…is the need to live in tall buildings due to carbon pollution driven sea rise, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on the massacre at Woke Netflix.
Double shot to clear the folder below the fold, check out Gen Z Conservative, with a post on a really bad Hot Take on the economy from the media.
Read: If All You See… »
I have an idea for this
Students Ask Greenwich Selectmen To Declare Climate Change Emergency
GREENWICH, CT — In an effort to demand action on climate change both locally and at the state level, a group of residents went before the Greenwich Board of Selectmen this week to ask the town to adopt a resolution that would declare a climate change emergency.
Brought forth by the Greenwich Environmental Advocacy Group, the declaration would provide a foundation for the town to develop future priorities, policies, plans, budgets and actions related to climate change.
Looks like an astroturfed group backed by big money
The resolution calls for the town and department heads, committees and commissions to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and “advocate for coordinated climate action at the municipal, regional, state and federal levels to restore a safe and sustainable climate for all living beings on earth.”
The board did not vote on the resolution since this was a first-read of the agenda item. They are expected to circle back in two weeks.
Isabelle Harper, a graduating senior at Greenwich High School, presented the item to the selectmen.
“In the coming decades, scientists have predicted increasingly destructive models of how the global climate is going to change if we continue with the status quo,” Harper said. “This future is a scary future for people my age, and that is why we need to fight for our lives to stop suffocating ourselves from our own pollution. This is an emergency for us; our entire generation’s future hangs in the balance of decisions like this one we’re asking you to make.”
The kiddies have been indoctrinated into the doomy Cult of Climastrology. The board should determine that those calling for action should be the first to practice it. No more fossil fueled school buses. No driving their own fossil fueled vehicles to school. No fossil fueled vehicles dropping the kiddies off will be allowed anywhere close to schools. No meat allowed at school. No charging smartphones at school, because that uses electricity. No AC at school, and heat shall be kept no higher than 65. That would be a good start, see how the kids like it.
A draft of the resolution can be found on the town website.
It starts on page 41, and is just very silly.
Read: Young Warmists Want Greenwich To Declare Climate Emergency »
Again, the primary cause of all the economic trouble is China fooling around with coronaviruses, with an assist from Fauci and the NIH. Then, along come Joe Biden, who’s not only done little to mitigate the economic issues, but, worked to damage certain areas of the economy
Consumer sentiment falls to record low in June as inflation persists
Consumer sentiment hit a record low in June as Americans continued to face elevated prices for gas, food, and other goods and services.
The University of Michigan’s closely watched Surveys of Consumers consumer sentiment index was revised lower to 50.0 in the final June survey.
This marked the lowest level on record in data for the series, which spans back to the mid-1970s. In the preliminary monthly survey, the index registered 50.2.
Inflation, which last increased at the fastest pace in more than 40 years as of May, remained a pressing concern and a key contributor to the further erosion in sentiment.
Well, hey, it’s an historic administration, right? Might as well have historic numbers
“About 79% of consumers expected bad times in the year ahead for business conditions, the highest since 2009,” Hsu added. “Inflation continued to be of paramount concern to consumers; 47% of consumers blamed inflation for eroding their living standards, just one point shy of the all-time high last reached during the Great Recession.”
Hey, who was vice president during that time period?
The University of Michigan’s print also came following a number of other reports pointing to a deterioration in key parts of the US economy and a slide in sentiment among businesses. The preliminary S&P Global Composite Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for June came in at 51.2, the weakest level since January, and S&P’s manufacturing output index slid into contractionary territory and a two-year low.
Two years ago everything was rather shut down due to the Wuhan Flu. How low can the Consumer Sentiment go when food shortages hit?
(MoneyWise) However, some experts say that halting the federal gas tax — which currently sits at 18.4 cents per gallon — might not be as beneficial as you’d think and are calling for other forms of relief.
“The average adult in the U.S. uses about one gallon of gasoline per day,” says Jay Zagorsky, senior lecturer in markets, public policy and law at Boston University.
“If President Biden is able to push through a gas tax holiday, the typical adult will save a bit less than $6 a month. In a time when inflation is over 8%, an extra $6 will not make much difference.”
I can get a Bojangles chicken biscuit combo once a month….would have to pony up some change for the tax, though.
The White House acknowledges that a gas tax holiday will not relieve high costs on its own but may provide Americans some breathing room during the Russia-Ukraine war, which has crimped the global supply of oil.
$6 a month is breathing room? No wonder the consumer sentiment is so low.
De Haan suggests indirect relief would be the best approach and recommends sending out a $50 or $100 check that Americans don’t necessarily need to use toward gas. This could help alleviate inflationary pressures for everyone, not just motorists.
Um, no. That’s part of the reason we’re seeing inflation. It made sense when so many were out of work in 2020. It didn’t make sense when people could start working again in 2021.
They should have asked me. It would start with requiring all state government operations to stop using fossil fuels. For the first year this would apply to all elected state officials, their staffs, and appointed positions. And they cannot turn the heat up higher than 65 or the AC below 82. After that, we’ll start applying it to other state government functions. And to anyone who voted Democrat
California plan to combat climate change pleases few
Heat waves and drought gripping California highlight the urgency to slash fossil fuel use and remove planet-warming emissions from the air, a top state official said Thursday during discussions of a new plan for the state to reach its climate goals.
“I think every single Californian today knows that we’re living through a climate emergency,” said Jared Blumenfeld, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
He spoke as the California Air Resources Board opened a hearing on a plan for the nation’s most populous state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. That means the state would remove as much carbon from the air as it emits. The timeline is among the most ambitious in the nation and in the world, but few who offered public comment were happy with the state’s plan for reaching that milestone.
Environmental groups, academics, and people who live in heavily polluted neighborhoods said the plan doesn’t do enough to reduce the production or use of fossil fuels. Some business, industry and labor groups, meanwhile, said the transition could raise prices and hurt workers.
Hey, perhaps we can include all these people in the first year of forbidding them from using fossil fuels to travel.
Critics from environmental groups say California’s plan doesn’t call for deep enough emissions cuts and relies too heavily on unproven and energy intensive carbon capture and removal. The concerns about such technology track with global concerns about the best way to tackle emissions goals.
So, basically it’s dependent on unicorn farts and pixie dust?
The meeting grew tense in the mid-afternoon as environmental justice advocates who had been rallying outside walked into the hearing room and began singing and chanting over a speaker representing business interests. The air board briefly paused the meeting as chants protesting the use of fossil fuels continued.
Oh, look, more people to include in the first year plan.
Even if the Republican dominated general assembly wanted to put in big restrictions or and abortion on demand, anything they pass will require the Democratic Party governor to approve it, which won’t happen, and the GOP doesn’t quite have enough seats for a super majority. They could attempt to get it on the ballot as a referendum for a constitutional amendment, though
Abortion is still legal in NC. Here’s what the law says
Abortion remains legal in North Carolina under state law even with Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
North Carolina law says abortions during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy are lawful and that abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy are lawful if there is a medical emergency. That can only be changed if the state General Assembly changes state statutes and the governor signs that legislation into law or if a gubernatorial veto is overridden.
In 2019, a federal court extended the right to obtain an abortion in North Carolina beyond the 20-week deadline through the point of viability. The ruling in the case, Bryant v. Woodall, was based on Roe v. Wade and subsequent court rulings.
The impact of Friday’s Dobbs decision on that ruling which allows for abortions after 20 weeks but before the point of viability in North Carolina will need to be determined, the attorney general’s office said in a statement.
Most likely, NC law will be fully reinstated, and no abortions beyond 20 weeks except in real medical emergencies. Hey, maybe liberals practicing irresponsible, unprotected sex will realize there are these things called contraceptives?
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin Vows Access to Abortions for Troops After Roe v. Wade Overturn
Shouldn’t the DOD be teaching and demanding responsible behavior from their service members?
Here are the states set to ban or severely limit abortion access now that Roe v. Wade is overturned https://t.co/d6mDRC6p1q
— CNBC Politics (@CNBCPolitics) June 24, 2022
Yes, it does, as it was meant to be https://t.co/YJteImTnIJ
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) June 24, 2022
If it’s not in the Constitution specifically, it’s left to the States and the People. One side benefit will be liberals deciding to not move from to Red states because they’ve ruined Blue states, and for the ones who already escaped Blue states to move back, taking their leftist crazy with them.
Read: Abortion Will Still Be Legal In NC, But, There Will Be A Change »
It really didn’t take them that long at all, because, really, the hardcore abortion supporters are also the hardcore Warmists
Roe has been overturned.
Here’s my story from this fall in @EENewsUpdates about how climate change will exacerbate abortion access problems in the wake of this decision https://t.co/m3zTyFmsV5
— Ariel Wittenberg (@ArielWittenberg) June 24, 2022
Yeah, a piece from last year
When Hurricane Ida barreled through Louisiana last month, its 149 mph winds didn’t just ravage the state’s power grid and leave residents cooking in sweltering heat — they also took two of the Pelican State’s three abortion clinics offline.
From a reproductive health perspective, the storm couldn’t have come at a worse time — just days after a Texas law effectively banned abortions and sent hundreds of people over state lines looking for care. (snip)
Now, with the Supreme Court weighing two abortion-related challenges this term, reproductive rights advocates fear that the story of Hurricane Ida and Texas’ S.B. 8 could soon be repeated on a national scale as climate change intensifies extreme weather, creating even more hurdles for the 615,000 women the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says seek abortions annually.
Hurricane Ida is just the most recent example of how natural disasters fueled by climate change can limit access to abortion — a procedure that must be precisely timed due to legal restrictions. In 2017, both Hurricane Harvey and California wildfires, including the Tubbs Fire, also forced abortion clinics to close and left people scrambling for care at the last minute. (snip)
But health care advocates have long sounded the alarm on the ways in which climate change could decrease access to medical care more broadly, and reproductive health care is no exception.
Indeed, a recent White House National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality lists climate change, and its impact on health care for women and girls, as one of 10 key “interconnected priorities.” It discusses how climate change, through increased prevalence of heat waves and natural disasters, poses a unique threat to pregnancy, and adds: “Climate-related disasters hinder access to essential services, including sexual and reproductive health care.”
No matter the issue, the climate cult wants in on it.
Her clients face all sorts of financial pressures in seeking abortions, beyond just the cost of the procedure itself. Many must travel long distances, particularly if they are seeking care further along in their pregnancy and must either take two trips to the clinic or find a place to stay far from home during the 72-hour waiting period. Many also must secure child care and find a family member or support person to come to the procedure with them.
If you cannot afford it, perhaps you should be practicing responsible, protected sexual congress. And, yes, almost every case is someone making poor life choices
Even the leftist USA Today notes that just 1.5% of all abortions are from rape and incest. Which means the other 98.5% are pretty much from poor life decisions https://t.co/NXB9vUMweV
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) June 24, 2022
Read: Here We Go: Climate Cult Already Linking End Of Roe To ‘Climate Change’ »
…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post thanking Donald Trump for overturning Roe v Wade.
Read: If All You See… »
A bunch of interesting gun news. First, the Supreme Court did their thing
NY Times is not taking the ruling well at all https://t.co/Wa7HddgmPA
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) June 23, 2022
If you scroll around the news outlets, most are not taking it well, failing to understand that the 2nd Amendment is a national Amendment, and does not preclude some gun control. What States cannot do is restrict a state from requiring citizens to show “need” for a permit. New Yorkers do not need to show a need to purchase a guitar, SUV, or fish tank. None of those are actual rights, so, the State could actually do that, right? If they were complete morons. Guns are a right.
Here’s The Hill: “Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling.” It’s not expanding, it’s returning. The Washington Post editorial board goes with “The Supreme Court supercharges the 2nd Amendment.”
Let me be clear: This is New York. We don't back down, we fight back.
New York is still home to the strongest gun laws in the country & I'll keep doing everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe. pic.twitter.com/4yC4qmgVxV
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) June 23, 2022
How’d all that gun control work for the Buffalo wackjob? How’s it working with all the shootings in NYC? If guns are so dangerous, when will Hochul give up her own armed protect?
(Breitbart) The Senate on Thursday easily approved a bipartisan gun violence bill that seemed unthinkable just a month ago, clearing the way for final congressional approval of what will be lawmakers’ most far-reaching response in decades to the nation’s run of brutal mass shootings. (big snip)
The vote on final passage was 65-33.
Yup, 15 Republicans voted for it. Most are either retiring or not up for re-election til 2026. The only section that will truly have any impact will be looking at juvenile records for those 18-21 who are applying for a gun permit. Pelosi is looking to take it up today
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that the House will take up the Senate-passed gun safety bill “first thing” Friday morning, after the legislation cleared the upper chamber in a bipartisan vote.
“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor. When the Rules Committee finishes its business, we will head immediately to the Floor,” Pelosi wrote in a statement minutes after the Senate approved the measure.
How long will it take before it gets a vote? How much more crazy will they add into it, which would require another vote in the Senate, which might lose the support of the 15 Republicans?
And, of course
Dems toe delicate line on assault weapons ban
House Democratic leaders are toeing a delicate line with their promise to consider legislation this summer banning assault weapons — a politically explosive concept that divides both the Congress and the country. (snip)
The concept is overwhelmingly popular in the Democratic Caucus — a proposal sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has attracted 209 cosponsors — and liberals in the ranks are pressing the party brass to bring the legislation to the floor before November’s midterm elections.
“I would love a chance to vote for it,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), “and I would love a chance to put others on record.”
But there’s a much smaller group of centrist Democrats, some of them facing tough reelection contests, who oppose banning a class of firearms that has emerged in recent years as among the most popular guns in the country. Most of those centrists voted earlier this month for a package of separate gun reforms — which included provisions to raise the age for assault weapons purchases and bolster state red flag laws — but are set against an assault weapons ban.
So, it might be popular with the gun grabbing caucus, but, there are too many centrists to get it done. And not enough to pass in the Senate. But, they’ll still try. Before they lose Congress after the mid-terms.
Read: Democrats Already Looking To Push Scary Looking Rifle Ban »
Good thing that California hasn’t gotten rid of so many reliable, affordable, dependable forms of energy generation, eh?
Electricity use would surge under California’s new climate plan
California’s sweeping climate plan would increase electricity consumption by as much as 68% by 2045 – which would put an immense strain on the power grid unless hefty private and public investments are made in clean energy, state air quality officials said today.
In other words, Californians are doomed to constant blackouts and government limits on when they can use electricity
The California Air Resources Board is holding its first day-long public hearing today on its proposed climate-change blueprint, called a scoping plan, for reducing greenhouse gases.
The state’s power grid — marred by outages in previous years and increasingly extreme weather — needs massive investments to attain the clean-energy future outlined in California’s five-year climate roadmap.
Sure thing, blame a tiny increase in the world’s temperature since 1850 for idiotic policies
At least 450 speakers lined up to voice concerns about the plan at the hearing, which is expected to continue late into the evening and possibly on Friday. The hearing was temporarily interrupted when environmentalists and their supporters who were rallying outside entered the packed room, protesting the state’s plan and demanding environmental justice.
Looks like even the reliable Warmists in California are not fine with moving the plan from theory to practice
To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.
Read: California’s Climate Crisis (scam) Plan Would Skyrocket Electricity Use »
Back during the Bush years, the Triangle area leaders were looking to build a light rail system that would run from the east side of Raleigh way up Capital Blvd, down through downtown, over to Cary, then up deep into Durham. That was killed off, primarily because they realized how few would actually ride it. And now
Proposed 43-mile commuter line from Durham would cost up to $3.2 billion, GoTriangle leaders say
GoTriangle leaders told WRAL News on Thursday that they are considering a new proposal for a 43-mile commuter rail line, to run from Durham to either Garner or Clayton, with a cost of between $2.8 billion and $3.2 billion.
The first step, a two-year feasibility study, would cost $9 million, according to the plan.
“There is a need to have a strong transit service in the Triangle region to supplement the roads we have, because congestion is just going to grow,” said GoTriangle CEO Chuck Lattuca.
Whoa, whoa, what’s that about $9 million for a study? Really? This is how government pisses away taxpayer money. Should a study really cost $9 million? What makes it cost that? What do they need to know that costs $9 million? How is that possible? It’s pretty simple: what’s the route, what types of cars are to be used, how many are needed, how often it would run, where are the stops, and, oh, yeah, how many people will actually take it? And don’t forget, how much money will it lose annually? Still shouldn’t cost $9 million. Durham could do a lot with that money, especially with skyrocketing crime, and having always been a dangerous city
The new proposal for commuter rail comes after the failed Durham-Orange Light Rail project cost taxpayers $157 million. Lattuca said if surrounding communities approve the new proposed commuter line, the project would have more stringent oversight compared to the failed line.
We’re supposed to trust them with the money? I really do not care if the leftist lunatics in Durham County want to piss away their taxpayer money. I do care if this affects Wake County, which is where Garner is. Clayton is just south of that in Johnson County. I live in Wake. The route would run through Wake, meaning my taxes could be affected.
The proposal does not include plans for rail service to Raleigh-Durham International Airport, despite the popularity of such connections in other cities. There are plans for a bus connection to RDU.
Well, that’s a massive fail. If it had any speed, I’d consider it rather than parking at the airport.
GoTriangle estimates 10,000 to 18,000 people would ride a commuter rail each day, depending on the cost of service.
OK, they already have an estimate, which is a pretty wide one. In reality, you’d probably cut the daily riders by half. Unless it bring people close to their jobs, particularly in the Research Triangle Park, people would ignore it.
If communities approve the project, the full service could be up and running by 2033 to 2035. The shorter starter service from Raleigh to Garner could start a few years sooner.
A good plan which would make it easy for people to travel would be great. You know we won’t get it, and it is not easy, because things are really, really spread out because of the way Southern cities grow out from the center and mix land use between housing, shopping, and so forth.
Read: GoTriangle Looks To Spend Up To $3.2 Billion For Rail Line »
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.
