Advertisements
Open post

Now We Know Why The DNC Did Not Want That Climate Change Debate

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

There’s a reason why the Democrat National Committee desperately avoided demands from fringe candidates like Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee to schedule a debate focused solely on “climate change,” and you saw that reason on CNN last night. – The simple fact of the matter is that, whether the problem is real or not, it inevitably highlights just what a bunch of nutjobs the Party is offering to the voters in this cycle.

Andrew Yang wants the government to force you to buy electric vehicles, even though the EV industry has no capability whatsoever of meeting such a demand, and forcing such a change would do nothing to address the alleged problem in any event.

Elizabeth Warren wants to ban the building of new buildings starting in 2028. No really, she does.

The Commie wants to throw everyone in the oil, gas, and coal industries in prison. Because science.

Irish Bob O’Rourke wants to wave his arms around crazily and propose to spend $5 trillion on a bunch of stuff that will do nothing to address the alleged issue, and he wants to cuss about it.

Kamala Harris wants to do this, but not this, and that, but not that, borrow this idea from Warren and that idea from Mayor Pete and another idea from AOC, and then take the other sides of those issues all at the same time. And then she wants to get into a fight with the Commie about all of it. Which is why she has fallen into Irish Bob O’Rourke territory in the latest round of polls.

Joe Biden has no clue what he wants to do other than to spend a bunch of money on stuff that doesn’t matter. So, standard operating procedure for the nation’s Unfrozen Caveman Senator, who is exactly who Irish Bob is going to become 35 years from now.

All of them claim hurricanes have become more frequent – they haven’t. All of them claim hurricanes have become stronger – they haven’t. All of them want you to believe Dorian is the most powerful storm of all-time – it isn’t.

All of them want to blot the American landscape with millions of 500-ft. windmills that require 8 acres of land apiece and gigantic solar farms and decimate our bird populations in order to provide very high-priced energy to about 2 percent of us so that they can claim to be “doing something” about a problem none of them has any real knowledge of.

The fact of the matter is that “climate change” is a global socialist political religion. Every proposal to address “climate change” inevitably becomes a top-down, command-and-control socialist-model “solution” that would do nothing to make the climate better but do everything to command and control the lives of everyday people. Every proposal would be incredibly destructive to the national and global economy. Every proposal would effectively work to keep the 2 billion or so human beings living in squalor in 3rd world countries today living in squalor in 3rd world countries forever.

This is the dogma, the commandments of this global religion. See, the nasty secret of this religion is that its followers believe economic growth is actually evil and must be stopped. People living in squalor produce less carbon emissions than people who have decent standards of living, after all. That at least is an actual fact.

Thus, the religion’s dogma demands that any and all “solutions” have the impact of destroying economic growth and human prosperity. This is real, folks. This is what Bill McKibben, Al Gore and other Cardinals in this global church write in their books and say in their speeches. You don’t have to make this stuff up. Who could?

Such a debate could only take place on CNN, as it did last night, or some other Democrat propaganda fake news outlet to ensure that no difficult questions would ever possibly be asked. Because these politicians have no good answers to any difficult questions, such as, if “global warming” is such an emergency, why is it that NOAA can find no warming in the continental U.S. over the last 14 years?

Or how about, if the U.S. is the root of the global problem – it isn’t – explain how it is that the U.S. by far leads the world in reducing its carbon emissions, which have now fallen to levels not seen since 1985? And if oil and natural gas are such a problem, how is it that that fall in U.S. carbon emissions is mainly attributable to the increased use of natural gas in our power generation sector and in reductions in gas-powered car emissions?

And if getting back into the Paris Accords is the answer, why is it that those accords do nothing to force the real causes of rising carbon emissions – Europe, China and India – to affect reductions similar to those the U.S. has achieved?

And if command-and-control regulatory actions and confiscations are the answer, how is it that the U.S. has achieved these dramatic carbon reductions and also produced the cleanest water and air in any developed nation without resorting to such measures?

Last night’s climate change dog and pony show on CNN was global socialist nutjobbery and nitwittery at its finest. And the hilarious thing about it is that the far-left anti-development activists and lunatic politicians like AOC will all be out on their Twitter feeds this morning bashing the candidates for only resorting to half-measures and not going far enough.

All of this hooplah is taking place around an issue that always ranks at or near the very bottom when pollsters ask Americans about the issues they are really concerned about.

That, friends, is why the DNC did not want to travel down this road to begin with. Who can blame them?

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements
Open post

Illinois Is Going Broke, But The ESG Movement Is Here To ‘Help’

Don’t look now, but the so-called ESG movement is now coming to Chicago.  As if the Windy City and State of Illinois didn’t already have enough problems to deal with, the Wall Street Journal reports that Chicago’s Treasurer, Kurt Simmons, who manages the city’s various pension funds, is now “seeking permission from the city council to use environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors to inform investment decisions.”

As I pointed out in early January, this approach to investing based on social issues rather than return on capital has worked so well in California and New York that it has played a significant role in pushing state and local retirement systems in those states to massive deficit situations.  As the Chicago Tribune recently reported,  Illinois’ “unfunded pension liability is growing faster than taxpayers’ ability to keep up. With about a quarter of general fund revenues going to the pension system, other priorities get crowded out.”

The current situation with unfunded pension liabilities has the Illinois legislature searching for increasingly radical solutions, such as forcing local communities to start sharing in the funding of teacher’ pensions.  Indeed, the state’s predicament is so dire that it has some speculating that Illinois could become the first state to actually declare bankruptcy.

Into this breach steps the ESG movement, with its demands that pension fund managers de-emphasize anticipated rates of return as their main investment priority, and instead begin making investment decisions based on an array of social issues that the ESG movement prefers.  Where Chicago’s public pension funds are concerned, doing this would create an entire new level of risk, as the funds have traditionally been conservatively invested in highly-rated government and corporate bonds.

For those who are unaware, the ESG movement is basically the second generation of what began as the “Divestment” movement.  That movement, pushed for the last decade by radical environmental activists like Bill McKibben, sought to convince cities, states, universities and pension fund managers to overtly divest any investments in fossil fuels stocks or other entities that the activists found to be objectionable.  That movement has suffered a long string of failures over the years, in places like VermontSan FranciscoSeattle, and The University of Colorado, as responsible fund managers chose to continue basing investment decisions on returns on capital rather than engaging in virtue signaling exercises.

 

Read The Rest Here

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: