In a brilliantly suicidal move which might well drive the last nail into the coffin of her dreams of becoming the next U.S. president, Democrat contender Hillary Clinton is angling to position herself to the left of President Obama on the fatal issues of the environment and climate change.
Clinton, who has hitherto trodden carefully in this contentious and divisive territory, last week went all in with the greenies by tweeting her opinion on the subject of Arctic drilling.
“The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know it’s not worth the risk of drilling,” she said, in a tweet signed ‘H’.
This placed her immediately at odds with her own President ‚Äì coming, as it did, only a day after the Obama administration had given the go ahead for Royal Dutch Shell to explore for oil beneath the Chukchi Sea off the northeastern coast of Alaska.
Some analysts have seen in this gesture an attempt to shore up the green vote while simultaneously outflanking her more left wing rivals:
Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, primarily
(I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have each staked out more liberal positions than Clinton on environmental issues.
But activists say they hope Clinton will join them there soon — not just on Arctic drilling but other major topics like the Keystone XL pipeline and broader climate policy.
If so then Clinton is taking an almighty gamble.
On the one hand, it’s true, Clinton’s endorsement of Greenpeace’s longrunning campaign to Save The Arctic puts her in the company of some of the world’s top celebrities: Sir Paul McCartney; Sir Richard Branson; former Doctor Who David Tennant; and teen pop idol turned Occupy-style activist Charlotte Church.
On the other hand, most American voters aren’t top celebrities, ardent environmentalists or enemies of economic progress.
In a survey last year America emerged as the most skeptical nation on earth with regards to climate change and the environment.
Still more than half of those surveyed (57 per cent) agreed with the statement: “We are heading for environmental disaster unless we change our habits quickly.”
But this percentage is likely to shrink rather than grow, as more and more evidence emerges of the corruption, incompetence and cronyism of the green industry (Solyndra; Bright Source; etc); the untrustworthiness of the Establishment scientists’ doomsday predictions; and of the damage being done to the livelihoods and freedoms of ordinary Americans by increasingly oppressive green policies.
Take President Obama’s plan to reduce US carbon-dioxide emissions from electricity plants by 32 per cent (from 2005 levels) by 2030. According to an analysis of Energy Information Administration data by Heritage Foundation statistician Kevin Dayaratna, this will cost global emissions by a modest two per cent ‚Äì but cost the US economy up to $1 trillion in lost GDP.
And, as even the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator Gina McCarthy has admitted, the hardest hit by Obama’s Clean Power Plan will be America’s poorest.
“We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit,” McCarthy said.
Win Democrat America’s hearts and minds by doubling down on green lunacy? Good luck with that one, Hillary.