What Did The Elections Mean For Hotcoldwetdry?

The Warmists are already agitating for climate change (hoax) legislation

(SF Chronicle) as soon as the major news networks called the race tonight, environmentalists started firing off e-mails urging Pres. Obama to turn his attention back to our warming world. They’re hoping that Obama’s re-election and Sandy’s devastation will reset the national conversation on climate change, after several years in which many politicians refused to utter those two words in public.

“While Sandy’s lessons are still fresh, the president should be clear about the urgency of cutting carbon emissions and strengthening critical infrastructure to protect Americans against the rising costs of climate change,” wrote Eileen Claussen, president of the non-profit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

And of course, environmentalists are hoping for a little payback.

In other words, they want some of the sweet, sweet federal taxpayer money. And here’s Obama during his “look at how great I am” speech

I suppose the destructive power of cool or average planet is preferred.

(Treehugger) So, the agenda becomes: wake this man up on climate. Remember, he’s still gas-happy, he’s still probably leaning towards approving Keystone XL, and he’s still opening public lands to fossil fuel interests. He’s got to face pushback on each; something 350.org is glad to oblige. The climate action group is already planning a demonstration to remind Obama that Keystone XL would be a disaster for the climate. We’ll need more where that came from.

Grist says

Don’t expect strong, or even tepid, climate legislation in the next two years. Congress will remain divided and intransigent — the House controlled by Republicans, the Senate nominally controlled by Democrats but held hostage by a GOP minority all too happy to abuse the threat of a filibuster.

And that’s the way the Founders wanted it: they didn’t want a majority running roughshod over the minority. As I pointed out in the previous post, we will probably get a small push for hotcoldwetdry legislation, which might make it to the Senate, but, it won’t go anywhere, because Obama won’t bother doing the hard work, and Americans really do not want to see their cost of living skyrocket.

They also point out that GMO labeling lost in California. Fracking won’t be allowed in Longmont, Co. And no dam busting in San Francisco. Here’s the big one from the election

Our own David Roberts called this “the most important clean-energy vote” of the election season — so that’s big reason to be bummed out that Proposal 3 got trounced at the polls by Michigan voters. The initiative would have upped the state’s renewable electricity target to require that 25 percent of power come from clean sources by 2025. A front group for coal-reliant utilities spent nearly $24 million to scare voters away.

64% in Michigan said “hell no!” to Prop 3. Apparently they’re tired of seeing their energy costs skyrocket and replaced with energy that only works part of the time.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “What Did The Elections Mean For Hotcoldwetdry?”

  1. Orson Snow says:

    There will be no proposed legislation on this issue. It will be Executive Order initiated. It will be instituted by the EPA. It will be reflected in the requirements placed on carmakers (mandating mile per gallon etc). It will be reflected in the DOE guaranteed loans to crony own green energy start-ups. It will be emphasized by penalty costs on carbon producing industry right down to roadside lemonade stands.

    This whole second term will be about circumventing Congress on all efforts, and hence circumventing the Constitution.
    The House is now irrelevant unless they actually challenge these actions with more than hard words. Each of the examples I’ve given above were already done in the first term with no repercussions.

  2. john says:

    Teach theSandy storm (was it in fact a hurricaine when it made landfall) is projected to cost 50 billion this whole hotcoldwetdry thing can get pretty expensive when we laugh at it. Remember Rombo’s quip about climate change ? think that helped him?

  3. Gumball_Brains says:

    Orson, right on. It does not matter what the states do when our energy is controlled more-so by national and international agreements. And, what difference does a proposition like this make when Obama shuts down a majority of coal stations.

    What’s left to provide power? Those expensive alternative sources. Guess what.. more subsidies and rebates to users. Guess who really pays?

    Welcome to the new Dark Ages people. Rolling blackouts will be the new normal. Higher unemployment will be common place as well as higher healthcare costs, and decreased quality of care. Good luck finding doctors, and especially specialists.

  4. No, John, it wasn’t a hurricane. Raw data doesn’t lie. And yeah, when a storm hits a built up area bad things happen. If we were in a cool period wed see similar. Get over it. And stop taking fossil fueled travel.

Pirate's Cove