuels by 2050.

That ambition would support the new Paris climate agreement’s goals and is hardly compatible with a business-as-usual or “all-of-the-above” energy policy. And it is a far cry from the pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-fossil fuels stance of the Republican Party and its candidate, Donald Trump.

“We’re thrilled that the Democratic Party will formally recognize the need to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their deceit,” Miller said. “And we’re happy that the committee is calling for the United States to be 100% powered by clean energy by 2050. However, we don’t see how we’ll make that bold leap with baby steps.”

So we’re going to be 100% powered by “clean energy” in only 34 years, eh? Does anyone – even among the Democrats – actually believe the hogwash they’re pumping into this platform? I suppose the definition of “clean energy” could be tinkered with a bit here when they try to explain this away. Does nuclear count? It’s not a “fossil fuel” by definition, but I doubt the hipsters think of it as very “clean” either. Let’s see where we got our energy last year.

Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
– Biomass = 1.6%
– Geothermal = 0.4%
– Solar = 0.6%
– Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%

When liberals talk about “clean energy” they are referring almost entirely to wind and solar. Currently those two resources are proving a whopping 5.3% of our nation’s energy needs combined, and that’s only with massive government subsidies to keep them afloat. You’re going to make up the other nearly 95% in the next three and a half decades?

Pull the other one, chief. It’s got bells on it.