Climate Distraction and Obstruction

The September 10, 2024, presidential debate was a fabulous and opportunistic time, in front of 67 million viewers by the way, to elaborate on why climate change is real. Instead, the debate ended with the dreadful conclusion that environmental policy is not front and center as the nation prepares for this year’s election. 

Sadly for all of us, the global warming topic is mired in political division and the candidates couldn’t jeopardize the votes they seek by addressing a topic that so many don’t understand. And there was no time for the Democrat nominee to try and educate the viewers regarding global warming. Not the right place to dive into the specifics of greenhouse gas devastation and describe the clean energy option cures. 

Growing fears regarding economy, immigration and a divided citizenship have omitted climate from the ballot this time around. Understandable. And please don’t misunderstand me; those three topics are most important at this time…

 I label those issues: Unintentional Climate Distractions. They keep most of us from becoming emissions conscious on a constant basis enough to merit extreme weather as a political priority. Our society is not ready for this because the devastation from severe weather is too infrequent, and does not directly affect our nation’s leadership. Even in the wake of hurricane Helene’s unthinkable devastation. Whereas, matters pertaining to the economy and gun abuse make front page news almost daily. 

Furthermore, any effort to eliminate fracking or to reduce oil/gas production is simply not economically feasible today. Why? Because there are not near enough active renewable energy substitutes standing by to displace fossil fuel. Why? Because of a coverup, the world lost sixty years of preparation for an orderly transition from dirty energy to clean energy. Therefore, the production of oil, gas and some coal for certain nations, must continue at the current pace for the time being in order to avoid economic meltdowns. And, for now, America with its record high oil and gas production, is leading the way - as it should. An even greater unintentional climate distraction!

Remember: In prior posts, this scientist has spoken for all environmental scientists when I have repeatedly championed the eventual elimination of fossil fuel energy in favor of multiple sustainable energy options. Mournfully, since humanity was deceived for so long, Earth’s temperature must continue to rise for many years to come.

Rest assured, however, said energy transfer is actively in the early stages. And just maybe, there will be some scientific and/or financial breakthrough that will hasten the effort. In the meantime, there is one presidential candidate that is advocating climate awareness and one who is obstructing such advancement.

 Allow me to differentiate:

The sitting Vice President of this nation emphasized another national problem that’s racing from state to state - namely, the soaring homeowners insurance costs, or loss of coverage, brought on by global warming inaction. She declared climate change is, “very real.” The Republican nominee has said nothing in regard to property insurance.

Both were asked what they would do to fight climate change if elected and neither answered the question directly. In all fairness, that is a very complicated and technical question that requires much scientific research and monetary analysis. The Democrat candidate did add to her “very real” description of climate change, the following, “Ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences.” She went on to talk about the record breaking clean energy investments brought on by the current administration. The Republican nominee said nothing in this regard.

During the debate, the Vice President reminded the viewers that her opponent has called climate change a “hoax.” The Republican did say he is a “big fan of solar. . .not good things for the environment.”

The Democrat nominee’s campaign website promises she will “unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis” and “fight for the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollutants that fuel the climate crisis.” Nothing closely resembling these words is found on the other candidate’s media outlets.

While most everyone is guilty of unintentional climate distraction, I assure you the former president and current Republican nominee is guilty of being an intentional climate obstructionist. Big difference. 

In a 2015 speech, he referred to global warming as “a money-making industry.”  In recent years, he has labeled climate change as a “make believe problem” “non-existent” and, of course, “a hoax.”

And lately, due to his new-found relationship with billionaire Elon Musk, this presidential candidate remarked, “You can be loyal to EV labor, or you can be loyal to environmental lunatics.” (Whatever that means?) Incredibly, his forceful impact has led some of his staunch congressional followers to vote against funding the necessary damage correction requirements due to natural disasters.

Truth.

Be sure of the following: Should a climate obstructionist be in a position to dictate federal environmental policy during the next four years, consider this a stern warning about the long term impact of losing valuable time to limit emissions while the electric blanket of atmospheric pollution thickens. No, the world is not prepared for eliminating fossil fuel right now; but there are many steps that can be taken to clean it up - such as eliminating leaking gas reserves and oil wells.

And, keep in mind, the Democrat presidential candidate cast the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed for more fracking leases - because it is way too early to ban the technique used to extract oil and gas from rock formations. And, she is of the mind-set that, “we have to invest in diverse sources of energy so we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil,” as she stated in the presidential debate. Her opponent did a weak and wrong no-answer to the moderator’s question about climate change, opting out to another topic.

The United States cannot continue to be last in the climate race vs. Europe and Asian nations. Those two continents are far more climate-minded than Americans. If it weren’t for our private sector’s underwriting the advancement of clean energy alternatives, our lack of federal global warming leadership would even be more obvious.

Referring back to my August, 20, 2024 post on the subject of Project 2025, forever keep in mind it is a copy-cat of the Republican presidential nominee’s past, present and future reversal of climate policy goals. Particularly, to deescalate the fight against climate warming, and to eliminate the Department of Education where climate class thinking is becoming a reality. 

For the present time, he is holding off endorsing it with flip-flop comments such as “it’s seriously extreme”, “nothing to do with it”, and “no idea who is behind it.” Yet, Project 2025 was drafted and finalized by many of this candidate’s top advisors!

And, it is a fact that the warming, thus drying, of southern hemisphere nations is driving climate immigrants to our southern border and slowly infiltrating our country. The current federal administration literally proposed a long overdue bi-partisan legislative bill that increased border funding and security. Just in time to confront climate displacement. 

Here’s how the prior president responded: He rallied his Republican congressional loyalists to DENY the passage of this mutually agreed upon initiative. And of all the possible reasons for this border inaction, this presidential nominee’s method to his madness was he simply didn’t want the current president to receive acclaim for doing the right thing. No, this nominee wanted to abolish the meaningful initiative. . .until he was elected. . .then pass it and receive the credit.

If, after considering each of the election platform topics, you are still on the fence with respect to your vote next Tuesday, maybe look at this way: For a minute, suppose portions of America today were actually closer to an unlivable lifestyle due to conditions brought on by the climate crisis. If this were to be the case, then the acting Vice President would win by a landslide. Why allow that unfathomable way of life to creep closer by voting for the former president? 

He has made a promise to scrap two major existing administrative regulations that are designed to reduce greenhouse gasses from power plants and cars. He now has the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority to continue its efforts to curb environmental rules on businesses, which he, if elected, would support. 

And, Project 2025 is in his back pocket.

The Democrat candidate has been steadfast about “not going back” which is exactly what the Republican candidate would do with respect to repealing federal regulations designed to cut greenhouse gas pollution that is over heating Earth.

One, a climate protagonist, the other, a climate obstructionist.

The vote is obvious, isn’t it?