I hadn’t been aware that carbon fees were part of white supremacy. Does this mean people who push them hard, like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Jerry Brown are part of white supremacy?
New Carbon Fee Initiative Drafted with More Color and Less White Supremacy
It is very, very easy to fall down the minutia rabbit hole when it comes to climate policy—specifically because the writing of these policies has been characterized by white male power brokering between strong and potentially problematic personalities. This “business as usual†approach to public decision making (where the right men get around the right table and fix the right problems) just doesn’t work for climate policy. Why? Because of the moral and economic quandaries that underlie how we address a planetary-scale problem at a regional level. Climate change is inseparable from decision making on human rights, because of the basic moral math that the poorest and most vulnerable communities have the greatest to lose and yet are the least culpable for contributing to the problem. I’m going to say it like it is: When climate policy is written by white men in a closed room, that is white supremacy.
This is why you should be paying attention to Initiative 1631, which is currently in the signature gathering stage and potentially on its way to voters in the fall. I-1631 comes on the heels of the failure of carbon tax Initiative 732 in 2016, when 58 percent of voters rejected the initiative.
Why did I-732 fail? Well, that depends on who you ask. But, I think a clear component of the failure is the way that the initiative spilt the social justice and environmental communities down the center. Social justice and equity organizations called out both the lack of diverse voices in the initiative writing process and the lack of equity in how the generated revenue would be spent. The coalition that has written I-1631 is a cat of a different persuasion.
Equity and justice organizations, such as Front and Centered (Communities of Color for Climate Justice) and Puget Sound Sage, are coalition members. Funds are committed to line items such as addressing the “energy burden†of low income households, environmental justice issues, and displaced fossil fuel workers.
Remember, though, that this is all about Science, you guys. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hardcore Leftist politics.
Oh, and this is occurring in the State of Washington, which is 75.7% white, 8.2% Asian, and just 3.7% black.
Science informs policy but does not make laws. Making of laws is a political act and must consider not only the science but social perspectives as well. If a tax is proposed shouldn’t the impacts on people be considered.
Our only Earth is warming rapidly from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and politicians are still trying to find the best path forward.
The impacts of global warming and potentially the solutions are likely to disadvantage the poor more than the rich, a possibility which should be considered in policy discussions, don’t you think?
Lousy fake science informs nothing.
Science deniers, despite the almost election of their illiterate god-king, have jumped the shark in their denialism.
Do you really believe there exists a world-wide conspiracy involving every nation, every major religion, every scientific body, corporations large and small, universities and schools – led by a cabal of dishonest climate scientists (and George Soros) wanting world communist domination??
Really?
Fake question about fake science.
This seems a very inefficient way to rid America of neo-Nazi scum.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/kentucky-nazi-killed-car-crash-alleged-killer-white-woman-sipped-bourbon-babysitting-drunk-enough-coma/
Just deport all the Leftist like Jeffery if you want to be rid of Nazi scum.
Spoken like a true tRump fascist!
Please don’t take anti-Nazi talk personally. But why would you?
“The earth is warming rapidly from increased greenhouse gasses and politicians are trying to find the best path forward.†First, neither of those have been shown to be true, or proved. The second part of that sentence sums up what’s wrong with this whole scam-politicians setting policy for an alleged scientific problem. Science by committee always works out so well. If one thinks CO2 emissions are bad, one only has to look at the US, which has decreased emissions by fracking, which has nothing to do with politicians. Could be a lesson in there somewhere.