Some Dems See “Climate Change” As A Winning Issue

Well, it’s certainly not as dangerous as campaigning on support of Ocare

(NY Times) He is a Democrat in a marquee Senate race, pressed by a strong Republican in a state with a challenging political environment. So when a new proposal to limit power plant emissions was seen as posing a threat to allies of the Obama administration, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado acted quickly: He embraced the plan.

“Coloradans have seen firsthand the harmful effects of climate change, including severe drought, record wildfires and reduced snowpack,” Mr. Udall said in a statement shortly after the Environmental Protection Agency plan was made public last week. “The E.P.A.’s draft rule is a good start, and I will fight to ensure it complements the work we have already done in Colorado and provides states the flexibility they need to make it successful.”

He is a Democrat in a marquee Senate race, pressed by a strong Republican in a state with a challenging political environment. So when a new proposal to limit power plant emissions was seen as posing a threat to allies of the Obama administration, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado acted quickly: He embraced the plan.

“Coloradans have seen firsthand the harmful effects of climate change, including severe drought, record wildfires and reduced snowpack,” Mr. Udall said in a statement shortly after the Environmental Protection Agency plan was made public last week. “The E.P.A.’s draft rule is a good start, and I will fight to ensure it complements the work we have already done in Colorado and provides states the flexibility they need to make it successful.”

Some other Dems are also picking up the mantle. I’d tell them to be careful else they end up losing as badly as Labor did in Australia through multiple elections, but, then, I want Democrats to lose that badly.

In Iowa, Representative Bruce Braley, the Democratic Senate nominee, has adopted the same approach as Mr. Udall. “Reducing our carbon output is not only necessary for the health of the planet, it’s an opportunity to continue to improve the health of the Iowa economy — which is and will remain my No. 1 priority,” Mr. Braley said.

Say, I wonder if these Democrats, and the others pimping Hotcoldwetdry, will stop using fossil fuels during their own campaigns? Eh, silly question. Of course they won’t.

In other states with competitive Senate races, such as Michigan, Democrats say growing public support for action to curb climate change — coupled with pronouncements by Republican candidates that human activity is not contributing to it, or their denials that the world is growing warmer — could help Democrats this year. They say it will definitely make the party stronger heading into the 2016 presidential election.

Hmm, growing public support

Virtually every single poll has “climate change” at the bottom of the list of concerns, typically last or next to last. Really, what this is about is whipping their base up to get the vote out, changing the subject away from Ocare and the Dems shoddy, lackluster economic policies, and trying to find new ways to tax Americans.

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

7 Responses to “Some Dems See “Climate Change” As A Winning Issue”

  1. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    You’ve got a double-paste job on the top, Teach.

    If these dems love them some anti-CO2 regs, and they are wanting more of it for their home states, then more power to them. But that doesn’t mean it should or needs to be applied to every other state. Especially as we know it will be applied willy-nilly.

    If states want to try and clean the air that blows across their state lines of CO2, then more power to them. I like how California is trying to rid the air coming from Carbonate-rich ocean of CO2.

    If they were truly caring about air quality, then they’d focus on air quality, not plant food or human exhalation.

  2. david7134 says:

    Gum,
    That is one thing I don’t understand about the whole CO2 controversy. It burning of fossil fuels is so bad, why do we have to cut back? Why can’t we develop a contraption to eliminate CO2 production? Instead, the first option that they want is a tax and control of our lives. When they bitched about acid rain, we developed catalytic converters or was it lead that they were unhappy with, it is always something. Then they made us change the air conditioning due to the hole in the sky, did that close or they just moved on? The list goes on and on. At the end of the day, one volcano makes a burp and all our efforts are for nothing, if they ever would have amounted to anything to begin with.

  3. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    Right David.
    And, back in the day, they weren’t worried about CO2. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/1971-worlds-top-climate-scientists-said-fossil-fuels-would-cause-an-ice-age-by-2020/

    And yeah, that hole is still there. They’ve now reasoned that it’s natural. It was there when we started looking, and it’s been there all this time. Just another fad craze to shock the people in to changing their lives and shelling out more money.

  4. Jeffery says:

    dave and g,

    As I’ve explained, engineers and scientists have been working feverishly to develop commercially useful and scalable carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Currently CCS will add 50 to 100% to the cost of electricity and CO2 storage has not been perfected. But it’s still considered a good idea. The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP17/CMP7) enacted a mechanism to help finance the efforts. Fossil fuels are not evil, but emitted CO2 is causing the planet to warm.

    “…one volcano makes a burp and all our efforts are for nothing…” No. One volcano will not add a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. Volcanoes, although they spew hot stuff into the air, tend to have a cooling effect on the Earth from the dust, ash, fine particulates and aerosols. For example, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, atmospheric CO2 was not changed measurably, but the Earth’s mean surface temperature dropped nearly a degree F the next year. If we had several Pinatubo’s or something similar to the Lake Toba eruption 70K years ago, the Earth could be in for a long cold spell.

    Regarding ozone, the international Montreal Protocol was put into effect in 1989, reducing emissions of ozone-depleting halocarbons in an effort to halt ozone depletion. In fact, ozone depletion has stopped and ozone is slowly recovering and is expected to be back to normal by 2050. Thanks to 2 things conservatives hate: scientists and international cooperation.

    Acid rain results from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by coal burning and automobile exhausts. Amendments to the Clean Air Act authorized a market based cap and trade emissions trading system that led to a significant reduction in emissions and acid rain. Mandated improvements in fuel formulation to reduce sulfur content and eliminate lead and catalytic converters to reduce hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides also contributed.

    The problems of ozone depletion and acid rain have been solved by technology and smart regulations.

  5. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Your belief in the God of climate is remarkable, keep it up.

  6. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    There are no gods that I know of. Did you have anything relevant to say about what I wrote? Of course not.

    Your ignorance of climate is remarkable; please try to learn something.

  7. creeper says:

    It’s simple. Weather is their enemy.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10872 access attempts in the last 7 days.