David Ignatius: “Climate Change” Is Totally A Moral Issue Or Something

Totally. And the Washington Post even uses a wonderful picture of steam, otherwise known as “water vapor”, to tell us how bad it is

The moral issue of climate change

The politics of selfishness was embraced enthusiastically last week by Sen. Mitch McConnell. In dismissing President Obama’s deal with China to reduce carbon emissions, the incoming Senate majority leader said “carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states around the country” by undermining economic interests.

For McConnell (Ky.) and other GOP critics, regulation of carbon emissions is a pocketbook issue where constituents’ short-term interests must prevail. They reject or minimize the arguments of leading scientists that such emissions are directly linked to global warming and climate change and could have catastrophic long-term consequences. The doubters question the data, to be sure. But their basic argument is political: Action to protect the environment will hurt “my state.”

But what if the climate change problem were instead treated as a moral issue — a matter like civil rights where the usual horse-trading logic of politics has been replaced by a debate about what’s right and wrong?

This morality play has been growing in recent years as a way to force other countries to implement measures that redistribute money to the whiners. Lots of island nations have been trying this schtick. The United Nations has also be pushing the morality meme, particularly with their prognostications about millions and millions of climate change refugees, and how millions will die from…the weather. It has now started hitting the Warmists themselves as they try and reframe the political issue of Hotcoldwetdry, hence the reason they are attempting to get churches and organized religion to take a stance in favor of higher taxation and government restrictions on citizens lives.

Treating this as a moral issue will allow Warmists to better implement their hard-core Progressive (nice fascist) agenda.

The case for treating climate change as an ethical problem is made subtly in “The Bone Clocks,” a new novel by David Mitchell. It portrays a dystopian future in which normal life has been shattered by environmental decay, rampant disease and global disorder. Mitchell’s book is long and complex, but it might just become the “1984” of the climate change movement. It dramatizes the consequences of our improvident modern economy in the way George Orwell’s novel awakened people to the “Big Brother” mentality of Soviet communism. (snip)

Is this a moral issue? After reading Mitchell’s stark novel, and imagining the world of 2043, I am beginning to think the answer is yes. If the future quality of life around the world is at stake, people who resist action are not just misguided, they’re wrong.

Is this a moral issue? Well, it’s certainly not a scientific one. It’s political.

Of course, none of the Warmists think it is that much of a pressing moral issue that they actually practice what they preach.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!