Climate change is arguably one of the most polarizing topics in the world. While it is a scientific fact that our planet's climate does change, what causes it? Is it manmade or natural? Somewhat less importantly, how do America's presidential candidates view the topic?
Personally, I have always viewed the topic this way: If the sun went out tomorrow, there is no amount of greenhouse gas that mankind can put into the atmosphere to warm things up. To me, climatology has done the proverbial looking into the oven and ignored the heating elements. For example, during the period when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 was much more prevalent in the atmosphere than it is today. This caused the plants to grow larger, which of course led to larger animals due to the plentiful food. And yet they claim CO2 is somehow going to harm the planet's climate, and us, today? The whole theory screams of
snake oil. Someday, mankind will look back on us and think, "You idiots believed that bunk?"
So what do our presidential candidates believe? From Left to Right...
Stein is arguably the most thoroughly in the pocket of Global Warmists, with climate change all over her platform:
Enact an emergency Green New Deal to turn the tide on climate change, revive the economy and make wars for oil obsolete. Initiate a WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change, the greatest threat to humanity in our history. Create 20 million jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, conservation and restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems.
I could go on, because climate change is all over her platform. But here is one of her nuttier ideas:
Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.
Does she realize what she is saying? If energy is a "human right", then Stein is proposing government subsidized free energy for everyone. If you understand the economic theory "
The Tragedy of the Commons", you will understand that a free energy system is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Nothing is ever so expensive as when government gives it away for free. Just look at our education system.
GRADE: F. Stein has taken a flawed idea and compounded it.
Here is Hillary's "Day One" plan:
- Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
- Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
- Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
When I read "make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient", I ask one question: What manufacturing? We have run off most manufacturing with our expensive and over-regulated manufacturing environment. And she wants to regulate it more? Stupid is as stupid does...
But then she says this:
Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation.
So she will do it all by executive fiat! Why don't we just eliminate Congress and make her Queen? Climate change demands it!
Clinton adds lots of government spending (one program she quotes a $60 billion figure, which is about the value of Dow Chemical), and her plan is VERY detailed. If I thought her plan was to make America energy independent, it would actually be intriguing. But her hawkish ways tell me otherwise.
GRADE: D. Hillary's plan isn't dangerously stupid, and parts of it could actually work. But it is a huge mess overall, and expands government far beyond the need to accomplish energy independence.
Trump's website doesn't even mention climate change under "issues", and according to the
Washington Post:
The Republican presidential front-runner repeatedly has said he isn’t “a believer” that humans have played a significant role in the Earth’s changing climate. He said as much in an interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt last year. He told “Fox & Friends” earlier this year that climate change “is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money.”
In his own tweets, Trump has called the concept of global warming everything from a “hoax” to “bulls—” to a scheme “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (He later said he was joking about the China tweet).
On the other hand...(from
The Atlantic):
...in late November [2009], a full-page ad appeared in The New York Times. The ad, an open letter, called on President Obama and Congress to finally pass legislation restricting greenhouse-gas emissions.
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” it read. “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
Below that text were 55 names. They included squishily liberal executives and various other famous people, like the CEOs of Patagonia, Timberland, Blue Man Group, and Chipotle; and Deepak Chopra, Martha Stewart, Kenneth Cole, and Ben and Jerry.
Someone else was on that list, too: Donald J. Trump, and his three children. That’s right: The Republican nominee for president supported urgent climate action before he opposed it.
...Trump flipped on climate change long before his presidential run. Less than two months after that letter ran in the Times, he had implied to a crowd that global warming couldn’t exist if snowfall was setting records.
So what is his real position? My guess is he signed on to that ad as a "joiner". Trump loves being associated with the "beautiful people". His public statements have been fairly consistent in being against the manmade climate change theory, with only that one exception.
GRADE: A-. Aside from one flip-flop, Trump has been on the money. This is an issue that should be ignored.
Johnson does start with a compelling argument;
The environment is a precious gift and must be protected. Governors Johnson and Weld believe strongly that the first responsibility of government is to protect citizens from those who would do them harm, whether it be a foreign aggressor, a criminal — or a bad actor who harms the environment upon which we all depend.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections...
Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.
Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.
But then he runs off the rails:
When it comes to global climate change, Johnson...[believes] that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.
Is the climate changing? Probably so.
Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.
But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations.
First, the climate is changing. It always has, and always will. "Probably so" is unnecessary political fence-straddling.
Second, is man contributing to it? But like Johnson did in the first question, he decides to straddle the fence again. The problem with this is the dire nature of the Global Warmists' warnings. You can't straddle the fence with "the world is ending tomorrow". You believe it, or you don't.
However, Johnson may have shown his true colors in this
JuneauEmpire.com interview:
“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.
To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.
“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” but at the same time, he says the United States is only “16 percent of the (global) load” of carbon, and “I don’t want to do anything that harms jobs.”
Even Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein don't include carbon "fees" in their plans. (The irony of Johnson talking about "fee — not a tax" is eerily reminiscent of the Obama administration's Obamacare tax/fee flip-flop, where "fee' was used to sell it, but they called it a "tax" at the Supreme Court hearings.)
GRADE: D+. From a Libertarian perspective, this is an epic fail for Johnson. From an overall election perspective, I would call his plan less dangerous than Hillary's plan, but still a failure.
