Pirate's Cove

Anyone think China and Russia are doing the same? We aren’t talking about taking the weather into account, or how the climate has always changed. We’re talking Cult of Climastrology stuff

US Army to prioritize fight against climate change

The U.S. Army recently released a bulletin stating that it will henceforth be “prioritizing climate change” in its strategic defense planning.  The Defense Department has already established the “Department of Defense Climate Working Group,” a new office that will coordinate the DOD’s ongoing response to the allegedly grave threat that climate change poses to the national security of the United States.  I wonder if Greta Thunberg will be heading up the DDCWG.

The Army’s laser focus on climate change appears to be in response to President Biden’s stated agenda of aggressively addressing climate change across governmental bodies and is occurring simultaneously with the culture change being imposed on the U.S. military from the top down.  Defense secretary Lloyd Austin, for example, fully supports Biden’s emphasis on climate change…as long as it doesn’t take time away from the troops’ mandatory “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity Training” or their indoctrination into Marxist theory.

This past April, Austin asserted that “climate change is making the world more unsafe and we need to act.”  He added, “Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis.  We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential.  The climate crisis does.”

Am I the only one concerned that the most important military in the world is frightened by climate change?

No. I’m concerned that they are forgetting what their mission is, and will make the Army weak. We’re already seeing that happen. Soon it will only be stocked with soy boys, militant feminists, and envirowackos, who will all be worthless in a fight, and will mostly all be conscientious objectors.

Austin also noted that his military is committed to electrifying its vehicle fleets and operating more sustainably.  What about the cost to build/retrofit, as well as issues with performance and charging time, etc.?  All things considered, will these vehicles really be better for the environment?  And is that the point of a military?

How will you electrify a tank? How will you charge vehicles in the middle of the desert? Should be fun having large numbers of vehicles sitting around for long periods charging, eh? I’m sure the enemy will wait patiently. How about the planes and helicopters? The ships?

Shouldn’t we all be more concerned about the “sustainability” of our freedom and way of life?

That’s so old school. You need to wake up to the New Army, pal.

Read: US Army To Prioritize Focus On ‘Climate Change’ »

Even though there have been plenty of reports that cities are actually the worst offenders for the climate crisis (scam), Warmists have never been happy about the suburbs, because they mostly do not control them. Suburbs tend to be run by Republicans and stocked with Republicans, along with Democrats who do not really care about crazy left wing things like ‘climate change’. Plus, this really isn’t about ‘climate change’, it’s about controlling suburbs and turning them Leftist

Report: ‘Unsustainable’ Suburban America Contributes to Climate Change

The iconic American suburban neighborhoods that attract families looking for safe and prosperous areas have been targeted in recent years – first from those who believe zoning is a racist tactic to keep certain people out of the neighborhoods.

And now a report from the left-leaning Brooking Institute is claiming that the “unsustainable” nature of the suburbs means they must be transformed in the name of preventing climate change.

The Brooking Institute report touts President Joe Biden’s “ambitious and necessary” goal to reduce greenhouse gas emission to 50 percent of the amount emitted in 2005 by 2030, with even bigger reductions by 2050.

Brookings, citing a New York Times report, said reaching Biden’s climate change goals with require “systems-level changes across every sector of the economy.”

Strange how in order to get to those climate scam goals everything has to change, eh? It’s almost like this is all about politics, not science. Brookings writes

But there’s a problem. The administration’s high-level strategy skimmed over a central driver of our climate crisis: unsustainable land use practices. Simply put, the United States cannot reach its GHG reduction targets if our urban areas continue to grow as they have in the past. After decades of sprawl, the U.S. has the dubious honor of being a world leader in both building-related energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled per capita. Making matters worse, lower-density development also pollutes our water and requires higher relative emissions during the initial construction.

That leaves the country with no choice: We must prioritize development in the kinds of neighborhoods that permanently reduce total driving and consume less energy. Such human-centered neighborhoods have the added benefit of helping us adapt to climate impacts, improve public health, and promote access to activities. Encouraging their development should be a central part of any national climate resilience strategy.

Oh, so the government, especially the federal government, getting heavily involved in the affairs of the suburbs and rural areas. Surprise?

The report proposes two solutions to force changes in American neighborhoods:

• Use market principles to send climate-sensitive price signals. Real estate developers, lenders, and households will make more resilient investment decisions if they understand the climate-related costs of their decisions and bear some brunt of the financial impact. For example, charging higher mortgage interest rates or increasing insurance premiums could steer development away from sensitive areas. It also works in reverse, as federal or state incentives could encourage more resilient development patterns, such as conserving land and incorporating greener designs.
• Use statutory authorities to scale policy adoption. The federal government doesn’t directly control land use, but it has several policy levers to influence it, including flooding and disaster insurance, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending rules, the location and quality of transportation investments, and environmental permitting laws. Federal rules—whether done through a carrot or stick approach—can push states, fragmented metropolitan areas, real estate developers, and households to act in predictable, sustainable ways.

See? More control. I’d like an apology from all those who said I was crazy back in the early 2000’s that this was all about politics and not science.

“We need to undo decades of bad habits, returning to traditional people-centered neighborhood designs and incorporating forward-looking building technologies that promote more sustainable and equitable living. It’s a generational lift—and time is running out, the report concludes. “Statements of intent are important signals, and don’t cost politicians much. It’s imperative that our national leaders start naming land use challenges when they discuss our climate future. But we can’t afford to stop there. America needs federal leadership to test ideas and scale solutions. Land use may be local, but our climate future is shared.”

Bad habits? Mind your own f’ing business. Why don’t you start with getting rid of fossil fueled vehicles in your own cities? Seriously, these people are trying to change the suburbs and flip them and control them by any means necessary. Using ‘climate change’ is one way, another is by attempting to eliminate single family housing, as they’re trying to do in Piedmont, California, claiming that single family housing zoning is raaaaacist. These people are really evil in their attempts to control everything.

Read: Climate Cult Now Considers Suburbs Unsustainable »