Yes, exactly.

The problem is: the Dems will bring us a carbon tax or cap/trade out of the same mixing bowl that made FISA 2008 (written by wingnuts, endorsed by 'serious' democrats like Jay Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs (a great band name!)

So, maybe all that will be left to ease the conscience is personal virture and a heavy dose of chocolate chip cookies.

Equating carbon neutrality entirely with personal austerity is a dumb idea. It is a combination of doing things in a smarter way and doing with less of things - the austerity part. Why not use the convention to make that point?

And it is a little disingenuous to say that cap and trade - when motivated by reversing global warming - is not about keeping people from driving. If you eliminate the silent subsidies, the price of gas will rise sharply. And if the politicians who implemented that policy kepr saying "No, no, no, we don't want you to cut back on your driving," they will sound like idiots.

If political leaders ignore the moral dimension of carbon neutrality in their rhetoric, cap and trade will turn out to be a cut and run. They will cut the subsidies, prices will rise, and the public will force new subsidies. If political leaders ignore the moral dimension of carbon neutrality in their actions and convention planning, they will be lampooned as hypocrites.

I disagree. As stupid as the argument is, conservatives have gotten a fair amount of traction by shouting "ZOMG!!!1! Al Gore lives in a large house" any time someone mentions a carbon tax. A little personal austerity will help with credibility.

That depends. Do you regard such measures as an attempt to symbolically show one's concern for the problem of climate change, or do you regard it as doing what you can -- in a small measure, but the best you can do as an individual or party of whatever size you are -- to actually slow climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Trying to cut back one's emissions -- regardless of whether anyone knows you do so or not -- may not be able to solve global warming like public policy might be able to, but given the current inadequacy of public policy, doing whatever we can as individuals is still better than nothing. That's not because it symbolically demonstrates our concern, leading to better public policies or anything; it's because slightly fewer real molecules of CO2, N2O, CH4, and other greenhouse gasses actually end up in the atmosphere.

Adequate substitute for political change? No. Totally worthless? Also no.

I think you and Matt are over-thinking this a bit. All the DNC is doing is living in the world they envision - where, exactly as you describe under a cap and trade regime, the actual costs of CO2 emissions must be borne by the emitter. That is both an incentive to reduce emissions, so you don't have to buy as many credits, and to mitigate their effect through offsetting investment.

You can just as easily see a case where the DNC can say after the convention, "see? That wasn't so hard. Just the cost of doing business." There's certainly some value in demonstrating it can be done and that carbon neutrality is achievable.

You both seem to be assuming that they aren't trying to reduce emission but rather only offsetting business as usual emissions. Are you sure this is true?

I think EK and MY are taking this a bit too far. I think individuals should do their best w/o acting as though it is only a question of personal virtue. Following the status quo and blaming "the system" for everything is ethically indefensible. For example, both EK and MY know that factory farms cause indescribable and unnecessary suffering. Yet they can't be bothered to stop eating animals. This is common, but ethically indefensible.

Ezra's argument

1. Personal austerity is not necessary for the success of a cap and trade program.

2. Calls for personal austerity give ammunition to Republicans.

3. So Democrats should avoid speaking in terms of personal austerity.

As hopefully anyone can see this argument is missing some premises. It seems to me that there are two significant missing premises.

A) Cap and trade programs are adequate to the task of preventing climate change or at least making its effects less damaging.

B) Democratic political strategy should be organized around the principle of giving the opposition fewer targets.

Without those premises his argument doesn't even make sense. (B) is just a statement of triangulation. (A) is, from all that I have heard from people who know the science involved, probably false. The UN report on Climate Change in 2007 said that if serious reductions in emissions weren't reached by 2009 or 2010 it was going to be too late. Does anyone think cap and trade is going to yeild significant reductions in the course of a year or two? Does anyone think the demand for carbon based energy is that elastic, or that the infrastructure for energy alternatives exists in enough places for there to be any significant choice for consumers or businesses? Does anyone notice how much reliance on coal is increasing?

There is a commonality between A and B, no matter how different they look. They are the kind of things bourgeois liberals believe in. They are the kinds of things that people who do not want to face how doing the right thing may put a crimp in their lifestyle believe. They are both emblematic of the weakness of contemporary liberalism and why it is that even now, as the last chance to do anything about the most important issue in the world is passing us by, we see people seriously posting this kind of crap.

We need austerity because anything else amounts to letting billions of people (mostly poor non-whites in already economically depressed areas) die so that we can live comfortably.

So take your advice and shove it kid.

It's a market-based attempt to accurately price carbon in products...

So, what you are saying is the cost of goods and services would go up. So how does this leave the US when we are having trouble competing with other countries like China as it is?

We are truly a global economy and any well-meaning cap 'n trade scheme that doesn't include China and India is simply pissing in the wind.

It's a market-based attempt to accurately price carbon in products, so that the economic incentives naturally point in a direction that doesn't end up scorching the planet. It's not about banning meat or keeping people from driving. It's just about eliminating the silent subsidy that makes meat, gas, and other elements of a carbon-intensive lifestyle look much cheaper than they really are. But the key here is that cap and trade won't ask people to "do" anything differently. They'll just have to do what they always do: Decide what they need and then figure out the most cost-effective way to get there.

This completely elides the reality that a major factor in "Conservatism's" current woes is the growing public awareness that "the market" cannot insulate us from enforced austerity. That is exactly what $4 plus a gallon gas is perceived to be by the folks who have to cut back on spending and travel in order to keep their cars on the road. Telling people that something isn't enforced austerity because it is being enforced by the market will not mollify them.

This is the kind of rhetorical parlor game that has rendered our politics sterile and leadership void for the past three decades.

Regardless of how you feel about the political angle the DNC is doing the right thing. Buying a product at a price you feel comfortable paying is called capitalism. The DNC decides carbon neutrality is worth their money. They purchase different sets of products to achieve carbon neutrality, thus creating a larger infrastructure of people supplying carbon neutral products. And so on and so forth. If more people did this then the switch to a cap and trade system would be much less painful.

Many of the above comments are a propos but seemingly asume that only one measure (in this case cap and trade) will be undertaken to address climate change. In fact, the U.S. as the world's leading CO2 polluter will need to make a whole panoply of changes including Cap & Trade but also a whole series of code changes for buildings that will save tenants huge amounts of money but require developers to be responsible for a change. Mileage reqts for cars, negotiations with China and India (oh and by the way, China is making a whole raft of innovative C2 sequestraion and reduction changes, which, of course, the Shrubs are oblivious of. It's not one thing; it's many things. Get on yer bikes!

This comment stream is good evidence of how the politics of global warming reduces progressive politics to nonsense. It's hard to know where to begin. Let me suggest opposing "cap and trade." If global warming is the man-made threat described by in the IGPCC executive summary, then "cap and trade" is too little too late. And what it will do is raise the cost of everything the US would need to do to change settlement patterns to discourage a car-based lifestyle. Essentially the US would need to invest in a 21st century infrastructure and subsidize its use so that it is more attractive than the sprawl and crawl overtaxed 20th century system. But "cap and trade" would drive up the price of all inputs into this new infrastucture (steel and concrete especially). Instead we need to focus on two areas that are CO2 intensive: electricity generation and transportation. We need to invest in nuclear to shift electricity generation to a non-CO2 emitting source. We need to develop plug-in transportation technology to replace the internal combustion engine over time. If we are wrong about CO2 we will be promoting US energy independence, a good thing by itself. If we adopt "cap and trade" we enrich investment banks and private equity now investing in the "green bubble" and shackle our basic industries with costs that will be borne by society, not the producers. Those who believe "producers" can be saddled with costs that are not passed on to consumers are whistling dixie. More troubling, will be the effect of CO2 costs in driving many manufacturers to shut down capacity rather than buying necessary credits. This will increase shortages and prices for basic industrial materials. I am not naive, so I don't think my post will spark any serious self-evaluation by the "leftists" and "progressives" committed to cap-and-trade. But, unfortunately, I think I'm right.

As stupid as the argument is, conservatives have gotten a fair amount of traction by shouting "ZOMG!!!1! Al Gore lives in a large house" any time someone mentions a carbon tax. A little personal austerity will help with credibility.

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles Ugg Boots UK and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!