You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Regional Greenhouse Gas Initutive’ category.
There are those in whom we have great respect across most of their lives. Then suddenly they seem to abandon reason.
Why should anyone vote for Jill Stein? Great question and one I’d never investigated up to now. So I looked.
Shocked. In her views she is no different than Clinton? Don’t believe it? Here is her questionnaire compared with Hillary’s, filled out..
Check it out. When it comes to individual rights, both were identical except for their belief in God. Hillary would keep “God” on money, Jill would be against it. On domestic issues, they agree on everything. The small distinction is that Hillary does not agree that marijuana is a gateway drug, Jill “strongly” does not agree that it is. A very small degree of separation between them. On economic issues they are identical across the board. in both their choices and levels of degree in which they support them.
Only in international relations and defense is there is some gap of difference. One should expect such from someone who has represented our nation around the world versus someone postulating their positions from the couch in their living room. Even here the differences are often only in degree of being against or strongly against.. Hillary is definitely not a Republican as she is sometime called by leftists. The only major difference one can quantify between these two candidates across the whole spectrum, is that Hillary does not believe in isolationism or running away from every conflict, and Jill Stein does.
That means there has to be something else motivating Stein voters. What could it be?
It could be personal dislike. Many people do vote off of their emotions and therefore they may not like Hillary not for anything she has ever done, but just in how she fills out a pantsuit. Rumors are that Susan Sarandon doesn’t like Hillary because George Clooney does. Such dislike if true certainly is not misogyny, easily ruled out when comparing against the gender of Jill Stein, (but perhaps a factor when compared against Gary Johnson).
It could also be a religious fervor for third parties. “Woo hoo, I’m a Green Party/ All the bad stuff you Democrats and Republicans have done to the globe does not reflect on me/ Since my party has never held responsibility, we are clean of all your bad decisions/ Buy voting Jill I’m clean as snow”..
Or it could be a European specialist highly familiar with the third party system across the pond and wishing to implement that system here…
Or it could be someone who just doesn’t care about anything (historians called them anarchists 100 years ago) and is happy watching the world burn.
But we CAN rule out some other reasons.
Ones support for Jill Stein is not for the candidate herself. Most people know very little about her. Is she bi or straight? See? You don’t know. What personal experiences make her more qualified than either Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson, or Donald Trump or Evan McMillian? See? Speechless.
To pull the lever or push the button for Jill Stein means that you are voting for a superfluous cause, a sprite of your own imagination. As in for example: “I’m voting to make the world more liberal.”.
Ok, having been there, that is understandable and the first sane thing you may have said… Because if that is what you believe, voting for Jill Stein is at least one way of expressing it.
But what does that vote get you? Right now she is on track to come close to her last attempt at the presidency, 4 years ago… 469,501 voted for her… 0.36% of the vote. This year it may be less. That is less than 150 people per each county in the entire United States… That per county level is fewer than the numbers that vote in one ward or precinct.
So what statement are you trying to make by voting for someone who averages out to 150 voters out of every single county? The analogy might as well be “not voting”, such a correlation seems “right-on” here.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard over and over and over and over that if you are a current Trump supporter and vote for Jill Stein it is a vote for Hillary and vice versa. That keeps getting said because there is some truth to that. If you were in a three way and the two others got serious with each other, you get shut you down; you lose out. Same way in a general election… To matter as a person, as a voter, you really can’t be casting your vote to someone who when they ran before, against the same two machines, against the same two ideologies, with the same candidate on the same platform, only muster 3 out of every 1000 people.
Imagine if those 3 activists, instead of being on the outside in a club of their own, were arguing their cases inside a party that will take in 550 our of every 1000 people. Do you have a better chance to win friends and influence people over to your cause? Of course you do…
Being a partner of one of the most powerful influences on our national destiny, you have far more clout in achieving your aims and dreams, than you would many miles away, crawling to the surface of a dark Scottish loch….*(Police reference)
So what sense does that make to anonymously state your liberalness by voting on a third party?
Now there are times for a third party, don’t get me wrong… On local levels a third party, even Greens, can field a better candidate than the other two local party apparatus’s can muster … Because smart concerned local people sometimes don’t belong to parties. I’ve supported many such candidates because I want to make the world a better place. So don’t misinterpret this piece as anti-third party…
But the difference there is that those candidates offered a quality choice, something completely different from the other two available options. That is not the case here. Jill Stein is the same as Hillary and yet Stein couldn’t handle the presidency. In her defense, very few people can. Jill has never held elected office. In fact the argument can be made, that since Trump (who also has never held elective office) would have the backing of a majority of people, he could get enough cooperation and though he knows nothing, the system would respond by putting in his party’s people who could handle things “under” him…
But the Greens in that spot would face animosity. Instead of voting for Jill Stein this time, Greens need to get serious. They need to remove themselves from only offering simply an ineffective vanity campaign, and look to begin offering a real one. Which means they need to lobby a top named Democrat or two to jump and pull their high talent and followers across the divide, so their party immediately has clout on the national stage. Fronting Bernie is what I’m talking about.
Simply put. Politics is about power and who gets to make the decisions. Bad as the process can sometimes be for liberals it still beats the historical precedent of war. We are so much better off to decide our differences without war. But it is idealistic to think that politics is anything less than a war that decides who wields power…
This year the decisions between the two powerful candidates could not be more stark. The competence level between the two power candidates could not be more stark. If you think Global Warming should be stopped; if you think national parks should be off limits to oil and gas drilling; if you think we should save the Monarch Butterfly with government intervention; if you think we should lable GMO’s; if you think we should pursue the kind treatment of farm animals; if you think we should accelerate the making of electric cars; if you think we should honor native American’s requests not to uproot their ancestral land simply to benefit some investors; …..
Your vote for Jill Stein, face it or not, is a vote against all of the above… You actually take away the clout you could have influenced from the left wing of the Democratic party, and removed it completely out of the equation… So when Democrats have to vote inside their caucus to determine their stance and future actions, because you or your candidates were not there to push the liberal agenda, when those votes get taken, results tend to be weighted towards the more conservative of the Democratic party, simply because there were more of them to vote because you and your contingent removed yourselves from the action. …
That is how, a vote for Jill Stein, makes it harder to achieve your objectives than had you either voted for Hillary or Trump…
You say the Democrats are not left enough? Well if anything Bernie shows us, that was because the left had up to then, abandoned acting politically to influence the party…
No one is going to tell you how to vote. You may be so mad at the first paragraph these words down here never see the light of day… But if it does, add it to you plate as you decide over the next few days how badly you really desire to influence your own future and save the planet…
In a discussion about global warming, one John Galt gave this piece of enlightenment…. this is dug up here for historical reasons and it is well worth remembering the arguments of the past as we now investigate such problems as raising taxes, protecting social security, and increasing labor participation against the same faulty reason….
It is a walk down memory lane, accompanied by knowing we were right on the issue of global warming, and Republicans were very, very, very, very, very, very…. wrong….
by John Galt July 17, 2009.
All of your claims are wrong and you know it or your an idiot.
Global temperatures peaked in 1998, a fact that contradicts the assertion that man’s continued pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is making the planet hotter. This was not predicted by the climate models that say we’re headed for a warm period.
Nor can anthropogenic global warming be explained when introduced into the argument is the fact that 1934, when far fewer carbon-spewing machines existed than we have today, is the hottest year on record.
Global warming alarmists invested heavily in convincing everyone that 1998 was the hottest year and 2006 the third warmest. After correcting for faulty data, NASA had to backtrack.
At the same time NASA made the correction, it also reported that six of the top 10 hottest years are from a period before 90% of the 20th century growth in carbon emissions occurred
Researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center admitted that “sensor drift” in the satellite monitors used to measure sea ice caused them to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles. That’s a significant area roughly the size of California.
In a column titled “In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm,” New York Times columnist John Tierney exposes the Chicken Littles for what they are — opportunists and alarmists who in this new year “will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming.” Inconvenient truths and scientific fact will be ignored.
A case in point cited by Tierney was when Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites. It was hardly a blip in Earth’s geological history, but Tierney noted how “it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming.”
Less dramatic and newsworthy was the announcement that the same satellites also recorded that the Antarctic sea ice had reached the highest level ever. But then, polar bears allegedly drowning and icebergs breaking away are good theater.
We’re told the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. It is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of a continent that otherwise is cooling.
In the same week Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize, the respected scientific journal Nature published a paper you probably didn’t hear much about. It concluded that global warming had a minimal effect on hurricanes.
In fact, after Katrina, hurricane watchers have had trouble getting as far as the letter “K”.
“The last couple of years have humbled the seasonal hurricane forecasters,” says Max Mayfield, a former director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. The 2007 season was the third calmest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
As for temperature, Tierney reports how British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would make 2007 the hottest year on record. After 2007 was actually lower than any year since 2001, the BBC still proclaimed: “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”
That must be why in January 2007 some $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a disastrous five-day freeze. A few months earlier Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designed to, uh, help cool the climate.
In 2007, Australia experienced its coolest June ever. The city of Townsville underwent its longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in a quarter-century.
But for greenies, it doesn’t matter what the weather actually is or what the data actually show. It’s all caused by global warming. As Canadian Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault explained in 2005: “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that’s what we’re dealing with.”
Let me make this as simple as possible. Greenhouse gases makes up 2% of our total atmosphere. Of that 2%, 3.62% is CO2 and of that 3.4% is caused by man, yes only 3.4% of all CO2 is man made, the rest is made by nature. Man made CO2 makes up .000024% of the atmosphere.
If they were this wrong on global warming, can they possibly be right on anything? Can someone tell me why we even listen to them anymore when they whine?
For the most awesome replies…. it is here…..
We knew this but it is now being published… and so it is in the news.
The world is getting warmer… and we can now predict our climate by looking at map at 300 miles south and guessing what our weather will be from that…
Just as plate tectonics and Darwin’s origin of the species were able to lay the groundwork of reason for explaining puzzling observations, this simplifies what to expect from global warming rather startlingly.
Texas is now what we alway thought of when we considered the weather of Mexico; Oklahoma is now West Texas; Kansas is now Oklahoma; Nebraska is now Kansas; South Dakota is now Nebraska, North Dakota is now South Dakota: Southern Manitoba is now North Dakota…..
If West Texas had 3 days of rain, now Oklahoma is getting 3 days of rain; If it snowed 12 times in South Dakota, it is now doing the same in North Dakota… and so on.
So, to predict our heat, rain, winters, etc, our guide would be North Carolina. Longer growing seasons, some winters with no snow, hot summers…
However due to Global warming, the East Coast has a caveat. An anomaly so to speak and actually some relief from the North Carolina summer heat we would normally expect….
With the unprecedented melting of the Arctic and Greenland icecaps dumping its excess into the Labrador Current, that cold water drops South hugging the East Coast shoreline all the way down to North Carolina’s Outer Banks where it finally becomes neutralized… Therefore even though we have hotter air masses, the colder ocean temperatures creates a buffer against Global warming off the entire northeastern US.
Europe, Japan, and Alaska all experience the same mitigating effect, although with both Greenland and the Arctic Icecaps melting into the Labrador, the US East Coast gets a stronger volume of cold water. Call it our icy shower effect….
Once melting stops and the currents dry up, we return to the North Carolina scenario of the twentieth century….
Chart Courtesy of NOAA
So, we in Delaware really get the best climate on the East Coast. Warm winters, little or no snow, and cool breezy summers….. as well as a longer growing period, and… less dependence on fossil fuels for winter heating.
Gee, global warming isn’t so bad for Delaware after all…. Oh, the rising seas? There you go again… Why did you have to spoil the rosy picture I was painting?
If you are like me traveling through this interchange is exciting since with every commute, and nightly lane closure, something new and different has been erected.
It has gotten hard with all the complexity, to visualize just where each bridge and ramp will lead…
Hope this helps… It does make one proud of Delaware, … “where roads get thought out first…..”
I getting a bad feeling about this. Who can tell us? What’s this mean?
Btw. There is a monster hurricane approaching Alaska with a low of 943mb. Category 4 if it were an actual hurricane. It is so huge it would stretch from the East Coast of the US to Denver.
A fourth Texas high-tech startup that received taxpayer money through Gov. Rick Perry’s signature economic development fund has filed for bankruptcy, pushing the total losses in the $194 million portfolio beyond what the state says the fund has earned.
The collapse of bioenergy producer Terrabon Inc., which was awarded $2.75 million in 2010 and was backed by large Perry political donors, raises the question of whether the state’s Emerging Technology Fund that began in 2006 is now worth less than what taxpayers have put into it.
Just like Solyndra, the culprit is Obama’s aggressive and extensive natural gas drilling occurring domestically, that has drop natural gas prices so green energy can’t compete.
Rick Perry, who accused Obama of cronyism over Solyndra, is now guilty of the exact same himself. I wonder if next we find Rick Jensen started up a green energy company using money from his beer distributor friends? 🙂
Tomorrow House Bill 86 goes before John Kowalko’s committee:… The House Energy Committee….
House Bill 86 wants to roll back Delaware’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative… According to Delmarva Power itself, the above Greenhouse Gas Initiative WILL save you and I, the power-bill payers, at a minimum, and this is their grudgingly acceded scaled back total, … a minimum of $1.8 to $4.3 billion dollars over the next ten years!
What? Who in their “effin” right mind would fight against saving Delawareans (and others) $1.8 to $4.3 billion dollars?
The Ceasar Rodney Institute, … that’s who…
They say the Regional Gas Initiative costs every Delaware resident $500.
Hmmm. Let’s go shopping… Oops Tommy got there first.
“In fact, during the last three auctions of carbon-dioxide emission allowances under RGGI, the market price has been less than $2 per ton of CO2. That corresponds to about 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity produced from coal and about 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity from natural gas. These are about 1 percent of the retail cost of electricity — about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour from Delmarva Power for residential customers — adding less than $1 a month to a typical home electricity bill”...
Ok, (thanks Tommy for the heavy lifting)…. let me see if we hear this correctly? According to the Ceasar Rodney Institute, The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative will cost me $500 more a year; the actual data shows it costs $1 more a month or $12 dollars a year in my price of electricity, but according to Delmarva Power, it will save us all between $1.8 to $4.3 billion dollars?.. Hmmm .. hard choice: Cost of $12 dollars on one hand; savings of $1.8 billion on the other hand… Cost of $12 dollars on one hand; savings of $1.8 billion on the other hand.. Hmm, that is a tough choice; Cost of $12 dollars on one hand; savings of $1.8 billion on the other hand….
It’s too easy; there’s got to be a trick… How much per Delaware resident will that $1.8 to $4.3 billion yield? 🙂 Ah, I think I’m on to those liberal tricks now….
WHAT? The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative will save every Delaware Resident between $2000 and $4750 dollars? You mean this Peterman Bill, House Bill 86 will cost me, a Delaware resident at the minimum, $2000 minus $12 dollars, and at the maximum $4750 minus $12 dollars? It will cost me? I will lose all of that money if this bill goes forward?
Who on earth would propose such a ridiculous piece of legislation, one that could potentially cost me $4738 dollars? ARE THEY NUTS?
Yes, they are the Ceasar Rodney Institute, and yes, I’m afraid they are nuts… Well, not really, .. They are doing their best to persuade this legislation to inch forward in order to transfer real money from out of your pockets, into the pockets of THEIR benefactors…… So no; they’re not nuts. They’re sneaky…
The Ceasar Rodney Institute is a shell organization that is really part of the State Policy Network which is really part of the Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation whose deep pockets fund the Heritage and Cato Institutes as well. The State Policy Network was started by businessman and Reagan administration insider, Thomas Roe, who himself served on the Heritage Foundation Board of Trustee for two decades.
The Ceasar Rodney Insititue is basically the local office of the Adolf Coors, Jacqueline Hume, Ruth and Lovett Peters [ phonetically pronounced RUTH ANN LOVE EAT PETERS], Castle Rock Foundation, Bradley Foundation,.. SPN uses THEIR contributions to dole out annual grants to member groups, ranging from a few thousand dollars to $260,000, according to 2009 records… The 2010’s records will be out shortly, and with the $4 billion spent to get the Tea Party into Congress, it should be quite interesting. You know, that sort of explains the craziness of the Tea Party candidates. They got hired by big business; if they can’t produce for their boss, they’ll probably lose their job… Of course they don’t care about public opinion! They have to focus on making their bosses happy, or since these creeps are never happy, they are focused on trying to keep from getting fired!
So lets see what’s really going on here….
People with tremendous amounts of wealth, understandably who want to keep it, spend lavish amounts of money, hire people to write papers, to cozy up in legislative offices, to argue the case that there should be not rules applied to the wealthy…. Rules are for unruly masses. Wealth makes it’s own law… People should be “free” to do what ever they want, “free” from government, “free” from public opinion, “free” from any taxes whatsoever….
History has actually had times like that.. They were called the Dark Ages… The only limit to your power was if someone more powerful killed you first. Anyone who has read accounts (there are few) from that time, would certainly never wish to return… Civilization simply stopped for 900 years… Today one can find similar conditions to what these Libertarian minded people wish upon us, in countries like Angola, Chad, Paraguay, Bhutan, Burma,… basically a ruling class that is insulated from the poverty shared by the entire population…
Since it is very hard to convince people to voluntarily return to times like these, these organizations like the Caesar Rodney Institute, argue instead, … topics like: the dissolution of labor unions will improve the education of our school children; or that since the economy is in peril, we need to fire government employees to make it better; or that money saved from firing people, then given right back to the wealthy as a tax cut, will create millions of jobs; or that solar and wind power will raise energy prices through the roof, whereas coal and gas will keep them low; or that invading Libya which produces a pinprick of 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, is cause for gasoline at the pump to approach $5.00 a gallon; or that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative will cost $500 dollars a year to every Delaware resident…..
How do they get away with it? By being the only voice in the room. You and I have to work to pay our bills, we have to take care of our families, we hardly have time to lift up a phone to leave a voice message to our legislator, who according to John Kowalko, would probably rather hear from us 100 times more than listen to the sycophants sent to lick their ass… But we, just don’t have the time….
But with billions at their disposal, these groups can spin off papers and call them research (who’s going to double-check? The News Journal??? ), they can walk over to legislative hall, and take members out to shoot some pool over some ice cold Adolf Coors Lite in a frosted mug, they can sit upstairs in the local Senate and House Chambers and probably make more than you and I put together….
MR POTTER: You see, if you shoot pool with some employee here, you can come and borrow money. What does that get us? A discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class. And all because a few starry-eyed dreamers like Peter Bailey stir them up and fill their heads with a lot of impossible ideas. Now, I say . . .
So…. You see, it’s not “truth” their dispensing. Their motive is to cover up the truth…. In reality, they are nothing but hired hands, sent to confuse, puzzle, obfuscate, muddle, disrupt, and delay the inevitable… you know, like those 1970’s spokespeople for the cigarette companies? How many years did they save before the inevitable finally caught up? Twenty? Thirty? How many lives were lost because of that delaying action? 10 million? 20 million?
That’s what’s going on here…