- This topic is empty.
July 18, 2010 at 12:19 am #595600
We just had a great conversation with Mr. Jeffers-Schroder. He is running to increase the political will to address greenhouse gas emissions as our first priority. He’s doing it all on his own dime (not accepting donations) by doorbelling personally. He’s running as an independent because, as he points out, it shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and we need to take partisan posturing out of the picture.
He prefers using market forces to curb emissions, particularly a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but agrees cap & trade has more support right now, and, implemented correctly, would also be a step in the right direction.
I agree with him, both on the priority and on the tax.July 18, 2010 at 1:56 am #699392
I agree with him too; and Congressman McDermott supports the same issues and will make a difference to retain the democratic majority. Check out John Boehner’s views on the issues you care about — then decide if this is the year for a progressive protest vote :-)July 18, 2010 at 6:09 am #699393
Exactly. And we have a top-two primary. So why does Mr. Boehner have to be on the November ballot at all? ;)July 18, 2010 at 6:13 am #699394
BTW, if I were worried about Jim McDermott’s chances, I wouldn’t even post this. I’m a big fan, and I know he supports the same issues. But if we can send him back with the sense that his constituency urgently backs strong carbon emissions legislation, it will help him.July 18, 2010 at 6:14 am #699395
NO, I wasn’t thinking when I wrote post #3. Forget what I said, my mind was elsewhere. But post #4 stands.July 18, 2010 at 9:12 am #699396
If you eat fewer beans, you will not contribute to more carbon emissions.
NOAA says this has been the hottest year ever in recent times. I generally believe NOAA but there are some questions about the monitoring sites. The East Anglia research was falsified. More research is needed.
I cannot support the premise that all of this is man made. I can support taking care of the planet better. I even agree with a point or two listed on his web page. But I am partisan.
I hear for every green job created, two “regular” jobs are lost, or so our European friends have reported. That is what the Spanish seem to claim.
All I am saying is that little physics equation, for every action there is an opposite action, seems to come into play.
Be careful what you wish for.
My question is this. Is it truly man made or just the ebb and flow of climate? If it is man made, we can probably affect change, but lets show some common sense. If it is not, we cannot affect change but we can do our best to keep mother earth as healthy as we can. Either way, I believe we can be smarter in our choices.July 18, 2010 at 4:09 pm #699397
follow the science.
just this year they discovered that protons may not be the size they thought they were.. disputed data abounds…
but no-one is throwing the proton out with the bathwater. it exists.
the same holds true for climate change. the data may be challenged.. but the theory holds.
next?July 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm #699398
“I hear for every green job created, two “regular” jobs are lost, or so our European friends have reported. That is what the Spanish seem to claim.”
I can only ask where you heard this (or guess). Since EU nations didn’t gleefully gut their middleclass in pursuit of globalization greed for their corporate enterprises, some parts of this downturn are allowing the global corporatists to try, once again, to force them to do so. The IMF is not even sleeping in its efforts on behalf of corporate greed.
Update to my OP — here’s a link to the bloomberg article on the Spanish study. http://tinyurl.com/chvbsb It looks like a Spanish business took the opportunity (excuse) to move to a cheap labor area.
As I said previously, we’ve already encouraged all of our manufacturing business to do that, unscathed (untaxed). So in essence, freedom to be green, in our case, is another word for nothing left to lose.July 19, 2010 at 6:58 pm #699399
Yeah, this Jeffers-Schroder guy’s got his priorities right anyway. Still, I’m skeptical when people talk about “market forces” fixing the mess this same market has gotten us into.
In an ideal marketplace, essential-to-life resources would simply be put off-limits: clean air, clean water, green space . . . In the real marketplace, though, those things are all commodities that are treated like they’re as inexhaustable as shelf space at Wal-Mart. Problem is, they’re not inexhaustable. Only now are we starting to get that. :-(
I do support using market forces to curb greenhouse gases— [it makes the Left happy; it makes the Right happy] —but only on the condition that market-based programs are closely aligned with emission targets. If we can be reasonably assured that a pay-to-pollute policy will get us to the desired target on time, then I’m for it. But if that approach doesn’t seem to be working, then we need to scrap it and just start shutting down the polluters. Because we’re running out of time.
HMC Rich: Your general position makes sense to me. It’s not that important for us to agree on the degree to which global warming is a man-made problem. What’s important is that we acknowledge that it exists and that we avoid panicking. Only then can we get together and figure out a way to keep this place cool.July 19, 2010 at 7:23 pm #699400
did you get that HMCRich does not acknowledge that it exists.. only that it might?
as for that panic you mention… this is not a Seattle project funding moment here… if we don’t do something soon there won’t be much we can do except move into huge habitats…
nature as we know it is at risk.
it’s that simple.
and that urgent.
we don’t need to panic
but we do need to do something now.July 19, 2010 at 7:25 pm #699401
Geez guys.. you got me distracted here..
i do not believe market forces are the answer here.. nor is THAT a progressive idea.
i wish those calling themselves progressive would educate themselves about their label.July 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm #699402
DP, I agree that any market-based solution, whether carbon tax or cap & trade, needs to be aligned with emission targets–which we may need to adjust as we learn more, and we need to be able to adjust the method we choose accordingly. This leaves open another contentious issue, that of how agile we can make this tool.
I think one problem with the way we’re currently treating these resources is that we’re NOT pricing them–at least, not very precisely. We’re giving them away. Putting a price on them will help people value them, and help make it clear that they are, as you say, finite.
HMCRich: Re: East Anglia–have you read the report?
If you don’t want to read the whole report, I suggest, at a minimum, that you read the executive summary, pages 10-14.July 19, 2010 at 7:59 pm #699403
Aw, you guys are never gonna get HMC Rich to concede every point on this, don’t you know that?
I suspect it will always be a matter of personal pride for him to dispute at least one of our articles of faith. (Plus, I think he’s just baiting us anyway, and I should know, having swallowed a hook or two of his.)
For me, the fact that HMC Rich agrees to get going and do something is enough. Clearly, he cares about the environment, and that’s all it should take to get into our “club.”
And yeah, Julie, you’re right. We’ve been giving this stuff away for too long. And yeah, it’s gonna be tough figuring out where to draw the line now. That’s why we’ve got to be more unified about it.July 19, 2010 at 8:20 pm #699404
I think it’s great that Bob and Jim are both running, as they both seem to be great environmentalists.
The conversation isn’t about whether or not we need to do something about emmisions. It’s about how we get to zero emissions most effectively.
I’d say three or four candidates should be running with this same message.
Let’s debate the How.July 21, 2010 at 6:52 am #699405
DP, It is like the big bang theory versus the brane theory. When different theory’s are introduced, usually they are not embraced immediately. To be honest, they have to try and refute everything I say because if I am even partially correct it crashes the utopian ideology they are chasing.
The world used to be flat. Now it is round. Even Republicans believe mostly the world is round. Even some Christians believe in science. ;-)
Science is fun. But if information is mishandled to achieve funding, is it science or lobbying? If the known variables are not taken into account, is it true science? I read the findings and not all was peaches and cream.
All I am saying is that there are ways to be more certain and considering all of the research out there we should be able to get good data to make good conclusions.
Let me put it another way. If I told you that a conservative group of scientists stated there was evidence of Global Cooling, but they were unwilling to share their research for peer review, would you not be a bit skeptical? If you found emails about a climatic trick, would you accept it? I, like you, just want the truth.
Remember, conservation has not been promoted for too many years. This research is important but knee-jerk rules and regulations can hinder more than necessary.
Julie, what is the end game? What is it you and the candidates want?
Using science, this earth has been hotter and colder. Man did not have a hand in the earlier climate issues. What caused those changes? Volcanos, Sun Spots?
We only have this earth. We want it healthy. How many candidates do you know that are for polluting? Not many.July 21, 2010 at 2:53 pm #699406
i want my grandchildren and greatgrandchildren to have a reason to visit our national parks…July 21, 2010 at 5:31 pm #699407
Oh, my dear HMCRich–are you saying there’s not been peer review of the evidence for global warming?
Let’s see–perhaps you’re right. Perhaps we should stay on the tracks with the freight train bearing down on us, and make truly sure it’s not going to suddenly disappear, before we take any hasty action. Then, when it hits us, we’ll be very sure we were correct.
We have already taken so long to be quite “sure”, that it is now pretty generally accepted by people who believe in peer-reviewed science rather than wishful thinking that complete avoidance of climate change is now impossible; we will need to work on adaptive capacity everywhere. It will be very expensive, and millions of people and other organisms will die, who could have lived had people who doubted, because it was convenient for them to do so, listened to the peer-reviewed science rather than those who serve their own short-term interests by manufacturing doubt.
What do I want? I want to save the remaining millions of lives, dollars, and ecosystems we can still save.July 21, 2010 at 7:50 pm #699408July 28, 2010 at 6:40 pm #699409
I am impressed by the quality of these posts. This is the kind of discussion I hoped to encourage.
Those who prefer a cap may like the CLEAR bill cosponsored by Senators Cantwell and Collins. (http://cantwell.senate.gov/issues/Cantwell%20Report.pdf) Their Cap and Dividend bill auctions permits. 75% of the revenue is distributed to the public. I see it as a good compromise. It provides price brackets. The dividend and price brackets make it close enough to the carbon tax I support that I would gladly vote for it. My only concern is that the price brackets ramp up too slowly. That can be fixed later if necessary.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.