This Election Has “Unthinkably High Stakes” For ‘Climate Change’

For a change, Vox kinda gets something right, in an unhinged hyperventilating manner

The unthinkably high stakes for climate change that we’ve completely ignored this election
The next president will make decisions that will echo for centuries.

This election season has been unusual in a variety of ways. In one way, however, it’s been entirely normal, just like previous elections.

To wit: Climate change didn’t come up.

This fact barely needs explaining. It is pretty much what you’d expect, given various features of US politics and human psychology (which I get into below).

What uber-Warmists David Roberts gets into fails to mention that people really do not care that much, especially when ‘climate change’ is stacked up against real issues. Perhaps they should care, because the issue is not about science, it is, as I mention ad nauseum, about politics. About control. About taxation. Cost of living. Progressivism (nice Fascism).

The stakes involved are almost unthinkably large. We can say, without hyperbole, that the effects of this election will be felt centuries from now. The potential suffering of millions of people is on the line.

Roberts is right. But, not for the reasons he thinks. It’s because electing Hillary would see, at a minimum, implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan and the Paris Climate Agreement. Provided that they aren’t blocked by the courts, as suits are pending. It’s hard to get a reading on Hillary and her ‘climate change’ beliefs. Sure, she talks about it a bit, and it showed up in the Wikileaks leaks, but, does she really care? Does she believe it is a real issue? Would she push the issue as hard as Obama did? Or, would she simply allow her people to do some stuff while she focused on other things? Is she a Believer, or just a hanger on who has to parrot the lines for the sake of her unhinged leftist base? We just don’t know.

Regardless, even if Hillary doesn’t push the subject hard, we’ll certainly see the EPA, headed by whomever she appoints to the agency, push the envelope with crazy regulations. She’d probably let other agencies run wild, as well. Even this hands off approach would cause lots of economic suffering for those lower and middle class citizens who’d pay the price for the cultish beliefs of Warmists in government.

With Donald Trump, he says he wack all those ‘climate change’ initiatives. He’s all for renewables, but, for good reasons, and he doesn’t want to immediately do away with fossil fuels. the CPP would be terminated and he’d end US involvement in the Paris agreement. All the Obama policies would be toast. Here’s the caveat: so Trump says. He could be full of mule fritters. But, it’d be better taking the chance with this horrible, horrible candidate than with the other horrible, horrible, horrible candidate.

Reading the rest of the article highlights just how much these plans need to be killed. They yammer on about science, but, at the end of the day, it’s about that political power, what happens to our taxes, our cost of living, and the power of the Government over our lives.