We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Monday, May 12, 2014

Debate: Hansen’s program is more than a carbon tax

Click here to access article by Ian Angus from Climate & Capitalism.

I really don't see the point in advocating or debating proposals like this. Our masters in the One Percent are now so addicted to their money and power machine of capitalism that most will never allow any fuels for the machine to be restricted in any significant way. Economic actors in this system are like cancer cells--they must grow or die. The only real debate is between human extinction by climate destabilization or extinction by global nuclear wars caused by capitalist gangs fighting over disappearing fuels to run their machine. The only real solution is...change the system!

The debate described in this article is about a plan proposed by James Hansen, a noted climatologist.
Hansen calls his fee and dividend plan the “essential backbone” of his proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under it, a substantial fee would be levied on all fossil fuels at the well head, mine shaft, or point of entry, and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry would be eliminated. The fee, which would increase in predictable steps over time, would be paid by fossil fuel companies, and each month every legal resident would receive an equal share of the money collected, as a direct bank deposit or debit card.
This would directly increase the price of fossil fuels as such, and indirectly increase prices for products and services that use fossil fuels, but Hansen calculates that the poorest 60% of the U.S population, who generally have small carbon footprints, would receive more in dividends than they would pay in increased fuel and other prices.