There were presidential debates on both sides tonight. I don't have cable, so I didn't watch them. However, a friend sent along this bit of transcript from the Dem, from a question on climate policy:
GIBSON: All right. Let me turn to something else. Reversing -- you invoked the name of Al Gore a few moments ago -- reversing or slowing global warming is going to take sacrifice. I'm sort of sorry Chris Dodd isn't here because he's talked a lot about a carbon tax in this election. Al Gore favors a carbon tax. None of you have favored a carbon tax. Is it a bad idea, or is it just so politically unpalatable that you guys don't want to propose it?
RICHARDSON: Can I answer?
You know, I was energy secretary. It's a bad idea. Because, when you have a carbon tax, first of all, it's not a mandate. What you want is a mandate on polluters, on coal companies, on those that pollute, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain target.
Under my plan: 30 percent by the year 2020; 80 percent by the year 2040. It takes international leadership. The better way to do it is through a cap-and-trade system which is a mandate. Furthermore, a carbon tax, that's passed on to consumers, that's passed on to the average person, that's money you take out of the economy. So it's a bad idea.
Cap-and-trade is a mandate, but it's also going to take presidential leadership. It's going to take all of us here, every American, you know, to think more efficiently about how we transport ourself, what vehicles we purchase, appliances in our homes.
It's going to take a transportation policy that doesn't just build more highways. We have to have commuter rail, light rail, open spaces. We've got to have land-use policies where we improve people's quality of life.
GIBSON: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: Well, I agree with Bill that I think a cap-and-trade system makes more sense. That's why I proposed it: because you can be very specific in terms of how we're going to reduce the greenhouse gases by a particular level.
Now, what you have to do is you have to combine it with a 100 percent auction. In other words, every little bit of pollution that is sent up into the atmosphere, that polluter is getting charged for it.
Not only does that ensure that they don't game the system, but you're also generating billions of dollars that can be invested in solar and wind and biodiesel.
I do disagree with one thing, though, that Bill said, and that is that on a carbon tax, the cost will be passed on to consumers, and that won't happen with a cap-and-trade.
Under a cap-and-trade, there will be a cost. Plants are going to have to retrofit their equipment. And that's going to cost money, and they will pass it onto consumers.
We have an obligation to use some of the money that we generate to shield low-income and fixed-income individuals from higher electricity prices.
But we're also going to have to ask the American people to change how they use energy. Everybody is going to have to change their light bulbs. Everybody is going to have to insulate their homes. And that will be a sacrifice. But it's a sacrifice that we can meet. Over the long term, it will generate jobs and businesses, and can drive our economy for many decades.
CLINTON: Charlie, let me make a connection here that I think is really important.
I think the economy is slipping toward a recession -- the unemployment figures on Friday hitting 5 percent, the $100 a barrel oil that we also hit this week, the fall of the dollar. There's a lot of pressures on middle-class families, and the kind of costs that they have to keep up with have all gone up astronomically.
I mean, you know, the energy costs for the typical family in New Hampshire since George Bush has been president have tripled. And that's far beyond what the costs of the tax cut that they got from George Bush.
So, what we've got to do is use energy as an opportunity to actually jump-start economic recovery. We need to quickly move toward energy efficiency. We should require the utilities to begin to work for energy efficiency and conservation, costs that will be shared and decrease the pressure on families.
We need a weatherization and low-income heating emergency program that is out there now helping families in New Hampshire and elsewhere to cover their costs.
And we need to look at how doing what is right about energy is not only good for our security and good for the fight against global warming, but it will be essential in dealing with the economic challenges that we face.
Kudos to Richardson for mentioning land use and transportation policy, undercovered as they are. Then again, he doesn't really seem to understand the difference between a carbon tax and a C&T system very well.
Huge kudos to Obama for putting 100% auction into a mainstream debate, and for making a great, compact case for where the revenue would go. Boo to him for passively accepting the stupid "sacrifice" frame.
More huge kudos to Clinton for tying energy policy to economic revival -- "sacrifice" my ass. People are already sacrificing. We need a road out of that. Very well framed.
This really is an impressive field.
UPDATE: Harold Meyerson:
Based on the performance of the two parties in the two debates, the Republicans want to employ Americans building a fence on the border; the Democrats want to employ Americans retrofitting what's on this side of the border.
New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 8:27 pm
05 Jan 2008
But frankly, this is kind of wonky. If any of these guys wins, everything they may be saying now about energy will be negotiable and tweakable in 2009.
The ABC News site tells us juicier stuff, like how Edwards and Obama played like a tag-team beating up Hillary -- interesting tactic for Edwards; it may work.
Then there was this weak moment for her:
<<
On the issue of likability, the debate verged on melodramatic. When asked how she responded to those who question her likability compared with Obama's, Clinton played the injured damsel: "Well, that hurts my feelings, but I'll try to go on."
And she praised Obama, "He's very likable. I agree on that. I don't think that I'm that bad."
To which Obama quipped: "You're likable enough.'
>>
Ouch!
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:14 pm
05 Jan 2008
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 11:26 pm
05 Jan 2008
at killing all hope of any significant regulation coming out of Congress
focus on the practical means necessary to aggressively promote efficiency
and the practical means to encourage mass transit, high-density-low-crime cities, solar, geothermal, wave and wind
I never see any step by step analysis here; no lobby; no proposed legislation; no plans for anything effective
only an obsession on the holy and impractical 100% auction
stay sanctimonious and roast the world
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:13 am
06 Jan 2008
In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm
By JOHN TIERNEY
Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.
Guess which paper jibed with the theory -- and image of Katrina -- presented by Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"?
It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December -- by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.
My Log
Permalink
TheGreenMiles Posted 1:07 am
06 Jan 2008
Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
jcwinnie Posted 2:14 am
06 Jan 2008
The rationale is that a carbon tax is politically infeasible. An interesting measure to use, makes one wonder about the basis for such infeasibility and the corresponding "realistic assessment by the front runners."
Sounds like feedstock from the donkeys for the gasifier.
Permalink
erinamelia Posted 2:47 am
06 Jan 2008
I'm pleased that Obama cited the fact that we need to use income generated by cap and trade to protect low-income people, although he should mention that government-subsidized adaptation and efficiency programs are a great start.
I'd like to know what Edwards said as well, if he managed to answer the questions.
Permalink
Greta Posted 4:27 am
06 Jan 2008
First, I liked that she made a joke. Second, I liked the sarcasm of the joke and what it implied: "It is not important for me to be liked only to be effective." ...Strongly agree! Any leader who is afraid of being disliked (looking at you B.O.) will sell out right and left.
[Unlike the political pundits, my impression of Obama's reply was one of sarcastic underexaggeration. I think that he greatly admires Hillary Clinton, and she knows that, which is what made his comeback funny.]
And, third, during the debate, I liked that she got "feisty" in defense of something Edwards said. I have heard the pundits say that she "lost it". On the contrary, I was relieved finally to see that kind of spirit (passion) from her. She showed that she will most definitely put her foot down, and there will be no mistake that she has.
I saw her in a new light, this debate, and she gained more of my respect. (Also, on how she answered the "change" mantra. She needs to continue to reinforce that message.)
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Greta Posted 4:30 am
06 Jan 2008
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Greta Posted 4:51 am
06 Jan 2008
But you could see the video online: Democrats Debate: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4092974
Republicans hair puling, er, Debate: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4093225
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 7:49 am
06 Jan 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:03 am
06 Jan 2008
But the result was a juggernaut, a wave of prosperity and innovation that carried this country for 50 years.
There's every reason to think that a comprehensive, full-scale retooling of the economy along sustainable lines would create the same wave of prosperity.
Knowing that, and knowing how difficult it will be to get it started, why would we begin by highlighting sacrifice? Won't there be enough of our enemies doing that? Why wouldn't we highlight the extraordinary benefits we'll be creating for our children? It's just politically, strategically daft to accept your enemy's way of framing the issue.
grist.org
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 8:42 am
06 Jan 2008
and the attempt to compare this to WWII (like Sen. Sanders) is bogus
A very visible threat like war is going to generate a far different reaction from the public
but I like your point about "sacrifice"
what do people think is going to happen if we do not address the climate disaster?
one way or another, we need to change the way we do things. staying the same (not sacrificing?) is simply not an option
Permalink
trock Posted 9:33 am
06 Jan 2008
We can talk it about it this way. Say there will be some sacrifice but there will mostly be opportunity. And then talk about the opportunity for 5 minutes while you mentioned sacrifice once.
If you don't mention sacrifice, your opponent can ask why doesn't so and so talk about sacrifice, because so and so doesn't want to be honest with you. If you bring it up you can put it in the reference that it deserves, not the reference your opponent wants it to be.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:38 am
06 Jan 2008
OK, I see your point about Hillary's "hurt feelings." And I certainly understand what you are saying about her not being one of those people who need to be liked in order to accomplish anything, sort of being one myself.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza declared Hillary one of the "losers" of last night's ABC News debate, along with both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (the "winners" being John McCain and Barack Obama). But in this description of how the debate went (I did not watch it), from the same paper, it seems that Hillary gave a solid performance, did enough to encourage her supporters, and may have impressed some of the undeclareds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
Still, I like the anti-Hillary gist of both the pieces by Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich in today's NY Times Week in Review.
(Dinosaurophiles, the literal kind, such as myself, may notice that by coincidence, there are not one but two brachiosaurs on the op-ed pages, one of them illustrating Frank Rich's column. Of course, they are symbols of demise, defeat and death.)
I also like Michael Kinsley's piece on the deception of "change" that does not require pain. If the prospect of having to sacrifice is presented honestly and confidently, with the sense that it would be borne in a fairly distributed way, why must that be a political loser?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
ids Posted 11:37 am
06 Jan 2008
Obama's sacrifice frame is a signal to the dirty corp's that they will get their pound of flesh from the consumer before it is all over, not to worry.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:16 pm
06 Jan 2008
David Roberts said:
"There's every reason to think that a comprehensive, full-scale retooling of the economy along sustainable lines would create the same wave of prosperity."
If just fighting global warming by "retooling" were the only thing to do, fine. Here is what worries me though. Where will the energy come from to retool?
Tooling up is like bootstrapping. Either you do it by using fossil fuel with its high quality free energy, in which case retooling is just another contribution to GDP and means new jobs. Or you do it incrementally by re-routing energy from alternative sources to the retooling effort. Since we are not starting with a sufficient installed base of solar collectors and wind generators, where will the energy come from to retool?
Now given that the evidence is mounting that we are at or have passed peak oil we may not have the prior option (and this aside from reducing carbon emissions).
I think we are looking at very different economic dynamics here. I worry that avoiding the word sacrifice in order to not get caught in the enemy's frame will bite us in the ass when people start realizing they have to give up a great deal of the American lifestyle in order to reduce carbon. Actually, given the reduction in fossil fuels in general, those won't be sacrifices. They will be losses.
Call me a pessimist if you must. But I just don't see where the BTUs are coming from to keep things humming along without a care.
George
http://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus/
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
trock Posted 6:50 pm
06 Jan 2008
How do we treat owners and workers in coal mines?
Our country had a civil war over 140 years ago, mostly over slavery. Many people said slavery was wrong, but to many in the south, it was the economic system. And there was a war over the rights of that system and how that is to be decided. 620 000 died in the fighting with many more injured and much destruction of property.
As I understand, we were the only country in the world to solve their slavery problem with a war. Couldn't we have had a buy out system? Maybe everything was talked about at the time, but it seems to me if our country was the only one that solved it with a war, we didn't try hard enough. Maybe if it had been a buyout of slaves instead of a war and a walk away, blacks may have been treated better for the hundred years after the war in the south.
Then the question is, what do we do with those people who own coal mines and are to work in coal mines? Are we to just say, to bad, all the money you invested in coal mines is just lost money? Are we to buy them out? Are we going to treat them as earth destroying scum if they try to keep the mines open and then make them enemies or try to make those who give up the mines heroes? Are we going to buy them out? And what do we do for utilities that use coal now and have coal plants that are completely paid for, but now have to buy renewable energy. Are we to make enemies of all those electricity rate payers?
If we aren't willing to talk about the sacrifice of people and the sacrifice of what some people are going to have to do or what it is we are willing or able to do, then we really aren't being serious about the problem. Because then there are going to be people who will talk about sacrifices and that will be your political opponents to doing anything about global warming.
I asked something like this question before on this website, and was told they just didn't care about the coal mine owner. So we don't care whether someone is a political enemy, or if something can be done to if not make them political allies at least make them political neutral? Because this thing is going to be hard enough with the politically neutral, we may want to reduce as many political enemies as possible.
Permalink
Baby Boomer Posted 1:03 am
07 Jan 2008
Plus, if she's elected I know so many middle-aged and old white guys who will foam at the mouth. It would be so much fun to watch.
Permalink
drocto Posted 4:23 am
07 Jan 2008
Permalink
Greta Posted 9:42 am
08 Jan 2008
I think that we should teach the meaning of gluttony and reinstate the virtue of NOT being gluttonous. Let's start by asking people to consume only "their reasonable share" (and redefine what that means).
Look at our obese society...food makes for the perfect metaphor. With an alarming rate of child obesity, it shows that gluttony (/selfishness) is being taught earlier these days.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
mkwrk2 Posted 10:24 am
15 Jan 2008
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/302957/
Permalink