High cost of hot air |

High cost of hot air

There are enough important issues in Pennsylvania’s race for governor without adding a lot of hot air to the discourse. But a deep-pocketed environmental activist, far removed in San Francisco but chagrined by the commonwealth’s Marcellus shale gas boom, is determined to have his say.

Billionaire Tom Steyer reportedly wants to spend up to $100 million via his NextGen Climate Action super PAC to convince American voters that climate change must be Job One for senatorial and gubernatorial aspirants, including Pennsylvania’s.

Critics say Mr. Steyer amassed his fortune in fossil fuels. It appears he wants to deny Pennsylvania the same return.

Never mind that clean coal on which Pennsylvania relies already is under relentless attack from extremists who want to shut down existing power plants. Marcellus shale gas extraction has been and remains a lifeline for the state’s economy.

And given a projected $1.2 billion state deficit and an outrageous pension plan for public employees that’s driving up local school district taxes, Pennsylvanians have far more pressing concerns in the governor’s race than climate change, for which man-made influences are, at best, questionable.

But if a wealthy West Coaster wants to tell folks out here how to live their lives, that’s his choice. And if Democrat gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf chooses to dance at the end of that very long string, that’s his business.

But burning through all that cash to promote a political agenda surely will leave quite a carbon footprint.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.