With Nader, Carbon Tax Is Back in the Debate -- Daily Green

[Demagitator]

Daily Green
2.25.2008


A carbon tax, a ban on nuclear power and an end to "corporate personhood" are among the platforms that Ralph Nader is bringing to the table, as he launches his fifth bid to be president of the United States.

The accomplished consumer advocate and far left-wing darling said he's running to bring up issues that have been ignored by the major party candidates left in the race.

On the environmental side, those include the carbon tax, which had been championed by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd before he dropped out of the race following the Iowa caucuses.

Some economists have argued that a tax on carbon would be the most efficient way to reduce the greenhouse emissions fueling global warming, but all the major party candidates with a chance at their party's nomination – Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain – all favor a cap-and-trade regulation to limit greenhouse gas pollution and allow polluters to trade pollution credits in a regulated market.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/nader-candidacy-47022402

[Kutjara]

1. Oh goodie! Ol' Ralph will...

...convince just enough of those Democratic voters with more environmental consciousness than common sense to vote for him, thereby ensuring another GOP victory. For a "far left-wing darling," he certainly is a 24 carat godsend for the Republicans.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Rather than whining about Nader running

Consider why so many progressive voters are happy to turn their backs on the Democratic Party and vote for him.

[iamthebandfanman]

17. indeed, im tired of excuses for losing.

funny how there was serious fraud in florida in 2000 and yet people still blame nader for the loss.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. And blatant, acknoweldged fraud in Ohio in 2004

But still, somehow, it is all Nader's fault. :eyes:

Edited for grammar.

[Kutjara]

34. And attributing every defeat to "fraud..."

...is a great way of covering up the structural problems within the Party. Certainly, the past two (and no doubt more) elections were stolen, but that doesn't mean everything else in the Democratic Party is hunky dory. The historical tendency for the left to split into factions is one of the movement's greatest weaknesses. Even with a perfect electoral system, we'd still have special-issue "independents" running around shooting everyone else in the foot.

Meanwhile, the GOP goes goosestepping into the future.

[Kutjara]

33. I know precisely why.

As one of the "far left," I constantly have to swallow my principles to vote for the candidates fielded by the Democratic Party. Why? Because there is no viabile alternative. It's like having to choose between a thief and a serial killer: at least the thief would leave you alive after he/she had robbed you blind.

In a two party system, all "Independent" candidates do is leech votes. Nader is no dummy, he knows this. So why is he running?

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Not all progressives are willing to swallow their principles

I, for one, tend to choke when forced to do that. It would be very nice to pass by both the thief and serial killer and vote instead for someone worthy of my most valuable posession.

And is a two party system something we should value, when it only allows only thieves and serial killers to run for office?

[Kutjara]

36. I agree with you, but...

...my primary goal at the moment is to prevent another Republican from sitting in the Oval Office. Sort of like the basic first aid I learned in school: first stop the bleeding, then check for broken bones and internal injuries. At the moment, this country is hemorrhaging from the throat, so it seems urgent to me that we remove from the scene the party that inflicted the wound in the first place.

I would dearly love to see a truly progressive (hell, a truly socialist) candidate win the election. The closest I got this time around was Kucinich, but he got elbowed out of the picture pretty quickly. Now we're inevitably left with the usual choice of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dum. Not a hair's-worth of difference between them. Latest in a long line of corporate shills and television hand models. Bought and paid-for. Yet still infinitely better than the murderous alternative on the other side.

I don't think Obama or Clinton will usher in any kind of golden age. They'll probably spend most of their presidency just trying to patch up the stuff Shrub & Co. broke. If they're lucky, they'll get things back to where they were in January 2001. I hold up little hope of even that. But at least they won't be doing any MORE damage. In this century, that's about the most we can expect.

Even so, independent (or "green" or whatever) candidates like Nader don't improve the picture. They just give the disaffected somewhere to dump their vote so they can feel better. Nader has absolutely no chance. This is his fifth time as the Pity Party candidate. If anything, he's just another manifestation of the illusion of democracy in America. "Look. Anyone can run for President if they want to!"

Short of revolution, I can't see how any of this will change. Corporations will still be in control, politicians will still be their lapdogs. The people will still be apathetic as long as they can supersize their Happy Meals and watch American Idol.

[Virginia Dare]

2. Nader can kiss my left butt cheek..

and then he can kiss the right one.

[depakid]

3. So you support none of the above issues?

[Virginia Dare]

5. I don't support his self-aggrandizing run for President...n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Of course not!

Virginia Dare is a Democrat; if the Party says certain issues are unimportant, then they are unimportant. Anyone who trys to say otherwise is an arrogant fathead running solely to satisfy a massive ego.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Link to where the Democratic Party says it's unimportant?...n/t

[mike_c]

4. he is spot on right-- why can't the democratic party find a candidate...

...who is unabashedly liberal on the issues that really matter to America's future? That's why Nader's candidacy resonates with some of us on the left-- he's the only one out there representing our views.

[Virginia Dare]

6. They can, but they'd lose in a landslide..

wake up and smell the coffee. This country will not elect a left candidate right now.

[mike_c]

7. then it will have to do without the votes of the left for a while, too....

eom

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Why are enabling the Republican destruction of America?

That is very much the attitude around here: if you do not enthusiastically support the pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-labor and anti-equal rights positions of the Democratic National Committee, you are a GOP enabler who hates America and probably should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity and treason.

[iamthebandfanman]

20. since they blame nader for everything

youd think the democratic party would have learned and decided to embrace the far left, as to not lose their vote in the general election... but alas, they ignore us just the same...

screw the fact we kept the party alive the last 7 years while everyone else laughed at them and called them weak.
oh well.
figures.

[Virginia Dare]

13. Why not focus on keeping McCain out of the White House?..

McCain just scored ZERO on environmentalism. Something tells me a Democrat would do significantly better than that.

At least we have more than a snowball's chance in hell at getting things to improve under Hillary or Obama.

[mike_c]

21. no, I really don't think we do-- HRC and BO are just more of the same...

...corporate tools and lame middle-of-the-road political animals who would sell their grandmothers-- or my children's future-- for today's votes. I am so tired of voting for the lesser evil.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

And frankly, I'm awfully tired of the "argumentum ad boogeyman" position, which holds that if you do not believe what I say, something awful will crawl out from under your bed and eat you. I cannot believe that THAT is the strongest argument that can be made in favor of any particular candidate.

[depakid]

22. Hogwash

The FACTS are that progressive stances are consistently more popular on the issues- somtimes SUBSTANTIALLY more popular, but ubfortunately, the Democratic "leadership" has become too corporate craven, too complicit and too cowardly to stand up and fight for them.

Which is why they lose-

See for yourself how the numbers stanck up:

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Americans are liberal. How long will it take politicians and the media to get that?

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/54914/

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

[Virginia Dare]

26. For whatever the reason..

the fact remains that we will have no left-wing President in 2008. It's not happening, so why not focus on keeping the right-wing necons out? Maybe if Nader and his groupies had done that back in 2000, we'd have been better off. Who knows?

[mike_c]

27. we will have no left wing president because the dem leadership...

...actively sabotages the efforts of liberals like Dennis Kucinich and populists like John Edwards. This is really about maintaining corporate control over American politics, and it doesn't matter to the ruling class whether the winner is republican or democratic as long as they are bought, sold, and owned. We get the illusion of choice to keep the rubes entertained and the real power stays concentrated in the hands of the MIC et al. The democratic party leadership is far more threatened by Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader, than it is by John McCain. It's sad to see how many here at DU seem to have bought into this.

[Virginia Dare]

28. I'm not naive enough to think that both parties aren't under corporate control..

I just don't understand what is accomplished by Nader running? How does that change anything for the better? How did it make things better in 2000 and beyond?

[Demagitator]

16. He has all the right ideas....

but no political skills. In 2000 he could of simply dropped out; but before he did, he could of made a deal that -- he wants to be in charge of some administration agency in government. He does gain much power overnight; by simply making the choice to run.

Maybe, he does not understand -- the real nature of the Repuke beast. He perhaps might be stuck in time; in a state of shock... after all these are apocalyptic times with Global Warming, plagues, wars, etc.

Why don't the Dems do what he suggests; and just sit down with him -- one on one? That seems to bother him the most; from what I see when he is interviewed that the Dems just ignore him, when in the past they would have coffee together.

[ThomWV]

10. Well, that should help us focus on the loss of our Constitution.

Priorities.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. How, pray tell, are Clinton and Obama focusing on the loss of our Constitution? n/t

[Virginia Dare]

14. Do you trust McCain to turn it around?

why help get a repub into the White House? What does that accomplish?

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. I requested an answer without red herrings, please.

I asked nothing about McCain. Can you answer the question?

[Virginia Dare]

23. Both have signed on to the American Freedom Campaign..

I believe that would qualify:

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=59

Now, how about answering my question?

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Clinton was very reluctant to do so, as a quick Google will show

Ron Paul went to far as to take the AFC's pledge, put into legislative form and submit it as a bill, which is more than either Clinton or Obama was willing to do. I have not found McCain's position on the pledge, but I will keep looking.

[Virginia Dare]

32. Since McCain seems to think that torture is just fine and dandy..

as long as he's not on the receiving end of it, something tells me your search will be futile. Oh, and by the way, you've put a red herring of your own in the argument, as I said nothing of Ron Paul who is a complete and total nutcase. At least Nader is sane.

[originalpckelly]

24. This man is not interested in supporting third parties, and let me tell you why.

He is an ego-maniac and he wants attention again. He's sort of like the kid back in school who'd put raisins up his nose to get the class to look at him. Only the raisins are Republicans.

He may claim that he's going for the world record of raisin nose stuffing, but he's really just trying to get attention.

He's not stupid, none of his policies are actually going to be on the table because of his run. The Democrats on our side have made a dirty bargain with big nuclear, that's why GE is coocoo for us you now. The Republicans have already been taking it for big nuclear, so it's not like anyone actually has any hope of changing it now, that is within the system.

A carbon tax? No, that's not going to help us out of this mess, it's just reducing the nimbleness of the economy, and human beings need to adapt and adapt very quickly in order to survive what the 3rd rock is cookin'. :P

Revoking corporate personhood is a good idea, but it really won't make things better. The problem is the idea of a stock corporation where the work of people is tapped. No matter what short term measures are taken to reduce the impact of that model, if that stock corporation BS is still there in the end, there will still be the megarich people who own everything in America.

[onehandle]

25. Electing Bush was a very un-Green thing to do. nt

[cloudythescribbler]

29. I believe Obama has at least suggested he would consider a carbon tax, & ...

he certainly has talked about the less progressive but still perhaps effective approach of a carbon cap-and-trade system. Since I advocate not only aiming for NET NEUTRALITY, as with the UN CN Net (Climate Neutrality Network -- United Nations Environmental Program), but NET NEGATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS, clearly there is a need to go beyond a cap-and-trade system and soon.

There are various feasibility problems with a carbon tax that would be sufficient to actually impact consumption/emissions, just as with a gasoline tax sufficient to substantially reduce demand (which hasn't plummeted even with skyrocketing gasoline prices) -- in particular, these measures are apt to raise a firestorm of protest, and might even broaden the 'coalition-of-resistance' to the transformations needed in the world's energy system(s). Another problem with the carbon tax, it is my understanding, is that the relative contributions of carbon from coal are SO MUCH HIGHER than for oil or natural gas that effectively it would have to be prohibitively high to impact fossil fuels other than coal.
(A focus on the Greenhouse Effect as well as other policy foci tend toward the EXPANSION in the near term of natural gas usage, as it contributes far less carbon to the atmosphere, using present technology, than coal or even oil). Then the issue of natural gas prices come into play (as the reverse could happen with coal).

But there are alternative approaches that might be considered, such as a HUGE tax-and-subsidy program at the point-of-purchase of new automotive vehicles (including SUVs and many light trucks). This idea, which I advocate, would provide, after a certain date, a LARGE subsidy, possibly $3000 or more on EACH vehicle purchased that gets more than 60 mph or '60-mph-equivalent' (factoring in the use of fuels, eg in a hybrid car or the fossil fuel consumption to produce alternatives). Then a substantial amount, say $150, would be subtracted for every mph/mph equivalent (mphe), so that at (in this example) 40 mphe there would be no net tax or net subsidy. But new vehicles getting LESS than 40mphe would be TAXED at $150 for each mphe less than 40, and new SUVs would have to BOTH radically increase mileage AND pay a stiff tax. People who want to avoid the tax (paid by purchasers of new vehicles, so generally hitting the more prosperous 2/3 of Americans, to begin with) could buy fuel efficient cars, including those I've discussed on other threads that run on hydrogen (Magnesium Hydride -- MgH2 -- canisters). This targeted approach would radically drive up mileage, would be more flexible than trying to negotiate alterations in CAFE standards, and would provide an incentive to PURCHASORS as well as MANUFACTERERS to opt for more fuel efficient vehicles. Note that, over time, the mphe standards and the $/mphe tax could later be raised even higher, as required, to reach a system where carbon emissions are eliminated.

Frankly, Nader is likely to get SO LITTLE attention to his issue concerns in the mainstream media (less than Kucinich or Jesse Jackson when he ran) that his main importance by far remains as a potential spoiler.