#237: The New 'Cigarettes'
.................
My quora feed this morning contained a question answered by Alexander Nerad that I will quote from and critique:
Here is his list of things that, in retrospect, the future will deem harmful (where I agree: Blue; where I disagree: Red; where I partly agree/disagree: Black):
Glyphosate (Roundup herbicide):
This is a fairly ubiquitous spray, used to kill weeds along highways, in parking lots, and of course farm fields. It's been linked to cancer.
The author suggests that genetic engineering will allow farmers to use much less.
While I agree glyphosate is probably a candidate for this list, the best farm practices involve not genetic engineering, which pests adapt to, but regenerative agriculture, which focuses on soil health and cover crops to control weeds.
Football It's hard to imagine school sports without football, but concussions are something we now know about, and can't really escape.
I would guess, though, that any nay-saying, even if persistent, will take a long time to come to fruition.
For the record, I enjoyed flag football in high school, but have not played, nor watched/followed the sport since.
The Internal Combustion Engine Another long-term recalibration that's inevitable. Battery-powered electrics will eventually be cheaper, and with government prodding, use of the last exhaust-producing machines will be frowned on.
Smoking Marijuana The author suggests vaping and edibles will take over. I doubt edibles will be a significant factor once research demonstrates the dangers of paranoia involved.
Opiate Pain Pills The author thinks THC will replace opiates for treating pain. Not going to happen, as severe pain is not affected by cannabis, though treating symptoms (like depression), and quitting opioids is another matter. I've taken flack for this opinion, but I think opioids, while very dangerous--and to be avoided--represent the symptom of an underlying problem when they lead to addiction. But, I haven't had to use them in my life, so what do I know?
Working while stressed Here, the author thinks that 'fitbit' -type gadgetry will allow monitoring of high blood pressure and other warning signs, leading to counseling RE: working well under pressure. My own preferred future is gamified work combined with strong unions that redirect half of any productivity gains to the workers who choose to participate, while meting out no penalties for trying and failing to generate work efficiencies.
Breathing particulates The author mentions that he works in dirty air and hopes that will end. Electrification of transportation and industry should mean dramatically less particulate matter.
Sitting still for a whole shift Here, the likelihood that treadmill desks--or even standing desks--will catch on is a long shot. But there will surely be a movement in that direction.
.............................................
And do I have my own items? Here are two off the top of my head:
Horror. Why wallow in it unnecessarily (books, movies, etc.)? Surely, life's wonderful enough, and fleeting.
Junk Mail. What purpose is served in recycling wads of unwanted solicitations from my mailbox? The less of it, the more eager people will be to retrieve their mail. Will this cause hardship for the Post Office? Not if businesses that one interacts with are allowed to solicit your attention, while all others are kept at arms length. An exception would be small, locally-owned businesses. All the big corporations would have to pay much higher prices to attract your initial interaction, which would then land you on their list.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Morals: Where They Come From
#236: Wrongfulness Is Just... Wrong
Vox's Sigal Samuel has an article up about Patricia Churchland's simple theory:
"Mothers came to feel deeply attached to their children because that helped the children (and through them, the mother’s genes) survive. This ability to feel attachment was gradually generalized to mates, kin, and friends. "
What this theory doesn't explain, though, is how morality is generalized from people you love to people you don't know. If morality is empathy, expanded, there comes a point when we have to condemn our own if we're to be objective: "Sorry, brother, but you can't take a stranger's chicken; it's wrong to do so."
I'd say that there are two legs that morality stands on: empathy and universality. The latter is what is missing in the above; and we get it from math. Math is the ability to see things objectively, from on high. That's because an objective number stands for something subjective. We can then substitute ourselves, or our friends, for a number, then switch the number for a stranger. Hey, the stranger's the same as me when looking at it that way.
A few interesting observations:
* The more one is confronted with strangers, the more comfortable one is forced to become with this abstraction: "That could have been me." in order to remain healthy. This means that urban dwellers tend to be abstract thinkers.
* Likewise, the less one confronts strangers, the easier it is to slip into a subjective morality: "He's one of us, and I'm comfortable with that." This means isolated populations tend to be subjective thinkers, able to immerse themselves deeply in their own traditions.
* Obviously, these are both extremes. The closer one comes to a healthy integration, the better. But, it takes independent thought to merge the two. "My/Your family's ways are superior/inferior in this one regard, based on my values that I've tested and developed over the years."
It goes without saying that our two tendencies line up quite well with Blue and Red politics, though Red's descent into unthinking subjectivity ("Never criticize the Big Boy.") means that Blue's minor failings (the tendency towards 'open borders', for example, with that tendency's unknowns: heavier traffic? less open space?) will be judged less harshly, while the unthinking toadyism of Red's present course will be brought down with what will likely be a mighty crash.
Vox's Sigal Samuel has an article up about Patricia Churchland's simple theory:
"Mothers came to feel deeply attached to their children because that helped the children (and through them, the mother’s genes) survive. This ability to feel attachment was gradually generalized to mates, kin, and friends. "
What this theory doesn't explain, though, is how morality is generalized from people you love to people you don't know. If morality is empathy, expanded, there comes a point when we have to condemn our own if we're to be objective: "Sorry, brother, but you can't take a stranger's chicken; it's wrong to do so."
I'd say that there are two legs that morality stands on: empathy and universality. The latter is what is missing in the above; and we get it from math. Math is the ability to see things objectively, from on high. That's because an objective number stands for something subjective. We can then substitute ourselves, or our friends, for a number, then switch the number for a stranger. Hey, the stranger's the same as me when looking at it that way.
A few interesting observations:
* The more one is confronted with strangers, the more comfortable one is forced to become with this abstraction: "That could have been me." in order to remain healthy. This means that urban dwellers tend to be abstract thinkers.
* Likewise, the less one confronts strangers, the easier it is to slip into a subjective morality: "He's one of us, and I'm comfortable with that." This means isolated populations tend to be subjective thinkers, able to immerse themselves deeply in their own traditions.
* Obviously, these are both extremes. The closer one comes to a healthy integration, the better. But, it takes independent thought to merge the two. "My/Your family's ways are superior/inferior in this one regard, based on my values that I've tested and developed over the years."
It goes without saying that our two tendencies line up quite well with Blue and Red politics, though Red's descent into unthinking subjectivity ("Never criticize the Big Boy.") means that Blue's minor failings (the tendency towards 'open borders', for example, with that tendency's unknowns: heavier traffic? less open space?) will be judged less harshly, while the unthinking toadyism of Red's present course will be brought down with what will likely be a mighty crash.
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Dang! It's Andrew Yang
#235: A Quick Review: The Yang Candidacy
.............
Whether you agree with his signature policy proposal, the 'Freedom Dividend' ($1,000 a month for all Americans, 18 or older), you have to admit that Yang has identified what may be our economy's big problem: the loss of good-paying jobs to automation and offshoring.
So, let's take a look at his big picture answer, and the many other proposals he makes [for this, I quote from a New Yorker article by Emily Witt--in black; my thoughts in blue]:
Supreme Court Justices and congresspeople will have term limits of eighteen years. This would require Constitutional Amendments, which are all but impossible. So, unfortunately, Yang's agenda slips a bit into the 'unlikelihood' chasm.
Federal laws will automatically sunset after a determined period of time. If a law is just, it should be universal and last indefinitely. The Endangered Species Act, for example, would be hard to pass a second time.
Each American will receive a hundred “democracy dollars” to donate to the candidate of her choosing and a hundred dollars to donate to the nonprofit organization of her choice. Here's a winner, though why not a more modest $25, each, say?
Free financial counseling and free marriage counseling. Hmmm, that's more good-paying jobs taken over by government-backed robots (that's right, robots--see the article). But, who knows, maybe worth it.
A government hotline to report robocalls. Would imagine the other candidates could all get behind this one.
Voting age will be sixteen. Ok, though I doubt it could pass.
Opioids will be decriminalized. Would advise removing this from his agenda, and instead, working on incremental steps that are possible. Too scary for most.
Every cop will wear a camera. Most candidates advocate this.
N.C.A.A. athletes will finally get paid. Sure.
Mixed-martial-arts fighters will be protected by law from exploitation. Pass.
Ceremonial events will be attended not by the President of the United States, who has better things to do, but by the “Head of Culture and Ceremony,” who would be a Presidentially appointed famous person, like Tom Hanks, the Rock, or Oprah. Ok, sort of like multiple veeps, then?
High-school students will do exchanges to other parts of the United States to learn about their fellow-Americans. Ok, if this is an offer, rather than dictum.
A local journalism fund will finance the regional news. Like public radio/TV? A very good idea, but likely hard to pass (Republicans would be ag'in it).
Malls emptied by Internet commerce will be revitalized as public spaces. At the national level?
Companies will be forced to reduce their plastic packaging. Tax? Ban? Incentives for bio-degradable alternatives? The latter might be doable.
Airlines will not be allowed to drag their customers from overbooked flights. Ok, though ticket prices would probably rise slightly.
Tax Day will be a holiday. Why not voting day? Who does their taxes on tax day, anyway? Surprised this proposal isn't more disruptive in nature, like, maybe 'government-does-your-tentative-taxes-for-you', so that all you need to do is review and digitally confirm.
Puerto Rico will be a state. Most other candidates are on board--assuming Puerto Ricans still want this.
The penny will be eliminated. Does scratch an itch, but why not 'nickel' as well, and drop a decimal point?
New government agencies, such as the “Legion of Builders and Destroyers,” which will be tasked with updating the nation’s infrastructure. I humbly suggest that we have too big a government framework, and that consolidation of functions/downsizing is an easier sell.
Voting, using our phones. I've written extensively about the problems and solutions on this blog: security concerns can be overcome by polling of online opinion at each representative's website, as voters offer advice on randomly selected issues to their elected Reps.; this squares the direct democracy circle--until blockchain figures out the fundamental security issues with voting online.
Big Picture: the world Yang sees is one in which automation, climate change, and Internet commerce have transformed capitalism beyond the point where it sustains humanity. He calls the necessary corrective—universal basic income—a turn toward “human-centered capitalism” [$1,000 per adult per month]. There's something very appealing here--aside from the free money--as $24,000 a year is getting close to enough for a couple's subsistence livelihood (eating rice and beans, home-grown veggies, handicrafts, play-your-own games and instruments). Honestly, though, implementing a enormous Value Added Tax is just not possible given the US Senate's conservative bias. Is it worth fighting for, anyway? Maybe.
Evaluation: As I see it, Yang has some good ideas (Democracy Dollars, RoboCall Hotline, local journalism fund like Public Radio), some no-brainers that most other candidates support, along with some ideas probably best dealt with at the state level (free counseling, decriminalization/legalization), plus a grab bag of unlikely, pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, and finally, his Universal Basic Income, funded by an enormous new tax--which is either impossible to pass, unsustainable (too much subsistence living and not enough tax paying) or a good wedge issue to defeat Red State senators. On that final point, a first step might be Cory Booker's Baby Bonds payout once underprivileged kids reach adulthood. This could then be expanded, gradually, as increased opportunity leads to a healthier, more productive workforce. In other words, deal with inequality, then automation, with opportunity generating the new jobs needed in the meantime.
.............
Whether you agree with his signature policy proposal, the 'Freedom Dividend' ($1,000 a month for all Americans, 18 or older), you have to admit that Yang has identified what may be our economy's big problem: the loss of good-paying jobs to automation and offshoring.
So, let's take a look at his big picture answer, and the many other proposals he makes [for this, I quote from a New Yorker article by Emily Witt--in black; my thoughts in blue]:
Supreme Court Justices and congresspeople will have term limits of eighteen years. This would require Constitutional Amendments, which are all but impossible. So, unfortunately, Yang's agenda slips a bit into the 'unlikelihood' chasm.
Federal laws will automatically sunset after a determined period of time. If a law is just, it should be universal and last indefinitely. The Endangered Species Act, for example, would be hard to pass a second time.
Each American will receive a hundred “democracy dollars” to donate to the candidate of her choosing and a hundred dollars to donate to the nonprofit organization of her choice. Here's a winner, though why not a more modest $25, each, say?
Free financial counseling and free marriage counseling. Hmmm, that's more good-paying jobs taken over by government-backed robots (that's right, robots--see the article). But, who knows, maybe worth it.
A government hotline to report robocalls. Would imagine the other candidates could all get behind this one.
Voting age will be sixteen. Ok, though I doubt it could pass.
Opioids will be decriminalized. Would advise removing this from his agenda, and instead, working on incremental steps that are possible. Too scary for most.
Every cop will wear a camera. Most candidates advocate this.
N.C.A.A. athletes will finally get paid. Sure.
Mixed-martial-arts fighters will be protected by law from exploitation. Pass.
Ceremonial events will be attended not by the President of the United States, who has better things to do, but by the “Head of Culture and Ceremony,” who would be a Presidentially appointed famous person, like Tom Hanks, the Rock, or Oprah. Ok, sort of like multiple veeps, then?
High-school students will do exchanges to other parts of the United States to learn about their fellow-Americans. Ok, if this is an offer, rather than dictum.
A local journalism fund will finance the regional news. Like public radio/TV? A very good idea, but likely hard to pass (Republicans would be ag'in it).
Malls emptied by Internet commerce will be revitalized as public spaces. At the national level?
Companies will be forced to reduce their plastic packaging. Tax? Ban? Incentives for bio-degradable alternatives? The latter might be doable.
Airlines will not be allowed to drag their customers from overbooked flights. Ok, though ticket prices would probably rise slightly.
Tax Day will be a holiday. Why not voting day? Who does their taxes on tax day, anyway? Surprised this proposal isn't more disruptive in nature, like, maybe 'government-does-your-tentative-taxes-for-you', so that all you need to do is review and digitally confirm.
Puerto Rico will be a state. Most other candidates are on board--assuming Puerto Ricans still want this.
The penny will be eliminated. Does scratch an itch, but why not 'nickel' as well, and drop a decimal point?
New government agencies, such as the “Legion of Builders and Destroyers,” which will be tasked with updating the nation’s infrastructure. I humbly suggest that we have too big a government framework, and that consolidation of functions/downsizing is an easier sell.
Voting, using our phones. I've written extensively about the problems and solutions on this blog: security concerns can be overcome by polling of online opinion at each representative's website, as voters offer advice on randomly selected issues to their elected Reps.; this squares the direct democracy circle--until blockchain figures out the fundamental security issues with voting online.
Big Picture: the world Yang sees is one in which automation, climate change, and Internet commerce have transformed capitalism beyond the point where it sustains humanity. He calls the necessary corrective—universal basic income—a turn toward “human-centered capitalism” [$1,000 per adult per month]. There's something very appealing here--aside from the free money--as $24,000 a year is getting close to enough for a couple's subsistence livelihood (eating rice and beans, home-grown veggies, handicrafts, play-your-own games and instruments). Honestly, though, implementing a enormous Value Added Tax is just not possible given the US Senate's conservative bias. Is it worth fighting for, anyway? Maybe.
Evaluation: As I see it, Yang has some good ideas (Democracy Dollars, RoboCall Hotline, local journalism fund like Public Radio), some no-brainers that most other candidates support, along with some ideas probably best dealt with at the state level (free counseling, decriminalization/legalization), plus a grab bag of unlikely, pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, and finally, his Universal Basic Income, funded by an enormous new tax--which is either impossible to pass, unsustainable (too much subsistence living and not enough tax paying) or a good wedge issue to defeat Red State senators. On that final point, a first step might be Cory Booker's Baby Bonds payout once underprivileged kids reach adulthood. This could then be expanded, gradually, as increased opportunity leads to a healthier, more productive workforce. In other words, deal with inequality, then automation, with opportunity generating the new jobs needed in the meantime.
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Climate: About That "No More Candy" Message....
#234: Think Before You Blurt
..............
#1: We've got to cut way back on carbon emissions.
#2: But, a tax on carbon is like telling kids 'no more candy'.
#3: A solution: sensible parenting.
I lay out the 'sensible parenting' approach in response to Eliza Barclay and Umair Irfan's article "Ten Ways To Accelerate Progress Against Climate Change" in Vox. First, I quote their opening paragraph for each point. My comments then follow, in green.
1) Price carbon emissions
By adding a cost to emitting greenhouse gases, you create an incentive to produce less of them and switch to alternatives.
"No more candy; eat your broccoli" is a hard sell, especially if kids could vote. And most Americans in Red states like Kentucky and Alabama, for example, have barely heard of climate change. Maybe they could be convinced. But to convince, we'd need them to vote for the senate candidate they're least likely to identify with (RE: coal, abortion, immigration); why make that decision any less likely? Instead, sensible parenting advice: put the broccoli, finely chopped, in with the mac-and-cheese. That is, give up on the 'no more candy'.
Instead, beginning with our close allies, and using carrots and sticks when necessary, assemble a coalition that promises an accelerating timetable for fighting climate change with worldwide, substitute military spending.
This not only delivers adequate funding, without increased taxation, but it strengthens our friendships and global institutions, while raising our 'good player' image in the world. And red state voters will like the squeeze put on the bloated edifice that is government procurement. And then there's what veterans of our Iraqi and Afghan wars think: 2-to-1 they feel the fighting wasn't worth it.
2) Subsidize clean energy / end subsidies for dirty energy
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar power have already become dramatically more affordable. In the United States, renewables are cost-competitive with fossil fuels in some markets.
Unlike a carbon tax, this should be possible in our current political context. Sensible parenting advice: "Hey, kids, why are we buying licorice for a snack, when you like carrot cake better?"
3) Close coal plants / cut off the fossil fuel supply
The world is still opening tens of thousands of megawatts of coal-fired power capacity every year.
This is where much of the world's military spending cutback would go; payments to encourage all countries, including our own, to stop using coal by a certain end date; by, instead, funding renewable generating capacity. Or, in sensible parenting -speak: "If you want to go to college, we'll pay for an SAT prep course."
4) Electrify everything / get more efficient
Energy efficiency is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit in fighting climate change.
Again, this is doable, given our current political context. For one thing, it means good-paying jobs. Parent: "Any money we save on the utility bill goes right into your allowance."
5) Invest in innovation
Perhaps the best tools to fight climate change haven’t been invented yet — a battery that can store gobs of energy for months, a solar panel that’s twice as efficient....
Same as #3 and #4, above. Parent: "I'll gladly pay for any art supplies you need; just cut back on the TV."
6) End production / sales of [vehicles] that run on fossil fuels
Within a few decades, we are likely to see a worldwide transition away from vehicles that run on gas toward those that use electricity.
Setting a deadline to end gas-powered vehicle production, even if years off, will have an immediate impact, since nobody wants to own yesteryear's model that will soon lose all its resale value. Parent: "You're old enough to give up your tricycle; so be looking at new bikes for one you like."
7) Require “zero deforestation” supply chains
Tropical forests in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Central Africa are essential for keeping carbon in the ground and maintaining the climate.
Here we'd apply 'the stick' if rogue nations continue to remove forests unsustainably. Parent: "If you don't stop stepping in my flower beds, you're grounded when the other kids want to play."
8) Keep aging nuclear plants running
Nuclear power currently is responsible for about 20 percent of US electricity — and 50 percent of its carbon-free electricity.
Extending the life of a dozen or so older nuclear plants is unlikely to meet with much opposition. Parent: "You'll just have to ride your bicycle to your friend's house, until we can afford buying you a used car."
9) Discourage meat / dairy, encourage plant-based diets
Producing animal products, particularly beef and dairy, creates the majority of food-related greenhouse emissions....
This is the equivalent of parents asking kids to give up their devices for the entire summer. Along with the carbon tax (#1), and overly ambitious calls for ending fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine (#3 and #6), this is the most likely of our ten points to set back progress. In a democracy, voters can simply say 'no' to the best intentions. And if that means years of backlash, as the problem compounds, it can be worse than waiting for a better opportunity.
10) Remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Every scenario outlined by the IPCC report counts on pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. However, many of the technologies needed to do this are in their infancy.
Plant a tree, build with wood; some seaweed varieties can grow faster than the fastest growing tree. And, sadly, there are plenty of denuded waters where seaweed can be planted. Parent: if you can't put all your things back where they belong, at least put them in the closet so the house looks presentable.
..............
#1: We've got to cut way back on carbon emissions.
#2: But, a tax on carbon is like telling kids 'no more candy'.
#3: A solution: sensible parenting.
I lay out the 'sensible parenting' approach in response to Eliza Barclay and Umair Irfan's article "Ten Ways To Accelerate Progress Against Climate Change" in Vox. First, I quote their opening paragraph for each point. My comments then follow, in green.
1) Price carbon emissions
By adding a cost to emitting greenhouse gases, you create an incentive to produce less of them and switch to alternatives.
"No more candy; eat your broccoli" is a hard sell, especially if kids could vote. And most Americans in Red states like Kentucky and Alabama, for example, have barely heard of climate change. Maybe they could be convinced. But to convince, we'd need them to vote for the senate candidate they're least likely to identify with (RE: coal, abortion, immigration); why make that decision any less likely? Instead, sensible parenting advice: put the broccoli, finely chopped, in with the mac-and-cheese. That is, give up on the 'no more candy'.
Instead, beginning with our close allies, and using carrots and sticks when necessary, assemble a coalition that promises an accelerating timetable for fighting climate change with worldwide, substitute military spending.
This not only delivers adequate funding, without increased taxation, but it strengthens our friendships and global institutions, while raising our 'good player' image in the world. And red state voters will like the squeeze put on the bloated edifice that is government procurement. And then there's what veterans of our Iraqi and Afghan wars think: 2-to-1 they feel the fighting wasn't worth it.
2) Subsidize clean energy / end subsidies for dirty energy
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar power have already become dramatically more affordable. In the United States, renewables are cost-competitive with fossil fuels in some markets.
Unlike a carbon tax, this should be possible in our current political context. Sensible parenting advice: "Hey, kids, why are we buying licorice for a snack, when you like carrot cake better?"
3) Close coal plants / cut off the fossil fuel supply
The world is still opening tens of thousands of megawatts of coal-fired power capacity every year.
This is where much of the world's military spending cutback would go; payments to encourage all countries, including our own, to stop using coal by a certain end date; by, instead, funding renewable generating capacity. Or, in sensible parenting -speak: "If you want to go to college, we'll pay for an SAT prep course."
4) Electrify everything / get more efficient
Energy efficiency is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit in fighting climate change.
Again, this is doable, given our current political context. For one thing, it means good-paying jobs. Parent: "Any money we save on the utility bill goes right into your allowance."
5) Invest in innovation
Perhaps the best tools to fight climate change haven’t been invented yet — a battery that can store gobs of energy for months, a solar panel that’s twice as efficient....
Same as #3 and #4, above. Parent: "I'll gladly pay for any art supplies you need; just cut back on the TV."
6) End production / sales of [vehicles] that run on fossil fuels
Within a few decades, we are likely to see a worldwide transition away from vehicles that run on gas toward those that use electricity.
Setting a deadline to end gas-powered vehicle production, even if years off, will have an immediate impact, since nobody wants to own yesteryear's model that will soon lose all its resale value. Parent: "You're old enough to give up your tricycle; so be looking at new bikes for one you like."
7) Require “zero deforestation” supply chains
Tropical forests in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Central Africa are essential for keeping carbon in the ground and maintaining the climate.
Here we'd apply 'the stick' if rogue nations continue to remove forests unsustainably. Parent: "If you don't stop stepping in my flower beds, you're grounded when the other kids want to play."
8) Keep aging nuclear plants running
Nuclear power currently is responsible for about 20 percent of US electricity — and 50 percent of its carbon-free electricity.
Extending the life of a dozen or so older nuclear plants is unlikely to meet with much opposition. Parent: "You'll just have to ride your bicycle to your friend's house, until we can afford buying you a used car."
9) Discourage meat / dairy, encourage plant-based diets
Producing animal products, particularly beef and dairy, creates the majority of food-related greenhouse emissions....
This is the equivalent of parents asking kids to give up their devices for the entire summer. Along with the carbon tax (#1), and overly ambitious calls for ending fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine (#3 and #6), this is the most likely of our ten points to set back progress. In a democracy, voters can simply say 'no' to the best intentions. And if that means years of backlash, as the problem compounds, it can be worse than waiting for a better opportunity.
10) Remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Every scenario outlined by the IPCC report counts on pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. However, many of the technologies needed to do this are in their infancy.
Plant a tree, build with wood; some seaweed varieties can grow faster than the fastest growing tree. And, sadly, there are plenty of denuded waters where seaweed can be planted. Parent: if you can't put all your things back where they belong, at least put them in the closet so the house looks presentable.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Answers To Climate Change Debate Questions
#233: I respond to Dave Roberts' 10 questions
...........
In a recent Vox article, Roberts discusses why these 10 questions should be asked at a possible 2020 Democratic candidates debate on Climate. I first spout the likeliest reaction from the majority of candidates (The Likely), then my own alternate take (The Likeliest).
1) ...Where does climate change fall on your list of priorities when you step into office?
The Likely: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The Likeliest: On day one, my administration will unveil the executive orders and legislative proposals we've written up, in consultation with Congress, during our 3-month transition period, which will include Climate, Voting Rights, Jobs Stimulation, Healthcare, and the end of wasteful overseas spending.
2) ...If Democrats win a majority in the Senate, will you advocate for reforming or scrapping the filibuster?
The Likely: Our Republican partners in Congress will have a one month window during which to cooperate; if they don't, we'll advocate for reform.
The Likeliest: No, my administration will propose a science-based, case-by-case repeal that preserves the filibuster for other matters, but allows scientifically settled policy to prevail. ***
3) Assuming Republicans control one or both houses of Congress and legislation becomes impossible, what executive actions are you prepared to take to reduce carbon emissions?
The Likely: We must return to the Obama administration's policies as a first step....
The Likeliest: The only way we'll win the Senate is by making it our focus; that's why a 'radical socialist' with minimal coattails outside urban areas will lose the Senate, and a 'farmer's friend' attitude and focus will win. Winning big on the coasts, and losing the Senate is just losing.
4) ...What will you do to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected during the transition to clean energy?
The Likely: I'll propose bills to shield the vulnerable, and retrain the laid off worker.
The Likeliest: The first instinct for our administration will be to replace old with new jobs in areas affected by Climate policy.
5)...What role do you see carbon pricing playing in climate policy?
The Likely: ...One tool in our toolbox.
The Likeliest: Climate is a global problem that requires a global solution; all countries must help out. That's why a reduction in every country's military spending, with those revenues repurposed for fighting Climate Change, is the answer. And we'll lead the way.
6) ...How do you view the Green New Deal — what does the term mean to you? And do you support it or something like it?
The Likely: I do support the general idea.
The Likeliest: I support a modest version that focuses on generating good jobs in the energy, construction, and transportation sectors, coupled with three new economic boosters that allow all Americans the freedom to prosper: Free Child Care, Free Community College, and scaled, $2,020-a-year Baby Bonds for our least fortunate families.
7) ...Will you pursue Republican votes and try to secure bipartisan policy, or will you unify Democrats and try to pass climate policy over Republican objections, as many states and cities have?
The Likely: I'll be looking for the most successful path forward.
The Likeliest: The fact that we propose a modest, job- and opportunity-focused plan will mean that Republicans are fools if they oppose progress. And if indeed they do, that'll confirm their selfish, power-hungry reputation for all the world to see.
8) There are several ongoing lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, charging that they deliberately concealed the dangers of climate change. There are shareholder resolutions seeking to tie them to carbon reduction goals. Universities and other institutions are divesting from fossil fuel stocks. Do you support these and other efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable?
The Likely: Yes.
The Likeliest: States, localities, and the private sector have been leading the way, recently, on Climate. Those efforts can now be assisted and encouraged with scientifically sound federal policy as we clear out the self-dealing, and ugly corruption of big corporations that have been dictating government policy.
9) Greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the US, mainly because they are falling in the electricity sector, thanks in part to wind, solar, and batteries. But in other sectors of the economy, like transportation and industry, emissions are rising. What will you do to target those other sectors and get their carbon emissions falling?
Likely: ...meet the challenge.
Likeliest: The most important thing is not only generating good jobs, especially in areas impacted by Climate, but also signaling our plans ahead of time, so that the economy has a chance to adjust quickly enough. For example, if consumers know that charging stations for electric vehicles will be everywhere, and soon, and will be easy to use, electric cars will sell at a faster clip.
10) The US military has called climate change a “threat multiplier” that will increase the odds of disasters, mass migrations, and armed conflict around the world. What will you do to help the US prepare for a more chaotic world? And what will you do to help other countries and international institutions prepare?
Likely: The world needs US leadership; I'll provide it.
Likeliest: Making friends is the way mature people get ahead. Allied action is also how our world can best fight climate change. Starting with our closest friends and working outwards, we'll gain momentum by bringing outlier countries on board, strengthening institutions as we proceed.
*** Set up panels of mainstream scientific experts to weigh in on legislation that addresses science. For example, the climate fight. Allows science-based legislation with no filibuster possible. A majority vote is all that's needed to set up said panels.
...........
In a recent Vox article, Roberts discusses why these 10 questions should be asked at a possible 2020 Democratic candidates debate on Climate. I first spout the likeliest reaction from the majority of candidates (The Likely), then my own alternate take (The Likeliest).
1) ...Where does climate change fall on your list of priorities when you step into office?
The Likely: We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The Likeliest: On day one, my administration will unveil the executive orders and legislative proposals we've written up, in consultation with Congress, during our 3-month transition period, which will include Climate, Voting Rights, Jobs Stimulation, Healthcare, and the end of wasteful overseas spending.
2) ...If Democrats win a majority in the Senate, will you advocate for reforming or scrapping the filibuster?
The Likely: Our Republican partners in Congress will have a one month window during which to cooperate; if they don't, we'll advocate for reform.
The Likeliest: No, my administration will propose a science-based, case-by-case repeal that preserves the filibuster for other matters, but allows scientifically settled policy to prevail. ***
3) Assuming Republicans control one or both houses of Congress and legislation becomes impossible, what executive actions are you prepared to take to reduce carbon emissions?
The Likely: We must return to the Obama administration's policies as a first step....
The Likeliest: The only way we'll win the Senate is by making it our focus; that's why a 'radical socialist' with minimal coattails outside urban areas will lose the Senate, and a 'farmer's friend' attitude and focus will win. Winning big on the coasts, and losing the Senate is just losing.
4) ...What will you do to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected during the transition to clean energy?
The Likely: I'll propose bills to shield the vulnerable, and retrain the laid off worker.
The Likeliest: The first instinct for our administration will be to replace old with new jobs in areas affected by Climate policy.
5)...What role do you see carbon pricing playing in climate policy?
The Likely: ...One tool in our toolbox.
The Likeliest: Climate is a global problem that requires a global solution; all countries must help out. That's why a reduction in every country's military spending, with those revenues repurposed for fighting Climate Change, is the answer. And we'll lead the way.
6) ...How do you view the Green New Deal — what does the term mean to you? And do you support it or something like it?
The Likely: I do support the general idea.
The Likeliest: I support a modest version that focuses on generating good jobs in the energy, construction, and transportation sectors, coupled with three new economic boosters that allow all Americans the freedom to prosper: Free Child Care, Free Community College, and scaled, $2,020-a-year Baby Bonds for our least fortunate families.
7) ...Will you pursue Republican votes and try to secure bipartisan policy, or will you unify Democrats and try to pass climate policy over Republican objections, as many states and cities have?
The Likely: I'll be looking for the most successful path forward.
The Likeliest: The fact that we propose a modest, job- and opportunity-focused plan will mean that Republicans are fools if they oppose progress. And if indeed they do, that'll confirm their selfish, power-hungry reputation for all the world to see.
8) There are several ongoing lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, charging that they deliberately concealed the dangers of climate change. There are shareholder resolutions seeking to tie them to carbon reduction goals. Universities and other institutions are divesting from fossil fuel stocks. Do you support these and other efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable?
The Likely: Yes.
The Likeliest: States, localities, and the private sector have been leading the way, recently, on Climate. Those efforts can now be assisted and encouraged with scientifically sound federal policy as we clear out the self-dealing, and ugly corruption of big corporations that have been dictating government policy.
9) Greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the US, mainly because they are falling in the electricity sector, thanks in part to wind, solar, and batteries. But in other sectors of the economy, like transportation and industry, emissions are rising. What will you do to target those other sectors and get their carbon emissions falling?
Likely: ...meet the challenge.
Likeliest: The most important thing is not only generating good jobs, especially in areas impacted by Climate, but also signaling our plans ahead of time, so that the economy has a chance to adjust quickly enough. For example, if consumers know that charging stations for electric vehicles will be everywhere, and soon, and will be easy to use, electric cars will sell at a faster clip.
10) The US military has called climate change a “threat multiplier” that will increase the odds of disasters, mass migrations, and armed conflict around the world. What will you do to help the US prepare for a more chaotic world? And what will you do to help other countries and international institutions prepare?
Likely: The world needs US leadership; I'll provide it.
Likeliest: Making friends is the way mature people get ahead. Allied action is also how our world can best fight climate change. Starting with our closest friends and working outwards, we'll gain momentum by bringing outlier countries on board, strengthening institutions as we proceed.
*** Set up panels of mainstream scientific experts to weigh in on legislation that addresses science. For example, the climate fight. Allows science-based legislation with no filibuster possible. A majority vote is all that's needed to set up said panels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)