RSS Feed MenuOK, you are a red-blooded Republican and don’t believe that the globe has been warming, or that humans are responsible, or that it could be a major problem, or that earth won’t fix itself. At the same time, you are also a conservative and conservatives aren’t supposed to favor massive uncontrolled changes, even if their friends assure them that there won’t be any problems. After all, wouldn’t you call me a mad scientist if I proposed an experiment to double the atmospheric carbon dioxide to test my theory of climate?
On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, in a corner of your mind you are worried about the possibility of rising sea levels and the fun the Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers (of New Orleans fame) are going to have in unleashing massive new flood control schemes at your expense. Maybe all you want is to stop the regulatory nightmare that is unfolding in the name of energy policy along with wasteful subsidies that are being thrown at energy “solutions”. Maybe you are just worried about becoming the party of “no” that opposes action on global warming just as it opposed action on tobacco and smoking.
What should you do when your core conservative principles offer the only solution for a problem that you don’t really believe in? You can stay on the sidelines and laugh at the party in power as it throws around billions, if not trillions, of your tax dollars in pursuit of false solutions, damaging the body fabric of the country you love in the process. Or you can hedge your bets and outmaneuver your ideological opponents in the other party while making sure no skin comes off your nose. This is how:
1) Agree to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and no more over a period of thirty years or so. After all, the Europeans and Japanese emit half as much as we do and they are not exactly bankrupt nor has their industry vanished. If you really believe in American entrepreneurial ingenuity as you say, this should not be difficult. There will be an absolute sunset to the legislation at the end of thirty years and that is it. Leave it to the next generation to evaluate the threat of global warming and the effectiveness of the policy that is set sail today.
2) Absolutely no new taxes. All policies have to be overall tax-neutral. Whatever form of pollution pricing is implemented must be accompanied by a full refund. Carbon tax is perhaps the best solution, but it won’t happen unless both parties give each other political cover. Cap-and-trade is a bit crazier, but is more likely to pass because it hides the emission fees. No matter what scheme is implemented, the important point is that the money has to go back to where it came from. Send Christmas checks to the consumers every year and use the corporate emission revenues to reduce corporate tax. Set up a separate Climate Policy Trust whose job is to make sure that every penny of the emission fee that is collected goes back. Don’t tangle the emission fee revenues with the income tax code. Money will disappear before you know it.
3) Protect your turf. Red states tend to have more emissions. Don’t let the emission fee revenue flow from the red states to the blue states. Require that the Climate Policy Trust must refund the money on a state-by-state basis. Doing so has no impact on the emission reduction goals. Climate policy should not be a mechanism for wealth transfer.
4) Require zero government influence once the policy is set in motion. No government sponsored solutions and no subsidies for pet solutions. Subsidies for solar, electric car, corn ethanol and all that stuff have to come from the discretionary funds in the general exchequer, not from the Climate Policy Trust money.
5) No rewards for “good” behavior and no penalties for “bad” behavior. My neighbor driving his Hummer is as ok as my European vacation to sip French wine because we both paid the emission fees. Isn’t this what liberty means?
6) Require that the regulatory regime is dismantled as emissions go down. No more CAFE automobile efficiency standards and goodbye to California efficiency standards. Don’t hobble automakers by forcing them to make products people don’t want. In any event, when people buy efficient cars and gasoline is cheap, they just drive more. When emission fees increase gasoline prices, people will buy more efficient vehicles if they want.
7) Require market certainty. Put the Climate Policy Trust in charge of setting the pollution pricing levels. All changes in pollution pricing have to be gradual and announced seven years or so in advance. Markets need the certainty over a long-time horizon to adjust their investment and business plans. But once they do, they come out ahead. Didn’t DuPont make money when the CFC’s, which were out of patent, were replaced by HFC’s?
Think you can handle it?
sinz54 // Aug 7, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Mr. Somalwar asks: “Think you can handle it?”
I can handle it very well.
But the GOP base isn’t interested.
To them, global warming is a hoax concocted by Al Gore, Greenpeace, and various assorted liberals. To them, the earth is actually cooling, not warming.
Try your ideas out on RedState.com or Townhall.com or even Powerlineblog.com
See what kind of response you get.
barker13 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“OK, you are a red-blooded Republican and don’t believe that the globe has been warming…”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Jerk. (*SHRUG*)
Seriously…
JERK. (*SHRUG*)
And you’re a Professor of Physics at Rutgers University…?!?! My frigg’n God, how low have academic standards fallen? And a state university to boot! Way to add insult to injury.
Now fellow posters… yes… even for me I’m starting out a bit… er… strong here; but think about it… how many dozens and dozens of times have I and those who basically share my views on climate change stipulated that the earth is in a warming phase even while over the past 11 years…
(Blah… blah… blah…)
Com’on… same THEME here… let’s have some frigg’n HONESTY…!!!
When this clown Somalwar START OFF by trying to peddle a load of bull$hit he needs to be smacked down as the fraud he is.
BILL
sinz54 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Mr. Somalwar: See what I mean?
barker13 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm –
Sinz. Why sidestep (ignore, actually) the thrust of my observation?
Was I lying…??? Did I misstate my position and that of other regulars here who tend to agree more with me than you on this issue?
My problem isn’t with Somalwar having a different opinion than mine; my problem is that he starts off with a deliberately distorted straw man charge that has been refuted again and again here on this site.
Or am I lying…??? Com’on… be honest… and don’t give me any crap about “not following my every word on every topic,” because you know DAMN WELL that I’ve acknowledged “global warming” dozens and dozens of times within the broader parameter of believing CLIMATE CHANGE is cyclical and noting (truthfully) that the warming trend has not been playing out as modeled over the past eleven years.
Sinz. Bottom line. Somalwar LIED. He deliberately LIED.
How can you defend that…??? Are lies part of “pragmatism” for you…???
BILL
barker13 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Re: Barker13 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm –
“Somalwar LIED. He deliberately LIED.”
(*SIGH*)
I withdraw the above statement. (Sinz succeeded in pushing my buttons; I admit it. I flew off the handle.) My apologies, Prof. Somalwar.
To rephrase… Prof. Somalwar started off reflecting – advancing – a false premise.
(Oh… and btw… Sinz reinforced this distortion based premise with his statement, QUOTE, “But the GOP base isn’t interested. To them, global warming is a hoax concocted by Al Gore, Greenpeace, and various assorted liberals. To them, the earth is actually cooling, not warming.)
Sinz is deliberately distorting the position of the vast, vast majority of global warming skeptics. We’ve been over this before. Sinz does so deliberately. Such behavior is in my mind a major character flaw. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
sinz54 // Aug 7, 2009 at 7:24 pm
barker13: You are correct. There is a minority of Republicans who believe that global warming is a significant problem.
According to the Rasmussen Poll of January 2009:
“Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends….
“While 64% of Democrats say global warming is a Very Serious problem, just 18% of Republicans and 33% of unaffiliated voters agree. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of GOP voters say it’s no problem at all, a view shared by 19% of unaffiliateds and only four percent (4%) of Democrats. ”
http://tinyurl.com/7zgd8a
So it’s not like you’re alone among the GOP base in your views.
I stand corrected.
balconesfault // Aug 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I personally don’t see why revenues from a carbon tax shouldn’t be used to supplement the general revenue – but I’ll go with that proposal.
But if you think this will quiet attacks on the program as being a form of “wealth redistribution”, you’re not particularly well tuned into the political undercurrents of modern America.
Hell, I often ride my bicycle to work (take that, Sinz!) and I hear cyclists being derided on right wing talk radio – the claim is often made that since bikes don’t pay gasoline taxes that maintain the roads, we shouldn’t be out there using them. And I’ve certainly had motorists honking and yelling at me for not riding on the sidewalk (I tend to ride in the 20-30 mph range, which kind of makes me a little dangerous to ladies pushing baby strollers, so I usually ignore this request).
In short, your proposal if implemented would quickly be attacked as a direct subsidy from the pockets of those Americans who need to drive their cars long distances for work, or those families who have to drive a Suburban and A/C a 3200 sq foot home because of 8 kids, to the wallets of yuppie urbanites.
Somehow, given the major battleground that would be setting up … I’d think that just putting the money into the general welfare fund should be a lot less controversial.
palomino // Aug 8, 2009 at 3:26 am
barky: “CLIMATE CHANGE is cyclical and noting (truthfully) that the warming trend has not been playing out as modeled over the past eleven years.
Sinz. Bottom line. Somalwar LIED. He deliberately LIED.”
This is why ideologues shouldn’t play with numbers or science. They invariably screw things up in service of a higher cause, their precious ideology.
Here’s a little analogy (admittedly dumbed down but it’s for barky and he don’t do math.) Say it’s the last day of June and the hottest day of the year thus far was 90. Then on July 1 it’s 100, followed by 9 more days in the high 90s. Would you say the heat wave is over since July 2-10 were a couple degrees cooler than July 1?
Of course not. But that’s the load barky is shoveling at you. 1997 was incredibly hot–the hottest ever–and it’s been followed by 11 years also hotter than any of the previous 116 years (1881-1996) for which records were kept. On planet barko this means earth is cooling. It also means that Rutgers physicists are “liars” when they attempt a calm, measured discussion of the issue. And of course everyone knows less on the topic than barky who received his degree in astronomy and climate science at Rushbo U.
sinz54 // Aug 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Palomino: The problem isn’t just Rush Limbaugh. It’s a deep-seated fear, not just in the GOP base, that a way of life in America may be ending:
That the American dream of a comfortable home with a big yard and plenty of privacy is going to become extinct, as the strictures to prevent global warming get tougher and tougher.
And that’s not a fantasy: Environmentalists in Greenpeace and elsewhere are demanding greenhouse gas reductions of NINETY PERCENT. In America, where 70% of the energy use is in transportation, there’s no way to cut CO2 emissions by 90% unless you totally redesign the country from the ground up.
I’ve actually heard environmental activists saying smugly “Those fat Americans, they can’t continue to live in the luxurious lifestyle they’ve been living.” Statements like those, and demands for a 90% cut in CO2, seem aimed at cutting America down to size, frankly. The dream of the international Left for a hundred years.
And that scares Americans.
Even though I agree that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon, I’m not going to “cut my country down to size” to save the rest of the world. There has to be another way.
somalwar@physics.rutgers.edu // Aug 8, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I do fairly complicated physics research but can not claim any climate science expertise (unlike some of the commenters above) and can’t judge climate predictions. However, there seems to be sufficient evidence, call it smoke if you want, for a conservative to hedge bets. Everyone has to carry out their own cost-to-benefit ratio in hedging, but I believe that my scenario has the least costs for a conservative. What Greenpeace says etc is all just talk and should not have any weight one way or the other. Like it or not, a lot of resources are going into alternative energy etc. One can be a complete non-believer in global warming and still exploit an opportunity to direct that policy in the right direction. Otherwise, we get corn ethanol and nobody benefits.
balconesfault // Aug 8, 2009 at 11:45 pm
“The dream of the international Left for a hundred years.”
Man, you would come off a lot better if you didn’t have the serious tinge of paranoia underlying your postings.
This isn’t about “cutting America down to size”. That’s just silly rhetoric looking to raise fears – exactly the worst way to approach serious decisionmaking.
There are many reasons why big sprawling suburbia puts a lot of stresses on America’s resources. We’re swallowing up prime farmland. We’re paving over more and more acreage with cement and asphalt, which reduces groundwater recharge while increasing pollution runoff to streams and groundwater. requires huge volumes of oil imports from a lot of countries whose leaders we don’t like … generates tons of air pollution …
There is a mistake that progressives just have this desire to take people’s liberties away. Perhaps there are some on the far left who do so … but the progressive position is that we need to look down the road and anticipate shortages and various societal pressures and start to do some basic planning to be able to forestall, or at least manage crises as they come up. We see the radical disruptions that happen when societies run into crises as the true danger to American liberties, becuase those situations too often lead to people embracing authoritarian responses that far overstrip the more modest policies that we advocate.
So don’t talk about this idea that liberals don’t want make it impossible for everyone to live on a 1/2 acre suburban lot with a lush St. Augustine grass lawn from curb to back fenceline. It’s just that we realize that it IS impossible for everyone to live on a 1/2 acre suburban lot with a lush St. Augustine grass lawn from curb to back fenceline. And we want to make sure that our country doesn’t run itself into a rut that we can’t get out of by doing whatever it takes trying to make that lifestyle possible for everyone, no matter what the long-term realities are.
barker13 // Aug 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm (#7) –
“I personally don’t see why revenues from a carbon tax shouldn’t be used to supplement the general revenue…”
Because I don’t want to pay more taxes. (*SMILE*) Seriously… what’s not to understand…???
Hmm… let me clarify that statement a bit.
Balc. I’m in favor of a full overhaul of national/state/local taxation. I’ve posted dozens of posts concerning my general as well as specific views.
Under what I would consider a “fairer” system *I* might actually end up paying MORE in taxes. (Thus the “clarification;” it’s not so much my personal total tax burden I’m concerned with as it is how a carbon tax would fit into the EXISTING system.)
Within the existing system… a carbon tax would be just another tax… another regressive tax at worse, another complicated give/take loophole income redistributionist tax policy at “best”).
By and large I’m a “cut spending” to balance the budget (or move in that direction) guy; not a “raise taxes to pay for spending and repeat… and repeat… and repeat… and repeat…” kind of guy. In other words, I want to put the “beast” of government on a diet, not figure out how to make it fatter.
“Hell, I often ride my bicycle to work…”
I climb into my inferno red Charger RT with the 5.7L HEMI and…
(*WINK*) (*GRIN*) (But hey… remember… racquetball 4-6 times a week!)
“…I hear cyclists being derided on right wing talk radio…”
I don’t. (*SHRUG*) (Hey, Balc… I have a Specialized… a Hard Rock. I’m pro-bike, dude.)
Re: P alomino // Aug 8, 2009 at 3:26 am (#8) –
Did you miss barker13 // Aug 7, 2009 at 3:41 pm (#5)?
(*SNORT*)
Poor Pony. (*WINK*)
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm (#9) –
“…as the strictures to prevent global warming…”
(*SIGH*) (*ROLLING MY EYES*)
ONE
MORE
TIME
Sinz. Earth to Sinz. We’re not going to “prevent” global warming if global warming is what nature has in store for us.
We’re not. I’m sorry. Such is not in man’s power. Such is not in man’s power if you were suddenly appointed at Supreme Dictator Planet Earth, with all the nations and all the peoples doing exactly what you tell them when you tell them.
See… this is where you go totally off the rails and make a complete idiot of yourself. You’re not dealing with REALITY.
Sinz… how many times do we need to revisit HISTORY – man’s history… man’s pre-history… the earth’s history before man…?
Sinz. Climates CHANGE. They do! I swear to you… they DO!!!
(Ya know that big hole in Williams, AZ…???) (*GRIN*)
Sinz. For a guy who makes fun of fundamentalist Christians the irony is that you’re the number one “religious fanatic” on this site – only your “religion” is global warming.
Sinz. Embrace Mother Earth! Embrace the challenges nature throws at us. PRAY for an early and largely uneventful hurricane season so that all is well for my yearly Key West getaway in October!
(*WINK*)
BILL
barker13 // Aug 9, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Re: Somalwarphysicsrutgersedu // Aug 8, 2009 at 2:04 pm (#10) –
“…a lot of resources are going into alternative energy etc. One can be a complete non-believer in global warming and still exploit an opportunity to direct that policy in the right direction. Otherwise, we get corn ethanol and nobody benefits.”
Agreed – particularly with regard to corn ethanol.
The question remains though… what’s the “right direction…???”
(Hmm… taken my flights across the “Pond” on the Hindenburg lately…?) (*GRIN*)
Prof. Many of “the experts” were telling us that corn based ethanol was the way to go! Those lobbyists for ADM weren’t grabbing “expert witnesses” off the streets in order to press their case on Congress. (*WINK*)
MBTE…
(*SNORT*) Aahh… scientific consensu… WHAT COULD GO WRONG…?!?!
You don’t appear to be a bad guy, Prof. Just do me (and yourself) a favor. Don’t start your next contribution off with a wiseass remark and you might find you’ll get a better reaction.
Just a thought…
BILL
balconesfault // Aug 10, 2009 at 8:38 am
“a carbon tax would be just another tax… another regressive tax at worse”
The sad fact is that any tax that’s supposed to discourage a certain behavior … like smoking cigarettes, or profligately consume energy … are going to have regressive components. The atmosphere doesn’t care if CO2 is emitted by the actions of a poor person or a wealthy person … and given that there are a lot more poor people you can’t create economic disincentives to consumption that aren’t going to disproportionately impact the poor.
On the flip side, when there are significant problems that society will need to address … and rapid land use and water availability changes that are likely to result from climate change will certainly be one such problem … the poor are usually disproportionately impacted, because they don’t have the resources to react proactively as changes occur. We will face massive problems in the future thanks to climate change, and it behooves us as a society now to start collecting extra money to finance the infrastructure demands that climate change will cause.