I wonder why you say "an institution that institutionally has no competence" ?
Who is the CRC's lobbyist on this issue? What have they written that makes you say they have no competence? Are they on the record saying nuclear can't be part of the solution?
Dan: You said: "wouldn't it be more unifying and more effective to encourage individual CRC members who believe in climate change to voluntarily commit to paying their own climate tax?"
I don't think it would be more effective. More people pay a tax if it's not voluntary.
Ok. That sounds like a lot of people. So why do you say "an institution that institutionally has no competence" ? All those people working together and there's no competence? Wow. Seems unlikely.
Doug: I don't think all the people you mentioned in your previous post (those doing the lobbying on my behalf) are theologians. I trust the denomination to hire competent people to do the work they've been tasked to do. Maybe you don't?
Dan: Why are you prioritizing unity? Can you say more? Not sure if promotion of unity would be my first criteria when making a decision on whether or not to advocate for a carbon tax. But, since you asked my thoughts on how to promote unity, I guess I'd focus on the unity that we have in Christ. So we would want to take an actions that are Christ-like. I think we can be unified on that principle.
As for effectiveness, I think you're presenting us with a false choice. If our goal is to reduce the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, we can encourage people voluntarily buy offsets etc., and we can pursue a tax on carbon. It might be just silly to argue about which one is more effective. (This analysis also applies to the false choice between nuclear and renewable, btw.)
Doug: I don't think I'll do your research for you. Like I said, I trust the church to hire personnel with skills appropriate for their job description (why would they do otherwise?). If you want to assert that this isn't true, I'll let you go hunt for evidence that supports your assertion.
A false choice is a claim that you have to do one thing or the other (maybe because one is more effective, as you assert); when in reality you can do both. I see no reason why we can't do both.
I think some people do have personal urgency and are taking drastic steps. Others enjoy money and comfort too much to voluntarily pay extra.
Makes sense, Dan. I'm definitely in favor of both. Hoping to see you at the Cooler/Smarter meeting on Feb 21. I'll give a brief overview of the chemical evidence of climate change (I'm a chemist) and then get into ideas for personal reduction of CO2 (including anecdotes from my family's efforts).
Could you please provide references to support your assertions:
" Even if renewable sources of energy increased some, they could not be increased anywhere close to the level required to supply American energy needs (and thereby replace carbon based energy sources). It is a near unanimous scientific consensus that renewables cannot come close to replacing carbon energy sources in the near future."
It seems to me that Hansen's article is another argument against your thesis. The carbon tax legislation would make renewables AND nuclear more feasible. Both are "wedges" that help us reduce our use of fossil fuels. And both are more feasible if we fold the externalized costs of carbon into the consumer price.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I wonder why you say "an institution that institutionally has no competence" ?
Who is the CRC's lobbyist on this issue? What have they written that makes you say they have no competence? Are they on the record saying nuclear can't be part of the solution?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Dan: You said: "wouldn't it be more unifying and more effective to encourage individual CRC members who believe in climate change to voluntarily commit to paying their own climate tax?"
I don't think it would be more effective. More people pay a tax if it's not voluntary.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Ok. That sounds like a lot of people. So why do you say "an institution that institutionally has no competence" ? All those people working together and there's no competence? Wow. Seems unlikely.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug: I don't think all the people you mentioned in your previous post (those doing the lobbying on my behalf) are theologians. I trust the denomination to hire competent people to do the work they've been tasked to do. Maybe you don't?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Dan: Why are you prioritizing unity? Can you say more? Not sure if promotion of unity would be my first criteria when making a decision on whether or not to advocate for a carbon tax. But, since you asked my thoughts on how to promote unity, I guess I'd focus on the unity that we have in Christ. So we would want to take an actions that are Christ-like. I think we can be unified on that principle.
As for effectiveness, I think you're presenting us with a false choice. If our goal is to reduce the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, we can encourage people voluntarily buy offsets etc., and we can pursue a tax on carbon. It might be just silly to argue about which one is more effective. (This analysis also applies to the false choice between nuclear and renewable, btw.)
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug: I don't think I'll do your research for you. Like I said, I trust the church to hire personnel with skills appropriate for their job description (why would they do otherwise?). If you want to assert that this isn't true, I'll let you go hunt for evidence that supports your assertion.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
A false choice is a claim that you have to do one thing or the other (maybe because one is more effective, as you assert); when in reality you can do both. I see no reason why we can't do both.
I think some people do have personal urgency and are taking drastic steps. Others enjoy money and comfort too much to voluntarily pay extra.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Ok, cool. So what % theologians did you come up with?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
[email protected]
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Makes sense, Dan. I'm definitely in favor of both. Hoping to see you at the Cooler/Smarter meeting on Feb 21. I'll give a brief overview of the chemical evidence of climate change (I'm a chemist) and then get into ideas for personal reduction of CO2 (including anecdotes from my family's efforts).
See you then!
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Could you please provide references to support your assertions:
" Even if renewable sources of energy increased some, they could not be increased anywhere close to the level required to supply American energy needs (and thereby replace carbon based energy sources). It is a near unanimous scientific consensus that renewables cannot come close to replacing carbon energy sources in the near future."
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
It seems to me that Hansen's article is another argument against your thesis. The carbon tax legislation would make renewables AND nuclear more feasible. Both are "wedges" that help us reduce our use of fossil fuels. And both are more feasible if we fold the externalized costs of carbon into the consumer price.