Skip to main content

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.

Doug: It seems to me you're letting the "perfect be the enemy of the good" (or maybe the "very good" be the enemy of the good).

Unless we have a very good lobbyist, we shouldn't send a good lobbyist. 

And unless we have an energy solution that can replace 100% of carbon fuels, we shouldn't have an energy solution that can replace <100% of carbon fuels.

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. 

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). 

See you then!

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post