The more Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks, the lower her polling numbers trend. And judging by her latest rhetoric, this isn’t a coincidence.

Speaking on MSNBC last Wednesday, she said that, if elected president, she’d “change the tide” on climate change by transforming America into a “zero carbon” utopia.

She’d accomplish this virtually impossible feat by, among other things, banning energy mining and drilling on federal lands and offshore, thus reversing all of the unprecedented energy gains seen under President Donald Trump, and banning the construction of new homes that don’t boast a “zero carbon footprint.”

Listen to her whole spiel below:

When asked how she’d approach the alleged threats of man-made climate change, she promptly responded by vowing to resolve the issue through executive fiat.

“I’ll do everything a president can do all by herself — that is, the things you don’t have to do by going to Congress,” she said.

“Stop all drilling and mining on our federal lands and offshore. … By 2028, no new buildings, no new houses without a zero carbon footprint. By 2030, light duty trucks and cars, zero carbon footprint. By 2035, all production of electricity, zero carbon footprint. We do three regulations. We can cut our carbon footprint by 70 percent.”

Regarding the “zero carbon footprint” plan for homes, the problem is that almost everything in a home contributes “to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases — notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide” — in the environment, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The list includes appliances, lights and even heating/cooling systems.

“Heating and cooling your home uses energy in the form of electricity or natural gas,” the publisher notes. “Much of the electricity in the United States is produced by burning coal or oil, which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”

“Your air conditioner also contains refrigerants that, if allowed to escape into the atmosphere, contribute heavily to global warming and may additionally deplete the ozone layer, depending on the age of the unit.”

And so in Warren’s fictional utopia, your “home” would most likely be a dark, gloomy and either uncomfortably cold or uncomfortably hot building equivalent to a medieval castle.

Likewise, the streets would presumably be chockablock with horses and wagons, given as even so-called “environmentally friendly” electric cars boast a carbon footprint.

If it weren’t for Natural Gas and Coal there would be no way to power Electric Cars. That is a fact. Power source for electricity, for charging Batteries? Fossil Fuels. The Left never addresses that. — Chuck Woolery (@chuckwoolery) December 8, 2018

MYTH: Electric cars are good for the environment.

REALITY: Most of the electricity is made by burning coal. — John Stossel (@JohnStossel) May 22, 2013

Liberals oppose coal and support electric cars. Where do they think that electricity comes from? pic.twitter.com/YhlnfxPThQ — Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) May 23, 2016

“A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes,” The Guardian reported in 2017.

“Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car. More recently, an FT analysis used lifecycle estimates to question the green credentials of electric cars, especially heavy ones.”

Scientist and professor Roger A. Pielke Jr., formerly a Fellow of Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, has done the math, and according to his analysis, even achieving a 50 percent reduction in America’s carbon footprint is impossible.

“Anyone advocating a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is engaging in a form of climate theater, full of drama but not much suspense …,” he concluded in a report last year.

However, such facts have been dismissed by Warren and others like her, including radical socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the architect of the infamous Green New Deal that calls for eliminating everything, including cars, airplanes and farting cows.

“Despite the overwhelming evidence on the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 target, such realism has yet to take hold in climate policy discussions,” Pielke’s report continued. ” Some even go so far as to claim that presentation of this type of analysis amounts to climate denial.”

“For those making such claims, I’ve got news for you – the world is going to miss the 2030 target whether we talk about that reality or deny it, so we had better get to work on rethinking climate policy.”

Warren is among those who’ve adopted the “you’re a climate denier” rhetoric:

First Donald Trump stacked the @EPA with corrupt climate change deniers—now he wants to slash the agency’s budget by 31%. It’s a disgrace. The effects of climate change are real and we have a moral obligation to protect the future for our kids. https://t.co/dMYPsqex2Z — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 13, 2019

I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment. https://t.co/NGQ1hTJzW1 — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 24, 2019

Climate change is an existential threat—and we’re running out of time. In 2020, we need to elect a president who will fight this crisis. I’ll fight to root out the corruption in Washington, pass a #GreenNewDeal, and create millions of green jobs. https://t.co/WOCkNn0Lpg — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) December 28, 2019

While she may “believe in science,” as she claims, she doesn’t seem to believe in math …