#they already have to deal with the truck pollution cause no politician there gives a shit about clean air | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

liliannorman · 4 years

Text

The Green New Deal means monumental disruption

Not just for energy, but for every aspect of our lives, living standards, culture and freedoms David Wojick and Paul Driessen Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan. Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question. The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden's so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from. Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s then chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti: “The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added] World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks. They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice and disruption are irrelevant. Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream. $100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was. To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this, because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out. But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture. If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this what it should cost.” It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.” People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do. So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example – not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II. Gasoline, meat and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose. Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II] No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without inflicting severe disruption on people’s lives. The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not. The minor to modest temperature, climate and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon. In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is. The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll. Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming. Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change! Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them. And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt hour (11.4¢ or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany. Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest. It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy. They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places. The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices. And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal. These are stupendous, outrageous costs and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years. And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant. The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes. They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) – resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heat waves. They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power. And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture. Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell ... and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions. The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have Covid and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters and arsonists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families. The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics. The Green New Deal means monumental disruption published first on https://triviaqaweb.tumblr.com/

0 notes

decaffeinatedlightluminary-blog · 7 years

Text

A Very Convenient Lie

New Post has been published on http://rolexsubmariner.shop/a-very-convenient-lie/

A Very Convenient Lie

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

Global Warming is hailed as the new cause for this generation to fight against, to unite us all to save the world from. But is this a genuine threat to our world or is this just another scientific fad that is being over popularized by the media. In my opinion the only thing getting hotter is the rhetoric. Today the theory of global warming is taught much the same way that the theory of evolution has been taught; from the basis that it is an accepted fact, not just one of many scientific theories. The main figurehead of the global warming movement is widely recognized as former Vice President Al Gore, who gained notoriety for his docudrama An Inconvenient Truth. This article will address not only the alleged facts of the film, but also the motivations behind the making of this film and the blatant hypocrisy that is Al Gore.

Global warming has little to do with saving the planet, and much more to do with controlling the population through taxation and fees. The cornerstone of the global warming argument is a report published in 1995 by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.), supported by over 2,500 scientists it reports that the global warming we are seeing today may not be natural. Governments around the globe have referenced this report to guide policy affecting everything from our use of “fossil fuels” to taxes and fees. In the United Kingdom “green taxes” have been imposed netting the government over £21.9 billion in revenues in 2005. (Watson, 2007) The State of California has added an $11.00 per-year fee on registering late model cars, trucks, and SUV’s. This fee is in order to fund “alternative fuel research” with 17 Million new cars sold in California each year and the law affecting cars over six years old or newer. Now California stands to make billons in new revenue thanks to the global warming hysteria. This hysteria is supported by the weather, according to the alarmist if it is unseasonably warm; it’s because of global warming, if it’s too cold that’s global warming too. Hurricanes, tornados, earth quakes, and all other natural occurring acts of nature have all been tied to global warming according to the doomsters. Radicals like Al Gore would like to raise energy prices so high that many of Americas working poor would not be able to afford at in the winter, when pressed on this real issue his response is “It’s going to save you money, and it’s going to make the economy stronger.” (Shogren, 2007) Global Warming is more about expanding governmental powers, then saving the world.

In the 1970’s the scientific consensus was that the world was quickly being plunged into a new ice age Time and Newsweek magazines printed articles about the impending ice age that was going to freeze the majority of the United States and Europe. Newsweek’s story The cooling world published in April 1975 was urging governments to start long term economic planning and stockpiling of supplies. The alarmists point out how thousands died in a heat wave in France and blame global warming caused by human accelerated climate change as the reason for this tragedy. However, climate change was not cited when a cold snap killed 25,000 people in the UK soon after (Monckton, 2007). In a span of thirty years, the world has gone from an impending ice age to a state of global warming. A recent article in National Geographic magazine points out that 36 million years ago the earth was far hotter than our current temperatures (Shea, 2008). The preachers of the new faith of climate change seem to forget the fact that the earth has historic patterns of warm and cold cycles, not brought on by man.

Al Gore and other alarmists are profiting both politically and financially from the creation of the global warming catastrophe, and what of this scientific consensus. If you read the book or watch the film An Inconvenient Truth, you would think that all scientists agree that the world is warming. However many have rejected the idea Indeed, many scientists now say that there has been no discernible human effect on temperature at all (Monckton, 2007) .

The much quoted I.P.C.C. report and the backbone of the Global Warming religion shows a total increase of just 0.6 degrees in the entire 20th century. The fact is that the entire globe is not rising at a steady temperature; regions of the world are actually cooling. Greenland has cooled at a much faster rate, and at a shorter time period then the I.P.C.C. reported rise of 0.6 degrees. Cooling at a rate of 2.2 degrees per decade since measurements started in 1987, Greenland may be the most compelling evidence that there is some form of clement change happening unfortunately for Al Gore it is trending in the wrong direction (Petr Chylek, 2004).

In my opinion, the best evidence that global warming is more about creating hysteria and revenue generation is that there are countless intellectuals, scholars, and politicians that have compelling evidence against global warming, and they are not selling DVD’s. “The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery” (Singer, 2007)

Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: “I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was certain that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false” (Stossel, 2007).

The United Nations I.P.C.C. report according to Gore says that “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. ” However when you read the report it says that a group of scientists stated that “this era of global warming is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin” (I.P.C.C., 1995). But what does Al Gore have to gain from this manipulation? Power, fame, influence, what sparked Al Gore to become the environmentalist? It was not his love of nature, and clean technology.

Al Gore has been profiting from the environment for a number of years, as matter of fact his family has a long history of working with the environment. Most of it has been extracting oil and minerals out of the ground, while destroying the surrounding environment he loves so dearly. The Gore family trust has owned as much as a quarter of a million to one million dollar in Occidental Oil Company stock (Silverstein, 2000). “Nowhere is Al Gore’s environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental (petroleum). While on the one hand talking tough about his “big oil” opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.” Elk Hills is tied to the most famous bribery scandal in U.S. history, the Tea Pot Dome Scandal of 1922. Tea Pot Dome was the name of one of the oil fields that Albert Fall was bribed into leasing to Pan-American Petroleum (the company now known as ARCO), the other was Elk Hills. “Gore succeeded where Albert Fall failed in selling the Navy’s 47,000 acre reserve to Occidental Oil 75 years later; giving Occidental an 87 percent increase in the first quarter of 1997 and causing the Gore family stock to sky rocket” (Mesler, 2000).

While Al Gore and his cronies tell Americans and the world that conservation is the key to slowing global warming; he and his wife live in a 10,000-square foot home in Nashville, Tennessee, this home consumes 20 times the energy of an average American home (Williams, 2007). Al Gore also maintains a 4,000-square-foot residence in Arlington, VA, and a third home in Carthage Tenn. (home of the families Zinc mine). “While there are green energy programs in both Tennessee and Virginia that cost just a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, public records show that Gore has yet to sign any of his properties up for such programs. Gore seems have failed at even convincing his own party to go green as the Democratic National Committee also has yet to pay the additional two pennies a kilowatt hour (as of 2006)” (Schweizer, 2006).

The Gore family home in Carthage is also home to one of the dirtiest zinc mines in the United States, and Al Gore was receiving $20,000 per month up until 2003 from Pasminco Zinc a company that has been cited for polluting the nearby Caney Fork River. Al Gore has profited over the lifetime of the mine to the tune of over $570,000. Now the mining did stop in 2003, but not because Gore was upset about the environmental impact, the mineral rights lease ran out. In a letter Gore wrote to Pasminco he said, “We would like for you to engage with us in a process of ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices”. Gore was silent for nearly thirty years of mining while Pasminco Zinc released toxic substances into local waterways (Theobald, 2006). In all that time Al gore never spoke out against the mine, never worked to clean it up, never refused the money, in the end he did was he always does, he wrote a letter. Actions do speak louder than words.

For many global warming is defining this generation, it is being touted as the new evil we should rise up and conquer. But this is not Communism or a Fascist Nazi party imposing its ideals on our allies. It is a theory touted by men who will profit from it. We as Americans should strive to be more informed and find out the reason why men like Gore are so intent on pushing this theory…Because it is profitable and has netted Al Gore not only renewed political relevance, but a Nobel peace prize, and redemption for his presidential campaign loss. While we should be good stewards of this earth, we should also beware of false truths, global warming has become the new religion of the socialist movement and it has dangerous implications for our country and world.

Resources:

Monkton, T. V. (2007). “Consensus”?What “Consensus”? Washington D.C.: Science and Public Policy Institute.

Harris, T. (2006 , June 12). Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe. Canadian Free Press , p. 1.

I.P.C.C. (1995). United Nations I.P.C.C. Report. New York: United Nations.

Mesler, B. (2000, August 29). Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from CorpWatch: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

Shea, N. (2008, February) Hot Penguin, National Geographic Magazine.

William, N (2007, February) Gores Personal energy Use is his own “Inconvenient Truth” Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

Newman, L. (2006, June 9). The inconvenient truth about Al Gore. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from Socalistworkers.org: http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/593/593_04_Inconvenient.shtml

Newsweek. (1975, April 28). The Cooling World. Newsweek , p. 64.

Petr Chylek, J. E. (2004). Global Warming and The Greenland Ice Sheet. Climatic Change Kluwer Academic Publishers. , 201-221.

Schweizer, P. (2006, December 7). Gore isn’t quite as green as he’s led the world to believe. USA Today .

Sheehan, J. M. (1996, July). United Nations’ Experts Doctor Evidence. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from Our Civilisation: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm

Shogren, E. (2007, March 22). Al Gore Testifies Before Congress on Global Warming. NPR , pp. 13-16.

Silverstein, K. (2000, May 22). Gore’s Oil Money . The Nation .

Singer, S. F. (2007, March 19). A Review Of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ . Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Our Civilisation: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

Stossel, J. (2007, April 20). The Global Warming Myth? Retrieved November 24, 2007, from ABC News: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015

Theobald, B. (2006, April). Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_N.htm

Watson, S. (2007, September 4). The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In. Infowars.net .

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push(); Source by Michael Satterfield

0 notes