Black Plague Looms For Los Angeles — Dr. Drew Pinsky on last night’s (May 30) Ingraham Angle reported that Los Angeles is experiencing medieval diseases such as typhus, typhoid fever, and, notably, the bubonic plague, which killed half of Europe in the 14th century.
“We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles,” Pinsky said.
He said airborne disease like tuberculous is exploding.
He said that rat-borne disease is unchecked as L.A. is one of the country’s few major cities that doesn’t have a rodent control program.
There will be a typhus outbreak this summer, he said, and worse.
“I’m hearing from experts that bubonic plague is likely. It’s already here,” he said.
And of course, there is the disease spread by fecal filth in the street like typhoid fever.
“This is not Third World,” he said. “This is medieval. Third World countries would be insulted if they were accused of being like this,
Welcome to the Golden State. Guess that’s what happens in “sanctuary states” that consider unrestricted abortion to be the primary health objective.
Pinsky noted that L.A. is sub-optimally immunized.
“God forbid if measles gets in,” he said.
Questions for all the progressives sneering at the anti-vaxxers: Do unvaccinated illegal immigrants — who exponentially outnumber anti-vaxxers — cause any concern for you?
For laughs, the Los Angeles Times is blaming “climate change” for the looming plague outbreak. Do people really still believe the garbage the establishment media is feeding them?
On April 29, 2019, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf released the latest version of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Climate Action Plan, announcing that Pennsylvania would join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 states committed to implementing policies that support the Paris Agreement — an international collaboration from which the U.S. has withdrawn.
According to the governor, “states like Pennsylvania must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect our communities, economies, infrastructures, and environments from the risks of a warming climate.”
The plan’s primary objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 80% by 2050 in the Keystone State to reduce the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and keep future increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
Described in the 231-page plan are more than 100 actions intended to reduce GHG emissions, 15 of which are analyzed in detail. Each action involves increased taxation, increased regulation, increased spending or restrictions on citizens’ freedoms.
Some very relevant questions should be answered by the governor and the PA DEP concerning this far-reaching plan that will necessarily have significant negative impacts on the Commonwealth’s citizens and businesses:
Once implemented, what effect would this have on global temperature?
Are the justifications listed in the proposal supported by the science, facts and data?
What costs and negative effects are associated with this plan and are they offset by the alleged benefits?
The overarching goal of the proposal is to lower the Earth’s temperature by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania. However, nowhere does this hefty document estimate a reduction of temperature.
To obtain an estimate, we used the MAGICC simulator (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model estimates how much temperature rise would be averted globally by various reductions of CO2 for the United States.
Calculations using this (Figure 1) assume an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions, a climate sensitivity of 2.0 and the latest estimate of Pennsylvania’s share of U.S. emissions (4.2%) to reveal the following theoretical reductions:
0.0023oF by 2050
0.0061oF by 2100
This extremely small effect should be a very important component in the discussions on whether to impose the significant burdens of the Climate Action Plan on the state and its citizens.
Listed on page 14 of the plan is a section titled “Why Does Pennsylvania Need a Climate Action Plan?” It lays out justifications for why the plan is needed, listing 10 climate impacts that were “already occurring and put Pennsylvanians and local industries at risk.” Many of the impacts it described as occurring are, in fact, not happening and in some cases are improving the state’s ecosystems.
We will look at only a few of the most egregious examples of misinformation due to space restrictions, but these should serve to illustrate that this document is more of a political tool than science-based justification for action. More frequent extreme weather events including drought
Increased demand for energy, particularly during warmer summer months
There is no mention of the reduced energy demand during the winter months.
Most of what was listed as justification for implementation of this far-reaching plan were projections of what may or may not occur many decades in the future. These projections are based on climate models that over-predict warming by 2.5 to 3 times too much. It is important to separate speculation of what may occur in the future based on failed climate models from the actual events that can be empirically observed.
Recommended Strategies: The Plan identified 15 actions that were most impactful for reducing GHG emissions and would require increased taxation, spending and government control, some of which are listed below. In the Energy sector, the Plan would:
Invest in building-scale solar
Incentivize renewable energy
Maintain current nuclear generation levels (bailouts for Exelon)
Tighten regulations on methane emissions
Create a Cap & Trade program for electricity sector carbon emissions
Reduce personal vehicle mileage (no more trips to Home Depot)
Incentivize increased electric vehicle use
Increase use of public transportation
Please note the repeated use of the terms “invest” and “incentivize” as code for spending more taxpayer dollars. Additionally, the Cap & Trade program that is proposed will be a huge revenue generation scheme that would draw large sums of money into Harrisburg for redistribution to favored programs. Pennsylvania’s citizens would not only be burdened by new direct taxation, but additional costs of regulation and higher energy costs would be passed on to customers. While the plan offers no estimates of costs, they surely would run into the millions if not billions of dollars.
According to the Plan itself, the 15 action items would only reduce the state’s GHG emissions by 21%, far less than the 80% targeted. In order to reach the higher targeted goals, ever more onerous and economically crippling actions would be required.
Conclusion Pennsylvania’s Climate Action Plan will impose huge costs on the Commonwealth’s citizens and businesses while burdening them with additional levels of restrictions and regulations. Companies will pass these higher costs on to consumers or absorb the costs, which will deter hiring and new investment. A rise in prices means that consumers will buy less, and companies will drop employees, close entirely, or move to other states where the cost of doing business is lower. The consequence means fewer opportunities for Pennsylvania’s workers, less economic growth, lower incomes, and higher unemployment.
The justifications for imposing this plan are flawed, the costs and regulations are economically crippling, and the result is a temperature reduction so low that it is indistinguishable from zero.
In short, the plan would infringe on the freedoms of people and make them significantly poorer. This plan should be opposed vehemently by the GOP-led House and Senate.
Solar and wind are not serious solutions to the problems of global energy demand.
Nuclear power is a stable, profit-generating 24/7 carbon-free energy source that uses the existing power grid and fully proven technology.
Almost all the deaths involving nuclear power come from the 1986 Chernobyl accident. The Three Mile Island incident caused neither deaths nor an increase in cancer, and the 2011 Fukushima incident caused neither death or disease from exposure to radiation. (Side note: Chernobyl was designed by socialists.)
Most significantly, a nuclear plant produces as much toxic waste in a year that a coal plant produces in an hour.
Rie and Emery also describe how South Korean nuclear plants are extremely profitable as they have all been built from an identical design.
We despise global warming fanatics but minimizing carbon emissions is obviously a desirable thing.
And really, are global warming fanatics worse than no-nuke ones?
Here’s an irony: If the AGW-gonna-kill-us-all-in-12-years crowd is right, Jane Fonda will literally be responsible for destroying the world.
Ryan Costello Globally Warm And Comfy — Ryan Costello, who represented Pennsylvania’s once-Republican 6th Congressional District until his quitting in 2018, has found a comfy and warm landing spot.
He is now managing director of Americans for Carbon Dividends, which is pushing for something called the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan which will increase the cost of energy ostensibly to save the planet from burning up.
He had a column in the Jan. 7 Wall Street Journal which if you have a subscription can be read here.
Besides working class mechants using air conditioners, he also bemoans the existence of the Second Amendment and immigration laws.
Hey, who needs social justice warriors when you have Ryanos?
Anyway, Costello’s long-time friend and bosom-buddy enabler is Val DiGiorgio who chaired the Chester County GOP when Costello was a rising star.
His tenure as county chairman saw a once Republican stronghold turn Democrat. His tenure as state chairman has been similarly spectacular.
Of course, we can’t be too hard on him. Being party chairman is just his hobby. His day job is being the “contact” for Stradley Ronon’s Government and Political Affairs Division. Stadley Ronon can be fairly described as a full-service political fixing firm. Services Val’s division has boasted of providing include “creating and shepherding major tax legislation for the mutual fund industry”; “lobbying for proposed rules and regulations on behalf of the insurance industry;” and “lobbying for congressional appropriations for public safety, health care and bio-tech clients.”
Val still has his defenders in the GOP. We’d like to ask them — with Tucker Carlson sincerity — how exactly can DiGiorgio represent the Republican rank and file and Stradely Ronon? Whose side would DiGiorgio must likely take in a conflict, the Republican rank and file or a Stradely Ronon client?
Natural Gas? Do you think you know all about this abundant Pennsylvania resource? Probably not, there has been a lot of misconceptions about this natural resource.
We all care about our environment and hopefully do our best to lower our carbon footprint. Carbon emissions, which are the primary driver of climate change are the lowest they’ve been in large part because of advancements in natural gas. The increased availability and use of natural gas is clean burning and in fact, the United States leads other top world economies in reducing carbon emissions from energy largely to natural gas along with new technologies.
The natural gas industry has invested $90 billion on emission-controlled technologies from 2000—to 20014. And, while American energy production has increased by 40 percent over the last decade, carbon emissions from natural gas systems have decreased by 4 percent. Fossil fuels are essential in the building of renewable technology and provides critical baseload flexible energy to support wind and solar, so we can support a modern low carbon lifestyle.
Meehan Blasts Trump, Profile In Spinelessness — Showing again that his penchant is obstruction rather than progress, Congressman Pat Meehan (R-Pa7) joined the Democrats and denounced America’s Trumpian exit from the Paris Climate Scam.
“It calls into question our commitment to protecting and preserving the environment,” Meehan said. “And it forfeits our ability to drive countries like China and India to reduce their carbon footprint and compete on a level playing field. Ultimately, this disappointing decision diminishes America’s leadership role on the world stage.”
Right. Did he actually listen to the President’s explanation? Does he really think our presence in this scam is going to stop China and India — and other places — from building coal plants and expanding coal production? LOL. Does he really think the billion we gave to the “Green Fund” is really being used for the environment? LOL II. Does he not comprehend that we will be on the hook for tens, maybe hundreds, of billions more?
Does he think it is good for Americans to have $7,000 less household income?
The US does not need Europe, China or India to follow sane environmental practices. In fact, getting out of this scam would be much better for the environment. If annual income was $7 G higher a lot more households would be looking at Teslas and other battery-powered cars.
Grow a spine, Congressman. It’s going to bite you if you don’t.
Paris Agreement Bad For USA — There are some — including reportedly daughter Ivanka — pushing President Trump to keep the USA in the Paris Agreement as committed to by President Obama. The agreement puts restrictions on the use of energy in the guise of stopping “climate change”.
Hopefully, The Donald is strong enough to stand up to the pressure.
The Paris Agreement is not about saving the world. It is about shackling the economy of the United States to weaken her and make her more malleable to the will of international plutocrats.
The biggest polluters like China, India and Russia do not hesitate to ignore the obligations to which they have agreed.
Obviously, pollution is a bad thing and obviously it is desirable to limit greenhouse gases. We do not, however, have to submit to internationalists to achieve these ends and it is unwise to do so.
Meehan Gets Progressive Praise — Congressman Pat Meehan (R-Pa7) is being lauded by uber-left ThinkProgress for being among the Republicans signing on for action on climate change.
Wonder if Pat heard Marco Rubio explain at the March 10 presidential debate how no law can impact climate change yet any law attempting so would raise energy cost $20 or $30 per month for working people.
It’s worth noting that ThinkProgress also praises Pennsylvania Republican congressmen Mike Fitzpatrick of the 8th District and Ryan Costello of the 6th District for getting their minds right on the benefits of feudalism.
We like the environment too. In lieu of making life harder for the elderly and working people and the homeless — actually global warming would help that category — we offer these suggestions on how to get others on board in the fight against “climate change”
Rather than push things that make life harder push things that make life easier. Most would prefer telecommuting to driving. Encourage business to make it happen for jobs were it is possible. Most would prefer not stopping at toll booths. Toll booths snarl traffic which means more pollution which means more greenhouse gas. Make all bridges and roads free.
Push for nuclear energy. Replacing all coal and gas electrical plants with nuclear ones would do more to stop global warming that a hyperloop train in every town. Once upon a time, it was thought that nukes would lead to electricity “too cheap to meter.” Safety concerns and nuclear waste (and greed and over-regulation) have made many feel that was but a pipe dream. It remains possible in theory, though, hence it remains possible and with wisdom meter-less electricity can be made to happen. Make it a goal and sell it if you really care about “climate change”.