Majority Of Deep Blue New Jersey Residents Not Interested In Getting An EV

By William Teach February 22, 2024 – 7:00 am

It’s easy to say you’re going to implement something. It’s harder to make it happen. Funny, though, how the Elites blow off their own talking points about “saving Democracy” when the peasants have opposition to initiatives

Phasing out gas-powered vehicles in NJ? Most NJ residents vote no, according to a poll

The Garden State is divided on the use of electric vehicles.

That’s what the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll says: Half of New Jersey residents don’t support the governor’s phase-out plan for gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035.

State residents are worried about the costs — for both the state and themselves to shift to electric vehicles, according to the poll, although they understand the environmental and health benefits.

Sounds like they aren’t too thrilled that the Elites in the capitol are going to force the peasants to drive EVs. It’s a shame that none in the media are asking people like Governor Phil Murphy if he’s driving an EV. Anyhow, it breaks down as

  • 56% say they would be “not very likely” (21%) or “not at all likely” (35%) to consider buying an EV
  • 23% would be “somewhat likely”
  • 13% would be “very likely”
  • 3% say they already have one
  • 4% are unsure

So, wait, only 3% have an EV now in deep Blue NJ? 57.3% of NJ residents voted Brandon, so, I would have expected most of them to have switched over by now. Or at least the 51.2% who voted for Murphy in 2021 to have gotten one. If you’re voting for it why are you not doing it?

Despite the opposition, 58% of residents recognize that the policy will have a positive impact on air quality and 51% can see the health benefits. On the other hand, about one-fourth of those polled say it will have no impact on either one.

Yeah, but, they still aren’t doing it.

Support for the 2035 mandate is strongest among Democrats (68%) and reaches a majority for groups who historically lean Democratic, such as Black residents (53%); residents who are multiracial or of backgrounds other than white, Black, or Hispanic (57%); those age 18 to 34 years old (53%); urbanites (55%); and those who have done graduate work (56%).

Republicans are the least likely of any group to support the mandate (15%) and the most likely – by far – to oppose it (80%).

So, why is it 3% when 68% of Democrats back the mandate? I’ll say again, if you want an EV, get one. That’s your choice. And that’s what it should be: a choice. Not a mandate by Elites who do not drive them themselves.

Read: Majority Of Deep Blue New Jersey Residents Not Interested In Getting An EV »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: 64% Say Biden’s Too Mentally Unfit For Another Term

By William Teach February 22, 2024 – 6:45 am

Most of the media running with this poll discuss Biden’s age, but, it is his mental issues that are relevant

Nearly 70% of voters believe President Biden is too old to be reelected, poll shows

An overwhelming consensus of voters say President Joe Biden is too old to be reelected, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

While Biden holds a narrow lead over former President Donald Trump among voters in a hypothetical election, 67% say Biden, 81, is too old to effectively serve another term. A smaller group of respondents, 57%, said the same of Trump, who is 77.

The perception of Biden’s overall fitness appears dismal, with 35% agreeing he has the required physical fitness to serve as president, compared to Trump’s 62%. Only 34% felt confident of Biden’s mental fitness compared to Trump’s 48%.

Biden’s approval rating among respondents was just 40%, with the highest disapproval rate coming from 18 to 34-year-olds.

64% say Biden is a mental mess. In fairness, 51% say so is Trump. Of course, the poll doesn’t break down why. I’d bet it’s because Joe acts like he has dementia and just isn’t all there, while Trump is just a bit wackadoodle and doesn’t know when to just shut his mouth.

The data mirrors that of recent polling by ABC News/IPSOS showing 86% of Americans feel Biden’s age should prevent him from serving a second term. Age has become a hot button topic in the 2024 election as Republicans continue to point to a special counsel report calling into questions aspects of Biden’s memory.

I’m hoping the GOP and Trump campaign are going to use that report about Biden’s mental unfitness when the time comes. Switching over to that poll link which mentions Brandon’s handling of

  • the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 47 percent approve, while 48 percent disapprove;
  • the economy: 42 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove;
  • foreign policy: 36 percent approve, while 60 percent disapprove;
  • gun violence: 32 percent approve, while 59 percent disapprove;
  • the response to the war between Israel and Hamas: 31 percent approve, while 62 percent disapprove;
  • the situation at the Mexican border: 29 percent approve, while 63 percent disapprove.

Who are these wacko 42% who think he’s doing good on the economy? Are they the folks making lots of money who aren’t bothered by the spike in food prices?

Read: Bummer: 64% Say Biden’s Too Mentally Unfit For Another Term »

Posted in Donald Trump, Joe Biden | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Oops: Leasing Companies For EVs Demanding Payoffs After Prices Plummet

By William Teach February 21, 2024 – 7:13 pm

In case you’ve never leased a vehicle before, here’s how it works. You’re paying for the depreciation, leaving the rest as the residual value, plus an interest fee, what’s called the money factor. This is set by the manufacturer. You have to qualify for one of the tiers in order to be able to do it, based on credit and such. If you aren’t tier one or tier two, it’s usually not worth doing, unless you are writing it off. Same with picking mileage above 15K a year. The manufacturers have a pretty good idea what the residual value will be after the agreed term (which is why a total redesign can be more expensive to lease for at least the first 6 months to a year), so, there is little risk for either them or the consumer. What happens when the residual value, ie, what the car is actually worth, crashes?

Leasing Companies Are Demanding Payoffs from EV Makers Like Tesla as Resale Values Plummet

Electric vehicleCar leasing companies are feeling the pinch as electric vehicle resale values tumble, prompting demands for compensation from automakers trying to meet strict emissions targets.

Fortune reports that the market for used electric cars has taken a massive hit since Tesla slashed prices last year, forcing other manufacturers to follow suit. This has impacted companies like Europe’s largest multi-brand leasing firms Ayvens and Arval, which serve as middlemen in the critical corporate car market that makes up around 60 percent of European sales.

According to Ayvens CEO Tim Albertsen, the company has already received compensation checks in recent weeks from carmakers to cover the cratering prices of leased EVs returned at the end of their contracts. Leasing agreements typically factor in an estimated residual value, with payments designed to cover expected depreciation. But with values dropping more than predicted, the leasing firms take a loss when selling those vehicles.

Now companies like Ayvens are pushing manufacturers for protections, including buyback guarantees to safeguard against further erosion in the $1.2 trillion used EV market. “Manufacturers today need to keep selling EVs,” said Albertsen. “We then need some kind of protection from the manufacturers in terms of their future pricing.”

Well, that is the danger of companies not owned by the manufacturer assuming the leasing of the vehicles. The manufacturer doesn’t have the financial incentive to keep the residual values high.

Manufacturers are responding by guaranteeing buybacks, shifting risk into the future. But carmakers remain responsible for eventually finding used EV buyers at decent prices, or taking writedowns. With demand “artificially stoked” by incentives and ending after the second-hand market, this distorted dynamic poses serious challenges, said auto expert Ursula Weigl.

Here’s the thing: if you financed one, the value of your vehicle has also plummeted, so, when you go to trade it in or sell it, it will be worth thousands less than it should have been. Kind of the reverse of what happened after COVID hit, with used car values being about $6,000 to $8,000 more than they should have been. So, those people who paid ridiculous prices now have massive negative equity, way more than they should have had. They’re being told either come up with some good down payment or just ride out the loan. Learn to love the car.

Read: Oops: Leasing Companies For EVs Demanding Payoffs After Prices Plummet »

Posted in Economy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 21, 2024 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising soon that will soon swamp the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on a male high jumper obliterating a girls’ high school record.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

PRC Went All In On Climate Crisis (scam) Action. Now The Power Bills Have Hit

By William Teach February 21, 2024 – 10:30 am

It’s very easy to say “we need to do something” when it comes to the scam. And then vote for politicians who will enact legislation without consideration of the outcomes. It’s hard when those outcomes are less than optimal

Democrats pushed climate action. Then utility bills skyrocketed.

California Democrats proudly authored nation-leading clean energy goals that forced the automobile industry to go electric and shaped global climate policy.

Then the bill came due.

There is intensifying political pressure on state lawmakers to do something about utility bills that have shot up by as much as 127 percent over the last decade. Climate spending — from wildfire prevention to building out transmission capacity and paying for renewables — is partly to blame.

“Californians are fed up,” said Democratic state Assemblymember Marc Berman at a recent news conference in Sacramento. “My constituents are pissed off. I know because they told me over and over again at every community coffee that I had in the fall and in the winter. Their rates keep going up.”

Why are they pissed off? Why do they want something done? They literally voted for this. They supported this in polls and demonstrations. They got what they asked for. And that’s what the politicians should tell them. There’s a price to pay for all this climate cult action. Suck it up and deal with it. If the politicians did say that the Useful Idiots would still vote Democrat.

Lawmakers there and in other Democratic states with nation-leading climate objectives — like New York and Massachusetts — are scrambling to make their transitions from fossil fuels affordable before they face an all-out ratepayer revolt. The problem is more pressing in an election year when Republicans say Democrats don’t pay enough attention to Californians’ ability to afford the high costs of daily life.

In California, the latest flashpoint is a proposal to restructure utility bills to make them more like the state’s progressive tax system, where the wealthy pay the most. Nearly every Democratic state lawmaker voted for the proposal two years ago, but now at least 20 are supporting legislation to repeal it, citing its potential impacts on middle- and high-income households.

Well, you just had to know that the action wouldn’t be something that would make energy more affordable (and reliable and dependable): nope, it’s a typical Democrat scam, which will cause more wealthy to leave the state, taking their money with them. And companies. And jobs. And those that do not leave will simply pass the costs onto consumers.

Last year’s state budget in New York included $200 million to assist households making under $75,000 with utility bills. Some Democratic lawmakers are also pushing a measure this session to enshrine into law the state’s policy goal of capping utility costs at 6 percent of income for struggling households.

Where’s the money coming from? Someone has to pay for it. $75K isn’t exactly poverty level.

“Absolutely high rates can threaten the energy transition, and we should be very concerned,” said Matt Baker, director of the California Public Utilities Commission’s Public Advocates Office. “The energy transition depends on public support, and we have to do whatever we can to maintain that public support. That means doing it in the least-cost manner.”

So, up-front bribery with the increased costs on the backend. Have any of them taken an Economics class?

Those costs are expected to keep growing to accommodate the shift to renewables. The utility Southern California Edison estimates that, all told, the costs of generating, storing and transmitting all the renewable energy California needs could be $250 billion by 2045.

If memory serves, the climate cult told us that the switch to “green” energy would save money. No? But, again, the residents of the People’s Republik Of California voted for this: let them deal with the fallout.

Read: PRC Went All In On Climate Crisis (scam) Action. Now The Power Bills Have Hit »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

California Permanent Drought Update: Lake In Death Valley

By William Teach February 21, 2024 – 7:15 am

They don’t mention it specifically, but, it is your fault. After being told California was in permanent drought

‘Extremely rare event:’ Satellite images show lake formed in famously dry Death Valley

Kayakers and nature lovers are flocking to Death Valley National Park in California to enjoy something exceedingly rare at one of the driest places in the United States: Water.

A temporary lake has bubbled up in the park’s Badwater Basin, which lies 282 feet below sea level. What is typically a dry salt flat at the bottom of Death Valley has for months been teeming with water after record rains and flooding have battered eastern California since August.

In the past six months, a deluge of storms bringing record amounts of rain led to the lake’s formation at the park ? one of the hottest, driest and lowest-elevation places in North America, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Satellite images from NASA show how the lake formed in August in the aftermath of Hurricane Hilary. Though it gradually shrank, it persisted throughout the fall and winter before it was filled back up by another strong Californian storm earlier this month, known as an atmospheric river.

And we all know that the atmospheric rivers are due to you driving a fossil fueled vehicle and eating meat.

This is been forming since July

(ABC News) At its peak, Lake Manly once held up to 700 feet of water. Currently, at about 6 miles long, 3 miles wide and 1 foot deep, the temporary lake in Badwater Basin is deep enough to kayak in, a “rare opportunity,” Wines said in a statement on Friday.

Lake Manly was a lake back during the last glacial age.

The last time the lake filled up was in 2005. Back then, it took about a week after it formed to dry up and had not filled up, Wines said.

So, this does happen periodically.

So far, it’s only a few randos directly blaming this on you

Read: California Permanent Drought Update: Lake In Death Valley »

Posted in Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Cost For Massachusetts To Feed Illegals? $64 Each Per Day

By William Teach February 21, 2024 – 7:00 am

Who else spends $64 a day on food? Maybe if you’re on vacation. Maybe. If you’re traveling for work, what’s your daily limit? Perhaps we should all declare ourselves illegals

Vendors charging Massachusetts taxpayers $64 a day to feed each illegal immigrant: report

New details have emerged about the staggering sums of cash Massachusetts taxpayers are forking out to pay for the state’s influx of illegal immigrants, with vendors charging an eye-popping $64 per day to feed each person, according to a new report.

The new report by CBS News reveals that vendors are charging $16 for breakfast, $17 for lunch and $31 for dinner per day for each migrant it feeds – as the total cost of the crisis is expected to cost hardworking taxpayers $1 billion.

One vendor, Spinelli Ravioli Manufacturing Company in East Boston, was awarded a $10 million six-month no-bid contract to provide and deliver meals, reports CBS, citing records.

Well, you wanted this, Democrats of Mass. Now you got it. And your taxes/fees are going to have to rise to pay for it. How much do you spend on breakfast and lunch? You could get a big breakfast with hotcakes and an orange juice for less. Do you enjoy paying all this for illegals so they can eat much better than you?

Hilariously, illegals who’ve been here for a while are upset about the new illegals

Chicago’s migrant crisis raises questions of equity

Gonzalo Garcia arrived in Chicago from Mexico 30 years ago and has worked, paid taxes and raised a family. He’s also undocumented. And he can’t help but be incensed when he sees a new wave of immigrants arrive with a path to obtain a work permit and, potentially, to citizenship.

“I think about how difficult my life was, especially in the beginning, without having that work permit,” Garcia says in Spanish through a translator. “It’s sad to see that we are not being awarded anything.”

The migrant crisis has brought to light inequality in the way immigrants are treated. Members of the city’s undocumented Latino community like Garcia are angry when they see newly arrived immigrants from Venezuela able to obtain work permits, which gives them access to better-paying jobs.

They should all be awarded trips via deportation. It’s all very silly.

They come to our country and get violent, not liking the living conditions and food. Gotta love the fat DEI cop who doesn’t seem to know how to swing the baton and doesn’t seem to have a clue what she should be doing.

Read: Cost For Massachusetts To Feed Illegals? $64 Each Per Day »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

“Scientist” Was Paralyzed By Climate Doom Or Something

By William Teach February 20, 2024 – 2:52 pm

This is what the hysteria brainwashing from the climate cult has wrought

This scientist was paralyzed by the threat of climate change. How she found hope

It’s hard to be optimistic about the world when you see the devastating effects of climate change all around you.

It’s even harder when you study environmental science and see, first hand, just how far behind we are in implementing the changes necessary to protect the planet.

Hannah Ritchie, a University of Oxford data and environmental scientist, says that kind of pessimism gets in the way of progress.

What’s more, she says, a doom-and-bloom mindset ignores the fact people have made the world a better place to live in, and continue to do so every day. The data, she says, bears this out.

When all you hear is doom and gloom, that a tiny increase in CO2 and the average global temperature since 1850 will end life as we know it, you tend to have a negative outlook on life. So, what to do?

Ritchie is the deputy editor and lead researcher of the online publication Our World In Data. In her new book, Not The End of the World, she calls for people to adopt an “urgent optimism” about climate change. The following is an excerpt from her conversation with As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

That’s right, make some money off of fellow doomsday cult members!

I am from a generation that has always grown up with climate change. I remember as … a young kid, already being quite anxious about climate change and the kind of future world I would inherit.

Then I went on to study environmental sciences at university, and I think from there it just got worse and worse. You know, you’re just bombarded with negative trend after negative trend.

Yup, doom. You know, my generation and the Boomers had to worry about nuclear war. Something real.

So I kind of make the case for what I call urgent optimism in the book. Or some people would call it impatient optimism. And that’s different from this kind of blind optimism, which is kind of sitting back and saying, “Oh, I’m sure the future will be fine.”

No, the future won’t be fine if we don’t get our act together and start working on solutions. But urgent optimism is slightly different. It’s acknowledging that there’s a massive problem there, but also having this level of optimism that there’s something that we can do to tackle it. So it’s more of an active response.

So, basically being optimistic about forcing everyone to comply with the tenants of the Cult of Climastrology. Funny how it’s always this way, eh?

Read: “Scientist” Was Paralyzed By Climate Doom Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 20, 2024 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible sugary drinks causing Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on Tuesday tanlines.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Arab Nations To Push Gaza Ceasefire At UN

By William Teach February 20, 2024 – 10:30 am

They know the U.S. will veto it. Also, none of the nations pushing the resolution are offering to take the extremist and dangerous Palestinians in

The UN Security Council is voting on a Gaza cease-fire on Tuesday, with the US certain to veto

Arab nations are putting to a vote a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza, knowing it will be vetoed by the United States but hoping to show broad global support for ending the Israel-Hamas war.

The Security Council scheduled the vote on the resolution at 10 a.m. EST (1500 GMT) Tuesday. U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says the Biden administration will veto the Arab-backed resolution because it may interfere with ongoing U.S. efforts to arrange a deal between the warring parties that would bring at least a six-week halt to hostilities and release all hostages taken during Hamas’ surprise Oct. 7 attack in southern Israel.

What does it do?

In addition to an immediate ceasefire, the Arab-backed draft resolution demands the immediate release of all hostages, rejects the forced displacement of Palestinian civilians, calls for unhindered humanitarian access throughout Gaza, and reiterates council demands that Israel and Hamas “scrupulously comply” with international law, especially the protection of civilians. Without naming either party, it condemns “all acts of terrorism”

This would all be unnecessary if Hamas hadn’t broken the previous ceasefire. The only acceptable ceasefire terms are Hamas releasing all hostages and surrendering, particularly their leadership, then changing the entire governmental structure to end their threat to Israel, along with blockades which do not allow material for war into Gaza.

In a surprise move ahead of the vote, the United States circulated a rival U.N. Security Council resolution that would support a temporary cease-fire in Gaza linked to the release of all hostages, and call for the lifting of all restrictions on the delivery of humanitarian aid. Both of these actions “would help to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities,” the draft resolution obtained by The Associated Press says.

U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood told several reporters Monday that the Arab-backed resolution is not “an effective mechanism for trying to do the three things that we want to see happen — which is get hostages out, more aid in, and a lengthy pause to this conflict.”

Will it dismantle Hamas? Will it end their threat to Israel and Jews? Will it make Palestinians less murderous? When will Arab nations take Palestinians in?

Read: Arab Nations To Push Gaza Ceasefire At UN »

Posted in Israel, Joe Biden | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove