4 ms·
If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here are two options for citizens to get involved: 1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby
by ridicter 7y ago
If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here are two options for citizens to get involved:
1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican) support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (http://energyinnovationact.org/ http://energyinnovationact.org/). With this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly returned to citizens as a yearly check--no enlargement of the state. This is the organization cofounded by NASA scientist James Hansen, who first testified to Congress about the perils of climate change over 30 years ago.
2) If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based solution, the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement are making waves. Rather than a concrete policy in Congress, they have a set of principles/values that they are pushing forward. This includes economic and social justice issues.
*Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change. The idea is to internalize the _real_ costs of climate change into the price we actually pay--ramping up the price on carbon over time until it is prohibitively expensive to use fossil-fuel-expensive products, and incentivizing the economy to adapt. That fundamental price signal, where renewable energy becomes cheaper relative to fossil fuels (and similarly less fossil fuel-intensive goods are cheaper relative to fossil-fuel-expensive ones) reverberates throughout the economy. However, it's worth noting that while this solution should theoretically appeal to Republicans, almost none have stepped forward...
- sampo 7y ago> Green New Deal Aren't they strongly anti-nuclear? Putting science behind ideology is not a very good position to take about climate change.
- ridicter 7y agoI think their position is: 1) don't shut don't existing nuclear plants to replace them with fossil fuels and 2) wind and solar should make up the new energy mix. But for what it's worth, the membership has diverse views. I'm pro-nuclear. CCL tends to be more pragmatic and have many more nuclear proponents.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoWell, it advocated stopping travel by plane in favor of trains... which in terms of practically is almost literally insane. So, there was more wrong with it than just being anti-nuclear (which it was).
- SkyBelow 7y agoScience behind ideology, or ideology behind science? If you look at sociology and anthropology, the evidence of the ability of human civilizations to handle problems with the time scale nuclear waste requires seems to be lacking. That the physics says it can be done safely does not prove that the other fields of science say it is likely to be done safely.
- coldpie 7y agoIt's also important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I agree that nuclear is a requirement to stemming climate change, but I still support the GND because it represents a lot of good steps in the right direction. We can always patch up the imperfect bits later.
- lumberjack 7y agoThere is really no "they". There are various not well defined groups pushing for some kind not well defined "Green New Deal". There are some who are anti-nuclear and some who aren't. The thing is, you can still use the momentum of GND to push for your preferred climate change mitigation action. You don't have to subscribe 100% to the ideology of someone else.
- plufz 7y agoIm very much pro science and have no strong feelings on nuclear either way but I havent quite understod the pro nuclear arguments. What are they? From the very very limited understanding about energy systems I have wind (and sometimes solar) seems to be more economic. And to complement wind and solar you need some type of power source which can be switched on and off depending on current weather and nuclear is not really suited for that. The energy simulations I’ve seen for my own country (Sweden) only shows nuclear as a small part of a future sustainable and economic energy system. But I’m really interested in the pro arguments.
- mauflows 7y agoAnything more I can do to support that bill? Both my reps are sponsors
- ridicter 7y agoThank them for their support (these calls actually matter)! You may also live in a city or state that is passing its own form of climate legislation, and CCL is a great way to get involved with that. Similarly, you could provide support for citizen lobbyists in neighboring districts who don't yet have support from their reps.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- glerk 7y ago> This includes economic and social justice issues. In other words, it’s co-opting the environment crisis to push for wealth redistribution.
- sampo 7y agoNot that some wealth redistribution wouldn't be nice, but doesn't it have potential to actually increase global carbon emissions?
- dreamache 7y ago"Not that some wealth redistribution wouldn't be nice" == "Not that some theft wouldn't be nice"
- lumberjack 7y agoActually, it is the other way round and there is nothing wrong about that. In fact it is an essential part of any anti-climate change action. Poor people cannot afford a lot of the necessary proposed taxes on consumption and re-alignment of the economy that is needed to fight climate change so a core component of any action needs to be how to safeguard their living standard while acting against climate change.
- mooseburger 7y ago> Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change. Is it? That's how France ended up with the yellow vests. It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic, such that everyone just ends up paying more and not changing behavior in a significant enough way.
- ridicter 7y agoI think this is a very worthwhile point to consider, and my thinking is moving in this direction as well, which is why I've been getting more involved with the Green New Deal in recent months. 1) In British Columbia, consumption of fuel has actually _gone_ up despite a tax on carbon (now at $35/ton). It had initially gone down when the tax was introduced... 2) The theory of change of the fee and dividend model was that it wouldn't enlarge the state, and therefore it would be attractive to Republicans. I've seen firsthand all the hemming and hawing of Republicans, and I've pretty nearly lost confidence in any of them coming forward--let alone with the conviction and speed we need. It's more likely to me that a liberal majority will strong-arm a green new deal type program in the next decade. But that's just my take.
- thinkcontext 7y agoAlmost all economists agree a carbon price is the most economically efficient way to cut carbon emissions. Putting economic proscriptions into political effect are of course another matter. > It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic Doesn't the contrast between the US and Europe belie that? Petrol prices are double or more in much of Europe and their cars are smaller and more fuel efficient, their cities are denser, they drive less miles per capita, they invest more in public transport, use more bikes and scooters, etc.
- mooseburger 7y agoWasn't Europe always like that though? I don't think that has to do with petrol prices.
- dreamache 7y agoThe green new deal is absolute garbage, along with this notion of "social justice", christ.