Public Comment to (our incredulous and all-Democrat) Town Council regarding a contract to be extended to a (fancy, expensive) Boston consulting firm, to guide the town in it’s attempts to cure the climate hoax.
I want to object to ANY further expenditures of tax monies in Barrington for SO-CALLED climate action. Such expenditure relies on assumptions that have never been proven, and certainly have never been identified, documented or shown the slightest symptom of within the boundaries of Barrington RI.
I could produce for you document upon document wherein credentialed scientists painstakingly explain that climate variation has been the norm over the history of this great planet, and that human activity has never been shown to impact climate in any way. Shouldn’t a problem be proven to exist, before we spend one penny remediating it?
Certainly, energy resiliency is a worthy goal, and just this July we created a position for a new Resilience Planning Consultant. Good on us. Conservation is also a worthy and realistic goal, and I support efforts in those areas, as well. Who wouldn’t want to do their part to care for our natural resources and preserve & enhance the beauty of our town. But CLIMATE Action is a scam. It’s a scam that is based two lies. The first of the lies is that we in this town are causing negative climate outcomes- a claim that has behind it exactly NOTHING. NOTHING at all. The second lie implied in the term “Climate Action” is that there are actions we can in this town can take, things we can spend money on, that will mitigate the harm we are creating, and thereby positively impact the climate. We categorically cannot.
We have been subjected to these “climate” lies for years on end, and threatened perpetually by the promise of dire results if we did not repent and change. But NEVER have any of those dire projected harms reared their ugly head. So why do we continue to act as though there is truth to it?
There reasons for the climate lies are manifold and mostly revolve around Global taxation (via climate footprint) and Global governance (travel restrictions via digital wallet). This was hinted at by Sen. Sheldon White house in a quote in a recent BARRINGTON TIMES article by Capt. Dave Monti. Elaboration on that here would not be appropriate. But the bottom line confirmed by Senator Whitehouse in this article, is that this agenda really isn’t about the climate.
It is irresponsible for this body to approve this GIGANTIC expenditure- the equivalent of a very good years’ salary- on what can only result in a generic set of guidelines, identical to the ones given to every other Town that is foolish enough to contract with this group.
I took some time to review the website of Kim Lundgren Associates and got the distinct impression from the staff bios that they are not expecting a critical look at their credentials – which makes sense since how could the goal be any simpler, that being the mitigation of non-existent harms. All that needs accomplishing, is a little PR.
Nothing but flippancy is on display on their website. Instead of earnest credential information with their staff pictures, we get descriptions more suitable for a dating app.: Walks on the beach, cute comments about loving their pets, and bragging about being the class comedian.
It is my request to the Town Council, that this motion, to engage this group for advice on a Climate Action plan, be sent back to the Planning, Building, and Resilience team to die. Accompanying this motion, should be an admonition that any future proposed contract must delineate the town-specific problem for which we are seeking remediation advice. To clarify, it should delineate the emergency condition that needs to be resolved, and the time-frame the solution is to be implemented based on what (deteriorating) conditions, and how the proposed solution would be evaluated for determining its success or failure. I think you will find that the PBR team will be unable to come up with any detailed proposals that would actually impact the Global Climate.
Which is why we should not be spending ANY taxpayer money on what can be considered no more than virtue-signaling, pretend-crisis posturing. $175,000 is a tremendous amount of money. Spending it on non-issues in the face of the financial strain we are all being put through at this time, is unforgivable.
- Janine