Senate Climahypocrites Announce 500 Day Energy Independence Plan

By William Teach March 30, 2022 – 7:15 am

I wonder what it could be? I wonder what could be missing?

Senate climate hawks announce 500-day energy independence plan

Senate Democrats who are part of the chamber’s Climate Change Task Force are calling for a multistep strategy to achieve energy independence by transitioning to renewable energy over the next 500 days.

At a meeting of the task force Tuesday, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) outlined a series of reforms that he said would achieve the goal without increased reliance on fossil fuels.

The group has called for lawmakers to permanently codify President Biden’s ban on Russian oil imports through the Severing Putin’s Immense Gains from Oil Transfers Act, which Markey introduced at the beginning of the month.

Yes, let’s stop using Russian oil and get our own…oh, right, they don’t want us to have our own

It also is pushing for passage of another Markey-sponsored bill, the Strategic Reserve, Appliance, Vehicle and Energy Efficiency for Consumers Act, which is co-sponsored by task force member Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). The bill would offer short-term consumer relief by releasing the equivalent of 500 days of Russian oil imports from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and authorize the president to set emergency energy efficiency targets.

The “SAVE Act” would drastically increase the required energy efficiency of everything, giving the Executive office the power to pretty much set standards to whatever the hell they want. What consumers save in energy will be a heck of a lot less that in the cost increases for vehicles, appliances, AC and heating systems, you name it.

The task force is further calling for the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps, one of the major environmental prongs in the sweeping Build Back Better Act. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) seemingly torpedoed the bill in December when he said he would not vote for it, but he has said the act’s climate provisions are among the aspects he supports and could back in a smaller package.

A bunch of government funded nags, Green Shirts, if you will.

The bill would let Executive Office agencies set standards for energy efficiency, and even mandate reductions in the use of energy and gasoline by American citizens (section 3). It’s only 7 pages, mentions “clean energy”, but fails to mention production of oil and natural gas on American property. Nothing about nuclear energy. The main point is giving Biden more power over Citizens and their energy use and gas use. I can’t stress that enough.

And it has a chance to pass. Joe Manchin may well support it, and they may get a few super squishy Republicans to vote for it in the Senate. Don’t be fooled by it being a short 7 pages. It is dangerous investing that much free power in the Executive Office.

If elected Republicans had any brains, they’d trot out their own bill which would require reduced energy use by the federal government, starting with the White House and elected members of Congress and their staffs, put them on the spot.

Read: Senate Climahypocrites Announce 500 Day Energy Independence Plan »

Posted in Democrats, Energy, Global Warming | 36 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden’s Bungling Reshapes European Spending Priorities

By William Teach March 30, 2022 – 7:00 am

Now, maybe Putin would have gone into Ukraine regardless. Maybe not. Biden sure didn’t help stop the invasion in the least, and hasn’t helped since, so

The War Is Reshaping How Europe Spends

Joe Biden Ice Cream AfghanistanNicolae Ciuca spent a lifetime on the battlefield before being voted in as prime minister of Romania four months ago. Yet even he did not imagine the need to spend millions of dollars for emergency production of iodine pills to help block radiation poisoning in case of a nuclear blast, or to raise military spending 25% in a single year.

“We never thought we’d need to go back to the Cold War and consider potassium iodine again,” Ciuca, a retired general, said through a translator at Victoria Palace, the government’s headquarters in Bucharest. “We never expected this kind of war in the 21st century.”

Across the European Union and Britain, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is reshaping spending priorities and forcing governments to prepare for threats thought to have been long buried — from a flood of European refugees to the possible use of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons by a Russian leader who may feel backed into a corner.

That whole off the cuff regime change think sure helped, right?

The result is a sudden reshuffling of budgets as military spending, essentials like agriculture and energy, and humanitarian assistance are shoved to the front of the line, with other pressing needs like education and social services likely to be downgraded.

The most significant shift is in military spending. Germany’s turnabout is the most dramatic, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s promise to raise spending above 2% of the country’s economic output, a level not reached in more than three decades. The pledge included an immediate injection of 100 billion euros ($113 billion) into the country’s notoriously threadbare armed forces. As Scholz put it in his speech last month, “We need planes that fly, ships that sail and soldiers who are optimally equipped.”

It’s a pretty long NY Times piece, showing the problems going on in Europe. Refugees, high energy prices, food stocks, you name it, spending priorities are all change.

The pledge includes countries that have fallen below NATO’s goal to spend a minimum of 2% of national output as well as countries that have exceeded the threshold. (The 27 members of the EU and the 30 NATO members overlap but are not identical.)

Hey, I remember when all the Democrats and pundits, including Europeans, give someone a lot of guff over demanding European NATO members pay more for their own defense. Who was that again?

Read: Biden’s Bungling Reshapes European Spending Priorities »

Posted in Current Affairs, Europe, Joe Biden | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Who Had Will Smith Slapping Chris Rock Being A Race Thing?

By William Teach March 29, 2022 – 6:32 pm

There’s been some serious hot takes, some dragging Trump in, because Trump Derangement Syndrome, and, now, apparently, whites and blacks are discussing this differently. If the only thing you can think of is how race plays a part in some issue, you, yes you, are the racist.

Read: Who Had Will Smith Slapping Chris Rock Being A Race Thing? »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 29, 2022 – 3:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike used to help reduce the rise of the seas, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Diogenes’ Middle Finger, with a post on Joe taking pre-submitted questions

Read: If All You See… »

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

Climavirtue Signaling: Save The Children Refuses Big Oil Company Donation

By William Teach March 29, 2022 – 3:00 pm

See, it’s more important to let the kids starve than prop up fossil fuels…..which were certainly used to transport and deliver the aid (via Watts Up With That?)

Charity snubs £750,000 donation from gas company over reluctance to take cash from fossil fuel firms

Save the Children has refused an energy firm’s £750,000 ($985,331 U.S.) donation to ease the Ukraine crisis because it doesn’t want to endorse fossil fuels.

It rebuffed cash from North Sea gas producer Neptune Energy two weeks ago, stating it was ‘committed to working on climate change issues’.

Despite refusing help for Ukraine, it said it would take cash for its Children’s Emergency Fund, which supports youngsters in crises around the world, because ‘this could be used in a crisis for which relatively little money is available’.

Neptune, which says it has given £1.5million for Ukrainian humanitarian efforts, challenged the decision with Save the Children’s trustees, saying its staff chose the charity and the snub had ‘shocked’ them.

Save the Children will now refuse donations from firms ‘whose core business is fossil fuels… following a lead by children who have protested about the threat the climate crisis poses to their future’, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Oh, so, it’s OK to take the money for one thing, not another? Huh. This is a cult, a doomsday, quite bonkers one. Eric Worrall writes

Every one of the “Save the Children” executives who made this fatuous decision use fossil fuel in their every day lives, in the clothes they wear, their household appliances, home heating, the roads they drive on. Their computers and telephones are largely made of fossil fuel based plastic, and powered by fossil fuel. Even if they drive an EV, their automobile is mostly made of fossil fuel, and recharged by generated powered by fossil fuel. Any metal components in their EV were smelted and shaped using fossil fuel powered machines.

The timing of this move could not be worse. The world stands on the brink of a food supply crisis, thanks to the interruption of 25% of the world’s wheat supply, wheat which normally comes from Ukraine.

It’s a food bank. The point is to get food and aid to those kids. And they will use fossil fueled vehicles, planes, and or ships to harvest it, get it to market, ship it to affected areas, then distribute it. Fossil fuels to refrigerate some of it. And, yes, the big wigs in the cult won’t give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Read: Climavirtue Signaling: Save The Children Refuses Big Oil Company Donation »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

We Need More COVID Funding For Racial Equity Or Something

By William Teach March 29, 2022 – 10:30 am

There are hot takes, and then there are Hot Takes. This one rather highlights that COVID response is really all about politics, at least at this point

Covid funding inaction threatens fragile progress on racial, economic disparities

Racial and ethnic disparities in Covid-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths are likely to worsen if Congress does not soon approve billions in new pandemic funding.

Public health experts, lawmakers and health officials say the White House’s decision to scale back or suspend programs that provide free testing, treatments and vaccinations will disproportionately affect the tens of millions of uninsured Americans — a majority of whom are people of color.

The congressional stalemate threatens to upend the fragile progress that has been made since the early days of the pandemic when the federal government’s decision to make Covid interventions available to everyone free of charge temporarily helped level the playing field in a nation where access to health care is usually tied to employment and income and often correlated with race.

It’s so interesting that Democrats always think the worst of “people of color”, eh? It shows that Democrats will take advantage of any issue to push their politics

The Biden administration cautioned lawmakers in a meeting last week that without immediate new funding, the federal government will stop reimbursing doctors for testing, vaccinating and treating the uninsured. If a second booster shot is recommended for the general population, the government won’t be able to provide it free of charge. Disease surveillance will also be hampered, they warned, meaning public health workers won’t know about outbreaks or the emergence of new variants before they’re already widespread.

Why? They have plenty of money that was already allocated for HHS and other federal agencies, and state, county, and local agencies have their own money. This does rather show that the federal government should be taking less money from citizens, because they are too big and do not know the local areas. Federal taxation should be cut in half, at least, and the money should be moved to the states, who know their citizens better.

Oh, and

(Rollcall) The White House said Monday that it has about $300 billion in unspent COVID-19 funding but only about $60 billion that is unallocated as it warned lawmakers that it doesn’t have enough money for additional vaccination efforts unless Congress provides more relief.

The administration again requested that Congress provide $22.5 billion in supplemental COVID-19 aid without offsets. It said it would be difficult and controversial to repurpose the $60 billion.

Senate Republicans have pushed to repurpose existing funding.

So what are they doing with that $300 billion as it stands? Why would it be difficult and controversial to repurpose the $60 billion, which, accord to the laptop calculator, is more than $22.5 billion? Back to original

But if the federal government can’t subsidize a potential fourth dose of the vaccine it could be a “disaster” for the state’s uninsured population — nearly half of whom are non-white, though people of color make up just about a third of the population — said Scott Harris, Alabama’s state health officer.

“If a second booster dose is approved soon and there’s no money for booster doses, then we’re just creating just another health disparity on the basis of our funding policy,” Harris said. “That’s just a really sad situation.”

A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis published Friday found that without more funding, the government could be short more than 118 million doses if a new booster is recommended for Americans of all ages. If there is a shortage, experts expect people of color will lose out to those better able to take time off work to hunt for an appointment or travel farther to find a dose.

White Progressives sure do think little of black people, eh?

Read: We Need More COVID Funding For Racial Equity Or Something »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Oops: British Government Looking For Ways To Tax EV Users

By William Teach March 29, 2022 – 7:15 am

Since EVs are successful(ish) in the U.K., road user taxes have gone done. No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

Electric vehicles’ success is a headache for the Treasury

Electric vehicleWhen Rishi Sunak announced a temporary cut of 5p a litre in fuel duty in last week’s Spring Statement, electric vehicles were probably not at the front of the chancellor’s mind. He was focusing on the vast majority of road users who experience “pain at the pump” from spiralling petrol costs. Yet the accompanying fiscal outlook from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent watchdog, noted that more than one in 10 cars sold in the UK last year were electric; by 2027, it forecast the proportion would rise to 59 per cent — double its forecast only six months ago. Consumer appetite for electric vehicles has consistently run ahead of the OBR’s estimates.

This poses a headache for the exchequer because of the importance of revenues from fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, neither of which electric car owners have to pay. Together, they raise about £35bn a year. The OBR forecasts the higher share of electric car sales alone will reduce motoring tax revenues by £2.1bn by 2026-27. It also assumes Sunak will be able to keep his promise to reverse the 5p cut in fuel duty — which may well prove over-optimistic.

One way to help balance the books might be to remove the subsidy regime, which has already been scaled back over the past decade and is now capped at a £1,500 grant on electric cars costing less than £32,000 — helpful support for EV sales. This would be foolhardy. The EV market is still in the nascent stages of growth, and government support to improve uptake will be warranted for some time yet.

The Commons transport select committee last month recommended considering road user charging as a like-for like replacement for fuel duty. This would involve monitoring all cars in the UK and charging according to the distance they drive, factoring in the type of vehicle used, and congestion. Some economists like this idea as a way of charging motorists proportionately for the public cost of building and maintaining roads. As the committee cautioned, however, any road charging mechanism should entirely replace fuel duty and vehicle excise duty rather than being added to them, and should not result in motorists paying more.

The government creates the problem by requiring these types of vehicles, then whines about the loss of revenue, so, finds new ways to get the money, which can be problematic for those who are over-reaching their budget when buying an EV.

And all being done for a scam.

Read: Oops: British Government Looking For Ways To Tax EV Users »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Oh, Good, Biden Trots Out $5.8 Trillion Budget

By William Teach March 29, 2022 – 7:00 am

In fairness, it won’t go anywhere. Even his Democrat Comrades in the House and Senate will simply shelve it. But, it does show his priorities in the face of inflation and other bad economic news

Biden unveils $5.8 trillion budget proposal with tax hikes, spending boosts

President Biden on Monday unveiled ambitious proposals to reduce the nation’s deficit over the next decade with tax hikes targeting the wealthy, while outlining boosts for military and domestic programs as part of a $5.8 trillion plan to fund the government for fiscal 2023.

The White House says that the fiscal 2023 budget, which includes a tax hike on billionaires and other reforms, would reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

“Budgets are statements of values, and the budget I am releasing today sends a clear message that we value fiscal responsibility, safety and security at home and around the world, and the investments needed to continue our equitable growth and build a better America,” Biden said in a statement on the budget’s release.

Notably, the sweeping request avoids specific funding requests for Biden’s signature domestic policy proposal, Build Back Better, and instead includes a deficit neutral reserve fund as a placeholder for a future agreement between the administration and Congress.

“Because those discussions with Congress are ongoing, the budget does not include specific line items for investments associated with that future legislation,” Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young told reporters on a call Monday morning previewing the president’s request.

In other words, it’s not so much a budget offering, but, a placeholder for whatever they want to do with massive amounts of taxpayer funds.

The budget also includes robust funding for domestic law enforcement programs, including $30 billion for state and local law enforcement, crime prevention, and community violence intervention programs and $1.7 billion for a Justice Department firearm trafficking strike force. Biden has showcased his support for law enforcement as he seeks to counter Republican efforts to paint Democrats as soft on crime.

Ah, but this will come with caveats, with more control over local and state law enforcement by the feds.

Biden proposes $3.3 billion to support clean energy projects and $18 billion for climate resilience programs.

Payoffs for “green” groups.

The budget also includes a corporate tax rate hike from 21 percent to 28 percent, which could prove a tough sell in the Senate given previous resistance from key moderates like Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Raising taxes on businesses always works out great, right? No complaining, moderate Dems and #NeverTrumpers. This is what you wanted when you decided mean tweets were worse than sound fiscal policy.

Read: Oh, Good, Biden Trots Out $5.8 Trillion Budget »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Joe Biden | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden: Why, Yes, I Do Want Regime Change In Russia

By William Teach March 28, 2022 – 7:07 pm

First he said it, then his administration pulled out the industrial strength mops for cleanup, and now

Will we get another round of “the Biden administration does mean what Biden says”?

(Fox News) Biden insisted he is not “walking back” his comments, seeking to separate his wish for Putin not to be leading Russia from an official policy that would seek to remove him.

“I was expressing my outrage at the behavior of this man,” Biden said, calling the Russian president’s behavior “outrageous” and that his comments about him were “more an aspiration than anything.”

“He shouldn’t be in power,” Biden added. “People like this shouldn’t be ruling countries, but they do, in fact. They do. But, doesn’t mean I can’t express my outrage about it.”

“I’m not walking anything back. The fact of the matter is, I was expressing the moral outrage I felt toward the way Putin is dealing and the actions of this man, which is just brutality,” said Biden.

“But I want to make it clear: I wasn’t then, nor am I now, articulating a policy change. I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel, and I make no apologies for it,” he added.

Does Biden, a guy who’s been in Government since taking office as a Senator in 1973, a guy who was picked to be Obama’s VP due to his vast (snicker) foreign policy experience, who pimped that same experience for the 2020 election, understand how this whole Presidenting thing works? A president doesn’t get to simply express moral outrage when dealing with the leader of a nuclear weapons armed nation.

Read: Biden: Why, Yes, I Do Want Regime Change In Russia »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Joe Biden | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For Climate Justice With Electric Vehicles?

By William Teach March 28, 2022 – 3:00 pm

This rather screams “these things are just too damned expensive” at this time

Electric vehicles for everyone? Climate justice programs help people of color, low-income Americans get moving

Key Points

• Low- and moderate-income communities and people of color have had less access to electric vehicle information and to electric vehicles.

• Non-profits and governments are providing funds and support and establishing programs to provide electric transportation to more Americans, from subsidized electric vehicle ride-sharing to electric bicycles.

• Experts say it’s important for everyone to have access to electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions and help fight global warming.

That’s not a good start. Ride sharing because too expensive. Putting people on electric bikes because they cannot afford an EV.

High gasoline prices, increased electric vehicle marketing, concerns about climate change and billions in clean transportation funds in federal infrastructure legislation are driving increased interest in electric vehicles among consumers. Low-income Americans and people of color are more likely to have been left out of the conversion conversation but a growing number of programs like the one in St. Louis are hoping to change that, with subsidies, programs and other initiatives aiming at making the vehicles more accessible to all.

Funny how these uber-leftists always think blacks are too poor to buy a vehicle. What’s the word for that attitude?

Electric vehicles only constituted a little less than 4% of new car sales last year, but that’s double the 2020 number. Even with that growth, electric vehicles and especially charging stations are still much more likely to be seen in wealthier areas – affluent white males made up a disproportionate number of early adopters – compared with low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The vehicles also have made less of an inroad among communities of color, activists say.

Yes, there are more sold, because richer folks are getting them. Also, Why In The F*ck are activists involved? Can’t they just get real jobs?

Cutting emissions requires everyone’s participation

Finding ways to provide access and opportunity in lower-income neighborhoods is necessary to the ultimate goal of overall electrical conversion, said Jeff Allen of Forth, the Oregon-based non-profit that is working on the St. Louis SiLVERS program.

“If this only works for people who have multiple cars in a private garage and lots of flexibility, then it doesn’t work. Because we have to replace all the cars,” Allen said. “And the things that are barriers for historically underserved communities are barriers for everybody to some extent. It’s just more severe, more obvious. If you can figure out ways to address them” there, it will help solve problems other places “and you’re going to scale things up a lot faster.”

Or, you can Fark off, mind your own business, and stop trying to force everyone to comply with your cult beliefs.

Anyway, it’s a very long piece, enjoy the socialism and stuff.

Read: Who’s Up For Climate Justice With Electric Vehicles? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove