Playing with Fire! Greenpeace are calling for a climate debate among democrats in the US presidential campaign (just like they never do with the science, eh?).
There are a billion sensible reasons the Democrats don’t want a climate debate
And it’s not because they’d lose debating science. There’s no chance they would debate science — every candidate already agrees there is a climate emergency de facto, or they’d be thrown out of the party. So, any debate would start with “what should we do” and instantly turn into a high risk competition to outbid each other. Who can promise more, squander more, or cry bigger tears on stage on cue?
The last thing on Earth the Democrats want is public policy analysis on climate change. Lord forbid, what if one candidate suggests “going nuclear” and starts pointing out how solar and wind are less effective at reducing CO2? There’s a danger democrat voters might be paying attention (unlike when a “fossil-fueled right winger” says the same thing). Democrats might learn what money-sucking boondoggles wind turbines and solar panels are, and how many birds, bats and forests get fried? That’s a big loser for the Big Gov team — they don’t want to air the flaws of the current golden subsidy train. Firstly, it exposes the bonfire of billions of dollars already wasted on pointless plans. Secondly, the punters might decide they actually want nukes, or super critical coal, or bargain auctions like the Australian direct action plan. And none of those help industries that depend solely on Big Gov, like uneconomic renewables. A friend in need is a fellow lobbyist indeed. Big-Gov-dependents always vote left, cheer left and provide a steady stream of press releases about “emergencies” that need more Big Gov Spending.
For Democrats climate is just virtue signalling — there are no numbers allowed
With climate, the only answer is “Yes”. Should we spend $2 billion or $10 Trillion? “Yes.” Their national carbon policy is balanced on namecalling rants so if it’s debated there’s a danger the entire climate facade could unravel. Both sides of the same debate can’t say yes and yes. Nor can they both call each other fossil fueled deniers. There goes the top two debating tricks.
Democrats want voters to “say yes to climate change” but not to discuss the non-existent cost benefits. As I’ve said many times, the voters may “believe” the climate is changing but they don’t care enough to pay for it. Only 3% of Americans name “environment” as top issue. When it comes to funding, almost half, 42%, of US adults don’t even want to pay a paltry, pathetic, $12 a year to stop climate change. Globally, 63% don’t want their dollars spent on the environment…
Climate change is a badge people want to wear but not to pay or vote for. In the US, all the political types noticed what happened in Australia:
Rich Lowey, National Review
The political experience of other advanced democracies is a flashing red light. In Australia last month, the liberal opposition lost what was supposed to be “the climate change” election, against all expectations. Pre-election polling showed that about 60 percent of Australians thought the government should address climate change “even if this involves significant costs.” It turned out that it was one thing to tell that to pollsters and another to vote to make it happen.
[Paul Bledsoe, was a former climate adviser to President Bill Clinton]… He added that centering a debate entirely on climate change could carry a political cost. “To somehow make a fetish of climate change as the sine qua non of the 2020 election would in fact fall into a trap which the Republicans are trying to create, which is a view of Democrats as concerned only about non-pocketbook issues,” Bledsoe said. “I applaud the DNC for having the political common sense not to have a debate devoted to a single topic, whatever the topic.”
The DNC are so afraid of debates, they don’t want any at all. Democrats are not even allowed to organise their own debates:
The DNC has created a long list of rules to govern who qualifies for the debate stage, setting thresholds for polling and fundraising. (Vox’s Andrew Prokop put together an excellent explainer about Democratic debate rules.) Among the rules is that a candidate who appears at an unofficial debate will be barred from the official debates. So even if a candidate decides to create their own debate event, be it about the climate crisis or otherwise, they stand to be excluded from the main stage (climate change “forums” and “town halls” are still permitted
The pincers close on the Fashion of Climate Fear.