Elizabeth Warren Demands Big Banks Turn Over Their ‘Climate Change’ Plans

Under what authority is she doing this? She’s a federal Senator.

Warren asks banks to turn over plans to prepare for climate change

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a series of letters to the nation’s largest banks Wednesday asking them to turn over their plans for how they will prepare for the financial risks of climate change.

“As climate change continues to affect our economy, it is critical to understand your bank’s adaptation and mitigation strategies,” Warren wrote.

Warren’s letter highlighted a number of financial risks that could stem from climate change, all part of a package of research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Sea level rise and floods could impact the real estate market. Increasingly severe natural disasters could stress financial markets, particularly as displaced people move away from often-hit areas.

You mean natural risks that have always happened could cause issues? ZOMG!

The letter was sent to JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley and State Street.

Warren’s letter comes as environmentalists’ push for Wall Street to take action on climate change is gaining traction.

The letter, which asked for banks to respond by Feb. 7, won’t just document banks’ response to climate change, but also asks the financial institutions to go on the record on their support for a Warren bill that would require “bank stress tests” for various climate scenarios.

The tests would require banks to evaluate risk at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels, 2 degrees of warming, and one assuming a “business as usual” path.

If banks did not provide a satisfactory plan under each scenario, the Federal Reserve could block them from making loans.

Wait, wait, was that part about “asks the financial institutions to go on the record on their support for a Warren bill that would require “bank stress tests” for various climate scenarios.” And about the Fed blocking banks from making loans if they do not support Liz’s climate cult fantasies? Warmists have given me crap for around 15 years for saying this whole thing has nothing to do with science and everything to do with Progressive (nice Fascist) politics, and then Warmists like Liz keep proving that I’m right.

Hey, maybe we can put a windmill on every teepee.

(Photobucket sorta seems to be working, we’ll see if the photo lasts)

Read: Elizabeth Warren Demands Big Banks Turn Over Their ‘Climate Change’ Plans »

Irony: Democrats Wrap Their Impeachment Theater Arguments By Calling Trump A Dictator

Let’s remember what Ted Cruz said: “If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don’t have either, you bang the table. Today, we’ve seen a whole lot of table banging.” How’s this for table banging? This is from the NY Times front page with their main bullet points

Democrats PRess Obstruction Case Against Trump
Days of Arguments Wrap Up With a Dire Warning
-House impeachment managers concluded their case against President Trump with an emphatic call for his removal. “He is a dictator,” Representative Jerry Nadler said.
-Republicans appeared unmoved — not just on the question of whether to acquit Mr. Trump, but on whether to compel witnesses and documents, too.

Wait, what was that dictator part?

[Schiff] and the six other managers prosecuting the president spent much of Friday tying up the facts of the second charge, obstruction of Congress, and arguing that Mr. Trump’s attempts to shut down a congressional inquiry into his actions toward Ukraine was unprecedented and undermined the very ability of the government to correct itself.

“He is a dictator,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York. “This must not stand.”

If he was a dictator, there would be no impeachment theater. Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and the rest would have been rounded up long ago. Their would be no #NeverTrump movement, at least not an open one. The news would not be speaking out against him. He’d be passing rules with his pen and phone, right, avoiding the duly elected legislative branch, right? Na, even that doesn’t make a president a dictator.

We refer to this as theater. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that that is all it is. The Democrats are playing to their base and the unhinged #NeverTrumpers on the right. They want this stuff on the news, hoping to pick off some Trump voters for the general election. They don’t have to get them to vote Democrat, just to not vote Trump. They knew from the start this was going to fail, because they had no evidence. Hence, the obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, while failing to actually include the quid pro quo/bribery stuff that (supposedly) started this whole thing, based on 3rd and 4th hand hearsay. They knew that getting to 67 votes to boot Trump would be impossible. Now they go completely over the top, making it even more impossible. Here’s Excitable Adam Schiff

Mr. Schiff’s fiery final oration appeared to alienate the very Republicans he was trying to win over. When he referred to an anonymously sourced news report that Republican senators had been warned that their heads would be “on a pike” if they voted against Mr. Trump, several of them vigorously shook their heads and broke their sworn silence: “not true.”

As the Times points out in a separate article, this delighted the left and enraged the right. This almost guarantees that the squishes on the GOP side won’t vote to boot Trump. Democrats will then claim that the whole thing was rigged, that the GOP didn’t want to listen, that they don’t care. Think about Democrats saying that it is a conspiracy if Republicans don’t vote to boot Trump. Now it’s time for Mitch McConnell and Trump to turn this around on Democrats.

Read: Irony: Democrats Wrap Their Impeachment Theater Arguments By Calling Trump A Dictator »

Angela Merkel Urges Dialogue Between Climate Cultists And Skeptics

It’s rather hard to have a conversation with climate cultists who are unable to provide any proof of their beliefs, refuse to practice what they preach, block you on all social media, refuse to appear on TV shows with anyone who doesn’t have the same rigid beliefs, and Demand that all news outlets refuse to give Skeptics any platform, because they’re heretics and should be burned at the stake

Merkel urges dialogue between skeptics and believers to tackle climate change

The world needs an open dialogue about climate change to heal the gap between sceptics and believers since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday.

“Time is pressing, so we – the older ones, I am 65 years old – must make sure that we take the impatience of young people positively and constructively,” Merkel told the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

The first two days of the annual Davos gathering were dominated by the back-and-forth between the 73-year-old former businessman Trump and 17-year-old campaigner Greta Thunberg, with corporate leaders caught in the middle, concerned that as well as words, there was a need for concrete decisions.

She drew applause from the Davos audience when she said opposing sides in polarised debates such as that on climate change had to learn how to talk with each other again.

Hmm. It looks like what she’s advocating is a dialogue that tells Skeptics what they must believe. She believes that “time is running out to cut emissions,” Skeptics do not. Believers (I like that Reuters chose to label them as such) want to do it in a way that taxes you, increases your cost of living, and limits your freedom and choice. They want massive government control over everything. There could be some agreement on solutions, such as a big increase in the use of nuclear power, R&D into solar, wind, etc, not so much to decrease “carbon pollution” from the skeptic side, just as things that make sense. But, the Warmists generally do not want that.

And after her applause she jumped in a fossil fueled vehicle/private jet to head back to Germany.

Read: Angela Merkel Urges Dialogue Between Climate Cultists And Skeptics »

If All You See…

…are horrible carbon pollution clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Barking Moonbat EWS, with a post on a dad who strangled a coyote with his bare hands.

Read: If All You See… »

Some San Francisco Restaurants Take On ‘Climate Change’ Surcharge To “Unf*ck The Planet”

I’m sure all Woke San Francisco residents are willing to pay for it, right, along with the already higher prices from all the city initiatives, like raising the minimum wage, right?

Select SF Restaurants Tack On ‘Optional’ Surcharge to Fight Climate Change

Diners in SF are likely sick of surprise surcharges at this point — and many have argued that local restaurants long ago should have just rolled those “SF Mandates” charges into their prices and stopped surcharging us. But some of the city’s fancier spots have joined in a new initiative to fight climate change that involves a new, additional 1% surcharge on checks.

It is called the Restore California or Zero Foodprint surcharge, and the group behind it is the Perennial Farming Initiative, a group started by Anthony Myint and Karen Leibowitz, who co-founded Mission Chinese Food, Commonwealth, and The Perennial in SF — the latter two of which shuttered in 2019. The mission, as Eater reports, is to collect funds and then distribute grants to “help local farmers implement climate beneficial farming practices,” while also helping restaurants to “reduce and offset their carbon footprint.” In short, the group is seeking to “unfuck the planet,” as they say on a signup page. The program is working in cooperation with California’s Healthy Soils Program, and the California Air Resources Board, and the first grants are expected to be dispersed in May 2020.

The SF restaurants so far participating include Atelier Crenn, Benu, Cala, Chez Panisse, Flour + Water, Flour + Water Pizzeria, Mission Chinese Food, Mister Jiu’s, Namu Stonepot, Mikkeller Bar, The Progress, and State Bird Provisions (see the full list here). And, because the surcharge is optional, if you spot it on your bill and you don’t want to pay it, you can ask your server to remove it.

Given that at several of these spots — especially Atelier Crenn and Benu — a dinner bill can easily rise above the $1000 mark, a $10 surcharge is not insignificant but also not likely to make much of a difference to those dining there. At more mid-range spots, though, yet another surcharge may not be so welcome, no matter how noble its purposes. Eater notes that five-month old Mission spot Great Gold (which opened in August in the former Foxsister space) has already nixed the surcharge due to diner complaints.

I’d love to see a survey of how many actually notice it, and of those that do, how many pay it. Seriously, if this is so important to the restaurants, why don’t they pay it out of their profit, rather than attempting to hit up patrons? Though, in a super Woke progressive SJW climate cultist area like San Fran, they should all want to do their part, right?

Read: Some San Francisco Restaurants Take On ‘Climate Change’ Surcharge To “Unf*ck The Planet” »

Al Gore Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Davos, Says Hotcoldwetdry Fight Like Last Stand Of The 300

He actually made another comparison, which makes me glad that he wasn’t president on that day, despite voting for him in 2000

From the link, which forgets to mention the private jet Gore took to Davos

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore believes the climate crisis is getting worse “way faster” than most people realize, describing it as a “challenge to our moral imagination.”

Delivering closing remarks at a World Economic Forum panel session on Wednesday, Gore spoke passionately about the climate emergency.

At one stage, the co-founder of Generation Investment Management compared the scale of the crisis to a number of infamous historic events.

It is “way worse” than many realize and intensifying “way faster” than people appreciate, Gore said.

“This is Thermopylae. This is Agincourt. This is Dunkirk. This is the Battle of the Bulge. This is 9/11,” he added.

This. Is. Stupid.

Read: Al Gore Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Davos, Says Hotcoldwetdry Fight Like Last Stand Of The 300 »

Excitable Adam Schiff, Other Democrats Forget To Argue Facts In Impeachment Theater

What is Impeachment Theater? It’s just an extension of the long scream from Democrats when they realized that Trump beat Hillary by the rules, and they just can’t accept it

Schiff pleads to Senate GOP: ‘Right matters. And the truth matters.’

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, made an impassioned effort to break through to Senate Republicans on Thursday night in his closing argument by exhorting them to remove President Trump from office because “you know you can’t trust” him “to do what’s right for this country.”

Senate Republicans have said for months that there are nowhere close to 67 votes in the upper chamber to convict Trump on articles of impeachment, yet Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, pleaded with them follow their consciences.

“Do we really have a doubt about the facts here? Does anybody really question whether the president is capable of what he’s charged with? No one is really making the argument, ‘Donald Trump would never do such a thing’ because of course we know that he would, and of course we know that he did,” Schiff said after a marathon day of presentations.

House prosecutors on Thursday presented a litany of facts and arguments to support their charge that Trump abused his power.

Well, not so much in terms of Facts

Tom Cotton: Republicans are surprised at how ‘flimsy’ the impeachment case is

Sen. Tom Cotton, who was required to sit through the entirety of Wednesday’s marathon Senate impeachment trial session, said on Thursday that “it certainly seems to drag on late into the night as House Democrats repeat themselves time and time again.”

Cotton, R-Ark., made the comment on “America’s Newsroom” on Thursday, adding that if House Democrats “had strong evidence though, I think they’d simply present that evidence and let it speak for itself, but they don’t.

“That’s why what we heard yesterday were repetitive arguments over and over again based on little more than hearsay, and the House Democrats’ objections to Donald Trump being the president,” he continued. (snip)

“One thing I’ve seen as I’ve listened to these House Democrats for the last few days is just how flimsy the evidence is to support their case, based primarily on hearsay. And again, repeating themselves over and over again, because they don’t have the evidence that would just speak for itself.”

He added that he thinks his Republican colleagues are also surprised at how “flimsy” the impeachment case is.

Cotton noted that House Democrats “keep saying they have an overwhelming case.”

“If they had an overwhelming case, they wouldn’t be demanding that the Senate do the work that the House wasn’t willing to do, subpoenaing documents and witnesses and going to court if necessary to enforce that,” he said. “The Democrats refused to do that in the House because they wanted to rush this through to try to hurt the president’s reelection chances.”

Democrats do not really have any case except Orange Man Bad.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff, Other Democrats Forget To Argue Facts In Impeachment Theater »

Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Political Issue, Not A Reproductive One

Climate cultist Ramin Skibba makes an interesting admission while attempting to argue something else

Opinion: Climate Change Is a Political Crisis, Not a Reproductive One

THE CLIMATE STRIKES led by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and youth groups around the world have achieved great strides, growing rapidly and drawing attention to the dire climate dilemma we face today. A majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and want people to address it right now, according to a recent CBS poll.

But one popular proposal to emerge, that people should have fewer kids, probably isn’t the climate panacea that would-be parents would like to believe. Going childless will do little to derail the main drivers of climate change, and asking millennials to take on that burden — as if the problem’s their responsibility — only lets the fossil fuel industry’s juggernaut off the hook.

The idea of foregoing children to mitigate climate change is essentially an extension of arguments that call for individuals to help save the climate by changing their consumer behavior — say, by switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, installing solar panels, eating less meat, or buying fuel-efficient cars. But it would surely take decades to substantially reduce the world’s population by going childless, if that is even an achievable and desirable societal goal, and we’re already set to overshoot the world’s carbon budget — the level of cumulative carbon emissions that would result in reaching the critical threshold of 2 degrees Celsius of warming — in the 2030s. Climate change is a structural problem involving politics and economics, not personal choices, and solving it will require huge political and economic changes.

See? It’s all about politics. It’s about instituting wholesale changes. Which most Warmists do not like to actually mention, because that would drive people away when they learn of the big government dominance, socialism, Fascism, taxes, fees, etc.

But a focus on population inevitably puts the burden of climate change on the backs of poorer people and people in developing countries — who tend to drive global population growth — despite them not being a major cause of global warming. No one would blame climate change on Ugandans or Afghans, even though the population growth rates in those countries are among the highest in the world. Neither would anyone blame it on the Latin American immigrants contributing to the U.S.’s (slower) population expansion. Population growth in the U.S. isn’t being driven by high-income, high carbon-emitting families having more children.

That, though, is a good point. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Warmists who do want to limit population growth in 3rd world nations, their own form of Eugenics to go with their racism/bigotry.

Environmentalists and advocates for climate action want to protect and preserve the Earth for future generations, not just current ones. Let’s stay focused on the root causes of climate change. Our climate crisis is not primarily a reproductive crisis but a political and economic one. If you’re passionate about tackling climate change, you might make a tiny difference with your individual consumer and reproductive choices. But the biggest lifestyle choice you can make to combat climate change is not to forego having a kid, it’s to become a climate activist — and raise your kid to become one too.

Warmists always want to shift from personal responsibility to walk the talk to making said wholesale changes to the political and economic systems. The chumps who believe in the scam should really sit down and do some critical thinking as to why the main Cultists want these changes, and think if this would better their lives and those of their descendants, or take away their money, freedom, and choice.

Read: Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Political Issue, Not A Reproductive One »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon bike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Scepticism, with a post on how climate cultists take over city councils.

Read: If All You See… »

‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something

This is not the first attempt by the Cult of Climastrology to link any future recession/depression to ‘climate change’. They Warmists have been ramping up this bit of fear mongering as of late, that way when a recession happens, something which comes in cycles, they can Blamestorm you for eating a burger

Climate Change Could Cause the Next Financial Meltdown

Climate change has already been blamed for deadly bush fires in Australia, dying coral reefs, rising sea levels and ever more cataclysmic storms. Could it also cause the next financial crisis?

A report issued this week by an umbrella organization for the world’s central banks argued that the answer is yes, while warning that central bankers lack tools to deal with what it says could be one of the biggest economic dislocations of all time.

The book-length report, published by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, signals what could be the overriding theme for central banks in the decade to come.

“Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to human societies, and our community of central banks and supervisors cannot consider itself immune to the risks ahead of us,” François Villeroy de Galhau, governor of the Banque de France, said in the report.

Central banks spent much of the last 10 years hauling their economies out of a deep financial crisis that began in 2008. They may well spend the next decade coping with the disruptive effects of climate change and technology, the report said.

See, it might possibly maybe could perchance be linked/caused by, and, even if the next one has zero to do with ‘climate change’, they’ll make sure you know you should blame the fossil fuels companies. Much like they manufactured a way to blame snow and ice and cold on heat trapping gases.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something »

Pirate's Cove