World War III may not have begun in earnest just yet, but the risk of it occurring still looms large if the conflicts over in the Middle East region continue to accelerate. The biggest elephant in the room is not Daesh (ISIL), Iraq, Syria, Iran or any country over in that region--it is the USA and Russia, and to a lesser extent Israel, who combined possess enough nukes to kill at least 8 billion people. All it will take is one miscommunication and BOOM--it's game over for all of humanity. And the two primary countries have not exactly been very friendly to each other lately. Combine that with the threat of climate change, and the World Doomsday Clock, currently set to three minutes to midnight, might as well be set to two. A certain Iron Maiden song comes to mind.
Meanwhile, rich war profiteers of the mercenary-industrial complex (MIC) are literally making a killing off of it all. Like the song says, the golden goose is on the loose, and it's never out of season. Major General Smedley Butler wrote an excellent book about it back in 1935, War Is A Racket, that should be required reading for everyone and would seem to apply a fortiori to our time. The profiteers/racketeers and their sycophantic lackeys in government keep on pushing for more and more American military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and other countries, when it is clear that America's meddling essentially created Daesh in the first place. In fact, not only did the 2003 invasion of Iraq pave the way for the current crisis by destabilizing Iraq, but the USA had also been arming various "rebel" groups in Syria in the hopes of toppling Assad. And many of those "rebels" turned traitor and joined al-Qaeda and what would become Daesh as well. It is exceedingly likely that the oligarchs did so deliberately in order to further their Machiavellian machinations.
The time to end all of this insanity and evil is yesterday. The TSAP hereby proposes a law be passed that we call the War Pigs Act, named after both the ineffectual War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Black Sabbath song War Pigs. The first part of the new law would put some teeth in the War Powers Act by closing the loopholes and holding the President liable for any consequences of a war that is not authorized by Congress and is not during a state of emergency caused by an attack on the USA. And absent a formal declaration of war by Congress, absolutely no war may last beyond 90 days (60 days followed by a 30 day withdrawal), save for a temporary authorization of force that expires 90 days after the authorization passes or 180 days after the war began, whichever occurs first. After that, the must be a formal declaration of war, or the war must end. Period. The second part of the law would implement some of Maj. Gen. Butler's recommendations from his book, taking into account that we currently have an all-volunteer military. Take the profit out of war, first of all. And for any war lasting beyond six months (which by definition would now require a formal declaration of war), require an annual limited plebiscite of all citizens that would be eligible for military service. Make it a non-secret ballot such that those who vote "yes" would be drafted if we run out of volunteers, followed by those who abstain from the vote if necessary. Those who vote "no" would be exempt from any such draft. A kind of "consensual conscription", if you will. We would all have skin in the game. Women would be included as well, but before they draft the very first woman, we should draft men in their 40s and 50s first. The demographic group who starts the wars but rarely fights. It's only fair, right fellas?
Watch as war becomes a thing of the past. As Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said, "TO HELL WITH WAR!"
Monday, December 7, 2015
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Another Day, Another Horrible Mass Shooting
Today there was yet another mass shooting, this time in California, killing at least 14 people. It seems that mass shootings have become a daily occurrence in recent years--in the USA at least. But the rest of the industrialized world doesn't really seem to have this kind of problem. Why is that? Well, there's always....
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 96% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
The True Spirit of America Party would like to apologize for our heretofore rather lax stance on the gun issue. Mea culpa indeed. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
UPDATE I: Since we posted this, we have since learned that one of the two now-deceased lone-wolf shooters involved was a woman (the other was her husband), and that this was an act of terrorism apparently inspired (but not conducted) by Daesh (ISIL). But since 96-99% of mass shootings are committed by men, and most mass shootings in this country are done by white, non-Muslim wingnuts, weirdos, disgruntled employees, psychopaths, and other domestic terrorists, our general points about mass shootings still stand. In fact, that shooting was one of two mass shootings on the very same day, and so far 2015 has literally seen more mass shootings than days. Enough!
UPDATE II: Since we posted the previous update, it seems that there are glaring inconsistencies between what eyewitnesses saw and what the mainstream media is reporting as fact. Witnesses recall seeing three large, athletic white men dressed in tactical gear carrying assault rifles, NOT a Middle Eastern looking man his 90 pound wife like the official story claims. False flag, anyone? Things that (should) make you go, hmmm. Either way, enough is enough already!
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 96% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
The True Spirit of America Party would like to apologize for our heretofore rather lax stance on the gun issue. Mea culpa indeed. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
- Bring back an improved 1994 assault-weapons ban yesterday, this time with more teeth. Include all magazines with more than ten rounds in the ban as well. (The TSAP used to oppose this until recently)
- Remove the 20-year ban on gun violence research, yesterday. (We were unaware of this)
- End the gun-show loophole and implement universal background checks. (The TSAP always supported this)
- Put a significant excise tax on all bullets/ammo, like Chris Rock recommended. (The TSAP has always supported this)
- Treat ammo sales the same as gun sales.
- Pass a "one gun a month" law at the federal level. (The TSAP has supported this for some time now)
- Require reporting of lost or stolen guns. (The TSAP has been neutral on this in the past)
- Regulate firearms like other consumer products in terms of health and safety standards--currently such standards are nonexistent. (The TSAP has been neutral on this in the past)
- Improve enforcement of existing gun laws, which tend not to be enforced very well these days, and improve state reporting of prohibited persons to NICS. Also, prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list from buying any guns, period. (The TSAP has generally supported this all along)
- And last but not least, improve our woefully-inadequate mental healthcare system. (The TSAP has always supported this)
UPDATE I: Since we posted this, we have since learned that one of the two now-deceased lone-wolf shooters involved was a woman (the other was her husband), and that this was an act of terrorism apparently inspired (but not conducted) by Daesh (ISIL). But since 96-99% of mass shootings are committed by men, and most mass shootings in this country are done by white, non-Muslim wingnuts, weirdos, disgruntled employees, psychopaths, and other domestic terrorists, our general points about mass shootings still stand. In fact, that shooting was one of two mass shootings on the very same day, and so far 2015 has literally seen more mass shootings than days. Enough!
UPDATE II: Since we posted the previous update, it seems that there are glaring inconsistencies between what eyewitnesses saw and what the mainstream media is reporting as fact. Witnesses recall seeing three large, athletic white men dressed in tactical gear carrying assault rifles, NOT a Middle Eastern looking man his 90 pound wife like the official story claims. False flag, anyone? Things that (should) make you go, hmmm. Either way, enough is enough already!
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
How to Humanely Euthanize Capitalism for Good
With all of the latest articles about how climate change is likely worse than we thought, and how our fragile biosphere that we all depend on is in increasingly grave danger, it is becoming increasingly clear how unsustainable our current system really is. We are bumping up against the limits to growth, and only a fool or an economist (same difference) could believe that infinite growth on a finite world is possible. And make no mistake, capitalism cannot exist without growth, so capitalism must die--or the whole planet dies including us. So which choice will we make? The TSAP has already outlined several means of solving the world's vast and interconnected problems in our party platform as well as in our annual State of the Planet Address. Most notably, we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible before we irreversibly burn up planet, and we need to end our addiction to growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell which eventually kills its host. But the prospects are looking increasingly bleak that our recommendations will actually be put into practice given the current leadership in Washington who continue to blithely fiddle while the Earth burns. So what can be done instead?
Enter this seemingly crazy idea. While it may seem like a sop to the fossil fool industry at first glance, it will actually be giving them the rope for them to hang themselves with. And not only will it kill Big Oil and Dirty Coal, but it will also humanely euthanize capitalism in general via the one thing that capitalism simply cannot survive--ABUNDANCE. That's right, capitalism needs scarcity to function, and it has done a marvelous job of creating artificial scarcity for the past 500 years or so. But uncontrolled abundance, whether of resources, energy, or capital, is basically a fatal overdose for the system of capitalism. And thanks to the current exponential growth of renewable energy and related technologies, such abundance is very possible in the near future. And it will be decentralized, so the system can't readily control or stop it once it gets going. All of this dovetails rather nicely with Buckminster Fuller's vision of a pragmatic utopian future.
If we go that route, it actually would be possible to simultaneously implement the carbon tax-and-dividend idea in Steve Stoft's Carbonomics, provided that 100% of the revenue is refunded to We the People, and that the tax rate starts out low so as not to front-load it too quickly. The timing is very important. But any other type of carbon tax scheme would be out of the question, as would most other future restrictions on fossil fuels (especially oil) until the cost solar and wind energy drops below that of such fossil fuels.
Another idea that the TSAP had once laughed at can also be given a chance as well: the Capital Homestead Act. While it may seem like a pro-capitalist sop to Big Business on the surface, it will actually kill capitalism in the long run as well due to an overabundance of capital and the fact that the workers and owners would essentially become one and the same. Combine it with the Universal Exchange Tax and a Universal Basic Income Guarantee, and the overall impact will be maximized and accelerated.
Of course, capitalism is not the only problem. The 7000 year old War on Women, often known by its euphemistic name "patriarchy", is every bit as much a cause of our world's problems, and the two are basically joined at the hip. While patriarchy can exist without capitalism, capitalism cannot exist without patriarchy. And both evil systems are killing this planet and need to end, yesterday. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, that's for sure. Fortunately, women have been making huge strides (while men are becoming increasingly redundant), and if current trends continue it seems likely that women will become the new leaders of the free world in the not-too-distant future, as Buckminster Fuller himself once predicted. In fact, that is one of the few things that the futurists are virtually unanimous about.
At least we hope that will be the case. But timing is everything, and we have a very narrow window of opportunity. So what are we waiting for?
Enter this seemingly crazy idea. While it may seem like a sop to the fossil fool industry at first glance, it will actually be giving them the rope for them to hang themselves with. And not only will it kill Big Oil and Dirty Coal, but it will also humanely euthanize capitalism in general via the one thing that capitalism simply cannot survive--ABUNDANCE. That's right, capitalism needs scarcity to function, and it has done a marvelous job of creating artificial scarcity for the past 500 years or so. But uncontrolled abundance, whether of resources, energy, or capital, is basically a fatal overdose for the system of capitalism. And thanks to the current exponential growth of renewable energy and related technologies, such abundance is very possible in the near future. And it will be decentralized, so the system can't readily control or stop it once it gets going. All of this dovetails rather nicely with Buckminster Fuller's vision of a pragmatic utopian future.
If we go that route, it actually would be possible to simultaneously implement the carbon tax-and-dividend idea in Steve Stoft's Carbonomics, provided that 100% of the revenue is refunded to We the People, and that the tax rate starts out low so as not to front-load it too quickly. The timing is very important. But any other type of carbon tax scheme would be out of the question, as would most other future restrictions on fossil fuels (especially oil) until the cost solar and wind energy drops below that of such fossil fuels.
Another idea that the TSAP had once laughed at can also be given a chance as well: the Capital Homestead Act. While it may seem like a pro-capitalist sop to Big Business on the surface, it will actually kill capitalism in the long run as well due to an overabundance of capital and the fact that the workers and owners would essentially become one and the same. Combine it with the Universal Exchange Tax and a Universal Basic Income Guarantee, and the overall impact will be maximized and accelerated.
Of course, capitalism is not the only problem. The 7000 year old War on Women, often known by its euphemistic name "patriarchy", is every bit as much a cause of our world's problems, and the two are basically joined at the hip. While patriarchy can exist without capitalism, capitalism cannot exist without patriarchy. And both evil systems are killing this planet and need to end, yesterday. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, that's for sure. Fortunately, women have been making huge strides (while men are becoming increasingly redundant), and if current trends continue it seems likely that women will become the new leaders of the free world in the not-too-distant future, as Buckminster Fuller himself once predicted. In fact, that is one of the few things that the futurists are virtually unanimous about.
At least we hope that will be the case. But timing is everything, and we have a very narrow window of opportunity. So what are we waiting for?
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Tell Congress: NO MORE WARS!
Six months after the current war against ISIS began, President Obama is currently trying to get Congress to pass a new Authorization for the Use of Miltary Force (AUMF) to continue this war up to three more years.
As far as what the Obama administration hopes to accomplish by fighting fire with gasoline, we really don't know. But doing so is unlikely to really achieve anything good in the long run, and will likely just make things worse overall. And indeed, it is already backfiring, as anyone who is paying attention can clearly see. The original justification for "humanitarian" bombing, namely rescuing the Yazidis who were trapped on a mountain and were about to be exterminated, has since evaporated, and any other justification for further airstrikes is pure mission creep, plain and simple. Pretty soon they will be calling for boots on the ground when the airstrikes inevitably fail to eradicate ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they happen to call themselves this week, and we all know where that leads. Truly, the road to hell is paved with (ostensibly) good intentions.
Honestly, there really is only one solution in that part of the world, and we are only half-joking about this one. Give every woman over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their countries and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, none of the powers that be over here would be too keen on that. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they? Though replacing all of our current Big Wetiko "leaders" with women would really not be a bad idea at all, come to think of it. Perhaps then the USA would not be so eager to continue on our omnicidal path of endless war and imperialism, which let's face it, is fundamentally a "guy thing".
Thus, we all need to ask Congress to NOT authorize any more of this stupid, futile, and unnecessary war.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
The SeaTac Success Story
On January 1, 2014, the Seattle suburb of SeaTac, Washington became the first town in the nation to raise its minimum wage to $15/hour. They did it in one step with barely any lead time, albeit with some exemptions such as businesses with fewer than 30 employees (and the courts soon ruled that airport employees are outside its jurisdiction and are therefore exempt as well). And the Koch-roaches and their disgusting ilk (along with some local business owners as well) were playing Chicken Little and predictably claiming that it would "destroy jobs" and all that jazz.
But guess what? The sky didn't fall after all. In fact, raising the minimum wage to $15 turned out to be a major shot in the arm for the town's economy, who saw a major revitalization in the past year. Local businesses were expanding, not laying off employees en masse like the naysayers predicted. And the reason is simple economics: when workers have more money, they have more to spend in the local economy, which creates more jobs and so on in a virtuous cycle. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the plutocrats and their sycophantic lackeys. So we can consider the naysayers to be debunked.
The TSAP supports raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10/hour if not higher, and many state and local minimum wages to at least $12 if not $15. Now that SeaTac was the guinea pig, soon followed by Seattle, we can now say that $15/hour is no longer terra incognita. So even a federal minimum wage of $15 should still be considered as an option, which we would support as well. Specifically, we want a general minimum wage of $15 for workers over 18 years of age. Workers under 18 should be paid at least 80% of that amount, or $12/hour. Ditto for workers of any age in the first 30 days on the job, as a "training wage". There should be no tip credits either. Small business with fewer than 10 employees would be exempt from the wage hike, and would be able to pay the same as now. Businesses with 10-30 employees would have the new minimum wage phased in gradually over two or three years, while businesses with more than 30 employees would be have to pay $15/hour within six months (i.e. two fiscal quarters) of the new law's enactment. Otherwise, there should be no exceptions, period. And for the first few years of the new law, there should be special tax credits for employers who hire workers under age 25 and over 55, and even greater tax credits for hiring employees under 20 years of age. That should alleviate any hyperbolic concerns about a higher minimum wage somehow pricing these "less valuable" workers out of the market--which has never really been conclusively proven anyway.
So what are we waiting for?
But guess what? The sky didn't fall after all. In fact, raising the minimum wage to $15 turned out to be a major shot in the arm for the town's economy, who saw a major revitalization in the past year. Local businesses were expanding, not laying off employees en masse like the naysayers predicted. And the reason is simple economics: when workers have more money, they have more to spend in the local economy, which creates more jobs and so on in a virtuous cycle. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the plutocrats and their sycophantic lackeys. So we can consider the naysayers to be debunked.
The TSAP supports raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10/hour if not higher, and many state and local minimum wages to at least $12 if not $15. Now that SeaTac was the guinea pig, soon followed by Seattle, we can now say that $15/hour is no longer terra incognita. So even a federal minimum wage of $15 should still be considered as an option, which we would support as well. Specifically, we want a general minimum wage of $15 for workers over 18 years of age. Workers under 18 should be paid at least 80% of that amount, or $12/hour. Ditto for workers of any age in the first 30 days on the job, as a "training wage". There should be no tip credits either. Small business with fewer than 10 employees would be exempt from the wage hike, and would be able to pay the same as now. Businesses with 10-30 employees would have the new minimum wage phased in gradually over two or three years, while businesses with more than 30 employees would be have to pay $15/hour within six months (i.e. two fiscal quarters) of the new law's enactment. Otherwise, there should be no exceptions, period. And for the first few years of the new law, there should be special tax credits for employers who hire workers under age 25 and over 55, and even greater tax credits for hiring employees under 20 years of age. That should alleviate any hyperbolic concerns about a higher minimum wage somehow pricing these "less valuable" workers out of the market--which has never really been conclusively proven anyway.
So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, January 25, 2015
The Nuclear "Renaissance" That Wasn't--And Probably Never Will Be
After recently giving our annual State of the Planet Address for 2015, we at the TSAP have begun to re-evaluate our energy policy for the future. Since 2009, our party has been heavily pushing the idea of a "nuclear renaissance" as a complement to our renewable energy future. Such an idea would entail a massive building of nuclear power plants nationwide (if not worldwide) utilizing the latest, state-of-the-art technology. And doing so would theoretically allow us to phase-out fossil fuels more quickly than if we stuck only to renewable power sources in our future energy mix. And who knows, perhaps even fusion power!
All of which sounds pretty good until you consider all of the rather sobering facts about nuclear power specifically and about energy in general. The truth is, nuclear power is actually in decline, and has been for quite some time now. Perhaps that is because policymakers are beginning to see the writing on the wall: nuclear energy is simply getting more and more expensive over time, while at the same time renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient every year. And while nuclear does not emit greenhouse gases directly, it actually does lead to significant emissions during the lifecycle as a whole (mining, milling, processing, transportation, construction, and decommissioning), and is not nearly as "green" as its proponents claim, even if it is somewhat better than fossil fuels. Which is hardly a ringing endorsement for nuclear, since saying it's "not as bad as coal" is a rather pitifully low bar to clear. And then of course there is that whole Fukushima thing, which by the way is still "hot" even many years later. As for fusion, it always seems to be perpetually 25 years away, as they were saying 50 years ago.
But probably the most damning thing of all about a "nuclear renaissance" is that its huge demands would crowd out the resources (capital, labor, infrastructure, and yes, energy in the form of fossil fuels) that would otherwise be devoted to the making the renewable energy transition possible. The time to build the huge number of nuke plants required was about 20-30 years ago, and that ship has clearly sailed. Renewables are the way to go if we are to heed the warnings of climate scientists that say that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in the next 15 years--there is simply not enough time to build nukes. Additionally, it should be clear that decentralized energy is the way of the future, as well as flexibility, and nuclear power is basically an energy dinosaur that inherently fails to deliver on both counts. Thus, as of 2015 we have officially dropped the idea of a massive nuclear power expansion from our party platform. That said, however, we at the TSAP still believe that nuclear power should not be phased out until after fossil fuels are, ideally by 2030 at the latest, and we are not against building a small number of new nuke plants between now and 2030. Like the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are now neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear, but we are pro-renewables and anti-fossil fuels overall. (But we still think ground meat should be irradiated.)
All of which sounds pretty good until you consider all of the rather sobering facts about nuclear power specifically and about energy in general. The truth is, nuclear power is actually in decline, and has been for quite some time now. Perhaps that is because policymakers are beginning to see the writing on the wall: nuclear energy is simply getting more and more expensive over time, while at the same time renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient every year. And while nuclear does not emit greenhouse gases directly, it actually does lead to significant emissions during the lifecycle as a whole (mining, milling, processing, transportation, construction, and decommissioning), and is not nearly as "green" as its proponents claim, even if it is somewhat better than fossil fuels. Which is hardly a ringing endorsement for nuclear, since saying it's "not as bad as coal" is a rather pitifully low bar to clear. And then of course there is that whole Fukushima thing, which by the way is still "hot" even many years later. As for fusion, it always seems to be perpetually 25 years away, as they were saying 50 years ago.
But probably the most damning thing of all about a "nuclear renaissance" is that its huge demands would crowd out the resources (capital, labor, infrastructure, and yes, energy in the form of fossil fuels) that would otherwise be devoted to the making the renewable energy transition possible. The time to build the huge number of nuke plants required was about 20-30 years ago, and that ship has clearly sailed. Renewables are the way to go if we are to heed the warnings of climate scientists that say that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in the next 15 years--there is simply not enough time to build nukes. Additionally, it should be clear that decentralized energy is the way of the future, as well as flexibility, and nuclear power is basically an energy dinosaur that inherently fails to deliver on both counts. Thus, as of 2015 we have officially dropped the idea of a massive nuclear power expansion from our party platform. That said, however, we at the TSAP still believe that nuclear power should not be phased out until after fossil fuels are, ideally by 2030 at the latest, and we are not against building a small number of new nuke plants between now and 2030. Like the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are now neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear, but we are pro-renewables and anti-fossil fuels overall. (But we still think ground meat should be irradiated.)
Friday, January 16, 2015
State of the Planet Address 2015
On January 20, 2015, the President gave his annual State of the Union
Address. And every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our
annual State of the Planet Address around January 20. Yes, we know it is a bit of a
downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored
glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience (*cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*) as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Our nation's irrational fear of all things "nuclear" needs to die NOW. (And speaking of which, let's irradiate all ground meat as well--if only to scare people into eating less meat, lol)
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, though it remains to be seen if that is a secular trend or just a temporary blip due to the "recession" (i.e. depression). But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of degrowth as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest it not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda trumps it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience (*cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*) as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Our nation's irrational fear of all things "nuclear" needs to die NOW. (And speaking of which, let's irradiate all ground meat as well--if only to scare people into eating less meat, lol)
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, though it remains to be seen if that is a secular trend or just a temporary blip due to the "recession" (i.e. depression). But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of degrowth as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest it not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda trumps it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
