“…calling the fee that customers pay a ‘hidden tax.'”
– Gov. Glenn Youngkin
“…the goals of the alliance are “ambitious and well-intentioned” but that they “conflict with Nevada’s energy policy objectives.””
– Gov. Joe Lombardo
Finally, some common sense is returning to the climate change debate. Governors Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Joe Lombardo of Nevada are prioritizing the well-being of their citizens and the unique needs of their states over ill-founded climate alarmism.
In Virginia, Governor Youngkin recently concluded a review of new regulations, bringing the state closer to withdrawing from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) by the end of the year. The RGGI is a pact among twelve states that forces electricity producers to buy allowances for carbon emissions, a cost that consumers unjustly bear. Youngkin aptly refers to this cost as a “hidden tax” and seeks to shield Virginians from such unnecessary financial burdens.
On the other side, we have environmental groups and Democrats who argue that the RGGI is integral to Virginia’s carbon emission reduction strategy. They also celebrate the $500 million that the state has collected from allowance revenues. But these funds have been drawn from the pockets of tax-payers, and then repackaged as a necessary expense for climate change mitigation.
Out West, Governor Lombardo made the prudent decision to withdraw Nevada from the U.S. Climate Alliance. Lombardo acknowledges the alliance’s well meaning goals as “ambitious and well-intentioned”, yet rightfully asserts that they “conflict with Nevada’s energy policy objectives.”
These decisions by Youngkin and Lombardo illustrate a much-needed shift in approach to hysterical climate action. Overhyped, fear-driven policies often overshadow the fact that it is yet to be conclusively shown that human-induced climate change is a significant problem. This truth is overshadowed by global accords like the Paris Agreement or inter-state collaborations like the U.S. Climate Alliance that push for premature and potentially harmful actions, ignoring the unique needs, resources, and challenges of individual states.
Both Governors, prioritizing the welfare of their constituents and local economies, challenge these collective strategies. They highlight the importance of tailored, state-specific initiatives that balance environmental considerations with economic and social needs, all while questioning the alarmist climate narrative.
These sensible actions stir the climate change pot. They challenge constituents to ask: should we subscribe to the dominant narrative and rush into potentially detrimental collective efforts? Or should we take a step back, question the prevailing dogma, and strive for balanced, state-specific policies that prioritize the actual needs of our citizens?
It’s time for a reality check on climate action. What do you think of Virginia’s potential exit from the RGGI or Nevada’s withdrawal from the U.S. Climate Alliance?
HT/resourceguy for the twofer
You can explore more Climate Politics at our ClimateTV page
What do you think of Virginia’s potential exit from the RGGI or Nevada’s withdrawal from the U.S. Climate Alliance?
____________________________________________________________
First thing President Trump did after taking office was dumping the Paris accords, and I thought that was the greatest thing he did.
What do I think? these accords and resolutions are solutions in search of a problem, that in and of itself solves nothing yet will trigger a cascading series of unintended consequences.
My father used to say if politicians could find an excuse they’d tax the air we breathe. Well they did and they have.
Taxing the air one breaths was described in Gianni Rodari’s tale The Adventures of Cipollino. They determined the tax measuring the volume of one’s lungs and the depth and frequency of breathing. With today’s wonderful technology it is actually feasible.
When it was just virtue signaling everyone was all in. Now that people are realizing they are after your money and lifestyle the questioning begins. This can only end one way because once the light bulb in the head goes on about the AGW scam it can’t be turned off.
I know of plenty of people who went from believing in CAGW (I was one of them) first to scepticism and then to outright contempt for the scam. I have never met anyone who went the other way.
It took one question, and the search to find the answer, that convinced me it was all a scam.
The question was, where is the actual scientific evidence which proves beyond doubt that CO2 causes the planet to warm.
I’m still looking.
… where is the actual scientific evidence which proves beyond doubt that CO2 causes the planet to warm.
It doesn’t exist; it’s an unproven hypothesis at best. Instead, those lordly ‘world bodies’ circulated a cheezy commercial claiming ‘97% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is man-made by adding CO2 to the atmosphere‘. Then, ignoring the reasoned objections and challenges of many well-qualified scientists (the scientific method in action), they cranked up their mass-media allies to maximize the hysteria, and here we are facing another assertion. It says global warming, as predicted by computer projections (every one an unverified hypothesis) will be horrible if we don’t abolish our life-giving, reasonably priced energy and switch to unverified, untested, unbuilt electrical substitutes.
“It took one question, and the search to find the answer, that convinced me it was all a scam.”
For me it was Mann’s hockey stick graph !!
A basic knowledge of history told me it was crap;
then a quick look at the physics confirmed it was a scam.
For me, it was Human-caused Global Cooling. I lived through that entire scam, so was extremely skeptical about the science community turning 180 degrees and declaring that humans are causing the Earth to warm.
They were wrong on Human-caused Global Cooling and now they are off on another flight of fancy with Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change. A lucrative flight of fancy, but still a flight of fancy.
“The question was, where is the actual scientific evidence which proves beyond doubt that CO2 causes the planet to warm.”
That is the question everyone should be asking.
If they look into the subject a little, they will see there is no evidence showing CO2 causes the planet to warm. Human-caused Climate Change science is all speculation and assumptions.
I would like to share you optimism, but other religions, once created, have survived for thousands of years. True believers are insensitive to rational arguments. With our current knowledge about who, how, with what purpose created religions, how much damage they have inflicted on society, one would think these religions would be long discarded. Yet, they are quite alive and effective. With the mass AGW indoctrination of the new generation, it may linger quite long.
When people in the UK have a lousy, cold and miserable July, and the BBC begin banging on about how hot their holiday destination is in Spain or Greece, which is nothing unusual and is the reason for them going there in the first place, questions are asked.
“They also celebrate the $500 million that the state has collected from allowance revenues.”
As if it came from Santa Claus.
Story tip — Wall Street Journal Reports “The World Bakes Under Extreme Heat.”
Many WOWT readers incorrectly believe the Wall Street Journal is a voice of reason and does not buy into the climate change hysteria. They are wrong. The WSJ reporters are cut from the same cloth as journalists everywhere.
The WSJ is a voice of balance and openness and allows editorials from all sides. That includes idiotic takes we may disagree with. It also recently published Koonin and Milloy.
I notice of late that the the Telegraph in the UK seems to be publishing more articles critical of climate change and NetZero.
It was once required reading of conservatives, in fact years ago I was called a fascist by a Guardian reader when I walked into the office with a copy.
It seems, however, the Telegraph caught the lefty woke disease for a while but it seems to be recovering with some bed rest and hot toddies.
but they will censor your comments if you bash leftists – i dropped my subscription after 50 years due to the frustration wrt censorship
The only problem with this situation is that these 2 governors didn’t include a statement listing the names of the bureaucrats, traders and executives who’s excessive salaries come from these scams.
Name names!
Here in the US, we’re citizens and can dis-elect our officials when their allegiance is to vague ‘world bodies’ instead of their responsibilities to us. We didn’t elect the UN nor the EU, and our elected officials should ASK us if we’re OK with being taxed by hysterical political bodies overseas. That’s one reason why the Senate must approve all treaties – which our Lords Obama and Biden deliberately ignored. Out with them!
“Here in the US, we’re citizens and can dis-elect our officials when their allegiance is to vague ‘world bodies’ instead of their responsibilities to us.”
Someone hasn’t been paying attention!
Did you ever read “Fahrenheit 451?” It was a story about a future society in which the public had been grossly dumbed down. They were having an election for a new leader. The two candidates were shown on television. The first candidate was shown heroically. The token opposition candidate was shown as a moron, picking his nose on camera. I remember an election for mayor in Chicago when I was a boy. Everyone pretty much agreed that the mayor, Richard J. Daley, was a dictator running a corrupt administration. But, and I kid you not, his Republican opponent was Spanky the Clown. Just like in Fahrenheit 451.
The collective aspect is a well thought out trap to coerce individual states to go ahead with the plan. First the commitment offers individuals an excuse to offer their constituency that it’s outside their control. There is considerable courage in dropping out. However, like the operation of a cartel, this is the first step in the whole agreement falling apart.
Note that both governors are Republican. The awful burdens of envvro-policy on constituents of Democrat governed states along with law and order, the immigration free-for-all and other social/moral/economic/education issues in those states, should see a shift away from wokie governance in the next cycle.
From article:”…“ambitious and well-intentioned”…
There is nothing well intentioned about climate policies. Ambitious yes. The sooner they get us under their control the happier they are.
“On the other side, we have environmental groups and Democrats who argue that the RGGI is integral to Virginia’s carbon emission reduction strategy.”
This is the takeaway (RGGI is integral to Virginia’s carbon emission reduction strategy)
Before we lay out a strategy for CO2 emission reduction we need to prove that CO2 is a problem. We can’t allow these monsters to use the word carbon when referring to CO2. The case has not been made that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming. Not even close. We need to stop letting these bottom feeders get away with half truths and flat out lies.
“The case has not been made that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming. Not even close.”
That’s correct. Not even close.
Unfortunately while Youngkin is trying to pull out of RGGI he had also instituted an offshore wind development policy wish of a staggering 10,000 MW. At today’s prices that is a fully loaded cost of over $80 billion and prices are going up. Compared to this huge waste RGGI’s $250 million a year is round off error.
“Unfortunately while Youngkin is trying to pull out of RGGI he had also instituted an offshore wind development policy wish of a staggering 10,000 MW.”
I would like to hear more about that. Youngkin is really promoting windmills?
Anyone promoting windmills doesn’t understand the problem.
Love this. People are waking up.
When lambs become rams, the big bad wolf should watch his step. (Especially around sand bags.)
These two governors are displaying the advantage of a Constitutional Republic. Decisions affecting a state should be made at the state level.
From the article: “Overhyped, fear-driven policies often overshadow the fact that it is yet to be conclusively shown that human-induced climate change is a significant problem.Overhyped, fear-driven policies often overshadow the fact that it is yet to be conclusively shown that human-induced climate change is a significant problem.”
It has yet to be shown that Human-caused Climate Change is real, much less that it is a significant problem.
Watch those assumptions!