Thoughts: 8 October 2021

 

2021 publication,.It will remain relevant for a long time

The Constitution of Knowledge

Jonathan Rauch

The Scottish philosopher David Hume, writing in the 1740s, completed the skeptical demolition of absolute certainty begun by Montaigne. In a tour de force of reasoning which stands unrefuted to this day, he showed that no prediction or causal attribution can ever be certain, even in principle; and that no invocation of miraculous or supernatural causes could ever be justified rationally, even in principle. If no naturalistic explanation can be true beyond any possibility of doubt, and if no supernatural explanation is within bounds, what basis for knowledge could there possibly be?

sng: Great question. Pursue the answer.

The Constitution of Knowledge

Jonathan Rauch

The new Bigs [tech giants] were more efficient at converting information into dollars than, say, a reputable statewide paper such as the Arizona Republic was in its heyday, and they could move content in quantities and at speeds which mocked traditional media. But with a crucial difference: they trafficked in information, not in knowledge, and in content rather than truth. They monetized eyeballs and clicks without pausing for reality checks, so that virality and profitability were a closed loop. The economic advantage of real news vaporized.

Last Best Hope

George Packer

Anti-intellectualism, Richard Hofstadter wrote in his study of the subject, has been a defining American trait from the Puritan beginnings: “It made its way into our politics because it became associated with our passion for equality.”

sng: Anti-intellectualism & resentment of the educated elite have always been a part of the American experience, but in some periods, such as now, it's much worse. And, as Packer argues in his book, not without some justification.

Last Best Hope

George Packer

The shining city on a hill was supposed to replace remote big government with a community of energetic and compassionate citizens, all engaged in a project of national renewal. But nothing held the city together. It was hollow at the center, a collection of individuals all wanting more. Free America measured civic health by gross domestic product. It saw Americans as entrepreneurs, employees, investors, taxpayers, and consumers—everything but citizens.

sng: See the MacIntosh quote following & compare.

Developmental Politics

Steve McIntosh

Moral systems are the product of collective agreements enforced through social norms, peer pressure, and the expectations of the larger community. And the effectiveness of these cultural agreements depends on a communitarian ethos—a binding sense of solidarity that emphasizes the sacrifice of the self for the sake of the larger group.

sng: Cf. Packer above and, for instance, Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue) and William Ophuls.

The Inevitability of Tragedy

Barry Gewen

Disagreements among sovereign states,” Kissinger starkly put it, “can be settled only by negotiation or by power,” and as for those whose instinctive preference in the Cold War was for the second he also said, “The nuclear age has changed both the significance and the role of power.”

sng: True in some measure, but a limited concept of "power." Cf. Hannah Arendt on power & James Hillman's Kinds of Power.

Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality

Pope Francis

The earth’s resources are also being plundered because of short-sighted approaches to the economy, commerce and production. The loss of forests and woodlands entails the loss of species which may constitute extremely important resources in the future, not only for food but also for curing disease and other uses.

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

Puzzling as it sounds, conservatism’s ultimate reward for compromising with liberal democracy was domination of liberal democracy.

Doom

Niall Ferguson

And the “chorus”—not so much public opinion as expert opinion—can fall victim to a different set of biases: the craving for certainty (randomized controlled trials, peer-reviewed papers), the habit of debunking any novel theory, or the sunk cost of being invested in “settled science,” not to mention the temptation to make countless false prophecies on opinion pages and talk shows.

sng: To wit, science is a human enterprise subject to all of our foibles & fallibilities.

Decoding Jung's Metaphysics

Bernardo Kastrup

Jung defines ‘consciousness’ in a much more specific and restrictive manner. For him, consciousness is a relatively small subset of phenomenality, defined on the basis of three key properties. The first we have already encountered when discussing the psyche proper: only mental states under the control of deliberate personal volition are conscious. But then Jung adds: because of its empirical freedom of choice, the will needs a supraordinate authority, something like a consciousness of itself … Volition presupposes a choosing subject who envisages different possibilities. (ONP: 110, emphasis added) This is an allusion to what modern psychology calls ‘meta-consciousness’ (Schooler 2002) or ‘self-reflection.

Thoughts: 7 October 2021

 

2021 examination of the American political divides

Last Best Hope

George Packer

Equality is the hidden American code, the unspoken feeling that everyone shares, even if it’s not articulated or fulfilled: the desire to be everyone’s equal—which is not the same thing as the desire for everyone to be equal. Equality is the first truth of our founding document, the one that leads to all the others. The word of the eighteenth-century Declaration became flesh in the dynamic commercial society of the nineteenth. Tocqueville described equality as the “ardent, insatiable, eternal, and invincible” desire of democratic peoples.

sng: Equality & liberty are the two great American political (and social) values often seemingly at war with one another. And what about community, social solidarity, as a value? Excluded by our excessive individualism? Our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic suggests so.

Nixon Agonistes

Garry Wills

His [Louis Hartz's] Liberal Tradition in America meets the two main objections [to Daniel Boorstein's description of American liberalism] head on: he not only admits but insists that the liberal tradition has a theoretical content—that it is, in fact, Locke’s theory. We began with Locke, according to Hartz, and after every historical scuffle we find, as the dust settles, that we have ended with Locke. The second objection is confronted just as calmly: he not only admits but insists that universal subscription to this theory has made it an orthodoxy, the source of America’s conformism. According to Hartz, we have a liberal theory supported by conservative instincts—Locke’s arguments maintained for Burke’s motives of loyalty. Thus, what is wrong with the liberal tradition is not its liberal content but the fact that it is a tradition, that it forms “a colossal liberal absolutism.” A liberalism thus established is not challenged to reexamine and renew itself. Indeed, philosophical self-examination can no longer be achieved in purely American terms—there is no vantage point outside Locke from which to view our Lockean orthodoxy. The theory is everywhere, made invisible by its omnipresence. The solution is to go outside America—in historical analysis, by placing American liberalism against the broader spectrum of European political philosophies; in practical terms, by pursuing a course of international involvement. Only intimate dealings with other nations can make us recognize the nature of our own theory. In effect, by learning how bad they are, we learn how good we should be.

sng: Wills's dissection of American liberalism, written as a result of his beat as a political reporter in the 1968 presidential campaign, is still spot on, although the political terrain has now added a reactionary element.

Lila

Robert M. Pirsig

The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of morals, there are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic, social-biological, intellectual-social, and Dynamic-static. This last, the Dynamic-static code, says what’s good in life isn’t defined by society or intellect or biology. What’s good is freedom from domination by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn’t have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves.

sng: Sounds like shades of Whitehead and Hartshorne to me. But I don't recall Pirsig every referring to either thinker. Am I missing something, or misguided? 

Decoding Jung's Metaphysics

Bernardo Kastrup

Three key ideas underlie his [Jung's] implicit metaphysical system: first, that of the collective unconscious as a transpersonal experiential field, which generates all autonomous imagery we experience as both the perceived physical world and the worlds of dreams and visions; second, that of consciousness as an internally connected web of psychic contents that turns in upon itself so as to enable self-reflection; and third, that of daemons, autonomous psychic complexes that, although internally connected and conscious, are dissociated from their psychic surroundings.

sng: Sounds far-out? Both Jung & Kastrup are. But perhaps correct.

Philosophical Intimations

James Hillman

Gaston Bachelard, the foremost investigator of imagination in our century, says that the deformation of the given is the essential method of imagination, which, Bachelard writes, “is always considered to be the faculty of forming images. But it is rather the faculty of deforming the images … of freeing ourselves from the immediate images; it is especially the faculty of changing images … if an occasional image does not give rise to a swarm of aberrant images, to an explosion of images, there is no imagination.”  Centuries earlier, Bachelard’s “deforming” was called by Quintilian “distortion”: “The essence of all wit lies in the distortion of the true and natural meaning of words.”  Distortion tortures language to say what’s concealed from ordinary ears. So do puns. Silly and senseless they may be, but they do make us groan. Samuel Johnson names these low conceits or puns “quibbles” and finds that Shakespeare had a fatal attraction to them.

Postcapitalism

Paul Mason

The great technological advance of the early twenty-first century consists not of new objects but of old ones made intelligent. The knowledge content of products is becoming more valuable than the physical elements used to produce them.

sng: The computer chips in your car are now the defining component?

Writing Down the Bones

Natalie Goldberg 

PUSH YOURSELF BEYOND when you think you are done with what you have to say. Go a little further. Sometimes when you think you are done, it is just the edge of beginning. Probably that’s why we decide we’re done. It’s getting too scary. We are touching down onto something real. It is beyond the point when you think you are done that often something strong comes out.

Thoughts 6 October 2021

 

An outstanding consideration of Keynes & his legacy.

The Price of Peace

Zachary D. Carter

Market economies were not a distinct realm, independent of the state, operating according to their own principles. The rhythms of trade, their logic and mechanisms, had to be defined and supported by political authority. His [Keynes's] battle over reparations and inter-ally debt had made him a lifelong enemy of austerity—the doctrine that governments can best heal troubled economies by slashing government spending and paying down debt. When a government was burdened with too much debt, Keynes had come to believe, it was generally better to swear off the debt than to pay it off by burdening the public with a lower standard of living.

N.B. My insight is that all economics, or at least macroeconomics, is political economy.

The Constitution of Knowledge

Jonathan Rauch

I am not suggesting that every Jew go and talk to a neo-Nazi, or that historians reconsider whether the Holocaust happened, or that psychiatry revisit the claim that homosexuals are mentally ill. The Constitution of Knowledge owes its efficiency to producing a body of knowledge, an archive of settled claims which do not need constant relitigating. The reality-based community is conservative, in the sense that it conserves what it has learned and reopens closed accounts reluctantly. When new evidence turns up or experts develop new arguments, then reexamining an established claim may be in order, but the vast majority of claims against settled knowledge do not deserve research budgets or investigative-reporting teams and are rightly ignored.

sng: To wit, it's all a matter of sound judgment, which, like all human endeavors, remains fallible. But we must work with what we've got, knowing all the time that we could be wrong. But not all probabilities of wrongness are the same.

The Science of Conjecture

James Franklin

His [Lorenzo Valla, Italian humanist, 1407-1457] project was to replace Scholastic logic and metaphysics with dialectic and rhetoric, as understood by Cicero, Quintilian, and Boethius. This involved a revival of the arguing on both sides of a question, the urbane skepticism and topical argument of classical rhetoric, in opposition to Scholastic “dogmatism.” As in Cicero, an emphasis on the likely followed. After dividing premises of arguments into the necessary and the likely, Valla draws distinctions among the latter. “But as long as the reason is not plainly true but half-true and half-certain, then the conclusion is not necessary but half-necessary, which when it has much force is called likely and credible, that is, exceedingly possible, and when it has scant force is called possible, that is, scarcely likely or credible.”

sng: Compare this thought with the preceding quote from Rauch. Thinking along the same lines?

Prometheus Rising

Robert Anton Wilson

As civilization has advanced, the pack-bond (the tribe, the extended family) has been broken. This is the root of the widely diagnosed “anomie” or “alienation” or “existential anguish” about which so many social critics have written so eloquently. What has happened is that the conditioning of the bio-survival bond to the gene-pool has been replaced by a conditioning of bio-survival drives to hook onto the peculiar tickets which we call “money”.

sng: Does money equal energy? Food? Status? Prestige? Love? Security? In some way, I would answer a qualified "yes" to each of these questions.

The Ingenuity Gap

Thomas Homer-Dixon

[T]heir [poor Indians'] hardships were primarily derived from inequalities of wealth and power among Bihar’s [an Indian state] castes and from the corrosive effect of these inequalities, when combined with severe resource scarcities, on the state’s political institutions.

sng: If you're not worried about the growing inequalities here in the U.S. and the decline in the efficacy and legitimacy of our governments, then this is an example of why you should be.

Perennial Philosophy

Arthur Versluis

From the perspective of perennial philosophy, time is not separate from but manifests timelessness. The unfolding of patterns in nature has its origin in timeless numbers and geometry that, in turn, are principles radiating from the timeless realm of order prior to the cosmos that we see now.

The Science of Likability

Patrick King

When people subconsciously begin to associate you with positive moods and emotions, you are going to be the bell that makes people smile without realizing why

A Program to Address Climate Change

 N.B. The following is a statement that I drafted based upon suggested revisions to a draft prepared by The Institute for Cultural Evolution and the Post-Progressive Project. The Institute issued its statement, and I shared it here as well as via other social media. I endorsed that statement, but, frankly, I also thought that it could have been improved (i.e., brought closer in line with my thinking). The main point of difference between the Climate Change Policy Proposal as adopted and published by the Institute & the Post-Progressive Alliance and my draft lies in the fact that their paper specifically endorses a program of "eco-modernism." Mine does not. While my statement endorses the use of technological tools and innovations, I am wary that eco-modernism seeks to segregate humans (via urban living and industrial agriculture) from Nature. I also specifically endorse a scheme of carbon pricing (or "carbon pollution fee") with a per capita dividend (or "revenue recycling") as the most efficient and effective to reduce carbon consumption (and the resulting unlimited dumping into the atmosphere). I also put more emphasis on "re-wilding" and regenerative agriculture. The sobering fact is that we are indeed facing a "polycrisis;" to wit, more than one crisis at a time. Climate change first and foremost, but also species extinction and general environmental degradation from many sources; pandemic diseases; uncontrolled tech, racial and economic inequality, and weapons proliferation, to name only the most daunting challenges that pop to mind. Any changes that address climate change must also keep these concerns in mind. Thus my promotion of re-wilding and regenerative agriculture. (Good old-fashioned conservation has a role to play as well, too.) Anyway, here's my take: 

Climate Change

sng version

A Climate Change Policy Proposal

The original impetus for the founding of the Institute for Cultural Evolution in 2012 was to help reduce public resistance to effective action on the climate crisis. But after working on this issue for our first two years of operation, in 2014 the Institute shifted its focus to the issue of political polarization because they found that the main barrier to building the necessary measure of political will to address global warming arises from the hyperpolarization of the American electorate

Climate change is not a typical political issue. Preserving the health of the biosphere and preventing potentially catastrophic harms to human societies worldwide constitutes a sacred cause among those who recognize the stakes for humanity. This sense of the magnitude and urgency of our “code red” crisis produces a passionate moral commitment among those who appreciate the parameters of the challenge posed by global climate change and ecological degradation. But those passionate about the urgency and necessity of change are countered by many who deeply resist the economic, social, and cultural changes promoted by those arguing for drastic action to address climate change. And many, from the humble to the mighty, fear the loss of their economic well-being if we move away from a fossil-fuel-based economy. These passions, driven on one side by the fear of inaction and on the other by the fear of action, create the underlying obstacles to forging the comprehensive political consensus we need for federal, state, and local governments to take effective action to address climate change.

Some progressive activists argue that to adequately respond to the climate emergency the global economy must immediately abandon fossil fuels and significantly reform the energy-intensive lifestyles of people living in the developed world. Yet even if this drastic prescription is justified by the scale of the crisis, such a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels would create a level of economic disruption that would harm the well-being—and even cost the lives—of many. We must decarbonize quickly without imposing intolerable harms that would affect all of us, but especially the most vulnerable among us. We may still have a measure of time in which we can make the needed transition while avoiding the Scylla of severe economic dislocation and the Charybdis of increasingly severe weather and climate events. The body of evidence, ranging from that found in the daily news to that found in the most exacting scientific journals, now exceeds any reasonable doubt about the source and magnitude of the devastating effects of our rapidly warming planet. The severity of resulting harms from unchecked increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will increase until we stop our current practices. Yet, the political will required to significantly reduce our GHG emissions remains inadequate to generate sufficient political action to meet the challenge. And while the tide of opinion is slowly moving toward an appreciation of the reality we face and the imperatives that arise from this reality, this change must be quickened and channeled if we are to succeed. We should neither harbor nor promote any illusions. Even if we reach a political tipping point in America in the near future—even if we immediately adopt the Green New Deal and implement every feasible proposal called for by environmentalists—we would not resolve the crisis. We face the need to change the course of an economy, a society, a culture, that has an immense momentum created by habits and interests that the livelihood and very lives of almost all depend upon. It will take an immense and contracted collective effort to steer the ship away from the collision course that we’re on.

So far, in making the points above, we’ve referred to only the U.S. But we are not the only nation with its own particular economic, social, cultural, and political needs and values. America cannot arrest global warming unilaterally. Yet, as the nation most responsible for the rise of modernity and as still by far the greatest per capita emitter of GHG, we have a moral duty to act decisively to reduce our GHG emissions. Leadership by action—by a reduction in consumption, by deploying alternative energy sources, and by technological and engineering innovation—can provide the moral and practical example that the nations of the world need to promote effective action by all. The United States should lead by the example of its concrete actions to dramatically reduce its carbon footprint. And we should aid and encourage other nations to do likewise.

While the scientific consensus about the cause and nature of the challenge of climate change has approached unanimity and popular appreciation of the need to do something is increasing, exactly what and how to realize the needed change (reduction of GHG) remains open. The steps we need to take to reduce greenhouse gas emission while maintaining—even improving—our quality of life is up for grabs. We can—-we must—-take steps on all levels: individual and household; local and state government; the federal government; and via international organizations and treaties. No action is too small; no aspiration too high. We need to respond to this threat at all points with every weapon at our disposal (that won’t harm us in the meantime). At every level— individual, household, business, trade groups, NGOs, and government—we can act to realize the needed change. There are many paths before us, many ideas about how we might proceed. I suggest that we continue to explore, in thought and practice, where each path may lead us. Some will no doubt lead to dead-ends, but others will take us toward where we want to go.

Perhaps the most singular American contribution to this project can come from our tradition of technological and engineering innovation and production. There are many ways to promote technological and engineering solutions. For instance, the U.S. should significantly increase its investment in public-private partnerships to develop and implement breakthrough technologies, such as second-generation nuclear energy, advanced battery technology, large-scale carbon capture, improved agricultural and transportation practices, and even geoengineering.

But let us be clear that while pursuing technologies that may in the future help us, we must take steps now that don’t depend upon what the future may—or may not—provide. For instance, tree planting, re-wilding, and regenerative agriculture are available to implement now. Electric cars are available now. Solar and wind energy sources are available now. Energy conservation practices are available now. None of these steps or others that we might have mentioned, taken at the individual or household or even the business level, will prove sufficient to solve our problem. We must have effective steps taken at the national and international levels. We must take political action.

As with the other issue positions in this platform, this climate change proposal seeks to build political consensus by finding “win-win-win” solutions that integrate the values of all three major American worldviews: progressive, modern, and traditional (as identified and explored in Steve McIntosh's Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow into a Better Version of Itself (2020)). Indeed, significantly increasing our commitment to addressing climate change will require a strong political commitment from the American public. Values integration can help build this commitment. The various paths forward promoted by a wide variety of individuals and organizations can provide ways in which all three worldviews can find benefits and reasons to support needed changes.

Problems to Be Solved

Our Rapidly Changing Climate Is Causing Global Disruptions

The worldwide growth of modernity’s fossil fuel-based energy economy has generated and will continue to generate GHG emissions that have caused rapid global warming. This rapid global warming and its continued harm to our well-being as a species will continue and increase unless we act decisively to curtail our emissions. Rising temperatures will increasingly cause irreparable harm to human societies and biological ecosystems. Scientists predict that these harms will increase in frequency, magnitude, and scope if global temperatures continue to rise. To ameliorate the disruptions associated with our rapidly changing climate, we need to reduce emissions both domestically and internationally. “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.”


Renewable Energy Sources Cannot Yet Meet Demand

The cost and efficiency of renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind, are improving. But without a major technological breakthrough, renewable energy alone cannot meet the world’s current or anticipated needs for affordable energy.


Ameliorating Climate Change Requires Global Cooperation

Because the U.S. is only responsible for 15% of current global carbon emissions, its efforts to meaningfully ameliorate global warming will not succeed unless other countries significantly reduce their emissions as well.


Government Actions to Combat Climate Change Are Resisted by Many on the Right

Efforts to combat global warming have become embroiled in America’s culture wars. Individual positions on climate change now serve as a proxy for the individual’s political identity. Many traditionalists and right-leaning U.S. voters see the issue as a Trojan horse for the larger progressive agenda of "socialism." Resistance to meaningful action on climate change is accordingly viewed by many conservatives as necessary to counter the growing power of progressivism.


Wins Sought for Each Major Worldview

A win-win-win policy for ameliorating climate change would ideally achieve the following wins for each worldview:

Progressivism wins

1) The political will needed to combat climate change would be significantly increased. 2) The U.S. would demonstrate genuine international leadership on the amelioration of global warming.

3) By pursuing a combination of technological and engineering innovations along with conservation projects, we can hope to realize a world where we maintain the quality of living standards in the developed world while continuing to bring more people out of debilitating poverty.


Modernity wins

1) A strategy that recognizes economic development as a tool (rather than a detriment) for preserving and even enhancing the environment would allow globalizing modernity to continue to bring new opportunities for improved quality of life to the developing world.

2) Increased government funding of technologies and industrial capabilities to address climate change would create a significant market for investment and wealth creation.

3) By endorsing meaningful action to ameliorate climate change, modernists would help reduce progressivism’s anti-modernist proclivities and create a more cooperative political environment.


Traditionalism wins

1) The stigma of climate denialism would be reduced within conservative politics, allowing Republican politicians to come nearer to the mainstream of American popular opinion.

2) More drastic changes in society and the economy would be avoided.

3) The Biblical injunction for stewardship of the earth would be followed: "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”


Potential Policy Solutions: The Many Paths


There is no single answer, no single path to follow, to successfully address a challenge of the magnitude of the one before us. Homo sapiens as a species has never known a challenge that threatens the well-being of every person on Earth and that threatens the planet as a living whole—as a biosphere. At this point, we must explore many paths and sow many seeds. Time will allow us to further identify the most fruitful courses of action. But we also must realize that the window of time for taking effective action continues to close at an increasing rate. We must explore quickly and discard those paths that don’t lead us to our destination (an inhabitable planet) fast enough. This being said, let us mention some paths that we think are worth exploring in our effort:

1. The U.S. should adopt a carbon pricing and dividend scheme that would put a price on carbon sufficient to approximate the cost of the pollution caused by fossil fuels. The dividend aspect of this proposal would return the money collected (the carbon price) to Americans on a per capita basis. This scheme would increase the market price of carbon-intensive goods and services and encourage the transition to low-and zero-carbon goods. The dividend (or "revenue recycling") aspect of the plan would prevent the carbon price from becoming a burden on low-and middle-income Americans. (About two-thirds of Americans would realize a net gain in income under this proposal.) We should note that the carbon pricing and dividend scheme has widespread grassroots support (Citizens Climate Lobby) as well as significant support from trade groups, corporations, NGOs, economists, and prominent Republicans (Climate Leadership Council).

2. Pursue programs that encourage regenerative agriculture and re-wilding (expanding areas that are no longer cultivated and are thus allowed to “go wild”). Re-wilding programs can include both public lands and privately-held lands. Regenerative agriculture and re-wilding would promote long-term, sustainable agricultural practices that we need to continue to feed our nation and the world.

3. Significantly increase government funding for the research and development of breakthrough energy technologies. The federal “Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy” needs more funding to help develop battery, carbon capture, next-generation nuclear, and geoengineering technologies. These efforts could be supplemented through the creation of a major public-private initiative to share and coordinate R&D around clean energy technologies.

4. Explore a path to fast-tracking the construction of next-generation nuclear power plants (small modular reactors) across the U.S. through government-backed financing and regulatory simplification. In conjunction with this, developers would need to make a compelling case to the public that such new nuclear plants would prove safe.

Of course, the above recommendations are only a sample of the courses of action we should pursue. The list could go on at length. But our goal is not to catalog all the possibilities but to provide some examples of ways that those holding differing worldviews can imagine changes for the benefit of all humankind that are consistent with their values.

Post-Progressive Persuasion Strategies

An argument to progressives: Progressives value the well-being of all and a society that is tolerant and inclusive. In order to promote these values—especially an improvement in the quality of life of the poorest among us—we will need to find a way to allow access to affordable and reasonably abundant clean energy. Without increased access to affordable clean energy, many around the world will remain in the lowest rungs of poverty. Advanced technologies in conjunction with sustainable agricultural practices will allow the poorest among us to improve their lot.

An argument to modernists: Pursuing market-based carbon pricing and dividend policy will create a boom for the economy. In addition, the United States has a proven historical track record of creating “entirely new technologies and sectors that set the stage for later long-run economic growth (jet engines and radar, medical and agricultural research). … The most fundamental technological advances of the past half-century … were funded by government agencies, with private businesses moving into the game only once the returns were in clear sight." We should take advantage of this capability.

An argument to traditionalists: The problem of global warming affects everyone. No one can evade the effects of climate change, nor can anyone evade their moral responsibility to contribute to a solution. We can no longer afford to allow effective action on this issue to be stymied by America’s culture war. Political compromises must now be made for the common good of Americans and the world. Recognition of the threat and the imperative to take action are recognized by religious leaders throughout the world from all faiths. Perhaps the most widely recognized example of those speaking out is Pope Francis in his climate change encyclical Laudato Si (2015). The Pope draws on both the Biblical tradition and the moral imperatives that arise from our common humanity. He emphasizes the Biblical injunction for us to act as stewards of the Earth. On a more practical level, we note that conservative recognition of climate change and the need for legislation is increasing. As calls for action to address climate change continue to increase in the electorate, the Republican Party will benefit from a frank recognition of the problem and from contributing effective proposals to address the challenge.

"Yes" to a "Carbon Price" & Dividend & "No" to a "Carbon Tax" (and There's a Difference)

 

Stephen Greenleaf

tcJusSt nnpoooawdi  · 

Shared with Public

Okay, fellow Dems, listen up! Don't support a "carbon tax" but do put a "price on carbon." What's the difference? Both a "tax" and a "price" would make fossil fuels more expensive and thus make renewable energy sources more attractive (and reduce overall energy use and increase energy efficiency). Both would affect the amount consumers would pay for fossil fuel-based energy sources and products produced with fossil fuels. Thus, from the view of an economist, she might say that a "tax" and a "price" are the same. But increasing the cost of carbon to users is only the half of what we should be doing. Citizens Climate Lobby (of which I'm a member) supports that EICDA: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. This act would return the money collected as a "price" (or "tax" if you insist) to the people. In other words, unlike almost any other tax that I can think of (with perhaps the exception of social security taxes), the funds collected will be paid back to the people in short order (quarterly, most likely). In other words, taxes as we normally think of them go to fund government operations and programs. This is not what a "carbon price" via the EICDA would do. If any Dems in Congress think that they should fund their programs by the imposition of a "carbon tax," they're way wrong as a matter of economics, fairness, and electoral politics. Under the EICDA, funds collected would be paid as a "dividend" to the American people on an equal individual basis. In short, about 2/3 of American individuals and households would come out ahead. The wealthiest, who tend to have larger carbon footprints,: more travel (often by air), bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger everything. In short, this plan would help close the growing inequality in American society that contributes to the divisions that we're experiencing.

Of course, this means that all of us would face greater costs and that we'd be wise to make some changes. In short, we'd have to put on big-kids pants. We are in dire straits because of the unabated dumping of carbon in our atmosphere. Mother Nature can't handle all of this carbon, and she's sick, very, very sick. Her prognosis, and consequently ours as her children, is very dire. Not hopeless, but the longer we put off "treatment," the more drastic the steps we'll eventually have to take to try to save her. (Well, really to save us humans; Mother Nature will survive, even without humans and other species that are caught in the sixth extinction.) We need to pay to play. Next time we take a trip, we should weigh the costs across the various means based on an accurate comparison of the carbon cost involved. Car, plane, train, walk, bike, mass transit? We need a price to compare the cost we impose on Mother Nature by assessing a price (cost) on ourselves now that we know that we can no longer afford the free ride that we've granted ourselves in freely dumping our waste into our environment.

#ClimateActionNow #ClimateInnovation #BipartisanClimate #PriceOnPollution #CarbonCashback #CarbonFee #CCL

WASHINGTONPOST.COM

Senior Democrats’ push for powerful climate tool collides with political realities