While I agree that CO2 emissions must be curtailed, I wonder if the writer realizes the ramifications to a political campaign if that is a major theme? When Hilary opined that coal was going to cease being a major source of energy, even though the use of such has been declining and the falling employment of coal workers has been a source of financial distress in West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky to name but three coal reliant states, the population therein voted overwhelmingly for Trump. They would much rather rely on the hackneyed and false nostrums being sold by Trump: that climate change is a hoax and only politics, not science, is keeping everything from returning to the blissfully ignorant 1950's. Is it better to stay silent or forcefully advocate for a carbon tax in this political cycle? Likewise, fracking is a completely unnecessary technology, but when measured against the idea of "cheap" gasoline, even the threat it poses to water supplies let alone CO2 emissions, the verdict seems to be that the general population loves their cars more than they fear the likelihood of more severe storms, flooding and earthquakes; the fellow travelers of the rising temperatures. "Ignorance is bliss", explains Trump's, and the Republican's ethos to a "T". So is the failure of the Democrats to put climate change at the forefront of their political agenda a complete failure of nerve? Or is it a political necessity to get through this election season?
While I agree that CO2 emissions must be curtailed, I wonder if the writer realizes the ramifications to a political campaign if that is a major theme? When Hilary opined that coal was going to cease being a major source of energy, even though the use of such has been declining and the falling employment of coal workers has been a source of financial distress in West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky to name but three coal reliant states, the population therein voted overwhelmingly for Trump. They would much rather rely on the hackneyed and false nostrums being sold by Trump: that climate change is a hoax and only politics, not science, is keeping everything from returning to the blissfully ignorant 1950's. Is it better to stay silent or forcefully advocate for a carbon tax in this political cycle? Likewise, fracking is a completely unnecessary technology, but when measured against the idea of "cheap" gasoline, even the threat it poses to water supplies let alone CO2 emissions, the verdict seems to be that the general population loves their cars more than they fear the likelihood of more severe storms, flooding and earthquakes; the fellow travelers of the rising temperatures. "Ignorance is bliss", explains Trump's, and the Republican's ethos to a "T". So is the failure of the Democrats to put climate change at the forefront of their political agenda a complete failure of nerve? Or is it a political necessity to get through this election season?