I’ll be honest, I have no idea what the screed by Krugman says, the headline caught my attention
Do we care what this nutter is writing?
We’re having a heat wave, a tropical heat wave. Also a temperate heat wave and an Arctic heat wave, with temperatures reaching the high 80s in northern Norway. The megadrought in the Western United States has reduced Lake Mead to a small fraction of its former size, and it now threatens to become a “dead pool” that can no longer supply water to major cities. Climate change is already doing immense damage, and it’s probably only a matter of time before we experience huge catastrophes that take thousands of lives.
And the Republican majority on the Supreme Court just voted to limit the Biden administration’s ability to do anything about it.
Damned the court for upholding the Constitution! We have doomsday cult rules to put in place. Ones that never seem to affect the rich folks, ones they never voluntarily follow, but, hey, sure, why not?
And partisanship is the central problem of climate policy. Yes, Joe Manchin stands in the way of advancing the Biden climate agenda. But if there were even a handful of Republican senators willing to support climate action, Manchin wouldn’t matter, and neither would the Supreme Court: Simple legislation could establish regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions and provide subsidies and maybe even impose taxes to encourage the transition to a green economy. So ultimately our paralysis in the face of what looks more and more like a looming apocalypse comes down to the G.O.P.’s adamant opposition to any kind of action.
The question is, how did letting the planet burn become a key G.O.P. tenet?
OK, this is all about politics. Which should be no shocker to anyone paying attention. It’s been about politics since the Soviet Union fell and and far left joined the environmental movement. Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.
Why, exactly, are authoritarian right-wing parties anti-environment? That’s a discussion for another day. What’s important right now is that the United States is the only major nation in which an authoritarian right-wing party — which lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections yet controls the Supreme Court — has the ability to block actions that might prevent climate catastrophe.
Got that? Requiring the Legislative Branch to do its job and restricting the Executive Branch from creating unauthorized Big Rules is authoritarian.
Meanwhile, more unhinged doomsday cultists
BREAKING: Just Stop Oil activists have glued themselves to Leonardo de Vinci's The Last Supper at the Royal Academy. More follows… pic.twitter.com/43BE4Xbdev
— TalkTV (@TalkTV) July 5, 2022
Paul the K – reliably wrong on every issue, and yet he still speaks out.
Kinda like Rimjob.
#LetsGoBrandon
#LosingTheNarrative
Bwaha! Lolgf
Krugman? The financial whiz kid consultant for ENRON? LOL.
#LetsGoBrandon
#60%Disapproval
Bwaha! Lolgf
Said Dr Krugman:
It hardly takes a Nobel Laureate to recognize this. And what happened to the GOPhers?
But now…
Teach outrageously types that libs joined the environmental movement after the breakup of the Soviet Union (1991). Seriously? A more relevant question is why the GOP abandoned the environmental movement in 2008??
In 2014, in The American Conservative, Rod Dreher asks Why Do Conservatives Hate Environmentalism? He proposes that liberal environmentalists are “too pure” and unreasonable, and ignore that we humans are also part of the natural world and need jobs, food and resources too, and that the answer is to reach a balance. Of course, blaming liberal greens doesn’t excuse the conservative knee jerk reaction to abandon the environment. Part of the reason that nuCons hate environmentalism is the recent shift (since 2008?) that environmentalism is about CONTROL and the ‘take no prisoners’ approach to politics. “If they like it, we hate it!”, which applies to libs and cons.
The pseudo-populism of the global right-wing authoritarian movement has a lot to do with the changes in ‘conservatism’. Ronald Reagan would not be pleased.
Ronald Reagan would be just as proud of us refusing to go climate cult when we are environmentally astute. But I’m sure Stalin is in love with you hypocrite cultists and the awful load of tyranny bullshit you’re selling.
FJB and the commie climate cult.
One of these is actually in the Constitution, the other is not. You’ think that was simple enough that even a Democrat could understand it.
Yes, and that agency’s mission creep has been restrained.
You came THIS close to having a clue. Indeed, the enviro-loonies ARE all about control, and they HAVE taken a “take no prisoners” approach – they simply don’t care about the effects their insane policies would have, while accomplishing nothing of note.
OTOH, you and Krugman share a trait – being consistently wrong.
The very fact that you agree with a professional idiot like Krugman (who is NOT a climate scientist) proves your inability to rationally judge anything. Krugman hasin’t been right about anything , even his own chosen profession in decades but you’d take his “word” for anything because he’s a cultist like you.
I do believe the lady gets it.
Succinct and to the point.
#LetsGoBrandon
#TheScienceIsSettled
Bwaha! Lolgf
CarolAnn,
Jeff has no concept of rational. Also, do you feel that Jeff is a bit more hostile to you as a lady? Having read his crap for many years, it is obvious that you threaten him.
Dear Elwood:
“And the Republican majority on the Supreme Court just voted to limit the Biden administration’s ability to do anything about it.”
I suppose you, as well as Paul K, have forgotten that all it takes is for Biden’s majority Demo Congress to pass a law telling the EPA what do do.
That’s what SCOTUS told’em. Congress, it is your job.
“If states want to ban abortions, that their prerogative.” Seeing as it’s not in the Constitution, yes it is. “If NY state has a law restricting concealed carry, that’s unconstitutional.” Yes, because the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. So far, so good.
“Part of the reason new cons hate environmentalism…”. Part of the reason that statement is total BS is because you have no proof of that, only an assertion. But, it’s the typical ploy to start with a false premise that lib environmental policies are the only way to go, so anything else is wrong. Again, no, proof. As the libs whine and cry over this ruling, remember all that’s happened is that the Court said that the EPA over-stepped it’s authority, and that authority should come from Congress. You know, those people who are elected.
But back to Krugman, who seems to have taken the same science classes as Justice Kagan-“climate change is already doing immense damage..” Absolutely no proof of that, either. First one would have to prove “immense damage”. Immense compared to what? More people and more structures equals more damage. Then, they’d have to prove the change was due to a small temperature rise over the last 100 years or so. Then, that small temp rise would require proof that it was due to human factors. None of those have been met. The libs want to go from A to E, but skip B, C and D.
The 2nd Amendment does not mention concealed arms. Do you really think the 2nd Amendment gives Americans carte blanche related to firearms? This Supreme Court is the first to decide that.
The idea that executive agencies must ask Congress before making any decision is ludicrous. Congress has granted agencies the power to make decisions.
There is more evidence that global warming is doing damage than tRump won the election. Discuss.
The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:
I could actually see a state passing a law that all weapons carried must be carried openly, but, if there is a right to privacy, such a law might run afoul of that. Of course, the Special Snowflakes™ would claim that seeing people openly carrying firearms would, ummm, trigger them.
The Court did not decide that. States still have the right to require permits; it’s simply that the states may not make the requirements for obtaining a permit unduly onerous. And, of course, under the Fourteenth Amendment, convicted felons can lose their right to keep and bear arms, a restriction with which I have no problems at all.
There were ten homicides in Philadelphia over the holiday weekend, Friday through Monday, and I would bet euros against eclairs that the vast majority, if not all, were committed by people possessing firearms illegally.
It gives the right to bear arms-where does it say “but we don’t mean concealed”? Carrying a concealed weapon is “bearing arms”.
“Congress has granted agencies the power to make decisions.” But according to this court, not all decisions. it didn’t grant the agency power to regulate CO2, or to label it a pollutant.
“There is more evidence…”. Here we go again. Instead of saying that, why not just list the “evidence”? Because there isn’t any.There’s assertions and computer model projections, but that’s not evidence.
Instead of whining about the EPA decision, you guys need to first prove that the EPA “needs” to regulate CO2 emissions. Then, worry about the EPA. It’s that skipped scientific step, again.
The Constitution does not specify that the Feds can regulate guns. So they have no business in that area.
So our Constitution IS a suicide pact!
Congress needs to ban these military-style assault weapons. Period. Americans are tired of crazy white men killing innocents.
Yes, crazy white men will still want to murder Americans in bulk, but there’s no reason to make it easy for them.
Congress must ban these assault weapons. Unless you think it should be left to the states.
The nuSCOTUS can do whatever they want. Fuck ’em.
There is more evidence that global warming is doing damage than tRump won the election. Discuss.
There are more headlines claiming that global warming is doing damage, certainly. Evidence? Not so much.
The EPA was a fair idea in the 70s. Rivers were horribly polluted and since they were an asset of numerous states, it was only logical for some regulation by the Federal government. But like everything we must put up with, the liberals/ communist/ Dems immediately used the regulatory agency to push their terrible agendas and basically restrict freedom. Now with the carbon hoax they have the formula for world communism and destruction of our country. Yet another example of Dems ruining a good thing.
As to abortion. The court simply removed Roe as it was a bad decision, just like Dred Scott. And as they did in 1866, pass an amendment to kill children if this floats your boat. As a doctor, I have used abortion to save the mothers life. This is a tough decision and doctors will find ways to do what is right by their patients. Jeff has zero understanding of this concept.
david Porter Good is an idiot. Scott v Sandford was not overturned by the Supreme Court but was overturned by Constitutional Amendments, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments which abolished slavery, granted former slaves citizenship, and conferred citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Before then, the Constitution did not consider them citizens or whole persons. Today, most Americans view the enormity of slavery as an abomination, but not so much before the War of Confederate Secession.
Ironically, conservatives oppose conservation. Always have, but now it’s even worse. Cons used to at least be scientific, now nuCons eschew science. According to nuCons, tens of thousands of scientists, every major religion, every nation and every major scientific organization are involved in a massive conspiracy/scam/hoax to deprive American nuCons of their freedoms! Wethinks nuCons feel too highly of their own importance.
Did I anywhere indicate that the decision was overturned???? Jeff, learn reading comprehension.
Ronald Reagan???
He was tge FIRST American litican to warn us abloy climate change.
You can easily see that on YouTube if you want
Oh and gasoline EXPORTS still very high
John,
Even Reagan made mistakes, he was human. I suspect he was getting bad advice. But we now know that climate change is a hoax. No excuse for accepting it now.
“Gasoline exports still very high”. Who controls exports and imports? The US Dept. of Commerce
Fortunately, that isn’t the real Last Supper. The real Last Supper is a tempera paint on a wall in the Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milano.