You can add crude oil to the list of things some “scientists” would have you believe they have figured out. 

“Oil that is…, black gold…, Texas tea.”

When you get right down to it, there isn’t a heck of a lot that “scientists” really “know.”

There’s a lot they’d like you to think they know, but in the end it’s mostly educated guesses…, and uneducated guesses.

aoil 3

We see these educated and uneducated theories and guesses passed off as facts most of the time.

When reading textbooks or listening to the news, we never hear these “scientists” say, “We believe that …” or “It’s our theory that…”

I’m talking about global warming (now called “climate change” since the warming part is a hard sell), the creation of the universe, the evolution of life on Earth, and what’s inside the Earth.

aoil 5

Now don’t get me wrong…, I’m not anti-science…, I love science.  I just don’t like it when wishful thinking is passed off as science, and this wishful thinking is then used as propaganda to support liberal fairy tale narratives.

Regarding oil, one of the “fossil fuels,” “scientists” have spun a pretty wild tale, it seems.

aoil 2

In an article titled, “The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil,” by Ker Than, for the LiveScience website, Than says, “… some experts [are]  predicting that the end of oil is near, scientists still don’t know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is.”

Wait…, what?

What was that?

“Scientists still don’t know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is?”

Really?

But they feel safe “predicting that the end of oil is near.”

Again…, “Scientists still don’t know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is?”

Well, you could’ve fooled me!

I was under the impression that “scientists” knew all there was to know about oil in the Earth.

Hmmm.

aoil 1

Soooo, it’s called a “fossil fuel” even though “fossils” may have nothing to do with it?

See what I mean?

Ker Than continues by saying, “A so-called ‘fossil fuel,’ petroleum [oil] is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.”

“Nature has been transmuting dead life into black gold [or natural gas] for millions of years using little more than heat, pressure and time, scientists tell us.”

That sounds like a statement of fact without any caveats to me.

Again…, see what I mean?

aoil 4

“The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the ‘biogenic theory’ of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.”

“In the 1950’s, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth [the abiogenic theory].”

They say, “Both processes for making petroleum likely require thousands of years,” although, here again, they really have no clue how long it takes, or if either of these theoretical processes are even responsible for the creation of oil at all.

According to an article on the ScienceDaily website, “Estimates of how much crude oil we have extracted from the planet vary wildly. Now, researchers have published a new estimate in the International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology that suggests we may have used more than we think.”

“Now, John Jones in the School of Engineering, at the University of Aberdeen, UK, says that we have used at least 135 billion barrels of oil since 1870, the period during which J.D. Rockefeller established The Standard Oil Company and began drilling in earnest.”

“However, in 2005, The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) [Is that really a thing?] in London provided a total figure of almost 1 trillion barrels of crude oil (944 billion barrels) since commercial drilling began.”

There are 42 gallons in a barrel, and I’m pretty good at math, so that would equate to around 42 trillion gallons.

That’s a lot of “fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms.”

And that’s only what we have used so far.

From the World Ocean Review website, “Gas and oil form in the sea over a period of millions of years [Oh, now it’s millions of years?], as the remains of animals and plants sink to the ocean floor. Combined with particles flushed from the land, they are buried and compressed into layers of sediment several kilometers thick on the ocean floor.”

Excuse me, but when does this stuff stop sinking to the ocean floor so it can become buried?  Isn’t this happening continually?  Just sayin’.

“Aided by the Earth’s pressure and temperature conditions, bacteria convert the biomass into precursor substances from which hydrocarbons are ultimately formed. These hydrocarbons can permeate certain layers of rock and sediment as they move up towards the surface, in a process called migration. In some cases they become trapped in impermeable layers of rock, which is where the actual deposits are ultimately formed. Depending on the ambient conditions, oil or natural gas develops. Today’s sources of fossil fuels are between 15 and 600 million years old.”

“Between 15 and 600 million years old,” huh? Well, that’s really narrowing it down!

“During this period the continental plates shifted, transforming oceans into landmasses, with the result that mineral deposits can be found both on land and at sea. Oil and gas are usually found where vast layers of sediment cover the ocean floor.”

So there you have it.  Perfectly explained as if it were proven fact…, which it is not.  This whole previous paragraph should have begun with the words, “Once upon a time” for all it is worth.

Again…, I’m not anti-science…, I love science.  I just don’t like it when these “scientists” pretend to know more than they do, then throw their science fiction stories out there as “the truth.”

If these scientists are so smart they should know better.

aoil 8

aoil 7

aoil 6

aoil 10

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Hey…, whatever happened to that huge hole in the ozone layer that was threatening life on Earth as we know it?

I haven’t heard much about it lately.

It must not be fitting in with the current “end of the world” “climate change” narrative.

Let’s see.

According to Chris Ciaccia of Fox News, ‘“Ozone hole is the smallest on record,’ NASA says.”

“Smallest on record?!”

Why haven’t we heard more about this?!

aozone 1

Another case of liberal propaganda by omission I would suspect.

NASA also says this is due to a “rare” event, however.

Ahhhhh, the predictable disclaimer whenever “good news” needs to be tempered in order to not harm the existing narrative!

“Unusual weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica have caused a drastic reduction in ozone depletion, leaving the ozone with the smallest hole seen since its discovery in 1982, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

aozone 2

First of all…, the ozone hole wasn’t even discovered until 1982!

That means we have a whopping 37 years of ozone hole history and thousands of years, or millions of years, or billions of years (depending on your belief of the age of the Earth) where we have no idea about the condition of an ozone hole, or if there even was one.

Let’s just go ahead and say that NASA has no scientific idea about what is normal and what isn’t, in regards to the ozone hole.

“Government agencies said that the hole had shrunk to 3.9 million square miles for the remainder of September and October, according to satellite data.  The peak in the hole was 6.3 million square miles, observed on Sept. 8. During normal weather conditions, the hole is usually around 8 million square miles during this time of year.”

‘“It’s great news for ozone in the Southern Hemisphere,’ said Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in a statement on NASA’s website. ‘But it’s important to recognize that what we’re seeing this year is due to warmer stratospheric temperatures. It’s not a sign that atmospheric ozone is suddenly on a fast track to recovery.’”

Time out.

I’m sorry Mr. Newman, but “it’s important to recognize” that you and your friends really have no idea what anything is “due” to, or what is causing what, or what’s “normal” and what isn’t.

“The ozone layer is approximately 7 to 25 miles above the Earth’s surface and acts as a ‘sunscreen’ for the planet, NASA added.  It keeps out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun that has been linked to skin cancer, cataracts, immune system suppression and can also cause damage to plants.”aozone 8

“The hole over the Antarctic forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the Sun’s rays start to cause ozone-depleting reactions. This involves chlorine and bromine from man-made objects being released into the stratosphere which then destroys the molecules in the ozone.”

‘“It’s a rare event that we’re still trying to understand,’ said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist. ‘If the warming hadn’t happened, we’d likely be looking at a much more typical ozone hole.’”

aozone 6

Again, I’m sorry Ms. Strahan, but you really don’t have a clue about what “a typical ozone hole” is really, or what we’d be looking at based on anything happening.  The only thing you said that I believe is, “we’re still trying to understand.”

You just go ahead and keep on trying.

“The 1987 Montreal Protocol was enacted after scientists disturbingly found a hole in the ozone over Antarctica and Australia in 1985.  It was enacted by the United Nations Environment Program.  Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it was ‘perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date’ and it has been widely regarded as successful, with the ozone continuing to recover each year.”

Again…, and again, I’m sorry, but why did these scientists find the ozone hole “disturbing?”

They had no prior data to work with.

Perhaps the hole was alarmingly small compared to the prior 10,000 years?

They didn’t know.

They had no historical data to point to.

It was just another “The sky is falling!” environmental whacko alarm, intent on attacking America’s way of life, even though we are not anywhere near the biggest environmental offenders.

aozone 4

Just as with ocean pollution, China has been found to be the major culprit damaging the ozone layer with the continued use of illegal gases.

“In May 2018, a startling study revealed that there was an ‘unexpected and persistent increase’ of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere.  At the time, scientists could not pinpoint the exact location of the polluting and ozone-depleting gas, but subsequent media reports suggested that the clues lead to a rural industrial town in China.”

“Now, a new study confirms that the rise in CFCs, to the tune of 7,000 metric tons, is indeed coming from northeastern China based on atmospheric observations.”

“In a statement provided to Fox News, acting Head of UN Environment Joyce Msuya said: ‘Action is being taken by all parties at the international level and by China domestically.  Additional scientific research is being done to pinpoint the sources and possible illegal uses of the CFC-11.  Given the large amount of emissions, all parties appreciate the urgency to ensure the ongoing protection of the Ozone Layer.  This is a priority for the UN Environment Program.’”

Believe me, the only action being taken by China is figuring out how they can avoid being detected in the future.

These diplomats are either extremely gullible or extremely stupid.

Tell me again what the UN has ever really accomplished?

I guess it’s good that we have a forum (the UN) where communication at least exists between all countries…, but that’s about it.

One hundred ninety-seven countries, including the U.S. under former President Ronald Reagan and China, are signatories of the Montreal Protocol.

For many of these countries, and especially China, these agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, however.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

The Sierra Club says climate change deniers are more likely to be racists!  Well, there’s killing two birds with one stone!

According to Heather Smith for SIERRA, The national magazine of the Sierra Club, “People who don’t believe that climate change is real are more likely to be old, more likely to be Republican, and more likely to be white.”

So you’re saying the smartest group among us don’t necessarily believe in all of this climate change mumbo jumbo?

Makes sense to me so far.

“They [the old, white, conservatives] are also more likely to have racist beliefs, according to a recent study published in the journal ‘Environmental Politics.’”

cons 8

“Environmental Politics.”  Now there’s a liberal rag of a magazine if ever I heard of one!

I take it they’re just assuming the racist part because we’re talking about white conservatives here.

I doubt they asked people in the study if they were racists or not.

Ms. Smith goes on to say, “This correlation is a relatively recent phenomenon—one that occurred in the wake of Barack Obama’s election in 2008.”

cons 7

Oh, okay…, now I’m starting to get where this is going.

“The paper hypothesizes that, however moderate his actions, the mere existence of our first African American president dropping climate change into the State of the Union Address and joining the Paris climate accord correlates with a significant number of white Americans deciding that they were done believing in climate change.”

“This correlation has also been documented with regard to health-care reform—after the Obama administration made it a priority, a subset of white Americans who had supported the issue during the Clinton administration suddenly switched their position.”

This last claim is just a plain fabrication.  Not many people supported government run health care at all during the Clinton years.  That’s why they failed to implement it.  ObamaCare was actually signed into law.  I don’t think their argument stands up here.

Their racist claims regarding President Obama and climate change are way off base as well.

cons 6

cons 4

When are these liberals going to understand that conservatives didn’t care about the color of Obama’s skin…, it was HIS policies, and HIS racism that turned conservatives off.

“Political messaging with racist over- and undertones has been deployed relentlessly by some politicians because appealing to prejudice and paranoia really does motivate racist, paranoid people to show up and vote.”

Now there something we can all agree on!

Except they’re referring to Republicans and I’m thinking about the Democrats!

cons 5

These crazy “studies” are about as valuable as their polling numbers!

But accuracy was never their goal in the first place.

It was the liberal messaging that was the most important thing.  It was only a means to an end.  Some hogwash to back up a failed narrative.

WINNING!

cons 1

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

New York City Mayor, Bill (de Bozio) de Blasio, announces his own “Green New (Bad) Deal.”

New York City’s mayor, the honorable (cough…, cough) Bill “de Blozio,” takes yet another step out towards the abyss of the whacky left with his latest proposals and intentions.

With politicians like de “Blozio,” they may have to rename Florida “Southern New York,” considering the mass exodus of New Yorkers fleeing to Florida in an effort to avoid being taxed into liberal oblivion.

According to Andrew O’Reilly for Fox News, “New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio faced a crowd of angry protesters Monday at a raucous rally promoting the city’s Green New Deal inside the lobby of Trump Tower, where the Democrat threatened President Trump’s family company with millions of dollars in fines if his buildings don’t comply with new environmental standards.”

blasio1

Going off the deep end environmentally and attacking President Trump?  Now that’s a winning liberal combination!

“Speaking in front of the same escalators where Trump launched his 2016 campaign, de Blasio blasted the President’s rollback of Obama-era environmental policies, his move to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement and his appointment of climate change skeptics to the Cabinet.”

These “fake news,” socialist-liberal, politicians are all the same.  It’s all about appearance and promoting a narrative rather than dealing with facts and truths.

blasio 6

The TRUTH is…, the Paris Climate Agreement only required the U.S. to make any real changes which would continue to negatively affect our economy, while all of the other countries in the agreement got to sit back, take advantage of us in the meantime, and then probably renege on their commitments 15-20 years from now.

It was the typical, stupid Obama, type of deal that we became familiar with during his reign of anti-Americanism.

‘“His [Trump’s] buildings are one of the biggest polluters in New York City,” de Blasio said. ‘Cut your emissions or we’ll cut something you really care about.’”

In case you’re wondering, “How are these buildings causing pollution exactly?” They aren’t directly causing pollution, as the mayor and his friends would make it seem…, the buildings are indirectly causing pollution by their consumption of electricity and their consumption of fuels for heating, etc. It’s all about improving the efficiency of how these building use energy.

blasio 4

“De Blasio, who is mulling a Democratic presidential run, added: ‘We’ll take your money.’”

Oh…, no doubt Mr. Mayor…, no doubt.  You actually mean “we’ll take MORE of your money,” don’t you?

blasio 7

“The mayor, though, was forced to shout for much of his speech amid jeers from a crowd of about a dozen protesters inside the lobby of Trump Tower, which also had music blasting over the speakers. A number of protesters rode up and down the escalator behind de Blasio carrying cardboard signs with slogans like ‘Worst Mayor Ever,’ ‘Failed Mayor,’ and ‘Trump 2020.’”

Too funny.

“De Blasio said he did not mind the protesters and added that it was ‘so nice for them to serenade us.’”

That’s a lie.

‘“They’re scared of the truth,’ he said. ‘Anyone that has a problem with saving the planet, I have a problem with them.’”

No…, we’re not scared of “the truth,” Mr. Mayor…, we’re scared of people who treat “fake news” like “the truth” and try to shove it down everybody else’s throats while grabbing money out of our wallets at the same time!

blasio 5

“New York City’s own Green New Deal plan – officially called The Climate Mobilization Act and modeled after the one proposed in Congress by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. – passed the City Council last month in a 45-2 vote. De Blasio has not yet signed the legislation but is expected to soon.”

You mean modeled after the Act Ocasio-Cortez proposed which failed on a 57-to-0 vote in The Senate, with all Republicans and four Democrats blocking the resolution, while 43 Democrats, including those who introduced the Green New Deal, voting “present?!”  Is that the Act New York’s plan is modeled after?

Impressive.

Of course, as opposed to the U.S. Senate, New York’s City Council overwhelmingly passed this nightmare 45-2.

This is just another example, ladies and gentlemen, of why all of our democrat led major cities are in a death spiral right down their respective toilets.

blasio 8

blasio 3

“The main facet of the deal is the plan to clamp down on emissions from the city’s famed skyscrapers with a goal of reducing overall emissions by 40 percent by 2030. Buildings create almost 70 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a recent survey.”

It’s really not the buildings, Mr. Mayor…, it’s those irresponsible people who work and live in these buildings who insist on lights and heat and stuff like that in order to work and live.

The nerve!

And here’s a newsflash, Mr. Mayor…, heating systems and electrical systems in these building will just naturally increase in efficiency over time as equipment fails and is replaced by newer and more efficient equipment.

There’s no need to go getting your undies all in a bundle!

That is unless you’re just grandstanding for political reasons.

Bingo!

‘“The first of any major city on the Earth to say to building owners, you’ve got to clean up your act, you’ve got to retrofit, you’ve got to save energy,’ de Blasio said last month. ‘If you don’t do it by 2030 there will be serious fines, as high as $1 million or more for the biggest buildings.’”

Does this include government buildings, Bill?  Why do I see some sort of waivers built in for the government and other “friends of Bill?”

“Upgrades to buildings in order to meet the new standards are expected to cost owners around $4 billion – a figure that has the city’s powerful real estate lobby up in arms.”

Is that all?

‘“The bill that passed…will fall short of achieving the reduction by only including half of the city’s building stock,’ Real Estate Board of New York President John H. Banks said in a statement. ‘The approach taken today will have a negative impact on our ability to attract and retain a broad range of industries, including technology, media, finance, and life sciences, that provide opportunity and continued economic growth that is so important for our city.’”

So this would be consistent with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s belief that New York doesn’t need any more of those evil good paying jobs, Like Amazon proposed, for its citizens.

“New York is not the only major American city to push its own version of the Green New Deal.”

Really!  Tell me more!

“Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti released a plan last month to make the city carbon neutral by 2050.”

Ahhh…, Los Angeles…, I should have known.

What would our country be without New York City and Los Angeles, besides much better off?

blasio 2

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Climate Change!  Global Warming!  It’s the end of the world as we know it…, and I feel fine.

There are a lot of misconceptions and misnomers being thrown around by “Climate Change Alarmists.”

Climate Change Alarmists are individuals who look at you as if you have three heads if you dare to question any of their Climate Change claims or appeals.

Climate Change Alarmists call people other people who don’t swallow their story hook, line and sinker, “Climate Change Deniers.”

Ok…, let’s be clear…, NOBODY believes the climate doesn’t change or isn’t changing.

Some people just believe the Earth’s climate changes naturally, and on its own, just like it is scientifically documented to have done throughout the world’s history, whether people were around or not.

“Climate Change Deniers” are also typically skeptical of policies directed at combating Climate Change because they don’t believe there is anything people can really do to effect the climate one way or the other.

My question to the Climate Change Alarmists would be, “Did you actually expect the Earth’s climate to NOT change from time to time?  Did you really expect the Earth’s climate to remain exactly the same forever?

That seems to be where these Climate Change Alarmists are coming from.

The Earth has had periods of “Global Warming,” “Global Cooling,” and even “Ice Ages” in the past when people either weren’t even around, or people did not burn fossil fuels.  How does the Climate Change community explain this?  How did the climate change back then without the help of the “evil” human polluters?

Let’s look at a recent article by Harry Pettit, of News.com, as a typical example of a Climate Change Alarmist spinning another fantasy climate change story and scenario that just doesn’t make any sense.

According to Mr. Pettit, “An Antarctic ‘time bomb’ is waiting to go off.”

He says that, “Earth’s sea levels should be nine meters higher than they are,” and that “dramatic melting in Antarctica may soon plug the gap.”

That’s over 29 feet higher for us unscientific and/or American Neanderthals.

So…, the oceans should be 29 feet higher than they are?

That’s like a three story building you know?

Really?

Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“They say global temperatures today are the same as they were 115,000 years ago, a time when modern humans were only just beginning to leave Africa, he continues.”

Oh really?  How could that be?  What types of cars were people driving back then?  They must have had a lot of factories pumping out plenty of emissions in old Sub-Saharan Africa, huh?

Again, do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“Research shows during this time period, ‘scorching’ ocean temperatures caused a catastrophic global ice melt.  As a result, sea levels were six to nine meters higher than they are today.  But if modern ocean temperatures are the same as they were during that period, it means our planet is missing a devastating sea rise.”

I feel like I’m dumber for just having read that.  Please take a moment to reread the previous paragraph in order to properly appreciate all of the contradictions and false assumptions made here.

And again, do you understand how stupid that sounds?

“If oceans were to rise by just 1.8 meters (about 6 feet), large swathes of coastal cities would find themselves underwater, turning streets into canals and completely submerging some buildings,” and that, “There’s no way to get tens of meters of sea level rise without getting tens of meters of sea level rise from Antarctica,” said Dr. Rob DeConto, an Antarctic expert at the University of Massachusetts in the U.S.

“In the next century, ice loss would get even worse,” he added.

Even if you throw all common sense out the window and take all of these doomsday predictions at face value, do these people really think that having America return to the Middle Ages would make any difference?

If we all stopped driving cars, stopped transporting things with trucks, stopped flying in commercial jets and stopped using fossil fuels for electric power tomorrow, would that avert all of this supposed ice melting?

If you really think so, I’ve got this bridge I’m looking to sell…, cheap.

“The Sun” newspaper, in the United Kingdom, actually has a “sea level doomsday simulator” on its website if you’d like to know whether your home would be wiped out by rising oceans!

Well isn’t that special.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ice-caps melting

So, what the heck is this “Green New Deal” anyway?

Well, first of all it’s NOT a law.  It’s more like a “game plan” or a “road map” to follow.

It’s a liberal/socialist/environmentalist manifesto in the same vein as the Communist Manifesto.

Yes…, that’s exactly what it is.

Let me be your guide about something you will be hearing about non-stop for a long time. The “biased, liberal, fake news media” will be getting their propaganda machine cranked up into overdrive for this one.

The people that put this “Green New Deal” resolution together were either high on drugs, extremely naive, extremely confused, stupid, or some combination of all of the above, in my opinion.

So…, let’s see exactly what we have here.

This resolution validates all of its proposed actions based on the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming [of 1.5 degrees centigrade]” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report.

If the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, humanity has just over a decade to get carbon emissions under control before catastrophic climate change impacts become unavoidable.

At the rate our government works, I guess we should all start planning our funerals, or preparing to live underground, and stockpiling food and water, because nothing is going to happen over the next ten years to fix our environment, if in fact it is broken, and if in fact it is our fault.

The United States is already the most environmentally friendly country, among major industrialized nations in the world by the way.  You sure wouldn’t know this by the way the “biased, liberal, fake news media” demonizes the USA on a daily basis.  Is China, Russia, India, Germany, The United Kingdom or Japan on board with any of this?  Because we surely cannot effect global climate change without global participation.

If the Paris Climate Agreement is any indication of the level of global participation we could expect, we’re in trouble!

In the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump wisely backed the U.S. out of, all of these other countries pledged their support with flowery environmental words and swore to meet the new pollution regulations AFTER the U.S. had piloted the proposed pollution levels for the first 10-20 years of the agreement!

Such determination!

Such support!

Such disingenuousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The resolution consists of a preamble, five goals, 14 projects, and 15 requirements. The preamble establishes that there are two crises, a climate crisis and an economic crisis of wage stagnation and growing inequality.

The goals are: achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs, providing for a just transition, and securing clean air and water.

The projects are things like: decarbonizing electricity, transportation, and industry, restoring ecosystems, and upgrading buildings and electricity grids.

Our liberal/socialist/environmentalist friends have managed to incorporate virtually all aspects of our society, economy, employment, racial issues, gender issues and government into their “end all, be all” “primary directive.”

The document itself is not even 14 pages long, so please, read it for yourself if you get the chance.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at some excerpts taken directly from the resolution:

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’); Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States…”

Say what?

Are you starting to get the point?

This new Raw Deal…, I mean Green Deal, is your typical “bleeding heart” bunch of politically correct mumbo jumbo.

Here are some of the more detailed goals taken directly from the resolution:

“Upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

Well gee…, that doesn’t sound expensive at all.

“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”

What exactly is meant by “spurring?”  I’m guessing it means spending more money.

“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible…”

“Working collaboratively” mean dictating unmanageable pollution standards.

“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

“Overhauling transportation systems” sounds like a lot of money…, again.

“A Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses…”

This last part is just a bunch concepts that sound good, but will never actually happen.  Just like with The Affordable Care Act legislation, there will be nothing inclusive or transparent about it.

“To achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects:”

“Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”

“Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”

Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers” means only selected “enlightened” liberal individuals and groups will dictate to all of the rest of us “knuckle-draggers” what to think.

“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

In the government world “Guaranteeing” something means there will be no budgetary concerns.

“Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”

“Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections, to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”

Hasn’t President Trump already pretty much taken care of this one?

“Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”

This means eminent domain will be abused.

“Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people.”

Here’s your “bone” Native-Americans!

“Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and providing all people of the United States with: high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

This last section, and the last section of the resolution, is kind of a catch-all.

According to David Roberts for Vox.com, “The question of how to pay for the many public investments called for in the GND [Green New Deal] is still a bit of a political minefield. There are centrist Democrats who still believe in the old PAYGO rules, keeping a “balanced budget” within a 10-year window. There are Democrats who think deficit fears have been exaggerated and there’s nothing wrong with running a deficit to drive an economic transition. And there are Democrats who have gone full Modern Monetary Theory, which is way too complicated to explain here but amounts to the notion that, short of inflation, the level of the deficit is effectively irrelevant, as long as we’re getting the economy we want.  That discussion is just getting underway, and the better part of valor is to do what the GND resolution does: say nothing about it. Leave it for later.”

Just in case you’re keeping score at home, the Green New Deal includes a “federal job guarantee,” the right to unionize, liberal trade and monopoly policies, and universal housing and health care.

In other words, “Hello Socialism…, here we come!”

Some of this stuff is even too far left for Nancy Pelosi!  She is actually coming under some attack for even having the slightest bit of skepticism about some of the goals in the Green New Deal!

Remember the name Rhiana Gunn-Wright.  She has apparently been tabbed to be the architect of any official policy platforms developed from the Green New Deal resolution.

“Obviously, figuring out how to fundamentally transform the world’s largest economy is a lot for one person to take on. When Gunn-Wright was asked if she knows what she’s gotten into, she laughs. “It’s really exciting!”

Do you mind if I ask if this person has ever really done anything regarding any of this stuff, or is she just working from a theoretical stand point?  Has she ever had a non-political job?  Does she really know anything about economics?

“If you have more money or access to power, you can either opt out or pay to make it simpler,” she says. “The people who will have to go through all the mess are generally poorer people, with the least access to power.”

So it’ll be just like usual…, with the rich liberal entertainers, athletes, businessmen and politicians being exempt or being able to “buy” their way out of the policies the rest of us are forced to deal with.  Again…, “do as I say not as I do.”

David Roberts for Vox.com Thinks, “Gunn-Wright’s command of the issues, coupled with her unapologetic belief in the public sector to “shape markets and direct innovation,” coupled with her evident concern for the low-income and working classes, make me excited to see what New Consensus produces.”

So…, apparently Mr. Roberts is just as clueless as the authors of the resolution, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Gunn-Wright and all of their partners in crime.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for 100 percent renewable electricity within 10 years, but very few policy experts believe that is possible.

By their own admission, the top three challenges facing the GND are paying for it, convincing the public, and winning over Democrats.

Roberts adds, “In the real world, if the GND looks like it has any chance of becoming a reality, it will face a giant right-wing smear campaign, coordinated across conservative media, think tanks, and politicians, funded by effectively unlimited fossil fuel wealth. The right will rush to define the GND as a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

That’s because, Mr. Roberts, the Green New Deal IS “a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

Trumpeting the truth about this foolishness is not a “right-wing smear campaign,” it’s just a matter of combating the propaganda of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and the rest of “the swamp.”

Well, there you have it.  I hope this helped.

Like I said…, we’re not going to stop hearing about the Green New Deal anytime soon.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ocasio-cortez inventions

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑