politicalcivility.com Blog

Rep. Rob Bishop came to the Sutherland blogger briefing this morning and shared some thoughts on energy policy in the US and his proposal to affect compreshensive change versus the piecemeal approach we have seen over the last 20 or so years.  Ethan Millard over at SLCSpin posed the question of why hasn’t Congress done anything substantive to mitigate the issues we are now facing, when they’ve been looking at this data for more than a decade.  Bishop’s remark revealed human nature at work in DC.  It just wasn’t painful enough for people to make real change.

I guess time will tell if the voters feeling the pain at the pump translates in to pain at the ballot box for incumbents not used to listening to the broader population.

————————————–

Bishop is part of a Western Republican Caucus that will be shortly announcing a comprehensive energy policy platform that focuses on THREE areas

1. Incentivizing New and Current Forms of Conservation
2. Boosting Production of ALL Energy Forms from Wind to Coal and Everything in Between
3. Innovation in Energy Solutions from Energy Sources to Energy Delivery Systems

Also in the plan are 12 Steps (reminds me of an AA meeting) to facilitating these strategies.  The overall goal of their proposal is energy independence for the United States.

Now that ExxonMobil has seen the light (green light that is), we’re going to have to find a new corporate whipping boy who dares to fund research that shows that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. 

And to think, I thought people grew out of peer pressure when they became adults.

I’ve been busy this week with EarthWeek at Sutherland which has kept me from posting more, but I wanted to throw out this question posed by Roy Innis during the first day. 

What’s the balance?  What’s the right balance between development and conservation?  What’s the balance between the principles of stewardship and economic progress?  What’s the balance between the development of ‘alternative’ fuel sources and asking consumers to pay significantly more for life’s basic necessities (food, shelter, warmth/cooling)?

This balance question forces us to start making clear what is the principle and priority framework we are coming from rather than relying on the rhetoric or emotional hysteria that can accompany both sides of the issue.

As I look at the issue of climate change/global warming here are a few of principles/priority frameworks that guide how I look at this debate.

1. Stewardship: As I have stated on this blog before I am a firm believer in being a wise steward of the earth’s resources, but inherent in that belief system is the idea that the resources should be used. 
2. Cost: For me the balance question has to look at cost with a heavy bias toward human cost (this goes back to my post about conservationalist philosophy versus a preservationist worldview).  Human life takes highest priority.  So when millions begin to starve or die because of “green” policy then those policies must change.
3. Government Expansion: This goes back to my belief that any “war” so called on an issue (environmentalism, poverty, terrorism, you fill in the blank) leads to significant government intervention (which leads to greater inefficiency and subsuquent increase use of resources) and loss of freedom.  Also if you want to see how well the a government controlled economy handles the environment look no further than the former USSR and China.  Both stellar examples of clean air and water.
4. Cause & Effect: One of the most glaring issues of the IPCC report is the misuse or lack of use of appropriate cause and effect analysis.  Much of what the IPCC calls “cause” is actually just correlation.  There is a huge difference. So getting this right is critical if we want to really make a difference or know if we really can make a difference.
5. Everything on the Table: If we are to have a serious discussion about environmental problem solving, we must stop arbitrarily removing proven solutions and dismissing legitimate scientific research and inquiry.  Let’s put everything on the table: wind, solar, nuclear, manmade versus natural warming effects and see what is real according to the science and economics and then balance that with the cost to the environment and cost to society to see what makes the most sense.  Then we need to step back and let the market work. 

Just a few of my thoughts.  The floor is now yours.

I went to the Utah Foundation’s Utah Priorities lunch today, which included remarks by the Governor.  I have to say that there should be a general rule that politicians should be limited to 20 minute speaches, because that’s about the time people started tuning out the governor and started chatting quietly with their neighbor.  Anyway the length of political speeches is not the reason for this post.

A couple of takeaways for me from the Foundation’s report. 

1. Education has been subplanted by concerns over energy (gasoline, utility prices, etc.).  I found this interesting because we had the voucher debate in November and given the level of contention I would have thought that education would have held onto the top spot.  It is also interesting to note that in Southern Utah, education came in at #5.  The survey results seem to indicate that voters are most interested in what hurts the most and if the economy continues to struggle and gas & utility prices remain high, I think voters may not pay much attention to candidates running on an education platform, which does not bode well for those looking to gain momentum on the voucher defeat.
2. Economy: Our governor has a one track mind and that is “creating and growing the best economy in the country.”  I was sad and disappointed that it appears that the governor doesn’t get that more important priority for Utahns (even if it didn’t show up on the survey) is not creating the GREATEST economy on the planet but is strengthening the natural family.  When a growing number of Utah’s families are in trouble (divorce, addiction, abuse, etc.), the resulting lack of health will undermine any attempts the governor may make to build the best economy on the planet.  When families are sick it impacts almost every aspect of our society and exponentially grows the cost to maintain any semblence of a civil society.  Not only is the family, the most fundamental economic unit in an economy; it is also the best and most cost effective mechanism in creating productive citizens that add rather than subtract from the economy and the public coffers.