Governor Bullock’s Climate Council to Punish Farmers and Ranchers for Climate Change

2
1530

In spite of 50 years of failed climate doom predictions, Governor Bullock’s Climate Council is making some drastic recommendations for the State of Montana to combat what is supposedly a civilization-ending event; climate change.

On August 10, 1969, the New York Times predicted that the entire population of the world would ‘disappear in blue steam’ by 1989. On April 16, 1970, the Boston Globe predicted that the world would enter the ice age by the year 2000. On January 5, 1978, the New York Times predicted possibly a civilization-ending 30-year cooling trend. These dire predictions continued, even though the predictions began to center on global warming. On December 14, 2008, former Vice President Al Gore claimed we only had ten years to save the polar ice caps. They’ve since grown in volume. And in 2009, Prince Andrew of Great Britain claimed we only had 96 months to save the world from impending ecological disaster. And now, climate alarmist, Greta Thornberg, might just win the Nobel Prize for insisting that the world needs to get rid of capitalism in order to save itself from climate change.

During a time when grown-ups need to be at the table and seriously view raw scientific data rather than engage in fear-mongering alarmism, Democratic Montana governor, Steve Bullock, has created the Montana Climate Council to make rash recommendations via his executive order on July 1, 2019.

Those recommendations are now in.

Although specifics are still forthcoming, a new statement from the governor’s council recommends drastic changes to Montana infrastructure in order to survive the impending ice age. Or to survive global warming. Or is it climate change? It’s hard to keep up with doomsday science, but it’s clear from the statement put out by the council that Montana needs economic changes to survive whatever Mother Nature has in store for us.

The statement seems to focus its findings on Montana wildfires, which are largely caused by leftist environmental regulations that prevent harvesting lumber from federal lands.

“In 2017,” the document reads, “the state experienced our largest and most expensive fire season on record since the big burn of 1910. We had double the incidence of respiratory-related ER visits in affected counties; we endured periodic waves of evacuations; and tragically, we lost the lives of two wildland firefighters. The state lost up to 800,000 visitors due to 2017 fires and smoke, resulting in an estimated loss of $240.5 million in visitor spending. According to the Montana Climate Assessment (MCA), the State could experience an additional 3-7 degrees increase in average temperatures by mid-century, including an increase in incidences of extreme heat that could dramatically increase many of these impacts moving forward.”

Of course, most experts acknowledge that poor forest management is not the slightest coincidental for Montana’s raging wildfires and that much could be done to combat the fires if restrictions were lifted or incentives given to the lumber industry, which would provide many Montana jobs. But, Governor Bullock’s agenda seems to focus on placing new restrictions on agriculture.

The statement says one of the solutions is to, “Explore opportunities for Montana farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to diversify income streams through emerging carbon markets by developing pilot projects or programs that aggregate and quantify enhanced carbon management. Consider other creative efforts that reward producers for climate resilience and carbon management such as cost-share or insurance premium reduction payments, marketing and labeling tools and others.”

Around the country, liberals are suggesting that farmers and ranchers must endure draconian carbon limits in order to stop global warming, with solutions that include a carbon tax for the flatulence of cattle. Other proposals, like issuing a surcharge for fuel used in farm vehicles and equipment are also usually on the table, placing the burden for climate change squarely upon the backs of America’s food producers.

“Rewarding producers” for limited carbon emissions usually amounts to allowing them to avoid a new tax imposed by climate alarmists.

The governor’s plan is not specific on what ways farmers will be punished for climate change, but it’s clear that they’re in his sights.




A CALL TO ACTION:

Bringing you conservative news and commentary means it is tough out there on social media. We’re constantly getting kneecapped and constrained by tech companies who find the truth intolerable, resulting in our reach being severely throttled.

For this reason, please consider supporting us directly. If you like what you are reading and desire to to see more, please support our work here.


Stay informed. Subscribe today.
Enter your email address below.

[yikes-mailchimp form="1"]



2 COMMENTS

  1. There is no solid proof in the field of science that humans are the cause of climate change. The earth is in an ice age right now. That means ice sheets have formed at the poles and are maintained by cooler and warmer periods in the climate called glacials and interglacials. There is no universal law that dictates the size of the ice sheets. If the climate gets cool enough for long enough, they could eventually cover most of the earth. Obviously an undesirable event. On the other hand, the climate may become much warmer where, over time, the ice sheets will eventually disappear. There is nothing undesirable about this event because not only has it happened before in the history of the earth, when it has happened, it has lasted for hundreds of millions of years longer than past ice ages. This is known as a hothouse climate or greenhouse earth. And life does thrive and evolve during hothouse climates.

    Agenda politics and political driven science has created a mentality in humanity that a greenhouse earth is something to be feared. It’s not. Imagine living in a tropical climate throughout the planet. Not just between the tropics but beyond that. This is because a greenhouse earth draws more water vapor into the atmosphere. That water vapor will return to earth as rain. Not only that, that water vapor will shade the earth from the sun as well as carry the heat up into the atmosphere where it will be dispatched into outer space preventing the planet from overheating. This is because heat is more apt to move towards cold. It’s very cold in outer space.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here