The Fate Of The Planet Is At Stake In 2016 Or Something

by William Teach | February 29, 2016 8:05 am

The NY Times’ Paul Krugman, with his big McMansion and fossil fueled travel, is vexed by the 2016 election, and is worried that the planet is doomed if the wrong president is picked. Seriously, the fate of the planet is on the line

Planet On The Ballot[1]

We now have a pretty good idea who will be on the ballot in November: Hillary Clinton, almost surely (after the South Carolina blowout,prediction markets give her a 96 percent probability of securing her party’s nomination), and Donald Trump, with high likelihood (currently 80 percent probability on the markets). But even if there’s a stunning upset in what’s left of the primaries, we already know very well what will be at stake — namely, the fate of the planet.

Why do I say this?

Obviously, the partisan divide on environmental policy has been growing ever wider. Just eight years ago the G.O.P. nominated John McCain, whose platform included a call for a “cap and trade” system — that is, a system that restricts emissions, but allows pollution permits to be bought and sold — to limit greenhouse gases. Since then, however, denial of climate science and opposition to anything that might avert catastrophe have become essential pillars of Republican identity. So the choice in 2016 is starker than ever before.

But, if we elect the correct fascist president, everything will be OK!

But here’s the thing: the next president won’t need to pass comprehensive legislation, or indeed any legislation, to take a big step toward saving the planet. Dramatic progress in energy technology has put us in a position where executive action — action that relies on existing law — can achieve great things. All we need is an executive willing to take that action, and a Supreme Court that won’t stand in its way.

He repeats himself later in his screed

And as I said, no new legislation would be needed, just a president willing to act and a Supreme Court that won’t stand in that president’s way, sacrificing the planet in the name of conservative ideology. What’s more, the Paris agreement from last year means that if the U.S. moves forward on climate action, much of the world will follow our lead.

Why does it always seem as if ‘climate change’ is an excuse to institute bigger and bigger Centralized government in an authoritative manner? You can bet that Krugman will have a conniption fit if a President Trump started signing lots and lots of Executive Orders, right? Of course he will. But, he will be very happy if a President Hillary Clinton does the same, instituting lots and lots of taxes and controls on citizens and private entities, none of which will really negatively affect someone like Krugman.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[2]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[3].