Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Even Republicans are getting disgusted with Republican deceit. The “Republicans for Environmental Protection” issued a press release calling on Republicans to abide by more honest economic analysis and state that Republican tactics are “a disservice to Americans”.

Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress to debate the climate issue constructively.

Reading through this press release (after the fold), one really has to wonder how the authors wake up in the morning, look themselves in the mirror, and continue to call themselves Republicans in the face of 30 years of ever-worsening conditions for “moderate” voices and people basing their thinking on energy/environmental (and other) issues based on reality within that Party.

‘Energy Tax’ Rhetoric Ill Serves Debate on Climate Legislation

Absolutely true and absolutely understated comments.

Republican members of Congress have taken to calling cap-and-trade legislation an “energy tax” or a “light switch tax” on American families and businesses.

These are the “death tax” terms for battling any movement forward toward an Energy Smart future. Forget “Drill, Baby, Drill”, these are almost certainly the Luntzian tested phrases to fight sensible policy and to inhibit action on global warming. Watch out for anyone using these terms and don’t fall into this.

People are fearful that action will threaten their energy. Reality is that moving forward with things like the smart grid and diversifying our energy sources will improve energy security and, writ large, lower the costs of energy. The issue is not the cost per kilowatt hour, but the total costs of energy: including energy efficiency reducing total use, improved grid/otherwise reducing disruptions (do you count the freezer-full of food after a power outage that had to be thrown out in your accounting of “cost of energy” — disruptions cost the US economy $10s (if not $100s) of billions/year), reduced asthma cases, reduced environmental devastation in terms of less mining/drilling, mitigating catastrophic climate change, etc …).

Be fearful of enabling this disastrous language of deceit.

Most recently, congressional Republicans misrepresented a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study analyzing cap-and-trade proposals. They distorted the study’s conclusions to exaggerate the costs of cap-and-trade legislation on individual households, by making faulty calculations based on erroneous assumptions and by ignoring a basic principle of economics – the time value of money.

Yes …

Conservatives, of all people, should not ignore basic principles of economics.

Actually, I value the term “conservative”, if only “conservatives” in the United States were interested in conserving things like goodwill for America, natural resources for future generations, etc …

Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress to debate the climate issue constructively. Voters are counting on their elected representatives to work together across party lines to develop balanced legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower America’s dangerous dependence on oil, and help us move more quickly to a more diversified, robust energy economy.

“Are a disservice …” Sigh, true, but what an understatement.

The scientific evidence for a human role in climate change is compelling enough to warrant prudent measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many religious leaders and business executives agree. An ethic of traditional conservatism is to exercise proper stewardship over the environment that supports our economy and to reduce risks of environmental harm.

Could we call them, instead, “Republicans for recognizing reality”?

A cap-and-trade bill, or competing alternatives such as cap-and-dividend or carbon tax measures, would take the fundamental step of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, thus sending a signal that CO2 emissions carry a cost and free disposal in the atmosphere is no longer appropriate.

If this were the dominant voice in the Republican Party, then ‘bipartisanship’ would be a reasonable approach to dealing with the nation’s problems. Sadly, sanity and thoughtfulness like this memo is not what one sees from Republican Party leaders.

Environmental legislation works to reduce harmful emissions by putting a price on those emissions, either directly or more commonly, by limiting their disposal into the environment. The Clean Air Act put a price on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other harmful air pollutants. The Clean Water Act put a price on sewage, hazardous chemical wastes, and other types of water pollution.

Have to say that this is, sadly, a more reasonable discussion than what we see from “moderate” Democratic politicians who are undermining efforts to move forward on better energy and climate policy.

Few except special interests and politicians who do their bidding would argue that limiting emissions that put human health and the environment at risk puts a burdensome “tax” on American families and businesses.

Again, if you hear “burdensome “tax”” or similiar language, your alarm bells should be ringing an alarm.

And even if lawmakers are sincerely doubtful about the human role in climate change,

“If” is a good question. But this “if” is that there are reasons to move forward, smartly, with a “no regrets” strategy.

there are sound reasons for reducing fossil fuel dependence anyway. Our heavy dependence on oil is a strategic liability. It’s only a matter of time before oil prices spike upward again. A large share of remaining global oil reserves is located in politically unstable parts of the world. Sticking to an energy path of high oil dependence will leave the U.S. chronically vulnerable to overseas political turmoil over which our country has little control.

Sadly, they fail to mention that there are not enough domestic sources to have a major impact on US ‘energy independence’ through a “Drill, Baby, Drill” strategy. But, they are calling for action now, even as gas prices are half last year’s spike.

The recent Republican tactics to fight climate legislation show a dangerous unwillingness to learn the right lessons from the election debacles of 2006 and 2008.

Yes, the American public is interested in leaders who recognize and operate in reality. The American public is interested and desires leaders. The American public is tired of outright deceit from politians. And, as long as the Republican Party leadership is intent on rejecting reality, intent on pandering truthiness, and in obstructing, rather than leading, it won’t have an electoral future.

A refusal to face facts, acknowledge risks, and make responsible policy choices for the greater good is not conservative. It is reckless endangerment of our country and it must stop.

A Republican organization is saying this of the tactics and stances of the Republican Party leadership: “reckless endangerment of our country”. This is a Republican message that merits repeating and echoing.