Paul Ryan’s “Biblical” Understanding of Environment

August 15, 2012

“CO2 helps crops”  Will pass that along to midwest farmers.

It’s in the Bible.

Paul Ryan Good.

Al Gore:

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s new running mate, has a history of anti-climate science statements and votes, according to Brad Johnson:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, is a virulent denier of climate science, with a voting record to match.

A favorite of the Koch brothers, Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has implied that snow invalidates global warming.

Ryan has voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse pollution, to eliminate White House climate advisers, to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing for climate disasters like the drought devastating his home state, and to eliminate the Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E).

He has also said there is “growing disagreement among scientists about climate change and its causes.”

In addition to his opposition to meaningful action to reduce global warming pollution, Paul Ryan’s budget called for “drastic cuts in federal spending on energy research and development and for the outright elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies.”

Solving the climate crisis requires political leadership that recognizes the serious reality of global warming and fights for policies that move us toward a clean energy economy, not backward.


30 Responses to “Paul Ryan’s “Biblical” Understanding of Environment”

  1. patricklinsley Says:

    Aaaaand the hypocrisy goes on here’s an example from the Ryan clan of road builders:

    “HIGHWAYS The Ryan workload from 1910 until the rural interstate Highway System was completed 60 years later, was mostly Highway construction.”

    Also they helped build some of the original O’ Hare Airport. They were the first road builders based in Wisconsin (startup) who got money FROM THE GOVERMENT! to build infrastructure that would be needed in the future.

    So you want proof that the government investing in the infrastructure of tomorrow is a good investment and can create ACTUAL wealth and not just in the aggregate? Proof? Ryan Central, Paul Ryan. But, nah we can’t have the goverment spending on infrastructure of tomorrow (in the fields of wind turbines, solar panels, in battery technology, efficiency, etc.) I mean hey what proof do we have that it can actually work (except for the last 6,000 years of human civilization)?

    P.S here’s an article that goes into Ryan’s blatant hypocrisy about government investing and how he ignores that it benefitted him:

    Oh and before a mouth breather jumps in and bleats ‘well at least he’s trying to save the government money herp derp’ try again. He went out of his way to put the government in this precarious situation it finds itself in and rather than trying to fix it is trying to get it ‘fixed’ for him and his billionaire friends like the Koch brothers.

  2. Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches US politics with a mixture of disbelief and dismay.

  3. jpgreenword Says:

    I wish Obama would bring up climate change at a rally, make it an issue in this election. Bring in a well-spoken scientist who discusses the issue with the crowd before Obama comes on the stage. Then have Obama come out and outline he plan for tackling carbon emissions and discuss all the jobs that’s going to create and all the lives it’s going to save.

    That would make one more stark difference between the two campaigns.

    • rayduray Says:

      Re: “I wish Obama would bring up climate change at a rally…”

      Good luck with that fantasy. And if on the odd chance that Obama did happen to inadvertently mention climate change, you can be certain that the money behind him will make certain no intelligent policy would be forthcoming.

      I’m of the opinion that when examining Obama it behooves one to entirely trash his rhetoric and ruthlessly look at his record.

      You’ll find that Obama’s executive branch has been more friendly to the oil and gas industry and more indifferent to the renewable energy industry than even the Cheney Administration was.

  4. Rayduray – Obama has shown a bit more support for renewables than Cheney/Bush (and I agree that it was a Cheney/NeoCon Administration), and he’s made a few moves that Cheney never would have done (like stalling Keystone).

    But beyond that, his record is very poor. I often wonder if Gore had been President for 8 years, what would the world be like? My thoughts: instead of the U.S. energy percentage of windpower being at 3%, it’d be at 5%, we’d stall on all the major climate summits as we’ve always done, and An Inconvenient Truth wouldn’t exist.

    The truth is that there are forces in Washington much stronger than any one person. And frankly, the American public is blind to the enormity of this problem. The majority cares more about whether they’re going to be able to afford this summer’s trip to Disney World than the state of the environment or the long-term sustainability of our economic system.

    Any immediate risk (real or unreal) to the economy is easy political fodder for the opposing political party. If Obama suddenly makes the climate a priority, he’s going to get nailed about the economy. He’s stuck – we’re all stuck. The problem is that climate change is gradual. Most can see it’s an issue, but most think we have decades to solve it.

    The great shame is that the economy is going down at some point because we aren’t switching to renewables rapidly enough (even assuming this is technically possible) and because we aren’t having serious national discussions about energy use. The peak resource events are on the horizon, and few to no politicians are talking about the enormity of a debt-based monetary system integrated globally and leveraged to the hilt being hit with rapidly rising energy and food costs, international conflict, citizen unrest, and climate change events. The “economy” won’t last – it’ll be the first thing to go.

    • rayduray Says:

      Hi Jim,

      Re: “(Obama’ has) made a few moves that Cheney never would have done (like stalling Keystone)”

      It is important to separate the rhetoric from the record. Obama is known by many for having stalled Keystone. But did he really? The southern extension of the Keystone XL pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast refineries is moving ahead, fully permitted.

      See how cynical this is? The enviros perceive Obama as making a concession to them, while the reality is that the bottleneck in the tar sands pipeline system is being actively relieved and the industry is getting what it really wanted as its top priority, which was to relieve the surplus oil at Cushing.

      Other than that, I find your analysis thoughtful and realistic. 🙂

  5. Hi Rayduray – yeah, I know about Seaway.

    Here’s an informative video about it:

    I don’t discount the possibility that Obama said no (temporarily) to Keystone, knowing full well that the industry had immediately implementable backup plans.

    A pipeline rupture at some point is a virtual certainty, and almost no one in the DFW Metroplex has the faintest idea it’s even there.

  6. rayduray Says:

    Hi Jim Herndon,

    Re: your item @August 17, 2012 at 3:44 am

    Thanks for the head’s up about the Seaway pipeline. I found this Reuters item of interest:

    The plan to increase the line pressure and pump dramatic amounts of dilbit through a 36 year old pipe seems like pure madness. As we say all to often in the enviro community, what could possibly go wrong?

    I managed to view about half of the video you linked to. I tried to find a transcript without success. It was a bit of a slog, since I didn’t really have a dog in the fight. Rita Beving seems to be a genuinely wonderful person. Another Texan I greatly admire is Jim Hightower. Here’s a recent article from Hightower on a related matter involving the Koch Brothers and a subsidized biofuel swindle for the paper industry:

  7. Hi Jim H and rayduray – Thanks for noting that Obama has not lived up to expectations on renewables. He is openly pro coal and nuclear because those are the strongest political influences where he comes from, Illinois. IMHO. In any case, he does reveal some pro coal and oil sentiments. The oft repeated phrase is we need “all of the above”. We sure do not. Please, everyone. Politicians only respond to repeated pressure. Keystone was stopped (temporarily) because YOU stopped it. All of you who participated in rallies and wrote letters. You don’t just vote and close your eyes. Its an active process that requires participation and vigilance. Thanks or being here and expressing your opinions and your concern for our future.

  8. […] 2012/08/15: PSinclair: Paul Ryan’s “Biblical” Understanding of Environment […]

  9. […] Mitt ”poltetaan loputkin fossiiliset” Romney ja hänen aseenkantajavarapresidentikseen Paul ”jumala ei salli ilmaston lämmetä teimme me ihmiset mitä tahansa” Ryan. Onneksi taivaan voimat ovat päättäneet näyttää tälle änkyräjoukolle, että ilmastoa ei […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: