Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Andrew Holland on Nov 5, 2014 with 36 responses

After Election, Republicans Must Prepare their own Climate Policy

Tags: Climate, politics

The Republicans have won a clear victory. They will take over the Senate, expand their control of the House, and deserve congratulations for their win.

Now, it is time to govern. The challenges that this country faces are long. And governing is different than campaigning. It means dealing with problems as they come – and not always in what fits best in a 30 second advertisement.

After this election, climate change is an issue that Republicans may think they are safe to ignore. The President has made a big push to regulate carbon emissions through the EPA over the last two years. Some outside groups sought to bring climate action into the campaign. Today, the electoral results could not be more clear: Obama’s policies were repudiated at the polls. Throughout the election, Democrats in swing districts went out of their way to avoid talking about climate change or the EPA.

Republicans could think that they are safe to continue saying “I’m not a scientist” when asked about climate change. They could think this means they don’t need a climate policy. That would be the wrong lesson to take from this.

President Obama’s policies on climate change are all wrong. His Department of Energy picks winners and losers among politically connected companies. His command-and-control policies at the EPA will ensure that “no lawyer is left behind” in a flurry of lawsuits over where to build power plants, and what kind of production is allowed.

However, that does not mean that not action is needed. The science has never been clearer. The threat has never been higher. On Sunday, the world’s climate scientists released their summary report, giving a dire warning of “severe, widespread and irreversible” effects from climate change. It had no effect on the election.

But that does not mean that it will forever have no effect on elections. While the voters may not prioritize climate change right now, they will one day. The American people vote based on their priorities at home – it is up to their elected representatives to both listen to the people and to use their judgment about how to protect them in the future.

Governing Means Preparing for Threats

In 1996, when terrorists bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American airmen, the public ignored it in that year’s Presidential election. In 1998, when President Clinton launched airstrikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan, few voters cast their ballot in a referendum on how the government is preparing to face the terrorist threat – and many Republicans stated that Clinton was using military action to distract from his scandals at home. Even in the election of 2000, when we now know that Osama bin Laden was initiating his plot to attack the United States, the election focused almost entirely on purely domestic matters: how to give tax cuts and how to protect social security.

We know now that our government should have prepared for the terrorist threat better. When the new legislators take office in January, they will swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In its preamble, the founders wrote that Constitution exists in order to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” As legislators, it will be their duty to not only listen to the will of the people, but also to use their knowledge to protect the people from the gathering threats over the horizon.

Today, climate change threatens domestic tranquility, threatens the common defense, will harm or general Welfare, and  – if left unchecked – will eventually threaten our liberty. This is not an exaggeration. This is not a UN plot to establish “one world government,” it is not a left-wing scheme to bring socialism to United States, nor is it a scientific conspiracy to bring in new government grants. It is simply chemistry: more greenhouse gasses in the air acts like an additional blanket on the earth, trapping more heat, and bringing more dangerous extreme weather.

A Republican Plan for Climate Action

Fortunately, chemistry does not care about partisan politics. Republicans can actually be more effective in preparing for climate change by doing what we do best:  embracing free markets, promoting breakthrough technologies, and devolving power to states and local governments. We don’t need Obama’s Cap and Trade plan. We don’t need to suddenly embrace the EPA or other big government solutions. We don’t need to give taxpayer dollars to politically connected industries.

Instead, Republicans should promote basic research and development into clean technology that will allow the private sector to effectively reduce emissions. They should devolve power to states and local governments to most effectively prepare for the effects of climate change, because the federal government shouldn’t give a one-sized fits all response. They should see that free markets have decided that solar and wind power is the cheapest new source of energy in some markets – but big monopoly utilities are blocking it. There are Republican solutions to climate change – and this year is our opportunity to force President Obama to take a new, conservative, and more effective track on addressing climate change.

  1. By Jennifer Warren on November 5, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Well said Andrew!

    [link]      
  2. By mk1313 on November 5, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    I’ll bet the drill baby drill becomes burn baby burn! Republican and environmental responsibility are antithesis!

    [link]      
  3. By mzyk on November 5, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    What one person calls “promoting breakthrough technologies” others will call “picking winners and losers”.

    Saying “Republicans should promote basic research and development into clean technology that will allow the private sector to effectively reduce emissions” sounds a lot like Obama’s SunShot Initiative. A state by state policy doesn’t work for a company that whats to do business nationally -companies don’t like patchwork regulations, remember.

    This article reeks of hypocrisy.

    [link]      
  4. By exdent11 on November 6, 2014 at 7:40 am

    Besides the obvious contradiction between your suggestion that Republicans should and would support ANY path forward to fight climate change and what most of them have been saying over the last few years is the very real problem that most have had the financial backing of the fossil fuel industry who will certainly expect some return on their investment.

    [link]      
  5. By Forrest on November 6, 2014 at 7:53 am

    The tenor of article puts forth the notion of Left had the priorities right for public well being, but went unrewarded for their efforts. Also, the Right merely threw out slogans, insults, and blocked progress. Don’t think that was the view of majority of voters, yesterday. Mitch McConnell had it right during the media talk, yesterday. While apologist of Left will muddy up waters for public info and attribute the voter tantrum to dislike of Congress, it really a dislike of Harry Reid’s dysfunctional Senate. House was very active and productive.

    GW in particular is wholly corrupted by politics. Scientist complain of Environmental activist scientist that destroy credibility and integrity of supposedly impartial justice of science i.e. Hansen’s chiefdom and political shenanigans or Algore rock star status upon political GW attacks. It appears to most the Left is consumed with political power GW bestows. Not wise to attach every problem in world to GW as the science of knowing environmental damage is weak. I’m starting to question the urgency of solution as more of factor of panicked Left that fear history may prove they exaggerated. Meaning, they have an opportunity to claim success if GW solutions put in place, now since we will never know.

    [link]      
  6. By Forrest on November 6, 2014 at 8:21 am

    The Right is a mixed bag of GW solutions or extent of problem as opposed to the Left unanimous claim the Science is settled and solutions are unquestionable. Think of the hypocrisy of Environmentalist that all claim destruction of earth is lurking, but refuse to support nuclear. How about the same people dissing biofuel and biomass as the fear this will sidetrack public support of their solution, battery car. The ginned up government entitlements to empower wind power costs over low cost clean coal or hydro? No, most on Right think the Left is mainly exploiting an opportunity to panic public to their solutions. Pipelines have a large benefit to nation for low; cost, low environmental pollution, and safe transport of oil. The device improves countries competitive advantage, but is thwarted by politics of CO2. This merely demonstrates the danger letting such people govern as they won’t compromise per cost to nation. It has been demonstrated on R-Squared that, basically, we could drive the U.S. economy to stone age with little benefit to deter rate of GW. That we should focus more on solving off shore problems of developing economies.

    [link]      
  7. By Forrest on November 6, 2014 at 8:47 am

    I do think we have a growing systemic problem in U.S. per invention of Administrative Law, that forgoes Constitutional process of elected lawmakers and instead creates all these fiefdoms of unelected governmental divisions that control most of our lives. They go about regulating every ounce of activity. This is wrong and an abomination to enjoyment of life priorities of supportive government. How could we possibly survive without, for example, EPA monstrous control. Let companies pollute at will? There is a better less cumbersome and cheaper way to operate government and gain you wishes. Many of our competitors within international community are on to fact that large government is wasteful to your desired results. For example, push the responsibility onto open market businessmen to minimize CO2 pollution. Many ways and as always this is a dynamic process. Just utilize the arm of government to simplify, empower small business, standardize, and curtail the business of usual mission and bureaucratic creep of government. The most powerful agency of government should be accountants and Industrial Engineers that evaluate and invent strategies to combine, downsize, and maximize efficiency of fed government and may even to coordinate state operations per efficiency of scale cooperation. IRS would be job #1 as military and social programs. Every law on the books should be evaluated for intended consequences and cost. The law gets axed if unworthy.

    [link]      
  8. By Derek on November 6, 2014 at 9:09 am

    I was tracking with you until you said “devolving power to states and local governments.” We absolutely need a national solution for regulating GHG emissions. It’s the only way to ensure fair competition. For instance, it’s bad for Michigan to enact a stricter standard when one of their industries can just move across the border to Indiana. As far as I understand it, the EPA’s latest scheme involves setting cumulative power plant emission standards on a national level and letting individual states implement solutions as they choose. This sounds like a very republican-leaning idea.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on November 6, 2014 at 9:41 am

      The cost and opportunity cost of top down solutions are high. Why do you care if the process is unequal as long as were going in the right direction. I do like a coordinated approach, but government dictates should be utilized modestly. Homeowners, individual citizens, and small business should be greatly empowered and receive incentives for solving the problem. Our property tax structure, regulations, zoning, all pivot on big business solutions. For example, why does a DIY solar install receive no incentive? Especially, since the cost justification is so lean. Why is home CHP solutions and mciro grid solutions on back burner? Answer, utility companies don’t want the competition. Top down solutions are riddled with politics and cronyism influences. They are crude, inflexible, and do not adjust per needs of reality. It may be acceptable for trade organization to step in and coordinate process and share information. It may be as simple as carbon tax, feed in tariffs, or low cost solutions of environment improvement such better siting of hydro power, wind, and tax free roof top solar. How about efficient pellet or wood stoves and allowing wood cutters max opportunity to clear storm damage. Pass legislation to peel back liability cost as this corrosive force is a pox on all our houses. The regulations for Nuclear and hydro are ridiculous. Fast track that construction would be cost effective and winner for GW concerns. Anytime someone claims we need a grand federal program to corrects ills of society, they have already lost the battle.

      [link]      
      • By JonathanMaddox on November 17, 2014 at 2:27 am

        Calling for uniform regulation in place of the usual race-to-the-bottom when it comes to state regulation of corporate activities is not at all the same thing as calling for a “grand federal program”.

        [link]      
        • By Forrest on November 17, 2014 at 8:21 am

          The race to bottom, very effective to stymie government take over of the economy. States can compete to attract job makers and stem the tide of unions, socialist, and fascism. Some states compete to attract unemployed, homeless, and welfare groups. Other states compete on low tax rates, reduced regulatory compliance costs, and support of job makers. This competition frustrates those whom desire to minimize this action and allow no choice or freedom as they falsely believe once all the leaks contained per their wonderful solutions to centrally manage the economy we will live in blissful delight. These folks believe that only good can come from federal regulations and control. That business and industry are rudimentary evil polluters as pollution equals profit. This dogma taught at all levels of public ed through college. It’s like once you cross the line to profiteering you become per Hollywood image makers greed is good. I’ve notice mostly the opposite. That politics the pollution and business the juice to improve mankind. The best governance force applied to maximize this force of good and educate the public to energize such. Government should make it dirt simple to solve problems and do so upon private citizens freedoms and small business low compliance costs. Every citizen should be working to invent and supply product to potential consumers with money in hand as a side job. So, how to combat pollution? Tax what you want less of and maximize private sector ability to solve problem. Not much federal control required other than to keep accounting honest. This inventiveness will spill over to international benefit as compared to U.S. compulsory and coercive fed regulatory force. “Show me your papers”. “You can’t do that with out getting permission.”

          [link]      
  9. By Ettore Greco on November 7, 2014 at 12:11 am

    It must be funny for some to see everyone rushing to the right and to the left, running political campaigns and elections when they already know that everything is fixed right from the start. Why these masquerades when it is clear that Jeb Bush will be at the White House in 2016 and all the promises made by these State politicians will hold no value? Today a widespread turmoil and a growing social discontent should be viewed in a larger context and not simply within the walls of local politics. We are now experiencing one of the stages of a World conspiracy and wherever you are in the World you are also part of it. Don’t let the media fool you. The conspiracy is not a theory. With 2.3 trillion dollars officially declared missing by the Bush administration one day before 9/11 and 2 more trillions stolen between the “Savings and Loan” affair and Enron a few Zionists like the Bush family and Dov Zakheim are now waiting for the total collapse of the world financial system and a World War of Religions. They maneuver from behind the scene to generate terror, chaos and despair in all places setting an idyllic stage for the next big surprise, one New World Order that was invoked for the first time by the father and will be announced by the son and next US president Jeb Bush. From ISIS to Al Qaeda how could anyone still believe the story of Osama bin Laden? The short memory of the people works wonders for the Zionists. Perhaps a few will still remember when George W. Bush told the terrorized US citizens to seal their windows with duct tape to protect from an imminent chemical attack. An irony like this can tell a story. The next day on the shelves of the stores all over the US there was no more duct tape for sale. But a recent revelation should soon come back to mind and clarify any possible inquiry: —Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in an interview with the Daily Beast, Sept. 16 “Here’s the problem. He [Sen. John McCain] did meet with ISIS, and had his picture taken, and didn’t know it was happening at the time”. This picture is the obvious evidence that the World conspiracy is not a theory. The chief of ISIS is that same Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who spent time in a US prison and in a meeting with Mc Cain before being released in 2009. There is no doubt that the Zionists and their counter terrorist agencies have all the means to enlist and pay well mercenaries of all Countries and Islamic extremists without having to show their face or their wallet.

    Once you recognized the objective of the Conspiracy all the rest will be easy to comprehend and to foresee. Besides, it will make no more sense to continue to play Monopoly when somebody has already stolen all the money.

    http://www.wavevolution.org/en/humanwaves.html

    .

    [link]      
  10. By Forrest on November 7, 2014 at 9:30 am

    I keep up on health news and the developing health concerns of diesel exhaust of micro particles and PAH emissions is unsettling. The particles are much more harmful than originally thought. Just recently the news of youth increasing ADHD risk 5x per high levels of emission. So, inner city and suburban dwellers should receive maximum attention to pollution as that zone concentrations the most severe. Diesel engines a horrible engine for inner city stop and go traffic. This is a apt location for battery micro car commuters, natural gas, and ethanol fuel. E20 blends really drop gasoline emissions, but higher concentrations will decrease the emission at lesser rate. Reference what Chicago is attempting to do with improving air quality and E15 fuel. Also, the large leaf shade tree is proven air scrubber to the rate of 10,000 acres equaling the capacity of one large coal scrubber. This is exceptional as the tree is accomplishing the task not at point source, but by open atmospheric conditions. Nuclear power plants should be the base load choice per the need to generate huge quantities of power with minimal land foot print and do so within geographically near by location to cut line loss. Per PAH pollution and GW, probably not good to use much black top asphalt road surfaces, either. Wood stoves probably not a wise decision. Small 2 cycle engines should be banned and regular small engines are not much better. Best to go to battery power or convert engine to E85 fuel. Best to stop incineration activities of organic material, but great to utilize anaerobic digestor to natural gas and soil supplement use. This device exceptional with GW concerns as well. Forget compost piles. Good to use low temp bio process for ethanol production especially if utilizing cellulosic process of organic matter that would otherwise compost or rot in which emit high levels of GW gases.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on November 7, 2014 at 10:29 am

      Space heating and cooling probably best accomplished with heat pump powered by roof top solar, nuclear, and fast reaction natural gas turbine for the metro groups that live in lower states. Cogen NG power plant would be best, but may not meet needed reaction times. Battery car recharge load could help level load as well as control of change up of heat pumps operation. Just doing some of the above would greatly increase quality of life issues and GW concerns. No imperialistic heavy laden fed program need apply. People need to realize a portion of the Green movement is offshoot of Red movement. Fabian Socialist that agenda lines up or appeals to Union ideals and far Left equality demands so often exploited by evil tyrants and politicians. It’s not a movement per say but a steady force to control freedom, choices, open markets, and apply maximum government control. The GW scaremongering is a perfect condition for their exploits as they have a motto to push agenda when proper conditions exists. “Make hay when sun is shining”. Safety is another venue….you can’t be to safe and best to let government control actions. You need a permit before buying the gun, car, marriage, baby, house, heater, remodel, rewire, yard barn, moving, changing bank accounts, travel, starting a business, growing food, taking medicine, drinking cows milk, writing posts, worship, donations, transporting patients, brewing alcohol or cheese, etc. Don’t forget government is run by elites, not concerned with common man other than manipulating them for power.

      [link]      
  11. By Jack Everett on November 7, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Climate change will not be supported by corporate gop that are funded through the carbon fuel industry and will be one of the many failings of leadership the gop will show through the next two years.
    Global warming hsi hurting us now financially with devastating storms and environmental damage that will be twice as bad when the 2016 election arrives.
    What people do not understand about climate change is you can run and try to hide but climate change is the gift that keeps on giving and everyone rich or poor is going to suffer.

    [link]      
  12. By blogagog on November 7, 2014 at 11:35 am

    “After Election, Republicans Must Prepare their own Climate Policy”

    I agree! The first thing they need to do is pass a law stating that CO2 is not pollution and the EPA can’t regulate it. Then they have to… well, that’s pretty much it. The plants and trees will thank the Republicans forever!

    [link]      
  13. By Forrest on November 9, 2014 at 7:37 am

    Step one is to continue with progress to date, but review and tweak to sustain a long term approach. Probably not good to go whole hog with wind energy. Best to make the sector more cost responsible for extending grid and supporting infrastructure. Meaning we need good public financial data not blowing smoke hoopla. Decrease the battery car extraordinary rebates. Improve DIY and small business environment to accomplish micro grid, household CHP, and roof top solar. Pivot to hydrogen fuel cell solutions. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141107-winand.html

    Continue with ethanol fuel and natural gas solutions for truck and car transportation. Greatly expand best in class nuclear and fast track the process to replace and construct new base load power generation. Same with clean coal replacing old power plants, forget the CO2 sequestration techniques for now and be happy with doubling efficiency and halving emission stream as result. Continue work on tri-power process wherein fuel cell may result per the process ability to generate H2. Continue to push energy park cooperation of industry to increase ability to utilize waste heat and set along side power plants with minimal grid construction. Utilize bio-mass pellet fuel for easy task of space heating, thus saving valuable natural gas for more important concerns. Utilize the anaerobic digestors and ethanol processes to treat waste products and affluent. Utilize waste streams for agricultural needs and deter the asinine approach to drain to waterways. Most of this is not a burden upon EPA or federal deficit. It is a burden to apply some financial R&D resources and grantee of loans. Most importantly to cut and dice the regulation climate to maximize private sector solutions. To prevent regulators focus on minutiae of governing every aspect. We need Lawmakers to impart general guidelines and throw responsibility of compliance to business sectors. Sure we need chemist to confirm progress is made and we need hard penalties for inaction as well as criminal law for knowing violators. This new approach to empower private sector solutions would make administrative law and the vast array of federal departments obsolete. We would be flush with monetary resources to pay down debt over time and greatly improve middle class wealth and prospects.

    [link]      
  14. By jfreed27 on November 9, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    A recent study by the prestigious
    consultants of Regional Economic Modeling Inc. demonstrates that a small
    rebated carbon tax (100% dividend to citizens) would add millions of jobs, add
    over one trillion dollars to the GDP, save over 200,000 lives, create a monthly
    income to each household and, most importantly, reduce emissions by 50% from
    current levels (three times faster than by EPA regulations) – in just 20 years.

    REMI Report
    http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/REMI-carbon-tax-report-62141.pdf

    That reduction would keep our nation on track for a good chance at a survivable and
    livable climate.

    A “carbon fee and dividend” (CFD) policy is a “small government” solution in
    which all fees are rebated; the government doesn’t keep a dime. Polluters pay for pollution. It harnesses the free market to pivot
    to a low carbon economy, by making clean energy more attractive. And the economy receives an ongoing
    boost via the rebates, growing both jobs and GDP.

    It is also an ethical policy, as hundreds of thousands die each year due to
    anthropomorphic climate change, 88% of them children, according to a study by the World Health Organization. And WHO predicts that far worse mortality
    and disease wait in the wings if we ignore the problem and delay
    solutions.

    CFD has been maligned as just another tax.
    That is inaccurate. These are fees returned to citizens, stimulating both the economy and reductions in emissions as
    citizens choose less expensive alternatives.

    Such CFD bills are waiting in Congress.
    Some include a carbon tariff, which powerfully rewards importing nations
    that reduce their carbon footprints.
    This is a brilliant answer to the question, “What about China?” or “What
    about India?”

    Limited government, ethical action, respect for the free market, and an alternative to
    EPA regulations: will the GOP in Congress stand by these conservative
    principles, or will they stand by the fossil fuel industry?

    [link]      
    • By Robert Rapier on November 9, 2014 at 4:01 pm

      I have also advocated for just such a policy on many occasions. I think it’s a no-brainer, but would require a little bit of courage (which is why it hasn’t been implemented).

      [link]      
    • By Forrest on November 10, 2014 at 7:50 am

      It doesn’t read like a program that I would support. First the federal rebate to families suffers the same problem as Fair Tax rebate. It’s merely a political attraction to get the law passed. Our country is fraught with such incentives wholly corrupted by federal agencies making payments to private citizens. This should be strictly prohibited by Constitution as one can easily see the political corruption the act ensnares. Only the state should have this power, period. The alone would do great justice to propel our country away from low rent politicians employing the same old socialist tricks. Second, the distribution of rebate is merely another fed give away as public would take the money and acclaim marvelous federal agency the magic to make money for citizens. Like the hocus pocus of national debt increase or Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme aka Social Security wherein early receivers for example widows were amazed of money received vs paid. Don’t think I want to invent yet another program to go down that road.

      This again is way to complicated and will mushroom the dark forces of fed power. How about a simple carbon tax applied at point of entry. Not an overly ambitious tax to shock and disrupt, but provide a smooth pathway to make better decisions for future. Tax is regressive, meaning tax what you don’t like. If you don’t like people to be employed or make a bigger income, savage them with income tax as a good example.

      [link]      
      • By jfreed27 on November 10, 2014 at 8:27 am

        I think we can avoid the “dark forces” by making the program transparent. Shine a light…..

        a. Put an ongoing tally of revenues/rebate on the web.
        b. Put bipartisan panel to review the program on a continual basis, etc.

        The IRS could monitor rebates as they have good experience with tax refunds. Or, follow the fossil fuel rebates program enjoyed by Alaskans.

        BC Canada has lowered both emissions AND income taxes with just such a fee and dividend. Surely we are as capable as the people of BC.

        The program calls for a simple fee at the sources of carbon: the mine, the refinery, etc. It is much better than cap and trade which can be gamed and failed in Europe. As you say it is a Pigouvian tax, where we tax what we don’t want (pollution) and do not tax what we do like (labor or income).

        [link]      
        • By Forrest on November 10, 2014 at 9:14 am

          Much better than cap and trade, but still you post of band aids as an attempt to keep the system away from dark forces of government. This reminds me of the VA show on 60 Minutes in which a military patriot was going to work day and night to make the VA better as opposed to typical corkscrewing downward per bureaucracy and finger pointing of typical union control government operations. This guy can not fix the problem as the problem is systemic upon government control and operation. Federal servant actions are merely excused or given paid time off as opposed to private sector business executives placed behind bars, sitting with bankrupt company, and loss of investments. Successful businesses do treat patients as customers as they pay the bills and awarded by repeat business per good value. You noticed this guy complained that basically it took an act of Congress to fire evil or incompetent workers. He would axe 1,000 tomorrow if he could. That’s not by accident, but a function of political shenanigans to award voter constituency. Can you imagine what politicians would do per the power bestowed on them by so called tax on energy to award themselves political power per payouts to public. Remember Algore’s Lock Box, what lock box? They have made Social Security into welfare program and the tax just like any other tax. We should work as a country to place as much economic activity within control of private sector. Empower this sector and amplify the effects to small business, entrepreneurs, and private business. Carbon tax maybe good, if it can be applied fairly and administered simply. Not otherwise.

          [link]      
          • By jfreed27 on November 10, 2014 at 11:06 am

            OK your litany of ” tsk-tsk-tsk ” continues. Based upon your suspicions, we should never do anything at all ever at the national level.

            The founding fathers were, by your logic, either hopelessly naive or con-artists.

            And what gives you faith in the private sector after the sub-prime crash, private contractors like Blackwater, the BP criminal negligence, etc. and other countless examples of perfidy. Leave it all to their tender mercies?

            Better to create good policies than to endlessly snipe.

            [link]      
            • By Forrest on November 11, 2014 at 7:52 am

              Ya, government workers would have been safe as they would be incapable of BP operations. Can you imagine federal employee unions operation of off shore oil drill? Can you imagine a private hospital doing as much damage as VA? How long would that hospital or doctor be employed? How much good has the War on Poverty accomplished at what price? Why do we have regulators if they are hopeless incapable of preventing ruin, i.e. sub prime. Black Water type army is presently offered as best path forward to quickly defeat ISIS. Seems military can’t hold on to elite warriors per lack of pay and frustration dealing with incompetence, bureaucracy, and chain of command more interested in getting along for advancement and quickly compromise safety and effectiveness of soldiers for personal gain. Private sector pushes more resources to front line, works quickly with maximum safety, and advantage. Keeps the elite soldiers motivated and optimized for mission advance.

              Seems the biggest problem with carbon tax is how to spend the extra money. The best expenditure for economic boost is to offset capital gains, but this again helps the rich so politically taboo. But, doing so will energize investments to benefit economy and job creation. Rebates to citizens the most ineffective. Also, the practice would be extremely unhealthy to national politics as the practice would empower the Left to yet again exploit Chavez type voter attractants to destroy country. We need less pathways to accomplish this. Maybe, carbon tax would be conducive to move energy sector to more environmentally friendly paths, but only if the tax could be administered fairly and simply. We would destroy the benefit to nation if the operation of the tax would require inflating government yet again. This would only be a benefit if EPA would drop out of the regulating business and leave mission to natural economic forces.

              [link]      
            • By jfreed27 on November 11, 2014 at 9:04 am

              The head of Blackwater made a billion dollars off taxpayers. . And their employees have just been convicted for murder.

              http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/jury-reaches-verdict-in-blackwater-guards-trial/

              Privatizing the armed forces is not a good idea.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on November 11, 2014 at 10:57 am

              The head of Black Water, Erik Prince, from a respected family in SW Michigan. They are competent and of high moral character. Black Water had to protect vulnerable State Department and high level government officials, They were critical to success and fulfilled a need the military was incapable or unwilling to meet. The people they protected were the most outspoken advocate. The group yet another victim of presidential politics and hit a nerve of Left who claim military can only be a venue of government. Unfortunately, despite Public Ed lessons to the contrary, private and missionary type forces have always been with us and fulfilled a need whereupon political machinery frozen in inaction. I have listened to NPR rail against Black Water in attempt to make Bush less popular, but experts tell a different story if staying away from political corruption. And yes, the best solution to date is Black Water type force of minimal size and narrow mission to route ISIS. The Arab group is so powerful per a contingency of ferocious fighters. The BW group is expected to mop up ISIS in short order. Politics the biggest hurdle as CIC would have to eat crow with boots on ground political rhetoric and the Left political capital spent on slamming the door on private warrior benefit. So, much waste upon so much bad politics. Not good for the country to be run with this power. Typical, though when country seeks solutions through energizing politics. We all lose!

              [link]      
            • By jfreed27 on November 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm

              We made Prince a billionaire. Are you saying this is a good deal? When we might have used our ARmed forces? Give me one study that shows BW was more effective than conventional forces.

              Don’t tell me BW is involved in Isis? Heaven help us all.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on November 12, 2014 at 5:45 am

              Erik was a billionaire from the age of 25. He was a commander within Amy Seals before Dad died and he had to come back to Southwest Michigan to run family business. BW was described as the Fed Ex of CIA operations running aside like Fed Ex does for U.S. postal. BW was extremely useful to U.S. military, but the business got thrown under the bus per political expediency. He founded Black water that provided critical CIA missions even for Obama and the business is currently active . Currently, Erik has International security services, but not with BW. He is a successful businessman, author, and philanthropist. Is has the right stuff and his life story good stuff for Hollywood. I think the Left saw a huge threat of Presidential proportions and decided to do what they do best. Smear.

              [link]      
            • By jfreed27 on November 12, 2014 at 9:47 am

              Tell me again about the evils of government and the glowing virtues of the private sector.

              BW was responsible for the murder of (17?) innocent Iraqis. BW denied guilt in the matter. Later those responsible were convicted. And BW is still in business, under Obama.

              These acts, and others like them, added to the radicalization of the Iraqi people. The murders were murders by Americans.

              We added enormously to the wealth of Erik Prince, in the process.

              http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/ceos/erik-prince-net-worth/

              The US spent over 2 billion dollars on BW and about $300 billion on other contractors during the war, which, BTW, was entered on false pretenses. Once the deceptions were exposed, we rewarded Bush with a second term. Because, of course, we are never wrong.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on November 12, 2014 at 12:48 pm

              Your first paragraph, your really distrust private sector? And think federal government is without fault? History, teaches another lesson. One the European founders of nation did their utmost to warn of and construct policies to delay the inevitable political corruption of government. The founders were very familiar with the slow progress to coercive force of absolute power and the ensuing loss of personal freedom. We hear little upon news of government waste, fraud, corruption, feather bedding, unfairness, or opposing viewpoints as media’s progressive union mentality is all for more change in that direction. What I know of BW 17 deaths, it was a mistake, but not murder, and in a time of war/peril. Combatants were dressing like civilians and mixing into crowd and utilizing citizens as human shield. The conviction was a political compromise and the whole affair utilized by Iraq leadership. Many in U.S. disgusted per throwing them under the bus. U.S. politics, also, seized the moment to score politically. It was a no win to defend them. Erik Prince is making big bucks providing the same service to Arabs that want the best security to defend themselves from radicals. Erik Prince is rich and from an young age. That doesn’t make him evil, but may prove he is capable and accomplished. Look at the current crop of politicians whom never did anything in private sector and lived their whole work life suckling the public teat. Most not worthy of carrying Erik’s shoes. Oh, ya they’re public servants, not working for themselves as were told in Public Ed.

              [link]      
            • By Forrest on November 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm

              BTW, at the time Iraq was aflame with suicide bombers and fellow Arab terrorists. Much blood on the streets. These warriors not combatants and should have never received military rights as citizen soldiers. Our politics claim we must rise above their cruelty and barbarism to show the world how benevolent we are. How did that line work for Obama per complaining of our country to win their trust? We are just beginning to understand the terrorist mindset and the danger they pose. We can’t fight a traditional gentleman’s battle with these guys. They respect power and laugh at our left mantra. They work inside the U.S. supporting this thinking as well. They openly state they will use our national politics to defeat us.

              [link]      
  15. By Len on November 10, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Set an increasing fee on all carbon at the well, mine or port. Return all proceeds to American households on a per capita basis. This encourages development of energy alternatives without picking favorites. It also protects people at the bottom of the income ladder, adds jobs, grows GDP, and encourages other countries to set a price on carbon. Go to http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org and click on carbon tax for more.

    [link]      
  16. By Forrest on November 12, 2014 at 7:59 am

    It appears Obama’s secret GHG negotiations with China went well for the Chinese, whom set a target well below U.S. promises. I don’t think Obama is going to give up much per the RFS desires of oil as we need the alternative fuel production. It really isn’t that much of a hurtle, approaching 40% of gasoline market by 2025. As CAFE increase, ethanol production increase, and more fleet trucks convert to natural gas this sector should more than meet GHG goals. Power sector will do like wise with increase in roof top solar, sensible wind and hydro placement, and nuclear. It would be good to pull along clean coal for energy security and helping the international community lower GHG and achieve best use of resource with minimal pollution. Bio mass space heating should be promoted as well as CHP, and micro grid solutions as they are the low hanging inexpensive fruits. Carbon tax may be helpful if the act will pull EPA out of the regulation industry of economy. The tax would have to be elegantly simple and fair to gain support. IOWs not huge elaborate scheme to achieve political gain.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest on November 12, 2014 at 8:20 am

      A short post on EPA mileage ratings. Listened to head of the 450 engineer department located in Ann Arbor whom was quite eloquent and polished per touting consumer value of his critical department work. Come to find out us consumers have huge need to trust his department ratings of fuel economy. The department expanded the service and testing to hot, cold, highway, city, road tests, lab tests, and checking and fining manufacturers claims. Now, don’t get confused, the auto industry must test and rate vehicle model for mileage as this government department head claimed they haven’t nearly the resources to rate model mileage. Really, 450 engineers not up to the job? This is the kind of mission creep and wasteful spending that goes unevaluated as the benevolent division earns no profit and works for wondrous federal government. They have no cost constraints, efficiency standards, or customers willing to pay them for services. Ask yourself why the need to test vehicles if auto companies already test models per standard procedure and penalty of law. How many countries double up on this effort. Why can’t the international community come together and cooperate per cost control? Why can’t we just take phone calls of complaining auto owner that spot defective ratings per such web sites as fuelly.com and ask to see automotive test papers?

      [link]      
  17. By Forrest on November 12, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Contributions of GHG emissions an international concern and most opportunities to do something cost effectively and powerfully exist off our shores. We could do more good with less money if assisting other parts of world to build environmentally friendly energy sources. Most countries won’t adapt our expensive solutions, so the biggest challenge is to provide cost effective solution’s that will replace or minimize damage of fossil fuels. Many ways to do this, a huge challenge to U.S. inventiveness, but rewards are far above what we could do domestically by regulating every ounce of CO2. http://www.moneynews.com/InvestingAnalysis/IEA-Subsidies-Fossil-Renewable/2014/11/11/id/606778/

    [link]      
  18. By Susan Kraemer on December 20, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Nice to hear a Republican who seems sincere about solving climate change. But now is the time to sharpen your pencils and form an actual plan.

    Exactly how would you “support a breakthrough technology” without giving “taxpayer dollars to politically connected industries” (which is GOP code for any form of clean energy). No matter who devises a breakthrough technology, once you support it, you will be “picking winners and losers”, according to your party.

    What is your plan exactly?

    I think you have to face that while Democrats have supported clean energy (because it solves climate change) and so clean energy industries are trending towards supporting Democrats, Republicans simply need to do so too.

    The science is clear that there ARE winners and losers when it comes to climate change. The extractive industries of coal, oil and gas are the losers in solving this problem. The clean energy sources do solve it and they are the winners.

    We won’t call you names for supporting winners in this fight.

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!