Dems Stayed Up All Night For “Climate Change” And Gave Us The Lorax

So, as we all know, Senate Democrats had a sleepover to yammer on about “climate change” Monday night, which was mostly about fundraising and exciting the base, since they had no legislation to offer, and Democrats control the Senate. The biggest thing to come out of the sleepover? The Lorax

(The Hill) Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) borrowed from the GOP during a climate change talkathon and quoted a Dr. Seuss book on the Senate floor.

Markey was the first to cite the Dr. Seuss classic, “The Lorax,” during a more than 12-hour talkathon on Monday night.

“‘Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it’s not,'” Markey read before thanking the others who “care a whole awful lot.”

Blumenthal echoed Markey’s sentiments and also quoted the book, saying perhaps “our children know more” about climate change than adults because of books such as “The Lorax.”

The Lonely Conservative has a longer excerpt from the sleepover

“Recently, the books of Massachusetts author and national treasure, Dr. Seuss, have been popular and read on the senate floor. I wish I had time to read the entirety of his environmental classic “The Lorax.” But since there are so many senators who want to talk about the impacts of climate change and the benefits addressing it will bring our country, I will just have to close with this short portion. Here’s what it says. “But now, says the Wunsler, now that you’re here, the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. it’s not.” So to my colleagues here in the Senate, and everyone watching and following tonight. Thank you for caring a whole awful lot. It’s not for us it’s for all the subsequent generations in this country and this planet that will look into this chamber for the leadership. And we are going to make things better from tonight onward. This is the moment. The science is clear. The economics is clear. And now the politics is clear. We’re gonna have a big fight about this in 2014, because future generations are going to look back and know that this Senate stood up and we had a debate on the most important issue of this planet.”

Oh, good, a debate. But no legislation?

Unsurprisingly, none of the Dems involved are willing to give up their own fossil fueled usage

I do give kudos to Senator Booker for responding with that and multiple tweets: few elected representatives, D or R, respond. Though most of his responses were simply talking points in 140 characters or less. And all about “hey, we all need to Do Something”.

There was also lots of whining about Republican “dark money” and Citizens United, and just plain Republicans for refusing to go along with the Democrat march to more government control of our lives.

For the most part, media sources haven’t bothered with post-sleepover articles. The most you find are tiny blurbs on back pages. Joe Romm’s Climate Progress hasn’t bothered. Nor has Grist or Treehugger, nor most of the Warmist sites I frequent. No op-eds on the aftermath. It happened and everyone has moved on, despite being a sleepy Tuesday. So the best that comes out is reading and mentioning a children’s indoctrination book.

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

15 Responses to “Dems Stayed Up All Night For “Climate Change” And Gave Us The Lorax”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    You know Teach, I wrote about something similar (or at least parallel in my mind) the other day concerning the “LEED” standard for items and certifications for buildings.

    Washington, D.C.’s Department of Environment made the capital the first city in the nation to mandate LEED certifications in the construction of public buildings. The standards are now being phased in.

    The results are measured in EUI’s, a unit that relates a building’s energy consumption to its size; the higher the number, the more energy is expended by a smaller building.

    Take the Green Building Council’s Washington headquarters. Replete with the group’s top green-energy accolade, the platinum LEED certification, the USGBC’s main base comes in at 236 EUI. The average EUI for uncertified buildings in the capital? Just 199.

    Certified buildings’ average comes in at 205 EUI, still less efficient than that didn’t take home the ultimate green trophy.

    I suspect you didn’t dwell on it because it started out with a local spin, but the point was that politicians of all types are more concerned with giving the appearance of doing something rather than doing what is right and effective.

    I think we are all for a reasoned debate on climate change. But that is not what the Democrats did.

    It was more important to appear to be doing something rather than to actually be doing something.

    (And while this is the Democrat dog and pony show, Republicans are guilty of the same thing.)

  2. True, so much of this is all about optics. And, sadly, what would be smart policy has become hyper-partisn. Leftists, and some Republicans, go overboard and make the issue into crazy ones. Think about Greenpeace: they want to protect the environment. A worthy goal. Yet, their insanity, their over the top stunts, turn people off from what should make sense. Dems push “climate change” in this same manner.

  3. Jeffery says:

    I’m not convinced that your asking people if they are forgoing all fossil fuel use adds to the discussion. What is your goal?

    Do you really think that someone who advocates reducing CO2 emissions must give up ALL fossil fuel use?

  4. gitarcarver says:

    You aren’t convinced?

    This from the guy who writes in another thread that people who challenge AGW with facts. logic and science “dig their heals in” and won’t listen to people?

    It is real simply Jeffery: people act on that which they believe. If you believe that CO2 is the cause of warming, then eliminate it from your life. That puts your beliefs into actions.

    We have gone over and over this very simple principle and yet you claim “you aren’t convinced.”

    It doesn’t matter whether you believe that people should act on what they believe or not. They should. Period. It is a fact that survives your childish stamping of your electronic foot and screaming “I DON’T WANNA!”

    All you keep doing is prove to the rest of the world that you really don’t believe in AGW or that you are a hypocrite. Maybe both. Either way an adult would look at themselves instead of lashing out at others but that is not what liberals do.

  5. Jeffery says:

    g typed:

    “It is real simply (sic) Jeffery: people act on that which they believe. If you believe that CO2 is the cause of warming, then eliminate it from your life. That puts your beliefs into actions.”

    So your position is: If one doesn’t cut their CO2 emissions to zero they are either a hypocrite or don’t really believe the theory of AGW.

    Is it possible to cut one’s CO2 emissions to zero?

    What if someone cuts their CO2 emissions in half?

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You can eliminate your carbon foot print entirely if you just don’t expel air. The same goes for all the other liberals.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    It’s really simple Jeffey….. act on your beliefs. Otherwise it shows that you are not sincere about your beliefs.

    I know that you want to engage a discussion as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how close can you get to the cliff without falling off of it, but that is all a distraction and you know it.

    All you are doing is showing how childish you are in trying to say that your hypocrisy is acceptable.

    It isn’t….. and a mature adult knows that.

  8. Jeffery says:

    dave typed,

    “You can eliminate your carbon foot print entirely if you just don’t expel air. The same goes for all the other liberals.”

    While I understand you wanting to kill all liberals, it’s obvious from the evidence that human and other animal respiration has a negligible direct effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide. The incredibly rapid and unprecedented (during human existence) rise in carbon dioxide comes from humans burning fossil fuels releasing carbon that had been trapped in coal, oil and gas for hundreds of millions of years. This is causing the Earth to warm.

    If you could kill all liberals you WOULD reduce total carbon emissions (as long as you buried the bodies) since even liberals drive cars, heat, cool and light their homes. But liberals have a smaller carbon footprint per capita anyway, so if you’re planning on solving global warming by murder, you should start with American conservatives.

    The carbonic acid (from dissolved CO2) concentration in seawater is sub-picomolar, as it rapidly dissociates to bicarbonate and H+ (which you claim doesn’t exist).

  9. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    “… act on your beliefs.”

    And what degree of action satisfies your demand that others act? In 2009, on average, an American generated 17 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions; an average Chinese about 6 metric tons; an average European (EU) about 9 metric tons. Individually we emit carbon dioxide by transportation, heating, cooling, lighting our homes, and consuming goods that require energy for their manufacture, transport and distribution. Collectively we support public and private infrastructure – the construction of roads, airports, dams, ports, schools, businesses – and the activities of the military.

    Since there is no evidence supporting the existence of angels, isn’t it relevant to ask how much the average American must reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to avoid your withering wrath? After all, the entire concept of AGW hinges on your insistence that “warmists” act on their beliefs. You contend that the entire theory of AGW is not proven because a liberal somewhere uses more gas than you find acceptable.

    The Pirate thinks that any fossil fuel use by those he slurs as “warmists” is unacceptable. How about you? How much gas can a liberal use before she crosses the line and becomes a hypocrite?

    N.B. – Speaking of distractions, this entire discussion is just part of the denier cult’s arsenal of distractions. You smear the other side with accusations of hypocrisy to avoid discussing the evidence. Whether I drive a Tesla or a Taurus doesn’t alter the argument: The Earth is warming from our adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

    It would be like me saying your argument for smaller government is invalidated by your suckling the teat of the Federal government. In fact, your arguments for a smaller government may be valid despite your obvious hypocrisy. Nobody’s perfect. Not even a far-right reactionary.

    Finally, why would the fossil fuel consumption of others dictate your conclusions on a scientific issue? Shouldn’t scientific issues be decided on the data and evidence? By the way, the data are overwhelming that the Earth is warming from the CO2 that we humans are adding to the atmosphere.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    It is always amazing to see how you demand action from others and then not take action on your own beliefs.

    You can type all you want as to how we deny science, but the fact of the matter is that we act on our beliefs.

    You don’t.

    You’re a hypocrite and until you learn that talk is cheap and actions matter, you are just a little boywho can’t act like a man.

  11. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    So you haven’t thought through your demand that others give up fossil fuels?? Curious.

    It’s a couple of very simple questions.

    1) How much fossil fuel can a liberal use before being slurred as a hypocrite by you and your ilk? At least the Pirate had the balls to answer. It was a stupid answer, but one bravely stated.

    2) As a “science-driven” conservative, why would my behavior influence your scientific decisions? Shouldn’t the evidence be your most important consideration?

    This is what I mean by you never wanting to discuss evidence or specifics. You prefer to just call others names.

  12. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    So you haven’t thought through your demand that others give up fossil fuels??

    Nice try.

    I am not the one demanding anything.

    You are the one saying that CO2 is hurting the earth, etc and aren’t willing to act in your own life to limit your own CO2 production. Yet you feel inclined, compelled and self righteous to demand that others make changes in their lives.

    That’s hypocritical.

    The rest of your post is more distraction from your own actions.

    It really is simply and something that most people understand. I wonder why you don’t? I wonder why you, as a self proclaimed “scientific progressive” act on your own beliefs?

  13. PSP is a video game console manufactured and marketed by Sony.
    Throughout the course of history, the Assassins and the Templars
    (a. At the same time, you can come across a number of picturesque locations like the
    natural landscapes in the form of forest, ocean and water,
    which makes the game simply awesome.

  14. modo crib says:

    With today’s newer geochemical software, it is feasible to get an even better knowing
    of the earth by finding the layers apart in 3d modelling software package.
    At Animation Live students can also appear for international certifications of Corel Products.

    But even as a freelance modeler it is important to
    specialize.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7583 access attempts in the last 7 days.