In a story from Buzzfeed, Marco Rubio gives us some real teanuttery on the subject of climate change and why it is best to do absolutely nothing.
Host: President Obama in the inauguration dwelled, to the surprise of a lot of people, at great length on climate change. Talked about, you know, reducing carbon emissions, talked about global warming. There's a sense now that nothing can happen on the Hill. That anything he's going to have to do will be by Executive Action. And I wonder if that's true, if there is anything in there that you can support.Did you get all that? We shouldn't do squat to address the threat of climate change because China and India won't play along. We're just this itty bitty non-planet country and what we do or don't do will make no difference globally. Um, thanks for that scholarly observation Marco.
Rubio: Well, the problem with it is this, that number one anything that we would do on that would have a real impact on our economy. But probably, if it's only us doing it, a very negligible impact on the environment. Ultimately, if you look at the developing countries, which are not developing countries anymore. China, India and others. They're now the largest polluters in the world, by far. I mean they're the ones that are now...so to the extent that that's what you are trying to get at, the United States is a country. It's not a planet. On the other hand, if we unilaterally impose these sorts of things on our economy, it would have a devastating impact on economics, depending on which measure it is we are talking about. And I think that's what's more than anything standing in the way of doing anything on this. There has to be a cost benefit analysis for every one of the principles that people are pushing on. And the benefit I think is difficult to justify when you realize that it's only us doing it. Nobody else is doing this. What are the measurable principles.
Host: Do you see global warming as a threat to Florida?
Rubio: Well, first of all, the climate's always changing. That's not the fundamental question. The fundamental question is whether man-made activity is what is contributing most to it. I understand that people say there is a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I've actually seen reasonable debate on that principle. But beyond it, the secondary question is, is there anything government can do about that that will actually make a difference. In essence, we can pass a law that prohibits X, it has this dollar impact on our economy which is devastating. But what's the benefit of it. Will it have a direct impact on actually turning around these climate changes that we are trying to address. And that's where I think this whole thing breaks down. When you look at the cost benefit analysis...I think when you look at the cost benefit analysis being proposed, if you did all these things they're talking about, what impact would it really have on these changes that we're outlining. On the other hand, I can tell you the impact it would have on certain industries and on our economy. And that's where it falls apart.
It doesn't take him long to get to the heart of his objections to trying to stop the planet from spiraling out of control. Money. Big corporate money.
On the other hand, if we unilaterally impose these sorts of things on our economy, it would have a devastating impact on economics, depending on which measure it is we are talking about. And I think that's what's more than anything standing in the way of doing anything on this.Then there is this nugget.
There has to be a cost benefit analysis for every one of the principles that people are pushing on. And the benefit I think is difficult to justify when you realize that it's only us doing it.There is just a tiny little flaw in what he says there. He calls for a "cost benefit analysis" and then declares it unjustifiable before one is even produced. Teabaggers are an impatient sort.
And finally he gives his sucker punch, "The climate's always changing". He has heard reasonable debate and has walked away confident enough to blow off any concern about one of our most vulnerable states to the effects of climate change. Florida? Pshaw! It's sunny one minute, a little hurricane the next.
I'll tell you where all this falls apart, Rubio. It falls apart when the effects of climate change give your state a multi-billion dollar pounding or two the likes of Hurricane Sandy. It falls apart when states have to go to the very government people like you were so keen on drowning in a bathtub, hat in hand, asking for help to get through. And when this all comes to pass, you and your cost analysis benefits will be judged harshly.
I thought this guy was supposed to be a rising Republican star. From where I sit, he's barely an uninhabitable planet.