Mayor Pete: The Time For Arguing On Climate Crisis (scam) Is Over

I wonder if there’s taxes and fees involved

Buttigieg: ‘There’s no time to argue’ over climate change

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the debate over whether climate change exists needs to stop, saying “there’s no time to argue about whether it’s real — it’s happening, and it’s incredibly dangerous.”

Buttigieg was asked during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Wednesday how his department is addressing climate change amid record-setting heat in the Pacific Northwest.

“We’ve got to do two things. One, we’ve got to make our infrastructure more resilient, because this is going to keep happening. So, we’ve got to make sure that our roads and our bridges are designed for rising sea levels and more heat waves,” Buttigieg said.

“But the second thing we got to do — we’ve got to stop it from getting any worse. That’s why it’s important to make sure that we help Americans afford and drive electric vehicles. It’s why we have to make sure we have alternatives like transit and make sure it’s easier for people to get around without having to bring a vehicle sometimes, depending on where you’re going,” he added.

So, Pete will force you out of your affordable fossil fueled and, if you’re rich, you can get an electric vehicle. If you you can’t afford an EV, which is most people, then you can ride a bike (if you’re Pete, you can can climatevirtue signal while being followed by a fossil fueled SUV), walk, or take the train or bus. All while Big Shots like Pete take long, fossil fueled plane trips and ride in luxury limos.

But, no, no, don’t argue, the time for that is over, right? Despite 30+ years of being wrong, providing little in the way of actual scientific proof of anthropogenic global causation, all the Doomsaying, don’t argue. Just let Pete take your freedom, liberty, choice, and money. Because, how do we pay for this?

Carbon fees are part of the solution to climate change

Pricing carbon is the best first step to address climate change. It works fast to reduce carbon pollution. We’ll start seeing reduced carbon emissions in as little as nine months. Thirty-four countries have a price on carbon, including a border adjustment. The U.S. is one of two developed economies that don’t have that. As a result, we pay those nations a fee for exports, which we wouldn’t be paying if we had a carbon fee.

And the cost of living skyrockets, energy is much more expensive, and Government tells you how to live your life

Insurance costs: Should California homeowners pay for climate change?

In hard-hit Napa Valley, which has burned multiple times this last decade, successful winemakers and longtime residents are weighing their options to rebuild or move out entirely simply by looking at their property insurance policies.

“They just can’t get insurance,” said Democratic state Sen. Bill Dodd, whose district spans the region’s celebrated vineyards. “Or the insurance is so expensive that there is no way they could ever afford that kind of coverage.”

Yes, they’re blaming this on ‘climate change’, not the policies that created the dangerous conditions for things like wildfires, not California just being insane to start with. But, yes, I think Californian’s should pay, because this is what they have voted for. Let them deal with the consequences. And, no, don’t leave. Live with the policies you advocated for. Every experiment needs an experimental group, right?

Suck it up, New Yorkers, you wanted this stuff with your cultish beliefs in ‘climate change.’

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Mayor Pete: The Time For Arguing On Climate Crisis (scam) Is Over”

  1. Hairy says:

    A tesla model3 costs less to buy than the average cost paid for a new car
    The median price for a new car in the USA is now over 40000 dollars
    There is a reason every major light vehicle manufacturer is offering EVs
    And even the base model 3 has 0-60 times of 5.6 sec
    Compare that to any other 40000 dollar car

  2. JG says:

    The push by the government to eliminate Natural Gas and Nuclear Power Plants that are the least harmful to the environment is wrong. The government pushes wind and solar, which are the least effective power producers and can be most harmful on the environment.

    Then the push for Electric Vehicles (EV), which cause high damage to the environment to produce the battery and it has a limited life. The EV will require heavy power consumption and if owned the person will need to modify their house/garage to handle the EV power charging.

    With added EVs there will be increased power usage. Lack of power generation due to less power stations and more people coming over the border will cause brownouts. Brownouts and lack of power will make EV harder to use, but the government does not care.

    • drowningpuppies says:


      Bwaha! Lolgf

    • david7134 says:

      Remember that a battery is a greater pollutant than nuclear once it is expended. But the idiots continue to swallow the hoax.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        But Mayor Pete likes to swallow or so it’s been hinted.

        Maybe an update from Rimjob would be in order.

        Bwaha! Lolgf

  3. Dana says:

    So, “Gov. Cuomo celebrated the closure of the final Indian Point nuclear reactor, which generated enough electricity to power about 500,000 homes”? Not wo worry, places like the 100-acre Nesquehoning Solar Park can generate enough electricity to power 1,450 homes!

    If 100 acres of this solar park, built in 2014, can power 1,450 homes, then using the same building techniques and technology, Indian Point’s powering 500,000 homes can be replaces with just 34,482.75 acres of solar park. At 640 acres per square mile, that’s only 53.88 mi²!

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    Another birthday, another reminder.

    Numerous Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that the global temperature anomaly would climb by about 1.4 Degrees C by year 2021 from 1986 levels based on a NASA GISS climate model unless emissions were immediately reduced. UAH satellite measurements of global temperature which commenced in 1979 show that the global temperature anomaly has only increased since these hearings by 0.49 Degrees C by year 2021 nearly 3 times less than the flawed speculation at these hearings.

    Bwaha! Lolgf

    • Professor hale says:

      Time for arguing is over? Does that mean they will finally STFU about it?

  5. Hairy says:

    Nuclear power is too expensive
    No insurance company is willing to insure one
    No one is even willing to insure construction bonds for a new coal plant
    Capitalists will not risk their money on a new nuke the levelized cost per kWh being twice that of solar
    You can easily check Google for this

  6. Hairy says:

    Duke power in 2016 said that it is no longer even considering nukes in their long range planning

    • gitarcarver says:

      Duke power in 2016 said that it is no longer even considering nukes in their long range planning

      Not surprisingly, Hairy is lying.

      Duke Energy aims to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050

      Advocate for sound public policy that advances technology and innovation. This includes advanced renewable energy, longer-lasting storage, new nuclear technologies, low- and zero-carbon fuels and effective ways to capture carbon emissions. The company also will support permitting reforms that will enable new technologies to be deployed.

      We’re striving for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050

      Collaborate and align with our states and stakeholders.
      Accelerate our transition to cleaner energy solutions.
      Continue to operate our existing carbon-free technologies, including nuclear and renewables.
      Modernize our electric grid.
      Advocate for sound public policy that advances technology and innovation.

      Hairy hates facts.

      After all, all the left has is hate.

  7. Hairy says:

    It wasn’t the left that killed nuke power it was the capitalists

    • est1950 says:

      You are correct, Hairy. For once you actually looked something up before you made an ingnorant statement.

      The reality is that regulations by the EPA, AEC and other’s killed nukes or at least made them unprofitable. The second reason Nukes were deemed economically unfeasible was unlike, Coal and Gas fired power plants, once their self life was over they would sit for eternity as monuments to the stupidity of mankind.

      Capitalism is a realistic position that looks at cost vs benefit. Something the left should try sometime. Hell, something both sides should try sometime, anytime. Anymore both sides have gone stark raving mad.

      As far as electric cars are concerned. Once Musk has to contend with everyone making them, he will begin running into all kinds of shortages. Right now Elon was a genius by bringing most of his parts IN HOUSE. Meaning he is not reliant on a supply chain like Detroit and others.

      He has even started building his own Ion Lithium non tabbed batteries in house because of a supply shortage. That being said, the AGW crowd and BIG PHARMA wants to rape the planet of resources to keep YOU IN LINE. Electric cars are nothing more than a means to an end.

      Make no mistake they have every intention of ending those as well, except for the mindlessly rich in safe zones much like we see in Iraq Today.

      The internet is the 666. In less than a decade their will be total world wide totalitarianism in place and the freedoms we all come to cherish will be gone. Even you and Elwood will be wondering WTF MATE. It’s not supposed to be like this.

      Assuming your a concerned American and not a Chinese water soldier.

      • gitarcarver says:

        The second reason Nukes were deemed economically unfeasible was unlike, Coal and Gas fired power plants, once their self life was over they would sit for eternity as monuments to the stupidity of mankind.

        Sorry, but no.

        All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them. Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life. At the end of the life of any power plant, it needs to be decommissioned, cleaned up and demolished so that the site is made available for other uses.

        For nuclear plants, the term decommissioning includes all clean-up of radioactivity and progressive dismantling of the plant. This may start with the owner’s decision to write it off or declare that it is permanently removed from operation. For practical purposes it includes defueling and removal of coolant, though NRC at least defines it as strictly beginning only after fuel and coolant are removed. It concludes with licence termination after decontamination is verified and wastes removed.

    • Kye says:

      Yep. I distinctly recall all the capitalists marching all over the world from Cali to London and Japan to NYC carrying signs to end nuclear power. I can still see the throngs of capitalists in Time Square protesting the evil nuclear power, throwing sit-ins, be-ins and trashing the area for their cause. Like it was yesterday.

  8. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent.

    Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history.

    Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled, and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt.

    Who said it?

    Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.

    All energy sources have advantages and disadvantages. Fossil fuels release heat trapping carbon dioxide plus other pollutants. Solar and wind power is unreliable and without adequate capacity. Nuclear power is too expensive for capitalism.

    • david7134 says:

      Fossil fuels release trapped carbon dioxide?? You are indeed stupid. As to nuclear not compatible with capitalism, shows the stupidity runs deep in you. I get it, you say stupid things to get attention.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Doogie Hoser DC doesn’t understand that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that traps heat? The denial in that one is strong!

        Electricity prices will need to rise significantly to make nuclear power economic to capitalists.

        If there’s a catastrophe (e.g., Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI, Jaslovské Bohunice and dozens more) who pays the billions for clean up?

        It could be that a society might consider that a reasonable cost for nuclear power and agree that taxpayers would subsidize construction and clean up in the case of catastrophe.

        Doogie, don’t you ever tire of being an ignorant ass?

  9. Hairy says:

    Doesn’t fascism require a cult of personality worship like Trump was ?/

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    Around 10% of the world’s electricity is generated by about 445 nuclear power reactors. About 50 more reactors are under construction, equivalent to approximately 15% of existing capacity.In 2020 nuclear plants supplied 2553 TWh of electricity, down from 2657 TWh in 2019. Prior to 2020, electricity generation from nuclear energy had increased for seven consecutive years.
    The USA has 93 operable nuclear reactors, with a combined net capacity of 95.5 GWe. In 2020, nuclear generated 19.7% of the country’s electricity.There had been four AP1000 reactors under construction, but two of these have been cancelled. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, improved operational performance has increased utilisation of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output equivalent to 19 new 1000 MWe plants being built.

    Bwaha! Lolgf

Pirate's Cove