And there we have it. Americans are being asked to accept the force-feeding of an incredibly radical set of policies with a price tag that is unprecedented in global history to achieve a “carbon neutrality” goal, whose benefits are so nebulous, negligible and wholly reliant on the cooperative actions of other countries beyond U.S. control that they cannot be measured in any reliable way.
Instead, we are being told by senior political appointees forcing those policies into being that we should simply trust them because they think it is the right thing to do in their “heart of hearts.”
BY TYLER DURDEN
Biden Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk highlighted the absurdity of the climate grift this week during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, when Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) couldn’t get a straight answer out of him over the cost of going ‘carbon neutral.’
In a tense exchange, Kennedy repeatedly attempted to get Turk to give a straightforward answer to just how much American taxpayers will have to pay to achieve the Biden administration’s goal of reaching US carbon neutrality by 2050.
When Kennedy asked whether some of the “experts” Turk referred to earlier were correct in a $50 trillion estimate, Turk nodded his head, and said “It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it.”
“f we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy replied. The conversation continued (transcription via the Daily Caller)
Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…”
Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.”
Turk: “So, first of all, it’s a net cost. It’s what, um, benefits we’re having from getting our act together and reducing all of those costs and climate benefits…”
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 
