The squish in question is Jay Faison, writing at Politico
A GOP Approach to Tackling Climate Change
I’m a Republican, and I want to champion Republican answers to a challenge we aren’t yet known for embracing.
But first, as a happy — if worried — conservative and a lifelong entrepreneur, I’m ready for the Obama administration to pack its bags. I believe in school choice, tort reform, balanced budgets and small government. I believe we need a health care policy that doesn’t cost businesses like mine millions of dollars. I support a free enterprise system unshackled from bad regulation and big labor unions — which were the right thing for American workers in 1890.
If you’re that much of a Conservative, you don’t have to tell us, you’re really a Squish
For all those reasons and more, I’m a committed GOP donor, having contributed to campaigns and super PACs supporting Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush and Rob Portman, to name a few. But I also believe that my party needs a fresh approach on one of the most important issues of our age.
Yup, a Squish.
Energy policy should be a powerful tool in the coming Republican resurgence, but for too long we’ve ceded the issue to the Democrats. It’s time to develop a conservative national energy agenda that grows the economy, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, protects jobs over lizards and reduces greenhouse gas emissions that are warming our planet.
Here’s the question: why does it have to deal with “climate change”? Sure, the policies that he proposes are actually more in line with mine, but, I don’t propose them as sops to the Cult of Climastrology, but simply as wise energy policies. What Jay is doing is buying into the “consensus” of anthropogenic Hotcoldwetdry, along the nominal lines of taking the issue away from far left fascistic Progressives.
I want to capitalize on this momentum, so I’ve committed $175 million of my personal funds through a new charitable foundation and a separate political action fund. The foundation will engage in targeted advocacy at both the state and national levels, make the public case through cutting-edge media platforms and give grants for innovative, conservative policy work. The political action fund will champion Republican candidates and legislation that support market-based solutions for clean energy and climate issues.
He’s very upset that people are comparing him to uber-leftie Tom Steyer, but, he’s essentially doing the same thing.
- First, we need to prevent and reform regulations that obstruct the promise and development of distributed solar power, especially on rooftops.
- Second, conservatives should encourage and fund innovation and research and development in both the private and public sectors.
- Third, conservatives should embrace and promote energy efficiency in their own lives and businesses.
You should read the rest of each of those paragraphs for more detail, but, let me note that Conservatives tend to be much better at energy efficiency in our own lives than Warmists, because we like to not waste money. Of course, I have to ask if Jay has done the same in his own life?
People too often forget today that the Republican Party has long been the voice of smart environmental policy. Teddy Roosevelt, our original conservationist, protected our national treasures for future generations. Richard M. Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Ronald Reagan forged an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. George H.W. Bush enacted a trading program that lowered sulfur dioxide, the primary ingredient in acid rain, by 80 percent.
Environmentalism is good policy. “Climate change” is a manufactured political issue based on junk science.
Junk science? Teach remember your post on the new Ice Age coming in 2030?
In the very first paragraph of the abstract the authors of that study clearly said that any change in the output of the sun would have only a minimal effect on the climate on Earth and that those author in the study you cited said that the climate would continue to get hotter.
Teach this year 2015 is looking like it is going to be the hottest year on record. Why do you think this is happening?
Are there many Deniers left other than far-right reactionary blogs?
The evidence is clear and overwhelming but we won’t do much about it.
CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities is causing the Earth to warm. Even right-wing leaders have known this for years, but they’ve kept misleading their base. Why? Money. Power. Disdain of science. Ignorance. Religion. Stubbornness.
and here’s the “out” that Deniers are making for themselves:
The new Denier trope: We need to transition from fossil fuels to renewables because of energy policy and pollution (BUT NOT CO2!!).
Coal is dirty!! (BUT NOT BECAUSE OF CO2!!)
To be honest, I see this happening more quickly than I would have predicted. Conservatives will come to support the right policies, all the while Denying it has anything to do with global warming. Whatever.
Save money ? Teach you through a little boy hissy fit when you learned that they were going to make you use CFL
The EPA heads of the FOUR GOP White Houses in 2014 all went before Congress to testify about AGW
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/reagan-nixon-and-bush-officials-push-congress-to-act-on-global-warming-20140618
Teach why do you now hate Reagan’s views on climate change?
Dumb and dumber are back!
And they say Trump is crazy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/21/martin_omalley_climate_change_created_isis.html
I can’t believe someone thought me and John were the same person with a different account. (From another post)
I must have a split personality because I “Michael” think that CO2 is beneficial to life on Earth. Very opposite of John’s take.
In fact Earth has been at its lowest levels of CO2 in its history and we damn near went below 150ppm which is when plant life starts to go extinct.
If plant life goes extinct, you can kiss life on Earth goodbye.
Call me when it gets well above 1200ppm, then we may have an issue. (We are at 400ppm for those who don’t know)
A lie repeated a billion times is not the truth.
But I agree that the right should take on climate change and make it there own. They could make trillions and provide 20 million jobs world wide with well paying jobs…without putting fossil fuels out of business.
Its time to trot out the money on the right, embrace alternatives and make a fortune and then watch the left start denying global warming is an issue and that co2 is too low and that its really Rising methane from cow farmers that should be destroyed.
If one believes CO2 is harming the planet, please stop exhaling.
If you continue breathing it demonstrates the depth of your convictions. When you decide to terminate your respiration, please do it next to a tree so at least your remains can be of some use. Your blog contributions are tedious and a waste of pixels and precious electrical energy.
CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities is not causing the earth to warm. There, fixed it for you, J.
Gbear,
You first. How much do you think human respiration/ventilation contributes directly to the increased CO2? You see, that simple question exposes your ignorance. Oh, and suck my balls you boring cretin.
j,
Your Denial doesn’t refute the evidence.
Actually this very thing was studied in depth.
The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a person engaged in vigorous exercise produces up to eight times as much CO2 as his sedentary brethren.) Take this number and multiply by a population of 7 billion people, breathing away for 365.25 days per year, and you get an annual CO2 output of 2.94 billion tons. International carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion for 2008 topped 34.7 billion tons. So the human race breathes out about 8.5 percent as much carbon as we burn.
The amount of carbon that a human breathes out is exactly equal to the amount of carbon he takes in minus the amount of carbon that contributes to the person’s body mass. This means that the human body—like all animals—is a very modest carbon sequestration device. How modest? We’re each about 18 percent carbon by weight. If the average human weight is around 120 pounds—that’s the Explainer’s very rough estimate, encompassing both children and adults—there are about 21.6 pounds of carbon stored in the average person. So every time we add a billion people to the planet’s population (which we’re now doing every 12 years), we end up pulling 10.8 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere
There now your all educated on human respiration. Cows, ducks lions, tigers and what ever respirates actually removes co2 from the air and recycles it. Hence humans contribute very little to co2 being added to the air.
Liam,
Thanks. Useful info.
Jeffrey wrote:
Conservatives will support he right things, because we already do; what we don’t support is the Chicken-Little-oh-the-sky-is-falling programs that y’all have proposed which would simply make energy more expensive without any actual gain being achieved from it.
I’ve told you before: we moved from incandescent bulbs to CFLs, and now to LEDs, not because of any concerns about carbon emissions, but because they were newer, more efficient technology, which saves on our sparkticity bill. (CFLs did not last anywhere near as long as originally advertised, which meant that the numbers given were bogus, but I like the fact that they do not put out nearly as much heat as incandescents, which means they are less of afire hazard.) I do really radical things like turning off the lights when I leave the room, and when we remodeled the kitchen, we bought new, more efficient appliances.
That is the way to win over conservatives, by making arguments that make economic sense for individuals. Push solar panels as a way to (eventually) save money, and people will listen to you; push moving to more efficient appliances as a way of cutting your electricity bills, and people will think that you have common sense.
But, unfortunately, that really isn’t what you’ve been doing. The warmists have been pushing policies to increase electricity costs without seeing any gain, which does nothing but take money out of the hands of people, for nothing, and which increases the costs of everything they buy. We see the elites burning jet fuel profligately, while preaching to the plebeians that they have to change their lives for the worse, that the plebeians must bear costs that are really meaningless to the patricians.
People will support cleaning up the environment, as long as you are reasonable about it. People will support saving some obscure creature, but rebel at the thought that real people wil have to lose their jobs to save some slimy flatworm or something.
The left have no comprehension of the need to persuade people; all that the left see is using power, to force compliance.
But don’t the efficient appliances, greater fuel mileage and more efficient lights advocated by the dreaded “warmists” SAVE people money? So your objection is because of the REASON they advocate them?
I’m no economist but it seems incorrect to assume that energy costs are inelastic, that is that energy use is independent of costs.
No.
Actually there is mounting evidence that the entire market place is in collusion…especially so since the last great recession.
Examples.
Food prices….Why would food prices increase rather dramatically in the face of a recession? Because past recessions taught business owners that even though there are 10 percent or 12 percent unemployed….there are still 90 percent WORKING AND BUYING STUFF….hence they raise prices to compensate for the lost revenue.
Oil fell to 43.00 per bbl….gasoline fell to 1.67….
Today Oil is 50.00 per bbl but gasoline is 2.67 per gallon….inflated pricing that does not reflect the fair market value of the product.
A refrigerator used to cost 250.00….today the more fancy refrigerators are 4000.00. A base refrigerator is 600.00 reflecting a 3x increase in base price. Additionally remember the old refriges that used to last 40 years….well today your lucky to get 20 years out of a new refrige. Why?
Razor blades? I used to shave easily for a week on one blade….today Im lucky to get two shaves out of extremely expensive razor blades. Why?
The market has learned that consumers will consume….that given the right product they will spend.
So to answer your question….NO energy saving equiptment IS NOT SAVING US A PENNY and in fact…..
the consumption of electricity is up because the Electric companies have realized that they have a bottom line just like everyone else and with efficiency in electrical devices they have simply raised rates disproportionally to meet the bottom line.
Hence all your energy star devices have not saved Americans a penny and in fact the added cost of buying one has actually cost Americans more.
Its why America is not a free market but rather a consumer driven free market….and there is a big, big difference.
Do you remember I stated I’d believe it when I see it? Oh, that’s right, you don’t actually read the posts, much like I’m sure you didn’t read this one, since you’re complete off topic.
Interesting that you mention that. Stay tuned for a post later today.
I’ve been saying this for years and years, Jeff. You should pay attention.
Liam that “base” refrigerator of today will save over 100$ in electricity each year. In addition that old frig that cost 250$ forty years ago was smaller than today’s frig and even though it cost “only” 250$ in in 1974 it took more hours work to pay for it. Liam are you still using your 40 old frig? Is it a Kelvinator?
You should read more about how much the Energy Star program has “forced” people to save on electricity
Margaret Thatcher was an early warner of “climate change” Reagan asked for more money to study this problem in the mis 80s
Teach pls tell us all how YOU save money on energy
Jeffrey wrote:
And therein lays the difference between the warmists and sensible people: no one objects to more efficient appliances being developed. What we object to is the cockamamie schemes to increase energy costs for no advantage at all.
John you just dont get it……Electricity companies have raised their rates to compensate for lost revenue of more efficient appliances.
Hence my post was about saving money………you are NOT saving money because rates have gone up due to efficiency….your still paying the same amount you used to pay when you had that old 1947 model refrig……..even though the new ones are more efficient….electricity is more expensive thus negating any pretended savings.
its all smoke and mirrors….
Lights off when not in a room, actually use many CFLs (by choice), energy efficient fridge, washer and dryer, use ceiling fan, and many others.
Now tell us how you’ve stopped using fossil fuels and gone carbon neutral.