"What's the deal? Is Peter dissing us?"
Readers keep piling on.
Gail writes, "This one from you, Peter, surprises me. I didn't expect it from you."
Two days ago this blog posted what I thought was a simple proposition. The American energy economy is in transition to non-carbon energy. The process is underway; it is not complete.
In this multi-decade transition away from fossil fuels all Americans in fact use fossil fuels, conspicuously. I said it was morally inconsistent to shame the industries that produce products people use. The message is opposition and shame, not transition. The call is to "Divest!" Money from energy companies is considered "dirty."
And yet the candidates buy gasoline and use electricity generated by coal.
It is bad and dangerous politics, I argued. People notice the inconsistency. It demonstrates inauthenticity, which we realize is disastrous politics, especially in this world of finger-pointing Trump, there to make harsh accusations of fraud. We saw this: Lyin' Ted. Crooked Hillary. Pocahontas.
I can imagine the slogan: "Limousine New Deal--they fly, you walk." I can imagine the photos of the campaign vehicles of candidates of fossil fuel company prohibitionists at gas pumps--labeled "Phony!" and spread on social media. I think a shaming, absolutist attitude toward fossil fuel companies will backfire.
Lots of readers disagree.
Yesterday, Herb Rothschild said I conflated policy with necessary practice, and I should cool it. Today Thad Guyer teases me--and fellow Democrats. Guyer is an attorney with an international practice specializing in representing whistleblowing employees. His office is wherever his laptop computer is, and it currently is mostly in Vietnam.
 |
| Guyer |
Guest Post by Thad Guyer:
"What is Peter Sage’s Problem?!?!!
Like most readers, I enjoy Peter's witty polemics, but what's up with him criticizing us?
Hey, our honeymoon House majority quickly passed the Green New Deal "resolution" in which we boldly articulated our dreams for environmental utopia. And on the very day of Peter's sacrilege, our brave Democratic senators including both from Oregon courageously voted "present" when asked if they would follow the House lead. No way our senators were going to fall for a GOP “stunt” and vote for the Green New Deal.
Peter, the purpose of a "resolution" is not to actually do a thing other than, you know, tout our aspirations, to raise our virtue signaling flag high and proud on greenhouse gases. It’s like calorie counts posted at restaurant chains. We look at the menu item, demurely smile and say what the heck, and order it in spite of the calories. That’s what the Green New Deal is like. It’s not a law, it’s a “resolution”, it just signals what would be sort of nice to do, like avoiding the calories or extinction of species. We Democrats alone get the virtue of the Green New Deal and calorie counts, and but for critics like you, we could wake up every morning and feel that “virtue glow”.
Here are some factoids for you to consider in my demand for your apology to us:
1. Americans eat (and feed our livestock) a grossly disproportionate amount of the world’s food resources. We are the most obese population in world history, although it’s almost certainly Trump supporters who are the worst offenders. Now please pay attention here Peter, but part of the Affordable Care Act mandated the display of calorie counts for all big chain restaurants. But that law had absolutely nothing to do with us hogging the world food supply, or the colossal green house gases emitted in the production, packaging and transportation of that food. The calorie count law is just to help us eat less and reduce diabetes, heart disease, morbidity and health care costs. Democrats have never tried to pass any law that forbids us from pillaging global food resources in the most environmentally catastrophic ways.
2. Americans in deep blue states buy the most gas guzzling, carbon spewing cars in the world, but obviously Republicans in red states are the worst ones. Now still pay attention Peter, because our fuel efficiency laws originated having nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases, but just with foreign oil dependency. Much later engine efficiency was mandated to burn fuel cleanly, but giant gas guzzling cars and trucks have remained an American birthright, and Democrats have never tried to pass a law against that. Indeed, the Green New Deal resolution does not even contain the terms “automobile” or “fuel efficiency”.
So there’s nothing hypocritical about Democrats hogging world food resources and driving SUVs to the restaurants to eat it while supporting-- with all our hearts-- the Affordable Care Act’s calorie count and the Green New Deal’s condemnation of fossil fuels. And while we may have bought petroleum stocks from brokers like you, you are the one who was selling them, and only the producers and sellers are guilty, not consumers like us. That is our rule, Peter.
Even if you refuse to apologize, would you pledge to at least vote “present” if asked about your position on the Green New Deal?"
3 comments:
Where would I find evidence of the following: 'The American energy economy is in transition to non-carbon energy. The process is underway; it is not complete.'
Even if there was a 'transition' that was nearing completion or even headed there reality wise it would have to include a scientific breakthrough that would be on the news of every TV station in the world. The reality is that with even legitimate carbon-free energy production includes carbon emissions. A qwik check of the Carbon Atlas shows us that everywhere you see a big black dot you'll find a first world economy. As emerging economies 'emerge' those black dots will only become larger and more common regardless of how energy is being produced. The problem is people and the amount of them.
Dear Anonymous, This new Bill, HR 763, is the Real Deal to make the energy transition happen. I should have posted this letter here earlier. Please see the comments under Mr. Rothchild's guest blog, for the arguments on the need for transition from fossil to renewable energy.
The Green New Deal is an aspirational Progressive agenda that Repuglicans have accused would bankrupt our economy and ruin America. In fact, it is a wish list of goals for the energy transition that can save us from the ravages of global warming and over $40 Trillion in damages over 30 years, but only if we invest about $2 Trillion (2% of our GDP) to build the new solar and wind energy infrastructure. This would allow us to retool and retire the outmoded coal, oil, and gas energy factories. Such an energy transition would be regarded as an energy war for the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry. Since our lives and well-being depend upon making this economic revolution happen, we need to also engage in the energy war on the winning side of the future. Solar and Wind energy.
We in Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) now have a bill before Congress that will make the energy transition happen, called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 763). It is now supported by many Congress People including our new Rep. Gil Cisneros (D, House Rep. Dist. 39, Fullerton, CA), who recently replaced Ed Royce (R), in the US House of Reps..
The idea for the Energy Innovation act is simply to use the market mechanism to make energy polluters pay for use of the atmosphere as their "sewer" or smokestack. This law would work by the "Carbon fee and dividend" (CFD) mechanism, charging polluters who emit excess carbon dioxide to pay a tax at the mine or wellhead, at the increasing rate of about $10 per ton of CO2, increased by $10 per year, emitted from the burning of coal, oil, or gas. The money collected by the federal govt. would all be put into a fund to be given back to taxpayer citizens as a Dividend. People would be able to use their monthly dividend (about $350 per month per family) to offset the increased prices for gasoline and all other products made from use of fossil fuel energy (nearly everything to start with). Other countries who do not have the CFD policy would be able to make petro-products more cheaply, but they would also be required to pay a tariff proportional to their CO2 footprint when these items are sold as imports into our country.
Modelling studies (RIMI) have shown that over 60% of families would get more monetary benefit from the CFD policy than they would need to pay from increased prices, so this is a progressive way to facilitate the energy transition using the market. As people put their money into buying cars and appliances etc. that are less carbon-intensive, the economy will favor energy sources like solar and wind which have no fee imposed. This policy is supported by Democrats and Repuglicans alike. This makes it politically feasible. We have no time to lose, so please call your US Rep., and tell them to support HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend act.
No one is stupid enough to give up gas and return to horses and life before plastics.
But it will happen. Climate change will seal the argument for us. There is no planet B.
Kiss your ass goodbye. The debate is over, our fate is sealed. Do nothing, nothing to do. Your kid and my grandkids will act too slowly. Turn off the lights. They went out. Take the coolaid.
We heard the call and went to sleep. Thanks to greed , inertia, and other distractions.
Ralph
Post a Comment