Jesus, this primary is getting ridiculous. Here’s another meme I have to rebut. This is getting absurd.

Before I start, I’d like to make a plea…

After you’ve tried something for a year, and you end up losing badly as a result, at what point do you figure out it’s not working?

Attacking Hillary on specific issues that most people don’t care about has not worked to date, it will not work and it actually can’t work. Why, you ask? Because people don’t care about it. Fracking is an issue some places. Many communities have banned it, although a great many Republican states have overridden the local laws and allowed it anyway.

And that points to the biggest problem with the first item above. There can BE no “national ban on fracking” because states determine what happens to real estate. Now, IF you can prove that fracking always leads to environmental harm, you might be able to try to enact one, but that would be a difficult thing to prove. As a practice, fracking has been around for 60+ years and rarely leads to problems. If you tried to ban it, it would have to go through the courts, which would take a decade or more and, by then, we could be to the point of not needing it so much. By the way, banning leases on public land (except national parks), mountaintop removal, etc, and nuclear plant licenses are STATE issues, period. It doesn’t matter what the president thinks on those. If it has to do with real estate, it’s a state issue.

The second one is just infantile. Hillary and Bernie have both made it clear that they want to guide the transition away from fossil fuels and they have both expressed an interest in cutting oil companies off at the knees. Hillary is taking heat this week because she rooted for the demise of the coal industry (admittedly, a stupid move), which is going to happen with or without her. If the fossil fuel industry wants to toss some money her way, have at it. She and outside groups will be plowing $1.5-2 BILLION into that campaign; it you think their contributions are going to stand out enough to get special favors, you’re not living in this world. Plus, I guarantee that the GOP will get at least 100X as much. Not that it matters, since money doesn’t win elections, anyway. Ask Jebbie! About that one.

And since when is “criticizing” the Paris Accords some sort of badge of honor? Not bold enough? Define “bold enough.” And then explain how you get 177 countries to all go along with the boldest proposals possible. I’d like to see that. The Paris Climate Accords are a great start, and they will be built upon, but if you think that many countries are all going to just bow to the American Progressive ideal, you’re kind of a loon. Most other developed countries are just as addicted to oil as we are. Should we invest in more solar, wind and other energy sources? Of course we should. But you don’t just snap your fingers and change.

As for the carbon tax, well, who do you imagine will pay that carbon tax in the end? As the wealthiest in the country switch to electric cars, those who are stuck with the old gas burners (read: the poor) will be left paying those. When are you people going to get it through your heads that taxing corporations always ends up hurting those who can least afford it?

About the pipelines, there has been no federal approval of them as yet, in part because they haven’t even secured all the land and there is no indication that Hillary Clinton would be in favor of them. None. Therefore, the “no” claim is pure speculation, quite likely false, and possibly unnecessary. But here’s the funny thing. If you succeed in banning fracking and drilling everywhere, oil prices will go way up, which will actually increase the need for a pipeline. See, the reason Keyston XL is not being built is because oil prices are “too low,” so… Same with banning “all offshore drilling.” Arctic drilling, at least in sensitive lands, has pretty much stopped. This is the problem with demanding a unicorn. If it can’t fly, it may not be better than your pony.

Some of these are just silly. Clinton has identified climate change as a major security threat many times. No one can set CAFE standards to 65 MPG until there is technology available to be able to do that and right now, that’s not possible. If 20-30 million electric cars can be sold and an infrastructure can be put in place, then you can probably come close, but as of now, that’s not happening. Hillary has come out in favor of a complete phase out of fossil fuels, but let’s be real, whether she wins or Bernie does, it’s not happening in 4-8 years. And again, be careful what you wish for, because the people who will be hurt most, especially toward the end of the transition, will be the poor.

Almost everything in this meme is complete crap, and again; most of the issues are not things that people are that concerned about right now. BOTH candidates will be great on climate change, but neither will be weaning us off of fossil fuels within the lifetimes of anyone over 30-35. Do you people really not see that a sudden, jerky push into alternatives before they’re ready could actually kill that industry for a long time? You can’t rush technology; you have to integrate it when it’s ready. I mean, even if a miracle happened and Tesla sold 20 million units next year (impossible), where will people charge them if they’re not only using them to commute to work? And we all know who will get stuck with the gas guzzlers, and how is it good for them to create conditions so that gas is $8 a gallon? “Let ’em ride buses,” is that it? (I know I’ve said this three times; I want people to get it.)

Right now, we’re not there for a wholesale change; and any transition will take decades, not years. Hillary will continue Obama’s plan to bring you a pony, but no one’s getting you a unicorn. Sorry. You can’t have a completely clean and fossil-fuel-free world quite yet. It’ll be a while.