Put Poor People on the Climate Change Agenda

Wow, did you know that 380 parts per million of CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere? Did you know that this amount is only just above the suffocation level for green plants? That if the CO2 amounts were much less than the plants would die? Sure, 5% CO2 in our atmosphere would cause a problem because of Carbonic Acid in our lungs and 10% would kill insects and small animals. But right now we are less than one half of one tenth of one percent and nowhere near the toxic rate.

Hi Bbuudd, Thanks for keeping the thread alive. I don't know you, and I suspect you are a decent person, so please don't take offense if I am not gentle with your arguments. By speaking u, we each invoke some baggage from left or right, so the "guidelines" are difficult to follow, especially since that "Long monologue of the Religious Right" quip at the top of the site violates the guidelines right off the bat. No, you didn't directly slam Limbaugh. If you, like me, suspect there are kernels (Nuggets? Boulders?) of wisdom buried amidst the bombast, Bravo! If you suspect right wing talk show audiences are listening because of frustration at the bias of the mainstream media, add kudos to your bravo. Anyway, arguments here have been going: Climate Change is a fact. Those who believe otherwise are (pick one or more) ostriches, ignorant, begging God to zap them like he zapped folks in the Old Testament. My point was: Why believe the experts?
Not only have they failed to convince liberals to get out of their SUV's, but the whole idea of truth has been corrupted. Yes, by scientists. Take evolution. Perhaps God used evolution as part of the Creation process. Fine with me. Call it theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, whatever. But Evolution as an overarching worldview has a sordid history: Margaret Sanger, her friends and allies the eugenics crowd (Hint: "unwanted child" means "black baby"). If other species evolved through catastrophes that caused them to die out, why don't we see famine, war, and abortion as merely the impersonal, inevitable way in which evolution works? (Peter Singer even believes in infanticide, and he's not alone.) That's scary, so the implications of the truth of the day [sic] were buried under the euphemism "Social Darwinism" which nice people, supposedly, don't believe in anymore. The most consistent believers in evolution grew out of the
liberal protestantism of the 19th Century. A weakened German Church fell prey to the horrors of Nazism-it wasn't an accident. Bultmann took their money, and somehow his reputation survived. Karl Barth-most assuredly NOT a liberal, lost his job and fled the country. Bonhoeffer, also no liberal, left Germany for the US, then returned, and died naked, strangled by a wire around his neck. Niemoeller somehow survived, protected most likely by his WWI war hero status. Getting back to evolution, yes, the Nazis were "helping evolution along." But isn't that just what an "intelligent", sentient species is MOST likely to do? Anyway, the world is a mess, in rebellion against the loving, Creator God, and scientists aren't this austere, all knowing priesthood that exists in the snowy white clouds far above the fray of politics. Please....and thanks for listening, too.

Interesting. You began this truth thread by claiming that "when there was truth, there were experts." Science manipulates truth?

How did you drag Limbaugh into this? And why? And where, pray tell, did you come up with the claim that I think his listeners are stupid?

"one who shares your finely tuned liberal instincts"

What I dislike, Witness, however you wish to word it, is your presumption that, because I am convinced that global warming/climate change is a real and imminent threat, I must therefore be a "liberal." You don't know me; you are not familiar with my views on other topics. What gives you the knowledge that I must be "liberal"? (Whatever that is--and that's an issue too, since the word has become an epithet and has lost most of its political meaning, IMO. So have "conservative" and "socialist," for that matter.) You might be surprised about my views on many topics. Some may indeed be "liberal" by your definition, but I doubt whether all of them are.

In fact, regarding climate change and environmental issues, I believe I'm actually a conservative. I'm using that term in its original meaning. The Latin conservare is the root for both "conservative" and "conservation." (Tell that to the self-identified conservative "drill, baby, drill!" people.) I am convinced of climate change not only because of the scientific evidence but also because one singular characteristic of our industrial, consumerist, global economy age is wasteful profligacy. We have consumed the earth's resources at an increasingly ravenous rate and are reaching a breaking point. Nobody can tell me that we can't pump huge and increasing amounts of carbon, carbon that had been sequestered inside the earth for millions of years, at ever accelerating rates into the atmosphere without affecting something.

I have never been a fan of Al Gore; I never voted for him for any office. And, yes, he's been rather less than a stellar role model in terms of practicing what he preaches. But that fact doesn't invalidate any of his global warming arguments; only the scientific evidence could do that. Galileo, I understand, was an insufferable jerk who managed to offend just about everyone who got to know him. That fact didn't nullify any of his observations or invalidate any of his arguments, either. Therefore, your ad hominem comments about him and other Hollywood "liberals" are invalid arguments against global warming.

I also think Gore's proposed solutions to the problem (e.g., recycling, driving hybrids, swapping out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent ones) are lame and won't work to solve the problem. Not that we shouldn't be doing those things to save energy--of course we should. But Gore's mistake, one shared by just about all our leaders, is that we can fix all these problems and still keep our profligate lifestyles intact. That won't work. Climate change isn't the only problem we face. Our wastefulness has resulted in resource shortages and depletions across the board-water, soil, and, yes, even fossil fuels. The fix will require major lifestyle changes and changes in expectations, and no politician is willing to announce that fact. But the changes will happen; the only question is whether we will make them voluntarily or be forced into them. Because nature bats last, as one blogger succinctly puts it. The global ecosystem will have the last word. (God normally doesn't intervene in the natural processes he set up at creation, so when an imbalance occurs, God is usually content to let nature address and correct the imbalance. Plus, I don't think he will intervene to bail us out of the consequences of our own foolishness. He's given us plenty of warning through his prophets.)

The current economic recession, I believe, is only the beginning of a long period of economic contraction as globalism, corporate capitalism, and industrialism gradually find their way into history's dumpster. Neither the current administration nor most of our politicians have a clue about what's coming down the road.

I agree with you that a direct carbon tax would be more effective-and more honest-than this cap and trade proposal. And I agree that we need to fund public transport (e.g, Amtrak) more than new highways and auto industry subsides. (I don't think the auto industry will survive the coming shortages and economic contractions anyway, and we will still need ways to get around.) But a cap and trade is still better than doing nothing. We ought to get used to higher energy prices and really learn to conserve. Finding ways to save energy could actually give us a genuine economic revival.

Peace,
Don

I'm sorry my phraseology offended you. I was using it merely as a description. I suppose I should've said "one who shares your finely tuned liberal instincts" which means basically the same thing.
Are you an expert on climate change? I'm not. I don't consider myself qualified to make a five thousand word, point by point rebuttal. So it is a battle of the experts, and Obama's experts don't believe in truth, so why should anyone believe them? Obama, and Jim before him, haven't even changed liberals' minds enough to get them out of their SUV's. I'm sorry you don't like this argument, but we elect our leaders, and our impressions of them and their behavior are extremely important.
If you mean what public policy ideas do I support, let me try: raising taxes is something to consider. Obama could start by saying "I'm sorry I promised to only raise taxes on the rich. I was wrong. I am going to tax ordinary people and make up for it by acting on a consensus basis like my successful predecessor, Bill Clinton, did. I will not sign a tax increase that is not supported by at least one third of the opposition." We could increase gas taxes by two dollars or three dollars per gallon. Some of the cash could be returned to lower income folks via the IRS; even this is a burden, unless the poor can file for a rebate more often than once per year. We all, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, need to be accountable for our behavior, even if Al Gore and the Hollywood crowd aren't. Their failings are NOT an excuse for inaction; I hope you don't think I was saying that.
As for a general energy tax, we should see what China is doing. It is not fair to tax our lower income folk while everyone in China, especially party members and the rapidly growing upper class, gets a free ticket to pollute.
Amtrak should be given a permanent chunk of the gas taxes; I think even a penny a gallon would help them greatly with long-range planning.
And I would even consider re-negotiating some sort of cap and trade, after scrapping the abomination Pelosi shoved down even the throats of many reluctant Democrats. Our system is broken; my hopes for anything good coming out of it in the short term are slim, but we should start with some honesty. (See the speech I wrote for Obama, above.)

"But this is beside the point"Not beside the point at all. Don't confuse my belief in the truth with an assertion that I have somehow grasped certainty. I don't know everything; I do know that truth exists, and that the Truth is Jesus, a specific person, Son of God, very God of very God. He did not speak in riddles; he made us think even while he explicitly affirmed every last stroke of the Law. (The Law was fulfilled on the Cross, but that doesn't mean God changed his mind about anything. It no longer binds us word for word, but it still is perfect-a perfect if incomplete window into the thoughts of God which are way, way beyond our own. They judge us, we don't judge them.) "No man ever spake like this man" Jesus taught with authority, because he HAD authority. To be sure, his statements are designed to make us think, and he vigorously contradicted the Pharisees and their self-serving, self-satisfied certainty. While Christians (even me!
Gasp!)are guilty of Pharisaism from time to time, today's Pharisees are the ruling class that force Christianity to the sidelines, lest it pollute the minds of our youth. In Mark 3, Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for their hard hearts in refusing to meet the need of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. In my state, Catholic Charities was forced to discontinue adoptions because they offended a powerful, liberal, special interest group.
That is Pharisaism: ideology over human need. Getting back to climate change, the rich will always be able to afford onerous energy taxes and gas for their SUV's; it's ordinary folks and poor people that Jim will allow to suffer. I'm distressed that he can't see this, and appears to be blinded by the Obama glare. In the first years of Bush 43, he wrote a whining column in his mag about how the White House didn't invite him over anymore. Sadly, that foreshadowed his activism on behalf of the powerful in the name of the poor and needy. A sad fall-upwards, pleasing the new masters.
Blessings,
Witness4Peace

Thanks for bringing up science and communication. There is indeed a problem: in spite of the obvious health impacts of a lousy diet-and I'm not just talking about the obesity epidemic-people continue to believe food ads: "eat what we tell you to". There is a widespread cynicism, and it is not wholly the public's fault. The public is lied to all the time: Reagan lied about invading Central America in the 80's, Clinton lied about his affair in the 90's, and so on. The whole notion of truth has broken down, and scientists and other academicians have actually led the way. People have noticed that supposedly intelligent people lie all the time, and aren't trustworthy. The lie that science disproves the Bible, for example, or the embarrassing anti-Christian diatribes by Sam Harris, et al, show an utter lack of accountability. The distinction between Hollywood make believe and newscasters has become pretty slim. bbuudd said:"Simply ignoring the plight of the powerless, the poor, and the weak (ignored by the powerful, strong, and wealthy) because it costs too much is not an acceptable argument."
I couldn't agree more. Al Gore ought not to be bashed, indeed, but he needs to be held accountable for his lavish lifestyle by the media, and by Jim Wallis and company. Jim never talks about personal self indulgence; it's as if he's given up on sexual discipline and the discipline of searching for the truth. If we, as a society have stopped believing in the truth, why should we search for it? Why should anyone listen to a self proclaimed expert? When there was truth, there were experts. Now, with our state religion of secularism, neither exist.

Can someone give me some examples of good paying "green jobs" that uneducated people can do?

How many "green jobs" will need to be created to offset the job losses caused from another slowdown of the economy that takes place when the average homeowner gets hit with an increase in energy bills to the tune of $2,000 per year.

Al Gore is getting rich flying all over the country talking about Global Warming. But the poor aren't being helped.

Oh....and Chicago just had their earliest recorded snow EVER. We better act soon. The earth is just burning up.

You've made a wonderful response. All I can think is that we have to keep saying this until it is entirely obvious and irrefutable.

Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

All of us want to help the poor. It is a Bibloical command. The huge problem with Jim's post is that he assumes that global warming is a proven fact that can be fixed by the cap and trade bill. I am not so sure the assumptions are correct. If the climatare correct. If the cap and trade bill actually harms Third World economies by mismanaging their resources, then poor people will be harmed and grow even poorer. Even though Jim has good intentions, the result of passing this bill will do more harm to the poor than good.

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm

henrymakow.com

infowars.com

goodnewsaboutgod.com against the new world order

drtenpenny.com

fluscam.com

bohemian grove

bilderberg group

WAKE UP

stand up FOR THE CONSTITUTION

END THE FED GET EVERY STUDENT IN AMERICA THE BOOK

they dont teach anything but what they want the students to know in school.

when you have a FEDERAL education system WITH FEDERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

THEY TEACH THE KIDS ONLY WHAT T H E Y want them to Know

look up charlotte iserbyt John taylor Gatto

WAKE UP

wake up others

1. I didn't wet my finger. It's much too COLD for that. But the earth's temperature has decreased in the last 7 or 8 years. We go through cycles. In the 70s we were scared of Global freezing and ice ages.

2. The Bible is very clear on what will happen on the earth in the end times. And the earth and it's population is STILL HERE. The real global warming and famine takes place during the tribuation. I have complete faith in God that he can handle our climate. He makes alot of things happen just be speaking.

Oh...and I'm not a fundamentalist. Just a Christian.

Can someone give me some examples of good paying "green jobs" that uneducated people can do?

How many "green jobs" will need to be created to offset the job losses caused from another slowdown of the economy that takes place when the average homeowner gets hit with an increase in energy bills to the tune of $2,000 per year.

Al Gore is getting rich flying all over the country talking about Global Warming. But the poor aren't being helped.

Oh....and Chicago just had their earliest recorded snow EVER. We better act soon. The earth is just burning up.

Thank you Jim for your outstanding honesty regarding God's concern for the poor and our pitiful response. This "Don't let the perfect become an enemy of the good" is an empty mantra when that which is labeled "the good" is so selfish and there is little promise of anything better to follow.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

I was a huge fan of Jim back when he was opposing our intervention in Central America, and advocating simple living (actually it was Ron Sider that was more on the simple living bandwagon). Now all he does is advocate laws telling OTHER PEOPLE how to change their behavior. If he wants behavior change, he could start with rich folk like John Edwards and Al Gore, would could, for example, donate their enormous mansions as housing for the homeless, instead of living like kings and lecturing us.
Jim is showing no sympathy whatever for the enormous impact of the cap and trade tax on the lifestyles of ordinary, non-Al Gore Americans. Not to mention not calling out Obama for abandoning his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on ordinary folks. A massive energy tax hurts poor people everywhere. While China's situation is complex, their biggest problem is a rotten government, while party members drive around in luxury cars. They should share the burden with the US instead of insisting on a free ride.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

As a singledad of four children that raised them in poverty for
fourteen years

I know that we all talk a big bible game but no one lives it

Luke chapter six
WE have people on our road that buy three hundred thousand dollar combines and two hundred thosuand dollar tractors
we have pig farmers that get thousands of bailout dollars
and beef farmers.

we are constantly told that we LIVE IN A TWO INCOME WORLD
but single parents are expected to live on a thousand dollars a month
and the people that sit in church week after week
just dont care
Luke chapter six is the truth

the rich that think they are saved when they help no one
and care about no one but themselves are SELF DECEIVED

the truth is most are religious but they dont care about god and they prove that out
because they dont care about others

Alisha Hillman
Integrity@cyg.net

Fundamentalist Christians have two predictable responses to a post like this:

1. They walk outside and thrust their spittle-wetted finger into the air and utter, "what global warming?" while citing some meaningless comparison of this winter to the preceding one.

2. They assume the Alfred E. Neumann attitude of "what me worry?" while contending that they will be raptured out of here before it all goes down.

Neither repsonse makes sense to me - either biblically or scientifically.

Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

What is the difference between weather and climate?

Ignoring the debate of climate change, it is simply not true that Cap and Trade will help people. The CBO estimates it costing middle-class Americans $4,000 a year or more (some estimates have it at $10,000 or more). Since Americans donate more time and money to the poor overseas (and at home), the money will come from that extra expense. This is not a debate, it is an economic reality.

Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, "Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years...by 1 hour."

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

Wow, good comments, I agree that we need to address the needs of real people not some projected future catastrophe based on computer models. I have friends living in the Philippines who twice a day have sewer water running a few inches deep through the community they live in. It would be a worth project of charity or local government to alleviate that problem. But to make a fuss over a nutrient (to plants) that only comprises 0.038% of the atmosphere is absurd! And even if Al Gore is right and a one degree change at the equator equals a six degree change at the polls, that would be a big blessing for places like Siberia (I am serious). What a boon to Russia to be able to access it resources and expand its farmland.