|
|
||||
|
By Jo Nova What an amplifier? The Chinese communist party quietly helped New York create a $75b climate SuperFund LawThat’s a lot of bang for their buck. Imagine The Blob buddied up with China to lobby for a law that forced energy companies (and thus the shareholders and customers) to cough up $75 billion to fund green initiatives? The Blob gets more money to buy power and influence and buy favors from their friends. The Chinese Communists make their competitors energy more expensive, and thus all their products more costly, less competitive, their economy weaker. Suits every kind of grifter, eh? But perhaps China just wants to save American whales right? Why else would the Chinese-American Planning Council (CPC) be so worried about US Emissions, but not their own? The CPC has been publicly lobbying for New York to legislate the “Climate Change Superfund Act — a bizarre retrospective law which would force energy companies to pay billions for past emissions back to the year 2000AD. Supposedly, companies like Exxonmobil, Shell, and others are going to pay $3 billion a year to help New York prepare for climate change. Though obviously, it will raise the price of energy by $3 billion dollars a year (for 25 years) and it will be the mums and dads who pay the bills, not the corporate CEOs. Not surprisingly, it’s been called a “Shakedown” law. The new law also targets companies that are outside New York State. It’s a kind of super-communism, where truly Big-Government get to punitively tax people in other jurisdictions as well as their own. Where will it end? Well, 22 other states are challenging it in court. The CPC gets funding from the Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) which are Chinese State owned entities. They also (wouldn’t you know it) get funding from the US government for “Community Resilience Support Services”. China might be hand-feeding our self-defeating sabotage, but the West is pretty good at it already. The CPC, after all, is supposed to be there to help the “social and economic empowerment of Chinese American, immigrant, and low-income communities in New York City.” How exactly is this gargoyle of a law going to help poor Chinese immigrants?
Nonprofit Funded By Chinese Gov’t-Linked Entities Backs Blue State’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Climate LawA New York nonprofit bankrolled by Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-linked entities is at the center of a controversial state climate law that could force fossil fuel companies to pay $75 billion over 25 years for climate mitigation projects. The Chinese-American Planning Council (CPC), which received millions from Chinese state-owned banks and Washington taxpayer funds, has aggressively backed the “Climate Change Superfund Act,” sparking a federal investigation and constitutional concerns. Critics argue the law, signed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in December 2024, threatens U.S. energy security, inflates consumer costs and represents undercover influence by Beijing to undermine American sovereignty. The CPC’s financial ties to Beijing are well-documented. It has secured $1.4 million in U.S. taxpayer funds since 2022 and over $445,000 from Chinese government-linked institutions, including state-owned banks like the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and the Bank of China. Legal experts and industry analysts have raised concerns about the law’s constitutionality and economic impact. The Trump administration’s May 1 lawsuit against New York and Vermont argues it unlawfully imposes retroactive liability on energy companies for climate damages and violates the Commerce Clause by targeting out-of-state operations. “The law doesn’t just strain budgets — it’s a constitutional time bomb,” said Republican Party energy lawyer Tom Jensen. “Forcing companies to pay for past emissions they couldn’t foresee is trial by legislature, not due process.” Read it all at NewsTarget and The Daily Caller. Naturally, it’s hard to know how much different a half a million here or there in lobbying makes, but if they are openly cheering on climate taxes like this, and providing testimony supporting the law, what’s going on behind closed doors, with Quid Pro Quo deals and honeypot extortion, and who is trying to find out? House Republicans have begun probing the CPC funding, but behind closed doors there may be no paper trail unless a patriotic whistleblower speaks up.
As a tool of warcraft, it’s a bargain for China to throw money at green charities in the WestWe already know they are sending money through the Energy Foundation China which ends up in environmental groups in the USA, like the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), that files legal challenges to stop oil pipelines, drilling, coal plants and other mining activities. China would be crazy if they weren’t…China controls the rare metals market, builds the wind turbines and solar panels, and now also the EV’s. Obviously, on a pure self-serving business level, the CCP would be crazy if they weren’t amplifying Green fantasia in the West in order to sabotage the competition. Hypothetically, if China was feeding millions of dollars through NGO’s and philanthropic organizations, and our traitorous universities, what would stop it happening — investigative reporting from The ABC, the BBC or the CBC? How about CNN? In years to come people may come to see the whole sorry escapade of the “Climate Wars” as a tactic where the Blob used China and China used the Blob to screw over The West. Both photos by Serg Balak on Unsplash and Unsplash
June 14th, 2025 | Tags: China, Climate Money | Category: Big-Government, China, Global Warming, Politics, USA |  Print This Post | | By Jo Nova Politico doesn’t even know what “Culture” is (or Science)They were paid millions by the USAID Blob as a fake news outlet, but even Politico has finally been dragged by its fingernails to admit something, anything, is not quite working for them in climate politics. But make no mistake, this is not a mea culpa, it is just damage control, years after they really lost the culture war. After all, two years ago in March 2023, fully 60% of American voters already thought Climate science was more like a religion. And in any case, Donald Trump called climate change a hoax in 2016, and American voters elected him President. But here the Blob Media are, trying to sell themselves as the firemen hosing down the global inferno. h/t to Climate Depot
As if they give a damn about “Culture”:“‘We’ve lost the culture war on climate” they say, but in the article they say nothing at all about culture and everything about federal regulators, funding for junkets, tax breaks and incentives. Culture is apparently just about The Money, The Rules, The Blob. The big news here is not that Politico is reporting something meaningful, it’s that its role is shifting to “damage control”. This article is the closest thing they can think of for an excuse. They won’t admit they lost the science debate, or that the experts were wrong, or that CO2 is free fertilizer, or that Net Zero targets were futile. Instead, years too late, they’re pretending to care about culture while they demonstrate they just care about the money. President Donald Trump’s latest climate rollback makes it all but official: The United States is giving up on trying to stop the planet’s warming. More than 15 years after federal regulators officially recognized that greenhouse gas pollution threatens “current and future generations,” their most ambitious efforts to defuse that threat have been blocked in the courts and by Trump’s rule-slicing buzzsaw. Wednesday’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency would extend that streak by wiping out a Biden-era regulation on power plants — leaving the nation’s second-largest source of climate pollution unshackled until at least the early 2030s. “Culture” is just an excuse to cover up a complete backdown on a stupid policy: “There’s no way around it: The left strategy on climate needs to be rethought,” said Jody Freeman, who served as counselor for energy and climate change in President Barack Obama’s White House. “We’ve lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement.” So to avoid being irrelevant, they need to do what the skeptics said all along, “use gas”: It’s a strategy Freeman admitted she was “struggling” to articulate, but one that included using natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to more renewable power — an approach Democrats embraced during the Obama administration — finding “a new approach” for easing permits for energy infrastructure and building broad-based political support. Basically, this is Politico trying to show the Bloblings and climate fan-boys how to frame a big backdown as if it’s just a shift in “the culture war” not an admission that they were wrong. The truth is that they lost the science war long before they lost the culture war:It’s been bad for believers ever since the ice cores showed temperatures rise before carbon dioxide does, and by hundreds of years, and we’ve known that since 2003. The only signature of catastrophe that mattered was the upper tropospheric hot spot, which was totally missing in 2005 and is still missing, (it was the only fingerprint they said that counted, right up until they couldn’t find it). The data kept backing the skeptical side: 3,000 ocean buoys, 6,000 boreholes, a thousand tide gauges, and 28 million weather balloons. The ocean warming isn’t statistically significant, sea-levels started rising before we even built the coal plants, and still aren’t rising fast enough. The Holocene was wickedly hot for thousands of years, and they don’t know why. Antarctica was supposed to be warming faster than almost anywhere but they were totally wrong. The only part of Antarctica that was warming was sitting on top of a volcano chain they prefer not to tell you about. The climate experts still can’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale, they don’t know why global warming slowed for years, or the world was warm in medieval times. And all along some of their best scientists were hiding data, declines, history, adjustments and methods. In 2007 30,000 scientists signed a petition skeptical of global warming, By 2012 two thirds of engineers and geologists in Canada were skeptics. But Politico won’t report this — it doesn’t suit the narrative. Teach the children. The big lies of the Blob Media are what they don’t say.
By Jo Nova According to expert reporters, and smug academics, Coal is dead, a stranded asset, and a dying investment all around the globe. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has just published a graph of global approvals of coal-fired plants over the last ten years. For some inexplicable reason, the original graph was various shades of blue and green, by crikey. (Almost like the IEA hoped that no one would notice the contribution from China?). But obviously, the CCP is always Communist Red, so I fixed the graph for them. We can see how badly China wants to achieve Net Zero right here in the graph We can also see how good President Xi is at sticking to his words — look at the ramp up from 2021.  These are just approvals for coal plants, of course, but the IEA says “China started construction of nearly 100GW of new coal fired plants”. No one is planning a coal plant in 2025 that they want to shut down in 2035.Australia’s total coal fired capacity (built over the last fifty years) is 18GW. China approved five times as many new coal plants in a single year as we currently run.
In 2021, China promised the UN that they would “strictly limit” coal growth and their emissions would peak before 2030.Reuters, 2021: China will start phasing down coal use from 2026 as part of its efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions, President Xi Jinping said at a summit of global leaders on Thursday… “We will strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th five-year plan period (2021-2025) and phase it down in the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030),” he said.
Xi’s comments mean that China’s coal consumption, by far the highest in the world, will reach a peak in 2025 and start to fall thereafter. Xi already pledged last year to bring China’s emissions to a peak before 2030 and make the country “carbon neutral” by 2060. “China has committed to move from carbon peak to carbon neutrality in a much shorter timespan than what many developed countries might take, and that requires hard efforts from China,” Xi told the summit.
As we all know, the media is one giant gas-lighting propaganda cartel. Tell the children. PS: Site still struggling under the load of weaselly vandals. We are refining the armor. There are hints it is costing someone quite a lot of money to run this seige. We will prevail! Thanks for your patience.
The DDOS Cyber attack ramped up yesterday with a flood of traffic coming in from Hong Kong. Eric took many measures today that improved things, but it remains difficult to write and publish blog posts. I have paid for a new level of security and tools today which had some success, but it is an arms race with the vandals who don’t want you to read this site. Traffic patterns are obviously artificial. We see very high strange but regular spikes from US sources, and then the long grinding burst of thousands of new “fans” in Hong Kong who all decided to read an Australian site this afternoon. Compare the new robot traffic to the normal size of reader traffic in Australia, France and Germany. Which country would have billions of dollars to lose if Australia stopped ordering wind-trinkets, batteries and solar-voodoo and woke up to the glorious power of cheap brown coal?
So behind the scenes it is hard to write or publish while we add armor to the site to control the trouble, and so please forgive errors, typos or other unusual lack of polish. I can’t predict when a draft will be saved… Thanks to people who have donated to help shore up the site. DDOS = Distributed Denial-of-Service attack.
By Jo Nova Will anything be salvageable?*UPDATED: No — After drifting abandoned and on fire for three weeks, The MorningMidas has sunk. The latest update shows the fires still burning and (wow) extensive damage to the hull. A week after fire broke out on the Morning Midas, the salvage crew have finally reached the boat. The bulk car carrier was abandoned last Tuesday and has been adrift 300 miles south of Alaska. The ship only had 68 full EVs on board, with 681 hybrid cars, among a total load of 3,000 cars. But apparently that was quite enough to turn it into a 47,000 ton slow burning barbecue.
But alas, a week later, the photos show the slow burn has consumed much of the ship. Even though the hull appears intact and the ship is not listing, the damage is extensive. How much of the cargo on board would have survived a week of smoke and heat? The Morning Midas is a bulk carrier which was headed from China to Mexico. The fire broke out last Tuesday Alaskan time, so it is said, from the deck where the electric cars were. After the crew sealed the doors and unleashed the carbon dioxide bottles, there wasn’t much else they could do. All 22 sailors abandoned ship and were rescued by a Costco carrier. The 46,800-ton ship itself was built in 2006 and is worth about $14 million. With 3,000 new cars at $30,000 each that would be a loss of $90 million. If the ship and cargo is lost, as happened to the Felicity Ace in 2022, the total loss could be around $100 million. Without any realistic way to put out these fires, perhaps EV’s will have to be parked on the top deck next to an ejector hatch, with a catapault? It would save so much money if they can be dumped at sea at the first sign of smoke? Sal Mercogliano, a specialist on shipping news points out that on these ships, the cars are packed bumper to bumper and tied down with straps over the wheels. As the fire burns through the straps, he says the cars can start to roll on the seas. (His youtube on this is here).
He also points out the crew have to get off early in a situation like this. They are 10 to 12 decks high above the water, or 100 – 120 feet above water. The lifeboats must be lowered into the water, and if they wait too long, they might be unable to do that. At that point they are left jumping 30-40 meters into the cold Pacific Ocean. What the ship looked like last week as the fires started. Imagine if this was a ferry with 300 passengers? The DDOS continues in some shapeshifting form. While someone appears to have turned off the bot farm in Vietnam the traffic continues from the US. Apologies to readers…
By Jo Nova New AI Data Centers need so much energy, so fast, they’re are going off-gridSuch is the blistering race to get ahead in the global AI battle, that the industry is not waiting for the bureaucrats to build new power plants anymore, they are doing it themselves. And the leading edge of data engineers are not choosing the clean green wind or solar power of the future — they’re building gas plants. The sun and wind are free, but the battery back up, high voltage lines, long approvals, and unreliable supply cost the Earth. What solar? What wind? Texas data centers build their own gas power plantsDylan Baddour, Arcelia Martin, Ars Technica The plant would be big enough to power a major city, with 1,200 megawatts of planned generation capacity fueled by West Texas shale gas. It will only supply the new data center, and possibly other large data centers recently proposed, down the road. The project is one of many others like it proposed in Texas, where a frantic race to boot up energy-hungry data centers has led many developers to plan their own gas-fired power plants rather than wait for connection to the state’s public grid. It was Energy Transfer’s first-ever contract to supply gas for a data center, but it is unlikely to be its last. In a press release, the company said it was “in discussions with a number of data center developers and expects this to be the first of many agreements.” Behold the modern gold-rush — look at the number of applications to build power (of all sorts) and connect it to the grid in Texas: There were more than 2,000 active generation interconnection requests as of April 30, totalling 411,600 MW of capacity, according to grid operator ERCOT. A bill awaiting signature on Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk, S.B. 6, looks to filter out unserious large-load projects bloating the queue by imposing a $100,000 fee for interconnection studies. Larry Fink, head of BlackRock, claims people don’t care about renewables now, they just want power: The reliance on gas power for data centers is a departure from previous thought, said Larry Fink, founder of global investment firm BlackRock, speaking to a crowd of industry executives at an oil and gas conference in Houston in March. About four years ago, if someone said they were building a data center, they said it must be powered by renewables, he recounted. Two years ago, it was a preference. “Today?” Fink said. “They care about power.” To get some idea on the seismic transition that is really underway, ponder that one of the new start ups wants 5,000MW of energy for a new data center covering 2,600 acres, and it is going in to a small town in Texas of less than a thousand people. That’s a massive 5GW for a town of 940 people. There are still a few projects with renewable ambition. One project team that requires just 120MW said it will use just wind power and one large plant says they hope to run a 5GW data center on “private wind, solar and hydrogen” but they will start with gas at first. We, here in Australia, are not even in the race.
June 7th, 2025 | Tags: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Renewable Energy, Texas | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | By Jo Nova Who wants to buy a battery to help save the Energy Minister?Spread the word, the new desperate plan to rescue the Transition Fantasy is to trick Australians into buying home batteries (and EVs) because the wind and solar factories can’t afford to pay for their own backup. But read about the experience of poor Mr Anderson. He accepted a $1,000 discount off the price of his battery, and in return agreed to allow AGL to draw off emergency power from his battery to “stabilize the grid in times of drama”. But he didn’t realize that the Australian electricity market did drama all the time. It’s like The Hunger Games at 6pm and he’d just volunteered as tribute. It seemed like a good idea to sign up to be part of a virtual power plant (VPP). It was fine for the first year, he says, but then AGL started draining his battery at dinnertime, leaving him buying electricity when it was the highest price. Worse, they also changed his payment plan — and he got suckered with the “Demand Tariff” surprise — the diabolical plan which takes someone’s single greatest half hour consumption and then charges them that high rate for the whole month. AGL disputes his claims (but the more they say, the worse it looks). They declare they don’t flatten home batteries “below 20%” and insist they sent him a letter about the tariff changes. Don’t we all feel so much better, eh? The reputational damage of this kind of behaviour needs to be known far and wideLet’s do our part to share his story. Trust ‘on the line’ amid claims AGL drained householder’s battery at peak timesMay 9th 2025 [ABC] Mr Anderson says that in the first year after joining the scheme and getting the battery, he barely noticed a thing. “It was all very gentle and easy going,” he says. “The idea of it was to help stabilise the grid in times of drama. “So it all seemed very reasonable. “And for the first year, I don’t even think they touched the battery.” That all changed after a year or so when Mr Anderson says he started noticing some dramatic shifts. They changed the way they use the battery,” he says.”It went from these little bites every now and again to just full on sucking the thing down to its 5 per cent reserve level, just dragging everything out of it. “And you could map when they were doing that to when the price on the (national electricity market) had skyrocketed.” They drained the battery and flicked the pricing plan: Mr Anderson asserts AGL also started “draining” his battery at times, forcing him to buy power from the grid at peak prices. To compound his frustrations, he says the changes amounted to a double whammy — by forcing him to buy power from the grid at peak times, he claims he was driving up his costs under a demand tariff. Oh Great: AGL will only drain 80% from your battery?AGL, which is Australia’s biggest energy retailer with more than 4 million customers, defended its actions in relation to Mr Anderson and its management of the VPP. A spokeswoman rejected claims AGL ever entirely depleted the batteries of participating households, saying it was the company’s policy to always leave at least 20 per cent of a charge remaining. What good, exactly, is a battery left at 20% charge? For practical purposes the last 20% is untouchable. Beyond that, the homeowner risks permanent damage to the battery. At that point it’s not backup power for your home, it’s a placebo with a lithium core. So when they say “we’ll never drain your battery below 20%”, what they really mean is: “We’ll take everything that’s usable — and leave just enough so the warranty doesn’t catch fire.” AGL kept digging — pointing out that the tariff change was completely separate from the VPP deal It’s true that AGL surprised all kinds of customers with the “Demand Tariff” bomb, not just battery owners, but they can’t pretend they cared about their customers in either situation. AGL was separately awful in two different ways. The Demand Tariffs, by the way, were so noxiously unfair and unjust that after the backlash last year, AGL is no longer using them. Mr Anderson has said his experience was so bad he’s left the VPP scheme.
By Jo Nova For your sake, the Australian government took at least $440 of yours this year and spent it on electrical hobgoblins that claim to make nicer weather in a hundred years. That’s $1,800 for each family of four, in order to reduce world temperatures by nothing in our lifetimes. How many families would willingly give up that kind of money on the witchdoctor weather quest? The IPA has done what the Labor Government is too dishonest to do, and the Opposition was too scared to do. Adam Creighton added up the bonzana the government has spent on climate change since 2022 — and it’s exploded like a tanker of polyurethane-policy-filler. It sticks to everything, can’t be removed and if we burn it down, it fills the room with cyanide. Back in 2021 the nation was throwing $1.7 billion dollars a year on certified weather voodoo. But after Labor won in 2022 that figure ballooned until now the federal budget spending on “climate change” and ‘Net Zero’ has expanded to $9 billion. But this is barely the start of the true cost Australians have paid — The transition bonfire added about $150 to most electricity bills in Australia this year. For some Australians electricity has risen by as much as 50% since the Labor government was elected. Then there’s another $3b in electricity rebates each year to hide the true cost of the electricity horror show. Someone has to pay those rebates, and since it’s borrowed money, that’ll be the kids. Then there are the businesses that folded, the jobs that were lost, the factories that moved away, and the higher cost of frozen everything in supermarkets. How did we go broke — gradually then suddenly.
Climate change spend surges to $9bn a yearBy Matthew Cranston, The Australian “The array of ‘programs’ and ‘funds’ related to climate change and net zero, which are typically piled on top of one another, year after year, has become ridiculous and almost impossible to track. It raises serious questions about how effectively and efficiently public funds are being spent,” Mr Creighton said. “Despite all this soaring spending on net zero, Australia’s emissions have fallen only 2.8 per cent on the government’s own figures compared to 2005, once you exclude creative accounting with trees.” What do we call it when the government commands the economy — communism? The construction of electricity generation and distribution, which is dominated by renewable energy projects such as wind and solar, has now reached a record share of total engineering construction. Westpac economist Pat Bustamante said that since 2020, work done on renewables had grown by 250 per cent from around $2bn a quarter to around $7bn, “with a significant portion of this growth driven by the public sector”. It’s a scandal that the Labor Government doesn’t come clean with a single figure cost for climate spendingAustralian voters had no idea how much of their money is being squandered turning our power stations into fake weather control machines. It’s another scandal that the ABC never demands to know the answer. Isn’t that exactly what we pay them for — to ask the hard questions? What did we get for $500 each —as it happens, more emissions. It would take a PhD to estimate what the real cost is, but 100% of our academics are too busy trying to scare more funds out of the public to add up something we actually need to know. As a bucket estimate, $9 billion in public spending plus $3b in electricity rebates equals $12 billion annually. That’s $440 for every man, woman and child, and by the time we add in extra electricity costs the figure would easily be $500 to $600 each. It’s a level of spending that only 2% of Australians say they are happy to pay. At no point did they ask you if you would rather keep the money yourself. That’s because they know Australians don’t want the Carbon Sky Whale. Who do the politicians, the ABC and the Academics serve? The Chinese Communist Party?
What a nice surprise, a lovely card in the post box from the Netherlands today. Thank you!
! The site is currently under DDOS (Distributed Denial-of-Service) attack again. Traffic is crazy. Literally hundreds of thousands of requests coming in from the US, Vietnam and Brazil. Thanks for your patience. Apologies, it’s difficult to write posts when the server is overloaded. (I will be reviving the largely dormant X account soon. @JoanneNova) UPDATE: Massive suspicious traffic relentless. We’ve taken some action. Hopefully not blocking real traffic. Please respond on X or email support.jonova AT proton.me.
By Jo Nova Good news — there is one less hyper-complex, pointless, car-hate program in the worldIt all flipped so quickly: Only six months ago President Macron was hurling France into a climate changing roadmap of the Octopus kind. The people of France were going to have to buy EVs, work from home, swap the filet mignon for tofu, and take fewer flights overseas. Even large screen televisions were going to have to shrink, to save electrons. And some bureaucrats were enthusiastically even dreaming that they would reach into homes and set the thermostats to max out at 19C (66F) in winter and to only cool to 25C (78F) in summer. To beat French car owners around the head, the National government legislated car zoning incentives to make life hard for anyone who wanted to drive an old car. The low emission zones started in 2019 and had already spread like a municipal leprosy to every town larger than 150,000 people. In these ZFEs (zones à faibles émissions), cars were ranked and given a sticker. Crit’Air 0 were the cleanest and Crit’Air 5 were the most “polluting” vehicles. Different rules applied to each sticker class in each town with a soul sapping complexity. In Paris for example, Crit’Air 3 cars (basically diesel cars older than 2011, and petrol cars before 2006) were banned on weekdays. Fines varied from €68 to €750. It was a case of — if you like your car, you can keep it — (locked in the garage, right?) But cars older than 1997 were seen as such baby killers they were not allowed to have a Crit’Air Sticker at all, so their drivers would be fined if they were caught on any weekday between 8am and 8pm. Obviously, the bans hurt the poor and the rural workers — who drove older cars. They also hurt the tradies, and small businesses that used a van. The low emission zones were so unpopular, as the BBC even admits, they “turned into something of a lightning rod for Macron’s supporters”. (The wonder is that it took five years?) Last week the French National Assembly voted 98 to 51 to scrap the zones entirely. The government had tried to dilute the rules, and save the restrictions to Paris and Lyon, but MP’s were having none of it. Evidently, many politicians were afraid of word getting back to voters that they didn’t vote down the low emissions zones. (Go, democracy). Interestingly, these car zones were so awful that even some members on the far left of French politics, joined the centre right to get rid of them. Finally, there are hints of life on the far left: “Green policies should not be imposed on the backs of the working classes” — Clémence Guetté. Guetté is described in the Wall Street Journal as being “to the left of Bernie Sanders”. The Greens and Socialists though, still voted for the car sticker program to change the weather. They probably like having stickers on their cars to tell everyone how smugly clever they are. French MPs vote to scrap low-emission zonesBBC A handful of MPs from Macron’s party joined opposition parties from the right and far right in voting 98-51 to scrap the zones, which have gradually been extended across French cities since 2019. But it was a personal victory for writer Alexandre Jardin who set up a movement called Les #Gueux (Beggars), arguing that “ecology has turned into a sport for the rich”. The low-emission zones began with 15 of France’s most polluted cities in 2019 and by the start of this year had been extended to every urban area with a population of more than 150,000, with a ban on cars registered before 1997. Marine Le Pen condemned the ZFEs as “no-rights zones” during her presidential campaign for National Rally in 2022, and her Communist counterpart warned of a “social bomb”. The head of the right-wing Republicans in the Assembly, Laurent Wauquiez, talked of “freeing the French from stifling, punitive ecology”, and on the far left, Clémence Guetté said green policies should not be imposed “on the backs of the working classes”. Green Senator Anne Souyris told BFMTV that “killing [the ZFEs] also means killing hundreds of thousands of people” … The legislation still has to go through the upper house, though it is expected to. And it doesn’t stop tyrant-municipalities from imposing their own small tourist-deterrent zones. But spread the word in case any of our politicians think this idea is not radioactively awful. They need to know it’s been tried and failed so we don’t have to repeat the experiment.
See also France, Yes Even France, Rethinks Low-Emissions Zones, Wall Street Journal Car and signs picture created with AI.
June 3rd, 2025 | Tags: ULEZ (Ultra low emission zone) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2026 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments