Post 1 of N
As we approach the 2016 election season, the media is full of the words that you (all) are saying in an attempt to win my vote. In light of that, and with great respect for those who choose to serve the people of their country, state or city in a representative position, I would like to ask whether you would be willing to represent me. Before you jump in and agree too hastily, let me first explain what you are agreeing to.
The following are a set of policy positions and core ideas that are deeply important to me. If your are running for office and are willing to advocate for these positions and represent these ideas, then please let me know.
Let's start with something about which I have a small measure of expertise: energy and the environment. I have two wonderful children, and I deeply desire that they and their children would have the same access to relatively clean air and water, and reasonably affordable energy, within the context of a planet that is not evicting people from their homes due to rapidly rising sea levels. I commend the current US administration for the recently enacted Clean Power Plan, which is a limited attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. I particularly appreciate that the Clean Power Plan sets enforceable targets and then allows states some liberty to work out their own internal plans for meeting those targets. This is pretty close to the best that one can do within the context of the EPA's existing authority under the Clean Air Act and the supreme court's decision that the EPA is required to do something about greenhouse gases. I also commend President Obama and all of the more than 100 countries in reaching the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. While these agreements are not binding, they importantly make it clear to venture capitalists, state governments, politicians, and many others the world's leaders plan to do something constructive about mitigating future climate change. However, these actions are not sufficient. The Clean Power Plan is a relatively crude policy instrument, that doesn't do enough to put us onto a clear path toward dramatically (e.g., at least 50%) reduced greenhouse gas emissions, or enough to mitigate the impacts on the poor, who will bear the brunt of the impact of increases in energy prices. A better plan would be a simple, clear price (a.k.a., tax) on greenhouse gas emissions, with offsetting adjustments in other taxes (e.g., payroll taxes) to mitigate the financial impacts on the less-well-off who need to commute to work and heat their homes. A simple carbon tax, after broadening it to include other greenhouse gases like methane, would provide a clear incentive for cleaning up our energy system, without the need for complicated rules that give preference for particular pet technologies. The additional revenue could be used to increase investment in research into more affordable energy technologies, or perhaps just used to reduce the deficit and thus avoid the need for my children to face a >50% tax rate to pay for congress's current unwillingness to produce a balanced budget.
Why do I care about this topic so much? I'm glad you asked. My interest in clean air, water and energy stem not only from an inherited desire to see the continuation of my genetic offspring, but from a deeply held belief that this world is a gift, into which we were placed by its creator, to tend it like a garden (Genesis 2:15).
Which brings me to my next topic: religion. As you may (or may not) have already guessed, I am a deeply committed Christian. I regularly attend a church that is a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and I strive (without much success) to follow Jesus the Nazarene in my words and actions. However, it drives me crazy that many politicians who claim to also share in my religion, advocate for policy positions that seem to me to be the polar opposite of what I understand to be true from the bible. Why is it the most outspokenly christian candidates also want to make sure that it is super easy to buy the same military-grade weapons that are increasingly used to destroy persons that God created in his image? Why is it that the christian candidates oppose clean energy plans that seem to align well with God's command to tend the garden? Why is it that the "christian" candidates oppose laws that would make our country ever so slightly more hospitable to the foreigners living among us, when Leviticus 19:34 very clearly entreats us to treat them as native-born and love them as ourselves? And, finally, if your own religious beliefs lead you to similar conclusions why are you not willing to say so within the public sphere? It is true that our founding fathers wisely set up our government with a measure of separation between the state and religion, but the state is made of people, many of whom have religious beliefs that motivate them to important beliefs about compassion, justice, peace, and equity. But sometimes it seems that the only religious people we hear from are those that are advocating positions that seem to me to be diametrically opposed to my own religious beliefs.
I have much more to say, but I, as you, have time constraints so I will have to close it there for today.
To be continued.
-paul
