Democrat Members of the Climate Crisis Committee Showed Up for a Meeting!

Kathy Castor
Chair of the Climate Crisis Committee US Representative Kathy Castor

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

After the excruciating embarrassment of having so many no shows for their first climate crisis meeting Republicans managed to adjourn the session, Democrats have finally decided to pretend to do something about climate change.

The following from the Democrat head of the committee Kathy Castor (h/t Breitbart);

“Hello, I’m Representative Kathy Castor from Florida, and I chair the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

This week, the House passed the first major legislation to address the climate crisis in nearly 10 years. And it won’t be the last, because we are committed to passing climate legislation that works for The People, not the corporate polluters.

The Climate Action Now Act is a straightforward bill I sponsored that prevents the Trump Administration from breaking America’s commitment and leaving the Paris Climate Agreement.

We need to stay in this agreement because it was a major breakthrough. After years of finger-pointing, the United States, China, India, Europe and countries all around the world came together and agreed to cut carbon pollution dramatically.

Support for the landmark agreement is overwhelming. A bipartisan group of 23 Governors, nearly 300 cities, and more than 2,000 businesses pledged to honor the Paris climate goals. Now they’ve been joined by the U.S. House of Representatives.

But we know this is just a first step. To address the climate crisis, we need to stop carbon pollution from accumulating in our atmosphere. That requires action. Urgent action. Ambitious action.

We simply don’t have any more time for denial or delay. An entire generation has grown up in a rapidly warming world and we are personally experiencing the harm. Scientists say it will get worse, unless we act.

I know. A year and a half ago, I boarded up my home, packed my belongings and fled with my family as that monster Hurricane Irma loomed off the coast of Florida. We were petrified of a devastating storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay.

We were lucky because we had time to get out of the way.
But for too many Americans, the climate crisis is inescapable.
Seas are rising. America’s heartland and coasts have suffered unprecedented floods. Snowpack is shrinking and droughts are getting worse. Hot, humid heat waves are becoming more intense, with more days where people cannot safely work outside or play outside. And higher temperatures mean that other pollutants, like ground-level ozone from car exhaust are growing even more damaging to our health.
The bottom line is that the climate crisis is costing us. It’s increasing the cost of our health care, our flood and fire insurance, and it’s making costly weather disasters even worse. So we need to cut carbon pollution for the people in our communities, and because we need to do it to create incredible economic opportunities.

Already, more than 3.2 million Americans are working in clean energy jobs. We can do more and make those quality, family-sustaining jobs that are accessible to everyone.

And we can save people money on energy. Efficiency standards will save us $2 trillion by 2030. And fuel economy standards for our cars are saving the average household $2,800 a year at the pump.
I believe in American ingenuity and leadership. When America leads, people, countries and businesses across the globe are inspired to do more.

But the Trump Administration has been a revolving door for powerful special interests in the fossil fuel lobby. That’s why the President said he wants to take us backwards and cut and run from our commitments.
But America doesn’t cut and run. America keeps its commitments.

So despite what the Trump Administration says, we are still in this agreement. We have not formally withdrawn. And if – and when – this bill becomes law, we never will. Because we need climate policy that works For The People, not well-connected corporate polluters in the Trump Administration.

That’s why we’re going to cut carbon pollution, protect the people and places we love, advance climate justice, and create a clean energy economy that works for everyone.

This is just the start of climate action in this Congress.”

Source: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/05/04/castor-we-dont-have-any-more-time-for-denial-or-delay-in-combating-climate-change/

The video of Kathy’s speech;

Well done Democrats for turning up on the right day. But they didn’t achieve much; the legislation of course is pure political theatre, it is guaranteed to be rejected either by the senate or President Trump.

The sad thing is there is an obvious emission reduction strategy Republicans would likely support – zero carbon nuclear power. President Trump is a strong supporter of Nuclear Power.

But I doubt emissions reduction is their real goal. Most greens and left wing politicians (with a few honourable exceptions) would prefer to see ongoing political stalemate over climate policy, rather than supporting an obvious unequivocally viable solution to reducing CO2 emissions which does not involve the abolition of Capitalism.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

179 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 4, 2019 6:10 pm

the United States, China, India, Europe and countries all around the world came together and agreed to cut carbon pollution dramatically.

That’s an outright lie.
China and India did not “agree to cut carbon (sic) pollution”. Both said they will continue their CO2 emissions unabated until at least 2030. (Which per AOC is too late.) Of course the US is the only major nation to reduce emissions since the date of the Paris “agreement”.

old construction worker
Reply to  George Daddis
May 5, 2019 8:02 am

Here’s another outright lie: ‘…because we are committed to passing climate legislation that works for The People, …’

Reply to  old construction worker
May 5, 2019 4:15 pm

That all depends on who “The People” are. It is quite likely that the group of people that she means by “The People” is somewhat different to what you or I would mean by it (the general population of the world/country/region).

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  George Daddis
May 5, 2019 8:39 am

George D

Quite correct. The nations, most of them, did indeed “come together”. That is in itself is a great achievement because the UN is doing almost nothing about anything that one can describe as “global issues” like the prevention of war and the global fight against corruption, human trafficking, drug smuggling and the tracking of the money described in the Panama Papers. Interpol is a joke, an embarrassment. They should work directly for the International Criminal Court and have global arresting powers.

Plus, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water: global problems need global solutions and there is no beating around the bush about it: we have to cooperate, as we already do on some things.

Secondly, such problem solution mechanisms have to be representative of the people of the planet. It cannot just be some self-appointed “experts” who decide what to rule or order or demand or prescribe for “everyone else”. They have to be elected. A “green group” demanding “climate action” is nothing more than a special interest group. History shows that when special interest groups have influence, the result is invariably bad. That goes for special interest oil, steel, food, chemical and other interests.

Third, the over-reaction against anything to do with global governance (even here on WUWT) is unreasonable – lots of things are decided by working together on global issues such as ISO standards, telecommunications, Law of the Sea, border adjustments, water management and so on. People, please stop protesting that there should be no global governance of global things, while simultaneously benefiting from the work of hundreds of global management bodies that make the world a much better and safer place.

Now, the speech:

“…prevents the Trump Administration from breaking America’s commitment and leaving the Paris Climate Agreement.”

“America” did not “commit to the Paris Climate Agreement”. The US Government has a constitution which set forth who decides what America the country agrees to. For anything international, this is the Senate. The Senate never agreed to commit to the Paris Accord. They were not even asked. The government of the USA did not agree to the terms and conditions of the Paris Accord. One President did, and the next President changed the opinion of that Office.

Whether that was a good or bad move is a separate matter from whether or not “America” committed to the Accord.

Next, the “agreement” was that some nations would dramatically cut their carbon-dioxide emissions and others would not. Those who were not cutting, agreed to accept money from those that are considered rich. China, the biggest emitter, agreed that the Western countries would cut emissions, and that they would be paid to work on it, but they did not agree to reduce national emissions. After about 4 months from signing, China sent a note asking for the first payments to be made to them, as a “developing country.”

No wonder the current President of the USA is pulling out of whatever the previous President agreed to. It is an unreasonable “agreement” and by all accounts, would accomplish nothing more than rewarding un-elected special interests with embedded authority to collect and distribute taxes – a function normally reserved for governments. Read the Copenhagen Agreement. The overall agenda has not changed.

Lastly, the USA is the only country that has reduced its CO2 emissions in line with the Accord, though you’d never know it from all the hullabaloo about cities and states promising to meet the reductions “anyway”. They speak as if “nothing is being done”. They should look a little closer at the emission sources and sinks at the national level. If the purpose of the accord is to reduce CO2 emissions, and the USA is the only country meeting that reduction target, without signing anything or giving billions of dollars to anyone else, wheres the beef? They should read a little more and shout a little less.

MarkW
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 5, 2019 9:21 am

Global solutions don’t require global government. Or even global organizations.

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2019 8:31 pm

There is no testable evidence that CO2 is a problem. If anything, more CO2 is a positive due to its’ purpose in supporting photosynthesis – which plants require to grow. The whole climate system is designed to constantly be changing due to external forcing from various sources, with the Sun being the biggest contributor and driver of climate.

MarkW
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 5, 2019 9:24 am

None of the things in your list required global government. They were all done by individual countries coming together because it is in their interests to do so.

Global government is a solution in search of a problem.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 5, 2019 10:08 am

Global cooperation on common problems is vastly different from global governance. I support cooperation with like-minded, free peoples. Global governance Anti-Capitalist schemes are just that.

You support Interpol having the right to come on American soil to arrest American citizens?

I should give up my 2nd Amendment rights to global governance? The vast majority of the world’s population have no such right. Ditto free speech rights.

Should an organization like the UN have a separate standing army? Should the EU?

Is China’s system a good model for global governance? They have the most people.

I believe that global governance will be one man, one vote, once.

I could go on, but if one doesn’t understand America’s political exceptionalism, one would fall for any high-sounding scheme.

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 5, 2019 11:52 am

Or in blunter terms: in a global, on-man one-vote, democracy, the people of India and China will be making your law.

Rather screams for an ‘electoral college’ type solution, which the Democrats detest.

KTM
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 5, 2019 12:24 pm

Notre Dame was/is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

It still burned up in a fire.

Some liberals believe that if they profess to care about something and sign a paper, the laws of nature are magically suspended.

Jimb
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 6, 2019 4:55 pm

Crispin: I do not equate international treaties with global governance. The difference is that nations individually consent to specific programs rather than having the global government (UN?) impose them.

ferd berple
Reply to  George Daddis
May 5, 2019 9:45 am

The war on drugs turned 1 thousand overdose deaths a month into 10 thousand deaths a month. Trust us, the war on climate will be different.

MarkW
Reply to  ferd berple
May 5, 2019 12:15 pm

Prohibition created the Mafia.
The War on Some Drugs created the drug clams.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2019 1:58 pm

drug gangs. I hate auto-correct.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2019 11:30 am

Or as I prefer to think of it: Auto-corrupt.

Steve O
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2019 3:08 pm

Ah, when I first read that I was combusted.

Michael Keal
Reply to  George Daddis
May 6, 2019 3:27 pm

“Of course the US is the only major nation to reduce emissions since the date of the Paris “agreement” ”
George I’ll have you know that here in the UK in East Tilbury we’ve done our bit. A month ago our PM, comrade climate crisis May blew up our power station! See. We do stupid too!

Byron Ayme
Reply to  George Daddis
May 13, 2019 1:34 pm

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.” Groucho Marx

MarkMcD
May 4, 2019 6:10 pm

“This week, the House passed the first major legislation to address the climate crisis in nearly 10 years.”

Wait… Wasn’t Obama in charge for the first EIGHT of those 10 years? And they had control of Congress until 2014.

What the hell were they DOING during all those years?

Latitude
Reply to  MarkMcD
May 4, 2019 6:23 pm

…blaming republicans

n.n
Reply to  Latitude
May 4, 2019 11:06 pm

Spying on Americans, arresting journalists, borrowing from granny, saved and created wars, and planned children, to name a few others. Oh, painting the population as diverse, sexist, genderist, phobic, etc. Here’s to progress.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  MarkMcD
May 4, 2019 10:40 pm

Obama had a pen (so I’ve heard) so they didn’t have to pass anything.

Rick Johnson
Reply to  MarkMcD
May 4, 2019 10:50 pm

It’s too bad the Rino GOP did not hire you to write a response.

Jon Salmi
May 4, 2019 6:16 pm

My guess is that half the Democratic members of the House could not define Capitalism even if their careers depended on it.

Rick Johnson
Reply to  Jon Salmi
May 4, 2019 10:51 pm

Your being generous.

Greg
Reply to  Rick Johnson
May 4, 2019 11:29 pm

Your being iliturate. 😉

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Greg
May 5, 2019 1:00 am

Your rite

Ron Long
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 5, 2019 2:31 am

No, YOU’RE all wrong. There, fixed it. Good report, Eric, and what a clueless snowflake in congress!

MarkW
Reply to  Jon Salmi
May 5, 2019 9:25 am

I don’t believe capitalism should be capitalized.
We don’t capitalize air or water.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2019 10:11 am

But it takes Capitalism to deliver clean air and water.

Mark Broderick
May 4, 2019 6:17 pm

Well, they have about 18 months to “Get Er Done”….After that, there won’t be much left of them if they keep on sliding towards the far, far left (AOC). President Trump will have Super Majorities in 2020…IMHO

SMC
Reply to  Mark Broderick
May 4, 2019 7:33 pm

I hope you are correct.

Latitude
May 4, 2019 6:22 pm

Not our problem…..it’s China, India, and the rest of the world’s problem

We reduced our emissions….they all increased theirs…now 3 times what we were

…talk to Biden, I hear he has connections in China

n.n
Reply to  Latitude
May 4, 2019 11:08 pm

China sustains the green mirage.

ferd berple
Reply to  n.n
May 5, 2019 9:14 am

Getting paid to do nothing. The Climate Green fund. $200 billion a year bribe to keep poor people in their place.

A very typical UN solution. 80% skim, 20% kickback, 0% effective.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ferd berple
May 5, 2019 9:44 am

If (poor) memory serves, didn’t the GCF stop funding projects? Did annual donations ever get above a few billions?

ferd berple
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 5, 2019 10:40 am

Did annual donations ever get above a few billions?
=====???
What’s a few billion more or less.

Canada’s PM Trudope committed to $2.65 billion which is the largest now that US has withdrawn.

In return Trudeau got a selfy in the press and a way to spend the new carbon tax. Oh wait, he promised to give the money back.

After all that is why we have taxes. To give the money back to taxpayers.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ferd berple
May 5, 2019 10:49 am

Ferd, is that a guaranteed $2,650,000,000 every year from here on out from Canadian taxpayers?

joe
May 4, 2019 6:28 pm

Does Kathy Castor;
a) fly? Sorry Kath you must stop
b) drive? Sorry Kath, public transit for you
c) use air conditioning? Sorry Kath, 85 degF for you
d) heat her home? Sorry Kath, 60 def F and sweaters for you
e) have a big house? Sorry Kath, a house of 1000 ft2 is more than enough

But Ms Castor will do none of the above. With the CCC (church of climate change) its all about getting other people to cut back. Of course the CCC will now sell indulgences to all those who don’t want to cut back.

Where I live it’s snowing today, so a warmer climate doesn’t bother me at all.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  joe
May 5, 2019 7:49 am

“have a big house? Sorry Kath, a house of 1000 ft2 is more than enough”

Are you kidding? Tiny home time for her. No more than 100SF. Your toilet can triple as a sink and shower, you know.

SMC
May 4, 2019 6:30 pm

Thank goodness this idiocy won’t get past the Senate. Hopefully her constituents in Florida will vote her out of office in the next election.

Rick Johnson
Reply to  SMC
May 4, 2019 10:53 pm

Wouldn’t Trump need do sign her little bill?

This is hot ass hype and nothing more.

SMC
Reply to  Rick Johnson
May 5, 2019 8:18 am

It has to get passed in the Senate before Trump signs or vetoes it. It’ll never get past the Senate. You’re right, it’s hype and political theater.

MarkW
Reply to  SMC
May 5, 2019 9:27 am

It’ll never even come to a vote in the Senate.

John Endicott
Reply to  SMC
May 6, 2019 11:45 am

Indeed. The bill will never even make it to the floor of the senate. It’s DOA. But, just for arguments sake, let’s suppose Mitch has a senior moment and brings it to the senate floor. It’ll never pass. But let’s further suppose (again just for arguments sake) that enough RINOs support it and it makes it to Trump’s desk. It’ll be vetoed in a heartbeat. Bottom line, this bill will never ever become law, and thus is nothing more than political virtue signaling.

Andre Lauzon
May 4, 2019 6:36 pm

Climate change was not a crisis till Mr. Trump was elected President. ????

leowaj
Reply to  Andre Lauzon
May 5, 2019 6:54 pm

Democrats have a shed of “weapons” the like to pull out whenever they need to attack republicans. One of those weapons is climate change. Granted, it’s a dull, rusty weapon.

icisil
May 4, 2019 6:37 pm

This woman really is a low watt bulb

H.R.
Reply to  icisil
May 4, 2019 9:14 pm

Isn’t it obvious? It’s a job requirement for politicians.

Billyjack
Reply to  icisil
May 5, 2019 4:26 am

It is getting harder to discern whether these people are evil or ignorant.

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  Billyjack
May 5, 2019 5:53 am

Embrace the power of “and”.

MarkW
Reply to  F.LEGHORN
May 5, 2019 9:28 am

What I want to is this:

Does the left and know what the right and is doing?

Reply to  icisil
May 6, 2019 9:49 am

… low watt curly bulb with a bit of a time lag before illumination.

John Endicott
Reply to  icisil
May 6, 2019 11:41 am

This woman really is a low watt bulb

How insulting, you owe low watt bulbs an apology!

Tom Abbott
May 4, 2019 6:38 pm

From the article: “The Climate Action Now Act is a straightforward bill I sponsored that prevents the Trump Administration from breaking America’s commitment and leaving the Paris Climate Agreement.”

That was “Obama’s” committment, not America’s. Lefties always think they speak for everyone. They don’t.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2019 8:25 pm

The D-A Obama thought he was being smart by not submitting his Paris Deal to the Senate for ratification.
In reality, if it had really been that important, he could have lobbied harder to the US public to pressure senators to vote for it. But no. He always wanted to be the Imperial president, and asking the US Senate for ratification (approval) of his deal was beneath him.

Well now that Paris deal, and pretty much all Obama’s pen and phone legacy, is in the dumpster.
Hallelujah. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammo.

I say that because today’s Democrats are quite willing to take the US to a new Civil War for their ideology, exactly as the Democrats did in 1861.

H.R.
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 4, 2019 9:30 pm

Joel O’Bryan: “[…] today’s Democrats are quite willing to take the US to a new Civil War for their ideology, exactly as the Democrats did in 1861.”

Same issue, too, with a twist. Instead of wanting to keep the slaves they had, they now want to replace the slaves they lost with… us.

Our massas in DC are mighty peeved at us uppity deplorable flyover people who had the nerve to vote in President Trump. President Trump is not with the program, never was with the program, nor is likely to ever get with the DC program. Gotta get rid of him so they can get back to the business of herding us all onto the Democrat Plantation, whether we go willingly or not.

Reply to  H.R.
May 5, 2019 1:33 pm

What the Democrat elites want (and RINOs as well), is a return to feudalism. They, of course, would be the lords; their useful myrmidons, the vassals; and the rest of us, peasants.

They are highly offended that the peasants revolted and elected Trump.

May 4, 2019 6:39 pm

So say the USA Democrats, All of the worlds nations got together at the big Paris get together.

So did the Third world countries, especially the big ones like India ,
an d China, actually agree to right now, not 30 years down the track, agree to cut their CO2, of course not.

MJE VK5ELL

BoyfromTottenham
Reply to  Michael
May 4, 2019 10:50 pm

Michael, let me correct that for you:
“All of the worlds (nations) environmental activists got together at the big Paris get together.”
There – fixed it!

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
May 5, 2019 8:47 am

AND governments. When governments used to be bad the people used to get rid of them. Now governments get rid of their people since they have a new constituency. Avanti Populi old style, without the people. You do note the chorus of ridding ourselves of foot dragging democracy and putting an international néomarxiste government in charge to untie their hands and let them make “progress” for us all!

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 5, 2019 8:48 am

If uour from Tottenham, you surely know this.

R Shearer
May 4, 2019 6:40 pm

Da crimate crisis is berry berry serious. In fact, it’s super serious.

Tom Abbott
May 4, 2019 6:42 pm

From the article: ““Hello, I’m Representative Kathy Castor from Florida, and I chair the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.”

And she doesn’t have a clue about what is going on with the Earth’s climate. She throws out plenty of claims of dire CAGW consequences, but there is no evidence to back up any of her claims. She is just repeating Alarmist propaganda.

She should quit lying to the American people about CAGW.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 5, 2019 4:37 am

“She should quit lying to the American people about CAGW.”
She’s probably repeating what she is told, not what she understands. There’s so much wrong with the her speech, it’s hard to know where to start.

“. . . we are committed to passing climate legislation that works for The People, not the corporate polluters.” With this statement she implies that corporate share holders and consumers of corporate goods and services are not people.

MarkW
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
May 5, 2019 9:31 am

In the liberal mind, those who don’t support you aren’t people.

Herbert
May 4, 2019 6:48 pm

Where can I find details of the 3.2 million Americans working in “ clean energy jobs”?
What are “ clean energy jobs”?
If I work in an electric car manufacturing plant, is that a “clean energy job”?
Why am I sceptical of this statistic?

Glen Ferrier
Reply to  Herbert
May 4, 2019 8:04 pm

Clean energy jobs are what illegal aliens do when the clean the houses of elected dummycrats.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Herbert
May 4, 2019 8:04 pm

Clean energy jobs = government created jobs that divert human resources for being more productively deployed.

Everyone should watch Penn and Teller’s documentary on recycling.

Reply to  Herbert
May 4, 2019 8:27 pm

A team of wind turbine technicians driving hundreds of miles in a diesel- or gas-powered work truck while fixing broken wind turbines is a Green job.

Go figure.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 5, 2019 7:53 am

You forgot the part about picking up dead, endangered/protected birds all over the wind farm.

Reply to  Herbert
May 5, 2019 7:20 am

Another somewhat deceptive statistic.
Here in Clemson and Seneca South Carolina, those two municipalities (and the University) have converted their public transportation system (large bus fleets) from diesel to electric (with massive Federal grants of course).
All the previously existing drivers, mechanics, support people etc were immediately re-labeled as having “clean energy jobs”

R2DToo
Reply to  George Daddis
May 5, 2019 9:51 am

It goes even deeper than that. When I looked in some detail years ago, even the drivers with diesel buses were green – mass transit is green. Also, the janitors at Solyndra were classified as green. Obama did amazing things with green. It is all a ruse.

Reply to  Herbert
May 5, 2019 4:41 pm

because you have a brain- – -the list of people who inhabit supposedly “clean energy jobs” would amaze you– -nobody ever said lefties didn’t have a sense of imagination- – –

jimmww
May 4, 2019 7:04 pm

This is entirely bemusing.
There has been as yet no acknowledgement that CO2 is not in control of climate, and that we are not in control of CO2. The natural experiment has been done: 1929-1931, a 30% decrease in human CO2 production with no change in the atmospheric CO2 trend, with temperature increasing to 1942, then decreasing through the years of WWII and post-war reconstruction. Shall we repeat that?

No acknowledgement that there has never been a temperature reversal in the last 550 million years preceded by a CO2 change. And more recently, there was no preceding CO2 change prior to emergence from the Last Glacial Maximum, the descent into the Younger Dryas, the rapid emergence from that to the Holocene Optimum (CO2 280ppm), the gradual descent from that to the present punctuated by the Minoan (CO2 280ppm), Roman (CO2 280ppm), Medieval (CO2 280ppm), and current Warmings, not to mention the beginning (CO2 280ppm) of the Little Ice Age characterized by drought, famine, plague, and peasant revolts, and its merciful end.

No acknowledgement that the GHG efffect of CO2 is at 50% in the first 20 ppm, and declines exponentially after that. So that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%.

It ignores the decarbonization that has been proceeding naturally for the last 1,000 years as we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and potentially to nuclear.

It ignores the fact that plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. We eat them and inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Looks like a win-win to me. 30% of the agricultural increase since 1950 has been attributed to CO2. Satellite pictures show the greening of the earth.

There is no recognition of the existence, much less the importance, of unintended consequences.

This is in fact what we expect of our politicians. We do not expect everyone – and I mean everyone – to fall for it.
What is the point?

nottoobrite
Reply to  jimmww
May 5, 2019 1:57 am

Jimmww…rite on !!!

Reply to  jimmww
May 5, 2019 7:32 am

Your numbers aren’t quite right. The next doubling to 800 ppm causes the same 1.2 degrees forcing as the first doubling. The next 20 ppm is 2% of the first 20 ppm is maybe what you meant…..

ferd berple
Reply to  jimmww
May 5, 2019 10:27 am

There is no recognition of the existence, much less the importance, of unintended consequences.
≠==
I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Bill
May 4, 2019 7:13 pm

Does anyone know how its going with the investigation of “the science?” I notice that any investigation of conservatives happens immediately…not so with far more legit investigations into the insane and massive illegality of the Commos?

May 4, 2019 7:42 pm

Kathy sez: “And we can save people money on energy. Efficiency standards will save us $2 trillion by 2030. And fuel economy standards for our cars are saving the average household $2,800 a year at the pump.
I believe in American ingenuity and leadership. When America leads, people, countries and businesses across the globe are inspired to do more.”

America leads, alright! the image is a report on the best selling vehicle in America for 2018
[imgcomment image[/img]
(hint: it’s not a Prius or a Tesla!)
Next image shows the most fuel Inefficient Truck – Toyota Tundra V8 – and shows the typical Annual Fuel cost near the bottom:
[imgcomment image[/img]
The 16 mpg Tundra does not even cost $2800 annually for 15,000 miles!!! So, the only way the owner saves the Kathy’s claimed dollar amount of $2800 would be by WALKING…

ozspeaksup
Reply to  DANNY DAVIS
May 5, 2019 3:17 am

I liked the bit about warming making cars ozone more dangerous;-))))
wonder if she thunk that up by herself??

Thomas Ryan
May 4, 2019 7:48 pm

Do any of these democrats understand the term “prevailing westerlies”? California can reduce CO2 emissions to zero and the CO2 from China and India will fill the void, without apocalyptic consequences.

May 4, 2019 8:04 pm

“A year and a half ago, I boarded up my home, packed my belongings and fled with my family as that monster Hurricane Irma loomed off the coast of Florida. We were petrified of a devastating storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay.
We were lucky because we had time to get out of the way.
But for too many Americans, the climate crisis is inescapable.”

– So a major hurricane approaching the Florida coast in the middle of hurricane season is now a climate crisis?
– SLR that hasn’t changed its rate in 100 years is a climate crisis?

The stupid… it burns bright and hot in @USRepKCastor.

This country is doomed, and not because of climate change. It is doomed because of stupid, un-critical thinkers like Ms Castor.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 5, 2019 9:10 am

But, Joel, before caGW our grandparents didn’t know what hurricanes were!

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 5, 2019 11:51 pm

The right honorable representative Kathy of the great state of Florida, please remind me. That ever so worrisome hurricane that you referred to unjustly feeling the need to flee in your home state — wasn’t that the same year that broke an unprecedented (measured historical record) 11 year absence of strong (greater than category 1 or 2) hurricanes entering anywhere upon the entire continental U.S.? Oh, I see. That’s different — Never mind!

jim
May 4, 2019 8:12 pm

Kathy Castor—“Seas are rising”
YOU LIE—“When a 60-year oscillation is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from: 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. Thus, while there is more disagreement on the value of a 20th century acceleration in GMSL when accounting for multi-decadal fluctuations, two out of three records still indicate a significant positive value. The trend in GMSL observed since 1993, however, is not significantly larger than the estimate of 18-year trends in previous decades (e.g., 1920–1950). “
Page 306 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

Kathy Castor—“America’s heartland and coasts have suffered unprecedented floods.
YOU LIE—“AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). SREX went further to suggest that there was low agreement and thus low confidence at the global scale regarding changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods or even the sign of changes.”
pg 230 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

Kathy Castor—“droughts are getting worse.
YOU LIE—““Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

Kathy Castor—“Hot, humid heat waves are becoming more intense, with more days where people cannot safely work outside or play outside.
How does that happen when the earth has only warmed by 0.85C in the last 162 years?
“Using Had-CRUT4 and its uncertainty estimates, the warming from 1850–1900 to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modelling chapters and Annex I) is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] C (90% confidence interval), and the warming from 1850–1900 to 2003–2012 (the most recent decade) is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] C (Supplementary Material 2.SM.4.3.3).”
Pg. 209 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

Kathy Castor—“The bottom line is that the climate crisis is costing us.
Correct, it is wasted money trying to fix the climate.

Kathy Castor—“we need to do it to create incredible economic opportunities.
Correct, but only for the climate scammers that are already costing us over a TRILLION dollar/year.

Kathy Castor—“And we can save people money on energy.
YOU LIE—Every place that has “clean energy” has HIGHER energy bills. Some are starting to have blackouts

Tim
Reply to  jim
May 5, 2019 7:29 am

Sorry; but you are wasting your time and effort on this misinformation – disseminator. They don’t care about facts. Facts aren’t digestible for their uninformed, headline – skimming target market. The greatest motivator is fear and they use it unendingly on the masses with deliberate conditioning via mass media infiltration [with bottomless budgets]. The end product is a global population of uncritical sheeple increasingly cognitively controlled by simplistic, redefined terms like “Climate Crisis”.

May as well try to teach a Neanderthal to fly a Boeing 737.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tim
May 5, 2019 8:00 am

“May as well try to teach a Neanderthal to fly a Boeing 737.”

They pretty much fly themselves. So no problem. The fact that they fly themselves into the ground is a minor quibble.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 5, 2019 2:08 pm

You know, those 737 MAX 8s were in service for years before the Lions crash. US pilots bitched to Boeing constantly about the MCAS (May Crash Any Second) system wanting to fly into the ground if the nose tilt sensor malfunctioned, but it took a 3rd world co-pilot with 400 hours flying time to help his skipper crash it.

The day before the first crash, the sensor malfunctioned, MCAS helpfully pointed the nose toward the ground, and a deadheading pilot in the cockpit reached over, flipped the switch to turn off the system, and the flight continued uneventfully. The crew of that plane told nobody about the incident, and just reported a faulty sensor.

The next day that plane crashed. If the crew had reported the issue with the MCAS and gotten the word passed around, the next day’s crash might not have happened — though with a 400-hour co-pilot in the right-hand seat, I’d be praying the pilot never had to go to the head.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim
May 5, 2019 9:35 am

Flying them is one thing. Landing them is something else altogether.

http://news.trust.org/item/20190504025946-r4z0w

Coeur de Lion
May 4, 2019 8:24 pm

Did anyone ask her what level of CO2 in ppm she would be happy with? Why not suggest below 200? She would swallow that, the rather handsome feather brain.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 4, 2019 9:49 pm

Ask any Climate Alarmist if they’d be happy with a 10-fold reduction in “carbon pollution,” and they’d probably tell you that’s okay with them. After all it is a pollutant according to everything they’ve been told in propaganda classrooms.

Then tell then we’re at 410 ppm today, and going to 41 ppm would bring dramatic extinction to all higher order, eukaryotic life on this planet within 2-5 years. Some humans might survive for a while longer on stored food stockpiles in cans, jars, dried rice, and dried MRE’s. But the rest of the wildlife on this planet would simply vanish at 41 ppm CO2 in short order. Including the oceans as phytoplankton primary productivity would vanish as well at that level.

You’d get a blank stare at that point, I guarantee.

John Chism
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 5, 2019 3:11 am

Joel O’Bryan I don’t know how your scenario would even be possible. Several estimates are around that humans contributions of CO2 from fossil fuels are from 0.03% to an over all sources combined 3% of the environmental CO2. Humans could stop everything this second producing all sources of CO2 – excluding breathing – and the environment itself would still produce 97% of the CO2 that will be in reality 100% that keeps increasing the volume of CO2 in ppm.. Where for the last 50 year’s the CO2 has increased by 2 ppm each year. Only 3% of that 2 ppm each year at maximum was from humans contributions. Even the several mass artificial carbon dioxide capture devices are only estimated to reduce a fraction of what humans have been adding from fossil fuels. The only thing that would reduce CO2 to 40 ppm would be another Icehouse Period that would cause the Mass Extinction of 100% of all life on Earth and the soil itself and volcanic activity would still create CO2.

Reply to  John Chism
May 5, 2019 6:02 am

Its a hypothetical.
With Any real pollution, a 10-fold dilution would be desirable.
It’s how we deal with real environmental pollution, with dilution.
If we did that to CO2, the Earth dies.
Which is why those who use the term “carbon pollution” when referring to CO2 are complete morons.
The bubbles in my beer is not pollution.

Dave Fair
May 4, 2019 8:34 pm

The woman is a political animal. She knows she is lying, but the perceived political benefits outweigh her integrity. When the taxpaying, voting public is shown the price tag for this green/socialist nonsense, they will reject these charlatans.

Dudley Horscroft
May 4, 2019 8:36 pm

“The bottom line is that the climate crisis is costing us. It’s increasing the cost of our health care, our flood and fire insurance, and it’s making costly weather disasters even worse.”

Actually the ‘climate crisis’ is not costing us. What is making “costly weather disasters” even worse – ie, more expensive, is inflation. Prices rise with inflation. So a disaster that would have cost $1M 50 years ago will now cost $100M or more. Don’t blame the increase in prices on increased carbon dioxide, blame it on politicians who have for the last 50 years decreased the value of the dollar. Don’t worry, the US is still doing better than Venezuela!

MarkW
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 5, 2019 9:37 am

Plus more people living in areas that flood, and living in fancier houses.

Iain Russell
May 4, 2019 8:39 pm

The Maldives had time to relocate from 1988, when the UN warned they would be under water in 2018, because of Gerbil Wormening sea rise. They foolishly stayed on and are still open for the mega wealthy to fly in on carbon spewing mega jets. There are victims and victims.😁

Dave Fair
Reply to  Iain Russell
May 4, 2019 9:06 pm

Just you wait. Unless the developed nations give them mega-bucks, they will sink into the ocean within 12 years.

Andy Ogilvie
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 5, 2019 7:04 am

It won’t matter because the world will have ended by then 😂😂😂

Mike Rosati
May 4, 2019 8:40 pm

Sacrificial lamb would best describe Ms. Castor.

1 2 3