gordonrands’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A bill I think we could live with

  I'm not a policy expert, but I think that greentiger's comments are well taken.  While I'm certainly opposed to corn-based ethanol, coal to liquid fuels, nuclear energy and offshore drilling, the bill's treatment of these seems within the scope of reason, according to the summary in Senator Conrad's press release.

  • corn-based ethanol is not specifically mentioned; rather the focus here in the bill is advanced biofuels, presumably things such as biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol, and the funding is much less than for energy efficiency and for renewables

  • coal to liquid (CTL)fuel plants must utilize carbon sequestration technology that results in the synthetic fuel having lower GHG emissions than oil;  this won't lead to significant GHG cuts, but  it is better than previous funding proposals for CTL that I have heard about. Under an eventual cap-and-trade or (unlikely but probably preferable) carbon tax scheme I imagine that CTL will prove to be far too expensive to be viable.  Should we therefore avoid funding it at all and direct all the R&D to renewables?  Sure, but a "R&D funding for deep green approaches only" probably won't fly for the foreseeable future.  If providing R&D dollars for neutral to light green R&D is the quid pro quo to extending and expanding funding for renewables, hybrids, etc., then it seems acceptable.

  • nuclear's treatment under the bill is the one that I'm actually most concerned about, as it is not very specific and could possibly significantly increase nuclear expansion.  The funding for R&D to reduce spent nuclear fuel waste does not seem like a significant green benefit.

  • offshore oil drilling is, as greentiger observed, not as problematic in my opinion as some other issues.  My impression is that over the last 30 years offshore oil rigs drilling operations have been relatively clean -- I may be wrong about this but its certainly been better than spills from tankers.  If so, I'd far rather see increased offshore oil drilling than increased drilling in the Rocky Mountain west or any in ANWR.  If there are demonstrable problems with offshore drilling, pipelines or tanker loading, then why not work with the bill's authors and ask them to address this?

  The bill extends the renewable energy production tax credits to 2012, expands consumer tax credits for hybrids and for energy efficiency.  As with any bill the devil is in the details, and the details may be far less positive than the press release suggests.  If so, I'd like to hear about these, and how they could be improved.  

  While the sponsors are conservative Democrats and fairly (but not extremely) conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats (and the two or three moderate Republicans who still exist) don't and won't in 2009 have enough votes to pass good legislation on their own.  A bipartisan approach is eventually needed to address energy and environmental issues.  It seems to me that extension of renewable energy production tax credits is so important, and a compromise of some sort is likely needed to get this done, that this bill is worth seeking to improve, rather than flat out opposing.On Congress goes on recess without passing energy legislation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sound arguments for Chafee endorsement

  As a longtime Sierra Club member and regular LCV donor, I am glad that they have both chosen to endorse Chafeee.  

  That the environment has come close to being a partisan issue has been very harmful to environmental legislation, and to the environmental movement.  It is critical that there be Republican environmentalists in Congress.  I actually think that of the four scenarios you mention, #2 (Dem majority, Chafee wins) is by far the best one.

  I recognize the potential that you mention that a Chafee win will be the action that keeps the Senate 50-50, and thus in GOP hands.  But if that happens, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see Chafee pull a Jim Jeffords-like switch to Independent.  I hope that it doesn't come to that -- I desparately hope that the Democrats win either the Senate or the House.  But I'm afraid that isn't going to happen, even if Chafee loses.

  Not just on environment, but on other issues, the country is not well served by two ideologically pure parties.  We need liberal Republicans in office to prevent further polarization of this nation.On More on Chafee, believe it or not posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  evangelical environmentalists

  I agree strongly with Gretel's comment.  I have attended conferences with evangelical environmentalists and read a number of their publications.  These people are sincerely committed to protecting the environmnent, and they are also sincerely committed to conservative Christian values and principles.  This summer a number of these individuals that I spoke to were torn about the choice between Bush and Kerry, with some leaning one way and some the other.

  These groups, as well those such as Republicans for Environmental Progress (is that the correct name?), offer the potential for improving communication of pro-environmental messages to religious conservatives and Republicans generally.  But doing so effectively will require that mainline environmentalists also listen to them, and be willing to treat their views on other issues (traditional moral issues in the case of evangelicals, and economic issues and policy approaches [market-based vs. traditional regulation] in the case of Republicans) with an increased amount of openmindedness and respect.  That doesn't mean having to agree, but it should mean at least agreeing to politely disagree, stopping inflammatory name-calling, and agreeing that the other issues can be decoupled from the basic goals of protecting a quality environment for our grandchildren.On Making environmentalism palatable to social conservatives posted 5 years ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Some thoughts from a moral conservative

  I'm not sure whether to post this here or at the moral values thread, but presumably people are reading both.  First, to put things in context, a bit about where I'm coming from.

  I'm an aging baby boomer whose undergraduate degree is in Natural Resources (U of Michigan). I've worked as a staff member for the Idaho Conservation League, and as an environmental educator. I got a master's in organizational development & change and a Ph.D. in Business (management) and now teach in a business school, mainly courses in business ethics, but also courses on business and the natural environment.  My political philosophy is not easily pigeonholed: fiscally conservative (pro balanced budget), conservative on personal morality issues (anti-abortion, pro sanctity of marriage, anti sex outside of marriage, anti use of illegal drugs), economically progressive (pro progressive income tax), fairly liberal on social justice issues (pro anti-poverty programs that promote responsibility and initiative, anti-racial and gender discrimination), for an activist foreign policy based on sustainable development principles, and passionately pro-environment.  I voted for Nader in 2000 (I could afford to as I live in Illinois), and for Kerry this year, but not without some trepidations.

  Environmentalists have to realize that for strongly religious Christian conservatives -- whether Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon (I'm the latter) -- concerns about moral decay based in rejection of traditional codes of personal sexual morality are extremely important.  Praying about one's decisions is not something that one does because one is anti-rationality, but because one believes that there are limitations to human wisdom, but not to God's wisdom.  While I disagree with the wholescale conservative philosophy of most religious conservatives, I believe that the vast majority of them are sincere in their beliefs and that most of them are in fact caring individuals.  However, most believe that, although everyone is fallible and makes mistakes and deserves to be loved, it is wrong to be tolerant of sinful behavior, because it is not only against God's commands, but is personally and socially harmful.  Obviously the rhetoric coming from some of the members of this group can sometimes be rather vituperative (and thus seemingly hypocritical) about liberals.  But think about some of the opinions expressed by liberal environmentalists (even on this blog) about President Bush and other conservatives.  Not exactly very tolerant either.

  There was a fair amount written before the election about the fact that all evangelicals are not conservative on social issues (taxes, environment, health care, etc.) despite their conservatism on moral issues (issues of personal sexual morality such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.).  I don't know if any of the polling or other research will answer how these people voted, but I'll hazard a guess that many of them (perhaps not a majority) ended up voting for Bush.  

  I completely agree that war, environmental destruction, poverty, lack of health care, and other assorted problems for which Bush and conservative Republican politicians seems to have little if any concern ARE moral issues.  But to attempt to make the case that these issues are THE moral issues worth considering will simply not cut it with those for whom issues of personal (largely sexual) morality is a central concern.

  The environmental community has to face up to the fact that so long as it is seen as not only favoring environmental protection, but also as favoring abortion, looking down on religion, and being highly tolerant of (or even favoring) sexual relations outside of marriage (whether hetero- or homosexual) , it is likely to be rejected by many individuals for whom religious faith is one of the strongest aspects of their lives.  

  How can this problem be addressed?  I'm not sure.  I know that many conservatives believe that environmentalists are ill-informed, arrogant, bossy "know-it-alls", who are uncaring about the problems that the average blue collar American faces.  I think that environmentalists have for too long attempted to win battles by turning out our base, rather than by patiently and tolerantly engaging in real dialogue with those who are skeptical of our views, understanding the day-to-day problems that most lower/middle class Americans face, incorporating these concerns into our policy proposals, and slowly building a widespread understanding of how a sustainable society will be more supportive of their hopes and desires than will the corporate dominated society that so many GOP conservatives really favor.  In other words, we have to help people realize that the environmentalist vision is more in line with "Main Street" than is that of "Wall Street".

  At the same time, we have to be willing to embrace market-based policies when these will work.  

  I think that the constant negative (often downright insulting) depictions of our opponents (corporations, Republicans, conservatives, religions, etc.) has to end, because we are backing ourselves into a corner in which there aren't many other occupants. It may make for great fundraising, but it doesn't make for very good education and coalition building.

  We also have to be willing to support politicians who on some issues are moderate but on environmental issues are strong - even if not perfect.  Environmentalists are among the activist groups who have made moderate Democratic officeholders (at least at the federal level) an endangered species. (The right of course has its own activist groups that have done the same to moderate Republicans).  Groups such as the League of Conservation voters needs to look for religious, pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-environment candidates to support in the primaries (and even before), in both parties.

  Well, sorry for the rambling, but this is a topic on which I feel passionately.  I am tired of always having to choose between two aspects of my deeply held moral values (sexual morality and environmental protection) whenever I vote for a candidate.  So far I have always come down upon the side of the environment, but I admit that its getting harder and harder to do so, as signs of moral decay in society become more and more evident.

  I hope that my comments may have provided another useful perspective on this topic.On Making environmentalism palatable to social conservatives posted 5 years ago 19 Responses