Read Daphne Wysham’s blog on the above title at the Huffington Post. My comments below are in response to that debate.

Levi, I don’t understand why you neglect a basic regulatory proposal that’s already on the table. The proposed EPA rules are quite robust and would make for a very significant first step in reducing US emissions.

Duke University’s Nicholas Institute has analyzed the rules and determined that the EPA’s threshold is high enough that only 1.3% of manufacturing facilities would be affected, but that alone would account for 82% of industrial­/manufactu­ring emissions. The regulations would not affect many farm operations or commercial buildings. Clearly this would face legal challenges, but there’s simply no reason to write off a strong regulatory approach based on congressional weaknesses.

I also don’t understand why you apologize for those who want inaction. It’s one thing for a politician to accept compromise in order to get the job done as best as possible. But you’re not a politician. Citizens have to be very clear about what they think is actually the correct answer to the problem. I just don’t understand the liberal tendency toward acquiescence in the middle of a pitched battle. It’s like you’ve been punched so many times you just flinch every time a bully walks by. Politics is about making deals. Democracy is about arguing what’s right and what’s wrong. So wipe that smug grin off your face and stop being such an apologist for invested interests.
More on Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost