For several centuries, Eli has been pointing out that he and Barry Bickmore agree on the coming threats from human driven climate change, but probably disagree on how to deal with it. Bunnies might call this the WG1/WG3 dichotomy. Mark Boslough, well he and Eli could probably agree that they disagree of WG3, but in both those cases, working from the same physical reality there is at least some possibility that something could be done in the end.
Eli would say the same thing in the other direction about folk like Tenny Naumer or even Joe Romm, in the later case Eli is somewhat intermediate with Barry Brook on the other side, since nuclear and renewables complement each other.
One can work toward solutions together, and let us be frank, work toward defanging the denialist jackels who feast on our future by deluding others.
Yesterday Eli talked a bit about R street, and it's head honcho, Eli Lehrer. Lehrer would fit into the same categories, at least as far as acknowledging the problems that the planet is going to face in the future, starting now. His opening line is that those on the right need to confront reality or get run over
If conservatives don’t begin to engage on the important issue of climate change, we’ll cede the debate. The result will be a larger, more intrusive government that hurts business and job creation.
President Obama is readying a major push of administrative action on climate change. There will be new regulations on power plants, new subsidies for clean energy and a number of other big government programs in the name of solving climate change.What he is not confronting is that the reason for the administrative action is and has been the Republican blockade against action. He is playing this in a way though that is immediately useful to him, but potentially a problem in coming times, e.g. trying to convince the tea party types that if they don't get real, solutions will be imposed by those they hate, and to do that, Lehrer is not above throwing some red meat to the dogs.
To conservatives like us, complicated new regulation is our worst nightmare. There is a conservative approach to dealing with climate change — one that can actually achieve conservative goals: the government-shrinking carbon tax.
Currently, U.S. tax law embodies everything that’s wrong with the federal government. It’s too big (about 17,000 pages), too burdensome (Americans spend nearly $50 billion a year complying with it), and too prone to manipulation. Working toward a simpler, fairer system with lower overall rates has long been a worthy conservative goal that deserves continued support from all liberty-loving Americans.Lehrer, of course, is a creature of the insurance industry, and of course, they would like to pay less than the nothing they and their executives now pay in taxes. The tax code is complicated because the top dogs have bunches of lawyers and accountants gaming the system. And, of course, no one confronts the reality that it costs ~40-50% of GDP to run a country any sane person wants to live in (including Social Security and healthcare).
So how does one reconcile Hansen's tax and dividend with Lehrer's carbon tax and sink other taxes, well, the answer from yesterday was use cabon taxes to sink health care and retirement taxes