Boehner's Climate Change Rejectionism Positioning to be Palin VP Running Mate?
George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week pushed House Republican Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH-08) who gave an astonishingly rejectionist response on the significance of contemporary climate change trends.
My hunch is that Boehner is positioning himself to be vice presidential running mate material for Sarah Palin in 2012 -- as these answers were the sort she'd give.
This Week with George Stephanopoulos
18 April 2009, interview with Rep. John Boehner, House Republican Leader:
This Week with George Stephanopoulos 18 April 2009, interview with Rep. John Boehner, House Republican LeaderSTEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you then about energy. We showed your statement on the president's decision through the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Also, you've come out against the president's proposal to cap-and-trade carbon emissions.
So what is the Republican answer to climate change? Is it a problem? Do you have a plan to address it?
BOEHNER: George, we believe that our -- all of the above energy strategy from last year continues to be the right approach on energy. That we ought to make sure that we have new sources of energy, green energy, but we need nuclear energy, we need other types of alternatives, and, yes, we need American-made oil and gas.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that doesn't do anything when it comes to emissions, sir.
BOEHNER: When it comes to the issue of climate change, George, it's pretty clear that if we don't work with other industrialized nations around the world, what's going to happen is that we're going to ship millions of American jobs overseas. We have to deal with this in a responsible way.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what is the responsible way? That's my question. What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?
BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?
BOEHNER: ... we've had climate change over the last 100 years -- listen, it's clear we've had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation. If we got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we're going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it sounds like from what you're saying that you don't believe that Republicans need to come up with a plan to control carbon emissions? You're suggesting it's not that big of a problem, even though the scientific consensus is that it has contributed to the climate change.
BOEHNER: I think it is -- I think it is an issue. The question is, what is the proper answer and the responsible answer?
STEPHANOPOULOS: And what is the answer? That's what I'm trying to get at.
BOEHNER: George, I think everyone in America is looking for the proper answer. We don't want to raise taxes, $1.5 to $2 trillion like the administration is proposing, and we don't want to ship millions of American jobs overseas. And so we've got to find ways to work toward this solution to this problem without risking the future for our kids and grandkids.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you are committed to coming up with a plan?
BOEHNER: I think you'll see a plan from us. Just like you've seen a plan from us on the stimulus bill and a better plan on the budget.
You heard it here first (or at least early). . .Palin-Boehner in 2012.
Obama would have a lot of fun with that pair.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note


















Climate change. Global warming didn't work, so now it's "climate change".
It's interesting how the normal living process of man is now toxic. It's more interesting to see how climate change is the new religion for the secular. Tsk.
Come back when all this is science rather than opinion. Sorry, I mean consensus. Heh.
April 20, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas Malthus will have the last laugh.
April 20, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said it, shooter. I assume you meant it in jest, but it is true in actual fact. I suppose it all hinges on the meaning of "normal".
For tens of thousands of years, man lived in a way that was not toxic to our planet. It is just in the last 150 years or so that we have begun to destroy the environment.
I'm not advocating for a return to a primitive lifestyle. I believe it is possible for man to continue to develop technology and live in a modern world, without doing further damage to the environment.
But to call what we're doing now -- what we've been doing for the last 30 or 50 or 70 years -- to call that "normal" is not accurate. There's nothing normal about it. We must change our behavior. And those like Boehner, who are climate change deniers, are simply wrong.
-- ARG
April 20, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more descriptive, for one thing.
If you call it 'global warming,' people may not understand that other things will happen as the average temperature in their hometown rises by a single degree over the period of years. They might not understand that the hotter it is, the faster soil evaporation occurs. They might not understand also that rainfall might become generally more sporadic, more concentrated, and that in combination with faster soil evaporation will increase the odds against crop survival. Forget about polar ice melting (even though it is doing just that, to the point where a commercially viable Northwest Passage is emerging in mid-August, due to Arctic ice loss).
If your contention is that the sun can finish us agriculturally all by its lonesome, you may be right. I just can't get from there to doing nothing about the variables of global temperature that we do control.
April 20, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter -- i don't get your point. i have always used the term 'climate change' and never generally used the phrase global warming -- not that i have any problem with the term. we don't need language orthodoxy -- we need serious solutions to the problem.
but if you are trying to call me old-fogeyish for using a term that is out of vogue -- well, that's always been a problem of mine.
best, steve clemons
April 20, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter is not serious, only uses reflex phrases.
The International Panel on Climate Change also uses the term climate change.
April 20, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, do you conclude Boehner is positioning to run with Palin because of the incoherence of his answers?
April 20, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
mmm..rather silly to suggest this guy as part of a ticket when palin can't possibly be the republican nominee.
The party not only doesn't want her but will undermine her every chance they get, without alienating her rabids, they hope.
They know as well as we do that she is a disaster.
And I don't buy into the argument that she has time to learn, to get "better".
palin will never change her approach.
She can't.
Its called being a sociopath.
But I like your vision thing.
To believe the repugs would actually fall that far ; palin/boehner..
hahaha
April 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it's kind of fun to play Barbie and Ken.
April 20, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the interview as well and could see George stumble physically when Boehner made the carcinogen and cow remark. That was just a "Wow" moment. Nothing further to be done with that line of questioning. I guess it would have been fun to watch Boehner be pushed further down that line of reasoning, but George didn't seem game for it. Too bad.
April 20, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Palin say something recently about how climate change was affecting Alaska?
April 20, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That the House Republican leader, when asked about a serious policy issue, can do nothing more than utter pre-programmed sound bites targeted at America's most stupid shows the depths of incompetence to which his political party has sunk. It does not mean that he aims to be the presidential running mate of someone not even capable of performing such recitations and non-answers without tripping over her own profound ignorance, or that the Republicans have become foolish enough to seriously consider nominating such a candidate for president.
April 21, 2009 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink