Todd Cort, a lecturer in sustainability at the Yale School of Management and faculty co-director of the Yale Center for Business and the Environment, leveled an accusation against the Electoral College which may be the first of its kind.
In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Cort writes, “The Electoral College is thwarting our ability to battle global warming.” That’s not an Onion headline; it’s for real, at least, in his mind.
Of all the recent attacks against the system the Constitutional Convention drafted into our founding document to ensure the fairest, most democratic election process, Cort’s takes the cake.
“Once again, the electoral college system has elected a U.S. president in opposition to the popular vote in the form of Donald Trump,” Cort laments in his piece. “Hindsight in four years will tell us of the legacy of the Trump administration on climate change, but, despite a recent pledge to keep an ‘open mind’ on the subject, the statements and commitments from the administration to date provide strong reasons for anticipating which way he’ll go.”
Cort sites four presidential elections over America’s 200+ years where the Electoral College decided the winner even though the candidate lost the popular vote. They are this year, 2000, 1888, and 1876. In every case, a Republican clinched the presidency, which makes Cort’s opposition to the EC all the clearer.
But it’s the last two -- the election of Trump and of George W. Bush 16 years ago -- that fuels Cort's concern.
“Two of those elections have occurred during the period in which we have known about the causes and impacts of carbon dioxide emissions and climate change and in both cases, the impacts of those elections have very likely had profound impacts on our actions to address the challenge,” he writes.
Cort contrasts Bush’s climate legacy with his political opponent, Al Gore, and his rise to “fame and a Nobel Peace Prize for his work” on climate change after losing the contentious 2000 election:
We cannot, of course, rewrite history to see how a Gore presidency would have helped to curb our current climate crisis. It is possible that President Gore would have struggled to pass meaningful initiatives against a reluctant Congress for example, but it seems safe to assume that a Gore administration would have constituted a stronger response to the threat of climate change.
Cort concludes that advances in climate change took a back seat during Bush’s administration and carbon dioxide emissions increased during those eight years. He doesn’t mention it, but the tiny increase, “from 370 parts per million to 385 parts per million,” was at least helped by Gore’s extensive travel schedule by private jet between global summits on the environment and his carbon producing mansions.
But the Obama administration fared only slightly better than his predecessor's, in Cort’s assessment, even though Obama made “significant strides” with the Paris Climate Accord of 2015. He does credit the president for making “what is a known fact in the scientific community” become a mainstream idea.
In the end, Cort adds, “The electoral college will have a lasting legacy on all of our lives through climate change. The combination of two administrations headed by presidents who lost the popular vote has and will slow our progress down, and that delay contributes to an ever worsening global climate problem.”
And since Obama tells us that Islamic terrorism is caused by global warming, it's safe to assume, using their logic, that the Electoral College is also to blame for worldwide terrorism. The Left's hysteria knows no bounds.