Posted on 10/16/2007 7:44:35 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.
Within that camp, however, sharp divisions are developing. Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards. Others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are refraining from advocating such limits and are instead emphasizing a push toward clean coal and other alternative energy sources.
All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded.
The debate has taken an intriguing twist. Two candidates appealing to religious conservatives, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, call for strong actions to ease the effects of people on the climate, at times casting the effort in spiritual terms just as some evangelical groups have taken up the cause.
The emergence of climate change as an issue dividing Republicans shows just how far the discussion has shifted since 1997, when the Senate voted, 95 to 0, to oppose any international climate treaty that could hurt the American economy or excused China from responsibilities.
The debate among Republicans is largely not about whether people are warming the planet, but about how to deal with it.
The leading Democratic candidates rushed to praise Mr. Gore, underlying how that party has sought to seize the issue with proposals like higher standards for fuel mileage and taxing emissions of carbon dioxide.
The issue had been gradually bubbling up among leading Republicans as top corporations, including some in petroleum, have been pushing to address it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
....and Duncan Hunter’s position is?
This separates the wheat from the dim-witted, the gutless, the panderers, the chaff.
If you don’t have the nerve or the clarity to see through this, how are you going to stand tough on anything else?
The answer is, you won’t.
Exactly. This is a litmus test issue for a candidate. If they buy into this nonsense there can only be two reasons, and both disqualify them for public office. Either:
A. They can’t recognize junk science and bogus studies when they see it...which makes them too stupid to be President or
B. They know it’s a scam but they play along because it is politically expedient...which makes them more dangerous than A.
Ping
“Hunter also weighed in on global warming, saying that regardless of what the studies say, the U.S. should explore alternative fuel sources for use by the Department of Defense. The military has an interest in being able to run its operations off a renewable source, he said.
“Few people in global warming can tell you exactly what’s happening,” he said. “And there is a difference in opinion as to how fast because ice ages have come and gone, how much of the country would be warming, how much the glaciers are receding - how much of that is attributable to mankind, and how much of it is attributable to the natural cycle? But I don’t think you have to answer that question to do what I’ve recommended. I think we have lots of reasons to be energy independent.”
Do you find his thoughts to your liking?
I do.
What scares me is that (A) will have (B) as his running mate. It’s a litmus test for certain doom, and it COULD happen.
So basically you are saying we should all be asking Where are we going? Who is this red guy with horns? and What is this basket I’m in?
LOL! Yeah, basically. And wishing there was a nicer way to say, ‘We’re screwed.’ ;)
The closest to that position is Ron Paul who usually side-steps the question with something about ending subsidies for this or that. He never call for any restrictions though. As much as his position on the war appalls me I'm leaning towards voting for him anyway. Wars end but government programs never do.
This is so obviously backdoor socialism. How do you fix global warming? Well by central economic planning of course.
Mccain has been a cap and trader for a long time.
Clean coal, etc. would be good and needs not “global warming” to be attractive.
Yep. Unless Americans find their spine.
Just in case you missed this thread about Ron Paul and the environment...you are right he has come the closest to calling it a hoax so far.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1911983/posts
The front running GOP candidates, McCain included, all seem to be practicing a form of junk science Judo.
They say “OK, you care about the environment, how about more nuclear power plants and clean energy.”
I’m sure that is what their political consultants and advisors tell them to say.
Horse****. The 1997 Senate vote was about the Kyoto treaty, which was a blatant economic IED aimed at America. Any similarly ridiculous treaty that singled out America would meet the same fate today, "discussion" or no discussion.
People forget that it was a unanimous vote.
Hope you're right. But I remember George H. W. Bush and his abrupt cutoff of freon. And does anyone remember the ill-fated and ill-conceived National Trip Reduction Act that was going to make employer enforced carpooling mandatory for everyone?
I won't go all the way back to Nixon and the EPA; but there has definitely been a history of kool-aid drinking in the Republican party on environmental issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.