Having a ‘climate change’ debate for the Democratic Party primaries is a case of “be careful what you wish for, because you might get it”. One specific paragraphs of this Vox article by uber-Warmist David Roberts tells the real story of the meaning of ‘climate change’
We might get a climate debate after all. Here are 10 questions to ask candidates.
The controversy over whether Democrats will hold a debate focused on climate change has been at a stalemate for weeks, but lately, there’s been a little movement. As Alex Kaufman at HuffPost reports, a DNC committee may vote in August on two resolutions: one to hold a formal climate debate, and one to arrange a more informal forum. (The latter would be like the abortion rights forum Planned Parenthood hosted last month, with 20 Dem candidates attending.) Eighteen candidates now support the idea of a climate debate, as Rebecca Leber at Mother Jones reports:
I have to admit, I have strenuously mixed feelings about the prospect of a Democratic climate debate.
On one hand, yes, climate change is important and tied to all the other issues Americans care about. It would be nice to have a robust conversation among the candidates that illuminated their thinking and educated the public.
On the other hand, good lord, so much could go wrong.
The unfortunate background condition here is that very few people know enough about climate policy and politics to maintain a focused, substantive hour-long discussion, and cable TV moderators are unlikely to be among them.
Actually, what could really go wrong for Democrats is that they are exposed for the Big Government authoritarians they really are, and that their policies will cost people a lot of money and take away their freedom and choice. Here’s where Roberts inadvertently tells the truth on the ‘climate change’ debate from the Warmists as he discusses the Washington Post article I mentioned from July 1st on questions for a climate change debate
But the primary sources of conflict in climate politics are not disagreements over science. Like all political conflicts, they are ultimately power struggles between incumbents and challengers — in this case, between fossil fuels (and all the people, practices, and industries that depend on them) and the sundry forces rallying around cleaner alternatives.
It is power, not science, primarily at issue. That is what divides climate hawks from their opponents. Questions should focus on how to shift the balance of power.
And that is what this is about: power. The power to use the government to control citizens, private entities, the economy, the energy sector, and everything. This hasn’t been about science since about 5 minutes after the question was asked if CO2 output from Mankind was making the Earth warmer, and certainly not since the fall of the Soviet union and all the far left needed to find something else to support, hence the tag “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside.”
And pretty much every question Roberts offers is based on political/government power. Surprise? Here’s a few more from me
- The majority of citizens, including Democrats, aren’t willing to spend more than $10 a month out of their own pockets for Hotcoldwetdry: do you plan on convincing them that they should want to have more money taken, or will you just force them to pay that and more?
- How much out of your own pocket are you will to pay and how much of your own freedom are your personally willing to give up?
- Will you try and convince citizens of your policies, seeing as how citizens have voted against them almost every time, or will you force them on the citizens, telling them to just suck it up and deal with it?
- Do you believe, like so many Warmists, that capitalism must be thrown in the trash-heap and replaced with a government run economic system?
