We must solve the climate problems in 12 years or we are doomed. At least that is what we were told. This from the same group that said the Artic would be ice free by 2018. We have more Arctic ice than 10 years ago. About the same as 100 years ago.
We were going to have more major weather events and then went 12 years without a major hurricane. Last year had no major tornados. Did we even have a sharknado?
The models say we should be much warmer. We are not.
NASA and NOAA have adjusted recent temperature reading up and older readings down. The unadjusted data is still available. Without the adjustments, the models are even worse.
We are having fewer 100 degree days than in the past. Fewer 90 degree days than in the past.
Look at the data, not the reports in the news and from people who would lose funding if they were not predicting a disaster.
The left complains about the military unless the can be of use to them. We continue to look at ridiculous spending by the infernal federal government. If you look at what we fund, most of it is unconstitutional.
Recently we have heard about 2.2 trillion dollars that the Pentagon cannot account for over the last 20 years. That’s a lot. The report did not account for spending that was unnecessary.
With a budget of about 700 billion dollars a year, not counting VA benefits, military spending is about 16% of the budget. With current spending, if we were to zero out military spending, we could not balance the budget.
If you add the cost of the VA and retirement, we would almost get there.
I do think that we need to rethink military spending, eliminate waist and inefficiency. I think eliminating waist and inefficiency would save a couple hundred billion. One way to reduce costs is to quit awarding no bid and cost plus contracts. What would happen if the contractors had to bid a job honestly?
If you think this is an anti-military post, it’s not. The military is necessary and constitutional. We need a strong military. The military needs to handle finances better.
NOTE: The day I wrote this, California announced the cancelation of it’s high speed rail. Rather than rewrite the post, I am just adding this note. I write most posts ahead of time so that I don’t get behind.
A lot of analysis has already taken place about the new “Green New Deal” from the left. The communist-socialist movement took over the environmental movement years ago. Let’s look at just one part of the “deal”.
It has been proposed to eliminate all non-renewable energy by 2030. Aside from the fact that it is not possible, let’s look at high speed rail. High speed rail is supposed to replace aircraft. That would take a massive undertaking to build the rail infrastructure.
We only have one “High Speed Rail” line in America. If serves the Boston to Washington route. The New York to Washington segment is slower that the express line that served that route before passenger rail was destroyed by Amtrak.
South Korea is looking at eliminating it’s high speed train due to low ridership and high operating costs.
Japan has to heavily subsidize its bullet train. Virtually every high speed line in the world, if not all are subsidized by the government.
California is trying to build a high speed rail system. Currently it is way behind schedule. It has cost triple the estimates and the cost will go even higher, if it can even be done. If it will cost California over 100 billion dollars for a couple hundred miles, what would it cost to replace all air travel?
The number being thrown around for the total cost of going green is about 7 trillion dollars. I don’t think that would be enough for a good start. Based on the cost in California, I don’t think we could do the rail system, much less the rest of the infrastructure.
Rail travel is more expensive than flying long distances, not to mention slower. It’s just not practical.
If you have read this far and think I’m against trains, you are wrong. I love traveling by train. I just wish it was cheaper and had more routes.
AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) is the new media darling. The woman who could get elected to Congress but couldn’t get a job other than bartender with a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University. She even graduated with honors.
If you listen to her, you will wonder if she ever went to class. If her take on economics is based on what Boston University teaches, the economic department needs to be shut down. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope she just ignored what they taught.
I can understand why she could not get a job in her field, imagine the laughs after she would leave a job interview.
She obviously cannot do math. She didn’t learn that when something is free, people want more of it. If you make health care “free”, the cost will go up unless you ration. She is unable to tell where the savings will be with her plan, just that it will reduce costs. Forget that it will add over 3 trillion a year to the budget based on her plan. This is probably less than half of the actual cost. Are you ready for a 70% tax increase?
Her green energy plan is even worse. She wants to raise the marginal tax rate to 70% to pay for it. Can you spell depression? For those who thing solar and wind are cheap, think again. Without subsidies, they are much more expensive than coal, gas or nuclear. They are dirtier than nuclear. Solar panels and wind turbines use rare earth medals. They mining of which is dirty. The life span of a wind turbine is 15 years or less. At the 15 year point, the produce about 25% of the energy when new. I don’t even need to mention the cost of storing energy for times when the sun and wind are not producing.