Say, What’s The Truth About Airplane Carbon Offsetting?

By William Teach November 23, 2019 – 7:20 am

Well, it’s that Warmists are utter hypocrites, though CNN forgets to mention this

Dirty planet but a clean conscience? The truth about airplane carbon offsetting

In aviation, it would seem, claiming you’re going green is becoming as important as competing on fares.

When European budget airline easyJet released its annual results this week, they paired the report with an announcement that from November 19, it would become the world’s first airline operating net-zero carbon flights. It would achieve this, it announced, by carbon offsetting all its flights.

The airline plans to do this with “forestry, renewable and community based projects.” It has also signed an agreement with Airbus to research the possibilities of hybrid-electric aircraft.

EasyJet is the third airline to announce a carbon offset scheme this month alone. It joins Qantas, which has pledged to go net-zero on carbon emissions by 2050, and British Airways, which will carbon offset all its UK domestic flights from 2020. BA’s parent company IAG has also pledged to go net-zero on carbon emissions by 2050.

But, see, there’s a problem with this, along with all the celebrities paying for carbon offsets for their own climahypocrisy

But environmental campaigners and travel experts say that there’s just one problem: carbon offsetting doesn’t work in the way proponents say it does.

Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at environmental campaigning organization Friends of the Earth, calls carbon offsetting in the aviation industry “a giant con.”

A 2017 report for the European Commission looking at carbon offsetting found that 85% of offset programs for the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism failed to deliver “real, measurable and additional” emission reductions, and noted that some projects would have happened anyway.

Oops? Seriously, we’ve known this is a big scam for at least 15 years, one which just enriches people, like Al Gore, who propagate/take advantage of this whole scam. Anyhow, what can you do?

Responsible Travel is pushing for a “green flying duty” to be added onto flight ticket costs in the UK. While the UK government charges Air Passenger Duty (APD) on all tickets — currently £13 ($17) for a short-haul fare and £78 ($100) for long-haul — that money goes into general government coffers.

Pay a tax! Surprise! And

Gregory Miller, executive director at the US-based Center for Responsible Travel (CREST) says that you should follow the “NERD” guidelines from the International Council on Clean Transportation: fly younger aircraft, in economy class, on a regular-sized aircraft (medium-sized jets tend to be more fuel efficient) and direct.

Well, good luck figuring all that out. Me, I’m flying the plane on the airline that’s going where I need to go at the time I need, and won’t worry about the other stuff. If Warmists are so concerned, they should perhaps stop flying altogether. And this article was in the Travel section of CNN, which is all about traveling, much of which requires fossil fueled air travel.

Read: Say, What’s The Truth About Airplane Carbon Offsetting? »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

We Need Net Neutrality Why? Internet Is Used As Tool Of Oppression In Iran, Other Nations

By William Teach November 23, 2019 – 7:09 am

It’s a really, really good idea to turn the Internet here in the U.S. into a public utility with massive federal (and some states are trying to pass their own) control via Net Neutrality, right? Also, somehow Trump is being blamed

‘Tool of repression’: Iran and regimes from Ethiopia to Venezuela limit Internet, go dark online

Nearly a week after Iran imposed a near-total Internet and mobile data blackout amid protests over a rise in gas prices, its connectivity to the rest of the world remains limited and reflects what researchers and activists claim, disputed by Iran, is a “tool of repression” used by regimes from Ethiopia to Venezuela.

But the shutdown in Iran, which began Nov. 17 and remains below 20% of normal levels, according to NetBlocks, a firm that tracks cybersecurity, has not only allowed officials in Tehran to exert control over information about the unrest.

It has also cut off Iranians from their friends and family abroad, seemingly strengthened the Trump administration’s perception that its “maximum pressure” policy on Iran is working after Washington exited the nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions, and further obscured what’s happening and who’s to blame in a Middle Eastern nation whose political and economic isolation has fluctuated in the four decades since its 1979 revolution that ushered in its Islamic Republic.

How does Trump have anything to do with this?

Marcin de Kaminski, a technology and human rights expert at Civil Rights Defenders, a Sweden-based civil rights watchdog, said that Internet blackouts are part of a growing trend of governments trying to shut their citizens off from the world during fraught periods. “They use it to limit freedom of expression or freedom of assembly and quite often it’s connected to elections or conflict or to different forms of civil unrest. This is happening in many different contexts from Uganda to Burma (also known as Myanmar),” he said.

Ethiopia has been intermittently shutting down Internet access since a failed coup in June. Venezuela periodically blocks access to Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other services that require Internet or mobile data access as part of an effort to stymie political opposition and prevent the efficacy of mass protests. India shut off Kashmir’s Internet access more than three months ago amid political upheaval.

Oh, see, more Blame Trump

The protests in Iran accelerated after gas prices were increased by 50% at a time when the sanctions reinstated by President Donald Trump have contributed to soaring inflation and stagnating salaries. The World Bank forecasts Iran’s economy will shrink by 8.7% this year, a consequence of plummeting revenues from blocked oil exports and restrictions on its petrochemicals, metals and mining sectors. Some consumer goods and essential medicines can be hard to get.

So, let’s see: Trump reimposes sanctions on Iran (do we really need to discuss how bad Iran is?), contributing to a horrific economy which is centrally run by a repressive, authoritarian government (isn’t that the way sanctions work?), people protest, the brutal, authoritarian government cracks down more and shuts off a goodly chunk of the Internet, so, Trump is at fault. In fact, Trump is mentioned many times in this article about Iran, their protests, and the Internet. TDS.

Read: We Need Net Neutrality Why? Internet Is Used As Tool Of Oppression In Iran, Other Nations »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Iran, Web/Tech | Comments Off on We Need Net Neutrality Why? Internet Is Used As Tool Of Oppression In Iran, Other Nations | Trackback URL

Surprise: Americans Are Paying More For Healthcare Premiums And Deductibles

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 3:30 pm

ABC News seems unsure just why

It’s a total mystery, but, I bet it still has to be Trump’s fault

(ABC News) According to a new report by The Commonwealth Fund, rising premium and deductibles contributions have outstripped wage growth over the past decade. More and more middle-class Americans are paying a greater percentage of earnings for health care.

The report analyzed survey data from 40,000 private-sector employers, as well as income data from the Census Bureau.

Median household income in the United States between 2008 and 2018 grew 1.9% per year on average, rising from $53,000 to $64,202.

But middle-class employees’ premium and deductible contributions rose much faster — nearly 6% per year over that same decade.

In 2008, middle-class workers spent about 7.8% of household income on premiums and deductibles. By 2018, that figure had climbed to 11.5%.

Strange. The phrases “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and “Obamacare” do not appear anywhere, nor are they even alluded to.

Read: Surprise: Americans Are Paying More For Healthcare Premiums And Deductibles »

Posted in Healthcare, Wonky Media | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing it to get so hot that it snows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on another poll finding impeachment theater is backfiring.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Coldplay Postpones Tour Due To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 11:57 am

Well, it’s nice to see them finally walking the talk, you know, after releasing their first album in 1998 and touring all over the world ever since

Coldplay Postpones Tour for Environmental Concerns: ‘We’d Be Disappointed If It’s Not Carbon Neutral’

After touching down on five different continents playing shows in recent years, British rockers Coldplay announced they will not schedule a tour for their new album because doing so would be harmful to the environment.

The Grammy-winning band made the announcement after flying to Jordon to perform two shows based on their new album, Everyday Life.

Jordan, you say? They’re also scheduled to play in London on November 25th

“We’re not touring this album. We’re taking time to see how our tour can be actively beneficial,” 42-year-old front man Chris Martin told the BBC.

“All of us have to work out the best way of doing our job,” Martin added, adding that the band wants future tours to “have a positive impact.”

“Our next tour will be the best possible version of a tour like that environmentally,” Martin exclaimed. “We would be disappointed if it’s not carbon neutral.”

Martin added that the band has set a goal to “have a show with no single use plastic” and to be solar powered.

The band leader also touted the track, “Orphans,” that he says was inspired by refugees who are “really just young people wanting to get on with their lives.” The band also released a pro-immigration lyric video for the song “Miracles (Someone Special),” which included “Resistance” images popularized by activists protesting President Donald Trump.

So, they’re pretty much pandering to unhinged nuts all around. Good luck powering a concert with solar. Of course, does anyone believe this will all happen? They’ll be out touring next year same as usual. They’re just climavirtue signaling.

Read: Coldplay Postpones Tour Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Coldplay Postpones Tour Due To ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

Bonnie Prince Charles Warns We Only Have 10 Years Left To Solve ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 7:08 am

Whatever happened to the whole 12 years left thing, which would mean we are still 11 years off? But, hey, we’re at yet another tipping point

Prince Charles talks about climate change, says humans only have 10 yrs to ‘change the course’

CHRISTCHURCH: Prince Charles warned Friday that time is running out to address the impact of climate change as he prepares to visit one of the Pacific island nations most-affected by global warming.

As he wrapped up a six-day trip to New Zealand ahead of three days in the Solomon Islands, Charles said the need for climate action was urgent.

“We have reached a tipping point and we still have the ability to change course, but only 10 years,” said the first in line to the British throne, who has been a passionate environmentalist for decades.

He said climate change was a scientific fact, rejecting suggestions from sceptics that “scaremongering” was dominating the debate.

“We have abused nature, exploited her and given her nothing back in return,” he told an audience at Christchurch’s Lincoln University.

“Nothing is sacred anymore, we are reaping a loss of biodiversity and experiencing the impacts of climate changes. We urgently need to pay the mounting debt.”

If it’s such a fact, referring to the anthropogenic part, then why did he take a long fossil fueled trip from Great Britain to New Zealand? Does anyone think he flew commercial? And how is he traveling around New Zealand?

He and wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, will have the chance to see the impact of climate change at close quarters when they make their first visit to the Solomon Islands on Saturday.

New Zealand is essentially south of Australia. The Solomon Islands are essentially north of Australia. So, looks like Charles, his wife, and their whole entorage will be taking a long fossil fueled plane trip there, as well. And climate cultists wonder why they are accused of being hypocrites? They have massive carbon footprints, refuse to reign them in, yet are out there scaremongering, always demanding government policies that are on Other People.

Oh, and when will they start trotting out 5 years left? I’ll give it till next summer.

Read: Bonnie Prince Charles Warns We Only Have 10 Years Left To Solve ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 51 Comments | Trackback URL

California Court Nixes Law On Tax Returns For Primaries

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 6:48 am

Remember when California passed a law that required anyone who wanted to be on the state primary ballot to release their tax returns, a law that obviously targeted Donald Trump? Well, even a People’s Republik Of California court thought it was pretty bad

California high court strikes down state law targeting Trump tax returns

California’s highest state court on Thursday struck down a law that would have required President Trump to hand over his tax returns as a condition to appearing on the state’s ballot for the Republican primary.

In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court held that key portions of the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, signed in July, violated the state’s constitution.

The law also requires gubernatorial candidates to disclose their tax returns for ballot access, but the California justices did not address that portion of the law.

The ruling comes ahead of the Nov. 26 deadline by which candidates would have needed to disclose their tax returns in order to appear on the state’s March presidential primary ballot.

In its ruling, the California Supreme Court sided with the California Republican Party over California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D).

The court argued that the law creates an additional requirement that is in conflict with the state constitution’s “specification of an inclusive open presidential primary ballot.”

It’s like the California general assembly and Governor Newsome, who signed it, didn’t read the California Constitution. Or, just ignored it.

“The Legislature may well be correct that a presidential candidate’s income tax returns could provide California voters with important information,” the court said in its ruling. “But article II, section 5(c) embeds in the state Constitution the principle that, ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a ‘recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States’ to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box.”

Remember, previous governor Jerry Brown, as hardcore leftist as the come, refused to sign it because it was un-Constitutional. Tax returns are not something embeded in either California nor U.S. Constitutions as requirements, and the General Assembly can’t just arbitrarily decide to add something in just because they have a derangement syndrome. They just can’t get over Trump winning the 2016 election.

Read: California Court Nixes Law On Tax Returns For Primaries »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Politics | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Latest Excuse Why Charlie’s Angels Failed? Marketing

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 3:36 pm

It couldn’t have anything to do with a film that is all Woke, features 3 characters who are simply unbelievable as action movies stars (Tom Holland of Spiderman is great, but, how would he do as an action movie star without super powers?), no sexy in sight (isn’t that what the Angels were about? Women kicking but and being strong and being Women?), and, did I mention that the characters were unbelievable?

Top right pic: anyone scared? The Angel on the right looks like she’s in junior high. And then there was all the Wokeness. Anyhow

(Digital Spy) Charlie’s Angels’ own writer-director Elizabeth Banks herself has officially sounded the death knell: the soft reboot starring Kristen Stewart is officially a flop. On a budget of $48 million, Charlie’s Angels earned only $8.6 million over its US opening weekend. Ouch.

There is a multitude of factors contributing to the box-office success of a movie, and there is an argument that a film’s receipts have no bearing on its critical, or cultural, merits. Unfortunately, the world at large sees bad box office performance as the direct result of a bad film.

A perfect example of this is Terminator: Dark Fate, which underperformed at the box office despite being a solid action film in a franchise beloved by many. All the factors were ripe for success, yet it petered out at under $300 million worldwide.

Unlike the Terminator franchise, which has had many failed sequels and reboots before, Charlie’s Angels has enjoyed a relatively positive spotlight in pop culture. Even the 2000s reboot, which has not aged well, is still looked back upon with rose-tinted glasses by many.

So what went wrong for Elizabeth Banks and her new angels Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska? In our opinion: marketing.

Right, right. It goes on to proclaim that the market was all wrong. Perhaps it was that the actresses picked were wrong, everyone knew it was all Woke, and that it was just bad. Apparently, just like Terminator. But, let’s revisit a paragraph, the one which caught my eye in this whole thing

There is a multitude of factors contributing to the box-office success of a movie, and there is an argument that a film’s receipts have no bearing on its critical, or cultural, merits. Unfortunately, the world at large sees bad box office performance as the direct result of a bad film.

If you’re making an arthouse movie or something similar, well, sure, box office performance might not matter. But, they won’t show it in a big theater if the theater won’t make money. And, as stated so many times “Get woke, go broke.” Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry aren’t getting it. They’re putting out mediocre films as blockbusters (and a few actual big movies here and there), and the rest are pretty much almost straight to video. It’s barely worth going to the movies anymore.

And, let’s remember, The Joker, which was definitely not PC nor Woke, is the first R rated movie to bust a billion dollars.

Read: Latest Excuse Why Charlie’s Angels Failed? Marketing »

Posted in Film | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is snow that will soon be a thing of the past, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on your feel good stories of the day.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Democrat Debate Sees Only One Hotcoldwetdry Question

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 10:41 am

I wonder why?

Climate change gets a single question at the fifth Democratic debate

Ten Democratic candidates for president took the stage in Atlanta to talk impeachment, health care, the economy, paid leave, and, oh yeah, our overheating planet.

Those hoping for a debate heavy on what Bernie Sanders called “the existential threat of our time” were surely disappointed. Climate change was awarded a single question, though candidates found chances to bring it up throughout.

Moderators from MSNBC and the Washington Post opened the night with a question about impeachment. Healthcare and the economy also dominated the conversation (no surprise there). About halfway through the night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked the debate’s only question about rising temperatures. Many viewers care deeply about climate change, she said, then Maddow offered up a question from a viewer in Minnesota: What do candidates plan to do about it, and how do they aim to drum up bipartisan support for their plan?

The question went to a frontrunner, naturally. Just kidding. Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii got first dibs. Gabbard said she aims to prioritize climate action if elected, a promise that would be easier to take at face value if she wasn’t the only candidate on stage who hasn’t unveiled a comprehensive plan to combat rising emissions. To be fair, Tulsi introduced the OFF act, a bill to wean the United States off fossil fuels, in Congress last year. Tom Steyer, the billionaire who runs a progressive advocacy group called NextGen America, got a chance to take a stab at the climate issue next and made a more passionate case for action.

“Congress has never passed an important climate bill ever. That’s why I’m saying it’s priority one,” Steyer said (an echo of Governor Jay Inslee’s line: “If it’s not number one it won’t get done.”) Steyer was the only candidate on stage who said he aims to declare a national emergency over climate change as president.

A few others had an answer, but, really, it was a minor interruption in the flow and ebb of the unhinged moonbattery. A few tried to weave Hotcoldwetdry into the mix, but

Climate change has been the topic of less than 10 percent of the questions asked at each of the previous four debates, and this debate was no different. But the fifth debate did demonstrate once again that candidates are ready to talk climate, even if moderators aren’t.

Could there be a reason why ‘climate change’ is barely covered?

Most only care in theory. Start talking about how their taxes will go up, their cost of living will skyrocket, their freedom and choice will be curtailed, they’ll be forced to drive certain vehicles (if they can afford them), they’ll be restricted from flying, unemployment will spike, they’ll be forced to drastically reduce their meat intake, etc, people say “no thanks.”

Read: Bummer: Democrat Debate Sees Only One Hotcoldwetdry Question »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove