climatechangedispatch--2020-03-20--Climactivist Naomi Klein Uses Pandemic To Stoke Fears About ‘Capitalism’

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Environmentalism seems to have entered into an extremely weird phase .
A great example is lefty climate alarmist Naomi Klein trying to use the coronavirus pandemic to stoke fear and anger over capitalism in an eight-minute and forty-eight-second video .
She slammed “ coronavirus capitalism ” and whined that the climate is more important than economic stability during the coronavirus pandemic : Only the environmentalist left would find a silver lining in a global pandemic .
Klein piggy-backed off of pandemic fears and appeared to snap at capitalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be followed “ [ i ] n times of crisis.
” “ In times of crisis , seemingly impossible ideas suddenly become possible .
But whose ideas ?
Sensible , fair ones —designed to keep as many people as possible safe , secure , and healthy ?
Or , predatory ideas — designed to further enrich the already unimaginably wealthy , while leaving the most vulnerable further exposed , ” ( Emphasis added ) ?
Klein grumbled further : “ In the midst of this widespread panic , corporate lobbyists of all stripes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the ideas they had lying around.
” Klein continued with , “ Trump is pushing a suspension of the payroll tax , which could bankrupt Social Security , providing the excuse to cut it or privatize it completely—an idea that has been lying around for a very long time.
” ( Emphasis added ) .
Did Klein remember that businesses across the nation ( that have to do payroll ) are in lockdown mode because of the coronavirus ?
Klein then whined that “ there are the ideas being floated to bail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polluting sectors in our economy.
” ( Emphasis added . )
The video then panned to President Donald Trump discussing certain economic sectors he seeks to assist with his stimulus package before Klein interjected with another dig at the president : She then sought to shift focus away from the ongoing pandemic to focus on “ climate disruption.
” Yes , really : Never let a crisis go to waste…

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Mar 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Environmentalism seems to have entered into an extremely weird phase.
A great example is lefty climate alarmist Naomi Klein trying to use the coronavirus pandemic to stoke fear and anger over capitalism in an eight-minute and forty-eight-second video.
She slammed “coronavirus capitalism” and whined that the climate is more important than economic stability during the coronavirus pandemic:
“China, for its part, is indicating that it will relax environmental standards to stimulate its economy, which would wipe out the one major benefit the crisis has produced so far: a marked drop in that country’s lethal air pollution.” (emphasis added)
Only the environmentalist left would find a silver lining in a global pandemic.
Klein piggy-backed off of pandemic fears and appeared to snap at capitalists, asking whose ideas were going to be followed “[i]n times of crisis.”
“In times of crisis, seemingly impossible ideas suddenly become possible. But whose ideas? Sensible, fair ones —designed to keep as many people as possible safe, secure, and healthy? Or, predatory ideas — designed to further enrich the already unimaginably wealthy, while leaving the most vulnerable further exposed,” (Emphasis added)?
Klein grumbled further: “In the midst of this widespread panic, corporate lobbyists of all stripes are, of course, dusting off all the ideas they had lying around.”
Klein continued with, “Trump is pushing a suspension of the payroll tax, which could bankrupt Social Security, providing the excuse to cut it or privatize it completely—an idea that has been lying around for a very long time.” (Emphasis added).
Did Klein remember that businesses across the nation (that have to do payroll) are in lockdown mode because of the coronavirus?
Klein then whined that “there are the ideas being floated to bail out some of the wealthiest and most polluting sectors in our economy.” (Emphasis added.)
The video then panned to President Donald Trump discussing certain economic sectors he seeks to assist with his stimulus package before Klein interjected with another dig at the president:
“Bailouts for fracking companies, not to mention cruise ships, airlines and hotels — handouts which Trump could benefit from personally, which is a big problem because the virus is not the only crisis we face.” (Emphasis added)
She then sought to shift focus away from the ongoing pandemic to focus on “climate disruption.” Yes, really:
“[T]here is also climate disruption, and these industries that are getting ‘rescued’ with our money are the ones driving it,” (Emphasis added)
Never let a crisis go to waste…
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--McConnell Rips Dems For Stuffing COVID-19 Relief Bill With Green Pork, More

Written by Henry Rodgers on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats on Monday for failing to come to a deal with Republicans regarding a phase-three coronavirus stimulus bill .
“ Tax credits for solar energy and wind energy .
Provisions to force employers to give special new treatment to Big Labor .
And listen to this — new emissions standards for the airlines .
Are you kidding me ?
, ” McConnell said on the Senate floor .
The Senate voted Sunday night on the legislation .
The vote was 47-47 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ include $ 75 billion for hospitals and that two-thirds of all new money in the bill would go to states , however , this vote will likely end consideration of this bill .
McConnell also said , “ it ’ s just about time to take yes for an answer.
” Democrats have said the coronavirus bill lacks new SNAP funds and they were reportedly pushing for expanded emergency leave provisions and more than three months of unemployment insurance .
Treasury Sec .
Steve Mnuchin , who has been negotiating with members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was spotted entering Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ’ s office , 20 minutes away from Sunday ’ s cloture vote .
McConnell voted no , which was not planned .
He voted with the Democrats so he would have the option of recalling the vote , as Senate rules state .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday said she will halt negotiations with the Senate and move to pass her own coronavirus package in the House , which could drag things out longer than many expected .
Pelosi ’ s legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package , according to Politico .

Written by Henry Rodgers on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats on Monday for failing to come to a deal with Republicans regarding a phase-three coronavirus stimulus bill.
“Tax credits for solar energy and wind energy. Provisions to force employers to give special new treatment to Big Labor. And listen to this — new emissions standards for the airlines. Are you kidding me?,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.
The Senate voted Sunday night on the legislation. The vote was 47-47.
McConnell said Sunday that the bill would include $75 billion for hospitals and that two-thirds of all new money in the bill would go to states, however, this vote will likely end consideration of this bill.
McConnell also said, “it’s just about time to take yes for an answer.”
Via senior GOP aide, Schumer/Pelosi now pushing these demands amid pandemic-fueled economic collapse: 1) Unprecedented collective bargaining powers for unions
2) Increased fuel emissions standards for airlines
3) Expansion of wind and solar tax credits — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) March 23, 2020
Democrats have said the coronavirus bill lacks new SNAP funds and they were reportedly pushing for expanded emergency leave provisions and more than three months of unemployment insurance.
McConnell: “I would like to see Senate Democrats tell the New York City doctors and nurses, who are literally overrun as we speak, that they are filibustering hospital funding and more masks because they want to argue with the airlines over their carbon footprint.” https://t.co/jxuHKyOP0q — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) March 23, 2020
Treasury Sec. Steve Mnuchin, who has been negotiating with members of Congress on behalf of the White House, was spotted entering Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office, 20 minutes away from Sunday’s cloture vote.
McConnell voted no, which was not planned. He voted with the Democrats so he would have the option of recalling the vote, as Senate rules state.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday said she will halt negotiations with the Senate and move to pass her own coronavirus package in the House, which could drag things out longer than many expected.
Pelosi’s legislation will be a $1.6 trillion emergency package, according to Politico.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--We Gambled On The Wrong Threat: Climate Change

Written by Lorrie Goldstein on .
Posted in Latest news One of the key lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is that for at least the past decade , we focused disproportionately , or rather our governments did , on one potential global threat — human-induced climate change — to the exclusion of all others .
Anthropogenic climate change became the issue that sucked up all the oxygen in the room when it came to a global crisis .
At the expense of , for example , a contagious and deadly virus becoming a pandemic , which public health experts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Canada , our political leaders , have long ignored — perhaps the fairer word is “ downplayed ” — the health care threat posed by the fact our hospitals are chronically overcrowded , with thousands of patients being treated in hallways , year after year .
That ’ s why the greatest concern health-care experts have now is that our hospitals , overcrowded in normal times and routinely operating at or beyond their designated capacities — as opposed to 80 % of capacity to be able to handle a “ black swan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be overrun by critically-ill patients .
Wrong decisions have dire consequences .
We ’ re now facing them .
That ’ s not to say concern about human-induced climate change ( not “ climate change ” as we obsessively and incorrectly describe it ) was entirely misplaced .
It ’ s one of many serious environmental challenges we face , such as the more than 900 billion liters of raw sewage we ’ ve dumped into our rivers , lakes , and oceans since 2013 .
But while human-induced climate change contributes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been a so-called “ existential ” threat to humanity , meaning , a threat to human existence .
Neither is COVID-19 .
It will eventually burn itself out as have previous pandemics .
The question is how effectively and for how long can we contain it through aggressive social distancing — far harder to do in democracies than it sounds — and how many of us will die or suffer life-changing consequences before there ’ s a vaccine ?
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic , some who jumped on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , argue COVID-19 shows us what the world will be like if we don ’ t quickly abandon fossil fuels .
In reality , COVID-19 shows us what the world will be like if we abandon fossil fuels prematurely , without having reliable energy sources to replace them , compounded by the fact many opponents of fossil fuel energy also oppose nuclear power .
As Robert Bryce warns in Power Hungry : The Myths of ‘ Green ’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future : “ If you are anti-carbon dioxide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consider what the world would be like today , in the face of COVID-19 , without fossil fuel ( and nuclear ) energy , a world that climate radicals crave .
Without reliable , on-demand energy sufficient to power a modern , industrialized society — which neither wind nor solar power can provide at current levels of technology — our hospitals could not maintain sterile conditions .
Food and vaccines — when one for COVID-19 is developed — could not be preserved or transported .
Medical equipment to protect front-line health care workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients , could not be delivered where they ’ re needed , let alone manufactured in the first place .
Indeed , if you want to see what the world would be like if we prematurely abandon fossil fuels , all you have to do is look around , right now , in the age of COVID-19 .

Written by Lorrie Goldstein on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
One of the key lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is that for at least the past decade, we focused disproportionately, or rather our governments did, on one potential global threat — human-induced climate change — to the exclusion of all others.
Anthropogenic climate change became the issue that sucked up all the oxygen in the room when it came to a global crisis.
At the expense of, for example, a contagious and deadly virus becoming a pandemic, which public health experts have been warning us about for decades.
In Canada, our political leaders, have long ignored — perhaps the fairer word is “downplayed” — the health care threat posed by the fact our hospitals are chronically overcrowded, with thousands of patients being treated in hallways, year after year.
That’s why the greatest concern health-care experts have now is that our hospitals, overcrowded in normal times and routinely operating at or beyond their designated capacities — as opposed to 80% of capacity to be able to handle a “black swan” event like COVID-19 — may soon be overrun by critically-ill patients.
Wrong decisions have dire consequences. We’re now facing them.
That’s not to say concern about human-induced climate change (not “climate change” as we obsessively and incorrectly describe it) was entirely misplaced.
It’s one of many serious environmental challenges we face, such as the more than 900 billion liters of raw sewage we’ve dumped into our rivers, lakes, and oceans since 2013.
But while human-induced climate change contributes to human suffering and death, it has never been a so-called “existential” threat to humanity, meaning, a threat to human existence.
Neither is COVID-19. It will eventually burn itself out as have previous pandemics.
The question is how effectively and for how long can we contain it through aggressive social distancing — far harder to do in democracies than it sounds — and how many of us will die or suffer life-changing consequences before there’s a vaccine?
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, some who jumped on the anthropogenic climate change bandwagon early and hard, argue COVID-19 shows us what the world will be like if we don’t quickly abandon fossil fuels.
In reality, COVID-19 shows us what the world will be like if we abandon fossil fuels prematurely, without having reliable energy sources to replace them, compounded by the fact many opponents of fossil fuel energy also oppose nuclear power.
As Robert Bryce warns in Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future: “If you are anti-carbon dioxide and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout.”
Consider what the world would be like today, in the face of COVID-19, without fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy, a world that climate radicals crave.
Without reliable, on-demand energy sufficient to power a modern, industrialized society — which neither wind nor solar power can provide at current levels of technology — our hospitals could not maintain sterile conditions.
Food and vaccines — when one for COVID-19 is developed — could not be preserved or transported.
Medical equipment to protect front-line health care workers from COVID-19, and respirators for critically-ill patients, could not be delivered where they’re needed, let alone manufactured in the first place.
Indeed, if you want to see what the world would be like if we prematurely abandon fossil fuels, all you have to do is look around, right now, in the age of COVID-19.
Read more at Toronto Sun
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--Plastic Bag Bans Getting Tossed During Chinese Virus Outbreak

Written by Christian Britschgi on .
Posted in Latest news As states rush to lift , waive , or delay regulations that might impede their ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic , plastic bag bans are being tossed aside .
On Tuesday , Maine ’ s legislature voted to put off enforcement of their state ’ s plastic bag prohibition—which was set to go into effect April 22—until next year .
The day before , New York ’ s Department of Environmental Conservation agreed to delay any enforcement of that state ’ s bag ban until May 15 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go into effect on March 1 .
But because a lawsuit challenging the bag ban has been delayed over coronavirus , the state was forced to pull back until that case can resume .
The reusable bags these bans are supposed to encourage—and which were considered an unmitigated social good just a few weeks ago—have come under fresh scrutiny from a newly germophobic nation that fears they might aid the spread of COVID-19 .
Businesses have been leading the way on this front .
Starbucks suspended its policy of filling up customers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dunkin Donuts and Tim Hortons ( a Canadian coffee chain ) have done the same .
“ Until this pandemic passes , state and local officials should discourage shoppers from bringing their potentially virus-laden reusable bags out in public .
Restore single-use bags , including the plastic kind , ” wrote the Wall Street Journal ‘ s editorial board on Monday .
The mayor of a town in Maine has actually called for a ban on reusable bags .
How likely is it that reusable bags will give you Covid-19 ?
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
John Tierney , writing in City Journal , notes that numerous studies have shown reusable bags ’ potential to transmit bacteria and viruses .
And recent research has shown that the virus can live on plastic surfaces for up to three days .
So single-use bags might be better for avoiding the spread of the disease , as they will be tossed immediately and not left lying around the house where multiple people might come into repeat contact with it .
That said , the Centers for Disease Control downplay the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that while it is possible to catch COVID-19 from touching objects and then touching your face , “ this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
” Two epidemiologists interviewed by Slate about grocery store best practices also said reusable bags did not pose much of added risk .
“ I doubt it ’ s going to be a problem , ” said Stephen Morse , a professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Medical Center .
“ If you ’ re really worried , you can always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detergent or a disinfecting wipe , but that shouldn ’ t be necessary unless the bag gets some unexpected exposure to contaminated material.
” Plastic bag bans are not good policy .
They have a negligible impact on plastic pollution , they may make climate change worse ( heavier reusable and paper bags take more resources to manufacture and transport ) , and they restrict consumer choice .
On those grounds alone , they should be repealed .
Consumers should certainly have the option of choosing plastic bags if they believe them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably won ’ t save us from coronavirus .

Written by Christian Britschgi on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As states rush to lift, waive, or delay regulations that might impede their ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, plastic bag bans are being tossed aside.
On Tuesday, Maine’s legislature voted to put off enforcement of their state’s plastic bag prohibition—which was set to go into effect April 22—until next year.
The day before, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation agreed to delay any enforcement of that state’s bag ban until May 15.
The New York ban was supposed to go into effect on March 1. But because a lawsuit challenging the bag ban has been delayed over coronavirus, the state was forced to pull back until that case can resume.
The reusable bags these bans are supposed to encourage—and which were considered an unmitigated social good just a few weeks ago—have come under fresh scrutiny from a newly germophobic nation that fears they might aid the spread of COVID-19.
Businesses have been leading the way on this front. Starbucks suspended its policy of filling up customers’ reusable mugs in early March, and Dunkin Donuts and Tim Hortons (a Canadian coffee chain) have done the same.
“Until this pandemic passes, state and local officials should discourage shoppers from bringing their potentially virus-laden reusable bags out in public. Restore single-use bags, including the plastic kind,” wrote the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board on Monday.
The mayor of a town in Maine has actually called for a ban on reusable bags.
How likely is it that reusable bags will give you Covid-19? That’s still something of an open question.
John Tierney, writing in City Journal, notes that numerous studies have shown reusable bags’ potential to transmit bacteria and viruses. And recent research has shown that the virus can live on plastic surfaces for up to three days.
So single-use bags might be better for avoiding the spread of the disease, as they will be tossed immediately and not left lying around the house where multiple people might come into repeat contact with it.
That said, the Centers for Disease Control downplay the risk of surface transmission on their website, saying that while it is possible to catch COVID-19 from touching objects and then touching your face, “this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”
Two epidemiologists interviewed by Slate about grocery store best practices also said reusable bags did not pose much of added risk.
“I doubt it’s going to be a problem,” said Stephen Morse, a professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Medical Center. “If you’re really worried, you can always wipe down the bag with a mild detergent or a disinfecting wipe, but that shouldn’t be necessary unless the bag gets some unexpected exposure to contaminated material.”
Plastic bag bans are not good policy. They have a negligible impact on plastic pollution, they may make climate change worse (heavier reusable and paper bags take more resources to manufacture and transport), and they restrict consumer choice. On those grounds alone, they should be repealed.
Consumers should certainly have the option of choosing plastic bags if they believe them to be safer, too. But they probably won’t save us from coronavirus.
Read more at Reason
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--Former Hillary Policy Wonk: Some Pandemic Effects ‘Good’

Written by Katherine Rodriguez on .
Posted in Latest news Anne-Marie Slaughter , who served in the Obama administration as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s Director of Policy Planning , wrote a Sunday column in the New York Times saying some coronavirus effects might be beneficial to our planet .
“ We are also suddenly living in a world that the United States government long insisted was impossible — one of a drastically reduced plane and car emissions , ” Slaughter wrote in her column .
“ That is terrible for the airlines but good for the planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , ” she added .
But while Slaughter says the coronavirus-prompted drop in emissions might be good for our planet , experts say the drop in emissions will not have much of an impact when we go back to “ business as usual.
” “ The damage from CO2 just accumulates , so every ton we don ’ t release is not inflicted on the environment , but if everything goes back to business as usual when this ends , it won ’ t have much of an impact , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago .
Slaughter went on to say that many changes that were predicted to happen over a span of decades are happening over “ the span of weeks.
” SEE ALSO : Data Shows COVID-19 Economic Downturn Not Affecting CO2 Levels “ The coronavirus , and its economic and social fallout , is a time machine to the future .
Changes that many of us predicted would happen over decades are instead taking place in the span of weeks.
” As for some of those changes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift from working in an office environment to a work-from-home environment : And now that we ’ re all at home , what to do with our empty office buildings ?
Given the housing crises in so many cities , the answer seems obvious .
Much commercial real estate could be transformed into apartments .
All the municipalities that are imposing moratoriums on evictions should be willing to experiment in the months ahead .
She also criticized the Trump administration and Fox News for what she says is their lack of response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News weeks to realize that the coronavirus was not a Democratic hoax to make people mad at President Trump.
” “ This crisis has exposed the deep fissures and failures in our culture and the incompetence of so many of our federal leaders , ” she said .
( Slaughter left out the media ’ s failures , which are seeing record-low approval ratings for politicizing the pandemic .
–CCD editor )

Written by Katherine Rodriguez on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served in the Obama administration as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Director of Policy Planning, wrote a Sunday column in the New York Times saying some coronavirus effects might be beneficial to our planet.
“We are also suddenly living in a world that the United States government long insisted was impossible — one of a drastically reduced plane and car emissions,” Slaughter wrote in her column.
“That is terrible for the airlines but good for the planet. It may be good for us, too,” she added.
But while Slaughter says the coronavirus-prompted drop in emissions might be good for our planet, experts say the drop in emissions will not have much of an impact when we go back to “business as usual.”
“The damage from CO2 just accumulates, so every ton we don’t release is not inflicted on the environment, but if everything goes back to business as usual when this ends, it won’t have much of an impact,” said David Archer, a professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago.
Slaughter went on to say that many changes that were predicted to happen over a span of decades are happening over “the span of weeks.”
SEE ALSO: Data Shows COVID-19 Economic Downturn Not Affecting CO2 Levels
“The coronavirus, and its economic and social fallout, is a time machine to the future. Changes that many of us predicted would happen over decades are instead taking place in the span of weeks.”
As for some of those changes, she called in her column for a shift from working in an office environment to a work-from-home environment:
And now that we’re all at home, what to do with our empty office buildings? Given the housing crises in so many cities, the answer seems obvious. Much commercial real estate could be transformed into apartments. All the municipalities that are imposing moratoriums on evictions should be willing to experiment in the months ahead.
She also criticized the Trump administration and Fox News for what she says is their lack of response to the crisis, saying “it took Fox News weeks to realize that the coronavirus was not a Democratic hoax to make people mad at President Trump.”
(Fox News has been relentless in its coverage from the very beginning. So much so that even longtime viewers are complaining that they aren’t covering other news. –CCD Editor)
“This crisis has exposed the deep fissures and failures in our culture and the incompetence of so many of our federal leaders,” she said. (Slaughter left out the media’s failures, which are seeing record-low approval ratings for politicizing the pandemic. –CCD editor)
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--German Govt Warned Of Pandemic, Yet Poured Billions Into Climate Racket

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news The German government , led by Angela Merkel , had been warned more than seven years ago of the very real potential for a pandemic and that the country ’ s healthcare system was not prepared to deal with such a crisis .
Yet , instead of preparing for the probable scenario , the government poured tens of billions of euros into fighting the imaginary “ climate crisis.
” Now , as Germany reels from the current COVID-19 pandemic , critical voices are asking why the government never bothered to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A printed federal government document titled “ Report on Risk Analysis in Civil Protection 2012 ” looked at two potential hazards the country could face : 1 ) Flooding rivers fed by mountain runoff , and 2 ) potential SARS-like pandemic .
Described 1 to 1 today ’ s situation – in 2012 !
The 88-page government report , beginning on page 55 , explicitly assesses the potential pandemic risks and warns of catastrophic consequences that could unfold .
It describes almost 1 to 1 what is happening today .
Particularly macabre is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the outbreak would start in “ February ” and that the first two cases would appear in North Rhine Westphalia and Southern Germany !
Moreover , it describes the major economic changes and the possible encroachment of fundamental rights that would occur .
The event is also seen unfolding in February in Asia and spreading to Germany just weeks later ( see 2.4 ) .
The report also assesses the damage extent ( Schadensausmaß ) a pandemic would have in the four categories comprising man , environment , economy and immaterial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rated with “ E ” for extensive .
The costs to the private sector caused by the event are considerable , supra-regional scope , and a large proportion of the companies concerned can not from their own resources .
Long-term losses of turnover for the affected industries are or companies to be expected .
A large number of companies go into insolvency , many more companies are threatened with insolvency ; in some sectors , nationwide effects are ( supplier companies ) .
The entire national economy suffers from the event into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Eight years later , we see that the authors of the pandemic scenario could not have been more accurate .
Yet , the German government never took the risk analysis seriously and stood by as its healthcare system eroded further .
Instead , the German government unilaterally poured hundreds of billions to combat global climate , among other things .
In a recent interview , economist and book author Dr. Markus Krall brings up the 2013 government report ( 15:00 ) , saying that the government should have invested in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the government ’ s failure to take action to prepare for this risk shows how “ incompetently ” we are being governed .
Krall adds that the government could have , for example , procured 100,000 respirators for a mere 50 million euros in preparation for a pandemic .
“ We spent billions , many billions…hundreds of billions by the handful , for other things.
” “ I don ’ t want to say what I think about it , but every person can decide for himself what it means in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligation with respect to the duties it was responsible for.
” Krall accuses the German government of moving too slowly due to its open border ideology .
“ Our German chancellor wanted , no matter what , to stick to her open borders , and she still does.
” Krall notes , “ I have absolutely no understanding over how this government sets its priorities .
That just can not be accepted .
It ’ s irresponsible.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The German government, led by Angela Merkel, had been warned more than seven years ago of the very real potential for a pandemic and that the country’s healthcare system was not prepared to deal with such a crisis.
Yet, instead of preparing for the probable scenario, the government poured tens of billions of euros into fighting the imaginary “climate crisis.”
Now, as Germany reels from the current COVID-19 pandemic, critical voices are asking why the government never bothered to take action to implement preventive measures.
A printed federal government document titled “Report on Risk Analysis in Civil Protection 2012” looked at two potential hazards the country could face: 1) Flooding rivers fed by mountain runoff, and 2) potential SARS-like pandemic.
Described 1 to 1 today’s situation – in 2012!
The 88-page government report, beginning on page 55, explicitly assesses the potential pandemic risks and warns of catastrophic consequences that could unfold. It describes almost 1 to 1 what is happening today.
Particularly macabre is that the coronavirus is explicitly named and that the outbreak would start in “February” and that the first two cases would appear in North Rhine Westphalia and Southern Germany!
Moreover, it describes the major economic changes and the possible encroachment of fundamental rights that would occur. The event is also seen unfolding in February in Asia and spreading to Germany just weeks later (see 2.4).
Widespread damage
The report also assesses the damage extent (Schadensausmaß) a pandemic would have in the four categories comprising man, environment, economy and immaterial. Except for the environment, most were rated with “E” for extensive.
The extent of damage rated “E” means:
The costs to the private sector caused by the event are considerable, supra-regional scope, and a large proportion of the companies concerned cannot from their own resources. Long-term losses of turnover for the affected industries are or companies to be expected. A large number of companies go into insolvency, many more companies are threatened with insolvency; in some sectors, nationwide effects are (supplier companies). The entire national economy suffers from the event into a recession, economic stimulus packages are necessary.”
and
Maintaining public security and order is endangered across regions to nationwide.”
Eight years later, we see that the authors of the pandemic scenario could not have been more accurate. Yet, the German government never took the risk analysis seriously and stood by as its healthcare system eroded further.
Instead, the German government unilaterally poured hundreds of billions to combat global climate, among other things.
“Incompetence, gross negligence”
In a recent interview, economist and book author Dr. Markus Krall brings up the 2013 government report (15:00), saying that the government should have invested in the country’s healthcare system long ago and that the government’s failure to take action to prepare for this risk shows how “incompetently” we are being governed.
Krall adds that the government could have, for example, procured 100,000 respirators for a mere 50 million euros in preparation for a pandemic. “We spent billions, many billions…hundreds of billions by the handful, for other things.”
“I don’t want to say what I think about it, but every person can decide for himself what it means in terms of gross negligence in policymaking’s obligation with respect to the duties it was responsible for.”
Krall accuses the German government of moving too slowly due to its open border ideology. “Our German chancellor wanted, no matter what, to stick to her open borders, and she still does.”
Krall notes, “I have absolutely no understanding over how this government sets its priorities. That just cannot be accepted. It’s irresponsible.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--Data Shows COVID-19 Economic Downturn Not Affecting CO2 Levels

Written by Roy W. Spencer , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Some global warming alarmists are celebrating the current economic downturn as just what is needed to avert climate catastrophe .
I ’ ve seen a couple estimates that China ’ s manufacturing and commerce might have seen up at a 40 % reduction recently .
The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions ( assuming there is no reasonably affordable and practical replacement for fossil fuels ) .
I already know that some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know who you are ) who believe the global CO2 increase is mostly natural will claim a continuing CO2 rise in the face of a decrease in economic activity supports their case .
I have previously shown that a simple model of the CO2 variations since 1959 forced with anthropogenic emissions accurately explains the Mauna Loa observations ( see Fig .
2 , explanation here ) .
It will take considerable evidence to convince me that the long-term rise in not anthropogenic , and maybe the current “ coronavirus experiment ” will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions to have any effect , they actually have to show up in the atmosphere .
The most widely cited monitoring location for CO2 is on Mauna Loa in Hawaii .
It is at high elevation in a persistent subtropical high-pressure zone that should be able to detect large emissions changes in several weeks ’ time as weather systems move around the world .
I ’ ve had several requests , and seen numerous social media comments , suggesting this is something that should be looked at .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mauna Loa CO2 data ( updated monthly ) through February 2020 to see if there is any hint of a CO2 concentration downturn ( or , more accurately , reduced rate of rising ) .
The short answer is : No… at least not yet .
While an anthropogenic source of CO2 can explain the long-term rise in CO2 , the trouble with finding an anthropogenic signal on a time scale of a few months to a couple of years is that natural variations swamp any anthropogenic changes on short time scales .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , below ) shows a continuing long-term rise that has been occurring since monitoring began in 1958 .
Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay .
Obviously , not much can be discerned from the raw monthly average data in the above plot because the seasonal cycle is so strong .
So , the first step is to remove the seasonal cycle .
I did this by subtracting out a 4th order polynomial fit before removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that statistical fit back in : Next , there are some wiggles in the data due to El Nino and La Nina ( ENSO ) activity , and if we remove an average statistical estimate of that ( a time lag and averaging are involved to increase signal ) , we can get a little better idea of whether the most recent month ( February 2020 ) is out of the ordinary .
I have zeroed in on just the most recent five years for clarity .
The polynomial fit to the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we might expect for the coming months , and we can see that February is not yet departing from the expected values .
Of course , there are a variety of natural variations that impact global average CO2 on a month-to-month basis : Interannual variations in wildfire activity , land vegetation and sea surface temperatures , variations in El Nino and La Nina effects , and short-term fluctuations in anthropogenic emissions immediately come to mind .
( The Pinatubo and El Chichon volcano eruptions actually caused a reduction in global CO2 , probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in diffuse sunlight penetration of forest canopies ) .
I will try to update this analysis every month as long as the issue is of sufficient interest .

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Some global warming alarmists are celebrating the current economic downturn as just what is needed to avert climate catastrophe.
I’ve seen a couple estimates that China’s manufacturing and commerce might have seen up at a 40% reduction recently.
The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions (assuming there is no reasonably affordable and practical replacement for fossil fuels).
I already know that some of my “deep skeptic” acquaintances (you know who you are) who believe the global CO2 increase is mostly natural will claim a continuing CO2 rise in the face of a decrease in economic activity supports their case.
I have previously shown that a simple model of the CO2 variations since 1959 forced with anthropogenic emissions accurately explains the Mauna Loa observations (see Fig. 2, explanation here).
It will take considerable evidence to convince me that the long-term rise in not anthropogenic, and maybe the current “coronavirus experiment” will provide some contrarian evidence.
Of course, for anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions to have any effect, they actually have to show up in the atmosphere. The most widely cited monitoring location for CO2 is on Mauna Loa in Hawaii.
It is at high elevation in a persistent subtropical high-pressure zone that should be able to detect large emissions changes in several weeks’ time as weather systems move around the world.
I’ve had several requests, and seen numerous social media comments, suggesting this is something that should be looked at.
So, I’ve analyzed the Mauna Loa CO2 data (updated monthly) through February 2020 to see if there is any hint of a CO2 concentration downturn (or, more accurately, reduced rate of rising).
The short answer is: No… at least not yet.
The Mauna Loa Data: Removing Seasonal and ENSO Effects
While an anthropogenic source of CO2 can explain the long-term rise in CO2, the trouble with finding an anthropogenic signal on a time scale of a few months to a couple of years is that natural variations swamp any anthropogenic changes on short time scales.
The monthly data (arbitrarily starting 1996, below) shows a continuing long-term rise that has been occurring since monitoring began in 1958.
Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay.
Obviously, not much can be discerned from the raw monthly average data in the above plot because the seasonal cycle is so strong.
So, the first step is to remove the seasonal cycle. I did this by subtracting out a 4th order polynomial fit before removing the average seasonal cycle, then adding that statistical fit back in:
Next, there are some wiggles in the data due to El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, and if we remove an average statistical estimate of that (a time lag and averaging are involved to increase signal), we can get a little better idea of whether the most recent month (February 2020) is out of the ordinary.
I have zeroed in on just the most recent five years for clarity.
The polynomial fit to the data (thin dotted line) shows what we might expect for the coming months, and we can see that February is not yet departing from the expected values.
Of course, there are a variety of natural variations that impact global average CO2 on a month-to-month basis: Interannual variations in wildfire activity, land vegetation and sea surface temperatures, variations in El Nino and La Nina effects, and short-term fluctuations in anthropogenic emissions immediately come to mind.
(The Pinatubo and El Chichon volcano eruptions actually caused a reduction in global CO2, probably due to post-eruption vegetation effects from an increase in diffuse sunlight penetration of forest canopies).
I will try to update this analysis every month as long as the issue is of sufficient interest.
Read more at Dr. Roy’s Blog
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--MSNBC’s Velshi Wants To Push Climate Regs Using Pandemic

Written by Brad Wilmouth on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos On Sunday ’ s Velshi show , one day after MSNBC host Ali Velshi recommended using the coronavirus pandemic to push for more welfare programs in the U.S. to fix capitalism , he devoted a segment to talking up the possibility of also using the deadly pandemic to pressure the airline and fossil-fuel industries to adhere to more regulations to affect climate change .
At 9:51 a.m. Eastern , Velshi took the time to note “ silver linings ” in the epidemic : ALI VELSHI : It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of TV to watch on a weekend morning .
With this ongoing national crisis , it can be hard to find silver linings when there ’ s nothing but a dark cloud above you , but we think we found one or two .
Take a look at these images — the waterways in Venice , Italy , have gone from dark cloudy to clear after the countrywide quarantine .
How ?
Because less canal traffic means an absence of sediment .
VELSHI : The European Space Agency says countries practicing lockdowns like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant drop in air pollution , specifically dioxide emissions — kind of why the price of oil is down as much as it is .
Researchers have also found pollution from nitrogen dioxide in China has fallen by 40 percent .
After bringing aboard former Obama administration EPA administrator Gina McCarthy as a guest , Velshi fretted : VELSHI : I guess I am a little worried that the discussions — the very active and regular discussions that you and I and others would have about climate on a very regular basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by coronavirus , and maybe some of the strides that we are making on a matter that is going to effect our health for decades to come is getting sidelined a little bit .
In her response , McCarthy claimed that climate change is as serious a “ crisis ” as is the deadly coronavirus epidemic .
A bit later , Velshi pushed for regulation on what he viewed as those who contribute to climate change as he followed up : VELSHI : “ …but this may be the opportunity for us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that industry or at least impose conditions to say , “ It ’ s always too hard and too expensive to go green — we ’ re now going to do things that are going to be really hard and really expensive — let ’ s do it.
” McCarthy talked up pushing the airlines to reduce greenhouse gas emissions .

Written by Brad Wilmouth on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
On Sunday’s Velshi show, one day after MSNBC host Ali Velshi recommended using the coronavirus pandemic to push for more welfare programs in the U.S. to fix capitalism, he devoted a segment to talking up the possibility of also using the deadly pandemic to pressure the airline and fossil-fuel industries to adhere to more regulations to affect climate change.
At 9:51 a.m. Eastern, Velshi took the time to note “silver linings” in the epidemic:
ALI VELSHI: It’s been a hard couple of hours of TV to watch on a weekend morning. With this ongoing national crisis, it can be hard to find silver linings when there’s nothing but a dark cloud above you, but we think we found one or two. Take a look at these images — the waterways in Venice, Italy, have gone from dark cloudy to clear after the countrywide quarantine. How? Because less canal traffic means an absence of sediment.
He then added:
VELSHI: The European Space Agency says countries practicing lockdowns like Italy, seen here, are seeing a significant drop in air pollution, specifically dioxide emissions — kind of why the price of oil is down as much as it is. Researchers have also found pollution from nitrogen dioxide in China has fallen by 40 percent.
After bringing aboard former Obama administration EPA administrator Gina McCarthy as a guest, Velshi fretted:
VELSHI: I guess I am a little worried that the discussions — the very active and regular discussions that you and I and others would have about climate on a very regular basis have been pushed aside a little bit by coronavirus, and maybe some of the strides that we are making on a matter that is going to effect our health for decades to come is getting sidelined a little bit.
In her response, McCarthy claimed that climate change is as serious a “crisis” as is the deadly coronavirus epidemic.
A bit later, Velshi pushed for regulation on what he viewed as those who contribute to climate change as he followed up:
VELSHI: “…but this may be the opportunity for us to stop the subsidies that we provide to that industry or at least impose conditions to say, “It’s always too hard and too expensive to go green — we’re now going to do things that are going to be really hard and really expensive — let’s do it.”
McCarthy talked up pushing the airlines to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Read rest at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--Dems, Greens Seek Climate Mandates In Federal Stimulus Bills

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Senate Democrats and environmentalists want to tack climate change mandates onto proposed federal aid to major airlines and cruise lines reeling from the coronavirus pandemic .
In a letter to the House and Senate leadership , eight Senate Democrats said last week that any financial assistance to the travel industry “ should be paired with requirements that companies act in a more responsible fashion ” by reducing their carbon footprint .
“ If we given the airline and cruise industries assistance without requiring them to be better environmental stewards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat climate change and ocean dumping , ” said the letter .
At the same time , more than 200 environmental and wildlife groups urged Congress to place a cap on greenhouse gases from U.S. air fleets , which would require the industry to reduce emissions by 20 % per decade from 2020 levels .
“ Climate change damages will wreak havoc on a scale even greater than the coronavirus , ” said the Friday letter headed by the Center for Biological Diversity .
“ It is time to stop repeating the mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailout of the aviation industry puts it on a path to address its threat to our climate , workers and communities.
” The U.S. airline industry is pushing for $ 50 billion in financial assistance — about half in zero-interest loan guarantees , half in cash grants — as air travel nosedives in reaction to COVID-19 , while the Senate GOP package as introduced includes loans but not grants .
The risk for Democrats lies with the optics of holding up critically needed aid over climate concerns .
United Airlines and its unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account for next month ’ s anticipated 60 % drop in planned flights without federal help .
Climate Depot ’ s Marc Morano blasted the effort to insert climate change into the crisis response , saying that the “ last thing U.S. businesses or the economy need are more punishing climate-based mandates to satisfy the Democrat Party base.
” “ Democrats know that they should never let a crisis go to waste , ” said Mr. Morano , author of “ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
” “ They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the COVID-19 issue .
Trying to make sure that any federal stimulus bills include going in the ‘ right direction toward decarbonization ’ is not the way to proceed.
” Climate change activists have increasingly targeted greenhouse gas emissions from airplane travel , engaging in “ flight shaming ” to discourage frequent flyers , a phenomenon has wound up embarrassing such Green New Deal advocates as Sens .
Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over their private jet travel .
In their letter , the Democrats said that airline travel accounts for 2.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a figure expected to triple by 2050 , while cruise ships “ burn heavy fuel oil , one of the dirtiest fuels.
” “ Business leaders are themselves increasingly recognizing that their companies must make positive contributions to society or risk losing their social license , ” said the letter .
“ This is particularly true when companies ask American taxpayers for financial assistance.
” The industry group Airlines for America said on its website that U.S. planes improved their efficiency between 1978 and 2018 by 130 % , resulting in nearly 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savings , ” while carriers continue to invest in alternative fuels .
The Democrats who signed the letter were Sens .
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island , Martin Heinrich of New Mexico , Jeffrey Merkley of Oregon , Cory A. Booker of New Jersey , Edward Markey of Massachusetts , Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , Tina Smith of Minnesota and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan .

Written by Valerie Richardson on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Senate Democrats and environmentalists want to tack climate change mandates onto proposed federal aid to major airlines and cruise lines reeling from the coronavirus pandemic.
In a letter to the House and Senate leadership, eight Senate Democrats said last week that any financial assistance to the travel industry “should be paired with requirements that companies act in a more responsible fashion” by reducing their carbon footprint.
“If we given the airline and cruise industries assistance without requiring them to be better environmental stewards, we would miss a major opportunity to combat climate change and ocean dumping,” said the letter.
At the same time, more than 200 environmental and wildlife groups urged Congress to place a cap on greenhouse gases from U.S. air fleets, which would require the industry to reduce emissions by 20% per decade from 2020 levels.
“Climate change damages will wreak havoc on a scale even greater than the coronavirus,” said the Friday letter headed by the Center for Biological Diversity. “It is time to stop repeating the mistakes of the past and ensure that any bailout of the aviation industry puts it on a path to address its threat to our climate, workers and communities.”
The U.S. airline industry is pushing for $50 billion in financial assistance — about half in zero-interest loan guarantees, half in cash grants — as air travel nosedives in reaction to COVID-19, while the Senate GOP package as introduced includes loans but not grants.
The risk for Democrats lies with the optics of holding up critically needed aid over climate concerns. United Airlines and its unions warned Friday that layoffs would be necessary to account for next month’s anticipated 60% drop in planned flights without federal help.
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano blasted the effort to insert climate change into the crisis response, saying that the “last thing U.S. businesses or the economy need are more punishing climate-based mandates to satisfy the Democrat Party base.”
“Democrats know that they should never let a crisis go to waste,” said Mr. Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
“They are pouncing on any opportunity to inject climate into the COVID-19 issue. Trying to make sure that any federal stimulus bills include going in the ‘right direction toward decarbonization’ is not the way to proceed.”
Climate change activists have increasingly targeted greenhouse gas emissions from airplane travel, engaging in “flight shaming” to discourage frequent flyers, a phenomenon has wound up embarrassing such Green New Deal advocates as Sens. Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over their private jet travel.
In their letter, the Democrats said that airline travel accounts for 2.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, a figure expected to triple by 2050, while cruise ships “burn heavy fuel oil, one of the dirtiest fuels.”
“Business leaders are themselves increasingly recognizing that their companies must make positive contributions to society or risk losing their social license,” said the letter. “This is particularly true when companies ask American taxpayers for financial assistance.”
The industry group Airlines for America said on its website that U.S. planes improved their efficiency between 1978 and 2018 by 130%, resulting in nearly 5 billion metric tons of “carbon dioxide savings,” while carriers continue to invest in alternative fuels.
The Democrats who signed the letter were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Jeffrey Merkley of Oregon, Cory A. Booker of New Jersey, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Tina Smith of Minnesota and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
Read more at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-23--The Real Reasons Africa Has Another Locust Plague

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The ChiCom coronavirus and COVID-19 outbreaks , deaths , and responses continue to dominate the US , European and Asian news .
Meanwhile , a very different infestation is devastating East African crops and leaving tens of millions at risk of starvation and death .
If COVID hits these weakened populations , amid their malaria and other systemic diseases , it would bring tragedy on unimaginable scales .
“ Across Somalia , desert locusts in a swarm the size of Manhattan have destroyed a swath of farmland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal ’ s Nicholas Bariyo reports .
“ In Kenya , billions-strong clouds of the insects have eaten through 800 square miles of crops and survived a weeks-long spraying campaign .
They have “ swept across more than 10 nations on two continents.
” In parts of East Africa they “ are destroying some 1.8 million metric tons of vegetation every day , enough food to feed 81 million people.
” East Africa has a Desert Locust Control Organization .
But it , the region and the individual countries were totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hordes were coming , irresponsibly underfunded , with almost no pesticides or aircraft to spray them .
By the time they acted , it was too little , too late .
The massive swarms are hardly unprecedented .
Locusts “ covered the face of the whole earth , so that the land was darkened ; and they ate every herb of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left .
So there remained nothing green on the trees or on the plants of the field throughout all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10:15 ] Locusts pillaged long before that , and have returned hundreds of times since .
The 1986-87 plague was calamitous .
As the late entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards noted in 1988 , four major locust species hatched simultaneously in 15 countries , and the crops were so totally devastated that the UN Food and Agricultural Organization predicted 50 million Africans and Asians might starve to death .
Malnourished survivors would suffer reduced mental capacity and have a greater susceptibility to diseases .
Other near-biblical infestations have ravaged Africa with predictable regularity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , essential question is this : In this era of amazing modern agriculture , aviation , and pest control technologies , how could Africa have reached this frightening precipice yet again ?
These 2019-2020 swarms originated in the vast deserts of Oman , Somalia , and Yemen , parts of which are lawless and war-torn .
That made it difficult and dangerous to monitor them for the emergence of billions of “ hoppers , ” following tumultuous downpours two years ago – or to spray them with insecticides when they were most vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fly thousands of miles .
But it also means East African countries needed to work together , despite these obstacles , to prevent such plagues .
These are horrifically poor countries , where bureaucrats live relatively well largely on outside donor funds , often corrupt top-gun politicians live very well on the same money , and some 90 % of the people exist on a few dollars a day , on the edge of starvation and debilitating disease , tilling tiny patches of land .
Too often their governments ’ ability to plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their priorities are skewed to whatever the donors want , and funding for insect control is minimal at best .
Eritrea , Somalia , Sudan , and Uganda didn ’ t even pay their Locust Control membership dues for years , or decades – much less acquire the aircraft and pesticides they would need for the inevitable next locust plague .
Their focus was on elections ( getting reelected ) , essential or just showy infrastructure projects , and climate change .
Indeed , it seems nothing will be allowed to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU and environmentalist obsession with climate change as the single greatest threat facing humanity and planet .
But climate cataclysms exist in models and headlines , are decades away , are hardly unprecedented for East Africa , and can hardly be worse than these recurring locust cataclysms .
But UN , EU , World Bank , and eco-centered foundation money drives the agenda and pays Africa ’ s leaders and bureaucrats .
So recurring real-world crises get short shrift .
When it comes to insect control , the driving force is aid money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on “ food sovereignty , ” and “ traditional subsistence farming ” with wood plows and oxen , “ in harmony with nature , ” free from Western seeds , fertilizers , tractors and , above all , pesticides .
The new moniker is clever , but the ideology and donor-driven attitudes are nothing new .
Dr. Edwards documented them in his 1988 article .
The FAO , USAID , USEPA , World Bank , Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations were pushing “ all-natural , biological , integrated pest management ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were totally opposed to the use of dieldrin and other insecticides that actually work .
They keep families , communities , clinics , and hospitals dependent on minimalist wind and solar electricity .
Just as today , their focus back then was on alleged , possible side effects from modern insecticides , which used properly by trained applicators are safe for people , livestock , wildlife , and most non-target insects .
The key is having the necessary staff , equipment , and chemicals ahead of time .
Under pressure by all these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that – and now it is reaping the proverbial whirlwind .
The donor agencies and pressure groups ’ attitude is akin to demanding that chemotherapy for cancer be banned because the chemicals impair the patient ’ s immune systems and cause hair to fall out .
Saving their lives is inarguably far more important than these side effects – just as saving millions from starvation and associated diseases , and preventing total crop and habitat annihilation is inarguably far more important than the temporary loss of some insects or even slight risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sprays .
Back in 1987 , Dr. Edwards noted , Senegal requested and received the loan of four American DC-7 transport aircraft that could hold 18,400 pounds of cargo ( 8.4 metric tons ) .
They sprayed two million acres and killed 95 % of that country ’ s immature locusts .
But elsewhere FAO anti-pesticide ideologies prevailed , and billions of locusts matured , flew off , mated and produced tens of billions of locusts the following year .
They destroyed croplands , wildlife habitats , communities and lives in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s efforts are far too little , far too late .
Kenya has eight small crop-spraying aircraft operating around the clock ; the Locust Control consortium has four antiquated little planes .
They ’ re apparently spraying fenitrothion ( an effective locust killer ) , pyrethroids ( somewhat effective ) and malathion ( also somewhat effective though it breaks down within a few hours under Africa ’ s hot , humid conditions ) .
But they didn ’ t get the hoppers .
They waited until swarms the size of Manhattan were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voracious locusts , ground-based equipment is useless .
A dozen small crop dusters make almost no difference .
And traditional methods like banging on pots are a sick joke .
However , there could still be hope .
A single Lockheed KC-130 Hercules tanker plane equipped with Modular Aerial Spray Systems can cover up to 150,000 acres a day .
Each plane can carry 2,000 gallons of the most appropriate pesticide-water mixture .
The benefits would be immediate and tremendous .
President Trump could order the Air Force to provide a KC-130 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other effective insecticides for a few weeks of locust-eradication spraying .
He could save millions of lives – and help change attitudes , policies , and practices across Africa and the world .
The President could also order his US Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , State Department and other agencies to end their funding of climate and agroecology programs , and start making the East Africa Desert Locust Control Organization the forward-thinking , effective operation it was meant to be .
He could have blunt discussions with the heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-pesticide and anti-biotechnology policies , funding practices and import restrictions toward Africa – which are an undeniable crime against humanity .
Finally , he could direct the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to review ( and terminate ) the tax-exempt status of organizations and foundations engaged in lethal , eco-imperialistic lies and pressure campaigns in Africa , Asia , and South America .
The locust plagues , starvation , and deaths from readily preventable diseases like malaria must end – now .
The poorest people in these impoverished countries should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often with their lives .
This president is one of the very few politicians who could make these changes happen .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism : Green power-black death , and articles on environmental and human rights issues .

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Mar 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The ChiCom coronavirus and COVID-19 outbreaks, deaths, and responses continue to dominate the US, European and Asian news.
Meanwhile, a very different infestation is devastating East African crops and leaving tens of millions at risk of starvation and death.
If COVID hits these weakened populations, amid their malaria and other systemic diseases, it would bring tragedy on unimaginable scales.
“Across Somalia, desert locusts in a swarm the size of Manhattan have destroyed a swath of farmland as big as Oklahoma,” the Wall Street Journal’s Nicholas Bariyo reports.
“In Kenya, billions-strong clouds of the insects have eaten through 800 square miles of crops and survived a weeks-long spraying campaign. They have “swept across more than 10 nations on two continents.”
In parts of East Africa they “are destroying some 1.8 million metric tons of vegetation every day, enough food to feed 81 million people.”
East Africa has a Desert Locust Control Organization. But it, the region and the individual countries were totally unprepared for the onslaught, unaware the hordes were coming, irresponsibly underfunded, with almost no pesticides or aircraft to spray them. By the time they acted, it was too little, too late.
The massive swarms are hardly unprecedented.
Locusts “covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they ate every herb of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. So there remained nothing green on the trees or on the plants of the field throughout all the land of Egypt.” [Exodus 10:15]
Locusts pillaged long before that, and have returned hundreds of times since.
The 1986-87 plague was calamitous. As the late entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards noted in 1988, four major locust species hatched simultaneously in 15 countries, and the crops were so totally devastated that the UN Food and Agricultural Organization predicted 50 million Africans and Asians might starve to death.
Malnourished survivors would suffer reduced mental capacity and have a greater susceptibility to diseases. Other near-biblical infestations have ravaged Africa with predictable regularity and results.
The obvious, burning, essential question is this: In this era of amazing modern agriculture, aviation, and pest control technologies, how could Africa have reached this frightening precipice yet again?
These 2019-2020 swarms originated in the vast deserts of Oman, Somalia, and Yemen, parts of which are lawless and war-torn.
That made it difficult and dangerous to monitor them for the emergence of billions of “hoppers,” following tumultuous downpours two years ago – or to spray them with insecticides when they were most vulnerable before their wings matured and they could fly thousands of miles.
But it also means East African countries needed to work together, despite these obstacles, to prevent such plagues.
These are horrifically poor countries, where bureaucrats live relatively well largely on outside donor funds, often corrupt top-gun politicians live very well on the same money, and some 90% of the people exist on a few dollars a day, on the edge of starvation and debilitating disease, tilling tiny patches of land.
Too often their governments’ ability to plan for recurring crises like this is minimal, their priorities are skewed to whatever the donors want, and funding for insect control is minimal at best.
Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda didn’t even pay their Locust Control membership dues for years, or decades – much less acquire the aircraft and pesticides they would need for the inevitable next locust plague.
Their focus was on elections (getting reelected), essential or just showy infrastructure projects, and climate change.
Indeed, it seems nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the UN, EU and environmentalist obsession with climate change as the single greatest threat facing humanity and planet.
But climate cataclysms exist in models and headlines, are decades away, are hardly unprecedented for East Africa, and can hardly be worse than these recurring locust cataclysms.
But UN, EU, World Bank, and eco-centered foundation money drives the agenda and pays Africa’s leaders and bureaucrats. So recurring real-world crises get short shrift.
When it comes to insect control, the driving force is aid money totally skewed to agroecology and its perverse focus on “food sovereignty,” and “traditional subsistence farming” with wood plows and oxen, “in harmony with nature,” free from Western seeds, fertilizers, tractors and, above all, pesticides.
The new moniker is clever, but the ideology and donor-driven attitudes are nothing new. Dr. Edwards documented them in his 1988 article.
The FAO, USAID, USEPA, World Bank, Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations were pushing “all-natural, biological, integrated pest management” practices back then, too.
They were totally opposed to the use of dieldrin and other insecticides that actually work. They keep families, communities, clinics, and hospitals dependent on minimalist wind and solar electricity.
Just as today, their focus back then was on alleged, possible side effects from modern insecticides, which used properly by trained applicators are safe for people, livestock, wildlife, and most non-target insects.
The key is having the necessary staff, equipment, and chemicals ahead of time. Under pressure by all these external forces, East Africa failed to do that – and now it is reaping the proverbial whirlwind.
The donor agencies and pressure groups’ attitude is akin to demanding that chemotherapy for cancer be banned because the chemicals impair the patient’s immune systems and cause hair to fall out.
Saving their lives is inarguably far more important than these side effects – just as saving millions from starvation and associated diseases, and preventing total crop and habitat annihilation is inarguably far more important than the temporary loss of some insects or even slight risks to cattle, wildlife or people from the sprays.
(An upcoming article will document who is behind the eco-manslaughter today, and who is funding them: from US, EU, and UN organizations to their Swiss, Swedish, pseudo-African and other counterparts.)
Back in 1987, Dr. Edwards noted, Senegal requested and received the loan of four American DC-7 transport aircraft that could hold 18,400 pounds of cargo (8.4 metric tons).
They sprayed two million acres and killed 95% of that country’s immature locusts. But elsewhere FAO anti-pesticide ideologies prevailed, and billions of locusts matured, flew off, mated and produced tens of billions of locusts the following year.
They destroyed croplands, wildlife habitats, communities and lives in a dozen other African countries.
This year’s efforts are far too little, far too late. Kenya has eight small crop-spraying aircraft operating around the clock; the Locust Control consortium has four antiquated little planes.
They’re apparently spraying fenitrothion (an effective locust killer), pyrethroids (somewhat effective) and malathion (also somewhat effective though it breaks down within a few hours under Africa’s hot, humid conditions).
But they didn’t get the hoppers. They waited until swarms the size of Manhattan were upon them. Against those countless billions of voracious locusts, ground-based equipment is useless.
A dozen small crop dusters make almost no difference. And traditional methods like banging on pots are a sick joke.
However, there could still be hope. A single Lockheed KC-130 Hercules tanker plane equipped with Modular Aerial Spray Systems can cover up to 150,000 acres a day.
Each plane can carry 2,000 gallons of the most appropriate pesticide-water mixture. The benefits would be immediate and tremendous.
President Trump could order the Air Force to provide a KC-130 or two and enough fenitrothion, Lorsban or other effective insecticides for a few weeks of locust-eradication spraying.
He could save millions of lives – and help change attitudes, policies, and practices across Africa and the world.
The President could also order his US Agency for International Development (USAID), State Department and other agencies to end their funding of climate and agroecology programs, and start making the East Africa Desert Locust Control Organization the forward-thinking, effective operation it was meant to be.
He could have blunt discussions with the heads of EU nations about their agroecology, anti-pesticide and anti-biotechnology policies, funding practices and import restrictions toward Africa – which are an undeniable crime against humanity.
Finally, he could direct the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to review (and terminate) the tax-exempt status of organizations and foundations engaged in lethal, eco-imperialistic lies and pressure campaigns in Africa, Asia, and South America.
The locust plagues, starvation, and deaths from readily preventable diseases like malaria must end – now. The poorest people in these impoverished countries should not be the ones paying the price, too often with their lives.
This president is one of the very few politicians who could make these changes happen.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power-black death, and articles on environmental and human rights issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-20--WaPo Flacks For Biden: He ‘Misspoke’ About His Fracking Ban

Written by Alex Griswold on .
Posted in Latest news A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn ’ t lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday ’ s Democratic presidential debate .
Rather , Biden had simply “ described his fracking stance inaccurately.
” The Post gave Biden “ Zero Pinocchios ” for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely .
Instead , the paper pointed to the Biden campaign ’ s explanation that the candidate had “ misspoken ” and that “ his position was the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on public lands .
Meanwhile , the Post criticized those who quoted Biden ’ s remarks verbatim .
“ Critics pounced , ” the fact-checker wrote .
“ Republican operatives cut a short video of Biden ’ s remarks , to use as a cudgel in races against moderate House Democrats .
Sanders supporters accused Biden of misleading voters about his policy , which doesn ’ t ban fracking outright , as Sanders would.
” During Sunday ’ s debate , Sanders said that he was pushing for a ban on future fracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden responded .
“ Well , I ’ m not sure your proposal does that , ” Sanders replied .
Later , the Vermont senator said , “ You can not continue , as I understand , Joe believes , to continue fracking.
” “ No more—no new fracking , ” Biden said in response .
“ The Trump campaign also used a Biden video snippet from the debate in a tweet claiming he would ‘ ban fracking , ' ” the Post complained .
“ Right-wing media outlets including the Washington Free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News all reported on Biden ’ s remarks as though he had adopted a tougher line.
” The Free Beacon article quoting Biden ’ s remarks , to which the Post did not link , covered Biden ’ s statement during the debate that there ’ d be “ no more drilling ” under his administration and only mentioned the fracking comments as an aside .
The Free Beacon accurately wrote that “ Biden , confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change , also said there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ not another coal plant will be built ’ under his administration.
” Biden ’ s drilling comments , another instance of the candidate “ misspeaking ” in a way that made his environmental platform more palatable to his party ’ s left-wing base , was not acknowledged in the Post fact-check .
Biden previously said he “ misspoke , ” avoiding a bad rating from the Post fact-checker , after he was caught falsely claiming on two separate occasions that he opposed the Iraq war from the moment it started .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when a politician admits error .
Biden was on his way to Four Pinocchios until his staff acknowledged that he misspoke , ” the Post wrote .
“ So we will leave this unrated and let readers make their own decision .
”

Written by Alex Griswold on Mar 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn’t lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate. Rather, Biden had simply “described his fracking stance inaccurately.”
The Post gave Biden “Zero Pinocchios” for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely.
Instead, the paper pointed to the Biden campaign’s explanation that the candidate had “misspoken” and that “his position was the same as ever,” opposing fracking only on public lands.
Meanwhile, the Post criticized those who quoted Biden’s remarks verbatim. “Critics pounced,” the fact-checker wrote.
“Republican operatives cut a short video of Biden’s remarks, to use as a cudgel in races against moderate House Democrats. Sanders supporters accused Biden of misleading voters about his policy, which doesn’t ban fracking outright, as Sanders would.”
During Sunday’s debate, Sanders said that he was pushing for a ban on future fracking. “So am I,” Biden responded.
“Well, I’m not sure your proposal does that,” Sanders replied. Later, the Vermont senator said, “You cannot continue, as I understand, Joe believes, to continue fracking.”
“No more—no new fracking,” Biden said in response.
“The Trump campaign also used a Biden video snippet from the debate in a tweet claiming he would ‘ban fracking,'” the Post complained. “Right-wing media outlets including the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Caller and Fox News all reported on Biden’s remarks as though he had adopted a tougher line.”
The Free Beacon article quoting Biden’s remarks, to which the Post did not link, covered Biden’s statement during the debate that there’d be “no more drilling” under his administration and only mentioned the fracking comments as an aside.
The Free Beacon accurately wrote that “Biden, confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change, also said there would be no ‘new fracking’ and ‘not another coal plant will be built’ under his administration.”
Biden’s drilling comments, another instance of the candidate “misspeaking” in a way that made his environmental platform more palatable to his party’s left-wing base, was not acknowledged in the Post fact-check.
Biden previously said he “misspoke,” avoiding a bad rating from the Post fact-checker, after he was caught falsely claiming on two separate occasions that he opposed the Iraq war from the moment it started.
“Regular readers know that we withhold Pinocchios when a politician admits error. Biden was on his way to Four Pinocchios until his staff acknowledged that he misspoke,” the Post wrote. “So we will leave this unrated and let readers make their own decision.”
Read more at Free Beacon
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-24--Dems Derail Relief Bill To Peddle Green New Deal Agenda

Written by Lynne Balzer , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The great American layoff is history in the making .
Nothing like this response to a pandemic scare has ever before happened in American history on such a massive scale .
Americans are willingly cooperating with the unprecedented mandate of “ social distancing ” to avoid spreading the flulike coronavirus , and the Trump administration has promised much-needed relief .
Instead , we learned on March 23 that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , and their supporters have torpedoed the bipartisan relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee all last week .
Why ?
Because “ you can ’ t let a serious crisis go to waste ” ( statement by Rahm Emanuel , Obama ’ s Chief of Staff , 2008 ) .
In this now-famous aphorism , Emanuel continued that this would allow rulers to do things they otherwise wouldn ’ t be able to do .
( ! )
Rep. James Clyburn ( D-SC ) stated last week , “ This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.
” Dan Crenshaw , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This bill is critical for the livelihood of millions .
Our country will be devastated without immediate help .
Dems can lie all they want about ‘ helping workers ’ .
But now they are destroying their lives.
” An early copy of the 1,400-page , $ 2.5 trillion replacement bill Pelosi is pushing reveals the addition of pork-barrel projects involving the Green New Deal and other projects they haven ’ t been able to pass when the crisis didn ’ t exist .
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell described some of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind energy and new emission standards for the airline industry .
So , in effect , Pelosi , Schumer , and other left-leaning Democrats are holding the American people hostage in this crisis without regard for where their irresponsible actions will lead .
Dan Crenshaw continued , “ We will not forget this .
More businesses are closing tomorrow while you peddle this lie .
You literally stopped a good bill because it ‘ didn ’ t have enough red tape ’ .
You hate American businesses so much that you would sacrifice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Features of Pelosi ’ s bill “ show a piece of legislation packed with handouts , bailouts , and cash offerings to the Democrats ’ top constituencies , as well as provisions demanding enforcement of the Green New Deal , easing voting restrictions [ ! ]
, and strengthening union allies.
” To cover their tracks Pelosi and her cohorts blamed the original bipartisan bill , which they described as a “ slush fund ” for corporate bailouts .
However , reading this bill , we learn that it is really a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt by this government-mandated lockdown .
It contains restrictions on the use of the additional $ 500 billion designated to help businesses that haven ’ t recovered from the lockdown within a six-month period of time .
It also specifies limits on funding corporate bonuses and limits on buybacks of stock .
Chuck Schumer claimed that the replacement bill was needed to include provisions for helping healthcare workers obtain needed supplies and to further help American workers .
This was a bald-faced lie since the provisions he enumerated were already in the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration to drop the suit about the unconstitutionality of the Obamacare bill .
As could be expected , the stock market is reeling from the uncertainty caused by this latest power struggle going on in Congress .
Stock markets don ’ t like uncertainty .
Unfortunately , many smaller stock investors , some of whom are retired , were seriously hurt when their stop orders were triggered by the sudden downturn .
The left-leaning media are painting this as a “ bipartisan breakdown.
” But actually it ’ s a breakdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this latest effort to destroy Trump , they ’ ve shown total contempt for the welfare of America as a whole .
And it is quite interesting that this coronavirus “ crisis ” followed directly on the heels of their impeachment effort .
Lynne Balzer taught science at the high school and college levels for about twenty years .
Her new book , The Green New Deal and Climate Change : What You Need to Know , is available in paperback and Kindle format .

Written by Lynne Balzer, guest post on Mar 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The great American layoff is history in the making. Nothing like this response to a pandemic scare has ever before happened in American history on such a massive scale.
Americans are willingly cooperating with the unprecedented mandate of “social distancing” to avoid spreading the flulike coronavirus, and the Trump administration has promised much-needed relief.
Instead, we learned on March 23 that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and their supporters have torpedoed the bipartisan relief package that had been worked on in committee all last week.
Why? Because “you can’t let a serious crisis go to waste” (statement by Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, 2008). In this now-famous aphorism, Emanuel continued that this would allow rulers to do things they otherwise wouldn’t be able to do. (!)
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) stated last week, “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”
Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy Seal, tweeted, “This bill is critical for the livelihood of millions. Our country will be devastated without immediate help. Dems can lie all they want about ‘helping workers’. But now they are destroying their lives.”
An early copy of the 1,400-page, $2.5 trillion replacement bill Pelosi is pushing reveals the addition of pork-barrel projects involving the Green New Deal and other projects they haven’t been able to pass when the crisis didn’t exist.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell described some of these as tax credits for solar panels and wind energy and new emission standards for the airline industry.
So, in effect, Pelosi, Schumer, and other left-leaning Democrats are holding the American people hostage in this crisis without regard for where their irresponsible actions will lead.
Dan Crenshaw continued, “We will not forget this. More businesses are closing tomorrow while you peddle this lie. You literally stopped a good bill because it ‘didn’t have enough red tape’. You hate American businesses so much that you would sacrifice our economy out of pure contempt.”
Features of Pelosi’s bill “show a piece of legislation packed with handouts, bailouts, and cash offerings to the Democrats’ top constituencies, as well as provisions demanding enforcement of the Green New Deal, easing voting restrictions [!], and strengthening union allies.”
To cover their tracks Pelosi and her cohorts blamed the original bipartisan bill, which they described as a “slush fund” for corporate bailouts.
However, reading this bill, we learn that it is really a “zero-interest loan program” to compensate businesses hurt by this government-mandated lockdown.
It contains restrictions on the use of the additional $500 billion designated to help businesses that haven’t recovered from the lockdown within a six-month period of time.
It also specifies limits on funding corporate bonuses and limits on buybacks of stock.
Chuck Schumer claimed that the replacement bill was needed to include provisions for helping healthcare workers obtain needed supplies and to further help American workers.
This was a bald-faced lie since the provisions he enumerated were already in the original bill. Nancy Pelosi even called on the Trump administration to drop the suit about the unconstitutionality of the Obamacare bill.
As could be expected, the stock market is reeling from the uncertainty caused by this latest power struggle going on in Congress. Stock markets don’t like uncertainty.
Unfortunately, many smaller stock investors, some of whom are retired, were seriously hurt when their stop orders were triggered by the sudden downturn.
The left-leaning media are painting this as a “bipartisan breakdown.” But actually it’s a breakdown caused entirely by the Democrat party.
In this latest effort to destroy Trump, they’ve shown total contempt for the welfare of America as a whole. And it is quite interesting that this coronavirus “crisis” followed directly on the heels of their impeachment effort.
Lynne Balzer taught science at the high school and college levels for about twenty years. Her new book, The Green New Deal and Climate Change: What You Need to Know, is available in paperback and Kindle format.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-24--Idris Elba Says COVID-19 Is Earth’s Way Of Getting Rid Of Human Infection

Written by David Ng on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Actor Idris Elba , who has been diagnosed with Wuhan coronavirus , suggested in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey that the global pandemic is Earth ’ s response to damage inflicted by humanity , which he compared to an infection .
“ Our world has been taking a kicking .
We ’ ve damaged our world and , you know , it ’ s no surprise that our world is reacting to the human race , ” the British actor said .
Idris Elba spoke remotely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple TV+ series Oprah Talks : COVID-19 .
In the interview , Elba compared mankind to an infection , with the coronavirus as the Earth ’ s attempt to rid itself of that malady .
“ There ’ s no surprise that a virus has been created that is going to slow us down and ultimately make us think differently about our world and ourselves , ” the Luther star said .
“ That ’ s like for me , that ’ s a standout thing that ’ s very obvious .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cry out to like , ‘ hey hey hey , you ’ re kicking me , and what you ’ re doing is not good .
So I ’ ll get rid of you , ’ as any organism would do is try and get rid of an infection and maybe this is it for the world.
” Winfrey concurred with the actor ’ s insight into the coronavirus .
“ I think we all lose as human beings if we just think of this as a physical virus , ” Winfrey said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what you just said .
That it ’ s here to teach us , show us something about ourselves as individuals and also as a world of people .
And this is a moment for our humanity to either rise or not.
” Idris Elba revealed last week that he has coronavirus , but said that he had no symptoms .
“ Stay home people and be pragmatic , ” he said .
The actor ’ s wife , Sabrina Dhowre Elba , revealed her own diagnosis on Winfrey ’ s Apple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Rita Wilson ; Daniel Dae Kim ; Debi Mazar ; Olga Kurylenko ; and Placido Domingo have said that they contracted the coronavirus .

Written by David Ng on Mar 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Actor Idris Elba, who has been diagnosed with Wuhan coronavirus, suggested in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey that the global pandemic is Earth’s response to damage inflicted by humanity, which he compared to an infection.
“Our world has been taking a kicking. We’ve damaged our world and, you know, it’s no surprise that our world is reacting to the human race,” the British actor said.
Idris Elba spoke remotely to Oprah Winfrey as part of her new Apple TV+ series Oprah Talks: COVID-19. In the interview, Elba compared mankind to an infection, with the coronavirus as the Earth’s attempt to rid itself of that malady.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Oprah (@oprah) on Mar 21, 2020 at 7:19pm PDT
“There’s no surprise that a virus has been created that is going to slow us down and ultimately make us think differently about our world and ourselves,” the Luther star said.
“That’s like for me, that’s a standout thing that’s very obvious. This is almost like the world’s cry out to like, ‘hey hey hey, you’re kicking me, and what you’re doing is not good. So I’ll get rid of you,’ as any organism would do is try and get rid of an infection and maybe this is it for the world.”
Winfrey concurred with the actor’s insight into the coronavirus.
“I think we all lose as human beings if we just think of this as a physical virus,” Winfrey said. “I think it’s exactly what you just said. That it’s here to teach us, show us something about ourselves as individuals and also as a world of people. And this is a moment for our humanity to either rise or not.”
Idris Elba revealed last week that he has coronavirus, but said that he had no symptoms. “Stay home people and be pragmatic,” he said. The actor’s wife, Sabrina Dhowre Elba, revealed her own diagnosis on Winfrey’s Apple TV+ show.
Celebrities including Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson; Daniel Dae Kim; Debi Mazar; Olga Kurylenko; and Placido Domingo have said that they contracted the coronavirus.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print