Infrastructure Bill Includes State Mandated Carbon Reduction Programs

The s0-called infrastructure bill was leaked, and it’s a whopping 2,700 pages.

Sources familiar with the drafting of the text of this bill told Breitbart News it was being written in secret for months outside the normal legislative process, which is supposed to happen in relevant committees of jurisdiction. These sources made the unauthorized leak of the draft text to Breitbart News out of concern that the murky and secretive process behind this bill may have led to widespread corruption throughout its nearly three thousand pages.

The bill itself was finally released at 945pm last night. And includes tons of shady stuff. And stuff that isn’t really infrastructure. And tons of left wing crazy. And

‘Infrastructure’ Bill Caters to ‘Climate Change’ with State-Mandated Carbon Reduction Programs

Obscured in more than 2,700 pages of the U.S. Senate’s so-called bipartisan “infrastructure” bill is a plan for state-mandated carbon reduction programs.

The text, which Breitbart News exclusively obtained from U.S. Senate sources not authorized to leak it, details how the federal government would mandate states to craft “Green New Deal”-style programs in partnership with local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to fight “climate change.”

“A state, in consultation with any metropolitan planning organization designated within the state, shall develop a carbon reduction strategy,” according to the text, which is also in the officially released version of the bill. [Emphasis added]

The federal government oversees metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which are designated by agreement between the governor and local governments and represent localities in all urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations over 50,000, as determined by the U.S. Census, according to the Federal Transit Administration. There are at least 420 MPOs in the United States, the National Association of Regional Councils estimated.

No later than two years after the bill’s enactment, states would have to present their carbon reduction programs for approval to the secretary of transportation. The proposed strategies must meet several requirements to be considered “green” enough.

A clear violation of the 10th Amendment. Another massive federal government over-reach, as they like to do, forcing state and local governments to be responsive to the feds, undercutting their Constitutional authority and sovereignty.

Requirements include but are not limited to:

  • Reducing traffic congestion by disincentivizing single-occupant vehicle trips and facilitating “the use of alternatives” like public transportation, shared or pooled vehicle trips, “pedestrian facilities,” and “bicycle facilities” within the state.
  • Facilitating the use of vehicles or modes of travel that result in “lower transportation emissions per person-mile traveled as compared to existing vehicles.”
  • Incentivizing the construction of vehicles that emit less carbon.

Every Republican senator needs to vote against this crap bill, and try and turn Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema against it. It will generate massive and immediate lawsuits if passed, for the climate portion and many others. And you can bet that Republican run states will ignore this 100%.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Infrastructure Bill Includes State Mandated Carbon Reduction Programs”

  1. Hairy says:

    “Massive” ?
    What actually is the cost of having the states make these plans ?
    Doesn’t NC already have in place high vehicle occupancy lanes ?
    1 million Americans have already made reservations fkr Tesla’s Cyber truck
    And over 120000 made reservations for Fkrd”s Lightning F150 which will be probably tge fastest 0 to 60 pickup ever built

  2. Kye says:

    LIAR!!!

    “Nikola sums up the phony green economy:

    The founder of the much-hyped electric truck manufacturer Nikola Corp. has been charged with lying to investors about the supposed technological breakthroughs the company had achieved in order to drive up its stock price, federal prosecutors announced Thursday.

    If electric vehicles made sense, the free market would provide them. Trucks that are not driven by diesel or gasoline are driven instead by ideology. That is, they are driven by wishful thinking, coercive subsidies, and lies.

    Nikola impressed investors with its electric truck prototypes. However,

    Prosecutors said that, in fact, the prototypes that had been unveiled didn’t function and were Frankenstein monsters cobbled together from parts from other vehicles. At public events, the vehicles were allegedly towed into position and were powered by plugs leading from hidden wall sockets.

    In one instance, in which the vehicle was filmed for a promotional film, tape was used to keep the doors of a truck prototype from opening, prosecutors said. To make it appear the truck was driving, it was towed to the top of a hill and then rolled down to the bottom, according to the indictment.”

    • Zachriel says:

      Kye: If electric vehicles made sense, the free market would provide them.

      Pollution is an externality and is not accounted for in the free market price.

      • david7134 says:

        Z, the soy boy,
        Electric vehicles are terrible pollutants.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: Electric vehicles are terrible pollutants.

          There are certainly externalities to electric vehicles, especially during production, but much less than with vehicles powered by fossil fuels.

          The point remains that the comment, “If electric vehicles made sense, the free market would provide them,” is not a valid statement without including these externalities. It’s cheaper to build a car without emission controls, but that entails dumping your problem on others.

          • Kye says:

            “Externalities” have nothing to do with supply and demand. That’s what I was referring to. Stop moving the goal posts. And those “externalities” to which you refer are “theories” Supply and demand is a law. Externalities for the most part are not how humans determine the desirability of consumer goods.

            My point was as usual the tyrants on your side of the argument want to force others to do their bidding. That’s not the American way which is probably why you support it.

            Why do you always land on the side of forcing others to do your bidding?

          • Zachriel says:

            Kye: “Externalities” have nothing to do with supply and demand.

            That’s right! Now you got it! They are outside the market system. They are a way of transferring costs to the public as a whole. For instance, it’s cheaper to make a car without emission controls. Do you think manufacturers should be able to make vehicles without emission controls?

        • david7134 says:

          Z,the soy boy,
          Sorry, you just showed you do not know your ass from the hole. The principal pollutant in an electrical system in these cars is the battery. My friend who handle nuclear material indicate that batteries are a far greater pollutant than nuclear waste.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Doogie,

            Speaking of “soy boys” have you looked at Teach’s profile picture? He looks like a middle aged lesbian.

            Your belligerence prompts you to make mistakes in reason. Of course all vehicles, all sources of energy, have advantages and disadvantages. You have an unscientific “belief/feeling” that gods/magic will not allow atmospheric CO2 to cause warming despite all evidence to the contrary.

            Negative externalities in market transactions represent market failures. The negative externality of EV batteries must by built into the market cost of EVs, don’t you agree?

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: The principal pollutant in an electrical system in these cars is the battery.

            The production of batteries produces pollution. However, externalities are generally lower for electric cars than for fossil fueled cars. But, the market doesn’t account for these externalities, which was the point raised above that you avoided. People should be required to pay for any cost of cleanup due to their economic activities and not dump it on their neighbors.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Got your negative externalities right here. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif
            Try to keep up.

            https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/australia-tesla-battery-fire-under-control-after-3-days-2500774

            #BelieveTheLie
            Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

Bad Behavior has blocked 9223 access attempts in the last 7 days.