You’re familiar with the term “offsets”? It is a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one. It is also the amount or distance by which something is out of line. For the past forty years, give or take, the word has been used in place of “indulgence.” “A grant by the Pope of remission of the temporal punishment in purgatory still due for sins after absolution.”
It has less flattering meanings, and they all apply. I say one thing but want another. Members of the Climate Cult use indulgences, sorry – offsets – to emit at will, with the understanding that they’ve paid a fair price to someone who will pretend to do something they will tell other people helps mitigate their activity.
If you pay this much extra, the government will take that money and, after “handling fees” that make the government’s carbon footprint bigger, give it to some politically favored NGO (who will grow their carbon footprint) to encourage a grandma in Hoboken to pay too much to have someone put weather stripping around the windows in her 100-year-old house.
Carbon taxes, carbon trading, erecting so-called green energy devices, or driving EVs- all of which offshore the emissions, sometimes significantly more of them, that then ruins the environments of brown people too far away to notice, but still on the same globe they insist is warming and that somehow, this all helps.
The people profiting from this laundromat will say anything, including this regarding bird strikes and wind turbines.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says wind energy facilities kill birds and bats, with mortality varying by site and region. MIT’s Climate Portal notes wind turbines kill far fewer birds than cats, buildings, vehicles, and several other hazards, but lower numbers don’t erase the deaths.
Hold that thought.
The linked article is about a lawsuit filed by New York State (joined by New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont). They are suing the Federal government over its refunding of lease payments for “approved” wind farms (mostly offshore) that were fast-tracked under the Biden Administration. Their claim?
At the center of the dispute is Lease OCS-A 0538, a New York Bight lease awarded in 2022 for approximately $795 million. The area was slated to support Attentive Energy One, an offshore wind project expected to supply electricity directly to New York City, power more than 700,000 homes, and generate an estimated $25.6 billion in economic benefits over its lifetime. State officials said the project would have created roughly 1,700 jobs and reduced energy costs for New Yorkers by an estimated $10 billion.
I wanted to point out that no one has ever been able to prove any of the above-suggested benefits, while there is ample evidence to the contrary. Why? Because they will say and do anything (gluing yourself to shit and throwing paint on priceless works of art comes to mind.
MIT’s Climate Portal notes wind turbines kill far fewer birds than cats, buildings, vehicles, and several other hazards,…
I don’t see any suggestion anywhere by the climate indulgence crowd that we need to do something about cats killing birds. The wind turbines are neither natural nor historically present in this context. If we know they damage the environment by killing bats and birds, then before we put one up, someone needs to address the pussy cat offset problem.
Maybe that’s why they brought all the Somalis here?
Absent, also, is any detail on what we might do about birds flying into buildings? Maybe put windmills in front of them so they die before they get them?
MIT’s Climate portal, by the way, has been peddling a heap of lies about everything related to the scam for as long as it has existed, because it exists as a result of looting other people’s pockets to fund its staff and infrastructure.
If there were no such thing as the Climate Scam, they’d all be doing something productive. Instead, they waste money creating collateral for other unproductive assholes, promoting the wasting of money on a local and national scale. Funds that, if we just used cheap, abundant hydrocarbons, would be available to do real® good without offshoring harm to second and third-world countries so Liberals could burnish their climate resumes despite the factual contradictions.
And, in case you care, they are generally coming after pets over their carbon footprint. Our response is, if this is all so important and hopeless to you, why not just remove your carbon footprint and be an example to us all. You’ll have to find a low-carbon footprint way to do that. Self-immolation is out, as is running the engine on the flex-fuel vehicle with the garage door closed. Too many emissions. And what about the public safety response once you’ve shuffled off our mortal coil, maybe with your cat since those are such a big problem?
I guess you’ll have to figure out how to bury yourself alive. Return all that phosphorus into the soil. Good for framing. Let us know if you figure it out or don’t. You could just stop being stupid, and we could all embrace the glory of cheap energy and human flourishing. It isn’t warming the planet, no matter what you call it.
