Bummer: “Climate Change” A Big Loser In Midterms

Yes, “climate change” was a big loser for the midterms. Perhaps not quite a big a loser as Mr. Obama’s policies, but, pretty big. Here’s the Voxspation from hyper-Warmist Brad Plummer

One big loser in this election? Climate policy.

In the lead-up to the 2014 midterms, a lot of green groups were hoping that this might finally be the election in which climate change became a defining issue.

You had billionaire Tom Steyer spending $57 million trying to convince voters to care about global warming. You had the League of Conservation Voters pouring in another $25 million, more than in the previous two elections combined. All the while, it at least seemed possible that recent natural disasters — from Hurricane Sandy two years ago to the ongoing drought in the West — might push climate issues to the fore.

Ultimately, none of it mattered much. The outlook for climate policy looks just as dismal after these midterms as it did before — at least in Washington, DC.

That was published Tuesday at 10:56pm, before all the results were in, and probably written earlier. And, yeah, none of it mattered. Despite all the money, most didn’t care in the least about Hotcoldwetdry, just as the opinion polls show

Congratulations, Voters. You Just Made This Climate Denier the Most Powerful Senator on the Environment.

On handing Republicans control of the Senate on Tuesday, Americans effectively voted for the party’s hostile plans against President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Their votes also put the Senate’s environment and climate policy into the hands of the worst science-denier in national politics: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is almost certainly the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Hooray!!!!!! That’s some excellent news

(Politico) For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races.

The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections.

Just two of the six vulnerable Democratic Senate candidates backed by various green groups — New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Michigan Rep. Gary Peters — prevailed Tuesday, while Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Iowa hopeful Bruce Braley lost. (The fate of Alaska Sen. Mark Begich was still undecided.)

As I and others have noted time and again, when it comes to real world issues that people care about, “climate change” tends to come in last or second to last.

And, hey, I thought Democrats hated all that outside money by uber-rich people?

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

18 Responses to “Bummer: “Climate Change” A Big Loser In Midterms”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Actually, our climate was a big loser Tuesday. Global warming was a big winner. The human species and Earth will survive; it will just be more difficult; but Republicans always make it more difficult.

    And weren’t the ballot initiatives interesting?

    Voters raised the minimum wage in four conservative states — Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota – making 29 states that exceed, or soon will exceed, the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. So while most conservative ideologues oppose the minimum wage, the same people that voted Dems out, favor it.

    MARIJUANA: Oregon and Alaska became the third and fourth states to legalize marijuana. The initiative in Florida was defeated although 58% of voters approved (needed 60%).

    Personhood

    amendments were defeated in Colorado and N. Dakota. (Tennessee did pass more restrictive abortion rules.) Most conservatives oppose any and all abortions, but the same people that voted the Dems out, aren’t so sure.

    Washington voters supported stronger background checks, and defeated a gun lobby initiative blocking background checks. While most conservatives resist any further impediments to limiting firearm availability, the same voters who canned the Dems favor common sense rules.

    Florida and New Jersey voters dedicated over $11 billion to conservation efforts for preserving the Everglades and land conservation, respectively. Most conservatives decry gov’t spending on environmental protection, yet the voters who clobbered the Dems, prefer environmental protection.

    Voters may have hated the Democrats on Tuesday but they seem to love liberalism. I can live with that!

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Florida and New Jersey voters dedicated over $11 billion to conservation efforts for preserving the Everglades and land conservation, respectively.

    I hate to tell you this, but that is not what happened in Florida.

    Nice try though.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Florida Amendment 1 didn’t pass? Or is this, Yeah But(tm) the voters were too dumb to know what they voted for?

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Florida Amendment 1 didn’t pass?

    Yes Amendment 1 passed.

    Or is this, Yeah But(tm) the voters were too dumb to know what they voted for?</em

    >

    The only “butt” here is you because what you said the amendment did was not it’s purpose or design.

    Once again, you are talking from ignorance.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Yeah but,

    So the citizens of Florida did not vote 75 to 25 to commit funds to land conservation??

    Did I cite the wrong Amendment? Sorry, if so.

    Here’s what I read:

    Amendment 1 added a Section 28 to Article X of the Florida Constitution:[3]

    SECTION 28. Land Acquisition Trust Fund. — a) Effective on July 1 of the year following passage of this amendment by the voters, and for a period of 20 years after that effective date, the Land Acquisition Trust Fund shall receive no less than 33 percent of net revenues derived from the existing excise tax on documents, as defined in the statutes in effect on January 1, 2012, as amended from time to time, or any successor or replacement tax, after the Department of Revenue first deducts a service charge to pay the costs of the collection and enforcement of the excise tax on documents. b) Funds in the Land Acquisition Trust Fund shall be expended only for the following purposes: 1) As provided by law, to finance or refinance: the acquisition and improvement of land, water areas, and related property interests, including conservation easements, and resources for conservation lands including wetlands, forests, and fish and wildlife habitat; wildlife management areas; lands that protect water resources and drinking water sources, including lands protecting the water quality and quantity of rivers, lakes, streams, springsheds, and lands providing recharge for groundwater and aquifer systems; lands in the Everglades Agricultural Area and the Everglades Protection Area, as defined in Article II, Section 7(b); beaches and shores; outdoor recreation lands, including recreational trails, parks, and urban open space; rural landscapes; working farms and ranches; historic or geologic sites; together with management, restoration of natural systems, and the enhancement of public access or recreational enjoyment of conservation lands. 2) To pay the debt service on bonds issued pursuant to Article VII, Section 11(e). c) The moneys deposited into the Land Acquisition Trust Fund, as defined by the statutes in effect on January 1, 2012, shall not be or become commingled with the General Revenue Fund of the state.[4]

  6. Jeffery says:

    You demonstrate a decreasing tendency to discuss and seem to prefer to just yell at people. Maybe you are too busy at your blog, lol.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    You demonstrate a decreasing tendency to discuss and seem to prefer to just yell at people.

    Talking to yourself again Jeffery?

    Of course that is what you read. We all read the same thing.

    What you didn’t know is the story BEHIND the amendment.

    The monies raised from the stamp fees were supposed to go to the conservation and preservation of Florida when the fees were implemented decades ago. However, the funds were often taken away for other purposes.

    So instead of the monies going to what voters wanted and approved 40 years ago, the money was going elsewhere. The same thing happened with Florida’s lottery money being diverted away from education which was the reason the lottery was passed in the first place.

    The Amendment means the money that was being diverted by the government – Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc – be returned to the purpose the citizens wanted.

    Some people said this was a win for the environment. Those people, like yourself, had no clue as to the story behind the amendment.

    The vote was on holding the government to their word.

    I’ll await your apology on being ignorant on this issue, but given your past, I am not holding my breath.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    The initiative in Florida was defeated although 58% of voters approved (needed 60%).

    Oh, and by the way, you fail on this one as well.

    The medical marijuana amendment did fail but in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the reason it failed matters.

    The Amendment was so badly written by liberals that even their liberal brothers and sisters saw through the ruse as this was not about easing the pain of anyone, but rather a first step to statewide legalization.

    The Amendment was so badly written the 7 retired Florida Supreme Court Justices – liberals all – came out against the amendment. There wasn’t a sheriff in the state that was for this. Even doctors were mostly against the amendment. City governments were overwhelmingly against the amendment.

    People saw it for what it was – another lie written by liberals.

  9. Jeffery says:

    My god, you’re a dumbass.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Oh, I see. The Amendment passed exactly as I said and for the purpose I stated. I apologize for making too complicated for you to understand.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    Oh, I see. The Amendment passed exactly as I said and for the purpose I stated.

    You really are an idiot.

    You said the reason was: “Florida and New Jersey voters dedicated over $11 billion to conservation efforts…..”

    But that was not the reason the amendment passed. The money had already been dedicated before the passage of the amendment. The amendment passed for fiscal accountability.

    In fact, you insufferable moron, the original amendment’s wording was to increase the stamp fees raising more money. People saw that as a tax increase and it never made it into the amendment. (Damned liberal state. How could they reject a tax increase?)

    As I said, I await your apology for not only misstating the reasons the amendment passed and its basis, but now you can add an apology for either not being able to read or simply ignoring the facts.

    (But then again, you have problems with facts to begin with.)

  12. Jeffery says:

    You must be lonely.

    I’ve already apologized for being right, which I know you find insulting.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Before the Amendment passed, the money was not being used for conservation. After the Amendment passed, 1/3rd of the tax money will be used for conservation.

    Is it your contention that the voters were unaware of that?

  14. gitarcarver says:

    I’ve already apologized for being right, which I know you find insulting.

    I find people who lie to be insulting. I find people with no morals to be insulting. I find people who have the maturity of a 3 year old to be insulting. In short, you’re three for three.

    Before the Amendment passed, the money was not being used for conservation.

    I know that you have problems reading and understanding anything that you don’t agree with, but once again, the amendment was on fiscal accountability – not simply conservation as you believe.

    After the Amendment passed, 1/3rd of the tax money will be used for conservation.

    The money will be used for the purpose it was intended.

    Are you saying that the people of Florida were not aware that the money was not going to the purpose it was meant for?

    This was not a vote on conservation but rather a vote on fiscal accountability.

    Face it Jeffery, you know as much about politics and amendments in Florida as you know about the economy, which is to say you know nothing.

  15. Jeffery says:

    gitarcarver,

    I understand your need for constant attention by arguing over every little thing. You poor, pathetic lonely man.

    I’m through with you on this issue. I won. You lost. Now you’re just macerating the topic.

    Take a rest, gather your thoughts and come back a better man, please.

  16. Jeffery says:

    The Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative, Amendment 1, officially entitled:

    Water and Land Conservation – Dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands

    and summarized:

    “Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands including wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting water resources and drinking water sources, including the Everglades, and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; beaches and shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and historic or geologic sites, by dedicating 33 percent of net revenues from the existing excise tax on documents for 20 years.”

    was not about land or water conservation. Got it.

    Buh-bye, moron.

  17. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    I realize that in your world where you consider your opinion correct in everything, it must be horrible to have your world view challenged. Not only are you being challenged on your perception of events, but the facts behind those events as well.

    Your poor little head must explode when you are exposed.

    But let’s go back to your ability to even tell the truth or live up to your word. After being exposed in not understanding Amendment 1 and saying “I was right” like a three year old who believes repeating a lie often enough makes the lie the truth, you wrote:

    I’m through with you on this issue.

    And then what did you do?

    You wrote ANOTHER post.

    Geez Jeffery, you can’t even keep your word or remember what you said for an hour. Are you drinking and smoking that much?

    I know that you have problems with the English language, but what you quoted in the summary proves my point – not yours.

    The stamp and document taxes were already supposed to be going to a certain cause. They were not. As such, what you are trying to say is that the voters of Florida passed the same law twice – once when the stamp and document fees were passed and now.

    Are you really that stupid? (Don’t worry,. that’s rhetorical as we all know the answer.)

    The problem Jeffery, is that while you sit in the land of Utah where the election of a Republican black female as a Senator has brought out the liberal racists and misogynists like you, I am here in Florida. I am more aware of the issues than you ever could be.

    In short, you lose on knowledge, integrity, intellectualism, and ignorance. But the good thing is that you win on being a drunk and living in a fantasy world.

    I await your apology.

  18. Jeffery says:

    The Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative, Amendment 1, officially entitled:

    Water and Land Conservation – Dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands

    was summarized:

    Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands including wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting water resources and drinking water sources, including the Everglades, and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; beaches and shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and historic or geologic sites, by dedicating 33 percent of net revenues from the existing excise tax on documents for 20 years.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5587 access attempts in the last 7 days.