And About Damn Time Too

Finally, the Supremes wake up:

The Supreme Court on Thursday slashed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory control over water bodies in a win for conservative critics who argued the agency wielded too much power.

The court ruled that the 1972 Clean Water Act, which allows the EPA to regulate wetlands, only applies to wetlands that are obviously connected to larger regulated water bodies.

Now go and read the details of the case, because if ever there was an example of gross bureaucratic overreach, this would be it.

And I’m glad that the USSC (for once) did the right thing, instead of punting or letting the gummint get away with this.  Otherwise:

(I know, “Where are the tar and feathers?”  but go with me…)

NIMBY Central

Well, it is California, which is not only NIMBY Central but also Self-Righteous Hypocrisy Capital.  Why shouldn’t they just pollute their neighbors’ land?

California is revealing new information to the public that shows that the eco-friendly state is dumping tons of toxic waste in other states every year.

Since 2010, California has dumped nearly half of its hazardous waste out of state—mostly in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada—according to the state’s latest figures (pdf). Thirteen more states also have received California’s toxic waste but in much lower quantities.

In the past 13 years, the state has dumped 3.7 million tons of hazardous waste in Utah, more than 2.9 million tons in Arizona, and nearly 2.3 million tons in Nevada.

And the best:

An investigation published by CalMatters in January found that one of the biggest out-of-state toxic waste dumpers was the state’s own Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Why?  California has oodles of deserted space to house their own toxic shit — e.g. Hollywood — so why do this?

The reason is that neighboring states don’t have as many environmental regulations for dumping hazardous waste, and it costs less.

…because:

Many experts say a law that passed two years ago, Senate Bill 158, increased the cost to dump hazardous waste in California—one reason why the state uses landfills elsewhere. It increased taxes and fees at landfills and imposed charges on organizations that use, generate, or store hazardous waste.

And it doesn’t stop there:

In the 1970s, the state had 12 operating hazardous waste incinerators and 12 proposals to build new ones. But in 1990, those projects were killed by environmental activists and most of the existing facilities were closed to provide “environmental justice” to the communities affected by them, according to Williams.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, solid waste incinerators emit hazardous air pollutants, harmful emissions, and toxic ash, posing health concerns for nearby residents and the environment.

Environmental justice for California’s own communities;  for those dirty Injuns in Arizona and Nevada, they suggest, it’s not so important.

All that said, I have little sympathy for California’s neighbors because their own governments — dare I say because of California’s bribe money the revenues? — seem to have little interest in ending all this nonsense, which they could do with a stroke of the legislative pen.  Still:

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who represents the region in Congress, said California should keep its waste.  “It’s bad enough that liberal Californians are moving in droves to Arizona after torching their own state and turning it into a cesspool of crime and homeless junkies,” Gosar told The Epoch Times in a statement. “We certainly don’t need or want their toxic waste.

Tell that to your Democrat buddies and Arizona’s fraudulent governor, buddy.  Good luck with that.

Contempt

One of my favorite cartoon strips of all time was the late (and much-missed) Johnny Hart’s B.C. series.  The single cartoon which tickled me most when I first read it, maybe forty years ago, was this exchange:

“Oh Great Guru, what is the definition of contempt?”
“Winning the Husband Of The Year Award, and sending your mistress to give your acceptance speech.”

I have a new definition of contempt, and there’s nothing funny about it.  Try this one:

A key lawmaker reacted in disbelief Tuesday when a Biden cabinet official said the climate change agenda took priority over the livelihoods of blue collar workers because “there’s a lot of jobs.”

You have to read the entire exchange to get the full flavor of the contempt that senior government employees people (like this watermelon Deb Haaland) have for the working class.

And we know that they despise the working class even more because they support someone like Donald Trump, who actually does care about blue-collar jobs.  So the Greens get a double win:  ecology “protection” and punishing Trump voters.

How nice for them.

Two Events, One Day

From our insufferable apartment management comes this little bit of eco-silliness:

I refrained from pointing out that the energy required to manufacture the snacks and bottle and deliver the “free” water would vastly exceed the puny energy “savings” from our little complex.  Talk about “virtue-signaling”…

Now, what other momentous event occurred on April 20th?

Oh yeah, a birthday:

Wherever the bastard is, I hope the temperature is set to BROIL.

Vandalism

We know that of all the games played in the world, snooker is the worst offender, environmentally-speaking.

Okay, if it isn’t, then how would one explain this activity?

One’s initial reaction to this little silliness, of course, runs to hanging or impalement.  But snooker’s a gentle game, so I think a gentler punishment is called for, something not as extreme.

So if we all agree that flogging is appropriate, then the only remaining question is:

How many strokes? 

Your recommendations in Comments.  I’ll open the bidding at 50.


…and seeing as there are female vandals involved, let’s not forget #MeToo:

It’s only fair and equitable.

Lies Upon Lies Upon Lies

Thanks are owed to Jack Hellner at American Thinker  for taking the time to do what I’ve been too lazy to do:  cataloguing all the climate lies of the past fifty or so years.

I’m reminded of Hitchens’s Razor, that statements presented without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence.  Trouble is that the Climate Charlatans have repeatedly presented evidence, except that the data themselves have been not only fallacious but outright lies, fabrications and distortions.

So… when can we begin the mass hangings and firing squads?