Category: Global Warming

Croney capitalist billionaire wants to stop others from getting rich like him

Say what you want about Bill gates, but as of late he has turned into a giant bag of dicks. The man that managed to successfully create and hold a incestuous monopolistic relationship with big government that allowed the mega corporation he ran to crush competition and make him a fucking billionaire, now in his old age, is basically trying his best to limit membership to the exclusive he belongs to by asking that the bar that keeps the riff-raff out of the new American aristocracy be raised even more.

Never mind the idiotic fact that the crony capitalism of the last few decades that has all but subverted and destroyed the small business industries that used to keep our overregulated and overburdened economy growing by some miracle, is a direct byproduct of big government socialism he tells us we need more of. He pleads his case by calling of all things on the idiotic and discredited big government booga-boo of climate change.

Seriously? Of course they need socialism to cure climate change, duh! In fact, the people that champion this idiotic cult’s teachings were hoping that they could scare everyone else with their doomsday climate change predictions to get even more oppressive socialism that would otherwise never be acceptable rammed down people’s throats.

Don’t be fooled by these mega rich assholes, like Gates or Buffet, whom for some ungodly reason seem to push anti-capitalist bullshit. They do this for personal gain. They know they have enough power and wealth to keep anyone from taking theirs, and they push for more corrupt government control precisely because it will both benefit them personally while making it possible for them to control whom gets allowed in the credentialed aristocratic circle the left has managed to create in this country.

Capitalism died a long time ago, right about the time government inserted itself in the middle of any business transaction between willing participants, through mechanisms that control entry and protect special interests while pretending to be done to serve the public.

Fuck these assholes and the horse they rode in on. What we really need is a culling of the new aristocracy.

What is the most common fear of Americans in the age of Obama?

When Americans was surveyed about their greatest fears, the survey found the top issue was corrupt government.

The researchers asked a random sample of 1,541 adults to rate the level of fear for 88 different fear options across a variety of domains (like crime and natural disasters). Based on their findings, here were the top 10 fears for 2015:

• Corruption of government officials (58.0%)
• Cyber-terrorism (44.8%)
• Corporate tracking of personal information (44.6%)
• Terrorist attacks (44.4%)
• Government tracking of personal information (41.4%)
• Bio-warfare (40.9%)
• Identity theft (39.6%)
• Economic collapse (39.2%)
• Running out of money in the future (37.4%)
• Credit card fraud (36.9%)

I wish this was something we could just joke about, but I am actually surprised that the number of people that are aware of how corrupt our government has become – willy nilly enforcing laws to benefit the connected few and screwing everyone else over – was so low. And I am certainly not saying that republicans can’t be corrupt, but they are amateurs when it comes to taking government criminal activity to the levels democrats do, and then, they can’t even compete when you put them against the shit done by this administration and the sycophants that help do its dirty work for them.

Notice what was definitely missing? Panic about the collectivist manufactured “Gaia is going to burn up and drown us all unless you allow us to turn you peasants into serfs of an almighty state” big government types that want to sell the AGW fiction needed to scare people into giving up their rights and money.

Gas prices, the ppb of oil, and the future

I filled up my car today and paid $2.11 a gallon here in The People’s Republic of Connecticut. In some other parts of the nation that don’t have ridiculously high government imposed gas taxes – taxes that they claim they will use to fix the crumbling infrastructure and ill maintained infrastructure they have held tenure over, but somehow always end up in the general fund where they then get spent on vote buying social pet projects – this number is now below $2 a gallon. The last time I remember oil under $2 a gallon was a decade ago. But why is this happening? There are a ton of varying opinions about cause and effect out there. Let’s explore.

First off, the obligatory democrats are always talking out of their ass reference. They knew they were full of shit, we knew it, and because despite every and all efforts by the Obama administration failing to hinder the expansion of US oil recovery, we got more drilling, we now have definite proof. Collectivist Keynesian shitbags can pretend that the economic laws of supply and demand don’t matter – like they do with the reality of human nature and a lot of other natural laws – but reality has a way of bitch-slapping stupid people. You fuckers knew you were lying when you were pretending more oil on the market would not reduce prices, and we now have proven it. The opposition to any more drilling and recovery was primarily because these Marxists fucks want to destroy the brown energy industry to favor their friends, and coincidentally another one of their special interest big donor blocks, in the proven failed green industry.

Back to business now that we have gotten that out of the way. This precipitous price drop, even though I believe it will not remain that low forever (more about that later), is bound to jump start our economy and help a lot of us that now will have extra pocket change. And it doesn’t come without the profiteers trying to screw over the tax payers yet again. The leftists, under the guise of getting more money to fix the very infrastructure they have been neglecting for decades, precisely because they were diverting gas tax dollars to social pet projects, are putting pressure on everyone to get more money from people that are finally getting a much needed and deserved break in the though economic times the leftists have given us.

As if this time the bulk of this extra revenue wouldn’t actually also be diverted to vote buying projects they depend on. Yeah, and pigs will fly too. These assholes count on people’s stupidity and envy. Think about how these will impact us all once prices climb again – and they will. Let us also note that this money grab is not limited to the feds. Many state governments, especially the ones run by democrats that do the same as the feds (like mine), are all hoping to follow that example and do the same. Can’t have people keeping more of their money when they need to buy votes in these desperate times that their base consists of so many of the non-productive. It is almost as if these people’s decision making is based on what can do the most economic harm possible. Of course, when you already believe the money doesn’t belong to the people earning it in the first place, you tend to not bother with these stupid details anyway.

Now that we have gotten that nasty business out of the way, let’s discuss why the prices are dropping as precipitously and fast as they are. The general consensus is that the Saudis are doing this, and it is on purpose. The Saudis, OPEC’s biggest producers, have decided not to cut their output to regulate prices, and are counting on their over $800 billion in reserves to ride out this shorting of the market. The move to let the oil prices plummet is basically driven by their calculated belief that if the price goes too low it will force fledgling the US oil industry, especially the fracking industry that the Russians had been directly targeting without much success so far, I add, to collapse.

The Saudis, like most of the other OPEC nations and Russia, all need oil to be at between $90 and $100 a barrel to keep their current economic plans viable. The supply produced by the US has basically made that impossible, because the extra oil was sooner than later going to force a correction that would drop prices and keep them between $65 to $75 per barrel. And while that drop is something that would be an economic boon to most of the world that depends on oil for energy, it would spell a slow economic death for the oil producing nations that need/want the higher prices. Have no doubt that this move is a calculated attack on the US oil industry. The Saudis are counting that if they keep the prices below $50 a barrel for a while that they can drive the US out of the oil producing. Even more important is their belief that the greens will then prevent that oil producing industry from coming back for decades. This gamble that the greens will prevent the oil production from starting right back up again is based on their observation of how things played out in the 70s, and while many believe that this time it will not work, I think that their gamble isn’t all that crazy. The greens, after all, want to destroy the brown energy sector and don’t give two flying fucks how costly and destructive their agenda is, because in the end it is about them lining their pockets above all else. Most of the big actors have become stinking rich fucking us all over.

The fact is that this economic boon they will usher in and the low gas prices themselves can’t last as the demand and supply curve correct themselves eventually. But then again, we can make some economic moves that will preposition us to come out of this attack against our economy and economic interests, as the winners. The fact is that anything that keeps the price of oil lower than the $90 to $100 per barrel that the actors behind this attack want is a good thing. Lower prices would be a huge hit that forces some of the world’s shittiest nations to change their ways, for lack of funds to cause trouble with, to at a minimum do less harmful things. That would be a big bonus for the world in general. Of course I doubt this administration and the collectivists that are in league with the greens have any desire to do so, and they will actually do things that will undermine that possibility. We need to make sure we push back and prevent them from doing that. Cheap energy is exactly what the world needs right now, just like it needs a lot less big intrusive Keynesian nanny-state government.

In the mean time enjoy this gift for as long as it is allowed to last by the people that want to control us serfs.

I Would Do Anything for the Planet, But I Won’t Do That

Reason writer Ronald Bailey hung out with some of the recent climate protesters at the People’s Climate March. I’ve written about their convenient embrace of science when it suits their biases before, but Bailey really gets into the awful thinking that underpins much of the modern environmental movement:

Among the chief capitalist villains: Monsanto. The assembled marchers fervently damned the crop biotechnology company despite the fact that modern high yield biotech crops cut CO2 emissions by 13 million tons in 2012-the equivalent of taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year. By making it possible to grow more calories on less land, biotech crops helped conserve 123 million hectares from 1996 to 2012. Many of the protesters oddly believe that eating locally grown organic crops-which require more labor and land to produce less food- will somehow help stop global warming. Vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, researchers estimate that lab-grown meat could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent relative to farmed meat.

Fracking aggravated a lot of the demonstrators. Artful placards alluded to another f-word as a way of indicating displeasure. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water. Yet just the week before the parade, new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by research teams led by the Ohio State University’s Thomas Darrah and the U.S. Department of Energy found that the controversial technique to produce natural gas does not contaminate groundwater. And never mind that burning natural gas produces about half of the carbon dioxide that burning coal does.

Another low-carbon energy source was also a cause of stress for the demonstrators: nuclear power. Some demanded that the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River be closed down. This particular petition is just perverse, since nuclear power is a big part of why New Yorkers emit a relatively low average of 8 tons of carbon dioxide per person each year, compared with the U.S. average of 16.4 tons per capita.

There is no such thing as perfect energy technology. Even solar and wind involve massive land use, enormous rare earth metal consumption and, at present, fossil fuel backup. Moreover, wind and solar are limited in the absence of a revolution in battery technology. You can’t run airplanes or big cargo ships on alternative energy. You can barely run cars on them.

Until a revolutionary technology is developed, the best way to fight global warming is to delay it as long as possible. GMO crops delay it by decreasing land and fertilizer use. Fracking delays it by cutting carbon emissions in half compared to coal. Nuclear delays it by replacing fossil fuels completely. All of these things have contributed to the US and Europe cutting their carbon emissions without sacrificing economic progress and have bought years, possibly decades, for us to come with a breakthrough technology that can replace fossil fuels.

The problem is that these technologies exist in the real world and the environmentalists want to live in fantasyland, where you can solve complex scientific, technical, social, political and engineering issues with wishcasting and marches; where there are no tradeoffs; where completely revamping our society is something you can do through legislative fiat.

Thankfully, enough people live in the real world that we’re making real progress … without putting capitalism on the funeral pyre.

The Climate Treaty That Isn’t

The liberal blogosphere is all aflutter because the US and China have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions:

China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases.

The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.

Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015.

A climate deal between China and the United States, the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 carbon polluters, is viewed as essential to concluding a new global accord. Unless Beijing and Washington can resolve their differences, climate experts say, few other countries will agree to mandatory cuts in emissions, and any meaningful worldwide pact will be likely to founder.

Here’s the thing. This agreement means nothing. It’s not a binding treaty (which is why Obama doesn’t have to send it to Congress). Nor does it lock us into any policies. It’s a statement of goals to achieve things that may or may not happen long after both men are out of power. It’s symbolism, plain and simple. And such agreements will always be symbolism because the only way greenhouse gas emissions will ever fall — as they have in the United States — is when the right technology comes along.


China’s 2030 emissions target is set in terms of a date but says nothing about the level at which emissions will peak.

China’s target for primary energy consumption is expressed in terms of “non-fossil fuels”, which means a big increase in nuclear power as well as wind, solar and hydro.

And of course, US has seen its emissions drop 10% below 2005, but this is mainly because of a recession and fracking. The next reduction will be much harder, and likely not coming, as 2013 showed an *increase*, not further decrease

Normally, I would let this sort of stuff slide. But there was a very illuminating statement from Friends of the Earth that came out after this:

“The cuts pledged by President Obama are nowhere near what the US needs to cut if it was serious about preventing runaway climate change. These US voluntary pledges are not legally binding and are not based on science or equity,” said Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International Climate Justice and Energy coordinator.

“This agreement deliberately ignores the issue of equity. Industrialised nations, and first of all the world’s largest historical polluter, the US, must urgently make the deepest emission cuts and provide the bulk of the money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change,” she added.

“The good news is that China is taking the fight against climate change ever more seriously and intends to peak its emissions in next 15 years. We urge China and all nations to urgently switch from emissions-causing dirty energy to community-based renewable energy.”

You catch that? Friends of the Earth bashes Obama for pledging a 25% cut in CO2 emissions while praising China — which currently emits 50% more CO2 than the United States — for promising, maybe, to start curbing their emissions in 15 years.

I’m convinced that global warming is real. I’m also convinced that the so-called green organizations see this danger as a vehicle for anti-corporatism, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism. How else do you explain a green organization praising the world’s biggest polluter?

Ignore the greens. And ignore this agreement. Concentrate on the technology. That’s the real battle.

I blame Boosh!

Because that seems to always be the battle cry of these morons on the left who can’t see the reason stuff like this happens is their policies and the implementation of said policies. Case in point revelations like One in five U.S. workers was laid off in the past five years and about 22% of those who lost their jobs still haven’t found another one, which shows you what happens whenever government assumes the role of picking winners & losers. Of course they can’t see the forest for the trees, even when the information stares them in the face.

Those who did find work had a difficult time with their job search and the effects of unemployment, the survey by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University found.

Nearly 40% said it took more than seven months to find employment and about one in five of laid-off workers said all they could find was a temporary position.

Almost half — 46% — of the estimated 30 million layoff victims who found new jobs said they paid less then their old ones, according to the survey of 1,153 U.S adults done over the summer.

“While job growth has been consistent, it has been insufficient to produce enough full-time jobs for everyone,” the study said.

Despite a declining overall unemployment rate, the study says, long-term joblessness has remained a major problem as the U.S. economy has slowly recovered from the deep recession, which technically ended in June 2009.

The study notes that 3 million Americans in August had been unemployed for more than six months. Although that figure has been declining, it still is high.

The effects of long-term unemployment can be traumatic, the survey found.

What a pile of bullshit. The economy has sucked, and continues to suck, despite the fucking LSM’s propaganda to the contrary, and it is directly tied to the burdensome government meddling in the private sector. Whatever good has happened comes despite the people in charge’s efforts that have tried to deny that growth (oil industry anyone?). Our system is one of crony capitalism: one where the powerful and connected buy favors and gain huge benefits from people in government that in turn profit and keep power from selling these favors. This system prevents real economic growth and indubitably destroys the middle class and opportunities for those in or trying to get into the middle class.

That’s why the number of jobless people, which should include people that no longer get counted because they are off the government unemployment benefit dole, is staggering, and the trend so ugly. Most of these new jobs the LA Times want to pretend are responsible for the faux growth the left has been peddling since black Jesus took power, have been low end service sector jobs too. And it is not just that have lost jobs that have suffered. The employed, unless they were in the public sector, have also been hammered. The reasons are blatant as well. Over regulation to serve the left’s various agendas and government power grabs masquerading as social improvement projects, things like Obamacare or the EPA’s assault on fossil fuels, all have drastic economic consequences.

If we had a republican in charge the LSM would be telling us that we were in a recession. Remember that whenever you see these fluff pieces that refuse to acknowledge that the bad times come from the left’s policies and practices.

Monday Roundup

For reasons that I hope I’ll explain one day, this week is going to be a bit crazy. So here are a few stories I’ve been sitting on, awaiting longer commentary:

A few weeks ago, Marvel comics unveiled an alternative Spiderwoman cover which was immediately decried as sexist because of her pose. I suspected that this criticism was largely coming from people who weren’t terribly familiar with the medium. And indeed, Maddox easily found a spiderman cover that was almost identical. As a general rule, if you ask a rhetorical question like, “Would they draw Spiderman like that?” you should probably do a little bit of research to make sure the answer isn’t “yep”. I don’t agree with everything Maddox says, but his point is well taken.

Another video you want to take in is Matt Ridley talking about global greening — the apparent rise in plants that has resulted from global warming. I disagree with parts of what he says, but toward the end he hits a very important point: Europeans are now planning to burn zillions of tons of trees under the belief that this is “green energy”. There’s a reason we stopped burning trees for fuel.

A few months ago, the town of Peoria launched a SWAT raid into the home of Jon Daniel. This incredibly dangerous man had … uh … created a parody Twitter account of Mayor Jim Ardis. During the raid, the cops found some pot on one of Daniel’s roommates. A judge has decided that the raid was lawful and they can proceed with the felony possession charges. I have no idea how the raid could be lawful when the prosecutor is not bringing charges because mocking someone on Twitter is not illegal. We have now gotten to the point where cops can raid your house based on something that isn’t a crime.

Obama has unveiled a plan to deal with drug-resistant bacteria, mainly by curtailing the massive overuse of antibiotics in farming and creating incentives for companies to develop new antibiotics. All things considered, this could be the biggest accomplishment of his administration. I mean, he’s not actively making things worse, so it’s got to be one of the top five things he’s done, at least on par with the Great Deckchair Rearranging of 2011.

Just a reminder if you need one: slavery did not make America rich.

Klein Pushes for A Dirtier Planet

Naomi Klein has a new book out. Having failed to rally the forces of socialism with No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, she’s now saying that capitalism needs to go because it’s destroying the environment.

Yes, she is writing these words in 2014 as if this were a brand new thought. But the greens have been pushing this anti-capitalism line for fifty years. The anti-capitalist sentiment got so putrid that Patrick Moore left the organization he’d founded — Greenpeace — in 1986. But Klein feels like she’s onto something. And that something, as far as I can tell, is to make the state of the environment a hell of a lot worse:

She wants to ban fracking, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, geoengineering, carbon sequestration, and carbon markets, thus turning her back on some of the climate-friendliest solutions currently on offer. She wants to block the Keystone pipeline, which would transport petroleum from Canadian oil sands to U.S. refineries; she would pressure pension funds and endowments to divest from fossil fuel companies; and she thinks we should transfer trillions of dollars to poor countries to pay off the rich countries’ debt for dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Klein is a socialist of the first order and she see massive crushing socialism as the solution for everything — inequality, the recession, the environment, or the collapse of the Braves in the NL East. But those of us with memories longer than an episode of Family Feud will remember the environmental record of the Communist block. It was horrifying; far worse than anything that was ever seen in the West. In his book All the Trouble in the World, P.J. O’Rourke describes the nightmare that confronted the Czech Republic after the Cold War was over. Soviet-era “innovations” made the Aral Sea disappear while capitalism was bringing the Great Lakes back to life. Communist projects clearcut massive swathes of Eurasia while North American forest were booming.

Hell, you don’t even need a memory; you just need eyes. China — still nominally communist — is one of the worst polluters in the world and has soaring greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime, the evil capitalist United States has seen its carbon intensity drop thanks to innovation, fracking and market forces.

She wants a “Marshall Plan for the Earth” as a lot of environmentalists do. I’ll let Ronald Bailey give you the grim math on that:

Well, if the world were to begin deploying these renewable energy technologies next year that would mean erecting approximately 250,000 wind turbines each year for the next 15 years. As of the end of 2012, there were a total of 225,000 wind turbines operating around the world.

Similarly, the world would have to install 113 million rooftop solar panel systems per year in order to meet the 2030 goal of 1.7 billion. In 2013, the U.S. installed a record 4,751 megawatts of solar panels, which would be roughly equivalent to 1.6 million 3-kilowatt rooftop solar panels. As of 2013, the entire world had installed 100 gigawatts (100 million kilowatts) of solar photovoltaic panels. Combining the rooftop and solar panel proposals, this hyper-solarization would mean deploying more than 10 times the current installed capacity of photovoltaic panels, not just once but every year for the next 15 years. And never mind that there are virtually no commercial wave or tidal energy production systems currently operating.

This would entail, by their conservative estimates, turning 10% of global GDP to alternative energy construction. Good luck getting China to go in on that. And that’s even assuming the materials and rare earth metals exist in sufficient quantities. Or that such a massive endeavor could be done without causing further environmental damage. And it still wouldn’t work because we have no way of storing and transporting energy to account for cloudy and/or windless days around the globe. The enviros made a big deal because Germany recently provided half their power from alternative energy. Buuuuut:

It got half its power from solar on a single, very sunny day that also happened to be a national holiday, so consumers were at the beach and most of its commercial and heavy industrial plants were shut down. That’s very exciting, but you cannot save all of your electricity consumption for very sunny bank holidays.

This isn’t “economics”. This is science fiction.

And thankfully, Klein is on the fringe. There is a growing push toward market forces being aligned toward improving energy efficiency and making alternative energies viable. There’s even been some movement on nuclear power. Bailey again:

In 2013, climate researchers James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley—people not known for soft-pedaling the threat of global warming—issued an open letter challenging the broad environmental movement to stop fighting nuclear power and embrace it as a crucial technology for averting the possibility of a climate catastrophe through its supply of zero-carbon energy. The letter states that “continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.” They add, “While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.”

Look, I think most environmentalists are genuinely concerned about the planet. But there is a faction that are what the conservatives have long described as “watermelons” — green on the outside; red on the inside. These people really don’t care about the environment. When cold fusion was briefly a thing, they reacted with fury not hope. They care about crushing capitalism and private property.

Take that idea of the evil west sending trillions of dollars to the poor benighted third world to compensate them for global warming. That’s something the radical left has been flogging for decades. And it would do nothing, nothing to save the planet. It would arguably make things worse, given the environmental record of developing countries.

There are two possibilities here (not mutually exclusive). One, Klein is a moron. And two, she’s just your garden-variety watermelon, someone who sees environmentalism as a way to push her beloved anti-capitalist agenda.

The only remaining questions are why now? Why is she suddenly pushing this capitalism vs. the environment line like it’s an original thought? And why are she and her books so popular (it’s already selling well, has five-star ratings and is getting rave reviews from the likes of RFK, Jr.)?

As always, Lee had the the answer:

I actually read Klein’s No Logo about six years ago. It astounds me that a third-rate intellect like hers could be so wildly popular with the radical left. Then again, maybe it shouldn’t.

This isn’t a serious proposal. It’s not serious commentary. And it’s certainly not economics or science. It’s something for progressive to whack to. It’s something they can read and say, “Yeah! That’s what we should do!” so they can feel a little better about not being the kind of scientists and engineers who could actually do something about climate change.

Meanwhile, those of us living in the real world can go about actually saving the planet, one fracking well at a time.

How to Suck at Global Warming Policy


Anyone wanting to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner has only 10 days left to be certain of getting one – following new EU rules that come in next month.

From 1 September, companies in the EU will be banned from making or importing vacuum cleaners above 1600 watts.

The new European rules are part of the EU’s energy efficiency directive, designed to help tackle climate change.

The EU is claiming that this will help with global warming. I would conservatively estimate that the impact of this rule on carbon emissions will be somewhere between jack shit and fuck all.

  • As Bjorn Lomborg points out, Europe already has carbon caps and high energy taxes. So all this will do is change what fossil fuels are used to power, not how much they are powering.
  • Furthermore, those carbon caps and taxes were designed to do exactly this sort of thing. By making energy more expensive, you incentivize efficiency. Over the last forty years, we have seen huge advances in energy efficiency in our homes, our cars and our offices … without mandated technology or even carbon taxes. The reason is that energy prices have risen as the low-hanging fruit of fossil fuels have run out and global demand has increased. And people have responded by buying more efficient technology. Everything in your house — from your car to your coffee maker — is massively more efficient than it was a couple of decades ago. You don’t need to tell people what technology to buy. The market does that for free. What’s the point in singling out one technology among hundreds?
  • If vacuums are less powerful, people will simply run them longer. Net energy gain: zero.
  • The amount of electricity used for vacuuming is minuscule on the grand scale of things. Even if this decreased Europe’s carbon footprint — which it won’t — the amount of time it would buy us on global warming could be measured in seconds. In exchange for that, Europeans will have dirtier carpets and have to shell out tons of money.
  • This is everything that is wrong with the Left Wing approach to global warming. It’s a symbolic move based on someone’s random brain fart that will do almost nothing to address the problem while costing lots of money. Putting aside the science of global warming, this is a phenomenally stupid way of dealing with it. And another illustration of how, for all their pretensions of scientific literacy, the Left Wing is happy to wallow in ignorance and ludditism.

    One person who gets it? James Dyson:

    Dyson vacuum cleaners score highly in the ratings. However, the manufacturer has many concerns about flaws in the system that will ultimately be unhelpful for consumers. It is seeking a judicial review of the legislation at the European court of justice, with judgment due in December 2015. Sir James Dyson, whose company pioneered “bagless” vacuums, said he believed the label itself was a good idea, pointing out that he had never made a machine over 1,600 watts. But he said there were many engineering aspects other than the size of the machine to take into account, and he feared strong performing vacuum cleaners would be rated badly and lead the consumer to buy a machine that simply did not work efficiently.

    I have to tip my hat to Dyson. This ruling will benefit him — his vacuums tend to be very efficient. And I think he (and I) would agree that efficient vacuums are a good thing. But he doesn’t want it mandated because he fears (correctly) that people will simply use a bunch of shitty vacuums that don’t do the job and possibly end up using up even more energy.

    The EU has long made itself a laughingstock when it comes to regulation. But this takes the cake. Europe is now addressing global warming through massive taxes, huge subsidies for underperforming green energy, bans on nuclear power and now a ban on high-power vacuums. And they have reduced their carbon footprint by less than the United States has through simple market forces.

    Why tell little lies when you can get away with big ones?

    While I will admit that anyone making the case that there is plenty of competition for all the lying done by this WH, the argument can be made that the ludicrous claim they are transparent in their dealings and want an independent press can be seen as taking the cake. With so many key Obama people, all under investigation, destroying subpoenaed evidence, or the history of Obamacare and the lies and vote buying that went along with what will likely be remembered as the most destructive and insane thing put into law in the US, the VA scandal and the attempt to CYA, which I should add portends the future of Obamacare, the long running IRS targeting political opponent scandal, the lies about Benghazi, the fact Obama, after claiming a victory in Iraq, now pretends it is not his fault it is lost, the Snowden revelations of government spying on citizens, the whole illegal invasion debacle, the shady anti-business green bullshit, and countless other such stories of abuses and cover-ups, one is hard pressed to not do a double take at this brazen lying.

    Brave new world it is, though. Tell the lie enough times, and the idiots should buy it, seems to be the strategy of this criminal gang. The only thing transparent about this WH is that they are crooks and care very little for what you think about that. Of course the cock gobblers in the LSM will just ask for some more splooge on their face instead of asmitting Obama uses them for Bukkake fun.