Kamala is still the same far-left "climate crisis" promoter that she has been for years, Hoffman says. Only now, just weeks before the election, is Kamala trying to pivot more to the center to garner more support.
The Kamala Harris for President campaign claims that while installed as attorney general of California, Kamala "won tens of millions in settlements against Big Oil and held polluters accountable." This, we are told, makes Kamala a winner against the climate crisis.
While in the office of vice president under Joe Biden, Kamala "cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act," which supposedly means that Kamala is qualified to make everyday life more affordable for Americans.
The Kamala campaign goes on to boast about how she supposedly performed "historic work in lowering household energy costs, creating hundreds of thousands of high-quality, clean energy jobs, and building a thriving clean energy economy, all while ensuring America's energy security and independence with record energy production."
Hoffman says this is all a lie and that Kamala still supports so-called net-zero, which many warn will harm the stability of the energy grid, not to mention the destruction it will cause to agriculture and every other sector that relies on energy.
(Related: A Google growth strategist just admitted that Google is manipulating search results to favor Kamala Harris for president.)
Why didn't debate moderators ask Kamala about her net-zero agenda?
During the debate, one of the things Donald Trump said to Kamala is that she has basically adopted his platform as her own despite years of pushing a much different agenda. The Kamala campaign can claim whatever it wants, but her record is what counts.
Kamala claims that if installed as president, she will help advance "environmental justice" while protecting public lands and public health. She is also promising to increase "resilience to climate disasters" while lowering household energy costs and creating "millions of new jobs."
One of the things moderators at the debate "forgot" to ask Kamala is about her net-zero climate policies, which Hoffman says "would destroy our economy with no measurable benefit to the environment."
"It seems all reporters want to talk about are abortion and climate change," wrote someone on X.
Another thing environmentalists are refusing to acknowledge about Kamala's energy plans is the sheer amount of land required for all those windmills and solar panels. According to Hoffman, some 31 million acres of land across 11 states has been set aside for solar development.
"Yikes," Hoffman says. "Preservationists aren't batting an eye to solar intermittency and big enviro footprint ... There's NOTHING pragmatic about net-zero and pushing for 100% decarbonization of the economy by 2050."
Those 31 million acres, by the way, are all public land overseen by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
"A Bureau of Land Management rule is designating 31 million acres of Western lands for utility-scale solar projects of 5 megawatts or larger," reported the Independent Women's Forum.
"The rule adds areas of land in five states not covered by the original plan: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. It's funny timing given that solar investment has fallen 12% in the first half of 2024 while wind investment has grown."
In the comments, someone noted that the proliferation of so-called "renewable" energy technologies like wind and solar has done nothing to lower electricity rates.
"Our renewables share has steadily increased over the last 15 years yet our electric rates have more than doubled in that same timeframe."
The latest news about the 2024 presidential election can be found at BigGovernment.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
