ERICKSON: The Green Raw Deal

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her ilk are a gift to our Constitutional Republic. Anyone who can lead with a foot This big proudly on display in her mouth, will only hobble the rest of her Party's Collectivizing Agenda.

dailywire
Erick Erickson
February 9, 2019

Democrats in the House of Representatives have rolled out what they are calling a "Green New Deal." It is the most serious public policy offering from Generation Tide Pod Eater to ever be unveiled. It is exactly what you would expect.

In the rollout of their deal, the Democrats released an outline that summarized their legislation. It included such gems as, "When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible." You might think I left out the word "moon" and a few other choice words. You would be wrong. The Democrats left those out. There is also this one: "We aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows."

This is not the product of serious people. This is the product of zealots who are under the impression they have more power than they actually do. The Democrats' plan calls for the elimination of fossil fuels and the embrace of 100 percent renewable energy, but would not invest in new nuclear power. Were this successful, the nation would be wholly dependent on the sun and on wind for energy. No nation has been so wholly dependent on the sun and on wind for energy since the period known as the Dark Ages.

The plan would also eliminate or retrofit every building in the United States to comply with increased efficiency standards. Concurrently, the plan wants to "massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing." The Tide Pod eaters who conjured this may not be aware that the creation of solar panels is seriously environmentally unfriendly.



The Democrats even claim they want to build massive high-speed rail systems to eliminate air travel so that one might be able to cross the country in three days instead of four hours. They would also apparently use the power of government to force everyone into a vegetarian lifestyle so they could eliminate the "farting cows" problem.

In the polite language of the Democrats, they would "work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures universal access to healthy food and expands independent family farming." A greenhouse gas-free food system would, definitionally, not contain carbon dioxide-emitting animals.

How would the Democrats pay for this? The policy outline provided says we shouldn't worry about it. "If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we'd pay for it." They asked then, too. More specifically, this is the actual language in the outline answering the question of "How will you pay for it?":

"The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."

During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt added about $240 billion to the national debt. Ronald Reagan added about $1.8 trillion. George W. Bush added over $5 trillion, with Barack Obama adding about $8 trillion. The national debt will top $25 trillion by 2021, with interest payments on that debt exceeding every other expenditure. This green program would double the national debt, making it the single largest expenditure in the history of the United States. It would also bankrupt families, businesses and the nation. This Green New Deal would make the national socialists and their kissing cousins, the Soviets of mid-twentieth century Europe, very proud — if only because it would destroy the American economy. 

Thank You Mr Erickson and the DailyWire.

Ocasio-Cortez Doubles Down On 'Free-Money For Lazy People' FAQ Debacle

zerohedge
Tyler Durden

Feb 9, 2019


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has inserted her foot squarely in her mouth as her "Green New Deal" PR nightmare continues. 

After removing an embarrassing FAQ from her website which failed to match the environmental legislation package she introduced on Thursday, one of her advisers went on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight and lied about it.

The now-deleted version of the FAQ originally uploaded by AOC's office contained an absurd provision for "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," a phrase which AOC adviser Robert Hockett - a Cornell law professor, claimed came from a "doctored document."
"I think you’re referring to some sort of document that some, I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating," said Hockett in response to Carlson's question about the "unwilling to work" statement. 

"Oh, I thought that came right from her, that was in the backgrounder from her office, is my understanding," Carlson replied. 

"No, no. She’s actually tweeted it out to laugh at it. If you look at her latest tweets, it seems that apparently, some Republicans have put it out there."

AOC’s office released a GND FAQ page w/ the “unwilling to work” line, then deleted it, then she quote tweeted screenshots of ppl trolling the GND FAQ page, then she RT’ed her supporter on national TV conflating the fake trolling w/ what the GND FAQ page really did say. Shameless.

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 9, 2019

Here's an archived version of the now-deleted @AOC's House webpage with the #GreenNewDeal FAQ's and the "guarantee" in all its glory: "It guarantees to everyone... Economic security to all who are... unwilling to work."https://t.co/UlOtwgD3dT pic.twitter.com/qr29dzU2fV

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) February 8, 2019

Making it worse, AOC and her Chief of Staff are now continuing to bullshit people about it over Twitter!

There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there.

Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109: https://t.co/ZlgWmNQn57

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 9, 2019

Mistakes happen when doing time launches like this coordinating multiple groups and collaborators. It's hard to have both a transparent and open process with many stakeholders while keeping all info locked down. But what’s in the resolution is the GND.

— Saikat Chakrabarti (@saikatc) February 9, 2019

Mystery document authored by *checks PDF properties*... AOC's Chief of Staff. https://t.co/MBdZkdqNM7 pic.twitter.com/btvMr8HO6y

— Jon Lech Johansen (@jonlech) February 9, 2019

And as if the Green New Deal hadn't generated enough negative attention this week, President Trump chimed in with a tweet mocking the plan that is almost guaranteed to draw a response from AOC herself.

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

Thank You Mr Durden, Zerohedge, and President Trump for rubbing it in.

Green New Deal Will Stifle Green Energy Innovation, Expert Says

freebeacon
Elizabeth Harrington
February 7, 2019 2:30 pm

'Socialist manifesto' could increase electric bills by $3,800 per year

The "Green New Deal" will produce the opposite of its intended goal of reducing carbon emissions by stifling energy innovation, according to an expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released her proposal Thursday. The 10-year plan calls for the "economic transformation" of the United States, the elimination of air travel, replacement or upgrade of every building, and a guaranteed federal job with paid vacation for every person in America even if they are "unwilling to work."

Ocasio-Cortez is light on the details of how to finance the deal, estimated at anywhere between $2 trillion and $5.7 trillion, "or more."

"At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation," Ocasio-Cortez said. "So the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity."

AEI resident fellow Alex Brill explained last week that regardless of cost, the unintended consequences of the Green New Deal are "the worst imaginable."

Brill writes that the Green New Deal's financing through bureaucratic funding schemes could "inhibit clean technology and energy efficiency innovation," because grants will "inevitably be earmarked for investments that can be defined using only tools and technologies already at hand."

Energy innovation in the private sector would also be inhibited as private companies would seek federal financing instead of private investment for green energy projects. Brill cites transportation spending data that show highway spending in President Barack Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill in 2009 actually "reduced state spending on highway projects by 81 cents."

Brill also notes the funding process would be political by nature, as inevitably Green New Deal projects would go to those that are preferred by powerful liberal lawmakers in Congress.

"Some lawmakers will insist on a certain level of investment in solar projects, while others will demand more money for wind turbines or geothermal power," Brill writes. "The final allocation will depend on the relative clout of the lawmakers and will inefficiently differ from the allocations that consumers and producers would demand."

"In short, the Green New Deal would be a deficit financed expansion of federal bureaucratic power to dictate investment decisions in one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy," Brill concludes.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) called the Green New Deal a "raw deal for the taxpayer" that would increase electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.

"It's a socialist manifesto that lays out a laundry list of government giveaways, including guaranteed food, housing, college, and economic security even for those who refuse to work," Barrasso said. "As Democrats take a hard left turn, this radical proposal would take our growing economy off the cliff and our nation into bankruptcy. It's the first step down a dark path to socialism."

Barrasso said the solution to lower emissions is through private innovation.

"I want to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs for consumers," he said. "We can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by supporting new innovative technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization. Innovation, not regulation, will lead to lower emissions and a stronger economy."

Thank You Ms Harrington and Free Beacon.

WSJ Columnist Takes Little 'Socialist That Could' Ocasio-Cortez To The Woodshed Over Her Moronic New Green Deal

townhall

Matt Vespa

|

 @mvespa1

|

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 2:05 PM

It’s a fine line. I’m not one to attack Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on everything because that is what the Left does with Trump, but when it comes to policy that could destroy the country, curb freedom, and relegate this nation to something out of a socialist hellhole, then by all means, go at it.

This week, Ocasio-Cortez, one of the faces of the far left, pitched her New Green Deal, which was rightfully laughed out of the room. It called for a complete transition away from fossil fuels…within a decade, upgrading all buildings in the country, and the slaughter of all cows because their farts produce methane. No, I’m not kidding. Oh, and “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

1) By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried. If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful. #GreenNewDeal

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

2) See Ron Bailey for look at sheer number of turbines, solar panels, facilities necessary just for the "renewable electricity" bit. Wud need 500k square km, bigger than California. Also note, govt will pay for these--not private sector. https://t.co/wQ0C6wonha

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

3) Also, AOC would put charging stations "everywhere," upgrade or tear down "every building" in the country (homes and businesses), install high-speed rail across every state, upgrade all our infrastructure. (Maybe once Ds allow permitting reform? LOL. LOL. LOL.)

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

4)Somehow, government-run healthcare, "family sustainable" wages, paid leave, and "affordable" housing are also "required" for a clean economy. I would love to understand this logic. (And imagine what wages will need to be to pay for billion-dollar-per-kilowatt electricity)

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

5) Key part though people is bit in fact sheet that explains why resolution is not immediately banning fossil fuels or demanding zero-emissions across economy. Because "we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast." Note "fully."

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

6) Planes run on fossil fuel. No fossil fuel, no visits to granny. Cows produce methane, why alarmists want to get rid of livestock. She can't do it "fully" in 10 years, but AOC is coming after ur air miles and bacon. This is honesty about how Ds wud micromanage private life.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

7)And how to pay for mass trillions in cost? Don't worry! Federal Reserve will just "extend credit" And "new public banks can be created to extend credit too." Because, you know, like, money is just paper, and how hard can it be to make some more of the stuff, right? Right?

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) February 7, 2019

The Wall Street Journal’sKimberley Strassel read the proposal, had a good laugh, and then proceeded to take the little socialist that could” to the woodshed for having a brain dead agenda that, in keeping with Democratic social policy tradition, leaves out the price tag and the taxes that would need to be applied to pay for all of this. We all saw how the same people reacted to when pressed about Medicare for All. They had no answer, though we all had a ballpark figure: some $30+ trillion in the first ten years.

On Thursday Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her vaunted Green New Deal, complete with the details of how Democrats plan to reach climate nirvana in a mere 10 years. It came in the form of a resolution, sponsored in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Edward Markey, on which AOC is determined to force a full House vote. That means every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.

It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face—as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.

It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.

Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).

This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.

Alas, why I, and I’m sure many others, very much liked President Trump’s declaration that this nation has to remain free, and that “America will never be a socialist country.”


Thank You Mr Vespa and Townhall.

Pelosi Stacks Climate Committee with Dems Backed by Energy Interests

Here's a 'special' post for those who believe in man made global warming.

freebeacon
Haris Alic
February 8, 2019 1:45 pm

Democratic speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has appointed to the special committee on climate change members who have all received significant backing from the energy industry.

On Thursday, Pelosi named Democratic representatives Ben Lujan (N.M.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Julia Brownley (Calif.), Sean Casten (Ill.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Mike Levin (Calif.), Donald McEachin (Va.), and Joe Neguse (Colo.) to the newly reconstituted House Select Committee on Climate Crisis. The panel, which will be chaired Democratic congresswoman Kathy Castor (Fla.), is tasked with developing "innovative, effective solutions to prevent and reverse the climate crisis."

"We are thrilled to welcome so many visionary leaders and strong voices to our new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which will be vital in advancing ambitious progress for our planet," Pelosi said in a statement announcing the appointments. "Each Member brings great energy and deep expertise to the climate crisis, which jeopardizes our public health, our economy, our national security and the whole of God’s creation."

Despite the speaker's confidence in the energy and expertise of her appointees, it is unclear if their history of taking campaign contributions from large energy conglomerates will prove problematic.

Castor, who has pledged to reject campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests, has taken more than $72,000 from individuals and political action committees associated with the energy and natural resources industry since joining Congress in 2007. The majority of the funds—approximately $59,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics—came from PACs linked to the industry. As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Castor previously owned stock in companies with troubling environmental records.

Similarly, Bonamici ($87,963), Brownley ($55,789), Casten ($46,259), Huffman ($118,310), Levin ($42,143), and McEachin ($62,364) all received significant backing from the industry throughout their congressional careers.

By far the largest recipient of industry contributions was Lujan, a member of Pelosi's leadership team who previously served as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Since entering the House in 2009, Lujan has taken more than $522,000 from individuals and PACs linked to energy interests. Of that total, more than $438,000 came from PACs belonging to companies like BP, which donated $7,500 to Lujan in 2018 alone.

Neguse, a freshman from Colorado, was the smallest recipient with only $3,316 flowing from energy interests to his campaign.

The more liberal members of the House majority have already raised concerns about the committee's impotence. Unlike permanent congressional committees, it will not have the ability to issue subpoenas or introduce legislation. Instead, the panel will only have the ability to advise and issue recommendations.

The speaker's office did not return requests for comment on this story.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Climate Change, Congress, Energy, House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi. Bookmark the permalink. 


Thank You Freebeacon, 

Ocasio-Cortez Bungled Green New Deal’s Release. Her Staff Took Its Webpage Offline

dailycaller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor


Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York bungled the release of the “Green New Deal.”
Her office was forced to take down a summary of the bill because it contained a series of gaffes.
Those included anti-nuclear power language, a reference to “farting cows” and welfare for “unwilling” workers.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kicked off Thursday unveiling her highly-anticipated “Green New Deal” resolution to cheers from Democrats and environmentalists, but by the day’s end, her staff was forced to take a gaffe-riddled summary of the bill offline.

Ocasio-Cortez gave NPR the scoop. Her office provided NPR the Green New Deal resolution and its accompanying FAQ document that laid out its goals, namely to “[m]ove America to 100% clean and renewable energy” within 10 years.

What immediately became clear, however, was that the legislative language didn’t match with Ocasio-Cortez’s FAQ, especially when it came to nuclear power, welfare programs and “farting cows.”

“Frankly, it does a disservice to the debate,” Jeremy Harrell, policy director at ClearPath, a conservative group that promotes low-emissions energy, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. (RELATED: What’s Really Motivating The ‘Green New Deal’? Ocasio-Cortez Straight Up Told Us)

The Green New Deal resolution, which has more than sixty cosponsors in the House, does not have language ruling out nuclear or banning fossil fuels, but its accompanying FAQ actually did.

The FAQ document Ocasio-Cortez’s staff gave to NPR reads:


A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

In fact, NPR reported the “ultimate goal is to stop using fossil fuels entirely, Ocasio-Cortez’s office told NPR, as well as to transition away from nuclear energy.”


U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) moves through a group of reporters after a news conference for the proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

“Realistically, you can’t decommission a nuclear plant in ten years,” Harrell told TheDCNF.

“She’s making false promises that aren’t even in the realm of the doable,” Harrell said. “She’s using this to push a liberal agenda.”

Harrell wasn’t the only one to notice the discrepancy. Mike Shellenberger, founder of the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress, called for Ocasio-Cortez do clear up the confusion.


I have been questioned on my reporting that Green New Deal is anti-nuclear & I stand by it

The office of @AOC put out a *written* document stating that “plan is to transition off of nuclear”

If @AOC isn’t calling for death of nuclear then she needs to issue *written statement* https://t.co/NGvVEU3cDJ

— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) February 7, 2019

Shellenberger pointed to the fact Ocasio-Cortez herself said at a Capitol Hill rally for the Green New Deal was about “transitioning to 100% renewable energy,” despite the legislative text.

Energy expert Christopher Clack, who co-authored a comprehensive study on the feasibility of a 100 percent renewable grid, told TheDCNF that while he thought the legislative text was “ambitious and far-reaching,” the FAQ complicated things.

“If they are not wanting newer technologies, and wanting only wind, solar and hydro, as the FAQs represent, that would be more problematic,” Clack said, “however, that is not how the bill is written.”

Clack’s study estimated that completely decarbonizing the grid, including the use of nuclear power and carbon capture, would cost somewhere between $20 trillion and $40 trillion by 2050.

Ocasio-Cortez’s staff took out the anti-nuclear language from the FAQ posted on her congressional website. However, that FAQ page was taken down Thursday afternoon.



But those weren’t the only changes made to the FAQ before it was taken down.

The Green New Deal’s FAQ also explained how the resolution used the term “net-zero emissions, rather than zero emissions” was because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

The FAQ also called for a “[b]uild out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Ocasio-Cortez’s staff eventually deleted “farting” from the FAQ, but not before reporters found it.

Democrats were also hard-pressed to explain how Americans would phase out the internal combustion engine and what a world without air travel would look like. Also included in Ocasio-Cortez’s FAQ was the promise of “[e]conomic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work,” which was also missing from the legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Green New Deal as a “suggestion,” and named more members to the House climate change committee. Ocasio-Cortez was not named to the committee.


U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey introduced a companion bill in the Senate Thursday that was cosponsored by several Democratic 2020 hopefuls.

The Green New Deal’s FAQ at least twice mentioned planting trees as a way to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and fight global warming. In fact, the FAQ says a Green New Deal would mean we “plant lots of trees” to reduce emissions.

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective,” reads the FAQ, referring to carbon capture technology.

“Planting trees is not going to eliminate or reduce emissions from a variety of point sources. In the end, you need carbon capture and nuclear to meet emissions goals,” Harrell said.

Ocasio-Cortez’s office did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.




Thank You Mr Bastach and the DC.

US To Achieve Energy Independence By 2020, According To Energy Information Administration

weaselzippers
Jan 24, 2019 

Wait, I’m confused. I thought Trump was a Russian stooge? How did he revitalize the US energy industry, contrary to what Russia would have wanted? 

Via Daily Caller:

The U.S. will become “energy independent” by 2020, according to a new Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast released Thursday.
EIA projects American crude oil production will “set annual records through the mid-2020s and remains greater than 14.0 million barrels per day (b/d) through 2040” and the country will be a net exporter of petroleum liquids by 2020.
The U.S. briefly achieved net petroleum exports in November, but that was temporary. However, EIA now predicts that to become a net petroleum exporter — crude oil, refined products and other liquids — by 2019.
Keep reading…

 Thank You President Trump, the DC, Nick, and WZ.

Trump v Deep State, Toon

Global Climate Action Summit Attendees 'Choked' San Francisco Airport With Their Carbon-Spewing Private Jets

dailywire
Emily Zanotti
@emzanotti
September 17, 2018

A bevy of hotshot activists, celebrity environmentalists, and high-profile political leaders descended on San Francisco last week for the first annual Global Climate Action Summit. But, it seems, not all of them were committed enough to the cause of preventing global warming to use a carbon-friendly means of travel.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that private jet traffic was up significantly at San Francisco's airports last week, largely because of environmentalist bigwigs jetting into town to meet about how to discuss curbing carbon emissions.

Airport officials claim traffic was up 30% on the private runways at San Francisco International Airport, and that corporate jets "filled the landing area's parking slots" and choked up air traffic.

The Chronicle wasn't specific about who was using the private jets to pop in for the Climate Change conference, but the now-annual event featured a number of environmental A-listers, from Al Gore, to Harrison Ford, to Alec Baldwin and Dave Matthews, all of whom can afford to and choose to fly by themselves rather than find a more eco-friendly way to attend an event dedicated to saving the planet.

Make no mistake: private jets are major carbon emitters. According to The Guardian — far from a "climate denial" publication — "an hour's flight on a private jet will emit more carbon dioxide than most Africans do in a whole year." Given how few passengers ride in a jet at one time, the carbon cost per passenger is extremely high, too. A passenger jet, fully loaded, puts "between 200-300kg of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere per passenger per hour." A half full Lear Jet gives off "emissions per passenger-hour of 400-600kg of carbon dioxide."

If Al Gore flew in a half-full Lear Jet, he's responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide as an average American family home creates in about two weeks.

There are "carbon offset" programs for people who like to "fly green," but they're more like buying environmental indulgences rather than really scrubbing out carbon emissions.

The attendees weren't any more carbon conscious on the ground. Once in San Francisco, the New York Times reports, few high-profile attendees took advantage of freely available carbon-neutral ground transportation. An expensive electric shuttle, provided to move attendees between event landmarks, was "nearly empty" all the time. 

Read More: Al Gore Climate Change Environmentalism Harrison Ford

Thank You Ms Zanotti and the Daily Wire.

Climate Researchers Warn Only Hope For Humanity Lies In Possibility They're Making All of This Up

the onion
8/07/18 2:35pm

 GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them.

Thank You The Onion.

Junk Science and Leftist Folklore Have Set California Ablaze

frontpagemag
Bruce Thornton Aug 17, 2018


The Left Coast is burning. Oregon is fighting 13 wildfires encompassing 185,000 acres. California is battling 19 fires, including tornados of fire called "fire whirls," which have gobbled up 577,000 acres and left eight dead. A good progressive who never lets a crisis go to waste, Governor Jerry Brown told Californians, “With climate change, some scientists are saying that Southern California is literally burning up.” He warned that man-made global warming created a “new normal,” and that “more serious predictions of warming and fires to occur later in the century, 2040 or 2050, [are] now occurring in real time.”

A few days later Brown had a tweet-duel with President Trump, who in contrast claimed, “California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws,” like those against thinning and clearing forests: “Tree clear to stop fire spreading!” Seems like on this issue, the allegedly doltish Trump has the better argument than the Berkeley and Yale-trained Brown.

Indeed, doctor of environmental science and forester Bob Zybach for years has been the Cassandra warning about misguided policies on forest management. According to Zybach, wildfires began to increase in the late 70’s, at the same time policies moved away from active management of forests to a more hands-off “natural” approach. In the past, “Mostly fuels were removed through logging, active management — which they [the Feds] stopped– and grazing,” Zybach said in an interview. “You take away logging, grazing, and maintenance, and you get firebombs.”

In other words, leaving the forests to “nature,” and protecting the endangered Spotted Owl created denser forests––300-400 trees per acre rather than 50-80–– with more fuel from the 129 million diseased and dead trees that create more intense and destructive fires. Yet California spends more than ten times as much money on electric vehicle subsidies ($335 million) than on reducing fuel in a mere 60,000 of 33 million acres of forests ($30 million).

Once again, global warming “science” is a camouflage for political ideology and gratifying myths about nature and human interactions with it. On the one hand, progressives seek “crises” that justify more government regulation and intrusion that limit citizen autonomy and increase government power. On the other, well-nourished moderns protected by technology from nature’s cruel indifference to all life can afford to indulge myths that give them psychic gratification at little cost to their daily lives.

As usual, bad cultural ideas lie behind these policies and attitudes. Most important is the modern fantasy that before civilization human beings lived in harmony and balance with nature. The rise of cities and agriculture began the rupture with the environment, “disenchanting” nature and reducing it to mere resources to be exploited for profit. In the early 19thcentury, the growth of science that led to the industrial revolution inspired the Romantic movement to contrast industrialism’s “Satanic mills” and the “shades of the prison-house,” with a superior natural world and its “beauteous forms.” In an increasingly secular age, nature now became the Garden of Eden, and technology and science the signs of the fall that has banished us from the paradise enjoyed by humanity before civilization.

Such attitudes soon pervaded Western culture, expressed in pseudo-scientific form by Sigmund Freud, who wrote that “what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.” More recently, Al Gore, the great champion of global warming “science,” remains the high priest of this green cult, recycling old Romantic clichés. He whines in Earth in the Balance about our “technological hubris” and “technological alchemy,” which have driven an “increasingly aggressive encroachment into the natural world” and created the “froth and frenzy of industrial civilization.” Such bromides were stale by 1856, when Gustave Flaubert satirized them in Madame Bovary.

These old ideas lie behind much of what passes itself off as “environmental science.” Salvation from our ancient sin of creating science and technology will come from restoring that ruptured bond with a benevolent nature. Keeping the environment pristine and “natural” by closing it off to development or recreation becomes government policy, one ruthlessly enforced by the aptly named Environmental Protection Agency, rather than the more practical environmental management agency. Bounties of resources like oil and natural gas are left undeveloped to “protect the environment,” and forests are banned from logging or even thinning. Carbon-based energy is proscribed, and billions in pork is distributed to “clean energy” alternatives. Starting in kindergarten, school curricula are crammed with the environmental gospel and its rituals like recycling, and its holy days like Earth Day. And “natural,” “organic,” and “green” have become potent marketing lures for attracting consumers.

Even worse, all this propaganda is passed off as “environmental science.” But at its heart lies the old nature myths founded on an erroneous assumption: that humans are natural creatures whose most fulfilling happiness comes from restoring that lost bond with the simpler, more authentic natural world. In fact, humans are not natural creatures. Our bodies come from nature, but our humanity comes from our minds and free will. Everything in nature is determined by the laws of physics, and has no intrinsic value or worth, no beauty or meaning other than what humans give it. As French philosopher, Luc Ferry writes, man:

Is indetermination par excellence: he is so oblivious to nature that it can cost him his life. Man is free enough to die of freedom . . . His humanity resides in his freedom, in the fact that he is undefined, that his nature is to have no nature but to possess the capacity to distance himself from any code within which one may seek to imprison him.

Human freedom and consciousness make man literally unnatural, his choices and actions often spontaneous and uniquely capable of being creative and destructive.

The untouched nature glorified by romantic environmentalism, then, is not our home. Ever since the cave men, humans have altered nature to make it more conducive to human survival and flourishing. After the retreat of the ice sheets changed the environment and animal species on which people had depended for food, humans in at least four different regions of the world independently invented agriculture to better manage the food supply. Nor did the American Indians, for example, live “lightly on the land” in a pristine “forest primeval.” They used fire to shape their environment for their own benefit. They burned forests to clear land for cultivation, to create pathways to control the migration of bison and other game, and to promote the growth of trees more useful for them.

And today we continue to improve cultivation techniques and foods to make them more reliable, abundant, and nutritious, not to mention more various and safe. We have been so successful at managing our food supply that today one person out of ten provides food that used to require nine out of ten, obesity has become the plague of poverty, and famines result from political dysfunction rather than nature.

That’s why untouched nature, the wild forests filled with predators, has not been our home. The cultivated nature improved by our creative minds has. True environmentalism is not nature love, but nature management: applying skill and technique to make nature more useful for humans, at the same time conserving resources so that those who come after us will be able to survive. Managing resources and exploiting them for our benefit without destroying them is how we should approach the natural world. We should not squander resources or degrade them, not because of nature, but because when we do so, we are endangering the well-being of ourselves and future generations.

The great irony is that our current indulgence in worn-out myths is made possible by the technologies that protect us from nature’s cruel indifference to our existence. Freed from the drudgery of agricultural work, where nature’s famines and droughts were a constant reminder of its inhumanity, we can demonize the very science and technology that have created the material paradise in which we in the West live. Only the well-fed and comfortable have the luxury of seeking psychic solace from the dream of an untouched mother nature and the supposedly simple, more authentic life she once provided our ancestors.

Using nature for therapeutic solace by visiting national parks or watching Disney movies like Bambi or Pocahontas is not a problem. But turning a taste in recreation or entertainment into public policy, and then claiming the policy is based on science and so is unquestionable, endangers the well-being of other human beings less affluent than us. Demonizing genetically modified foods or carbon-based energy on dodgy science worsens the lives of billions of people across the globe. Such behavior bespeaks the selfish rich, who enjoy the comforts of coal-fired electric plants and abundant, nutritious food. It also reveals something else uniquely human: moral idiocy.

As the current wildfires incinerating the West Coast show, indulgence in myth sometimes endangers us too. Rather than idealizing nature to soothe the anxieties that attend the benefits of our high-tech urban civilization, we need to go back to what humans have been doing since the Stone Age: managing and conserving nature’s resources so that they provide benefits for humans now and in the future. After all, nature’s value doesn’t even exist without the human beings who give it that value, whether as resources to develop, or beauty to admire.


Thank You Mr Thornton and FPM.

Democratic Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Bans Media From Town Hall Events

CNSNews

Natalia Mittelstadt | August 17, 2018 | 5:02 PM EDT

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old Democrat congressional candidate for New York’s 14th district, banned the media from her “listening tour” events at Corona on Sunday and the Bronx last Wednesday, according to Queens Chronicle.

The press ban came after a Bronx community meeting Ocasio-Cortez had last Tuesday with healthcare activist Ady Barkan. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign manager, Virginia Ramos Rios, said that they were “mobbed” by reporters, “even though we said no Q&A and no one-on-one [interviews].”

“We wanted to help create a space where community members felt comfortable and open to express themselves without the distraction of cameras and press. These were the first set of events where the press has been excluded,” said Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign spokesman, Corbin Trent. “This is an outlier and will not be the norm. We’re still adjusting our logistics to fit Alexandria’s national profile.”

According to Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter, the “listening tour” events are “intended for lively, compassionate discourse with a diversity of viewpoints.” 


 
She tweeted that, at the Corona event, she and the attendees “talked about race, immigration, healthcare, disability rights and housing.”

Ocasio-Cortez, who says she is a Democratic Socialist, supports, among other things, Medicare for All, a Federal Jobs Guarantee, Abolish ICE, Support LGBTQIA+, Gun Control, a Peace Economy, End Private Prisons, and Mobilizing Against Climate Change.


Thank You Ms Middlestadt and CNS. 

Trump To Remove 'Climate Change' As A National Security Threat

Watts Up With That?
Anthony Watts / 7 hours ago 

This is encouraging news:

The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats. The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

…

President Obama made climate change, and the burdensome regulations that accompany its focus, a primary focus of his administration, including in his National Security Strategy released in 2015. “[W]e are working toward an ambitious new global climate change agreement to shape standards for prevention, preparedness, and response over the next decade,” that report said.

“In some ways, [climate change] is akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL,” Obama said at climate talks in Paris in 2015. During a weekly address, Obama said “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

In September 2016, President Obama released a memorandum requiring federal agencies to consider the effects of climate change in the development of national security-related doctrine, policies, and plans. All of this alarmed critics concerned with more pressing security risks.

Buh-bye!

Read more at The Federalist

December 15, 2017 


Thank You Mr Watts.

Five Years Of Antarctic Temperature Fraud At NASA

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

This is 'too cool'. Go get 'em readers!

NASA graphics. 

Watch them change from cooling to warming just like cheap Christmas Tree Lights.


HT to climatedepot.com

WARNING: Extremely Violent Graphic Content: Bear Mauling Scene from 'The Revenant'

Polar Bear, Grizzly Bear, don't matter. A big bear is a big bear.

Even a 50 lb cub can seriously rearrange your plumbing for life.

Yes, this is a movie, not real life. Doesn't matter.

Last Chance. Do Not watch this if you're squeamish.



Enough of these idiot wanna-be Polar Bear huggers.

Polar Bears All Over The Place Now, Native Alaskans Say

American Thinker
December 7, 2017
By Monica Showalter

[Ed; How many people are out of the vehicle, petting the bears?]

To climate change fanatics, polar bears are the eye candy for the worldwide call for action on global warming. There have been news reports about the sad shape they are in, with their coats going brown, their food supplies drying up, and their ice floes melting. Conclusion: The bears are set to starve.

Welp, turns out there are too many of them now.

According to Marc Morano's Climate Depot:

2 New Papers: 92% Of Polar Bear Subpopulations Stable, Increasing – Inuit Observe 'Too Many Polar Bears Now'

...and...

Inuit observations of polar bear ecology: "Last year he said that there's more bears that are more fat … they rarely see unhealthy bears… back in early 80s, and mid 90s, there were hardly any bears … there's too many polar bears now."

So, instead of furtive bears withering away on ice floes and starving due to loss of habitat, rising sea levels or whatever the global warmers claim, what we actually have here is a bear explosion, with bears so well fed that they've gotten fat.

It's more than just anecdotal – the bear populations are exploding everywhere.

In Russia, near its Chukotka peninsula, AFP reports:


MOSCOW: A boatload of tourists in the far eastern Russian Arctic thought they were seeing clumps of ice on the shore, before the jaw-dropping realisation that some 200 polar bears were roaming on the mountain slope.

"It was a completely unique situation," said Alexander Gruzdev, director of the Wrangel Island nature reserve where the encounter in September happened. "We were all gobsmacked, to be honest."

Several years ago, we were warned that bears were starving due to global warming and would be irretrievably lost.

I recall the first interview I did with Alaska's then-governor, Sarah Palin, about the polar bear situation in 2008, before she got famous. I asked her if the news reports were right that polar bears were starving. I only have a reference to the link, unfortunately, but I vividly recall her most memorable quote: "Our bears are healthy bears!"

She added that maybe that could be the situation in Canada, but it certainly wasn't in Alaska.

Now ABC News and NBC News are reporting that bears are flooding Alaska's villages, supposedly because of the loss of their ice floe habitat. The Washington Post is bringing them up as an argument against the GOP tax cut bill.

Problematically to the claim about the missing ice floes (unlikely now that it's winter), the photos prominently feature obese bears who clearly haven't fled any sort of famine.

Fact is, not only are the Alaska natives seeing too many bears proliferating, but so are the scientists who study them. Professor Susan Crockford of the University of Victory has observed the proliferation of bears, and far from saying they are endangered, she concludes they "are not at risk," which, of course, got her attacked by ideological leftists and those for whom global warming is a religion.

Terence Corcoran of Canada's Financial Post notes that this bear issue and the left's shifting story on it is a magic talking point for global warmers, who go after anyone who deviates from their party line:

It's all part of an escalating epic of polar bear junk science. It begins with a paper in which Amstrup, who heads the activist group Polar Bears International, and other climate scientists – including famed temperature hockey-stick maker Michael Mann – produce what must be one of the most pathetic scientific smear jobs in the already sorry history of climate change science smear campaigns. Also along for the hatchet job was Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian psychologist who asserts that people who have doubts about climate policy are wacky conspiracy theorists who would also tend to believe the 1969 moon landing was faked.

So instead of starving, global warming is now causing bears to proliferate. We are supposed to be upset about it no matter what the truth is. It just goes to show that global warmers can't get their stories straight. And they want to have their bears and starve them, too.


Thank You Ms Showalter and American Thinker. 

Contrary to Loony Tune Anti Hunting, Anti Gun activists, people do not use AK-47s to hunt bears. Aside from being ridiculously under-powered for the job, an AK-47 is built for reliability, pull the trigger and it fires no matter how much river bed sand or mud you dropped it in. This means much looser tolerances and Decreased accuracy. 
 
Alaskan bear guides who hire out to hunters often advise their clients to bring a .338 Winchester Rifle.

This is to prevent the client from 'Short Stroking' the bolt. Bad form in hunting dangerous game. 

The .338 Cartridge is physically shorter than a .375 H&H or .458 Winchester. Pull the bolt handle up, pull it ALL the way back to eject the empty casing and shove it forward to chamber a 2nd.

There probably isn't a word in the English language to adequately describe what you will be feeling in a bear charge in the coastal alders. 

'Short Stroking' the bolt will not eject the empty or chamber a fresh round as you are aging a year per second in a bear charge. You pull the trigger and hear, click, the sound of the firing pin coming down on a spent casing. 

Been nice knowing you.