Pinch-hitting for Chuck Todd on Tuesday's MTP Daily, MSNBC's Garrett Haake picked up the climate-panic card, underlining a New York Times op-ed hysterically titled "Democrats Have a Year to Save the Planet." We're missing "an opportunity for the United States to finally take grand action to curb the worst effects of a climate barreling toward catastrophe."
Haake's guest was Leah Stokes, a professor who pointed out she was quoted by Manjoo in his panic piece. He told her "I want to talk about how pivotal you think this is. The New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo described it as a do or die moment, we’ll put a little bit of his piece on the screen."
But he only put this part on screen: "This could be our do-or-die moment — with Democrats holding the White House and barely controlling Congress, this may be the country’s last best political opportunity to do something big on the climate."
He left out the next thought: "After Biden’s announcement last week of a watered-down compromise with centrist senators on an infrastructure plan, I’m terrified that we are heading straight for die rather than do."
Haake then asked, "Is this hyperbole? [!] If Democrats don't take advantage of the opportunity they have before them now with both chambers and the White House to address this in a complete way, what are we looking at around the corner in the next set of summer heat waves?"
The heat waves Haake was referring to were the historically high temperatures in the Pacific Northwest at the end of June. Yet, neither Haake nor Stokes would explain how Congress could have stopped such an event that also shattered national records in Canada and that was described as a once-in-a-millennium event.
Still, Stokes claimed, "It's not hyperbole, what Farhad Manjoo wrote. I was quoted in that piece and I said this is a window of opportunity. The windows for policy change in Congress open and they close." Screaming "we have a year to save the planet" isn't supposed to be a weather forecast. It's a tool to get your legislation passed.
Stokes said it is "so critical that 14 senators stepped up and said 'no climate, no deal'" because "We need to be cleaning up the electricity system, getting to 80% clean by 2030. We can do that through a clean standard and through extending tax credits. These are popular ideas that the public supports, and that’s actually quite viable, and the benefit of the reconciliation approach is that it actually turns it into an investment program with the federal government."
As usual, it is pass the left's agenda first, ask questions second because we don't have time for questions. Death is around the corner.
This segment was sponsored by Allstate.
Here is a transcript for the July 6 show:
MSNBC
MTP Daily
1:08 PM ET
GARRETT HAAKE: The bipartisan portion of the infrastructure legislation does leave out most of the big climate initiatives that were promoted by the White House in the jobs plan. That leaves Democrats doing this alone on the reconciliation bill. I want to talk about how pivotal you think this is. The New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo described it as a do or die moment, we’ll put a little bit of his piece on the screen. Is this hyperbole? If Democrats don't take advantage of the opportunity they have before them now with both chambers and the White House to address this in a complete way, what are we looking at around the corner in the next set of summer heat waves?
LEAH STOKES: It's not hyperbole what Farhad Manjoo wrote. I was quoted in that piece and I said this is a window of opportunity. The windows for policy change in Congress open and they close. And the last time we had a chance to pass congressional legislation on climate was 12 years ago. With the Waxman-Markey bill and why it's so critical that 14 senators stepped up and said “no climate, no deal.” They're not going to be moving forward on any legislation this summer without a bold climate package and we know what needs to be in that climate package.We need to be cleaning up the electricity system, getting to 80% clean by 2030. We can do that through a clean standard and through extending tax credits. These are popular ideas that the public supports and that’s actually quite viable and the benefit of the reconciliation approach is that it actually turns it into an investment program with the federal government. It becomes a kind of cost share you could say where the federal government says you know what? This is what we need to do as a society to keep people safe, to protect the infrastructure. So we'll help pick up the cost, that’s a really great idea.
HAAKE: Professor, only about 30 seconds left with you, but I think this is important. Can you give me -- if you are sitting down at the table and say “ Look, I can get three of these provisions in, I can get a couple things to the president's desk. What's the order here? What are the most critical things to get to the president's desk coming to climate?
STOKES: We need things on electricity, like a clean electricity standard. On transportation, like support on electric vehicles and things on clean buildings to get fossil gas out of homes through things like heat pumps and induction stoves and if we get things on all those topics, we can meet the president’s goal of cutting pollution 50% by 2030.
