Paul Krugman Is Very Concerned About The Lack Of Focus On ‘Climate Change’

He says it’s almost like there’s a rule that keeps the (mostly leftist) media from bringing it up

What About the Planet?

Our two major political parties are at odds on many issues, but nowhere is the gap bigger or more consequential than on climate.

If Hillary Clinton wins, she will move forward with the Obama administration’s combination of domestic clean-energy policies and international negotiation — a one-two punch that offers some hope of reining in greenhouse gas emissions before climate change turns into climate catastrophe.

If Donald Trump wins, the paranoid style in climate politics — the belief that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast international conspiracy of scientists — will become official doctrine, and catastrophe will become all but inevitable.

I’ll start believing Paul is sincere when he moves out of his McMansion and into a tiny home (some of those are actually pretty cool, if you’ve seen the shows, eh?).

So why does the media seem so determined to ignore this issue? Why, in particular, does it almost seem as if there’s a rule against bringing it up in debates?

Probably because the majority of Americans find ‘climate change’ to be a low ranking issue, typically last or next to last. Of course, it doesn’t seem that the (mostly leftist) media wants to focus on the big issues, either.

And if Mrs. Clinton wins, it’s more or less certain that the biggest moves yet — the Clean Power Plan, which would regulate emissions from power plants, and the Paris climate agreement, which commits all of the world’s major economies to make significant emission cuts — will become reality.

Well, there’s a good reason to vote against her.

I’m not saying that there has been no reporting on the partisan climate divide, but there has been nothing like, say, the drumbeat of stories about Mrs. Clinton’s email server. And it’s really stunning that in the three nationally televised forums we’ve had so far — the “commander in chief” forum involving Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate — the moderators have asked not a single question about climate.

Because people care about her careless disregard for transparency and national security, and don’t care about Hotcoldwetdry.

It’s time to end the blackout on climate change as an issue. It needs to be front and center — and questions must be accompanied by real-time fact-checking, not relegated to the limbo of he-said-she-said, because this is one of the issues where the truth often gets lost in a blizzard of lies.

There is, quite simply, no other issue this important, and letting it slide would be almost criminally irresponsible.

It’s easy for people living in McMansions and making a lot of money to care: the cost of living increases from ‘climate change’ policies won’t affect them that much.

But, hey, I’m all for this discussion: it can be exposed on the national stage that this whole issue is a progressive (nice fascist) push to implement higher taxes along with more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and economies. There’s nothing benign about it.

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

20 Responses to “Paul Krugman Is Very Concerned About The Lack Of Focus On ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Jeffery says:

    I’ll start believing Paul is sincere when he moves out of his McMansion and into a tiny home

    Really? Do you think he cares if you doubt his sincerity? And would you really change your position on global warming depending on the size of Dr. Krugman’s house?

  2. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked our host:

    Really? Do you think he cares if you doubt his sincerity? And would you really change your position on global warming depending on the size of Dr. Krugman’s house?

    While I’m certain that Dr Krugman doesn’t care what people think about his sincerity, one would think that even you could recognize his hypocrisy.

  3. Jeffery says:

    How large a house can a climate realist inhabit before he’s a hypocrite?

    1000 sq ft? 500? 100?

    Conservatives routinely use whatever means necessary to dismiss an opponent. You will always find extraneous reasons to dismiss Dr Krugman’s arguments. It’s a tactic.

    Do you plan to collect Social Security or Medicare? Hypocrite.

    Have you or your businesses ever accepted payments from government entities? Hypocrite.

    Do you ever breathe air or drink water made purer by the efforts of government? Hypocrite.

    Why would anyone listen to you?

  4. Hoagie says:

    When did Krugman get his degree in climate science?

    Capt. Teach, you do realize Krugman is getting paid to write, lecture and talk about climate change. He like most leftists are useful lapdogs for the anti capitalist left. Oddly while being well off themselves they strive to stop others from attaining the same.

    I’ve seen Krugman’s huge, opulent, sprawling, non-green mansion. By taking money to propagandize for the AGW cult he becomes a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite. He makes huge money and lives an opulent lifestyle all while preaching phony climate theories he himself neither believes or follows by example. He, like all leftists only want to control others.

    Plus he’s a lousy economist.

  5. Hoagie says:

    The very idea of who and what that human piece of waste, Krugman is best described here:

    The environmental movement is a con. Its leadership preys on the ignorance, insecurity, and hubris of its followers.

    The environmental con takes many forms. In recent decades man-caused global warming is the con game. That scare was deliberately manufactured in the 1980’s. Its purpose was, and is, to cripple the US economy, foremost, and the economy of Western Europe secondarily. This program has had considerable success. Many have bought into the con and the economy is hurting. In particular, some who have knowingly promoted the con are politicians who seek to accumulate power and wealth. Using the scare tactic of climate runaway, stupendous resources have been wasted on misguided attempts to reduce carbon dioxide: solar power, wind power, alcohol fuels, suppression of coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy production. Millions of jobs have been lost through unneeded environmental regulations. Fortunately, Nature did not cooperate with the conmen and politicians. The world did not heat up, as predicted. Belief in global warming is rapidly diminishing, as it should.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/why_environmentalism_became_both_a_religion_and_a_con_game.html#ixzz4MPHmxaDU
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  6. the Deplorable acethepug says:

    Jeffrey, since the very basic concept of “if you talk the talk, you should walk the walk” is beyond you, I will try to help.

    You see, when someone expresses grave concern over something, even a modern-day Indulgences Scheme like Global Warming (now called Climate Change), it is reasonable to expect that person to live like they actually BELIEVE what they are oh-so-concerned about.

    That for example, the Paris Agreement, wasn’t done via teleconference technology, but by these concerned government types enlarging their carbon footprints, tends to undercut said concern.

    To really dumb it down for you, Jeffrey, when these “concerned” people start living like they actually believe what they are selling/forcing on everyone else, they might at least have a leg to stand on.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    Where did you get your Ph.D. in economics? He’s a good enough economist to be wealthy, pay his taxes and NOT go bankrupt 6 times.

    The basics of global warming are easily understood by those who make even a modest effort. Even a Ph.D. in a non-science such as economics can understand global warming.

    Do you agree that the Earth is warming?
    Do you agree that CO2 is increasing from fossil fuel use?
    Do you agree that atmospheric CO2 absorbs infrared radiation?
    If so you should at least agree that it’s very, very likely that fossil fuel burning is causing at least part of the current rapid warming.
    Scientists who ARE experts in climate science agree that most of the rapid warming seen in the past century resulted from increased atmospheric CO2.
    They further agree that without slowing or stopping the increase in CO2 that warming will continue.

    Why do you disagree with the experts and the evidence. Please make your case.

    I can certainly be persuaded by evidence and a solid argument that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by leftists to control the masses. But it will take evidence, not proclamations.

    We get it. Can’t refute the message, attack the messenger. Paul Krugman understands the science and economics of global warming AND has a big house from being a professor, author and having a successful spouse. Is his house too big for him to understand global warming?

    How do you know his house is non-green?

  8. david7134 says:

    AGW is a total hoax. Jeff, please share your great drug discoveries as if you use the logic demonstrated in your comments, your drugs must be crap.

  9. Liam Thomas says:

    How do you know his house is non-green?

    There is no such thing as a GREEN HOUSE in the sense in which you are referring.

    The production of the materials to build one is staggering….the co2 expelled to create the bricks and transport them is staggering…..the co2 expelled to deforest dozens and dozens of trees to build said house is staggering.

    The co2 expelled by perhaps a 100 workers Driving to work to build said house for months is staggering.

    Anyone who claims they have a green home is crazy and flat out deniers of the real truth.

    The amount of co2 expelled to create ONE HOME is very large……..the larger the home the more co2 that was expelled to build it….

    This again is something people like Jeffery do not comprehend…..there is a chain of events……

    Let us take for example battery cars that expel no co2….awesome…except that they cost a ton of co2 to produce, use a ton of co2 to charge and the batteries must be replaced which costs a ton of co2…

    THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH and there aint no green houses….and AL Gore and KRUGMAN DONT LIVE IN A GREEN HOME…..PERIOD.

  10. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asks:

    How do you know his house is non-green?

    There have been plenty of pictures of his house published, with nary a solar panel nor windmill in sight. I suppose that he might have a geothermal system for heating, but if so, he hasn’t told us. His house is huge, for the two people living there.

    Now, IO absolutely support his right to spend his money any way he pleases, but if he’s going to tell the rest of us how to live, maybe he ought to lead by example. It’s pretty bad when I’m considering solar panels for the farm, and he won’t for his house.

  11. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Do you plan to collect Social Security or Medicare? Hypocrite.

    Jeffrey, I had no fornicating choice but to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. If I opposed those programs, and had found a way to avoid those taxes — such as John Edwards use of an S Corporation to reduce his Medicare tax hit — you might have a point. But I paid for them, whether I liked it or not, and I plan on collecting every last kopeck I can, and would even if I had a billion dollars in the bank.

    The esteemed Dr Krugman is a multimillionaire, one who rails against income inequality, yet collects something like $250,000 for teaching one course at Columbia, and could easily afford to have solar panels or windmills installed. Maybe they wouldn’t be much of a net gain for him, but he would be leading by example.

    That’s the problem with the leftist elite: they are great at telling other people how they should lead their lives, including pushing programs which would take money out of the pockets of working class Americans, yet they don’t live the lives that they say others should.

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    It’s pretty bad when I’m considering solar panels for the farm, and he won’t for his house.

    Be prepared for a real struggle. Its not uncommon to take 5-9 months to finish a solar project. Its not like roofers who can come in and take off and replace a roof in 1-2 days.

    My home in Costa Rica took 7 months to complete…..of the 35 panels that finally entered service it took 105 panels ordered to find 35 that would actually produce anywhere near the 275 stated voltage….not to mention the people doing the installation were vex, perplexed as to why the collection system refused to work….leading to rewiring of the system multiple times.

    It was a night mare that fortunately for me I was absent from and my hired contractor oversaw the daily, weekly and monthly installation of a 76,000 dollar project that took 7 months to complete and still only runs at about 80 percent of rated efficiency.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    You don’t have to defend your hypocrisy to me – I actually don’t consider conservatives/libertarians, or you, who suckle at the teat of government to be hypocrites, unworthy of being listened to. Life is tough for us all. You’ll collect more SS and Medicare than you paid in, paid in part by my children and grandchildren. You’re welcome – they won’t begrudge you your subsidy.

    I use the criticism of conservatives taking advantage of gov’t services as debate tactic.

    But I also don’t consider that Krugman’s sprawling home invalidates his arguments either.

    Do you have any idea how he sources his electrical needs? Does he pay extra for renewable sources? Even in backward MO we can opt in to purchasing centrally generated power from wind and solar. In addition we have a big honking nuclear power plant in the middle of the state. Do you know that Dr Krugman uses coal or oil based electricity?

    Are you even certain Krugman still lives in Princeton NJ since he left Princeton (he is now a professor at the City University of NY and a columnist for the NY Times)? He may live in a small apt in NYC and bike to work.

    Is he a hypocrite for being worth $2.5 million and criticizing income inequality? Would his message be more believable if he was poor?

    Would conservatives’ criticism of Social Security be more believable if they didn’t accept SS payments?

  14. Dana says:

    If we install a solar system, it will be primarily as a supplement and backup, two or three panels, with a collection and storage system I can install myself. The existing house is currently heated only with an electric heat pump; I’ll install a wood burning stove. There is no gas at the farm, and my darling bride would prefer a gas stove, so we’ll add propane, which could also be used for backup heat if we lose power for an extended period of time. The house is about 300 yards from the river, but I don’t know if hydroelectric is feasible.

    I wouldn’t be doing any of this to ‘go green,’ but simply for the sake of efficiency and safety. When the power goes out at the end of a country road, it can take some time before the sparktricity company gets to your place to restore service. I wouldn’t dream of increasing my neighbors’ electric bills just because they didn’t choose to install such things.

    If the warmists weren’t such humorless scolds, they’d have probably gotten farther than they have. Americans were perfectly happy to adopt CFL bulbs, based on the (sadly unfulfilled) promise of much longer life, and Americans would happily adopt LED lights, once the price comes down, all on their own, by consumers’ own choices, because, in the long run, they are superior to incandescent bulbs. But noooo! The scolds had to try to ban the incandescent bulbs, creating pushback. Conservatives would have just let it happen; the left tries to force it to happen.

  15. Dana says:

    Jeffrey laughably writes:

    You don’t have to defend your hypocrisy to me – I actually don’t consider conservatives/libertarians, or you, who suckle at the teat of government to be hypocrites, unworthy of being listened to. Life is tough for us all. You’ll collect more SS and Medicare than you paid in, paid in part by my children and grandchildren. You’re welcome – they won’t begrudge you your subsidy.

    Well, maybe: there’s always a chance that I’ll just drop dead before I collect much, or anything.

    I use the criticism of conservatives taking advantage of gov’t services as debate tactic.

    Idiocy: we aren’t given a choice, Jeffrey! We don’t have the choice of taking private roads, we cannot choose not to use the fire department if our homes catch on fire, and we ate taxed to pay for the public schools, whether we send our children there or not.

    But, as always, you equate conservatism with criticism of all government programs, and that’s either stupidity or outright lying on your part. Our support for the police makes it obvious that we support that part of government.

    I believe that government exists to provide a few essential services, for the community, not individuals, and to protect our rights and property from violation by others. Government should not exist for social engineering purposes, to ‘equalize’ outcomes, to favor one group over another, or to treat one citizen differently from another.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Conservatives would have just let it happen; the left tries to force it to happen.

    Conservatives would and have “just let” a lot of stuff happen: Air pollution. Water pollution. Unsafe autos. Acid rain. Ozone depletion. Deaths from tobacco. Clear cutting. The Great Recession. Income inequality. Separate but equal. Discrimination. Impoverished seniors. For-profit healthcare.

    Just do nothing and let the rigged markets sort it out. Killed by contaminated beef? Have your family sue the responsible party and with enough lawsuits and bad publicity they’ll balance their expenditures against their profit and may decide to not kill customers. Infant killed in a poorly designed crib? It’s the parents fault for not testing better. Plus they can sue the manufacturer which may force them to improve their design. Too many lawsuits? Conservatives can pass laws to rig manufacturer liabilities and judgments.

    You must be so proud.

  17. Liam Thomas says:

    Conservatives would and have “just let” a lot of stuff happen: Air pollution. Water pollution. Unsafe autos. Acid rain. Ozone depletion. Deaths from tobacco. Clear cutting. The Great Recession. Income inequality. Separate but equal. Discrimination. Impoverished seniors. For-profit healthcare.

    one at a time please.

    Air Pollution….. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. As the bill was an early step towards the development of the United States’s environmental policy, NEPA is referred to as the “environmental Magna Carta”

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was modeled after the Council of Economic Advisers, a group of advisers to the President, created by the Employment Act of 1946. Shortly after NEPA was signed into law, President Richard Nixon expanded the CEQ’s mandate by executive order. He directed the CEQ to issue guidelines for the proper preparation of an EIS and to assemble and coordinate federal programs related to environmental quality. The Council was placed within the Executive Office of the President of the United States and is composed of three President-appointed members, which are subsequently confirmed by the Senate.

    TL:DR

    Nepa and CEQ have guided the USA and addressed the environment including smog, fog and Acid rain for Decades prior to the Clean water act….The powers of the agency were passed on a bipartisan vote with a sitting GOP president and the powers of the agency were EXPANDED UNDER A GOP PRESIDENT.

    YOu constantly accuse the GOP of doing nothing….when in fact they have been involved in all the important and necessary aspects of our environment from the beginning Including a REPUBLICAN WHO CREATED THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.

    TL:DRx2 Nice talking points…most of which are distorted spin that have little merit.

  18. Hoagie says:

    The constant whine about Republicans doing nothing or being “deniers” or racist or whatever is the slur du jour is an attempt to shut us up. Typical tyrants can’t take criticism.

    Like Rushdie said:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5T0w1JQkC34/V_cXF8zU_6I/AAAAAAABChg/Ip9IE19mnpw8BkTfNe1m1c2cw5cByxTdACEw/s1600/1%2B1%2B%2B11ninetymilesk8MwF1rzull5o1_500.jpg

  19. Jeffery says:

    Ayn Rand, LOL.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9784 access attempts in the last 7 days.