WyBlog, the best thing about New Jersey since the invention of the 24 hour diner.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan
CH 2.0 Info Center
The Jersey Report
Labor Union Report
Net Right Nation
The Patriot Post Newsletter
Victor Davis Hanson
J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets!
NJ.com Caldwell Forum
The Caldwells Patch
The Jersey Tomato Press
"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes."
#VRWC RSS feed:News Ticker Widget
Electric cars, still limited in how far they can go before needing to plug in for more juice, will soon be getting a jump start from New Jersey.
The state has launched a $725,000 grant program aimed at encouraging the installation of more electric vehicle charging stations.
Hey, remember back in the early 1900s when the state passed out grants to "encourage" the building of more gas stations?
Yeah, me neither.
According to the state Board of Public Utilities, there are currently 398 charging outlets at 181 locations in New Jersey, based on data kept by the federal Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center. BPU President Richard Mroz said the grant program will encourage greater use of electric vehicles as well as plug-in hybrids, by expanding the infrastructure network needed to keep alternative-fueled vehicles on the road in New Jersey.
398 charging stations doesn't sound like a lot. Except there probably aren't 398 electric cars in all of New Jersey.
Remember when the people who needed and wanted a service paid for that service? Ah, but then we couldn't have socialism, and use Other People's Money to buy votes and preen for favorable press.
Under the first phase of the New Jersey program, reimbursement grants of up to $250 will be offered on a first-come basis for each Level 1 charging station installed, and up to $5,000 for each Level 2 charging station.
Level 1 charging stations provide power through 120 volt lines, but take longer to charge. They add about 2 to 5 miles of range to a plugged-in electric vehicle per hour. Eight hours of charging at 120V can provide about 40 miles of range.
Level 2 stations, which offer more mileage range in a shorter period of time, are connected to 240 or 208 volt dedicated circuits, and can recharge a typical electric vehicle battery overnight.
Proving once again just how impractical electric cars really are. Plug in for an hour while twiddling your thumbs, and presto! you're good for another 2, maybe 5 miles. Lather, rinse, repeat!
Wait 8 hours (maybe take a nap?) and go a whopping 40 miles! Just don't turn on the air conditioning…
Or you could, oh I don't know, spend 8 minutes at the corner gas station and go upwards of 400 miles on a single tank. That is if you're smart enough to buy a Real Car instead of a glorified golf cart.
But then how would smug virtue-signaling liberals be able to feel good about
themselves at our expense?
The bald eagle. A majestic symbol of America. Proud. Unafraid.
And, protected by the Endangered Species Act.
Unless you're the owner of an Obama-approved Wind Farm.
Then, let the killing begin!
In support of President Obama's renewable energy plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are pushing for giving 30-year permits to wind farms that would forgive them for thousands of eagle deaths expected within that frame of time.
Under the plan announced Wednesday, companies would be allowed to accidentally kill up to 4,200 bald eagles anually via their wind turbines without repercussion — nearly four times the current limit.
Bald Eagle sushi! It's "conservation."
"The permitting system gives us access to eagles and eagle mortalities that we wouldn't otherwise have," an unnamed source told ABC News. "It's a great mechanism for us to work proactively to prevent eagle deaths."
Eagle chop suey prevents eagle deaths!
Also work makes you free.
If even one bald eagle got coated in oil, you can bet your bottom dollar Obama's ecowarriors would be screaming from the ramparts, and fighting tooth and nail to shut that oil company down.
But "green energy" boondoggles trump ecology every time in Obamaville.
He'll throw hundreds of millions of dollars at the failure that was Solyndra, but pledge to bankrupt tried and true coal producers.
Sneeze in the direction of a piping plover, and New Jersey will put your in prison. But slaughter thousands of bald eagles and Obama will praise your dedication to combating "climate change."
Nevermind that more than 14,000 abandoned wind turbines dot the landscape, monuments to the stupidity of "green energy."
The good news is they aren't killing any more bald eagles.
The bad news is we wasted billions of tax dollars creating these eyesores.
You know what never killed a single eagle? Or for that matter, any piping plovers?
And nuclear energy.
So ask yourself this. Why do the econuts oppose both?
I'll help you out.
It's because at the end of the day they aren't pro-environment.
Because he's a constitutional scholar dontcha know, and he don't need
no "advice and consent" from no stinkin' Senate. Besides, it's
Lenin's birthday, and he can't help but feed into the symbolism of the
whole thing. So,
let the wealth transfer begin!
World leaders converged at United Nations headquarters in New York on Friday — Earth Day — to sign the historic Paris climate accord.
The U.S. and China, which together account for nearly 40% of global emissions, have said they intend to formally join the agreement this year, according to the Associated Press. Both nations' leaders signed the document Friday.
"The United States is looking forward to joining the Paris Agreement this year, and we invite our partners to do the same," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who held his young granddaughter as he inked his name on the pact.
Not so fast there Lurch. It's a treaty. And Jim DeMint says treaties need to be ratified by the Senate.
The Paris Agreement is certainly a treaty. I reviewed enough treaties during my time in the Senate where I served on the Foreign Relations Committee to know. But don't take my word for it. The State Department's internal guidelines make clear that the Paris Agreement is a treaty.
Those guidelines, known as the Circular 175T procedure, demonstrate that the Paris Agreement is a treaty. For example, the Agreement makes environmental commitments that affect the U.S. as a whole. The Agreement is formal and complex rather than informal and routine. The Agreement is open-ended and requires the U.S. to deliver untold billions of dollars to a "Green Climate Fund" for redistribution around the world to pay for "green projects" in foreign countries. These all indicate that the Agreement is a treaty and not a mere executive agreement, as the president claims.
Ah yes, the "Green Climate Fund." To which Dear Leader has already sent $500 million of our tax dollars as a down payment on his annual committment of $3 billion or so. Think of it as reparations for Climate Justice, but please don't call it a treaty.
The Senate ought to stand up (for once) and deny President Pen-And-Phone his legacy. Defund the EPA. Defund the State Department's travel and conference budget.
It's what Lenin would have done.
Ecotwit insanity on steroids: They paved paradise to put up a solar farm.
A theme park in New Jersey has won approval to cut down nearly 15,000 trees to make way for a 21-megawatt solar farm.
Jackson Township's planning board on Wednesday granted Six Flags Great Adventure's request to move forward with the project that opponents argue will have a devastating effect on the environment.
Solar energy devastates the environment! Now that's funny!
You can't make this stuff up.
You know what's even funnier?
"This gives green energy a black eye. You cannot cut down a forest for solar panels. That's the opposite of being green," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the Sierra Club of New Jersey, one of the groups formally objecting to the project. "You don't destroy a habitat in a forest in the name of clean energy."
Said the guy who wants solar panels on every office building in the universe and a windmill in everyone's back yard (except his, of course).
If only there was a carbon-neutral generating plant nearby that wasn't being mothballed 10 years early due to endless complaints from Jeff and his merry band of anti-nuclear luddites. And if only there wasn't a replacement reactor on the drawing board that, you guessed it, is rabidly opposed by You Know Who.
Sorry econuts, you made your green bed. Now reap what you've sown.
Because when the going gets green, the greenery gets bulldozed. That's Progress!
Gas up the private jet Maurice, Leonardo DiCaprio needs to get his Oscar to Brussels, STAT.
Of all the stakeholders at the negotiating table in Paris this past December, the EU was perhaps the most vociferous in its attempt to try and hammer out an international climate treaty. The document the summit produced requires nations to submit plans how they'll reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and notably lacks any sort of robust enforcement mechanism. Now, it seems the EU ought to be thankful that the climate treaty turned out to be so flimsy, as it's on track to emit two billion more tons of carbon dioxide than was agreed three months ago, according to a European Commission document.
Uh, oh. Maybe the Euroweenies weren't watching TV Sunday night.
"Climate change is real, it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating."
Leo should probably bring the yacht too. You know, in case anyone over there still won't stop procrastinating.
Carbon prices will rise too slowly to cut industrial emissions as much as needed, says a confidential note prepared for MEPs on the environment committee, which the Guardian has seen. […]
"The current proposals are not consistent with what was agreed in Paris and they are not even in line with what's necessary to stay below 2C," [Green MEP Bas Eickhout] told the Guardian. "What kind of signal is that sending our partners? These Emissions Trading System (ETS) numbers need to be changed now to make them consistent with the Paris agreement."
And by "now" he means 2019, at the earliest. Maybe 2020. Delivery of The Plan is being delayed, long past the treaty's "required" due date of 2018.
They've got their
excuses reasons, of course, most of which
boil down to "it's too hard."
Still, whatever the reasoning, it's a bad look for the EU — supposedly the greenest bloc of countries in the developed world — already to be flouting the review process of a treaty drafted not 12 weeks ago.
Gee, a cynic like me might think they weren't serious.
But I'm sure another celebrity tongue-lashing or two will set them straight.
Because that's what works so well here, right?
Remember when high gas prices were bad?
Yeah, me neither.
But cheap oil means Obama's green energy buddies need even more subsidies to compete, so he's suddenly decided to impose another gas tax.
President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday.
The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.
It's almost as if he doesn't want us to catch a break, because he really wants gas to cost $10 a gallon. But he'll settle for an additional $10 a barrel for oil as a good start.
For those of you who are bad at math (ie, Democrats), with oil currently trading around $34 a barrel, Obama is proposing what amounts to a 30% tax.
Does anyone here want to pay 30% more for gas? Besides all the shysters hawking solar panels and windmills of course…
Fortunately, Congress won't go along.
The proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.
"Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans.
Ryan went on to describe Obama's plan as "dead on arrival" in Congress.
"The good news is this plan is little more than an election-year distraction. As this lame-duck president knows, it's dead on arrival in Congress, because House Republicans are committed to affordable American energy and a strong U.S. economy," Ryan said.
It'll be interesting to see Hillary Clinton defend this latest assault on consumers, seeing as how she's now running as Obama's 3rd term and all.
That is if anyone in the palace guard media bothers to ask her about it.
Put down the knife, don't carve that pumpkin, or the planet will die.
How scary are your jack-o'-lanterns? Scarier than you think, according to the Energy Department, which claims the holiday squash is responsible for unleashing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Most of the 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins produced in the U.S. end up in the trash, says the Energy Department's website, becoming part of the "more than 254 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced in the United States every year."
Municipal solid waste decomposes into methane, "a harmful greenhouse gas that plays a part in climate change, with more than 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide," Energy says.
Nobody tell Linus van Pelt, he'll have to stop believing in the Great Pumpkin.
And since Smashing Pumpkins is already taken, wouldn't Methane Marauders be a great name for a rock band?
Hey, remember that guy Gallagher who was always pulverizing pumpkins with a giant sledge hammer back in the 1970s? I guess he single-handedly averted an ice age and caused global warming!
OK, look, the ridiculousness of the climate alarmists is getting out of hand. Pumpkins? Seriously? They're really going to tell us to stop carving pumpkins? Or the seas will rise and the glaciers will melt and Al Gore will cry?
I think I'll chance it.
VW built cars that people wanted, rather than cars bureaucrats love.
So naturally the bureaucrats are teed off.
Volkswagen AG faces penalties up to $18 billion after being accused of designing software for diesel cars that deceives regulators measuring toxic emissions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday.
"Put simply, these cars contained software that turns off emissions controls when driving normally and turns them on when the car is undergoing an emissions test," Cynthia Giles, an enforcement officer at the EPA, told reporters in a teleconference.
Volkswagen can face civil penalties of $37,500 for each vehicle not in compliance with federal clean air rules. There are 482,000 four-cylinder VW and Audi diesel cars sold since 2008 involved in the allegations. If each car involved is found to be in noncompliance, the penalty could be $18 billion, an EPA official confirmed on the teleconference.
The feature in question, which the EPA called a "defeat device," masks the true emissions only during testing and therefore when the cars are on the road they emit as much as 40 times the level of pollutants allowed under clean air rules meant to ensure public health is protected, Giles said.
"Public health" my ass. Remember, these are the same bozos who dumped millions of gallons of toxic waste into rivers across the Southwest and then tried to cover it up.
All VW did was follow the letter of the law.
If they contest the fines and go to court, however, I'm wondering if they will actually lose. This was some mischief designed to short sheet the system no doubt, but would they have an out if the case goes before a judge? I was looking over some of the state level requirements for the testing of vehicles and the boundaries to be followed are rather bare bones at best. Each vehicle in the qualifying categories which was manufactured after 1996 has to be equipped with an On-Board Diagnostics Generation II (OBDII) system. The emissions portion of this is heavily tied into your annoying "check engine" light.
The way most of the regulations are written seems to indicate that the vehicle must have a functional system of this type which is accurately monitoring system performance and meets the maximum emissions requirements at the time of testing. Obviously the VW vehicles in question were doing just that. But cars today have all sorts of bells and whistles which drivers can use to customize their driving experience. They can switch from "performance" mode to "economy" mode with the push of a button. Things like that obviously affect the vehicle's emissions. Other such options are available. And when you think about it, the "disable device" was really just putting the car into a different mode of operation which includes heavy emissions control. When it was disconnected and ready to head back out on the road it was switching back to a different mode with a bit more performance. None of that changes the fact that the emissions were within the required limits at the time of testing.
Is it gaming the system? Sure! But it's not like the people bloviating the loudest about Globull Warming are actually living according to the rules either.
And since when is it a crime to follow the law?
When the Obama Administration wants to punish a non-UAW automaker, that's when.
To which I say, screw the EPA. Screw their job and freedom killing regulations. Screw their sanctimonious preening for green groupie adulation. And screw their illegal collusion with radical econuts to advance ideology over science.
Volkswagen found a way to beat the regulators at their own game. They should be praised for their ingenuity, especially since their customers aren't the ones complaining about their cars. I hope VW challenges these ridiculous fines in court, and wins. And then I pray we elect a president who'll hogtie the EPA and let the market decide what kind of cars we can drive.
People who want to buy a Prius should be able to buy a Prius, so long as it's economically viable to manufacture without government subsidies and bureaucratic meddling.
And people who want to drive a Real Car ought to be able to buy one too. Which also means that when the inevitable recall is issued, owners of the "problem" cars should collectively thumb their noses at the ecotwit killjoys and refuse to let the Peoples Commissariat for Climate Alarmism ruin their driving experience.
And, of course, Farfegnugen!
In some fashionable circles carbon credits are useful, mainly for "printing money." However, their ability to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions turns out to be just so much hot air.
That's the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits "was like printing money."
Here's the scoop from The BBC:
As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production. Under the UN scheme, called Joint Implementation, they then were able to sell those credits to the European Union's carbon market. Companies bought the offsets rather than making their own more expensive, emissions cuts.
But this study, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, says the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian credits were in fact, "hot air" — no actual emissions were reduced.
In other words, carbon credits are a total farce.
You'll note that this is essentially the same scheme being pushed by Barack Obama and his Green Goons at the EPA. The "right people" get richer, and the environment gets hosed.
Perhaps worst of all are the perverse incentives the SEI report alleges these credit swaps have created for actually increasing emissions. According to a study released in the journal Nature Climate Change, plants in Russia "increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas," resulting in an increase in emissions as large as 600 million tons of carbon dioxide — roughly half the amount the EU's ETS intends to reduce from 2013 to 2030.
Pretend to save the planet by generating more CO2, all while profiting handsomely! What's not to like?
On the plus side, given this context, Obama spewing a few tons of CO2 flying Air Force One to Vegas so he can lecture us about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions doesn't seem so out of line. Because hey, if his Euroweenie buddies can get away with paying lip service to the gods of Climate Change, why should he bother to practice what he preaches?
Oh, and don't forget how George Soros is "suddenly" buying up coal company stocks, at fire sale prices. Prices engineered by Barack Obama. The profits from which Soros will then use to help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, and probably underwrite a good chunk of Obama's "post-presidency" to boot.
Yes kids, Climate Change is a fraud. And we're the marks.
First they "suggested" that we go vegan to Save The Planet.
Now Obama's storm troopers are going to regulate our backyard barbecues using the Clean Air Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency has its eyes on pollution from backyard barbecues.
The agency announced that it is funding a University of California project to limit emissions resulting in grease drippings with a special tray to catch them and a "catalytic" filtration system.
The $15,000 project has the "potential for global application," said the school.
The school said that the technology they will study with the EPA grant is intended to reduce air pollution and cut the health hazards to BBQ "pit masters" from propane-fueled cookers.
Charged with keeping America's air, water and soil clean, the EPA has been increasingly looking at homeowners, especially their use of pollution emitting tools like lawn mowers.
Get ready for the denials. If you like your barbecue, you can keep your barbecue.. Like we're gonna fall for that one again, right?
The EPA has already effectively outlawed wood burning stoves.
And we all know what they've done to destroy the coal industry in this country.
So using the same rules to regulate barbecues like mine is the logical next step.
Here's their first proposal:
The school is proposing two fixes to reduce emissions from barbecues. First, they want to cut back on grease flare-ups. The idea: "A slotted and corrugated tray is inserted immediately prior to meat flipping, and removed immediately after. This short contact time prevents the tray from over-heating and volatilizing the collected grease. This collected grease will then drip off into a collection tray and can be used at the pit master's discretion."
But it's the second phase that really shows how nuts these EPA clowns are:
But, total capture isn't "practical," so a filter and fan are proposed for installation. "The secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method. This system can be powered by either an exterior electric motor with a chain-driven drive shaft, directly spinning the fan blade, or a hand-powered crank," said the project write-up.
Good freaking grief!
Can you imagine anything so ridiculous? A smokestack and soot scrubbers encasing your backyard grill?
Yeah, that won't be expensive! Or cumbersome. Not to mention, batshit insane.
Typical EPA-approved smokestack scrubber setup. Substitute "your grill" for "wet scrubber" and you'll get an idea of where they're going with this.
Can you imagine cooking ribs inside that contraption?
The Obamunists have got to be stopped. Now. Before they mess with
our grilled meat.
Three counties have a solution to salvage an $88-million-dollar solar project that went bust: borrow more millions to pump into the project and hope it will eventually turn a profit and ease the pain to taxpayers, officials said.
Some officials view the solution as damage control. Others are calling it a repeat of a mistake, one they will fight to avoid.
Freeholders in Sussex, Morris and Somerset counties will vote on settlement agreements this week that would end multiple lawsuits and get the projects back on track, officials said.
It couldn't make money when it cost $88 million. So obviously the "solution" is to pour even more money into it!
Did these clowns fail math?
Of course they did.
In a deal that will be "nearly identical" to one in Morris and Somerset, Sussex will pump millions into the settlement and take over its part of the solar development, according officials.
Sussex plans to borrow $7 million, buying its own bonds using an emergency reserve account from the sale of a county-owned nursing home in 2012, said county officials.
In the Real World, we call that "throwing good money after bad."
In government, they call that "Tuesday."
The concept behind the massive solar project sounded simple enough: borrow $88 million to install panels on public buildings in Morris, Somerset and Sussex counties and then sell excess electricity, using the revenues to pay off the debt.
The concept was called the "Morris model," held up nationally as an example of how to produce renewable energy through public-private partnerships. It was the second project of its kind and the previous one was hailed as a success.
But now, nearly four years later, taxpayers could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars the counties owe bondholders, after work ground to a halt amidst cost overruns and lawsuits.
What's more, the $88 million that must be repaid to bondholders could cause "unmitigated disaster" to the three counties, according to court filings.
The ambitious plans called for a developer, SunLight General, to use $88 million in borrowed money to erect thousands of solar panels atop schools and other public buildings in the three counties. They would repay the counties with the future solar revenues and local governments would get cheaper electricity.
Except, and this is the key part, they weren't actually selling electricity.
Nope, they were selling tax credits. And it turns out, the market for those tax credits dried up.
But the market for state solar-energy tax credits -- a key part of the deal -- plummeted in the months after the deal was struck. Cost overruns mounted, and the developer and contractor became embroiled in a dispute that ended in lawsuits, according to court papers. Work ground to a halt. And while the projects in Somerset were mostly completed, only about half were completed in two of the counties, Morris and Sussex.
Green energy is simply not viable without taxpayer subsidies. The subsidy either comes on the front-end via tax credits, or on the back-end as we see here. Either way the taxpayer is left holding the bag just so the ecotwits can smugly preen in their coal-powered Priuses.
There's a reason private enterprise won't build these boondoggles without government guarantees. They're too risky, and the potential returns too meager. Remember Solyndra? Or the myriad failures of wind power?
Meanwhile environmental groups like the Sierra Club raise hundreds of millions of dollars from their deluded supporters, which they use to lobby government into wasting tax dollars on green energy. Here's an idea. They should put up their own damn money. Pledge their $88 million instead of mine. Walk the walk. Stop blowing smoke up my ass.
They won't, of course. Because they're not stupid, and they know that green
energy is Teh #Fail.
Climate change, it's not about saving the planet. It's about wealth transfer.
Barack Obama will announce a three billion dollar taxpayer funded US contribution to the world climate change fund.
The pledge is directed to the Green Climate Fund, a financial institution created last year by the United Nations with headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. It comes ahead of a Nov. 20 climate meeting in Berlin, at which countries have been asked to make formal commitments to the fund.
In particular, the world's least developed economies insist that the world's richest economies — which are also the largest greenhouse gas polluters — must commit to paying billions of dollars to help the world's poorest adapt to the ravages of climate change.
By "adapt" they mean, of course, line their pockets with our money.
In Obama's lefty worldview, it's like reparations for colonialism, only better.
And $3 billion is merely the down payment.
At a 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged that by 2020 the United States would help mobilize $100 billion, through a combination of public aid and private investments, to flow annually from rich countries to poor countries to help the poor economies deal with climate change.
$100 billion dollars of our money. Annually. Flowing into the pockets of Third World shithole dictators everwhere! It'll certainly change their, uh, "climate." For the better, I'm sure.
But I guarantee it won't do Thing One to change the weather.
Rep. Hank Johnson, please call your office.
According to the European Space Agency, Climate Change is altering the Earth's gravitational field, which, if we're not careful, could quite possibly disrupt the balance of, well, everything.
Gravity — yes, gravity — is the latest victim of climate change in Antarctica. That's the stunning conclusion announced Friday by the European Space Agency.
"The loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region," writes the ESA, whose GOCE satellite measured the change. Apparently, melting billions of tons of ice year after year has implications that would make even Isaac Newton blanch.
To be fair, the change in gravity is very small. It's not like you'll float off into outer space on your next vacation to the Antarctic Peninsula.
We've gotta watch out! And Do Something, Dammit!. Because even minute changes in gravity could be problematic for a small, precarious island like Guam.
In a discussion regarding a planned military buildup on the Pacific island, [Rep. Hank] Johnson [D-Ga.] expressed some concerns about the plans to Adm. Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific fleet.
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said. Willard paused and replied, "We don't anticipate that."
Who knew Climate Change could be so dangerous?
As for the melting sea ice, it's reappearing elsewhere, faster than it's been melting.
So Guam is probably safe. For now.
Dear Leader's new CO2 cap-and-trade plan will reduce your electricity rates. Honest!
In a sweeping initiative to curb pollutants blamed for global warming, the Obama administration unveiled a plan Monday aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third by 2030. But it delays the deadline for some states to begin complying until long after President Barack Obama leaves office.
Obama, in a conference call hosted by the American Lung Association, said the plan would both shrink electricity prices and protect the health of vulnerable Americans. He scolded critics who he predicted would contend anew that the limits would crush jobs and damage the economy.
"What we've seen every time is that these claims are debunked when you actually give workers and businesses the tools and the incentives they need to innovate," Obama said.
In other words, if you like your electricity rates, you can keep your electricity rates.
Until… Oh, I don't know, until you can't. Maybe, right after you couldn't keep your doctor. Or your health insurance plan. Because, you know every one of Obama's promises comes with an expiration date.
There is no universe where green-energy boondoggles like windmills and solar and biomass are cheaper to operate than coal-fired power plants. None. It's physics. The energy density of coal (and oil and natural gas) exceeds that of anything other than perhaps uranium or thorium.
He's not gonna build any new nuclear plants.
So yeah, your electricity bill is going to
necessarily skyrocket. And the poor folks in West Virginia and Kentucky
who depend on coal for their livelihood? They're screwed. But the tree-hugger
Hollyweird elites are happy, and really, who else does Obama care about?
Checks and Balances? Yeah, we don't have those.
Congress said "no" to Cap and Trade. Which of course didn't sit well with the Globull Warming whackos. So Obama's EPA plans to thumb its nose at the Constitution and impose limits on CO2 by regulatory fiat.
Despite being soundly rejected a few years ago, cap-and-trade will soon get its U.S. encore — but not in Congress. The Obama administration will likely use its executive power to unilaterally impose carbon dioxide emissions trading systems.
The Environmental Protection Agency will unveil regulations for existing U.S. power plants early next month. For months, onlookers have been speculating about what could be included in the EPA's rule for existing power plants.
But over the past few days it has become clear that the Obama administration will use the EPA to push cap-and-trade systems and other anti-fossil fuel policies on U.S. states. Administration insiders have told news outlets that cap-and-trade will likely be one of the options the EPA gives states to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.
The Wall Street Journal reported the EPA's proposal will "include a cap-and-trade component where a limit is set on emissions and companies can trade allowances or credits for emissions" to meet new federal rules. The Journal added that power plant "operators could trade emissions credits or use use other offsets in the power sector, such as renewable energy or energy-efficiency programs, to meet the target."
Your electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.
News reports say that the EPA will require states to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by a whopping 25 percent in the coming decades. The new rules are set to be unveiled next week by President Obama himself, underpinning the significance of the new rules.
The EPA's emissions limits for existing power plants will put new burdens on coal-reliant states and raise electricity prices as more coal plants are retired. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to release a study on the economic costs of the EPA's carbon dioxide regulations, which will likely be staggering.
"We anticipate it to be unprecedented in complexity and cost," Dan Byers, senior director for policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's energy arm, told an audience last week.
Obama will keep us poor, cold, and in the dark.
The price tag? $50 billion a year. Along with 224,000 lost jobs.
The nation's biggest business lobby says President Barack Obama's plan to tackle climate change could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Natural Resources Defense Council are both releasing economic impact studies this week, signaling that the political battle over the president's plan will be fought over dollars and cents. For Obama, the risk is the plan gets labeled a job-killer just as campaigns heat up for an election that could determine control of the U.S. Senate.
In an analysis set for release today — days before the Environmental Protection Agency unveils a proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants — the Chamber says that an ambitious pollution-control effort could force more than a third of the coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030, resulting in economic losses of $50 billion a year and the elimination of 224,000 jobs.
Meanwhile Globull Warming is on hold for the past 18 years, and counting.
And the climate models being used to justify the economy-killing initiative can't even accurately predict past temperature changes, nevermind what's going to happen in the future.
But Obama's True Believers won't be stopped. They work for the EPA. The Employment Prevention Agency. Where the motto is: Science is Truth, don't be misled by Facts. Especially the rather painful fact that our economy is still teetering, and yet another job-killing boondoggle is the last thing we need right now.
Unless, of course, your goal is to
destroy America. Then, everything is going according to plan.
Green energy costs the taxpayers a lot of green.
The Department of Defense paid $150 per gallon for alternative jet fuel made from algae, more than 64 times the current market price for standard carbon-based fuels, according to a report released on Wednesday.
The Government Accountability Office noted in its report that a Pentagon official reported paying "about $150 per gallon for 1,500 gallons of alternative jet fuel derived from algal oil."
Regular jet fuel runs about $2.88 per gallon. Which leads GAO to drily conclude … "Currently, the price for alternative jet fuels exceeds that of conventional jet fuel."
Ya don't say!
Left out of the GAO report is why the Pentagon is buying this overpriced snake oil in the first place.
Did you guess Obama Administration mandate?
Of course you did.
Barack Obama's EPA is busy shuttering America's coal-fired power plants. Because, Globull Warming.
Meanwhile, demand for electricity continues to surge.
And, contrary to what the Obamabots might have you believe, magic unicorns aren't picking up the slack.
Facing the Obama administration's so-called "war on coal," some utility officials are warning that fewer coal-fired power plants could leave the U.S. power system vulnerable to blackouts in the near future.
The officials warn that intense summer heat or extreme winter cold could soon be too much for the system to handle.
"I worry about the potential of brownouts and blackouts if we're ... actually depending on this generation that's going to be retired," Nick Akins, from American Electric Power, told Fox News in an interview.
Pro-coal advocates say the administration's focus on its environmental agenda challenges the reliability of the nation's power grid.
"Regulation from five years ago is closing about 20 percent of the coal plants. Regulations being proposed now could close an additional 20 percent of coal plants. And that creates huge stresses -- we're just not ready for anything like that in this country," Mike Duncan, from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, told Fox News.Considering this past winter's severe cold and "Polar Vortex," Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted at a Senate hearing this week that the system was at its limits.
"Eight-nine percent of the coal electricity capacity that is due to go offline was utilized as that backup to meet the demand this winter," Murkowski said.
And coal country Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, clearly has his concerns.
"Add the fact that EPA is proposing new source performance standard, what this is going to do will effectively ban the construction of any new coal plants," Manchin said. "How do we keep the lights on so people's lives will not be in danger?"
Barack Obama doesn't care about keeping the lights on.
He's not particularly concerned if your life is in danger either.
The fact that there are Real Consequences to his policies? That Americans will suffer while he golfs and his wife vacations in Tahiti?
Not on his radar.
We can freeze in the dark.
The econuts must be mollified. And our children must be brainwashed into believing they're sacrificing for a Noble Cause. But Obama's kids won't ever feel the cold. Only yours, and mine.
Because in the Obamabot Socialist Utopia, the Obamabots are more equal than
the rest of us.
During the all-night Senate speech about climate change, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said he drove to Hawaii as a teenager.
"I just do want to say that right after I turned 17 and got my New Jersey driver's license, one of the earliest places I drove was a trip — the only trip I have ever taken was to Hawaii," he said on the floor at about 3:00 a.m.
Maybe T-Bone was his co-pilot… LOL.
In his next breath Cory tried to convince us that "climate change" is equally believable. That's what his speech was supposedly all about. How he was able to drive to Hawaii, but now if anyone else tries to do that they'll be selfishly contributing to Global Warming.
So give up your car, move to a high-rise micro-apartment in a green-energy
sustainably-grown transit village, walk to Whole Foods to buy organic arugula,
and for Gaia's sake recycle your old toilet paper. Oh, please pay your carbon
tax before you spend that money on something frivolous, like a vacation.
Only the Obamas
walk on water are allowed to spew millions
of tons of greenhouse gases jetting hither and yon in pursuit of relaxation.
You peasants need to know your place.
To paraphrase Instapundit, I'll believe globull warming is a crisis when the
people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it is a crisis. Until then,
see you in Hawaii Cory!
It's always amusing to read the Sunday Star-Ledger op-ed pages, and today's didn't disappoint. They reprinted a Washington Post column by Brian Palmer entitled "How to convince your friends to believe in climate change. It's not as hard as you think."
Hint, it's not about science. Oh no, taling about science is a "loser" according to researchers who are working on finding ways to convince people that climate change is real.
There's an extensive body of research on how to persuade those who view science with suspicion — it's called the science of science communication. Much of the work centers on climate change.
They say "communication," I say Brainwashing.
"Speak openly of your personal ownership of your convictions," he notes. "Say, 'This is what's important to me, and this is why.' Don't get caught up in the scientific discussion. You're not a scientist, and evidence doesn't persuade people who reject climate change. What carries power is your personal conviction as a friend, colleague or neighbor."
Don't worry about why! Ignore your lying eyes! Join the Cult of Climate Change! All the cool kids are already here!
Better yet, gang up on the "denier," and pound him with peer pressure!
Climate change communications research suggests that a person's views are formed in large part by their social network. When a climate change rejectionist finds he is surrounded by believers, it eases the path toward changing his mind. Say that you, too, were once reluctant to accept the idea of climate change. It helps your audience identify with you.
Go ahead, tell me that isn't creepy.
Now you'll need a compelling argument to explain why you came around. As Marshall notes, communications research shows that "because scientists say so" is a loser. (President Obama made this mistake last week in his State of the Union address, when he bluntly declared that "climate change is a fact.")
Climate Change is Truth, don't be misled by facts.
The "compelling argument" is, of course, FUD, as in sowing doubt. "You buy homeowners insurance even though your house probably won't burn down. So if there's even a slight chance of rising sea levels, why not do something Right This Minute?"
Um, maybe because insurance has a proven risk-reward curve, and climate change hysteria doesn't? The oceans aren't dramatically rising ("yet, say the cultists). Nevermind that a scant 40 years ago these very same alarmists were 100% certain we were entering a new ice age. As climate scales go, 40 years is less than the blink of an eye.
I look out the window and see 2/3 of the United States covered in snow. Anybody wanna revisit that ice age theory again?
Then, OK, if we won't buy the FUD, it's onward to the circular reasoning! "The Pentagon is on board the Climate Change Express, why aren't you?"
People who reject climate-change science often find the views of the Department of Defense persuasive, and the Pentagon is extremely concerned about climate change.
"Large areas of the world will be submerged," Lewandowsky explains, "and residents of Bangladesh and Pacific island nations won't drown silently: They will migrate. Refugees sow the seeds for conflict." The Pentagon is already considering the need to shift resources from traditional combat to humanitarian operations to address these scenarios.
Um, who ordered the Pentagon to "consider" the impact of Climate Change? Why that would be the Climate Change Cultist in Chief! The Pentagon is following orders, which not to put too fine a point on it, is just what you're supposed to be doing you Gaia-hating gas-guzzling greenhouse-gas-emitting goober. Get with the program already!
No thanks. I used to trust the Pentagon. Until Obama started purging all the top Generals and Admirals, replacing them with administration sycophants. Now it's a hotbed of political correctness, social engineering, feminut orthodoxy, and junk science. Plus, the civilian command structure under both Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel is full of political hacks who've never worn a uniform.
They've manged to bungle our victory in Iraq, leave Afghanistan and Libya in shambles, turn Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, embolden Syria and Iran, and sold out Israel. If the political leadership at DOD can't fight a conventional war, what makes anyone think they can lead our fight against the chimera of Climate Change?
The cultists realize they have their work cut out for themselves.
Finally, don't get your hopes up. Changing someone's mind is a slow, laborious process. Your obstinate uncle, neighbor or colleague isn't going to slow-clap you out of the room after your irresistible climate-change argument. All you can do is plant a seed. So go do it.
I can't plant any seeds. The ground is frozen solid. But since you agree that "changing someone's mind is a slow, laborious process," why not try a little introspection of your own? Maybe this climate change thing isn't something we can control. Maybe nature is more powerful than we are. Maybe we should be looking for ways to adapt rather than trying to maintain an untenable status quo.
I think that's called Evolution. Perhaps you've heard of it.