Let’s Ignore Climate Change Because….
In researching my four books I came upon numerous excuses for not dealing with climate change. Some of these were laughable, e.g., the CATO Institute’s position that the effects of climate change are small at this point, thus so should be our current level of concern and action to mitigate it; we’ll need to become more forceful in 50 years or so when the effects really start to ravage the planet. This makes no more sense than an oncologist encouraging his patient to continue to smoke because the size of the tumor in his lung is still relatively small.
Just when one thinks it can’t get any nuttier, here’s a real pearl—and it’s topical too; it just came out of the mouth of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for US president: climate change mitigation is moot because the Earth will eventually be destroyed anyway when the sun runs out of hydrogen in a few billion years.
With this command of logic, Johnson is polling at 10%. Lord help us.
Craig,
You wrote:
“This makes no more sense than an oncologist’s encouraging his patient continue to smoke because the size of the tumor in his lung is still relatively small.”
That’s an excellent analogy. I hope you don’t mind if we copy it.
Of course not. I’m always flattered when I see stuff I wrote elsewhere.
Here’s the actual quote…
Gary Johnson stated yesterday that he believes the earth is warming and that the cause is human activity, but then goes on to say:
“Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long term view is that in billions of years, the sun is gonna actually grow and encompass the earth, right? So global warming is in our – in our future.”
He also stated he believes we should be building more coal fired power plants.
I actually know a couple of people who are seriously considering voting for this guy – not sure if they’ve seen this speech, or if it would make a difference to them. Much of the third party vote this cycle is based on historic dislike and distrust of both the red and blue candidates.
I can understand the reasoning of people who vote for Johnson as a Libertarian in the hope of lifting that party above the 5% margin so it gets federal campaign funding – or even above the 15% margin (though unlikely) so future Libertarian candidates for president can claim participation in all the debates.
I know several people who are voting for Jill Stein on that very reasoning – hope for a better chance for future Green Party candidates – not seriously thinking Stein could be elected this cycle.
People should absolutely vote their conscience, and in states that are solid red or solid blue, I can see a third party vote as a very reasonable strategy – for those 5% and 15% margins.
That said, neither Stein nor Johnson have a prayer getting into the Oval Office this cycle.
The only thing I would add to that is that there will be plenty of progressives voting for Clinton over Stein, even in non-swing states like California. The reasoning for a vote for Clinton in this circumstance, and it has merit IMO, is showing the rest of the world that we emphatically disapprove of the hate-monger troglodyte running against her.