…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, which should be restricted from being used by Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on women getting upset about Harvard stopping single sex organizations.
Read: If All You See… »
So says hyper-alarmist and Soros monkey Joe Romm
Almost Everything You Know About Climate Change Solutions Is Outdated, Part 1
Almost everything you know about climate change solutions is outdated, for several reasons.
First, climate science and climate politics have been moving unexpectedly quickly toward a broad consensus that we need to keep total human-caused global warming as far as possible below 2°C (3.6°F) — and ideally to no more than 1.5°C. This has truly revolutionary implications for climate solutions policy.
The 1.5C schtick is the primary driver of Romm’s article, in which the arbitrarily picked 2C is no longer acceptable. Because we are utterly and completely dooooooooooomed otherwise. Hence, what is being offered up as “solutions” to keep the world to 2C are no longer acceptable (even though all the taxes and such would have no real effect).
What’s more important for readers is that if indeed Sivaram and Revkin are joining all the nations of the world in acknowledging that 1.5°C is the preferred target for humanity, then we are in a “hair on fire†moment. Yes, R&D remains as important as it always has been in providing options for the post-2050 world (which must go carbon-negative to achieved stabilization of 1.5°C).
What the warmists, including Romm, are proposing is a carbon neutral, and even a negative carbon, world by 2050. How do they do this? With trillions upon trillions in “investments”, along with tens of billions in R&
But as the Climate Analytics paper makes clear, in the 1.5°C case, the sine qua non of climate policy must be to divert substantial investments toward urgent, hyper-rapid deployment of carbon-free technologies — focusing first on the power sector. This underscores the central point climatologist Ken Caldeira made in 2012: “Globally, deployment costs will be in the trillions of dollars, while R&D costs might be in the tens of billions.â€
Say, wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in R&D more, in order to create the types of clean energy and infrastructure that would be viable, long lasting, and environmentally clean, as well as reduce said CO2 emissions? It would if this were truly about the environment. But, it’s not. It’s about political force and control. About increasing the size and scope of Government
But in the 1.5C case, in fact, government policies must do much more than “level the economic playing field between clean and dirty energy.†In the 1.5C case, the playing field must be rendered free of dirty energy ASAP. So government policies must enable an orderly but rapid shutdown of coal plants (and then gas plants) while simultaneously replacing them with a combination of renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency. So, you can’t just have any CO2 price — you need one that starts out at a moderate to high level and rises quite rapidly.
The only way to do that is to empower Government to authoritarian levels. Strangely, the Warmists never seem to understand how these government dominance schemes will negatively affect their own lives. But, this is what they want. Fascism. Authoritarianism.
Read: Bummer: Everything You Know About Hotcoldwetdry Solutions Is Wrong »
Instead of dropping the mike on the way out, Obama plans to burn the place down. One of the things this story exposes is the idiocy of passing massive, bloated legislation which is still not particularly specific, and gives Executive Office agencies entirely too much latitude to create rules and regulations
Obama Health Care Regulators Are In A Last-Minute Frenzy To Do More Damage
Here’s a headline that should scare anyone who has been following ObamaCare: “As time runs out, the Obama administration races to reshape health care.†Hasn’t it done enough damage reshaping health care already?
The story appeared Tuesday on STAT, an online news site produced by Boston Globe Media that focuses on health issues.
It reports that with time running short, administration officials are rushing to put in place “major new initiatives that will take full effect just weeks before the president leaves office.â€
Among the efforts: trying to clamp down on drug prices, “revamping how primary care is provided,†and “significant new efforts when it comes to paying for surgeries and preventing disease.â€
And just how do they plan to do all this? As the article explains, ObamaCare created a little-known agency called the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation with the mission of testing “innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures.†The law pre-funded the center with $10 billion over a decade, and gave it wide latitude to mandate changes in how Medicare and Medicaid pay providers.
Mentioned in the article is how the center instituted a policy to control costs on hip and knee replacements, with penalties to hospitals if the total cost, including therapy, exceeds a certain threshold, and bonuses for bills below a cap. Can anyone see the problem here? That hospitals might scrimp? I know someone who just got a knee replacement last week. But, due to complications, they had to stay in the hospital an extra day. More medicines were required. Therapy will take longer. Might hospitals try and kick people out too early? The article notes that “An analysis by Avalere Health, for example, found that 60% of hospitals will face penalties this year.” Think they won’t work hard to avoid those penalties? Who pays the penalty?
Ocare is all about controlling the up-front costs, not about quality care. You, the consumer, are the one who pays the ultimate penalty.
Read: Good News: Team Obama Rushing New Health Care Regs Before He Leaves Office »
If you’ve listened to the Glenn Beck show over the past year, you’ll know that what you’ll get when you tune is 1) Trump Trump Trump (and usually discussed in a manner reserved for people like Hillary), 2) a paid product placement 3) commercials 4) some of that old time religious tent revival 5) more Trump bashing. OK, granted, my time listening is limited, usually only occurring on those days for brief periods when I go in to work at 11, so, at best, 3 hours a week. And I might flip over to a rock station or turn on the MP3 player. Because Glenn has seemed to lose his mind in his Trump Derangement Syndrome. Doesn’t mean he was wrong, but the apocalyptic discussion was a bit too much for me.
Anyhow, the other week Glenn was actively saying that it would be better for Hillary to win, because at least we know where she really stands, and that the GOP could just work to stop her. You know, because they’ve done such a bang-up job in stopping Obama, am I right? So, this must have give Beck extreme heartburn
(GlennBeck.com) Donald Trump has faced consistent pressure and scrutiny from Glenn, so his prediction Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program came as a surprise.
“I’m going to make a prediction about Donald Trump,†Glenn said. “I could say he’s going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. But I think that’s obviously a foregone conclusion. Here’s my prediction, and I stand by it: Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States.â€
Glenn has said Hillary Clinton is such a flawed candidate that his shoe or a rock could beat her. But her flaws are not the only thing stopping her from reaching the Oval Office.
“The key to success here is star power. And somebody from the outside that is going to shake things up,†Glenn said.
One of the metrics Beck was looking at were the exit polls and the number of Democrats who say they will cross over to vote for Trump. And you couple that with the number of Dems who won’t vote for Hillary. Especially Bernie supporters.
Could it happen? Of course it could. Trump is making a play for the squishy Democrats, the Blue Dog Democrats, and even the Sanders Democrats. He’s actively wooing them.
Interestingly, he’s not attempting to woo conservatives, mainstream Republicans, libertarians, nor the #NeverTrump folks. It seems Trump isn’t interested in gaining their support. And then people wonder why many are #NeverTrump or are having a hard time deciding whether they’ll put on the gasmask to vote Trump in order to #NeverHillary.
Of course, national polls are relatively meaningless. It’s the state polls that will matter. Winning enough states to get him to 270 electoral college votes. We’ll have to see how his ground game goes, and what states he campaigns in.
I’ll throw this out there, from a conversation Wednesday: would Hillary actually be better than Trump? We know who Hillary is. She’s not as left as Obama. And she’d have Bill around to provide moderation and pragmatism. She’s certainly a, shall we say, scumbag, untrustworthy and shady, but, would she fight to look good or fight for ultra-far left policies? Probably the first. A GOP congress would only fight so hard to stop her. How hard would they fight to stop things Trump might do? We have really no idea how Trump would govern, only hints.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Warmists love their taxes
(NPR) Measure AA — on the June 7 ballot in nine Bay Area counties — would raise money to protect the region from the expected rise in sea level.
Mielke says the measure, if passed, “would institute a modest $12 a year or $1 a month parcel tax.”
The property tax is projected to raise $500 million to defend against sea level rise by restoring marshes.
And you can be totally assured that the money would be spent properly, because government is wonderful at protecting the taxpayer’s money, right?
The challenge for supporters of Measure AA is to convince voters who live an hour drive from the bay — nowhere near the shoreline — that it matters to them.
Warmists always want to drag other people into their schemes.
“This is a very tiny tax shared by a lot of people that generates a huge amount of benefit,” says Lewis of Save the Bay, “for San Francisco Bay, for people and wildlife.”
It’s always a very tiny tax. $12 here, a $100 there, added to all the other costs of living increases from not just Warmist proposals, but all the other things their Progressive brethren propose, and we’re into some serious money.
Read: San Francisco Warmists Propose A “Modest” Property Tax To Fight ‘Climate Change’ »
…is a world turned to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on why leftists are so irritating.
Read: If All You See… »
Thailand is having a bit of a problem, so, send in the clowns, er, bulls
(AFP) Thailand’s drought-stricken farmers got a rare bit of good news on Monday, when a pair of sacred bulls predicted that the heavens would finally open during the upcoming rainy season.
The bovine prophecy came during the kingdom’s much-watched annual royal ploughing ceremony, an ancient rite officially marking the start of the main rice cultivation season.
I wonder how this will work out?
The bulls made a similarly positive prediction last year, but their forecast did not bear fruit.
So, it works about as well as the prognostications from the Cult of Climastrology with their computer models and adjustments and doomsaying.
Oh, and
https://twitter.com/CounterMoonbat/status/729693328753631232
https://twitter.com/JustAGuyII/status/729693822330933248
Over at the Washington Post, their resident (ultra squishy Establishment) Republican, Kathleen Parker, is vexed by the voting system that allowed Donald Trump to become the presumptive GOP nominee, and she has a few ideas
After Trump, the GOP may need a better voting system
(Massive snip to the meat)
To answer my earlier question, the better candidates didn’t win because, obviously, so many of them siphoned votes from stronger ones, giving Trump the lead and all-important momentum. Thus, the constant refrain from Trump supporters that the “establishment†is ignoring the “will of the people†is true only to a point. Trump is the choice of a plurality of the GOP but not of the majority — a distinction with a crucial difference.
At this stage, as the GOP convenes its circular firing squad composed of party leaders, operatives, hacks, flacks, politicos — if you’ll pardon the redundancy — and, yes, certain media, they might better expend their energies considering alternative voting methods that might have prevented Trump’s ascendancy and likely would prevent future demagogues.
One of these methods, already used by a variety of professional organizations to elect officers, as well as by the United Nations to elect the secretary general, uses an “approval†ballot by which voters rank all the candidates of whom they approve rather than selecting just one. Far from new, this idea was suggested in 1770 by French mathematician and astronomer Jean-Charles de Borda, who expressed concern that several similar candidates would split the majority vote and allow a non-consensus candidate to win.
Viola!
Chatty Kathy offers up several more ideas, all designed to make sure, let’s be clear, that the GOP establishment pick wins. Anyone who thinks she and the establishment would be happy if Ted Cruz won the nomination, raise your hand.
That’s what I thought. They do not want a competent conservative. They would prefer squishes like John McCain and Mitt Romney. How’d that work out? They often do no like the conservatives (or populists) chosen by the voters. Christine O’Donnell. Remember who the NRSC immediately stated they would not help her out?
Parker’s ideas are exactly why Donald Trump was able to whip his supporters up to a frenzy, or, at least, one of the reasons. Namely, complaints about the system trying to shut him down. That it was rigged. That the system was attempting to put an establishment guy in as the nominee. There’s surely a reason Trump went after Jeb Bush first. Not because Jeb polled well with the primary voters (he didn’t, but, he was a much better candidate than portrayed), but because he was a darling of the establishment. Parker wants to change the system so that the establishment pick makes it, rather than the voters picks.
Read: After Trump, The GOP Needs To Change Their Primary System Or Something »
The Editorial Board of Investors Business Daily shows their gratitude to Bernie Sanders
Health Reform: For decades the left has been pushing “single payer†health care without ever coming clean about how much it would cost. Now, thanks to Bernie Sanders, we have our answer. And the price tag is mind-boggling.
Sanders’ plan would eliminate private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare in favor of a single, government-run program, which he calls “Medicare for all.†There’d be no out-of-pocket costs for health care and long-term care.
When he released his plan, Sanders claimed it would cost about $14 trillion over 10 years. But not to worry, he said, since it would be fully paid for by the rich, and the middle class, and the working class, who would all see their taxes go up.
However, a new study from the liberal Urban Institute says that Sanders’s plan would cost more than twice what he says.
Under Bernie’s plan, Los Federales would pay all costs for the consumers, state governments, and local governments. The real price tag? $32 trillion over 10 years. The direct costs would be shifted to the federal government, but, the money has to come from somewhere, so, taxes and fees will go up somewhere, and services will go down.
The idea that a central government can plan 1/6th of the economy better than the private sector, for example, is belied by every other attempt at socialism.
And anyone who thinks health care quality would improve just needs to look at the string of calamities in Canada, the U.K. or the single-payer Veterans Health Administration, which are each characterized by massive waste, chronic delays, doctor strikes, lack of innovation and worse outcomes for specific diseases.
Doctors strikes. Seems ridiculous, right? Doctors don’t strike. They wouldn’t walk off the job like auto or communications workers, leaving sick people in danger, right? Except, they did just that in England. And Nigeria.
Give Sanders credit for exposing the enormous cost of the left’s socialist dreams. And give him credit for making it clear how extreme the Democratic Party, which made Sanders a serious contender for the nomination, has become.
While Bernie is the one pushing this all right now the hardest, don’t think he is the only one who wants it. Certainly Hillary and the rest of the Democrats want single payer. They should all be careful what they wish for, because they might get it. Or, to put it another way, with my favorite Obamacare quote of all time
“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.
“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”
“Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”
Perfectly encapsulates the Liberal position: they always want Someone Else to pay for their policies, and are upset when they are hoist on their own petard.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: IBD: Thanks For Exposing The True Cost Of Socialized Medicine, Bernie »
…is an evil fossil fueled machine causing flooding, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Mark Steyn’s stand against climate alarmism.
Read: If All You See… »
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.
