…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post noting that 50% of Germans will soon not be able to afford a vehicle.
My bad, forgot to set this for autopost before going to work.
Read: If All You See… »
A little story. So, I have an ancient Tmobile plan, with an add on that gives unlimited data, including 5G, with no slowdowns. The add on was supposed to end in 2016. It didn’t. Last year I was looking to see if any of the newer plans made sense, since you could get Netflix free. They didn’t. I would have paid a lot more.
I happened to be looking again yesterday to see if anything change, do a comparison. With the Magenta Max you get Netflix basic free (you can pay a little more to get higher teers, I do not need), Apple TV, unlimited everything, the ability to stream up to 4K (my old plan would only give up to 720p), tons of international and flight perks and freebies and such, Scam Shield Premium for free (I do use the non-premium version now), and voicemail to text for free (that’s nice).
Now, that would be $85 a month with autodraft, taxes included. But, add $16 for the phone insurance. Not sure why I keep that, I have never broken a phone since my first in 1994, even when they were company owned and I did not care about them. But, here’s where the sad comes into play: they have a MagentaMax 55+ plan, which is just $65 a month (plus the $16), with autodraft. So, I’m paying just about the same for a lot more stuff.
Great deal, right? But, my first discount for being 55
Now I have to figure out who else has 55 discounts 
Read: I Haz A 55 Sad »
Covering a mule fritters sandwich with barbecue sauce still makes it a mule fritters sandwich. If this is so great, why is Biden not cruising around in one? How about all the EPA employees?
Tougher emissions rules will save consumers $1.6 trillion, White House says
The Biden administration’s plan to tighten tailpipe pollution limits on cars and light trucks — and propel electric vehicle sales — would generate as much as $1.6 trillion in savings for consumers through 2055, a top White House climate official said Tuesday.
The proposal, which would establish standards for model years 2027 through 2032 was unveiled Wednesday. It would yield big consumer benefits, White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi said in an interview with Bloomberg News. That includes some $4,000 in savings during the initial years of auto ownership — doubling over the lifetime of the vehicle — and a newly compelled 80,000-mile, eight-year warranty for EVs.
The requirements will drive “astronomic benefits through public health” and “through fuel savings,” Zaidi said, amounting to at least $850 billion through 2055.
The proposed standards, the toughest in U.S. history, are designed to cap pollution allowed per mile, encouraging the sale of electric vehicles that do not produce tailpipe emissions. The limits on carbon dioxide, smog-forming nitrogen oxide and other pollutants are expected to pare respiratory ailments and premature deaths while combating climate change and unlocking consumer savings tied to maintenance.
So, they’re basically making the numbers up, and expecting consumers to keep the cars for 10+ years. The average right now is that people get a new car every four years, which factors in all the people leasing, which are rarely more than three years. Health benefits? Sure, because people won’t be able to afford the vehicles, unless they are taking out loans that are 7+ years. Yeah, I see some people get loans I didn’t expect them to get, much less at a decent rate. One was able to roll $8k in on a $20K vehicles. Another just got a $34K loan at 6.25Apr for 72 months, when she had only been approved for $21K 4 months ago. And others. But, those are outliers. They will not be the norm. Consider, an easy calculation is for every $5 financed that’s a $100 in payment on a 5 year loan at 6.97apr. That’s not that far off these days with the APRs so high.
The EVs will be priced high, because of the “tax savings”, and a lot of folks will simply not get approved based on credit, history, and income/debt.
They’re purely guessing at “health savings.” That is also not a direct saving. Less smog will be helpful, but, less CO2? Please. Cult.
And you know that the cost to charge them will go up up up.
As far as the 8 year warranty mandate, well, I’m not really finding any details on it, so, we’ll have to see what the actual details are, what it covers. But, again, that cost is passed on to the consumer.
Let me ask: if the savings are that great why are consumers not buying more EVs, and why is government coercion/mandates required? It makes no logical sense.
On a separate note, let me give you a story: had someone purchase a used 2022 Ford Maverick hybrid, only like 8K miles on it. We sold it for $33K. The Monroney label had the MSRP as just under $23K. It didn’t even have power mirrors. But, the Black Book data (you cannot see this on the web) had it at $35K. Why? Because they are in short supply, were selling well above sticker (when we bought it we paid above MSRP), and there’s a big demand for them used. That’s what you’ll see with EVs: selling above sticker and/or the manufacturers jacking the MSRPs up because of the “rebates”.
Read: Biden Regime Claims Tougher Emission Rules Will Save Consumers $1.6 Trillion Or Something »
There are consequences when a company does things that perturb your core consumers
Anheuser-Busch has lost more than $6 billion in market value in the days following its promotional partnership with transgender social media celebrity Dylan Mulvaney, with its shares falling amid a nationwide backlash against Bud Light.
Shares of Anheuser-Busch Inbev have dropped nearly five percent after Dylan Mulvaney announced the Bud Light deal at the beginning of the month, wiping out $6.65 billion of the company’s market capitalization.
Dylan Mulvaney — who was born a male but now claims to be a woman — is the latest spokesperson for Bud Light, which has honored Mulvaney with a limited release can with his face on it. In recent social media videos, Mulvaney has promoted the brand by cavorting in a bubble bath and talking about March Madness.
The partnership has instigated a nationwide backlash against the beer brand, with sales taking a significant hit across several states.
As Breitbart News reported, bars across the country are seeing customers avoid the brand. In one Missouri bar, sales of Bud Light and other Anheuser-Busch beverages have reportedly dropped by roughly 40 percent. A bar in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood — which has a high population of gays — reportedly saw Bud Light sales drop 70 percent.
Another report found Anheuser-Busch distributors across America’s heartland and the South are being “spooked” by public backlash to the Dylan Mulvaney campaign.
Some are reporting a $3 billion loss (Daily Mail says they dropped in value from $132 Billion to $129 Billion), others say $5 billion. Some even say $7 billion. Regardless, this is just the start, as some might say “meh, that’s a drop in the bucket.” What if consumers consider just opting out of AB products? In fairness, it hit a low of $44.94 last October 10th, when inflation was raging and there were issues with supplies. Now you just have consumers saying “no, thanks.”
Read: What A Shame: Anheuser-Busch Sees $6 Billion Loss After Trans Stunt »
Now, why would U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar want them there, especially when Los Federales keep trying to say that the federal government has the authority to impost climate crisis (scam) policies on the nation? Todd Rokita, the Attorney General of Indiana, and a Republican, has an idea
Why Did The U.S. Solicitor General Flip-Flop on Climate Change?
In a case called Suncor Energy Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar recently told the Supreme Court that climate-change cases should be heard not in federal courts, but in deep-blue, progressive state courts.
Calling this proposal politically opportunistic would be an understatement.
Sixteen states disagree, as we have made known through a brief filed by my office. Federal law should govern this and similar cases, according to legal precedent.
My office always stands for the rule of law and fights for it in the courtroom. This case is no different, as it represents a sharp departure from the Justice Department’s longstanding view that global climate change is a federal issue that belongs in federal court.
Well, of course Democrats want them in far-left courts and areas with lots of far left climate cultists, there’s a much better chance of winning, even if the law is not on their side. That way, policies will be enacted (do the peasant class Warmists realize they will harm their lives?) and allowed to stand for years as the cases go up the legal food chain, till they end up in federal court, and potentially the Supreme Court.
The jurisdictional issue may seem mundane, but the stakes are high.
At a time when energy costs already burden hardworking families, environmental activists insist on banning cost-efficient, safe energy production practices. Unable to push their environmental agenda through Congress, they have turned to a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against energy companies in state courts across the country alleging that state and local governments suffer harm from climate change.
The central claims of these cases are that fossil fuel extraction imposes net harm on the world, leading to climate change, and that energy production and promotion are a “public nuisance” for which energy companies must pay.
Federal courts would undoubtedly reject these claims, which is why activists are fighting to keep their claims in front of their favorite state courts.
Yup. And I still maintain that the fossil fuels companies should refuse to sell their products to any entities that are suing them. Of course, perhaps they want to argue in court that, if fossil fuels are so Evil, then why is the government, or group, that’s suing them using fossil fuels themselves?
So, in 2022, when the Supreme Court asked the Office of the Solicitor General if lawsuits seeking damages for climate change implicate state or federal issues, and whether they should proceed in state or federal court, the answer should have been simple. But the solicitor general instead said these cases should proceed in state court.
This flip-flop lacks credible explanation.
Here, the solicitor general seems to be acting for special interests and attempting to fix President Joe Biden’s failure to achieve the climate change outcomes he promised.
Again, the point here is to win and implement, and hope that once implemented no court will kill it.
Read: US Solicitor General Wants Hotcoldwetdry Lawsuits In State, Not Federal Court »
The NY Times has run an interesting piece on just how bad foreign policy is, but, stops short of actually blaming Biden. Peter Baker almost made it, but, either pulled back or the editors forced him to pull back. Now, just imagine how it would go if Trump was president (Times piece here, I’m using a reprint which is not behind the paywall)
Biden faces an era when treaties are more likely to be broken than brokered
President Biden leaves today for Northern Ireland to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian violence. But the commemoration also serves as an unspoken reminder that such diplomatic breakthroughs have become a thing of the past.
At a time of ferocious warfare in Europe and crackling tension elsewhere around the globe, the sort of bold, painstaking negotiation that brought peace to the Emerald Isle a quarter-century ago has largely disappeared from the scene. Bargaining tables sit empty these days. Shuttle diplomacy planes have been grounded. Treaties are more likely to be broken than brokered.
It would be too much to call it the death of diplomacy, but there certainly is a dearth of diplomacy for now. While Biden fervently believes in deal making, his efforts to revive the Iran nuclear accord have collapsed, and it is widely considered futile to even try to end the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict or negotiate with North Korea at this point. The Russians have suspended the New START treaty, the last major Russian-American arms control agreement, and there appears to be little prospect for diplomacy to halt the fighting in Ukraine in the near term.
As Michael Goodwin writes about the article
The real questions are ones that Baker never touches: Why is this happening on Biden’s watch? And don’t great leaders write history instead of being victims of it?
After all, Baker concedes that Donald Trump secured the historic Abraham Accords in the Mideast and a new and improved NAFTA trade deal, while failing to get a new trade deal with China.
That’s far more than Biden has done or even tried.
For all the caterwauling about Trump, he at least attempted diplomacy, be it with North Korea’s wackjob leader (yeah, I did think the way he went about it was dumb, but, hey, nothing else worked, right?) or Russia. Remember, no new wars under Trump. He worked to end them.
The answer is something else Baker can’t or won’t say: Biden is the weakest president America has had since Jimmy Carter and the world knows it.
That single fact explains why China, Russia and Iran are making common cause like never before.
They refuse to make deals with the US because they don’t see any reason to make concessions to what they view as a declining power.
If you keep up with the news, you see all the countries that are getting into bed with Russia and China, who are ignoring the U.S. (such as Saudi Arabia). Nations are starting to blow off the US dollar, and allowing the use of other currency, such as from India. French president Macron is blowing of Joe to deal with China.
Mostly what Joe has done is show his weakness, particularly with his Afghanistan debacle, leading to Russia invading Ukraine, and, rather than peace, it’s a slow grind towards WWIII.
Read: Surprise: The US Foreign Policy Under Biden Is A Steaming Hot Mess »
The new EPA rule has the climate cultists really, really excited. I wonder how many of the low and middle class ones realize the rule will make new vehicles unaffordable?
E.P.A. Lays Out Rules to Turbocharge Sales of Electric Cars and Trucks
The Biden administration on Wednesday proposed the nation’s most ambitious climate regulations to date, two plans designed to ensure two-thirds of new passenger cars and a quarter of new heavy trucks sold in the United States are all-electric by 2032.
The new rules would require nothing short of a revolution in the U.S. auto industry, a moment in some ways as significant as the June morning in 1896 when Henry Ford took his “horseless carriage” for a test run and changed American life and industry.
The government’s challenge to automakers is monumental; Last year, all-electric vehicles were just 5.8 percent of new cars sold in the United States. All-electric trucks were even more rare, making up fewer than 2 percent of new heavy trucks sold.
And the vast majority of those vehicles are being purchased by people making over $150K a year. This will leave the working and middle class out of being able to afford a new vehicle. It will end the notion of family vehicles, like minivans and midsized SUVs. Take a look at the vehicles sold in Europe: they’re mostly small.
Nearly all major automakers have already invested billions in producing electric vehicles at the same time as they continue to manufacture the conventional vehicles powered by gasoline, which deliver their profits. The proposed regulations would require them to invest more heavily and reorient their processes in ways that would essentially spell the end of the internal combustion engine.
That would be the textbook definition for the economic portion of socialism, where the government is heavily involved in running the economy, up to and including owning the means of production. But, it moves more into the authoritarian model, where the government is forcing citizens to act in a certain manner.
If the two rules are enacted as proposed, they would put the world’s largest economy on track to slash its planet-warming emissions at the pace that scientists say is required of all nations in order to avert the most devastating impacts of climate change.
And it would severely restrict the ability of US citizens to travel. Unless they want to take the bus or train.
The proposed tailpipe pollution limits for cars, first reported by The New York Times on Saturday, are designed to ensure that 67 percent of sales of new light-duty passenger vehicles, from sedans to pickup trucks, will be all-electric by 2032. Additionally, 46 percent of sales of new medium-duty trucks, such as delivery vans, will be all-electric or of some other form of zero-emissions technology by the same year, according to the plan.
So, when do the top end climate cultists practice what they’re forcing everyone else to practice? When does Biden go EV? How about Kamala? How about Michael S. Reagan, the EPA administrator? I wonder how many EPA employees are driving EVs? How many of them will answer “well, that’s just inconvenient, because we have the kids, have to get them around?”
Is that plane electric?
This could’ve been a Zoom call… https://t.co/fHZHMsYSpP
— Governor Dill (@TheGreenOldDill) April 12, 2023
Now, just image the massive fossil fueled convoy taking Biden around
Biden is greeting people outside McAteers the Food House in the Dundalk, Ireland pic.twitter.com/39boTWvO5X
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) April 12, 2023
Those do not look like EVs.
Read: EPA’s New MPG Rules Will Push People In EVs They Cannot Afford »
…is wonderful bamboo, which is a great alternative biomass source of energy from fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Jo Nova, with a post on the plague of mental illness in teen girls
Read: If All You See… »
The Washington Post isn’t quite ready to lean toward the notion of COVID19 having leaked from the Wuhan lab yet, though
China’s struggles with lab safety carry danger of another pandemic
In the summer of 2019, a mysterious accident occurred inside a government-run biomedical complex in north-central China, a facility that handles a pathogen notorious for its ability to pass easily from animals to humans.
There were no alarms or flashing lights to alert workers to the defect in a sanitation system that was supposed to kill germs in the vaccine plant’s waste. When the system failed in late July that year, millions of airborne microbes began seeping invisibly from exhaust vents and drifting into nearby neighborhoods. Nearly a month passed before the problem was discovered and fixed, and four months before the public was informed. By then, at least 10,000 people had been exposed, with hundreds developing symptomatic illnesses, scientific studies later concluded.
The events occurred not in Wuhan, the city where the coronavirus pandemic began, but in another Chinese city, Lanzhou, 800 miles to the southeast. The leaking pathogens were bacterial spores that cause brucellosis, a common livestock disease that can lead to chronic illness or even death in humans if not treated. As the pandemic enters its fourth year, new details about the little-known Lanzhou incident offer a revealing glimpse into a much larger — and largely hidden — struggle with biosafety across China in late 2019, at the precise moment when both the brucellosis incident and the coronavirus outbreak were coming to light.
Multiple probes into both events by U.S. and international scientists and lawmakers are spotlighting what experts describe as China’s vulnerability to serious lab accidents, exposing problems that allowed deadly pathogens to escape in the past and could well do so again, potentially triggering another pandemic.
China has had many leaks leading to smaller pandemics, such as SARS and swine flu. Wuhan was working with coronaviruses in bats just up the road from the wet market. Their security has been known to be lax, and you know they are working on these for biowarfare.
Beijing has embarked on a major expansion of the country’s biotechnology sector, pouring billions of dollars into constructing dozens of laboratories and encouraging cutting-edge — and sometimes controversial — research in fields including genetic engineering, and experimental vaccines and therapeutics. The expansion is part of a government-mandated effort to rival or surpass the scientific capabilities of the United States and other Western powers. Yet, safety practices in China’s new labs have failed to keep pace, a Washington Post examination has found.
But
Whether lab safety was a factor in the coronavirus outbreak remains unclear. The World Health Organization and the U.S. intelligence community both continue to point to a possible lab accident as one of the two ways that the pandemic may have started. In an updated intelligence assessment revealed publicly in February, Energy Department analysts joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the most likely cause, although some other U.S. agencies continued to side with scientists who think a natural spillover from infected animals — perhaps raccoon dogs, sold at a Wuhan market — is to blame. Advocates of both theories expressed only low or moderate confidence in their conclusions.
Despite all the Washington Post research, they aren’t quite willing to truly think that a lab leak is the most likely source for Wuhan flu. Despite a long, long piece on lab safety issues in China, you know they don’t want to embrace the most likely scenario, because Trump pushed it, and so do Republicans.
Priorities!
Fighting climate change in the Windy City
From the start of his quest to become mayor of Chicago, progressive Brandon Johnson made environmental justice a personal issue.
The former Chicago public school teacher talked about his own battles with asthma — “I grew up with asthma. I still suffer from it.” — a condition known to be exacerbated by pollution. And everywhere Johnson went, he talked about how he was raising three children in Chicago’s Far West Side neighborhood of Austin, a majority-Black area that is ranked as one of the most polluted areas in the Windy City.
“For too long our communities have been seen as dumping grounds for waste and materials that no one seems to know what else to do with,” Johnson said at a mayoral forum held in the heavily Latino neighborhood of Pilsen.
Those sound like environmental issues, nothing to do with Hotcoldwetdry.
Johnson’s first test would be how much he could deliver on the building emissions ordinance that Chicago’s green groups have long waited for. The mayor-elect promised “a climate justice buildings ordinance” — which would tackle emissions but keep tenants’ energy bills low — as a top priority of his administration.
If passed, the ordinance would compel buildings and historic skyscrapers in the nation’s third-largest city to choose between reducing emissions — or paying a huge fine. The idea is to create “pollution-free” homes and buildings in the city, where such structures are responsible for 69 percent of the city’s total emissions. (Buildings account for a majority of emissions for most big cities — 70 percent in New York City and 80 percent in St. Louis.)
I wonder how well that will work out
(WGN) Walmart plans to close four stores in Chicago by mid-April, the company announced Tuesday.
Officials with the department store cited profit margins as the reasoning behind the closing.
“The simplest explanation is that collectively our Chicago stores have not been profitable since we opened the first one nearly 17 years ago – these stores lose tens of millions of dollars a year, and their annual losses nearly doubled in just the last five years. The remaining four Chicago stores continue to face the same business difficulties, but we think this decision gives us the best chance to help keep them open and serving the community,” a press release stated.
All four stores are in high crime areas of the city. The violent crime rate is over double the Illinois and national rates.
(Illinois Policy) Theft is driving the overall increase in crime. Car theft is up 114% since 2018, and other thefts increased by 32% since 2018. Just last year, motor vehicle theft increased by 102% and theft by 56%.
In 2021, Chicago saw more than 45,000 people stop calling the city their home. Only two other big cities had more residents move away compared to Chicago. New York and San Francisco both experienced greater populations losses than Chicago, with New York losing over 305,000 people.
What happens when the mayors silly focus on ‘climate change’ drives out tax paying citizens and businesses, especially as the city continues to avoid dealing with the crime?
Read: Chicago Is Invested In Dealing With Climate Apocalypse »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
