I would take their walk back on nuclear energy with a grain of salt. More likely, the hypocrisy of their anti-nuclear stance is becoming too obvious to anyone with half a brain. So they are feigning support for nuclear, but doing next to nothing to actually get the nuclear construction industry off of life support.
Note Colorado Democrats, who proclaim themselves the champions of Climate Change mitigation, quietly voting to continue their ban on nuclear power there. And the media there trying to bury the story. Seems the only moves to really push Nuclear Power is to supply the 100's of GW of giant A.I. Data Centers, which require ultra-reliable 24/7 power. The cynic in me, suspects there are nefarious motives at work here. Like how they are talking about AI's managing the internet and sending out spiders to erase any "anti-government" mis-, dis-, or malinformation.
The reality is that the Democrat Party is just a subsidiary of the Party of Davos, or the Globalitarian Misanthropist Banksters proxy in America. Like Trudeau in Canada. Keir Starmer in Britain. Sholz in Germany. Macron in France.
And the Globalist Financial Elites, our REAL rulers, are showing no interest in nuclear power. Their latest policy paper on energy:
Network for Greening the Financial System, Workstream on Scenario Design and Analysis:
"...That’s why last year more than two dozen countries pledged to triple nuclear power by 2030 as an essential step to meeting their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And that’s why more than 50 countries — rich and poor, from every continent — have taken concrete steps to include nuclear power in their energy mix by 2050 as a way to tackle carbon emissions while generating jobs and economic growth.
Despite growing interest in nuclear technology, the leading international development agency, the World Bank, refuses to even talk about it...
The World Bank’s willful blindness has many downsides. First, the policy limits the low-carbon energy options for its client countries — all of whom need to build vast new energy systems to meet their economic development goals. The bank is both a financier of infrastructure and also a major advisor on all aspects of infrastructure for borrowing countries. The bank’s refusal to even discuss nuclear power creates an enormous gap in countries’ abilities to assess their energy plans — and how nuclear technology may fit (or not).
The World Bank’s prohibition also creates an unnecessary market barrier for one of the most promising clean energy technologies. Many different advanced nuclear models will reach the demonstration phase in the next few years and reach the commercial market soon after. These new designs will be smaller, safer and more flexible, which makes them especially attractive in emerging markets.
Faster installation, easier fuel management and fit-for-size features are ideally suited for generating clean electricity, powering mining operations and running data centers. The World Bank taboo, which is copied by many other development agencies, has a suffocating effect on the technology’s potential...."
There is a Harris ad I hear/see almost every time I go to YouTube these days. Although I’m sure similar complaints could be made against ads from her opponent, I’m going to reference something specific. Her voiceover says “I will cut taxes for 100 million Americans.” I keep wondering what percentage of the American electorate believes that POTUS actually has the power to do such a thing? I’m afraid the answer is much higher than it should be. We’re losing touch with reality. $10,000 monthly UBI for a family of five? Why stop there? Just give every non-millionaire in the country $1,000,000. Everything will be hunky dory once that’s implemented. Party on, Garth.
Believing that we have a political democracy is a bit like believing that we have an economic system of pure capitalism…..or the tooth fairy.
Until the goverened of this nation secure a balanced budget amendment and a meaningful term limit amendment, your choices will be between different brands of the same sociopathic oligarchs.
To Environmental -- do you know what "electricity" actually "is"?
You know -- that "product" that a heat producing nuke plant (any size) / making steam / to drive a turbine / to turn a generator / to make electricity?
It's a simple question.
Also -- is it totally necessary to have to label everyone in to a single are in order to try and make a point.
One of the main reasons for the "talk" about nationalizing the electric power industry - is because US/DOE-IPO Title 17 prohibits the Federal Government from funding an power supply that is not "commercialized" or "accepted" -- both meaning "for profit only".
when you take the ever increasing divide between the middle class's buying power and the monopolistic "for profit" cost of electricity -- it's getting to the point where people are having to choose between eating an keeping warm.
I know - I'm older / live on S.S. / and severely physically disabled from injuries from "over Vietnam".
Finally -- to those that "feel" that the Electoral College was put in the Constitution - for Checks and Balances - let everyone know where that is "in" the Constitution.
The truth is -- the Electoral College was included: -- because the "Founding Fathers" -- didn't think the average person was smart enough to make up their own mind - as to making an "educated judgement" to vote directly.
No the Electoral College is just an American way of doing what many countries that are Federations of States or Provinces do. Federations are based on Independent States who are voluntarily bound together to form a union for mutual benefit. It is not Rep by population. It is Rep by State. If you go for a open vote for President, in the US they use the idiotic FPTP voting system, then a minority of citizens will select the President, concentrated in the most populated states. That will just tell states with low populations that this union sucks, we will withdraw.
Canada has a similar mechanism with smaller provinces have far more MPs/capita then heavily populated provinces.
And Ukraine could have done the same with its Russian speaking regions and avoided this self-destructive war. Instead they have destroyed their country and lost half its territory.
Yep. Been to coal and nat gas fired power plants in my professional career.
And, learned what electricity is the hard way doing some interior renovation of my room in the fraternity house in college. Accidentally pinched a metal conduit containing a wire I believed was cold from switch panel. Wasn't. When conduit pinched the hot wire, it threw me against a bunk bed. The knot on my head went away after a week.
The electricity i witnessed being generated by those power plants was a whole 'nuther matter.
Like so many in this thread, I echo the sentiment that this is an outstanding summary of the stark delineation of our choices next Tuesday.
May I pose this thought? Democrats have focused their campaign on Trump's poor character ("he's convicted felon") and claimed that his demagogue ways are a "threat to democracy." Are not Democratic efforts to pack the court and amend the constitution to remove one of the checks and balances between branches of government an equal threat?
Barbara Tuchman, a well-respected historian, has noted that "every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed."
Lots of "threats to democracy". We prefer the term threats to the Republic.
Philosophically, when everything becomes a "threat to democracy" to both sides, it's only a matter of time until the checks and balances and all the guardrails get run roughshod over.
The Green Party is a party that supports Marxism. The Democratic Party has formed a coalition with the Marxist left. The policies of the two parties are similar because a large contingent in both parties are Marxists. For a handy checklist of how to identify Marxism in current events, see "A Handy Checklist" at https://2026.substack.com/p/a-handy-checklist
A large contingent in the Democratic Party are Marxists or supporters of Marxism--some of whom are Marxist dupes. I suggest reading "NextGen Marxism" by Mike Gonzalez or any of the books by Paul Kengor, a nationally known expert on Marxism and academic advisor at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. I also suggest reading "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and comparing it with the platform of Kamala Harris. I have summarized the 10 directives of Karl Marx in my article "U.S. Democracy vs. Marxist Rule" at https://2026.substack.com/p/us-democracy-vs-marxist-rule
The Dems like nuclear energy, but for the wrong reasons. Because nuclear does not emit the evil molecule (CO2), they say it is "clean" energy. However, the false premise that CO2 is "pollution" will come back to bite them in the long run.
A colleague complained that our state began taxing his EV for friction (road use). We had to break the news to him it was about loss of gas tax revenue AND the added friction!
If Trump wins and the GOP take the majorities in both House and Senate, they could pass "The Judiciary Act 2023, as Amended 2025". I'm sure the loyal opposition would support.
How so? Because a conservative margin would give them the edge sufficient to allow the new justices to be conservative, rather than liberal?
If this is what you're suggesting, and I think it is, how much would it take for a GOP House (i.e, conservative) to impeach or indict Joe Biden for "crimes against humanity" resulting from his hasty pullout in Afghanistan?
Many don't understand that the Constitution has so many checks and balances because the Founders intended government to govern, and NOT rule. Extreme partisanship must recognize the need to form strategic alliances with minorities to allow governing to take place. Unfortunately, the Democrats have chosen an extreme faction (Greens) of their party for that alliance.
Maybe we would be wise as a society to stop going at those checks and balances (and even long-standing rules e.g. Reid/nuclear option 2013) with sledgehammers and chisels all the time.
An incredible summary with matching facts. I personally can’t thank you enough for all the research that was required to present such an important article. The propaganda machine is at full bell in an effort to destroy the capitalist system we are so fortunate to have. The apathy and ignorance of the masses continue to amaze me……
After sitting on the sidelines as professionals in the environmental space for years watching it, there's something cathartic about doing the research and finally speaking out.
We're amateurs, it shows, but hopefully we're contributing to a necessary conversation and educating some folks along the way, with some wit/humor now and then.
Great writeup, EM. The seemingly coordinated efforts to handicap this country cannot be simply attributed to incompetence. I see no other explanation that on the many fronts it is purposeful. Do share if there's another. Thanks.
80% of the outcomes are due to 20% of causes. By your own measure, the truly Marxist contingent is a small (20% ??) portion of the Democratic party. On the other hand, were it 20% of them being ignorant/incompetence, their actions would barely have an impact on their otherwise quite obvious and regularly demonstrated values and principles.
If there is one bright spot in that regard it's nuclear.
But, we're wary of Democrat rhetoric not matching their actions, and of the lawfare routine by their environmental non-profit supporters as we attempt to deploy it at scale with some urgency.
I don't trust the govt to run a hot dog stand let alone nationalize energy. If people think PG&E have conflicting interests just wait until Congress latches on. Just like the article says "unreliable" (Everytime I come across that snarky word I laugh)
Great summary of the intellectual absence of the Democrat and Green parties. It is clear by their proposals they lack any economic, scientific, or engineering sense. My question is are they truly ignorant or is their lust for power so overwhelming they are will to destroy what is the greatest country ever. Somehow I believe it is the latter.
I would take their walk back on nuclear energy with a grain of salt. More likely, the hypocrisy of their anti-nuclear stance is becoming too obvious to anyone with half a brain. So they are feigning support for nuclear, but doing next to nothing to actually get the nuclear construction industry off of life support.
Note Colorado Democrats, who proclaim themselves the champions of Climate Change mitigation, quietly voting to continue their ban on nuclear power there. And the media there trying to bury the story. Seems the only moves to really push Nuclear Power is to supply the 100's of GW of giant A.I. Data Centers, which require ultra-reliable 24/7 power. The cynic in me, suspects there are nefarious motives at work here. Like how they are talking about AI's managing the internet and sending out spiders to erase any "anti-government" mis-, dis-, or malinformation.
The reality is that the Democrat Party is just a subsidiary of the Party of Davos, or the Globalitarian Misanthropist Banksters proxy in America. Like Trudeau in Canada. Keir Starmer in Britain. Sholz in Germany. Macron in France.
And the Globalist Financial Elites, our REAL rulers, are showing no interest in nuclear power. Their latest policy paper on energy:
Network for Greening the Financial System, Workstream on Scenario Design and Analysis:
NGFS Scenarios for central banks and supervisors
November 2023:
https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs_climate_scenarios_for_central_banks_and_supervisors_phase_iv.pdf
On page 31, their Net Zero plan for 2050 shows >80% World Primary Energy Supply being Renewables. With Nuclear being under 2%.
And the World Bank continues to ignore Nuclear Power as an energy solution. Largely promoting wind & solar scams:
https://www.ciphernews.com/articles/time-to-end-the-world-banks-nuclear-blind-spot/
"...That’s why last year more than two dozen countries pledged to triple nuclear power by 2030 as an essential step to meeting their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And that’s why more than 50 countries — rich and poor, from every continent — have taken concrete steps to include nuclear power in their energy mix by 2050 as a way to tackle carbon emissions while generating jobs and economic growth.
Despite growing interest in nuclear technology, the leading international development agency, the World Bank, refuses to even talk about it...
The World Bank’s willful blindness has many downsides. First, the policy limits the low-carbon energy options for its client countries — all of whom need to build vast new energy systems to meet their economic development goals. The bank is both a financier of infrastructure and also a major advisor on all aspects of infrastructure for borrowing countries. The bank’s refusal to even discuss nuclear power creates an enormous gap in countries’ abilities to assess their energy plans — and how nuclear technology may fit (or not).
The World Bank’s prohibition also creates an unnecessary market barrier for one of the most promising clean energy technologies. Many different advanced nuclear models will reach the demonstration phase in the next few years and reach the commercial market soon after. These new designs will be smaller, safer and more flexible, which makes them especially attractive in emerging markets.
Faster installation, easier fuel management and fit-for-size features are ideally suited for generating clean electricity, powering mining operations and running data centers. The World Bank taboo, which is copied by many other development agencies, has a suffocating effect on the technology’s potential...."
Thanks for the added color, SFS!
There is a Harris ad I hear/see almost every time I go to YouTube these days. Although I’m sure similar complaints could be made against ads from her opponent, I’m going to reference something specific. Her voiceover says “I will cut taxes for 100 million Americans.” I keep wondering what percentage of the American electorate believes that POTUS actually has the power to do such a thing? I’m afraid the answer is much higher than it should be. We’re losing touch with reality. $10,000 monthly UBI for a family of five? Why stop there? Just give every non-millionaire in the country $1,000,000. Everything will be hunky dory once that’s implemented. Party on, Garth.
Party on, Wayne!
;)
Believing that we have a political democracy is a bit like believing that we have an economic system of pure capitalism…..or the tooth fairy.
Until the goverened of this nation secure a balanced budget amendment and a meaningful term limit amendment, your choices will be between different brands of the same sociopathic oligarchs.
and old ones, at that, apparently!
;)
To Environmental -- do you know what "electricity" actually "is"?
You know -- that "product" that a heat producing nuke plant (any size) / making steam / to drive a turbine / to turn a generator / to make electricity?
It's a simple question.
Also -- is it totally necessary to have to label everyone in to a single are in order to try and make a point.
One of the main reasons for the "talk" about nationalizing the electric power industry - is because US/DOE-IPO Title 17 prohibits the Federal Government from funding an power supply that is not "commercialized" or "accepted" -- both meaning "for profit only".
when you take the ever increasing divide between the middle class's buying power and the monopolistic "for profit" cost of electricity -- it's getting to the point where people are having to choose between eating an keeping warm.
I know - I'm older / live on S.S. / and severely physically disabled from injuries from "over Vietnam".
Finally -- to those that "feel" that the Electoral College was put in the Constitution - for Checks and Balances - let everyone know where that is "in" the Constitution.
The truth is -- the Electoral College was included: -- because the "Founding Fathers" -- didn't think the average person was smart enough to make up their own mind - as to making an "educated judgement" to vote directly.
No the Electoral College is just an American way of doing what many countries that are Federations of States or Provinces do. Federations are based on Independent States who are voluntarily bound together to form a union for mutual benefit. It is not Rep by population. It is Rep by State. If you go for a open vote for President, in the US they use the idiotic FPTP voting system, then a minority of citizens will select the President, concentrated in the most populated states. That will just tell states with low populations that this union sucks, we will withdraw.
Canada has a similar mechanism with smaller provinces have far more MPs/capita then heavily populated provinces.
And Ukraine could have done the same with its Russian speaking regions and avoided this self-destructive war. Instead they have destroyed their country and lost half its territory.
Yep. Been to coal and nat gas fired power plants in my professional career.
And, learned what electricity is the hard way doing some interior renovation of my room in the fraternity house in college. Accidentally pinched a metal conduit containing a wire I believed was cold from switch panel. Wasn't. When conduit pinched the hot wire, it threw me against a bunk bed. The knot on my head went away after a week.
The electricity i witnessed being generated by those power plants was a whole 'nuther matter.
p.s. thank you for your service and sacrifice.
Like so many in this thread, I echo the sentiment that this is an outstanding summary of the stark delineation of our choices next Tuesday.
May I pose this thought? Democrats have focused their campaign on Trump's poor character ("he's convicted felon") and claimed that his demagogue ways are a "threat to democracy." Are not Democratic efforts to pack the court and amend the constitution to remove one of the checks and balances between branches of government an equal threat?
Barbara Tuchman, a well-respected historian, has noted that "every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed."
Lots of "threats to democracy". We prefer the term threats to the Republic.
Philosophically, when everything becomes a "threat to democracy" to both sides, it's only a matter of time until the checks and balances and all the guardrails get run roughshod over.
This is of great concern.
The Green Party is a party that supports Marxism. The Democratic Party has formed a coalition with the Marxist left. The policies of the two parties are similar because a large contingent in both parties are Marxists. For a handy checklist of how to identify Marxism in current events, see "A Handy Checklist" at https://2026.substack.com/p/a-handy-checklist
We doubt it's a large contingent in the Democrat party.
On the other hand, we won't pretend as if they do not exist in either the Green or Democratic parties.
A large contingent in the Democratic Party are Marxists or supporters of Marxism--some of whom are Marxist dupes. I suggest reading "NextGen Marxism" by Mike Gonzalez or any of the books by Paul Kengor, a nationally known expert on Marxism and academic advisor at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. I also suggest reading "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and comparing it with the platform of Kamala Harris. I have summarized the 10 directives of Karl Marx in my article "U.S. Democracy vs. Marxist Rule" at https://2026.substack.com/p/us-democracy-vs-marxist-rule
The Dems like nuclear energy, but for the wrong reasons. Because nuclear does not emit the evil molecule (CO2), they say it is "clean" energy. However, the false premise that CO2 is "pollution" will come back to bite them in the long run.
One can hope.
Great
Now do the canadian Liberal party that is infested with the climate/insane.
Hmmm. That's an interesting idea. Thanks!
The democrats could help this effort by banning friction and heat loss.
Is it possible the only reason they haven't tried that is it would have to be applied to EVs and roads?
;)
If they knew the efficiency of the green energy they wouldn’t keep trying to implement it!
They know the capacity factors of wind and solar and it doesn't dissuade them a bit.
I bet none of them could give you a cogent definition of capacity factor
They already tax it, don't they?
A colleague complained that our state began taxing his EV for friction (road use). We had to break the news to him it was about loss of gas tax revenue AND the added friction!
Next time you have to break that news, please take a picture of the receiver's face.
Green Party, EcoLeft, Progressives/Regressives: are all the same: communists/marxists/socialists.
We struggle for a single word to describe it. EcoStatism is about as close as we can get.
That does sum it up, but I think it’s closer to Ecofacsism, which makes it all that more surreal that they call Trump a fascist.
William Kay on EcoFascism and its origins in Nazi Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTE64F3ZU_E2nBUpsJWrp0A
Dems are like watermelons, “green on the outside and red on the inside.”
it is often said....
Communists have also often been compared to watermelons for the same reasons.
Well, since neither of you mentioned that "environmentalists" get the same label for the same reason, we should point that out.
- Captain Obvious
Dems, Communist, Environmentalist - these are all synonyms for “lovers of all things not human.”
If Trump wins and the GOP take the majorities in both House and Senate, they could pass "The Judiciary Act 2023, as Amended 2025". I'm sure the loyal opposition would support.
Don't even want to go there, but your point is well taken!
my thoughts exactly, 13 in the USSC with 10 conservatives. I'm sure they would be ok with that
It's a fun philosophical political exercise to ponder using the other side's own weapons against them.
And why Dems/Harry Reid shouldn't have used the nuclear option in 2013.
Once you start crossing lines out of frustration, you should damn well expect the other side to do the same. At the end of that road often lies chaos.
How so? Because a conservative margin would give them the edge sufficient to allow the new justices to be conservative, rather than liberal?
If this is what you're suggesting, and I think it is, how much would it take for a GOP House (i.e, conservative) to impeach or indict Joe Biden for "crimes against humanity" resulting from his hasty pullout in Afghanistan?
Many don't understand that the Constitution has so many checks and balances because the Founders intended government to govern, and NOT rule. Extreme partisanship must recognize the need to form strategic alliances with minorities to allow governing to take place. Unfortunately, the Democrats have chosen an extreme faction (Greens) of their party for that alliance.
Well said.
Maybe we would be wise as a society to stop going at those checks and balances (and even long-standing rules e.g. Reid/nuclear option 2013) with sledgehammers and chisels all the time.
An incredible summary with matching facts. I personally can’t thank you enough for all the research that was required to present such an important article. The propaganda machine is at full bell in an effort to destroy the capitalist system we are so fortunate to have. The apathy and ignorance of the masses continue to amaze me……
Thanks, Dave.
After sitting on the sidelines as professionals in the environmental space for years watching it, there's something cathartic about doing the research and finally speaking out.
We're amateurs, it shows, but hopefully we're contributing to a necessary conversation and educating some folks along the way, with some wit/humor now and then.
Great writeup, EM. The seemingly coordinated efforts to handicap this country cannot be simply attributed to incompetence. I see no other explanation that on the many fronts it is purposeful. Do share if there's another. Thanks.
If we're plumbobbing it, it's like most things that fit roughly into a Pareto distribution:
80% ignorance
20% malevolence
In this case, it may be more like 90/10
It is wise to avoid the easy default to malevolence as the driver when ignorance is more than capable of explaining it/fitting perfectly.
That said, it is not 0% malevolence. In their own words, this is clear.
80% of the outcomes are due to 20% of causes. By your own measure, the truly Marxist contingent is a small (20% ??) portion of the Democratic party. On the other hand, were it 20% of them being ignorant/incompetence, their actions would barely have an impact on their otherwise quite obvious and regularly demonstrated values and principles.
well, the eco left have a ways to go before we become Germany, although it seems they are trying hard to get us there
If there is one bright spot in that regard it's nuclear.
But, we're wary of Democrat rhetoric not matching their actions, and of the lawfare routine by their environmental non-profit supporters as we attempt to deploy it at scale with some urgency.
I don't trust the govt to run a hot dog stand let alone nationalize energy. If people think PG&E have conflicting interests just wait until Congress latches on. Just like the article says "unreliable" (Everytime I come across that snarky word I laugh)
Snarky or simply obviously true?
;)
Great summary of the intellectual absence of the Democrat and Green parties. It is clear by their proposals they lack any economic, scientific, or engineering sense. My question is are they truly ignorant or is their lust for power so overwhelming they are will to destroy what is the greatest country ever. Somehow I believe it is the latter.
This question rolls back and forth in my brain on a daily basis. Ignorance, evil or both?
We regularly ask the question:
Is it ignorance or is it malevolence.
Most of it is ignorance.
But, there is malevolence in there.
The environmental movement never gets to a place that's widely supported and properly balanced without ridding itself of the malevolent influence.