Trump’s Perspective on Climate Change Is Ridiculous, But Democrats Aren’t Much Better

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601906/trumps-perspective-on-climate-change-is-ridiculous-but-democrats-arent-much-better/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Trump’s Perspective on Climate Change Is Ridiculous, But Democrats Aren’t Much Better[/font]

[font size=4]Unfortunately, Democrats are ignoring the one thing that could really help curb carbon emissions.[/font]

by Michael Reilly | July 14, 2016

[font size=3]We are familiar with Donald Trump’s stance on climate change: it’s a “con job” perpetrated by the Chinese. His views on energy policy are strongly pro-coal, but also contradict themselves. The Republican Party’s 2016 platform also describes coal as a “clean” source of energy.

What’s surprising, though, is that Democrats’ position is functionally not much better. President Barack Obama has signed the Paris accord and made big claims about cutting emissions in the U.S. But his Clean Power Plan is held up in the Supreme Court, and the one thing that would make the biggest difference in reducing carbon emissions appears nowhere in sight.

Hillary Clinton, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, has a climate change plan. It is supportive of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. And there are broad promises to cut subsidies for the oil and gas industry, as well as an oft-repeated tagline that Clinton wants to “make the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.”

It’s certainly a far cry from Trump’s flamboyant opposition to promoting renewable energy or cutting carbon emissions. But Clinton’s climate platform leaves out one big thing: a carbon tax.

…[/font][/font]

[CrowCityDem]

1. Only one side denies reality, but they're both as bad? Utter garbage article.

[arcane1]

2. "Aren’t Much Better" isn't the same as "both as bad" n/t

[CrowCityDem]

4. The difference between anything and denial is astronomical.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. No it’s not actually

Let’s say that Donald Trump says, “Climate change is a hoax, so I’m not going to do anything about it.”

Now, let’s say that Hillary Clinton says, “Climate change is very, very real, and a serious threat, but I’m not going to do anything about it.”

Which policy would be better at combating climate change?

[hr]
Now, as it turns out, Hillary Clinton has not said she will do nothing. However, has she proposed doing something which will be effective in combating climate change?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

…

Hillary’s plan is designed to deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference last December—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. Her plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. Her approach will catalyze new investment and economic opportunity across the country, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, reduce energy bills and save families money, make our country more secure, and protect our families and communities from pollution.

…

[CrowCityDem]

7. It is, because you can't even discuss the issue if you don't admit it's real.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. But, what good does it do to acknowledge a problem, but not address it effectively

OK, I admit it, the house is on fire. That’s why I’m turning on the sink sprayer.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. That’s not what the article says

Essentially, the article argues that to be effective, Clinton’s climate policy needs a “carbon tax” (something Bernie Sanders supported.)

[NNadir]

6. Well, regrettably, many in our party support the idea that a form of energy abandoned...

...in the 19th century, coupled with toxic semiconductors with limited availability will "save the day."

That happens right here. We see it all the time, even though so called "renewable energy" has been useless at slowing climate change gas accumulations.

The last time anyone in this country had a clue about energy was when Glenn Seaborg was serving at a quasi-cabinet level in the Johnson and Kennedy administrations.

That was a long time ago.

It's all been wishful thinking since then, coupled with reactionary ideas, fantasies, and ignorance, right and left.

Have a nice evening.