Market Realities Are Throwing Wrench In Biden’s Green Energy Dreams

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

For two years now, I and others have been pointing out the reality that there is no real “energy transition” happening around the world. Two new items of information came to light this week that irrevocably prove the point.

It is true that governments across the western world appear to be working to bankrupt their countries by pouring trillions of debt-funded dollars, Euros and British pounds into central planning efforts to subsidize renewables and electric vehicles into existence. That reality cannot be denied. The trouble is that no amount of debt money can turn the markets and the markets aren’t cooperating.

Despite all the government largesse that has spurred major additions of wind and solar generation capacity, those weather-reliant energy sources can’t even keep up with the pace of rising demand for electricity. As a result, the markets dictated that the world consumed record levels of coal, natural gas, oil and even wood during 2023. Yes, we are still burning vast amounts of wood for electricity, despite an alleged “transition” from wood to coal which began 500 years ago.

That is reality, dictated by the markets.

Two new bits of data came to light this week that pound the final nails into the coffin of the narrative around the energy transition. A report in the Financial Times, citing data compiled by Grid Strategies, reveals that the buildout of new high-voltage transmission lines in the United States slowed to a trickle in 2023, with just 55.5 additional miles installed. That collapse comes despite the Biden government’s recognition that a massive expansion of this type of transmission lines must happen to accommodate the demands of any true “transition” to renewables.

The Financial Times quotes a 2023 assessment by the Department of Energy that found that “regional transmission must more than double and interregional transmission must grow more than fivefold by 2035 to meet decarbonization targets.” DOE admits such a pace would add more than 50,000 miles of new transmission in just 11 years, which is almost 1,000 times the pace of adds during 2023. Yikes.

A crucial aspect of that DOE study to understand is that it was conducted before we began to understand the true magnitude of additional power demands that will result from the explosive growth of AI technology just now starting to come to full bloom. It was just this past January, at the WEF Forum in Davos, where OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told the audience he believes generation capacity on the grid will have to double over the next decade just to fill the AI demands alone. That is what is needed in addition to the rising demands for EV charging, industrial growth, population growth and economic growth.

The second piece of compelling data arising this week comes from a Bloomberg story headlined, “Data Centers Now Need a Reactor’s Worth of Power, Dominion Says.” The key thing to understand about this story is that the piece is only referencing the needs of planned new data centers being built in Northern Virginia to feed AI development in that tiny sliver of the United States.

This key excerpt from the story says it all: “Over the past five years, Dominion has connected 94 data centers that, together, consume about four gigawatts of electricity, Blue said. That means that just two or three of the data center campuses now being planned could require as much electricity as all the centers Dominion hooked up since about 2019.”

That is not just rapid growth, it is exponential growth in power demand from a single developing technology.

Demand growth needs such as this aren’t going to be filled by unpredictable, unreliable, weather-dependent generation like windmills and solar arrays. And let’s face it: The United States is not going to be able to continue expanding renewables without finding some way to create a massive expansion of transmission. Why build the generation if you can’t move the electricity?

What it all means is that all the grand Biden Green New Deal plans to shut down America’s remaining coal fleet and much of its natural gas generation fleet are going to have to wait, because the market will not allow them. That’s reality, and reality does not care about anyone’s green transition dreams.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Up Next

Federal government’s fiscal record—one for the history books

Don't Miss

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 13 hours ago

Canada Needs a Mandatory National Service

Alberta / 14 hours ago

Alberta introduces bill allowing province to reject international agreements

Economy

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From Michael Shellenberger

Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades.

This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change.

Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public.

In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me.

For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long.

You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading.

The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers….

Please subscribe now to support Public’s award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video!

Full version: x.com/shellenberger/

Scientists for years said they had proof that climate change was accelerating sea level rise. But that's not what the evidence shows. They knew the truth and misled the public. And now I have a long email exchange with a top scientist that shows how they did it. Massive scandal. pic.twitter.com/MNIX1025Fe

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 24, 2025

Alberta

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.