So there I was, at Tom Thumb, doing my grocery shopping. A guy, just pushing my shopping cart, one with four GOOD wheels that rolled properly I might add, when I was called upon, possibly by a higher power to make a choice. A choice that, it turns out, saved all of our sorry souls. Who thought that one man, saying no to the evil that IS frozen pot stickers could be so awesome!
Cause “climate change”, y’all!
Your favorite doughy midnight snack may be a contributing factor to world annihilation. A fascinating article in this week’s Times Magazine shows how China’s rapidly expanding network of freezers is having a huge impact on global warming.
The world’s number one carbon emitter (We’re Number Two!) is experiencing the boom in commercial and residential refrigeration the United States saw some decades ago, but on a much larger scale.
This [refrigeration] is not simply transforming how Chinese people grow, distribute and consume food. It also stands to become a formidable new factor in climate change; cooling is already responsible for 15 percent of all electricity consumption worldwide, and leaks of chemical refrigerants are a major source of greenhouse-gas pollution. Of all the shifts in lifestyle that threaten the planet right now, perhaps not one is as important as the changing way that Chinese people eat.
I would normally say no big deal, but, HEY, I just saved the world, so yes, I will gladly accept gifts and favors, favors, I might emphasize are befitting an environmental hero
Here they go again. The Gore Cult of Climate Change and their “settled science” line of BS
No more criticizing the Climate Change Consensus™! The BBC has muzzled anyone who does not agree with Official Global Warming Science™ and Salon’s Lindsay Abrams is orgasmic with pleasure:
Good news for viewers of BBC News: You’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much airtime (as in, any airtime) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.
Yeah dudes! That editorial balance, is like, you know, straight up Fascism dudes!
We were warned…
In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”
He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket.
He wasn’t kidding.
On Monday the Obama administration unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.
FOX News reported:
The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, a controversial regulation aimed at fulfilling a key plank of President Obama’s climate change agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants existing plants to cut pollution by 30 percent by 2030, under the plan.
The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions. The EPA plan will go into effect in June 2016, following a one-year comment period. States will then be responsible for executing the rule with some flexibility.
They are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.
They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.
If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.
Obama’s energy policies will disproportionately harm the poor, middle class and minorities.
Real Clear Energy reported:
A study by Eugene M. Trisko for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity reviewed the disproportionate impact of higher energy costs on differing income groups from 2001 to 2011.
The study found that the amount of money spent on energy for half of American households that make less than $50,000 almost doubled rising from 12 percent in 2001 to 20 percent in 2011.
Minorities with lower average incomes than white households are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices.
For example, in 2009, 67 percent of black households and 62 percent of Hispanic households had average incomes below $50,000 in contrast with only 46 percent of white households.
Since minority households have lower incomes than white households, rising energy prices will take a larger share of their family’s disposable income leaving fewer dollars for housing, medicine and clothes.
Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, new greenhouse gas regulations from the EPA and discussions of a carbon tax provides more evidence that Obama’s anti-fossil fuel agenda will force energy prices higher.