Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn't unfairly punish businesses and families in coal-dependent states like Missouri.

According to Claire, people sent in message (after message) reacting to this line.

In her latest radio interview, Claire repeated this sentiment and added to it.  To the question "where are you on the cap-and-trade?" Claire's response began

MCCASKILL: Well, I'm going to make people, my friends on the left, very unhappy and I'm going to make those who don't think global warming is real very unhappy because I'm probably going to be working with a group of moderates in the middle to try to come up with a bill that doesn't punish coal-dependent states like Missouri

   
• Claire Silberman: Wonder why @clairecmc is willing to sacrifice health for the interests of King Coal. Clean energy=healthy families

   
• Enviroknow: Really disappointing to learn that @clairecmc is in the pocket of Peabody Energy (Big Coal)

   
• Morgan Goodwin:  Really disappointing to learn that @clairecmc is in the pocket of Peabody Energy (Big Coal)

   
• Populista:   @clairecmc, since I know you read tweets. Your comments about #ACES are a total betrayal of my generation and future generations.

   
1. RE the  concern about "unfair punishment", do you believe that coal-users merit some punishment?

   
2. What is "unfair" vs "fair" punishment for polluting energy usage?

   
3. Does wastefully burning coal unfairly punish non-coal users around the world?

   
4. Do you realize that Missourians' pockets would have more money in them due to ACES provisions?

   
5. Missouri's citizens (your voters) want clean energy.  Don't you?

   
6. Are you really concerned about Missouri's citizens or is this about about Peabody Energy executives and major stockholders?

   
7. Are you striving to be Fair and Balanced, placing yourself in the middle between "the left" and global warming deniers?

Let's explore these questions a little bit with some thoughts behind and support for each one.

   
1. Re the concern about "unfair punishment", do you believe that coal-users merit some punishment?

   This seems rather straightforward in terms of implications of the language that Claire is using.Claire, repeatedly, refers to her concerns about "unfair punishment". By referring to "unfair punishment", she is clearly implying that she believes that polluting energy behavior merits some form of "punishment".

   To be clear, Claire's way of talking about this is an absolutely mediocre (can we say piss poor) framing of what should happen and actually a bad way for laying out policy.  A different perspective would be to provide incentive structures and assistance for reducing polluting energy use and, well, perhaps eventually have some form of "punishment" for those who flagrantly choose to be abusive. But, charging people for polluting the air that my children breathe, for polluting the water they drink, and for polluting the places from where their food comes seems not "punishment" but a fee to help cover the costs and burdens caused via that pollution.


   
2. What is "unfair" vs "fair" punishment for polluting energy usage?

   Okay, from a different angle, if Claire is complaining abotu "unfair punishment", perhaps she should talk about what "fair punishment" would be. Again, however, the entire framing of punishment is a false one, in no small part because Missourians will actually have more disposable income under ASES, with analysis showing $6.32 lower montly electric bills and $13.93 savings on transportation by 2020 (or $240 more a year, on average, in their pockets).  And, by the way, a cleaner environment (fewer cancers, less asthma, etc ...)  to live in. If that is "punishment" in Claire's lexicon, I'd really like to know how she defines "reward".


   
3. Does wastefully burning coal "unfairly punish" non-coal users around the world?

   This is turning the question around.

   Who is being harmed by the behavior that, evidently, Claire believes merits punishment (even if she is against 'unfair punishment', she evidently does believe in some form of "punishment").  

   And, well, those being "unfairly punished" almost certainly include the vast majority of Missouri citizens, who don't really have a serious personal choice about the structure and nature of their state's utility system.


   
4. Do you realize that Missourians' pockets would have more money in them due to ACES provisions?

   Again, Missourians will actually have more disposable income under ASES, with analysis showing $6.32 lower montly electric bills and $13.93 savings on transportation by 2020 -- or $240 more a year in their pockets.


   
5. Missouri's citizens (your voters) want clean energy.  Don't you?

   Missourians have already demonstrated a real willingness to move forward to a more sensible energy future.  In the 2008 election. Missourians voted in a renewable energy measure (setting a 15 percent renewable electricity standard for 2021) with 66 percent of the vote, with only one county in the entire state not voting for Proposition C.   In other words, Missiouri's voters are ready to be led to a cleaner energy future. Sadly, Claire isn't leading her citizens toward a better path and, even worse, doesn't even seem to be following their lead.


   
6. Are you really concerned about Missouri's citizens or is this about about Peabody Energy executives and major stockholders?

   Sigh, the reality of American politics.

   It is hard to forget that directly and indirectly, Claire McCaskill is one of the Senate heavyweights in terms of receiving money from coal industry interests, like Peabody Energy.  For more information about Peabody's contributions.  Don't forget that Peabody, which has expended significant resources to support global warming denier disinformation efforts, is headquartered in Missouri.


   
7. Are you striving to be Fair and Balanced, placing yourself in the middle between "the left" and global warming deniers?

   The entire discussion seems so weird. Senator McCaskill seems to delight in placing herself in the middle, as if being attacked from 'both left and right' somehow validates the moniker "moderate". (Sort of reminds me of jokes about how it is impossible to be half pregnant ...) It evidently has no importance, in terms of Claire's defining her moderation, whether one side is operating with facts and inline with science, and the other is absolutely denying reality. Again, this seems so weird. After all, Claire McCaskill clearly states  that climate change is real and merits a response, even if the "devil is in the details". As Twitting Claire put it:

   Whooaa. Global warming is real,and its a serious problem. I support climate change legislation,but devil is in the details.

   
   Why is it such a badge of pride to be caught in the middle between those supported by scientists and real-world events, on one side, and anti-science syndrome sufferers, on the other?

Now, it is worth addressing several other things here.  For example, this interview was with a self-identified conservative from 'the other side'.  While tilted, perhaps, the questions were substantive and pointed.  And, he gave Claire opportunity to give full statements.  Take a look at this quesion and response:

FERGUSON: Why is there such an immense pressure and there's an immense urgency. Why does this, you know, the folks on your side of the isle, to be very candid, say, "we need to do this right now." You know, we've, you know, there's so many questions about the cost, which will eventually come back to the consumer. Why is there such an urgency that says we have to do this not within sometime within the next year or years, it has to be done within days or weeks. Where is that coming from?

MCCASKILL: Well, it's coming from the science and by the way, just because the legislation is done, doesn't mean it's, all its provisions go into effect immediately. In fact, as it stands now, I think the support, if there is going to be enough support for the bill, it's going to be a very gradual implementation as we move towards changing to wind and solar and other kinds of energy. But you know, keep in mind, John McCain was one of the co-sponsors of this legislation in its first iteration. I mean, he was, it was the McCain-Lieberman bill, so we had both the Republican nominee for president and the Democratic nominee for president agreeing that this is a problem that must be dealt with. And I think that one of the reasons that some are anxious to do something this year is to set the tone for Copenhagen, that occurs later this year. Where we are busy trying to use every stick and carrot imaginable to bring other countries into line with making strides in this regard. Like I said before, it's not going to do us any good to clean up our act as it relates to the atmosphere. It's the same atmosphere that China shares and Japan shares and India shares. Some very big industrial countries. So, we've got to make sure that they're in line with us and that's why us beginning to take a step before Copenhagen, there's a wide belief that that's going to be a spur to help us secure the kind of agreements that we need to get from China and India primarily.

That is, yes, a "conservative" question, but a meaningful one. And, Claire's response to this is generally far better than it was to the more open question "where are you on the cap-and-trade?"  But look inside that long paragraph to this:

it's going to be a very gradual implementation as we move towards changing to wind and solar and other kinds of energy.

Let's go back to question 5 about Claire and leading or following her citizens. Missouri's Proposition C has measures for 15 percent renewable power by 2020, with special set asides for solar power, with an explicit statement that this could lead to increases (minor, but increases) in utility bills. In November 2008, it barely passed by the incredibly tight margin  of 1 million 775 thousand to 0 million 913 thousand voters (or 66% for, 34% against).  Claire is calling for a "very gradual implementation" when her voters have shown overwhelming support for something stronger, even if it will cost them in their pocketbooks.

To Twit Claire ...

Do you have questions, in addition to the above, that you think Claire should address?