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

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

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

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 »

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

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 »

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

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 »

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

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) »

If All You See…

…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… »

San Francisco Activists Happy To See Their Tax Base Leave The City

It’s all fun and games till you no longer have Other People’s money to agitate for your pet priorities

‘Good riddance’: Tech’s flight from San Francisco is a relief to some advocates

When Chirag Bhakta saw a headline recently that said tech workers were fleeing San Francisco, he had a quick reaction: “Good riddance.”

Bhakta, a San Francisco native and tenant organizer for affordable housing nonprofit Mission Housing, is well-versed in the seismic impact that the growth of the tech industry has had on the city. As software companies expanded over the past decade, they drew thousands of well-off newcomers who bid up rents and remade the city’s economy and culture.

He said the sudden departure of many tech workers and executives — often to less expensive, rural areas where they can telecommute during the coronavirus pandemic — reveals that their relationship with San Francisco was “transactional” all along.

“They used their capital to radically shift the makeup of poor, working-class communities,” Bhakta said. “We’re left with ‘for sale’ signs and price points that are still out of reach for most people.”

I’m rather doubting that was what they were trying to do. They just wanted a place to live in what used to be a pretty nice city, since all the tech companies were there. And, SF was pretty darned expensive even before they showed up. And then it got more expensive via government taxes and fees, and more dangerous because government not only refused to crackdown on crime, pooping in the streets, drug needles, violent homeless people, but actually enable this

Many urban centers have seen residents move out in large numbers since the start of stay-at-home orders in March, but the shift has been especially dramatic for San Francisco, a city that was already experiencing rapid change because of the tech industry.

Software engineers, CEOs and venture capitalists have chosen to jump from the Bay Area to places such as DenverMiami and Austin, Texas, citing housing costs, California’s relatively high income tax and the Bay Area’s general resistance to rapid growth and change.

Unfortunately, these same leftists bring the exact same policies they escaped from, trying to get them passed in new states.

The scale of the departures is visible in vacant high-end apartments, moth-balled offices and quieter streets in neighborhoods popular with tech workers. And while no one is exactly celebrating, especially as Covid-19 has devastated the incomes of many people, some residents were ready to take a break from the rich.

“The gentrification pressure has been at least momentarily relieved,” said John Elberling, executive director of Todco, an affordable housing nonprofit that operates in the South of Market neighborhood alongside the shuttered headquarters of countless tech companies and startups.

Over the years, San Francisco residents tried a variety of tactics to protest the tech industry’s effects on the city: blocking corporate buses, halting expensive new condo buildings, proposing tax increases and even threatening to limit office cafeterias.

Well, gee, why would they stay? And, as the leave, they leave a huge tax hole. You aren’t going to fill that hole with community activist groups and non-workers and minimum wage workers. Have fun, folks!

“If all you care about is money, I suggest you go to Texas,” he said.

How does the city run without money from commerce taxation?

Read: San Francisco Activists Happy To See Their Tax Base Leave The City »

Net Zero: “Ambitions Tend To Remain Undisturbed By Realities”

Having ambitions are great, right? Making pledges is great, right? But, what if you don’t work to get them done? You might even have a plan, but, you don’t follow through to implement it, and said plan might not work correctly. And, if you’re a company, or government, you’re more concerned with looking good than actually doing something

The problem with zero carbon pledges

“Ambitions tend to remain undisturbed by realities.”

It was an observation first made in a work of science fiction by the author Frank Herbert 44 years ago. But it is arguably now borne out in works of science fact, by the corporate thought leaders of today. “Ambitions” to combat climate change, by reducing carbon emissions, are expressed in almost every company press release and annual report. On closer reading, though, some appear a lot more real than others.

For the wealth managers charged with ensuring clients’ shareholdings are aligned with their environmental principles, that is a problem.

Investors in HSBC, for example, were recently told of its “net-zero ambition” on carbon emissions. An announcement from the Asia-focused bank said it would reduce “financed emissions from our portfolio of customers” in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. It used the word “ambition” or “ambitious” no fewer than five times.

However, climate campaigners said the reality was somewhat less inspiring, as HSBC gave no firm timeline for reducing its financing of coal, oil and gas projects before 2050.

“This is zero ambition, not ‘Net-Zero Ambition’,” retorted activist group Market Forces. Fund Our Future UK, a network of campaign groups, suggested it was “like saying you’ll give up smoking by 2050, but continuing to buy a pack a week, or even smoking more”.

The thing is, I’d bet that most investors care more about good rates of return rather than climavirtue signaling. They want investment companies who do their job, not be climate cultists. Investors will just take their business elsewhere. Hence why most companies are talking about Doing Something, but, not actually doing something.

And this boils down to the companies people invest in, like Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and others, as mentioned later in the article, who mostly have ambitions for the future.

Computer hardware maker Logitech, pharma group Novartis and outerwear co-operative Recreational Equipment also provide the right answers to Whitman’s three questions on how they will reach their net-zero ambitions.

It’s all well and good, but, it’s a pipe dream, because they still need to ship their products using fossil fuels. Once one starts climavirtue signaling, one cannot stop.

Read: Net Zero: “Ambitions Tend To Remain Undisturbed By Realities” »

USA Today: SCOTUS Ruling For Religious Freedom During COVID Is Mean, You Know

Let’s have a thought experiment: what if government was restricting reporters from going out and doing their jobs (not that most seem to do more than sit at their desks and read Twitter and left wing outlets) during COVID, sued, and SCOTUS said “yeah, Freedom of the Press.” Do you think Democrats like Obama veterans Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf would decry the ruling? What if government was cracking down on protesters (real ones, not the ones burning down black areas) and SCOTUS said “there’s a Constitutional Right to protest? Would they applaud the ruling, or say it was dangerous during Bat Soup Virus?

To this Supreme Court, religious freedom trumps public health — even amid COVID-19 plague

Balancing public health against the right to free exercise of religion poses a difficult challenge amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, when cases from California and Nevada reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, the justices deferred to the judgment of their governors, who are, after all, accountable to the people.

They didn’t defer: the Progressives (nice Fascists) voted against the 1st Amendment

But those cases were decided by narrow 5-4 margins before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September. The court changed its tune late Wednesday night, when her replacement — Amy Coney Barrett — and the four earlier dissenters formed a new 5-4 conservative majority that invalidated restrictions on worship services in hot zones designated by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Yeah, one who didn’t believe in the 1st Amendment was replaced by one who did

The ruling in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, brought by Catholic and Orthodox Jewish congregations, was especially notable because it was unnecessary. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his dissent, by the time the court ruled, the New York houses of worship were no longer “subject to any fixed numerical restrictions.”

Oh, it was necessary, to keep Government from attempting to do this again as COVID surges

Those comparisons are inapt. Government discriminates illicitly when it fails to treat like cases alike. One needn’t discount people’s spiritual needs to recognize that liquor stores, bike shops, groceries and pet shops differ from churches, synagogues and mosques with respect to public health. The risk of coronaviral spread is not merely a function of the number of people at a venue; it increases dramatically as they linger in a stationary position, especially when they speak or sing.

There’s no right to booze, bikes, and hamsters in the Constitution.

Moreover, the ruling’s majority didn’t appear to appreciate the challenge Cuomo faced. Any line the state draws in this realm is bound to be crude, but the alternatives are still worse: A blanket ban on all large gatherings with no exceptions whatsoever would be excessive; no restrictions on gatherings would have literally deadly consequences; highly specific determinations, focusing on, say, the duration or volume of songs, would entangle religious institutions with government.

And that’s why there is, specifically for this discussion, a right to practice religion without government interference, in both the federal and NY State constitutions. Because then there would always be “challenges” for which Government could do something negative to religion. If Cuomo was so concerned, perhaps he should have cracked down on all the protests, which he did not. You can’t support one Right without the other. Also, perhaps sticking sick people in nursing homes might not have been a good idea. Let’s skip to the end through their continuous whining and anti-Rights yammering

After introducing his foreign policy team last week, President-elect Joe Biden proclaimed that “America is back.” In important respects, that will be true come Jan. 20. But at the Supreme Court, America is increasingly unrecognizable. A court that affords no protection to unenumerated rights to bodily integrity and privacy, while simultaneously eroding the separation of church and state would look less like our familiar institution and more like the highest judicial authority of a place like Gilead — the theocratic and misogynist country in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

So, the whole point of the screed is that the Supreme Court may very well rule on the side of the Constitution rather than Joe’s Modern Socialism. There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution, and ruling that citizens and churches have Rights is exactly what the purpose of the Supreme Court is. To protect the Constitution and Citizens from the Legislative and Executive branches. And, if the Court is protecting Constitutional Rights, that’s dangerous for Joe Biden’s agenda? Think about that position.

Read: USA Today: SCOTUS Ruling For Religious Freedom During COVID Is Mean, You Know »

Bad Behavior has blocked 9082 access attempts in the last 7 days.