Do 2016 GOP Candidates Like Barbara Comstock Agree with Extreme 2016 GOP Platform: Part 1, Energy/Environment

There’s so much extremism, lunacy and flat-out falsehoods (aka, “lies”) in the GOP’s 2016 platform, it’s hard to know where to start. But for now, let’s begin with “highlights” from the sections on energy and the environment. What I want to know is whether Republican 2016 candidates – Barbara Comstock, for instance – agree with this garbage. For instance:

• “[The] Clean Power Plan — the centerpiece of the President’s war on coal — has been stayed by the Supreme Court. We will do away with it altogether.” (That would be a huge mistake; to the contrary, the Clean Power Plan should be strengthened. Also, there’s no “war on coal,” no matter how many times Republicans say it.)
• “The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.” (Coal is “clean?” Yeah, and the earth is flat, up is down, war is peace, ignorance is knowledge, etc.)
• “Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.” (Actually, there’s no question that climate change is a huge, pressing national security issue, according to pretty much anyone who knows anything on the subject.)
• ” We support the enactment of policies to increase domestic energy production, including production on public lands, to counter market manipulation by OPEC and other nationally owned oil companies. ” (Yep, they want oil drilling in national parks.)
• “The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists.” (“Radical” defined as “wanting to protect the environment.”)
• “The central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving.” (Wildly false if you look at almost any metric – mass extinctions around the world, dangerous global warming, ocean acidification, the death and damage of coral reefs, deforestation, etc, etc.)
• “…the environmental establishment looks the other way when environmental degradation is caused by the EPA and other federal agencies as was the case during the Animas River spill. ” (That’s completely false, Alex Jones-level conspiracy craziness.)
• “We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission” (Would be super harmful to the environment.)
• “We will strictly limit congressional delegation of rule-making authority, and require that citizens be compensated for regulatory takings. ” (That would gut environmental protection in this country.)
• “We will enforce the original intent of the Clean Water Act, not it’s distortion by EPA regulations. We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act. ” (First of all, Grammar 101; it should be “its” not “it’s.” Learn to speak English, Republicans! Second, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that CO2 is covered as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. So they’re both crazy AND wrong.)
• “Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states” (That would be an enormous mistake.)
• “We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Congress’ right to approve the designation of national monuments and to further require the approval of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed.” (Weakening the Antiquities Act would also be an enormous mistake.)
• “…the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should not include species such as gray wolves and other species if these species exist elsewhere in healthy numbers in another state or country.” (Yep, they want to weaken/gut the Endangered Species Act and declare war on wolves and other crucially important species in order to protect big livestock interests.)
• “Instead, over the last few decades, the ESA has stunted economic development, halted the construction of projects, burdened landowners, and has been used to pursue policy goals inconsistent with the ESA — all with little to no success in the actual recovery of species.” (Flat-out lies.)
• “For example, we oppose the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species has been shown to be in actual danger and the listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production” (Uhhhhh…alrighty.)
• “The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. ” (False, also love the shout-out to climate science deniers.)
• “We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement” (Ignorant and disastrous.)
• “We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ” (Crazy.)

Bottom line: if you in any way/shape/form care about moving towards cleaner energy (solar, wind, energy efficiency, etc.) and protecting our environment, then under no circumstances should you vote Republican this November. Meanwhile, I really want to hear from Barbara Comstock and other Republicans on the ballot this year, specifically as to whether or not they agree with many of the extreme and false statements in the 2016 GOP platform. Any time now…