Why? Because the results make it less likely that any legislation will be passed to help stop Hotcoldwetdry
(National Geographic) In the green hills and gray hollows of Kentucky’s well-mined mountains, the economy of extracting coal from the fuel-rich ground isn’t what it once was.
Yet Mitch McConnell, a longtime senator poised to become majority leader of the U.S. Senate in a Congress that will be fully controlled by his Republican Party come January, has found political fortune in those hills. He successfully campaigned for reelection there with warnings about a “war on coal” he accuses Democratic President Barack Obama of waging. This helps explain what the United States won’t be doing about global warming in the near future. (Read more about how the midterm election results may intensify the battle over clean energy.)
An alignment of the newly empowered McConnell and fellow Republican leaders—who either openly doubt scientists’ findings that human industry has heated the planet, or contend that curbing carbon emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t worth the potential cost of lost jobs—is likely to create the most hostile political environment ever for addressing climate change in Washington.
Let’s hope so. Interestingly, Democrats failed to pass any meaningful “climate change” legislation when they had complete control of Congress during Obama’s first two years.
At the end of the day, as has been noted many times, on the list of issues that concern Americans climate change comes in last or next to last. If it even makes the list.
I would like to see the GOP take up the issue of investing more in research and development into alternatives, to make them better. The method from Dems was to just give away money, some of which was supposed to be paid back, but rarely was, to companies that slapped up wind turbines and solar farms. A good chunk of those failed, and provided few jobs. The return on investment was negligible. The power is expensive, and power output is low compared to nuclear, coal, gas, and natural gas. We really need the next generation wind and solar. Also, a better battery for storage.
Our esteemed host wrote:
No, no, no, no, no! There is so much money to be made in the development of a workable alternative energy source that the private sector can, and will, do this, and is already. Getting the government involved simply means grants to whomever can come up with the slickest presentation; if the private sector does this, with their own investments, things which are actually showing promise will continue, while those which are not will be cut off, and none of it will cost the taxpayer a dime.
Why? Conservative thought dictates that since there is no climate change there is no reason to do anything other than let the markets function. We can keep harvesting fossil fuels until the cost of extraction matches the cost of alternatives, at which time capitalists will solve the problem.
Why do you think that we need to pursue alternative energy development?
Once again we see your devotion to the cult of AGW.
Tell us Jeffery, do you really think that alternative energy sources are only being looked at because of AGW? Are you that myopic in your vision?
Man has always looked for new sources of energy without the faux call of AGW as practiced by people like you.
Not only are you a science denier, you are a denier of history.
You’ve apparently missed the dozens of times where I’ve written something similar about investing but there’s no reason to do it for your pet cult beliefs, but practical real world reasons.
If there is no public interest to be served, why do you advocate public investment in alternative energy? Or are you urging private companies to invest.
What are the practical real world reasons?
Because you imbecilic moron, economies run on energy.
So while you and others try to cripple the US economy and hurt the poor and middle class by increasing energy costs, conservatives want energy for all as cheaply as possible.
” He successfully campaigned for reelection there with warnings about a “war on coal†he accuses Democratic President Barack Obama of waging. This helps explain what the United States won’t be doing about global warming in the near future.”
The first sentence implies that the idea that the Democrats are opposed to coal is some crazy propaganda being spread by nutty right-wingers — with “war on coal” in quotes and “he accuses” rather than a simple “is”. Then the second sentence says that we face terrible problems because … umm, because the “war on coal” may be ended apparently. So, there is no war on coal, and the Republicans are evil or stupid for wanting to end the war on coal that isn’t happening.
Typical liberal double-speak: Accusing me of doing X is insane right-wing propaganda! I’m not doing X, I’d never dream of doing X! And conservatives are evil and stupid because they’re not doing X because if we don’t do X right now the world is in serious trouble. But don’t you dare accuse me of being in favor of X. I’m not in favor of X! I just think that we ought to do X and anyone who opposes X is evil.
Who said there’s no public interest in more available energy, especially if it is cheap and clean? As to the second, public companies are investing, they are mostly, the wise ones, doing more R&D rather than slapping up costly projects that will be money losers.
Hopefully better for the environment (climate change is not an environmental concern, but a political one). Jobs. Economic progress. More energy. Why do these things need to be explained? Have you been so brainwashed by your Warmist masters?