Jessy Tolkan from the Energy Action Coalition opened a climate change session with a brief kind of pep talk, urging people (correctly in my view) that rather than try to unite the country around a sense of crisis and doom, we need to try to unite people around an appealing vision of green jobs, clean energy, etc. To me, this is completely right. Next up was Dr. John Holdren of Harvard and Woods Hole who opened by remarking that he had little in the way of optimism or good news to report -- noting that things have actually changed faster than people predicted, and that we're now at a point where substantial climate change is inevitable and the issue is how much can we adapt and can we avoid absolute disaster.
« Corporate Social Responsibility | Main | Wither "Global Warming"? »
Optimism/Pessimism
01 Jul 2008 11:16 am
Comments (22)
last sentence should say 'will increase'
If Holdren is correct, then it would make sense, over a multiyear period, to cut defense spending by at least 50%, institute means testing for Social Security and Medicare benefits, and make the emission of carbon the sole taxable event in the United States. I'd sign on to this in a heartbeat. Will those most alarmed by the prospect of climate change due to carbon emissions join me?
If Holdren is correct, then it would make sense, over a multiyear period, to cut defense spending by at least 50%, institute means testing for Social Security and Medicare benefits, and make the emission of carbon the sole taxable event in the United States. I'd sign on to this in a heartbeat. Will those most alarmed by the prospect of climate change due to carbon emissions join me?
Sorry; hit the wrong key.....
William James said we need "a moral equivalent to war". Obama's already gently making service like AmeriCorp & PeaceCorp a moral equivalent to military service, while still honouring that as well. It seems to me that, between/along-with "doom and gloom" and an "appealing vision", something like making climate-change the new "war" in which we are all variously engaged has to shape a lot of future rhetoric - and education. As I wrote here recently, the challenge will be to find economically & politically workable ways to tackle Energy-Economy-Environment as three united/common fronts in that war. Now that I think of it, my Dad (who, like Obama's grandad, served in Patton's Army) came of age (in every sense) in the old pre-War Civilian Conservation Corps. Everything old is [re-]newed again...
Well, since the public will not accept real sacrifice until it is abundantly clear to the average moron out there, Tolkan's approach is the right one for now. And we just hope for the best. If the resulting climate change is such that truly devastating effects result (either there's a lot of change or the change is very pernicious), hopefully we respond productively and take the appropriate dramatic action. The other possibility is, of course, worldwide economic collapse and I would not rule this possibility out. I do not have much faith in the American public or even the European public, for that matter.
One of the best things you've done, IMO, is to aggressively push anti-hawkishness on China, and in particular the way you've emphasized the *scale* of the problem and therefore tried to push it on the agenda.
Conversely, the single greatest failing of you and your peers -- Josh Marshall, Brad Delong, Kevin Drum, Ezra Klein -- is treating global warming as, in effect, issue #37 that you get around to mentioning from time to time despite its being vastly larger in impact than issues 1->36.
I understand that you don't start with a great background in it. I think if you want to be a public intellectual in any sort of a general way in 2008 you're obliged to remedy that immediately. I understand that the conversation you're participating in has slotted it as issue #37. I believe that you should be fighting as hard as you can to change that.
Jessy Tolkan from the Energy Action Coalition opened a climate change session with a brief kind of pep talk, urging people (correctly in my view) that rather than try to unite the country around a sense of crisis and doom, we need to try to unite people around an appealing vision of green jobs, clean energy, etc. To me, this is completely right.
I tend to disagree. We need both the gloom and doom and the radiant green dreams working together. Relying solely on the optimistic message of green-whiz enthusiasm sends the wrong message: a dumbed down, pollyannaish message suitable mainly for children. It's like telling people in a flood-prone river town that they should build a levee because it will be great for the sandbag business. It encourages the very false view that the changes that need to occur will result solely from entrepreneurial responses to the accumulation of individual consumer demand for products that are self-evidently cool, without the need for government policy, public investment or any imposition whatsoever of pain or discipline. It also encourages the thought that the proposed changes are options, like a town's decision to attract more boutiques and restaurants, or to plant beautifying flowers in the middle of its traffic rotaries.
Sure, an enthusiastic can-do spirit about our ability to solve our way-of-life problem is much to be desired. But, it is also important to send clear messages about the fact that we have a way-of-life problem, a problem of significant gravity, and that the responses of concern, worry and yes, fear, are appropriate, rational and necessary under the circumstances.
That's the thing. If Obama loses, I think we are doomed. Literally doomed. Civilizational collapse and possible species extinction.
I suppose if the oil crashes fast enough there just won't be enough fossil fuel to burn and we'll too busy dying from disease, war, famine and exposure and basically stop pumping more C02.
That's the thing. If Obama loses, I think we are doomed. Literally doomed. Civilizational collapse and possible species extinction.
I suppose if the oil crashes fast enough there just won't be enough fossil fuel to burn and we'll too busy dying from disease, war, famine and exposure and basically stop pumping more C02.
Dan, there is a bargain to be struck with us who greatly prefer consumption taxes as maens of funding government, even if we are agnostic, as I am, about what the future holds in regards to climate change. Before the expected abuse ensues, let me note specifically that I don't deny that human caused climate change could be disastrous; I just think that those most alarmist regarding the issue greatly overstate the certainty of the science involved. Thus, as in all matters involving politics, compromise is required. Many people not associated with the Democratic Party would prefer consumption taxes as a means of funding government. Large consumption taxes are needed if carbon emissions are to be greatly reduced.
Greatly reducing carbon taxes would allow for a significant decrease in defense spending, over time, as the Persian Gulf became less critical. However, if carbon emissions are to be taxed high enough to cause dramatic changes in behavior, a bargain is going to have to be struck with us who do not favor a great increase in total taxes as a percentage of GDP. That means income and payroll taxes are going to have to reduced, and that means spending on Social Security and Medicaid has to be reduced, since that epending even exceeds defense spending. If climate change is the threat that many say it is, surely they won't insist that it is more important to continue to transfer wealth from young poor people to far more wealthy old people, will they?
I'm completely willing to make reducing carbon emissions as important as raising revenue to fund government, in terms of the goals of our tax code. Will those most concerned about climate change do the same?
Frankly, I think not enough has been said about what an incredible boom would accompany real efforts to cut our GHG emissions. We're talking about rebuilding our infrastructure- that's big, and basically means jobs for anyone who wants one.
The American people are not idiots- they know that change is always uncomfortable (well, except for the young people, of course). Most people much over the age of 30 have experienced some business boom that made their lives worse, or at the very least different. That, in fact, is why they can't be lured on by simple promises of better things to come- they've heard that song before (well, except for the young).
What people want is a fair deal. Most of us have changed careers once, and we're willing to do it again, if we're convinced prosperity will be administered fairly, instead of being government handouts to campaign contributors, like the Bush years. God knows most of us work at crappy jobs for minimum wages. We're certainly willing to do something meaningful with our lives, given the chance.
That's the thing. If Obama loses, I think we are doomed. Literally doomed. Civilizational collapse and possible species extinction.
Golly. Obama is that powerful? Who knew?
Move over Jesus, Obama is the new Savior of Mankind. All hail our Lord Obama!
things have actually changed faster than people predicted, and that we're now at a point where substantial climate change is inevitable and the issue is how much can we adapt and can we avoid absolute disaster.
Does anyone have a link that actually supports this "absolute disaster" contention? I've heard this claimed, but it's hard to find clear evidence.
mq: start here:
Will Allen-
Dude, you are really crazy. Everything you said is completely reasonable until you throw that nonsense in about needing to cut Social Security and Medicaid spending. How is that remotely relevant, much less follow logically? If the defense budget is dropping, Social Security and Medicaid can continue to rise without increasing the cost of government as a function of GDP. If we're making a tradeoff between consumption taxes and income taxes (that will be unavoidably regressive) why should part of the deal also be to slash one of the progressive sides most important political commitments at the same time? That's not a 'deal' that's a butt-raping. And unfortunately for you, as your coalition falls apart, you'll have less and less influence at the bargaining table.
mpowell, what is progressive about taxing poor people's wages, and sending checks to millionaires?
mpowell, what is progressive about taxing poor people's wages, and sending checks to millionaires?
That is pure cherry-picking. Progressives don't have any fundamental problems with means-testing SS, but they know damn well that's just part of an agenda to cut benefits to the needy elderly as well. Furthermore, you are talking about replacing those wage taxes with a greater effective consumption tax for those poor folks and at the same time an effectively lower consumption tax for the rich. Don't pretend to be a progressive around here- you're far too transparent.
Fund the Nanotech Energy Initiative - that's all that has to be done. Double US energy capability in the next 25-50 years and all of it "green."
And "absolute disaster" is undoubtedly way overblown, especially since he puts no time table on it. Yeah, someday in the next fifty years New York may be underwater...
Right. You say that like it would be a bad thing...
Sam Penrose,
mq: start here: http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/is-450-ppm-or-less-politically-possible-part-0-the-alternative-is-humanitys-self-destruction/
I see nothing in that link that supports the assertion mq questioned. Could you be more specific?
Yes, mpowell, you can read my mind, when your's isn't employed bending spoons. Look, you can obsfuscate all you want, but the fact is that the wealthiest age demographic by mean is the beneficiary of the programs that consume more tax revenues than any other. If a move towards supplanting other forms of taxation with a carbon tax is desirable, and if the alarmists about climate change are correct, it is more than desirable, then the two largest consumers of tax revenue, defense spending and retiree benefits, are going to have to be cut, in order to reduce the regressivity, by various means, of such a consumption tax.
People unwilling to lower retiree benefits to the retired wealthy and upper middle class are not the least bit serious about reducing carbon emissions. It's all an act.
Comments closed July 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The green jobs thing is a complete myth though. Yes, if cap-and-trade goes into place, there will be more people working in environmentally friendly jobs. However, there will be less people working in the oil, gas and coal industry.
The fact is that raising the price of carbon will cost money. That means there will be net less money to hire people. There will not a be a resurgence of green jobs that solves our current unemployment problem.
Even if some green projects are more labor intensive than the current carbon infrastructure, that's not exactly an advance for our economy. It reminds me of a story (I think from China) where a foreign observer saw a bunch of men digging for construction with shovels. The foreign observer asked why they didn't use a bull-dozer. The local boss said that they wanted to increase jobs. The observer said 'Oh I thought you wanted a building. If you just want to create jobs, why not give them spoons?'
Of course, this isn't an argument against addressing global warming. We should raise the price of carbon. Maybe green jobs is a necessary political lie to do so. But to pretend like it will be increase overall jobs and economic growth is just a lie.
Posted by jamie | July 1, 2008 11:40 AM