From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 7. June 2025

Event to combat heat gets cancelled due to cool, wet weather

Image generated by Grok AI

To combat climate change, German towns and cities are busily implementing “heat plans”. Germany has ambitious climate neutrality goals, aiming to be climate-neutral by 2045. The lives of millions of people are at risk!

The so-called Heat Planning Act went into force in January 2024 and legally obliges municipalities to develop these plans. Larger cities (over 100,000 inhabitants) have until mid-2026 to do so, and smaller towns until mid-2028.

One key aspect is adapting to summer heatwaves and protecting public health. This includes measures such as public awareness campaigns about staying safe during heatwaves, establishing cooling centers and long-term urban planning measures to mitigate the “urban heat island effect.”

The town of Mühlacker (near Stuttgart) has taken the Heat Plan act seriously and thus have organized a Heat Action Day, scheduled for June 6th. The aim was educating the public about heat, drought and climate change and provide tips on how to protect against heat.

It seems Germans, in the view of the country’s nanny leaders, are mentally not up to the task of dealing with summer weather.  They need to be parented like little children and told to stay inside.

Ironically, the event yesterday had to be cancelled due to “forecast weather conditions,”,the above newspaper clipping reports.

The heat action day has been postponed to Friday, July 25, 2025. The weather yesterday, June 6, in Muehlacker was indeed rainy and cool, with highs not even reaching 20°C – obviously too harsh for the organizers!

We can only suspect that they are hoping more agreeable, hot weather will show up on July 25th event, so that the citizens and organizers there will be able complain about how heat makes it “too dangerous” to hold public events.

From THE DAILY CALLER

Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) released its portion of the GOP’s reconciliation bill text late on Wednesday, which includes major cuts to green energy tax credits and initiatives enacted under former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The bill text calls for the repeal of unobligated IRA funds under the EPW’s purview. If the EPW GOP has its way, the “one, big beautiful” bill will also stall the implementation of the IRA’s methane emissions fee for a decade and repeal President Joe Biden’s final rule on tailpipe emission standards, a key plank of the Democrats’ de facto electric vehicle (EV) mandate.

“This legislative text puts in motion plans that Senate Republicans pledged to take, like stopping Democrats’ natural gas tax and rescinding unobligated dollars from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act,” Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Chairman of the EPW, said Wednesday. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to move our legislative package forward to enact President Trump’s agenda, which the American people overwhelmingly support.” (RELATED: Senate Republicans Move To Nuke California EV Mandate Despite Procedural Hurdle)

EPW Bill Text by audreystreb on Scribd

Critics of the tailpipe rule characterized it as a de facto EV mandate because it would effectively force manufacturers to significantly increase their EV production over the next decade to be in compliance, while the methane fee has been described as a natural gas tax given that methane emissions are commonly associated with natural gas production and use.

“These unobligated funds from Democrats’ IRA were put towards duplicative and wasteful initiatives with little oversight or accountability to the American taxpayer,” a summary of EPW’s reconciliation text reads.

“Stopping Democrats’ natural gas tax is essential to American energy dominance and protects American energy producers and workers from a constraint on natural gas production that would lead to increased energy prices, job losses, and a boost to Russia’s production of natural gas,” the bill portion summary continues.

Though many GOP senators argue that IRA subsidies for green energy are wasteful and point to the fact that not a single Republican voted for the bill when it was passed in 2022, several senators are now expressing the desire to salvage or adjust some of the tax credits that House Republicans proposed to curb in May. With the GOP currently holding 53 Senate seats, just four Republican defections would be enough to derail the reconciliation package.

At least four GOP Senators have already signaled willingness to defend some of the IRA credits. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Curtis of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Jerry Moran of Kansas wrote to Senate Majority Leader John Thune on April 10, arguing that “a wholesale repeal, or the termination of certain individual credits, would create uncertainty, jeopardizing capital allocation, long-term project planning, and job creation in the energy sector and across our broader economy.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

From THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

New York State has officially ordained the destruction of its electricity system and its economy with a mad dash to energy utopia, as prescribed by a 2019 statute called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). The Climate Act mandates a completely unachievable 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030, with even more draconian mandates following in quick succession thereafter. New York City has piled on with its own fantasy energy statute called Local Law 97, mandating, among other things, forced conversion to electric heat by 2030 of most residential buildings over 25,000 square feet. A so-called “Scoping Plan” on how to do all this, issued by the State in 2022, contains no bona fide feasibility analysis, and equally no bona fide cost analysis. Everybody with over a sixth-grade education who has taken any time to look at this knows that it can’t possibly work. The only question is how much destruction will befall us before the whole thing crashes to the ground.

Can anyone save New York from the coming self-inflicted climate and energy disaster?

In the category of people making futile efforts to try to save New York from its own folly, or at least from some portion of it, we have none other than yours truly, the Manhattan Contrarian. As reported here back on February 23, I had just filed, along with co-counsel Cameron Macdonald, an amicus curiae brief at the New York Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs in a case called Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York. In this case, owners of a large group of co-op buildings in Queens had sued seeking to have the City’s Local Law 97 declared invalid as pre-empted by the State’s Climate Act. Note that victory by these plaintiffs would not have ended the folly of the State’s Climate Act and its associated destruction of our electricity system; but their victory would have eliminated the mandate to convert to electric heat without sufficient electricity, and therefore would at least have made it possible for residents of large buildings to avoid freezing in the winter when they have converted to electric heat and there is no electricity.

In the Glen Oaks case, the trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that it had no basis in law. But an interim appellate court, known as the Appellate Division, had reversed, and said the the plaintiffs should have a chance to prove their case. New York City appealed that ruling to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, asking to have the trial court’s dismissal re-instated.

In my February 23 post, I noted that the plaintiffs were giving the Court of Appeals the chance to save the New Yorkers from their own folly — an opportunity which the Court might or might not take:

The Court of Appeals has a chance here to save New York City and its residents from their own folly. It may or may not take advantage of the opportunity. If it takes a pass, and reinstates the dismissal of the case, Local Law 97 will still fail within a few years at most. It’s just that, in that scenario, a lot of people stand to get hurt.

Perhaps to no one’s surprise, the Court of Appeals took a pass, and re-instated the dismissal. Here is the decision (from May 22). It’s mostly mumbo jumbo about legal standards for deciding if one statute has pre-empted another. But the bottom line is clear: the Court of Appeals is not going to be the one to save New York from its coming climate and energy disaster.

As another candidate for the role of New York’s savior from climate and energy disaster, how about President Trump? Immediately upon entering office back in January, Trump went to work knocking the supports out from under the green energy subsidies and favoritism that form the underpinnings of New York’s Climate Act plans. The biggest item in the Climate Act’s strategy for transitioning New York’s electricity system to renewables is plan for some 9000 MW of offshore wind developments in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island. But by this January 20 Executive Order, Trump withdrew all of the Outer Continental Shelf for leasing for potential off-shore wind energy projects. A separate January 20 Executive Order then directed a halt to all disbursements of green energy subsidies under Biden-era statutes.

So did these moves completely flummox New York’s plans for electricity from “renewables”? In the succeeding months, New York’s governments have soldiered on as if nothing is amiss. And then last week came news that Trump has somewhat changed direction. The new direction can be summarized as letting New York proceed with at least part of its wind energy fantasies as long as it backs off on suppressing at least some fossil fuel projects.

Here is a New York Times article from May 29, headline “N.Y. Natural Gas Pipelines Get a Second Chance Under Trump.” The gist is that the Trump administration and Governor Hochul have entered into discussion about a deal whereby two natural gas pipelines long blocked by New York would be allowed to move forward, and in return the feds would allow one of the off-shore wind projects to proceed. Excerpt:

A pipeline company is reviving plans to build two natural gas pipelines into New York State, a major reversal that amounts to a bet that the Trump administration will be able to strong-arm states into signing off on energy projects. New York had blocked both pipelines, called Constitution and Northeast Supply Enhancement, over environmental concerns. But the Trump administration has made clear that it wants more oil and gas infrastructure, including in the Northeast, where pipelines had become so hard to build that companies had all but given up on them.

According to the Times, this is all so far in the discussion stage, with no final commitments on either side. Even if finalized, the proposed deal would be far from an end to New York’s energy follies. Like the Glen Oaks lawsuit, if successful the Trump administration gambit would have the effect of keeping natural gas available as a back-up for when the electricity system transition inevitably fails.

I’m thankful for every bit of help we can get. But ultimately, our salvation will have to come from New York’s own voters. The question is, rather than getting saved by outside forces, would this benighted State and City actually be better off to go through an energy disaster and, perhaps, have its voters learn a little something from the experience?