Senator and Oval Office aspirant Marco Rubio recently echoed one canon of current conservatism, climate change denial.
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio stated. "And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy."
Senator and Oval Office aspirant Marco Rubio recently echoed one canon of current conservatism, climate change denial.
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio stated. "And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy."
Can they be so shortsighted as to suggest the preponderance of data supporting climate change means nothing compared to economic growth? I’ve been baffled over conservative unwillingness to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding human influence on the temperature of our planet.
Then I stumbled on this explanation from columnist George Will:
“The whole point of global warming is it's a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies, to micromanage the lives of the American people. Our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses — everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.”
In other words, progressives are so obsessed with micromanaging the others’ lives that they’ve foisted an incredible hoax on humanity: the peer-reviewed research conducted over decades by hundreds of scientists from around the world is merely a conspiracy to seize political power in the United States. Can conservatives really believe this fantasy?
The answer, I'm afraid, is yes. This scheme is an article of faith amongst conservatives, just like the notion basic freedoms enjoyed by individual American citizens are threatened by an overreaching federal government, the one they’d like to reduce in size enough to “drown it in the bathtub.”
Oh, but not the federal government that throws underequipped and under-protected American troops into harm’s way in far-off foreign lands, not the one that patrols our national borders to keep undocumented foreigners out, not the one that spies on its citizens at home and abroad, and certainly not the government that each year gives billions in subsidies to the highly profitable and politically powerful energy industry.
Why this conservative cognitive dissonance? Climate change deniers are afraid.
Largely white, they are scared of becoming a social and political minority. Seeing their numbers dwindle, they circle the wagons in hopes of retaining clout in and out of governance.
Largely well-off, they are frightened by the prospect of having to share what they have. Any proposal to change to the status quo — especially one reducing the use of fossil fuels, a major source of their wealth and power — is perceived as a threat to their well-being.
The sad thing is, they are missing out on some tremendous opportunities. If the United States led the world in the development and generation of renewable energy, our entire population would gain socially, politically, and economically. And if America focused on installing and improving renewables, it would create not only new jobs, but a better future for future Americans.
Progressives don't want to concentrate power in Washington. They want to disperse it to every solar panel and wind turbine in every corner of the country. And that frightens our present energy elite, who currently hold too much power.
Pat Grimes, a former South Bay resident, writes from Ypsilanti, Mich. He can be reached at pgwriter@inbox.com.
