Parties More Divided Than Ever on Global Warming




To the Republican Party’s credit, they haven’t let the liberal establishment knock them off their pedestal of opposition to carbon taxes and other regulations meant to stave off global warming. Under intense pressure from the media, Democrats, and certain sectors of the scientific community, Republicans reaffirmed their stance in the 2016 RNC platform draft.

“We oppose any carbon tax,” said the platform. “It would increase energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at the families who are already struggling to pay their bills in the Democrats’ no-growth economy.”

Elsewhere in the draft, Republicans urged the development and adoption of private-sector solutions that would decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. “We urge the private sector to focus its resources on the development of the carbon capture and sequestration technology still in its early stages here and overseas.”

To see a contrast in styles, simply look at the 2016 DNC platform draft. You’d think the members of these two parties were living on different planets.

“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals,” reads the Democrats’ draft.

Over the next few years, these stark differences in approach will begin to matter more than ever. Democrats are no longer going to be satisfied with whatever measures they can pass using political propaganda. They are ready to use the full force of the law (and then some) to enact regulations that will cripple America’s energy production, raise the costs of electricity and fuel, and lead to widespread unemployment.

If there are things we must do as a nation to reduce the carbon concentrations in our atmosphere (and it’s far from conclusive that we must), we can do them without crushing the economic foundation of the country. What sense does it make to prepare for the problems of the future by destroying everything that’s good about today? Especially when those future problems rest on questionable data, exaggerated scenarios, and a dubious link to human activity.


About admin