…is a flag of a big climate polluter, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is IOTW Report, with a post on Happy ‘You Know, The Thing’!
And Yankee Doodle Mouse, one of my favorites
Read: If All You See… »
…is a flag of a big climate polluter, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is IOTW Report, with a post on Happy ‘You Know, The Thing’!
And Yankee Doodle Mouse, one of my favorites
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in the Once And Future Nation of America. The Sun is shining, the mockingbirds are singing the songs of lots of other woodland creatures, and it is Independence Day. This pinup is by Tristan Thompson, no addition needed.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets†calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me.
Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!
Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?
Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup – Independence Day Edition »
Who’s going to make this happen?
In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That’s at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel. In their new study, “Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use,” in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.
Vogel and his colleagues set themselves the goal of figuring out how to “provide sufficient need satisfaction at much lower, ecologically sustainable levels of energy use.” Referencing earlier sustainability studies they argue that human needs are sufficiently satisfied when each person has access to the energy equivalent of 7,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per capita. That is about how much energy the average Bolivian uses. Currently, Americans use about 80,000 kWh annually per capita. With respect to transportation and physical mobility, the average person would be limited to using the energy equivalent of 16–40 gallons of gasoline per year. People are assumed to take one short- to medium-haul airplane trip every three years or so.
You’re down with all this in your own lives, right, Warmists? You’re happy to comply, right?
In addition, food consumption per capita would vary depending on age and other conditions, but the average would be 2,100 calories per day. While just over 10 percent of the world’s people are unfortunately still undernourished, the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the daily global average food supply now stands at just under 3,000 calories per person. Each individual is allocated a new clothing allowance of nine pounds per year, and clothes may be washed 20 times annually. The good news is that everyone over age 10 is permitted a mobile phone and each household can have a laptop.
Still good, Warmists? You want to live this life, right? Who is supposed to make all this happen? The study avoids mentioning the answer.
Vogel and his colleagues are undaunted by the fact that there are absolutely no examples of low-energy societies providing decent living standards—as defined by the researchers themselves—for their citizens. So they proceed to jigger the various provisioning factors until they find that what is really needed is a “more fundamental transformation of the political-economic regime.” That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.
There aren’t any, not during this time period. What might have been considered decent living standards hundreds of years ago with no energy aren’t these days.
“We also found that a fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use,” said co-author Daniel O’Neill, from Leeds’ School of Earth and Environment. “To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income level. We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes.”
Two things that humanity for sure doesn’t need according to the study are economic growth or the continued extraction of natural resources such as oil, coal, gas, or minerals. Vogel concluded: “In short, we need to abandon economic growth in affluent countries, scale back resource extraction, and prioritize public services, basic infrastructures and fair income distributions everywhere.” He added, “In my view, the most promising and integral vision for the required transformation is the idea of degrowth—it is an idea whose time has come.”
Oh, so a completely political study. Who’s actually making money which low energy and no travel? Where’s it coming from for all this stuff with no economic growth? What would really be massive devolution of economies.
Read: To Stop Climate Crisis (scam), Americans Must Reduce Their Energy Use By 90% »
…is a horrendous fossil fueled vehicle causing buildings to collapse, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on “Hercules” explaining the 400,000 reasons why you should stand for the national anthem and respect the flag.
Going right into Independence Day weekend in appropriate style.
Read: If All You See… »
The Army is expecting that at least one or more of the current COVID vaccines will be fully approved by the FDA by September. What they aren’t saying is what the penalty will be for non-compliance
Prepare for mandatory COVID vaccines in September, Army tells commands
The Army has directed commands to prepare to administer mandatory COVID-19 vaccines as early as Sept. 1, pending full Food and Drug Administration licensure, Army Times has learned.
The directive came from an execute order sent to the force by Department of the Army Headquarters.
Army Times obtained a portion of a recent update to HQDA EXORD 225-21, COVID-19 Steady State Operations.
“Commanders will continue COVID-19 vaccination operations and prepare for a directive to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for service members [on or around] 01 September 2021, pending full FDA licensure,†the order said. “Commands will be prepared to provide a backbrief on servicemember vaccination status and way ahead for completion once the vaccine is mandated.â€
The Army won’t comment on the validity of the leaked policy, but, come on, it rings true, especially with Sleepy Joe stooges in charge. So far, around 70% have been vaccinated. What happens to the other 30%?
The Veterans Affairs administration is currently weighing a plan to require all VA staffers to receive the vaccine, amid growing worry worldwide about the more severe Delta variant of the virus.
The Navy also recently told sailors to expect a mandatory vaccination program despite having the highest vaccine acceptance rate thus far.
The Navy is at 72%, with 80% having had at least one shot. The Air Force is at 61%, the Marines at 40%, and the VA has around 70% vaccinated. Will service members be given a discharge if they refuse to take it? Will it be honorable, less than honorable, or dishonorable? What about members who have been in for 10+ years, higher ranking officers and non-commissioned officers, who bring lots of value to Army and other branch operations?
Read: Army Looks To Mandate COVID Vaccines For All Service Members In September »
Most courts have generally avoided telling the administrative and legislative branches what to do about ‘climate change’, saying that it is the responsibility of those branches, usually the legislative, rather than court imposed solutions. Because they aren’t there to make policy. But, this top French court is demanding that France Do Something
Top court gives French government nine months to act on climate change
France’s highest administrative council on Thursday told the government to act now against climate change to ensure it meets comments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or else it could face potential fines.
The Conseil d’Etat, which acts as a legal adviser to the executive and as the supreme court for administrative justice, last November, gave the government three months to show it was enacting climate policies that make attainable a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 40% of their 1990 levels by 2030.
Nearly eight months later, it said that target still looked unattainable unless new measures were taken swiftly.
“The Conseil d’État therefore instructs the government to take additional measures between now and March 31, 2022, to hit the target,” the council said.
A spokesperson for the council said it would assess the state’s actions after the deadline and could issue a fine if measures fell short of what was necessary.
So the government will fine the government if the government fails to take action? What actions does the court recommend?
The Conseil d’Etat’s stance has raised questions about credentials of President Emmanuel Macron as a champion of fighting climate change ad affirms the binding nature of greenhouse gas reduction targets contained in legislation.
It didn’t. It waded heavily into politics, though. No measures were suggested or recommended. One thing the government could do would be to remove the air conditioning and heat for the offices of the court. Disallow the use of fossil fuels for the court’s business and declare employees of the court can no longer own a fossil fueled vehicle and are not allowed to take fossil fueled flights. No meat on court property. Sounds fair, right?
Greenpeace France hailed what it called “a clear ultimatum issued in the face of the government’s inaction over climate change.”
Should a court be declaring an ultimatum that could significantly increase the cost of living while reducing their freedom, liberty, and choice, in a nation that has already implemented lots of measures that have already done the same?
Read: Top French Court Tells French Government It Has 9 Months To Do Something About Hotcoldwetdry »
With it being summer and people using more air conditioning, Time Magazine is very upset. Not upset enough for them to give up their office AC, of course
A/C Feels Great, But It’s Terrible for the Planet. Here’s How to Fix That
For the past few days, a heatwave has glowered over the Pacific Northwest, forcing temperatures in the region to a record-breaking 118ºF. Few people in the region—neither Americans nor Canadians—have air-conditioning. Stores sold out of new AC units in hours as a panicked public sought a reasonable solution to the emergency. Unfortunately, air-conditioning is part of what’s causing the unusual heatwave in the first place.
We came close to destroying all life on Earth during the Cold War, with the threat of nuclear annihilation. But we may have come even closer during the cooling war, when the rising number of Americans with air conditioners—and a refrigerant industry that fought regulation—nearly obliterated the ozone layer. We avoided that environmental catastrophe, but the fundamental problem of air conditioning has never really been resolved.
This comes via Jazz Shaw, who writes
As I said, the article begins with the history of air conditioning and how it was originally invented for industrial purposes rather than personal cooling. It then steps through the various incarnations of cooling technology… at great length. Finally, at the very end, we get to the big reveal. What do we do about it? Here you go.
The troubled history of air-conditioning suggests not that we chuck it entirely but that we focus on public cooling, on public comfort, rather than individual cooling, on individual comfort. Ensuring that the most vulnerable among the planet’s human inhabitants can keep cool through better access to public cooling centers, shade-giving trees, safe green spaces, water infrastructure to cool, and smart design will not only enrich our cities overall, it will lower the temperature for everyone. It’s far more efficient this way.
To do so, we’ll have to re-orient ourselves to the meaning of air-conditioning. And to comfort. Privatized air-conditioning survived the ozone crisis, but its power to separate—by class, by race, by nation, by ability—has survived, too. Comfort for some comes at the expense of the life on this planet.
It’s time we become more comfortable with discomfort. Our survival may depend on it.
By we, they mean you. Not themselves at Time. And who will force people to re-orient themselves? Government, of course! You should no longer have privatized air condition. Just get used to discomfort, peons.
Anyway, a couple other things from the article below the fold
Read: Time Magazine: AC Is Really Bad For ‘Climate Change’, Here’s How Government Can Take It Away »
…is a hazy day from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on “Entitled Progressive White Male Governor Bullies Minority Woman to Bend the Law on His Behalf”
Read: If All You See… »