Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "Here's a climate change solution that doesn't freak out every conservative":

Is there a solution to climate change that doesn't freak out conservatives?

Pundit confession time: Climate change, the science behind it, and the policy solutions meant to abate it have never really interested me. The basic mechanics of anthropocentric climate change always made intuitive sense to me. But even though I'm paid to have opinions, I've avoided the topic.

For one, I only have so much time in the day. But more importantly, all the cures on offer seemed worse than the disease and none of them could be reconciled with how I thought about environmental problems. I have always agreed with Roger Scruton that the best way to protect an environment is for people to cultivate a love of the places they live, work, and play in, and wherever possible, connect the interests of posterity in an environment to its present use. It's an ownership model not of leasing, but trusteeship. No one is better at keeping a city clean than the people who live in it. No group of people is better at restoring the health of a lake than the people who like to sail and fish in it, and who hope to pass on their lake house to their children.

That model of finding and creating solutions does not work for anthropogenic climate change, which is, by its nature, globally diffused. The center-left solution has been to propose a scheme of carbon-taxing and trading, which — whenever the details are revealed — strikes me as corporatist grifting. Whenever GE is for a new legal scheme, I find myself instinctively against it. Please excuse the slight hyperbole to follow, but, to a right-winger, the progressive solutions to climate-change look like emergency-mandated communism. It looks like this to us: After years of diplomatic wrangle, panels of scientists and left-wingers will use new global governing mechanisms to regulate all economic activity. So, it's better to avoid the topic altogether, or pretend with libertarians that if the effects of climate change are so bad, humans will pay to invent a way to abate them.

But then a friend of mine, Matt Frost, came up with a simple, elegant idea: Just buy coal that's in the ground and then don't extract it. Environmentalist millionaires and billionaires spend fortunes on ineffective lobbying efforts that do more to enhance the lifestyle of professional environmentalist consultants and politicians than the condition of the atmosphere. Those consultants and politicians then work to build an elusive consensus on moonshot regulatory and diplomatic schemes, which are unlikely to get global buy-in and are likely to be cheated and abandoned anyway.

Why not just spend all that money and effort buying the coal deposits that are already in the ground? That would increase the price of coal globally, and make cleaner energy sources more viable in the market. Frost calls it the coal retirement plan and the idea has now been profiled in an essay in The Atlantic.

For the conservative who suspects that climate-change requires some action, but who finds themselves suspicious of the plans on offer, this is an attractive start. Why?

First, because it is much cheaper and more cost effective. Every dollar put to an effort like this actually has an effect on the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere.

Second, it uses market forces to quickly make cleaner alternative sources of energy cheaper, but not in the more abstract and profiteering way that certain cap-and-trade efforts do.

Third, it's voluntary. Like the effort of local associations to clean local environments, an effort like this doesn't try to harness the power of all states, but all parties interested in this specific cause. It collects diffuse interest and concentrates it on a voluntary project; it's morally entrepreneurial.

By contrast, progressive solutions instead seek to capture the energy and power of institutions (like governments) that were not built for this purpose, and whose power are premised on ideas and interests that are not concentrated on this cause.

Unfortunately, this may be why the coal retirement plan doesn't take off. It relies almost exclusively on a truly moral interest in saving the planet from catastrophic climate change, its only benefit a healthier world.

Maybe it's an advantage of cap-and-trade schemes that major corporations are interested in using them to rip us off. Maybe it's an advantage that a climate emergency can create the governing structures far-left ideologues wanted even before there was a climate emergency. These are advantages because they provide tangible benefits of "use" to potential environmentalists — just as a clean lake is of more use to someone who's kids are going to inherit a lakeside cabin.

The advantage of the coal retirement plan is its cheap price and narrow focus. But it provides a test to environmentalists: Do you really want to save the atmosphere? Or do you want to save the atmosphere while accomplishing something else?

 

[RDU Irish]

They could buy coal on the cheap right now. I like the pragmatic presentation of the concept.

 

[pkt77242]

Did anyone see that four US Senators were linked to the KKK according to Anonymous?

 

[phgreek]

Senator Fred Thompson, Dead At 73 - CINEMABLEND


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tjXgS5lqqRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RIP Fred. Seemed like a good guy.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Did anyone see that four US Senators were linked to the KKK according to Anonymous?

Would really have to be a smoking gun for me to believe it. Absent proof, I won't pay attention.

 

[GoIrish41]

Would really have to be a smoking gun for me to believe it. Absent proof, I won't pay attention.

Good call. This isn't something you just believe and run with.
























(I bet they are Republicans. lol)

 

[phgreek]

The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "Here's a climate change solution that doesn't freak out every conservative":

makes sense...but not sure reality would be so clean.

Coal has a serious infrastructure investment where towns are vested....IMHO anyone buying rights will find themselves in some form of an immanent domain struggle.

I used to invest very heavily in water shares, but bailed recently. When you have a resource like that, and towns/municipalities are vested in the infrastructure, and they want it ...seems like they will have it.

Seems like a combination of purchase-to-kill and some regulation could result in what folks are looking for.

 

[wizards8507]

How Democrats Suppress The Vote | FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight is hardly a bastion of conservatism.

 

[GowerND11]

How Democrats Suppress The Vote | FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight is hardly a bastion of conservatism.

Very interesting. It is tough to think about. If the local elections were held during general elections, you would see a higher turnout for these "lesser" positions, but on the other hand risk people just voting whomever "just because," or even leaving them blank. Having these off cycle elections do allow, in theory, more voters to be informed about the local races, though in reality this isn't the case.

What do people think about making Election Day a federal holiday? I know that's been brought up before.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What do people think about making Election Day a federal holiday? I know that's been brought up before.

Yes. And possibly over the weekend.

 

[wizards8507]

Very interesting. It is tough to think about. If the local elections were held during general elections, you would see a higher turnout for these "lesser" positions, but on the other hand risk people just voting whomever "just because," or even leaving them blank. Having these off cycle elections do allow, in theory, more voters to be informed about the local races, though in reality this isn't the case.

I actually don't have a problem with it, even though it tends to aid the side against which I generally stand. Unions and other well-organized groups shouldn't be punished just because non-members are too lazy to vote when a particular election might not have direct tangible impact on their profession. I think the main takeaway from the article is how BS the claims of racism and every other thing are when it comes to voter ID laws.

What do people think about making Election Day a federal holiday? I know that's been brought up before.

Yes. And possibly over the weekend.

I think stretching it to multiple days makes more sense than a federal holiday. Employers are already required to give you time out of work to vote, and polling places (at least anywhere I've lived) are open from like 6am - 8pm. There's very little excuse that it's just too hard to get to the polling place.

 

[GowerND11]

I think stretching it to multiple days makes more sense than a federal holiday. Employers are already required to give you time out of work to vote, and polling places (at least anywhere I've lived) are open from like 6am - 8pm. There's very little excuse that it's just too hard to get to the polling place.

That could work. I agree it isn't that hard to get to it. My polling place is open 7am-8pm today. I left for work before 7am, and after work will go right to football practice. That will still allow me at least an hour and a half to be able to make it to vote.

I think it comes down to convenience. If you want to vote, you make time to go. I do think, if there was that "freedom to vote" ie time off work to go, more people would make it. Then again, maybe everyone would just use it as an excuse to enjoy a day off work doing nothing.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think stretching it to multiple days makes more sense than a federal holiday. Employers are already required to give you time out of work to vote, and polling places (at least anywhere I've lived) are open from like 6am - 8pm. There's very little excuse that it's just too hard to get to the polling place.

But if you're not a salaried employee, you lose money by voting...even if you don't lose your job.

 

[wizards8507]

But if you're not a salaried employee, you lose money by voting...even if you don't lose your job.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. Company pays you $X for doing X units of labor. If you do some activity other than provide labor, Company receives no benefit and therefore does not pay you.

I left work to go vote at 1:52. I got back at 2:33, and got a sandwich along the way. Everyone has a lunch hour.

 

[connor_in]

moment of zen...

Vassar official shreds Constitution because it 'triggers students' twitchy.com

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm not sure what you want me to say. Company pays you $X for doing X units of labor. If you do some activity other than provide labor, Company receives no benefit and therefore does not pay you.

I left work to go vote at 1:52. I got back at 2:33, and got a sandwich along the way. Everyone has a lunch hour.

But it's why I think having at least one weekend day would make sense. Maybe a Friday and a Saturday.

ETA: Voting should be incredibly easy. Anything we can do to facilitate that is worth doing.

 

[wizards8507]

But it's why I think having at least one weekend day would make sense. Maybe a Friday and a Saturday.

That doesn't really solve your problem though. Hourly workers rarely work Monday through Friday so the weekend wouldn't necessarily gain them anything. For example, my dad works 8a - 8p two days on, two days off, three days on, two days off, two days on, three days off.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

That doesn't really solve your problem though. Hourly workers rarely work Monday through Friday so the weekend wouldn't necessarily gain them anything. For example, my dad works 8a - 8p two days on, two days off, three days on, two days off, two days on, three days off.

Sure. You can't accommodate everyone, but we should do all we can to accommodate the greatest number of citizens. Having one weekend day would likely mean that more people could vote on their day off.

 

[RDU Irish]

Yes. And possibly over the weekend.

April 15th should be election day. Make it a holiday. Instead it is almost as far away from when you file taxes as the jackass politicians can make it.

 

[ACamp1900]

So you clowns actually want MORE people voting?? (thought about italics and decided 'nah')....

 

[RDU Irish]

I'd put three questions at the top of every ballot in English. If you can't get two of the three correct, your vote doesn't count. All multiple choice:

1) Who is the current POTUS.
2) Who is the current governor of your state.
3) Who is one of your current Senators. (this would have four options, two of which would be correct and half the time one would be on the ballot)

Can someone explain to me how this would be suppressing the vote? If you are not informed enough to know 2/3rds of these questions then you are not an informed voter and should not be at a poll on election day.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'd put three questions at the top of every ballot in English. If you can't get two of the three correct, your vote doesn't count. All multiple choice:

1) Who is the current POTUS.
2) Who is the current governor of your state.
3) Who is one of your current Senators. (this would have four options, two of which would be correct and half the time one would be on the ballot)

Can someone explain to me how this would be suppressing the vote? If you are not informed enough to know 2/3rds of these questions then you are not an informed voter and should not be at a poll on election day.

bigot....

 

[RDU Irish]

My wife probably would not be able to answer 2/3rds of those for the record. So lets be clear, my bigotry includes gender just as much as race.

 

[Cackalacky]

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Treaties and International Law - Treaties for which NZ is Depositary - Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership - NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I present to you the TPP. I am going to try to read this.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'd put three questions at the top of every ballot in English. If you can't get two of the three correct, your vote doesn't count. All multiple choice:

1) Who is the current POTUS.
2) Who is the current governor of your state.
3) Who is one of your current Senators. (this would have four options, two of which would be correct and half the time one would be on the ballot)

Can someone explain to me how this would be suppressing the vote? If you are not informed enough to know 2/3rds of these questions then you are not an informed voter and should not be at a poll on election day.

Any sort of IQ or knowledge based test to exclude voters won't fly. Voting is a civil right, and you'd have to have a compelling state interest to exclude anyone.

Put another way, politicians represent and thus should be accountable to stupid people as much as they should be accountable to smart ones.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The Obama administration is now trying to force public schools to let boys use girls' bathrooms and locker rooms.

On Tuesday, Houston voters (probably a 65-70% Democratic voting group) decisively rejected such plans in their city. The Houston vote reveals how fragile the Democratic coalition is: black and Hispanic voters generally reject the liberal positions on these these fringe issues.

Despite this, the Democratic elite is pushing ahead with their Great Leap Forward. Be warned: under proposed Democratic policy a male student would have to be permitted to use the girls' room. Even if the student is lying about his "gender identity," there is no way to know, because it is entirely self-determined. If you punish that student, you have to explain yourself to the government.

 

[ACamp1900]

Just crazy, kids that age know so little about themselves to begin with, I'm all for helping provide any help or support they may need but just forcing them into the girls locker rooms is more than a bit much IMO... I wonder where this will go once a gym teacher that identifies otherwise kicks a fuss,... Which locker room do they oversee?

 

[phgreek]

I can personally tell you while my kids are in school...the plumbing people have will dictate the facilities they use...period, end of discussion. It is common sense and enforceable w/o subjectivity, and it operates under no pretense.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm pretty liberal but this is a bridge too far for me. I don't want the transgender kids to be ostracized, or denied rights but this makes everyone uncomfortable -- probably including the transgender people. Maybe I have to hand in my liberal card, but there is no reason to use all of these kids as pawns to make a point about the sexuality of a very small group of people.

 

[Corry]

They're throwing hammers down in the bayou

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LZQVCFVVVE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>