Watch: Biden Advisor Says Social Media Should Silence Anyone Who Criticises Green Energy “Transition”

One of Joe Biden’s senior advisors told a reporter this week that social media companies should be cracking down on and censoring anyone who speeds information critical of the administration’s so called ‘green energy transition’.

National climate advisor Gina McCarthy made the comments in an interview with a reporter for Axios, stating “Now it’s not so much denying the problem. What the [fossil fuel] industry is now doing is seeding doubt about the costs associated with [green energy] and whether they work or not.”

She continued, “We need the tech companies to really jump in,” on “disinformation,” noting that criticising a green energy transition upheaval is “equally dangerous to denial,” and adding “we have to move fast.”

Top Biden advisor Gina McCarthy says social media companies should censor content that is critical of their green energy “transition” pic.twitter.com/qfh1Cxe7NG

The Wall Street Journal reported on the comments, noting “Some conservative scholars argue that Big Tech companies could be sued as “state actors” for violating users’ First Amendment speech rights when they censor content at the behest of government officials. Ms. McCarthy is helping make their case.”

As we highlighted recently, Joe Biden has admitted, using rhetoric identical to Davos ‘great reset’ elites, that unaffordable gas prices in the U.S. are part of a deliberate “transition” to green energy.

[ZH: Perhaps they have good reason to tamp down this groundswell of realization as the cost of the “net zero” Grand Reset transition will be $150 trillion (with a ‘T’).

In case you believe that is just ‘conspiracy theory’ wonks spreading disinformation, it was actually Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen at her keynote address at COP26

Glasgow and COP26 is a pivotal moment at the start of this decisive decade of climate action. The climate crisis is already here. This is not a challenge for future generations, but one we must confront today.

Rising to this challenge will require the wholesale transformation of our carbon-intensive economies. It’s a global transition for which we have an estimated/B> price tag: some have put the global figure between $100 and $150 trillion over the next three decades. At the same time, addressing climate change is the greatest economic opportunity of our time.

These numbers are simply staggering, and as Yellen concedes, “The gap between what governments have and what the world needs is large, and the private sector needs to play a bigger role.”

Imagine the ‘shared sacrifice’ that you will all be asked to pay in the name of funding this farce? Now that is a good reason for government to silence anyone who dares tell the truth.

I have absolutely zero problem with electric cars, solar, etc. In many use-cases it makes complete sense.

I live near the beach and have an electric tuk-tuk (think 3-wheel golf cart) for going around the town where I live:

You will note that in the first picture that I also have a regular car. The tuk-tuk makes sense when going on the beach, going to the market, etc. But not for traveling outside of the town...for that instance, a car is the only way to go.

I also wouldn't have anything against electric cars. I won't own one right now because the infrastructure is somewhat limited at this point in time (maybe in a few years, that will change...but not now).

In metropolitan areas in southern areas in the States, I think electric cars make a lot of sense for commuter vehicles. Why?The more southern areas of the States have a low enough latitude where solar panels can work effectively to cover most of the "refueling" requirement. What would make a lot of sense is if these cars had replaceable "cartridges" for battery power where an owner could charge a spare "cartridge" during the day while still being able to use the car.

But with that, my specific use case (and I'd say the use-case for commuters) is not for "green" reasons. I understand that resources are expended, hazardous environmental situations are created mining and refining minerals needed and, unless I'm charging using solar, pollution is being transferred to the power plant rather than going out of my exhaust pipe. I do what I do for convenience reasons and for economic reasons alone. Anybody who claims to do otherwise is either a ridiculous virtue signaller, a complete fool, or both.

Here's the big thing: there is ZERO government mandate, there is not even a government incentive in Thailand to use electric vehicles or mandating "renewable" energy, etc. People are doing it because it has economic benefit. Face it, paying $10 a month for electric (if you have a hybrid system that is still connected to the grid) versus paying $100 a month means that the solar system you have on the house will pay for itself in 3-4 years.

When I still lived in the States (in the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland -- THE FREAK STATE™), they had a goal of 23% of all electric coming from renewable sources. So solar companies popped up all over the place. They had this deal where you could allow them to put solar panels on your house and they'd only charge you a tiny amount for the electricity (IIRC, 3¢ per kWh vice your normal rate). The hidden pieces of the deal was that you were signing a 20 year lease that wouldn't be automatically excused if you sold the house...and, more importantly, you were not allowed to disconnect the house from the electric grid if there was an outage on the power grid (eg, from an ice storm, hurricane, etc). Also, if you needed to replace the shingles on the roof, you'd have to pay the same company to remove the solar panels and replace them when the work was complete. A scam. You can expect similar across the country when Pedo Joe fully puts in his green agenda.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.