Mitt Romney Supports A Carbon Tax / Dividend

Earlier this month, Mitt Romney posted the following message on Twitter:

Thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives to both strengthen the economy & confront climate risks: https://t.co/U6kmrQTPth

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 8, 2017

What is the Climate Leadership Council? It's a new advocacy group that includes prominent Republicans such as former Secretary of State/Treasury James Baker, former Secretary of Treasury Henry (Hank) Paulson, and former Secretary of State/Treasury/Labor George Shultz. It also includes Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw, who served as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush [1].

So what is the CLC pushing for? Let's take a look at their position document: The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends. It's a short document that outlines "Four Pillars" of policy. First they lay out the problem (emphasis added):

Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore. While the extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned, the risks associated with future warming are too big and should be hedged. At least we need an insurance policy. For too long, many Republicans have looked the other way, forfeiting the policy initiative to those who favor growth-inhibiting command-and-control regulations, and fostering a needless climate divide between the GOP and the scientific, business, military, religious, civic and international mainstream.

On to the pillars of their proposed policy, which I list below with my one-sentence summary of each:

1. A Gradually Increasing Carbon Tax - Tax fossil fuels when they enter the economy, and increase the tax with time.

2. Carbon Dividends for All Americans - Distribute the entire tax revenue back equally to all American citizens.

3. Border Carbon Adjustments - Treat exports/imports in a way that is consistent with the policy.

4. Significant Regulatory Rollback - Remove regulations that are made obsolete by the above policy.

The idea, of course, is that making fossil fuels more expensive will make alternatives more attractive. Meanwhile, some of that expense will be returned to you. Use less fossil fuel and you can come out ahead (i.e. dividend > extra fuel expense). Aside from a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, the document then goes on to argue that the tax/dividend policy would have additional benefits including helping low-income families and spurring the economy.

Clearly, the CLC and Mitt Romney are trying to signal to Republicans that it is OK to be concerned about climate change, it is OK to want government to do something about it, and that it is OK to want a carbon tax [2]. Moreover, they argue that their proposal is the BEST policy for addressing the problem. The CLC documents take occasional swipes at Obama and Democrats (as if it never occurred to them to implement a carbon tax), but that's OK. We all know that Republican politicians think sticking it to Democrats is more important than implementing good policy [3]. If making them feel superior is what it takes, so be it. A little hypocrisy in the service of the greater good is tolerable.

Unfortunately, as The Atlantic notes, the biggest obstacle to implementing this conservative policy is Republicans.

The problem in fighting climate change has never been a natural Democratic love for onerous regulatory regimes. It has been Republicans who have long refused to even entertain the idea that climate change is dangerous or human-caused...

Last year, the House G.O.P. unanimously supported a resolution that declared a carbon tax “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Indeed. In fact, if you click Romney's tweet above and go to the original, you'll see that many of the replies are a testament to that point.

Is this the best policy for addressing the issue? I don't know; I'm not going to pretend that I'm a policy expert, but it seems like as good an option as any. Do I think it has a snowball's chance in hell of being passed? Not as long as Mitch McConnell is the Majority Leader of the Senate, given his representation of the coal industry. However, my longer-term view is more optimistic [4]. Is this something that Trump could get on board with? Who the heck knows?

But none of that matters at the moment. What is important is that Republicans (including voters) now have permission to support a carbon tax without feeling like they have taken on the identity of a liberal.

Mitt Romney says so!


Notes:
1. In other words, these are not a bunch of hippie liberal communists. Baker and Shultz, for example, served in, and for most of, the Reagan administration.

2. Romney's signal does have a bit of plausible deniability: 'Hey, I only said it was interesting.'

3. Oh, come on. You know it's true. See the presidency of Barack Obama.

4. McConnell won't hold that position forever. Not to be morbid, but if electoral politics doesn't take it away from him, death eventually will. In the meantime, the issue will only become more pressing and holdouts will become more isolated.

---

Continue reading...

BYU and the Reconstruction of the Legend of the First Vision

Last year Richard Bushman generated a bit of a stir when he said,

I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.

He later clarified his meaning (here and here) to make clear that he simply meant that we need to bring new information into the way we tell the story of the Restoration, which the Church has begun to do (e.g. Gospel Topics essays, The Joseph Smith Papers, etc.)

This year's Gospel Doctrine curriculum focuses on the Doctrine and Covenants, and although the First Vision isn't actually in the D&C, it is the focus of Lesson #3. My observation is that we still have a lot of work to do to reconstruct the story of the First Vision. The story has been told from the exclusive vantage point of Joseph Smith's 1838 telling with added layers of popular interpretation for so long that historical inaccuracies are practically baked in. The problem is that the inaccuracies are almost as beloved as the vision itself. During the recent lesson in my own ward, I looked for opportunities to insert gentle historical correction. However, the traditional story (and associated interpretations) was presented (and reflected by the class) so strongly that I chickened out for fear of doing more harm than good.

With that as background, I want to draw attention to a publication by the BYU Religious Studies Center that I think represents a solid step in the right direction. In 2012 BYU's RSC published a book titled, Exploring the First Vision, which is now available online (and also at Deseret Book) [1]. Much of the book provides defense against various adversarial arguments. However, for the purposes of this post, I believe the most significant chapter is James Allen's essay, "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought." (Actually, this essay was originally published in 1980. It's a shame that it has had so little influence.)

In his essay, Allen discusses some of the history surrounding the USE of the First Vision and traces how it changed from a relatively minor story in Church history to a central pillar of the Restoration. In the process, the First Vision went from story to legend, and he dispels some of the historical inaccuracies that have become attached to it. Forgive me for quoting two long paragraphs, but I think they are important (emphasis mine).

As they began to use Joseph Smith’s first religious experience for various instructional purposes, Mormon teachers and writers were also creating certain secondary but highly significant historical perceptions in the minds of the Latter-day Saints. There was no intent to distort or mislead, but what happened was only one example of a very natural intellectual process that helps explain the emergence of at least some basic community perceptions. It seems to be a truism that whenever great events take place, second- and third-generation expounders tend to build a kind of mythology around them by presuming corollary historical interpretations that often have little basis in fact. In this case, the deepening awareness of the vision, along with a growing community sensitivity for how essential it was to Mormon faith and doctrine, created an atmosphere in which other historical inferences could easily be drawn. These included the ideas that (1) over the centuries, considerable “rubbish concerning religion” had accumulated that only revelation could correct; (2) most, if not all, Christians believed in the traditional Trinitarian concept of God; (3) the Christian world denied the concept of continuing revelation; (4) Joseph Smith told the story of his vision widely; and (5) he continued to be persecuted or publicly ridiculed for it, even to the time of his death. Such historical interpretation, much of it misleading, soon dominated popular Mormon thought. The challenge for individual believers, including Mormon historians, would be to separate the essential truths of the vision experience from corollaries that may not be so essential to the faith.

Once the vision assumed its predominant place in Mormon writing and preaching, it became much more than Joseph Smith’s personal experience—it became a shared community experience. Every Mormon and every prospective convert was urged to pray for his or her own testimony of its reality—in effect, to seek a personal theophany by becoming one with Joseph in the grove. Latter-day Saints did not forget the importance of the angel Moroni, but gradually the First Vision took precedence over the visit of the angel as the event that ushered in the Restoration of the gospel. It was only a short step from there to the expanded use of the vision as a teaching device whenever the doctrine of God or the principle of revelation played any part in the discussion. As the years passed, the list of lessons, truths, principles, and historical interpretations taught or illustrated by the vision grew longer. Each writer or preacher saw it as fundamental, but each also had his or her own private insight into what it could illustrate or portray.

This is admirably honest, sensitive, and straightforward. The next time I need to make a corrective point, I will start my sentence with, "I read a fascinating book on the First Vision that was published by BYU's religion department a few years ago. I learned..."

Now I just need a way to make the point that the First Vision wasn't as strange or unique as we think it was.

Notes:
1. In other words, the book is available from the most orthodox publishers there are, aside from the correlation department itself.

---

Continue reading...

Day 1: Official Propaganda Begins

On the first day of his presidency, Donald Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, called a press conference in order to berate the press for reporting that Trump's inauguration was not as well attended as Obama's. Not content to dispute the photographic evidence, Spicer made this false assertion:

"That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."

And so it begins.

What to Expect: A constant stream of this kind of thing, and four years of attacks on media, science, and any other sources and institutions that don't go along with his narrative of greatness, or that attempt to hold him accountable. You can especially expect him to project on others his own liabilities. (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!)[1] Here's an example, also from Day 1:

“I have a running war with the media,” the commander-in-chief said. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth, right?”

Here is my warning and plea: Do not give your mind over to his efforts to delegitimize truth. You can like his policies. You can think he's better than Hillary or Obama. Whatever. But make him earn your trust! Don't take anything his administration says at face value. [I'm grabbing you by the lapels]...don't let him (and his acolytes) control your perception of truth. You will regret it.




Notes:
1. That's a playful use of Joseph Smith's emphasis in the King Follett discourse.

---

Continue reading...

Obama Did a Really Crappy Job....

...of taking away our guns.

...of setting up death panels.

...of instituting Sharia law.

...of imposing martial law.

...of putting people into FEMA concentration camps.

...of turning us into a socialist country.

...of establishing a youth brown-shirt army.

...of letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over the country.

...of being the anti-Christ.

...of confiscating our IRAs and 401(k)s.

...of confiscating our gold.

...of getting rid of Christmas.

...of pressuring the elderly into having the plug pulled.

...of releasing Ebola into the country in order to...take away our guns.

...of conquering Texas in operation Jade Helm.

...of setting up Islamic terrorist training camps within the U.S.

...of seeking a third term.


Obama was so bad at doing these things that it's almost as if they were totally made up. And it's almost as if the people who believed and spread these ideas had no interest in their truth, were incapable of determining the truth, or wanted to profit from untruth.

Nah! It just demonstrates how incompetent he was!

So let us thank heaven that we are finally replacing him with someone competent and committed to truth, justice, and the American way[1].

I am obviously engaging in sarcasm here. I am not interested in arguing over the merits or demerits of Obama's presidency. My point is that if you indulged in any of the above, almost of all of which are 100% false, then you should re-think who you get your information from and the sources you trust.

Notes:
1. ...which pretty much consists of being a winner. Unless you are a loser. In which case you should probably find another country.

---

Continue reading...

Joseph Fielding Smith and the Milk Mystery

I have a collection of draft posts in various phases of completion, most of which will probably never see the light of day. I was browsing through them and discovered that I had two involving--of all things--Joseph Fielding Smith and milk. Why let an odd combination like that go to waste? I've dusted them off and polished them up a bit. The first can be found here. Below is the second post.

Several years ago I was reading a story on Slate.com about cheese and thought of Joseph Fielding Smith. Let me explain.

When I read Man, His Origin and Destiny years ago, I noted a passage that struck me as odd. People pushing back against science often point to things that are not understood in order to highlight its limits--sometimes with the implication that those things are a mystery beyond science, and therefore the work of divinity. It is a common form of the 'god-of-the-gaps' argument.

In his book, President Joseph Fielding Smith identified some mysteries.

A scientist is able to understand the structure of a brain and the nervous system but who is able to tell whence comes a thought? What makes the heart beat? Why will two rose bushes only two feet apart, drawing nourishment from the same soil bear roses one deep red and the other pure white? Where and how comes the delicate coloring of the pansy or violet out of the same soil? Why are snow crystals always formed in six-pointed stars or sides, never in five or seven? One scientist has said that, "Water and sugar and the complex minerals which make the granite rocks all follow laws which are utterly unchangeable, but which are, as far as we can see, without any special reason: it is as profitable to speculate why the chlorophyll of vegetation is green and why the blood of animals is red. . . . Science knows why snow is white, and why it is beneficent; but it cannot explain the law of six." A black hen will lay a white egg and another hen either white or black will lay a brown egg. The eggs of some birds are blue, some are brown, some are white and some are speckled. William J. Bryan once said: why can "a black cow eat green grass and then give white milk with yellow butter in it?" Who can explain why these things are so? [Man, His Origin and Destiny, p. 14-15, bolding added]

Viewed from today's perspective, most of these questions have good answers. Probably the only question still standing is "whence comes a thought?"

William Jennings Bryan's question about cows, grass, and milk is particularly silly, and here's where Slate.com comes in, explaining why white milk becomes yellow cheese.

Beta carotene is a fat-soluble yellow pigment and antioxidant found in grass. After a cow chews the cud, beta-carotene dissolves into the animal’s fat stores and ends up in fat globules in its milk. However, protein clusters and the membranes that surround fat globules in milk conceal the pigment’s color, reflecting light in a way that makes milk appear white and opaque. But during the cheesemaking process, the pigment is released: After bacterial culture and rennet have been added to milk and the coagulated mixture is cooked, the fat membranes dissolve and the protein clusters loosen so they can’t reflect light anymore.

While the article addressed the color of cheese rather than butter, the answer is basically the same. And just for the sake of completeness, grass is green because it contains chlorophyll, which is a poor absorber of green light, and the cow is black because it produces light-absorbing melanin in the hair and skin.

Another mystery solved by science!

---

Continue reading...

Shaping History: Joseph Fielding Smith Milks a Cow

I have a collection of draft posts in various phases of completion, most of which will probably never see the light of day. I was browsing through them and discovered that I had two involving--of all things--Joseph Fielding Smith and milk. Why let an odd combination like that go to waste? So with that as an introduction, I'll post the first one below, and the second in a following post.

The historicity of the scriptures is a never-ending topic of discussion (and sometimes contention). Some argue that ancient writers shaped their stories to theological ends. This gives me an excuse to share a small but concrete example of history-shaping in the life of Joseph Fielding Smith that I discovered a couple of years ago.

I happened to teach a Primary lesson (Lesson 39: I Can Follow Jesus Christ by Serving Others) that contains the following story about Joseph Fielding Smith.

“It was so dark that the sleepy seven-year-old boy could hardly find his way down the path to the barn. He had planned for days how he could get out of bed, dress, creep quietly down the stairs, take the milking bucket from the pantry shelf, and leave the house without waking anyone.

“… [Joseph] had seen his sister, Mary, milk the cow many times. He found it wasn’t as easy as he thought it would be. … Before long his fingers and wrists ached. He had to stop often to rest them. …

“The boy was so intent on milking that he did not realize how long it had taken, and was surprised to find that daylight had come … when he finally left the barn and started for the house. As he entered the kitchen, Mother looked up from the stove where she was preparing breakfast, and asked, ‘Why, Joseph, what have you been doing so early in the morning?’

“He held up the filled milk bucket in answer, and felt a warm rush of joy at his mother’s smile of approval. ‘Well,’ she said, ‘since it seems you are big enough, milking each morning will be your job.’ She paused and then questioned, ‘But why is it you were so anxious to milk that cow?’

“Joseph lifted an earnest face to his mother as he answered, ‘I just want to help while Father is on his mission. And you see, [Mary] has so many other things to do, I thought if I could take care of the morning milking, she wouldn’t have to worry about that!’

“… His mother put her arms around him and held him close as she said, ‘How pleased your father will be when I write and tell him that he has a fine young man to take care of milking the cow while he is away!’” (Lucile C. Reading, “The Morning Chore,” Children’s Friend, Apr. 1970, p. 23).

Later in the year I recognized this same episode in the Priesthood/Relief Society manual (Chapter 23: Individual Responsibility of the Teachings).

Joseph Fielding Smith learned to work when he was a young boy. His father was often away from home, so “he spent much of his childhood doing the work of an adult.” In fact, he was such a diligent worker that he “unwittingly inherited one job earlier than he need have, when in boyish pride he secretly milked one of the family cows to prove he was capable of doing it, and thus was assigned the job permanently.”

In the first story we have a boy selflessly serving his sister and taking on an extra duty. In the second, it's a boy trying to prove his ability and unwittingly getting stuck with the job. Which one best represents the truth?

The two stories are not incompatible per se, but it seems clear that the writers of each manual had a different purpose in mind with slightly different character traits that they wanted to highlight. It's a simple example of history being shaped to make a point.

For what it's worth, in the contest of 'boyish pride' versus 'help my sister', my money is on 'boyish pride'.

---

Continue reading...

Glenn Beck is Sorry for Paving the Way for Trump

In case you missed it, after years of stoking the paranoia of the right about Barack Obama and fanning the flames of the Tea Party, apparently Glenn Beck thinks he made a mistake.

From The New Yorker: Glenn Beck Tries Out Decency:

Decency is a fresh palette for Beck, who, at Fox, used to scribble on a chalkboard while launching into conspiratorial rants about looming Weimar-esque hyperinflation, Barack Obama’s ties to radicals with population-cleansing schemes, and a Marxist-Islamist cabal itching to take over America. He once described Clinton as “a stereotypical bitch” and accused Obama of being a racist with a “deep-seated hatred for white people.”

That was the old Beck, he insists: “I did a lot of freaking out about Barack Obama.” But, he said, “Obama made me a better man.” He regrets calling the President a racist and counts himself a Black Lives Matter supporter.

“We’ve made everything into a game show,” he said, “and now we’re reaping the consequences of it.” Some of this may be Beck’s own doing. Trump’s conspiracy-peddling and doomsaying? That’s vintage Beck, who said that the Fourth of July used to move him to tears. But now, he said, our politicians and bankers have become crooks, our wars meaningless, and our values lost. “I’m at a Dadaist time in my life,” he said. “So much of what I used to believe was either always a sham or has been made into a sham. There’s nothing deep.”

From The Atlantic: Glenn Beck’s Regrets

This is the irony underlying Beck’s current stance: The same doomsday sensibility that helps him appreciate the menace posed by Trump led him to massively exaggerate the menace posed by Obama—and thus to breed the hateful paranoia on which Trump now feeds. Beck, in fact, pioneered some of Trump’s most disturbing themes. At the beginning of Obama’s first term, Beck repeatedly called the president antiwhite.

The day after Trump’s victory, I checked in with Beck again. He said he saw “the seeds of what happened in Germany in 1933.” The question was whether the American people would “water them” with “hatred and division.” Did he feel partly responsible? “I’ll not only take my share of blame, I’ll take extra,” he answered. “If you want to blame me for him, that’s fine; I don’t believe it’s true, but it’s fine with me. Please just listen to the warnings now so we don’t continue to do this.”

Well, there's always repentance.

---

Continue reading...

My Post-Election Takeaway

Like just over half of Americans, I am quite distressed and disturbed by the election of Donald Trump, and I don't believe that it's just a case of sore looser-ism. But rather than post what I originally wrote, I'll just share my catharsis, which is good for a laugh. (You can skip the first minute.)

---

Continue reading...