…are rough seas from climate change driving wind, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on Palestinians attacking a Bethlehem church.
Read: If All You See… »
…are rough seas from climate change driving wind, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on Palestinians attacking a Bethlehem church.
Read: If All You See… »
I mean, Politico is hitting the nail on the head, but, they do not really believe it
Donald Trump is heading into 2025 with imperialism on the brain.
Since his November victory, the president-elect has suggested the U.S. should own Greenland, annex Canada and reclaim the Panama Canal — an expansionist air he doubled down on in a spree of Truth Social posts on Christmas Day.
But if Trump’s overtures are evidence that his America First policy agenda may have an interventionist component, they also served as an early reminder of how the incoming president conducts foreign policy: Lots of threats, confusion, freewheeling and a dose of unpredictability. And Republicans are largely writing it off as saber rattling, an approach that sometimes helped Trump get what he wanted out of allies and adversaries during his first term, but also at times threw his administration into chaos or sowed confusion like the famous late-night “Covfeve” tweet.
“I was there at the State Department when a tweet would be issued, and then, every intellectual in the building had to somehow figure out if there’s any logical sense to this and policy to this and if there’s any upside, or if this actually is Covfefe,” said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and appointee in Trump’s first administration.
Well, yeah. The lefties at Politico and other Credentialed Media outlets just do not seem to get that Trump is not a career politician: he’s a businessman who ran for office, and mostly sticking with those private sector business tactics. Sure, they do not always work. That’s life. The moonbats think Trump actually wants to invade and take over Greenland, Canada, and Panama. No. Just sabre rattling. And he keeps them all guessing, unsure of what he will do, because the people Trump is speaking to are career politicians and bureaucrats, who do not understand business, just Politics Speak. They do not do things this way in Politics Speak world.
“But from a foreign policy context, crazy worked just fine the first time,” he said. “If leaders are like, we may not respect you but we absolutely think that you’re bonkers, and we don’t know what’s coming at us next, great. Full send. And if that leads to better peace and prosperity in Ukraine, in Israel, with terrorists on watch, with foreign states. Great. They should be put on notice.”
It mostly worked just fine during the first Trump term, while, during the Political Speak term of Biden-Harris things got a whole lot worse, as they did during the Obama-Biden years.
Dave Carney, the longtime Republican strategist who served as senior adviser this year to the pro-Trump Preserve America super PAC, said Thursday that Trump may be “trying to soften the ground for negotiations,” recalling his threats during his first term to withdraw from NATO — which some Republicans credited with pressuring other countries to increase their defense spending. He said Trump’s unpredictability can be an asset in some scenarios.
“With the president, there’s, I think, always the possibility that other countries think, ‘holy shmoly, he may actually do that, we should try to accommodate him,’” he said.
Correct.
But Trump’s freewheeling nature has also spelled trouble for his administration in the past, prompting concerns from foreign policy and national security experts. His abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria in 2018 was made without consulting his national security team or allies, stunning lawmakers and his own Cabinet when he reportedly reached the decision after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And Trump regularly used Twitter during his first term to issue nuclear threats against countries or orders to the military, a habit that spurred chaos and confusion throughout the ranks of command.
In other words, the career politicians and bureaucrats did not like it. Surprise, and, oh, well.
Read: Republicans Note That Trump’s “Imperialist Crazy” Is Negotiation Tactic »
What could possibly go wrong with this?
New York to charge fossil fuel companies for damage from climate change
Large fossil fuel companies would have to pay fees to help New York fight the effects of climate change under a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Kathy Hochul.
The new law requires companies responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions to pay into a state fund for infrastructure projects meant to repair or avoid future damage from climate change.
Lawmakers approved the bill earlier this year to force big oil and gas companies to contribute to the cost of repairs after extreme weather events and resiliency projects such as coastal wetland restoration and upgrades to roads, bridges and water drainage systems.
“The Climate Change Superfund Act is now law, and New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable,” said state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Democrat who sponsored the bill.
I wonder if Hochul and Krueger have given up their own use of fossil fuels? Nah. We know they haven’t.
The law won’t start penalizing companies immediately. Instead, the state must come up with rules on how to identify responsible parties, notify companies of the fines and create a system to determine which infrastructure projects will be paid for by the fund. Legal challenges are expected.
They’ll have to figure out how much the cost of living will go up from this law, and how many companies will leave NY. Let’s go back to when they were discussing this earlier in 2024
New York Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie threw cold water on a bill that would require major energy companies to pay for climate change remediation, saying the measure could ultimately result in higher costs for utility ratepayers.
The Climate Change Superfund Act would require companies that contributed significantly to the buildup of greenhouse gases to pay for part of the mitigation efforts to offset climate change, including major infrastructure projects like water barriers.
The measure was approved in the state Senate, but has stalled in the Assembly.
Heastie says he’s concerned that it would result in higher utility prices, as the energy companies pass down the costs of the new requirements to ratepayers.
“I’ve never in my life seen corporations choose the ratepayer over the stockholder,” Heastie said. “Asking these companies to pay more, it’s going to be, of course, taken out on the ratepayer.”
It’s unknown if they managed to figure out a way to make it so the fees/taxes can’t be passed on, but, that would mean more companies leaving. They will be passed on. Hopefully those companies that stick around really sock it to the government for government purchases.
Read: New York Governor Finally Signs Laws Making Businesses Pay For Climate (scam) Emissions »
There was a time when there was a pretty big business in migrants with visas coming up from Mexico and Central America to work agriculture, then going home when the job was done. Or even being in the US for a few years on a legal visa. Now, Democrats just want all the illegals and fake asylum seekers to clean their homes, do their yards, and pick their veggies and fruits
Trump migrant deportations could threaten states’ agricultural economies
If President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his pledge to deport millions of immigrants, it could upend the economies of states where farming and other food-related industries are crucial — and where labor shortages abound.
Immigrants make up about two-thirds of the nation’s crop farmworkers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, and roughly 2 in 5 of them are not legally authorized to work in the United States.
Agricultural industries such as meatpacking, dairy farms and poultry and livestock farms also rely heavily on immigrants.
“We have five to six employees that do the work that nobody else will do. We wouldn’t survive without them,” said Bruce Lampman, who owns Lampman Dairy Farm, in Bruneau, Idaho. His farm, which has been in the family three decades, has 350 cows producing some 26,000 pounds of milk a day.
“My business and every agriculture business in the U.S. will be crippled if they want to get rid of everybody who does the work,” said Lampman, adding that his workers are worried about what’s to come.
OK, so, is Lampman employing people not authorized to work in the U.S., be it due to being unlawfully present or fake asylum seekers? That would be illegal. If they are authorized to work, not problem. Unless they are a criminal. Does Lampman, and other companies, want murderers, rapists, child abusers, thieves, etc., working for them? Because those are whom the Trump admin will go after first.
Anita Alves Pena, a Colorado State University professor of economics who studies immigration, noted that many agricultural employers already can’t find enough laborers. Without farm subsidies or other protections to make up for the loss of immigrant workers, she said, the harm to state economies could be significant.
Well, how about getting legal migrant workers? What they really want is to pay these people minimum wage or less to do the job. Are they saying their business model relies on illegal aliens?
How about having those sentenced to jail work the fields? Do the agriculture business owners want these people?
You want them, business owners?
Meanwhile
There’s a phrase in Haitian Creole that describes feelings of extreme stress, anxiety, or depression that are all too common among the thousands of new migrants arriving in Massachusetts: tet chaje.
The literal translation is “burdened head,” a feeling of being overwhelmed. People who work with the state’s surging number of new arrivals, a majority of whom are from Haiti, hear the term often.
Migrants may accrue profound emotional injury both in their home nations, where gang violence or state-sponsored oppression are common, and through the journey to the United States. Many experience rape and assault or witness the deaths of fellow travelers.
Can anyone think of a solution so they do not that profound emotional trauma?
Read: Democrats Upset That Deporting Illegals Could Mess With Agriculture »
It begins
Here are 12 climate resolutions to take with you into the new year
As we head into a new year, it’s a good idea to think about climate resolutions: what small actions can you take to reduce your carbon footprint?
From ditching disposable coffee cups to starting a community garden, our individual efforts go a long way.
Here is Change by Degrees’ handy monthly guide for making meaningful environmental change in 2025.
January: rethink your food
Start the year by focusing on what you eat. Agriculture accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions so even small shifts – like cutting back on meat some days – can help. Eating local food that’s in season supports small farmers and reduces the carbon footprint of imported produce. It’s a win-win that will have an immediate and positive impact on your health and the pockets of small, organic farmers.
Would these be the same local farmers that Big Government is trying to destroy?
February: care for soil and trees
That’s environment, keeping a clean environment.
March: throw a ‘what should I do?’ party
Many people don’t realise their potential to contribute. Host a “what should I do?” party to connect friends with action. Untapped talents can inspire collective change, whether lobbying, organising cleanups, or creating art. Already know your role? Use this month to plan your year of action.
How about giving up your own use of fossil fuels and making your own life carbon neutral?
I’ll let you read the rest. These are all minimal things for the cultists. Will any of them do these? It’s all very silly and cult-like.
…is snow that will SOON! melt away and never fall, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on Larwyn’s Linx.
Read: If All You See… »
It’s not a bad idea, but, done for the wrong cultish idea, and, really, who pays?
France is taking a major step toward renewable energy by requiring large parking lots to install solar canopies.
As The Progress Playbook reported, France first announced this policy in 2023 and finalized it recently. It will apply to outdoor parking areas larger than 1,500 square meters, with the aim of expanding the country’s clean energy output.
Under the new law, most large parking lots will soon be covered by solar panels, transforming them into mini power plants. This mandate aligns with France’s goal to accelerate renewable energy adoption and reduce reliance on dirty energy sources, such as coal and gas.
In addition to generating clean energy, solar canopies offer another perk: shade for parked cars, protecting them from overheating in the sun.
Realistically, putting solar panels above parking areas is a good idea: they are large pieces of land which are used for one thing, and solar will not interfere with their operations, and, as mentioned, provide shade. Not just for the cars but for the people walking to them, as well as protect them from rain and snow.
Solar carports have several advantages. Johan Pienaar, CEO of Eversolar, explained to The Progress Playbook that they make excellent use of space, are easy to maintain, and generate high yields because panels can be optimally positioned. Though they come with higher upfront costs compared to rooftop solar systems, their efficiency ensures a similar cost per kilowatt-hour over time.
“From a return on investments perspective, solar carports definitely make sense,” Pienaar said.
Since I do not want to do math, 1,000 square meters is a block 20 meters by 50 meters. Which is 65 feet by 164 feet. Applied to 1,500 square meters, that’s not a particularly a big space. Maybe 50 car spaces. How much is the cost, and how long does it make to recoup the losses? Who will get the power? Will it be fed back into the grid, or, do the companies get it? And, what will companies charge to make up for the installation costs if they are forced to pay for installation?
Overall, it is a mostly benign climate cult law. Of course, France is also trying to force their peasants out of their vehicles, so, will this be for the Elites who continue to travel in fossil fueled SUVs and limos?
Read: French Government To Require Solar Panels Above All Parking Lots »
Obviously, the rank and file of the Washington Post are all for working from home (and the beach, the mountains, in between Call Of Duty sessions and binge watching their shows), especially since those who run the WP have told employees they need to work from work. There is something interesting in this article
Trump wants federal workers back in the office. It may be a tall task.
President-elect Donald Trump warned federal employees last week that they must return to the office – or else “they’re going to be dismissed.”
The threat was the latest and loudest signal yet that Trump, his allies and Republicans in Congress are committed to ending a remote-work culture that became widespread for the civil service of 2.3 million during the coronavirus pandemic but that many conservatives now decry as an outdated taxpayer-funded perk that has hurt performance across the government.
A quick return to pre-pandemic – or even stricter – federal office policies is not likely to happen with the stroke of a presidential pen.
It’s 2024, almost 2025: the time of Wuhan Flu is long behind us. What is the point in all these taxpayer funded federal employees (supposedly) working from home? How about a study from productivity specialists to see if these taxpayer funded federal employees are actually doing their jobs. How many are getting perks associated with coming in to their place of work, which they aren’t doing?
“It’s in a lot of labor contracts,” Cathie McQuiston, deputy general counsel at the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union representing federal workers, said of the telework arrangements. “And at a lot of these agencies, the reality is, they don’t have the place to put people to force them back five days a week.”
Um, what? Where were they working beforehand? What happened to the office space? Oh, right, Biden was dumping the space over the years. Anyhow, here’s the part that really got my ire up
“AFGE embraces a work environment that includes full in-person, alternate work schedules, telework, and full remote work to best serve the needs of our members and staff,” Brittany Holder, another union spokeswoman, said in an email. The AFGE represents about 750,000 federal employees.
It’s not about what serves the federal employees, it’s what best serves the American taxpayers, who have their money involuntarily taken to pay the federal employees to work from home (at the racetrack, at the bar, sitting out at the pool). That should be the primary consideration. That’s what the job entails. They’ve long forgotten that they are public servants. If it makes sense and saves money without losing productivity to work from home, great! If not, come to the office, or go try and work in the private sector.
Read: On The Return To The Office For Federal Employees Debate, It’s Not About You The Taxpayer »