News
Featured Image
 Alexander Steamaze/Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — Some climate economists aren’t pulling any punches as they explicitly push for an end to fossil fuels and the elimination of gas-powered vehicles to allegedly combat climate change.

During the World Bank’s “Financing Climate Action” event held late last month, influential climate economist Baron Nicholas Stern argued in favor of policies to end subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and put a stop to the sale of vehicles that use internal combustion engines.

“The right kind of policies have to be put in place, including the abolition of fossil fuel subsidies, the advancement of carbon pricing, but clarity on timescales for decentralization of the grid, clarity on timescales for stopping the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles,” said Stern, who served as chief economist for the World Bank from 2000 to 2003.

RELATED: Green energy is five to ten times more expensive than fossil fuels yet gov’ts falsify the data

The former chief economist added in response to questions about the impact of the war in Ukraine on global energy prices that “the right thing to do is to move away faster and harder from fossil fuels.”

Stern, who now serves as the chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Economics at the London School of Economics, made the comments during the World Bank’s annual spring meeting between the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, The Epoch Times reported.

This year, the event was dedicated to “Transitioning Economies, Transforming Climate: Financing Climate Action for a Green and Inclusive Future”

Stern isn’t alone in promoting ending gas-powered vehicles in a bid to stop climate change and promote “green energy.”

RELATED: The huge, destructive lie of the green agenda

The climate-inspired push to replace fossil fuels has also been a key priority for the Biden administration, which has suggested that rising energy costs connected with the war in Ukraine could be resolved by switching to green energy.

“The only way to eliminate Putin’s and every other producing country’s ability to use oil as an economic weapon, is to reduce our dependency on oil,” the White House said in a statement last month.

“This crisis reinforces our resolve to make America truly energy independent, which means reducing our dependence on fossil fuels,” the White House added.

The Biden administration is also seeking to prioritize the integration of electric vehicles nationwide in its 2023 Fiscal Year budget request.

The request includes a $5 billion over five years to create electric vehicle charging stations across the country, giving Americans “access to the lower monthly costs of electric vehicles,” CNS News reported.

The emphasis on electric vehicles and green energy isn’t new for the Biden administration.

In November, Biden administration Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg notably drew the ire of conservatives when he suggested that Americans frustrated by paying more at the pump should switch to driving electric vehicles.

Citing data from Kelly Blue Book, Money.com noted that the average cost of an electric vehicle in April 2021 was $51,532. The hefty price tag is about $11,000 higher than that of a full-size gas-powered car, and almost $30,000 more than the cost of the average compact car.

“Everyone can probably afford electric cars in the world that Pete Buttigieg lives in,” tweeted Trump White House communications official Mercedes Schlapp. “Average Americans struggling with record high gas prices? Not so much.”

Democrats at the state level are also pushing Americans to trade out their conventional vehicles for electric alternatives. Last year, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a plan to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

The move came as Newsom, along with the Democratic governors of 11 other states including New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon, issued a joint call urging Biden to stop the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

16 Comments

    Loading...