Fight “Climate Change” With More Highways, Says Democrats

Here’s an interesting article on a subject that I don’t think I’ve given much thought to, but makes a lot of sense

More highways! Fight climate change! (Wait a sec…)

It’s an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that climate change and global warming threatens our planet with devastation within this century. This prevailing Democratic view follows the science that the human burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and global warming, and that somewhere around one-third of this problem is coming from motor vehicles that burn fossil fuel in internal combustion engines on our highways.

It’s also an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that our highway infrastructure needs to be built out at breakneck speed in order to deal with growing congestion on the state’s highways, so that our economy can thrive. The annual Oregon Business Summit, held earlier this year, attended by thousands of businessmen, and capturing our leading politicians of both parties to speak there, recently proclaimed this congestion as the state’s number one issue. The Democratic Party in Oregon seems led by the nose by unions who also love that argument, including particularly the building trades and the AFL-CIO, who are dying for these local union highway construction jobs that used to be so numerous but have virtually disappeared as people drive less and drive vehicles that use less gas per mile.

No one in the Democratic Party is trying to publicly reconcile these two inconveniently opposing points of view. In fact, politicians of all stripes in Oregon would prefer that there be no public reconciliation. If there were reconciliation, the politicians would all be negligent by not acting to prevent the devastation to the planet that will eventually be caused by man-made climate change. That means rejecting the false arguments of the business and labor lobbies that we must somehow build our way out of job-stifling congestion with many large highway expansion projects.

Huh. Excellent point, and we can extend this to Obama, who is constantly pushing more roads and stuff as his “economic stimulus” idea (not ideas, he’s a one trick pony). If fossil fueled vehicles are Bad for Hotcoldwetdry, then why make it easier for them?

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Fight “Climate Change” With More Highways, Says Democrats”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Fuel efficient cars don’t fly, they still use roads. Cars sitting in traffic jams isn’t an efficient use of energy resources either.

    That said, your “starve the beast” strategy to make it more difficult to reach work would likely stimulate the move to mass transit and make people work closer to home.

  2. Dana says:

    I s’pose they could argue that more roads would reduce traffic jams, and thus people wouldn’t be wasting so much fuel trying to get to work, and that’s an argument with which I can agree.

    But roads shouldn’t be federal projects at all. Federal law requires that 92¢ out of every $1.00 collected in the fuel tax be spent in the state in which it was collected. To me, that means reducing the fuel tax by 92%, giving the states the room to raise their fuel taxes by that much — if they see the need — and they should spend more of the money on actual roads and less on bureaucracy, by eliminating the additional costs of sending the money to Washington and having to comply with federal regulations and compliance paperwork.

  3. John says:

    Hmmm interesting concept for a climate denier let the infrastructure decay so people will not drive as much
    Nono I don’t think that will work except if you a a bible its who still believes in unicorns

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Hmmm interesting concept for a climate denier let the infrastructure decay so people will not drive as much

    Of course, you seem to be supporting ripping up the ecosystem and natural resources in order to support your cult of AGW.

    Nono I don’t think that will work except if you a a bible its who still believes in unicorns

    Oh dear. john please try either using auto-correct or go to a remedial elementary school where you can learn to read, write and spell.

    And btw johnny, there are no unicorns mentioned in the Bible (notice the capitalization) so your continued reference to that shows even more ignorance of any subject matter.

  5. david7134 says:

    It is worse than that, he reads the web site and comments while driving his truck. Also, I think he is often on drugs.

  6. Jeffery says:

    there are no unicorns mentioned in the Bible

    Not technically true. Certainly, they are mentioned in the King James Version, e.g.,

    Job. 39:9-10 “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”

    Psalm 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”

    Isaiah 34:7 “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”

    But it is probably a mistranslation from the Hebrew and does not refer to the mythical beast.

Pirate's Cove