Pirate's Cove

They don’t do much else, like practicing what they preach, because this is a cultish political movement, not science

Climate change activists look to increase voter turnout in 2022 and beyond

When engineering geologist Betsy Mathieson, 66, thought about her retirement, she imagined putting her scientific expertise to use by volunteering for an environmentalist organization like the Sierra Club. But when the U.S. elected climate change denier Donald Trump president in 2016, she decided to retire early to volunteer on increasing voter turnout.

“I came to realize that if people who care about the planet don’t vote, my environmental volunteering would be of little use,” Mathieson, of Alameda, Calif., told Yahoo News. So instead of volunteering for a traditional environmental advocacy organization, she now spends several hours a week phone banking on behalf of the Environmental Voter Project (EVP), a nonpartisan nonprofit that focuses on increasing turnout among irregular voters who are likely to care about the environment.

Founded in 2015 by Boston-based lawyer and activist Nathaniel Stinnett, EVP has just five staffers and a singular mission: to identify registered voters who don’t always vote and — based on demographic and consumer data — would be likely to name the environment or climate change as their No. 1 issue, and to get them to vote.

Stinnett was inspired by polling that showed a larger proportion of Americans rate climate change or the environment as their top issue than the percentage of likely voters who choose climate as their main priority — a tendency replicated in EVP’s own polling.

At the end of the day, few people actually consider ‘climate change’ as an important issue, hence why, even in far left states like Washington, people will vote against this. Because it’s popular in theory, not practice.

Read: Climate Cultists Looking To Get The Vote Out In 2022 »

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is particularly upset

It certainly looks like The Court That Dark Money Built was built with fossil fuel dark money.https://t.co/JPPz5QhBuZ

— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) January 27, 2022

First off, Whitehouse, like most Democrats, takes a lot of campaign money from these “dark money” groups. You can look it up on on Open Secrets. Second, Sheldon, like most Warmists, isn’t willing to give up his own own use of fossil fuels. How many flights does he take too and from D.C. to Rhode Island? He could take that train. He doesn’t. Has he bought an EV? Downsized his house? Given up eating meat? And more? No. Anyhow, from the link

The baseline response of an ethical judicial system to the ongoing climate crisis should be to give wide deference to the president and Congress—the political branches—to address the impending disaster as they see fit. It’s not for unelected, unaccountable judges to decide the country’s response to global climate change, and it’s certainly not for a judiciary comprised of old people who will not live to swelter in the consequences of their actions to determine whether we take immediate action.

Instead of staying out of the climate debate, however, conservatives in the judiciary increasingly want to put courts right in the middle of it. And, of course, those conservatives reliably interject themselves on behalf of the fossil fuel industry or other anti-environmentalist forces. A byproduct of leaving a conservative majority in control of the courts for the next generation is that those conservatives simply will not allow meaningful congressional legislation to address climate change. Our children will pay the future cost of letting conservatives dominate the courts now.

Well, that’s interesting. It sounds like they want to do something to force the Conservatives off the court, or, perhaps court packing. These are the same yahoos running around yammering about Our Democracy In Peril or something. Looks more like they want a system like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia, with no dissent allowed

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could allow it to drastically limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. Conservatives would like to limit the term “wetlands” to areas that are physically connected to a navigable river. That rule would make it easier for industries to dump pollutants in the nation’s wetlands and make it easier for developers to build homes on wetlands without obtaining a federal permit.

And there’s the 3rd thing: it’s not like the Court is going out and attempting to insert itself into “climate” issues (and the CWA is about the environment, not climate scam): people/groups/states are filing suits, and the Court is taking up ones that involve government and Constitutional issues. And the CWA is very much Constitutional, as it involves federal control of just about all waters, including that pond in your backyard. Leftists are using it as a way to force federal dominance after Obama’s Waters of the USA was killed.

Conservative jurists claim that diminishing the power of executive agencies places more power in the hands of the people, through their representatives in Congress. But the opposite is true. Conservative attacks on the administrative state place more power in the hands of unelected judges, who can pick and choose which rules they like and which ones they don’t. And it places more power in the hands of industry lobbyists, who have merely to sway politicians and judges instead of scientific experts.

That’s an interesting, but, very silly argument. It is one, though, that is gaining traction, basically saying that anything that diminishes the administrative state at the federal level places that power anywhere but The People. Regardless, if the climate cult doesn’t want their rules and such ending up in the courts, then write proper laws and rules that do not violate the Constitution.

Read: Warmists Seem Upset That Courts Are Involving Themselves Against The Climate Fight »