Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

You’ve got questions. CAP has experts.

By Climate Guest Contributor  

"You’ve got questions. CAP has experts."

Share:

google plus icon

Daniel J. Weiss, one of CAP’s experts on energy and climate policy, is taking questions through Facebook on the oil disaster response bill and other climate and energy issues.

Head on over to CAP’s Facebook page by the end of the day to post your question on their wall.  It could be selected to be answered in Dan’s next “Ask the Expert” video:

CAP’s Facebook page is a great progressive resource and space for debate. “Like” them today and join the conversation.

‹ EXCLUSIVE: PowerPoint Reveals Tesoro Recruiting Other Oil Companies, Including BP, To Repeal CA Clean Energy

Russian President Medvedev: “What is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.” ›

One Response to You’ve got questions. CAP has experts.

  1. MarkB says:

    OT post:

    Andy Revkin has a piece up that is filled with subtle false premises and strawmen arguments.

    [JR: I'm afraid you could write that sentence almost every day. Yes, it is absurd to quote the Politico, which is only interested in tactics and not ideas, and blame that on the environmentalists or anybody.]

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/greens-debating-tactics-instead-of-ideas/

    I’d like to share my response:

    Support for carbon pricing is depicted by Revkin (and others) as being limited to close-minded green “activists” or what not.

    (I referred Revkin to Schultz’s comments from CP)

    Andy writes:

    “The best thing about this group’s approach is that it reflects the core reality of the climate and energy challenges — that they will not be “solved,” but rather addressed in a sustained, stepwise strategy. ”

    I don’t think there’s anyone who feels that a nationwide carbon pricing system would be the grand solution to the climate challenge. It’s always been seen as a good step, similar to how California AB32 is a good step at a smaller level. Both are grass-roots ground-up solutions when compared to the scale of the problem and action needed.

    “There are scant signs, yet, that anyone within the Beltway is willing to shift toward attacking the entwined energy and climate challenges as less a 20th-century-style pollution problem and more a 21st-century-style technology and innovation opportunity.”

    Are these ideas supposed to be mutually exclusive or something? The global warming problem is both a pollution problem AND a technology/innovation opportunity. Schultz discusses both in the above piece. It’s also discussed by the Apollo Alliance, who expresses strong disapproval over the failure of Senate legislation (legislation which Andy describes as a “stale approach”), while emphasizing the great lost 21st century technology opportunities.

    http://apolloalliance.org/2010-press-releases/apollo-alliance-statement-on-senate%e2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-comprehensive-clean-energy-and-climate-legislation/

    “despite spending tens of millions of dollars, they failed to gain the votes for any climate action in the Senate.”

    This is another place where Andy’s piece breaks down. The narrative is that Senate action failed not for lack of monetary influence but because the legislation is too radical to win Republican votes. It seems to ignore that cap and trade is a free market solution originally championed by Republicans, and that more direct approaches would still not gain Republican support. It ignores that green money is overwhelmed by fossil fuel money. It ignores that nearly any major legislation since 2009 has failed to garner Republican support (healthcare reform, similar to RomneyCare, endured similar challenges).

    I agree generally that those seeking reductions in greenhouse gases should focus on what’s doable. A nationwide carbon pricing system is doable. Take away the 60-vote Senate rule, and Andy’s narrative would be quite different. For now, state governments and the federal government will need to continue to pursue other initiatives.