NY Times Warmists Offer An Energy Wish List For Congress Or Something

I don’t want to be too dismissive towards Warmists Justin Gillis and Hal Harvey, nor laugh at their absurdity too much, as there is nothing inherently wrong with alternative energy. It’s just that they’re living in a la la land

An Energy Wish List for Congress
Here’s how lawmakers can accelerate the clean-energy economy.

Because most in the private sector do not actually care that much about unreliable, expensive alternative energy.

First, Senators Murkowski and Manchin should try to establish a firm consensus in Congress that the nation must, at minimum, double its annual spending on energy research and development. They could establish this intent in the legislation, then push as a committee for the appropriations. Business and scientific leaders, including Bill Gates, have been pleading with Congress to triple the budget for years. The sum being spent for both basic and applied research now, less than $6 billion a year in the Department of Energy budget, is paltry compared to the scope of our energy and climate problems. The United States risks falling behind China and other countries in energy technology.

Why don’t these private sector leaders, like Bill Gates, start ponying up their own money for R&D, along with development? Why is it necessary for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on what often end up as boondoggles, and often leave a destroyed, polluted area behind? But, I will say that I would rather that federal dollars go to R&D over just slapping up construction, which I’ve been noting since the time of Obama’s Stimulus.

Second, the federal tax breaks that support installation of renewable energy technologies like wind turbines and solar panels should be extended for five years. Congress should also lift caps on federal tax credits for electric cars. Under current law, these incentives will be phased out in the next few years; they should go eventually, but not until the technologies are more widespread.

Do you know who this tends to help the most? The rich people who buy more of this.

Ms. Murkowski and Mr. Manchin should specifically seek a rapid expansion of offshore wind farms. That would require tax breaks to jump-start that industry, as well as a mandate that the Trump administration accelerate offshore leasing. The technology of offshore wind production, developed largely in Europe, has improved significantly in recent years; immense turbines, planted far from shore, can each supply electricity for up to 8,000 homes. States like New York and Massachusetts are already making big plans for offshore wind, but Congress and the president could speed things up. As the market expands, costs will fall and the tax breaks can be phased out.

And you can bet that the very same Democrats supporting this will want to block the construction, as it would despoil their sea views. So will shore home owners, shore cities, and environmental groups.

Third, Congress ought to make it easier to build new high-capacity power lines across the country. This sounds rather technical, we know, but it is vital. As wind turbines and solar farms become a bigger part of the electricity mix, one of the best ways to offset their intermittent nature will be to transmit power over longer distances — if the wind is not blowing in Kansas, it may well be blowing in Oklahoma or North Dakota. But state parochialism is slowing the construction of the needed power lines.

First, environmental groups will sue over the transmission lines, as they’ve done many times. Second, they’re all but admitting that wind and solar are unreliable.

Finally, we urge Mr. Manchin and other coal-state senators to recognize that the coal industry has gone into long-term decline; coal is simply losing market share to natural gas and renewable energy. The fair thing to do is to fund a transition package for coal miners and their communities, conceptually similar to what Congress did when it passed a buyout program for tobacco farmers when a federal support policy ended.

Again, I’m no big fan of coal, but, what do your replace these jobs with? You can replace a tobacco field with, say, corn or tomatoes.

Interestingly, there is no recommendation for reliable energy, like next generation nuclear and natural gas.

Read: NY Times Warmists Offer An Energy Wish List For Congress Or Something »

Connecticut State Rep Is Super Enthused To Increase Ammo Costs

This would negatively impact the criminals who use firearms how, exactly? Those few nutjobs hell bent on creating a mass shooting situation won’t care, most seem to not expect to live. Your average criminal won’t care, because they’re surely stealing ammo and/or the money to buy it. This is aimed squarely at the law abiding citizens who hunt, shoot for sport, and want to protect themselves and their loved ones. Funny how everything Democrats propose is about causing issues to the law abiding, eh? (via Twitchy)

https://twitter.com/Jilchrest/status/1092519429232095243

How much ammo law abiding citizens have is none of her business. Kerfuffle Actual tweeted “I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but people need lots of ammunition *to practice shooting* so that if they do have to protect themselves, they manage to shoot straight.” Jarod wrote “How much ammo does one need for home defense? American police officers (who are thoroughly trained with firearms, I might add) only hit their target about 20-30% of the time. Think about that. Quit disregarding the Constitution.”

Others point out that people will just drive to other states to purchase. Not hard to leave Connecticut, is it?

But, it’s not really a 50% tax increase. It makes the tax rate 50%

There’s a pretty big difference in going from the state sales tax of 6.35% to 9.525%, which is a 50% increase, and making the sales tax 50%. Instead of paying a few extra cents on a box of ammo, you’ll be spending dollars. Which adds up.

Read: Connecticut State Rep Is Super Enthused To Increase Ammo Costs »

Unsurprisingly, The Green New Deal is A Massive Expansion Of Government

We’re getting more and more details on the so-called Green New Deal, and it keeps being exactly what we thought it would be, a government initiative to make the government bigger, all while the people who subscribe to it fail to make substantive changes in their own lives

‘Green New Deal’ details emerge, as Ocasio-Cortez preps big reveal of WW2-level mobilization

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday unveiled new details on the so-called “Green New Deal” she plans to introduce in a matter of days, as she worked behind-the-scenes to rally congressional support for the proposal that could cost as much as $7 trillion.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is set to unveil the plan with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, told her fellow representatives in a letter that the Green New Deal calls for a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.”

“Next week, we plan to release a resolution that outlines the scope and scale of the Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the letter, adding that the country’s near-total economic transformation should take approximately ten years. (snip)

The Green New Deal proposal would lead to national net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, according to Ocasio-Cortez’s letter, “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers,” while also generating millions of “good, high-wage jobs.” Details of the letter were first published by Bloomberg.

Through it all, the Green New Deal would additionally “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities,” according to Ocasio-Cortez.

Sounds less like an “environmental” plan and more like something released by Lenin, Mao, or Stalin.

While there is no legislative text yet available for the Markey/Ocasio-Cortez proposal, a draft circulated by Ocasio-Cortez last week called for a committee to be formed to create a plan, and lays out a framework that includes eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and agriculture, while “dramatically” expanding energy sources to meet 100 percent of power demand through renewable sources.

Which either means massive federal government control over the private sector, control of the food you can eat, control over what can be manufactured, or massive price increases from forcing the private sector to be “carbon neutral” and use unreliable, expensive “renewables.”

To cover what would presumably be a gargantuan cost, it envisions financing by “the federal government, using a combination of the Federal Reserve, a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks, public venture funds and such other vehicles or structures that the select committee deems appropriate, in order to ensure that interest and other investment returns generated from public investments made in connection with the plan will be returned to the treasury, reduce taxpayer burden and allow for more investment.”

That’s a nice, generic way to say that the Government would now be fully in the banking business using your money. Strange how the solutions to ‘climate change’ involve the massive expansion of government, eh?

Not that this has a chance in hell of passing. If it even makes it out of the House (not necessarily a sure thing, as it looks to go too far too fast for the slightly less nutty Nancy Pelosi type Democrats), it will only make it out of committee in the GOP controlled Senate if Mitch McConnell wants a show vote on it.

Read: Unsurprisingly, The Green New Deal is A Massive Expansion Of Government »

Waste From Hurricane Florence Is Still Filling Landfills, So Let’s Drag Hotcoldwetdry In To The Mix

Hurricanes happen. Tropical systems happen. They pretty much always have, at least during the time of Mankind and our memory. There’s no reason to assign motives of witchcraft, er, carbon pollution to it. But, then, this is a cult

Waste from Hurricane Florence continues to overwhelm landfills

More than four months after Hurricane Florence battered the state, rivers of waste are still flowing to landfills in eastern North Carolina in volumes that their managers say they have never before seen.

Uprooted trees, broken furniture, sodden carpets, soggy sheet rock, smashed fencing, crushed carports and moldy clothing make up the mix of items destroyed by the September storm and subsequent flooding.

The trash piling up at some sites may not be disposed of until summer — or perhaps not until next year. Caravans of trucks are bringing new waste daily, and solid waste workers are logging major overtime to keep up with the load. (snip)

Landfills are built to last for decades, with capacity for expansion by digging new crypts, or “cells,” as old dumping areas fill up and max out. A single hurricane that knocks off a year from a landfill’s life expectancy is not generally a cause for concern, said Morton Barlaz, a N.C. State University landfill expert and head of the university’s Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering.

But as global warming increases the intensity and frequency of hurricanes, and as population increases every year, some landfills are going to fill up earlier than planned. Officials will be forced to either build more landfills or truck the waste away — a costly and sometimes difficult endeavor.

North Carolina has barely been touched by tropical system since the big 2005 season. We’ve gotten some brushes on the Outer Banks, but not much else. I guess the Cult of Climastrology is back to their “bigger and stronger and more frequent” prognostication. And this may happen for the next 10-15 years, as the cycle of more systems starts, after the cycle of not much since 2005 ends. There’s nothing man-caused about it.

Read: Waste From Hurricane Florence Is Still Filling Landfills, So Let’s Drag Hotcoldwetdry In To The Mix »

If All You See…

…is a sea that is totally changing color, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on the war on NFL cheerleaders.

Read: If All You See… »

With New Marijuana Market, California Gets A Lesson In Taxes And Economic Movement

The notion of whether government should allow the sale of a mind altering drug is a different argument, especially as government regulates the sale of alcohol. Then there’s the one of it being illegal under federal law. Regardless of that stuff, the government of California finds itself in a sticky situation, something the LA Times Editorial Board covers more as an article than an opinion piece

California’s pot shops have been only open a year. They’re already lobbying for a tax cut

More than two years after California voters passed Proposition 64 to legalize marijuana, the state’s attempt to create an orderly, regulated marijuana marketplace is still a work in progress.

There are far fewer licensed cannabis businesses than had been expected and tax revenue — which officials had estimated could reach $1 billion — is trickling in at a fraction of what was anticipated. The black market for marijuana is still thriving.

Now, several lawmakers and State Treasurer Fiona Ma have introduced Assembly Bill 286, which would temporarily slash cannabis taxes in an effort to entice illegal marijuana businesses to enter the legal market. Industry groups have been lobbying for this break, arguing that lowering taxes would also bring down the price of regulated marijuana, helping legitimate operators to compete with black market dealers.

“We are helping legal cannabis businesses with their transition into the marketplace, just like we would for any startup industry,” Ma said in a statement.

Who would have thought a black market would have been “created”? It was always there, it’s just a bit more mainstream now. Lowering taxes won’t bring the vast majority of them into the legal fold, not when their choice is to pay zero taxes. But, those same high taxes are currently keeping many out of the business. Surprise? (personally, I’d open a bakery near a marijuana store).

Further, if the taxes are high, the price of the product is high, because those taxes get passed on. Surprise?

Cannabis industry groups argue that businesses can’t wait. Legitimate operators, they say, invested enormous amounts of money to get licensed and to comply with the state’s complex regulations, but they’re being undercut by illegal pot shops and delivery businesses. That’s a real problem. The state needs much more aggressive enforcement to shut down illicit operators.

Um, the entire thing is illicit, per federal law. Regardless, again, when the government has such a heavy hand on taxes and regulations you’ll see things like “illicit operators” occur.

But high taxes aren’t the only reason the black market persists. Proposition 64 allowed localities to ban cannabis businesses and many have done so. Fewer than 20% of California cities allow retail shops to sell marijuana for recreational use. No matter if a pot business has been operating for years in the gray market that existed prior to regulations, the business can’t become a legitimate, taxpaying entity without local approval. Even in the cities that do allow marijuana businesses, many are still struggling to license in a timely fashion.

The LATEB seems upset that cities are blocking the industry. They stop short of demanding that these cities be forced to allow marijuana dispensaries, though they come close.

Read: With New Marijuana Market, California Gets A Lesson In Taxes And Economic Movement »

Hot Take: Your Love Of Evil Carbon Pollution Burgers Will Eventually Change The Color Of The Ocean

You won’t actually be able to see it, but it will totally happen by the end of the century. What they forget to do is prove that this is all caused my Mankind

Climate change will even change the color of the oceans, study says

The ocean will not look the same color in the future. It won’t turn pink or anything radically different; the change will be more apparent through optic sensors than though the human eye. But it serves as an early warning sign that global warming is significantly altering the planet’s ecosystems, according to a new study.

Essentially, climate change will make the blues of the ocean bluer and the greens greener. Scientists figured this out by creating a global model that simulates the growth of a tiny creature that lives in the oceans and affects the color we see. Their research was published Monday in the journal Nature Communications. (model. Snicker)

The ocean looks blue or green to us because of a combination of how sunlight interacts with water molecules and with whatever else lives in that water.

The molecules in water absorb all but the blue part of the spectrum of sunlight, and the water reflects that blue color back. That’s the color we see.

The water looks greener when it has more phytoplankton, tiny, microscopic organisms that, like plants, can use chlorophyll to capture mostly the blue portions of the spectrum of sunlight. They then use photosynthesis to create the chemical energy they need to live. When there are more of these creatures in the water absorbing sunlight, they make the water look greener. Conversely, if there are fewer phytoplankton, the water looks bluer.

The creatures’ growth is dependent on how much sunlight, carbon dioxide and nutrients are around. Climate change is altering the ocean currents, meaning there will be fewer nutrients for phytoplankton to feed on in some areas, so there will be a decline in their number in those regions.

Sigh. First, the changes to the ocean currents is very minimal. Second, this has always happened, there’s no reason to assign it to witchcraft, er, humanity and things like driving a fossil fueled vehicle and eating burgers.

Climate change will bring a color change to half of the world’s oceans by the end of the 21st century, the study says. That’s bad for climate change on several levels: For one, phytoplankton remove about as much carbon dioxide from the air as plants and help regulate our climate, research shows. They are also key to other animals’ survival.

Really, if they are so concerned, they should focus more on the issue of ocean pollution rather than a ginned up, mostly fake one designed to take more money from people and private entities and give it to government, along with government taking more freedom from citizens. But, this is the latest of scaremongering from the government funded Cult of Climastrology with a study no one will remember in 2100, based on computer models.

Read: Hot Take: Your Love Of Evil Carbon Pollution Burgers Will Eventually Change The Color Of The Ocean »

Democrats Offer “Child Trafficking Encouragement Act” In Exchange For No Border Wall Funding

Yet, somehow, Democrats get upset when you call them Open Borders

Democrats Offer Plan to Release All Child Traffickers at Border into U.S.

The House Democrats’ first offer to President Trump in negotiations to fund his proposed United States-Mexico border wall includes a provision that would end all immigration enforcement for migrants trafficking children across the southern border.

The draft budget provides the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency with $7.4 billion, nearly $850 million less than requested by the Trump administration, and funds only 1,250 beds for adults and migrant children coming across the border this year, a decrease in detention space.

Attached to that funding, though, is an immigration enforcement ban first introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and supported by every Senate Democrat. The Democrats’ offer demands that all immigration enforcement end for any adult crossing the border with a child by the end of Fiscal Year 2019.

Rather than being held in detention for a period of time, those adults and the migrant children they trafficked across the U.S.-Mexico border would be released immediately into the interior of the country.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) previously called the plan the “Child Trafficking Encouragement Act” as it ensures that adults bringing children to the southern border would gain immediate access into the U.S. without fear of being deported or turned away.

This is something they pushed in June of 2018, and they’re apparently going to push it again. Is it meant to be a poison pill or are they serious? Their offer includes no border barrier funding. Republicans would be excoriated if they signed on to this from the Republican voters, and probably primaried.

What this does is literally entice people to bring their children, or someone else’s children, with them when they try and force their way into the U.S. They would know they wouldn’t be detained, just released with a wink wink promise to return for a hearing. Then we’ll have their kids demanding citizenship 10 years on, and demanding their parents be allowed to stay. And, good, grief, how many of these kids are not being brought by their parents themselves now, but by traffickers? This would increase.

But don’t say Dems are open borders.

Read: Democrats Offer “Child Trafficking Encouragement Act” In Exchange For No Border Wall Funding »

Say, Why Can’t Rich People Who Take Lots Of Fossil Fueled Trips Save Winter Or Something

Maybe because the people who push this climastrology claptrap are climahypocrites and always want Someone Else to bear the cost? Here’s Porter Fox, author, most recently, of “Northland: A 4,000-Mile Journey Along America’s Forgotten Border,” climastrologying

Why Can’t Rich People Save Winter?

From the snow-dusted ridgelines of the Catskills to the rugged summits of the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada and Cascades, winter is slowly disappearing. And snow is receding with it.

We know humans are altering the climate. Temperatures in south-central Colorado have risen two degrees Fahrenheit on average since 1988. In California’s Lake Tahoe region, home to more than a dozen ski areas, warmer temperatures since 1970 have pushed the snow line uphill 1,200 to 1,500 feet. Winter season lengths are projected to decline at ski areas across the United States, in some locations by more than 50 percent by 2050 and by 80 percent by 2090 if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, according to a 2017 study. Only about half of the 103 ski resorts in the Northeast will be able to maintain an economically viable ski season by midcentury, another study found in 2012.

The question is, how much is Mankind responsible for? Anyhow, there really isn’t any reason to listen to Mr. Fox beyond this

I’ve been a skier for 45 years, and my passion for the sport has taken me to five continents. I’ve skied remote places, like the Cordillera Real in Bolivia, where a farmer at the base of a 16,000-foot peak I had just climbed and skied told me his village was relocating because the glacier no longer provided enough water. I’ve hiked and skied at New England resorts that have closed because of a lack of snow and money for snow-making. And I’ve visited dozens of resorts in the United States, Canada and Europe where the wealthy and not-so-wealthy gather — and where snowpacks are shrinking.

And Warmists are surprised that people doubt them, when they’re complete hypocrites? And, yes, he wants Other People who are rich (he considers those making $75k a year and more to be rich) to be forced to do something.

Read: Say, Why Can’t Rich People Who Take Lots Of Fossil Fueled Trips Save Winter Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on 10 offbeat stories you may have missed.

It’s actually bike week.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove