Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Congressional Republicans are rushing out in search of reporters to tell just how much they oppose the historic climate accord
between the United States and China. The U.S. is agreeing to decrease carbon emissions by more than previously planned, while China has for the first time set a target for its peak carbon emissions and has said that by the same year, 2030, it will get 20 percent of its energy from non-fossil sources. Republicans are taking the extremely short view: Obama did it, and they oppose it in terms that raise the suspicion they might go out rollin' coal
to show the depth of their fury.
House Speaker John Boehner stayed right on message, calling the agreement a "job-crusher." Sure! If Republicans refuse to invest in jobs in solar and wind and public transit and retrofitting. But then, any change looks like a job-crusher if you don't invest in the future. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy stayed on a similar message, saying that "The House will continue to fight this administration’s cavalier approach of jamming through harmful regulations without regard to economic consequences." Because Republicans would much rather fight to maintain a cavalier approach to the future of the f'ing planet.
By contrast, Senate Republicans couldn't quite agree on why they objected, though they definitely objected. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell objected that the agreement "requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years," because apparently a nation changing its policies to prioritize reducing emissions and developing enough renewable energy sources to get 20 percent of its needs from non-fossil fuels is "nothing at all." By contrast, leading Senate "screw science and the planet" voice Jim Inhofe objected that it's "hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20 percent of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030." So he doesn't think China will do anything, either, except he thinks the evidence is in how much it's said it would do. Okay, then.
Is it too much to wish that a few more of these guys owned low-lying coastal property?