They are all sorts of big mad in these letters, but, weirdly, none are saying what they’ve done in their own lives to make their carbon footprints zero
(NY Times) Re “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore,” by Matthew T. Huber (Opinion guest essay, May 12):
It is ironic, dangerous and sad that this writer says the biggest crisis humans have ever faced should no longer be a campaign topic in America. Extreme climate events like insidious fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and storms are very damaging and real! Lives and livelihoods are extinguished.
Yet Dr. Huber views climate change discussions as “yet another issue fueling polarization.” In light of looming global disasters, is political polarization our biggest worry?
Instead, news of our distressed climate needs to be in the headlines daily. It needs to be widely broadcast because it is real and people need to be informed. Many other regions of the world have moved past the talk of climate toward serious mitigation measures. America needs to join in.
Has Sally stopped using fossil fuels? Moved into a tiny home? Given up meat?
As a mother of two young children, I believe that it is simply disqualifying in 2026 for a candidate not to mention climate. Matthew T. Huber may be correct that we can fight climate change without mentioning the word “climate,” but is that the kind of leadership we want in office? The kind that avoids naming a problem and is incapable of making the connections for people about climate change’s effects: poor air quality, health impacts, supercharged storms, skyrocketing energy costs, cities running out of water and homeowners being priced out of or denied home insurance?
Why did you have children if we are doomed? Notice that Ali Simpson, senior manager for field campaigns for Moms Clean Air Force, requires the litmus test, but, I can’t find what she’s done in her own life other than try and force Other People to have their lives changed.
The argument that progressives shouldn’t talk about climate change because it doesn’t have strong bipartisan support is backward: They should be talking about it to build that very support. The retort nowadays is that affordability should be the goal, not clean energy, but that too misses the point. For the first time, solar and energy storage are the cheapest way to lower our utility bills. Clean energy and affordable energy are synonyms.
Jake from Washington fails to note that Dems have been pushing this for 30 years, and even in Washington the Progressives voted against a lot of climate (scam) legislation.
You can imagine the freakouts not published. But, why do their letter, tweets, posts, etc, never include what measures they have taken in their own lives?
“Sally” wrote:
We’ve had wars which killed millions and millions of people. We have nations with nuclear weapons, three of which have enough nukes to wipe out all of civilization. We’ve had real epidemics which killed perhaps a quarter of a continent. Entire human species have gone extinct. Humans have lived and thriven from arctic wastelands to bone-dry deserts, to tropical rainforests, yet ‘Sally’ thinks that the climate being a couple of degrees warmer 75 years from now is the “biggest crisis humans have ever faced”?
But she’s right about one thing: the left should tell us the truth about their plans, though we know that they won’t, because their plans are vote losers.