Here is the U.S. Senate Debate that Destroyed Biden’s Climate Plan

Eric Zuesse

On May 3rd, in the U.S. Senate debate between U.S. President Joe Biden’s expert on climate-policy, versus an astoundingly skillful cross-examination lawyer in the person of the Republican Louisiana U.S. Senator John Kennedy, the core of Biden’s policy in regard to global warming became publicly exposed as being fraudulent. Here is my transcription from the verbal exchange. The verbal exchange can be seen as purely the five-minute-long interrogation, here, or else at the May 3rd Senate testimony on the Biden plan, at the Senate Appropriations Committee, in which that passage consists of 41:00-45:50 in the Senate’s video of the complete hearing:

Give me your best estimate, just an estimate, I know, of how soon you think the United States will be carbon neutral.

So, I think, according to the climate scientists around the world, and certainly the cutting edge scientists that we need to rely on here in the U.S. we’ve got to get carbon neutral by 2050, and I’m very comfortable with that target, which is only 27 years, that is not a long time away.

And how much will that cost?

So, the cost that I focus on even more is all the costs that…

How much will it cost?

It’s going to cost trillions of dollars and it’ll cost us tens of trillions if we don’t.

How many trillions?

I don’t have the estimate or the numbers in front of me, and I’ve seen a variety of different estimates, but it’s a large amount, fundamentally transforming our energy economy.

Tell me the estimates that you’ve seen.

I don’t have those numbers right on hand.

So, you’re advocating that we become carbon neutral, but you don’t know how much it’s going to cost?

So, there’s a lot of estimates out there…

You’re the Secretary, you’re the expert, tell us how much it’s going to cost.

I know from all the experts that I’ve spoken with, it’s cheaper to get our act together than it is to not get our act together on climate change.

Then tell me the cost, versus the cost if we don’t do it.

I think it’s orders of magnitude different.

You don’t have a cost? You want us to get there but you can’t tell the American taxpayer how much it’s going to cost? Is that your testimony?

It’s going to save us money, and there’s a lot of jobs that…

Well, how do we know, if we don’t know how much it’s going to cost?

I’d be happy to pull up the latest numbers that I’ve seen,

How about fifty trillion dollars, is that right?

It’s going to cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it.

If we spend trillions of dollars, and we achieve, some of your colleagues estimate fifty trillion, and it disappoints me that you are not willing to give the estimates, I hope you’re not telling me you have no idea how much it’s going to cost. That creates a whole new host of problems. But if it costs fifty trillion dollars, as some of your colleagues have testified, to become carbon neutral by 2050, and I am all for carbon neutrality, by the way, how much is that going to lower world temperatures? Or how much is that going to reduce the increase in world temperatures?

So, every country around the world needs to get its act together,  our emissions are about 13% of global emissions.

Answer my question: If we spend fifty trillion dollars, to become carbon neutral in the United States of America by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.

So, first of all, it’s a net cost, it’s what benefits we have from getting our act together and reducing all of those climate benefits…

Maybe I am not being clear: if we send fifty trillion dollars, to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?

This is a global problem. So, we need to reduce our emissions, and we need to do everything we can to…

How much, if we are going to do our part, is it going to reduce world temperatures?

We’re 13% of global emissions.

You don’t know, do you?

You can do the math…

You don’t know, Mr. Secretary.

So, we’re 13% of…

Why don’t you tell me?

If we went to zero emissions, that would be 13%…

You just want us to spend fifty trillion dollars, and you don’t have the slightest idea whether it’s going to reduce world temperatures? Now, I am all for carbon neutrality, but you are Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, and you are advocating we spend trillions of dollars to achieve carbon neutrality, and you can’t — and this isn’t in your mind but in mhy mind it’s taxpayer money — and you won’t tell me how much it’s going to lower world temperatures? Tell me you know, but you won’t?

In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.

Tell me how much — tell me, either that or you won’t. … Mr. Secretary, shame on you for not answering questions.



U.S. President Biden’s, and the Democratic Party’s members of the U.S. Congress, are advocating for U.S. taxpayers — future generations of Americans — to pay an estimated $50T on a Climate Action Plan that fails to estimate whether or the extent to which it would be effective in reducing the amount of global warming, and which — even more crucially — cannot possibly have any chance to succeed unless enough of the world’s other Governments will get in line with and impose that plan so that (if the plan itself WOULD succeed if enough of the rest of the world’s Governments impose that plan) the plan would work, would succeed (though the Biden Administration’s plan fails to define what “success” would even mean). In other words: even if the plan did have a standard specified in it that defines what “success” would consist of for this $50T plan, virtually the entire world would have to be imposing the same plan in order for Biden’s plan to have any realistic chance to succeed. As Mr. Turk said, “We’re 13% of global emissions.” And “there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.” Biden is assuming that the entire world will accept that “the U.S. leads” and all other nations follow what the U.S. Government has legislated on this matter. What additional percentage of the remaining 87% of the world would need to impose this plan in order for the U.S. plan to have any realistic possibility to succeed? The Louisiana Senator stripped away the Emperor’s Clothes and revealed the hoax that lies underneath. Biden’s plan definitely would not work, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that NO plan would. And the Republican Party’s consistent refusal to present its own plan on this matter exposes that the entire U.S. Government, both of its Parties’ public officials, are psychopaths.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *