The first GOP primary debate of the cycle didn’t produce all that much in the way of fireworks, particularly without Donald Trump being present. But the mood on the stage did seem to become a bit strained when the candidates were asked about climate change and how they might win the support of younger voters who may hold that as one of their chief concerns. A couple of them, including Nikki Haley, asserted that climate change is “real” but blasted the approach being taken by Joe Biden and the Democrats. The only person to give a very pointed and combative response was Vivek Ramaswamy, who called the climate change agenda “a hoax” and addressed the negative impact these policies have on the economy. But he did so while saying that he was the only candidate on the stage who wasn’t “bought and paid for,” drawing a rebuke from Chris Christie that turned into a brief verbal brawl. (Washington Times)

Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy asserted he was the lone candidate “who isn’t bought and paid” on the issue, eliciting boos from the audience assembled for the Milwaukee event and scoffs from rival White House hopefuls.

“Let us be honest, as Republicans, I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this: the climate change agenda is a hoax,” Mr. Ramaswamy said. “The reality is the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy. The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”

This is a touchy subject for the GOP candidates, primarily because the media has done such an effective job of hammering the public over the head with tales of climate alarmism for so long now. They’ve convinced a fairly solid majority of people that the world is ending and some generic collection of “carbon emissions” are the culprits. But even though quite a few people seem to accept the idea, polling also shows us that most do not believe they should be on the hook to pay for changes to address the issue.

We’ve discussed this here ad nauseam so we don’t need to go through it all again. Suffice it to say that the activities of man, particularly since the beginning of the industrial era, definitely have an impact on the environment. How much those activities impact average global temperatures can likely never be known. We also can’t seem to definitively pin down what the impact of a tiny fraction of one percent of the atmosphere having methane-related gases in it might be. But we definitely should continue to work to cut down on pollution in general and we’ve made a lot of progress in that area.

It’s worth remembering that Ramaswamy didn’t say that climate change is “a hoax.” He called the climate change agenda a hoax, and he was correct to do so. But he also didn’t really address the original question as to how he would address voters who list that as one of their top concerns. It’s a valid question and one that all of the candidates will need to consider.

I think it’s important for conservatives and Republican candidates to be able to draw a distinction between reducing industrial emissions overall and having cleaner air (something that virtually everyone can get behind) and cutting “carbon-based emissions,” which reeks of climate alarmism and the entire green energy scheme that is crushing our energy grid and increasing energy prices. They should also never stop reminding voters that cutting our own throats economically to reduce some emissions makes zero sense as long as the major polluters like China and India are not going to do anything about theirs. The changes we make at crippling costs (to ourselves) will be a drop in the bucket compared to them.

This is not some sort of death knell issue that dooms the electoral chances of any Republican running for office. Not even close. But the messaging needs to be handled carefully going into what will almost certainly be a razor-thin election. The same goes for questions about abortion, but that’s a topic for another article.