Clean Energy and Security Act: If Everyone's Unhappy, It Must Be a Good Compromise
by Elizabeth Denlinger Reaves 06-30-2009 | 5:57pm
I rode my bike to work today. Despite the summer heat, it is not a bad trip
Get E-Mail Updates
Related Stories
Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!
Godspolitics is still under Beliefnet. It's not Disqus that makes the decisions.
And you remember incorrectly. He was banned because he allegedly misconstrued an argument presented by an original poster. By pure coincidence, he happens to be a Republican. Funny how that works.
"I never said--or insinuated--that you lied, Kevin."
Yeah, you did.
"You sincerely believe you were blocked from posting here. "
A belief I base on the fact that, when I try to post as Kevin47, I get a message that says "you have been banned", and my message does not appear. Which again, I'm happy to demonstrate to you.
I did ask Disqus the reason. They don't know, and they referred me to Sojo, but without providing any contact information.
Wolverine was banned before God's Politics moved here to the Disqus format, when it was still being hosted by Beliefnet. If my memory serves me right, the reason was because he had written some things that could have been construed as insulting to another poster here. And it was his third "offense." Many of us, myself included, protested his banning, feeling that it was unjust.
But again, that all happened under Beliefnet, not here with Disqus. Since nobody to my knowledge has posted here under Disqus as Wolverine, we can't really say he was banned here.
I never said--or insinuated--that you lied, Kevin. I only said I wasn't convinced. They are not the same thing. You sincerely believe you were blocked from posting here. By repeating that assertion, you are not lying.
But having said that, did you ask Disqus for the reason(s) why you were blocked? If so, did they answer you? What reason(s) did they give?
They say the love of money is the root of all evil. People perceive that their economic security will be threatened by cap and trade. This leads to the global warming denials.
Frankly, those who deny global warming are doing great evil. This is a threat that will disproportionately hurt the poor of the world. The evidence is good enough for me to at least invoke the precautionary principle.
Additionally, we have ample time to rearrange our economy such that the effects aren't disproportionate. Without putting an explicit price on carbon, no one will do squat. With an explicit price on carbon, people will act. And the US has the resourcefulness and technical skills needed to make things happen. I'm not saying the new green economy is some sort of panacea that will replace wholesale the old manufacturing economy overnight - but we have the resources to adapt. We do at least need a price signal to start the adaptation process, so I pray the Senate passes the bill.
I understand. As someone who's been on board with the environmental movement since the early 70s, I share these concerns.
What virtually all of them have in common is that any effective solution is going to have to be international in scope. Nobody owns the oceans, and nobody owns the sky, so no one country can control the pollution of either. It will take coordinated, top-down efforts by all of the major industrial countries working together, and in turn setting an example for those that are now developing.
For some reason, this prospect scares a lot of people who seem to think that it will mean a loss of personal freedom. It is this position for which I have zero sympathy. The right to pollute is not God-given. Nobody - nobody - has a right to own a car that gets 8 miles to the gallon just because they like feeling powerful. This belief is an idolatry that places personal freedom over respect for God's creation, and there is no credible Christian theology that supports it.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
"This doesn't necessarily prove that the human activity causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, but I'm not aware of any other plausible *human* cause that has been suggested. Are you?"
There are all sorts of human actions that cause loads of pollution. Factory emissions spreading not only carbon, but soot and all sorts of noxious gases. Then there is acid rain. I don't hear or read too much about acid rain any longer.
Then there are all of the cars and buses and diesel vehicles, emitting exhaust fumes that cause overloads of choking ozone. Plus again, factory emissions.
People and institutions throwing all sorts of garbage in our seas. The overgrowth of algae that is choking many of our fish and other species. Farm emissions running down our rivers into our bays. Mercury getting into swordfish and other fish species.
I don't know if any of this is causing -- or not causing global warming/climate change. What I'm concerned about is all of these other issues are being ignored by what seems almost like a panic reaction to the climate issue.
Some say media reform should be the number one priority, and I'm one of those who think this.
Our media lies to us, shakes our public servants down for campaign air time and sets them up to be legally bribed by corporate big money interests.
After we elect our public servants they're owned by big money and we can't get any positive legislation passed, without enormous giveaways to big money, making the legislation ineffective for its intended purpose.
We need to take the money out of our elective process.
Media is gouging our democracy, preventing it from functioning effectively.
This is a bipartisan issue, in that big money owns both sides of the aisle.
Media reform can be accomplished through the FCC licensing process.
Only then can we expect to see positive legislation enacted without compromise or capitulation to big money interests at the expense of our Nation's best interests.
Some say climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Last week, NPR's Talk of The Nation did a segment on shootings in inner cities. I was surprised by the number of people calling in from different parts of the country to tell stories about shootings in their neighborhoods. Eight-year old girls, teenagers, the elderly, the list goes on. I would think that Christians might want to focus a little more on the here and now and figure out ways to stop these bloodbaths; otherwise, it really isn't going to matter what happens a hundred years hence.
BTW: Malaria used to be prevalent throughout the country. It was largely eradicated -- albeit through drastic means and is now not an issue at the forefront of the US. It has always been an issue in much of the developing world. A NG article last year notes that perhaps one-half of all deaths throughout human history have been due to malaria or similar insect-borne pathogens.
Some say media reform should be the number one priority, and I'm one of those who think this.
Our media lies to us, shakes our public servants down for campaign air time and sets them up to be legally bribed by corporate big money interests.
After we elect our public servants they're owned by big money and we can't get any positive legislation passed, without enormous giveaways to big money, making the legislation ineffective for its intended purpose.
We need to take the money out of our elective process.
Media is gouging our democracy, preventing it from functioning effectively.
This is a bipartisan issue, in that big money owns both sides of the aisle.
Media reform can be accomplished through the FCC licensing process.
Only then can we expect to see positive legislation enacted without compromise or capitulation to big money interests at the expense of our Nation's best interests.
Actually, there was one group of people in Washington who wasn't upset by the bill - the Democrat leadership. They can now go back and tell the voters "We did something on climate change! The bill may not reduce pollution levels that much at all and it may subsidize fossil fuels and hurt jobs growth, but hey...we passed something with the name 'Clean Energy' in the title! We care!"
Sorry, I'll take off my cynical hat now and join the party. Actually, Elizabeth and the Democrat leadership understand something very important about government. When she writes "Its provisions touch almost every sector of the nation's economy" and it gives "us a vehicle to build upon and modify moving forward" she notes the true import of the bill. Once government gets into regulating something its almost impossible to go back. Government's reach can only be expanded, and as she notes, this is just the start.
If we wanted to truly reduce carbon emissions, something I'm in favor of, we could have simply capped the amount allowable to be released in a simple cap and trade system or instituted a carbon tax, but that could have been done in about a dozen pages.
Some say climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Last week, NPR's Talk of The Nation did a segment on shootings in inner cities. I was surprised by the number of people calling in from different parts of the country to tell stories about shootings in their neighborhoods. Eight-year old girls, teenagers, the elderly, the list goes on. I would think that Christians might want to focus a little more on the here and now and figure out ways to stop these bloodbaths; otherwise, it really isn't going to matter what happens a hundred years hence.
BTW: Malaria used to be prevalent throughout the country. It was largely eradicated -- albeit through drastic means and is now not an issue at the forefront of the US. It has always been an issue in much of the developing world. A NG article last year notes that perhaps one-half of all deaths throughout human history have been due to malaria or similar insect-borne pathogens.
Have to agree with Lumens on this one. The reason that everyone is unhappy with this bill is it's crap. If you accept the theory behind global warming, it won't get the job done and doesn't even come close. If you don't accept the theory of global warming then this is nothing more than a gratuitous act of economic self-mutilation. If you're an open minded skeptic (like me) then this bill is either one or the other or maybe both.
Yippee.
LV
Thanks. Good article. One of the key points in the article is:
"Wow, this energy thing isn't just about global warming!"
While China develops all sorts of energy efficiency and clean energy: in the U.S. we go whole-hog on "global warming" and at the same time, subsidize pollution-causing companies like GM.
Our environmental policies have to be a lot more diversified that simply dealing with carbon emissions. Cutting carbon emissions while ignoring other very important environmental issues -- and the Chinese will most certainly clean our clock.
Thank you, lumens, for at least challenging the bill rather than the existence of global warming. Xfree, the answer to your question is that it shows the world that the US isn't entirely lacking in the willpower to do anything about the greatest challenge to our continued existence that the human race has ever faced. I consider that a significant moral victory.
Before another round of global warming denial gets started, I have a challenge for all those who don't believe the earth is heating up. What would it take to convince you? If years of record high temperatures, the dramatic decline of glaciers around the world, startling breakups of the polar ice caps and multiple apocalyptic weather disasters, combined with the practically unanimous agreement among all qualified scientific experts (scientists in other fields than climatology don't count) that this is a civilization-threatening disaster in the making haven't done the trick, what will?
I'm not interested in reading more denials of global warming; I've already said everything I have to say on the subject in the eco-prophet thread earlier this month. If somebody can answer my question, though, maybe we can have a conversation.
In the meantime, be it noted that not everybody is unhappy about this bill. As disappointed as I am in its phenomenal wimpiness, I thank the Lord with my whole heart that we were at least able to pass something. If even this had not passed, I would be in despair. As it is, I'm guardedly optimistic.
Now will somebody please answer my question?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05fri...
Take a look at this column by Thomas Friedman in today's New York Times.
"Anothernonymous,
nice to see you on here."
:-)
"I'm betting that it would take confirmation of global warming on a "Fox Nation" promo to convince some folks here that global warming isn't a conspiracy."
I'd say there's about a snowflake's chance in AD 2100 of that happening.
Thanks, Anothernonymous, for your comments. I too am waiting to hear what kinds of evidence would convince the deniers.
All I want is a chance that my grandchildren (and since I married off a son earlier this month, that's become a real possibility) to have a habitable planet to live on. I don't think that's too much to ask.
The forces (climate change, energy and resource depletion) that are threatening that livability for our posterity need to be addressed. And so for those who think the ACESA is a bad bill, I would like to extend Anothernonymous' challenge: if you don't like this bill, what do you propose that we should do to address these critical issues?
I can only dream of being able to buy electricity from a company that uses only wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources -- that was also affordable.
However, due to the various manipulations of local politicians, we basically have a monopoly and are forced to buy electricity from one company. This company has taken advantage of its monopoly and has jacked the rates way, way high.
"but we do have a choice about what kind of car we drive. As soon as I can get an electric car and charge it with renewable energy,"
It's not quite that simple. No one is making completely electric cars right now. So that isn't a choice. Also, coal-firing electric plants have to make the electricity that goes into recharging and running an electric car. And even when electric cars become available, most low/moderate income people won't be able to afford it. Of course low/moderate income people can't afford a car that gets 8 miles per gallon.
As for Humvees and other cars that get 8 miles per gallon -- the free market is fixing this problem. Humvees and gas-guzzling cars/trucks have been sitting on dealers' parking lots while people have been choosing to buy more energy-efficient cars. I read somewhere that the Humvee brand has been sold to China because not enough people in the U.S. are interested in a Humvee. Of course if the U.S. government keeps subsidizing these automakers who make these gas-guzzling cars, that may very well ruin the change to allow the market to fix this problem.
As I said (and I think you would agree): What Michael Moore said was to let GM, Chrysler, and the others go bankrupt and stop subsidizing them. And hire the out-of-work autoworkers to build new trains and buses.
I'm afraid you're right. I just want to give them the chance. Actually, the analogy is more to what happened before the holocaust. If people had had the foresight to prevent Hitler from coming to power, or to prevent him from consolidating it for nearly a decade, the holocaust might have been prevented. If we don't do something about global warming soon, the holocaust is going to look like small potatoes a century from now.
And we used to have good public transport in the US too, but the oil companies conspired to get rid of it. The LA freeways are built on what used to be streetcar routes. So our dependence on our cars isn't our fault, but we do have a choice about what kind of car we drive. As soon as I can get an electric car and charge it with renewable energy, I will do so. In the meantime, I will do everything possible to speed that day's coming. Michael Moore's plan sounds good to me.
"Xfree, the answer to your question is that it shows the world that the US isn't entirely lacking in the willpower to do anything about the greatest challenge to our continued existence that the human race has ever faced."
This is an extremely expensive way to do this. What's the ROI on this bill? What is my money going to actually achieve, here?
And if they drive a Prius or Yaris, the same happens: fouling and polluting the air with auto emissions. So should everyone ride a bike and dump their cars? I'd love to ride a bike but I am mobility-impaired.
We just had a major crash on the Washington Metro system. Nine people died and eighty people were injured because the Metro doesn't get the subsidies that the car and oil companies get. So the Metro wasn't able to do the upkeep that it needed to do.
More Michael Moore. I heard him on an interview. His solution for GM and other auto companies demanding a bail-out: let them go bankrupt and hire the auto workers to build trains and buses for public transit. I agreed with Moore on that plan.
I have visited Japan twice and got completely spoiled by their wonderful train system where a person can travel all over the country without having a car. The trains are all run by private companies and I'm not sure of the arrangement with the government. All I know is that the trains run wonderfully.
"For some reason, this prospect scares a lot of people who seem to think that it will mean a loss of personal freedom. It is this position for which I have zero sympathy. The right to pollute is not God-given."
Most libertarians have a very important caveat about pollution and liberty. One's "right" to pollute ends where it affects someone else. If someone wants to smoke in their house and destroy their lungs -- that's fine with me. However, if they walk on the street and blow their noxious smoke in my direction, that is NOT fine.
Same with companies. They do NOT have the right to pour noxious fumes into the atmosphere or pour noxious sediments into rivers or into ther people's drinking water.
" Nobody - nobody - has a right to own a car that gets 8 miles to the gallon just because they like feeling powerful."
Hey, if someone want to spend their own money for gas, that's their choice. As long as I don't have to subsidize their spending or the gas (or oil) that they might need. However, if my tax dollars go for subsidizing oil companies so that people can speed away in cars that get 8 miles per gallon; or if my tax dollars go for sending our soldiers overseas in a very expensive and life-taking foreign military operation in order to protect oil interests: Then this is NOT their right; they are encroaching on my rights.
What it's going to achieve, Kevin, is a start on dealing with the greatest moral challenge of our time, and probably in all of human history. With stakes that high, we can't afford to do nothing. All you have to do is look at the Congressional debate to see that nothing is exactly what most of the opponents of this bill propose doing.
Godspolitics is still under Beliefnet. It's not Disqus that makes the decisions.
And you remember incorrectly. He was banned because he allegedly misconstrued an argument presented by an original poster. By pure coincidence, he happens to be a Republican. Funny how that works.
"I never said--or insinuated--that you lied, Kevin."
Yeah, you did.
"You sincerely believe you were blocked from posting here. "
A belief I base on the fact that, when I try to post as Kevin47, I get a message that says "you have been banned", and my message does not appear. Which again, I'm happy to demonstrate to you.
I did ask Disqus the reason. They don't know, and they referred me to Sojo, but without providing any contact information.
Wolverine was banned before God's Politics moved here to the Disqus format, when it was still being hosted by Beliefnet. If my memory serves me right, the reason was because he had written some things that could have been construed as insulting to another poster here. And it was his third "offense." Many of us, myself included, protested his banning, feeling that it was unjust.
But again, that all happened under Beliefnet, not here with Disqus. Since nobody to my knowledge has posted here under Disqus as Wolverine, we can't really say he was banned here.
I never said--or insinuated--that you lied, Kevin. I only said I wasn't convinced. They are not the same thing. You sincerely believe you were blocked from posting here. By repeating that assertion, you are not lying.
But having said that, did you ask Disqus for the reason(s) why you were blocked? If so, did they answer you? What reason(s) did they give?
Reality check here for those who are inside the Beltway. The following entry appeared on the website for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.. It indicates that Waxman-Makey's provisions were "quietly hammered out during the Bush administration," That sounds just like the multi-billion-dollar bailouts of the banks that were "too big to fail," another exercise in loving our more fortunate neighbors. While the current president vowed to reregulate the banks more strictly after the bailouts, that, too, went by the wayside, just several weeks later When will the promises stop and people inside the Beltway "get it?"
See article below for a reality check:
Source: Mother Jones, June 22, 2009
As the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill nears a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, environmental groups are "teetering at the edge of existential crisis," writes Josh Harkinson. "Almost all environmental groups agree that Waxman-Markey is far from ideal," but some are supporting it, while others "believe the bill is so deeply flawed it might actually make matters worse." Critics say the bill "lines the pockets of polluters with little to show for it. The most it would cut carbon emissions by 2020 is 17 percent below 1990 levels, nowhere near the 25 to 40 percent reduction sought by scientists and international climate negotiators." Other concerns are that the bill may decrease clean energy production, as it would overrule higher renewable mandates in states like California; it would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants; and it would auction just 15 percent of emissions permits, giving a whopping 50 percent "to the fossil fuel industry for free." Some environmentalists blame the United States Climate Action Partnership, "a coalition of industry and moderate environmental groups," for sticking with a "quietly hammered out" agreement developed during the Bush administration. Others criticize President Obama, "who spoke out in favor of auctioning off pollution permits during his campaign ... but is now thought likely to sign whatever bill crosses his desk." Meanwhile, the industry front group Cooler Heads Coalition is planning efforts to oppose the bill, with "scientific skeptics and legislative critics," reports Greenwire.
lhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/war-over-waxman-markeyegislative critics,.
They say the love of money is the root of all evil. People perceive that their economic security will be threatened by cap and trade. This leads to the global warming denials.
Frankly, those who deny global warming are doing great evil. This is a threat that will disproportionately hurt the poor of the world. The evidence is good enough for me to at least invoke the precautionary principle.
Additionally, we have ample time to rearrange our economy such that the effects aren't disproportionate. Without putting an explicit price on carbon, no one will do squat. With an explicit price on carbon, people will act. And the US has the resourcefulness and technical skills needed to make things happen. I'm not saying the new green economy is some sort of panacea that will replace wholesale the old manufacturing economy overnight - but we have the resources to adapt. We do at least need a price signal to start the adaptation process, so I pray the Senate passes the bill.
I understand. As someone who's been on board with the environmental movement since the early 70s, I share these concerns.
What virtually all of them have in common is that any effective solution is going to have to be international in scope. Nobody owns the oceans, and nobody owns the sky, so no one country can control the pollution of either. It will take coordinated, top-down efforts by all of the major industrial countries working together, and in turn setting an example for those that are now developing.
For some reason, this prospect scares a lot of people who seem to think that it will mean a loss of personal freedom. It is this position for which I have zero sympathy. The right to pollute is not God-given. Nobody - nobody - has a right to own a car that gets 8 miles to the gallon just because they like feeling powerful. This belief is an idolatry that places personal freedom over respect for God's creation, and there is no credible Christian theology that supports it.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
"This doesn't necessarily prove that the human activity causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, but I'm not aware of any other plausible *human* cause that has been suggested. Are you?"
There are all sorts of human actions that cause loads of pollution. Factory emissions spreading not only carbon, but soot and all sorts of noxious gases. Then there is acid rain. I don't hear or read too much about acid rain any longer.
Then there are all of the cars and buses and diesel vehicles, emitting exhaust fumes that cause overloads of choking ozone. Plus again, factory emissions.
People and institutions throwing all sorts of garbage in our seas. The overgrowth of algae that is choking many of our fish and other species. Farm emissions running down our rivers into our bays. Mercury getting into swordfish and other fish species.
I don't know if any of this is causing -- or not causing global warming/climate change. What I'm concerned about is all of these other issues are being ignored by what seems almost like a panic reaction to the climate issue.
This is what I posted on the last commentary on this bill:
In fact, no one had read the bill before it passed. Apparently, the manager's amendment (last minute changes to the bill made by the Committee Chairmen) that was adopted in the Rules Committee the night before the bill came to the floor made numerous changes to the bill but had not actually been incorporated into the bill by the time it came to the floor. While many of the changes were probably inconsequential we don't know and neither did the Congressmen who voted on the bill.
Now we're learning about various vote buying provisions that were inserted at the last minute to get wavering Democrats to support the bill. How much more of this will come to light over the next week or so? I realize this is how politics has been done for a long time, but I thought there was supposed to be change. This bills stinks and the process stinks.
Actually, there was one group of people in Washington who wasn't upset by the bill - the Democrat leadership. They can now go back and tell the voters "We did something on climate change! The bill may not reduce pollution levels that much at all and it may subsidize fossil fuels and hurt jobs growth, but hey...we passed something with the name 'Clean Energy' in the title! We care!"
Sorry, I'll take off my cynical hat now and join the party. Actually, Elizabeth and the Democrat leadership understand something very important about government. When she writes "Its provisions touch almost every sector of the nation's economy" and it gives "us a vehicle to build upon and modify moving forward" she notes the true import of the bill. Once government gets into regulating something its almost impossible to go back. Government's reach can only be expanded, and as she notes, this is just the start.
If we wanted to truly reduce carbon emissions, something I'm in favor of, we could have simply capped the amount allowable to be released in a simple cap and trade system or instituted a carbon tax, but that could have been done in about a dozen pages.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Actually, there was one group of people in Washington who wasn't upset by the bill - the Democrat leadership. They can now go back and tell the voters "We did something on climate change! The bill may not reduce pollution levels that much at all and it may subsidize fossil fuels and hurt jobs growth, but hey...we passed something with the name 'Clean Energy' in the title! We care!"
Sorry, I'll take off my cynical hat now and join the party. Actually, Elizabeth and the Democrat leadership understand something very important about government. When she writes "Its provisions touch almost every sector of the nation's economy" and it gives "us a vehicle to build upon and modify moving forward" she notes the true import of the bill. Once government gets into regulating something its almost impossible to go back. Government's reach can only be expanded, and as she notes, this is just the start.
If we wanted to truly reduce carbon emissions, something I'm in favor of, we could have simply capped the amount allowable to be released in a simple cap and trade system or instituted a carbon tax, but that could have been done in about a dozen pages.
Actually, there was one group of people in Washington who wasn't upset by the bill - the Democrat leadership. They can now go back and tell the voters "We did something on climate change! The bill may not reduce pollution levels that much at all and it may subsidize fossil fuels and hurt jobs growth, but hey...we passed something with the name 'Clean Energy' in the title! We care!"
Sorry, I'll take off my cynical hat now and join the party. Actually, Elizabeth and the Democrat leadership understand something very important about government. When she writes "Its provisions touch almost every sector of the nation's economy" and it gives "us a vehicle to build upon and modify moving forward" she notes the true import of the bill. Once government gets into regulating something its almost impossible to go back. Government's reach can only be expanded, and as she notes, this is just the start.
If we wanted to truly reduce carbon emissions, something I'm in favor of, we could have simply capped the amount allowable to be released in a simple cap and trade system or instituted a carbon tax, but that could have been done in about a dozen pages.
Have to agree with Lumens on this one. The reason that everyone is unhappy with this bill is it's crap. If you accept the theory behind global warming, it won't get the job done and doesn't even come close. If you don't accept the theory of global warming then this is nothing more than a gratuitous act of economic self-mutilation. If you're an open minded skeptic (like me) then this bill is either one or the other or maybe both.
Yippee.
LV
Have to agree with Lumens on this one. The reason that everyone is unhappy with this bill is it's crap. If you accept the theory behind global warming, it won't get the job done and doesn't even come close. If you don't accept the theory of global warming then this is nothing more than a gratuitous act of economic self-mutilation. If you're an open minded skeptic (like me) then this bill is either one or the other or maybe both.
Yippee.
LV
Thank you, lumens, for at least challenging the bill rather than the existence of global warming. Xfree, the answer to your question is that it shows the world that the US isn't entirely lacking in the willpower to do anything about the greatest challenge to our continued existence that the human race has ever faced. I consider that a significant moral victory.
Before another round of global warming denial gets started, I have a challenge for all those who don't believe the earth is heating up. What would it take to convince you? If years of record high temperatures, the dramatic decline of glaciers around the world, startling breakups of the polar ice caps and multiple apocalyptic weather disasters, combined with the practically unanimous agreement among all qualified scientific experts (scientists in other fields than climatology don't count) that this is a civilization-threatening disaster in the making haven't done the trick, what will?
I'm not interested in reading more denials of global warming; I've already said everything I have to say on the subject in the eco-prophet thread earlier this month. If somebody can answer my question, though, maybe we can have a conversation.
In the meantime, be it noted that not everybody is unhappy about this bill. As disappointed as I am in its phenomenal wimpiness, I thank the Lord with my whole heart that we were at least able to pass something. If even this had not passed, I would be in despair. As it is, I'm guardedly optimistic.
Now will somebody please answer my question?
Thank you, lumens, for at least challenging the bill rather than the existence of global warming. Xfree, the answer to your question is that it shows the world that the US isn't entirely lacking in the willpower to do anything about the greatest challenge to our continued existence that the human race has ever faced. I consider that a significant moral victory.
Before another round of global warming denial gets started, I have a challenge for all those who don't believe the earth is heating up. What would it take to convince you? If years of record high temperatures, the dramatic decline of glaciers around the world, startling breakups of the polar ice caps and multiple apocalyptic weather disasters, combined with the practically unanimous agreement among all qualified scientific experts (scientists in other fields than climatology don't count) that this is a civilization-threatening disaster in the making haven't done the trick, what will?
I'm not interested in reading more denials of global warming; I've already said everything I have to say on the subject in the eco-prophet thread earlier this month. If somebody can answer my question, though, maybe we can have a conversation.
In the meantime, be it noted that not everybody is unhappy about this bill. As disappointed as I am in its phenomenal wimpiness, I thank the Lord with my whole heart that we were at least able to pass something. If even this had not passed, I would be in despair. As it is, I'm guardedly optimistic.
Now will somebody please answer my question?
"Anothernonymous,
nice to see you on here."
:-)
"I'm betting that it would take confirmation of global warming on a "Fox Nation" promo to convince some folks here that global warming isn't a conspiracy."
I'd say there's about a snowflake's chance in AD 2100 of that happening.
"Anothernonymous,
nice to see you on here."
:-)
"I'm betting that it would take confirmation of global warming on a "Fox Nation" promo to convince some folks here that global warming isn't a conspiracy."
I'd say there's about a snowflake's chance in AD 2100 of that happening.
Thanks, Anothernonymous, for your comments. I too am waiting to hear what kinds of evidence would convince the deniers.
All I want is a chance that my grandchildren (and since I married off a son earlier this month, that's become a real possibility) to have a habitable planet to live on. I don't think that's too much to ask.
The forces (climate change, energy and resource depletion) that are threatening that livability for our posterity need to be addressed. And so for those who think the ACESA is a bad bill, I would like to extend Anothernonymous' challenge: if you don't like this bill, what do you propose that we should do to address these critical issues?
Thanks, Anothernonymous, for your comments. I too am waiting to hear what kinds of evidence would convince the deniers.
All I want is a chance that my grandchildren (and since I married off a son earlier this month, that's become a real possibility) to have a habitable planet to live on. I don't think that's too much to ask.
The forces (climate change, energy and resource depletion) that are threatening that livability for our posterity need to be addressed. And so for those who think the ACESA is a bad bill, I would like to extend Anothernonymous' challenge: if you don't like this bill, what do you propose that we should do to address these critical issues?
I'm afraid you're right. I just want to give them the chance. Actually, the analogy is more to what happened before the holocaust. If people had had the foresight to prevent Hitler from coming to power, or to prevent him from consolidating it for nearly a decade, the holocaust might have been prevented. If we don't do something about global warming soon, the holocaust is going to look like small potatoes a century from now.
I'm afraid you're right. I just want to give them the chance. Actually, the analogy is more to what happened before the holocaust. If people had had the foresight to prevent Hitler from coming to power, or to prevent him from consolidating it for nearly a decade, the holocaust might have been prevented. If we don't do something about global warming soon, the holocaust is going to look like small potatoes a century from now.
"Xfree, the answer to your question is that it shows the world that the US isn't entirely lacking in the willpower to do anything about the greatest challenge to our continued existence that the human race has ever faced."
This is an extremely expensive way to do this. What's the ROI on this bill? What is my money going to actually achieve, here?
"Xfree, the answer to your question is that it shows the world that the US isn't entirely lacking in the willpower to do anything about the greatest challenge to our continued existence that the human race has ever faced."
This is an extremely expensive way to do this. What's the ROI on this bill? What is my money going to actually achieve, here?
What it's going to achieve, Kevin, is a start on dealing with the greatest moral challenge of our time, and probably in all of human history. With stakes that high, we can't afford to do nothing. All you have to do is look at the Congressional debate to see that nothing is exactly what most of the opponents of this bill propose doing.
What it's going to achieve, Kevin, is a start on dealing with the greatest moral challenge of our time, and probably in all of human history. With stakes that high, we can't afford to do nothing. All you have to do is look at the Congressional debate to see that nothing is exactly what most of the opponents of this bill propose doing.
Reality check here for those who are inside the Beltway. The following entry appeared on the website for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.. It indicates that Waxman-Makey's provisions were "quietly hammered out during the Bush administration," That sounds just like the multi-billion-dollar bailouts of the banks that were "too big to fail," another exercise in loving our more fortunate neighbors. While the current president vowed to reregulate the banks more strictly after the bailouts, that, too, went by the wayside, just several weeks later When will the promises stop and people inside the Beltway "get it?"
See article below for a reality check:
Source: Mother Jones, June 22, 2009
As the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill nears a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, environmental groups are "teetering at the edge of existential crisis," writes Josh Harkinson. "Almost all environmental groups agree that Waxman-Markey is far from ideal," but some are supporting it, while others "believe the bill is so deeply flawed it might actually make matters worse." Critics say the bill "lines the pockets of polluters with little to show for it. The most it would cut carbon emissions by 2020 is 17 percent below 1990 levels, nowhere near the 25 to 40 percent reduction sought by scientists and international climate negotiators." Other concerns are that the bill may decrease clean energy production, as it would overrule higher renewable mandates in states like California; it would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants; and it would auction just 15 percent of emissions permits, giving a whopping 50 percent "to the fossil fuel industry for free." Some environmentalists blame the United States Climate Action Partnership, "a coalition of industry and moderate environmental groups," for sticking with a "quietly hammered out" agreement developed during the Bush administration. Others criticize President Obama, "who spoke out in favor of auctioning off pollution permits during his campaign ... but is now thought likely to sign whatever bill crosses his desk." Meanwhile, the industry front group Cooler Heads Coalition is planning efforts to oppose the bill, with "scientific skeptics and legislative critics," reports Greenwire.
lhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/war-over-waxman-markeyegislative critics,.
Reality check here for those who are inside the Beltway. The following entry appeared on the website for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.. It indicates that Waxman-Makey's provisions were "quietly hammered out during the Bush administration," That sounds just like the multi-billion-dollar bailouts of the banks that were "too big to fail," another exercise in loving our more fortunate neighbors. While the current president vowed to reregulate the banks more strictly after the bailouts, that, too, went by the wayside, just several weeks later When will the promises stop and people inside the Beltway "get it?"
See article below for a reality check:
Source: Mother Jones, June 22, 2009
As the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill nears a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, environmental groups are "teetering at the edge of existential crisis," writes Josh Harkinson. "Almost all environmental groups agree that Waxman-Markey is far from ideal," but some are supporting it, while others "believe the bill is so deeply flawed it might actually make matters worse." Critics say the bill "lines the pockets of polluters with little to show for it. The most it would cut carbon emissions by 2020 is 17 percent below 1990 levels, nowhere near the 25 to 40 percent reduction sought by scientists and international climate negotiators." Other concerns are that the bill may decrease clean energy production, as it would overrule higher renewable mandates in states like California; it would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants; and it would auction just 15 percent of emissions permits, giving a whopping 50 percent "to the fossil fuel industry for free." Some environmentalists blame the United States Climate Action Partnership, "a coalition of industry and moderate environmental groups," for sticking with a "quietly hammered out" agreement developed during the Bush administration. Others criticize President Obama, "who spoke out in favor of auctioning off pollution permits during his campaign ... but is now thought likely to sign whatever bill crosses his desk." Meanwhile, the industry front group Cooler Heads Coalition is planning efforts to oppose the bill, with "scientific skeptics and legislative critics," reports Greenwire.
lhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/war-over-waxman-markeyegislative critics,.
This is what I posted on the last commentary on this bill:
In fact, no one had read the bill before it passed. Apparently, the manager's amendment (last minute changes to the bill made by the Committee Chairmen) that was adopted in the Rules Committee the night before the bill came to the floor made numerous changes to the bill but had not actually been incorporated into the bill by the time it came to the floor. While many of the changes were probably inconsequential we don't know and neither did the Congressmen who voted on the bill.
Now we're learning about various vote buying provisions that were inserted at the last minute to get wavering Democrats to support the bill. How much more of this will come to light over the next week or so? I realize this is how politics has been done for a long time, but I thought there was supposed to be change. This bills stinks and the process stinks.
This is what I posted on the last commentary on this bill:
In fact, no one had read the bill before it passed. Apparently, the manager's amendment (last minute changes to the bill made by the Committee Chairmen) that was adopted in the Rules Committee the night before the bill came to the floor made numerous changes to the bill but had not actually been incorporated into the bill by the time it came to the floor. While many of the changes were probably inconsequential we don't know and neither did the Congressmen who voted on the bill.
Now we're learning about various vote buying provisions that were inserted at the last minute to get wavering Democrats to support the bill. How much more of this will come to light over the next week or so? I realize this is how politics has been done for a long time, but I thought there was supposed to be change. This bills stinks and the process stinks.
"If you remain in me and my words remain in you, you can ask whatever you wish and it will be given to you." John 15:7
Christians must be honest in their relationship with God. If one takes stewardship of God's creation seriously and wants to lead political action on climate change, or at least to lead others in an honest effort to reverse global warming, it is dishonest to say that some ineffective compromise is good. If even bloggers on this blog can detect a false note in one's affirmations, then certainly God is able to perceive it and whatever one wishes will not be granted in prayer..
"If you remain in me and my words remain in you, you can ask whatever you wish and it will be given to you." John 15:7
Christians must be honest in their relationship with God. If one takes stewardship of God's creation seriously and wants to lead political action on climate change, or at least to lead others in an honest effort to reverse global warming, it is dishonest to say that some ineffective compromise is good. If even bloggers on this blog can detect a false note in one's affirmations, then certainly God is able to perceive it and whatever one wishes will not be granted in prayer..
First of all, Bush didn't deny global warming. He pushed ethanol as a solution, which is another example of how doing something didn't accomplish anything.
Who does understand the problem? Scientists have decades determining that there is global warming. Not because they were looking to win over Republicans, but because science requires a high degree of diligence. Scientists don't want to create headlines, only to be proven wrong a few years down the road.
We have identified that there is a problem, but we do not know how to safely manage it. I have heard for decades about the need to do something immediately. It has given us a host of silly legislation, from banning DDT to arbitrary CAFE standards (not sure if they have always been called that).
Decades of environmental hysteria have done nothing to inhibit global warming. We have a unique opportunity, with a relatively environmentally conscious congress and a charismatic president, to really educate people on how to live sustainably. Let's do that instead of pawning off environmental woes created by industry on the American people.
First of all, Bush didn't deny global warming. He pushed ethanol as a solution, which is another example of how doing something didn't accomplish anything.
Who does understand the problem? Scientists have decades determining that there is global warming. Not because they were looking to win over Republicans, but because science requires a high degree of diligence. Scientists don't want to create headlines, only to be proven wrong a few years down the road.
We have identified that there is a problem, but we do not know how to safely manage it. I have heard for decades about the need to do something immediately. It has given us a host of silly legislation, from banning DDT to arbitrary CAFE standards (not sure if they have always been called that).
Decades of environmental hysteria have done nothing to inhibit global warming. We have a unique opportunity, with a relatively environmentally conscious congress and a charismatic president, to really educate people on how to live sustainably. Let's do that instead of pawning off environmental woes created by industry on the American people.
Bush did worse than deny global warming: he "studied" it to death, and then did *practically* nothing. I'm absolutely with you on the unique opportunity and the need to educate. I'm just really, really scared to think that there are people like Paul Broun in Congress. His statement that "the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community" should have been ridiculed, but instead it was cheered. The internet myth industry keeps churning out convenient and misleading "factoids" for those who are more interested in denial than in the truth. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to wait any longer before doing something. The right wing has pushed my patience past the breaking point on this issue.
Bush did worse than deny global warming: he "studied" it to death, and then did *practically* nothing. I'm absolutely with you on the unique opportunity and the need to educate. I'm just really, really scared to think that there are people like Paul Broun in Congress. His statement that "the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community" should have been ridiculed, but instead it was cheered. The internet myth industry keeps churning out convenient and misleading "factoids" for those who are more interested in denial than in the truth. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to wait any longer before doing something. The right wing has pushed my patience past the breaking point on this issue.
I agree with Anothernonymous. Studying it more would be like the proverbial rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Plenty of third-party and grassroots groups are out there trying to educate the populace. For example, ever hear of the Transition initiatives? http://transitionculture.org
I welcome skepticism, but I don't welcome the organized denial lobby that is well-funded by the industrial interests that are persistently trying to shed doubt about what is essentially settled science. As Justintime has asserted repeatedly on other threads on this topic, the politics (and skepticism about proposed solutions) should follow the science, not try to attack it.
But yes, it would be great if lobbyists weren't involved in crafting legislation. Any ideas how we might accomplish that reform?
I agree with Anothernonymous. Studying it more would be like the proverbial rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Plenty of third-party and grassroots groups are out there trying to educate the populace. For example, ever hear of the Transition initiatives? http://transitionculture.org
I welcome skepticism, but I don't welcome the organized denial lobby that is well-funded by the industrial interests that are persistently trying to shed doubt about what is essentially settled science. As Justintime has asserted repeatedly on other threads on this topic, the politics (and skepticism about proposed solutions) should follow the science, not try to attack it.
But yes, it would be great if lobbyists weren't involved in crafting legislation. Any ideas how we might accomplish that reform?
This bill is *practically* nothing. It is a paean to lobbyists. Ethanol was a symbolic first step. As you concede, it did nothing (other than waste our money and starve a few children here or there).
Look, if energy bills increase, I can afford it. I work from home. I'd be eating veggies from my garden if our spring hadn't been so damn cold and dry.
But this bill will force painful choices on the families who are hardest hit by this recession. It will mean lost jobs. It will mean debt for those living paycheck to paycheck. You might be really, really scared about Paul Broun, but not being able to pay the rent is scarier than any such abstraction, I assure you.
I don't know what to make of your unwillingness to wait any longer. Will this bill make you feel less impatient? When it fails in the Senate because Democrats don't want to risk a filibuster (and they won't, btw, Al Franken be damned), will your impatience turn to action, or will you be satisfied to blame it's failure on the whipping boy Republicans?
This bill is *practically* nothing. It is a paean to lobbyists. Ethanol was a symbolic first step. As you concede, it did nothing (other than waste our money and starve a few children here or there).
Look, if energy bills increase, I can afford it. I work from home. I'd be eating veggies from my garden if our spring hadn't been so damn cold and dry.
But this bill will force painful choices on the families who are hardest hit by this recession. It will mean lost jobs. It will mean debt for those living paycheck to paycheck. You might be really, really scared about Paul Broun, but not being able to pay the rent is scarier than any such abstraction, I assure you.
I don't know what to make of your unwillingness to wait any longer. Will this bill make you feel less impatient? When it fails in the Senate because Democrats don't want to risk a filibuster (and they won't, btw, Al Franken be damned), will your impatience turn to action, or will you be satisfied to blame it's failure on the whipping boy Republicans?
You know, it sounds like we're both frustrated with the same things. We just approach this issue from vastly different political cultures.
I'm not sure what you mean by "will your impatience turn to action?" I'm already doing absolutely everything I can. If we could turn out the lobbyists and pass a better bill, I'd be ecstatic.
But yes, I'm pretty darn frustrated with the Republicans right now. If more than a tiny handful of them had been willing to get on board, the bill wouldn't have included so many concessions to the coal-state Dems, and it might actually have some teeth.
You know, it sounds like we're both frustrated with the same things. We just approach this issue from vastly different political cultures.
I'm not sure what you mean by "will your impatience turn to action?" I'm already doing absolutely everything I can. If we could turn out the lobbyists and pass a better bill, I'd be ecstatic.
But yes, I'm pretty darn frustrated with the Republicans right now. If more than a tiny handful of them had been willing to get on board, the bill wouldn't have included so many concessions to the coal-state Dems, and it might actually have some teeth.
Some say media reform should be the number one priority, and I'm one of those who think this.
Our media lies to us, shakes our public servants down for campaign air time and sets them up to be legally bribed by corporate big money interests.
After we elect our public servants they're owned by big money and we can't get any positive legislation passed, without enormous giveaways to big money, making the legislation ineffective for its intended purpose.
We need to take the money out of our elective process.
Media is gouging our democracy, preventing it from functioning effectively.
This is a bipartisan issue, in that big money owns both sides of the aisle.
Media reform can be accomplished through the FCC licensing process.
Only then can we expect to see positive legislation enacted without compromise or capitulation to big money interests at the expense of our Nation's best interests.
Some say media reform should be the number one priority, and I'm one of those who think this.
Our media lies to us, shakes our public servants down for campaign air time and sets them up to be legally bribed by corporate big money interests.
After we elect our public servants they're owned by big money and we can't get any positive legislation passed, without enormous giveaways to big money, making the legislation ineffective for its intended purpose.
We need to take the money out of our elective process.
Media is gouging our democracy, preventing it from functioning effectively.
This is a bipartisan issue, in that big money owns both sides of the aisle.
Media reform can be accomplished through the FCC licensing process.
Only then can we expect to see positive legislation enacted without compromise or capitulation to big money interests at the expense of our Nation's best interests.
Top Blog Posts
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Christian 'Exorcism' Leads to Gay Teen's Suicide
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- Racial Jeopardy and American Politics
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- God, PBS and Paul Simon, The "God Chronicler By Accident"
- Viral: "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Defining "Evangelical" and Other Unsolved Mysteries
by Alec Hill 02-08-2012
by David Gibson 02-07-2012
by Nadia Bolz-Weber 02-12-2012
Blog Tag Cloud
Activism
America
Bible
change
Children
Christ
Christian
Church
Community
Culture
Economics
Environment
Evangelical
Faith
Faith and Politics
general
global issues
government
Human Rights
Immigration
Jesus
Justice
Ministry
Nonviolence
Peace
Politics
Poor
Poverty
Prayer
President
President Obama
Race
Religion
Sojourners
Spirituality
Theology
United States
Violence
War
Women
More On These Topics
Topics
Tag
