Saturday, August 29, 2015
Thursday, August 27, 2015
“I thought it was best to write about my own raw terror,” says activist Naomi Klein, in a moving interview in today’s Guardian.
Monday, August 24, 2015
During an appearance on Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina hit back at moderator Chuck Todd for pushing the issue of climate change during a discussion on the ongoing California drought. Todd proclaimed “[i]n your home state of California, drought, the wildfires. More evidence is coming out from the scientific community that says climate change has made this worse. Not to say that the drought is directly caused but it’s made it worse.
For her part, Fiorina refused to accept Todd’s claim and instated blamed “liberal politicians” for causing the massive drought:
You know what’s also made it worse? Politicians, liberal politicians who stood up for 40 years as the population of California doubled and saying, you cannot build a new reservoir and you cannot build a water conveyance system. And so, for 40 years 70% of the rainfall has washed out to sea. That's pretty dumb when you know you’re going to have droughts every single year, or every three years let’s say.
The Meet the Press moderator continued to play up how climate change made the California drought worse and how he “asked Governor Jerry Brown to respond to that exact criticism you made. I said, do you blame liberal environmentalists in California, specifically on dams and reservoirs, and this is how he responded.”
After Brown called Fiorina’s argument “such utter ignorance” and how “these people if they want to run for president, better do kind of eighth grade science before they make any more utterances” the Republican presidential candidate pushed back once again:
That's a lot of insults but of course it makes no sense what he just said. It would be helpful if you were fighting fires to have more water. Firefighters in California have difficulty getting enough water now, so they're using other means.It would be helpful to agriculture and everything else to have water saved in the good years so that you could use it in the bad years. I'm not denying that California's air is dry. That's obvious. I'm not denying that there is a drought. But there is no denying that politicians have made this problem immeasurably worse.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
1. Higher Energy Prices, Lost Jobs, Weaker Economy
2. No Climate Benefit, Exaggerated Environmental Benefits
3. Overly Prescriptive EPA Picks Winners and Losers
4. Federally Imposed Cap-and-Trade
A rate-based standard with trading could technically allow emissions to grow, as long as generators only emit a certain amount of carbon per megawatt-hour of power produced. A state with a rate around the same level as a natural gas plant could theoretically keep building more and more natural gas plants and stay in compliance.
Congress and States Need to Take the Power Back
—Nicolas D. Loris is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Climate change and its components adversely affect the Latino community. For example, the 2010 census data show that Latinos became the majority in 191 U.S. metropolitan districts, especially in areas with high vehicle traffic and power plant activity.
Furthermore, data from the American Lung Association indicate that Latinos have the highest incidence of asthma. A major issue is the impact of power plants as the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., accounting for approximately one-third of all domestic greenhouse emissions, a climate change component. Of concern is the connection between the asthma and the emissions.
However, there is a broader context that should worry Americans: climate change. While greenhouse emissions are the result of the power-plant operations, the results of such emissions have been global warming in the intermediate term and climate change in the long term. Invariably, global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably but are in fact distinct events in a greater set of environmental problems.
The Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy, and Research Organization (CLLARO) has recently completed a research project that measured the Latino community's perception about climate change. Almost half of the respondents identified themselves as bilingual or multilingual compared to English only or Spanish only. Among several survey items was one asking the respondents whether climate change is the same as global warming. The bilingual/multilingual group was almost fifty-percent more likely than the English speaking group and more than twice as likely as the Spanish speaking group to respond correctly.
Bilingualism and its cultural components can be proxies for cross cultural sensitivity — i.e., aware of events in both the Latino community and the larger one. Therefore, these findings, among others, highlight the importance of culture and more specifically cross cultural understanding of the impact of climate change on the Latino community.
Understanding such difference is key to developing strategies for dealing with the overall problem of climate change. The enforcement of the Clean Power Plan will begin the process of mitigating the adverse fall out from power plant emissions. The plan calls for cutting carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels. The proposal also requires cutting pollution from soot and smog by over 25 percent by 2030. The results will be cleaner breathing and better health.
However, to ensure that such mitigation occurs in ways that improve the health of the Latino community, there is a need for diverse representation at the strategy table, whether that table is set by the governor, the Colorado congressional and senatorial delegation, city mayors and/or the private sector. Given the evidence, culturally responsive persons are more likely to understand the issues and recommend viable steps for improving the quality of life for the Latino community. These steps can include outreach, community education, involvement in the public policy process, and, of course, voting.
As part of the national strategy to deal with climate change, CLLARO supports the Clean Power Plan and will encourage members of the Latino community to support it also. The improvement in the quality of health and life within the Latino community and the overall Colorado community merits such support.
Christine Alonzo is executive director of the Colorado Latino Leadership Advocacy Research Organization. CLLARO will host a Research Expo on Aug.13 at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts from 5 to 7 p.m.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
[VIDEO] EXCLUSIVE: Video shows Hillary Clinton boarding private jet just hours after launching global-warming push – and she's using a FRENCH aircraft that burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour!
Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign's push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.
The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary's ride was made in France.
The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.
And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.
On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it 'one of the most urgent threats of our time.'
But shortly afterward, a videographer working with the conservative America Rising PAC spotted her at the private air terminal in Des Moines.
FIfteen seconds of video shot just after 12:00 noon, local time, shows Clinton walking up the plane's stairs while an aide hodls a giant black umbrella over her head to sheld her from falling rain.
'Despite her campaign’s best efforts to rebrand her as a down-to-earth fighter for "everyday Americans," Hillary Clinton’s jet-setting ways are just further confirmation that she’s out of touch with the American people,' the group's communications driector Jeff Bechdel told DailyMail.com.
'It’s that kind of hypocrisy that makes the majority of voters say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.'
Via: Daily Mail
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Regardless of differences in opinion about approaches to combatting climate change, California decided in 2006 that the state would have a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction program. Now, nine years later, the AB 32 programs are beginning to take effect and having a financial impact. That impact is being felt by consumers in their electricity bills and there are strong indications that other cost increases will be coming soon.
The unexpected magnitude of the costs, coupled with the uncertainty about future economic impacts, demand greater evaluation of the costs that will be associated with any new climate change proposals (SB 350, SB 32, and the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan). This is hardly a revolutionary approach – in fact, cost analysis is an approach the state should prioritize for all new policies – but proponents of new climate change proposals seem surprisingly blasé about their need.
To be fair, there are several studies: Energy and Environmental Economics, “California State Agency’s PATHWAYS Project: Long-term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scenarios;” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Modeling California policy impact on greenhouse gas emissions;” and Next 10, “California Climate Policy to 2050: Pathways for Sustained Prosperity,” that review cost impacts and conclude that the proposals will actually lower overall consumer costs. Those studies make assumptions about the future costs with many caveats about population and economic growth. They may be correct assumptions or they may be faulty. However, the Wall Street Journal opined on a study in November, 2011, showing that AB 32 would cost the average household $3,857 in increased costs by 2020. So before any legislation moves forward, NFIB/CA is requesting that the legislature not blindly accept these assumptions but fully analyze the cost issues and allow a public debate over these far reaching policies.
Here are some basic questions that small businesses need to know about these proposals:
What will Californians have to pay in increased electric costs to reach the 50% renewable energy goal? Already, many school districts, hospitals, businesses and residents have seen increases in their electricity bills and many of the costs associated with AB 32 have not yet been built into the rates. The California Energy Commission’s own numbers estimate a 28% to 42% increase in electricity rates by 2020. Many of the studies that show consumers will pay less rely on “savings” to offset the higher electricity costs but those savings are vague and there is no indication when those savings will be available to consumers, much less whether they are quantifiable and verifiable. The alternative renewable energy sources being pushed can be several times more expensive than traditional energy sources, particularly since energy from dams and solar roof tops are excluded from the equation, and these costs will constitute half of consumer electricity bills.
What will ratepayers need to pay to transform the state’s electricity infrastructure? According to the studies, the 50% petroleum reduction goal will require the number of Zero Electric Vehicles (ZEVs) to climb from 100,000 to over 7 million. That increase will require a massive new investment in infrastructure to transform the transmission and distribution system and to build charging stations. Who will pay for the billions of dollars of new infrastructure? Are those costs built into economic projections models? And what provisions in the new proposals will prevent all the benefits going to those can afford Teslas and solar panels — and the costs being borne by middle and lower income families and small businesses? And electric cars are often heavier than others, and contribute to serious wear and tear on our highway systems without paying maintenance taxes at the pump.
How much will energy efficiency proposals cost California residents? We’re leaders in energy efficiency, and committed to further efficiencies. But all efficiencies have a cost, and we need to know what we’ll have to pay to make climate change goals feasible. But we do know that we’ll have to increasingly rely on electricity. Do the math: a new electric stove — $800 to $1200. A new electric water heater — $1200 to $2000. A new electric furnace — $600 to $1200. Will California residents and business be required to replace existing appliances? Will restaurants, for example, be required to replace all their gas stoves with electric ones? Will lower income homeowners and qualifying small businesses receive government assistance to convert their property?
These costs matter. They matter to small businesses and they matter to hard-working Californians. If we truly desire to maintain the integrity of the legislative process and protect our businesses and families, we need the legislature to conduct a full cost examination of climate change policy impacts.
Eliseo Medina, the International Treasurer/Secretary for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) freely admitted that the ...
How big is the federal government? So big, it has lost count of just how many department and agencies it has, according to a federal w...
Reid Wilson shares a map from National Media, a Republican ad-buying firm, depicting a recent television event: “Using data from Rentrak, ...
James Boulware is the suspect in the Dallas Police Department HQ shooting last night , and today we’re learning more information about...
Vice President Joe Biden , who has long been considering a presidential bid, is increasingly leaning toward entering the race if it is ...
Most Americans tend to agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of this country’s better presidents, having saved the nation from imploding ...
I just had lunch with a friend who is a manager of a David’s Bridal. She told me all store managers received an email from the CEO of Dav...
SOMETIMES THEY JUST EAT THEIR OWN FOR THERE OWN BENEFIT Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would “probably not...
President Barack Obama approved of Iran’s right to operate a nuclear program in 2011 during secret meetings with Iranian officials, accord...
Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to ex...