General News Anti climate change politicians compared to slave holders

I'm confused about this article. Unemployment is a very serious issue but you can't ignore climate change just to save a few jobs. Costs may be higher but that is the price we have to pay for generations of people ravaging the environment for coal and oil.

 

I am very pro-increased environmental regulations; but slave holders? Not the best word usage. We don't need to use shock-value to make our case for the need for stricter regulations. We have literally all of reputable science behind us.

 

Republicans don't always listen to science (I.e Senator Inhofe who actually thinks the earth is cooling). This wasn't the best word choice, but it shouldn't undermine our position at all.

Also dano, renewable energy is a fast growing and booming energy industry. If we try to tackle climate change we would create millions of jobs over the course of our nation's future. While I'm not saying the work of coal worker's is worth less than anyone else's work, if it's sensible to cut dirty energy jobs in favour of renewable I see no need to choose coal, oil and natural gas, which increase carbon emissions and make our environment less safe.

In another side towards Mitch McTurtle, I find it hilarious he believes this is a new low, seeing as how he has held up the confirmation of the next Attorney General Loretta Lynch because Democrats won't vote for a human trafficking bill that won't provide abortion procedures to victims of trafficking. That's pretty scummy if you ask me.