Jesus Would Totally Pass A Green New Deal If He Were Around Or Something

By William Teach July 21, 2019 – 7:36 am

You really have to love it. Modern Socialists usually freak out over the mention of anything to do with the Christian religion, particularly anything associated with Jesus Christ, but, they’ll attempt to co-opt Jesus when it helps them politically. One would think religious leaders would recognize that joining with an anti-religion cult is a Bad Idea

What Would Jesus Do About Climate Change?

The Green New Deal has picked up endorsements from two major Christian groups, signaling a growing base of support among the faithful as climate change projections look increasingly apocalyptic.

The Unitarian Universalist Association passed a resolution at its general assembly in late June endorsing the Green New Deal resolution that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced in Congress five months ago. The main national organization for the egalitarian spiritual movement, which has over 1,000 churches in the U.S., vowed to “actively support the development of federal legislation to implement” the deal.

Days later, the national deliberative body of the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant sect with nearly 825,000 adherents and close to 4,900 congregations across the United States, also voted to endorse the Green New Deal. It called the policy framework “what is needed to preserve and restore God’s great gift of creation.”

Last week, Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, a youth organization within one of Protestantism’s most traditionally conservative denominations, praisedwhat it called the Green New Deal’s “biblical principles” and pledged to work “toward translating these…into viable, bipartisan bills.”

Interestingly, none of those groups have advocated that their own membership gives up their personal use of fossil fuels, stop taking long showers, use not-soft toilet paper, hand wash their clothes, and just make their lives carbon neutral. Nor have they recommended sending all sorts of money to the IRS as taxes/fees for ‘climate change’.

Providing “a better life for our children and grandchildren” came out as the top motivation among Christians and non-Christians to reduce planet-warming emissions, according to the study published in the journal Science Communication. But Christian respondents said they were also inspired by a need to “protect God’s creation.”

“[T]his research suggests that moral, religious, and social normative frames can be effective ways to engage Christians in the issue of climate change,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and a co-author of the study, wrote in an email newsletter last week.

I wonder what Jesus would think about pushing a piece of legislation, well, a resolution, really, that puts the central government in charge of everyone’s lives? What would he think of using religion to bond with the authoritarian government?

Climate change, said evangelical Rev. Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, is “first a biblical, moral and gospel issue, rather than first a political issue.” As such, Young Evangelicals for Social Action decided not to endorse the Green New Deal resolution outright, lest the group alienate the conservative co-religionists it aims to influence.

He’s obviously not read it, nor read about Alexandria O’Casio-Cortez’s chief of staff who said the GND is not about climate, but reshaping America’s economy, so, by extension, the lives of citizens.

Surprisingly, the article includes this paragraph as the last

“There’s no doubt that certain elements of Christianity have been hijacked by forces that are really antithetical to justice and the gospel,” said Berndt, who serves as an environmental justice minister in the United Church of Christ. “There’s a long history of Christianity, back to the Roman Empire, where there’s faith that gets co-opted by empire and faith that forms resistance to empire.”

This is what the Cult of Climastrology does: hijack everything for its nefarious, big government purposes.

Read: Jesus Would Totally Pass A Green New Deal If He Were Around Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Christianity, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

New York Passes Own Green New Deal Into Law, Announces Massive Wind Farm Push

By William Teach July 20, 2019 – 3:16 pm

I’ve mentioned that the NY general assembly passed its own GND, and now it has been finally signed by the governor

New York passes its Green New Deal, announces massive offshore wind push

Yesterday, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that’s been described as the state’s Green New Deal. Unlike the one that’s been floated in Congress, this one isn’t a grab-bag collection of social and energy programs. Instead, there’s a strong focus on energy, with assurances that changes will be made in a way that benefits underprivileged communities.

The bill was passed by both houses of the New York legislature last month, but Cuomo held off on signing it so he could pair it with an announcement that suggests the new plan’s goals are realistic. The state has now signed contracts for two wind farms that will have a combined capacity of 1.7 GW. If they open as planned in under five years, they will turn New York into the US’s leading producer of offshore wind power.

The national Green New Deal did include some energy-focused plans, but it mixed them in with aspirational ideas like a guaranteed basic income. It’s hard to understand how New York’s plan has picked up the same name given that it’s nothing like the national one. While there is some nod to New-Deal-like programs (the law will create a Climate Justice Working Group for instance), those aspects are limited in scope to issues brought up by transitions in the energy economy. Instead, the majority of the law is focused on changing the state’s energy landscape.

That is true, the NY one spends much less time on social justice mule fritters, but, it is still prevalent in the NY one. But, let’s focus on the wind turbines

New York gives green light for two huge offshore wind projects in waters off Long Island

New York State has awarded two offshore wind contracts with a combined capacity of almost 1,700 megawatts (MW) in waters off Long Island.

The contracts were awarded to Norwegian firm Equinor and a joint venture between Danish company Orsted and U.S. business Eversource.

The Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind developments were announced as the winners of New York’s first “comprehensive offshore wind solicitation” on Thursday.

The companies will now commence negotiations for long-term contracts with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority for offshore wind renewable energy certificates. Both projects are expected to commence operations in 2024.

Good luck with that. You know that the extreme enviroweenies will be suing in short order, jamming it up for a long time

Equinor’s 816 MW Empire Wind facility will be made up of between 60 to 80 wind turbines, according to the business. It will cover an area of 80,000 acres and be located southeast of Long Island. Total investments in the facility will amount to around $3 billion, and it will be able to power more than 500,000 homes.

80,000 acres is equivalent to 125 square miles. A typical natural gas facility can take up under half a square mile and provide between 3,500 and 4,000 megawatts. A nuclear plant is typically between 2 and 3 square miles and can easily provide over 2,000 MW. The wind turbines can usually only operate when the wind is between 5 and 30 miles an hour. And have a life span of 30 years. Think all the fancy pants rich folks on Long Island want their view ruined? Think that people in Rhode Island and Connecticut won’t sue?

Cuomo wants 9,000 MW by 2035. He could put up 2-3 natural gas facilities and be done with it.

Read: New York Passes Own Green New Deal Into Law, Announces Massive Wind Farm Push »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 20, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an Evil dog causing desertification with its carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the U of Michigan noose not being a noose.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Newest Democrat Pet Peeve: Dollar Stores, Which Are A “Problem For Poor Americans”

By William Teach July 20, 2019 – 10:49 am

Democrats have helped created pockets of poverty within their big cities, and certainly foster them and keep them going, creating a pocket of guaranteed voters. Having stores which cater to them is now a Bad Thing

Dollar stores are everywhere. That’s a problem for poor Americans

As dollar stores sweep across America, they are facing growing scrutiny from opponents who argue that discount chains stifle local competition and limit poor communities’ access to healthy food.

Dollar stores have never been more popular. Yet a wave of cities and towns have passed laws curbing the expansion of Dollar General (DG) and Dollar Tree (DLTR), which bought Family Dollar in 2015. The companies are the two largest dollar store operators in the country, combining for more than 30,000 stores throughout the United States, up from under 20,000 a decade ago. By comparison, Walmart(WMT), America’s largest retailer, has 4,700 US stores. (there’s a pretty big difference in the size of the stores)

Advocates of tighter controls on dollar stores say the big chains intentionally cluster multiple stores in low-income areas. That strategy discourages supermarkets from opening and it threatens existing mom-and-pop grocers, critics say.

“The business model for these stores is built on saturation,” said Julia McCarthy, senior policy associate at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and a critic of dollar stores. “When you have so many dollar stores in one neighborhood, there’s no incentive for a full-service grocery store to come in.”

Opponents also express concerns that dollar stores don’t offer fresh produce. Dollar General and its dollar store rivals mostly sell snacks, drinks, canned foods and vegetables, household supplies and personal care products at rock-bottom prices.

It’s always something with this crowd, some reason to complain. Supermarkets often avoid these areas because of “breakage”, meaning theft, and the lower profits which makes them, get this, unprofitable. So, the option? Government restrictions

But lawmakers around the country are pushing back.

Last week, the city council in Birmingham, Alabama, unanimously approved legislation that would prohibit new dollar stores from opening within a mile of their existing locations.

“While dollar stores proliferated across our community, healthy food options dried up,” Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin told CNN Business. The new measure will help Birmingham attract and retain grocers in the city’s food deserts, he said.

Why doesn’t Woodfin and his buddies on the city council build their own grocery store? What’s that you say, they do not want to lose money? The food desert thing is cute, something that was pimped by Obama and his wife Michelle. And is silly. In my area, they closed a Kroger because it was losing so much money from the lower income people in the area using food stamps and the theft. Despite a WalMart super center with an incredible produce section being across the street, as well as 2 Food Lions being a half mile down the road both way, this area was now called a “food desert.”

Anyhow, the hating goes on and on. Pick a target, isolate it, destroy it.

Read: Newest Democrat Pet Peeve: Dollar Stores, Which Are A “Problem For Poor Americans” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Weenies Using Apollo Anniversary To Pimp ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach July 20, 2019 – 7:09 am

First there’s John Schwartz at the NY Times, which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather, manufacture, and disseminate the news, especially in a form where trees have been killed to make paper. Though, in fairness, their carbon footprint has gone down since they so often never leave the NY Times building, instead relying upon reading tweets and placing phone calls to find ways to defend Democrats and assail Trump

We Went to the Moon. Why Can’t We Solve Climate Change?

Could a “moon shot” for climate change cool a warming planet?

Fifty years after humans first left bootprints in the lunar dust, it’s an enticing idea. The effort and the commitment of brainpower and money, and the glorious achievement itself, shine as an international example of what people can do when they set their minds to it. The spinoff technologies ended up affecting all of our lives.

So why not do it all over again — but instead of going to another astronomical body and planting a flag, why not save our own planet? Why not face it with the kind of inspiration that John F. Kennedy projected when he stood up at Rice University in 1962 and said “We choose to go to the moon,” and to do such things:

“ … not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win …”

Yes, Schwartz really used that JFK quote to pimp Hotcoldwetdry idiocy. Did I mention that this was not in the opinion section?

But President Kennedy did not have to convince people that the moon existed. In our current political climate, the clear evidence that humans have generated greenhouse gases that are having a powerful effect on climate, and will have a greater effect into the future, has not moved the federal government to act with vigor. And a determined faction even argues that climate change is a hoax, as President Donald Trump has falsely stated at various times.

The evidence is so clear that Schwartz provides none of it.

In 1970, Dr. Logsdon wrote a book, “The Decision to Go to the Moon,” that laid out four conditions that made Apollo possible…..(snip)

What would be the “action-forcing stimulus” for a climate moon shot, he asked? He suggested it would have to be something deeply dramatic and immediate, like “Manhattan going under water.” What’s more, he noted, “Apollo did not require changing human behavior” as fighting climate change would, through the need for measures like carbon taxes or changes in consumption patterns.

Weren’t we told by ABC News that Manhattan would be under water by 2015? And Excitable Jim Hansen said in 1988 that Manhattan’s west side would be under water in 20-40 years, and it is not happening. Further, notice that to push ‘climate change’ would require that Government force change in people’s attitudes and lives. Weird that, right?

Business Green has it’s own article, most of which is behind a paywall

Why Apollo 11’s giant leap gives us hope for climate change today

And there’s

And then

Apollo 11 made us believe we could do anything – the truth is it could hasten our downfall

(It spends time telling us technology is bad because we rely on it too much, unlike the 1400’s which the Cult of Climastrology wants to bring us back to)

Part of the reason we don’t is the expectation that technology will save us. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can develop new antibiotics, replenish the soil and restore the tropical forests. We can stop climate change by building machines to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. (And anyway, we can build walls to keep out the rising seas.) All we need is better politicians.

It’s always something with these people.

Read: Climate Weenies Using Apollo Anniversary To Pimp ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

AOC Says Brat Squad Picking Up Where Civil Rights Movement Left Off Or Something

By William Teach July 20, 2019 – 6:44 am

Though I was too young to really remember the civil rights movement in the 60’s through 70’s, everything I’ve read showed it to be about freedom, not government dominance

AOC on the Squad: ‘We Are Picking Up Where the Civil Rights Movement Left Off’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke at a rally in suburban Maryland on Thursday where she said she and three other freshmen members of Congress who have expressed socialist and leftwing ideology are now taking on the mantle of the civil rights movement.

She also claimed it took 240 years for women like herself and Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) to bring their brand of politics, which include charges of anti-semitic rhetoric, to Congress.

“I think a lot about this overall moment,” Ocasio-Cortez said at the rally hosted by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “Not just today, not just this week, but really just this larger moment that we’re in politically.”

“And I really do believe that we’re in a moment where we are picking up where the civil rights movement left off,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think that’s where we’re at.”

This is her version of civil rights

Other than two things, that is all about Big Government. About controlling your life, the economy, the energy sector. It will mostly require much, much higher tax rates and a much higher cost of living. Excepting fixing the pipes in Flint, which is actually a duty of Flint and the state of Michigan, and wasn’t that much of a concern while Obama was president. And the immigrants thing is about removing laws against illegal aliens. That said, what about the civil rights for legal American citizens? She isn’t worried about that.

Ocasio-Cortez repeated her oft-spoken narrative on the bad things about America, including its founding fathers, and claimed many view the country’s history through “rose-colored glasses.”

“America has always been the story of those fighting to advance the rights of others and some clinging to the past to preserve the rights of a few,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

She wants to prioritize the “rights” of illegals over citizens.

Her version of civil rights is about taking them away and giving them to government.

Oh, and despite alluding to her Green New Deal in the tweet, and specifically in several tweets Friday, she has still failed to put it up for a vote, and threw a fit when the Senate voted for it. But, she knows the Democratic base are idiots, and won’t wonder why she’s failing to demand a vote.

Read: AOC Says Brat Squad Picking Up Where Civil Rights Movement Left Off Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 58 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Food Needs To Be Put On The Green New Deal Menu

By William Teach July 19, 2019 – 3:00 pm

Again, funny how the Green New Deal, like most Democratic proposals, seems to want to be involved in every aspect of our life, eh? And this all requires Big Government to accomplish

Opinion: Put Food on the Green New Deal Menu

Last month, New York City and State approved bold Green New Deal plans that will contribute to reducing greenhouse gases, making buildings and transportation more energy efficient, and creating economic and job opportunities. But by leaving food out of the plans, the city and state missed a chance to amplify and accelerate the transition to a more sustainable, healthier and equitable region.

Food and agriculture are central to realizing the environmental and economic goals of a Green New Deal. Transforming the food system has great potential to sequester carbon, expand well-paid, create clean energy jobs and help reverse the public health crises of food insecurity and diet-related diseases. By adding a focus on food, New York’s Green New Deals also have the potential to engage wider, more diverse constituencies in expanding local democracy and persuading cautious politicians to overcome opposition from industries that oppose modifying the warming status quo. (snip)

How could bringing food onto the Green New Deal menu reverse these trends? In the last several decades, public policies such as subsidies for corn and soy; tax breaks for marketing unhealthy food to children; and limited enforcement of rules against misleading or deceptive food advertising to children have enabled food companies to make cheap, industrially produced foods ubiquitous. Of note, the agricultural, food production and marketing practices that contribute to diet-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and stroke are the same ones that increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from growing and transporting food.

A Green New Deal can limit the power of large, wasteful food corporations and invest in decentralized local and regional, low-carbon food systems. Just as we need to decentralize energy system in the United States to reduce reliance on large oil and gas corporations that have been heavily subsidized by the state, we need decentralized planning and production in our food system.

This continues on and on, but, you get the point. Government interfering with and controlling your life. The only thing they do want complete choice of is abortion on demand (and even there, they want to restrict the pro-life movement).

Achieving the goals of the Green New Deal in New York will require broad based public support. A food-enhanced Green New Deal could expand that support by engaging all New Yorkers who want to leave their children a healthier and more sustainable future. By including food in the vision for a Green New Deal, we have an opportunity to make our city and state a better place to live, work, and eat. And that is something people are willing to fight for.

And what if Citizens reject this? Perhaps they like eating what they want to eat. Hotdogs and pretzels and such from food carts and more. What then, Warmists? Will you force them?

Read: Your Food Needs To Be Put On The Green New Deal Menu »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 19, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is sunscreen necessary to protect us when carbon pollution destroys the ozone, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on evidence supporting Ilhan Omar married her brother for immigration purposes.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved: Berkeley Bans Use Of Word “Manhole”, Other Gender Specific

By William Teach July 19, 2019 – 10:31 am

Next up will them passing a law fining people for use words like manhole

‘Manholes’ are out as Berkeley removes gender-specific language from city code

A manhole will become a maintenance hole, artisans will replace craftsmen and firefighters and police officers no longer will be identified by their gender in Berkeley’s city code under an ordinance passed by city leaders Tuesday.

The City Council voted unanimously to replace more than two dozen terms often used in the city’s municipal code with gender-neutral words.

“In recent years, broadening societal awareness of transgender and gender nonconforming identities has brought to light the importance of non-binary gender inclusivity,” council member Rigel Robinson wrote in a letter to the council in March.

In recent years, broadening societal awareness of mentally unstable people who shouldn’t be coddled.

Berkeley’s current municipal code contains mostly masculine pronouns, according to a city staff report.

“It is both timely and necessary to make the environment of City Hall and the language of city legislation consistent with the principles of inclusion,” Robinson said.

Oh, and I’m not surprised in the least that the LA Times didn’t open up comments for this article. It would get pretty bad.

Read: We’re Saved: Berkeley Bans Use Of Word “Manhole”, Other Gender Specific »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | Comments Off on We’re Saved: Berkeley Bans Use Of Word “Manhole”, Other Gender Specific | Trackback URL

HotCold Take: You Need To (Be Forced) To Give Up Soft Toilet Paper To Stop ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach July 19, 2019 – 7:17 am

This should play well with the average person who either doesn’t care about Hotcoldwetdry or is just a soft adherent to the beliefs, right? All those people who aren’t even willing to pay $10 a month to stop ‘climate change’ won’t be thrilled (via Twitchy)

Soon enough they’ll merge the old “only use 2 sheets of TP” with “and it has to be harsh!” From the link we learn this is a campaign of the NRDC against super soft Charmin, and is all about the following petition

As a consumer concerned about our environment, I was upset to learn that Charmin toilet paper is still being sourced from 100 percent virgin trees, many of them from Canada’s boreal forest. It’s appalling that no recycled material is used to make Charmin.

Not only does the Canadian boreal forest store vast amounts of carbon, it’s also home to hundreds of Indigenous communities and to the iconic boreal caribou.

It’s unconscionable that majestic, old-growth trees are being cut down to make a product that’s used once, then flushed down the toilet.

Procter & Gamble has the power to change this destructive paradigm on a massive scale by reducing the virgin pulp content in its products and increasing the use of recycled materials. P&G should also involve Indigenous communities in sourcing decisions, act to protect caribou habitat, and take other important steps toward sustainability.

Please move quickly to ensure that your products don’t come at the cost of this globally important ecosystem.

Because if they don’t the “disposal and decomposition emits additional carbon”. Remember the days when Leftists wanted government “out of our bedrooms”? Now they want in every part of our homes, including our bathrooms. If they want to use recycled crappy scratchy rough TP, they are welcome to do so. Otherwise, mind your own beeswax.

Really, most of those trees are replanted. Loggers don’t want to run out of product, but, these Warmists are nuts.

Read: HotCold Take: You Need To (Be Forced) To Give Up Soft Toilet Paper To Stop ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove