The Republican Party approved its 2008 platform yesterday, which it hailed in a press release as containing "the most aggressive and innovative energy policy in Republican Party history."
But the approved version differs significantly from earlier drafts in the climate and energy realm. This line, which appeared in an earlier draft, was dropped: "Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth." While the final acknowledges the role of humans in climate change, it calls for solutions that won't "force Americans to sacrifice their way of life or trim their hopes and dreams for their children." At points the platform appears dismissive of climate change.
"Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government," it says. "We can -- and should -- address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly."
The platform suggests that there should be no carbon constraints on the U.S. unless China or India face similar limits: "It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all."
It also calls for a repeal of the biofuels mandate that passed as part of the 2007 energy bill; that provision mandates a fivefold increase in biofuels in the U.S. fuel stream by 2022. "The U.S. government should end mandates for ethanol and let the free market work," the platform reads.
The mandate was supported by the Bush administration, but has become unpopular with congressional Republicans of late.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), chair of the platform committee, celebrated his party's platform process. "This platform is the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history," McCarthy said. "Indeed, we are a Party -- as we are a nation -- of mavericks. Yet we stand united today because we are the one Party that speaks to all Americans."
Here's the climate-change section:
Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
The Solution: Technology and the Market
As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy. To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific knowhow and competitive markets.
International Cooperation
Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter. It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.
Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation
Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
Doing No Harm
Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can -- and should -- address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.
A robust economy will be essential to dealing with the risk of climate change, and we will insist on reasonable policies that do not force Americans to sacrifice their way of life or trim their hopes and dreams for their children. This perspective serves not only the people of the United States but also the world's poorest peoples, who would suffer terribly if climate change is severe -- just as they would if the world economy itself were to be crippled. We must not allow either outcome.
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time
Comments
View as Flat
DarkFaculties Posted 9:47 am
02 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:26 pm
02 Sep 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:15 pm
02 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:55 pm
02 Sep 2008
The former (way of life) is contradictory to the latter (dreams for their children). Is wastage of food, wastage of energy or the wastage of neurons in people's brains : is it the american way of life ? If you define it thus, then ofcourse, this has to change, to preserve the dreams of our future generations. What part of this is difficult to understand ?
doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government
Doomsday climate change scenarios are a clear and distinct possibility. They are "peddled" by scientists of all hues, if you care to listen to the scientific debate. They are no aficiandos of centralized command-control government here. Infact, the problem is indeed centralized-command-control economic power vested in a powerful few. Republican leadership are just puppets of these people (read big oil).
It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all.
Preventing climate change is not a "burden". It is common sense. If Republicans care even a little about American leadership in the world, they will accept that responsibility. But what they care about is not American leadership, but American exploitation of world's resources.
Wake up, this era is coming to an end in a multi-polar world.
address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.
Economic growth is always possible in a no-carbon economy. It is not a no-growth scenario. In fact, there are lots of green-collar jobs to be made and the US manufacturing industry will receive a boom by adopting green economic policies. It is the fossil-fuel based economy which faces clearly defined limits to economic growth, because these reserves are drying up and they are by no means sustainable.
And please, climate-science is not a dogma. You know what "dogma" means ? Turn the pages of the dictionary : a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church. For example, (a) intelligent design based on biblical dates (b) laisse faire economics (c) opposition to cell culture and other Republican talkative points classify as "dogma". In contrast, climate-science works by analysis, feedback and scientific criticism.
People in power cannot afford to be "stupid". People in power should not be "greedy". Republican ideology is a dangerous cocktail of the two.
First thing, we should end using the Republican language in our debates.
The problem with Republican ideology is clear (a) Too much power to big oil (b) Too little investment in the alternative energies of future (c) Sacrifice of science for the sake of petty self-interests.
This is what the debate should be about.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:32 pm
02 Sep 2008
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:49 pm
02 Sep 2008
How is adequate, sustained attention to be drawn to the greedy kings and self-proclaimed masters of the universe who are responsible for the perpetration of such a colossal, fraudulent and patently unsustainable scheme as we see in the rampant process of seemingly endless economic globalization?
At least to me, it appears that the huge scale of unbridled global economic growth is a canker threatening to overspread and eventually ruin Earth as a fit place for human habitation.
Changing from an unsustainable world economy to a sustainable one has got to be made the goal, does it not?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 12:09 am
03 Sep 2008
The issues are what constitutes "sustainable" and how do you get there from here without causing massive disruption to the global economy with it's attendant suffering and warfare.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
sindark Posted 12:25 am
03 Sep 2008
We can only hope that improvements in national science education will eventually emerge and help to render such falsehoods recognizable to most of the populace.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 1:12 am
03 Sep 2008
If the manmade economy is constructed as a 'perpetual motion machine' and managed as a colossal pyramid scheme, then economists can be expected to promulgate new, more reality-oriented theories, to develop new business models and to accomplish goals worthy of the Nobel Prizes we want them to earn.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:24 am
03 Sep 2008
There is no world government, and if there were, it would doubtless not be altruistic in its approaches to global issues or the humanity it governed. There's no reason to assume it would at any rate.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:31 am
03 Sep 2008
How about eliminating the subsidies too?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 4:13 am
03 Sep 2008
Once again, MAD MAC and Sindark deserve our thanks for speaking out loudly, clearly and often.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 6:05 am
03 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 6:07 am
03 Sep 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:38 am
03 Sep 2008
Or.
We can watch it happen as the Australians are doing now.
Choose.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:51 pm
03 Sep 2008
Or.
We can watch it happen as the Australians are doing now.
Choose."
We as a country can plan and make some adjustments. We as a world can not. The world governance, such as it is, can not direct member states to do anything. Anyone who pays attention to global politics can very quickly grasp that mankind can not approach global problems of substance that require massive change in any kind of unified manner. It has not happened, it will not happen. So, to answer your question, we will grapple with these problems as individual states. It won't be a planned event. It can't be. What you seek is not possible.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:57 pm
03 Sep 2008
Hey, you GOP denialists, the reality is:
NO Democrat has ever discouraged personal initiative, or argued that it should not be appropriately rewarded;
NO Democrat has ever encouraged a loafing lifestyle of do-nothingness, supported by public subsidy;
NO Democrat has ever instructed Americans to lie in feckless readiness, passively awaiting commandments from DC;
NO Democrat has ever recommended any kind of feeble escapism, or panic, or despair, through the promotion of an alleged "doomsday scenario."
Assertions to the contrary are simply lies.
And one of the things that makes it so difficult for us Democrats to work with Republicans is precisely that so many Republicans believe those lies, and work to spread them.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:21 pm
03 Sep 2008
For a moment consider what your words tell us: that you know what the future holds. Who knows what is and is not possible?
It was Einstein, as I recall, who said something like, "the consciousness that creates certain conditions cannot be the consciousness that determines what to do about changing those conditions." People of another consciousness are needed for the work of productive adaptation, I suppose. Our children are likely to be possessors of a new consciousness, I believe; but how, pray tell me, are the children to be successful if their elders either behave like ostriches with heads in the sand or else pose as individuals who are bereft of clear vision, intellectual honesty and moral courage.
From my humble perspective, global challenges are visible on the far horizon and need to be acknowledged, addressed and overcome. Period. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 12:51 am
04 Sep 2008
in case i'm not making myself perfectly clear; what a smugly ignorant twitty thing to believe.
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 12:54 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 1:00 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 1:01 am
04 Sep 2008
aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 4:40 am
04 Sep 2008
" don't want to disrupt the global economy
yeah, don't want to rock the boat now that the world is nice and peaceful and stable and we've eliminated poverty and starvation for everyone... ^_^ "
Thanks for saying what is so obvious and so real. You are correct. Just as you suggest, people with wealth and the power it purchases like things just the way they are and, as you put it, do not want to "rock the boat." Everyone can see the point you are making; however, you have likely noticed that not everyone is saying what you are saying. Perhaps wealthy people and their bought-and-paid-for politicians "preach" silence in the face of what is real about the world we inhabit and eschew the words of open, honest and courageous people regarding what is real about the human condition: armed conflicts in many places {but not in enclaves of the wealthy and powerful}; economic bubbles, Ponzi games and pyramid schemes underwriting soon to become unsustainable global economic growth; rampant political destabilization; poverty affecting billions of people and massive starvation of millions of children; diseases and pestilence........
Thanks for speaking truth to power so succinctly, loudly and clearly.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 8:21 pm
04 Sep 2008
" don't want to disrupt the global economy
yeah, don't want to rock the boat now that the world is nice and peaceful and stable and we've eliminated poverty and starvation for everyone... ^_^ "
G. Zuckier, this is only a guess, but the last two postings of the four (4) consecutive missives you introduced in this thread lead me to ask you an unexpected question.
Are your words {in quotations above} a Freudian slip {verbal 'mistakes' that are thought to reveal unconscious truth}?
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:57 pm
05 Sep 2008
" don't want to disrupt the global economy
yeah, don't want to rock the boat now that the world is nice and peaceful and stable and we've eliminated poverty and starvation for everyone... ^_^ "
Were your latter posts attempts to undo what you said {in quotations above}, as if to magically cover-up or deny your actual, intentional understandings?
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink