« | »

WP: Climate Risky Issue For Democrats

From all places, the Gaia acolytes at the Washington Post:


Democratic presidential candidate, former Sen. John Edwards, walks in a global warming parade in New Orleans Saturday, Nov. 3, 2007.

Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats

Candidates Back Costly Proposals

By Juliet Eilperin
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; A01

All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow…

The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling — an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 — tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation’s economy and society…

According to energy expert Tracy Terry’s analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

I’d be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation,” Edwards acknowledged in an interview, adding that audiences tend to pause before expressing their support when he lays out his climate plan. “No matter what the politics are, there’s such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We’ve got to do it.” …

Democrats are working to outdo each other on climate change — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for example, supports a 90 percent greenhouse gas reduction by midcentury

The issue has turned into a Democratic primary litmus test, and many party strategists say it could be a way to win over in the general election suburban Republican women, who tend to place a high priority on environmental issues

As of mid-October, energy and global warming issues were second only to Iraq in terms of ad topics. Friends of the Earth, which endorsed Edwards for his aggressive climate change policy, also began running radio ads in New Hampshire on his behalf…

Several Democrats have even taken the unusual step of compensating for their campaigns’ sizable carbon footprints by contributing to groups that seek to reduce greenhouse gases by planting trees and funding clean-energy projects. Edwards gave $22,000 to NativeEnergy to atone for the emissions of his campaign’s travel. Clinton gave just under $11,600 to the same group to cover her campaign’s operations in April, May, June and July. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) paid $1,000 to CarbonFund.org for July, August and September, and uses a charter air company that offsets the carbon footprint of its flights.

Democrats’ boldness, however, could carry a political price. The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions. “They will come at this hard,” said John Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and sees an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases as necessary…

Will they listen? Of course they won’t. They think they have a winning issue. And, more importantly, a way to destroy capitalism once and for all.

George Soro, through his paid stooge John Podesta, has told them so.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “WP: Climate Risky Issue For Democrats”

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »