Texas Scorecard by  Brandon Waltens   | May 2, 2024

Even before the council meeting began, activists showed up outside city hall to voice their opposition.

AUSTIN—City Council Members have approved a resolution making the state’s capital a sanctuary for gender-mutilation procedures and chemical castration, though the actual effect of the move may be limited.

The resolution was sent to the council by the city’s LGBTQ Quality of Life Advisory Commission. It states that the policy of the city will be that no city personnel, funds, or resources will be used to investigate, criminally prosecute, or impose administrative penalties on gender-confused individuals seeking gender-mutilative procedures or an individual or organization attempting to assist the individual to receive the procedures.

Even before the council meeting began, activists showed up outside city hall to voice their opposition.

One of those activists was Soren Aldaco, a destransitioner who, as a minor, was given cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. Shortly after her 19th birthday, she underwent a double mastectomy that nearly killed her.

Now, she has filed a lawsuit against doctors who allegedly pressured her into adopting a transgender identity beginning at the age of 15.

“After experiencing no dearth of complications related to these treatments, I chose to make peace with my sex instead of fighting it,” said Aldaco. “I now have filed one of the first lawsuits of its kind, designed to hold the practitioners who transitioned me accountable.”

Aldaco also noted that state law—the recently enacted Senate Bill 14—prohibits gender mutilative procedures from being performed on minors, making the city’s actions largely moot.

More: https://texasscorecard.com/local/austin-council-passes-resolution-making-the-city-a-sanctuary-for-child-gender-mutilation/

Topics merged

The Case Against Net Zero
BY ROBIN GUENIER 30 APRIL 2024 1:00 PM

In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if you accept that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.

1. It’s unachievable.

Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. There are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels, something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.

Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution; (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see point 2 below), make it most unlikely that the U.K. will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as huge data centres the predicted growth of AI.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/30/the-case-against-net-zero/

Germany’s Economic Bloodbath Worsens As Green Revolution Causes Economy To Bleed To Death
By P Gosselin on 3. May 2024

The “greener” Germany gets, the bloodier its economy becomes. How much can an economy bleed before it dies?

Since Germany has become hostile to industry and its Green Revolution has made energy prices among the world’s highest, it’s no wonder that the country’s economy is hemorrhaging economically. Companies are shutting down and moving out.



Foreign direct investment from Germany into the United States from 2000 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars, on a historical-cost basis). Source: statista

For example, German online Blackout News here reports on how automotive supplier IHI has announced the closure of its plant at Erfurter Kreuz, Thuringia, and that around 300 employees will be affected in a region that is already struggling.

The company is an manufacturer of turbochargers for cars and intends to close the plant in 12 to 15 months, reports Blackout News.

https://notrickszone.com/2024/05/03/germanys-economic-bloodbath-worsens-as-green-revolution-causes-economy-to-bleed-to-death/

Sen. John Kennedy Makes Climate Alarmist Democrat Look Like A Fool At Hearing
by Townhall  14 hours ago 

Senator John Kennedy (R) fired a round of questions on climate change reduction policies and goals that turned out to be devastating for Democrat Jamie Raskin.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/sen-john-kennedy-makes-climate-alarmist-democrat-look-like-a-fool-at-hearing/