AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits ‘Green New Deal’ Was All About Socialism, Not Climate Change

H/T Western Journal.

Anyone with an IQ higher than a box of rocks knows this to be the case.

How long before Alexandria Occasional-Cortex’s Cheif of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti gets taken to the woodshed for his comments?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, seems to enjoy being the center of attention.

While still in the midst of a feud between House leadership and a band of radical freshmen progressives, Chakrabarti said that the controversial Green New Deal was about breaking America’s capitalistic economy and replacing it with a new system, according to The Washington Post.

That’s right, it essentially has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with injecting excessive government overreach into this country.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

The eye-popping admission from Chakrabarti came during a meeting with Climate Director Sam Ricketts, who’s aiding Jay Inslee in his run for president.

Just like the immigration issue was the backbone of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, climate change is the central issue behind Inslee’s run — except, unlike Trump, Inslee’s average poll numbers have hovered at less than one percent, according to RealClearPolitics.

In May, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out her support for Inslee’s climate proposal, claiming it’s “the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@AOC

.@JayInslee’s climate plan is the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.

It meets key marks:
✅ Big enough
✅ Fast enough
✅ Economically stimulating for working people
✅ Acknowledges injustice + w/ an eye to make communities whole https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1129000388215148544 

Alexander Kaufman

@AlexCKaufman

NEW: @JayInslee just released a stunning detailed, 15,000-word economic plan to decarbonize much of the U.S. by 2030 and revivify the labor movement by repealing right-to-work laws and making it easier to form unions. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jay-inslee-jobs_n_5cdc8ae4e4b09648227aae06?3a 

6,072 people are talking about this

However, Chakrabarti believes Inslee’s plan is too small, saying in his meeting with Ricketts, “I’ll be honest, my view is I still think you guys aren’t going big enough.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Inslee’s climate strategy plans to end all subsidies to fossil fuel companies, proposes moving to 100 percent clean energy, and designates “environmental and economic justice” as a top priority for federal government action.

At least radical leftists are coming clean about their scheme to upend the greatest system of government in world history.

They see the manufactured climate crisis — which they worked to bolster in the past few decades — as a way to bankrupt the government, tear down the building blocks of society and destroy America’s constitutional republic.

Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal would effectively cripple this great nation, as it’s projected to cost a whopping $94 trillion and would still mean “no change” in the climate, according to the Free Beacon.

“On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill,” Sen. John Barrasso said, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

“The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That’s no deal.”

However, 2020 hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders backed Ocasio-Cortez’s climate deal, saying, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake.”

There’s only one thing in the way of these individuals achieving their goal: American voters.

The extreme agenda put forth by climate activists can be nipped in the bud with overwhelming support for conservatives and constitutionalists in the voting booth come November 2020.

It seems silly that one of the most important reasons to get to the ballot box is to make sure we defeat climate change proponents — but it’s more important now than ever, in order to prevent radical progressive climate policy from bombing the American economy.

The bottom line is to make sure that we vote against anyone who wants to “defeat” climate change, because they’re likely not telling you the dark and shady real reason they’re pushing it.

Advertisements

Oregon GOP Senators Defiant After Governor Threatens Arrests

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Bravo to the Republican Senators in Oregon for standing up to the tyranny of the DemocRat majority as they try to ram through their bullshi! cap and trade legislation.

This cap and trade legislation if passed will cost millions of jobs in Oregon.

The is absolutely zero proof of globull warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it now. 

Legislators have fled state to block a gas and emissions tax

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

H/T NASA.gov.

Al The Conman Gore said the polar ice cap would be gone in by 2014.

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began

antarctic-peninsula
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades. Credits: NASA’s Operation IceBridge

10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”  Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in

figure-dmdt-map
Map showing the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons. Credits: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.

“Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

 

Bernie Tells College Students Climate Change Will Cause ‘International Havoc and War’

H/T Breitbart.

Saying stuff like this is one of many reasons he is called Crazy Bernie Sanders.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said at a rally to promote the Green New Deal at Howard University in Washington, DC, on Monday night that climate change is an “existential threat” that, if not stopped will lead to “international havoc and war.”

Climate change, Sanders said, is considered around the world a national security issue “because if people cannot grow the crops they need, if people cannot find clean water to drink, there will be massive migrations of people all over the world. It will put increased pressure on limited natural resources and cause international havoc and war.”

Sanders joined Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who introduced the Green New Deal resolution in February, at the rally. The proposal calls for a radical transformation of the United States economy and infrastructure, including ending air travel, cattle ranching, and fossil fuel production.

It also guarantees jobs and universal health care.

Sanders, who is running for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, also brought up a range of issues that aren’t linked to climate, including military spending, which he said funds “weapons on destruction.”

“Think about spending that money on making this planet healthy and habitable,” Sanders said, adding that climate change calls for a “global approach which emphasizes the Green New Deal.” 

He also railed against the fossil fuel industry and its role in a “corrupt” political system but promised a “just transition” for workers in that industry who would lose their livelihoods if the Green New Deal were to be made into legislation and passed as law.

“If we are going to be honest about combating climate change, we have to understand that we have an overall economy that is rigged and a political system that is corrupt,” Sanders said.

Sanders praised the Sunrise movement for their climate change activism and called today’s youth the “most progressive generation in American history.”

Beto O’Rourke Unveils $5 Trillion Climate Change Plan

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

A five trillion dollar plan to fight something that does not exist.

I have a question for Robert Francis O’Rourke “Where is this money going to come from?”

Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman and failed Senate candidate jockeying for position in the crowded “straight white male” lane of the Democratic presidential primary, has finally unveiled a policy proposal. The candidate published on his campaign website Monday an ambitious plan to combat climate change—”the greatest threat we face”—to the tune of $5 trillion over the next decade.

“We have one last chance to unleash the ingenuity and political will of hundreds of millions of Americans to meet this moment before it’s too late,” O’Rourke said in a statement accompanying the plan’s release, echoing remarks he has made on the campaign trail comparing climate change to the threat the United States and the world faced from Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II.

The plan aims to achieve net-zero carbon emission in the United States by the year 2050, which O’Rourke’s campaign claims is “in line” with the ambitious goals laid out in the Green New Dealauthored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.). That is not entirely accurate. One of the first steps would involve introducing legislation in the first 100 days of O’Rourke’s administration that would establish a “legally enforceable standard” to ensure the United States gets halfway to net-zero emissions by 2030. However, a Green New Deal fact sheet published by Ocasio-Cortez’s office argued that the United States “must” fully achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 to ward off global catastrophe.

The plan would be financed via a “fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment” generated by “structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.” There is no explicit mention of a carbon tax, although the plan itself isn’t very explicit about anything. Nuclear energy, for example, is never mentioned. The plan simply proposes to “accelerate the scale up of nascent technologies enabling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, through efficiency and alternatives.”

What about the remaining $3.5 trillion? That’s not entirely clear. The additional funds would be “mobilized” and “directly leveraged” by the new tax revenue, and funneled through “proven existing financial institutions” such as the Rural Utility Service, as well as “a new dedicated finance authority, which will have on its board not only the brightest minds in finance but also members of the unions that would help build this infrastructure.”

The plan’s lack of specifics with respect to its true cost is politically expedient, given that most Americans are unwilling to spend even $10 per month to combat climate change, according to a recent poll.

Through a combination of executive action and legislation, O’Rourke pledges to achieve his ambitious goal by “unlocking technological breakthroughs,” “supporting regional hubs of expertise,” “catalyzing partnerships with private and philanthropic capital,” “[boosting] the diversity of the leaders whose businesses form the supply chain for climate change solutions.”

Indeed, the text of O’Rourke’s plan is littered with the vague, snazzy jargon typically found in neoliberal think tank proposals, “woke” corporate press releases, and Silicon Valley mission statements.  This paragraph, for example:

Innovation that will lead to pioneering solutions in energy, water, agriculture, industry, and mobility and to scientific discovery that makes us more safe and secure. $250 billion in direct resources that will catalyze follow-on private investment, creation of new businesses, and discovery of new science.

Apart from a bullet point pledging to “Re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond,” there is little explanation of how the plan would address the far more significant challenge of limiting carbon emissions outside the United States, which only accounts for about 15 percent of global emission (and falling). ​

California Now Wants to Force Every Restaurant Customer to Pay 1% ‘Global Warming Tax’

H/T Godfather Politics.

You know this voluntary tax will not stay voluntary long.

The proponents of this tax say we are not adding it to property taxes so the folks on a fixed income are not paying it.

Even on a fixed income people can eat out now and then so they will be paying this tax. 

Here we go again with California do-gooders stealing money from citizens, and this time they want to charge every restaurant customer a one percent tax to combat global warming.

Activists in Sacramento are pushing a movement to add the one percent tax to your lunch and dinner costs for the Restore California Renewable Restaurants movement.

These first measures would have restaurants automatically putting the one percent tax onto everyone’s bill but will also allow them the option of taking the tax off if customers complain that they don’t want to pay it.

According to Sacramento’s CBS affiliate:

Restaurant owners have the option of charging customers an additional 1% on their bills that would go to help stop climate change. Payments will be gathered by the California Air Resources Board and spent on implementing carbon plans on farms and ranches across California, boosting healthy soil, according to the Perrenial Farming Initiative.

“There’s always going to be the people who say, why is this on the bill? I don’t want to pay it. I don’t care what it’s for. I don’t want to pay it,” Christopher Barnum-Dann, the owner of Localis, said.

“We’re not asking our fixed-income people to pay that on their property tax. We’re asking that of someone who had made a choice to go out and spend money,” resident, John Peters, said.

Of course, what will eventually happen if this bill is passed into law? You know. Eventually the tax will be made mandatory, not voluntary. You know that will happen.

“Organizers say 1% might not sound like a lot, but if enough restaurants sign-up, it would add up quickly,” CBS said.

“There’s 78,000 restaurants in California, so if half of them join on that’s almost 40,000, so that’s a decent chunk of money,” Christopher Barnum-Dann told the news site.

Sure… Democrats with dreams in their eyes of never-ending money pots to dip their hands into.

The truth is, if you make this voluntary, no one will bother. If the bill passes, and when no one participates, the state will eventually just turn around and make it mandatory and that will do nothing but burden the citizens…. who are already moving out in droves.

New York City Wants to Ban Hot Dogs to Stop Global Warming

H/T Godfather Politics.

This proves what many Conservatives have been saying Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The City of New York is banning hot dogs from government facilities in order to save the earth from global warming. No, they are serious.

Bill de Blasio’s jack-booted city authorities are moving to ban all processed meats from schools, and government-run cafeterias to save the earf.

The new measure comes as part of the city’s version of a “green new deal,” according to Daily Wire:

“The plan,” Z100 says, “will cut purchases of red meat by 50 percent in its city-controlled facilities such as hospitals, schools, and correctional facilities. The new commitment builds off of the Meatless Mondays campaign that was adopted by all NYC schools in 2017.”

Mayor de Blasio hailed his new plan.

“It is a difficult plan. It is a necessary plan. … Estimates that tell us that we have only 12 years to get it right. Let’s be clear, we have until 2030 to change things fundamentally, or our lives won’t be the same,” de Blasio said of his global warming plan.

The ridiculous policy would not stop restaurants or street venders from selling hot dogs, granted, but this is obviously the “camel’s nose under the tent,” if you will.

How long will it be before the city fathers, in their wisdom, decide to ban hot dogs in people’s homes, too?

Remember when people said banning smoking in government buildings would never leek over into everyone’s private lives? Then lawmakers began pushing bills to stop people from being allowed to smoke in their own homes.

The point is, liberals are never satisfied. When they get on small win, they then work to expand that win to become universal and never limited in scope.