Republicans Lie? Unpossible!
An editorial in today's Sacramento Bee warns that if you've enjoyed the civil discourse on health care reforms (e.g., "death panels"), you're going to love the one coming up on climate change legislation. The tools and the wielders of those tools will be the same.
The House has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which if it becomes law would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
But on climate change, as on health care, the sticking point will be the Senate. And the usual suspects are doing their best to prevent action. ...
...the main argument against climate action probably won't be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy. ...
...the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.
Thus, last week Glenn Beck – who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the Republican Party – informed his audience of a "buried" Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.
But we shouldn't be too hard on Beck. Similar – and similarly false – claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.
In my opinion, we can never be too hard on Glenn Beck. He's a liar, and he needs to be called out on his lies. That isn't hard to do, if only the Democrats would do it. The Bee editorial has offered up a few tips along those lines.
Fact: much of the carbon based energy we use now is wasted. Energy conservation, Dick Cheney's derision aside, would lessen the wastefulness, thereby saving consumers money while easing some of the effects of carbon based climate change. Replacing poorly fit windows and doors, installing more effective insulation, even replacing incandescent light bulbs with more efficient light bulbs would have a demonstrable effect and, with government rebates and tax breaks, would be painless. That's a good first step.
Fact: the Congressional Budget Office took a look at Waxman-Markey and concluded that "in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income." Yes, that dollar figure rises by 2050, but so should the GDP, so the bite is far less than what Mr. Beck claims.
But those facts don't matter to the usual suspects. All that matters to them is that whatever the Democrats, especially "that one" in the White House, propose must be defeated, even if it means the end of civilization.
The House has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which if it becomes law would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
But on climate change, as on health care, the sticking point will be the Senate. And the usual suspects are doing their best to prevent action. ...
...the main argument against climate action probably won't be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy. ...
...the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.
Thus, last week Glenn Beck – who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the Republican Party – informed his audience of a "buried" Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.
But we shouldn't be too hard on Beck. Similar – and similarly false – claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.
In my opinion, we can never be too hard on Glenn Beck. He's a liar, and he needs to be called out on his lies. That isn't hard to do, if only the Democrats would do it. The Bee editorial has offered up a few tips along those lines.
Fact: much of the carbon based energy we use now is wasted. Energy conservation, Dick Cheney's derision aside, would lessen the wastefulness, thereby saving consumers money while easing some of the effects of carbon based climate change. Replacing poorly fit windows and doors, installing more effective insulation, even replacing incandescent light bulbs with more efficient light bulbs would have a demonstrable effect and, with government rebates and tax breaks, would be painless. That's a good first step.
Fact: the Congressional Budget Office took a look at Waxman-Markey and concluded that "in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income." Yes, that dollar figure rises by 2050, but so should the GDP, so the bite is far less than what Mr. Beck claims.
But those facts don't matter to the usual suspects. All that matters to them is that whatever the Democrats, especially "that one" in the White House, propose must be defeated, even if it means the end of civilization.
Labels: Global Warming, Republican Lying
posted by Diane at 5:06 AM
1 Comments:
Hey, it's the end of the world as we know it...
But I feel fine...
And I am eternally (really) grateful that my subscription to this life will likely lapse a while before the world becomes a complete, steaming cesspool of human shit and desecration...
And that I have no personal genetic investment in the future...
Which doesn't mean that i don't care.
I do...about the lions and tigers and bears--and the amphibians, fish, and bugs, too...
People? Not so much...
Post a Comment
<< Home