Republicans for Environmental Protection is calling on House GOP leaders to stop spreading misinformation about the climate and energy legislation Democrats released last week.
In a pointed press release issued last week, the group challenged allegations made by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) that a plan to reduce climate-warming emissions amounts to a “light switch tax,” arguing that Boehner’s lies are a “disservice to American citizens.”
Boehner has now claimed repeatedly that Democrats’ plans to limit CO2 emissions will amount to a $3,100 tax on every household – a figure based on a deliberate misinterpretation of a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At least 19 other Republicans have repeated that misinformation in the past week, but REP is taking them on for “making faulty calculations based on erroneous assumptions.” The group writes:
Conservatives, of all people, should not ignore basic principles of economics. Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress to debate the climate issue constructively. Voters are counting on their elected representatives to work together across party lines to develop balanced legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower America’s dangerous dependence on oil, and help us move more quickly to a more diversified, robust energy economy.
Later in the release, REP concludes:
The recent Republican tactics to fight climate legislation show a dangerous unwillingness to learn the right lessons from the election debacles of 2006 and 2008. A refusal to face facts, acknowledge risks, and make responsible policy choices for the greater good is not conservative. It is reckless endangerment of our country and it must stop.
What are the chances of a cap-and-trade system being established in the U.S. this year?
Comments
View as Flat
sindark Posted 9:33 am
06 Apr 2009
The idea that one should be free to behave as one wishes - as long as it doesn’t harm others - seems to provide a decent balance between allowing people to pursue their own purposes and stopping that pursuit from harming the general interest. That being said, the degree to which libertarianism can be liberating is diminishing with time. This is basically because of both the growing fact of interconnectedness and because of our growing awareness of it.
At one point in time, it would have been considered reasonable to argue that economic activity on one side of the world has no morally relevant effect on the other. Now that markets are more linked, products and capital flow, and awareness of linkages exist, that becomes very difficult to argue. Before, it is as though the chooser was alone in a room with a light switch. It is of no particular moral consequence whether they choose to have it on or not. Now, it is more as though that light switch also reduces the function of the equipment in a hospital across town when it is pulled. Whereas libertarianism previously permitted free choice, the inter-linked example includes a moral obligation to act in a certain way.
Climate change may be the ultimate force diminishing how liberating libertarianism can be. Not only do nearly all of our life and economic choices impact innocent third parties around the world, they also contribute to a problem that will have a huge long-term impact on future generations and the natural world. Arguably, this makes the doctrine of “do what you like but do no harm” impossible to follow in practice.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:59 pm
06 Apr 2009
However they are endowed many of the rights of a person.
That said, any entity which is not fully responsible for their liabilities, shouldn't be entirely "free" from regulation.
Permalink