Tom. Thanks for discussing. No, I don't agree with Hansen on everything at all. As I think you know, I have been and still am much more of a John Christy fan. I do think Hansen was demonstrably wrong in his predictions, but he's not entirely wrong on everything (no one is, or is right about everything), and I've never thought otherwise. I think CO2 emissions will increase global temperatures (always have) but the significant question is how much. Predictions largely depend on assumptions about positive feedbacks, and the net of that is still not well known. As you know, the IPCC still qualifies its predictions by a statement of likelihood. Everyone agrees CO2 will cause temperature increases. Where the great disagreement remains is about how much, and also about how much of a net positive feedback exists (assuming there is not a net negative feedback, e.g.., an "iris effect"), and thus how much warming there will be. The "how much" question is not a small disagreement by any means.
On the other hand, I always try to look for common ground (especially) when an issue like this becomes so politicized, and this is the mother of all issues in terms of having been hyper-politicized.
Nuclear is that common ground, or at least the best that we have. And Hansen pushes hard for it.
BTW, I am not opposed to renewables at all but greatly in favor of them where they otherwise make sense. My oldest son has solar panels on his house and two electric cars. But he lives in a place in California where all of that makes sense. There are relative advantages to renewables but also disadvantages, as there are for fossil fuels.
I don't disagree with you that Christians should care for the creation, but I don't want my institutional church to take a position of the details of a law like a carbon tax for me because (1) it has agreed not to (CO Art 28), and (2) it isn't equipped to. Why should the CRCNA take my favored position on a specific complicated law in behalf of you, or your position in behalf of me? You and I can take positions and join with others, Christians or otherwise, in taking those positions. I really don't see what is gained (but it is clear what will be lost) if any of us succeeds in getting our church to become a megaphone for our own position. Certainly, no one in Congress respects the CRC's climate science expertise, do you think? Yes, folks in Congress are looking for votes but those votes belong to citizens, not the denominational CRC. Who says so? The CRC (again, CO Art 28).
Finally, a carbon tax such as that here proposed will have economic consequences, possibly (probably in my thinking) very large ones. Again, does the CRC have the expertise to know what they will be such that the CRC can responsibly advise on that, decide on that in member's behalf, megaphone for some CRCers? If so, exactly who Is it in the CRCNA that has it such that they should speak for you or me?
To be clear and to respond to your last paragraph, no, I don't think the CRC should take the lead on pushing or opposing legislation like this carbon tax legislation. Assuming the CRC was a climate expert (which it is not), it also needs to be a legal and economics expert (plus more) to competently -- translated, responsibly -- claim the right to lead.
Can the CRC talk about our obligation to steward the creation? Sure (but there is really no disagreement there among CRC members). Can it bring legislation like this to CRCers attention? Sure (although I certainly don't need the CRC to tell me about such things).
But be my proxy (or yours if my perspective prevails in a subsequent Synod)? No. We have another CO rule about that, prohibiting "lording over." Archaic language perhaps but still a good rule.
Maybe not all are theologians, Herb, but most are (probably more than the percentage of scientists said to agree with the alarmist climate perspective).
And frankly, I do not think the part of the denomination that hires the people who lobby in our behalf intends the expertise needed to analyze carbon tax legislation. If you believe some of those the CRC has hired to lobby in our behalf has that competence, I'd like to know who they are. Don't post names here, but I invite you to send by email: [email protected].
Herb: No, you don't have to do my research for me. On the other hand, I have done that research and my conclusions are based on that research. I appreciate that you "trust the church." I guess I neither trust nor distrust but choose to look at what has been and is.
I've been convinced for quite some time that if the US (or the world) intends to replace CO2 emitting energy sources with other energy sources, nuclear is the only realistic option (that that it can't be supplemented by other sources).
A guy named Michael Shellenberger has researched and written about this quite a bit. You can find a Forbes article of his at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/#25a59d5c21d4
and a TED talk by him at: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment
James Hansen is convinced of this; guys like Bill Gates are convinced of this (and putting their money where their mouth is); and many others (like Michael Shellenberger) are convinced of this. And yet, neither Synod 2012 nor OSJ pitch this (or even talk about this) at all. Rather, OSJ pitches the Paris Accords, which Hansen calls a fraud that will accomplish nothing.
Again, my point is that responsible political advocacy requires expertise (competency). If the CRCNA wants to get into the political fray on very important (and incredibly complicated) issues like this, it needs to:
(1) modify its rules (CO Art 28) so that the CRC members buy into this significant institutional mandate shift, and
(2) gear up for doing responsible political advocacy by acquiring (hiring people) who have substantial (professional/occupational) expertise in the areas chosen for CRC political advocacy.
Any other capable institutional organization would do just that (these two points). Why shouldn't the CRC?
Come on Tom. Stop with the snarky stuff ("I imagine that you think that your comments are quite witty, but I find them far less so").
And again, you side-step my fundamental point. I am not advocating that the denomination adopt my view about all things climate change (let alone a proposed federal carbon tax bill). Re-read my article. I'm not even intending to have a public debate about climate change. If I was advocating that the denomination adopt my view about all things climate change, I would be acting quite inconsistently, but I'm not. What I'm advocating is that the denomination (1) stay within it's rules (CO Art 28), and (2) if it wants to wander outside that, change its rules and then acquire the expertise to take on its expanded mandate.
In contrast, you want the denomination to adopt your view, both on climate change and, apparently (tell me if you believe I'm mistaken), as to this proposed, OSJ-supported legislation.
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.
Thanks for posting that Lubbert. As often as I've appealed to CO Art 28 in the past years, I don't recall anyone engaging me as to the meaning of it, nor arguing with my assertion as to what the Article means in terms of the boundaries it creates for denominational (institutional church) activities.
I find that discouraging because it means there may well be something of a widespread willingness to break covenant (which is what the CO is, read its preface) with the CRC churches and members. Some may think that's a small deal so long as their sense of "justice" is pursued by means larger than themselves (which is what the denomination is).
I think it's a big deal, and that our willingness to ignore (or just disobey) this foundational CO rule will be destructive.
Caricaturing (or stereotyping) any group of people is problematic. Nevertheless, it's a popular thing to to. We caricature men, women, black people, white people, rich people, poor people, immigrants, citizens, thin people, fat people, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, Christian, Buddist, the list goes on forever.
I think that we generally do better when we challenge or oppose the bad acts of people rather than try to correlate a certain kind of bad act with a certain group of people (with the possible exception of the group of people who actually did the bad acts, e.g., rapists, as in those who actually rape).
This Gillette commercial communicates an association between men, generally, with a variety of bad acts. And only men. In truth, women assault too, even rape. And women raise children (boys and girls) badly too. So should we oppose men or should we oppose assault and rape and raising children badly? I'd generally choose the latter.
This commercial suggests that men are the problem, not people who assault and rape and teach their children badly; and that men need to fix the problem, not people.
It is intellectually easier to stereotype. It allows us to skip being nuanced, of dealing with the messier reality. It also creates oppressor/victim categories that, these days especially, can be used to leverage power. Still, we do well to avoid it.
Indeed Jason, this is not binary or even close. If one considers the facts about climate change, the possible solutions (assuming a solution is required), and the (international) politics involved in of it all, there are thousands of different permutations of perspectives as to what is and what to do, and at least a dozen (probably more) kinds of expertise required to deal with all the issues.
The saying, "it isn't rocket science" should be changed to "it isn't climate change," the former perhaps being exponentially simpler than the latter.
I think you are quite right Lubbert. Somewhat following outside the church political patterns, as if there is some kind of connection, there has been a trend, in both realms, toward the hierarchical and away from the distributed.
I agree that violence against women should not be seen as a "women's issue" but I don't think it ever has been. I've been practicing law for 40 years. In this decades, I've not seen the sheriff, nor city police, nor DA consider violence against women as a "women's issue." Indeed, if there is a problem that I've seen, it is that law enforcement, because of internal rules, is not allowed to use their usual discretion when a woman reports an abuse. In all other cases, law enforcement is allowed to "not make an arrest" or the DA can dismiss when the woman says she wants it dismissed. But not here.
Real world example: In my last criminal trial, my client, the husband, was accused of assaulting his wife. In truth, the accusation was a lie told by the wife (in a very short marriage) because she was attempting to extort money from her husband (they were near divorce). The deputy sheriff arrested my client (husband, and not the wife) because, the deputy said, "he was bigger than she was." Listening to the 911 tape records (which the deputy could have but declined) would have provided plenty of evidence that my client (husband) did not assault his wife, and that the wife had in fact assaulted the husband (she said so in the 911 conversation after being questioned by the 911 operator, both that he did not hit her and that she hit him). But did that make a difference in terms of who was arrested and then who was -- believe it or not -- put on trial by the DA? Nope. (Fortunately, it did to the judge, who dismissed the case without requiring us to even put on our evidence). And, sadly, this case was not anomalous. The arrest and prosecution in this case reflected standard protocol.
And this was several years before the MeToo movement. It wasn't a MeToo movement pendulum swing. Law enforcement prejudice AGAINST men in domestic cases, as illustrated in this actual case, has existed for decades now -- at least in my part of the country. This assertion is probably contrary to most political narratives these days, but it is simply true, contrary narratives notwithstanding.
Understand I'm not wanting or intending to excuse male on female violence. Not at all. But I am trying to explain the reality that much of the "paradigm shift" many think is needed actually happened quite a long time ago, and in some cases resulted in a too-far pendulum swing. By the way, the wife in my case, having admitted her assault in a 911 recording, was never arrested, let alone prosecuted. The sheriff department rules that required an arrest in all domestic violence complaints (which the rules did) apparently only applied to one gender, or it applied to both genders but the department chose to ignore the rule in when the perpetrator was the wife.
And this is probably why many, men especially, are a bit ticked by the Gillette commercial. They've been told for years that their masculinity is toxic, that men are rapists, that men assault women, that men are perpetrators and women victims. Yes, some men do these things (but some women do too), but the accusations and charges have become much too generalized (which this commercial does), much too caricatured (which this commercial does), and much too sterotyped (which this commercial does). That's probably why, as this article reports, the thumbs down responses badly outnumbered the thumbs up responses.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Tom. Thanks for discussing. No, I don't agree with Hansen on everything at all. As I think you know, I have been and still am much more of a John Christy fan. I do think Hansen was demonstrably wrong in his predictions, but he's not entirely wrong on everything (no one is, or is right about everything), and I've never thought otherwise. I think CO2 emissions will increase global temperatures (always have) but the significant question is how much. Predictions largely depend on assumptions about positive feedbacks, and the net of that is still not well known. As you know, the IPCC still qualifies its predictions by a statement of likelihood. Everyone agrees CO2 will cause temperature increases. Where the great disagreement remains is about how much, and also about how much of a net positive feedback exists (assuming there is not a net negative feedback, e.g.., an "iris effect"), and thus how much warming there will be. The "how much" question is not a small disagreement by any means.
On the other hand, I always try to look for common ground (especially) when an issue like this becomes so politicized, and this is the mother of all issues in terms of having been hyper-politicized.
Nuclear is that common ground, or at least the best that we have. And Hansen pushes hard for it.
BTW, I am not opposed to renewables at all but greatly in favor of them where they otherwise make sense. My oldest son has solar panels on his house and two electric cars. But he lives in a place in California where all of that makes sense. There are relative advantages to renewables but also disadvantages, as there are for fossil fuels.
I don't disagree with you that Christians should care for the creation, but I don't want my institutional church to take a position of the details of a law like a carbon tax for me because (1) it has agreed not to (CO Art 28), and (2) it isn't equipped to. Why should the CRCNA take my favored position on a specific complicated law in behalf of you, or your position in behalf of me? You and I can take positions and join with others, Christians or otherwise, in taking those positions. I really don't see what is gained (but it is clear what will be lost) if any of us succeeds in getting our church to become a megaphone for our own position. Certainly, no one in Congress respects the CRC's climate science expertise, do you think? Yes, folks in Congress are looking for votes but those votes belong to citizens, not the denominational CRC. Who says so? The CRC (again, CO Art 28).
Finally, a carbon tax such as that here proposed will have economic consequences, possibly (probably in my thinking) very large ones. Again, does the CRC have the expertise to know what they will be such that the CRC can responsibly advise on that, decide on that in member's behalf, megaphone for some CRCers? If so, exactly who Is it in the CRCNA that has it such that they should speak for you or me?
To be clear and to respond to your last paragraph, no, I don't think the CRC should take the lead on pushing or opposing legislation like this carbon tax legislation. Assuming the CRC was a climate expert (which it is not), it also needs to be a legal and economics expert (plus more) to competently -- translated, responsibly -- claim the right to lead.
Can the CRC talk about our obligation to steward the creation? Sure (but there is really no disagreement there among CRC members). Can it bring legislation like this to CRCers attention? Sure (although I certainly don't need the CRC to tell me about such things).
But be my proxy (or yours if my perspective prevails in a subsequent Synod)? No. We have another CO rule about that, prohibiting "lording over." Archaic language perhaps but still a good rule.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Maybe not all are theologians, Herb, but most are (probably more than the percentage of scientists said to agree with the alarmist climate perspective).
And frankly, I do not think the part of the denomination that hires the people who lobby in our behalf intends the expertise needed to analyze carbon tax legislation. If you believe some of those the CRC has hired to lobby in our behalf has that competence, I'd like to know who they are. Don't post names here, but I invite you to send by email: [email protected].
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Couldn't have said it better Dan. Obviously, I've chosen path #2, as have you if I'm not mistaken. :-)
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Herb: No, you don't have to do my research for me. On the other hand, I have done that research and my conclusions are based on that research. I appreciate that you "trust the church." I guess I neither trust nor distrust but choose to look at what has been and is.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I've been convinced for quite some time that if the US (or the world) intends to replace CO2 emitting energy sources with other energy sources, nuclear is the only realistic option (that that it can't be supplemented by other sources).
A guy named Michael Shellenberger has researched and written about this quite a bit. You can find a Forbes article of his at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/#25a59d5c21d4
and a TED talk by him at: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment
James Hansen is convinced of this; guys like Bill Gates are convinced of this (and putting their money where their mouth is); and many others (like Michael Shellenberger) are convinced of this. And yet, neither Synod 2012 nor OSJ pitch this (or even talk about this) at all. Rather, OSJ pitches the Paris Accords, which Hansen calls a fraud that will accomplish nothing.
Again, my point is that responsible political advocacy requires expertise (competency). If the CRCNA wants to get into the political fray on very important (and incredibly complicated) issues like this, it needs to:
(1) modify its rules (CO Art 28) so that the CRC members buy into this significant institutional mandate shift, and
(2) gear up for doing responsible political advocacy by acquiring (hiring people) who have substantial (professional/occupational) expertise in the areas chosen for CRC political advocacy.
Any other capable institutional organization would do just that (these two points). Why shouldn't the CRC?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Come on Tom. Stop with the snarky stuff ("I imagine that you think that your comments are quite witty, but I find them far less so").
And again, you side-step my fundamental point. I am not advocating that the denomination adopt my view about all things climate change (let alone a proposed federal carbon tax bill). Re-read my article. I'm not even intending to have a public debate about climate change. If I was advocating that the denomination adopt my view about all things climate change, I would be acting quite inconsistently, but I'm not. What I'm advocating is that the denomination (1) stay within it's rules (CO Art 28), and (2) if it wants to wander outside that, change its rules and then acquire the expertise to take on its expanded mandate.
In contrast, you want the denomination to adopt your view, both on climate change and, apparently (tell me if you believe I'm mistaken), as to this proposed, OSJ-supported legislation.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
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.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Thanks for posting that Lubbert. As often as I've appealed to CO Art 28 in the past years, I don't recall anyone engaging me as to the meaning of it, nor arguing with my assertion as to what the Article means in terms of the boundaries it creates for denominational (institutional church) activities.
I find that discouraging because it means there may well be something of a widespread willingness to break covenant (which is what the CO is, read its preface) with the CRC churches and members. Some may think that's a small deal so long as their sense of "justice" is pursued by means larger than themselves (which is what the denomination is).
I think it's a big deal, and that our willingness to ignore (or just disobey) this foundational CO rule will be destructive.
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
Caricaturing (or stereotyping) any group of people is problematic. Nevertheless, it's a popular thing to to. We caricature men, women, black people, white people, rich people, poor people, immigrants, citizens, thin people, fat people, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, Christian, Buddist, the list goes on forever.
I think that we generally do better when we challenge or oppose the bad acts of people rather than try to correlate a certain kind of bad act with a certain group of people (with the possible exception of the group of people who actually did the bad acts, e.g., rapists, as in those who actually rape).
This Gillette commercial communicates an association between men, generally, with a variety of bad acts. And only men. In truth, women assault too, even rape. And women raise children (boys and girls) badly too. So should we oppose men or should we oppose assault and rape and raising children badly? I'd generally choose the latter.
This commercial suggests that men are the problem, not people who assault and rape and teach their children badly; and that men need to fix the problem, not people.
It is intellectually easier to stereotype. It allows us to skip being nuanced, of dealing with the messier reality. It also creates oppressor/victim categories that, these days especially, can be used to leverage power. Still, we do well to avoid it.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Indeed Jason, this is not binary or even close. If one considers the facts about climate change, the possible solutions (assuming a solution is required), and the (international) politics involved in of it all, there are thousands of different permutations of perspectives as to what is and what to do, and at least a dozen (probably more) kinds of expertise required to deal with all the issues.
The saying, "it isn't rocket science" should be changed to "it isn't climate change," the former perhaps being exponentially simpler than the latter.
dvg
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I think you are quite right Lubbert. Somewhat following outside the church political patterns, as if there is some kind of connection, there has been a trend, in both realms, toward the hierarchical and away from the distributed.
I'm not a fan of the trends.
Posted in: Gillette: The Best a Man Can Get?
I agree that violence against women should not be seen as a "women's issue" but I don't think it ever has been. I've been practicing law for 40 years. In this decades, I've not seen the sheriff, nor city police, nor DA consider violence against women as a "women's issue." Indeed, if there is a problem that I've seen, it is that law enforcement, because of internal rules, is not allowed to use their usual discretion when a woman reports an abuse. In all other cases, law enforcement is allowed to "not make an arrest" or the DA can dismiss when the woman says she wants it dismissed. But not here.
Real world example: In my last criminal trial, my client, the husband, was accused of assaulting his wife. In truth, the accusation was a lie told by the wife (in a very short marriage) because she was attempting to extort money from her husband (they were near divorce). The deputy sheriff arrested my client (husband, and not the wife) because, the deputy said, "he was bigger than she was." Listening to the 911 tape records (which the deputy could have but declined) would have provided plenty of evidence that my client (husband) did not assault his wife, and that the wife had in fact assaulted the husband (she said so in the 911 conversation after being questioned by the 911 operator, both that he did not hit her and that she hit him). But did that make a difference in terms of who was arrested and then who was -- believe it or not -- put on trial by the DA? Nope. (Fortunately, it did to the judge, who dismissed the case without requiring us to even put on our evidence). And, sadly, this case was not anomalous. The arrest and prosecution in this case reflected standard protocol.
And this was several years before the MeToo movement. It wasn't a MeToo movement pendulum swing. Law enforcement prejudice AGAINST men in domestic cases, as illustrated in this actual case, has existed for decades now -- at least in my part of the country. This assertion is probably contrary to most political narratives these days, but it is simply true, contrary narratives notwithstanding.
Understand I'm not wanting or intending to excuse male on female violence. Not at all. But I am trying to explain the reality that much of the "paradigm shift" many think is needed actually happened quite a long time ago, and in some cases resulted in a too-far pendulum swing. By the way, the wife in my case, having admitted her assault in a 911 recording, was never arrested, let alone prosecuted. The sheriff department rules that required an arrest in all domestic violence complaints (which the rules did) apparently only applied to one gender, or it applied to both genders but the department chose to ignore the rule in when the perpetrator was the wife.
And this is probably why many, men especially, are a bit ticked by the Gillette commercial. They've been told for years that their masculinity is toxic, that men are rapists, that men assault women, that men are perpetrators and women victims. Yes, some men do these things (but some women do too), but the accusations and charges have become much too generalized (which this commercial does), much too caricatured (which this commercial does), and much too sterotyped (which this commercial does). That's probably why, as this article reports, the thumbs down responses badly outnumbered the thumbs up responses.