Get Energy Smart! NOW!

twit (twt)

tr.v. twit·ted, twit·ting, twits

To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults.

n.

1. The act or an instance of twitting.

2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.

3. Slang A foolishly annoying person.

Senator Clair McCaskill (D-MO) loves twitter. On more than one occasion and re more than one issue, Claire’s Twitter comments have raised eyebrows.

Recently, Twitting Claire posted a message re climate change

According to Claire, people sent in message (after message) reacting ot this line.

In her latest radio interview, Claire repeated this sentiment and added to it.

MCCASKILL: Well, I’m going to make people, my friends on the left, very unhappy and I’m going to make those who don’t think global warming is real very unhappy because I’m probably going to be working with a group of moderates in the middle to try to come up with a bill that doesn’t punish coal-dependent states like Missouri

Already, Claire has received numerous new Twitter messages

• Claire Silberman: Wonder why @clairecmc is willing to sacrifice health for the interests of King Coal. http://bit.ly/hr6m3 Clean energy=healthy families
• Enviroknow: Really disappointing to learn that @clairecmc is in the pocket of Peabody Energy (Big Coal): http://bit.ly/10Nnbb
• Morgan Goodwin: Really disappointing to learn that @clairecmc is in the pocket of Peabody Energy (Big Coal): http://bit.ly/10Nnbb
• Populista: @clairecmc, since I know you read tweets. Your comments about #ACES are a total betrayal of my generation and future generations.

Considering that “Twitting” seems to be the way to communicate with Claire, here are several questions within the XX character limit:

1. RE the  concern about “unfair punishment”, do you believe that coal-users merit some punishment?
2. What is “unfair” vs “fair” punishment for polluting energy usage?
3. Does wastefully burning coal unfairly punish non-coal users around the world?
4. Do realize that Missourians’ pockets would have more money in them due to ACES provisions?
5. Missouri’s citizens (your voters) want clean energy.  Don’t you?
6. Are you really concerned about Missouri’s citizens or is this about about Peabody Energy executives and major stockholders?
7. Are you striving to be Fair and Balanced, placing yourself in the middle between “the left” and global warming deniers?

After the fold, let’s explore each of these questions a little bit.

Some thoughts behind and support for each of these questions;

1. Re the concern about “unfair punishment”, do you believe that coal-users merit some punishment?- This seems rather straightforward in terms of implications of the language that Claire is using.Claire, repeatedly, refers to her concerns about “unfair punishment”. By referring to “unfair punishment”, she is clearly implying that she believes that polluting energy behavior merits some form of “punishment”.

   To be clear, Claire’s way of talking about this is an absolutely mediocre (can we say piss poor) framing of what should happen and actually a bad way for laying out policy.  A different perspective would be to provide incentive structures and assistance for reducing polluting energy use and, well, perhaps eventually have some form of “punishment” for those who flagrantly choose to be abusive. But, charging people for polluting the air that my children breathe, for polluting the water they drink, and for polluting the places from where their food comes seems not “punishment” but a fee to help cover the costs and burdens caused via that pollution.

2. What is “unfair” vs “fair” punishment for polluting energy usage?Okay, from a different angle, if Claire is complaining abotu “unfair punishment”, perhaps she should talk about what “fair punishment” would be. Again, however, the entire framing of punishment is a false one, in no small part because <a href=”http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/the_american_clean_energy_secu.html”>Missourians will actually have more disposable income</a> under ASES, with analysis showing $6.32 lower montly electric bills and $13.93 savings on transportation by 2020 — or $240 more a year in their pockets.  And, by the way, a cleaner environment (fewer cancers, less asthma, etc …)  to live in. If that is “punishment” in Claire’s lexicon, I’d really like to know how she defines “reward”.
3. Does wastefully burning coal “unfairly punish” non-coal users around the world?This is turning the question around. Who is being harmed by the behavior that, evidently, Claire merits punishment (even if she is against ‘unfair punishment’).  And, well, these almost certainly include the vast majority of Missouri citizens, who don’t really have a serious personal choice about the structure and nature of their state’s utility system.
4. Do realize that Missourians’ pockets would have more money in them due to ACES provisions?Again, <a href=”http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/the_american_clean_energy_secu.html”>Missourians will actually have more disposable income</a> under ASES, with analysis showing $6.32 lower montly electric bills and $13.93 savings on transportation by 2020 — or $240 more a year in their pockets.
5. Missouri’s citizens (your voters) want clean energy.  Don’t you?Missourians have already demonstrated a real willingness to move forward to a more sensible energy future.  In the 2008 election. <a href=”http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrMaps/20081104/ballot_Issue_map.asp?eid=256&amp;oTypeID=20&amp;Sunday,%20June%2021,%202009″>Missourians voted in a renewable energy measure (setting a 15 percent renewable electricity standard for 2021) with 66 percent of the vote, with only one county in the entire state not voting for Proposition C</a>.   In other words, Missiouri’s voters are ready to be led to a cleaner energy future. Sadly, Claire isn’t leading her citizens toward a better path and, even worse, doesn’t even seem to be following their lead.
6. Are you really concerned about Missouri’s citizens or is this about about Peabody Energy executives and major stockholders?Sigh, the reality of American politics. It is hard to forget that directly and indirectly, Claire McCaskill is one of the Senate heavyweights in terms of receiving money from coal industry interests, like Peabody Energy.  For more information about Peabody’s contributions.  Don’t forget that Peabody, which has expended significant resources to support global warming denier disinformation efforts, is headquartered in Missouri.
7. Are you striving to be Fair and Balanced, placing yourself in the middle between “the left” and global warming deniers?The entire discussion seems so weird. Senator McCaskill seems to delight in placing herself in the middle, as if being attacked from ‘both left and right’ somehow validates the moniker “moderate”.  It evidently has no importance whether one side is operating with facts and in accord with science, and the other is absolutely denying reality.  After all, Claire McCaskill clearly states  that climate change is real and merits a response, even if the “devil is in the details”. As Twitting Claire put it:
   

   Whooaa. Global warming is real,and its a serious problem. I support climate change legislation,but devil is in the details.

   Why is it such a badge of pride to be caught in the middle between those supported by scientists and real-world events, on one side, and anti-science syndrome sufferers, on the other?