Yesterday, Karen discussed Joe Biden’s odd interview with The Weather Channel where he appeared to claim that he had declared a “climate emergency” to combat climate change. (That was the same interview where he came very close to copping a feel on reporter Stephanie Abrams’ chest.) She correctly noted that there didn’t seem to be any sort of official declaration on the White House website or anywhere else, for that matter. This claim caught the attention of some of the most normally complacent news outlets. Even Politico took up the question, likely because of the disastrous implications such a declaration would carry. When pressed as to whether he had really done such a thing, Biden seemed a bit put off, but said, “Practically speaking, yes.” But as Politico politely points out, “he actually hasn’t.”

President Joe Biden said he has already “practically” declared a climate emergency. But he has yet to actually make a declaration, which would give him a host of new powers to combat climate change as the country faces record-breaking heat and more frequent and intense floods, droughts and wildfires.

“We’ve already done that,” Biden said Wednesday when asked whether he was prepared to declare a national climate emergency during an interview on The Weather Channel. “We’ve conserved more land, we’ve moved into rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. We’ve got a $60 billion climate control facility.”

When pressed about whether he has actually declared an emergency, Biden responded, “Practically speaking, yes.”

There’s no such thing as “practically speaking” when it comes to declaring a state of emergency. You’ve either issued one or you haven’t. And thus far (thankfully), Joe Biden hasn’t taken this drastic step.

Earlier this week, I talked about the dangers of executives issuing inappropriate states of emergency to seize powers that would normally require legislative action and oversight. In that case, we were discussing Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and her suggestion that she might declare a state of “shelter emergency” because of the surging number of illegal migrants flooding her state. The unfettered powers such a move would bestow on her would be grossly disproportional to the actual intensity of the emergency.

The possibilities available to Joe Biden were he to do this would be even worse. He could attempt to order manufacturers to produce more “clean energy” technology even if there was no demand for it. He could block crude oil exports or even order an end to oil drilling on both public and private lands, despite current laws mandating the auction of drilling leases. (That wouldn’t be much of a change since he’s largely ignored those laws thus far.)

Current laws only allow presidential emergency declarations to last for one year. But the law contains a glaring loophole in that it doesn’t prevent a president from issuing a new order the day after the old one expires. So Biden could, in theory, keep his “climate emergency” in effect for as long as he remains in office. This is not how our government was designed to operate and the Founders would likely be rolling over in their graves if they could see this. Unfortunately, this is the way autocrats operate when they can’t convince the people’s elected representatives to go along with their agenda.

If we were to move into a permanent “climate emergency,” Biden could continue to weaken our energy infrastructure and destroy an untold number of jobs in the oil and gas industry. All the while, his friends in the “green energy” sector (like John Kerry) would continue to line their pockets with fat government subsidies that have been saddled on the backs of the taxpayers. Would Joe Biden actually have the gall to try something like this? Frankly, I wouldn’t put anything past him at this point.