It is gratifying to see a few other commentators starting to notice the dramatic contrasts between New York and Florida in government spending and policy outcomes.
You may already be aware of the truly incredible difference in state government spending between New York and Florida.
But what you may not be aware of is the shocking lack of measurable benefit that New Yorkers get for all their extra spending.
The briefing is now complete in Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council v. EPA. That is the case, currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where a small and brave band of electricity consumers, CHECC, challenges the “science” behind EPA’s 2009 finding that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a danger to human health and welfare. I am one of the attorneys for CHECC.
In the case, we ask the court to compel EPA to go back and re-assess the “science” of greenhouse gas “endangerment.” The briefing process gave EPA the chance to put its best foot forward as to the scientific basis underlying the finding of endangerment.
What is truly remarkable is the extent to which EPA, not to mention the entire government-backed scientific establishment, completely lack any real scientific basis for the claim of great “danger.”
Could anybody possibly be stupid enough to believe the line that wind and solar generators can provide reliable electricity to consumers that is cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels?
It takes hardly any thought about the matter to realize that wind and solar don’t work when it is calm and dark, as it often is, and particularly so in the winter, when it is also generally cold. Thus a wind/solar electricity system needs full backup, or alternatively storage — things that add to and multiply costs.
Surely, our political leaders and top energy gurus are fully aware of these things, and would not try to mislead the public about the cost of electricity from a predominantly wind/solar system.
If you think that, you must have missed the State of the Union Address yesterday.
If you ever wonder what kind of rulings we might get if the progressive Democrats some day achieve full control of the U.S. Supreme Court, you can try looking to some of the state Supreme Courts that come under Democrat control.
One of my favorites is the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
North Carolina is a purple state, and generally tending more to red than blue. But the justices of its state Supreme Court are elected. In 2016, in a nominally “non-partisan” election, the Democrats took control of the Court by a narrow 4-3 majority. Meanwhile both houses of the state legislature have been controlled by Republicans since 2011. The Governor has been a Democrat since 2016.
Here in New York, both State and City, we have supposedly committed ourselves by law to ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets that are somehow going to “save the planet.”
The targets for a few years out are completely impossible to achieve, and have been adopted without any meaningful consideration of whether the technology to meet them even exists short of leaving large numbers of people without heat or electricity.
Sooner or later we will run at full speed into the green energy wall, but exactly when and how that will occur remains undetermined.
Maybe the first crunch will come via New York City’s Local Law 97.
It was only six days ago, on January 26, when I wrote a post containing a list of proposals for Christopher Rufo and the other new trustees of New College of Florida to take back control of the institution from the insane left.
In an uncanny development, as if they having been reading the Manhattan Contrarian blog, Rufo and his fellow trustees, along with Governor Ron DeSantis, have already implemented the first proposal, and are well along on implementing the second.
How about all you other red states? Why can’t you do the same things?
