Guest post by David Middleton
If being green was a mental illness, this guy would be the poster child…
HOME | NEWS | POLICY | ENERGY ENVIRONMENT
Dem mega-donor all in for 2016
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer plans to invest at least as aggressively in the 2016 presidential election as he did last year, when he became the biggest individual donor on either side of American politics.
Steyer is undeterred by critics who say he squandered more than $75 million of his own money supporting Democratic candidates who promised tough action on climate change — half of whom lost — during the 2014 election cycle.
The California-based former hedge fund manager, who said recently that he had quit investing “cold turkey” to focus full-time on climate change, refutes this charge of failure. He points out that last year was “an absolutely terrible” one for the Democratic Party, which lost control of the Senate to Republicans.
Steyer sees the 2016 presidential election as his greatest opportunity yet to turn more Americans into climate change activists and to pressure candidates to present detailed plans to reach his target of getting 50 percent of U.S. power from clean energy sources by 2030.
Steyer has already spent at least $5 million this campaign cycle to convince voters to pressure politicians on climate change. That’s a major investment at this early stage that puts him on pace with the biggest super-PAC donors on the Republican side.
Last week he announced a “seven-figure” advertising campaign in early-voting states, and his super-PAC NextGen Climate is investing heavily in digital technology and has opened offices in four key states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio.
NextGen ran ads attacking the Koch brothers in the midterm election season, but asked whether he would do so again, Steyer said he is now less interested in negativity and more concerned about telling a positive story about why people should care about climate change.
“Their influence is gigantic,” Steyer said of the Kochs.
“They’re much bigger. They have much more money,” Steyer added. “Of course that’s important. … [But] we have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side, the morality is on our side and the economics are on our side.
“And, you know if that weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a chance in hell.”
Hey Tom! It ain’t true…
“We have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side”…
The facts are:
- There has been no global warming since the late 20th century.
- The climate is far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 than the so-called consensus says it is.
- Your “50 by 30” delusion would not affect the Earth’s climate in any statistically significant manner.
“The economics are on our side.”
The economics are on the side of natural gas and nuclear power.
“The morality is on our side.”
This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel
Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.
By BJORN LOMBORG
Oct. 21, 2015 6:36 p.m. ET
In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.
The morality is on your side?