By Alan Caruba
What the midterm voters wanted was an
economy that returned to its average 3.3% annual growth since the end of World
War II. For six years of the Obama presidency, growth has all but disappeared.
In 2013, as measured by the World Bank, it was barely 1.9% That translated into
a lack of jobs, stagnant middle class income, and what Obama correctly called
the Great Recession, but could not end.
Instead, in the lead-up to the midterm
elections, he was still talking about “climate change” as the greatest threat to
the nation and the world. For the voters, however, climate change wasn’t even on
its list of priorities and with good reason, there is nothing anyone or any
nation can or should do about the great forces of nature that determine what the
Earth’s climate will be; starting with the Sun.
The day after the elections two major
environmental organizations, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth (FOE),
wrote to their members. Their message was similar and their conclusions were
absurd.
“The election’s over and the planet
lost,” wrote Erich Pica, FOE president. “The next Congress will be controlled by
politicians elected with millions of dollars of the Koch brothers’ oil
money—putting at risk the vital environmental protections we’ve fought so hard
to achieve.” FOE has more than 2 million activists in 75 nations including the
U.S.
What Pica does not mention in his
letter is the estimated $85 million spent on six Senate races by what The Hill
described as “the nation’s top environmental groups including the League of
Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen
Climate…”
So the Koch brother’s money is evil,
but environmental organizations’ money is okay?
As far as FOE’s Pica is concerned,
“The truth is, President Obama hasn’t always done the right thing for the
environment. He should have denied the Keystone Pipeline years ago, he should be
rolling back unchecked fracking, and he should have taken stronger action on
climate both at home and in international negotiations.”
FOE could care less about the
thousands of jobs the Keystone pipeline would create, plus the revenue from
refining the oil it would transport to the Gulf States. As for fracking, it is
not “unchecked.” It has to be done within the context of safety and
environmental laws. As for the climate, China and India are just two nations
increasing the use of coal to generate the electrical power they need to
stimulate industrialization and improve the lives of their citizens by bringing
power where he has never been before.
Michael Brune, executive director of
the Sierra Club, wrote that “Friends of Big Oil have taken control of the
Senate” claiming they have “a 100-day action plan that reads like Big Oil’s wish
list. Our opposition is about to have free reign to implement their
anti-environment agenda. And approving the Keystone XL pipeline and destroying
proposed environmental regulations top their list.”
Oh, really? If the polls and elections
are any indicator, a lot of Americans want to see the pipeline construction. As
for the “anti-environment agenda”, that too is pure fiction. What Americans
oppose is the forced closure of electricity generation plants in the name of a
global warming that is not happening. Or a climate change over which no
government has any role or control.
To drive home his doom-and-gloom
message, Brune added that “Rare species of wildlife already hanging by a threat
will not survive this onslaught.”
Consider the absurdity of the claim that a Republican controlled Congress
will be responsible for species
extinction. For good measure, Brune, like the FOE, mentioned the Koch
brothers, labeling them “big polluters.” Since when is drilling for oil and
providing it to a world that runs on it “pollution”? It’s not. It’s progress
that benefits humanity.
Commenting on the elections, Dr. Jay
Lehr, the Science Director of The Heartland
Institute, a free market think tank, characterized them as “the repudiation
of the President’s policies” and the nation’s political pundits all agree. Dr.
Lehr called for “a bill to require the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline
which has bipartisan support and has passed every environmental
test.”
Dr. Lehr called on Congress to
“require the government to open up public lands to environmentally safe mineral
and energy exploration as well as speed up approval of permits to drill and mine
for resources on already approved lands. This will ensure our resource
independence in both areas for centuries to come.”
High on my list of priorities was
reflected by Dr. Lehr’s call for Congress “to take charge of the funding of the
Environmental Protection Agency which has gone rogue in efforts to impede
virtually all economic development in our nation, and eventually phase out the
EPA, passing on its responsibilities to a committee of the whole of our fifty
state environmental protection agencies.”
A November 6 article,
“Climate change supporters suffer losses”, published in The Hill, reported
that “Despite millions spent to make climate change a wedge issue during the
midterms, environmentally friendly candidates didn’t fare well on Election Day.”
Even so, the Sierra Club’s Brune was quoted saying, “Public support is solidly
behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in
Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and
broader.” NOT!
Frances Beinecke, president of the
Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed Brune’s empty boasts. “Whatever may
have driven individual races, the American people want action on climate
change.” NOT!
As far as the environment is
concerned, it is way down on the list of the voter’s priorities and the change
of leadership and control of Congress reflects that. The voters don’t want a lot
of vapid, idiotic talk of climate change and other environmental fantasies. They
want jobs. They want an economy that will provide them. They want a better
future for themselves and their children. And whether they know it or not, they
want a conservative approach to government.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment