Ask these people to live without oil and plastic based products and transportation

UK climate protesters seek to block London Underground

"Extinction Rebellion" climate activists have said they will block the city's transport system on a third day of demonstrations. Mayor Sadiq Khan expressed solidarity with their cause but slammed disruption caused.

Nearly 300 people were arrested in London amidst ongoing climate change protests, police said late on Tuesday. More demonstrations were planned for Wednesday, including a disruption of the Underground, the city's subway rail network.

The Metropolitan police said that they had detained 290 people in connection with the "Extinction Rebellion" protests and that they "expect demonstrations to continue throughout the coming weeks."

London's mayor Sadiq Khan said in a statement that he shared "the passion of all those protesting in London this week about the urgent need to tackle climate change."

"It's one of the biggest challenges we face," Khan said while endorsing the right to peaceful protest.

Subsequently on Wednesday, Khan told Sky News that he was "extremely frustrated" by the disruption caused by protestors within London's transport system.

"That's why I say to organizers: please work with the police, please work with the TFL [Transport for London authority] to minimize disruption cause to those trying to get about their business in our city.

That includes Londeners trying to get to work, but also others who work in London and do a huge amount to make sure our city is successful," said Khan.

The Underground carries 5 million passengers daily along its 11 lines.

'We have no intention of leaving'

Extinction Rebellion was founded in the UK last year and in that time has become one of the world's fastest-growing environmental movements.

This series of protests began on Monday, with demonstrators blocking the areas of Marble Arch, part of Hyde Park, Oxford Street, and Waterloo Bridge.

Read more: Extinction Rebellion: The activists risking prison to save the planet

Activists also targeted the Shell Centre, home to the UK offices of oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, with graffiti and smashed one of its windows. According to the police, three men and two women were arrested outside the building on suspicion of criminal damage.

Protesters set up camps in Hyde Park and stood their ground in several points around London overnight on Tuesday.

"We have no intention of leaving until the government listens to us," said Extinction Rebellion spokesman James Fox.

Clinton and Sanders Agree: No Constitutional Protection For the Unborn. Does this mean that anyone convicted of murdering an unborn child must be released from prison?

Clinton and Sanders Agree: No Constitutional Protection For the Unborn

Apr. 3, 2016 10:50am Carly Hoilman

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning. During the interview, host Chuck Todd pressed Clinton on the topic of abortion.

“When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?” Todd asked.

Image source: YouTube

The former secretary of state said said that the rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution are not applicable to unborn children, invoking the controversial 1973 abortion case, Roe v. Wade: 

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.

Clinton added that abortion “is a choice. It is not a mandate.”

Democratic candidate and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders echoed Clinton’s comments Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I don’t believe there’s any constitutional protection for the unborn,” he said.

Watch:

The Malthusian left is perpetually wrong

THE GREATEST ENERGY CHART EVER. SERIOUSLY.

The original energy crisis goes back to the Jimmy Carter administration. There was a shortage of gasoline, which the Carter administration made worse by fixing oil prices. Cars lined up around the block to pump what little gasoline was for sale. Carter, of course, had a solution. And it sounds remarkably familiar, as Willis Eschenbach points out at Watts Up With That?We can’t keep relying on fossil fuels. They’re running out! We need to subsidize renewables!

From Carter’s April 1977 energy speech:

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. … Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about five percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

But it did continue; in fact, it exploded.

His conclusion was that “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.” So he started throwing money at the problem. His “solution” involved, inter alia:

• A “gas-guzzler” tax on automobiles

• A rebate on electric vehicles

• A gasoline tax

• Subsidies to buses

• Taxes on aviation and marine fuel

Sound familiar? It should, as these are all parts of the current war on fossil fuels.

So for thirty-eight years, our government has been predicting the demise of fossil fuel energy and subsidizing, to varying degrees but amounting cumulatively to many billions of dollars, solar and wind energy. What has the result been? 

This chart tells the story. It plots global energy consumption from 1965 to the present; you can see the contributions of solar and wind power as a virtually straight line, approximating zero, across the bottom of the graph:

The world’s energy story is almost all about developing coal, oil and natural gas resources. Nuclear energy makes a contribution, although it is severely limited by hostility from so-called environmentalists and most of the world’s governments. Solar and wind are a joke, existing mainly because they provide opportunities for graft. And nothing about this picture has changed since 1977.

Another Obama Administration Official Is Facing Scrutiny Over Private Emails. He's the administration's eugenicist in chief. Like Bill Ayers, he's willing to kill the people he thinks surplus.

Another Obama Administration Official Is Facing Scrutiny Over Private Emails

A senior Obama administration official who has allegedly conducted government business from a private email account doesn’t want to provide the contents of those messages.

The official is John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, but his case shares similarities with the Hillary Clinton case, according to the plaintiff seeking records.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, filed an opening brief in an appeal this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking to reverse a district court ruling that the emails can remain private.

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Clinton has gained far more attention of late for the private email server she used while secretary of state, with her presidential campaign announcing this week she will turn over her private server to the FBI. There are similarities with the litigation over Holdren’s private email account, which has been going on since late 2013, and the Clinton situation, said Sam Kazman, general counsel for the CEI.

“Her case is a prime example of a high official keeping a personal email account,” Kazman told TheBlaze. “In our case, similarly, the official is claiming that not all of the messages in the personal account are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, even when in many cases they are clearly agency-related.”

Kazman said the Clinton matter has shed some light on what’s happening throughout the Obama administration – where White House officials such as Holdren, but also Environmental Protection Agency officials, have sought to withhold communications.

“It’s not an atypical practice. I wouldn’t say it’s an everyday practice by everyone in the administration, but this White House pledged to be the most transparent administration in history,” Kazman said. “Our joke is when this administration says transparency they mean invisible.”

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not immediately respond to inquiries from TheBlaze.

According to court documents, Holdren’s private email account was jholdren@whrc.org. He only had a private email account, not a private server like Clinton.

The CEI argues in its brief that the FOIA law applies to work-related records of agency employees, regardless of what account they are stored in.

However, on March 3, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that FOIA only applied to agency emails.

“The court ruling that we are appealing will only add to those scandals, because it legitimizes private email accounts as way to evade FOIA,” Kazman said.

The government has 30 days to respond, and the OSTP could ask for a delay.

“They could produce documents, or at least withhold documents and provide an explanation,” Kazman said.

The CEI brief said the judge’s ruling was “plainly incorrect.”

“The mere fact that emails are in a personal email account does not exempt them from FOIA, nor does it place them beyond an agency’s actual control for purposes of FOIA,” the 72-page brief said. “Agencies frequently search the personal email accounts of agency employees for work- related records, demonstrating that agencies have actual control over those accounts.”

“It makes little sense to claim that an agency is not ‘withholding’ documents when it refuses to produce documents held by its own chief executive that relate to ‘agency business,’” it continued. “Even if OSTP had demonstrated that these emails were not within its actual control – which it did not – its failure to search its director’s personal account would still violate FOIA because any agency records in that account fall within the agency’s ‘constructive control.’”

Separately, the CEI filed a FOIA lawsuit to obtain records on a video Holdren did claiming the severe 2014 winter was caused by climate change. This prompted several scientists who believed climate change was a threat to challenge the scientific claims of the video. The CEI request records on the science used to back up the claims. There has been no action on this case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Wonder why he's so concerned about his email? It's because he's the left's version of a Nazi.When Obama claims government transparency he means invisible.

AvengerK

-Aug. 14, 2015 at 11:55am

Cavallo….you’re right. 

John Holdren is Obama’s eugenicist. He’s a denizen of the lefty academic bubble that exists in our colleges. Johnny was a proponent of global cooling in the 1970′s before he became a proponent of Global Warming, then “Climate Change” and even suggested we change that one to “Global Climate Disruption” when the public started to not drink that Kool Aid. 

Here’s what Johhny said in his book “Ecoscience” about forcing American women to either be sterilized or have forced abortions to save the world…

“There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

And here’s more:

“All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.” …How about that one Cavallo? Men like Johnny will tell you whether you’ll have children or not and if the numbers don’t jibe with his idea of “desired levels” then he’s for killing the elderly (grown persons). 

Oh yeah…John Holdren is a piece of work.

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets. When the unelected UN gets to decide who lives and who dies.

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets 

Elderly people will be treated like second-class citizens and denied medical care under new targets which give priority to saving the lives of young people 

Elderly people could face discrimination under new UN targets, specialists have warned Photo: ALAMY

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

12:01AM BST 29 May 2015

1434 Comments

The NHS could be led to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned. 

Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030. 

However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target. 

• Unsung army of elderly carers swells
• Wave of home closures leaves elderly stuck in 'care warehouses'

In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people. 

Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people. 

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval. 

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target. 

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.” 

^{Elderly people are already denied life-saving operations}

The letter warns that the UN target: “has the potential to undermine cherished, fundamental principles of universality and health as a right for all.” 

“Put simply, it tells policy makers, particularly in poorer countries that older people do not matter,” the signatories warn. 

• NHS 'defies the law' to deny pensioners vital operations, warns Royal College of Surgeons

• Elderly dying due to 'despicable age discrimination in NHS'

• Lives of elderly at mercy of postcode lottery in 'ageist' NHS, figures suggest

Others who have signed include ageing experts from The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Institute for Ageing and Health at Newcastle University as well as representatives of The Alzheimer’s Society, Age UK, and HelpAge International. 

Baroness Sally Greengross, former director of Age Concern England who also signed the letter said: "If adopted, this UN target could lead to institutionalised discrimination against older people in health care, both here in the UK and globally. 

“This target will inevitably reinforce the ageist bias that pervades many aspects of health care decision-making.” 

The Sustainable Development Goals which are due to come into effect later this year, replace the Millenium Development Goals which ran up to 2015 and include ambitions for climate change, health care, development and policy. 

If the target was met, around 42,000 lives would be saved each year for the under 70s. However if older people were included in the target an extra 130,000 lives would be saved. 

Although the guidelines are not binding, health experts warn that the UN is likely to take a dim view of countries who fail to comply. 

Last year the Royal College of Surgeons warned that elderly people are being denied life-saving operations because of age discrimination within the NHS. 

^{It is illegal to discriminate against elderly people, but charities say it still happens in the NHS}

Data released for the first time showed that across large areas of the country, almost no patients above the age of 75 are receiving surgery for breast cancer or routine operations such as gall bladder removal and knee replacements. 

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), was also criticised for attempting to change its funding criteria to take into account "wider societal benefits" when deciding on whether to fund drugs. 

Health experts branded the move ‘deeply suspect’ and said the elderly, may lose out because they do not contribute as much to society as younger people. 

Tom Gentry, policy advisor at AgeUK said that people were living far longer than in the past, with even the average 70-year-old expected to live for at least another decade. 

“We know that access to surgery is getting worse for older people, and yet we are talking about people who still have years left to live,” he said. 

“We need to improve. We are fighting entrenched cultural attitudes about the value of older people and this target will not help that.” 

In 2013, the Government introduced age discrimination laws which mean patients should not be denied procedures on grounds of age. Doctors are supposed to assess patients based on their fitness for an operation, and likely benefit from it. 

A spokesman for the Department of health said: “It is wrong to deny people treatment just because of their age, which is why we made it illegal. 

“Decisions on care should only ever be based on clinical need.”

Redolent of uglier times in the past century...a despicable concept that violates the concepts of equality and humanity. A true leftist everything must serve the states needs

The Architect Speaks

Allan Erickson

Ezekiel Emanuel, ObamaCare architect, Ph.D, bioethicist, Harvard M.D., a brilliant man who displays his intelligence by continuing to defend ObamaCare. He is the president's top healthcare adviser.
He is famous for promoting the idea that medical resources should be primarily directed in support of adolescents and young adults. The elderly and infants should take a back seat, especially if medical resources become scarce. Many have accused Ezekiel of advocating a 'bioethical' stance that would allow the very old and the very young to die, untreated, in order to focus on productive members of society in whom we've invested time and money, i.e., a system of rationing.
ObamaCare will doubtless cause the scarcity Ezekiel predicts. As an architect of the law, one wonders if Ezekiel is intentionally creating scarcity as another way to install population control without saying so. Thanks to ObamaCare, rationing will ensue along with increases in abortion, infanticide, and elder euthanasia.
Ezekiel's approach is called "Complete Lives System." In a paper published in 2009 the good doctor states: "We recommend an alternative system -- the complete lives system -- which prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles."
Basically, young lives are valued highly as productive useful lives, so if you save one adolescent, it is equivalent to saving 20 or so old folks. Therefore, guess who gets the short end of the hypodermic needle. This system is already in place in Great Britain.
Also, the good doctor has boldly discussed the fate of the disabled, given their less-than-productive status.
Ezekiel epitomizes the secular/atheist mind. With no regard for transcendent moral authority, he gives himself permission to play god, picking and choosing who will receive treatment, who will live, and who will die. Sebelius and Obama are willing accomplices, of course.
In the meantime, it is obvious this so-called 'bioethicist' conjures his own set of 'ethics' out of thin air, supposedly based on research. However, he is no Ezekiel, and he rejects Emanuel.
Zeke, the Great Physician reminds you, you cannot heal thyself.

It was the liberal/progressives of the 1920's that embraced eugenics and ethnic purification (Margret Sanger) that was later perfected during the Third Reich. That a Jew could even be a part of promoting such group life or death government decisions leaves my furious beyond words. The three vile people in this group are Emanuel, Cass Sunstein and Peter Singer. They are the modern incarnation of the Utilitarians.

Bolstering my low opinion of sociologists and neo Luddites.

N.Y. professor suggests regulating air condition to cool global warming

Jeff Maher

• FILED UNDER
• News

SACRAMENTO - Americans with air conditioning in their homes have likely been getting a lot of use out of their systems recently.  But are people overusing their A/C?

Since air conditioners were first put on the market in 1939, they've been part of everyday life in the American household, as well as at work, in the car or inside stores and restaurants.

Eric Klinenberg, professor of sociology at New York University wrote an opinion piece in Time magazine recently, pointing out that global energy consumption is soaring. The expectation of air conditioning convenience is spreading to countries where American culture carries influence. 

For example, sales of air conditioners rose 20 percent in India and China last year.

Klinenberg says all of this is happening while people simultaneously burn through fossil fuels in 'suicidal fashion'.

He says it is destroying the environment, and insists regulation is needed because people are likely not going to volunteer to reduce their usage.

According to Klinenberg, New York City recently prohibited stores from pumping arctic air out onto the searing sidewalks in an attempt to lure customers inside.

By constantly blasting air conditioning to provide immediate relief from soaring temperatures, humankind is ultimately making for hotter long-term temperatures by contributing to global warming.

According to Stan Cox, author of the 2010 book "Losing Our Cool", air conditioning in the United States already has a global-warming impact equivalent to every U.S. household driving an extra 10,000 miles per year.

News10/KXTV

The little people are just so inconvenient for the elites

'WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN NO ONE'S EXPECTING': BOOK REVEALS LEFT'S DREAM OF CHILD-FREE AMERICA

Despite doom and gloom predictions that never came to pass, overpopulation alarmists continue to make their case that society must restrict the procreation of human beings. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s bookPopulation Bomb said that hundreds of millions of people would perish as a result of an overpopulated earth.

The Weekly Standard’s Jonathan V. Last’s new book What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster discusses the overpopulation alarmists’ false predictions, their true intentions, and the consequences all of us will pay for the unnecessary panic.

Last points out that when Ehrlich wrote his book in ’68, the U.S. government and various interest groups were quick to respond:

Groups such as the Ford Foundation and the International Planned Parenthood Federation pushed to introduce birth control and abortion in developing countries. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Food for Peace Act he required USAID officers to “exert the maximum leverage and influence” on the countries we were helping so that they’d cut down on their baby-making.[i] In 1972, the Club of Rome published a tract, The Limits to Growth, echoing Ehrlich’s forecast. (Among other things, the Club of Rome predicted that the planet’s oil reserves would be exhausted by 1992.) The movement was in such a lather that in 1967, Disney produced a movie for the Population Council, titled Family Planning. The movie, translated into 24 different languages and featuring Donald Duck, lectured viewers that if families didn’t drastically cut back the number of kids they had, “the children will be sickly and unhappy, with little hope for the future.”[ii]

Interestingly, Ehrlich refused to admit he was wrong years after his initial predictions never happened. Last explains:

Undeterred by having his life’s work completely discredited, the octogenarian professor is mad about the perils of overpopulation, even to this day. In 1990, long after his initial thesis was disproved, he doubled down and published The Population Explosion, in which he claimed that overpopulation was more. Dangerous. THAN. EVER! “It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis,” he said recently. “Basically every person I know in my section of the National Academy of Sciences thinks it’s wonderful that rich countries are starting to shrink their populations to sustainable levels. We have to do that because we’re wrecking our life-support system.”[iii] (Explaining the lack of mass starvation in the 1970s, Ehrlich says, “Repeatedly in my career it has turned out things I never would have imagined were huge factors.”[iv] No kidding.)

Although the United Nations has done considerable research on the downward spiral of falling fertility rates through its Population Division, it still sponsors a “World Population Day” to raise awareness about overpopulation.

The environmentalists have stepped up their game in the population debate, too. A group called Californians for Population Stabilization claims “population growth [is] wildly out of control” and is causing “further degradation of America’s natural treasures.” A 2008 report from the Australian government says that babies are hurting the nation's economy. Oregon State University released a study recently that concludes children are detrimental to the environment because they contribute to global warming. The study suggests that couples should have at least one less child than they were planning on having. Last notes in his book:

In the London Independent, columnist Johann Hari worries that, “It will be easier for 6 billion people to cope on a heaving, boiling planet than for 9 or 10 billion.”[x] In Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Tom Friedman argues that overpopulation is one of the drivers of a coming global catastrophe and talks about the “steady population growth” the world will experience in the future as if he’d never seen a fertility chart.[xi] The group Earth First! went so far as to publish articles saying that “The AIDS epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population” and if AIDS “didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it].”[xii]

Last states that despite a higher population, many environmental indicators in the United States are better in the present than they were in the '70s, when Ehrlich's paranoia ran rampant:

The environmentalist case against children doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The three main environmental population worries are (1) overcrowding; (2) scarcity of resources; and (3) climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Let’s take these in order. (1) Sure, America’s city centers and major highways are more crowded than ever. But on the other hand, it’s a big country. (Have you been to Montana—or even rural Maryland?) And it’s important not to let provincialism distort your understanding of the world. For instance, if you live in Manhattan, you might think that America is becoming overcrowded, because New York City is overcrowded. But there is more to America than our city cores. For instance, there are fewer people living in the Rust Belt today than there were in the 1930s. There’s still plenty of room out there. (2) As economist Bryan Caplan points out, population growth has historically lead to conservation through innovation. And as the work of economist Ester Boserup made clear a century ago, innovation is a byproduct of increasing population. That’s why commodities prices—a good measure of scarcity—have dropped about 1 percent a year since the Civil War. It’s why air and water quality are markedly better today—in both American and the rest of the West—than they were in the 1970s, when there were fewer people. (3) The only environmentalist concern that population might legitimately affect is climate change, a subject so fraught with theological division that I’ll leave it be. I’ll only say that even if you take climate change to be real, and serious, and man-made, you still have to reckon that the environmental impact of “overpopulation” is, at worst, a mixed bag.

Anti-procreationists who cannot scare people from having children are using other tactics. Activists promote a "child-free" life as a better way of living than traditional parenthood, authoring a slew of books which tout the concept. Last lists such titles like Madelyn Cain’s The Childless Revolution, Terri Casey’s Pride and Joy: The Lives and Passion of Women without Children, Nicki Defago’s Childfree and Loving It!, Laura Carroll’s Families of Two: Interviews with Happily Married Couples Without Children by Choice, and Laura Scott’s Two Is Enough: A Couple’s Guide to Living Childless by Choice.

The idea of being “child-less” can appear alluring to younger adults who want to maintain their freedom and take more financial risks, but Kelly Flynn, an older married woman with no children, wrote an October 17 piece last year in the New York Times explaining her main concern on being childless:

We joke about creating an old-age community, although there is a part of me that thinks: Let’s do it. Let’s plan it now. I’ll get some paper, and we’ll make a list…

Because now, as I help my parents navigate the trials and indignities of old age, I can’t help thinking, who will do this for me? Even if I can pay for top-notch care, it won’t come from a place of love and understanding of who I am and what is important to me.

When my father learned he had cancer, I became his primary caregiver. During those two years, I kept wondering, who will be there when my time comes? Whom can I count on to fill my pillboxes, get the stains out of my shirts, bring home my favorite ice cream? As he lost strength, I wondered, will there be somebody to cut up my steak?

Will someone step in and confront the hearing aid company that bilked my 79-year-old mother out of hundreds of dollars? Or the optometrist who pretended not to notice that her new glasses did not fit? She was always a formidable woman, and as I watch her nerve drain away, I think, who will speak for me when I lose my nerve?

Jonathan Last's book is now available at Amazon.com.