Pandering in Iowa, Hillary Clinton said:
“For this generation, climate change is our space race,” said Clinton, speaking in a cavernous factory with giant wind turbines in the background.
Clinton, who is pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination, is calling for creation of a $50 billion strategic energy fund, coupled with tougher fuel efficiency standards financed in part by $20 billion in “green vehicle bonds.” It’s part of a package she calls the most comprehensive offered to tackle global warming.
Global warming hits particularly hard at the poor, she said.
“One in four low-income families have already missed a mortgage or rent payment because of rising energy costs,” Clinton said.
And somehow she thinks more regulations on our existing energy infrastructure will make energy costs go down?
Also, maybe she ought to take a long, hard look at the definition of “the poor”. Because according to a scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for his work on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.
My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”
Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
I guess it’s just a matter of perspective as to who one considers “poor”. Is it someone who’s borrowed beyond their means for a home to live in, or someone who struggles each day to find water clean enough to drink for survival? Perhaps the definition depends on who can put money in your bank account and vote for you.
Hillary did have a moment of lucidity, however, whether she realized it or not, during this speech in Iowa when she said:
“The climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country,” she said.
Of course it is, just ask Al Gore.