Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The 400-plus club!

There are those who believe that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese government, and their fearless leader wants to be the leader of the free world.

We live in strange times where facts are for losers!  We started going down that road when a previous leader of the free world trusted nothing but his instincts, not realizing that he was like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people,"

Those folks will gloss over this fact:
2016 will be the year that carbon dioxide officially passed the symbolic 400 ppm mark, never to return below it in our lifetimes, according to scientists.
Perhaps never to return below 400 in our lifetimes.  I am sure it is a hoax being propagated by the Chinese government that works hand in glove with climate scientists all around the world.

So, how do we know about this 400 ppm?
September is usually the month when carbon dioxide is at its lowest after a summer of plants growing and sucking it up in the northern hemisphere. As fall wears on, those plants lose their leaves, which in turn decompose, releasing the stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. At Mauna Loa Observatory, the world’s marquee site for monitoring carbon dioxide, there are signs that the process has begun but levels have remained above 400 ppm.
Visit your favorite glaciers that you have listed in your bucket-list, thanks to the gorgeous photos that you have seen, before the Chinese government starts melting them away!

In the deep blue state that is north of us, the November election will include a ballot measure to address global warming:
Washington voters will decide in November whether to introduce a carbon tax on fossil fuels and electricity from coal and natural gas, with the goal of slowing global warming while reducing taxes on sales and manufacturing and keeping total tax revenue flat overall.
A deep blue state. Environmentally conscientious--even fanatical--electorate. So, the measure has big time support and will win easily, right?


Here, for instance, is the Sierra Club:
Sierra Club has adopted a Do Not Support position concerning Initiative 732, rather than Support, Neutral, or Oppose. 
How about that?  It is not a stand of "Support, Neutral, or Oppose" but "Do Not Support."  Talk about linguistic jiu-jitsu.  And you thought Bill Clinton's dancing around the word "is" was unique?

So, what's going on?  Why aren't the environmentalists embracing this initiative?
The ​resistance comes not just from the usual opponents on the right, but even more strikingly from the left. The reason: Many environmentalists see climate change as an opportunity to remake the economic order. They want to use carbon taxes to fund renewable energy and green technology and bolster the incomes of workers and communities they say are most hurt by climate change. Whatever the merits of these goals, the effect is to equate climate policy with bigger government, which makes it harder to achieve broad-based support.
Seriously?  Environmentalists oppose it because of their larger social engineering agenda?
But the main reason is that I-732 sends its revenue back to taxpayers, whereas environmentalists would like the revenue for other priorities. The Washington Environmental Council, which doesn’t support I-732, says revenue from any climate initiative should be plowed into the “clean energy economy…infrastructure for clean, abundant water and healthy forests” and assistance for “the most vulnerable workers and communities.”
So, party on, folks!  Make sure your party is on high ground so that you don't have to deal with the rising water levels.


Mike Hoth said...

This sounds like the debacle surrounding the 5 cent bottle deposit a few years back. The deposit was created to "reward recycling" (which means "punish people who don't") but 5 cents isn't worth a whole lot any more. Environmentalists wanted to change the deposit to 25 cents because nothing short of that would make an impact, in their minds. Of course, such an upcharge never happened and when asked if 10 cent deposits would be good enough, there was a great deal of scoffing.

Sierra Club is doing something very similar here. The idea that a carbon tax could pass, but the tax dollars wouldn't go exactly where they want? Lunacy! It's not good enough to make some progress, it's all or nothing! That mentality is going to destroy this world.

Ramesh said...

Repeat after me - the loony left is as dangerous as the rabid right.

By the way, with all due respect you are not electing the "leader of the free world". I am free and I don't get to vote !!

Sriram Khé said...

Nope, the loony left is not as dangerous as the rabid right is. There is no comparison.

Yes, the all or nothing approach, where there is no political compromise, is dysfunctional. I suppose such an approach has become a part and parcel of American politics ever since Newt and his Contract With America partisans took over Congress. Over the two decades, the entire country's politics have become all-or-nothing.

Most read this past month