It’s probably a good thing that Forbes includes a question mark in the headline
Climate Change: A Real Force In The 2020 Campaign?
….
Yet, all of this said, it remains unclear whether climate change will emerge as a truly pivotal issue in the 2020 general election. Since the 1970’s, when bipartisan anxiety over declining environmental quality drove a Republican president to establish the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans have on whole professed deep concern for the environment and, more recently, climate. We same Americans have tended to vote, however, on issues that have felt more immediate and pressing, such as jobs, healthcare and education, and around lighting rods like abortion and gun rights.
A critical question, given the growing number of warnings from the likes of the U.S. government and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming imperils us all, is whether the country has finally reached the point where climate will in fact be a decisive issue for voters at the polls. Environmental sociology (yes, there is such a field) refers to this as a question of salience. When it comes to decision time, does the voter prioritize environment?
This question is in fact least important among voters who would be most likely to vote for a climate candidate….
‘Climate change’ is not the environment. And even Dems put ‘climate change’ way down the list of their concerns. And then then article attempts to shift focus from Democrats to Republicans and Independents. At the end, for all the yammering, anthropogenic climate change may get people talking, but it’s still low hanging fruit that is a minor concern.
Then there’s this
This is great. Will the candidates be asked questions as to how much their policies will skyrocket the cost of living and reduce liberty and choice? https://t.co/2YxOP9qy3Q
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) July 26, 2019
We won. Organizing works. https://t.co/E0DtMsZTzg
— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) July 25, 2019
The DNC has been attempting to avoid an actual Hotcoldwetdry debate, and had restricted their presidential candidates from participating in any unofficial debate or such. Now they’ve capitulated to the hardcore leftists and will allow this town hall. If they get questioned on how they are going to pay for this, what happens with taxes, fees, cost of living, loss of liberty, etc, it will not go well. Look at this
(The Hill) Presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) on Thursday released a $10 trillion climate change plan.
The wide-ranging “Climate Change Moonshot Plan” plan aims to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, “hold polluters accountable” and phase out fossil fuels, among other goals.
Gillibrand said in a Medium post that she intended to mobilize $10 trillion in public and private funds over the next decade to achieve her goals.
The New York senator called for an excise tax on fossil fuel production, hoping to generate $100 billion a year to combat climate change. She also said she would put a $52 per metric ton price on carbon to deter companies from using fossil fuels and spur investment in renewable energy.
Let her explain at the town hall how much this will hit citizens in their wallets. Ask her and the rest if they’ve given up their own use of fossil fuels.
