... And of course, one of the reddest flags waves up there at the top of the list of our value system? Money. Want to beef up efforts curb climate change? Sure! That's okay with us as long as it doesn't cost anything.
“What we in Congress ought to focus on is the economic impact of the president’s plan,” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). “We know that his regulations on energy sources have cost the American consumer hard-earned dollars, and it’s costs the country jobs.”
Freshman Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who leads a loose coalition of 11 House Republicans who say they believe that humans are changing the climate, went even further.
He said efforts like Cruz’s climate denial hearing and Smith’s investigation into climate research at a federal agency are a waste of time.
“I think it’s a likely a poor investment,” he said. “We should instead invest resources and time into coming up with conservative, market-driven solutions for the challenges posed by climate change.”
Mike McKenna, a Republican energy industry consultant, said most Republicans don’t want to concede the science on climate change, because they fear it will inevitably lead to policies that make fossil fuels more expensive.
“If you concede that the other side is right on the characterization of the problem, then you’re done,” McKenna said. “If you concede the frame, you’re toast.” ...TheHill
Not true. Make that: "unless you concede the frame" you're gone.
There's nothing inherently wrong with embracing the term "cost effective," is there? Oh wait! Maybe it's not the most apt measure of the value of having a future.