Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson spoke on ABC this week, lamenting that 65% of Americans don’t know who he is.
He criticized the Republicans and Democrats for excluding third party candidates from debates and stressed the fact that he is “polling higher than [Ross] Perot was polling when he was allowed in the debates.”
The only thing you’re likely to hear about this interview, however, is that Gary Johnson opposes any government action to slow global warming, which he admits is “probably” the result of human activity, and that he thinks the answer to climate change is to leave Earth.
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos ended the interview with a few questions about climate change, bringing up a tongue-in-cheek comment Johnson made back in 2011: “The long term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So, global warming is in our future.”
Johnson dismissed that comment as a joke, and stressed the necessity of space colonization. “We do have to inhabit other planets,” he said. “The future of the human race is space exploration.”
The media has twisted his words into headlines like “Gary Johnson wants to ignore climate change because the sun will destroy the Earth one day,” but the Libertarian candidate makes an important point here.
As science fiction author Robert Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers: “All wars arise from population pressure… Any breed which stops its own increase gets crowded out by breeds which expand. Some human populations did so…and other breeds moved in and engulfed them.”
Gary Johnson does believe it is important to protect the environment, but as a Libertarian he believes the government should leave dealing with global warming to individuals and private organizations.
“When you look at the amount of money we are looking to spend on global warming – in the trillions – and look at the result, I just argue that the result is completely inconsequential to the money we would end up spending,” he said. “We can direct those moneys to other ways that would be much more beneficial to mankind… The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations.”
Editor’s note: Look at the statistics, our history is only 6000 years old, we have had two world wars, massive plagues, massive famines and there exist enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. While I don’t believe it will happen soon, at some point over the next 100,000 years, we are likely to have a near extinction event of this kind. This is not a joke.
P.S. I hate it when the media make fun of serious and thoughtful statements.