Who’s Up For $300 A Month Government Gasoline Vouchers?

By William Teach March 10, 2022 – 6:45 am

What could possibly go wrong with this scheme?

Gasoline vouchers worth $300 a month? Some economists back new government aid as prices at the pump soar

unintended consequencesAs the Democratic party administration in Washington struggles to find effective ways to fight high inflation, some economists are calling for lawmakers deliver new assistance for Americans dealing with high gasoline prices.

“If I were Dem leadership in the House, I’d bring forward a bill to give $50B gas price relief to low-income households and defy Republicans to vote against it,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, in a tweet on Tuesday.

Or, we could open up the spigots, give out permits. It wouldn’t even matter if it would take time to get the oil, the market which sets the cost per barrel would respond to the potential. Anyhow, they don’t really care, they just want to Own The Cons.

Wouldn’t such spending add to inflation? Shepherdson pushed back after a critic suggested exactly that, with the economist saying it would not because a $50 billion outlay amounts to just 0.2% of U.S. GDP.

And it would make Citizens even more reliant on government. I wonder what the threshold would be for “low income”? And, why $300? That seems a bit excessive. It would also mean that the market would stay high, with those bidding on the oil figuring to keep it high.

Stuart Hoffman, a senior economic adviser at PNC, said Shepherdson’s proposal is a “great idea,” adding that Congress should look at gasoline vouchers for the Americans who qualified for stimulus checks through March 2020’s relief package.

Providing $2 or $3 per gallon of gas for those families could work out to $200 or $300 a month per family, assuming they typically pump 100 gallons each month into their cars, Hoffman said in a post on Twitter.

100 gallons? Sheesh, I know I’m at the low end, with maybe 20 gallons a month, but, still, 100?

There’s a real chance for legislation that provides such vouchers given how gas prices have surged, said Greg Valliere, chief U.S. policy strategist at AGF Investments, in a note on Wednesday.

And then the price of oil stays high, which means gas stays high, which means the price of consumer goods and food stays high.

Still a better idea than

Read: Who’s Up For $300 A Month Government Gasoline Vouchers? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Energy | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

DOD Finds ‘Climate Change’ A Critical Challenge Or Something

By William Teach March 9, 2022 – 3:16 pm

Thank goodness the DOD no longer has to worry about China invading Taiwan, North Korea having intercontinental missiles for their nuclear weapons, Iran getting nuclear weapons, or a superpower invading a country which could lead to a world war

Climate Change a Critical Challenge for DOD, Hicks Says

Virtually every person and organization across the globe is impacted by climate change, including the Defense Department, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks said.

The deputy secretary made her remarks virtually before the Worldwide Logistics Symposium 2022, today.

“Climate change is altering our planet right now — from contributing to severe weather events to sparking wildfires and driving drought conditions,” she said, adding it creates conditions that are challenging nation states and proving catastrophic for communities around the world.

The DOD Climate Risk Analysis makes clear that “‘Climate change is reshaping the geostrategic, operational and tactical environments with significant implications for U.S. national security and defense,'” Hicks said. “We are rapidly learning that it will increasingly set the context for our operations, with implications for readiness, resourcing and mission demand.”

Yes, because a whopping 1.5F increase in global temperatures after a big cool period is dangerous

Hicks outlined some examples:

  • In the United States, “fire season has gotten progressively worse and has become a fire year,” according to National Guard Bureau Chief Army Gen. Dan R. Hokanson. From Fiscal Year 2016 to 2021, the number of personnel days the National Guard has dedicated to fire fighting has grown from 14,000 to more than 176,000. (there’s no actual increase in wildfires)
  • Hicks visited Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida, last year. The base was hit by Hurricane Sally in September 2020 and Hicks saw how climate-induced extreme weather is impacting Defense capabilities and critical missions. (hurricanes have always happened)
  • In the Arctic, the changing climate affects ice melt, and it is opening the region to new geopolitical competition. (ice melts at the end of glacial periods)
  • Because of sea-level rise, low elevation areas like the Marshall Islands, home to the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, are at risk of disappearing altogether. (the Marshal islands are atolls, meaning they were created by corals, meaning the seas were much higher when they were created. Oh, and the seas are rising at 1.98mm per year, equivalent to .65 feet per 100 years, pretty much average. Should be way more for a Holocene warm period.)

Stupid examples

“The science is clear,” she noted. “As a nation and as a department, we must do our part to mitigate climate change.  As [President Joe Biden] announced in November of last year, this means reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” Hicks said, adding that 75% of total federal greenhouse gas emissions come from DOD. “[Doing] our part to make significant changes to our energy use and increase our investments in energy technology will create substantial effects for the whole U.S. government.”

How about grounding Air Force 1 and Marine 1?

Read: DOD Finds ‘Climate Change’ A Critical Challenge Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 9, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is an area turning to desert from Permanent Drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on the Green New Deal in action.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Florida Becomes First State Recommending Kids Not Get Chinese Coronavirus Vaccine

By William Teach March 9, 2022 – 10:30 am

This had made the vax cult very unhinged

Florida vaccine plan for children denounced as ‘irresponsible and reckless’

Health experts have widely denounced Florida’s decision to recommend against Covid-19 vaccinations for children, describing it as “irresponsible”, “reckless” and “dangerous”.

In a pronouncement which stunned experts on Monday, Florida’s controversial surgeon general Dr Joseph Ladapo said the state would be the first to “recommend against” Covid-19 vaccination for “healthy children”.

The move followed two recent Covid-19 surges in which pediatric hospitalization was believed to be higher because of low vaccination rates among children. (snip)

Ladapo made the announcement on Monday at the end of a roundtable discussion hosted by Republican governor Ron DeSantis, saying: “The Florida department of health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children.”

The state has not yet released a formal policy to describe exactly who would be included in the designation “healthy children”.

The move goes against accepted advice from federal health authorities and a large majority of independent experts, who recommend vaccines as a powerful tool to protect children from the worst outcomes of Covid-19.

There are plenty of pundits losing their minds over this. Do they care about the science while saying “where’s the science”?

New Data Kills Case for Universal Covid Vax for Kids

A recent study of the efficacy of Covid vaccines for children in New York state provides a striking reminder of how rarely children and adolescents are hospitalised when they get Covid. The study tracked vaccinated and unvaccinated children in New York state last December and January to measure the efficacy of the Covid vaccine against infection and hospitalisation. The study did not track childhood deaths from Covid, presumably because there were so few that no meaningful comparison could be made between these groups.

During those months, a massive wave of Omicron Covid swept through New York state, despite longstanding restrictions and measures like mandated masking for children and vaccine-based segregation. During the peak in the first week of January, the study tracked over 40,000 New York state kids aged 5-11 who tested positive for the virus, with a total of 83 admitted to hospital. The numbers that week were similar for kids aged 12-17 — over 40,000 who tested positive and 141 admitted to the hospital. To provide context, there are about 3 million children in those age groups living in NY state.

What about the efficacy of the vaccine for children in preventing infection or hospitalisation? The results were dispiriting. For older kids, vaccine efficacy against being infected dropped from 76% in the first two weeks after full inoculation to 46% a month later. For the younger kids, it dropped from 65% in the first two weeks to negative efficacy: -41% a month later. In other words, the vaccinated young kids were actually more likely to be infected than unvaccinated kids a month and a half after vaccination. Against hospitalisation, the vaccines held up better over time, but since the number of hospitalisations in this age group was so small even without the vaccine, the vaccine prevented few cases.

So, healthy kids being vaccinated really didn’t help, much like with masking. Strange that no one else in the media is publishing this study. It’s like they don’t want people to know that it seems to be a bad idea to give kids the COVID vaccines at this time.

Read: Florida Becomes First State Recommending Kids Not Get Chinese Coronavirus Vaccine »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Global Wheat, Other Staple Food Prices Spiking, Too

By William Teach March 9, 2022 – 7:59 am

Well, this is one you can’t really blame on Brandon, except in his mishandling of Russia, kinda daring Putin to invade Ukraine. You probably haven’t heard much of this, but, you might have noticed that some bread products are in low supply or missing. I love bagels. The plain Lidl brand are in short supply, and half the time I stop there there are none. The Sam’s Club brand, along with their cheese version, are rare at the two Walmarts I go to. Other brands typically do not have a lot on the shelf. There also seems to be low quantity of English muffins. And wheat is used for quite a few other products.

Russia-Ukraine war could bring ‘biblical event’ as global wheat supply disrupted: Expert

Joe Biden Ice Cream AfghanistanGrain prices were already rising before Russia invaded Ukraine, and recent days have seen unprecedented further gains as two of the world’s biggest producers are at war.

Wheat closed in Chicago at the highest price ever on Monday. Benchmark corn and soybean futures have each surged by 26% this year. Those kinds of increases in food-staple commodities have been associated with social unrest throughout history.

“Remember, bread riots are what started the Arab Spring, bread riots are what started the French Revolution,” said Sal Gilbertie, CEO of Teucrium, the largest U.S. exchange-traded fund issuer focused solely on agriculture funds. “It is a biblical event when you run low on wheat stocks. You won’t see a global food shortage. Unfortunately, what you’re going to see globally is that billions of people might not be able to afford to buy the food.”

Gilbertie doesn’t think the world will run out of wheat — but prices could continue to rise, and that will be most problematic for vulnerable global populations. “Ukraine dominates what they call the sun-seed market,” he said. “Sunflower oil is a major component of cooking oil and food, and you see palm oil rising, and soybean oil rising. That is a big deal, especially for the poorest of the poor, where cooking is a big part of the daily budget.”

People do not tend to notice the rising food prices directly like they do gasoline (and, remember, the rising cost of gas will increase food prices due to delivery cost increases), but, they do notice the slowly rising prices. We’ve already seen the cost increases for beef, chicken, pork, and others, along with shortages.

Let’s bring it back to wheat as an example of the impact of the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. According to the same organization, Russia was the top exporter of wheat by metric tonnes shipped in 2020 and Ukraine the fifth largest. By contrast, China and India top Russia when it comes to production — but consume most of the crops domestically.

How much does that affect the global market? What if Putin decides to not ship that wheat? It’s certainly tough to grow it in Ukraine, harvest it, and ship it in a time of war, right?

As a sidebar, perhaps it’s time to end the ethanol mandates, stop using food to create fuel.

Read: Good News: Global Wheat, Other Staple Food Prices Spiking, Too »

Posted in Current Affairs, Food and Drink | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Brandon Admin Super Excited To Reduce Your Fossil Fuels Usage

By William Teach March 9, 2022 – 7:39 am

At this point, it rather makes me wonder if this is a case of Brandon and other Warmists taking advantage of the economic situation with high gas prices, or if they worked to actually cause it. Because Biden worked from day one to hurt the oil production industry, and then seemingly pushed Putin into invading Ukraine

W.H. Nat’l Economic Council Head: Ukraine Crisis Shows We Need ‘True Energy Independence’ by ‘Reducing Our Dependence on Fossil Fuels’

On Tuesday’s broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” White House National Economic Council Director Brian Deese argued that the situation in Ukraine underscores the need for “true energy independence, and that’s about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.” And that we have to decrease dependence on oil and gas “so that we and our allies, like those in Europe” aren’t as vulnerable to changes in the global price of oil.

Deese stated that the ban on importing Russian oil “will have an impact” on gas prices. And “what we’re focused on is trying to make sure that we can bring — in the short term — supply of oil and gas globally, do everything we can to ensure adequate supply. But also keep an eye on the long term, which is this crisis should underscore how important it is for all of us to achieve true energy independence, and that’s about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. So, over the long term, the kinds of steps we can take here domestically to be less reliant on oil and on gas are really important.”

I have a few ideas on that. I’ll get to it in a moment

Biden’s climate change agenda would reduce oil demand enough to replace Russian imports: Study

st greta carPresident Biden’s announcement that the United States will ban imports of Russian oil caused the price of crude to surge on Tuesday morning. However, the pain that Americans are set to feel at the gas pump could eventually be offset if Congress were to pass Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, a new study finds.

An analysis released Tuesday by the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation finds that the climate change provisions of Biden’s now-defunct proposal, such as tax credits for buying new electric vehicles, would have reduced U.S. oil consumption by 2025 by half of the roughly 200,000 barrels of crude oil from Russia per day that the U.S. imported last year. By 2027, the U.S. would have cut oil consumption by more than it was importing from Russia and by 2030, the U.S. would have cut oil consumption by more than double its Russian imports.

“As long as long as we are dependent on an international energy commodity like oil, whose prices are based on the actions of all producers in the world, whether it’s Russia or OPEC or the U.S., we’re never going to be energy secure,” Robbie Orvis, senior director of energy policy design at Energy Innovation and the author of the report, told Yahoo News. “The only robust, long-term way to be energy secure is to eliminate demand for fossil fuels. The provisions on the table right now would really kind of kick-start that transition.”

You just have to give up lots of money and freedom to do so.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who co-sponsored the Green New Deal legislation, issued a statement on Tuesday calling for the Russian oil import ban to be made permanent and to pass the climate portion of Build Back Better, which would spend $555 billion over 10 years on everything from tax credits for buying solar panels, to incentives for manufacturing longer-lasting solar batteries and small modular nuclear reactors.

Interesting, Markey is attempting to throw in the incentive of nuclear power to woo Republicans to vote for it. Yet, he’s still not putting it up for a stand alone vote, and, you know most Democrats would spike any attempt to build nuclear plants. Anyhow, here’s an idea: if we want to reduce our use of fossil fuels, why not start with the federal government? Biden can stop taking a fossil fueled helicopter ride to Delaware or Camp David almost every weekend. He can stop taking long, fossil fueled flights for day jaunts, like he did yesterday to Texas, which requires a backup jet, fighter jet protection, and a large convoy of fossil fueled vehicles.

Employees of the Executive Branch can be forced to reduce their use of fossil fuels. No more taking their government vehicles home. If they live in the D.C. area, let them walk, bike, take the bus, ride the train. No personal use of government vehicles. Car pooling. Restrict the use of the big SUVs they love using.

For Congress, no more fossil fueled flights on the government dime except where utterly necessary. Take the train. It’s easy for those who live on the west coast and northeast. No private jets. Where they have to fly, commercial only. No flying back and forth constantly. We can start there.

Are oil and gas companies price gouging consumers at the pump?

With gasoline prices poised to reach a new all-time high within days, President Joe Biden recently issued a stern warning to the nation’s oil producers and gas retailers.

“American oil and gas companies should not – should not exploit this moment to hike their prices to raise profits,” Biden said in a speech.

Are they, in fact, illegally price-gouging Americans at the pump or in the oil fields?

Most analysts say the short answer is no, but oil executives sometimes get close to crossing the line of anticompetitive behavior in their public comments.

“Oil companies don’t get to decide what to sell their oil at,” says Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at the fuel-savings app GasBuddy. “Oil prices are decided by (global) buyers and sellers.”

It’s a cute talking point meant to deflect attention, but, they aren’t setting the ultimate price. Perhaps it’s not the best idea to have it set by the buyers and sellers, who can bid up the price because of fear and concern. If Brandon announced a ton of new oil permits, you’d see the price drop, even though there’s no new oil. Why does war in Ukraine increase the price if Russia, Saudi, and others producing the same amount? Fear. You could certainly argue that it’s a reason to reduce our usage, but, it isn’t oil companies price gouging.

It’s almost like Brandon and Warmists are taking advantage of the pain Americans are feeling to push their hardcore agenda, while refusing to do anything in their own lives.

Read: Brandon Admin Super Excited To Reduce Your Fossil Fuels Usage »

Posted in Current Affairs, Energy, Joe Biden | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Stephen Colbert, Comedian, Says High Gas Is No Big Deal, He Has An EV

By William Teach March 8, 2022 – 3:00 pm

Gotta love when a rich elite disses the not so well off

Colbert reportedly gets paid $16 million a year for doing his not funny late show, and rather proves what we’ve been saying: EVs are for the well off. The typical purchaser is making at least $150k-$200K a year. I’m also wondering, why does he even have a vehicle? His show is out of NYC. Why doesn’t he take all the mass transit? Or, is that too good for someone like him?

Environmental groups press California on electric car rules

Electric vehicleMore than 80 environmental groups and other organizations on Monday urged California Governor Gavin Newsom to impose tougher rules promoting electric vehicles even as the state is moving faster than President Joe Biden’s administration.

“Californians being punished by high gas prices and climate disasters deserve the fastest all-electric future Gov. Newsom can deliver,” said Scott Hochberg of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, one of the groups signing the letter.

The groups want Newsom and California air regulators to back requiring more electric vehicles faster than the current plans and to set more stringent annual emissions reductions for gasoline-powered vehicles. They called for 7% annual increases in emissions reductions for gasoline vehicles compared with 5% on average under standards adopted under President Barack Obama. (snip)

The letter, also signed by Greenpeace USA, the California Democratic Party Environmental Caucus and Friends of the Earth, want Newsom to consider requiring 80% or more zero emission vehicles by 2030.

How many members of these groups, the majority of which are California groups, have actually ditched their fossil fueled vehicles and purchased and EV? And, of course they’re pushing “equity” and such, but, people making average wages or less can neither afford and EV nor get a loan for one.

As gas prices head higher, many San Diegans are looking to trade their gas guzzlers for electric vehicles

San Diego’s gas prices hit a new record high Monday. As they did the day before, and the day before that, and what seems to be almost every day lately.

The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded is now $5.38 a gallon in our county, and some stations are closer to $6. Prices here have risen 53 cents in the past week and $1.59 since this same time last year.

That has many San Diegans looking for ways to get around town without using gas, including electric cars. The advice from dealerships? “You gotta be patient,” said Dave McCracken, General Manager at Kearny Mesa Hyundai.

McCracken would love to have you drive off his lot today in a new electric car, but he doesn’t have a single one available, “because they’re selling as quickly as they come in.” So customers are joining waitlists.

But, few are coming in. And, again, unless you make well over $100k, you won’t be getting one, since the vast majority are outside the budget of most people. Let’s do some math (I’m not including fees, taxes, etc, and using an interest rate of 5% for 60 months) on some vehicles similar to the Hyundai Kona EV SEL

  • Honda Civic EX: $26,365/$498 a month
  • Honda Insight EX: $26,775/$505 a month
  • Honda Accord Sport Hybrid: $31,685/$598 a month
  • Kona SEL: Starting at $34,000/$642 a month

OK, so, the Kona is not super crazy unreasonable, if you can get one, right? The Kona will give you a maximum range of 258 miles. The Accord/Civic/Insight are 651/430/540. You can easily find somewhere to refuel them, right? Typically, an Accord will depreciate around 42% after 5 years. The vast majority of EVs, excepting Tesla, depreciate well over 50% in 5 years. The battery packs on a standard hybrid are rated to get 200-300k miles before being replaced. What of EVs, especially since they are in constant use? How many miles? Is $642 worth it vs an Insight, which is really more the same size a vehicle, being a compact sedan vs a Kona which is a subcompact SUV (it’ll be interesting to compare it to the HRV hybrid coming out this fall), knowing that the Insight will have much more value?

They’ll tell us “you’re saving money by going EV, since you don’t have to buy gas!” The Kona is $8220 more over 60 months. $137 a month. Are you spending that a month in gas? Will a bank give everyone a loan for $642? And, don’t forget, most EVs are above $40,000.

Read: Stephen Colbert, Comedian, Says High Gas Is No Big Deal, He Has An EV »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 8, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Da Techguy’s Blog, with a post saying we’ve been played on Ukraine.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Brandon Admin Orders “Broad Review” Of Cryptocurrencies

By William Teach March 8, 2022 – 10:30 am

What could possibly go wrong?

White House to order broad review of cryptocurrencies

The White House is set to release an executive order this week tasking several federal agencies with conducting a broad review of cryptocurrencies, including studying the creation of a U.S. digital currency, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The executive order, which the White House is expected to reveal in the coming days, will task the Treasury, Commerce, State and Justice departments, among other agencies, with studying elements of the fast-growing cryptocurrency market, the person said. The agencies will have roughly three or six months to conduct a review and prepare a public report with recommendations for the federal government’s approach to digital tokens.

Cryptocurrency is a name given to a broad group of digital assets, including widely held bitcoin and ether, thousands of lesser known coins and so-called stablecoins, digital assets designed to be easily redeemed for dollars. Unlike private cryptocurrencies, a U.S. digital currency would be issued by and backed by the Federal Reserve, as are U.S. paper dollar bills and coins.

The move reflects policy makers’ growing awareness of cryptocurrencies as they have exploded in value. Since bitcoin was launched 13 years ago, the federal government has taken a piecemeal approach to the asset class, with some agencies largely sidestepping it while others seek to squeeze it into existing regulatory frameworks designed decades earlier.

So, the Brandon admin just decides to do all this, and potentially create their own cryptocurrency? I’d like to ask “under what authority?”, since Congress hasn’t passed a specific law enabling this, but, Congress has passed so many broad, open ended, we’re not even sure what they do laws that the Executive Office can find a rationale to do almost anything

The White House will ask the Treasury Department to study the creation of a U.S. digital currency, a possibility that the Federal Reserve has already started to evaluate, while the Justice Department will be tasked with reviewing whether Congress would need to pass new legislation for a central-bank digital currency. The person said the order will request the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House to look at the technical considerations of creating a U.S. digital currency.

Why would they want to create their own? It couldn’t possibly be so they can control, tax, or even ban, others, right?

The White House executive order will also task the Treasury Department with reviewing the possible risks cryptocurrencies pose to broader financial stability, as well as the illicit-finance and national security risks that the tokens present, according to the person. Under the order, the Treasury Department will work with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to analyze the risks they pose to consumers.

Might they use those reasons to control or ban?

The Biden administration will review the environmental impact of mining cryptocurrencies, a process of generating revenue by using energy-intensive supercomputers to solve complicated puzzles. The administration will also look at how cryptocurrencies shape economic competitiveness as well as how foreign allies approach digital assets, according to the person.

Or for that reason? And, why is this important? There are enough problems going on without manufacturing a new one.

Read: Brandon Admin Orders “Broad Review” Of Cryptocurrencies »

Posted in Joe Biden | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Jeff Merkley Wants To Transition To A Green Economy To Stop Russia

By William Teach March 8, 2022 – 8:02 am

It’s so cute when Democrats, who fail to give up their own use of fossil fuels, start yammering about getting off oil. Also, Merkley voted “present” when Mitch McConnell brought the Green New Deal up for a vote

Merkley: ‘We Should Have a Climate Emergency’ and Need to ‘Have the World Transition’ to Green Energy to Undercut Russia

On Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) argued that in order to undermine Russia’s power, we have to “end our dependence on oil and have the world transition to renewable energy.” Because Russia will be able to sell oil as long as there’s demand for oil, and called for a “climate emergency.”

Merkley said, “As long as there is a world market for oil, Russia will be able to sell its oil. And so, unfortunately, not all my colleagues yet understand that the way to undercut the power of Russia is to end our dependence on oil and have the world transition to renewable energy.”

He continued that decades ago, we didn’t know about two things: “One was [the] tremendous climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. And the second is, renewable energy was very expensive at that time, as compared to fossil fuels. Now, it’s cheaper. So, we have every reason to pivot quickly. We should be having a national American solar program. We should have a climate emergency. We should be transitioning to offshore wind, and we should be doing it in partnership and leading the world in this effort to end this addiction to oil, this damage to the climate, and the enrichment of people like Putin.”

How many years would this take if we tried it? Perhaps we could undermine Putin’s power in about 10-20 years, right? Perhaps we should be drilling our own oil and natural gas to the point of being energy independent first, which could be done much, much quicker, while at the same time working towards more efficient wind and solar. We can do both to slowly reduce the amount of oil in use.

Declaring a “climate emergency”, though, is more about empowering Government to control and tax citizens, all while the big shots like Merkley refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels

No media outlet ever forces Warmists like Merkley to answer the questions “Have you given up your own use of fossil fuels? Replaced your fossil fueled vehicle with an EV? Stopped taking all those fossil fueled flights across the country and take the train instead?”

Read: Warmist Jeff Merkley Wants To Transition To A Green Economy To Stop Russia »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove