Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation that regulates emissions from dairy cows and landfills for the first time as California broadens its efforts to fight climate change beyond carbon-based greenhouse gases.
Will this hurt California’s cow farmers, which revolves heavily around milk production?
(NY Post) Dairy farmers will be required to reduce methane emissions from manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030, with the help of $50 million from the state’s fee charged to polluters, known as cap-and-trade.
The money will help a handful of them buy dairy digesters, which use methane from manure to generate energy that’s sold to electrical utilities.
The law also allows the Air Resources Board to regulate cow flatulence if there’s viable technology to reduce it.
Taxpayer money will be used for this idiocy, but, you can still expect the price of milk to go up.
What’s mostly missed, though, in the absurdity of regulating cow farts, is
The new law requires steep reductions in a variety of pollutants, including methane; HFC gases used in aerosols and air conditioning refrigerants; and soot, known as black carbon. It’s tied to $90 million in funding for the dairy industry and garbage collectors.
Everything in there will increase the costs to consumers. But, hey, the majority of Californians who voted for this, keep your mouths shut when you start feeling the economic pain. It’s on you.
This has to make a few people in the Hillary camp as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs
(Washington Examiner) The latest vote projection from elections guru Nate Silver has Republican Donald Trump just six electoral votes short of winning and one point away from equaling Hillary Clinton’s popular vote.
The newest Five Thirty Eight survey Trump at 264 and Clinton at 272, two more than needed. It’s the closest in recent weeks.
Silver is famous for making a prediction of victory and that’s nearly close to, Clinton at 51.9 percent and Trump at 48 percent, his closest since the conventions.
The chart shows a huge gain for Trump, recovering from just a 3 percent chance of winning a month ago.
It’s changed a tiny bit in Hillary’s favor overnight, going from 51.9%-48% to 53.3%-47.7%.
Except for a brief time around the GOP convention, Trump’s chances have been pitiful. The slow erosion of Hillary’s chances are very interesting, though, as Trump slowly rises. Quite frankly, for Trump it will most likely all come down to the Monday night debate (which never should have been scheduled against a football game, even if it is just Atlanta vs New Orleans, not a big ratings hit). If he does poorly, he’s most likely done. If he holds his own or defeats Hillary, well, that could really boost his chances.
Here in Raleigh, we’ve had at least two officer involved shootings which led to the death of the suspect. Neither has turned into anything, beyond a tiny and utterly peaceful protest. In Charlotte, they dealt with riots. What’s the difference?
(Charlotte Observer) All lanes of Interstate 85 were reopened early Wednesday but still littered with some rocks and glass after a night of protests over an officer-involved shooting of an African-American man in the University City area. The officer was also African-American.
Twelve police officers were injured Tuesday night in a series of clashes, and reports were coming in early Wednesday of motorists on Interstate 85 being hurt and their vehicles damaged when protestors threw rocks, bottles and traffic cones off interstate overpasses onto traffic below.
At least seven of the police officers needed to be hospitalized after the clashes, including one who was hit in the face with a rock.
Mayor Jennifer Roberts sent out a message on Twitter early Wednesday, noting: “I will continue to work with our manager and (police) chief…We are reaching out to community to ask for calm.â€
Well, it’s those kinds of mealy mouthed responses that give people more license to continue to riot and loot.
In addition to Interstate 85, protestors attacked and looted the Walmart on North Tryon Street at about 3:30 a.m. The store was closed early Wednesday, with wooden pallets piled in front of the doors and shopping carts blocking the driveway into the lot.
Three or more tractor trailer trucks were stopped and looted on Interstate 85, and at least two fires were started on the interstate, as the protestors burned items taken from the trucks.
Nothing says “don’t shoot us, we aren’t breaking the law” like looting and arson, along with the throwing bottles and rocks things.
What led to all this?
The man who died was identified late Tuesday as Keith Lamont Scott, 43, and the officer who fired the fatal shot was CMPD Officer Brentley Vinson, a police statement said.
Police said they had been searching for someone who had an outstanding warrant at The Village at College Downs complex on Old Concord Road when they saw Scott leave his car holding a gun.
Officers approached Scott after he got back into the car. He emerged from the car again armed with a firearm “and posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers, who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,†police said in a statement. “The officers immediately requested Medic and began performing CPR.â€
Medic took Scott to Carolinas Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.
Officers state they have recovered a firearm from the scene. He was reportedly tazed 4 times before being shot with a bullet, so, it’s not like they just fired a gun at him immediately. And that’s where it all breaks down. Scott’s daughter, who goes by the name Lyric YourAdorable on, started taking video claiming that he was just sitting in a car reading a book, made a quick video of the scene, and streamed it to Facebook, causing it to go viral.
The victim's daughter says she was sleeping when she heard gunshots, she got up and a neighbor told her what happened. #Charlotte
— Beatrice Peterson (@missbeae on all platforms) (@MissBeaE) September 20, 2016
How would she know he was sitting in the car reading a book when she was sleeping?
Scott’s sister says he didn’t have a gun. Who is lying? Her or the police?
During the riots, people did the standard, yammering about Hands Up, Don’t Shoot, Black Lives Matter, and It’s A Books. They also had signs of the same. Then they looted trucks and a WalMart, and set stuff on fire.
What really happened? Time will tell. All the stories seem to reference the recent Tulsa shooting, which, IMO, looks like utterly bad and wrong action by the officer. It looks like murder. In the Charlotte case? Time will tell. We’ll have to see if there is any video of the incident.
People have looted semi-trucks stopped on I-85 and started fires as protests continue in Charlotte pic.twitter.com/ODWH7Sswo1
(Reuters)Â The International Criminal Court (ICC) said on Thursday it would start focusing on crimes linked to environmental destruction, the illegal exploitation of natural resources and unlawful dispossession of land in a move hailed by land rights activists.
Company executives or politicians could now be held responsible under international law for illegal land deals which violently displace residents following the shift, campaigners and lawyers said. (snip)
Environmental crimes will now be considered in investigations of cases that fall within the ICC’s existing remit, according to Global Diligence LLP, a London-based human rights law firm said in a statement.
Campaigners and human rights lawyers said the move reflects increasing global recognition of the severity of environmental crimes. It also allows victims to seek justice through the international criminal justice system if their complaints are not heard in national courts.
What’s the old saying about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions? You can certainly see the good uses of this, such as
The shift comes ahead of a decision by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on whether to investigate a case filed by human rights lawyers in 2014 accusing Cambodian officials and businessmen of engaging in illegal land dispossession.
Global Diligence LLP, the firm representing the Cambodian plantiffs, said the ICC’s policy shift opens the door for the case to be investigated by the court.
Getting beyond the notion of investing more and more power over what goes on in nations to international weenies who are outside any chain of command, you can see them jumping into local and national issues whenever the mood strikes them. Then continuing to expand their investigations more and more into business practices, how people use their own land, how nations use their land. Will they be responsive to the Cult of Climastrology, going after fossil fuels companies and such? The problem here is that there are no limits, nor any true controls on their self created mandate.
But, that’s rather the point of the Progressive movement. Unchecked power.
The Washington Post’s hyper-Warmist/weather guy Jason Samenow has decided to perform a bit of introspection on the scaremongering emanating from the Cult of Climastrology
The media has gone overboard in calling attention to links between climate change and extreme weather, contend two scholars in the United Kingdom. They argue that journalists are oversimplifying connections between weather and global warming and are resorting to scare tactics that are distracting the society from being prepared for extreme weather. The hype is responsible for a counterproductive and paralyzing “atmosfear,†they claim.
Let’s be clear: this doesn’t happen in a vacuum. These “journalists” are Warmists themselves and receive talking points from other Warmists, who provide the scary material and over-the-top prognostications with little actual scientific evidence. The media take it and run, often making it even scarier.
But their contention of a media-induced “atmosfear†goes too far. It’s possible to both plainly and carefully communicate how climate change is affecting extreme weather while also stressing the importance of extreme weather preparedness, irrespective of climate change.
In their provocative analysis in the journal Weather, Climate and Society, Vladimir Jankovic and David Schultz of the University of Manchester raise some valid points worthy of consideration. The most important point they make is that the overwhelming majority of damage from extreme weather results from people and property in harm’s way — not climate change. Some journalists and activists, in their zeal to connect the dots between weather and climate change, don’t place enough emphasis on this.
There really is no such thing as “extreme weather”. There is just weather, some of which is worse than others, and this has been going on for a long, long time. Nor is weather getting worse.
However, what the authors gloss over is that our atmosphere is fundamentally changed because of increasing greenhouse gases, and the effects on certain types of extreme weather are real. We can’t ignore this. It would be irresponsible for journalists to omit this very important aspect of the climate change story.
This is exactly what the analysis is talking about: idiotic pronouncements like a fundamental change to our atmosphere meant to scare people.
Consider these examples in which climate change is having significant impact on weather extremes:
* Locations all around the United States (and the world) are setting substantially more warm temperature records than cold temperature records. More extreme heat events have societal consequences. Warming from rising greenhouse gas concentrations is almost certainly playing a role in this.
Huh. Suddenly, it’s now important that places in the use are setting warm records. When it’s cool records and such, we’re told that the U.S. only accounts for 2% of the Earth’s surface, so, those are unimportant.
Journalists, as well as advocates for climate action, should take care in specifying which weather extremes may have been altered by climate change and how — and rely on peer-reviewed analysis.
Will they rely on the scientific documents that show there is no increase in “extreme weather?” Or, just look at the ones they like?
There is a very interesting comment from Steve T, part of the Capital Weather Gang for the Washington Post
My principal concern in regard to scientific credibility in communication of climate change matters is the ubiquitous use of “Weasel Words†(WWs). WWs such as could, suggest, might, perhaps, conceivably, appear to – and a dozen more in a list I’ve compiled – are designed to leave the impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made; but, in actuality, phraseology incorporating them is almost without meaning. For example “could†is sufficiently (purposely?) ambiguous to render any claim with regard to the influence of climate change possible and unverifiable.
There’s more to it, click the link to read the rest of the comment. He makes a good point. We are constantly inundated with the Weasel Words, which I noted many, many times. These are meant to highten the scare factor that something could maybe might possibly doom us. We’re told that extreme weather could get worse. It isn’t. Nor are tropical systems, rainfall, nor droughts. Nor other weather.
CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration, and is running headlines reporting that the GOP nominee is advocating “racial profiling”.
But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted, however, shows that Trump never put the word “racial” in front of “profiling.â€
“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”
In a later interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump also expressed a need to profile in the manner Israel does, but again didn’t use the word “racial.” But when pressed by O’Reilly how it could be determined how a person could be deemed suspicious, Trump wouldn’t elaborate.
He notes that CNN has been running headlines on TV throughout the day that include the addition of “racial” and has a screenshot at the article.
Donald Trump on Monday reiterated his support for the controversial practice of racial profiling by police amid increasing threats to the homeland. (snip)
Trump did not say on what attributes he would encourage police to profile possible suspects, but It’s illegal for police to subject US persons to disparate treatment based on their race or other protected status.
Is there any wonder that people do not trust the media? This is purely made up. Trump has said nothing about racial profiling. This was simply made up.
As I have watched this presidential race, and the debate over Hillary Clinton ever since the Benghazi tragedy of 2012, I have been disturbed to see a fine American and kindly human dragged so frequently into the mud. To be sure, if you think she’s wrong on the issues, don’t vote for her. But the caricature of her as dishonest, greedy and overly ambitious is unfair and inaccurate.
Or
Anyway, I’m sure it’s also sexxxxxist!
Normally, I wouldn’t write an essay like this. But now, with even Colin Powell adding fuel to the fire through his leaked emails, it’s time for a little balance. Full disclosure: I am a distant friend and minor adviser to Hillary. But I’m not in her inner circle, am not expecting some high-visibility job if she wins the presidency, and am fully aware of her campaign’s substantive flaws — most notably, in my opinion, a failure to articulate a sufficient, cogent and clear plan for the economy. She has some good ideas and would do well as president, I believe, but somehow the package of proposals isn’t coming through very well on the campaign trail. So this is not meant as a purely laudatory or sycophantic column, by any means.
So, she’s also incompetent?
The rest is fawning syncopate yammering, just as you’d expect, ending with
So if you disagree with Clinton’s views, don’t vote for her. However, please think twice before buying into the caricature of her that’s been created by her political foes. When she left the secretary of State position in early 2013 with a 69% favorable rating, they saw that their only hope of beating her in 2016 was to paint her as someone she’s not.
See, it’s not her fault that she’s a total scumbag who trashed those who accused her husband of sexual assault and rape, who turned the other cheek as her husband received oral sex from a 21 year old intern, who treated the Secret Service and everyone else like peasants and with disdain, that she constantly seems to be involved in something shady, she lies so much she can barely keep her lies straight, she lied to the families of those killed in Benghazi, she somehow amassed hundreds of millions while serving in public office, she’s secretive beyond normal political paranoia, making Nixon seem reasonable, she has no regard for national security, she uses her position well beyond normal pay for play, incredible conflicts of interest. Seriously, the list could go on and on, and this is before we get to her awful political positions.
But, see, it’s not her fault. It’s probably your fault. Or talk radio’s fault. Or Fox News. Sorry, Faux News. Or the fault of Drudge. Or bloggers. But, not Hillary’s fault. Never.
No, seriously. Sea rise totally proves that people using lots of energy to publish newspapers, along with all the fossil fuels to gather the news and distribute the dead tree editions, is obviously the only reason the seas are rising
By Donald Trump’s account, scientists have tricked Americans into accepting that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
“I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change,†he told the Miami Herald on one of the rare recent occasions when he has talked about it.
A few blocks from the Miami Beach hotel where Trump spoke, water flooded over a seawall last year during the highest autumn tides, blocking traffic on one of South Florida’s main evacuation routes. The city is now elevating that street and many others as part of a $500-million program to protect itself from the rising ocean.
The rest of the article is exactly what you would expect, lots of whining about consensus, followed by the notion that the seas are rising in Florida and causing flooding, and due to Cult of Climastrology logic, it is all Mankind’s fault. Because it never happened before
Damned early men and their carbon pollution 20,000 years ago. Look what they caused!
Anyway, NOAA hasn’t had a working gauge in Miami Beach since 1981. According to a University of Miami study, sea rise has gone from 3mm to 9mm since 2006. What does this prove? Nothing. It is not proof of anthropogenic causation. And all the doomsaying sure doesn’t seem to be causing developers, builders, and buyers from stopping developing, building, and buying homes right on the coast.
Oh, and you only get that 9mm mark, which would equate to 35 inches per century, you have to cherry pick.
Oh, and for all the whining by the LA Times, the gauge for L.A. shows a whopping .95mm per year, which equates to .31 feet per century.
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.
