NY Mag: Almost Everyone Is In Denial Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Why? David Wallace-Wells, who forgets to tell us anything about giving up fossil fuels and going carbon neutral in his own life (I’ve asked him on Twitter, and fully expect to be blocked), explains

You, Too, Are in Denial of Climate Change

You, too, are in denial.

We all are, nearly every single one of us as individuals, even those of us who are following the bad news that suggests “the climate change problem is starting to look too big to solve”; every nation, almost none of them meeting their climate commitments, and most (not just the United States) publicly downplaying the threat; and even many of the alliances and organizations, like the IPCC, endeavoring to solve the crisis. At the moment, negotiations at the organization’s COP24 conference, meant to formalize the commitments made in the Paris accords two years ago, are “a huge mess,” perhaps poised to collapse. Last month, scientists warned that we had only about 12 years to cut global emissions in half and that doing so would require a worldwide mobilization on the scale of that for World War II. The U.N. secretary general has warned that we have only about a year to get started. Instead, on Election Day, voters in deep-blue Washington rejected a modest carbon tax and those in crunchy Colorado rejected a slowdown of oil and gas projects. In France — conservative America’s cartoon of unchecked left-wing-ism — the worst protests in 50 years were provoked by a proposal to increase the gasoline tax. If communities like these won’t take action on climate, who, in the next dozen years, will?

But perhaps it should not be surprising that, even in many of the world’s most progressive places, even in the moment of acknowledged environmental crisis, a sort of climate NIMBYism prevails. The cost of inaction is sort of unthinkable — annual deadly heat waves and widespread famine, tens of millions of climate refugees, global coastal flooding, and disasters that will cost double the world’s present-day wealth. And so we choose, most of the time, not to think about it. This is denial, too, whatever you check on a survey about whether you “believe” the climate is changing.

He is sorta correct: lots of people like him Believe, but refuse to do anything in their own lives. They always want Someone Else to bear the burden for their beliefs. These are called “hypocrites.”

Another is that even those of us who believe in warming, and believe it is a problem, do not believe enough in it. The flat-Earth equivalents, those 14 percent, are simply not a large-enough constituency to matter — when not being elevated so dramatically by fossil-fuel money, like puppets buoyed up by oil fumes. But the rest of us are only moderately worried, perhaps in part because we imagine the worst impacts of climate change will hit elsewhere. Forty-one percent of Americans believe climate change “will harm me personally” — actually quite a high number, in absolute terms, but considerably lower than the 62 percent who believe it will harm those in the developing world or the 70 percent who believe it will harm future generations. But thinking climate change will only hit elsewhere, or only in the future, pummeling others but sparing you — these are delusions, too, ones powered by many of the same coping mechanisms that give rise to outright denialism.

There really is a simple explanation: most in the middle and lower classes who say they care, even care a lot, do not care enough to ruin their own lives for what is essentially an elitist issue, one for which we see those elites never making substantive changes in their own lives. The old Instapundit saying of “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis (in their own lives)” applies perfectly. These same people will not give up their own use of fossil fuels, won’t give up meat, won’t stop flying to see Grandma for Christmas, won’t stop taking fossil fueled trips for vacation, won’t spend $10,000+ to put solar panels on their homes, won’t buy a $125K electric car, won’t stop using AC, and won’t agree to be taxed out the ying yang, among others.

Read: NY Mag: Almost Everyone Is In Denial Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing all the trees to have lots of food then die from eating too much, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on the extreme feminists having the answer to toxic whiteness.

Read: If All You See… »

TDS: Dems Look To Get Trump’s Tax Returns When They Take Control Of House

There’s zero legal nor Constitutional basis to attempt to obtain Trump’s tax returns, which would those of a private citizen at the time, but, Democrats do not care

House Democrats to seek Trump tax returns: Pelosi

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that members of congress from her party will seek to obtain President Donald Trump’s tax returns when they take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January – a move the White House is likely to strongly resist.

The House Ways and Means Committee will “take the first steps” toward obtaining the documents, said Pelosi, who has the backing of her members to become speaker of the House next month. As it is likely to be a challenging process, it will be up to the committee to figure out how to proceed, she said.

“There is popular demand for the Congress to request the president’s tax returns,” she told reporters in the Capitol.

“I’m sure the White House will resist and so the question is where do we go from there,” she said.

Trump defied decades of tradition when he refused to release his tax records as a candidate and after his victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. No law or rule compels a president or candidate to disclose their returns, but nearly every nominee and president has done so in recent decades.

As they prepare to take over majority control of the House, Democratic leaders have tried to walk a fine line in articulating their goals. They have said they plan to pursue policies popular with their voter base, but have also said they will not shy away from examining Trump, his personal business dealings and his presidency.

It’s a witch hunt, and under the law Congress has no right to obtain the tax returns of any citizen without a damned good reason, not a fishing expedition. This may be good red meat, er, sorry, upscale tofu for the Democratic Party base, but, how will it play out in Middle America when they see the House Democrats attempt to get those private tax returns in this manner? People already see Congress as authoritarian: this would very much help Trump in 2020.

The records would provide congressional investigators from various House committees with information crucial to efforts to determine if Trump’s business generates conflicts of interest.

Witch hunt. Fishing expedition. Hypocrisy

Facing questions about why she and other top Congressional officials won’t release their tax returns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) downplayed her previous demands for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release his, calling the issue a distraction.

As recently as Wednesday, Pelosi had strongly urged Romney to provide further disclosure of his tax returns. But today, while maintaining Romney should release more documents because of “custom” and “tradition,” Pelosi said the issue was trivial compared with economic issues.

“We spent too much time on that. We should be talking about middle-income tax cuts,” Pelosi said after answering two questions about the issue.

The Minority Leader faced questions about the issue after a McClatchy News report showed only 17 of 535 Members released their tax returns when asked.

Why isn’t she releasing her own? As well as the rest of Congress? Show the people how you become a multi-millionaire on 174K per year. Pelosi has been in office since 1987, yet has a net worth of over $29 million.

She and the other Demonutters should remember that Team Trump can use the same laws to obtain the Dems tax returns.

Read: TDS: Dems Look To Get Trump’s Tax Returns When They Take Control Of House »

Congressional Budget Office Super Enthused To Push $1 Trillion Carbon Tax

It was just one idea thrown out by the CBO to plug the deficit gap, but, it is easy to see that this is all political and nothing to do with the environment

CBO SUGGESTS $1 TRILLION CARBON TAX AS FRANCE REELS FROM ANTI-CARBON TAX RIOTS

It’s been just nine days since the French government abandoned plans to increase the carbon tax on fuel, and the congressional budgeting arm is suggesting a $1 trillion tax on carbon dioxide emissions to close the budget deficit.

“This option would impose a tax of $25 per metric ton on most emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States,” reads a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released Thursday. “The tax would increase at an annual inflation-adjusted rate of 2 percent.”

The CBO suggested a carbon tax as one of “121 options that would decrease federal spending or increase federal revenues over the next 10 years.” The CBO published several reports looking at the budgetary impacts of a carbon tax.

However, the CBO’s carbon tax suggestion comes after French President Emmanuel Macron and lawmakers were forced to scrap plans to raise fuel taxes after weeks of violent protests. Those protests also spread to Brussels, where protesters clashed with police over fuel tax rises. (snip)

“Many estimates suggest that the effect of climate change on the nation’s economic output, and hence on federal tax revenues, will probably be small over the next 30 years and larger, but still modest, in the following few decades,” the CBO reported.

“Uncertainty about the effects of climate change — and the potential for unlimited emissions to cause significant damage — grow substantially in the more distant future,” the CBO contended.

And that is the CBO becoming political and showing their membership in the Cult of Climastrology in pushing this tax. Recommending raising taxes which will do harm to the middle and lower classes is a Bad Idea.

Read: Congressional Budget Office Super Enthused To Push $1 Trillion Carbon Tax »

Federal Judge Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional

Don’t get too excited, because it would have to go to the Supreme Court again. So we can get Chief Justice Roberts to do the wrong thing again

Citing change in tax law, judge rules entire health-care law unconstitutional

A federal judge in Texas threw a dagger into the Affordable Care Act on Friday night, ruling that the entire health-care law is unconstitutional because of a recent change in federal tax law.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor overturns all of the sprawling law nationwide.

The ruling came on the eve of the deadline Saturday for Americans to sign up for coverage in the federal insurance exchange created under the law. If the ruling stands, it would create widespread disruption across the U.S. health-care system — from no-charge preventive services for older Americans on Medicare to the expansion of Medicaid in most states, to the shape of the Indian Health Service — in all, hundreds of provisions in the law that was a prized domestic achievement of President Barack Obama.

President Trump, who has made the dismantling of the ACA a chief goal since his campaign, swiftly tweeted his pleasure at the opinion. “As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster!” the president wrote just after 9 p.m. “Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions.”

Later, the White House issued a statement on the ruling, saying: “We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place.”

Congressional Democrats have said that they plan to Do Something, which most likely means passing something even more extreme. The few moderates, Blue Dog Dems, and plain old Liberals will want something a little stronger than Ocare. The more hardcore ones, of which there are now a lot, perhaps even a majority, will push for their single payer Medicare For All plan.

“Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall,” the lawsuit said.

In his 55-page opinion, O’Connor agrees. He writes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, saying that it “can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’ tax power.”

The judge also concludes that this insurance requirement “is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA.”

And that has always been at the heart of the matter, despite what the liberals and Chief Justice Roberts ruled: the tax is un-Constitutional, and there was no severability built in Obamacare. Rule one part un-Constitutional, the entire thing is un-Constitutional.

Interestingly, many insurers and health insurance groups are upset with this ruling. It’s almost as if they see themselves making lots of money from Ocare, eh?

What happens now? The time to kill Ocare was in 2012, before it went into effect. Now that so many depend on it, it must be replaced. But with the Senate controlled by the GOP and House the Democrats, what could they possibly agree on?

Read: Federal Judge Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional »

Federal Court Seriously Quotes Children’s Cartoon Movie In Pipeline Decision

I’ll admit, I’m not a big fan of this pipeline due to the area it travels through (though, really, lots and lots and lots of pipelines do the same and nothing bad happens), but the reason it was killed is absurd

Court tosses permit for pipeline to cross Appalachian Trail

A federal appeals court has invalidated a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to cross two national forests, including parts of the Appalachian Trail.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found Thursday that the U.S. Forest Service “abdicated its responsibility to preserve national forest resources” when it approved the pipeline crossing the George Washington and Monongahela National Forests, and a right of way across the Appalachian Trail.

The ruling quoted “The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss, saying the Forest Service is trusted to “speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”

Read: Federal Court Seriously Quotes Children’s Cartoon Movie In Pipeline Decision »

If All You See…

…is a garage meant to store horrible fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on yoga triggering snowflakes.

Read: If All You See… »

Guy Who Made Tons Of Money In Insurance Industry Wants Democrats To Push Single Payer

Of course, Wendell Potter doesn’t call it single payer, but uses the Democrats buzz phrase of Medicare For All

Take it from me, tweaks won’t fix health care. Democrats should focus on Medicare for All.

Democrats have secured a 40-seat flip of the House of Representatives, based largely on a nationwide call for health care reform. Many Democrats, led by Brian Higgins of New York, are planning to use their newfound control of the House to work on a Medicare buy-in bill.

I spent 20 years as a health insurance executive before leaving my job as a vice president at Cigna. I can tell you firsthand that by focusing on a half-baked measure like a Medicare buy-in, Democrats would hand a huge gift to the private insurance industry while doing less than the bare minimum to help struggling businesses, workers, families and patients.

When the next Congress starts in January, House Democrats should use their new majority introduce, debate and vote on significant legislation that would assure universal coverage, protect taxpayers, and dramatically transform our health care system: Medicare for All. (snip)

It’s time for Democrats to stop proposing health care reform that relies on insurance companies to play fair. After two decades in the for-profit health insurance industry, I can assure you they never will. They have no interest in doing anything that might in any way jeopardize profits. Their only interest is delivering profits to their shareholders. From that perspective, the status quo is very profitable. For everyone else, not so much.

So, he made oodles of money in his position as a VP at a for profit health insurance company, but now has an issue with that model. Why is it so wrong for companies to make a profit in Liberal World? Could insurance companies do better by their clients? Oh hell yes. But putting government in charge of our health insurance and health care is not the outcome people should be looking for.

Business owners are struggling to provide health insurance to their employees, workers’ take-home pay is shrinking as their premiums go up, patients are literally begging for their lives on fundraising platforms like GoFundMe, doctors and hospitals are drowning in paperwork dealing with insurance claims departments, and more than 80 million people lack adequate health insurance.  That number is increasing every year. Reform is desperately needed.

Democrats have the chance to be the champions of that reform if they don’t waste their energy on half-measures. Instead of thinking about how they can make small tweaks to the health care system, they should start thinking about how to enact dramatic reforms that will assure universal coverage while reducing costs and encouraging economic growth. Voters and taxpayers are asking for Medicare for All. It’s time to listen.

He forgets to mention how to pay for it. Because it won’t be free. And it will see take-home pay shrink.

It’s interesting, though, that Obamacare caused that increase in paperwork and was supposed to fix things like premiums and make it so people had adequate health insurance. Of course, using it is something else. Obamacare made deductibles virtually un-affordable, while single payer makes it difficult to use as waiting times and denials due to age and such spike.

Read: Guy Who Made Tons Of Money In Insurance Industry Wants Democrats To Push Single Payer »

Say, Is Climatism Only For The Rich?

The NY Times’s gives Neil Gross, a professor of socialogy, a platform to say that it is complicated, especially as he muddles the waters by mixing environmentalism and ‘climate change’

Is Environmentalism Just for Rich People?
Sometimes it can seem as if only the privileged support the cause. But the truth is more complicated.

(couple paragraphs on Paris climate change tax riots)

As with working-class support for the faltering coal industry in the United States, the question arises: Is environmentalism a boutique issue, a cause only the well-off can afford to worry about?

Some social science suggests the answer is yes. In a landmark 1995 paper, the sociologist Ronald Inglehart observed an intriguing pattern in public support for the environmental movement. According to a public opinion survey he conducted in 43 nations, the countries where large percentages of the population supported strong environmental policies shared two characteristics: They were dealing with major environmental challenges (air and water pollution and species conservation were among the top priorities at the time) and they were affluent.

Mr. Inglehart argued that citizens were apt to prioritize environmental concerns only if they were rich enough not to have to fret about more basic things like food and shelter. Environmentalism was part of a larger “postmaterialist” mind-set, focused on human self-realization and quality of life, that was naturally to be found in the world’s economically advanced societies — and especially among better-educated, wealthier citizens. Mr. Inglehart anticipated that growing prosperity, rising education levels and increasingly dire environmental circumstances would translate into the further spread of environmental consciousness in the years to come.

Well, that does tend to be true in polling, with environmental issues, especially when merged with ‘climate change’, tend to come in very, very low on people’s lists of concerns.

Thought-provoking as Mr. Inglehart’s thesis is, however, it’s not hard to identify weaknesses. Here’s an obvious one: The United States, like France, is a prosperous country with a well-educated population. Yet according to a survey conducted this year by the Pew Research Center, only 44 percent of Americans say they care a great deal about climate change.

Maybe that’s because they are educated.

More recent research bolsters this skeptical view. Work by the sociologists Riley Dunlap and Richard York, based on a wider range of data, turns Mr. Inglehart’s finding on its head: They have discovered that the publics of poorer countries facing imminent resource loss from environmental destruction often hold the strongest pro-environment attitudes. For example, the island nation of Fiji — which stands to be decimated by global warming, rising sea levels and storms — ratified the Paris climate agreement on a unanimous parliamentary vote before any other nation did.

Except, it was the elites of that nation who voted to the Paris climate agreement. It wasn’t the poor and middle class citizens doing that, though, they do seem thrilled to attempt to shakedown rich nations for that sweet, sweet, redistributed climate cash.

The notion that there are few hard-and-fast rules when it comes to public support for environmentalism has influenced the response of environmentalists to the Yellow Vest protests. While raising taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption or fund green energy transitions is essential, they say, depending on how and when such policies are proposed, they may spur a backlash. So smart rollouts and messaging matter. Mr. Macron’s environmental policies, for example, were announced from on high, without meaningful input from all the communities that would be affected.

In other words, the rich elites who push this stuff and won’t have their own lives damaged by the skyrocketing cost of living should roll it out in a duplicitous manner, especially in their messaging. Though, let’s be honest, it hasn’t worked in the 30+ years of spreading awareness, at least in terms of most policies.

Such a perspective is comforting. But it arguably understates the magnitude of the problem the environmental movement now confronts. Yes, contrary to the theory of postmaterialism, the well-off aren’t the only ones who care about climate change and the environment.

There’s a difference between caring and actually paying for it, for living that life. I love the NJ Devils, but, I don’t have the money to fly to NJ or other cities to watch them play a lot. Many people care about anthropogenic climate change, but aren’t willing to ruin their own lives and give up their freedom for it.

Differences between urban and rural, new economy and old, college educated versus working class and cosmopolitan versus local loom larger than ever. Although the research of the sociologist Dana R. Fisher shows that in the United States, climate change activists have been working to diversify their ranks, the trust needed for truly large-scale environmental coalition building is wearing thin.

Thus a different interpretation of the Yellow Vest protest may be warranted. Without a concerted effort to address inequality — which some in the environmental movement consider someone else’s department — the bold policy changes needed to slow global warming risk never getting off the ground.

And we see that this is a political issue, with “inequality” dragged in. Which is a codeword for making massive changes to economies. The real interpretation is being missed by Professor Gross: namely that people who believe in man-caused climate change reached their boiling point of being taxed, and, unlike the proverbial frog, they noticed the water temperature and jumped out. And went on the war path against the cook.

Read: Say, Is Climatism Only For The Rich? »

Dems To Give Framing Gun Grabbing As A Public Health Issue

People who are surrounded by armed security all during their working hours, and some afterwards, look to make it harder for citizens to protect themselves

Dems to reframe gun violence as public health issue

House Democrats are planning to vote next year on bills that address gun violence as a public health concern, marking the party’s first steps back into a divisive debate after being in the minority for eight years.

Energized by their midterm victories and a focus on gunshot victims highlighted by a growing chorus of medical professionals, Democrats say they will push for legislation to fund research on gun injuries and deaths.

Making gun violence a public health issue is seen as unlikely to cause divisions between liberal and centrist Democrats, some of whom are wary about moving too far to the left ahead of their 2020 reelection bids.

But with a divided Congress starting in January, Democratic leaders will have to tamp down expectations for achieving gun-related legislative goals of any kind since their bills will be landing in a GOP-led Senate.

Hey, you know what? I think we should investigate why shootings happen. They can start by looking at FBI data, which will show who shoots whom over what. And it won’t be pretty. They will not like the racial components nor the number of shootings in Democrat run areas and gun free zones.

At a recent press conference, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the incoming Democratic majority offers new possibilities.

“We have an opportunity to pass background checks for every firearm purchase,” said Swalwell, a progressive who is openly considering a 2020 presidential bid. “We have an opportunity to finally study gun violence in America to see what we can do.”

As I’ve written, I’m OK with expanding background checks to include all private purchases and transfers. I’m OK with requiring a new background check anytime a firearm is purchased within a month of the previous purchase, because things can change. But what Democrats want to do is make it much, much harder for citizens to purchase, rather than fixing the system which often allows people to be approved because the requisite background material is not making it into the database.

Long-standing restrictions have effectively prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from conducting any kind of gun violence protection research. The so-called Dickey amendment, inserted into a 1996 government funding bill by the late Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), has been renewed in subsequent years.

The provision states: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.”

Although the provision doesn’t explicitly ban research into gun violence, public health advocates and Democrats say there’s been a chilling effect in place for more than 20 years that’s proven difficult to overcome.

In other words, they aren’t interested in doing the research with their own money, despite telling us How Important This Is.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), head of the party’s task force to prevent gun violence, said the results of the November midterms speak to a need to act on gun reforms.

Thompson sponsored a background check bill this year and in 2016, and will likely take the lead on it next year.

“There’s a new majority in the House of Representatives, and we will pass gun violence prevention legislation that will make our communities safer, that will respect the 2nd Amendment and that every American can be proud of,” Thompson said recently.

This is a common refrain from Democrats, and they will over-reach on it in the House. The legislation will go nowhere in the Senate. But we’ll get a good idea what the Dems real agenda is, gun grabbing, as they are blocked more and more.

Read: Dems To Give Framing Gun Grabbing As A Public Health Issue »

Pirate's Cove