Write Congress, Get a Wilco Track + More!

[choo-choo-charlie]

From Washington City Paper:

 

"Jack Johnson, as well as DMB and Pearl Jam and Phish and Wilco and the Decemberists and Raphael Saadiq (Saadiq!) and plenty others have donated handpicked songs from their Bonnaroo sets to anyone who writes his or her congressman re: climate change, and the reining-in thereof. Track list, 17 strong, below the jump..."

 

Full article here: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/music/2010/03/01/if-you-write-to-your-congressperson-about-climate-change-legislation-dave-matthews-will-send-you-free-bonnaroo-music-if-you-dont-write-your-congressperson-you-can-still-download-free-bonnaroo-mus/

[Al.Ducts]

Here's a link to the site:

 

http://www.musicforaction.org/

 

A pretty nice version of BBN from the Wilcos and a worthy cause.

[bleedorange]

I think I will write a letter that this is one of the more damaging pieces of legislation that has ever passed the House and it will hopefully die a quick death in the Senate.

 

Now where's my free music?

[15step]

I think I will write a letter that this is one of the more damaging pieces of legislation that has ever passed the House and it will hopefully die a quick death in the Senate.

 

Now where's my free music?

 

just how is this piece of legislation so damaging?

[lost highway]

Rock against climate change. What's not to get?

[bleedorange]

just how is this piece of legislation so damaging?

 

Economically speaking...extremely damaging. It's a huge energy tax that families across the country would feel the brunt of. It's so bad, that it is essentially dead in the Senate anyway. Obama has already mentioned moving ahead without the cap-and-trade component, and senators are already working on their version of an energy bill that has nothing to do with cap-and-trade.

 

So we can all breathe a small sigh of relief. For now.

[jcroach]

Thanks for the link. Now added to the discography.

[15step]

so you're okay with exxon mobile, who has made more money than any business ever has in the united states, polluting our world without paying a red cent for it? i think cap and trade is a pretty good idea and i'd happily pay a few extra cents at the pump if it will change the consumer culture of our nation and the world. By the majority of scientific accounts, as well as consumer trends, this change in consuming does not appear to be such a bad thing economically (unfortunately two japanese car manufacturers seemed to understand that more fuel efficient cars are more economical for the 'average joe', if you will, before most american car companies did). i just wish you wouldn't bring up a boring talking point that unfairly casts the issue in a poor light in a lame attempt to emotionally appeal to me. i'm american, i have a family, i will be affected by this bill, but what are the costs of not passing this bill? copenhagen is a perfect example of that.

[lost highway]

Yeah, I always find it curious that I live in a country where so many people find buying houses and cars on credit with interest is a "step up", but getting pinched a little harder on their taxes to reform health care, or make overdue steps in environmental responsibility is "damage".

[bleedorange]

Yeah, I always find it curious that I live in a country where so many people find buying houses and cars on credit with interest is a "step up", but getting pinched a little harder on their taxes to reform health care, or make overdue steps in environmental responsibility is "damage".

 

One is a personal choice based on their needs, what they can afford, etc. The other is a government mandate to help pay for questionable policy decisions. A little more of a pinch here and a little more of a pinch there can be very damaging.

 

Not all that curious at all.

[15step]

One is a personal choice based on their needs, what they can afford, etc. The other is a government mandate to help pay for questionable policy decisions. A little more of a pinch here and a little more of a pinch there can be very damaging.

 

Not all that curious at all.

 

still actually pretty curious...

 

why is the policy questionable? and what freedoms of yours are 'they' impinging on? sure you still have as much freedom to go by an suv no one is stopping you. the government is just incentivizing those who choose not to do this. that is all. makes sense and the science supports it.

 

again if anyone wants to explain to me why the policy is so questionable i'm all ears. just explain exactly how this policy is a government impingement on your freedom of choice? how will this policy hurt so many families (economically speaking, that is, as the other objector suggested)?

(that being said i assume you're concern lies with how it will affect your pocket rather than with the bottom line of exxon mobile. that'd be such a shame to only let em make 20 billion instead of the 40 some odd billion they were raking in during 2007, exceeding the gdp of nearly every country in the world.)

 

if you want to talk fiscal responsibility then we'll start a new thread.

[bleedorange]

I thought we weren't using meaningless talking points.

[15step]

I thought we weren't using meaningless talking points.

 

where is there a meaningless talking point? i suggested that talking points that attempt to invoke my emotions are meaningless. i dont think i did that here because the bit about exxon mobile was an assumption that you don't dire you are a majority shareholder of one of these companies or ones like them then fine i can understand that what i said may have been unfair.

 

what remains is that you, or anyone else here who objects to cap and trade legislation, have yet to explain how this legislation is questionable or harmful economically. if you're willing to have a mature conversation about this im more than happy to engage in that. but if you are not interested in that, as your comment more than likely suggests, you won't have offended me and ill just find somewhere else to ask my questions.

[bleedorange]

where is there a meaningless talking point? i suggested that talking points that attempt to invoke my emotions are meaningless. i dont think i did that here because the bit about exxon mobile was an assumption that you don't dire you are a majority shareholder of one of these companies or ones like them then fine i can understand that what i said may have been unfair.

 

what remains is that you, or anyone else here who objects to cap and trade legislation, have yet to explain how this legislation is questionable or harmful economically. if you're willing to have a mature conversation about this im more than happy to engage in that. but if you are not interested in that, as your comment more than likely suggests, you won't have offended me and ill just find somewhere else to ask my questions.

 

I didn't know you wanted a fullly-detailed policy discussion. There are plenty of places to go for that, other than a Wilco message board. But, briefly, cap-and-trade legislation is very damaging economically because:

 

1) The rapid loss of manufacturing jobs as companies are forced to cut emissions

2) These jobs will not be recovered or offset by so-called "green jobs" - there just won't be enough to go around

3) Rising costs of energy

4) Rising costs of gasoline (both of these are pretty self-evident...someone is going to have to pay the cost for our energy consumption, and it is really what drives cap-and-trade...higher costs will "hopefully" lead to less consumption)

5) The above two things also inevitably lead to higher taxes

6) Cap-and-trade is counter-intuitive -- From the CBO: "More generally, the imposition of standards would limit the flexibility that businesses and consumers have to determine the least expensive way to reduce emissions and would instead require specific actions, regardless of cost." "If, in fact, the standards forced technological changes that would not otherwise have occurred because of the overall cap on emissions, then the standards would lead to a lower price of allowances than CBO estimated but result in a generally higher cost to the economy."

7) Large parts of the bill make too many bold assumptions about the future of technology and other forms of energy. It's nice to think these things will occur, but basing policy on something you hope will happen is a dangerous thing.

 

I understand there are differences of opinion on most anything politically. That's why we have two political parties. And I understand the greater goals of cap-and-trade and any other energy legislation. This isn't the way to get it done. For instance, we keep looking for alternative forms of energy. What about nuclear power? It's regulated so much that we haven't built any new plants in years. I also think we should try to tap into more of our own natural resources. This raises the ire of the anti-"drill, drill, drill" crowd, but I think there are responsible ways to go about this.