Showing posts with label Right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right. Show all posts

Protests are a Necessary and Appropriate Response to the Trump Administration

Donald Trump has augured protest unlike any that have gone before it. The level size and scope of these protests are unprecedented. They started while Trump was on the campaign trail and persist to this day. We have seen a massive protest on Inauguration Day January 20th and the Women's March that took place on January 21.

The electoral victory has spawned an unprecedented movement. Protest is important and never more than in the dark times heralded by Trump's win in November.  The reasons to protest are numerous and include the numerous swipes Trump and Republicans have taken on climate action and environmental protections.

Republicans emboldened by Trump's win have already started to gut environmental protections and transparency.  Trump's Executive Order (EO) to enfeeble the EPA was followed by the GOP's efforts to kill the agency outright. Republicans also want to sell-off public lands and strip enforcement powers from federal agencies. Trump has used his executive authority to reanimate two fossil fuel pipelines. These pipelines are both massive carbon bombs and they are incompatible with efforts to keep temperatures within acceptable limits.  Following Trump's EO the last remaining Dakota Access pipeline protest camp was raided and burned to the ground.

This is a very dark time in American history, however, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel if Americans take note and realize that their democracy is at risk alongside their planet.

Another salient reason for protesting is Trump's slate of nominees including Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State and Scott Pruitt at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Betsy Devos as the Education Secretary nominee. Other reasons why people are protesting include the Muslim ban which has been condemned roundly and leading businesses are challenging in the courts.

President Obama has also indicated that he supports the right of protesters to resist the policies of the Trump administration. Obama, in his first public statement since leaving the White House, said he was "heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country...Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by the elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake," he said.

So much has been accomplished through protest. In the US protest succeeded in helping to kill the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline (although both of these decisions have been reversed by Trump's Executive Order).

Perhaps the most heartening and relevant global protests for those opposing Trump took place in Romania. Recent protests in that country caused the Romanian government to back down from an emergency decree that decriminalized some forms of corruption. The people said no and they turned out for five consecutive days by the hundreds of thousands forcing the government to back down. As they said in Romania, "we have an obligation and a duty to resist."

Protests against Trump are truly global. Avaaz has put together a "global letter" to Trump signed by people all around the world. The letter concludes with the following words: "As citizens of the world, we stand united against your brand of division."

Opposition to Trump is not only coming from environmentalists and leftists, even the Episcopal Church has urged its members to protest. The Church Times reports that dozens of Episcopalian Bishops urged Episcopalians to protest Trump.

There is also more shadowy opposition from groups like Anonymous who have warned Trump to resign by February 28th citing his lies and support for the Dakota Access pipeline. They mention his "unprecedented attack on basic human decency and civil rights" and they go on to say, "We will protest, resist and continue to practice civil disobedience until we can clearly state that this regime is at an end. You have exactly 35 days or we will take to the streets in a day of resistance...We are a nation founded on revolution and we will continue that tradition until our government is once again stable and incompetent hands.

If Trump and his administration does not resign (and of course we all know they will not) Anonymous is calling for another day of mass protest on March 1, where Trump and his administration can "expect us all."

While there have been and will be a number of protests, perhaps the biggest will take place on April 29th. Organized by the People's Climate Movement, this march is arguably the most important protest in American history. On this day a broad coalition will come together to say "no" to the Trump administration's environment and climate assaults.

The Green Market Oracle has studied the cost of climate and environmental neglect and we will remain focused on protest as a powerful form of resistance to the authoritarian dystopia of the Trump administration.

People resist Trump for love of country, respect for people and the Constitution. We all need clean air and water, this should be a fundamental human right and yet these are among the things that are at risk. We protest in defense of our planet and future generations, we stand up so that we will be counted as those who said "no" to Trump's dark policy agenda.  

How will you resist?

Cantor's Loss to the Tea Party Kills Any Hope for Green Legislation

The defeat of Eric Cantor by Tea Party candidate David Brat in Virginia means that we can expect the deadlock in Congress to continue. This is particularly true with regard to energy, environment and climate legislation. While the GOP is well known for being anti-science and anti-environment, Tea Party Republicans are far more likely to be climate deniers than their mainstream Republican counterparts. Cantor is no friend of the environment but he has lost to someone that is far less likely to support even the most rudimentary green legislation.

When it comes to climate change there is a stark partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats, but the tendency towards denial is far more pronounced among Tea Party Republicans.

According to a 2013 Pew Research Center poll, 67 percent of Americans think climate change is real. Only 4 percent of Democrats think climate change is not happening and 13 percent of non-Tea Party Republicans share that view. Among supporters of the Tea Party the number who deny the veracity of climate change soars to 41 percent. To put it another way 61 percent of mainstream, non-Tea Party Republicans think there is solid evidence for global warming, while just 25 percent of Tea Party Republicans share that view.

Despite massively outspending his opponent ($5.2m compared to $120,000), Cantor suffered a humiliating loss. The results are a stunning upset as a House majority leader has not suffered a defeat in a primary in 115 years. Cantor was the second most senior Republican in the House and he was expected to replace John Boehner as the speaker. This loss represents a significant defeat for mainstream Republicans and a major victory for the climate denying fringe.
The grassroots movement that helped the GOP to gain ground has hijacked the Republican party and undermined national governance. Their extreme form of obstructionism has even succeeded in shutting down government.

Brat's campaign strategy focused on how Cantor had worked on bipartisan efforts including immigration reform and financial compromise efforts such as extending the debt ceiling and budget authority.

For the Tea Party, working in a bipartisan fashion is tantamount to selling your soul to the devil. This election result will no doubt send shock waves through the Republican party and push some to be even more obstructionist, anti-science, and anti-environment than they already were.

Brat's victory is an indication that Republicans have yet to cleanse their party of their Neanderthal brethren. While many had hoped that Republicans would succeed in ferreting out the anti-government Luddites that infect the party, the most recent results indicate that they are still alive and well. The net result is that no legislation will get through Congress in the foreseeable future, this is especially true for progressive energy and environment bills.

The Tea Party has broken the American legislative process and this definitively precludes all forms of green legislation. Unless Democrats can retain control of the Senate and take back the House in the 2014 midterms the legislative deadlock will continue.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Tea Party Bolsters Republican Commitment to Obstructionism
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
The Kochs' Tea Party
Sarah Palin: Tea Party Queen
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Hurricane Sandy Underscores Republican's Anti-Science Climate Change Denial (Video)
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
Political "Heroes" and "Villains" on US Air Pollution
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican Assault on the Environment
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception

CPAC 2013: Leading Conservatives Don't Want Change

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) came together for their annual gathering and they have once again snubbed climate change, green jobs and a sustainable US economy. CPAC is hosted by the American Conservative Union Foundation (ACUF), a 501(c)3 charity.

The conference was founded in 1973 by the American Conservative Union and Young Americans for Freedom. The majority of attendees are young people under the age of 30, appropriately the theme in 2013 is “America’s Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives.”

Aside from a few derisive comments, there was no mention of climate change, clean energy or the environment.

Those who did mention climate change did so with the intent of undermining the green agenda. Speaking at CPAC on Friday March 15, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) tried to disprove climate change by noting that President Obama wore a jacket during his chilly inauguration in January!

“He [Obama] talked about global warming at his inauguration, I found it ironic that the President was wearing a trench coat it was so cold but he’s talking about global warming,” Rep. Scalise said.

Conservatives continue to believe that the federal government is overreaching when it tries to move forward on environmental protections and climate change. When Conservatives are not ignoring renewable energy, they are dismissing it. Sen. Rand Paul went so far as to call the solar power industry "wasteful."

Given the fact that in the 2012 elections conservatives failed to win the Presidency and lost ground in both the House and the Senate, it would stand to reason that some changes may be in the offing for the GOP. However, right from the beginning of the conference change was rebuffed.

The first speaker at CPAC was the Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, he avoided any hint of change and instead preached the old line about American exceptionalism, Marco Rubio added to the no-change agenda saying, "we don't need new ideas." These sentiments were also echoed by Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Allen West, former U.S. Representative and 22-year Army veteran, stressed that conservatives must not change their message to fit the times. He went on to dismiss the need for change as “malarkey.”

Their 2012 election defeat clearly indicates that Republicans need to change if it wants to have national majority support. But if you listen to conservatives assembled at CPAC you would never know they have a problem. It seems that denial is not reserved for their stance on climate change. Speaker after speaker banged the same old drum.

Even Mitt Romney seemed to acknowledge the need for the GOP to change, “It is up to us to make sure that we learn from my mistakes, and from our mistakes, so that we can win the victories those people and this nation depend upon,” Although Romney was well received, his message fell on deaf ears.

Conservatives cannot seem to comprehend that American attitudes on issues like climate change are changing. The most recent surveys indicate that a growing number of Americans (including Republicans) are accepting the veracity of climate change. Nonetheless, these Luddites laugh at clean energy, deride the science of climate change and scoff at the idea that we need to do more to protect the environment.

CPAC once again illustrates that the one thing conservatives can't do, is the one thing they need to do - change.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP's 2012 Presidential Candidates
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming

A huge gulf exists between Americans who accept the reality of climate science and those who do not. According to an October 15, 2012, Pew Research Center poll, Democratic voters are more than twice as likely to embrace the facts on global warming than their Republican counterparts.

A growing number Americans, including voters who identify as independents and those from both major parties, believe global warming is occurring. Predictably many Republicans continue to ignore the powerful body of evidence supporting the existence of global warming. This should come as no surprise as the GOP presidential nominee is now leading the climate denial train.

Romney has repeatedly derided efforts to combat global warming, saying “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

As recently as June 2011 Romney publicly acknowledged anthropogenic climate change, and even advocated for reducing emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. However, by August 2011, Romney began to shift his position saying that he didn’t know whether or how much humans were contributing to global warming. Then in October last year he affirmed his stance as a climate denier saying:

“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” he said. “And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Republicans were not always so resistant to the facts, in 2007, 62 percent of Republicans said there was solid evidence, but then a barrage of misinformation caused these numbers to decline for two consecutive years reaching a low of 35 percent in 2009.

Now a total of 48 percent of Republicans believe the facts about global warming. This is in stark contrast to the 85 percent of Democrats who accept the evidence. It is interesting to note that independent voters are right in the middle with 65 percent accepting reality.

The poll indicates that 67 percent of Americans say there is solid evidence of global warming. The 2012 numbers are four points higher than 2011 and 10 points higher than 2009. However, it remains well below the 77 percent who held at view five years ago.

More than half of Republicans are in the dark on global warming. While 88 percent of Obama voters accept the scientific evidence, only 42 percent of Romney backers accept the truth. And among Obama backers, 59 percent call global warming a “very serious” problem, compared to only 13 percent of Romney’s voters.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Citizens United is Helping Romney to Win the White House and Destroy the Environment
Political "Heroes" and "Villains" on US Air Pollution
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
Mitt Romney's Love Affair with Fossil Fuels
Romney's Coal Fired Campaign Versus Obama's Wind Power
What Romney's Energy Policy looks Like on the Ground (Video)
Mitt Romeny: The Legacy He Will Leave for our Children
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Climate Change
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan's Unsustainable Voting Record on Energy and the Environment
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone XL
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican's Fail in their Bid to Defund the EPA
Defend Clean Air and Oppose the TRAIN Act
Republican Assault on the Environment
EDF Campaign Opposing US Anti-Environment Bill
Environmental Implications of the Credit Ceiling Agreement
Chu Video: The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill of her Career
Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
Blumenauer Video: 'The Jihad Against Climate Change Continues'
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Ceiling Risks Global Environmental Collapse
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Supreme Court Decision Undermines Climate Change Legislation
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception

How Morality Can Win the War on Climate Change


The reasons why more people are not demanding action on the environment is a glaring moral failing. If we are to see a critical mass of support for efforts to combat climate change, we must understand that in addition to an economic and ecological crisis, we are also facing a moral crisis. To bridge the gulf between morality and climate change we need to go to the places where morality still has value.

Religions are a primary source of ethical conduct, and as such they are an ideal platform for communicating a moral argument. Although governments and businesses have a central role, churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship may be the best venues for disseminating the moral dimension of the climate change issue.  We need to tap into the deeply embedded preexisting morality of the vast majority of people who consider themselves followers of religion. (Even those who do not subscribe to religion also respond to moral arguments about the need for action on climate change).

Religious leaders from all the major traditions see action on climate change as a moral imperative. As reviewed in an extensive list of Climate Change Statements, all of the world’s major religious traditions espouse a harmonious relationship between people and the planet.

One group called Interfaith Moral Action on Climate  is a collaborative initiative of religious leaders and groups that are promoting a moral call to action on climate change. This group feels compelled by their “traditions and collective conscience to take action on this deeply moral challenge. [They] believe that a moral voice is essential in inspiring action on climate change, since scientific and economic arguments alone have not moved the United States to adequately address this deepening crisis.”

Interfaith is calling for policies that dramatically reduce wasted energy, support renewable energy and phase-out all fossil fuel subsidies. Despite the radical change they advocate, their message is positive. They seek a “brighter vision” to unite the world around “a set of clear widely held moral principles.”

Their third guiding moral principle is to protect the Earth, they reiterate the aboriginal beliefs that we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of the Earth and all of its creatures and processes.  Interfaith’s vision advocates a moral response to climate change while acknowledging scientific research.

They have circulated their Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change, and an Interfaith Statement on Climate Change was submitted by representatives of the world’s religions at the COP17 in Durban, South Africa.
“We recognize that climate change is not merely an economic or technical problem, but rather at its core is a moral, spiritual and cultural one. We therefore pledge to join together to teach and guide the people who follow the call of our faiths.”
In an article titled “Rekindling the Moral Call to Action,” climate change is construed as a “fundamental moral and humanitarian issue.”  The article urges action from leaders and works towards a unified effort to combat climate change.

On July 23rd,  2012, there was a phone conference briefing on “How to Communicate about Climate Action as a Moral Imperative.” The event was co-hosted by Climate Access, US Climate Action Network, Interfaith Moral Action on Climate Change, and the National Climate Ethics. The speakers indicated that we need to create a moral movement that urges people to take personal responsibility and choose sides on the issue of climate change.

Even American Evangelical Christian Leaders have clearly articulated a moral argument for supporting action on anthropogenic climate change. They state that their Christian moral convictions demand their response to climate change. They go on to advocate national legislation in the U.S., requiring emissions reductions through market based mechanisms like cap-and-trade.

As reviewed in a Guardian article, NASA scientist Jim Hansen calls climate change a moral issue on a par with slavery. He is calling for a global carbon tax and sees inaction on climate change as an “injustice of one generation to others”.

Morality is also the key issue in an article titled Why Few Americans View Climate Change as a Moral Problem by Ezra Markowitz. He is a doctoral candidate in Environmental Sciences at the University of Oregon and a research fellow with the Climate Shift Project at American. In a 2012 publication Markowitz points to an absence of strong moral intuitions on climate change.

Markowitz and his colleague Azim Shariff have published research on the moral psychology of the public (dis)engagement with climate change. Their new paper in Nature Climate Change is called Climate change and moral judgment.” In the paper, Markowitz and Shariff explore six reasons why climate change is not a more common moral issue and six strategies that may help to compel us to act.

According to these researchers, the human moral judgment system fails to acknowledge climate change because: Climate change is complex, distant and abstract; it represents an untraditional type of moral transgression where it is sometimes hard to attribute blame; people have an aversion to guilt; they see the future as uncertain and they fail to identify with victims of climate change. Finally, concerns about climate change are not at present core moral values.

To help people engage efforts to combat climate change, the authors recommend that we use existing moral values. They go on to suggest that we should focus on communicating the problems that climate change will wreak upon future generations, rather than on the potential benefits. The idea here is that it is counterproductive to focus on “extrinsic motivators” for action on climate change (i.e. economic growth and jobs). According to the researchers, it weakens moral engagement by deemphasizing intrinsic values and non-materialist motives.

The research indicates that it is more productive to use messaging that generates positive emotions (eg: hope, pride and gratitude), rather than negative emotions (eg: guilt, shame and anxiety). The study reports that we need to expand our group identity, incorporate shared goals, and finally, we need to highlight positive social norms where pro-environmental action is lauded.
“The point I want to drive home is this: truly engaging with climate change as a moral issue—really feeling its moral significance viscerally—is no easy feat” Markowitz said, “regardless of how often we hear about the people and animals that will be harmed or the injustice of richer individuals and nations misappropriating a life-sustaining, common resource.”
We will need to be creative and develop evidence-based approaches that help people to understand climate change as a moral imperative. Despite the subtle psychological nuances needed to effectively communicate the point, the moral argument is capable of unleashing unprecedented activity. 

Source: Global Warming is Real (http://s.tt/1kkiE)

Related Posts
Crafting a Positive Environmental Narrative
Pessimism is Impeding Environmental Advocacy
Building Support for Action on Climate Change Before We Reach Tipping Points
Why We Need to Reach American Climate Change Deniers

GOP Fights Removal of Oil Subsidies

Republicans have rejected a bill that would have killed tax breaks for big oil companies. Despite the President's plea to end oil subsidies, on Thursday March 29 the Senate voted 51-47 against a Democratic bill that would remove billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks. President Obama has been a champion of ending big oil's subsidies since taking office. "It's like hitting the American people twice," Obama said. "You're already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress...has thought it was a good idea to send billions of dollars more in tax dollars to the oil industry."

To justify their resistance to the bill Republicans are using the flawed logic of higher gas prices. In February the average price of gasoline in the US was $3.58 a gallon, an 11.5 percent increase over February 2010.

According to a panel of experts testifying before members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources the US has reduced demand and increased supply.

The President has said, "American oil is booming. The oil industry is doing just fine. With record profits and rising production, I'm not worried about the big oil companies."

According to the panel of experts there is not much the US can do domestically to reduce increasing gas prices. High gas prices are largely due to the looming showdown with Iran and geopolitical instability in major oil exporting countries like Sudan, Nigeria and Iraq.

"We are held captive by global markets that we have no control over," said Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va.

Although Republicans are trying to suggest that eradicating oil subsidies would increase the price of gas, Frank Verrastro, senior vice president of the Energy and National Security Program, explains this is simply not the case.

Verrastro said the elimination of tax breaks for oil companies would not change the price at the pump which is due to the global nature of the oil market.

International events beyond American control are driving oil's price volatility. New projects like the Keystone XL pipeline will not have much of an effect on the retail price of gas either so there is little chance of any immediate cost relief.

The only way to gain control over the costs of energy is to reduce dependence on foreign oil and the only way to do this is to develop alternative sources of power.

"With the ability to access these new, unconventional resources, we may very well be on the verge of an American energy renaissance," Verrastro said.

However $20 billion in federal subsidies to the largest oil and gas companies make it more difficult for these alternatives, particularly renewable sources, to grow to a size where they can make a difference in America's energy picture. Subsidies make even less sense when you consider that The five largest oil companies reported a combined $140 billion in profit in 2011.

"They can either vote to spend billions of dollars on oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past," said President Obama, "or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production."

"Members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people," Mr Obama said before Thursday's vote in the Senate. It would appear the GOP would rather wallow in the past and stand with big oil.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
Republican Opposition to Obama's Clean Energy
Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Republican Assault on the Environment
Republican Obstructionism
The Kochs' Tea Party Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the GOP

Video: Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi Ad to Combat Climate Change



Before Newt Gingrich was running for the GOP presidential nomination he was a leading advocate to combat climate change. This ad is part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Video: Newt Gingrich on Climate Change "The Evidence is Sufficient"
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

Video: Newt Gingrich on Climate Change "The Evidence is Sufficient"



Before running for President, Newt Gingrich was an advocate supporting efforts to combat climate change. In this video he is seen saying, "the evidence is sufficient...to move towards most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading." He even talked about the need for "green conservatives." He also addressed Republican concerns about big government but he went on to say that we need to discuss "whats the most effective way to solve it rather than get into a fight about whether or not to solve it."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Video: Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi Ad to Combat Climate Change
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change

Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Utah governor Jon Huntsman's Presidential campaign came to an end when he said, ‘I respect science.’ This is political suicide for anyone seeking the GOP presidential nomination.

Huntsman told Time Magazine in May of 2011: “All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, we’d listen to them. I respect science.”

Huntsman is the only Republican candidate who professed his belief in anthropogenic climate change and he even aspired to create policy solutions to address it.

“In order to get to the heart and soul of carbon emission, which is a problem, because it leads to polluted skies and air quality problems and climate change, we must put a value on carbon,” Huntsman said Until we put a value on carbon we’re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change longer term,” Huntsman said. “Putting a value on carbon either suggests that you go to a carbon tax or you get a cap-and-trade system underway.”

The Republican Party has no time for science and it is deeply offended by the suggestion that humans have contributed to climate change.

Huntsman once tweeted: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Huntsman was anything but crazy, he was by far the most reasonable candidate in a field full of ignorant Luddites. Sadly, Huntsman was forced to drop out of the race because Republicans involved in the primary process want no part of reason.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change

Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change

Republican's confusion on climate change is well known, but this ignorance is not only a defining feature of those left in the GOP presidential race, it also applies to those who dropped out. Here are the views of three Republican candidates who are not longer in the 2012 race. At one time these candidates were viewed as the most promising contenders for the Republican nomination for President. The list of failed popular contenders includes Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain.

Rick Perry

Governor Perry dismissed climate change as a ‘contrived, phony mess.’ Perry said that the “theory” of climate change is a hoax concocted by data-manipulating scientists to keep research money coming in to their projects. On August 17th, 2011, Perry said: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects...Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into, that a group of scientists, who in some cases were found to be manipulating this data.” In 2007 after Rick Perry parted ways with his former boss Al Gore, he said: “I’ve heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I’m starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide.” As an amusing side note Perry's nick-name used to be "crotch" because he wore tight fitting pants.

Michelle Bachmann

As the Chair of the Tea Party Caucus Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota knew that she could not even consider climate change science. She has made statements like “It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum…” In 2009, Bachmann said there’s no reason to worry about carbon dioxide because “Carbon dioxide is natural...It is not harmful. It is a part of earth’s life cycle. And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction that is naturally occurring." As a side note Bachman paid $30 each for 6OOO voting tickets in Iowa, she won with around 4000 votes, meaning that a third of those votes she paid for did not vote for her.

Herman Cain

Cain considers climate change to be "a scam." Cain derided Democrats for falling for the “scientifically manufactured results” that support the science of climate change. This is no longer a controversy. This is conclusive," he said. Cain also calls green energy a joke, declaring to a group of Iowans this spring, “I have studied it!” Cain claimed that solar and wind could provide at best “5 percent of our energy needs.” As a side note Cain was eventually forced to withdraw due to numerous allegations of sexual harrassment. He also was seriously challenged on economic and foreign policy issues, he once referred to Uzbekistan as "Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan."

In addition to their peccadilloes, these three failed GOP candidates for president share a common disdain for the facts on climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2

As revealed in a Treehugger article titled Rick Santorum Has Absolutely No Idea What He is Talking About, Santorum has some convoluted ideas. Here is his response to a man in New Hampshire who questioned him about climate change:

"The question is on how do I get my policies with climate change science. I get asked this question a lot, and you look at the data and you can see some change in the climate. But then again, pick a point in history where you haven’t seen a change in the climate. The climate does change. The question is, what is causing the climate to change?

And I think most scientists, in fact, I assume all scientists would agree there are a variety of factors that cause the climate change. I don’t think any scientist in the world would suggest there isn’t a variety of factors, and I think the vast majority of scientists would say there’s probably a hundred factors that cause the climate to change.

And so why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog. Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affecting it? So, that’s the question.

Some people have very strong feelings that it is that. There are a lot of other people who don’t. Here’s the question. Let’s even assume, for purposes of argument, not that I agree with it, but for purposes of argument, that they are right. Then what would be a rational response?

Well, if you have a problem and you want to craft something, what should that thing that you’re crafting do? Solve the problem. Do any of the proposed solutions put forward by Al Gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem? Even the scientists who support the theory will admit to you that it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. So query, why support the solution, other than you may have some other agenda that may be in place here."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has made a slew of absurd statements about climate change. Not only does he believe that climate change is a hoax, he refers to the large body of scientific evidence as "bogus" or "junk." Rather than rail against Santorum for his lack of understanding, here are a few examples that effectively illustrate his ignorance:

"The left is always looking for a way to control you. They’re always trying to make you feel guilty, so you’ll give them power so they can lord it over you. They do it on the environment all the time."

"The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is."

"[Climate change is] an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life."

"We have to have all sorts of government regulations now because of the threats of hydrofracking. It’s the new bogeyman. It’s the new way to try to scare you … And they’re preying on the Northeast, saying, “Look what’s going to happen. Ooh, all this bad stuff’s gonna happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff, what’s gonna happen?” Let me tell you what’s going to happen: Nothing’s going to happen, except they will use this to raise money for the radical environmental groups so they can go out and continue to try to purvey their reign of environmental terror on the United States of America."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science

Santorum has criticized President Obama for embracing climate science, but he has also offered similar criticisms to fellow Republicans. Santorum is unique amongst those vying for the Republican nomination in that, unlike his rivals, he has not had to change his views on climate change.

GOP presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have been accused of subscribing to a scientific view on climate change.

Santorum accurately portrays himself as the only candidate who has never believed in global warming. Santorum has said:
"I for one never bought the hoax… And yet we have politicians running to the ramparts — unfortunately politicians who happen to be running for the Republican nomination for president — who bought into man-made global warming and bought into cap-and-trade."
This position appeals to the so called values driven conservatives. Santorum may not understand economics or geopolitics but he does seem to enjoy strong support from uneducated rural conservative men. Part of that support comes from his tacit dismissal of the science of climate change.

The far right that dominates the Republican primary process demands that aspiring presidential nominees abandon climate change. While others have had to change their positions on climate, Santorum has been consistent. Unlike his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, Rick has not had to dumb down his campaign. If nothing else Santorum's ignorance on climate change is authentic.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s

Republicans seeking the presidential nomination have been forced to abandon their scientific assessments of Climate change. Republican flip flops on climate change are evidenced by the positions of the GOP presidential contenders. Here is a brief summary of the changing views of Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.
\
Newt Gingrich

In 2008, Newt Gingrich did a PSA with then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calling for action on climate change. He once said that “the evidence is sufficient,” but now that he is seeking the GOP presidential nomination Gingrich has asked for public hearings on climate change and a review of the National Academy of Science findings. Gingrich recently said, “Environmentalists, have been infiltrated over the last 40 years by people on the left who are against business and against local control and they use the environment as an excuse.”

Ron Paul

On the campaign trail in 2007, Ron Paul said that big emitters of CO2 should not be allowed to freely pollute the air because it is a violation of others’ property rights. Paul argued that big polluters should be taxed and he has even admitted to believing that human activity is at least partly responsible for global warming. More recently he has changed his position saying, “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming.”

Like Mitt Romney, both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have to manufacture strong views against climate science to even be considered for the GOP nomination.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing

Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change


This video is about the changing views of Republicans. On the one hand you have the GOP presidential candidates on the other hand there are thinking Republicans. At the moment they appear to be moving in opposite directions. It is widely recognized that running for the GOP presidential nomination also involves running from climate change. However there is a group of Republicans who want to change the anti-scientific stance of the party. One such group is New Hampshire Republicans for Climate. They want their party leaders to adopt responsible policy positions that acknowledge the facts and respond to climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Video: The Republican War on Climate Science



Republicans and their corporate masters for years have been trying to keep the truth about climate change from reaching the American public. They work tirelessly to tell us that the earth isn't getting hotter; or that there is no scientific consensus that global climate change is real; or even that climate change is a good thing because its going to open up shipping routes in the arctic. Their latest efforts, however, go far beyond their usual tactics, as they're now trying to get their anti-science agenda taught in public schools. Mike Papantonio discusses this issue with Chris Mooney author of Republican War on Science.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change



Newt Gingrich, once believed in climate change, but like others seeking the GOP presidential nomination, he has found religion on climate change and now dismisses it at every opportunity. The 2012 Republican presidential candidate claimed he was qualified to deny climate change science because he is an "amateur paleontologist". In this video, the Young Turks host Cenk Uygur makes fun of Gingrich's laughable justification for his denial of climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Rick Santorum's Anti-Environmental Theology
Foster Friess is the Climate Denying Money Man Behind Santorum
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming

Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance



Here is an interview with Adam Lee in which he reviews how Republican presidential hopefuls all seem to have at least one thing in common -- they hate science. Although there are only four remaining GOP nominees vying for the nomination, the full slate of 2012 Republican presidential contenders shared a common disbelief in science. Being anti-science is de reiguer because this is what those participating in the GOP primary process are demanding from their presidential nominees. For an article by Adam Lee titled "Why the Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is So Dangerous," click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science

Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change

As the rest of the world is coming to grips with some of the solutions to the difficult challenges posed by climate change, US Republicans are still denying the very existence of global warming.

According to a recent poll, the number of people in the US denying climate change has dropped to 26 percent, those who are left are are mostly intransigent Republicans.

The poll indicates that almost half (47 percent) of Republicans deny the evidence of global warming while four fifths (80 percent) of Democrats accept the facts.

Those who resist the truth about climate change tend to be very dogmatic in their views. This was revealed by the level of certainty each respondent associated with their answers.

The capacity of many Republicans to insulate themselves from the reality of global warming would be fascinating if it were not so detrimental to the passage of crucial energy and climate legislation.

To see the full report (pdf) from the Brookings Institution click here.

Related Posts
Republicans Deny Facts on Climate Change
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Dems Seek Hearing on Climate to Educate GOP
Republicans' Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
The Foxes in the Henhouse: Republicans in Charge of Climate and Energy Committees
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Ignorance on Climate Change
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance

Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Science of Global Warming

Republican front runner Mitt Romney seems to being getting more obtuse about climate change as his campaign goes forward. Speaking at a closed-door fundraiser in Pittsburgh, Romney told donors at the Consol Energy Center, "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."

This is far from the position that he put forward in his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, "I believe that climate change is occurring...I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor."

As recently as June 2011, Reuters reported that Romney said that the US should "reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

At a stop in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney said, “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.”

In August he again said, "I think the earth is getting warmer. ... I think humans contribute to that."

Even if he secretly believes in global warming it does not appear that he is willing to do anything about it. At the fundraiser, Romney was asked whether he would reject a cap-and-trade bill to limit carbon emissions linked to climate change. Romney replied, "I do not believe in a cap and trade program." He has also said, The U.S. “Cap and trade effectively constitutes an enormous, hidden tax on the American people and American businesses.”

Romney resists the green economy by alleging that it costs jobs. Contrary to Romney's assertion that clean energy "loses jobs for Americans," Republican governors are forced to acknowledge that green energy is a net creator of jobs.

"My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward." Romney said, "And that means let's aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power."

Romney's support for fossil fuels and skepticism about climate change plays well with conservatives, but it is a hard sell for thinking independents who are capable of rational thought. These independents may very well determine the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. However, to win the Republican nomination, Romney has to play dumb on climate change.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
GOP Presidential Hopefuls Gingrich and Paul's Climate Change 180s
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 2
In His Own Words Santorum on Climate Change Part 1
Santorum's Unwavering Opposition to Climate Science
Video: Gingrich's Absurd Dismissal of Climate change
Failed GOP 2012 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Huntman's Belief in Science Was His Undoing