World Bank Chief Totally Enthused To Push Carbon Taxes

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 10:30 am

It’s always wonderful when a rich person who takes lots of fossil fueled trips and wouldn’t really be affected by carbon taxes pushes carbon taxes, which is kinda letting the cat out of the bag as to what this is all really about

Carbon taxes necessary in climate fight: World Bank chief

MONTREAL (AFP) – Fighting global warming will necessarily require taxing carbon emissions, or setting a price on carbon pollution, the World Bank’s chief executive said Wednesday at a G7 environment meeting in Canada.

“We believe very strongly that we can send an economic signal by introducing a shadow price for carbon,” Kristalina Georgieva told AFP, referring to a method of calculating a price per tonne of carbon that includes the social costs of pollution.

“We are the last generation that can do something to fight climate change but we are also the first generation that has to live with its consequences,” she said.

“There is a consensus among scientists and economists that carbon pricing is the best way to signal to economies that the behavior has to change.”

It’s interesting that the big shot Warmists want to use taxes to control your behavior while refusing to change their own to match their professed beliefs, eh? Does anyone think Ms. Georgieva didn’t take a fossil fueled private jet from Bulgaria, her home country?

Read: World Bank Chief Totally Enthused To Push Carbon Taxes »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Countries Should Think About The Rights Of Immigrants When Controlling Their Borders Or Something

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 7:55 am

Over at the very left leaning The Nation, Christopher Bertram thinks he’s found a good hook into pushing for open borders

Should Immigration Laws Be Respected?
If countries want the right and not just the power to control their borders, they have to consider the rights of immigrants, too.

Really, you don’t have to go any further than the subhead to understand what’s being pushed, but, let’s move forward, shall we?

Because the law is the law and should be obeyed, it’s very easy to agree with the politicians and conclude that migrants have done wrong. But things are more complicated than that. The rule of law requires not just obedience, but also fairness.

We normally think that people should respect and obey the law in democracies, even when we don’t like what it says. That’s because the law provides each of us with a framework in which to live our lives. Though it limits what we can do to pursue our aims, it also restricts what other people can do to us, giving us some security against people and corporations that might act in an abusive or exploitative way.

Of course, that’s just the theory; the law also reflects and sometimes amplifies the inequalities in our societies. That’s why, when people disagree with the law, we presume that they should use democratic means to change it. Such means might include persuading lawmakers, political parties, and their fellow citizens to adopt a different set of policies; voting for parties committed to reform; and perhaps engaging in protest or mild civil disobedience. But foreigners typically can’t do many of those things outside their home country and may risk adverse consequences, including deportation, if they engage in open protest. The democratic process, in other words, does not include them.

Correct, it doesn’t include them, because they are not citizens of other countries. Here it comes

Do would-be immigrants, then, actually have a duty to obey immigration laws that tell them they shouldn’t be on the territory, or mustn’t work? One reason to hesitate is that the implicit bargain among citizens, whereby the law limits our freedom in a fair and reciprocal manner, doesn’t really apply to those immigrants. The law coerces them by keeping them out or down—but it doesn’t do anything for them in return. It doesn’t even pretend to treat them fairly.

Some people think this doesn’t matter. They think a country belongs to its citizens and that “we” have a right to pick and choose who can come and who can stay. After all, immigrants have their own countries where they should live their lives unless they have permission to go somewhere else.

But this picture of the world where countries are containers into which people naturally fit is false. People have lives and interests that cross national boundaries. They want to form families or work with others across those lines. As with the Dreamers in the United States, there is often controversy about who should count as part of “we” and where people really belong. Moreover, the opportunities available in different countries are radically unequal: People may need to cross borders just to have minimally decent lives, or to escape persecution or ecological catastrophe.

In other words, they want open borders. I challenge all of the open borders supporters to never lock their homes. Tear down any fences and/or walls around their homes.

Read: Countries Should Think About The Rights Of Immigrants When Controlling Their Borders Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Countries Should Think About The Rights Of Immigrants When Controlling Their Borders Or Something | Trackback URL

Media Are Super Enthused To Use FBI To Investigate Kavanaugh (To Slow Down The Whole Process)

By William Teach September 20, 2018 – 7:41 am

Numerous officials have pointed out time and again that the FBI is the wrong agency to investigate the claims by Christine Blasey Ford. The FBI has stated that they aren’t the agency to do this. Another background check would do nothing. Six previous ones were just fine. But, partisan media being partisan media. Here’s the Washington Post Editorial Board

Slow down, Senate Republicans. The FBI should investigate.

A LAWYER for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her three decades ago, says her client wants to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee — just not on Monday, when Republicans have scheduled a hearing. The reason is simple: “No legitimate investigation is going to happen between now and Monday,” and Ms. Ford wants the FBI to investigate the incident before she speaks. Republicans’ bristling response suggests they care more about ramming through Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation than about the veracity of Ms. Ford’s allegations.

To listen to GOP senators, Ms. Ford could have no reasonable motive for hesitating to testify. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) released a statementdeclaring that demands for an FBI investigation are about “delaying the process until after the midterm elections.” He told The Post’s Seung Min Kim that “this has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who is running the confirmation process, argued it was irrelevant to Ms. Ford whether the FBI investigated her accusations. “Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events,” he said. “Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

That claim is patently absurd. Ms. Ford has an obvious interest in professionals gathering information that could corroborate her story before she faces a hostile panel of senators on live national television. A real investigation could inform senators’ questioning about the alleged event and give Ms. Ford information she could cite to strengthen her claims.

Right, 36 years later, a time for which she can offer few details, and both her and her lawyers have offered contradicting claims. And the FBI doesn’t investigate local crimes for which no federal statute was broken. But, the WPEB thinks they have the hook

The FBI is the right organization to conduct an investigation. Lying to the FBI is a crime, making the stakes much higher for anyone caught dissembling about the alleged assault. Also, FBI professionals are far more likely to conduct a fair inquiry than partisan senators at a last-minute hearing.

Nope, still doesn’t work like that, especially since this smacks of using the FBI like the East German Stasti, attempting to catch someone in a lie rather than investigating whether a crime was actually committed.

But, the whole idea is to simply run out the clock in the hope that the Democrats regain the Senate, and then demand that no vote on Kavanaugh is held till the new Democrats take their seats in January. The same as the LA Times Editorial Board

Christine Blasey Ford is right. Investigate Kavanaugh first, then hold hearings

….

There’s no guarantee that an investigation would bring any more clarity, or that its findings would make a difference in how the committee questions Ford and Kavanaugh. But given the stakes here, it could only help to have the FBI try to shed more light on the situation before the hearing is held.

Yet Grassley is standing firm. In a letter to the lawyers released on Wednesday, he repeated his invitation for Ford to testify on Monday, advising that if she decided to appear, her prepared remarks must be submitted by Friday at 10 a.m. As for the FBI, he insisted: “It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this.”

Given the stakes here, it could only help to have the FBI try to shed more light on the situation before the hearing is held.

This is an obstructionist response that does no favors for Kavanaugh. As Grassley acknowledges elsewhere in his letter, it’s common practice for the FBI to conduct background investigations for Supreme Court nominees. While these aren’t criminal investigations, they do seek to acquire information about a nominee’s character.

Let’s say the FBI did investigate. They’d most likely state “we found no federal laws were broken, and we have no idea if any laws were even broken, because this occurred 36 years, there are zero witnesses to this happening, and there are lots of contradictions in Ms. Fords testimony.” The six background investigations already done by the FBI are not mentioned in the editorial.

The LA Times even tries bringing up the investigation after Anita Hill made her allegations. Totally different. The FBI was the correct law enforcement agency, as the incident occurred on federal property by federal employees. And wraps up with

It may well prove that the FBI will turn up nothing about an incident that allegedly occurred more than three decades ago that will make it any easier for senators to choose between the conflicting accounts of Kavanaugh and his accuser. But given the gravity of Ford’s allegations and the lifetime office to which Kavanaugh has been nominated, a rush to hold hearings is unnecessary and unseemly.

In other words, let’s run the clock out. In fact, a hearing on Monday is the proper format. If someone made a false allegation against you, you’d want it settled quickly. You’d want the chance to go on the record quickly to rebut those allegations. And if Ms. Ford is suddenly shy after putting out the letter to Diane Feinstein, giving information to the Washington Post, speaking here and there, allowing her lawyer to yammer away, well, that’s on her. She made the accusation: it’s on her to prove it.

The NY Times Editorial Board hints at using the FBI, but, is still attempting to take a different tactic by pushing for a long, long, long, involved Senate investigation which could take a long, long time. To run out the clock.

And, of course, every elected Democrat got the talking points memo.

https://twitter.com/HighCapacityMI/status/1042615234836537344

Read: Media Are Super Enthused To Use FBI To Investigate Kavanaugh (To Slow Down The Whole Process) »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What About The Environmental Cost Of Illegal Immigration?

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 3:48 pm

This is not the first time that it has been noted that illegal aliens leave tons of trash along the border and the remote areas they attempt to cross. One would think the environmentals would have an issue with this

Trash at the Border Highlights the Environmental Cost of Illegal Immigration

Several weeks ago, various members of the media attacked Tucker Carlson for saying, “I hate litter, which is one of the reasons I’m so against illegal immigration.” Some journalists jumped to vilify Carlson, suggesting that he was referring to the illegal aliens themselves as human “litter”. These journalists are perhaps unaware of the environmental problems presented by the garbage left on our southern border.

Indeed, one of the most direct environmental impacts of illegal immigration is one that’s clearly observable to anyone who lives at the southwest border — the thousands of pounds of trash that are discarded and left behind by aliens and their hired human smugglers.

Perhaps the state hardest hit by trash at the border is Arizona, which shares 370 miles of border with Mexico. Behind only the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, Tucson, Ariz., is consistently the sector of the border with the highest number of Border Patrol apprehensions.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) estimates that over 2,000 tons of trash are discarded at the Arizona border every year. As a consequence, the department established a website entitled “Arizona Border Trash” in 2012 to coordinate and keep track of the state’s trash cleanup operations. According to ADEQ, each ton of trash requires landfill fees of $37 to $49, which are footed by Arizona taxpayers. That does not include fees for materials, transportation, or labor. ADEQ further estimates that each border-crosser leaves an average of six to eight pounds of trash behind.

Of course, the left wing enviroweenies would just say “let’s let all these people in without hassling them, let’s have open borders so they don’t have to sneak in.” Because they’re nuts.

Make sure to read the rest.

Read: Say, What About The Environmental Cost Of Illegal Immigration? »

Posted in Environment, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flood due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on some being too stupid to vote in the first place.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t Causing The End Of Coffee

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 11:22 am

Everyone can breath a deep sigh of relief and get back to slurping up vast amounts of delicious, delicious coffee (via Watts Up With That?)

Remember When Climate Change Meant The End Of Coffee? Never Mind

For roughly the last two years, the media has been warning us that climate change is threatening the world’s supply of coffee beans.

According to the hypothesis, growing conditions for coffee will no longer be suitable in many places, and plagues and pestilences will destroy the crops. If that doesn’t kill off coffee, then the lack of pollinators will.

As usual, the media wasn’t shy in its headlines. The New York Times bluntly stated “Climate Change Threatens World’s Coffee Supply, Report Says.” TIME magazine took it a step further: “Your Morning Cup of Coffee Is in Danger. Can the Industry Adapt in Time?” Newsweek, in its typical “dial-it-up-to-11” editorial style, wrote, “Climate Change Effects Could Mean the End of Coffee Beans.”

That’s right. The end of coffee beans. We’ll have to drink tea. I shudder to think of it. Even Popular Science got in on the action: “Climate change will make your coffee cost more and taste worse.”

Thankfully, these are all testable hypotheses. The world has been getting warmer over at least the past few decades, so coffee production should be decreasing, and coffee prices should be going up. Are they?

Nope. According to a new report by the Financial Times, prices for coffee beans have hit a 12-year low. But that’s only taking into account recent data. If we look all the way back to the beginning of time (which, in this case, is the 1970’s), we see that the highest coffee prices, just under $3.40 per pound, occurred in April 1977. Today, the coffee price is about 93 cents per pound.

In fact, many coffee farmers are turning to production of cocaine because the low prices. And, notice that no one is complaining about the lack of coffee beans, nor the taste, despite even more use of coffee. In fact, you’re seeing record crops.

But, do not think reality will make a difference to Cult of Climastrology talking points, because they will keep trotting out the doomy talking points ad nauseum.

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t Causing The End Of Coffee »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Happy International Talk Like A Pirate Day 2018 (sticky for the day)

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 11:06 am

Talk Like A Pirate Day
Illustration by Ghergich & Co.

That’s right, mateys, it’s International Talk Like A Pirate Day! Aaaaaar!

Read More »

Read: Happy International Talk Like A Pirate Day 2018 (sticky for the day) »

Posted in Pirates Cove | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Elizabeth Warren Wants Corporations To Be Forced To Disclose Their ‘Climate Change’ Risks

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 8:10 am

She won’t actually disclose her genetic percentage of Native American DNA, but, he, remember, she totally believes she’s a capitalist

(Grist) Right now, public companies don’t have to say what kind of threat climate change poses to their business or whether they are contributing to the problem. We simply don’t know how much major corporations are to blame for the pickle we’re in. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has a plan to change that.

On Friday, the possible 2020 presidential hopeful proposed the Climate Risk Disclosure Act. The legislation would compel companies to disclose a wide variety of climate-related information, such as greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel investments, and how things like rising sea levels and increased temperatures might affect their operations. If a publicly traded company is going to get hit hard by climate change and knows it, Warren thinks the public has a right to know. Kinda makes sense!

“Climate change is a real and present danger — and it will have an enormous effect on the value of company assets,” Warren said in a statement.

The act is co-sponsored by a slew of Democratic senators, including two other rumored presidential hopefuls, Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Climate hawk Al Gore and a coalition of green groups have backed the legislation.

Yet more Big Government regulations on private entities, increasing their costs (which get passed on to consumers) and putting them more under the thumb of government, which would then force Big Government restrictions on those companies. And fines for non-compliance. And would open them up to nuisance lawsuits from Cult of Climastrology groups.

It is very much, actually, a backdoor method to force fossil fuels companies to publish something that complies in a specific manner of the Warmist’s choosing that would be used to go after those same companies through lawsuits and government intervention.

The legislation would require noting the impacts of both direct greenhouse gas emissions as well as indirect GHG emissions. It would also require calculating the “social cost of carbon.” And this, that, and the other. It would take an enormous amount of time and resources to comply with this bill.

Yet, the same people who are pushing this are refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral. Yes, that is a very repetitive line. But, I won’t stop using it as long as the people who are pushing this aren’t walking the talk.

Read: Elizabeth Warren Wants Corporations To Be Forced To Disclose Their ‘Climate Change’ Risks »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Sexual Abuse Is Totally Not Partisan Or Something

By William Teach September 19, 2018 – 7:44 am

They’re totally not trying to find a way to convict Judge Brett Kavanaugh with zero actual evidence, just pointing stuff out, Keith Ellison was unavailable for comment

Sexual Abuse Isn’t Partisan
Yet the response usually is. Republican leaders can’t seem to take the problem seriously.

Republicans seem determined to brand themselves the party of sexual harassment and abuse.

This is not to pass judgment on whether the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were in high school, as she has said. That has yet to be investigated.

The FBI refused to investigate. For one thing, no federal crime has been committed. Second, they’ve done a background check on Kavanaugh six times for various federal positions. Third, this was 36 years ago, the accuser has kind of squishy on details, and it would be the local police who would investigate. They need details. And might decline because it was 36 years ago and she failed to say anything in all this time. And, is a complete Democrat partisan supporter.

But, yes, it is meant to pass judgement on Kavanaugh.

In July, when Representative Jim Jordan faced multiple accusations of having overlooked the sexual abuse of college wrestlers while he was an assistant coach at Ohio State University, Republican lawmakers rushed not merely to defend their colleague but to tear down his accusers. Mr. Trump’s by now predictable response: “I don’t believe them at all.”

And no one has been able to offer credible proof that Jordan overlooked the abuse. Many wrestlers came out in his defense.

Except that, if Dr. Blasey’s account is true, then Judge Kavanaugh is not “a really good man” because he would have been lying to Congress, the president and the American people.

Mr. Hatch isn’t the only Republican peddling a boys-will-be-boys defense. One anonymous lawyer “close to the White House” went so far as to warn of the dire repercussions of treating Dr. Blasey’s complaint seriously. “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried,” he told Politico. “We can all be accused of something.”

How many have had their lives ruined, especially males in colleges, from accusations that were unsubstantiated and lacking proof beyond feelings? This, in fact, is the problem with the “all women should be believed” movement, which morphed into #MeToo when tons of Hollywood Democrats were caught out: it avoids Due Process. Sexual assault is a horrible crime. So are most crimes. That’s why they’re called “crimes.” Our system of justice relies on the notion of innocent till proven guilty, and evidence is required. Not just a person’s say so.

Anyhow, lots of Typical Whining from the Editorial Board which features a confirmed racist in Sarah Jeong at Republicans and Trump. What you’d expect.

And while the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked for Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony on the accusations, it has not committed to hold full hearings, with witnesses, or to ask for an F.B.I. investigation, something Dr. Blasey on Tuesday insisted should occur before she appeared.

Remember, this isn’t partisan, guys and gals. Except for pushing the Talking Point about an FBI investigation, which is a complete canard and distraction. Or that Diane Feinstein sat on the letter since July, bringing it out at the 11th hour. And that the NYTEB, and all the Democrats, are strangely all on the same page about holding off till all the above happens. About finding Excuses to hold off, to attempt to run the clock out.

They don’t want this answered: they want to destroy a good man for their political purposes because they are Sore Losers.

Meanwhile, the Democrats sure don’t care about Keith Ellison and the accusations against him.

Read: NY Times: Sexual Abuse Is Totally Not Partisan Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Journalistic Malpractice | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bottom Up Is The Way To Go On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach September 18, 2018 – 2:08 pm

You may be thinking “bottom up? So, Warmists will finally start making their own lives carbon neutral voluntarily?”

No

The world has decided bottom-up is the way it’s going to stop climate change

At the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco this week, the crisp Pacific air was filled with promises of less carbon. No one making those promises mentioned national governments. (snip)

With the US government all but out of the game (for now), the action is going local. The world seems to have decided that bottom-up is the way to stop climate change. “It’s remarkable seeing what is actually happening on the ground,” says David Waskow of the World Resources Institute. “It’s a network model for taking climate action.”

But is it enough? Governor Brown and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg argue it’s close. The two lead America’s Pledge, a local climate action group with more than 3,000 U.S. cities, states, businesses and other groups attempting to deliver on America’s goal of a 26% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 under the Paris Agreement. (Despite president Donald Trump’s pledge to withdraw the US from the agreement, he can’t legally do so until November 2020). America’s Pledge now claims it’s within “striking distance” of fulfilling the US climate commitment. The group hopes enough momentum at every level of society may stymie federal efforts to stop progress on slowing climate change.

What they mean by bottom up is cities, counties, and states forcing the citizens and private entities to Do Something, usually in the form of taxes/fees, reduction of liberty, and job killing mandates. All why the governments and the people who push all this stuff refuse to mitigate their own carbon footprints.

Read: Bottom Up Is The Way To Go On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove