10 out of 10 based on 1 rating
via JoNova
November 21, 2024 at 09:06AM
Author: Iowa Climate Science Education
By Jo Nova
The Good News is The Misinformation Bill appears to be dead. The Bad News is the Internet ID bill has support from both major parties.
Incredibly, we have only until tomorrow to put in submissions on this major, world first, social media ban for under 16 year olds. It is obviously a way to force all adults to use a digital ID — upload passports, drivers licences or use some new form of government ID token. At the moment parents are able to get apps to help limit or monitor their childrens behaviour.
Students will be allowed to see government funded propaganda at school and on the mainstream news, but they won’t be allowed to seek out other views on X, or Youtube. The Liberal Party (supposedly conservative) are also supporting this legislation.
In the name of saving children from bullying on Facebook, we’re going to risk giving them a totalitarian dystopia.
This will make it so much harder for whistleblowers to speak up because there will be no anonymity online. Worse, the government will be able to track and collate all your comments.
Read the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 [Provisions] here. […]
via JoNova
November 21, 2024 at 08:19AM
By Neel Brown
Berkeley, California is arguably the most liberal city in the U.S. Tourist shops sell t-shirts touting its identity as a leftist hub. The city is overwhelmingly white and wealthy, with large Asian and small Black minority populations, a median household income over $100,000, and median home value of nearly $1.3 million. When we think of the liberal elite, we think of Berkeley. So when residents last week voted down a new fossil fuel tax, it came as a rude surprise to green activists across the country.
On the Berkeley ballot this November was a local initiative that would have imposed a heavy tax on large buildings that used natural gas for heating, cooking, and for other purposes. Proponents argued that the measure would help rid us of fossil fuel use, following a trend across the country in which climate activists look for every opportunity to shut down natural gas.
In a resounding rebuke, Berkeley voters rejected the ballot measure 68% to 32%, sending the message that they were not interested in sacrificing their use of natural gas for any climate benefit that they thought it would net. To soothe their nagging climate conscience, donations to environmental activists will surely flow forth from Berkeley. The ability to avoid any sacrifice in the name of climate change only to demand those sacrifices from other, less wealthy communities is an environmentalist privilege that does not go unnoticed by working class Americans.
Effective federally-focused environmental activism will likely be on the wane following the Trump win and the ascension of an unfriendly bureaucracy. With hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, these groups will turn their money and organizers on state and local governments in an attempt to rid them of natural gas infrastructure.
This strategy is a mistake. The Americans who live in our biggest cities are burdened by high energy costs, unreliable electricity grids, and often live in neighborhoods with inadequate infrastructure and inefficient, aging homes. The problems are worst in the parts of these cities with histories of segregation and redlining, and the disproportionately Black residents of these struggling communities are those who can least afford the additional energy burden brought by constricting energy supplies. While cities are the most efficient places to live in terms of carbon emissions, cities also have a crippling energy burden that falls mostly on these communities that cannot afford to weather the price volatility and reduced reliability that comes with removing vital energy infrastructure. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) will be publishing a report on the energy burden in cities this year.
In addition to the important benefits, there are costs involved in modernizing our outdated energy systems and moving toward a greener, lower-carbon future. PPI works to inform decision makers about those costs, who is being asked to bear them, and how to minimize their impact. The U.S. needs a climate policy that reduces carbon emissions, encourages innovation in clean energy generation and transmission, meets the energy demands of households and businesses, and, critically, does so without laying the cost of that transition on the people who can least afford it. Continuing down the path of left-wing environmentalism is a political dead end for these working-class communities. Instead, we need a political push for effective and pragmatic state and local energy policy for deep blue states that shows we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut the household costs that burden disadvantaged communities.
City leaders should be on the lookout for dead-end environmental activists in their towns, fresh from a fundraiser in Berkeley, CA, demanding that their own community make sacrifices of cost, reliability, and convenience that Berkeley won’t in the name of climate justice. Watch closely what the funders of environmental activists do in their own communities while they make demands on others.
In this recent election, the wealthy elite in Berkeley said to environmental activists, “We’ll keep our natural gas. Here’s some money. Go tell the poor people to get rid of theirs.”
Is that just?
Neel Brown is Managing Director at the Progressive Policy Institute. Fnd Neel’s bio here.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
via Watts Up With That?
November 21, 2024 at 08:06AM
By Paul Homewood
Ford won’t be the last.
Ford has announced it will cut 800 jobs in the UK over the next three years.
The move is part of a major restructuring programme, which will see 4,000 posts closed across Europe as a whole.
The company said it had to act because of difficult trading conditions, including intense competition and weak demand for electric vehicles.
However, the cuts will not affect its manufacturing sites in Dagenham and Halewood, or its logistics base in Southampton. Ford said it hoped to make the majority of job cuts through voluntary redundancy.
“Making this announcement isn’t something that anybody wants to do, and I appreciate it will have a very significant impact on our employees,” said Lisa Brankin, managing director of Ford of Britain and Ireland.
“It’s not the news anyone wants to hear at any time. So our aim is to try to deliver this through voluntary redundancy."
Ford has 5,300 employees in the UK.
The restructuring plan will remove 15% of its workforce. The majority of them are expected to be administrative or product development roles.
This is the second round of cuts to hit Ford’s operations in Britain in less than two years. In March 2023 it said 1,300 jobs were to go, a fifth of its workforce, most of them at the Dunton site.
The latest announcement comes at a time when car manufacturers across Europe are struggling.
Among the issues they face are high energy costs, weaker than expected demand for electric cars and growing competition from Chinese manufacturers.
Many of the continent’s biggest names, including Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz and BMW have seen their profits tumble this year.
Volkswagen is even contemplating the closure of factories in Germany, a step that would be unprecedented.
“The automotive industry is going through a period of massive disruption at the moment,” explained Ms Brankin.
“We’ve got unprecedented competition, regulation and lots of economic headwinds”
Those pressures are hitting Ford at a difficult time. The carmaker is attempting to move away from its past as a mass-manufacturer of cheap "runabouts", and position itself as more upmarket brand, focused on electric cars. Last year, it stopped making the Fiesta after nearly five decades.
In addition to the cuts in the UK, Ford will be shedding 2,900 jobs in Germany and another 300 in the rest of Europe.
Meanwhile in Britain, the government is coming under intense pressure from the car industry over rules designed to force them to build more electric vehicles. The issue is due to be discussed at a meeting between industry and ministers on Wednesday afternoon.
Under the so-called Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate, which came into force this year, at least 22% of cars sold must be classed as zero emission. If manufacturers fail to hit their quotas, they could face fines of up to £15,000 per car.
A number of carmakers are already struggling to meet their targets, although there are flexible mechanisms built into the rules which should allow them to avoid fines for the moment.
But the quota is due to rise to 28% next year, and to 33% in 2026 – being ramped up each year after that to hit 80% by 2030.
Manufacturers insist this is happening too fast. Although sales of new EVs are rising – with one in five cars sold in October being battery powered, they say this is misleading.
They claim demand for electric cars simply isn’t high enough yet, forcing them to offer unsustainable discounts in an effort to meet their targets.
Some are calling for the government to water down the quotas, in order to give them more time.
Others say it needs to offer greater taxpayer-funded incentives for electric cars, and to do more to reassure car buyers that enough charging infrastructure will be built.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20626dy9d6o
All three of the problems identified – EVs, energy prices and competition from China – can be directly laid at successive governments’ doors.
As was obvious from the beginning, there never was enough demand for EVs for the mandated targets to be achieved. Manufacturers have been forced into offering unaffordable discounts for EVs, and are now cutting back on ICE cars, so as to artificially increase the ratio of EVs. Even then, some will still not meet ZEV targets, and carrying the deficit forward is a mug’s game.
And it was equally obvious that banning the sale of petrol/diesel cars would open the door to cheap Chinese EVs. All we were doing was throwing away the technological advantages that UK and European manufacturers had built up over the years.
Energy prices, of course, speak for themselves.
Unless the EV madness is abandoned and electricity prices reduced to competitive levels, both the UK and European car industries will be much smaller in ten years time.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
November 21, 2024 at 05:15AM
