Surprise: Republican States Will Fight China Joe Utility Emissions Cuts

By William Teach December 2, 2020 – 10:30 am

Republicans states led the way in suing the Obama administration over the Clean Power Plan, successfully having a stay put on it till the Trump admin killed it off. They did not want to burden their citizens with skyrocketing costs of energy, which would skyrocket the cost of living, and create rolling blackouts and brownouts, some intentional. Just like in the People’s Republik Of California!

Some Republican states would fight forced utility emissions cuts under Biden climate agenda

The governors of five Republican states are ready to fight Democratic President-elect Joe Biden if he tries to require the power sector to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

The litigious stance reflects just one of the many obstacles Biden will face as he seeks to deliver on a campaign promise to bring the U.S. economy to net zero emissions by 2050 to combat climate change.

Biden’s pledge includes a goal of cutting net emissions from the power sector – a top source of nationwide greenhouse gases – to zero by 2035, though the president-elect has yet to detail how he intends to make it happen. Lawsuits from states could halt implementation of any Democratic plan, as they did in 2016.

“We can all agree that lower emissions are better, but we should also all be able to agree that cost-prohibitive, counterproductive regulations for the sake of catering to an extreme wing of a political party is destructive,” said Bailey Martin, a spokeswoman for Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves.

Republican-governed Mississippi, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska and Arkansas said they would challenge any new federal policies requiring the power sector to cut carbon emissions. Utah and Missouri, also under Republican governors, said they would review proposals before deciding.

The seven were among 27 states that sued in 2015 to block the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Obama administration’s signature effort to address climate change by requiring deep cuts in power-sector emissions. Fifteen other states in the lawsuit, including four now under Democratic leadership, either declined to say how they would respond to a new emissions reduction order or did not respond to requests for comment.

You can bet that most, if not all, of those Republican states would #Resist. Oh, wait, I forgot, resisting will no longer be patriotic come January 20th.

Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups, however, have argued that free-market forces can only push the utility industry so far and that a net-zero emissions goal is not achievable without federal regulation.

Democrats do love the force of Government, eh? How y’all enjoying that in California?

Read: Surprise: Republican States Will Fight China Joe Utility Emissions Cuts »

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

European Court May Soon Rule On Whether Climate Crisis (scam) Violates Children’s Human Rights

By William Teach December 2, 2020 – 7:53 am

Considering the court this was filed in, it just may well succeed

Does Climate Change Violate Children’s Human Rights? A European Court May Soon Decide

The summer of 2017 was hugely stressful for Sofia and André Oliveira, then aged 12 and 9. From their home in Lisbon, they watched a season of record wildfires and severe heat waves tear through Portugal, killing 120 people. For the children, it was already clear that the extreme heat –which scientists linked to climate change –would not be an isolated chapter in their lives. “We’ve always talked about climate change at home,” Sofia, now 15, says over video chat, sitting next to her brother at the family’s dining room table. “And we wanted to do something—something big.”

If she wants to do something big, she should give up all the trappings of modern life that are linked by the Cult of Climastrology to “carbon pollution.” That video chat uses lots of energy, right? Let her live like it’s 1499. Instead, she wants to enforce her own cultish beliefs on everyone across Europe

Three years later, after three more summers that broke heat records, the Oliveira children are on the cusp of a major breakthrough in their climate action. In September, aided by a still-ongoing crowdfunding effort, Sofia, André and four other young Portugeuse people filed the first ever climate-related case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that governments in 33 European countries have not done enough to prevent the impacts of climate change from violating their citizens’ human rights. In a landmark decision on Nov. 30, the court announced it would take the case to the next step— forwarding it to defendant countries and ordering them to respond to the case’s arguments—and granted it priority status.

Only around 15% of cases submitted to the ECHR made it to this stage in 2019, and even fewer were fast-tracked, according to Global Legal Action Network, which filed the case. In a further good sign for the plaintiffs, the court took the unusual step of extending the scope of the case, asking, in its letter to the parties, whether climate change may constitute a violation of Article 3 of the European Human Rights Act on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”—a point not even raised in their lawyers’s submission.

The ECHR’s decisions are legally binding, and if it hears the case and finds in favour of the Portuguese youth, it could order national governments in Europe to step up their emissions reductions. “The communication of this case is a momentous event. It’s the first occasion when the court has had the opportunity to grapple with climate change and its impact on European citizens,” says Marc Willers QC, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, one of the lawyers on the case. “It seems to have decided that it can’t avoid the issue.”

That the court took it up and then extended the scope of the case doesn’t bode well for the citizens of Europe, but, then, they keep voting for all these uber Progressive elected officials who they vote for the  judges in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The case submitted to the ECHR argues that the climate impacts seen in Portugal are violating the rights of the Oliveira children and the other four young plaintiffs that should be guaranteed under the European Human Rights Act. In particular, Willers, the barrister says, lawyers focused on the right to life, the right to a home and family life, and the right to enjoy their rights free of discrimination. The case argues the disparity in different generations’ experience of climate change constitutes discrimination in their enjoyment of human rights, since today’s young people will experience rising sea levels, extreme heat, storms and other extreme weather events, for far longer and with greater intensity than previous generations.

These kids are living better lives than their parents and grandparents ever did. Here’s an idea

Read: European Court May Soon Rule On Whether Climate Crisis (scam) Violates Children’s Human Rights »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Uber Progressive California Might Be Super Restricted Soon, Also Sued Over Failures In Education

By William Teach December 2, 2020 – 7:32 am

California, of course, was one of the strictest states during the initial lockdown, and continued lots of those strict policies ever since. Also, since it is a bigly China Joe voting state, why aren’t the good little Comrades following the dictates of Government?

California Coronavirus Update: Governor Gavin Newsom Warns Of New, “Drastic” Stay-At-Home Order Possible “In The Next Few Days”

“Red flags are flying,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom at the top of his Monday COVID-19 press conference.

Newsom ran through the state’s dismal coronavirus numbers, warning that, “If these trends continue we’re going to have to take much more dramatic, arguably drastic action. If these trends continue, the potential for a stay-at-home order for those areas in the Purple…more in line with the stay-at-home order that folks were familiar with at the beginning of the year.”

With Monday’s updates, over 99% of California’s population was in the Purple, or most severe, tier of Newsom’s reopening order.

In terms of the timing of the orders, “Those are being assessed in real time,” said Newsom, before stressing should not think in terms of weeks, but days.

Will Gavin be dining at a fancy indoor restaurant again? Will state Democratic Party lawmakers be taking long fossil fueled trips to Hawaii? Will San Francisco Mayor London Breed also dine out?

(Fox News) San Francisco residents should brace more severe coronavirus restrictions, Mayor London Breed said Tuesday.

The warning coincided with reports that Breed had dined at the upscale French Laundry restaurant in Napa County last month, according to reports.

Breed said rising COVID-19 cases in recent weeks could lead to stricter restrictions in San Francisco on gatherings, reduced capacity in public areas, and mandatory quarantines after traveling, FOX 2 of the Bay Area reported.

“We’ve been worried for months, but now it’s real,” Breed said. “The truth is we’re going to have to take more restrictive action and it pains me to say that.”

San Francisco, run lock, stock, and barrel by far left Democrats, with a population that votes mostly Democrat (85% voted China Joe), is in California’s purple zone, which is the worst type of zone with the biggest outbreaks. Are these San Francisco liberals not wearing masks, not following Orders?

Will Gavin and London finally help out the poor?

Families sue California, say state fails to educate poor, minority students amid pandemic

Families of 15 public school students sued California on Monday, claiming the state has failed to provide equal education to poor and minority children during the pandemic.

The impoverished students, who range from kindergarten to high school and were only identified by first name in court documents, were not provided devices and internet connections to attend online classes, according to the lawsuit, the first of its kind in the United States.

The children attend schools in Oakland and Los Angeles, and many were described as Blacks and Latinos. The lawsuit also claims that schools did not meet academic and mental health support needs, English language barriers and the unmet needs of homeless students.

Don’t they know that they are only around to vote Democrat, and once those votes are assured these people are disposable till the next election? I wonder how many are illegal aliens?

Read: Uber Progressive California Might Be Super Restricted Soon, Also Sued Over Failures In Education »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Here’s How You Can Donate To Stop Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something

By William Teach December 1, 2020 – 3:00 pm

See, you can pay your speeding tickets or you can just, get this, not speed

The Weekly Planet: The Best Way to Donate to Fight Climate Change (Probably)

Let’s say you want to donate $25 to fighting climate change. Where should your money go?

Since I started this newsletter, this inquiry (or something like it) is among the most common questions I’ve received from readers. And for good reason: There are at least 461 nonprofits in the United States devoted to environmental causes, according to the evaluator Charity Navigator. Not all of them approach climate change effectively, or even do what they claim to. The green-nonprofit world is a thicket, contained in a morass, reachable only by slog.

Daniel Stein, an economist who trained at the London School of Economics, learned this lesson about 18 months ago when he went looking for the best ways to maximize his climate giving. “I thought I could find the information after a couple hours of Googling,” he told me last week. “But not only could I not find it, a lot of the information that I could find was straight-up wrong.”

So he founded Giving Green, to help people ford the swamp. Giving Green advises people on how to fight climate change with their donations in the most evidence-based way possible. It emerged from beta and published new recommendations last month. Because today is Giving Tuesday—the capstone of America’s ersatz Holy Week and the only square on the calendar devoted to philanthropy—I wanted to look at those recommendations.

And I bet he’s totally selfless in this and not making a profit, right?

Anyhow, it’s interesting that Warmists are very interested in making “donations” but not so interested in changing their own behavior. Many groups are mentioned, such as the unhinged Sunrise Movement, a bunch of kids who want to force Other People to change their behavior via government laws and rules

But in climate, it faces a harder, even epistemological, question. The carbon-offset question is knowable; some organizations remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere better than others, and it is possible to learn their names. But supporting political action, as Giving Green recommends, goes beyond the realm of quantifiable evidence; it requires arguing about what will change people’s behavior. Sunrise and the Clean Air Task Force are good options for certain kinds of donors. But to support either group is to make a bet about the future. And nobody can run a randomized controlled trial on the future.

Donating doesn’t change your own behavior, climate cultists. Give it a try.

Read: Here’s How You Can Donate To Stop Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 1, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a mountain missing its glacier due to ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Geller Report News, with a post on more anti-Israel hatred for Rashida Tlaib.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Upset That ACB’s Vote Could Tilt Supreme Court On Gun Rights

By William Teach December 1, 2020 – 10:30 am

How dare ACB lean towards defending the Constitution Right of citizens to arm themselves!

Justice Barrett’s Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is just starting to make her mark at the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, her vote flipped the court’s approach to restrictions on attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic. While Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was alive, the court had allowed such limits, in California and Nevada, by 5-4 votes. After Barrett succeeded her, she joined the court’s four most conservative justices to strike down restrictions in New York.

Those same four justices are now on high alert for a promising case in which to expand Second Amendment rights, having written repeatedly and emphatically about the court’s failure to take gun rights seriously. Barrett seems poised to supply the fifth vote they need.

A Second Amendment case decided last week by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia is a promising candidate for Supreme Court review, not least because it presents an issue on which Barrett has already taken a stand.

It concerns Lisa M. Folajtar, who would like to buy a gun. But she is a felon, having pleaded guilty to tax evasion, which means under federal law she may not possess firearms.

She sued, arguing that the law violated her Second Amendment rights. A divided three-judge panel of appeals court rejected her challenge, saying that committing a serious crime has consequences. It can lead to losing the right to vote, to serve on a jury — or to have a gun.

So, she’s a non-violent criminal. I thought Liberals wanted to excuse them. Heck, Democrats want to give the right to vote back to every convicted felon who’s served their sentence, right?

That dissent was written by Barrett when she was a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago. The law forbidding people with felony convictions from owning guns, she wrote, should not apply when the crimes in question were nonviolent.

“History does not support the proposition that felons lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons,” she wrote. “But it does support the proposition that the state can take the right to bear arms away from a category of people that it deems dangerous.”

That makes sense, right? Of course, Democrats want to take guns away from Everyone Else (never themselves, right?).

In June, however, the court turned down some 10 appeals in Second Amendment cases. Since it takes only four votes to grant review, there is good reason to think that the court’s conservative wing was unsure it could secure Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote.

How dare you people fight for your rights which Progressive (nice Fascist) government keeps taking away!

Dissenting from that ruling, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the Heller decision “recognized that history supported the constitutionality of some laws limiting the right to possess a firearm,” including ones “prohibiting possession by felons and other dangerous individuals.”

That last phrase, which did not appear in the earlier decision, may be significant. In shifting the focus to dangerousness, it seemed to open the door to the position taken by Barrett.

There are lots of people who are busted on felonies that are not violent, that do not make the people dangerous. What the Times is worried about is that ACB will cause the Supreme Court to take up lots of gun cases, ruling to extend the Right of private citizens to own guns.

Read: NY Times Seems Upset That ACB’s Vote Could Tilt Supreme Court On Gun Rights »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Criticizes You Peons For Liking Your Cheap Gas And Big Cars

By William Teach December 1, 2020 – 7:06 am

This is like the height of huttzpah, considering how often he took fossil fueled flights paid for by the taxpayers to vacation and fund raising spots for 8 years. How many times did he fly to Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard and California? Remember the times he flew his family members, including his dog, separately? And being driven around in a giant limo in a huge convoy? But, as we all know, all this stuff should only apply to the peons (will that be a theme today? Time will tell)

Obama criticizes Americans for liking ‘cheap gas and big cars’ more than ‘the environment’

Former President Barack Obama, in his latest memoir, criticized Americans for liking “cheap gas and big cars” more than they care about “the environment” – even during a catastrophic event like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The comments came during a section in Obama’s 700-page book, “A Promised Land,” released earlier this month.

On page 570, the former commander in chief recounts a press conference he gave more than a month into the oil spill – now considered one of the largest in history – saying his comments did not adequately express the frustration he truly felt.

“Reading the transcript now, a decade later, I’m struck by how calm and cogent I sound,” Obama writes in his book. “Maybe I’m surprised because the transcript doesn’t register what I remember feeling at the time or come close to capturing what I really wanted to say before the assembled White House press corps.” (snip)

He then chastised Americans for not being willing to foot the bill for technology to “quickly plug the hole because it would be expensive to have such technology on hand, and we Americans didn’t like paying higher taxes—especially when it was to prepare for problems that hadn’t happened yet.” (snip)

The only way to truly prevent another catastrophe, like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Obama says, “was to stop drilling entirely.”

“But that wasn’t going to happen because at the end of the day we Americans loved our cheap gas and big cars more than we cared about the environment, except when a complete disaster was staring us in the face,” he writes.

I don’t see Obama driving a Tesla, Nissan Leaf, or other pure plugin vehicle. He doesn’t even drive a plugin or regular hybrid. He still takes fossil fueled airplane trips. Is he sending a huge portion of his book earnings to the IRS? This is the norm for climate cultists, though: slamming everyone else while failing to practice what they preach.

Read: Obama Criticizes You Peons For Liking Your Cheap Gas And Big Cars »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Bat Soup Virus Follies: Dining Out In LA After Voting To Ban, Cuomo Maskless

By William Teach December 1, 2020 – 6:49 am

How many times have we seen Elites not practicing what they preach during the Age Of Bat Soup Virus (here, here, here, and here, as a start)? Here’s a few more, which makes one think that perhaps all the restrictions and stuff are less about “saving lives” and more about an extension of power

Cuomo, top aides hold press conference indoors without face coverings

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced a battle plan Monday for the state to attack the coronavirus pandemic and while boasting to reporters his push for mask-wearing has helped curb the number of cases in the state, neither he nor his aides on the dais – including state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker – wore face masks.

“What worked in the spring, and the reason you’re wearing a mask today, is because we told the truth, and New Yorkers responded,’’ the governor said the Manhattan news conference.

Cuomo, who did most of the speaking at the session, was surrounded by state troopers, spokespeople, his photographer, reporters and other aides – all who wore masks. The news conference was attended by about two dozen people in total, the report said. (snip)

“I think they all should be wearing masks,” Queens Assemblyman Ron Kim, a Democrat, said.

“I think the governor — especially with his platform and recent popularity — he has a responsibility to lead by example,” he added.

But, see, he had to speak, and speaking with a mask is a pain in the butt, and he had to make sure people saw his Serious Face

The governor’s head of communications, Peter Ajemian, told The New York Post in an e-mail Monday, “We follow and exceed all health guidance to ensure the safety of our briefings – period.”

“They all wore masks when entering and exiting the briefing room and couldn’t be socially distanced,” Ajemian added.

So, let’s say you own a bar in NY, and have the chairs separated by more than 6 feet, and people wear masks while circulating. Cuomo’s mask police will still shut you down. You just need to Obey, peons.

LA County supervisor dines outdoors just hours after voting to ban the practice

A Los Angeles County supervisor dined outdoors last Tuesday just hours after voting to ban the practice over COVID-19 concerns, a new report said.

Sheila Kuehl, one of five elected supervisors that govern the county, was seen eating outside Il Forno Trattoria, an Italian restaurant in Santa Monica, Fox 11 reported.

Earlier that day at a board of supervisors meeting, Kuehl called the outdoor dining “a most dangerous situation” with regard to the possible spread of COVID-19.

Kuehl and two other members of the Board of Supervisors voted to ban outdoor dining at Los Angeles County’s 31,000 restaurants, which began last Wednesday, the report said.

“The servers are not protected from us, and they’re not protected from their other tables that they’re serving at that particular time, plus all the hours in which they’re working,” Kuehl had said, according to the report.

She says she loves the restaurant and wanted to dine there one last time before lockdown, apparently not caring that she’s putting the servers in danger. Because she’s an Elite, and you peons need to just listen and Obey.

Read: Bat Soup Virus Follies: Dining Out In LA After Voting To Ban, Cuomo Maskless »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

NY State Senator Looks To Control Food Because Of Climate Crisis (scam)

By William Teach November 30, 2020 – 3:00 pm

In Political Theory 101, Socialism is part of the Democracy model, the left side of it (classical Liberalism is dead in the middle, and to the left means less Government power, to the Right more). There are three cores in the model, the Political, Moral, and Economic. In the Political, there is a lot of citizens voting. This is where you hear the phrase “direct democracy.” In the Moral, government stays out of our lives (does that sound like today’s self style Socialists?). It’s the Economic that defines it, though, with the Government controlling massive amounts of the economy, up to and including owning the means of production. Obviously, today’s Socialists are not, except for that last part. Hence why I call them Modern Socialists, because they are really way to the right, in the Authoritarian model

Greenhouse gas in food purchasing cuts proposed

New York’s food purchasing system could be going on a strict diet.

State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, D-Bronx, has introduced S.9082 in the state Senate to requiring the Office of General Services, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Conservation, to establish a way to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of food and beverages purchased by state agencies to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with state food and beverage procurement by 10% by 2024, 18% by 2027, and 25% by 2030. If approved, the legislation would only affect food purchased by state agencies, and not the shopping habits of state residents.

Well, for now. But, in doing this, it would force food producers to reduce their own (mythical) carbon footprints, meaning higher prices for non-government consumers.

“Modeled after legislation introduced in Maryland, this bill builds on New York’s environmental goals by requiring the Office of General Services, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Conservation, to track emissions from the State’s food and beverage procurement, and to reduce these emissions by 25% by 2030. This target is in alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Resources Institute,” Biaggi wrote in her legislative justification.

The Maryland legislation was introduced after the release of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that reportedly showed the entire food production system, with transportation and packaging included, accounts for as much as 37% of total greenhouse gas emissions. It calls for changes to land use practices, a change to diets with less meat, and elimination of food waste as areas that should be global priorities to combat climate change. The report also calls and end to deforestation, limiting greenhouse-gas-emitting fertilizers and raising crops in ways that add carbon to the soil.

So, if modeled on Maryland’s, sure looks like it would mandate all sorts of economic business practices, eh? Who wants Government controlling our food? You idiot climate cultists never seem to see the downsides of your cult. Even if the current warm period is caused mostly/solely by mankind’s greenhouse gas output, do these solutions seem good or authoritarian?

Who wants to bet that Biaggi hasn’t reduced her own carbon footprint?

Read: NY State Senator Looks To Control Food Because Of Climate Crisis (scam) »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | Comments Off on NY State Senator Looks To Control Food Because Of Climate Crisis (scam) | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 30, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees sucking evil carbon pollution from the air, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post wondering why all the COVID news is bad.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove