By Jo Nova
50 States in the USA show that renewable policies push electricity prices up.
A study by the Institute of Energy Research (IER) in the USA shows how voting for Democrats can lead to monster electricity prices. Wind and solar energy are practically free (as the experts keep telling us) but somehow states with the most ambitious renewable policies have the eye-watering electricity bills. Though there are exceptions when Democrats accidentally have big mountains and can make hydroelectric dams. (See Oregon and Washington, north of California).
The original study came out in December 2025 with a close analysis of just five states. In the latest update they have analyzed another 13 states in detail. Full state profiles are available by clicking on the state, then clicking the link on the box that appears.
According to Lawrence Berkeley National Labs:
…each of the top five most expensive states for electricity have mandates requiring 100% of their power to come from renewable or carbon free sources, making their electricity unnecessarily more expensive.
In contrast eight out of ten states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red [Republican] and seven of those states have no ‘100% carbon free’ mandate.
Higher electricity rates in Blue States are linked to renewable energy policies
In Blue States have High Rates — the cost of electricity in Democrat states is 42% more expensive on average than in states that vote Republican (see the map below). I took the liberty of adding the costs for the cheapest and most expensive states in cents per kilowatt hour on the map, just so Australians can gawk at all sector retail electricity prices that we haven’t seen for 20 years. “All Sector” prices are an average of industrial, commercial and residential prices. These state costs are listed in the report.
There are dramatically different bills on each side of some state borders. It must be tempting to use a long extension cord…
Imagine paying 10c a KWh? A lot of America does. It’s no wonder companies are moving to the USA.
The IEA Report: Blue States have High Rates (with prices in cents per kilowatt hour for the cheapest states and the most expensive)
Blue states have higher electricity costs, and net zero policies are to blame, analysis shows
By Kevin Killough, JustTheNews
Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the analysis found that 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 and 2024. By contrast, 80% of the 10 states with the lowest electricity prices voted for the Republican candidate in those same elections.
As the original report says: Expensive Electricity is a choice.
Electricity affordability is a function of state-level policy choices. States that have embraced aggressive renewable mandates, 100% “carbon-free” targets, premature coal and nuclear retirements, rooftop-solar cost shifting, and restrictions on natural gas infrastructure routinely deliver the nation’s highest electricity prices. California and New York, the poster children for this approach, now charge their residents and businesses significantly more than the national average, with price increases that have consistently outpaced the rest of the country.
In contrast, states that have prioritized dispatchable, affordable generation consistently deliver the lowest electricity prices. Florida keeps rates below the national average despite near-universal airconditioning demand and frequent hurricanes. Louisiana enjoys the third-lowest rates in the nation while utilizing its abundant natural gas resources. Both states have done so under sustained Republican governance that has largely rejected the renewable mandate model.
California is second in the nation in total electricity generation from renewable resources and leads the country in utility-scale solar generating capacity. California’s generation mix is 42% natural gas, 39% non-hydroelectric renewables, 12% hydroelectric, and 7% nuclear.
Australia seems to be copying the Californian model except without as much hydroelectricity or any interconnectors to other jurisdictions when things go bad, and without any nuclear power. Through sheer luck and Labor incompetence, we still have some coal.
And here’s the map of the political inclinations of those states in the last four elections.
Map US Voting 2024: gammawammallama
We can vote ourselves to poverty…
The experiment has been done, and the verdict is in.
I would suggest that that is pretty conclusive evidence.
Empirical Evidence to boot. Scientific even.
Paging Blackout Bowen and my cheaper Electricity Bill.
370
The blue states have higher population densities, more high-tech industry, and are more affluent. There is more electricity demand. You are merely highlighting the urban / rural divide. It is no coincidence that these states also tend to be more Democrat-leaning.
265
It a known fact that it is easier and cheaper per capita to supply energy (and most other utilities and infrastructure) to more densely populated areas.
Hence your argument is totally flawed.
610
That’s not generally true. It depends where the electricity is generated. Transmission loss can be significant plus you need the reticulation that can deliver large amounts of electricity. A fundamental change to the architecture necessitates a high upfront cost, which you would hope would reduce over time. The US electricity market is not necessarily a well-functioning free market. Don’t forget the PG&E receivership due to wildfire liabilities, which I would argue was exacerbated by the changing climate.
140
Poppycock…..
210
So how about Florida Simon? They pay 13.3c/KWh, have a higher population density than California but pay half the price.
California = 100 people /km2
Florida = 160 people /km2
What could it be…?
400
“A fundamental change to the architecture necessitates a high upfront cost”
The word necessitates implies there was no choice.
This is a lie.
The choice was to maintain and upgrade the existing technology or try unreliable renewables.
There is now plenty of evidence to shows renewables are not going to leave us with an affordable economy.
As a taxpayer and engineer who knew all this before the Net Zero experiment my only question is just who is going to prison?
250
Come on Simon. Even you can do better than that.
361
Not coincidence it is simply graft, corruption then grift.
240
Complete and utter garbage. Go away and look up economies of scale: the greater demand and usage the cheaper per unit electricity would be if you have 24/7 electricity sources. With intermittent wind and solar the greater the demand, the more backup you need so the more expensive per unit the power.
Green energy is a joke, an expensive one and is indefensible.
540
OK, so you believe that electricity in cities is more expensive than electricity in the rural areas … because population density … am I right?
160
The population of Texas is 80% of that of California, it’s land area is 64% greater than California’s, yet it’s electricity price is 62% cheaper than Cal.
Sort of destroys your argument Simon.
80
Spoken like a true socialist snob, “more affluent”, pffft. Texas as other states are “more Affluent”.. Blue state cities are third world slums.
00
What was that slogan? GO WOKE, GO BROKE?
350
Strictly speaking, as originally stated by John Ringo in 2018 it is:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391985359_GO_WOKE_GO_BROKE_THE_CULTURAL_FACTORS_BEHIND_THE_BIRTH_OF_A_MODERN_PROVERB
80
Last night on Bolt Report he outlined the latest “green” hydrogen debacle with Albanese Labor gifting more taxpayer’s monies to private sector corporations to develop green hydrogen fuel, while at the same time demanding that the monies gifted to Mr Forest’s business interests to develop green hydrogen that have been abandoned be refunded to the government, without success so far.
And “renewable energy” projects and failures increasing, also why a nuclear power station/plant future for Australia should be a priority.
Which is what the Liberal National Coalition parties are advocating for, nuclear technology based generators and exploiting Australia’s energy reserves coal, gas, oil and so on.
231
I thought all the “green” hydrogen projects were proven failures.
I guess that’s why they’re gifting more taxpayer money to the subsidy harvesters.
In any case, hydrogen is a nightmare transport fuel, even for NASA to use.
It should have no role as a civilian transport fuel.
I have no objection to nuclear, but the only reason it’s advocated for by the Libs is that they still believe in supposed anthropogenic global warming.
And don’t forget it was the Libs that banned nuclear power in Australia twice, 1971 and 1998.
In any case, in Australia with all the massive regulatory hurdles, feral unions, the Left, lawfare and the huge worldwide demand for nuclear power stations in sensible countries causing a backlog, if a decision were made today to build a nuclear power station, it wouldn’t come online for at least 15 or 20 years, probably more, if ever.
230
The Libs” on again / off again “ attitude towards energy, not to mention their absolute refusal to dump the Paris Accords reflect their actual intentions towards “ nut zero “.
The LNP party room as well as the Labor light deputy leader will never allow nuclear energy. Angus Taylor is hopelessly outnumbered on energy policies & many other policies. I believe that they’d maintain much of the ALP “ budgetary ffff foul up as well. They’d simply follow the ALP excuses by blaming the previous administration!, 🤔🤔He’s largely undecided in his own mind anyway!!
In a nutshell the LNP cannot be trusted. They’ll sell us down the wind & solar route without blinking!! Vote for them at your peril. Which leads to voting One Nation again.
The general cry from the major parties is that ON aren’t qualified to govern. Current indications are the we’d be better off without a government at all. So I believe ON will do very much better than the “ Uniparty “ !!
270
Yes. If they don’t believe in Nut Zero why won’t they dump the Paris Accords?
As usual they are fence-sitting and trying to have it both ways.
They believe in nothing and fight for nothing.
They are unelectable. Their future is in coalition with Labor since they are already Labor-lite, if not actual Labor supporters like Turnbull or Kean.
220
Of course the now One Nation spokesman on Treasury and just about everything else Barnaby Joyce MP House of Representatives was the Deputy Prime Minister twice and alongside Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull he promoted Snowy 2.0 Project. If we play the blame the past game One Nation cannot claim the high ground.
111
I see Angus Taylor went full on “ON will burn Australia to the ground” in The Australian today. To keep the Two Party (Uniparty) system going the Libs will try to destroy ON. If the polls don’t change badly for ON before the next election, The Libs will throw the election to help the ALP win rather than govern with ON. They are a disgrace.
50
That is why we should be using coal. It works and if built in current power station precincts would require fewer approvals. That is not to say the usual communist inspired anti-everything crowd would not be out in full force. It will require a strong government to declare building such plants to be state significant and so bypass the normal spaghetti lawfare of disruption.
120
Continuing to use coal fired power stations is a major part of Coalition plans, nuclear is additional and to replace the generating capacity of coal power stations already shut down, and nuclear would be be built on those existing approved locations and connected to existing main transmission lines nearby. And also they are advocating for put crudely to “dig dig dig and drill drill drill” for more energy coal, gas, oil, shale oil.
I cannot understand why there are people who rely on ancient political history to make their points, I most often agree with them on many past poor judgement political decisions, Labor and Coalition governments, Federal and of course Federation of States that formed our nation.
For the One Nation critics of, say Prime Minister Turnbull, the new One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce was Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party in the Coalition alongside Turnbull, including Snowy 2.0 promotion by the Coalition, noting that they received the proposal from Snowy Mountains Hydro Limited (company) and announced it but after than subjected to further submissions and capital expenditure approval application. Why not blame Barnaby as well?
14
Back when Australia’s atomic destiny was decided in the form of a Commonwealth ban on power production, nuclear was considered a dirty word.
It was 1998 and then prime minister John Howard was wedged into a deal with the Greens and Democrats in order to build a new nuclear facility in Sydney, the site of Australia’s only reactor since 1958 which is used for medical applications such as radiation treatments and x-rays.
In order to get a new reactor at Lucas Heights, 40km south of the CBD, Mr Howard agreed to a last-minute amendment to the National Radiation and Nuclear Safety Act after a debate that lasted less than half an hour and introduced legislation banning any more nuclear facilities from being built in Australia.
21
In the early 1970s, discussions about nuclear power in Australia peaked with the government backing the construction of a 500MW nuclear power station at Jervis Bay, which was seen as a step towards entering the atomic age. However, these plans were ultimately abandoned due to economic reasons and changing political leadership.
The Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Station project was halted for several key reasons:
Economic Concerns
High Costs: A comprehensive cost analysis conducted in 1971 revealed that nuclear power would be significantly more expensive than conventional coal plants.
Discovery of Alternative Resources: The discovery of natural gas and oil in Bass Strait, along with the development of economic coal resources, diminished the perceived need for nuclear energy.
Political Changes
Change in Leadership: The project faced opposition after John Gorton, a supporter of nuclear power, was replaced by William McMahon in March 1971. McMahon was less enthusiastic about the nuclear program.
Government Priorities: The new government prioritized financial constraints and shifted focus away from nuclear energy.
Public and Environmental Concerns
Safety and Environmental Risks: Various organizations raised alarms about the potential dangers associated with nuclear power, contributing to public opposition.
20
Liberals /Nationals are too busy bickering between themselves and attacking their could be allies to come up up with any cohesive plan on electricity generation, energy or anything really.
Word on the web is Hastie and a bunch of hangers-on are plotting to topple Taylor for the leadership of the nothing party.
00
Last night on Bolt Report he outlined the latest “green” hydrogen debacle with Albanese Labor gifting more taxpayer’s monies to private sector corporations to develop green hydrogen fuel, while at the same time demanding that the monies gifted to Mr Forest’s business interests to develop green hydrogen that have been abandoned be refunded to the government, without success so far.
And “renewable energy” projects and failures increasing, also why a nuclear power station/plant future for Australia should be a priority.
Which is what the Liberal National Coalition parties are advocating for, nuclear technology based generators and exploiting Australia’s energy reserves coal, gas, oil and so on.
Both Opposition Leader Angus Taylor and Deputy Opposition Leader Matt Canavan have been speaking about these matters regularly.
52
As I said Dennis, I have no problem whatsoever with nuclear power but why are the Liberals so keen on it (or claom fhey are)?
It’s only because they still believe in Nut Zero as evidenced by them holding on tightly to the Paris Accords.
Whether a nuclear power station is built or not should depend solely on the economics of any particular situation.
And the chances of building a nuclear power station or even a coal power station in today’s self-destrictive “can’t do” Australia are minimal. At best it would be 15 years. Australia is already out of time and in rapid decline.
100
David I won’t post the information I have posted here a few times in the past, the fact remains that Paris Agreement is unenforceable, and if it was enforceable, if there had been a Glasgow net zero agreement (PM Morrison signed no agreement and instead said Australia will have an aspirational goal but based on new technology and no damage to the economy accepted), Albanese Labor would not have been asked by the EU Government to agree to Free Trade Agreement terms and conditions including adherence to the UN net zero.
Politics is rarely as black and white as some people seem to imply by comments. The Coalition Opposition Leaders have explained their return to coal and oil and so on, to retain coal power stations, to not support so called renewable energy wind and solar installations but obviously contracts have to be considered first and foremost and after that no more support and no more incentives to build at the expense of fuelled power stations.
For Australia, and note again trade with EU countries as an example, to formally exit from the Paris signed Agreement would result in more UN style blackmail like GBR threats and tourism based. To simply proceed away from transition to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels is a much more practical course of action to take.
It goes back to the Howard Coalition Government that signed the Kyoto Agreement (Rudd Labor ratified it after 2007) in 1997 but included terms and conditions for Australia’s participation being no damage to the economy and practical common sense new technology to be supported case by case. The originals of most government decisions and legislation are often changed by Labor or a new Coalition government. And again consider the politics of the Federation of States involvement and influences.
Why nuclear? Yes, new technology and zero emissions, and reliable base load generators. Much longer operating life potential than coal 50-60 years (could be extended subject to cost-benefit analysis) with 70-80 years and potential (US licensing certification now provides for up to 100 years) and therefore higher building cost but far longer operating life with fuel rods instead of constantly feeding coal fuel. Maybe as Matt Canavan has discussed using our coal to produce transport liquid fuel?
Politics again, Morrison aspirational goal based on new technology development!!!
12
It might not be enmforceable Dennis but it can be used all the way to the High Court in lawfare cases based on our “Internantional Obligations”. Do you trust the High Court??
40
What are Liberal or National leaders or electorate representatives doing to prevent the soon to happen premature closures of Coal plants? eg, Collie A in WA to close 13 years early in Oct 2027, where’s Hastie, Rick Wilson or Ben Small standing up to protect jobs and state energy security?
00
Also;
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/more-chaos-with-labors-green-agenda-as-wind-farms-demand-more-government-handouts/video/822920a6cd882f12bff486d375d94b41
I apologise for the double post above.
110
Dennis thanks for Bolt’s very interesting interview with the ex Labor ministers about our net zero lunacy and our very gutless and crude PM who should be sacked ASAP.
In fact you beat me to it.
120
It will get worse, once Trump leaves office. I can’t see anyone or anything standing in their way.
90
I think your right Tony. If the “Blob”, those selected few masters of the universe who own control and dictate the worlds financial workings are ok with whomever is the Republican nominee, or have him/her in their pocket they will let him/her be elected. If they favour a Democrat a Democrat will be elected by a miracle turn out of millions of voters so voting, it will make dementia Joes win look almost believable.
81
A change in control in Washington DC will make things harder for red states, but it won’t stop them. That’s the advantage of having a system where state’s rights are superior to federal diktats unless those powers are specifically enumerated in the constitution. Just as Trump struggles to make headway against blue state sanctuary policies and other leftist policies, so do Democrat presidents struggle to change energy policies and other conservative priorities. We saw that during Covid when red states consistently ignored federal lockdown recommendations after it became clear that ‘two weeks to flatten the curve’ and ‘if you get the vaccine you will be a dead end for the virus’ were a load of bollocks.
190
I can’t see why the next Republican presidential hopefuls won’t be hammering these numbers from now until the mid terms and the next election in 2028.
Of course the Dems won’t mention these extreme, very costly electricity bills and run a mile from this debate.
In fact the debate dynamics are favouring the Republicans’ side of the ledger and they should hammer these facts for the next 2.5 years.
100
Our Coalition should be doing the same here but so far they haven’t. Maybe it is a Right disease, the inability to use facts to fight fiction.
80
we don’t have a Right opposition atm. The Libs are all in on this nonsense in spite of what Canavan and Taylor are saying.
40
Hawaii were using LPG shipped in from the mainland, to generate power together with sugar mill output, that would push prices up somewhat.
80
Hawaii and Alaska’s electricity prices are driven by their remoteness/isolation, not their politics.
100
Northwest Montana – Where I live with my famuily
Residential Service Rates (PDF) – effective June 1, 2026
$0.0547 per kWh (for the first 600 kWh per month)
$0.0644 per kWh (for 601-3,500 kWh per month)
$0.1002 per kWh (for 3,501 and over kWh per month)
Last month we used 535 kWH and the total electricty portion of the bill was $43.75 for electricity which includes a peak hour usage penalty of $14.49. I can live with that.
So we are at $0.054 per kWh vs California @ $0.2754 so over 500% more in California plus in California you get Communism, homeless bums and a lunatic Governor.
320
Interesting. What is the monthly fee to be connected to the grid?
And how do you go in the winter months?
70
From rural central Washington State: for residential – 1 Phase, 120/240 Volt, 320 Amp and smaller … larger systems pay a higher “Basic Charge” but the $/kwh doesn’t change.
My supplier has a basic charge (also often called a facility charge) of $28.37/ month. Energy Delivered ($/kwh) is charged at $0.1089.
The cost and rates do not change throughout the year. They are usually set in the summer and go into effect in the fall for the next 12 months.
50
Thanks. I pay about A$1.40 per day here in Queensland which is fairly close to your US$28.37.
How much electricity do you use in winter?
20
My usage is low throughout the year because I am at an elevation (2,200 ft; 670 m) that alows me to cool at night during the summer. In winter I use a modern wood stove with a catalytic burner**. I have a woodlot so cut and store my own wood — not the best sort of trees. My tools and time are the “costs” for heating for a modern well-insulated house.
**See with the search phrase: Blaze King Chinook 30
40
John Galt 111 you said: “So we are at $0.054 per kWh vs California @ $0.2754 so over 500% more in California plus in California you get Communism, homeless bums and a lunatic Governor”.
You are very fortunate to have very low electricity bills and not have Calofornia’s fanatical Gavin donkey who seems to leave his brains at home every day of the week.
So why do Californians still vote for this loony?
110
Maybe they see Gavin as truly representing them; they are stupid too.
130
Who says they do? Election integrity in Kali is a joke.
100
Aa I understand it, most districts in California are Republican. It’s just that most of the big city districts vote Democrat, or seem to, although the voting in those areas is very likely rigged.
60
The range of electricity prices in the US is interesting.
In Australia of course we don’t get a choice of policy. Whoever we vote for we end up with the same result.
140
Only if we vote for the Lib/Labs.
If we vote for a conservative party like One Nation, they will undo the mess.
40
We can all dream David.
But having taken control of the government benches in both houses of the parliament a task would remain…
taking control of the public serpents!
50
“The range of electricity prices in the US is interesting.”
The history of electrification is part of the reason. Thomas Edison founded the Edison Electric Light Company in 1878 and then followers were quick to spread the knowledge. Small hydro and fuel-based generators were adopted in many towns in the late 1800s. The first large hydro power came (1981) from the Niagara Falls via a private company — Schoellkopf Power Station No. 1. The large Grand Coulee Dam was completed in 1942 and for-profit companies and Public Utility Districts proliferated. Regional grids developed. Some nations now expect external grants to electrify an entire region at once. That’s not how it was done in the USA.
10
In 1882 Schoellkopf partnered with Charles Brush, who had come to Niagara Falls with a dynamo and 16 carbon arc lights, which were used on the streets of Niagara Falls, New York.
In 1898 a second much larger hydroelectric plant was built
courtesy of wikipedia
00
EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW THAT WIND AND SOLAR CAPACITY AIN’T REAL CAPACITY!
See the experiment in real time in Texas, January 2026.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-aint-capacity
As for batteries, see Bill Gates😊
https://youtu.be/VjgDvG13Hgs
On top of all that, wind and solar don’t generate enough energy to reproduce themselves so they are parasites and a net drain on the energy economy at large. 😊
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-are-parasites-on-the
170
Thanks for those links Rafe and that 2 minutes from Bill Gates should be shown to every politician, all MSM, so called scientists and all schoolkids etc.
And I’m not a real fan of Gates, but he’s correct at your link.
90
Apart from the creation of social chaos, such as the massive importation of some of the world’s most uneducated and violent people, the destruction of the energy supply is another one of the Left’s favourite weapons to destroy Western Civilisation.
Even they know that energy is one of the fundamental inputs to Civilisation.
That’s why advanced industrial economies like China are allowed to develop and use energy without CO2 emissions limits but the woke West is not.
Also, I don’t like how properly engineered hydro (not SH2, which in any case is not even a generator but an energy consumer and not conceived by engineers but a politician) is counted among “renewables”.
Unlike the standard renewables of wind and solar, hydro long predates (first hydroelectric plant 1878) the current scam and like coal, gas and nuclear generation is similarly reliable and economical. Wind and solar are scams, properly engineered hydro is not.
The Left have been promoting wind for electricity generation ever since it was the favoured scheme of the National Socialists.
They even used much of the same propaganda as modern day socialists.
Sadly, some National Socialist ideas were never fully erased from the Germans or the Left in general.
Also see Rupert Dawall, Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex.
110
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
00
FWIW – fits with this IMO
“UK Carbon Footprint”
“The Government have published the latest annual assessment of the UK’s carbon footprint and the findings suggest that the money spent to date has had little effect. They have measured what are known as Consumption Based Emissions, which include emissions embedded in imported goods and services, minus of course those embedded in UK exports.
The figures we normally see are based around territorial emissions, those physically produced within the UK’s border. These say that we have cut GHGs by 55% since 1990. It is these territorial emissions that are targeted in Carbon Budgets. And it is these that must be eliminated by 2050 by law to achieve Net Zero.
But the new figures show that our real emissions have really only fallen by 15% between 1996 and 2023. All that has happened is that we have offshored our emissions, especially to China. According to DEFRA:”
More at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/08/uk-carbon-footprint/
110
Fancy that.
I’m shocked!
Making “stuff” requires inexpensive and reliable energy and whether carbon is oxidised to produce energy in China or a woke Western country makes no difference to CO2 emissions, not that CO2 matters anyway.
150
Campaigns (from both sides of political spectrum to be fair) promoting solar as a win are “safe” (not likely to cost votes) in NZ because there is just not enough public understanding, despite the number of examples in other cities that should serve as a dire warning. The ensuing electricity instability and price rises will be unprecedented!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/685297/labour-promises-subsidies-new-loan-schemes-for-installing-solar
70
In 2017 I warned my elderly father, providing him a brief summary of serious concerns I had, in relation to his enquiries with solar power providers at the time. What a relief it is that he had not been duped into this kind of future strangle hold! All the greens and all the politicians encouraging it will turn their backs on pensioners trapped.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/712834/angry-customers-complain-about-solarzero-contracts
00
FWIW
“What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”
“Publish or Perish;
The requirement that scholars constantly publish or face academic ruin has been considered the primary engine of scientific discovery for decades. But a growing movement of universities and researchers is trying to banish the practice to the archives, saying it has perverted the pursuit of knowledge and eroded the public’s trust in science.”
More at
https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2026/07/08/what-would-we-do-without-peer-review-27/
30
FWIW – making the world go around
“Mark Carney and Volodymyr Zelenskyy Announce Creation of New Canadian Bank for NATO/Climate Money Laundering, with $900 Million Seed Money from Canadian Taxpayers
July 7, 2026 | Sundance | 188 Comments”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/07/07/mark-carney-and-volodymyr-zelenskyy-announce-creation-of-new-canadian-bank-for-nato-climate-money-laundering-with-900-million-seed-money-from-canadian-taxpayers/
And more in there!
40
Also in the USA they’re talking about using modular reactors to power data centres AND also using large (30%) surcharges for power used by data centres AND reducing consumer power costs. That’s Oregon, but the backlash from consumers is growing.
40
The US has a long history of “all of the above and then some”. While the Green New Deal and the idiocy of the unscientific left made some noise
for a brief time, our ebergy history is still on ready display, from the small dams and waterwheel fittings on small streams throughout new england
to the vast of cogeneration plants, small to medium hydro facilities, giant projects, a nuclear fleet that stil covers about 20% of our energy,
a masssive amount of diesel or propane generators mounted on semi’s powering remote mining and industrial sites, and, where I live, a generator in
every garage against hurricane season. In the college town of 7,000 I went to, each college had it’s own plant, as did the munipicipality. The US
has more mothballed capacity per capita that many poor countries use per capita, mostly in blue states to meet quotas, but, tellyingly, we didn’t
blow things up. 1/3 of those electric rates are political costs added by replacing investor owned regulated utilities with “grid operators” to hide the
awfulness of “renewables”….but I expect we’ll undo most of that and go back to co-generation with data centers. What’s actually happening in abut 42 of our states is that we are growing like heck. and can clearly see the failures of the California model. A lot of politicians here are running on the platform of not letting their states be Californicated.
90
The least bad Australian states are as bad as California. The worst like Sicktoria (Victoria) are probably far worse.
81
Windmills and solar panels are not cheaper, very short term, single use, either unreliable like the wind or predictably useless for half the day or more so they are not Green and certainly not fit for purpose for steady power. And the required vast areas of land, the most scenic ridges in the mountains, destruction of vast areas of native habitat and farms and the need for a gigantic web of vast tranmission lines is completely anti conservation. And incredibly expensive. How this is all promoted as green is inexplicable.
Eliminating fossil fuels is not Green in any way. Fossil fuels are the essence of green, all old plant matter, the cycle of life. Green in nature is chlorophyll, a itself a hydrocarbon.
It is a total bastardization of Green conservation principles to promote these environmentally destructive power sources as conservation. They are totally destructive, ugly and single use with lifespans less than a motor car and with no recycling plan or possibility. In fact windmill blades and solar panelts would be both banned as very serious environmental hazards in disposal if the governments did not break the existing pollution rules!
Worse, fossil fuel CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 as alleged. Almost all fossil fuel CO2 goes straight into the water which covers 3/4 of the planet. Weeks, not years. And most humans live next to water. CO2 is incredibly soluble so 98% is in the oceans. And 98% of all fossil fuel CO2 ends up in the oceans. Quickly. Slight ocean surface warming has increased atmospheric CO2. So what? We humans didn’t do it and it’s a good thing and there is nothing we can do about it. It didn’t spike up at all in WW1 or WW2. So after 38 years of this nonsense, no one has proven there is a problem of any sort anywhere. Ten times as many people die from cold than heat.
The core fraud is that reducing coal and gas and oil use is somehow Green. Why? Please explain.
Fossil fuels alone have improved life on earth, eliminated slavery, eliminated hard manual jobs, improved every aspect of life. Without fossil fuels we could not even make solar panels and windmills. Metals, plastics, machinery. So our governments insist all fossil fuels are to be wiped out in Australia at extraordinary expense. Again, why? What will replace them? Cui Bono?
131
To paraphase comedian Steve Wright, renewables are at the end of a dead end one way street. When we get there we will wonder why?
130
Dutton Plan
Environmental benefits
If you are serious about meeting our international climate change targets, then you must include zero emission nuclear as part of your energy mix. Zero emission nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon emissions.
Zero emission nuclear power plants also use much less land and raw materials than large scale renewable projects. For instance, a next generation nuclear power station, including all auxiliary buildings and the security perimeter would cover about 45 acres (roughly the size of a mid-sized shopping centre). For every MWh of electricity produced:
Wind requires 360 times more land than nuclear.
Solar requires 75 times more land than nuclear.
In addition, unlike a modern nuclear plant, which can be plugged into the existing grid, Labor’s expensive renewables-only grid requires up to 28,000km of new transmission lines.
By reducing impacts on our landscape, zero-emissions nuclear will not only protect regional communities, but our environment and wildlife.
42
That’s the problem isn’t Dennis?
The Libs remain committed to “international climate change targets”, i.e. Nut Zero.
That’s why they remain steadfastly committed to Paris and refuse to exit like TRUMP did.
That’s why they can’t be trusted on coal or anything else either.
130
I have no doubt whatsoever David that you understand what contractural arrangements are, and that the “renewable energy” installations are approved and subsidised and contracts have been signed. Isn’t it obvious that the practical and most sensible course of action would be to no longer subsidise or otherwise favour new ventures, and to leave existing installations on contract and then when the time arrives, usually 20-25 years of operation or less time, leave after removal decision to replace with new to the shareholders of each company business? One of the oldest installations in Victoria “Codrington” owners have already advised end of working life reached, they will remove the wind turbines but will not build new wind turbines because they do not believe it would be cost effective. Remove the incentives for “renewables” and disincentives against fossil fuelled generators and allow Liberal Party historic policy of free enterprise free markets participants-businesses-investors decide.
And for nuclear power stations and plants, Dutton Coalition Plan was for seven, five power stations and two plants, maybe they have to be public assets because of the nuclear fuel rods and management, maybe done alongside nuclear submarine fuel rods management? Snowy Mountains Hydro Limited and all the assets are now wholly owned by the Federal Government, as are various other “businesses” like NBN Co, Australia Post, and others.
President Trump announced exiting Paris Agreement, his decision was overturned by President Biden. However, politics again, Australia does not have the international influence and power the United States of America has, indeed the economy of Australia is about equivalent to the US State of California. Consider again the on and off UN implied threats (blackmail) relating the Great Barrier Reef threatening tourism. It is much easier to simply ignore Paris Agreement, ignore net zero (subject to Albanese Labor reinforcements of course, including EU Trade Agreement terms and conditions recently signed), and move forward with what Australia needs to become great again and even stronger.
By the way, PM Morrison ignored pressure from UK PM Johnson and POTUS Trump at Glasgow COP 2021 and refused to sign a net zero agreement.
23
>they will remove the wind turbines but will not…
…remove the massive concrete and steel foundations because removal of 2000 tons of steel reinforced concrete for EACH large turbine is an expensive and formidable task, and the other ridiculous tragedy is they can’t be re-used either.
Archaeologists of the distant future will be scratching their chins.
60
the other ridiculous tragedy is they can’t be re-used either.
I think those concrete subsystems would be wonderful supports for observation towers. People pay good money to go “up high” and see things in the far distance.
And the towers, being static (ie not rotating) would create less stress, and could therefore be a lot taller.
10
>observation towers
One maybe, but not the whole cluster, or “farm” as they’re commonly called.
30
Yes, the estimated cost amounting to $500,000 to $700,000 for each wind turbine estimated 2024 does not include the massive reinforced concrete foundations.
So much for potentially restoring agricultural land when inevitably wind “farms” are abandoned in future decades and earlier.
40
Barnaby Joyce recently announced he would remain in the House of Representatives because if One Nation does gain many new MPs they will need mentoring or else, he said, it could end in chaos as new to Parliament people faced Parliamentary procedures and rules, and if they formed government without the advantages of having seasoned MPs who can guide new people through Cabinet portfolios and government departments permanent heads of departments and other public service employees (Yes Minister!).
In my opinion and from reading qualified commentators and including pollsters Labor is most likely to be returned at the 2028 election and again on scattered preferences, One Nation is effectively splitting the conservative voters by acting like Coalition opponents instead of being like minded.
Chief of Staff James Ashby for example publicly threatening Andrew Hastie Liberal MP with One Nation attack, what about WA Labor seats?
23
OH NO-not another rusted on Lib “it will all be One Nation’s Fault” if the ALP win. Sorry bud, that is horse manure. If the ALP win on preferences it will be wholly and solely because the Coaltion refuses to doa deal with ON, not the other way around. And hard as this may be for you to accept, the Libs would rather see the ALP win than win in partnership with ON. They need to be burnt to the ground and start again.
30
“international climate change targets”
Really? Who decided this?
It’s all a lie. And for Australia a massively destructive fantasy. But if it’s Liberal party policy, I understand you would support it without question.
120
On a personal level what part of “fossil fuel CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2” didn’t you understand?
70
Or is science irrelevant?
40
For the inner urban dwellers who did not take full advantage of the modern education system years K through 12, science probably is irrelevant.
20
Was that Dutton’s Plan? Then why couldn’t he articulate or sell it as simply as you have stated here? Why did he look like he didn’t believe his own plan and let Labor score multiple false points against it regarding cost, time etc..?
00
You see , this all fits in with the changing demographics of what we once called the “left”.
Once this demographic were the battlers, the less well off, the workers. In Australia this mob generally voted for Labor. Now more are voting Green and Teal. But now they’re more likely to be well paid public servants, university types or even the nouveau rich.
So, they don’t care if the electricity cost rises, they can afford it. Plus, they think you can’t put a price on saving the world from climate boiling. In the US these people largely reside in the blue states it would seem. With some old red states like Texas becoming bluer in places like Austin and Dallas.
They’re also the same people who can afford solar panels and batteries and can present a very smug, self satisfied demeanor. Pity the poor bastards in the bush or who live in apartments- go eat cake, I suppose.
100
Expensive Electricity in the USA.
You have just got to be kidding.
Just imagine you have, in your government, an Eco-Maniac whose choices and Laws make us pay the highest Electricity prices in Europe.
Yep, moronic Minister Ed Milliband, the clown in charge of most of British Energy needs, has ensured that we pay, and pay, because he is a true Climate Warrior, and he will not be deflected by vague statements, such as the TRUTH,
10
Here is the sunny and ultra progressive San Francisco Bay Area I pay US$ 0.45-0.50/kWh.
20
wow!
20
I’d like to point and laugh at those silly Blue States, but even their most expensive state’s power is still cheaper than Australia’s electricity thanks to the idiotic majority of our population voting for the Blue equivalent here, which is the opposite of blue, proudly wearing Labor Communist Red.
00