Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian is fretting the the number of times US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton mentions climate has apparently dropped dramatically since she received an endorsement from Bernie Sanders.
But what is the real Clinton position on Climate Change?
Hillary Clinton ‘dropped climate change from speeches after Bernie Sanders endorsement’
Transcripts show the Democratic presidential nominee referred to climate change directly in less than half as many speeches after her left-wing rival conceded defeat, reports Climate Home.
…
The rhetorical shift undermines hopes that climate change might emerge as a key campaign issue in 2016. Boosted by the disparity between Clinton and her Republican opponent Donald Trump, a self-professed non-believer in climate change.
Indeed, the signs were there. During the last six months of Clinton’s primary campaign against Sanders, the transcript log of her speeches shows she was talking about climate change at one out of every two speeches she gave.
But since Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12, the full focus of the Clinton campaign has swung to Trump. In 38 speeches since that date, Clinton mentioned climate change specifically eight times. Just once every five public addresses.
…
The Guardian speculates that Hillary might just be downplaying her climate views, as they suggest President Obama did in his first term, to avoid upsetting potential supporters. The Guardian seems to think this might be the right thing to do.
…
Climate coyness was a feature of Obama’s first term (when Axelrod was at the White House). According to analysis of speeches from 2008 to 2011, climate change was hardly mentioned even as Obama began to ramp up funding for climate-related projects.
“He was doing more than he was talking about because he was going incognito to avoid attacks from the Republicans,” said Timmons Roberts, Ittleson professor of environmental studies at Brown University, who conducted the analysis.
…
Read more: Same link as above
Influential climate activist and Bernie supporter Bill McKibben supports Clinton because he believes in her strong climate views;
…
In fact, one of the lowest points in my years of fighting climate change came in late June, when I sat on the commission appointed to draft the Democratic Party platform. (I was a Sanders appointee, alongside Cornel West and other luminaries.) At 11 p.m. on a Friday night, in a mostly deserted hotel ballroom in St. Louis, I was given an hour to offer nine amendments to the platform to address climate change. More bike paths passed by unanimous consent, but all the semi-hard things that might begin to make a real difference—a fracking ban, a carbon tax, a prohibition against drilling or mining fossil fuels on public lands, a climate litmus test for new developments, an end to World Bank financing of fossil fuel plants—were defeated by 7–6 tallies, with the Clinton appointees voting as a bloc. They were quite concerned about climate change, they insisted, but a “phased-down” approach would be best. There was the faintest whiff of Munich about it.
…
To my surprise, things changed a couple weeks later, when the final deliberations over the Democratic platform were held in Orlando. While Clinton’s negotiators still wouldn’t support a ban on fracking or a carbon tax, they did agree we needed to “price” carbon, that wind and sun should be given priority over natural gas, and that any federal policy that worsened global warming should be rejected.
…
Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
I support the view that Clinton toning down her climate rhetoric is a political tactic. Given the commitment to carbon pricing at the Democratic Convention, there is no reason to believe Clinton intends to prioritise access to cheap energy ahead of wasteful government subsidies for renewables. And given that climate is widely perceived to be a “poisonous” issue for many voters, it makes tactical sense for Clinton to avoid references to the hardline green policies which McKibben claims were agreed by Democratic delegates in St. Louis.
Looking at it from here in Britain, I’m curious to know: Do any of you actually trust this woman? She often sounds a bit strange, to say the least.
I don’t know that many people on THIS board do.
But we’re all pretty deplorable – what with killing the planet, and being racist, sexist, etc…
(Insert evil laughter accompanied by the Darth Vader ‘Imperial March’ theme).
Bazzer, if British coverage of US elections is as bad as US coverage of British elections, I can see your confusion. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, hung the nickname “crooked Hillary” on her and it stuck like “tricky Dick” for Nixon. About two thirds of those polled consider HRC as dishonest (which weirdly means some of her supporters regard her badly).
Most Democrats don’t care how crooked their politicians are, so long as the politician protects the flow of goodies.
The president of NOW (National Organization of Women) invented the one free grope rule in order to protect Bill Clinton from impeachment.
(When asked about allegations that Clinton had groped a woman, she declared that she didn’t have a problem with it since he stopped when asked. How many men would endorse that standard. IE, they can grope any woman they want, provided they stop when asked.)
But don’t forget how outraged they are at the slightest hint of impropriety in their opponents – usually hints which their operatives in the press originated.
The faux-outrage would be comical if wasn’t the sort of thing Holocausts are made of.
“Looking at it from here in Britain, I’m curious to know: Do any of you actually trust this woman? She often sounds a bit strange, to say the least.”
Former Florida governor, Charlie Crist, is running for Florida state representative this year as a Democrat and was giving a speech yesterday in front of a Democrat-friendly crowd, and was asked why he supported Hillary Clinton for president, and Crist reeled off a few reasons and then he got to, “and I think she is honest”, at which point the whole crowd spontaneously burst out laughing!
Hillary’s credibilty is not that high here in the good ole USA. Even the Left knows it.
Here’s a followup to a crowd laughing out loud at Hillary being described as “honest”.
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/watch-crowd-busts-into-laughter-when-15124695/
WATCH: Crowd Bursts Into Laughter When Charlie Crist Calls Hillary Clinton ‘Honest’
posted the other day, worth re-posting, but consider the source –
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-know-about-science/#
I don’t use that source anymore. Name another one.
just the candidates’ responses to 20 questions – I was surprised, but, hold your nose, and have a read
BC, as you probably know Scientific American is no longer either scientific or American. Most articles are written now by journalists rather than the scientists doing the research. It was sold to a German company.
ristvan, I do know that, thanks
The difference in the manner of responses to standard questions was telling in addition to the responses themselves – Hillary delivers a lecture (certainly nothing scripted there /s), Donald gets right to the answer and wangs on them re: agriculture, Stein answers everything is about climate change, Johnson a no show.
Of course I can’t trust the source.
It is still a world respected science journal.
As is UK’s New Scientist.
They are well respected in your world, not the whole world. You really need to learn the difference.
‘You really need to learn the difference.’
Oh he knows. Progressives love to cite institutions once they’ve been corrupted, and then bank on name-recognition. That’s why they spend so much effort staking the faculties of said-institutions with like-minded disciples.
Donald Trump should take a look at what’s happening in Ontario (Canada) and trumpet (pun … what pun?) the news all over America. The electricity rates have skyrocketed because of their renewable energy policy. Folks are suffering and businesses are leaving.
link
link
Clinton and Obama have talked about a price on carbon. When people see the actual effect, even the liberal media will be appalled.
Skyrocketed they have. Average cost of power: 3 cents per kWh. Average “green” tax: 8 cents. Final price, varying by time of day: 8 to 18 cents. (Plus delivery fees etc.)
It is especially ironic that Ontario’s power has been subjected to such ruinous “clean power” taxes, because we started out with a majority of our power already generated by hydro dams and nuclear plants. With 0 emissions! Even for people who erroneously think that CO2 emissions are a problem, Ontario’s electrical system is not the biggest contributor, or even on the typical radar screen for these matters.
But that 8 cent per kWh green tax is awfully tempting for politicians and the subsidy-farm operators who benefit from it. Awfully tempting… other people’s money… yum!
Apparently the Liberal government lost a seat that they had held forever (“since before the Earth’s mantle solidified”) over this issue. That made them sit up and take notice. And they promised to do something about it. But not enough to repeal the green power tax act. Not yet… no, for now they are offering a pittance of a refund, equivalent to the sales tax (about 8%). Never mind the 300% tax they are charging to begin with, and hoping we won’t notice, because it is hidden inside the electricity rate.
Meantime they are also planning to add a new carbon tax to our natural gas fees. That will easily eat up the measly electricity rebate, and then some. Give with one hand, and take with the other, and hope we don’t notice any of it… but my fellow Ontarians are noticing! I think this story hasn’t seen its ending yet…
Per one of commie bob links … Quebec at 6 cents per KWhr (compared to Ontario at about 3 times that given all the fees) is fantastic.
Seems in Canada that hydro power is considered renewable. In the U.S. it is not.
If Quebec had to go by U.S. definition of renewable, and had to have a certain percentage (say 25 or 50%) of renewable by 2020 (or whatever the Mckibben types are pushing for) then Ontario could get access to lot of cheap energy that Quebec would have to unload (on paper anyway).
In the U.S. a lot of eastern politicians had been jealous of the relative low NW hydro power costs (given that the whole country paid for the infrastructure) … this “renewable” crap is another way to level out the cost differences across the country.
Quebec has about 97% hydro-power that New England states would like to buy some of it to cover there expected coming power shortfalls. Projects already underway for Quebec power to New England and New York City. Quebec can’t supply both New England and Ontario.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos Doubles Down on Wind Energy
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/09/amazons-jeff-bezos-doubles-wind-energy-blows-off-donald-trump/
The U.S. Energy Department released a new report predicting a huge drop in the cost of wind energy by 2030, but Amazon is not waiting around for that to happen. The company is already heavily invested in wind energy and just signed on to buy 90 percent of the output from a new 235-megawatt wind farm in Scurry County, Texas.
The news comes with an interesting political twist. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is a huge fan of renewable energy. He also recently purchased the Washington Post, and was largely credited with galvanizing the languishing publication into reporting aggressively on the 2016 presidential election cycle.
That approach prompted GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump to attack Jeff Bezos and his ownership of the Post during the heat of the primary season. To complete the circle of twists, Donald Trump is no fan of renewable energy in general, and wind energy in particular.
Amazon hearts wind energy
Amazon’s wind energy ventures first crossed the TriplePundit radar last year, when the company announced an agreement with Ibderdrola Renewables for a 208-megawatt wind farm in North Carolina.
Amazon also has an interest in wind farms in three other states: Indiana, Ohio and Virginia.
It makes you wonder why all these billionaires are investing in those projects. Are they gambling that no matter who gets in the wind power industry will get legislated in no matter what why and who? The stuff going on behind closed doors would be an amazing thing ( and more than likely appalling ) thing to witness.
They’ve got Sowels and Griffs advising them and they have more money than they can spend.
You can fix a significant part of your energy costs with renewables. Makes economic sense for a large company. 7 UK car plants have solar panels supplying up to 12% of their electricity, for example.
This large insurance company is going renewable:
http://www.swissre.com/Swiss_Re_to_build_solar_power_plant_for_Americas_headquarters.html
Interesting. You can make electricity cheaper by using expensive and intermittent power sources.
Windmills have been around for hundreds of years. Electric generators have been around for over 100 years. Where are the big breakthroughs that are supposed to cut costs going to come from?
Check out Greenpeace pressure on Amazon.
C | Net, April 2, 2014
An article on this topic:
‘Apple praised, Amazon shamed in Greenpeace report on clean energy’
At:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-praised-amazon-shamed-on-clean-energy
Correction:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-praised-amazon-shamed-in-greenpeace-report-on-clean-energy
In my view, all major governments have backed off the climate change issue except as a rhetorical exercise. I think there was probably a period where there was genuine concern that manmade climate change was a real and pressing problem, but does anyone seriously think that those who actually responsible for policy decisions aren’t aware of the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the CAGW meme?
It’s a nice self-congratulatory culture we like to indulge in – all politicians are self -serving slime-balls who manipulate agendas for their own ends. But I am not so cynical. I think there is a subset that simply play the game but quietly try to make sure that the national interest of their countries is served.
In the actions and subscript of a lot of energy policy these days (at least in europe) is the tacit admission that manmade climate change is not a pressing problem. I know people will say “but Paris!” Etc etc etc but in reality energy policy has pulled back from renewables and toward more realistic forms of energy production. There was a lot of criticism of an interview with a junior government minister from the UK here, in an interview with Andrew Neil about emissions reductions, but it was clear from the policy that was outlined that the strategy said more about real energy security than it did about concern for CAGW.
It would therefore not surprise me that Clinton was more sanguine about it than rhetoric would suggest. I believe the case could be said for Obama as well – fossil fuel production has expanded more under his presidency than like no other, despite his breathless and passionate protestations that CAGW was a pressing issue.
That’s my view FWIW. These guys know it’s not a big problem, and they know the arguments that have convinced many of us. But this is politics and what you know, and what you believe and do, is not the same as what you say.
“I believe the case could be said for Obama as well – fossil fuel production has expanded more under his presidency than like no other, despite his breathless and passionate protestations that CAGW was a pressing issue.”
Oil production increased despite Obama, not because of him.
He could have stopped it. There were two competing concerns; climate change and energy security. One is more real pressing and urgent than the other now matter how it might be twisted.
The changes occurred on private land. He has no power to stop it. If he were concerned about energy independance, he wouldn’t have shut down exploration and development of energy sources on federal land.
Obama wanted to replace fossil fuels….. Domestic oill production nearly doubled during his term in office
Obama wanted to improve relations with Russia….We got CWII (cold war two)
Obama wanted to reduce the racial income gap relations….. The African American community has become relatively poorer
Obama wanted much stricter gun control……Gun sales exploded during his administration
This list could go on and on.
.
A new word is needed to describe his performance . I suggest “countereffective”
agnostic2015,
” I think there was probably a period where there was genuine concern that manmade climate change was a real and pressing problem, but does anyone seriously think that those who actually responsible for policy decisions aren’t aware of the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the CAGW meme?”
If you believe the “powers that be” (in general) now lie about it, why do you believe they were not lying all along? I appreciate the “probably” in there, but feel “possibly” is more apt.
“… all politicians are self -serving slime-balls who manipulate agendas for their own ends.”
Not a wise generalization, it seems to me, but surely the PTB just love to hear us repeat that cliche . . since it makes any resistance to the shutting down of “rule by consent of the governed” seem pointless. It’s what they want us to believe, I’m sure. It’s essentially saying representative democracy/self governance is a stupid way to run a society, which makes rule by a few elites seem inevitable, even desirable.
“If you believe the “powers that be” (in general) now lie about it, why do you believe they were not lying all along? I appreciate the “probably” in there, but feel “possibly” is more apt.”
Because once GW entered the politically correct consciousness, it has to be negotiated. What government is going to come out and suddenly say “you know what? Those scientists you believe all agree it’s a big problem, turns out they’re all wrong.” Not going to happen. It’s too complicated an issue mixed up with pressure groups, vested interests and committed money.
So read between the lines. Subsidies being dropped, nuclear, coal and especially gas power stations being built. Nothing actually concrete really being done. It’s all a big charade.
But before that, I believe there was a genuine concern. CAGW was a plausible theory, and had we seen temps increasing along the lines of IPCC predictions, the story would have been very different.
agnostic2015,
“What government is going to come out and suddenly say “you know what? Those scientists you believe all agree it’s a big problem, turns out they’re all wrong.”
They’re still calling it settled science . . and “those scientists” who actually said that it was a big problem were a few climate modelers in the “attribution” section of the IPCC, not all of the scientists involved with all the other aspects. There was no “consensus” among all the scientists about it being a big problem, just among the modelers (the Climate-gate E-mail crew) . . which was then treated by the big shots running the show as though thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC had agreed.
And that in turn was transformed (through the magic a mass media twisting and hype) into zillions of scientists agree . . but it was really just a couple dozen computer modelers, in terms of scientists that would have to be called wrong now . . the rest could just be called misled, by the specialists who got it wrong.
“But before that, I believe there was a genuine concern. CAGW was a plausible theory, and had we seen temps increasing along the lines of IPCC predictions, the story would have been very different.”
Yep, very different, but those “predictions” came from just a few experts. The rest was sophisticated BS, all along, I highly suspect.
The Clintoons have never been big on the eco stuff. I think they have friends in “big ohl.”
Ohl is BIG in Texico and Okansaw and Arklahoma
…don’t forget Nor’dakota.
BBC Radio4-PM is one of the BBC News progs which is part of “BBC for Hillary” campaign
This week they are on a train across America interviewing people
Their normal trick is edit so Hillary suporters sound nice and Trump supporters seem monsters
(Hmm sorry it didn’t turn the long image url into an image, but the listen link works)
What do you folks in the US think about about the BBC running its “Love Hillary, hate Trump” message here in the UK ? (can be found almost hourly somewhere on one of its 20 radio/TV channels)
..It’s not like there are many US voters here in the UK.
I think you’re mass media (and ours) is run by hyper-wealthy psychopathic elites who love “rule by consent of the governed” just as much as Saudi Royals . .
(That “you’re” made sense in an early version . . I swear ; )
“What do you folks in the US think about about the BBC running its “Love Hillary, hate Trump” message here in the UK ? (can be found almost hourly somewhere on one of its 20 radio/TV channels)
..It’s not like there are many US voters here in the UK.”
I think the American Left is desperate. Hillary Clinton has spent more than 50 times as much on advertising as has Trump, yet Trump is pulling ahead. Plus, I think the European Left sees the same danger to their political agenda as the American Left sees from Trump. The Left thinks Trump is the Devil, no matter what continent they live on. And he *is* the Devil to the Leftist political agenda. That’s one reason I’m voting for him.
Here is a pertinent article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/stop-trump-campaigners-rally-us-expats-london-bus-155337021.html
‘Stop Trump’ campaigners rally US expats from London bus
BTW the clip is titled
#BBCElectionTrain Day 3: Oil v Climate Change
Williston, North Dakota and Glacier National Park, Montana
Oh there is a video webpage as well ..no (licence payers) expence spared
BBC for Hillary 2016 Homepage
Thursday update : 2 interesting thing today Thursday
We know that 50% of Trump supporters are racists and the other 50% are white supremacists
Our BBC journos Franz Strasser and Aleem Maqbool tweeted
#1 Today’s radio seg featured about 15 people, saying “Trump is a racist”, “Trump is a racist”..allowing the and an interview with every white supremacist the BBC guy could find allowing the BBC commentator to say “with all this racism Trump is bringing”
#2 Maybe cos yesterday I pointed out their page looks like “BBC for Hillary 2016 Homepage”, they have not added those clips to the page today
http://rlv.zcache.com/shout_racist_poster-rcef917ccee54432689588b3ba49a9411_wad_8byvr_512.jpg
alongside Cornel West and other luminaries.
****************************************************
proof of insanity statement…
Hillary is all done, who cares what she thinks.
Ontario has created fuel poverty in a green wash campaign to stem the bleeding from it’s out of control
$$ debt that puts it on par with the worst third world dictatorships . How could a succession of governments
turn a province blessed with so much into a fiscal train wreck ?
The incredibly stupid “green ” policies are the icing on the cake . But hey they elected the left wing socialist , so good luck . More and more politicians that can’t actually solve problems love to play the high brow role of planet saver because they are never accountable for it either as a distraction strategy .
Look at Brown in California now regulating cow farts and claiming he , like Noah of Noah and the Arch, had people laugh at him too .
This is getting more bizarre . Can a bean burrito tax be far off ? Come on Ontario this is right up your wheelhouse .
Why was Al Gore brought in ? Couldn’t be to get the going nowhere Green voters to back Hillary instead of throwing away votes makes sense . She is going to need every green vote she can get and you won’t hear about a Democrat carbon tax till after guaranteed . Just like in Australia , BC and a host of other places with gutless politicians .
HRC states that ‘the science of climate change is crystal clear’. Surely the next journo question should then be “Would you please give us a succinct summary of this science to which you refer”
“But since Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12, the full focus of the Clinton campaign has swung to Trump.”
That can’t be right. Why just this past week Hillary said this: “We need ideas, not insults; real plans to help struggling Americans…” The only reason to focus on Trump is to insult him. Doing that is not an “idea” or a “real plan” to help Americans. So surely she hasn’t been turning her full focus on Trump. That would make her a hypocrite.
As some erudite person here has pondered. How did two penguins walk all the way from the South Pole to the Middle East to clamber aboard Noahs Ark??
[He drove south to pick them up, obviously. .mod]
Logic dictates that Beings who Create living creatures, not to mention flood the world and generate galaxies, etc, etc; can move living creatures. (I swear, atheists can be the thickest bricks in the wall ; )
Yeah, you would figure an All-Powerful God could do just about anything.
The dinosaurs gave them a lift?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1b.html
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Griff is. Especially when it’s something he wants to believe.
I don’t think you understand my odd sense of humour…
It’s not humor, its sarcasm. And you are not hard to understand at all.
Like everything with deplorable Hillary Clinton, she has NO real position. Her position is whatever her marketing shills tell her is the latest thing to say to benefit her the most politically. She belongs in prison.
She has no public opinions. In private she’s hard core leftist. That’s her go to position for everything, unless it’s likely to cost her money or power.
Lesftist political hacks like Hillary, say (but don’t actually believe) that the world wasting $76 trillion (2008 UN estimate) on the disconfirmed CAGW scam will “stimulate” the world economy and create “millions of new jobs.”
There will be more public sector jobs created, but the meaningless CAGW policies will further destroy the private sector and greatly inhibit economic growth, technological development and productivity because of the malinvestments and misallocation of limited capital, labor, land, and natural resources.
Centrally planned economies are, and have always been, a complete disaster (look at Venezuela)…
Trump is another Progressive, but at least his views on CAGW, border security, illegal immigration, and 3rd-world refugees, are correct.
TRUMP 2016!
The country is doomed, we are currently debating which candidate can advance the destruction the most efficiently.
“climate coyness”: has it turned into “climate conceit”?