Trump is known to be skeptic to climate alarmism, according to The Guardian as the world's only national leader to express such an insight. It may come from a sound gut feeling that something is very fishy with that story.
Trump could tell the American people, and the people of the world, the truth that climate alarmism has no real scientific support and battling a non-existent climate enemy at a projected cost of 2-10% of GNP, thus is not needed. He could then say that these enormous resources could better be used for a meaningful purpose such as improving living conditions for the all the poor people of the world. That it would be more than enough to eliminate poverty.
But Trump is not playing such a strong climate card, which could tilt the game to his favour. Why?
Is it that this card would be harassed as being so much worse than any of the politically incorrect cards he has been playing, you name it, so bad that it simply cannot be played? Would freeing resources to eliminate poverty thus be so incredibly politically incorrect?
Or is Trump just waiting to play the card, to get maximal effect?
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar