Environmentalism: Understanding the Issues
Here’s a regular feature called “Campaign Watch” from the American Energy Society’s weekly publication:
- All 20 Democrats support and would commit to the Paris climate agreement.
- 4 of 20 candidates fully support the Green New Deal (including Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders as an Independent candidate, and O’Rourke if he runs).
- 7 of 20 “unequivocally” support a carbon tax (Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Delaney, Gillibrand, Williamson and Yang); 5 have said they are considering it.
- 7 of 20 support nuclear energy and its expansion (Booker, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobuchar, Ryan and Yang).
- The incumbent and projected Republican candidate, President Donald Trump, vigorously opposes the Paris climate agreement and any carbon tax, dismisses the GND, and supports nuclear energy.
It’s no surprise that the two parties are divided on important matters; that’s “what makes good horse races,” as they say. But it’s a little unclear how people have opinions on things like environmental policy when they’re utterly clueless about the impacts of what they’re espousing. Yes, there are people who want us to be the only nation on Earth to reject the Paris Accord, but how many of them could give an answer, the quality of which we’d expect from a school kid to questions about the financial impact of things like:
• The economic value of new jobs in wind, solar, and building efficiency retrofits
• The costs of forcing the U.S. into uncompetitive positions in cleantech in the global marketplace
• Healthcare implications of ingesting/inhaling the aromatics of coal plants
• The key issues surrounding nuclear: waste disposal, the prospects of next-gen technology
• The value to the U.S. of cleantech intellectual property and technological leadership
• The military and diplomatic costs of protecting U.S. access to foreign oil
• The costs of rising sea levels and worsening floods, winds, droughts, and wildfires
• The myriad issues associated with climate refugees
Republicans and Democrats are at odds on essentially everything, and again, that’s understandable. But wouldn’t it be a more useful and less embarrassing debate if the anti-environmentalists understood a little more about what they’re talking about? Of course, there are moral issues here as well, but maybe we could keep it simple, and start off with just a few of the most important numbers.
Craig,
I mean the following questions quite sincerely, and I really don’t mean to sound critical or give offense.
Your summary of the 20 democrat political hopefuls should make every American run, not walk to the booths to vote for the President!
Here’s the problem with your logic:
During the 2016 campaign, you along with all Democrats, outgoing President Obama and fellow left travelers, made the following claims which have continued to the present ;
1) If Trump were elected, his policies would see economic collapse.
2) The poor and working class would experience unprecedented poverty and unemployment worse than the great depression.
3) The US would be “isolated” and bankrupted by “trade warfare”.
4) The US would be involved in real war (probably nuclear).
5) Trump would end NATO and sanctions against Russia.
6) Millions of Americans would emigrate.
Hmmmm,….I mean, you see the problem ?
Not only have none of those things occurred, but the President’s policies have brought unprecedented prosperity, hope and confidence, especially to the poor and working class Americans.
It’s kind of like the Democrats are living on another planet !
Okay, but just look at some of your complaints;
1) Have you really read the Paris Agreement thoroughly ? Do you understand the real terms of the agreement, or like Obama, not bother with the fine print and just hope it means what you want it to mean?
(If you have really read the document, please provide any explanation of why there are so many flaws, ambiguities and deceptions. Please explain the advantage for America)
2) Who are these ” climate refugees ” ?
I could go on through all your issues, but since many are either vague or largely fantasies, what would be the point ?
My real point is, why persist with such unbelievable claims ? To whom are you preaching?
I feel sorry for the Democrats, they must try to contradict the President when he asks the average voter, “Are you better off today, than 3 years ago?”
The answer is an obvious and resounding “YES”!
Inventing fantasies won’t help!
You ask, “Healthcare implications of ingesting/inhaling the aromatics of coal plants” ?
Even here you are disingenuous and afraid to defend your claims which you know to be false.
In fact, new Clean(er) coal technology is capable of producing “Emissions positive” results, beating even solar and Wind for environmental benefits in industrialized nations.
Instead of debating, or accepting, these scientific advances you hide behind old outdated ideological claims.
Effective “advocacy” requires answers to questions and challenges.
“Evangelism” requires no obligation to engage with anyone but “true believers” in a faith.
You must decide are you an advocate for science and clean(er) technology, or a close minded Evangelist for a doctrinaire faith?