Plunging into public policy, eh? I don't discuss policy on Substack for a handful of reasons, but I can see how your policy views are a natural extension of your broader views of the human being and relationships and society that I've been enjoying so much for eight months now.
Do you mean bringing the Climate Crisis into the discussion? The main thing I'm calling out here is for young people, and really everyone who's aware and alive during this time period to realize they have a voice, and can use to it speak up about a major issue that's impacting their lives and future.
Yes, I was complimenting you, for handling public policy the best way you can. Although any time you weigh into policy, some people will agree with you and some people won't. Just the nature of public policy discussion. With all your other writing, it's easier for almost everyone to agree, I suppose. On climate, for instance, I tend to agree with Bjorn Lomberg's analysis and I believe that ultimately we'll innovate our way out of it, primarily with nano-carbon-capture. I like the Manchin clean energy bill from last year -- the biggest clean energy action yet in the U.S. -- and I'm not sure what we need to add to that. I tend to oppose expensive regulatory mandates on business that harm the economy and do very little to hold down the Earth's temperature. But I see plenty of evidence that fracking causes earthquakes, and we certainly need to limit fracking that is likely to do so. And the mix of approaches to both electricity and automobile fuel is an extremely complex subject area. So I think the subject, like all policy, involves analysis and should rely on analysis and reasoned debate.
I come down on the side of : When breathable air is removed from daily living, it's personal. The voices that started discussing this topic back in the early 1970s, what was then called the Ecology Movement, should've been heard and amplified much more. Jimmy Carter, in June 1979, placed Solar Panels on the roof of the West Wing of the White House. A sitting US president did this. Reagan immediately took them down. Al Gore did a good job of bringing the issue back into public consciousness, but he was off by a few decades in his estimation of how soon things were going to reach a crisis level. Not in the middle of this century, but now. We are in it. Not being able to breath the toxic air, and out of control massive wildfires happening more frequently is affecting everyone on the planet. Big Oil money has been keeping truth and reality of of the Climate Crisis conversation for too many years. This is a global issue, and if it isn't something that the largest countries can come together and seek more potential and workable solutions for, then one has to wonder what it'll take. Too many talking heads in the media have framed this as a debate, for far too long. It's clear, from lived everyday personal experience, that we're past that point. Rather than leaving the discussion to analysts, I think adding to the discussion is now personal, and up to every one of us.
I found those to be valid observations and find that a valid way to look at it. Just saying that the Left has not necessarily been coming up with the best solutions, as Bjorn Lomborg documents well. Even Manchin's bill -- I have no idea problem with it, but I also have no idea whether $7,000 rebates for new EVs and $4,000 rebates for used EVs is where all the federal money should go. Maybe. Most of my conservative friends are in denial and most of my liberal friends -- their minds are closed to nano-carbon-capture and other macro-engineering approaches to reversing global warming. So I find myself on an island.
I totally agree with everything you have said here. Thanks for championing truth-based reality. Seems weird such a thing would need championing. But here we are.
Thanks kindly, Honeygloom.
Thanks, Deborah. Yes, reality needs our protection.
Thanks for the restack, JRC.
Thanks kindly, Veronica.
Thanks for liking my work, Alisa.
Plunging into public policy, eh? I don't discuss policy on Substack for a handful of reasons, but I can see how your policy views are a natural extension of your broader views of the human being and relationships and society that I've been enjoying so much for eight months now.
Do you mean bringing the Climate Crisis into the discussion? The main thing I'm calling out here is for young people, and really everyone who's aware and alive during this time period to realize they have a voice, and can use to it speak up about a major issue that's impacting their lives and future.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/un-seeks-help-children-battling-climate-change-court-2023-08-28/
Yes, I was complimenting you, for handling public policy the best way you can. Although any time you weigh into policy, some people will agree with you and some people won't. Just the nature of public policy discussion. With all your other writing, it's easier for almost everyone to agree, I suppose. On climate, for instance, I tend to agree with Bjorn Lomberg's analysis and I believe that ultimately we'll innovate our way out of it, primarily with nano-carbon-capture. I like the Manchin clean energy bill from last year -- the biggest clean energy action yet in the U.S. -- and I'm not sure what we need to add to that. I tend to oppose expensive regulatory mandates on business that harm the economy and do very little to hold down the Earth's temperature. But I see plenty of evidence that fracking causes earthquakes, and we certainly need to limit fracking that is likely to do so. And the mix of approaches to both electricity and automobile fuel is an extremely complex subject area. So I think the subject, like all policy, involves analysis and should rely on analysis and reasoned debate.
I come down on the side of : When breathable air is removed from daily living, it's personal. The voices that started discussing this topic back in the early 1970s, what was then called the Ecology Movement, should've been heard and amplified much more. Jimmy Carter, in June 1979, placed Solar Panels on the roof of the West Wing of the White House. A sitting US president did this. Reagan immediately took them down. Al Gore did a good job of bringing the issue back into public consciousness, but he was off by a few decades in his estimation of how soon things were going to reach a crisis level. Not in the middle of this century, but now. We are in it. Not being able to breath the toxic air, and out of control massive wildfires happening more frequently is affecting everyone on the planet. Big Oil money has been keeping truth and reality of of the Climate Crisis conversation for too many years. This is a global issue, and if it isn't something that the largest countries can come together and seek more potential and workable solutions for, then one has to wonder what it'll take. Too many talking heads in the media have framed this as a debate, for far too long. It's clear, from lived everyday personal experience, that we're past that point. Rather than leaving the discussion to analysts, I think adding to the discussion is now personal, and up to every one of us.
I found those to be valid observations and find that a valid way to look at it. Just saying that the Left has not necessarily been coming up with the best solutions, as Bjorn Lomborg documents well. Even Manchin's bill -- I have no idea problem with it, but I also have no idea whether $7,000 rebates for new EVs and $4,000 rebates for used EVs is where all the federal money should go. Maybe. Most of my conservative friends are in denial and most of my liberal friends -- their minds are closed to nano-carbon-capture and other macro-engineering approaches to reversing global warming. So I find myself on an island.
I totally agree with everything you have said here. Thanks for championing truth-based reality. Seems weird such a thing would need championing. But here we are.
A manifesto, indeed. Briefly says what needs to be said and read.
Mary, thanks for your insight and appreciation.