A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

“And I’m like, ‘You try! You do it’,” Ocasio-Cortez exclaimed. “‘Cause you’re not. ‘Cause you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?”  – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

The Freshman Congresswoman laid down the gauntlet to her critics after vocal bipartisan criticism surfaced. The official details of the proposal have been taken down, so it is possible, if not likely, that the key bullet points have changed. Ignoring the more dubious items like cow flatulence and ending airplane traffic that spawned a litany of viral memes, there are opportunities to make meaningful changes to combat climate change that a broad coalition of voters can get behind. To responsibly address climate change, we must address the economic costs and opportunities for working and middle-class citizens to transition and embrace green alternatives via taxes, free market principles and access, and cost-efficient technologies.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to push a carbon tax bill through Congress. At the time, it faced broad opposition due to new taxes and energy costs consumers/taxpayers would be forced to absorb. The idea, in that form, would be traded and sold as a Wall Street commodity, and not something average Americans would benefit from. Taxing carbon emissions disproportionately affects lower-income constituents because, for the most part, they cannot afford most new technologies. Energy-efficient refrigerators and fuel-efficient hybrids are not realistic purchases for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. To make carbon taxes remotely plausible, there needs to be a revenue-neutral offset for sales and income tax rates so that taxpayers are not out additional income. If the tax burden is not revenue neutral, the burden will be indirectly shouldered by the lowest income bracket. But, if income and other tax rates are offset, and taxpayers can potentially come out ahead by taking the initiative, you create the opportunity for meaningful change of habits that benefit our environment. Using the LEED Certifications from the US Green Building Council, we can propose several tax incentives that most taxpayers can readily qualify for that are both green and fiscally responsible.

First, we should provide meaningful tax breaks for property owners based on the energy efficiency of their buildings. When construction jobs are applying for LEED certification, one of the main focal points is the level of energy efficiency. Creating the incentive for homeowners or landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their property through insulation and other materials lowers energy costs and carbon output. These incentives can also apply to renters living in energy efficient complexes.

Second, we should provide tax breaks on the use of local raw materials and hydrologically efficient vegetation. This cuts down on the transportation costs for shipping materials, and it lowers water bills. The reality is most people want to be environmentally-friendly, but the dedication to this cause is directly related to the additional costs associated with this.

The dirty little secret about most environmental policies is the companies and industries that most environmental activists target are strong supporters of most climate change policies. Corporations like Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and hundreds more were all sponsors and supporters of the Paris Climate Accord. The biggest misnomer of the entire debate is these corporations are actively opposing these agreements. In most cases, these corporations are equipped for these policy changes, and are more interested in protecting their market share of their industry. This presents an opportunity to remove industrial barriers that prevent startup companies from entering the market place. Our capitalistic system is built on the competition. Removing the barriers of entry into the industries where customers have choices will spur new innovations. There is a market demand for cleaner technologies, and the only way to feed this demand is to remove the bureaucratic red tape that keeps these products from reaching the marketplace.

We live in an era of constant technological breakthroughs: smartphones, drones, video game consoles that function as entertainment hubs. Through universal Wi-fi access and 4G technologies, you can use an app to access, communicate, or purchase anything you want with a simple click of the button. The app’s viability is completely dependent on the convenience and affordability it provides. Leveraging this mentality is the key to making incremental, sustainable progress for combating climate change. Most people, regardless of party affiliation, will choose the greenest alternative if it is cost-competitive. In the last 15 years, we witnessed an explosion of green cost-competitive products, which lead to the average American having a smaller carbon footprint each year. To continue this trend, it is important to free up our markets so that new ideas and new businesses can enter and compete to make the fundamental changes that we need. 

This article was originally published on 1 March 2019.

Similar Read: Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)

Trump Is Wrong, And So Are We

This is America. Where a President can insult a city of 600,000 residents over his own conflicts with Representative Elijah Cummings. The truth is, our border is being run with wild incompetence and cruelty. The harder truth is, so is the city of Baltimore. Don’t all jump at once – I am a firm supporter of Baltimore, but the city has been left behind time and time again. It has seen its share of scandals and – wait, am I talking about Baltimore or our president? Truth is there are gross similarities here. And let’s get one thing straight, Washington, DC, where Trump calls home, is experiencing a historic rat infestation all over the city. Like, real rats, not the folks cycling in and out of the White house tearing our democracy apart and then running to the hills when they realize the president is Master Shredder. 

As a very wise Facebooker recently said, “Baltimore deserves our own AOC or Ilhan Omar.” It is time for someone to FIGHT for the people of Baltimore and challenge the status quo. Cummings has retained support by relying on voters in Baltimore being uninformed and voting against their own self-interests. This is also how our president maintains a 40% approval rating on average – it has been reported that the educational level of Trump’s supporters averages an 8th-grade reading level. Our democracy is no longer based on facts, truth, and real issues. And Trump attacking Cummings because he has not been a strong enough advocate for Baltimore is interesting considering our country is the laughing stock of the developed world. 

So what can we do? Well, we need to get informed. Those that are informed need to take an Each One, Teach Twenty-One approach. We don’t have time to just hope for the best. It is time that we as a nation get the facts, learn the issues, and challenge those who we vote into office to DO WHAT WE NEED THEM TO DO. This includes every level of elected office starting with the school PTA, city and county council, state legislatures, and our national elected officials. You want to stop having to deal with Trump and Cummings? VOTE THEM OUT. We have a rat infestation. Not just in Baltimore, not just in DC or New York – we have an infestation of rats who have pimped all of us into electing them so they can do as they please with the power we hand them. Trump is dead wrong. And now that we know better, we are dead wrong if we do nothing to change the fabric of our nation, including Baltimore.  

Similar Read: War Taxes And Other Radical Ideas From the Left

TRUMP’S HOME IS WHERE THE HATE IS

“Immigrants are the lifeblood of this country – we’re a nation of immigrants – and neither of us would be standing here today if it wasn’t.”  

“Clichés. There’s a point of saturation.”

At the beginning of T.C. Boyle’s premonitory fiction The Tortilla Curtain (1995), White American liberal humanist Delaney opposes his wife’s Kyra pejorative view of immigration. These words definitely sound like they were spoken yesterday during a White House press conference. They sound like something you can overhear in a bar, at a bus stop, in front of the school gate, at a family dinner party. They sound like something an American president whose grandparents were born in Europe and whose third wife holds a Slovenian passport would definitely not endorse. The only thing is that he actually does. In the eye of his devotees, Trump’s efforts to blackmail Sweden over the totally legal and justified incarceration of A$AP Rocky, professionally counselled by Kim Kardashian, undoubtedly contradict the groundless allegations of racism.  His nonsensical understanding of law, justice and freedom of speech is simply appalling.

How many times have people intimidated strangers to go back home if they weren’t happy with the way things are done in [insert any country, preferably dominated by a White population]? No criticism allowed, no awareness-raising on serious issues, no calling out inappropriate behaviours…  As a theoretical stranger, your dissident voice does not matter. Your opinion does not matter. Instead, your name, your skin colour, your mother tongue does. It’s not about who you are, where you were born or what you do, it’s about what you threaten and who you endanger. By raising their voices, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley became scapegoats for the likes of fictional Kyra thinking in real life. And sadly, there are many, who like Kyra reckons that “everybody’s got a right to work and have a decent standard of living, but there’s just so many of them, they’ve overwhelmed us, the schools, the welfare, the prisons and now the streets.” 

Guess what? They’re overwhelming the Congress now. Except that they didn’t cross any border at night like coyotes, they were born free or given refuge and nationality lawfully. And they belong here as much as anyone who wants them to leave. 

“The more you give them the more they want, and the more of them there are,” says one of the characters in The Tortilla Curtain. Without a doubt, many immigrants took instead of waiting for something to be given to them. Ask Native Americans. Delaney sees Mexicans as migratory animals and the displacement, “made for war, for violence and killing, until one group had decimated the other and re-established its claim to the prime hunting, breeding or grazing grounds.” This is what Trump and his base are afraid of: losing their grounds to these women who fight for the greater good. The war they are anticipating is not to be made with bows and arrows, guns and swords on a battlefield. They instead feel like this herd of females is going to decimate their insubstantial White male domination over a nation of immigrants. Blows given with words. Fatal injuries caused by justice and equality. Carcasses of White patriarchy littering the land of the free. 

To be honest, I’m only half-surprised by the “go back home” comments. I expected them to be paired with “do the cooking and watch your kids” advice. This would have been completed the picture: these foreign, arrogant and silly women would have known where they truly belong: in the kitchen of some remote village in an underdeveloped country, cooking rice for their out-of-hand offspring. Well, that’s probably where Melania would be if it hadn’t been for her good looks and luck – although I’m not sure this is my definition of luck. In 2018, Melania herself complained she was “the most bullied person in the world” in an interview. Why wasn’t she encouraged by her dear husband to go back home after voicing her discontent with the way people treated her in the USA? That would have been sound advice, and also hopefully pretty effective. Nevertheless, she still hasn’t raised her voice to defend these women in the same situation as her. She may be stuck in the kitchen after all. 

On a personal level, as the mother of bi-national children who have only once ever set foot in the country where their father comes from, I’m bracing myself for the day someone tells them to go back home if they don’t like it here. They have only one home. They were born and are being raised to consider this home a safe place and the world their oyster. I’ll be glad whenever they come home because it is filled with compassion and love for others. Unlike Trump, our home is not where the hate is. 

Similar Read: Legal Attack on Women’s Right to Choose (How Did We Get There?)

“Presidential Madness”

It’s upon us baby (in my Dick Vitale voice)! We’re right smack in the middle of March Madness with the Sweet Sixteen happening this weekend. Unlike in year’s past, this year’s tournament hasn’t produced many shockers or upsets, but there’s still a lot of basketball left for more buzzer beaters and heartaches.

March Madness is possibly the most intriguing sporting event. A 64-team tournament in which six games decided the difference between going home and being a national champion. The NCAA tournament has the feel of football, with only one game being played to either advance or go back to Sociology class, with a touch of the baseball, hockey, and basketball legendary game seven winner takes all vibe.

March Madness had me thinking of another grand competition set to happen later this year, and that’s the presidential primaries… “presidential madness” …if you will.

Given Trump pretty much will have the Republican Party primary on lock, being he’s an incumbent president (which even in 2019 I have trouble getting used too), most of the madness will come from the Democrat Party primary. Which is a 180-degree difference from the 2016 presidential primaries in which the dram was on the Republican side.

I wish there was true “presidential madness” in which regardless of party, all candidates could be pitted against each other, and each debate would decide if they advanced or not.

And the “presidential madness” wouldn’t even have to be truly presidential candidates or even elected officials. I mean given who the current president is, the days of a good “presidential resume” are over. Trump killed that.

This madness will simply be the 64 top seeded people with political stuff going on. So… with that being said imagine this…

#15 Seed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs #2 Seed Vice President Mike Pence

How happy would Vegas be if that upset took place! Much financial gain and personal happiness I’m sure. 

However, we know American politics are far too boring for anything like that. Yes, the first couple of presidential debates will be fun to watch, 15 people standing up there creating the best material that SNL writers could ever imagine. Then, by March 2020, the actual two candidates are left (UNC and Kentucky) and the eventual boredom of a once promising and exciting tournament ends with Duke (everyone’s safe pick in their bracket) cutting down the nets. Unfortunately, in this case, that would be Trump… again. ? 

Similar Read: Segregated Rosters

Bold Ideas and Lessons Learned

While we all look ahead to 2020—which can be fun, that I will not deny—it might be best to start by looking back.  On Tuesday, Trump gave his second State of the Union Address, followed by the Democratic rebuttal given by Stacey Abrams.  Reading through Twitter after the address, I was expecting to find my favorite political voices pushing back on Trump’s falsehoods and rhetoric, and I did, but right before sighing and calling it a night, I found something even more profound.  It was a tweet, retweeted by an account I follow, written by Joe Kennedy. He was offering support and advice for Stacey Abrams before her rebuttal speech. It took me a minute to even understand the tweet’s context: Kennedy gave the Democrat’s State of the Union rebuttal a year earlier, at the end of Trump’s first year in office.  Aside from jokes about Kennedy’s over-application of chapstick (which he poked at in the tweet), the speech ultimately fell flat. That’s not to say it wasn’t well done, but it is to say that it appeared to be Kennedy’s opportunity to be thought of as the future of the Democratic Party, and a year later, he is not. In a very short time, the Democratic Party has experienced some pretty significant changes.  

To explain this, let us go back further, to 2015, when Hillary announced she was running for President.  Her campaign, personality notwithstanding, was essentially a promise for 4 more years of Obama: hold the line on some of the important victories Democrats had won, like Obamacare, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and legalizing gay marriage, and build on some of the things he began to do, like strengthening discrimination laws and making minor cutbacks in incarceration laws.  Then Bernie came along, then Cynthia Nixon, then Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and today, our Democratic Party has taken an entirely different form. It is being moved by a diverse array of faces, it is confronting and pushing back on its opponents, and it is insisting on bold changes. Part of this, it must be said, is due to a wholly unpopular president and stagnation in progress on health care, tax reform, and mass incarceration, which are key issues for the American public.  But it is also an important lesson in American political science. A lesson borne of our obsession with the moderate, our two-party system, and a relatively obscure idea called the Overton Window (to be explained later).

Let us start with the moderate, who is the fixation of nearly every politician who hopes to take office.  When we envision our two-party system, we imagine our microeconomics lesson on two competing hot-dog stands: if there are two hot-dog stands on a street, logic would say the best placement would be such that the two stands broke the street up into 3 equal parts.  To increase Stand A’s business in this situation, one would suggest moving closer to the middle of the street—customers who were once in the middle now find themselves closer to Stand A, while those on the edge of the street are unaffected. For an example of this kind of thinking in politics, simply look for anyone begging the Democratic Party to abandon things like Medicare for All or free college tuition in order to “appeal to the moderate.”

The problem with this opinion is that it fundamentally misunderstands how American politics work.  If we go back to the hot-dog stands, what happens in the long run if the best idea to increase business is to stay close to the center?  The answer is that we are eventually left with two stands directly next to each other—a smart reaction in the short term turns into a long-term equilibrium where very few people are happy with the inefficient placement of the stands.  Next, who’s to say that the location of the people has to be fixed? The first question ties in deeply to Clinton’s 2016 campaign; an obsession with being near the center leaves voters near the edges unhappy, and they end up staying home or voting for Jill Stein.  The answer to the second explains the importance of figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC; bold ideas, attractive messaging, and genuine desire for change has the Democratic Party promised for success in 2020 and beyond.

The best articulation of this is the Overton Window, a theory whose named was coined in the late 20th century by Joesph P. Overton, which explains just how vital the “New Left” wing of the Democratic Party is.  The theory goes that the mainstream discourse exists in a certain window, with its center being the “moderate” take, and its edges the farthest one can go without appearing extreme (and being dismissed).  Just 3 years ago, college tuition and Medicare for All fell outside this window and would have been disqualifying in a presidential candidate. The interesting thing about the Overton Window is that it is not a fixed box in space, immovable and restrictive; it is a fluid area that can be expanded, contracted, and pulled in either direction.

Bernie Sanders, through his grassroots campaign and social-media-friendly advertising, moved the Overton Window, putting M4A and other “socialist” policies on America’s radar.  In New York, AOC proved that such ideas were not simply possibilities, they were winning policy goals, as she upset a 10-year incumbent en route to becoming the youngest female ever elected to Congress.  As she leads the progressive charge, Republicans are taking notice, as many on the campaign trail made sure to tell voters they would protect their public health care. The point is not to say that the next president will pass Medicare for All or that a stronger Republican Party will not find answers to a growing swell of progressive support, but the lesson is this: too long have Democrats wholly misunderstood the game they are playing, as bold ideas populate the left, they do not weaken Democrats, they pull voters with them, making a stronger party for years to come.