environmentalism

Opinion/Analysis: Biden’s radical climate plan would destroy US economy

Less than two months into the primaries, only two viable candidates remain for Democratic voters: Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist and admirer of Fidel Castro, and former Vice President Joe Biden, an entrenched Washington gaffe-machine whose biggest selling point is that he’s not quite as far left as most of his extremely far-left competitors. From the get-go, Biden has built his campaign on the idea that although he agrees with many of his radical friends about the problems facing America, he doesn’t believe that we should completely abandon the free market for a socialist hellscape like Cuba or Venezuela. Biden’s campaign slogan might as well be changed to: “Hey, at least I’m not a socialist!” While it’s true he isn’t the Castro-loving Marxist that Comrade Bernie is, the media’s portrayal of Biden as the quintessential “moderate” Democrat couldn’t be further from the truth. Biden’s policies are unquestionably progressive, and far from anything resembling a moderate approach to governance. Perhaps one of the best examples of Biden’s extremely liberal agenda is his climate plan. It isn’t on the same scale as the Green New Deal offered by Bernie Sanders and fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., but it, too, would wreak economic destruction. Although Biden has been vague about the details, he wants the United States to reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050, at the latest, by dramatically increasing regulations and taxpayer-funded renewable energy subsidies and by forcing people to buy “greener,” more expensive cars and homes. One of the most destructive ways Biden plans to reduce CO2 emissions is by forcing “polluters” to “bear the full cost of the carbon pollution they are emitting.” This is political-speak for creating huge new taxes on energy-intensive businesses like manufacturers, who often can’t afford to spend significantly more to power their operations and don’t want to depend on less-reliable “green” energies like wind and solar. According to Biden’s own estimates, his plan would cost a whopping $1.7 trillion in new federal spending over 10 years. But that’s only scratching the surface of the true costs of his radical proposal. Biden says he will pay for his costly plan by increasing tax rates on corporations — some of the nation’s largest employers — from 21 percent to 35 percent, a move that could on its own reverse the tremendous economic growth that has occurred since Republicans and President Trump passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. Additionally, because Biden’s plan — like all climate change proposals — would impose more expensive energy costs, economists have consistently found that productivity and total economic growth would be substantially reduced by even the most modest parts of his policy. For example, part of Biden’s strategy for reducing CO2 emissions is to force the United States to re-enter the Obama-era Paris Climate Agreement, which would have required America to reduce its emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. (President Trump announced the removal of the U.S. from the Paris deal in June 2017.) The Heritage Foundation estimates that by 2035 the Paris Agreement would create a loss of nearly 400,000 jobs, an average income loss of $20,000 for a family of four, and a $2.5 trillion reduction in U.S. GDP. And what would Americans get in return for all of this economic chaos? Absolutely nothing. Even if you believe that human-caused global warming is an existential threat to the world — a delusional belief that simply isn’t supported by the available data — there’s nothing the United States can do to meaningfully affect global climate over the next century, a fact Biden’s own campaign admits. On Biden’s campaign website, he acknowledges, “The United States accounts for only 15 percent of global emissions, so we know we cannot solve this emergency on our own. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world.” This presents a massive problem for Biden and Democrats, because many of the world’s largest economies are significantly increasing their CO2 emissions every year, and there’s no reason to believe that trend is going to stop. For example, since 1992, CO2 emissions in China have increased by 270 percent, and the country is increasing its reliance on coal by remarkable levels. The Guardian (U.K.) reported in November 2019 that China has a pipeline of “coal plants that are either under construction or suspension but are likely to be revived … This is more than all existing coal plants in the EU combined and almost 50 percent higher than the … capacity planned in the rest of the world.” Biden’s plan to deal with the rest of the world’s unwillingness to jump off the economic cliff by embracing expensive forms of energy is to spark a trade war with any nation that refuses to adopt his proposal. According to Biden’s website, “As the U.S. takes steps to make domestic polluters bear the full cost of their carbon pollution, the Biden administration will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.” These “fees” and “quotas” would raise the price of goods and services around the world, but especially here in the United States, crushing the economy and driving businesses overseas. Biden might sell himself as a “moderate” to win back disaffected Midwestern voters, but nothing could be further from the truth, as his climate policies clearly illustrate.

Indeed..   Thanks to Justin Haskins for that eye-opening, and sobering assessment of the Biden agenda.  Justin is the executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and the editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com. He’s the author of “Socialism Is Evil: The Moral Case Against Marx’s Radical Dream.” Follow him on Twitter @JustinTHaskins.

New York plastic bag ban takes effect, customers ‘not happy’

The New York law banning so-called single-use plastic bags took effect Sunday, with some customers balking at the new rules. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office celebrated the law with a graphic reading “buh bye.” “Sending a big farewell to single-use plastic bags,” the mayor’s office wrote. “We’ve moved on to eco-friendly reusable bags and we’re not looking back.” New York became one of only a handful of states to outlaw plastic bags when lawmakers approved the ban last year as part of a new state budget. Under the new law, local counties will have the option of imposing a 5-cent fee on paper bags, with 3 cents going to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund and 2 cents kept by local governments. Enforcement, however, will not begin until April 1, and a plastic bag manufacturer and New York City bodega owners are challenging the law at the state Supreme Court. Stores busted selling the banned bags would face a verbal reprimand, then a $100 fine for a second violation and a $500 fine for a third infraction. Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said last year that going without plastic bags will be a “minor inconvenience” compared to the devastating impact of plastic pollution. State figures estimate that New Yorkers now use 23 billion single-use plastic bags each year. “By 2050, there will be more plastic by weight in the oceans than fish,” Cuomo said in April 2019. “You would have to be blind not to see what’s going on with our environment.” “I was totally shocked,” Target shopper Richie Alvarez, 49, told the Post. “This is what our world is coming to. Yeah, they charged me extra for the bag. That’s why I only took one. It would normally be two or three bags.” In a January 2019 paper published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, University of Sydney economist Rebecca Taylor found that plastic bag bans in cities did reduce plastic bag use there, but that garbage bag sales “skyrocketed” because people still need to pick up dog poop or line trash bins, she told NPR.

Exactly!  This is fascist, big-government, touchy-feely, political correctness gone crazy.  It’s the kind of petty, silly bs that liberals spend all their time and effort on; making life miserable for everyone.  They focus on plastic bags and straws and other similar irrelevant nonsense, while homeless people are defecating on our sidewalks and crime is going through the roof.  No wonder people are fed up with these idiot liberal Democratic politicians.  Heck, the coronavirus is more popular than NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Mnuchin says Greta Thunberg should study economics before calling for fossil fuel divestment

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took a shot at Greta Thunberg — the famed teen climate activist — on Thursday over her push at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, for companies to immediately cease all investments in fossil fuels. Mnuchin was at a news conference in the Alpine town when he was asked about Thunberg’s earlier appeal to abandon older sources of energy, according to Reuters. “Is she the chief economist? … After she goes to college and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us,” he was quoted saying. Thunberg, 17, from Sweden, has been embraced by celebrities and is seen by supporters as a fierce, young voice capable of rallying support for her cause: to clean up the environmental mess left by previous generations. Her detractors view her as a media-generated star who admitted that she was surprised when she was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year.” There appears to be no love lost between Thunberg and President Trump, who called Time magazine’s decision “ridiculous.” Thunberg said in September that talking to Trump at the U.N. General Assembly in New York City would have been a waste of time. In Davos, Thunberg took part in a panel discussion hosted by The New York Times, where she told the audience there is a real need for immediate action on climate change. “Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour,” she said, according to the Times. “Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low carbon economy.’ We don’t need to ‘lower emissions.’ Our emissions have to stop.” Trump and Thunberg were both in Davos at the same time and “sparred indirectly,” the Reuters report said, though Trump appeared to “extend an olive branch” when he told reporters he wished that he was able to hear her speak before he left.

Good on Sec. Mnuchin calling out this kid with NO life experience, and who knows absolutelynothing about economics.  She’s propped up by the media left because she’s young and spouting their talking points.  Someone needs to ask her how she got to Davos.  Did she take a plane?  A car?  Typical liberal hypocrisy…..

Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently suggested Miami would disappear in “a few years” due to climate change. The United Nations is convening a “Climate Action Summit” next week. And climate activist Greta Thunberg is on Capitol Hill this week telling lawmakers they must act soon. But while data from NASA and other top research agencies confirms global temperatures are indeed rising, a newly compiled retrospective indicates the doomsday rhetoric is perhaps more overheated. The conservative-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a lengthy compilation of apocalyptic predictions dating back decades that did not come to pass, timed as Democratic presidential candidates and climate activists refocus attention on the issue. The dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters – famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations – if the world failed to act on climate change. An Associated Press headline from 1989 read “Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials.” The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000. Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending “cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere.” That claim came from an “international team of specialists” cited by The New York Times in 1978. Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that “another ice age” was imminent. “Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest,” the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that “Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast.” In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, “Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century.” The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist’s claim that the world could be “as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.” Some of the more dire predictions came from Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who famously urged population control to mitigate the impacts of humans on the environment. Ehrlich, in 1969, warned that “everybody” would “disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years,” The New York Times reported. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Ehrlich, warning of a “disastrous” famine,” urged placing “sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water.” Those predictions were made around the time former President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, the U.S. has adopted a series of environmental reforms aimed at limiting emissions. Years after those initial predictions, media outlets and politicians continue to teem with claims of apocalyptic scenarios resulting from climate change. Earlier this month, leading Democratic presidential candidates held a town hall on the issue and warned about the “existential” threat posed by a changing climate. Before the end of the month, 2020 candidates are expected to have another climate forum at Georgetown University. CEI’s report came just before the U.N. Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23, an event that promises to “spark the transformation that is urgently needed and propel action that will benefit everyone.” It also came a week after Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned that Miami would be gone in a “few years” because of climate change. She was responding to critics of her ambitious “Green New Deal,” which seeks to reach net-zero emissions within just decades. Ocasio-Cortez, whose plan has been endorsed by leading presidential candidates, previously joked that the world would end in 12 years if it didn’t address climate change. But short-term predictions weren’t a laughing matter in the years following “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary produced by former Vice President Al Gore. In 2008, ABC released an ominous video about what the world would look like in 2015. As the video warned about rising sea levels, a graphic showed significant portions of New York City engulfed by water. Gore himself famously predicted in the early 2000s that Arctic ice could be gone within seven years. At the end of seven years, Arctic ice had undergone a period of expansion…

It’s interesting that in Great Britain, the courts there ruled that Al Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance” is not allowed to be used in any of the schools as a textbook or resource because an analysis of that book revealed more than 13 major factual errors; assertions he either made that were factually inaccurate, OR predictions he made that never came to pass.  And yet, the enviro-wackos continue to turn to him as some authority on so-called “global warming” (or it’s latest term, “climate change”).  If only we had such common sense quality control here in America..  Kudos to CEI for putting out this report exposing the extreme liberal enviro movement, and their debunked chicken little nonsense.  We hope other credible organizations, institutions, and scientists follow CEI’s lead.

Joe Bastardi: Climate change agenda is being driven by hysteria, not facts

Throughout my 40 year career as a meteorologist, I have tried to live up to the responsibility I inherited from my predecessors. I was taught to strive for objective truth, irrespective of where the data would lead. Science is not a belief system based on feelings or subjective motives. It is about facts, evidence, theories and experimentation in search of a conclusion. The impassioned speech by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to Congress last week revealed volumes about the intent and commitment of those pushing the Green New Deal. I can’t help but question if their positions are based on facts. Ocasio-Cortez’s statements about adverse climate effects and policy proposals reflect a lack of knowledge about energy policy and the geopolitical and financial impacts of abandoning fossil fuels in a quick and reckless manner. “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” she said earlier this year – a statement clearly designed to elicit panic but hardly based on fact. In this age of political hysteria, we must all educate ourselves on the facts – the actual science. Unfortunately, there seems to be a total lack of awareness about important issues that scientists like myself – who aren’t paid by research grants – are concerned about. Instead, climate science is being used as a political weapon, and the voices of scientists like me are being ignored or even vilified. I was under the impression that in the United States, all voices and arguments should be heard. Climate science is not settled science. If it was, why would there be a continuous flow of money to research it? For example, is AOC aware that in the fossil fuel era, in spite of a four-fold increase in population, deaths have plummeted? Or that personal GDP and life expectancy – true measurements of progress – have dramatically increased? Or that world prosperity is rising while poverty is falling? And does AOC know that in the geological history of the Earth, there is no apparent direct link between carbon dioxide and temperature? AOC is trying to capture the imagination of young people to exact a specific result – the adoption of policies that cripple our way of life and push us towards socialism. But the charts above are only a few examples of data that should cause us to pause and ask questions about the direction that the Green New Deal wants America to go in. We should also ask why there is such a hurry to get there. For every current event that is used to whip up hysteria, there has been a past event that was even worse, but that people either ignore or are ignorant about in the first place. Extreme weather has always occurred and will inevitably continue. If climate alarmists do not know about the many arguments that question the credibility of their ideas, how is it even possible for their ideas to be seriously considered? Much of what is being proposed in the Green New Deal should not only cause skepticism, but should be considered draconian and even geopolitically dangerous. The migration towards cleaner, alternative energy needs to be done in a methodical, sustainable and intelligent way, otherwise, the consequences could be far worse than anyone can imagine. Perhaps we should pause and consider why none of the global warming models from two decades ago have come to fruition. Perhaps we should slow down and think about the consequences of allowing our adversaries to supply the world with cheap energy, because one thing is for sure – wind farms and solar panels won’t get the job done. The objective reader should examine all sides of the climate debate and should ask himself: Are the consequences of acting hastily worse than not acting at all? I think many are skeptical of rushing forward. We must rein in the political hysteria and fear-mongering that is driving the climate change agenda.

Agreed!!  And well said, Joe.  Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting and the chief meteorologist at weatherbell.com. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others.”       🙂

Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, ripped into New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend as a “pompous little twit,” saying the Green New Deal plan she’s advocating is “completely crazy.” In a series of tweets, Moore argued Ocasio-Cortez, who has called for drastically reducing fossil fuel production, doesn’t realize what would happen across the world if the radical plan were implemented. “If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating,” Moore said in a tweet Saturday directed at Ocasio-Cortez. “You would bring about mass death.” Moore left Greenpeace after 15 years and is now critical of the group, later writing the book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.” Greenpeace, years ago, distanced themselves from Moore and say he overstates his past affiliation with them. Referring to the New York Democrat as a “pompous little twit,” Moore said, “You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities.” Moore also unloaded on her for calling climate change “our World War II.” “It’s her @GND that would be worse than WW2,” he said. “Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.” In another tweet, Moore called the Green New Deal “so completely crazy it is bound to be rejected in the end.” He also referred to Ocasio-Cortez as a “garden-variety hypocrite,” in response to a New York Post story that said the Democrat frequently used gas-guzzling Uber and Lyft rides during her 2018 campaign instead of taking the subway station near her campaign office. “You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know,” Moore said. Ocasio-Cortez responded to that story over the weekend saying she’s “living in the world as it is.” But she said that shouldn’t be “an argument against working towards a better future.”

What a weak response!  Kudos to Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, for calling AOC out like that.  Excellent!!    🙂

With Hickenlooper out, Colorado’s empowered environmentalists target oil and gas industry

For eight years, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper shielded the oil and gas industry from the salvos of the environmental left, but now there’s a new political regime in town with no love for fossil fuels. Without the pro-fracking Mr. Hickenlooper to run interference, Colorado Democrats are poised to deliver a body blow to the state’s $31 billion oil and gas industry with Senate Bill 181, legislation aimed at prioritizing environmental and safety concerns that critics have described as a de facto prohibition on drilling. “That bill, SB 181, make no mistake, it has nothing to do with public health and safety and everything to do with banning energy development in the state of Colorado,” Amy Oliver Cooke, executive vice president of the free-market Independence Institute, said at a Friday protest rally in Greeley. Still, nobody doubts that the measure will pass. The state Senate advanced the bill during Wednesday’s blizzard on a 19-15 party-line vote with one abstention, sending the measure to the House and one step closer to the desk of Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat and longtime fracking foe who campaigned last year on 100 percent renewable energy by 2040. Environmental groups cheered the vote. “The state Senate is showing real national leadership, showing other states how to protect communities from the public health and safety impacts of oil and gas extraction,” said Sam Gilchrist, western campaigns director at the National Resources Defense Council. New York, Maryland and Vermont have gone further by prohibiting fracking, but unlike those states, Colorado has a major oil and gas industry presence. The nation’s fifth-largest producer of natural gas, Colorado fossil-fuel development supported nearly 233,000 jobs in 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Colorado “is going to do something that hasn’t been done, and that is: a state with a very significant pool of gas and oil is going to make it a lot more difficult to mine it,” said Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli. “There is really now ample warning that the way this legislation is drafted, it’s essentially going to allow some level of a ban,” he said. “The public is clearly divided on this.” Republicans, rural Coloradans and industry officials have warned of brutal economic consequences. A REMI Partnership study released Tuesday by industry groups estimated that a 50 percent reduction in production by 2030 would wipe out 120,000 jobs and $8 billion in state and local tax revenue. “Let’s not forget that there will be pain if this bill passes,” state Sen. Rob Woodward, a Republican, said before Wednesday’s vote. “People will lose their jobs, people will lose their homes, people will lose their businesses. And as we all know when this happens, marriages will crumble, suicides will increase. It’s not a pretty picture.”

Indeed..  For more on this story, click on the text above.  This will be truly devastating to Colorado, if this crap becomes law.  Awful…

The Green New Deal Threatens to Derail Colorado’s Economy

Oil and gas rigs have been popping up all across Colorado in recent years, as have jobs working the rigs. Colorado’s total oil production is valued at more than $9.9 billion for 2018—an estimated 62 percent higher than 2017, according to the University of Colorado Boulder’s most recent study of the state’s economy. The value of the state’s natural gas production in 2018 was estimated at $5.3 billion. Employment in the Colorado oil and gas industry has grown by more than 23 percent since 2016, now accounting for around 25,700 jobs. This year it is expected to grow another 4.8 percent. But now, the Green New Deal, proposed Thursday by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), is threatening the state’s energy boom. The plan calls for the U.S. to completely abandon the use of fossil fuels over the next ten years. That would not just derail Colorado’s natural resource and mining sector but also the many businesses and jobs that have grown up to serve the energy boom. “Unexpected economic and political factors can change the trajectory of Colorado’s NRM employment outlook abruptly,” the University of Colorado Boulder study warned. Across the United States, the Green New Deal could threaten such extreme economic disruption that it could put into play states once considered safe for Democrats. That is especially true of Colorado, which accounts for almost 5 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States and has far more to lose from the Green New Deal than places like New York and Massachusetts. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 48.1 percent of Colorado’s votes. Donald Trump won just 43.1 percent. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson took 5.1 percent. A Democrat candidate who embraced a plan that would certainly eliminate 25,000 oil and gas extraction jobs and likely another untold number of jobs indirectly related to the sector could create a political, as well as an economic, earthquake. Of course, the Green New Deal would also create jobs, according to its proponents. But while Colorado’s oil and natural gas jobs cannot be located outside of the state, there is no guarantee the new green jobs would be created there. Making matters worse, wind and solar energy farms can be operated with a far thinner workforce, which means that even if the Green New Deal’s new energy were produced in Colorado, it would employ far fewer workers. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) is reportedly considering a presidential bid. This puts him in a political bind: support the Green New Deal program popular with the base of the national party or stand by his state’s economic interest. His office did not respond to a request for comment. Although natural resource drilling and mining employ just 1 percent of the Colorado workforce, the sector pulls above its weight calls in economic impact because the jobs generate some of the highest per worker income levels in the state. Average pay in the sector is 146 percent of the state average. The damage will go beyond just oil and natural gas. Coal jobs too would be killed off. According to a 2015 National Mining Association survey, the coal industry contributed $1.9 billion to Colorado’s economy and directly employed 3,723 workers, plus 12,977 indirect and induced jobs. In the United States, factories that produce equipment for mining and drilling have boomed in recent years on the backs of the technological innovations that have made the U.S. one of the world’s largest energy producers. These factories and the investments in them would go to waste in a Green New Deal that made fossil fuels obsolete or illegal. Investment in Colorado’s traditional energy sector would dry up. Whether investors burned by a government that turned against fossil fuels would willingly support investment in Green-New-Deal-favored energy projects is a risk—and certainly a risk for Colorado’s economy. Ocasio-Cortez portrays the Green New Deal as offering Americans a tremendous opportunity. And no doubt a new national program of green investment, subsidized by cheap government financing, would create many new wealthy entrepreneurs. But it also threatens jobs that Americans already have and depend upon for their livelihoods. Colorado, because it has such a high concentration of good jobs extracting fossil fuels, is one of the states that would be hit the hardest.

Agreed..  Thanks to John Carney for that sobering analysis.  All of us who are tax-paying voters here in the great state of Colorado need to keep this in mind in November of next year when we go to the polls..

Delingpole: Green New Deal Is a Revamped Communist Manifesto

A few years ago at the height of the global warming scare I wrote a book which set out to answer one of the key questions of our time: if climate change isn’t really a problem why do so many people act as though it is? The answer, I discovered, is that environmentalism is just a fashionable mask for the usual leftist obsessions with state control and wealth redistribution. That’s why I called the book Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Not everyone who believes in man-made climate change is a full on Commie. Some are merely useful idiots. But whatever reason people may have for supporting the scam – greed, stupidity, virtue-signalling, idiot leftist teachers – the net result is the same: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, lower standards of living. Exactly like you’d get under communism, in fact. So color me completely unshocked by the Green New Deal. It looks like a revamped Communist Manifesto because that’s exactly what it is. If implemented, the size of government would increase to levels never before seen in a Western economy. The state’s control of everything from wage levels to how businesses are run to your personal freedoms would be total. There’s no mention of gulags or political prisoners or secret police but of course those would inevitably follow because how else would the state have a hope of enforcing measures which freedom loving Americans would naturally resist? The only surprise about the Green New Deal for me is that its proponents are so brazen about their plans.

Indeed..  For more of this outstanding op/ed from James Delingpole, click on the text above.  He really nails it.

Opinion/Analysis: Trump Vindicated as Paris Climate Agreement Unravels

The Paris Climate Agreement is a dead non-binding treaty walking. All the signatories know this, none of them will admit it. So instead, we have to endure the ritual spectacle of UN delegates racking up yet more air miles and dumping their carbon footprint on a new location in order to wail hysterically that much, much more needs to be done to save the planet from the greatest threat evah. This week the UN’s clown caravan has moved to Bangkok, Thailand – the preliminary to an even bigger meeting, COP24, in December in Katowice, Poland. As the South China Morning Post reports, the auguries aren’t good: “Time is running out to save the Paris Agreement, United Nations climate experts warned Tuesday at a key Bangkokmeeting, as rich nations were accused of shirking their responsibility for environmental damage.” That’s because – just as they were in Paris 2015 – the negotiations are caught between a rock and a hard place. Western countries don’t want to stump up for what is essentially an attempted shakedown by poorer countries demanding more handouts in the name of “climate justice.” Developing economies – as they have cunningly managed to designate themselves – like India and China and the rest of the BRICs have absolutely no interest in hampering their economies with carbon emissions cuts, not least because they recognise that “global warming” is just a scam invented by Euro Weenies who want to decide how the world is run. That’s why, as Townhall reports, they are all going mad for coal: “[Climate Justice] was the idea that developed countries should pay developing countries compensation for the slowing down of their economic growth that would result from the mandatory transition from coal to more expensive renewable energy sources, as proposed in the agreement. Despite the approval of such funding, both India and China continued to expand their coal consumption. They continue to import, export, and use coal extensively. At their current pace, neither country will ever achieve their emission targets as mentioned in their respective INDCs. Russia, meanwhile, is quietly developing its coal infrastructure despite its claims of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In 2015, Russia’s coal production stood at 186.37 million TOE (Tons of Oil Equivalent). It jumped to 206.33 million in 2017. The country is expanding its coal infrastructure to enable more streamlined transport of coal across the country and to meet the increase in exports due to demand from its Asian neighbor China.” Meanwhile, in the other BRIC, the most likely candidate to win Brazil’s next elections – Conservative Jair Bolsonaro – has vowed to pull his country out of the Paris Agreement. So, all in all, President Trump has every right to feel vindicated at his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. All that is left for his critics to do is wail and gnash their teeth, making impotent demands like this one from a bunch of 200 arthouse luvvies – led by Oscar-winning actress Juliette Binoche. They have written to France’s Le Monde newspaper, claiming that climate change is the “greatest challenge in the history of mankind” and demanding that all necessary measures be taken by governments – no matter how unpopular their decisions may be. The signatories are a Who’s Who of some of the most attractive actresses in French cinema – Binoche; Isabelle Adjani; Marion Cotillard; Catherine Deneuve, plus a few Americans who want to be burnished by association with moody, arthouse French cinema (Tim Robbins, Rufus Wainwright, etc), plus some French rappers no one outside France has heard of. Unfortunately, no one cares.

More like “fortunately..”  lol   The whole Paris Climate Agreement was a con from the get-go.  The absolute worst pollution violators are India, China and Russia…all of whom had no intention of ever agreeing to these accords.  Yet, Obama was hell-bent on tying our hands behind our back economically and unilaterally agreeing to that nonsense.  Ironically, Obama never submitted it to the Senate for ratification, even when the Dems controlled it, because even the Dems wouldn’t ratify it.  So, instead, Obama did what he did throughout his presidency; brazenly violated the Constitution and just signed it anyway.  Then, Trump did the only thing he could do; pull the U.S. out of the accords.  The fact that a federal judge ruled Obama’s actions unconstitutional made the decision academic.