I’ve written quite a few diaries and comments at MyFDL, trying to introduce a realist perspective into the otherwise grossly skewed and inaccurate ‘typical fare’ of other people’s climate related writings. In my most recent diary, warp9 wrote:
However, metamars’ problem is that he has the wrong audience for what he is trying to sell. He is basically trying to sell us on the idea that we need to avoid doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions (at least in terms of regulations or taxes), but this concept isn’t likely to go over too well here at FDL.
This is basically true, though I would prefer Manhattan style projects to develop carbon free energy, and am concerned about other REAL pollution aspects of burning fossil fuels. Such as mercury from coal burning. More CO2 (unlike mercury) in the atmosphere would almost certainly do the world a lot of good, but I don’t want to pursue that subject, now.
Rather, I want to acknowledge and thank warp9 for his prodding to look to other, more sympathetic audiences. While I still believe that progressives deserve a shot at hearing scientific truths, even if they contradict tightly held and cherished beliefs, I probably AM barking up the wrong tree, in terms of stimulating real activism. The most realistic hope I’ve held out for progressives is to insist on not getting snookered, and thus that carbon-free technologies be developed and implemented as quickly as possible (e.g., Eric Lerner’s focus fusion, LENR’s, etc.)
Zapkitty has informed me that he or she supports Focus Fusion, but in general, progressives seem more interested in dancing to Bill McKibben’s tune, or just analyzing how the deck chairs of the Titanic are so distastefully arranged. Alas.
Hopefully, I will have better luck with Tea Party groups. Towards that end, a copy of an email that I just sent out to 3 members of a tea party coaltion in NJ, follows.
Howdy. I’m an independent populist, who sympathizes with the Tea Party on some issues, progressives on other issues, and libertarians on a couple.
According to Senator Vitter, there’s secret negotiations going on to implement a carbon tax. (All other tax negotiations are not secret.) See
Never mind that the CO2 climate catastrophists’ dire predictions are mostly wrong. E.g., about a month ago, a global temperature surface temperature data set, called HADCRUT4, was released, and it showed no statistically significant warming IN SIXTEEN YEARS. Indeed, the error bars were wider than the meager increase, itself – which means that the earth may have COOLED in these sixteen years! See:
I think Vitter was being a tad disingenuous when he wrote:
“We cannot allow them to legislate by administrative fiat, withhold information and circumvent the law.”
The EPA can impose carbon taxes if there’s an “endangerment finding”, which apparently held up in court, this past summer. So, what is probably going on is that Obama is trying to finagle enough Republican votes to pass legislation towards this end, since everybody knows he can achieve much the same end result with EPA regulation. He can use the EPA pathway as a stick, and of course, there’s always lots of boodle to offer for the home district, to serve as a carrot.
How heavy a tax is this likely to be? I don’t know, frankly, but my guess is that the tax will either start out as heavy as Australia’s (which passed this year, and has been in operation a few months), or else ramp up to that level, in just a few years. Australians are now paying a carbon tax that comes out to about $2,500 for a family of four, per year. Meanwhile, the Chinese CO2 per capita footprint grew by 9% last year, so this tremendous financial sacrifice by the Australians will do essentially nothing to mitigate worldwide CO2 levels.
If you don’t want the Republican Party to own a carbon taxation scheme, right along with the Democratic Party, you need to act, NOW. The Tea Parties can mobilize a rapid, effective educational campaign, which can help sink carbon tax legislation.
There’s LOTS and LOTS of research – both data and analyses – showing how wrong the CO2 climate catastrophists are. However, the task before you is describing that research in language that laymen can understand, and then TRANSFERRING that knowledge to your fellow citizens. And that means, principally, fellow citizens who DON’T watch Fox News. I personally don’t think much of Fox News, but on this issue, they’ve given knowledgeable skeptics of CO2 Climate Catastrophism a much fairer hearing than the rest of mainstream media.
Since I don’t think Fox News would help you with your needs for written source material for battling carbon taxes, motivated by CO2 climate catastrophist “cooked science”, you should probably talk to Anthony Watts of the #1 climate blog, wattsupwiththat.com; as well as the Heartland Institute, which has given the climate catastophist institutional players conniptions, at about 1% of their funding!
How will you reach your non-Fox News listening fellow citizens?
I grew up in a NJ suburb (West Orange), and there’s basically only 2 public spaces that seem appropriate for pamphleting in any suburb – which is my preferred, low cost method of outreach. One (my favorite) is on the public sidewalks next to public and private schools. The other is public sidewalks next to little strip malls. Main Street is mostly dead, nowadays, but I basically never see political stuff, of any stripe, in one of the big indoor malls, so I doubt they will let anybody pamphlet about anything.
Almost all homes have PC’s, internet, and personal printers. The mechanics of widespread distribution of truth telling carbon tax pamphlets is a piece of cake. What is not a piece of cake is ORGANIZING the effort – which is where the Tea Parties can come in.
I’m not a member of any Tea Party, and don’t follow them closely, online, so am not sure how to compare their political strength now, with the situation a few years ago, when the Tea Parties were always in the news. (Big news coverage, I feel, both reveals and obscures the underlying strength of a movement, much like Occupy Wall Street.) However, my basic impression is that they are mostly stagnant, having made quiet gains behind the scenes, while suffering some demonization via the Media, which has dropped their favorability poll ratings, compared to a few years ago.
IMO, the Tea Parties need revitalization as the PUBLIC face of a DYNAMIC movement. Saving us from a politically motivated carbon tax might well provide a shot in the arm, just by itself. However, I personally consider that a limited goal.
A bigger educational goal for the Tea Parties, which will help garner them considerable public favor, is to be had by exposing the globalist intentions behind the CO2 hysteria. While I haven’t read the book or chapter, myself, Senator Inhoffe says, in this interview:
that the chapter written by his daughter is the must-read one, which goes into the political origins of global government via CO2 catastrophism scam. The game afoot, here, is not just “bigger government”, which is a big concern that I hear from the Tea Parties. Rather, the game afoot is GLOBAL government. The Obama Administration is currently negotiating a Trans Pacific trade deal
that has these characteristics:
* Allow corporations to sue nations if laws such as those protecting the environment or labor conditions interfere with corporate profits.
* Create a private corporate tribunal to hear these cases in which the judges are largely corporate lawyers.
* Extend the patent period for pharmaceuticals which will keep prices high and medications out of the hands of those who need them.
* End “Buy America” provisions which will lead to greater job outsourcing.
* Further de-regulate Big Finance.
* Undermine internet freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.
Nice guy, that Obama! A real patriot, huh?!
It’s conceivable that A REJUVENATED AND VERY PUBLIC TEA PARTY COULD HELP SINK THIS OTHER PIECE OF THE GLOBALIZATION PUZZLE (WHICH I CALL ECONOMIC TREASON)
Depending on where your meetings are, and my schedule, I might be willing to stop by and give a small talk on the subject.