Did These Climate Change Campaigners Miss the Point?

October 21, 2016 09:46 AM
 
corn_harvets_sunset_AGWEB

From a Bloomberg editorial:

Voters in Washington state will be asked next month whether they want to adopt the nation's first carbon tax -- a powerful way to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. You'd think environmental groups would be doing everything they can to back that idea. You'd be wrong.

Initiative 732 will be on the ballot on Election Day. It calls for a $25-per-ton carbon tax, and it says how the proceeds should be spent: Trim the state's sales tax, cut taxes on manufacturers, and give tax rebates to low-income households.

Oddly enough, this plan has failed to impress some environmental campaigners. Washington Conservation Voters, an influential local organization, opposes it because none of the revenue will go toward funding clean energy. Climate Solutions, another local group, agrees. The Sierra Club won't back the plan, saying its help for low-income households and minorities is insufficient.

Those groups haven't put their own proposal on the ballot, so they're saying it's better to do nothing than vote for Initiative 732. This position is absurd. Curbing carbon emissions is, or ought to be, the primary goal, and the plan would do that. In addition, it's an opportunity to prove the viability of the carbon-tax approach and set a valuable example for the rest of the country.

The part of the plan that seems to offend the campaigners -- how the carbon-tax revenues ought to be used -- is worth debating, but what matters most is to put a price on carbon, reflecting its true cost to the environment. Promising that the revenues from the carbon tax will be used to cut taxes and support low-income working families seems wise, in fact, because it lends the idea bipartisan appeal. But that isn't the main thing. The main thing is that the measure shouldn't fail merely because it doesn't please every group on every point.

The latest polling shows 42 percent of respondents supporting the plan, with 37 percent against and 21 percent undecided. In other words, local groups could well decide the outcome, persuading undecided voters to lean one way or the other. It would be bad enough for the measure to be voted down because climate change wasn't seen as an urgent problem. If it fails for lack of support from climate campaigners, that's worse -- and those groups should be ashamed.

Back to news


 

Comments

 
Spell Check

Nick Schroeder
Colorado Springs, CO
10/21/2016 10:57 PM
 

  My objections to the “science” behind mankind driven climate change: The greenhouse effect theory, i.e. upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. Yes, it really does! Not that it matters because the theory actually does not do anything, i.e. no net change in radiative balance at the ToA, per NASA 100 km. The notion that the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is incorrect. The conditions postulated for the “no atmosphere” scenario are quite obviously with an atmosphere. The true explanation for the prevailing surface temperature, heat transfer’s most fundamental equation Q = U * A * dT, is ignored. The Stephan Boltzmann ideal black body equation is incorrectly applied by ignoring the theory’s limitations and conditions, e.g. a surface, no conduction/convection, i.e. a vacuum, emissivity, gas density, tropospheric temperatures, etc. The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit causes a TSI fluctuation, aphelion to perihelion, +/- 45 W/m^2, 50 times greater than the atmospheric heating due to CO2. Natural variations such as eccentricity, albedo, water vapor, vegetation, etc. are orders of magnitude more influential over the climate than GHGs/CO2. Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE (I might be unqualified to offer an opinion since I’m not a food editor, unemployed standup comic, cartoonist, aroma-therapist, nematologist, or fresh out of journalism school.) http://www.therebel.media/how_the_world_was_deceived_about_global_warming_and_climate_change

 
 
Close