Day: September 28, 2009

In a version of the acorn not falling far from the tree, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s totalitarian genes are starting to shine through.

In a New York Times article last weekend, Schwarzenegger admitted that he hounds his children about the length of their showers:

In remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, where he was commemorating the third anniversary of the state’s ground-breaking law to reduce gases that contribute to global warming, the governor described growing up in Europe after World War II, when efforts at conservation were pervasive, and complained about his four children’s lack of similar discipline.

“We were taught to always switch off the light when you go and leave the room, and that you can only use water sparingly or to drink,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “That’s it. Not to waste any water, period. So it’s a totally different atmosphere.”

But his children are prone to taking 15-minute showers, he said.

“So I finally had to implement rules at home,” the governor said, “and tell them that if they take showers that are longer than five minutes that there will be consequences, like they will not be able to go out, where they will not be able to bring friends over, and on and on and on.”

And that is not all.

“I will sometimes spy on them when it comes to the showers and time them,” Mr. Schwarzenegger told his tittering audience. “And I told them if I catch them, there will be something built in that I have from Europe, which only allows you to take a shower for five minutes and then it turns off automatically, which they have in Europe in gymnasiums so you don’t take a shower for too long.”

Hey Arnold, you don’t have to get “something built in” from Europe. We have them here — and the seller is (or, at least, used to be) proud that the device is called the “Shower Nazi.”

When you’re the child of a Sturmabteilung (SA or “brownshirt”) volunteer, you ought to bend over backwards to suppress totalitarian tendencies.

In a version of the acorn not falling far from the tree, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s totalitarian genes are starting to shine through.

In a New York Times article last weekend, Schwarzenegger admitted that he hounds his children about the length of their showers:

In remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, where he was commemorating the third anniversary of the state’s ground-breaking law to reduce gases that contribute to global warming, the governor described growing up in Europe after World War II, when efforts at conservation were pervasive, and complained about his four children’s lack of similar discipline.

“We were taught to always switch off the light when you go and leave the room, and that you can only use water sparingly or to drink,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “That’s it. Not to waste any water, period. So it’s a totally different atmosphere.”

But his children are prone to taking 15-minute showers, he said.

“So I finally had to implement rules at home,” the governor said, “and tell them that if they take showers that are longer than five minutes that there will be consequences, like they will not be able to go out, where they will not be able to bring friends over, and on and on and on.”

And that is not all.

“I will sometimes spy on them when it comes to the showers and time them,” Mr. Schwarzenegger told his tittering audience. “And I told them if I catch them, there will be something built in that I have from Europe, which only allows you to take a shower for five minutes and then it turns off automatically, which they have in Europe in gymnasiums so you don’t take a shower for too long.”

Hey Arnold, you don’t have to get “something built in” from Europe. We have them here — and the seller is (or, at least, used to be) proud that the device is called the “Shower Nazi.”

When you’re the child of a Sturmabteilung (SA or “brownshirt”) volunteer, you ought to bend over backwards to suppress totalitarian tendencies.

Green groups want to use the recession as an excuse to make the Senate climate bill tougher than Waxman-Markey.

According to ClimateWire:

The problem with staying at 17 percent, environmentalists argue, is that the economic recession has made meeting the target much too easy for businesses.

According to the Energy Information Administration, carbon dioxide output is likely to decline 6 percent this year, following a 3 percent slide in 2008. In 2010, emissions will rise, but by less than 1 percent, according to the agency.

“We’re already halfway to the 17 percent target without even trying,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I don’t think many members of Congress know that.”

The strategy is not without risk though:

“The risk they run is that their whole effort could be branded as a statement of the left,” said Manik Roy, a congressional expert at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a think tank that backs congressional action on climate. “No matter how good the rest of the bill is, it’s going to be hard to escape that label.”

Yes, it will be hard to escape a label that rings true.

Green groups want to use the recession as an excuse to make the Senate climate bill tougher than Waxman-Markey.

According to ClimateWire:

The problem with staying at 17 percent, environmentalists argue, is that the economic recession has made meeting the target much too easy for businesses.

According to the Energy Information Administration, carbon dioxide output is likely to decline 6 percent this year, following a 3 percent slide in 2008. In 2010, emissions will rise, but by less than 1 percent, according to the agency.

“We’re already halfway to the 17 percent target without even trying,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I don’t think many members of Congress know that.”

The strategy is not without risk though:

“The risk they run is that their whole effort could be branded as a statement of the left,” said Manik Roy, a congressional expert at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a think tank that backs congressional action on climate. “No matter how good the rest of the bill is, it’s going to be hard to escape that label.”

Yes, it will be hard to escape a label that rings true.

In a ClimateWire article today touting the alarmist goal of 350 parts per million for atmospheric CO2, Stanford University climate hysteric Stephen Schneider made the following comment about “haggling over emissions targets”:

“We’re betting the planet. There’s no such thing as a safe level. There’s a level of very risky, versus mildly risky.

There’s no safe level of CO2? What is he talking about? If there’s no CO2, then there are no people or plants.

Maybe he’s just referring to the inverse correlation between atmospheric CO2 and sanity among alarmists.

In a ClimateWire article today touting the alarmist goal of 350 parts per million for atmospheric CO2, Stanford University climate hysteric Stephen Schneider made the following comment about “haggling over emissions targets”:

“We’re betting the planet. There’s no such thing as a safe level. There’s a level of very risky, versus mildly risky.

There’s no safe level of CO2? What is he talking about? If there’s no CO2, then there are no people or plants.

Maybe he’s just referring to the inverse correlation between atmospheric CO2 and sanity among alarmists.

Democrats are trying yet another name change in their quest to cripple the American economy with greenhouse gas regulations.

Sen. John Kerry announced last week that the Senate climate bill due out this week will be a “pollution reduction” bill not a “cap-and-trade” bill. According to E&E Daily, Kerry said,

“I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.”

So the Democrats have gone from “global warming” to “climate change” to “clean energy” because the public doesn’t buy what they’re selling. Now they’re jettisoning “cap-and-trade” hoping that some other name will stick to the wall.

While Democrats can call economically disastrous carbon caps whatever they want, they can’t buff the cap-and-trade turd or any other carbon cap regime into a public policy popsicle.

Hey John, why don’t you just call it the “Free Candy for Everybody Act of 2009”?

Democrats are trying yet another name change in their quest to cripple the American economy with greenhouse gas regulations.

Sen. John Kerry announced last week that the Senate climate bill due out this week will be a “pollution reduction” bill not a “cap-and-trade” bill. According to E&E Daily, Kerry said,

“I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.”

So the Democrats have gone from “global warming” to “climate change” to “clean energy” because the public doesn’t buy what they’re selling. Now they’re jettisoning “cap-and-trade” hoping that some other name will stick to the wall.

While Democrats can call economically disastrous carbon caps whatever they want, they can’t buff the cap-and-trade turd or any other carbon cap regime into a public policy popsicle.

Hey John, why don’t you just call it the “Free Candy for Everybody Act of 2009”?