GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/net-zero-trojan-horse-total-200000986.html

 

Net zero is a Trojan horse for the total destruction of Western society

 

517

Allister Heath

Wed, March 29, 2023 at 3:00 PM CDT

 

 

 

Waves crash against wind turbines

I love my electric car, dear reader, I really do. The driving experience is revolutionary, the acceleration mind-blowing and there are no nasty exhaust fumes or engine noise. After almost three years, I’m not going back: it is far superior, for my purposes, to a petrol-powered vehicle.

But I’m lucky. I can easily charge it and I never drive long distances with it. The Government’s plan to impose a UK-wide ban on the sale of new, pure petrol cars in just six years and nine months’ time is insanely detached from reality. The country and the technology are nowhere near ready for a full roll-out. Sticking with this preposterous timetable will impoverish and inconvenience millions and trigger a seismic, anti-green popular revolt.

The EU has already backtracked: after lobbying from Germany, Brussels will allow some internal combustion engines powered by e-fuels. We must go further and scrap the deadlines altogether. The future of driving is zero emissions, but we should trust capitalism to deliver it when the time is right.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Longer range yet affordable models need to be available for people who need to drive hundreds of miles a day for work or leisure. Only 65 per cent of UK homes have off-street parking and, in some cases, only for one car, according to the RAC. In London, this falls to 44 per cent. Millions of on-street and at-work charging points will therefore be required; the roll-out to date has been pathetic. Electricity consumption will surge and yet the country is already on the brink of blackouts.

The cheapest new petrol-fuelled cars begin at around £12,500 for a Dacia Sandero; increasingly steep, but just about affordable on credit for Middle England. Will electric cars with a range of 300 to 400 miles be available at that price by 2030? I doubt it, which means calamity for millions. Eventually, cheap, long-ranged electric models will flood the market and an affordable second-hand market will develop, but not yet. If we really need a binding deadline, the Government should legislate that new electric cars will only be compulsory when there is sufficient on-street charging and generation capacity.

Until now, the costs of decarbonising society have been disparate or borne by industry – one reason why voters remain supportive. Fuel duty has been frozen. Home energy bills have gone up, but other factors have had a far greater impact on the cost of living. Taxes on long-haul flights have been hiked, hurting British-Asian and African communities, but the general public hasn’t really noticed. Voters have accepted the shift to reusable bags and paper straws and are happy to recycle. But those were easy – in some cases, costless – tweaks that haven’t required massive behavioural change and they fooled our elites into believing that voters will put up with endless misery to go green. They won’t.

Given enough time, a seamless transition to zero-emissions cars that don’t impact a person’s quality of life or their pocket is eminently possible. The same cannot be said of the proposed shift to heat pumps, or decarbonised air travel, or low-carbon construction, or reduced meat diets. These are likely to end up being explosively expensive and unpopular. We will eventually crack a new way of powering planes, but not a commercially viable one by 2050. The public will go wild if every home is forced to stump up a five-figure sum to retrofit a heating system that doesn’t even work properly when it gets really cold, or if foreign holidays are effectively banned.

The growing civil disobedience and furious rejection of low-traffic neighbourhoods and other anti-car diktats is a harbinger of things to come, as is the anti-Ulez movement which is galvanising many outer London and Home Counties demographics. These are notable given how few protests advocating explicitly centre-Right policies there have been over the past 40 years: the Countryside Alliance march, which failed, the fuel protests, which succeeded spectacularly, and the pro-Brexit demos, which eventually triumphed.

The speed at which the pro-car movement has grown is remarkable, as is the diversity of its grassroots leadership. The political elites and the net zero movement need to pay close attention: their policies have barely started to be implemented and yet they already risk triggering the British equivalent of the Dutch farmers’ party, which won the most seats in the provincial elections in fury at a savage green crackdown on agriculture.

There are two kinds of environmentalism. The first is the one exemplified by conservationists, nature lovers, green technologists, free-market environmentalists, Elon Musk, Boris Johnson before No 10, or my colleague Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. They love human civilisation as well as the natural world. They believe that new technologies – hydrogen, nuclear fusion, geoengineering, carbon capture, electric cars or cultured meat – are the solutions to environmental degradation. They dream of near-free, abundant clean energy and high-yielding agriculture; they seek new ways of enhancing our quality of life, feeding the world and growing our economy while not disrupting the environment. They support democracy, reason, choice, international travel, rising living standards and the universalisation of consumer goods.

The second kind of environmentalist are control freaks who have hijacked and warped a great cause. They don’t want to save the planet so much as to control its inhabitants. They love net zero – an extreme vision incapable of nuance, trade-offs or cost-benefit analysis – because it is a form of central planning. They are eternally disappointed by real-life human beings and their individualism.

Many have adopted a woke, quasi-religious worldview: we have sinned by damaging Gaia, we must repent, we must self-flagellate. They believe in “degrowth” and a weird form of autarkic feudalism. They dislike freedom and don’t want us to choose where to live, shop, eat or send our children to school. They want to reduce mobility. The Welsh government has banned road- building. One French minister called for the end of the detached house: we should all be forced into flats to minimise our carbon footprint, a cause now advocated by some UK commentators.

The public backs the first approach, not the latter. The net zero fanatics have already overreached. Our politicians must break with these extremists, or they will unleash a popular revolt that will make Brexit look like a gathering of Davos technocrats.

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

On the other hand, many people avoid medical care and taking care of their health. They bring the averages way down. 

That is often because they lack insurance / money.  Eating healthy (fresh veg &  meat) is much more expensive than crappy processed food.

In some low-income areas they don't even have grocery stores! You have to eat shit to live.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

 

 

6 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

nly 65 per cent of UK homes have off-street parking and, in some cases, only for one car, according to the RAC. In London, this falls to 44 per cent. Millions of on-street and at-work charging points will therefore be required; the roll-out to date has been pathetic.

https://pod-point.com/electric-car-news/electric-car-no-driveway#:~:text=Thankfully the majority (roughly 60%3A40) of UK dwellings,drivers have access to off-street parking at home.

[bloodman33 + 22]

People in low cost of living states die young because the healthcare system is crap gutted by Republicans pure and simple.  They vote republican like every other country where the poor vote for the dictators. It is pathetic.  I am glad I don't live in them.  The stupid might be contagious.  Just stratify life expectancy by Democratic vs Republicans.   States with the best healthcare are run by democrats.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

People in low cost of living states die young because the healthcare system is crap gutted by Republicans pure and simple.  They vote republican like every other country where the poor vote for the dictators. It is pathetic.  I am glad I don't live in them.  The stupid might be contagious.  Just stratify life expectancy by Democratic vs Republicans.   States with the best healthcare are run by democrats.

If you really believe this stuff, then you should continue to vote Democrat, you will be right at home in that party.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:14 PM, bloodman33 said:

South is getting obliterated by storms created by oil industry climate change.  It is only going to get worse.  I'm excited, and rich from my oil stocks.  Can't wait to donate to AOCs race.  Democrats fight commi Russian loving oil industry defenders. They got my vote.

That's right, you belong in the Democrat ranks. The perfect political party for you.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:40 PM, bloodman33 said:

Oil industry is created more pollen.  People are dying!  Hold them accountable!

We will hold the Democrats accountable for destroying the American standard of living and sending the economy into a rough ride.

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

We will hold the Democrats accountable for destroying the American standard of living and sending the economy into a rough ride.

maybe in your trailer park in Russia....In the US the GDP and the economy is booming...

did you catch the estimated 1st quarter of 2023....3.2 percent pace (GDP growth is adjusted for inflation)

the economy into a rough ride.????? plentiful jobs ....... record low unemployment......

Boom in Semiconductors

Boom in industrial building

Boom in renewables

oh a bust in Coal consumption....January drop of over  28 percent year over year.....sorry.......

Consumption of Fossil Fuels for Electricity Generation and Useful Thermal Output
Coal (1000 tons)	Utility Scale Facilities	this Jan 35,518	2022 Jan 49,573	drop of28.4%

 

 

The final Commerce Department reading for gross domestic product showed the economy grew at a 2.6% annualized rate in the fourth quarter, slightly below the previous estimate of 2.7%. That change came primarily due to downward revisions in consumer spending and exports, the department said.

Growth likely accelerated for the first three months of 2023, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker. That gauge shows GDP rising at a 3.2% pace.

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by notsonice

[turbguy + 1,544]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

We will hold the Democrats accountable for destroying the American standard of living and sending the economy into a rough ride.

It would help if you were to provide some examples of standard of living destruction, and the rough parts of the USA's economy.

The USA has flaws.  LOTS of flaws. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

11 hours ago, notsonice said:

maybe in your trailer park in Russia....In the US the GDP and the economy is booming...

did you catch the estimated 1st quarter of 2023....3.2 percent pace (GDP growth is adjusted for inflation)

the economy into a rough ride.????? plentiful jobs ....... record low unemployment......

Boom in Semiconductors

Boom in industrial building

Boom in renewables

oh a bust in Coal consumption....January drop of over  28 percent year over year.....sorry.......

Consumption of Fossil Fuels for Electricity Generation and Useful Thermal Output
Coal (1000 tons)	Utility Scale Facilities	this Jan 35,518	2022 Jan 49,573	drop of28.4%

 

 

The final Commerce Department reading for gross domestic product showed the economy grew at a 2.6% annualized rate in the fourth quarter, slightly below the previous estimate of 2.7%. That change came primarily due to downward revisions in consumer spending and exports, the department said.

Growth likely accelerated for the first three months of 2023, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker. That gauge shows GDP rising at a 3.2% pace.

 

Reduced consumer spending means a lower standard of living, in case you did not know (and I guess you didn't).

And it only gets worse going forward. You can spend a fortune on personal transportation and still get less service with the Green revolution in play.

World coal output is up, of course...I guess you did not know that, either.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-allow-california-require-half-151801122.html

 

US approves California plan requiring half of heavy duty trucks be EV by 2035

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

David Shepardson

Fri, March 31, 2023 at 10:18 AM CDT

 

 

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday said it was approving California's plans to require a rising number of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks as the state pushes to cut pollution.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said as a result of the plan, "half of all heavy duty trucks sold in CA will be electric by 2035."

"Time to stop playing small ball," he added.

Under an executive order Newsom signed in 2020, California plans to mandate by 2045 that all operations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles be zero emission where feasible, shifting away from diesel-powered trucks.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) had sought waivers from the Clean Air Act to set heavy-duty vehicle and engine emission standards. California has been joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and Vermont in adopting the rules.

CARB has noted heavy-duty vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds comprised 3% of vehicles on California roads, but account for more than 50% of nitrogen oxides and fine particle diesel pollution.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said the waivers are "a vital step to building a cleaner transportation system" and said heavy-duty truck emissions disproportionately impact "marginalized communities that are more likely to be exposed to major highways and trucking routes."

American Trucking Associations Chief Executive Chris Spear criticized the Biden administration decision, saying "by allowing the state to proceed with these technologically infeasible rules on unworkable and unrealistic timelines, the EPA is sowing the ground for a future supply chain crisis."

The EPA said it is not yet approving California's request to set new regulations on pollutant exhaust emission standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for 2024 and future medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

Separately, California in August moved to require all new light-duty cars and trucks sold in the state by 2035 to be either electric or plug-in electric hybrids. California needs an EPA waiver for that regulation.

In December, the EPA finalized new emissions standards to drastically cut smog- and soot-forming emissions from heavy-duty trucks.

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making up 29% of emissions, and heavy-duty vehicles are the second-largest contributor, at 23%.

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Rami Ayyub; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Berkrot)

[Polyphia + 83]

6 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-allow-california-require-half-151801122.html

 

US approves California plan requiring half of heavy duty trucks be EV by 2035

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

David Shepardson

Fri, March 31, 2023 at 10:18 AM CDT

 

 

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday said it was approving California's plans to require a rising number of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks as the state pushes to cut pollution.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said as a result of the plan, "half of all heavy duty trucks sold in CA will be electric by 2035."

"Time to stop playing small ball," he added.

Under an executive order Newsom signed in 2020, California plans to mandate by 2045 that all operations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles be zero emission where feasible, shifting away from diesel-powered trucks.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) had sought waivers from the Clean Air Act to set heavy-duty vehicle and engine emission standards. California has been joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and Vermont in adopting the rules.

CARB has noted heavy-duty vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds comprised 3% of vehicles on California roads, but account for more than 50% of nitrogen oxides and fine particle diesel pollution.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said the waivers are "a vital step to building a cleaner transportation system" and said heavy-duty truck emissions disproportionately impact "marginalized communities that are more likely to be exposed to major highways and trucking routes."

American Trucking Associations Chief Executive Chris Spear criticized the Biden administration decision, saying "by allowing the state to proceed with these technologically infeasible rules on unworkable and unrealistic timelines, the EPA is sowing the ground for a future supply chain crisis."

The EPA said it is not yet approving California's request to set new regulations on pollutant exhaust emission standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for 2024 and future medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

Separately, California in August moved to require all new light-duty cars and trucks sold in the state by 2035 to be either electric or plug-in electric hybrids. California needs an EPA waiver for that regulation.

In December, the EPA finalized new emissions standards to drastically cut smog- and soot-forming emissions from heavy-duty trucks.

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making up 29% of emissions, and heavy-duty vehicles are the second-largest contributor, at 23%.

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Rami Ayyub; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Berkrot)

Sounds good.

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Reduced consumer spending means a lower standard of living, in case you did not know (and I guess you didn't).

And it only gets worse going forward. You can spend a fortune on personal transportation and still get less service with the Green revolution in play.

World coal output is up, of course...I guess you did not know that, either.

GDP is not declining... Economy is not shrinking expect if you are mining coal

 

I posted facts and you posted BS

a rising GDP means a higher standard of living..1st quarter 2023....over 3% wowser that is great except for those who hate the US

when you babble ....destroying the American standard of living and sending the economy into a rough ride in the face of an expanding economy and a rising GDP you are babbling BS

Did you attend Trump U??????????

Coal peaked in 2013/14......at over 8.13 billion tonnes

news flash 2022 was not a new peak in worldwide Coal Production  .....enjoy the decline

Did you like the drop in US consumption of Coal year over year of over 28 percent

 

 

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-allow-california-require-half-151801122.html

 

US approves California plan requiring half of heavy duty trucks be EV by 2035

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

David Shepardson

Fri, March 31, 2023 at 10:18 AM CDT

 

 

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday said it was approving California's plans to require a rising number of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks as the state pushes to cut pollution.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said as a result of the plan, "half of all heavy duty trucks sold in CA will be electric by 2035."

"Time to stop playing small ball," he added.

Under an executive order Newsom signed in 2020, California plans to mandate by 2045 that all operations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles be zero emission where feasible, shifting away from diesel-powered trucks.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) had sought waivers from the Clean Air Act to set heavy-duty vehicle and engine emission standards. California has been joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and Vermont in adopting the rules.

CARB has noted heavy-duty vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds comprised 3% of vehicles on California roads, but account for more than 50% of nitrogen oxides and fine particle diesel pollution.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said the waivers are "a vital step to building a cleaner transportation system" and said heavy-duty truck emissions disproportionately impact "marginalized communities that are more likely to be exposed to major highways and trucking routes."

American Trucking Associations Chief Executive Chris Spear criticized the Biden administration decision, saying "by allowing the state to proceed with these technologically infeasible rules on unworkable and unrealistic timelines, the EPA is sowing the ground for a future supply chain crisis."

The EPA said it is not yet approving California's request to set new regulations on pollutant exhaust emission standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for 2024 and future medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

Separately, California in August moved to require all new light-duty cars and trucks sold in the state by 2035 to be either electric or plug-in electric hybrids. California needs an EPA waiver for that regulation.

In December, the EPA finalized new emissions standards to drastically cut smog- and soot-forming emissions from heavy-duty trucks.

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making up 29% of emissions, and heavy-duty vehicles are the second-largest contributor, at 23%.

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Rami Ayyub; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Berkrot)

great news............"half of all heavy duty trucks sold in CA will be electric by 2035."

 

clean air in LA is achievable

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

24 minutes ago, notsonice said:

GDP is not declining... Economy is not shrinking expect if you are mining coal

 

I posted facts and you posted BS

a rising GDP means a higher standard of living..1st quarter 2023....over 3% wowser that is great except for those who hate the US

when you babble ....destroying the American standard of living and sending the economy into a rough ride in the face of an expanding economy and a rising GDP you are babbling BS

Did you attend Trump U??????????

Coal peaked in 2013/14......at over 8.13 billion tonnes

news flash 2022 was not a new peak in worldwide Coal Production  .....enjoy the decline

Did you like the drop in US consumption of Coal year over year of over 28 percent

 

 

You are confusing GDP with standards of living, they are two different things.

You could valuate an item as being very expensive, but that does not increase standard of living if the consumer cannot afford it.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

24 minutes ago, notsonice said:

great news............"half of all heavy duty trucks sold in CA will be electric by 2035."

 

clean air in LA is achievable

 

Not achievable or possible to full electric without devastating the standard of living of every decent Californian....there is a brick wall waiting at the bottom of the hill.

Clean air is achievable with fossil fuel energy.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Not achievable or possible to full electric without devastating the standard of living of every decent Californian....there is a brick wall waiting at the bottom of the hill.

Clean air is achievable with fossil fuel energy.

Not achievable or possible to full electric without devastating the standard of living of every decent Californian..

 

lol,  and yet everyday the standard of living gets better and better

 

Real GDP is booming, enjoy the transition to renewables..I am

PS Does everyone in your trailer park live in denial?????? just asking for a friend

[notsonice + 1,255]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are confusing GDP with standards of living, they are two different things.

You could valuate an item as being very expensive, but that does not increase standard of living if the consumer cannot afford it.

Real GDP is increasing and the standards of living are rising

cleaner air and water.....brought to you by renewables

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Not achievable or possible to full electric without devastating the standard of living of every decent Californian..

 

lol,  and yet everyday the standard of living gets better and better

 

Real GDP is booming, enjoy the transition to renewables..I am

PS Does everyone in your trailer park live in denial?????? just asking for a friend

Standard of living declines if you cannot afford a personal vehicle.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Real GDP is increasing and the standards of living are rising

cleaner air and water.....brought to you by renewables

Brought to poor Californians by a misconceived government scheme.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

23 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Brought to poor Californians by a misconceived government scheme.

Poor Californians?  Their economy dwarfs many red states combined.  Much bigger than oil lovin' Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP

Theories are great... but you should occasionally look at the data.  For fun add up all the blue states contribution and compare that to the sum of the red states.   Fact is liberals are winning more than elections.

Edited March 31, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Poor Californians?  Their economy dwarfs many red states combined.  Much bigger than oil lovin' Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP

Theories are great... but you should occasionally look at the data.

Per capita GNP is more relevant, although poor Californians are already in trouble.

If these wild Green ideas actually become government policy, poor Californians will never own a personal vehicle or afford house heating bills...they will end up in sidewalk communities, like the ones I saw last summer in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

California of the future is already visible there on those sidewalks.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

If these wild Green ideas actually become government policy, poor Californians will never own a personal vehicle or afford house heating bills...they will end up in sidewalk communities, like the ones I saw last summer in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

California of the future is already visible there on those sidewalks.

Most people in San Francisco already don't own cars, same with New York.  There are hardly any parking lots, garages, etc. Heck, they don't even have lawns or really any wasted space.

Yes, there is homelessness but some of that is because the weather is much nicer.  A lot more comfortable to be homeless there than elsewhere, and it's not a new phenomenon. Poor hippies have long flocked there.  Free love!

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Most people in San Francisco already don't own cars, same with New York.  There are hardly any parking lots, garages, etc. Heck, they don't even have lawns or really any wasted space.

Yes, there is homelessness but some of that is because the weather is much nicer.  A lot more comfortable to be homeless there than elsewhere, and it's not a new phenomenon. Poor hippies have long flocked there.  Free love!

You have a wonderful plan for America....everybody go homeless and poor!

That should make everyone happy.

[turbguy + 1,544]

46 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are confusing GDP with standards of living, they are two different things.

You could valuate an item as being very expensive, but that does not increase standard of living if the consumer cannot afford it.

Economists (which tends to be a black art, similar to metalurgy) typically measure standard of living using GDP.

Per capita GDP provides a quick, rough estimate of the total amount of goods and services available per person.

While numerous and nuanced measurements of standard of living have been devised, many of them correlate highly with per capita GDP.  

So,we need some numbers here to support either argument.