Paul Krugman Is Very Concerned About The Lack Of Focus On ‘Climate Change’

by William Teach | October 7, 2016 7:19 am

He says it’s almost like there’s a rule that keeps the (mostly leftist) media from bringing it up

What About the Planet?[1]

Our two major political parties are at odds on many issues, but nowhere is the gap bigger or more consequential than on climate.

If Hillary Clinton wins, she will move forward with the Obama administration’s combination of domestic clean-energy policies and international negotiation — a one-two punch that offers some hope of reining in greenhouse gas emissions before climate change turns into climate catastrophe.

If Donald Trump wins, the paranoid style in climate politics — the belief that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast international conspiracy of scientists — will become official doctrine, and catastrophe will become all but inevitable.

I’ll start believing Paul is sincere when he moves out of his McMansion and into a tiny home (some of those are actually pretty cool, if you’ve seen the shows, eh?).

So why does the media seem so determined to ignore this issue? Why, in particular, does it almost seem as if there’s a rule against bringing it up in debates?

Probably because the majority of Americans find ‘climate change’ to be a low ranking issue, typically last or next to last. Of course, it doesn’t seem that the (mostly leftist) media wants to focus on the big issues, either.

And if Mrs. Clinton wins, it’s more or less certain that the biggest moves yet — the Clean Power Plan, which would regulate emissions from power plants, and the Paris climate agreement, which commits all of the world’s major economies to make significant emission cuts — will become reality.

Well, there’s a good reason to vote against her.

I’m not saying that there has been no reporting on the partisan climate divide, but there has been nothing like, say, the drumbeat of stories about Mrs. Clinton’s email server. And it’s really stunning that in the three nationally televised forums we’ve had so far — the “commander in chief” forum involving Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate — the moderators have asked not a single question about climate.

Because people care about her careless disregard for transparency and national security, and don’t care about Hotcoldwetdry.

It’s time to end the blackout on climate change as an issue. It needs to be front and center — and questions must be accompanied by real-time fact-checking, not relegated to the limbo of he-said-she-said, because this is one of the issues where the truth often gets lost in a blizzard of lies.

There is, quite simply, no other issue this important, and letting it slide would be almost criminally irresponsible.

It’s easy for people living in McMansions and making a lot of money to care: the cost of living increases from ‘climate change’ policies won’t affect them that much.

But, hey, I’m all for this discussion: it can be exposed on the national stage that this whole issue is a progressive (nice fascist) push to implement higher taxes along with more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and economies. There’s nothing benign about it.

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

  1. What About the Planet?:
  2. Pirate’s Cove:
  3. @WilliamTeach:

Source URL: