in your book why the green new deal was even worse than you think. you write that the green new deal is an all-encompassing transformation of society. >> i lay out the vision of the green new deal is not chiefly about climate or energy policy. they are trying to remake the society quite literally every aspect and that would include everything from healthcare housing, racial justice identity politics all down to the energy structure, the climate,

transportation, home heating, ability to travel. the entire spectrum of . human life they want to reengineer to make it friendly and its vision if you will of equity and that requires people essentially, i mean, that and lay that out in the book downcr to what your thermostat can be to smart meters to how your appliances are with dishwashers and washers and dryers and showerheads. every aspect will be regulated but beyond that it goes deeper as well. there's calls for ending the ownership and the fleets of electric vehicles, assaults on private homeownership and the suburbs. all of this is built into the vision of the green new deal and it means all things to the

progressives. so they are realizing this isn't a claimant energy bill, that's great i care about the earth would support the green new deal. there's morell in it than that. >> let's start with environmental factors you describe it as an ultimate wish list of the environmental agenda. how specifically would change our lives in your view? >> the first thing it's going to do is make energy more expensive and we are already seeing that in mid 2021 because the energy markets go by signals. one of the things in the new administration they send a signal to the energy marketplace that we are going to do the keystone pipeline.

we will be shutting down fossil fuel energy which america in 2019 be for the pandemic we were leading the world with the largest producer of oil and gas and had been the biggest energy producer as opposedpp to user since harry truman was president, more energy importswi and exports. weev were not even independent. you could argue we were energy dominant. in january 2021 we started shutting down this amazing american renaissance that chiefly led we are already seeing the effects of this in gas prices and other factors. we have a sitting u.s. president to begging the production and this is a shock because it was the largest producer of

dominance prior to all of this and now we are begging that we have the russian oil imports retching record levels so we will t be turning over the enery dominance and the great new deal for the reliance which will be done by slave labor and human rights abuses so it is a lose lose proposition for americans. it fails a public-policy test and that's one of the most ill advised plans decades at least. are we facingg climate

catastrophe? >> no and that's one of the things i spent a lot of time in the book a chapter devoted to the science and i also have a chapter devoted to the climate emergency so starting out one of the ways we claim this is well-documented and mainstream climate scientists are rebuking things like the assessment that was done during the trump trump administration by president obama and included activists from environmental groups like catherine and they used extreme model scenarios to scare the public and now the model scenarios are by the original architects when current climate reality fails to alarm what they've done in these reports is now being wholesale rejected by

the climate community and they use the scenario to gin up public policy so we faced the first for this to thing possible and in the book you look at a un press release that said i your and scary and about political lobbying they use science to lobby the political action even the un reports to get policymakers attention and other governmentan reports. for the climate emergency the premise to the question there's no trends or declining trends on the climate timescale 30 years, 50 years, 100 years so its it's

evidence of the climate emergency and epa data shows up for the 1930s with the hottest heat wave in the united states so anyone claiming that it is evidence of climate change is below the 30 year average so that makes no sense. less than 2% of the earth's surface as many areas of coal so if you look at all these factors there is no climate emergency and then of course i also quote those that look at thehe geologc history with 90% of earth's history has higher co2 levels, higher co2 levels than current and it was to warm up for the coldest period of the earth geologically speaking we are in the 10% lowest co2 of the earth

geologically speaking soog i spt some time explaining that concept so it isn't the driver of climate change and the idea that the governments can impose we are going to regulate this or shut down this and somehow get better whether. we would have known they would be less severe. that's modern the witchcraft and i mentioned that in the book. this is nonsense from beginning to end but we can also cool the atmosphere through aerosol. we believed then that fossil fuels were causing global cooling because we were releasing aerosol, dimming the earth and causing a reduction in temperature and this was the cia

report urging them to look into the scale what's interesting in this chapter. what was most interesting is the solution was the same as the green new deal. they wanted reduction of free markets and to limit economic activity and more regulations on the environment. all just essentially to give them planning power which is what we are doing now. we see them taking over more of our lives because we assured her we need the guiding hand of phd ecologists and government bureaucrats to tell us how to live and that is what they are asking us to do is give up our tsfreedom. >> what is your background that you can report and write about

this?? >> good question. i like to joke i'm not a scientist but i play one on tv occasionally. my background is investigative reporting. i approached the claimant energy prenvironment issue as an investigative journalist. i cut my teeth if you will back in the '90s and that is given the amazon rain forest scare. prior to the front and center issue you hit national geographic and i went down several times to interview and had footage of them throwing the books down the screaming curse words that it was nonsense they were telling usl how many football sales and after that in 2006 or 2007 "the new york times" admitted every acreage regenerated leaving the agriculture moving to cities and

suburbs and they've improved dramatically and now can cause sustainable force where they can cut little swaths of land within seven years you can't distinguish where the forest has been cut so that's the kind of stufff i did and that led me to the climate issue. one of the things i did is collect the names of hundreds of scientists from around the world andst we issued a report to the senate environment and public works committee in 2007 about 400 scientists, it then grew over a thousand doesn't dig against the idea that we faced a man-made climate crisis.n- a. >> climate depot.com. what is that? >> my daily information news site on climate energy and the environment. it's your one stop shopping to

get balance on what you might see on cnn and abc, "new york times," "washington post." the media has been shameful. they won't print letters toth te editorsti from what they call climate deniers. cbs news former anchor announced he wouldn't interview a climate denier for the same reason he wouldn't interview a holocaust denier so that's the reason it's so necessary because i provided the information in the media. they won't even let you know thatat we have nobel prize-winng scientists whose turned y againt the un screaming from the rafters not only do we face a climate emergency and all of the

so-called solutions would have no impact not only on the claimant but on the missions and they would have massive side effects to society people are not even aware of and i will end with this. one b of the reasons the movemet has become so big as the activists realized they couldn't convince we faced the climate emergency so they went after kids because they are so gullible. high school kids are skipping school and we have that phenomenon with whole chapters devoted to that. it's a corporate the children's crusade with money behind it ane they havete kids now suing not only the federal government in the united states but the europeans, eu to ensure a climate for the future they are suing to make sure the government comes in and shuts down one of the greatest liberators in the history of the planet which is fossil fuel energy. we demonize the lifeblood of the modern civilization and keep in mind the people funding this whether it's justhe bezos or richard branson, enjoying the spaceflights not following this or bill gates who is one of the

biggest activists bidding on the world's largest private jet to transport company so it's not going to affect them and i get into that in the book as well. the people in charge this is going to affect what we call the masses. is going tow deal repress thee absolute masses. they want to morph under a climate emergency you can only fly when it's morally justifiable. we have the international agency report proposing climate lockdowns where people have less freedom of movement and economic de- growth movement because they reduce emissions and this is why all the major environmentalists praise lockdown because they were good for the claimant agenda and there was a movement now and i detail this in the book in academia where they want to add climate change as a cause

of death to death certificates and it's much greater than covid-19. they want climate change daily, monthly, annual death tolls so they can gin up more political veaction. it's a political movement wrapping itself in the science and that is what my book is all about and why it's worse than you actually think.

>> the same way that even the un from the climate panel in the united nations the numbers pulled from thin air have no basis in the statistics to bring up the climate deniers as a way to some sort of holocaust denier so you are not welcome in polite society and they can justify silencing you because you are not legitimate like an evil holocaust denier. >> in your book and green fraud, let's go back to where we started, all encompassing society you said that this would affect health care. healthcare. howfe so?

>> part of the green new deal is about access to healthcare and equity. we have a transportation bill recently that's beingnd implemented that's traditional infrastructure dealing with everything from everyone's access to equity to housing and an assault on traditional suburbs and they want to bring in denser housing inri the subus you can detail this in the book go back to the united nations sustainable agenda which came out born in the 1970s that george70 hw bush 1992 got us ono this whole path to control every aspect of your life it's going to have bureaucratic planners

saying it's a moratorium on homebuilding and when i mentioned the climate lockdowns which they are talking about, it is mirroring the lockdown all about economics as well so one of the things i mentioned in 1972, george mcgovern. even his ownre democrats didn't support that and what happened was george mcgovern lost in the largest landslide election. fast forward because of the covid lockdown and the economic growth we have the governments for the first time in the united states starting a universal basic income because it collapsed the economy and they want to keep them collapsed with climate lockdowns and this is what happened so we are already seeing because of all the pain

and suffering people have done due to the government policies in the lockdown and climate restriction, we have to give them better access and provide freepo healthcare, free tuition, free housing, free transportation. this is all in bedded in the green new deal. and then the details of the deal it's amazing because how much of it is amazing about the environment or climate. >> what do you think about the carbon tax? we celebrated the 15th anniversary. when the film came out, the carbon tax is cap and trade were on as solutions to the alleged climate crisis. they talked about the sease levs and these are climate metrics people understood and by the

way, al gore from the books and movies polar bearsor aren't mentioned and in thes historic highs essentially you go back and that was a quaint solution. nowadays it's gone q completely wacky. that's how it's changed. no longer is it about metrics but to answer your question

directly that we have in europe and the united states and canada so all that's going to happen is the more we shut down, restrict and regulate it just means china, africa, south america, all of them are going to pick up the slack and they will not have the same technological advances and i make a point in the book since 1970 they've radically improved air water qualities at the same time we've increased our population and economic growth through the magic of technological innovation. there is a section in the book that shows energy information

agency it would make the united states a country that rejected the carbon taxes and the paris agreement but we didn't follow. we never signed on to this and reducing the co2 emissions. my answer to you is simple it's not carbon tax if we faced a climate emergency and climate crisis will do the opposite of what they are proposing. we wouldn't want a green new deal regulatory top-down heavy policy proposal.

we would actually want economic growth and technological advancement and the unforeseen ways like fracking. we can'tob ban and energy that's proven fossil fuels and then mandate solar wind that's not ready for prime time. less than 4% of the united states energy production is solar and wind combined. eighty plus% is fossil fuel. the green new deal cannot waive ael wand in the next decade andf we do get to the net to zero it is going to be tricks in some kind of indulgences and offsets that the companies do like

apple. if we do face in an emergency which we don't but if we did we would do the opposite of the green new deal. >> has it led to earthquakes and environmental damage? >> there are more earthquakes due to fracking but they are tiny, small earthquakes and i haven't seen evidence and they are still investigating if there's any evidence that they would do actual harm that there has been evidence that they hwould create. again it's's a cost-benefit analysis.

they did a film years ago on fracking and tried to claim it was causing flames that came out of water and pennsylvania from the methane and it turned out that it had been happening for a century more. it's something that was worth studying and it was something to be aware of. >> we were talking about the o zone over the antarctic. what is the statusle of that. >> it's an interesting topic i don't get into that but essentially what it is is people saw it was directly related to t air conditioners and other things for the international treaty and the montréal

protocol. it's unrelated to that at this point. it's unclear to me and a lot of scientists i think you will find advocates but that is an unclear question because i don't think it was as simple as the story we were told in the 1990s that if we banned them they would be able to solve the problem and move on. it just didn't work out that way. you are more likely to solve something like that again you are the climate. you can't legislate the claimant to compare the two. >> and finally, what is your take on electric vehicles and less combustion engine. i'm not against solar and

electric. technological breakthrough you can retire fossil fuels but the problem we are having is due to government policy essentially trying to ban the american suv internal mandates that you start getting electric cars people don't like to be forced to do anything. show great range on the car, show these great consumer things. don't say what they've done now is true they are making the american suv statutorily dead because if this continues at the rate it is going to be 52.5 miles per gallon. you are going to make it so it's no longer going to be feasible for the automakers so you take that away due to the

environmental concerns. theic problem is that it reliesn rare earthre mining from china. this is going to be electric car mandates nothing more than an empowering china and a national security threat to the united states because we will be relying on china for the renewable including car batteries for this lining that china has a virtual monopoly on which they are buying up so this is the problem with it but aside from that, americans don't want to be forced so electric cars have a long way to go. and the other problem is massive federal subsidies. people are billionaires not so much because he's a capitalist. this is about government, corporate lobbying.

these are not capitalists. these are people who know how to lobby the government and get monopolies and this is why the average person sees these electric cars being shoved down theirr throat. i'm not opposed to electric cars and many people are in that sense we have a guy looking to ban the sale of pickup trucks. the democratic presidential candidate so people are weary of these mandates so because people think that electric cars will be forced upon them and they are probably right if they think that. >> in his book green fraud why it's even worse than you think, mark describes the greenen new deal as the ultimate wish list

of the progressive environmental agenda and all encompassing transformation of society. he has been our guest from the annual freedom fest libertarian convention in rapid city south dakota.