environment Politics: carbon tax corporate irresponsibility fee and dividend media irresponsibility Republican obstructionism
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 3, Month 5, Day 5: What’s Wrong With This Picture?
The Chicago Tribune carries the “people are waking up” story a few steps further:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Three out of four U.S. voters favor regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse-gas pollutant, and a majority think global warming should be a priority for the president and Congress, a survey of American attitudes on climate and energy reported on Thursday.
The survey was released one day after Rolling Stone magazine published an interview with President Barack Obama in which he suggested that climate change would become a campaign issue this year.
In results often at odds with the political debate in Washington, the survey conducted for Yale and George Mason University also found most Americans would vote for a candidate who raised taxes on coal, oil and natural gas – fossil fuels that emit climate-warming carbon dioxide when burned – while cutting income tax, in a revenue-neutral “tax swap.”
This maneuver, which would not add to federal revenues but would change where they came from, has long been discussed by such disparate political actors as former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, and Bob Inglis, a Republican former congressman.
Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported the tax swap, while 20 percent said they would be less likely.
When we get to 100 percent of the population, our politicians will finally do what is right. Sent April 26:
While the First Amendment precludes an outright prohibition on the rhetoric of climate-change deniers, it’s increasingly obvious that America’s national conversation would be better off if these voices weren’t so unnaturally amplified. The anti-science statements of conservative politicians and their enablers in the media have helped to make reality-based environmental policies impossible to enact, even when a majority of Americans think they’re desirable. In the current atmosphere of petroleum-funded corruption, any legislative actions toward planetary responsibility are doomed from the start by corporate resistance to shrinking profit margins.
A tax on carbon emissions is an idea whose time has come. If the money raised were returned to the middle class in the form of tax breaks or dividends, its economic effects would be overwhelmingly beneficial. But until we reduce our emissions of denialist hot air, such a policy is unlikely to advance through congress. Too bad we can’t tax lies.
Warren Senders
Education music Personal Warren's music: homeschooling
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Music at home…
…Daughter and I have exchanges about music theory. She calls them “wacky questions,” and enjoys it when I give her puzzles about harmonic relationships. “If A is ONE, then what is the TWO chord? The FIVE chord?” “Spell a G major triad.” Etc., etc.
Recently we began moving into questions about harmonic sequences. “In the key of C, what is a I-IV-VI-V-I progression?”
She’s seven. I don’t have any huge expectations about this; it’s just a fun game we play. This is way out of her league.
Or is it?
At tonight’s guitar practice I was coaching her into a D-minor chord (the standard one at the bottom of the neck). She started playing a sequence, not too adroitly…and when I tried to steer her in the direction of something I had planned, she said, “Stop! I want to play my own progression!”
Then she dictated: “D minor, A minor, C, A minor, D major, G, A major, D.”
I did a little on-the-spot voice-leading to make two harmony parts and we sang through them. Cool. My daughter’s composing her own chord patterns.
Then she told me to “write it down, so we don’t forget it.”
I think it’s time to show her more about notation.
environment Politics: Barack Obama Even a blind pig finds a nut
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 3, Month 5, Day 4: Would You Like An “N” With Your BLT?
The Washington Post notices:
IN AN INTERVIEW that Rolling Stone published Wednesday, President Obama said that he thinks climate change will be a big issue in the coming election and that he will be “very clear” about his “belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.”
Maybe they should stop publishing George Will? Sent April 25:
President Obama’s recent willingness to engage with the reality of climate change is welcome news for everyone, even science-rejecting denialists who vociferously decry policy any initiative smacking of environmental responsibility. The accelerating greenhouse effect has undoubtedly been a factor in the sudden proliferation of extreme weather reported everywhere around the globe during the past year, and this has surely been a factor in the public’s changing attitudes toward the problems of global heating — and in the President’s new tone on climate.
Why has it taken so long? The President seems by nature to be a careful incrementalist: the sort of chief executive who’d have recoiled from hasty actions like the previous administration’s rush to unnecessary war. That’s all well and good, but perhaps as America prepares for a long, hot summer full of breaking weather records, he, and we, will decide that the time for careful incrementalism is over.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: assholes Canada denialists idiots
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 3, Month 5, Day 3: Mighty Lak A Rose…
I don’t usually pay much attention to Canadian politics. But recently the Wildrose party in Alberta has been attracting some attention with their remarkably stupid statements about climate change. The former PM of Norway has some choice words for these dingalings, in an interview in Toronto’s Globe and Mail:
The scientific basis for climate change has come under attack in Canada. Alberta’s Wildrose Party believes the link between human activity and global warming is inconclusive. How do you respond?
That is anti-scientific and naive. Politicians and others that question the science, that’s not the right thing to do. We have to base ourselves on evidence.
What message do you have for political leaders dealing with environmental issues?
It is important not to be influenced by, and inspired by, laissez-faire attitudes, which first had an impact before the [U.S.] financial crisis and [the BP oil spill] in the Gulf of Mexico. When you liberalize regulations, and you leave it more to companies, whether banks or oil companies, I don’t think this is the right way to go. You have to have governance. You must have serious and strict regulations.
She’s so sweet and forgiving, no? Not me. Sent April 24:
While many words come to mind when describing politicians who have embraced climate-change denial for electoral advantage, “naive,” the adjective employed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, is not one of them. To win the approval of conservative voters, Wildrose candidates are following the path marked out by Tea Party activists in the United States: reject ideologically problematic facts and expertise; exploit ignorance; sow confusion.
While voters may have many reasons for misunderstanding the work of climate scientists, politicians must be held to a higher standard. It is (or should be) their business to understand the real-world consequences of the policies they promote, and to take responsibility for the choices they advocate. The evidence for human causes of climate change is overwhelming and unequivocal; any politician arguing otherwise is either self-deluded or mendacious, and there is nothing ingenuous about either folly or lies. To describe denialism as “naive” is, well, naive.
Warren Senders
atheism Education environment Politics: apocalypse armageddon denialists eschatology evangelicals religion theology
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 3, Month 5, Day 2: A 50-Watt Bulb?
The faithful are opening their eyes. Or are they? The News Virginian reports — you decide:
In “The Global Warning Reader: A Century of Writing about Climate Change,” Dr. Bill McKibben presents “The Evangelical Climate Change Initiative,” a 2006 document signed by 86 American Christian evangelical leaders. Signers include: Rick Warren (“The Purpose Driven Life”); W. Todd Bassett, National Commander of the Salvation Army; Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action; and advisors and columnists for Christianity Today magazine. “In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord,” they said, “we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort” of teaching and acting on the following four claims.
1. “Human-Induced Climate Change is Real.” Among the evidence the signers studied was that collected by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose 1988-2002 chairman, John Houghton, is a committed Christian. They remembered that the science was settled enough for the Bush Administration to state in a 2004 report, and then at the 2005 G-8 summit, that humans were responsible for “at least some of it (climate change).” The IPCC, however, holds that human activities are responsible for “most of the warming,” according to the evangelical leaders.
2. “The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest.” The signers emphasized the impact of even the smallest increases in human-caused world-wide temperature upon people in poor countries: tropical diseases, hurricanes, flooding, reduction in food crops, famine, and the vulnerability of refugees to exploitation and violence, even internal and external military oppression. “Millions of people,” they wrote, “could die in this century because of climate change.” They also noted the destruction it could bring to “God’s other creatures.”
I’m not going to take this one on faith. Sent April 23:
The rejection of climate change has long been a shibboleth of political conservatives, who have a record of denying inconvenient facts and expertise that goes back at least fifty years. Why, then, are evangelicals — one of the most consistently conservative voting blocs in the country — beginning to accept the scientific reality of global warming? While some may be encouraged, I am less sanguine about the motivations behind the faithful’s abandonment of long-held denialist positions.
Environmentalists are interested in the long-term survival of the planet; talk to a “tree-hugger” and you’ll hear someone whose worries about humanity’s future in the year 3000 motivate them to conservation and the wise use of resources. By contrast, evangelicals eagerly anticipating the End Times may have little reason to practice sustainability. Is climate-change acceptance among conservative Christians accompanied by a growing conviction that industrialized humanity needs to change its ways to avoid catastrophe? Or are they cheering on the burgeoning greenhouse effect, assuming that the souls of the faithful will be providentially rescued from a disaster of Biblical proportions?
Warren Senders
Education environment: sustainability timescale timespan wisdom
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 3, Month 5, Day 1: Have Another Hit, Babe…
Walter and Nan Simpson have an excellent piece in the Buffalo News. Here’s a bit to whet your appetite:
Earth Day is more than celebrating the little things we do to protect the environment. It’s time to look more broadly at environmental policy and take our planet’s pulse.
Are we doing enough to protect nature and endangered species and reduce air and water pollution? Are we maximizing the green jobs and public health benefits of environmental protection? Are we rapidly developing new green technologies to compete with global green export leaders like China and Germany?
Daring to answer these questions honestly is difficult. We all have our own priorities and problems. We are endlessly distracted by cellphones, computers, video games, hundreds of TV channels, advertising and shopping. We lead busy lives, detached from nature.
Few people want to be troubled by “inconvenient truths” that require significant action and sacrifice. Besides, polluting industries and their friends constantly reassure us there’s no problem. Case in point is the 1,000- pound polar bear in the room — climate change — the most serious environmental problem ever.
More like this, please. Sent April 22:
The flotsam and jetsam of our chaotic information environment can distract us from attending to the environment that really matters. While more and more people are connecting the dots between extreme weather and the burgeoning greenhouse effect, there are an awful lot of people who believe what they’ve been told: there is no crisis; it’s all a fabrication of the so-called “liberal media”; it’s all an excuse for environmentalists to raise our taxes, etc., etc., etc.
But the problem goes beyond the preening megalomaniacs of right-wing radio. The transient, helter-skelter nature of our media conveys an equally misleading message: that the 24-hour news cycle is the only one that really matters. The timespans of Earth move far more slowly; if we are to restore equilibrium to our troubled world, we must learn once again to think in the long term. There is no wisdom in a two-minute attention span.
Warren Senders