…is a horrendous water intensive golf course causing climate destruction clouds, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post showing more evidence that Hillary used the State Dept to enrich herself.
Read: If All You See… »
You have to know that this is one of the scariest outcomes of the climate change scam, because Warmists/Progressives are all about authoritative governance
(Science Alert) Former NASA climate chief James Hansen believes climate change’s most dangerous effect will be a continuous rise in sea levels and not necessarily the increase in temperatures.
Because so many people live in coastal cities, the mass migrations inland that will follow this rise could leave the world in ungovernable chaos. (snip)
In a paper published last year, Hansen warned that continuous reliance on fossil fuels could increase sea levels by several meters in just a period of 50 to 150 years. (snip)
Coastlines are home to more than half the world’s large cities, so a significant portion of the population will be affected by these rising sea levels.
“The economic implications of that, and the migrations and the social effects of migrations … the planet could become practically ungovernable, it seems to me,” said Hansen.
Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Make The World “Practically Ungovernable” »
The things the NY Times wastes time on. Things that tend to be at the bottom in polls of issues that Americans care about
Mr. Trump, the Climate Change Loner
President Emmanuel Macron of France tried this week during President Trump’s visit to Paris to get him to reverse his decision to take America out of the landmark global agreement on climate change, struck in December 2015 and since ratified by 153 nations. It was a futile exercise, as he must have known it would be.
At one point, Mr. Trump seemed to leave the door open for some unspecified compromise. But nobody knows what that would be. And in any case it is likely to be meaningless, because there is zero chance that he would reaffirm President Barack Obama’s commitment to make meaningful reductions in America’s greenhouse gas emissions, or seek to re-establish the leadership role that Mr. Obama occupied and that Mr. Trump has now abdicated.
And it’s wonderful how all those leaders run around the world using vast amounts of fossil fuels, isn’t it? And, yes, this does matter. If these leaders of a movement that polls low are unwilling to make changes in their own lives, why should we think this is anything but political?
What changes has the NY Times made? Over all these years of reading the primary talking points organization of the Democrats I’ve yet to see one article or opinion piece stating that the Times has made changes to reduce their own carbon footprint, especially in regards to the vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute its dead tree editions.
In short, despite Mr. Macron’s efforts, the gap between Mr. Trump and the rest of the world on climate remains as wide and unbridgeable as it was at the Group of 20 summit meeting the week before, when the final communiqué contained a robust commitment from 19 of the world’s leading economic powers to fight climate change and one pathetic little sentence in which the United States said it would “endeavor†to “use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently.†Mr. Trump had apparently hoped for some support from other big fossil fuel producers, like Russia and Saudi Arabia. This was not forthcoming, heartening those who feared (and still fear) that Mr. Trump’s betrayal of America’s commitments would cause other countries to backslide as well.
It was not America’s commitments: it was Obama’s commitment. We didn’t approve the agreement: it was never put in front of the duly elected legislative branch. And Obama is running around the world using vast amounts of fossil fuels, a continuation of what happened while he was in office.
The unanswered question is whether the goals set in the Paris accord can be reached without United States participation. To recap briefly, the accord sought to limit the rise in atmospheric temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and 1.5 degrees if possible. To that end, Mr. Obama pledged to reduce America’s greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, largely through greater fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks, limits on methane emissions from oil and gas wells, and new rules governing emissions from new and old coal-fired power plants.
Yet, not in his own life, where he’s hanging on yachts and traveling around the world on fossil fueled private jets. He’s fine with forcing the rest of us to make changes in our own lives, but not in his own.
It makes one wonder what could conceivably change Mr. Trump’s mind. He seems impervious to the broadly accepted science of global warming, and wholly unimpressed by evidence that the jobs he has promised his followers lie not in dying industries like coal mining but in renewables like wind and solar. Perhaps the giant iceberg that broke free of Antarctica will ring a little bell. The calving might or might not be related to climate change, and it will not by itself raise sea levels, since the shelf was already sitting in the water. But shelves hold back land-based glaciers, and when the shelves go, the glaciers tend to follow. In any case, nature has sent a message.
So much anti-science from the Times, which refuses to practice what they preach. Personally, I’m going to blame the iceberg on the carbon footprint from the production and distribution of newspapers from the NY Times. According to Warmist dogma, I don’t have to prove I’m right: they have to prove me wrong.
Read: NY Times Editorial Board Is Upset That Trump Is A Climate Change Loner »
Young illegal aliens protected under Mr. Obama’s illegal DACA, deferred action for childhood arrivals, have been deported under Mr. Obama for violations of the law. But, that wasn’t a big deal then. When one is deported under Mr. Trump? Big deal. The case Juan Manuel Montes has gotten fun
First DREAMer deported under Trump files court documents disputing administration’s account
Lawyers for the only known DREAMer deported by the Trump administration filed supporting statements in court Friday from people on both sides of the Mexican border who corroborate Juan Manuel Montes’ account that immigration agents wrongly forced him across the border.
The court filings include statements from the last people to see the 23-year-old Montes in the U.S. and the first people to see him in Mexico after he was deported by Customs and Border Protection agents shortly after midnight on Feb. 19 from Calexico, Calif., where he lived with his family since age 9.
Montes, an undocumented immigrant who had protections against deportation under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), said he had just finished dinner with a friend and was hailing a ride home when he was seized by agents on the street and forced across the border.
Isn’t it illegal to lie in court documents?
The Department of Homeland Security said it has no record that agents deported Montes that night. Instead, the department said, Montes crossed the border into Mexico voluntarily, immediately revoking his DACA status, which shields undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
When this issue first came up, and now with the court filings, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why CBP would snatch up Montes and drop him across the border with not court order on their own. That’s a pretty quick way to, at a minimum, losing their jobs and pensions.
Here’s where it gets really fun
Both sides agree on what happened next: Montes tried to re-enter the following night by jumping the border wall, was caught by Border Patrol agents and deported back to Mexico.
So, in the court filing, Montes admits he broke federal law by jumping the wall. That’s a pretty simple case.
Ever since he was deported, Montes has been living with relatives in western Mexico. In an April interview with USA TODAY, he said he was eager to get back home to continue his education and reunite with his family. And he said he was still shocked that he had fallen victim to Trump’s deportation machine.
“Some people told me that they were going to deport me; others said nothing would happen,” Montes said at the time. “I thought that if I kept my nose clean nothing would happen.”
Trump’s deportation machine. 365 were deported while Obama was in office. Here’s a hint: you’re in our nation illegally. Act like it. Don’t think you’re entitled to be here.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Dreamer Deported Under Trump Files Court Briefing Admitting He Violated The Rules »
Trackback URL
But, no, remember, this is all about science” (via Watts Up With That?)
Can property survive the great climate transition?
As we become an increasingly urban species, urban resilience is emerging as a big deal. The idea is generating a lot of noise about how to develop or retrofit cities that can deal with the many challenges before us, or consume less energy in the transition to post-carbon economies.
There is ample activity aimed at making this happen, including through designing and building ecocities, and calls such as that of the Transition Towns movement, which suggests substantial changes to our ways of life might be both necessary and inevitable.
In all of this, very little has been said about the elephant in the urban living room – property. Property systems are the codification of our relationship to place and the way in which many of us make a claim to place, including a roof over our heads.
If our cities are to become more resilient and sustainable, our systems of property need to come along for the ride.
And what is the ride?
Western systems of property law assume property is delineated and static: the property holder has invested (often substantial) financial resources to secure a claim to that neatly identified parcel of land and/or buildings. Further, the property owner expects to make a nice economic return on their parcel.
Unfortunately, the future doesn’t look neatly delineated or static. Many researchers and practitioners tell us the future might not look like anything we’ve ever seen. Some say we are reaching a tipping point, after which the rules we have constructed will no longer apply or be of use. (snip)
Living in colonised landscapes tells us it might be time to rethink which way around the “ownership†dynamic works in property relationships.
That is, if we are to think about and create property systems that are as dynamic as the landscapes we occupy, we might need to start thinking about ourselves as belonging to and answerable to the land, not the other way around.
Follow this to the logical conclusion: the government would have all claim to property, and people would be allowed to live in places that government dictates. Because science.
Read: ‘Climate Change’ Means People Will Have To Give Up Private Ownership Of Homes Or Something »
…is a wonderful carbon neutral bike, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on the news smearing a Christian group that believes in the 1st Amendment.
Read: If All You See… »
No sort of narcissism involved here at all
Gov. Jerry Brown says the existence of humanity rests on his climate change deal
Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday cast his new plan to fight climate change as essential to the fate of American democracy — and humanity itself.
“America is facing not just a climate crisis with the rest of the world, we are facing a political crisis,†Brown told lawmakers at the first public hearing on his proposal to reduce the state’s carbon emissions. “Can democracy actually work? Is there a sufficient consensus that we can govern ourselves? That, I submit to you, is an open question.â€
Read: California Gov. Brown: Fate Of Humanity Rests On His Climate Plan »
Vox’s Sara Kliff thinks she has caught out Senate Republicans doing something nefarious. What’s she has unintentionally pointed out is worse, at least for those who have been voting Republican
Senate Republicans exempt own health coverage from part of latest proposal
Senate Republicans included a provision that exempts members of Congress and their staff from part of their latest health care plan.
This exemption could have the effect of ensuring that members of Congress have coverage for a wider array of benefits than other Americans who purchase their own coverage.
A Senate Republican aide confirmed that the exemption existed but was unable to comment as to the specific effect it would have. The aide said it was included to ensure that the bill hewed to the chamber’s strict reconciliation rules that limit the policies this health bill can include.
The exemption is similar to the one that existed in the House health bill. After Vox reported on its existence, the House voted to close the loophole — and the Senate aide expected their chamber to follow the same path.
I’m really not seeing the big problem: all these bills do is require that Congressional health plans have lots and lots of coverage, much as private employers do, while allowing citizens and private entities to obtain plans with lower coverage. But, really, this is not the point: here’s the point
The revised Senate health bill draft released Thursday lets health insurers offer plans that do not cover the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, which requires insurers to include a wide array of benefits such as maternity care and mental health services.
Insurers can offer plans without these benefits — unless they’re selling coverage to members of Congress and their staff, who are required to buy coverage on the health law marketplaces. The exemption says this part of the law still applies to any plans sold to Congress.
Do you see it? Why is an exemption needed if this Senate bill is supposed to be a repeal and replace? If it was truly R&R, there would be no need. Because Obamacare would be repealed. If it is creating exemptions, that means that Obamacare is still the law of the land, and the Senate bill simply dinks and dunks, makes some changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ie, Obamacare.
One would think Democrats would be happy that these idiots aren’t actually repealing Obamacare. That way, when the GOP loses the House and Senate over the next 2 election cycles, and probably the White House, all because Republican voters will be too mad to vote GOP because they were lied to about R&R, Democrats can get rid of the measures the GOP passes, because Ocare is still around.
Read: Senate Republicans Exempt Themselves From The Non-Repeal/Replace Bill »
Are you here in the United States unlawfully? The ICE director has a message for you (emphasis mine)
(Fox News) There could be as many as 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States and 400,000 could be deported this year, according to the acting ICE director.
Thomas Homan said the number could be even higher, but no one in the country illegally should be “comfortable” right now.
Speaking to Neil Cavuto, Homan said those who cross the border illegally can no longer assume no one is looking for them.
“[President Trump] basically told [us] you can now do your job, you will enforce laws on your books. There’s no population of alien that’s off the table anymore and we’ve been waiting on that for a decade now,” said Homan, noting that illegal immigrants who pose a threat to public safety will always be a higher priority.
Homan said if you enter the U.S. illegally, you have committed a crime and the law will be enforced “without apology.” He also delivered a stern message to the MS-13 street gang in a Daily Caller interview.
“My gang is bigger than theirs and we are going to take them out,” he said, adding that the goal is to make good “as much as we can” on President Trump’s promise to arrest and/or deport these gang members.
It really is a simple concept: anyone who is unlawfully present in the United States can be picked up and subject to deportation orders at any time, regardless of who they are, what their age is, or how they came to the country. Every illegal has their own sob story, designed to bring out the squishes in defense of allowing the illegal to stay in the country. Well, lots of legal residents have their sob stories and excuses as well, as to why they committed a crime, and do not want to be sent to jail. Tough for both classes.
What this does is create fear for those who are here illegally, and, more importantly, creates fear for those who want to come illegally/overstay their visas. This helps reduce the flow of illegals and causes lots of illegals to self deport. If the number is drastically reduced, then perhaps the U.S. can find some sort of accommodation for some who are here illegally. Citizenship should be off the table for most, unless they want to earn it through tough methods like going through the full citizenship method, or serve for a good chunk in the military.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: ICE Director: There’s No Population Of Illegal Aliens Which Is Off The Table »
It’s always amusing when people who despise capitalism (well, for other people, because they like getting their own money and maximizing profits in their own life) try and explain capitalism as it applies to their favorite cult, as Peter Kalmus gives it a shot
The Trick to Make Capitalism Help Solve Climate Change
Welcome to the climate emergency. This is what it looks like: dying coral reefs and dialed-in ice sheet disintegration; drought, flood, and refugees. This is what it feels like: a deep uncertainty about the future expressed in economic and political instability. To escape the heat, land and ocean species everywhere are migrating toward the poles. Of the millions of species on our planet, only one foolishly continues to make the problem worse by burning fossil fuels—the one that named itself “wise man,â€Â Homo sapiens.
But as the crisis deepens, the world—with the stunning exception of certain intransigent U.S. politicians—is finally getting the message. The question becomes what to do.
I’m a fan of deep voluntary personal reduction, which (I’ve found) leads to a more satisfying and connected life and enhances one’s ability to effect broader change. But it’s not a solution; we need to leave fossil fuels quickly and globally. The consensus among economists that the way to do this is to make the price of fossil fuels reflect their true cost to society.
Here we go
The best step any nation can take is a revenue-neutral carbon fee.
Here’s how it works: Those who wish to disrupt the climate (to be fair, all of us are complicit as we live our modern lives) should pay for the “privilege.†A price is applied at the first point of sale after the oil, coal, or gas is extracted; then it passes downstream in proportion to the amount of emissions embodied in the transaction. The price will increase over time, giving individuals and businesses time to plan and adjust.
Go that? Government intervention and price controls is “capitalism.”
A carbon price, properly designed, would be comprehensive and effective. It would go far toward correcting a horrifying market failure: that destroying the planet that gave rise to us and cradles us in the violent vastness of space … is profitable. But to realize this potential, two key details must be worked out.
So, the headline is a bunch of mule fritters? Because this sure seems like Classical Socialism, whereby the Government is mostly in charge of the means of production and the economy.
A well-designed carbon fee isn’t the only thing we’ll need to create a deeply just and sustainable society on Earth; ultimately we’ll need a steady-state economy and an end to unsustainable population growth. This will require a tectonic shift in how we see our place in the web of life. But a carbon fee would be a huge step in the right direction.
Whoops, the cat is out of the bag. This isn’t capitalism, it’s Progressivism.
Read: There’s One Trick To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Through Capitalism Or Something »
Trackback URL
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.