Rick Santorum's dirty words

authordefault
on

November 7, 2006 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for a lot of Republicans. It’s the day the Democrats won the majority in the US Senate and House. รœber-conservative Republican Senator Rick Santorum was one of the Republicans who lost his seat that day; it was the โ€œlargest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator sinceโ€ฆ 1980.โ€ Ouch .

Determined not to be relegated to the โ€œwhere are they now?โ€ column, Santorum has been keeping his conservative fan club happy with his semi-regular opinion pieces in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He pontificates on his favorite subjects, like โ€œfamily values โ€ and โ€œevildoers โ€œ.

However, today Santorum digresses, and puts on his โ€œclean coalโ€ salesmanย hat.ย 

Santorum’s column is a train wreck, full of inept comparisons and non sequiturs. Writing and composition instructors, as well as logic and rhetoric teachers, beware. Rick Santorum will make your blood pressure goย up.

‘Coal’ is not a dirty word if we are realistic about saving the Earth

[A]ccording to a recent ABC News poll, only 33 percent of Americans believe man-made global warming is the world’s most serious environment crisis.

How is a poll from a year ago โ€œrecentโ€? Not only that, but Santorum apparently missed the part of the poll that said 56% of the people polled thought temperatures around the world have risen. The poll result negates what he says next:

This finding comes after years of global-warming propaganda, the โ€œconclusiveโ€ evidence in news reports, Al Gore’s Nobel Prize, claims of melting ice caps endangering polar bears, and the hysterical drum beat from UN scientists and liberal politicians around the world.

But then he contradicts himself and says โ€œthe hypeโ€ is working, and that he’s kinda buying into it. Awย shucks:

The media hype has had an impact – environmentalism is in. Most of us skeptics are perfectly fine with the going-green movement’s practical side. I recycle. I constantly turn lights off around my house (although I think that is just a dad thing). I bought a fuel-efficient car, and I am more conscious of taking care of God’s creation.

He continues with how the hype really isn’t working. Oh, and yawn, here comes the predictable Inhofian Science:

I think most Americans don’t believe Al Gore and the hysterics (good rock band name) have made the case.

Could it be that Americans know that over time the Earth goes through natural cooling and heatingย cycles?

Could it be that they recognize that most of the doomsday scenarios are not scientifically supported and that even the โ€œconsensusโ€ projections are just that – projections based upon highly interactive questionable assumptions over long periods ofย time?

FAIL (as the kids on the internet say ). Wrong. Someone’s been looking at cooked graphs .

Finally, after sixteen paragraphs of tired rhetoric, he gets to hisย point:

Why not use technology to lower carbon emissions? And we can by building more nuclear power plants and developing and deploying clean-coal technology, which has already reduced emissions by 70 percent since 1970.

There is that dirty word:ย coal.

Those lumps of carbon turn the lights on in 50 percent of Americanย homes.

In an age when energy independence is not only important for our economy, but also vital to our national security, we can’t afford not to use this plentiful domesticย resource.

Yes, indeed. Rick has joined the fantasy world of the โ€œclean coalโ€ promoters. He doesn’t make his point very well, because he suddenly muddles his point by bashing Barackย Obama:

If [the Democratic candidates] would stop reflexively bowing to the anti-fossil-fuels crowd, we could boost investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that captures and stores carbon dioxide from coal-powered electrical plants.

CCS separates and captures carbon dioxide at the power plant before it is emitted. It is then liquefied, transported by pipeline and injected deep underground into geological formations for permanentย storage.

Contrast this down-to-earth, commonsense approach with Barack Obama’s other-worldly proposal. He’s calling for a mandatory 80 percent cut in carbon emissions byย 2050.

Let’s recap what Rick’s trying toย say:

  1. Global warming is notย real.
  2. The media makes people think it is, or maybe not (?), but at least Rickย recycles.
  3. Coal is clean. CCS works. Seriously, for reals!
  4. Barack Obama is lame and unrealistic, because he doesn’t believe in โ€œclean coalโ€ as an energyย source.

FAIL, Rick. Here’s reality:

Global warming is real. A 2008 poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe humans cause global warming, although this percentage is down from a previousย poll.

Coal is not โ€œcleanโ€. And Barack Obama actually promotes โ€œclean coalโ€, so Rick’s just plainย lying.

I’d like to suggest some reading material for Rick, although I think he’s beyondย hope.

But we have faith in the the reality-based community (both online andย off).

We’re counting on you to see through the โ€œclean coalโ€ spin . It’s your future – and the Earth’s – that’s atย stake.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Regulators have clearly demonstrated they are prioritizing continued oil production over public safety.

Regulators have clearly demonstrated they are prioritizing continued oil production over public safety.
Opinion
on

It's time to prepare for the 'Chaoscene.'

It's time to prepare for the 'Chaoscene.'
on

The pro-Trump Heartland Institute claims it spearheaded opposition to a flagship European nature law.

The pro-Trump Heartland Institute claims it spearheaded opposition to a flagship European nature law.
Analysis
on

Politicians, donors, think tanks, and media outlets in the UK and U.S. are working increasingly closely to scupper climate policies and promote fossil fuel extraction.

Politicians, donors, think tanks, and media outlets in the UK and U.S. are working increasingly closely to scupper climate policies and promote fossil fuel extraction.