It Starts: Pennsylvania GOP Looks To Pass Amendment Banning Abortion

By William Teach July 10, 2022 – 7:00 am

This is exactly what is supposed to happen: the citizens and legislatures should determine the fate of abortion in their states

Pennsylvania’s GOP-led Senate advances constitutional amendment on abortion

The Pennsylvania state Senate advanced a proposal Thursday that would amend the state constitution to include clear language that states there is no constitutional right to abortion.

The proposal, advanced by the Republican-led upper chamber, states that there is no constitutional right to a taxpayer funded abortion or any right whatsoever to abortion in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The amendment was added on to a bill that included many constitutional amendments, including on that would require Pennsylvania residents to show legal identification in order to vote in state elections.

The Pennsylvania state constitution does not give the governor the power to veto constitutional amendments, nor do constitutional amendments require the governor’s support to be enacted.

Amendments to the constitution in Pennsylvania are passed after they’re proposed in the state’s House or Senate and then approved by the majority in each chamber during two elective sessions.

The amendment also must be published for Pennsylvanians to see at least three months prior to the next election, and then be approved by the majority in the state’s House and Senate once more following the election.

Afterwards, to finalize the outcome of the amendment, it would then go to the Pennsylvanians’ ballot for a vote.

So, it won’t be fast. Unless the GOP loses either the House or Senate, it will pass in two consecutive sessions. Then, it must go to a ballot. Would they have to wait till 2024, or, could they call a special election? They’ll need to get it passed ASAP, before August 7th, as election day is November 8th.

Obviously, the Democrats do not like this

Pennsylvania Sen. John Costa (D) stated that the Republican bill was “designed to prevent abortions in this commonwealth.” He wrote on Twitter that “the governor is elected statewide to have a final say on the issues that impact citizens statewide,” and claimed that the proposal was a political work-around.

Pretty sure that the power of making law is invested in the General Assembly and The People, not the governor. And Democrats do not like that this could be a Pa. constitutional amendment, because they do not like when people have the opportunity to vote against what Democrats want. You know they’ll sue. I wonder which other states will push amendments.

More: looks like Kansas will have a vote very soon

(Wichita Eagle) Kansas voters will decide Aug. 2 whether the state constitution should include the right to an abortion. A vote no would continue that right. A vote yes would remove it, and Kansas lawmakers would be free to further restrict abortion, including banning the procedure. (snip)

Kansas will be the first state in the country to vote on the issue since the high court’s ruling. Dollars have been flowing in from out of state to support both sides. Some say what happens in Kansas could shape what happens in other states.

I have a big problem with all the out of state money, regardless of what it supports. Out of state people/entities need to mind their own business. We’ll see what happens in August. Anyone else think that we’ll be watching the vote count, and, if it starts supporting a Yes vote, all of a sudden things will start getting weird, with voting stopped in some places, ballots suddenly appearing, etc?

Read: It Starts: Pennsylvania GOP Looks To Pass Amendment Banning Abortion »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 30 Comments | Trackback URL

Salon Calls Brandon Most Stage Managed President Ever

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 3:00 pm

When you’ve lost Salon….

The Joe Biden reality show: Most stage-managed presidency in history keeps undermining itself

Biden Brain SuckerWhat a difference an administration makes.

Donald Trump had nothing to say and said it all the time.

President Joe Biden has more to say and rarely says it.

Or at least that’s what a lot of his fellow Democrats seem to think.

Following the shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, on the Fourth of July, there is growing criticism from members of Biden’s party, who accuse the president of not saying enough about this important issue. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says Biden has approached the continuing gun violence issue with “passion” and “fury.” Some of his fellow Democrats, however, have reportedly begun to doubt both of those. Some of that criticism comes from Congress, where it is obvious they mistake “fury” for action. It would also explain why Congress often seems so furious and yet takes so little action.

Biden has done himself no favors because even the press (which, until recently, was still in a honeymoon with the White House) says he continuously hides from the public. He’s had just one full news conference at the White House — during the pandemic, with relatively few reporters present — and he routinely avoids putting himself in situations where the press can ask him questions.

It really doesn’t get much better for Joe

Donald Trump used the Oval Office as an interactive bully pulpit and battering ram — screaming and ranting and raving at the press while taking questions in a variety of venues that he believed gave him an advantage, whether in his infamous “chopper talk” sessions on the South Lawn, in pool sprays or elsewhere. Trump could make an ass of himself anywhere, always did and still does.

But today, the president of the United States is a role played by a septuagenarian in a reality show.

In other words, Trump spent a lot of time yammering and talking with the press. And yes, berating them. But, he did show up time and again, while Joe hides

For the first time since January, I was given permission, along with perhaps two dozen other reporters, to walk into the South Court Auditorium and serve as a temporary audience during a presidential reality show episode. Of course, that’s not how it was billed. But the auditorium has morphed into a Hollywood sound stage over the last 17 months. During previous administrations, the room was pressed into service as anything from an overflow work space to an auditorium hosting presidential press events. The first COVID briefings under Trump took place in that auditorium, before approximately 200 members of the press corps.

And now? Not many, and Joe doesn’t take questions. He looks like a talk show host

I swear, at one point I thought the president might turn, look at the audience and say, “We’ll have more with irate governors after this important commercial message . . . ”

If this had happened under Trump, he would have been late, combative and surly. He would have accused us at least once of being the “enemy of the people,” called us “fake news” at least twice and might have personally insulted a reporter just for good measure. But he’d mix it up with questions, not caring if they were pro or con. He was ready to fight with anybody. That was Trump’s game plan. After he got comfortable in any venue in the White House, he stayed and fouled the nest. At first, there was no chopper talk. Then, after trying it once and being invited back, he kept doing it. After he showed up in the Brady Briefing Room to discuss the pandemic, with a little more than a year left in his term of office, he was again invited back.

But, he did talk, right? Take questions? Interact?

I don’t remember Trump making all these gaffes. Remember how the press used to give George W. Bush crap for his mispronounced words? Bush at least showed up, took questions, answered

That’s an oldy but goody. Biden can’t even speak using a teleprompter in an utterly scripted event

If Biden is actually incapable of occasionally taking unscripted questions from a wide variety of journalists, then the Democrats should be looking hard for someone who can — though they should heed the warning of history and avoid creating a Kennedy vs. Carter moment, as in 1980, that divides the party and allows a demon seed like Ronald Reagan to fall through the cracks and take root. In short, if the Democrats are going to proceed without Biden, it has to be at his initiative, or at least appear to be so. (Wink, wink.) The Democrats definitely don’t need a competitive primary season where the incumbent president is fighting for survival. But given that this is the Democratic Party, they might just do that.

Oops. It’s an incredible piece, well worth reading the whole thing.

Read: Salon Calls Brandon Most Stage Managed President Ever »

Posted in Joe Biden | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution filled beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on the UN saying world hunger is a good thing.

Clearing the folder below the fold, so, check out Jo Nova, with a post on the European energy crisis.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Without Federal Intervention Green Energy Will Whither Or Something

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 10:30 am

It’s funny how everything surrounding Hotcoldwetdry requires Government, particularly the Central Government, eh?

Feds must step in or renewable energy will have nowhere to go, says MIT report

Building wind and solar farms is an important part of building a new green grid, but a calm night stops their energy generation cold. It’s just as important to research and build green energy storage — and to that at scale requires federal intervention as soon as possible, suggests a new report from MIT.

“The Future of Energy Storage” is part of a series looking at the transition of power sources in America, and this one is particularly relevant given the momentum currently enjoyed by the solar and wind industries. Too much renewable energy sounds like a good problem to have, but if it can’t be relied on as a city or region’s main or only source of electricity, they’re going to feel the need to hedge their bets with a coal plant or something like it.

Wait, it’s unreliable? I wish I had mentioned that before

The solution is basically batteries: store excess power when the sun is out and the wind is high, and run off them at other times. It’s hardly a revelation, but the increasing reliance on what the study calls “variable renewable energy” means that what battery capacity we have isn’t nearly enough. We’ll need to increase it by orders of magnitude and across the country (and eventually the world, of course — but not every country is equally prepared to make this shift).

But the problem is this: Wind farms and solar make money, while storage facilities … don’t. Sure, they might break even on the long term, but they aren’t the easy money that solar farms have become. The most efficient and green energy storage options, like pumped hydro, are incredibly expensive and limited in the locations they can be built. While the most easily accessed technologies, like lithium-ion batteries, are widespread but neither capacious nor organized enough to serve as a grid supplement.

They’re also very expensive, and, since the greenie-weenies restrict our ability to mine the materials required to build the massive batteries, rather difficult to create

This is where the Department of Energy needs to step in, MIT says. The federal government has the means both to subsidize the utilization of existing storage options and to fund intensive research into new and promising ones. A hydrogen energy storage system could be a game changer, the report notes, but it isn’t going to fund itself. Like other critical infrastructure, it must be paid for up front by the feds and paid off over time.

So, basically, the Government needs to build them, and pay for the monetary loss incurred with the batteries. Because why would the private sector build them if they are going to lose money? These energy companies are making nice bank on the expensive cost of the wind turbines and solar farms. I will say, though, that I have said for a long time that if the feds want to spend taxpayer money on the “green” stuff (I’ve also stated many times that I am in favor of clean energy), spend it on research and development.

And then there’s the matter of the cost of the energy itself. The report warns that even with adequate storage, the cost of power would fluctuate far beyond the norms we’ve established today with our consistent (but dirty) fuel-based sources of energy. Maybe peak power today costs twice as much as off-peak power — but in 10 years, that gap could be much wider. On one hand, the low-end cost would be nearly zero — but peak power might be far more expensive.

Wait, it’s expensive? Huh. Who knew?

The U.S. is at a good point for the feds to step in, and if they do so it will be watched eagerly by other countries working on making a similar leap. The report notes that India, for a number of reasons, is also facing a growing power and emissions crisis, and the U.S. may serve as a useful test bed for proving out technologies that could serve their larger population similarly well.

And then the feds have compete control over your energy usage. They’ll know what you use, and we can all trust the federal government to do the right thing, to take a light touch, to leave you alone, right? Really, this is not sustainable or affordable at this time, and it will be a long time before it is, unless there is some breakthrough.

Read: Without Federal Intervention Green Energy Will Whither Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Energy, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Pa. Judge Puts The Kibosh On Governor’s Climate Scam Agenda

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 7:15 am

Once again, climate action loses in court when the powers that be attempt to jam it through improperly

Judge blocks Wolf’s Admin’s play to fight climate change

A state judge has entered an injunction that will block Gov. Tom Wolf’s second-term crusade to ramp up Pennsylvania’s role in the worldwide struggle against climate change.

Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcik’s ruling prevents, for now, the state from entering the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The policy was to take effect this month.

Environmental groups decried the ruling, and Gov. Wolf’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Rementer, said the Department of Environmental Protection will appeal Wojcik’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

“While only temporary, the court’s decision is yet another roadblock and stalling tactic from RGGI opponents,” said Jessica O’Neill, lead attorney for PennFuture, Clean Air Council, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. “The impact that RGGI will have on the health, safety and welfare of our members, our climate and our environment cannot be overstated. Simply put, RGGI will save lives, create jobs and lower Pennsylvania’s carbon footprint at a time when we need it most.

Was joining RGGI authorized by the duly elected Pennsylvania general assembly?

“The court made the right choice today in pausing implementation of RGGI,” said Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming County, “and I am optimistic that we will succeed on the merits of the case. We need to pursue climate solutions that encourage collaboration with our energy sector, not regressive and unconstitutional taxes meant to destroy it and leave us reliant on foreign oil and gas for decades to come.” (snip)

In Pennsylvania, the Legislature’s Republican majorities and coal producers have strenuously battled Wolf’s plan, arguing that the price of the credits is in actuality a tax because it will raise end-of-line electricity costs, which the state’s Constitution says can only be levied with legislative approval. It also amounts to an agreement with other states.

“These kinds of course-setting decisions are reserved for the Legislature,” the state Senate’s attorneys argued this spring, calling for the administration’s push to be halted.

And in Pennsylvania, it is also clear, the plan will not pass the Republican-led House and Senate at this time.

Warmists, though, do not care about the law, or the Constitution of Pennsylvania. They want to jam their beliefs on Everyone Else, while refusing to live the life. Kinda like how all the big shots in the Chinese and Russian communist parties advocated for equality and workers rights and stuff, then killed tens of millions, brutalized and stuck tens of millions more, impoverished them, etc, all while living high on the hog.

Read: Pa. Judge Puts The Kibosh On Governor’s Climate Scam Agenda »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Education Journal Looks To “Eradicate Whiteness”

By William Teach July 9, 2022 – 7:00 am

Race relations were actually pretty good before Obama came into office, at which point things started to get bad. For most people, it really is fine. They don’t think about it that much, they don’t engage in it, they don’t talk about it. They just see another human being. But, there are some really vocal people who seem intent on starting a race war, and the anti-white people are as bad as the racists in what’s left of the KKK/ They constantly say negative things about white people, denigrate them, assault them, tear them down, but, if you say something about non-white people, oh, then you’re the raaaaacist

Education Journal Publishes Call to ‘Eradicate Whiteness,’ Send It ‘to its Grave’

An academic article, styled as a “love letter” that seeks to provide the “consciousness needed to eradicate whiteness,” was published by the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.

“We must actively and collectively help to do the work of disrupting, dismantling, and eradicating whiteness,” California State University East Bay professor G.T. Reyes says in his call to teachers.

Titled “A love letter to educational leaders of Color: “CREWing UP” with critical whiteness studies” the article called on scholars, including white scholars, to “fully humanize themselves by abandoning whiteness, destroying it, and sending it to its grave.” Reyes quoted another article when he said that this is the “greatest act of love whites can show.”

The summary of the article, archived here, explains that the letter is addressed to scholars of critical whiteness studies and intends to engage in “intentional healing rooted in humanizing, revolutionary, and decolonial love” as it prepares them to oppose whiteness.

These people only want to see things in terms of skin color, rather than, say, content of character. They want to generalize everything. All they’ll end up doing is creating more strife. And, let’s be honest, this is primarily pitting blacks against whites. Asians and Latinos aren’t really involved, and most do not want to be dragged into it. And, so much of critical race theory is anti-Asian and anti-Latino, primarily being pro-black. If these people want to create strife and hatred, well, there’s a hell of a lot more white people in the U.S. than blacks. We would prefer not to be involved, though.

Read: Education Journal Looks To “Eradicate Whiteness” »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Brandon Admin Proposes Rule To Force Cities And States To Set Climate (scam) Transportation Rules

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 3:00 pm

That’s so special. When do we get the rule for reducing Joe’s footprint, as he’ll be taking yet another fossil fueled helicopter ride to Delaware, followed by a large convoy of vehicles. How about Transportation Secretary Mayor Pete, who took a fossil fueled flight to Los Angeles (again)?

Biden administration proposes rule requiring states, cities to set transportation climate targets

A proposed rule released by the Biden administration Thursday would require states and cities to set carbon emission reduction targets for transportation.

The draft rule would require state transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with National Highway System mileage within their boundaries to both measure their transportation-related emissions and develop reduction targets.

This would build on existing regulations that require those institutions to track other forms of air pollutants. Transportation is the single largest source of carbon emissions.

Under the terms of the rule, both state departments of transportation and MPOs would be required to report their progress on meeting their emissions goals twice a year. The proposal contains no specific requirements for the goals, saying it would allow states and cities to determine which targets “are appropriate for their communities and … work for their respective climate change and other policy priorities.”

On first glance, one could say “by what right does the federal government have to dictate this? It’s not assigned in the Constitution as a power.” However, all those roads paid for with federal money could be argued to give the feds the authority. I wouldn’t be surprised if a whole bunch of states sue the minute it’s enacted, using the result of the recent West Virginia v EPA ruling. They can claim that the money is actually that of the state citizens, taken by the IRS, so, it’s a state issue. Should be interesting

“With today’s announcement, we are taking an important step forward in tackling transportation’s share of the climate challenge, and we don’t have a moment to waste,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement. “Our approach gives states the flexibility they need to set their own emission reduction targets, while providing them with resources from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to meet those targets and protect their communities.”

If the states that will oppose this are smart, they’ll ask what the plan is for Pete, Joe, and others who believe in this scam, and point out their high use of fossil fueled travel. Those states will also either ignore this rule, saying “go ahead and try to force us”, or, perhaps just send a plan in that says “we see no need to make any changes. That’s our plan.”

But, yeah, this is exactly the kind of big rule that WV v EPA was all about, requiring the Legislative Branch to get involved.

Read: Brandon Admin Proposes Rule To Force Cities And States To Set Climate (scam) Transportation Rules »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Joe Biden | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible pool constructed with evil concrete, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gen Z Conservative, with a post on Brandon looking to federalize and protect abortion access (which will see immediate lawsuits)

And then

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

NC GOP Leaders Unwilling To Discuss Red Flag Laws

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 10:30 am

Mostly, red flag laws have not been working, except in Florida. Most other states seem to ignore most complaints that would take guns away from citizens, because most of those states with red flag laws are run by Democrats, and they aren’t exactly into that whole law and order thing

Although NC senators support recent gun control legislation, state GOP leaders won’t talk about red flag law

In the aftermath of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, federal lawmakers passed a bipartisan bill that aims to reduce gun violence in America.

To pass the historic piece of legislation, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, lawmakers had to compromise on both sides of the aisle. For Republicans, it meant embracing red flag or extreme-risk programs. Such programs allow authorities or family members in some states to ask courts to temporarily take away guns from a person who’s believed to be a danger to themselves or others. The gun owner then has a court hearing within a short timeframe to try to get their guns back. The removal can last up to a year in most states.

The idea has strong popular support. In a WRAL News Poll in June, 87% of respondents favored passing a red flag law in this state. Nineteen other states and the District of Columbia have passed them, but North Carolina is not one of them.

In fact, North Carolina does have laws on the books. More on that later, but, the thing is, we do not enact un-Constitutional laws based on public opinion polls. I’m having trouble finding the link to said poll at WRAL, to see the questions, to see if people understand how they work, and if they understand there are laws on the books. I did find a piece on red flags being missed for the Highland Park shooter, though

The new federal legislation offers incentives – money – to any state that adopts red flag laws right now. However, North Carolina is unlikely to change its stance on the issue. In June, WRAL News reported that state Republicans won’t even discuss the possibility.

State Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, has filed red flag bills for six years. They’ve never even gotten a hearing. Morey told WRAL News that she tried to meet with House Speaker Tim Moore after the Uvalde school shooting to talk about it, but he wouldn’t even discuss it.

Asked about it, Tim Moore told WRAL News, “The issue is, a lot of the legislation is being pushed by those on the political left is really just gun control and it would simply take guns away from law-abiding citizens.”

There is a possibility for red flag laws to be used for political purposes, to simply take guns away for minor issues without due process

The process raises two concerns:

1. Police could infringe on a person’s “right to bear arms” without a court hearing.
This is true. If you’re thinking that sounds unconstitutional, here’s how the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University Executive Director Jake Charles explained it: “When there is an emergency, and it’s narrowly confined to emergency situations, then the constitution allows that a hearing can be delayed,” Charles said.” One context in which this happens routinely is in removing kids from their parents’ custody.

“That can happen in an emergency basis when there are credible allegations of abuse, and then the hearing is held later, and courts have upheld those as consistent with due process.”

Who defines the emergency? In NC, if children are removed from their parents this must go to court within 24 hours in said emergency, but, only in an extreme emergency, otherwise, a court must be consulted prior. That’s call due process. Required by the 4th Amendment. The problem with red flag laws is not the right to bear arms, but, due process.

2. The second concern is even after a hearing, the government can keep guns from a person who is deemed “dangerous,” which is pretty subjective.

First, someone close to the person would have to find them dangerous and call police. Then, police would have to find them dangerous and take the guns. Then, a prosecutor would have to find them dangerous enough to pursue the case on short notice. And finally, a judge would hear from both sides and still rule that the person was too dangerous to have a gun.

The arms would have already been taken away without a specific warrant. And, guess what? Article I of the NC Constitution

General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.

Red flag laws are general warrants at best. Under the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution it’s simply taking property without warrant.

(US Law Shield) There are currently no red flag laws on the books in North Carolina. Though red flag legislation has previously been introduced, no bills have been passed by the legislature. It is important in discussing these red flag laws to remember that North Carolina already has similar laws in place to deal with individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-261 allows any person with firsthand knowledge of an individual to petition to the clerk of court to have an individual who represents a danger be involuntarily committed by law enforcement to a hospital for evaluation and treatment. Further, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-262 allows for an emergency procedure whereby law enforcement, or others, can remove an individual from the community and take them to a hospital for evaluation without prior judicial approval, if they meet the criteria of requiring immediate hospitalization to prevent them from harming themselves or others. In other words, it needs to be emphasized in this debate that there are already laws in place in North Carolina to deal with mentally ill people who may pose a danger to themselves and others. Red flag laws are an unnecessary and potentially abusive solution to a problem that does not exist.

So, there are already measures. Ones that follow the law. And courts can then rule on taking firearms awa.

Read: NC GOP Leaders Unwilling To Discuss Red Flag Laws »

Posted in Constitution, NC News | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Sees A Big Upside In High Gas Prices

By William Teach July 8, 2022 – 7:15 am

Of course the Associated Press’ hyper-Warmist Seth Borenstein and Tom Krishner (not familiar with him) see it this way. They don’t see the escalating cost of food, goods, and services, Americans having to stretch their budget and do without, retailers making smaller profit and seeing non-necessary goods just sitting on shelves. The climate cult doesn’t care

Higher gas prices hurt pockets, make small dent in emissions

As Congress and now the Supreme Court stymie the Biden administration’s efforts to curb climate change, one thing the president doesn’t want – sky high gas prices – actually is nibbling away at emissions of heat-trapping gas.

Gas prices in much of the United States shot past the $5 a gallon mark last month before a slight drop, and Americans have responded by driving a bit less, two sets of data show. June gas sales are about 5% below pre-pandemic 2019 levels and 2.6% below a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Americans in April, the last month data was available, drove 6% fewer miles than the same month in 2019, according to transportation analyst Michael Sivak, a former University of Michigan professor who is a long-time tracker of driving and car-buying habits. That 6% drop is tiny compared to the 40% plunge in driving miles in April 2020 as the pandemic kicked in.

Yet, a 6% drop in driving roughly translates to only a 1% drop in overall U.S. carbon emissions, Sivak said. The U.S. climate goal is to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

“High fuel prices are a really difficult thing because they’re a double-edged sword,” said Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the centrist Brookings Institution. “So prices that are high and expected to stay that way have more of a longer term ability to cut demand and my guess is the administration wouldn’t mind seeing that, but the problem is that people hate it.”

Yes, people do hate it. You can bet that most of casual Warmists hate it too, because their Beliefs have now shifted from theory to practice, and they are forced to live the life they wanted to force on Other People.

High gas prices are “unequivocally” good for fighting climate change because people use less fossil fuel and emissions go down, but the poorest people, who don’t have other options also “suffer the most,” said climate economist Solomon Hsiang, director of the Climate Impact Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. Carbon emissions are causing harm, especially to future generations, but for decades cheap gas has meant “no one is paying for that harm,” he said.

So, the hardcore climate cultists are happy now

“When you talk about the real outcomes of the energy transition (to less carbon pollution) some of this does mean that things will get more expensive and we need to come up with better solutions on how we finance and ensure that everybody can participate in the energy transition and it’s not just for the wealthy or privileged few,” AAA’s Gladden said.

So, suck it up, peons. They’ll figure out a way eventually. Probably with the government making things more expensive then giving you some of your money back, which makes you more reliant on government

Some economists, such as Hsiang, have called for a carbon tax of 25 cents to 50 cents a gallon above market price “to address the harm from climate change” and reduce carbon pollution by cutting demand, but with proceeds partly returned to people and partly used for green energy projects. But at the same time, he said, “higher gas prices hurt poorer families more,” so the government should send them financial help but not subsidize cheap gas.

See?

Read: Climate Cult Sees A Big Upside In High Gas Prices »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove