Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?

Dan: I do think the OSJ is often permitted (that is, authorized by Synod) to do the political activism they do.  Not always I don't think (sometimes I believe they stretch the authorization), but certainly sometime and possibly usually.

Your three options description is a pretty good description of OSJ's options, I would say, even if there may be more.  And yes, I find that OSJ too often takes on very complex topics that are highly divisive and then gets politically active on legislation (that is certain to be divisive as well) related to that.  This article is about one of such, but there are more.  It's pretty regular.

What I would personally like to see OSJ do is "advocate" by advocating what we might directly do, as opposed to what we might want to tell the government to do.  For example, OSJ could advocate that CRC members think about opening their homes and church communities to immigrants and refugees, without getting into the weeds of what government policies are that got them here.  OSJ could provide contact information for how to "volunteer," supplemental information about best practices for sponsoring immigrants and refugees, connections to others who have done so and done so well, etc.  In doing that, OSJ would be advocating for immigrants and refugees but not wading into the kind of political activitism that will cause division (and which is probably much less within OSJ's expertise anyway).

I think Association for a More Just Society (AJS) does great work in Honduras.  While one side in the US might like to keep all Hondurans out of the US, and another side might want to let all Hondurans into the US who want in, AJS works in Honduras, with Hondurans, to help them improve their society, including its government structures.  AJS doesn't get into the US political border fray.  They are too busy doing things that are real.  Ironically, to the extent AJS accomplishes what it intends to accomplish, the American divide would become moot, since fewer Hondurans would have cause to leave Honduras.

OSJ could point more to organizations like AJS as examples of doing and less pitching politicians to do something.  There are other organizations like AJS.  Building a catalogue of them (without political prejudice) would be something OSJ could do for the benefit of all CRCers.

Herb: Well maybe, but lets drill down.

The alternate fuels that are now receiving the political advocacy (including from institutions like the CRC) are wind and solar, and are NOT nuclear.

Wind and solar cannot sufficiently expand to come anywhere close to replacing carbon sources because of physics.  Can't be done.

Nuclear could (that is, not a physics problem) but the generalized current political support is behind non-nuclear and against nuclear.  This comes from too much political lobbying that is uninformed.  In my view, the CRCNA has hopped on that bandwagon.

So unless the political posture against nuclear doesn't change, the only realistic tool for replacing or even significantly reducing fossil fuel sources isn't an "allowed option."  And given that reality, the passing of the proposed carbon tax legislation will simply result in generally economic damage, and not help with claimed fossil fuel issues.

Tom: I'll skip responding to your ad hominem criticism of John Christy (declaring him laughable, and indirectly, me as well I suppose), but I will respond to the thrust of your claim that I am cherry picking (which presumably is bad?).

Your cherry picking accusation essentially suggest that must either (1) side with Hansen in all that he says and promotes, or (2) reject Hansen in all that he says and promotes.  If extended to everyone as well as me, that formula is, in my view, one that will result in unresolvable polarization (and is that not where we are?).

I may not agree with Hanson as to his climate change predictions (which to date have not turned out to be accurate as historic unfolds), but I do find Hansen to be an honest broker, by which I mean my sense of him is that he believes what he says and says what he believes, politics be damned (even those politics on the political left of center which have fought nuclear power is decades past).  I admire Hansen for that, even if I still think he has rather badly "over predicted" on climate change effects.

My perspective on this is in part based on the science (where I'm relatively weak) but also, and in larger part, on the the politics, which is the greater challenge on this issue, and where I'm actually quite experienced.  I'm a lawyer.  I listen to, examine, and cross-examine expert witnesses on cases (in this one, as to a particular bundle of science topics), but at the same time, I am constantly looking for "solutions" by which I mean this: how can the opposing parties come together to find agreement that significantly satisfies everyone, thereby avoiding a trial court decision that will likely be (as they tend to be) very much winner take all and loser take nothing.  And indeed, isn't exactly what competent political lobbyists do as well?  But doing that on climate change issues can be as complicated, perhaps even more so, than the science itself (which is itself extremely complicated).  And wouldn't (at least shouldn't) doing that (finding the "come together to find  agreement), be the point of OSJ (or anyone else) lobbying for legislation relating to climate change?

Forgetting for the moment the CO2 emissions issue, wouldn't more nuclear power be the best bet for filling the energy gap left by significantly reducing or eliminating (as the now touted Green New Deal would do) fossil fuel use?  And wouldn't those whose views on climate change more reflect that of John Cristy be relatively warm to the idea of increased nuclear?  And wouldn't the views on someone so highly regarded in the climate alarmist camp (that is Hansen) be a good authority to cite to persuade those on that side of the science to also warm to the idea of increased nuclear?  I'd suggest that a "yes" to all three of those questions is far more the case than the oft made assertion that the "debate is over" as to the science of climate change. 

As I said in my original blog article, my point was not to convince the others that I'm right about climate change science.  In fact, I've not here even laid out my overall views about the science questions, assuming they carried any scientific weight anyway (and they really don't).  You misread me rather badly when you say "From my reading, your opinion is that we should do nothing about the problem."  To the contrary, I have argued that, if we assume (for the sake of argument) that the climate change alarmist position (Hansen's) is correct, then promoting a carbon tax while at the same time failing to also promote the only alternative energy source that would be the key component of a strategy to significantly reduce CO2 is a poorly conceived, doomed to failure, lobbying strategy.  And my main point was that the denomination has not had, and doesn't have, what it takes to competently lobby for solutions on subject matters this complex (this particular lobbying strategy being evidence of that lack).  And so shouldn't.

That argument is not a "strawman" as you suggest.  Rather, it is  similar to Hansen's argument against the Paris Accords (which the CRCNA lobbies for).  The Paris Accords provide no solution at all, according to Hansen, so if folks think they do, climate change will have its way with the planet because people thought they had implemented a solution in the Paris Accords and so didn't find a real solution.  Likewise, passing this legislation without also enacting legislation that will promote a lot more nuclear power plants, is a mirage solution.  It cannot work, even if we assume the climate alarmists' perspective.