EPA Head : CO2 Hurts “People Of Color First”

I was listening to Gina McCarthy on NPR this evening describing the new CO2 regs. She said that “carbon emissions hurt people of color first

What she probably meant is that higher electricity prices due to Obama’s regulations will hit poor people first.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to EPA Head : CO2 Hurts “People Of Color First”

  1. Truthseeker says:

    Q: How do you make all people richer?
    A: Supply cheap energy.

    Q: How do make all people poorer?
    A: Make energy expensive.

    It is about the agenda, not the environment.

    • B says:

      Wealthy people aren’t really harmed by the higher costs. If they have to they’ll build private power plants for themselves. Everyone else however has less time to stop the wealthy from doing what they want to do to everyone else.

      • tom0mason says:

        Brought to you by the Big Government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite,

      • G. Horner says:

        Wow! really drinking the kool-ade aren’t you! What you wrote has no meaning… seems you have bought into the “us and them” mantra like all good uneducated liberals!

    • Ben Vorlich says:

      Like buying a Bentley, if you have to ask the price you can’t afford to run it (in the UK anyway).

    • Andy Oz says:

      Agree with Truthseeker, with an addition:

      Q:How do you get rid of poor people fast?
      A: Make energy so expensive, they can’t pump water.

    • ralphcramdo says:

      I don’t think it’s about agenda. I believe it’s stupid is as stupid does.

      • rw says:

        I agree.

        More likely than not the present generation of lefties, many of whom are capable of no more than a debased form of what is by now a failed line of thought, are just repeating standard formulas, in a crude attempt to elicit rote responses.

        Though, on the other hand, modern environmentalism is perverse enough to in some sense want to make everyone poorer. To pay for our collective sins, of course.

    • Walpurgis says:

      Q: How do you get a big increase in burning wood for heat and cooking?
      A: Make energy more expensive.

  2. stewart pid says:

    Steven will you stop picking on Obama … he is the best black President the United States has ever had!

  3. gregole says:

    John Holdren: Obama’s Science Czar.

    All makes sense if the goal is to destroy humanity.

  4. Mike D says:

    Did she remember to bring up that is also hurts women first as well?

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Actually she is incorrect.

    If CO2 causes a rise in temperature, which is the IPCC premise, then it will hurt white people first because those of African descent are better adapted to hot climates.

    If she actually MEANS it will hurt People of color first, then she can only be referring to the higher cost of energy.

    (I have been taking lesson from Lord Monckton)

  6. bkivey says:

    Isn’t elemental carbon black? So if it hurts ‘people’ of color’ first, doesn’t that make it self-hating? This blog is a continuous source of wonder and education for me as I discover the near-sentient behavior of inanimate matter and natural processes. NONE of this was covered in engineering school .

  7. tom0mason says:

    Once you have paid for your Smart appliances, and paid for the Smart meter connection a to the Smart grid you will find out who has been Smarted

    Only the Smart elite will stay connected.

    Big Government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

  8. Streetcred says:

    Well there you have it … poverty has a preference for colored people. Gina McCarthy is a self loathing progressive racist.

  9. The Griss says:

    Come on guys.. strictly speaking black is not a colour…… it is a lack of colour.

    There is less reflected light in most of the visible spectrum from a person with very dark skin.

    White, on the other hand, reflects more light across the whole spectrum.

  10. Morgan says:

    Hurricane Katrina, caused by CO2, hurt more blacks because it hit New Orleans. Sandy, on the other hand, which was also caused by coal power plants, hit beach resort towns in Long Island and Jersey, so it hurt more blue eyed devils.

  11. Robertv says:

    The average American household now owns fewer than two cars, returning to the levels of the early 1990s.
    More teens are waiting to get a license — or not getting one at all. Less than 70 percent of 19-year-olds now have one, down from 87 percent two decades ago, government figures show.

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/06/02/americans-and-their-cars-love-affair-on-fumes/?intcmp=obnetwork

    If people keep driving more fuel efficient cars fewer miles how will states pay for roads funded largely with gas taxes?
    If taxes and fees go unchanged, Wisconsin will fall $680 million short of covering basic maintenance every year for the next decade, transportation officials say.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The neo-luddites also want to get rid of roads as they move all of us into Transit Villages aka Labor Camps. Unfortunately I am not joking.
      That is what high speed rail and Rewilding is all about. (It is also why we see megafires out west)

      Cormell University is already doing FoodShed research to determine how many people each labor camp can support.

      Mapping “foodsheds” and “foodprints” to explore the potential of local food systems

      abstract
      We are using a set of models to study the size of the “foodprint” needed to feed an average person in New York with a balanced diet from local land and crop resources with sustainable management practices. Based on population distribution data, we then estimate the “foodshed” needed to feed a whole population center. Results so far indicate that the optimum foodprint for our state is about 0.6 acre/person and it is based on a diet with some meat. This balanced diet includes 63g of meat and eggs /day. That is about one third of present average consumption of meat and eggs, but it is significantly more than the no-meat diet many have suggested as being the most efficient in feeding people. Most upstate cities can be fed locally with the bulk of their food coming within about a 30-mile radius. However, large population centers like New York City cannot be fed with a local food system. The scale of the study needs to be enlarged to better understand how large cities can be fed while minimizing the distance that food must be transported.

      As Holdren and Ehrlich said in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions

      The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.

      So our universities are busy redesigning our “economic model” to fit Holdren and Ehrlich’s notions of “sustainability.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Holdren and Ehrlich are just pedaling a softer more palatable version of what George Bernard Shaw said a few decades earlier.

      Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

      George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470

      Has anyone bothered to mention to the blacks that the long term goal of the Progressives/Socialists/Fabians is to shove us all back into a system of serfdom/slavery?

      Has anyone bothered to mention that Marxism is a giant hoax (bought and paid for by Phillips a banker) to make the rubes clamor for a return to serfdom?

      As Wayne Hage stated:
      Fundamental Economic Rule #2: If you can’t OWN property, you ARE property.
      Fundamental economic rule# 1: there is no free lunch, also applies. Sooner or later those giving you that free lunch will want payment. Just ask my sheep (YUM)
      (Also see: ‘Wayne Hage’ The Land and the Law in Conflict–2 concerning Bundy)

      The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:

      “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” http://sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

    • bleakhouses says:

      Exactly why they are moving toward a per mile driven tax based upon on board telemetry.

    • Robertv says:

      Melanie Kirkpatrick – June 02, 2014
      “Escape from North Korea: The Untold Story of Asia’s Underground Railroad”

      http://schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/charts/audioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=D29D5202B240235C7454316BB91B4E67?dispid=301&pid=65508&f=NjU1MDgtdHJ1ZS0wNi8wMy8yMDE0

    • stpaulchuck says:

      they already proposed a GPS driven mileage recorder to tax you per mile driven. Of course it would also be capable of recording your every destination as well.

  12. gator69 says:

    Listening to Gina McArthy on NPR? Talk about your self loathing!

    • usJim says:

      This is more in line with ‘mainstream’ masochism.

      Def. – mas·och·ism – /masəˌkizəm/

      noun
      a) the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from one’s own pain or humiliation.

      b) (in general use) the enjoyment of what appears to be painful or tiresome.
      “isn’t there some masochism involved in taking on this kind of project?”

      .

      • Gail Combs says:

        That is the reason I gave up watching TV forty years ago and gave up listening to radio ten years ago. It keeps me from hurting my wrists from using the sledge hammer….

      • tom0mason says:

        Jim, you know you can’t beat masochism, so stop trying to whip up controversy.

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    carbon is racist… who knew?

  14. People of color hurt people of color first.

  15. Justa Joe says:

    Gina McCarthy commutes back and forth between DC and Boston via commercial jet weekly. Her being away all week Sounds like a good deal for Gina’s spouse, but with carbon being so selective in its villainy could this be interpreted as a big F you to minorities?

  16. usJim says:

    These people, in the administration, are complete idiots.

  17. Bob Knows says:

    Yes, the Odumbo regime is totally RACIST.

  18. Don says:

    Sheesh! The race card and CO2, what lows this administration sinks to. This and the farce trade of 5 Taliban for a deserter, all within a few days of each other. The new spelling of disaster:

    O _ B _ A _ M _ A

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s