Student Warmists Want Schools To Divest From Fossil Fuels

By William Teach February 17, 2022 – 7:15 am

I wonder if they will enjoy their tuition, room and board, etc, going up to offset this if it actually happens?

Student Campaigners at Five Major Universities File Legal Complaints Against Fossil Fuel Investment

Student climate groups at Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and MIT have filed complaints with attorneys general in their respective states arguing the schools have violated state law by investing in fossil fuels.

“Universities have a duty to promote the public interest in exchange for their tax-exempt charitable status, and that duty is incompatible with fossil fuel investments,” said Alex Marquardt, a staff attorney at the Climate Defense Project, which assisted the student-led campaigns in preparing the complaints. “The law can be a powerful ally in fighting climate change, but only if people are held accountable for actually following it.”

Each of the five states has passed some version of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, which requires a university’s investments to be consistent with its “charitable purpose.” In letters signed by student groups, alumni, faculty, and climate scientists, activists argue that the hundreds of millions of dollars universities have invested in fossil fuels are at odds with universities’ charitable status.

So, for the most part, fancy pants high earner students. Here’s an idea: turn off the heating and cooling systems in the dorms and classrooms, in the faculty rooms and offices, which are most likely powered by fossil fueled. End school travel that uses fossil fuels. Allow no private, fossil fueled vehicles on school property. Make the climate cultists practice what they preach.

“Our universities are amongst the world’s wealthiest and most prestigious institutions of higher education, and their investments in the fossil fuel industry — an industry whose actions place the health and future of students and the entire planet at risk — amount to nothing less than complicity in the climate crisis,” said Princeton alumna Anna Liebowitz. “Thus, our campaigns are coming together and collectively calling for an end to fossil fuel investments in higher education and the world at large.”

It’s a cult.

Read: Student Warmists Want Schools To Divest From Fossil Fuels »

Posted in Climate Cult, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: California Voters Want To Reinstate The Tough Penalties They Voted To Get Rid Of

By William Teach February 17, 2022 – 7:00 am

See, Californians were cool with their virtue signaling when crime didn’t hit their own lives

Poll: California voters want to reinstate tougher penalties for some crimes, change Prop. 47

Amid a recent uptick in some criminal activity, the majority of California voters in a new statewide poll reported concern over state crime rates and said they would support reinstating penalties for certain thefts that a 2014 ballot measure reduced.

Seventy-eight percent of voters surveyed in a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times said that crime has risen statewide over the last year, and 65% said it has increased locally. Most also said they would support changes to Proposition 47, which reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors as a way to reduce incarceration rates and save the state money.

The ballot measure raised the threshold for the value of goods stolen to trigger a felony from $400 to $950, and reclassified some offenses as misdemeanors. Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents said they would support amending Proposition 47 to let certain property crimes be prosecuted again as felonies, while 30% favor leaving the law unchanged.

Of course, these are the ones who didn’t abandon California when their idiotic votes started negatively affecting their own lives. The question now is, can these people who realized they voted like idiots and enable lots and lots of crime do anything? Can they get this on the ballot, or, will the elites who have private security so the crime doesn’t hit their own lives spike this?

Still, voters across the political spectrum support changing the law. According to the poll, 88% of “strongly conservative” voters said they want to amend Proposition 47, while 64% of “moderate” voters and 41% of “somewhat liberal” voters said the same. Those who identify as “strongly liberal” voters largely support Proposition 47, with 67% saying they’d rather keep it as is.

So, strongly liberal people are idiots, and would prefer crime.

Legislators in both political parties, however, have already introduced a handful of bills to modify Proposition 47, including one that would lower the value of goods stolen back down to $400 to qualify a theft as a felony. Another proposal would allow prosecutors to pursue charges where stolen goods are recovered, even if the theft did not occur in that jurisdiction, and a third would repeal Proposition 47.

A proposed ballot measure would similarly permit prosecutors to pursue charges across jurisdictional lines and add sentence enhancements for significant property loss. It would also allow prosecutors to charge those with two or more prior theft convictions with a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

Of course, allowing prosecutors to do this and having the uber-leftist prosecutors actually do it are two different things.

Read: Surprise: California Voters Want To Reinstate The Tough Penalties They Voted To Get Rid Of »

Posted in Liberal World | Comments Off on Surprise: California Voters Want To Reinstate The Tough Penalties They Voted To Get Rid Of | Trackback URL

To Solve Climate Crisis (scam), We Need To Be Forced Into A “Culture Of Sustainability”

By William Teach February 16, 2022 – 3:25 pm

Once again, it’s interesting that this so often comes down to forcing Everyone Else to comply, you know, with the things the climate cultists won’t do on their own

EDITORIAL: Addressing climate change requires more than just individual actions
As we grapple with climate change, we need to create a culture of sustainability to minimize the effects

New Jersey recently received $15.4 million to expand electric vehicle charging stations, hoping to create a more electric-centered infrastructure. This investment signals the importance of moving to carbon-neutral emissions and trying to mitigate humans’ impact on the global environment, especially as the effects of climate change have already been causing problems.

Electric vehicles are one avenue we can use to combat climate change, and they would help reduce carbon emissions. Despite those benefits, though, electric cars cannot be the sole option we have to remedy environmental concerns.

I wonder how many people are actually commuting in EVs in NJ right now. Who’s going to trust one on the Parkway and Turnpike during the morning and evening rush hour? There’s gotta be a lot of mistrust

Electric cars are great, but at least in the current economy, they remain out of reach for the majority of Americans as they are too costly. Despite the unattainable costs, another issue, and maybe even more pressing, is that electric cars rely on individuals. Individual actions can only go so far.

Wait, what? Too costly for the majority of Americans? Huh. Don’t expect that to change.

Instead of focusing on a singular individual action, we need to focus on creating a culture of sustainability both in the state and at Rutgers.

This culture of sustainability can take the form of various investments we make into local communities, but it must begin with a solid, reliable and expansive public transportation system.

Oh, hey, cool. The cult will simply force you out of your reliable, affordable fossil fueled vehicle and onto buses and such. I mean, hey, in some urban areas, like a NYC, this is easy. When I visit there or D.C., I don’t drive around, I’ll take the bus or subway. What if you want to cruise on down to the beach or up to the mountains? Not so easy on the bus, eh. It’s almost like they’re trying to limit where the citizens can travel. Heck, Raleigh has a decent bus system. But, I’d have to get to the bus stop, around a mile and a half away, then take the bus through all the stops, which then leaves me about a mile to 2 away from work. No, f’ing thanks.

Elsewhere, I mentioned New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern this morning. Guess what she’s about to do

(Yahoo News) New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been chosen to give the keynote speech at Harvard University’s spring commencement, the Ivy League school announced Monday.

Ardern is scheduled to address graduates at a May 26 ceremony at the campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard President Larry Bacow called Ardern “one of the most respected leaders on the world stage.”

“From climate change and gender equality to COVID-19, she has modeled compassionate leadership that has brought together empathy and science-based solutions to address the most challenging issues of our time,” Bacow said in a statement.

That’s over 9,000 miles to fly from New Zealand to Boston. In a fossil fueled jet. Will she be flying commercial or taking a private jet to yammer on about the dangers of ‘climate change’?

Read: To Solve Climate Crisis (scam), We Need To Be Forced Into A “Culture Of Sustainability” »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 16, 2022 – 2:50 pm

…is a horrible old school fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on the Canadian parliament jeering Trudeau over emergency powers.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Even Far Left San Francisco Has Had Enough Of Crazy Left School Board Members

By William Teach February 16, 2022 – 10:30 am

It looks like the parents, even uber-lefty parents, seem to want to prioritize the well being of their kids. I wonder if they will be demonized like all those parents who elected Glen Youngkin in Virginia, and all those being called terrorists by the teacher’s unions

San Francisco recalls 3 members of city’s school board

San Francisco residents recalled three members of the city’s school board Tuesday for what critics called misplaced priorities and putting progressive politics over the needs of children during the pandemic.

Voters overwhelmingly approved the recall in a special election, according to tallies by the San Francisco Department of Elections.

“The voters of this city have delivered a clear message that the school board must focus on the essentials of delivering a well-run school system above all else,” Mayor London Breed said in a statement. “San Francisco is a city that believes in the value of big ideas, but those ideas must be built on the foundation of a government that does the essentials well.” (snip)

The school board has seven members, all Democrats, but only three were eligible to be recalled: school board President Gabriela López, Vice President Faauuga Moliga and Commissioner Alison Collins. (snip)

Parents in the politically liberal city launched the recall effort in January 2021 out of frustration over the slow reopening of district schools, while the board pursued the renaming of 44 school sites and the elimination of competitive admissions at the elite Lowell High School.

“The city of San Francisco has risen up and said this is not acceptable to put our kids last,” said Siva Raj, a father of two who helped launch the recall effort. “Talk is not going to educate our children, it’s action. It’s not about symbolic action, it’s not about changing the name on a school, it is about helping kids inside the school building read and learn math.”

The uber-lefty mayor of poop city, er, San Francisco, will now get to appoint their replacements till the November elections. Will she appoint other crazy leftists? Will news outlets demonize the parents who forced the recall? Meanwhile

Most Californians in new poll say state is headed in wrong direction

Most Californians in a new poll released Tuesday say the state is heading in the wrong direction.

A ??UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, co-sponsored by The Los Angeles Times, found 54 percent of respondents believed the state is going in the wrong direction, as 36 percent believe it is going in the right direction, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Well, hey, this is what the majority of you in California voted for. Why are you upset?

Editorial: Schools are doing fine with masks. Dropping mandates now would be premature

It’s a relief to watch Omicron numbers fall off. California is lifting its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated people Wednesday, but not for schools — at least, not yet. State officials will reassess the situation Feb. 28, Mark Ghaly, California’s secretary of Health and Human Services, said Monday.

Ghaly is right to delay, though COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have dropped dramatically since January. Attending school carries a higher risk of transmission than a stroll through the supermarket. Students and teachers are close together for hours each weekday. And though children are generally less likely to get seriously ill if infected, they can still pass infections picked up at school to vulnerable people at home and in their communities.

Looks like the editorial board of the LA Times is just not getting it. Pretty much no other nation is mandating that kids wear masks in schools. It is primarily Democrats here in the U.S.

Read: Even Far Left San Francisco Has Had Enough Of Crazy Left School Board Members »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Seas Could Maybe Possibly We Feel Rise One Foot By 2050, Dooming Us All Or Something

By William Teach February 16, 2022 – 8:32 am

Seas only rose 8 inches during the entire 20th Century. Sea rise is not accelerating. To have a one foot sea rise by 2050 is simply scaremongering, but, that’s what this cult does best

Seas could rise up to a foot by 2050, posing ‘a clear and present risk’ to U.S.

Sea levels along U.S. coasts will rise by as much as a foot in the next 30 years as climate change accelerates, leading to a “dramatic increase” in millions of Americans’ exposure to flooding, scientists warned in a federal report published Tuesday.

Climate change driven largely by burning fossil fuels will raise average sea levels adjacent to the U.S. shoreline as much in the next 30 years as they rose in the previous century, according to the study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Even more certain is the projection that melting ice sheets, heavier rainfall and higher storm surges from rising temperatures risk lives and billions of dollars of property and infrastructure, the scientists wrote.

Tens of millions of people already live in areas of the U.S. at risk of coastal flooding, with more moving to the coasts every year, the report noted. This population migration, combined with rising sea levels and other climate impacts, will increase their vulnerability and the risks of flooding for critical infrastructure affecting sectors such as transportation, energy, water and the military, according to the report.

While coastal cities such as Charleston, S.C., and West Palm Beach, Fla., are likely to experience an increase in damaging high-tide flooding as sea levels rise, the report also warned cities further inland such as Camden, N.J., are increasingly vulnerable to flooding that could overwhelm sewer systems.

“This is a global wake-up call and gives Americans the information needed to act now to best position ourselves for the future,” NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a statement.

Warmists are more than welcome to act in their own lives. Yet, so few do more than minor, token actions in their own lives. This is a call for more Government control and more taxation. Nothing else. And the talking points went out.

There are about 5 pages of links about this bit of scaremongering at Google News. None of them ask relevant questions, such as

  • Can you prove this?
  • How is this different from previous Holocene warm periods, caused all by nature, where one would expect a foot or more of sea rise per century?
  • Why is there fudging of the numbers? You say up to 1 foot: can you be more specific? What’s the low number?
  • Who is held responsible if this doesn’t happen?

They won’t ask any questions

The federal government report said high tides and storm surge heights will increase, propelling damaging waters further inland, increasing flooding rates and turning once-dry places soggy.

“Sea level rise driven by global climate change is a clear and present risk to the United States, now and for the foreseeable future,” the report said.

And there it is: the notion that government must take more power and authority to Stop This.

Read: Seas Could Maybe Possibly We Feel Rise One Foot By 2050, Dooming Us All Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

New Zealand Threatens To Crack Down On COVID Protesters

By William Teach February 16, 2022 – 8:18 am

See, the problem here is that the protesters are protesting against government authority at a government building, the Parliament. The Powers That Be do not like when their Subjects use their Constitutional Rights to protest government to actually protest government

New Zealand’s PM signals harsher stance on vaccine protest

New Zealand’s prime minister on Monday said protesters who oppose coronavirus mandates were using “intimidation and harassment,” as authorities appeared to take a harsher stance toward the convoy of demonstrators that has disrupted the capital of Wellington for nearly a week.

Police initially let the protesters set up tents and camp on the grounds of New Zealand’s Parliament before arresting 122 people on Thursday and then backing off again. The size of the protest dropped to a few hundred last week but increased again to around 3,000 over the weekend.

Speaking with reporters, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern signaled the thinning patience of authorities.

“I very clearly have a view on the protesters and the way that they’ve conducted their protest because it has moved beyond sharing a view to intimidation and harassment of the people around central Wellington,” she said. “That cannot be tolerated.”

Notice that not one shred of evidence is offered for this “intimidation and harassment.” No stories, no anectodes, nothing. Nor did the press ask her (it’s an AP article). Which means that the elected officials, including Ardern, are simply annoyed that the plebes would dare protest government. Remember, it was the government that started getting frisky first, what with arresting people engaged in protesting peaceably, free speech, and association, then loudly playing songs people do not like, then turning the sprinklers on. Much like in Canada, she’s attempting to label the protesters as something they’re not in order to squelch their Constitutional Rights.

Ardern said the timing of the mass camp out couldn’t be worse.

“At the very point where we are seeing an increase in cases, and an increase in risk to the public health and wellbeing of New Zealand, they want to see removed the very measures that have kept us safe, well and alive,” she said.

So what? They have the right to protest. Of freedom of expression.

(MSN) Copycat demonstrations have already cropped up in countries around the world, from the United States and France to Israel and New Zealand. Each has taken aim at vaccine mandates and other pandemic-related restrictions and sought to challenge elected governments. So far the immediate political effect has been fairly limited because the people protesting constitute a minority just about everywhere (though sometimes a fairly robust one).

But that doesn’t diminish the potency of this specific act of dissent, which has already proven quite effective at delivering a swift kick in the Achilles’ heel of the center-left politicians and parties the world over. The trucker protests have gone a long way toward demonstrating the limits of the progressive capacity to represent the interests and outlook of the working class. (snip)

But this isn’t at all the way progressives have responded to the trucker protests in Canada and elsewhere. From elected officials to commentators in the media, the tone of the reaction has been closer to outright contempt. And the reason why is obvious: The truckers aren’t pursuing progressive aims. They’re taking a stand against public health regulations and restrictions imposed by progressive governments, and that has angered the powers that be.

They’re protesting directly against government authority, including against authority the government has taken which it doesn’t really have. They were fine with the BLM/Antifa protests, even with the violence, property damage, ruined businesses, etc, because those were asking for more government. Nor does it matter if any of these protests are popular: Rights are Rights. Either support them or admit you are for a Fascist government.

Read: New Zealand Threatens To Crack Down On COVID Protesters »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Most Common Excuses For Not Buy An EV Are Debunked Or Something

By William Teach February 15, 2022 – 3:00 pm

The funny part about these types of articles is that the author almost never says they bought and drive an EV themselves

The most common excuses for not buying an electric vehicle are mostly unfounded

Electric vehicleThis article is reprinted by permission from NerdWallet. 

As more Americans consider an electric car, many shoppers still have questions and concerns — some of which are actually outdated or unfounded.

This year will see the release of more electric cars — and even pickup trucks — prompting 27% of likely shoppers to say they would consider buying an electric car in the next four years, according to a study by J.D. Power. And the popularity of EVs continues to rise. While auto sales were down 21% year over year in the final quarter of 2021, mostly due to parts shortages, sales of electric vehicles rose 72%, according to Kelley Blue Book analysts.

Despite a surge in popularity and improved capability, the common objections to buying an EV continue to be “all the usual suspects,” says Stewart Stropp, senior director of automotive retail at J.D. Power.

Popularity? With whom? The upper middle class and the rich? There are 5 excuses, the first being “Limited range.” Yes, range is better the more expensive you go. Then

Few charging stations

Nearly half of respondents in the J.D. Power study cited doubts about the charging infrastructure. Stropp again sees a disconnect because nearly all EV owners charge at home.

The typical driver would make as few as six stops at a public charging station every year, Stropp says. “But a more robust network of fast charging stations would help alleviate buyers’ concerns.”

Huh what? 6? Are these people driving 700-1000 miles a year? What do people in apartments do? How about those with townhomes in NYC who park on the streets? Is there a way to keep hooligans from disconnecting and messing up chargers?

Then “limited selection and utility.” Well, how well would they work to replace, say, a minivan? And “lack of information.” Perhaps they should have said “media who lies”, because we get quite a bit of that, especially about the tax credits. And here’s the biggie

4. Too expensive

The extra expense of getting an electric car was cited as an obstacle by 43% of respondents in a 2020 survey conducted by Consumer Reports. While the purchase price of EVs looks higher than gas cars, that perspective ignores the big picture. In fact, “consumers can save a lot of money in the long run by switching to an EV,” according to Chris Harto, Consumer Reports’ senior sustainability policy analyst.

Once all savings are factored in — leasing incentives, tax breaks, fuel and repair savings — “the typical total ownership savings over the life of most EVs ranges from $6,000 to $10,000,” Consumer Reports states.

How long is this ownership? These EV cultists think we’re all going to keep them for 10-20 years. A $7,500 tax credit doesn’t mean you save $7,500, it means a reduction, one time, in your net earnings on your W2. Who says there will be leasing incentives? Especially now. And, the residual value, ie, what the manufacturer thinks the vehicle will be worth in 3 years, is one of two major factors. It took a long, long time for people to start believing that a 3 year old hybrid had value. How about with EVs?

(Clean Technica) iSeeCars is a website that specializes in collecting data about the new and used car markets. In its latest report, it says electric cars in general experience far higher depreciation after three years than conventional cars — 52% versus 39.1% for sedans, 39.7% for SUVs, and 34.3% for trucks. However, Tesla vehicles outperform the market. The Model S depreciates 36.3% at the end of a 3 year lease while the Model X depreciates 33.9.% over the same period.

So, not as bad as you’d expect, but, still not good for most. Think people are going to trust GM and Ford EVs? And, then there’s the issue of the consumer saying “nah, that used price is way too much, I won’t pay that.” And, again, government will have to implement one or more types of taxes – road miles tax, property tax, purchase tax, etc – to make up for the loss of the gas taxes. How about repair costs? We don’t really know what they will be yet.

The Powers That Be keep trying to force this on people. People who are not clamoring for them.

Read: Most Common Excuses For Not Buy An EV Are Debunked Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 15, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible parking lot for horrible fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is DC Clothesline, with a post on Ontario backing down from COVID passport scheme.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Trudeau Declares National Emergency, Overriding Civil Rights Because People Are Expressing Their Civil Rights

By William Teach February 15, 2022 – 10:30 am

This is pretty damned wild. You have people engaged in their civil right of peaceable protest, as allowed by their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but, since they are protesting against government, Fuhrer Trudeau doesn’t like that

Trudeau declares national emergency over Canadian trucker protests, allowing government to override civil rights

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared a national emergency over ongoing trucker protests, allowing the nation’s government to temporarily override civil rights.

“The scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address,” Trudeau said at a press conference on Monday.

The far-reaching Emergencies Act gives the Canadian government the ability to prohibit public assembly, restrict travel, and force businesses — such as towing companies — to act, with compensation.

Trudeau said Canada’s 1998 Emergencies Act will be used to “strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country.”

You good with this, Canada? Could it be your Rights suspended next? What do you call it when the government takes away rights because people are using those rights?

But, see, those protests were asking for more government (and other stuff), they weren’t against government tyranny.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote

The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met. 1/3

The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada” & when the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”

Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.

Might this create more protest?

More under the more tag

Read More »

Read: Trudeau Declares National Emergency, Overriding Civil Rights Because People Are Expressing Their Civil Rights »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove