Archive for the ‘Environmental Issues’ Category

VIDEO – CONSPIRACY THEORY OR FACTUAL ?

Sunday, March 22nd, 2020

 

I have debated with myself about posting  this video  as some people consider David Icke a conspiracy theorist.  Many of the points that he makes in this video are very intriguing and plausible.  Since we are close to a global economic crisis, I decided to send it out and you can decide for yourself if you agree with his statements regarding the world’s reaction to the coronavirus.  Nancy  
VIDEO

David Icke Explains How the Elite are Using Coronavirus to Reshape the Global Economy

“This coronavirus hysteria gives them an excuse to do what they’re doing, and the consequences of what they’re doing is to dismantle the world economic system.” – David Icke

On Wednesday, David Icke appeared as a guest on London Real to discuss his perspective on the coronavirus and the global lockdown happening right now. The greater implication, he says, is that while people are in a state of fear, they are passively allowing increasing authoritarian controls over their lives, and that this new power grab will not be rolled out when the crisis ends.

The types of government totalitarianism that are being pushed amid the coronavirus outbreak include the encouragement of going cashless, mandatory vaccinations, and most importantly, vast economic controls which we have never seen before this event.

“The way the whole economic system is being shut down is suicide. What happens when it reaches a point where in its present state it cannot survive?” – David Icke

In most US states, local governments have closed down restaurants, bars, hair salons, and coffee houses against the interests of business owners as a means to stop the spread of the coronavirus. As a result, millions of people have already lost their jobs and are unsure about whether they will be able to pay rent. Governments claim that without extreme measures, many more will die, and hospital beds will overfill.

“You have to keep the reaction in proportion to the problem,” David says. “so maybe more needs doing in parts of Italy.

 

Share

BLOOMBERG SELLS ‘SUSTAINABILITY,’ BUT BUYER BEWARE

Wednesday, March 4th, 2020

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Bloomberg Sells ‘Sustainability,’ but Buyer Beware

Virtue-signaling corporate standards may be better for financial firms than they are for investors.

By Allysia Finley Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.  March 2, 2020

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:Yet Mr. Bloomberg’s ultimate goal is to encode his standards in federal regulation. In his campaign proposal for financial reform, he says he’d urge the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt a rule “requiring companies to publish information on the racial and gender composition of their boards, senior executives, hiring, pay and procurement,” as well as “climate risks.” If such a rule were adopted, companies could get sued even for unintentionally misreporting information. Trial lawyers stand to make out big.

Liberals like to say that sustainability is good for business—but mainly for those promoting it.

  

Michael Bloomberg became one of the world’s richest men by creating a financial software and data-analytics business to assist investors. He has since used his wealth to promote progressive causes. Now he’s standing behind a nonprofit financial venture that helps others cash in on liberal corporate virtue. Its name is the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board.

Mr. Bloomberg bankrolled the outfit, which was founded in 2011, to impose his enlightened political and cultural values on American corporations. SASB drew more attention in January when BlackRockCEO Larry Fink threatened to use his firm’s massive ownership stakes to oppose corporate managers who fail to follow the board’s standards.

SASB is modeled on the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which governs how businesses report financial information. It has a nine-member board that sets guidelines on the kinds of “sustainability” information corporations should disclose to investors. This information is supposed to be “material” to a company’s long-term financial performance.

Materiality is essentially a progressive term of art. SASB’s standards vary across 77 industries based on what its “stakeholders”—academics, attorneys, auditors, asset managers and businesses—consider important. Greenhouse-gas emissions are “material” to food and beverage companies but not to those that make consumer goods. Safeguarding customer welfare is important for health insurers though oddly not for airlines or banks.

(more…)
Share

TRUMP HAS FEW ALTERNATIVES TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Wednesday, March 4th, 2020

 

Washington Examiner

Trump has few alternatives to Yucca

The Trump administration bailing on Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as the nation’s long-delayed nuclear waste storage site has exposed the reality that the United States does not have viable alternative solutions.

“It’s clear we don’t have a way forward for a repository of nuclear waste at the moment,” said Rodney Ewing, a professor of nuclear security and geological sciences at Stanford University.

Until recently, the Trump administration had proposed funding to restart the licensing of Yucca Mountain despite a political onslaught from Nevada’s political delegation fighting against the site ever being completed.

President Trump, due to face voters this year in politically important Nevada, flipped the script with a tweet this month that seemed to take Yucca Mountain off the table. He said previous administrations “failed to find lasting solutions,” and he committed to exploring other “innovative approaches.”

His subsequent budget proposal vaguely pledged to initiate “processes to develop alternative solutions” by working with states and other stakeholders.

The administration plans to form an interagency working group to determine more precise next steps. In the few details described in the budget, the White House indicated that Trump supports the implementation of an interim storage program and research on “alternative technologies” to handle nuclear waste.

Democrats running for president also uniformly oppose Yucca Mountain, but they have not clearly articulated an alternative.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the federal government promised nuclear power plants that it would handle the waste. The law, amended five years later, directed the Energy Department to take possession of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and dispose of it in a deep geological repository at Yucca Mountain.

“We have seen every kind of ‘other than Yucca’ proposal,” said Jordan Haverly, director of energy and environmental policy for Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, a longtime Yucca supporter. “All of them talk about these great new ideas, but eventually get to a point where Yucca is still the law as mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.”

Indeed, alternatives to handle the nation’s 80,000 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants have not yet borne fruit.

(more…)

Share

THE AGONY OF THE DEMOCRATS

Saturday, February 15th, 2020

 

Far Left Liberalism has itself to blame for  being the cause of the appeal of Bernie Sanders.  The Democrat Party now has to contend with the possibility of Bernie being their nominee.  Guess they really didn’t mean for the voters to take their extreme far left policies seriously !   Nancy  

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Agony of the Democrats

Bernie Sanders is riding the intellectual currents that the party and its elites have nurtured.

By the Editorial Board   February 15, 2020

Bernie Sanders’s victory in New Hampshire on top of his tie in Iowa makes him a favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination. Hard to believe, but in a winnable race against President Trump the opposition may nominate a socialist who wants the government to control energy production and health care, who wants nationwide rent control, and who calls America a “racist society from top to bottom.” No wonder Democrats like James Carville are in agony.

The Vermont revolutionary’s victory portends a long primary battle, unless Democratic voters elevate a single mainstream candidate who can challenge him. Mr. Sanders will get his 25% to 30% primary after primary, racking up delegates on his way to the convention. If other candidates keep dividing the other votes, he will be hard to stop, as Mr. Trump was for Republicans in 2016. Even if a single alternative emerges, Mr. Sanders won’t go down without a ferocious intra-party fight.

***

How did this happen? How did Mr. Sanders move from the socialist fringe to the brink of controlling the Democratic Party? The Senator’s dogged persistence across decades and especially the last four years is part of the explanation.

Yet Mr. Sanders wouldn’t be this close to the White House if not for the complicity of Democrats and the liberals who dominate the academy and media. Rather than fighting the ideas that animate him and his millennial voters, they have indulged and promoted them. They created the political environment in which he could prosper. Consider the intellectual currents he is riding:

(more…)

Share

BIG GOP WIN IN TEXAS !

Friday, January 31st, 2020

 

Here’s a win for the good guys !!!  Bodes very well for November’s  election
Nancy  Trump 2020 !

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Texas Is About to Go Blue! Never Mind

Democrats were sure they’d flip a state House seat this week. They weren’t close.

by Karl Rove  January 30, 2020

While many Americans were focused on Washington this week, I was paying special attention to Fort Bend County, Texas. What took place in that Houston suburb may reveal more about the 2020 election than the impeachment trial in the Senate does.

Fort Bend held a special runoff election to fill a vacant state House seat left open by the resignation of the Republican incumbent, who took a job with the University of Texas. Sensing an opening, state and national Democrats decided a win in House District 28 would give them a head start on flipping the nine seats they’d need to control the Texas House and boost their efforts to overturn GOP state legislative majorities from Arizona to Florida, Wisconsin to Pennsylvania and a dozen states in between.

The reason for this intense Democratic interest in state politics is redistricting.Democrats saw how Republican state legislative majorities affected the composition of the U.S. House after the 2010 census. Democrats want to do in more states what they did back then in drawing congressional lines favorable to their party in California, Illinois, Maryland and other blue bastions. The 2020 census gives them the opportunity, but only if they control at least one chamber of a state’s legislature.

Democrats, eager to set the tone for 2020, piled into the race with money, endorsements, technology, lists and volunteers to help Elizabeth Markowitz defeat her Republican opponent. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Mike Bloomberg all endorsed Ms. Markowitz. Mr. Bloomberg even carved out time from his presidential campaign to go door-to-door with her. Former presidential candidates Julián Castro and Robert Francis O’Rourke also canvassed neighborhoods, Mr. O’Rourke so frequently that it looked as if he was trying to establish residency.

Calling the race “the most important election (yet) in 2020,” the former El Paso congressman said a victory could help turn Texas blue and “build momentum” in the state for the eventual Democratic presidential nominee.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee echoed Mr. O’Rourke’s enthusiasm, saying that flipping the district would be “earth-shattering.” The Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee called the race “a dead heat” in the campaign’s final week.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said if Ms. Markowitz was elected, she’d be “a key voice in fixing our broken political system.” His praise was accompanied by $50,000 in contributions, part of the nearly $1.3 million from national and state Democratic groups. More than 70% of Ms. Markowitz’s contributors were from outside Texas, and more than 94% from outside her district, according to Texas Ethics Commission campaign reports.

All these hopes of a Democratic victory were shattered Tuesday. In the biggest turnout in history for a Texas House special runoff, Republican Gary Gates walloped Ms. Markowitz 58% to 42%. His 16-point margin of victory was more than twice the Republican incumbent’s in 2018 and larger than the district margins for President Trump in 2016 (10 points) and Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018 (three).

(more…)

Share

GERMANY- VICTIM OF ITS OWN GREEN POLICIES

Sunday, January 26th, 2020

 

Because of Germany’s delusional  green policies, it now finds itself in a self made box of being dependent for its energy from totalitarian  and unreliable energy sources from  Russia and the Middle East.  Thankfully, the United States is now energy independent because of our common sense energy policies.  For many years, the oil  money flowing into the Middle East has fueled terrorism around the world.  How wonderful it is not to have to depend on the Middle East for our energy needs anymore .  Drill baby drill !!!!  Nancy 

Energy Paradoxes Put Europe in a Precarious Position

By Victor Davis Hanson   January 26, 2020

Despite its cool Green parties and ambitious wind and solar agendas, Europe remains by far the world’s largest importer of oil and natural gas.

Oil output in the North Sea and off the coast of Norway is declining, and the European Union is quietly looking for fossil fuel energy anywhere it can find it.

Europe itself is naturally rich in fossil fuels. It likely has more reserves of shale gas than the United States, currently the world’s largest producer of both oil and natural gas. Yet in most European countries, horizontal drilling and fracking to extract gas and oil are either illegal or face so many court challenges and popular protests that they are neither culturally nor economically feasible.

The result is that Europe is almost entirely dependent on Russian, Middle Eastern, and African sources of energy.

The American-Iranian standoff in the Middle East, coupled with radical drop-offs in Iranian and Venezuelan oil production, has terrified Europe — and for understandable reasons.

The European Union has almost no ability to guarantee the delivery of critical oil and gas supplies from the Middle East should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz or harass ships in the Persian Gulf.

Europe’s only maritime security is the NATO fleet — a synonym for the U.S. Navy.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia supplies an estimated 30 percent of Europe’s oil needs. In times of crisis, Putin could exercise de facto control over the European economy.

In other words, Europe refuses to develop its own gas and oil reserves, and won’t fund the necessary military power to ensure that it can safely import energy from problematic or even hostile sources.

(more…)

Share

CLIMATE TIPPING POINTS

Monday, January 20th, 2020

 

On Monday the UN IPCC came out with its latest Special Report, this one supposedly addressed specifically to the allegedly dire consequences of allowing world temperatures to increase by more than an arbitrarily-selected threshold. Here is a copy of the “Summary for Policymakers,” and here is a copy of the accompanying press release. But I urge you not to peek at those until you have taken today’s very important Manhattan Contrarian Climate Tipping Points Quiz.

Many have noted that this latest Report seems to step up the level of hysteria and shrieking about the threat of climate change to a whole new level. The gist is, we are doomed, doomed, doomed unless mankind takes immediate drastic action to reduce and then eliminate carbon emissions, because otherwise we will shortly cross the dreaded climate “tipping point.” Crossing the tipping point means that climate change will thereafter accelerate out of control, there will be no further chance of saving the planet, and all hope must be abandoned. You can see that this is very serious, at least if you give any credence to this stuff. And yet, despite the hyperbole, this report seems to be getting much less attention than prior similar predictions of the impending climate apocalypse, even if no one in the mainstream press will apply the slightest amount of critical thinking as to whether any of this makes any sense at all. As an example, the big New York Times article on the Report did not appear until Tuesday, and in the print edition ran on page A8. I guess there were plenty of things more important than the approaching end of the world to fill up the front page.

So it’s time to take the Manhattan Contrarian Climate Tipping Points Quiz. The quiz consists of nine predictions of the impending climate “tipping point,” made at various points over the past few decades. For each prediction, I have deleted the name of the predictor, the year made and the year or years that were identified as the dreaded tipping point, but have included in brackets the number of years in the future that the tipping point was said to be at the time of the prediction in question. Your task is to identify which of the predictions is the one found in the current UN materials. For extra credit, see if you can identify any of the other predictions as to the person or organization uttering the prediction, the year made, and the year said to be the date of the tipping point.

Answers below the fold.

Prediction Number 1:

[Predictor] said that without “coherent financial incentives and disincentives” we have just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” . . . He confided last night: “We face the dual challenges of a world view and an economic system that seem to have enormous shortcomings, together with an environmental crisis – including that of climate change – which threatens to engulf us all.”

(more…)

Share

IS DONALD TRUMP ‘PROFOUNDLY UNCONSERVATIVE’?

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Is Donald Trump ‘profoundly unconservative’?

No. It doesn’t match his shrinking regulations and limiting government

by Allan H. Ryskind   Allan H. Ryskind, a former editor and owner of Human Events, is the author of “Hollywood Traitors” (Regnery, 2015)

December 31, 2019

Prominent liberal Fareed Zakaria insists that Donald Trump “has been profoundly unconservative” because he’s abandoned what “Republicans used to call the core of their agenda — limited government.” But it’s hard to take the charge seriously, even though some conservatives have sent his piece around for comment to see if he’s onto something. Yet no politician in recent memory has restricted the reach of government at both the federal and state level more than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Mr. Trump’s drastic shrinking of federal economic regulations, opening vast expanses of federal lands for energy exploration, drawing overseas businesses home with tax breaks and passing major tax cuts for corporations and individuals have generated an explosion of well-paying jobs, personal wealth and soaring wages, as well as the lowest level of unemployment for minorities on record. Some 7 million new jobs have been created during Mr. Trump’s presidency and more than 100 million American shareholders have watched the market jump 55 percent since his election.

You’d think Mr. Zakaria would be celebrating Mr. Trump’s low-tax, pro-growth economic agenda as not only core Republicanism but virtually Reaganesque. Increasing prosperity by stimulating market forces without enacting high taxes and big government programs is, of course, how conservatives try to keep government limited.

Mr. Zakaria concedes that Mr. Trump has delivered what conservatives have wanted in the realm of “social and cultural policy,” such as “appointing judges, tightening rules related to abortion and asylum, etc.” but suggests they have little to do with taming the Leviathan.

Really? Stacking the courts with judges steeped in the philosophy of federalism is, of course, precisely the way to limit government on both the economic and cultural fronts. Mr. Zakaria may ignore the threat, but Democratic Party presidential candidates, along with their media support groups, are panicked over the president’s court selections.

(more…)

Share

GETTING CLOSER TO ‘SHOVEL READY’

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

 

What better way to slow the growth of a dynamic country such as ours, than to impose restrictive and time consuming environmental regulations.  Was  that  possibly  the plan of the Green/Globalist/Marxist Movement?   Ya think???   Nancy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Getting Closer to ‘Shovel Ready’

Environmental impact statements shouldn’t take 13 years and more than 16,000 pages.

The Editorial Board  January 13, 2020

Traffic backs up on Interstate 70 near Silverthorne, Colo., Jan. 7, 2018. PHOTO: THOMAS PEIPERT/ASSOCIATED PRESS

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  On Thursday the Trump Administration released a proposed rule to streamline NEPA reviews. One highlight is that the process would have presumptive limits: two years and 300 pages for a full environmental impact statement; or a year and 75 pages for a smaller environmental assessment. Thorny cases could go longer with written approval by “a senior agency official of the lead agency.”

If you visit an aging American megaproject—say, the Hoover Dam—you’ll probably see a startling statistic about how quickly it was built. Congress authorized the damming of the Colorado River in 1928, construction started in 1931, and the 726-foot concrete wonder opened in 1936. That’s a “shovel ready” job.

Today even modest public works, including roads, bridges and airport runways, can spend years in limbo, no thanks to the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. That 1970 law requires an environmental study of any major project that involves federal funding or permitting. NEPA hasn’t been overhauled in 40 years, which is why the Trump Administration deserves applause for moving last week to modernize it.

Everybody wants to protect the environment. But NEPA isn’t doing the job sensibly. No single agency has responsibility for its enforcement, unlike the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act. There’s no obligation for the feds to keep a specific timeline. Environmental assessments and impact statements are often monstrously detailed, since agencies and sponsors are trying to make them litigation proof.

The result is a regulatory morass. From 2013 to 2017, the average final impact statement took more than four years and ran 669 pages, the Council on Environmental Quality said last summer. The longest file was for a contentious 12-mile expansion of Interstate 70 in Denver. The final report ran 8,951 pages, plus another 7,307 pages of appendices. The whole rigmarole took 13 years.

(more…)

Share

BLOOMBERG PUSHES CLIMATE AGENDA

Tuesday, November 26th, 2019

 

Here’s a little preview of what will be high on the agenda if Bloomberg ever becomes President.    Climate Change on steroids !!!   Please share with your email lists.  People who consider him a moderate and a reasonable pick for president should think again.  Remember how, as NYC mayor, he tried to ban the “Big Gulp”.  He is just another liberal elitist  who thinks he knows what is best for you and he has the $$$$$, power and prestige  to do it.    Nancy  Trump 2020 !
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Bloomberg’s climate agenda finds success with privately funded state prosecutor in New Mexico

By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times – Monday, October 28, 2019

The idea behind billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg’s State Impact Center was to promote a climate change agenda by providing state attorneys general with privately paid legal staff, and it seems to be working in New Mexico.

One of the state’s legal fellows, Robert Lundin, kept plenty busy in his first year, providing the “official legislative analysis” for the state’s “mini-Green New Deal” legislation, which passed in March, and working on the legal strategy to shut down a coal-fired electricity plant near Farmington.

Mr. Lundin was involved in the on-going process to shut down San Juan Generating Station — a large, coal-fired power plant in New Mexico,” said the attorney general’s periodic report for the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law.

“He and lead counsel discussed legal strategy with many stakeholders to determine a course of action in regards to initiating a proceeding to retire the plant,” the report said. “The [Public Regulation] Commission then, following the strategy … ordered the public utility to abandon the coal plant.”

The report, obtained through an open records request by Power the Future, offers the first public glimpse at the work being done by the Bloomberg legal fellows, or special assistant attorneys general, since the hotly debated program was announced in 2017.

Larry Behrens, Western States director of Power the Future, an all-of-the-above energy advocacy group, said the four-page document from the New Mexico attorney general’s office shows that the embedded climate advocates are influencing state decision-making.

He said Mr. Lundin was tasked with undertaking the “official analysis” of legislation to increase the state’s renewable-portfolio standard to 100% carbon-free electricity generation by 2045, “which would lead the nation,” the report said.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, signed the Energy Transition Act, also known as the “mini-Green New Deal,” in March.

Here you have someone who is paid by Michael Bloomberg and who is putting forward an official opinion from the New Mexico attorney general’s office about policy in New Mexico,” Mr. Behrens said.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories