Posted on 11/05/2014 2:01:51 PM PST by lbryce
In the green hills and gray hollows of Kentucky's well-mined mountains, the economy of extracting coal from the fuel-rich ground isn't what it once was.
Yet Mitch McConnell, a longtime senator poised to become majority leader of the U.S. Senate in a Congress that will be fully controlled by his Republican Party come January, has found political fortune in those hills. He successfully campaigned for reelection there with warnings about a "war on coal" he accuses Democratic President Barack Obama of waging. This helps explain what the United States won't be doing about global warming in the near future. (Read more about how the midterm election results may intensify the battle over clean energy.)
An alignment of the newly empowered McConnell and fellow Republican leaders—who either openly doubt scientists' findings that human industry has heated the planet, or contend that curbing carbon emissions into the Earth's atmosphere isn't worth the potential cost of lost jobs—is likely to create the most hostile political environment ever for addressing climate change in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3223660/posts
GOOD!!!!
Te Deum Laudamus!
Well alright!
I can barely make ends meet as it is. Another tax, a carbon tax (a tax on everything), would kill me.
Perfect!
I remember when National Geographic used to be a respected magazine, not just another propaganda mouthpiece for the Left.
Pretty sad to see what was once a respected publication, turn into a bunch of rabid religious bigots.
one can only hope
The economic suffering that has been unleashed on former coal miners and their families by Obama is staggering.
I personally think a huge part of it is due to liberal racism, i.e., that most miners are white and Southern, e.g., folks that the left would dismiss as “rednecks.”
The environmental racism going on here is huge.
I hope Mr. Silva is correct.
5.56mm
This is one of the main reasons I cancelled my subscription to Nat’l Geographic back in the ‘90s. Sick of the Global Warming, Climate Change junk.
Nat Geo has abandoned any claim to being scientifically grounded. It’s a social media rag now.
The hot airheads have to float in limbo for awhile. They are certain to make a lot of noise. The volume of their fear mongering will be deafening at times, but we can take joy in the fact that they are always wrong, and Congress won’t be listening.
My parents used to get it when I was growing up, back in the 1940s. As I recall, it's primary claim to fame was pictures of half-naked women from Africa and Asia. I don't think it ever was scientifically grounded.
As I remember, Smithsonian Magazine has also been politically corrected to go gay.
Well they did have the cover of the Afghan Girl. That was the high point of their existence.
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.