Climate Today: Warmists Refuse To Date Skeptics On OKCupid, Plus EVs And White Pavement

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 3:00 pm

Cult members refusing to date non-cult members. It’s a cult

Climate change is biggest ‘dealbreaker’ on popular dating app

Opinions surrounding climate change are the biggest “dealbreaker” out of several topics when it comes to finding a match on the popular dating app OKCupid, new data from the company shows.

Among 250,000 users surveyed worldwide over the past year, OKCupid found that 90 percent of daters said that it’s “important” for their match to care about climate change.

Meanwhile, among 6 million users surveyed over the past three years, 81 percent of daters said they were “concerned” about climate change — topping other potential dealbreaker issues like gender equality and gun control.

“We have just seen over time, climate change being more and more this huge topic for our millennials daters especially,” Jane Reynolds, director of product marketing at OKCupid, told The Hill. “People feel that with climate change, it says so much more about you — if that’s something that you believe in and are concerned about.”

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure I’d want to date a climate cult member, either, because they’d be Very Silly in their talking points, while I’d be constantly pointing out that they’re climahypocrites

Filling a gas-powered vehicle can still be cheaper than charging an electric one

…

According to the EPA, the national average for a kilowatt-hour of electricity is 13 cents, including at homes where most electric car owners charge their vehicles with 240-volt Level 2 chargers that typically take eight hours or more to fill them up. Many of these are also available in public settings like office and shopping center parking lots, where they are known as destination chargers.

Things are much different at the Level 3 public DC fast-charging stations that allow some electric vehicles to recharge to 80% as quickly as 18 to 40 minutes, depending on the model and station speed, and are seen by some as the silver bullet that will make owning an electric car as convenient as a gas-powered one. Much of Tesla’s success is attributed to its decision to roll out its proprietary network of Supercharger fast charging stations to support its owners.

On the Electrify America network that’s compatible with all electric vehicles, fast-charge rates are as high as 43 cents per kilowatt-hour in some states, including California, New York, Florida and Washington. The price can be reduced to 31 cents by enrolling in a membership with a monthly fee. (snip)

At the higher rate, charging the entry-level version of the Ford Mustang Mach-E — which has a starting price of $37,495 after federal tax credits are deducted and a range of 247 miles between charges — would cost $2,100 annually for 15,000 miles of driving, compared to $1,500 at 31 cents and just $650 in an average home. (in Reality Tax Land, you cannot just deduct federal tax credits like that.)

In contrast, a similarly sized Ford Escape Hybrid that starts at $32,780 and gets 41 mpg needs just $1,550 worth of gas each year to fill up at $4.25 per gallon, and it’s $2,100 for a nonhybrid $27,755 Escape S rated at 30 mpg. In California, which has the highest priced gasoline at $5.57 per gallon, those costs would be $2,050 and $2,800.

So, you don’t really save, especially when considering the price of the vehicles.

Q&A: Randolph Kirchain on how cool pavements can mitigate climate change
MIT research scientist explores how cool pavements can offer climate change solutions in more than just the summer.

As cities search for climate change solutions, many have turned to one burgeoning technology: cool pavements. By reflecting a greater proportion of solar radiation, cool pavements can offer an array of climate change mitigation benefits, from direct radiative forcing to reduced building energy demand.

Yet, scientists from the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub (CSHub) have found that cool pavements are not just a summertime solution. Here, Randolph Kirchain, a principal research scientist at CSHub, discusses how implementing cool pavements can offer myriad greenhouse gas reductions in cities — some of which occur even in the winter.

Let me note that this is actually a very good idea. Also, that this shows the Urban Heat Island effect, not global warming

Read: Climate Today: Warmists Refuse To Date Skeptics On OKCupid, Plus EVs And White Pavement »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 37 Comments | Trackback URL

If All I See…

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which should be replaced with an EV, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Russia being the wrong enemy in wrong time in wrong place.

Read: If All I See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

After Scuttling Early Measures, Biden To Sort Of Revoke Russia’s Favored Nation Status

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 10:30 am

Did he tell Congress he plans to announce this today? Did they get a heads up? Because they’re rather necessary in this whole scheme

Biden to announce Friday that US will move to revoke ‘most favored nation’ status for Russia

Biden Brain SuckerPresident Joe Biden will announce Friday that the US, along with the G7 and European Union, will call for revoking “most favored nation” status for Russia, referred to as permanent normal trade relations in the US, sources familiar with the move tell CNN.

The move requires an act of Congress.

Each country is expected to implement this measure based on its own national processes. The sources made note of congressional efforts to revoke Russia’s permanent normal trade relations.

Biden will make the announcement Friday and Congress then is expected to introduce legislation.

I wonder if Pelosi was aware of this? Is there legislation to do this? I would suspect it wouldn’t be hard, just a quick line “Russia is removed from most favored nation status”, but, knowing Congress, will it require a whole bunch of extra words? Will they throw in a bunch of unrelated BS?

CNN reported earlier Thursday that bipartisan talks in the Senate had been taking shape to take more aggressive action on Russia’s trade status — after the White House effectively watered down the House-passed bill banning importing Russian oil, natural gas and coal into the US.

The earlier version of the legislation had included a provision that would suspend permanent normal trade relations for Russia and Belarus. But the White House expressed concerns over that part of the bill, and ultimately it was excised. The bill banning Russian energy imports that passed the House Wednesday night instead simply called for a review of Russia’s status in the World Trade Organization.

So, wait, Biden scuttled the stronger measures, and, now wants a measure than is even strong than what was in the House bill? This rather looks like Joe is attempting to be Mr. Big Shot and attempt to Look Strong.

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, told CNN that he was engaging in talks with the top tax writers in Congress and the Biden administration about the matter, as pressure grew to include tougher language in the House bill when the Senate takes it up — as soon as next week.

But, would the language remove Russia from most favored nation status? Will that be added? How long will it take to get this through the Senate? Especially since many Republicans say they won’t vote for the bill if it doesn’t include stronger measures? And then it will have to go back to the House, then back to the Senate.

Who thinks that no one in Congress has considered simply trotting out a simple, one line bill removing Russia from the status today, getting a quick vote in the House, then running it over to the Senate for a quick vote? Then off to Biden’s desk….which could be a problem, since he’s going to Philadelphia for a Democratic caucus conference, then touring a school, then off to Camp David to relax over the weekend. All using lots of fossil fuels in planes and vehicles that are not electric. Not even hybrid.

Read: After Scuttling Early Measures, Biden To Sort Of Revoke Russia’s Favored Nation Status »

Posted in Current Affairs, Joe Biden | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

The War In Ukraine Is Just So Inconvenient For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 7:15 am

All those people getting slaughtered is just so bothersome when the climate cult has to Get Things Done

War in Ukraine complicates war on climate change

A ban on Russian oil, which accounted for about 10 percent of the global supply, has caused the price of oil to climb, leading to pain at the pump, volatile financial markets and a call for increased oil production outside of Russia.

The war, which Biden seemed to triple dog dare to start, just spiked it further

Those calls come at a time when scientists say our window to reduce emissions from oil and other energy sources is rapidly closing shut. Can world leaders shore up oil supplies while making progress on climate change?

“What we’re hearing is governments focusing very urgently on this short term need, but they’re also being clear that this is going to happen at the same time as a longer term transition to clean energy,” said Lisa Friedman, a reporter on the New York Times climate desk.

What do citizens say? The spiking cost of gas, which will cause the price of food and other goods to spike, won’t effect those Elites who are trying to jam the climate scam policies down the throats of the little people. The People are getting a good look at what the policies would do to their lives, though, if fossil fuels are reduced and eliminated without anything viable to replace it.

This is what the Elites think. They are divorced from reality.

Read: The War In Ukraine Is Just So Inconvenient For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Plurality Say Putin Would Not Have Invaded If Trump Was Still President

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 7:00 am

It’s utterly unsurprising that almost no news outlets are covering this

Poll: Plurality Say Russia Would Not Have Invaded Ukraine if Trump Were President

A plurality of likely voters believe that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if former President Donald Trump were still president, a Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday found.

The survey found 57 percent expressing the belief that President Joe Biden “could have done more to prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine.” While most Democrats, 63 percent, believe Biden “did everything possible to prevent that,” 80 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of independents disagree.

The survey then asked, “Would Russia have invaded Ukraine if Donald Trump were still president?” A plurality, 46 percent, said “no,” Vladimir Putin would not have invaded, compared to 38 percent who said “yes,” he would have anyway. Most Republicans and independents, 68 percent and 53 percent, respectively, say Putin would not have invaded if Trump were still president. Nevertheless, 61 percent of Democrats believe Putin would have regardless.  (snip)

This coincides with a Harvard Center for American Political Studies-Harris Poll released last month, showing 62 percent of respondents expressing the belief that Putin would not have taken the same actions and invaded if Trump remained in office. 

I’m actually surprised the number for Republicans is that low. Same with Democrats. You’d think they’d want to protect Dementia Joe. The concerning number for Democrats is the Independents. It may be just 53%, but, combined with the 67% who think Joe pretty much failed, that is not helpful in a mid-term year. Elsewhere from Rasmussen we see

Rasmussen’s latest figures show Biden’s total approval rating hit 39% Thursday, down seven points from just days before Russia began launching missiles into Ukraine when it was at 46%, and only one point above Biden’s all-time low approval rating since he took office in January 2021. (snip)

Rasmussen reported last week that 54% of voters said Biden’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been ineffective. The group also reported 84% expect gas prices to keep rising.

And, when it comes to gas

(Epoch Times) A vast majority of Americans want the country to be energy independent, according to a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports, indicating increasing frustration with rising fuel costs and the impact it has on everyday expenses.

Poll results show 70 percent of likely U.S. voters support a policy of boosting domestic oil and gas production to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign energy supplies. Only 18 percent opposed such a policy, while 12 percent said they were not sure.

The survey, conducted March 3 and 6, comes at a time when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Moscow’s dominance in global oil and gas supplies, have revived the issue of energy independence in the West.

I wonder what that poll would look like if they take it now.

Read: Poll: Plurality Say Putin Would Not Have Invaded If Trump Was Still President »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Joe Biden | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

European Union Reveals Plan To Get Off Russian Fossil Fuels

By William Teach March 10, 2022 – 3:00 pm

Hey, remember when President Trump put sanctions on Nord Stream 2? And warned Europe about being reliant on Russian oil and natural gas? That they should purchase from the U.S.? And Germany laughed?

(I’m hoping the tweet will show, having problems in admin panel)

How’s that going?

Climate change: EU unveils plan to end reliance on Russian gas

As countries scramble to reduce their reliance on Russia’s oil and gas in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine, few places are as exposed as the European Union.

The EU gets roughly 40% of its gas from Russia: According to figures from research group Transport & Environment, this dependence costs around $118m a day.

But moving with a speed few thought possible, the EU has now laid out a strategy that could cut reliance on this fuel source by two thirds within a year.

The REPowerEU plan aims to make Europe independent of Russian fossil fuels by 2030, but the initial efforts focus solely on gas.

The roadmap essentially proposes finding alternative supplies of gas in the next few months and boosting energy efficiency while doubling down on greener sources of power in the medium to longer term.

Well, good luck with this! Where will it come from? Iran? Venezuela? Biden hamstrung U.S. production, so, we can’t export that much more. Trying to replace 40% of gas with “energy efficiency” and “greener sources” is unrealistic, unless they plan to cut down a lot of trees?

Anyhow, it’s totally shocking that Trump was right yet again.

Read: European Union Reveals Plan To Get Off Russian Fossil Fuels »

Posted in Donald Trump, Energy, Europe | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 10, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon form of transportation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on the media saying there is no inflation when you adjust for inflation.

BTW, it would be a really, really, rough ride on that road.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist John Kerry: Ukraine Is Bad, But, Climate Refugees Is Worse

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

There have been some seriously tone deaf takes on Ukraine, and the resulting extra spike in gas prices, but, Kerry’s take is scorching

John Kerry: Ukraine crisis is bad, but ‘wait until you see’ flood of climate refugees

President Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, said that while the Ukraine refugee crisis is a “problem” amid Russia’s invasion, it pales in comparison to the wave of migration that will come if climate change is not addressed.

Kerry, the U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, said during the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston Monday that the U.S. must not lose sight of its path toward clean energy now that the Russia-Ukraine war has accelerated the global energy crisis.

“We’re already seeing climate refugees around the world,” he said. “If you think migration has been a problem in Europe in the Syrian War or even from what we see now, wait until you see 100 million people for whom the entire food production capacity has collapsed.”

Who thinks John Kerry took the train down to Houston, where Ceraweek is being held this year? Or, did he fly on his private, fossil fueled jet?

Kerry said Monday that the goal of the Biden administration is to move toward “energy security” in a “clean energy-based economy.”

“We are driven not by politics, not by ideology,” he said. “We’re driven by mathematics and physics, by science, which tells us, and has been for 35 years or more, what will happen if we don’t do X, Y, and Z.

“And we have the advantage now of having Mother Nature herself share with us the realities of what happens if you don’t do the things that we’ve been talking about for 25, 30 years or more,” he added.

This is the guy who worked hard to block the Cape Wind project. Who has the aformentioned private jet, multiple fossil fueled vehicles and large homes. If this was all about science, not politics, then why are all the “solutions” the same as every other thing Leftists push, namely, more taxes/fees and more government?

Read: Warmist John Kerry: Ukraine Is Bad, But, Climate Refugees Is Worse »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Northern Ireland Passes Law To Be Net Zero By 2050 Or Something

By William Teach March 10, 2022 – 7:00 am

It’s fantastic that the target date is almost 30 years out, eh? Gives them plenty of time to say “we’re getting there!”

Climate change: New law in Northern Ireland aims for net zero by 2050

climate cowNorthern Ireland will soon have its first laws to tackle climate change after MLAs at Stormont passed new, specific legislation.

Agriculture and Environment Minister Edwin Poots had brought the bill.

It will include a target for net zero emissions by 2050 and the appointment of a climate change commissioner. (snip)

Northern Ireland has been the only part of the UK without climate legislation. (snip)

Mr Poots had originally proposed an 82% reduction in emissions by 2050.

But in February the assembly voted to amend that to a net zero target by the same date, saying it would bring Northern Ireland in line with other parts of the UK.

The bill also now includes legal provision for Just Transition – support for sectors to adjust without being unduly penalised.

It’s not actually much of a plan, just a bit political fluff and let’s put together some commissions to figure out how this will actually be done. Hire some commissioners at taxpayer expense. There are some base targets, and report stuff, carbon budgets, and proposals to come up with actual policies. Soon, they’ll get around to how they’ll take more money from citizens and control their lives.

And the required reduction in methane, a potent greenhouse gas mostly produced by agriculture, will be limited to 46% under the new laws, following an amendment brought by Mr Poots during an earlier stage of debate.

They’re damned sure not going to interfere with their cow and dairy industry, nor crops. Nor the exports on machinery. But, it’s some great climavirtue signaling.

Read: Northern Ireland Passes Law To Be Net Zero By 2050 Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove