GOP Presidential Candidate Confirms Climate Denial Status
Tim Scott on Fox & Friends downplays the threat of climate change, saying, "this is ridiculous to talk about climate emergency when we have a border emergency right now." pic.twitter.com/TKHrk99NL8
Yeah, but that’s about exceptional denials not run of mill dumb ones. The only things extraordinary here is the office being contested, not the denial in content or otherwise.
I appreciate your point, but it triggered some thoughts – have the proponents of denial succeeded in becoming so common place that a candidate for the presidency playing his fiddle while the world burns warrants nothing more than a yawn?
On a scale of Complacency to Outrage, at what point do we just throw in the towel?
“…that a candidate for the presidency playing his fiddle while the world burns warrants nothing more than a yawn?”
Frankly the candidate can be blamed all you or we want, but until each of us work to stop using fossil fuels in our lives and towns, the candidate isn’t to blame, WE are. How many own and drive EVs? How many have nearly all electric homes? How many get power from (very nearly) zero Carbon wind or solar? Used to be one couldn’t. But that excuse is getting quite stale.
Loading...
eco – very few people can actually afford those upgrades you are talking about. The difference in practical terms between R and D is that D will initiate programs and subsidies to make those upgrades available or more affordable to those that struggle to afford them, whereas R won’t do that and will actually pursue an agenda to decrease renewables and increase FF use. Blaming everyone might be technically correct, practically everyone is guilty of not decreasing their own personal footprint, but negating the actual practical differences between R and D is a horrific form of false equivalency, and actually destructive towards getting everyone to do the things you’re like to see them do. This blog post has relevance in that it points to the sad fact that even the most reasonable of Republican Presidential candidates is still far from getting the country on the right track to combat climate change.
Just read that article about Benji from 2021:
“Backer wants Republicans to put together a platform including research — both public and private — into clean energy solutions like carbon capture technology and nuclear power. He wants to encourage farmers to create carbon markets and protect wilderness areas from new development, without closing off public lands to oil and gas drilling entirely. ACC also backs federal spending to adapt coastlines and rural areas to extreme weather. (The group won’t disclose the names of its funders, but Backer told me its money “comes from a diverse group of private individual and family foundation contributions.”)”
Maybe there is more to his proposals, but that is not much. Keep drilling hoping that carbon capture will allow even more use of fossil fuels, adaptations to existing and future climate impacts, and of course the new savior nuclear (fusion or modular). You can’t be serious??? Even the mitigation is directed to republicans: mostly the rich can afford homes on the coast and rural areas are mostly republican. Is there more to their proposals?
Loading...
Mr Backer’s principal proposal is a Carbon Tax, which I support. Many Democrats don’t because they think it regressive.
Loading...
About 30 years late. What would it be now to make it effective? $10,000 a ton.
Chock full of loopholes and scams that go a long way to protect fossil fuel interests. No wonder republicans like it
Loading...
Proposals are for $20-$50/tonne.
Alternatively subsidize EVs and electricity for homes and business and strip away subsidies for fossil, including jobs.
Loading...
your responses have been well answered as inaccurate for decades.
I encourage further research
bye
Loading...
Claims generally need concrete evidence if they are to be taken seriously.
I see nothing else here than unsubstantiated claims.
I have given statements and sources. Guess there’s nothing more to discuss. At least Mr Backer is trying to work through his political party and interest group, youth.
Whether either party has an answer both are going to have to answer the repercussions of continuing to emit greenhouse gases. So Mr Backer is ahead of the game there. The Democrats are trying to do things, too, but their rate of success is limited as well. Question is which set of leaders are more likely to be more capable handling a natural emergency? It’s going to be hard to do that if one is busy trying to fulfill promises already mtsade.
My question is the U.S. Constitution in its present form up to implementing a favorable ruling for Juliana in Juliana vs United States?
Loading...
ps – talk to the people on Maui others suffering like experiences about lost jobs
Climate’s gotta wait until the border is secure?
Hey, Putin. Hey, Saudi’s. Did you hear that?
Ask the reverse: Who buys climate disruption? Will any Republican publicly admit they do?
Climate change is aggravating the migration problem, you dolt.
Gee, didn’t know so many tune in here for GOP presidential news.
“Climate Denial Crock of the Week” might be a clue
Yeah, but that’s about exceptional denials not run of mill dumb ones. The only things extraordinary here is the office being contested, not the denial in content or otherwise.
I appreciate your point, but it triggered some thoughts – have the proponents of denial succeeded in becoming so common place that a candidate for the presidency playing his fiddle while the world burns warrants nothing more than a yawn?
On a scale of Complacency to Outrage, at what point do we just throw in the towel?
“…that a candidate for the presidency playing his fiddle while the world burns warrants nothing more than a yawn?”
Frankly the candidate can be blamed all you or we want, but until each of us work to stop using fossil fuels in our lives and towns, the candidate isn’t to blame, WE are. How many own and drive EVs? How many have nearly all electric homes? How many get power from (very nearly) zero Carbon wind or solar? Used to be one couldn’t. But that excuse is getting quite stale.
eco – very few people can actually afford those upgrades you are talking about. The difference in practical terms between R and D is that D will initiate programs and subsidies to make those upgrades available or more affordable to those that struggle to afford them, whereas R won’t do that and will actually pursue an agenda to decrease renewables and increase FF use. Blaming everyone might be technically correct, practically everyone is guilty of not decreasing their own personal footprint, but negating the actual practical differences between R and D is a horrific form of false equivalency, and actually destructive towards getting everyone to do the things you’re like to see them do. This blog post has relevance in that it points to the sad fact that even the most reasonable of Republican Presidential candidates is still far from getting the country on the right track to combat climate change.
Except for Benji Backer…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/conservative-coalition-fighting-global-warming/2021/07/08/a05633ba-cd2e-11eb-8014-2f3926ca24d9_story.html
Just read that article about Benji from 2021:
“Backer wants Republicans to put together a platform including research — both public and private — into clean energy solutions like carbon capture technology and nuclear power. He wants to encourage farmers to create carbon markets and protect wilderness areas from new development, without closing off public lands to oil and gas drilling entirely. ACC also backs federal spending to adapt coastlines and rural areas to extreme weather. (The group won’t disclose the names of its funders, but Backer told me its money “comes from a diverse group of private individual and family foundation contributions.”)”
Maybe there is more to his proposals, but that is not much. Keep drilling hoping that carbon capture will allow even more use of fossil fuels, adaptations to existing and future climate impacts, and of course the new savior nuclear (fusion or modular). You can’t be serious??? Even the mitigation is directed to republicans: mostly the rich can afford homes on the coast and rural areas are mostly republican. Is there more to their proposals?
Mr Backer’s principal proposal is a Carbon Tax, which I support. Many Democrats don’t because they think it regressive.
About 30 years late. What would it be now to make it effective? $10,000 a ton.
Chock full of loopholes and scams that go a long way to protect fossil fuel interests. No wonder republicans like it
Proposals are for $20-$50/tonne.
Alternatively subsidize EVs and electricity for homes and business and strip away subsidies for fossil, including jobs.
your responses have been well answered as inaccurate for decades.
I encourage further research
bye
Claims generally need concrete evidence if they are to be taken seriously.
I see nothing else here than unsubstantiated claims.
I have given statements and sources. Guess there’s nothing more to discuss. At least Mr Backer is trying to work through his political party and interest group, youth.
Whether either party has an answer both are going to have to answer the repercussions of continuing to emit greenhouse gases. So Mr Backer is ahead of the game there. The Democrats are trying to do things, too, but their rate of success is limited as well. Question is which set of leaders are more likely to be more capable handling a natural emergency? It’s going to be hard to do that if one is busy trying to fulfill promises already mtsade.
My question is the U.S. Constitution in its present form up to implementing a favorable ruling for Juliana in Juliana vs United States?
ps – talk to the people on Maui others suffering like experiences about lost jobs