According to Bob Inglis, former South Carolina US House member, he represented the reddest district in the reddest state in the nation. So it is interesting that one of the bluest families from the bluest state has selected him as a Profiles in Courage Award winner. Inglis is being recognized because of his determination that we must act now to address human-caused climate change—a position that cost him his seat in Congress while running for re-election in 2010. Now, freed from the burden of fundraising and legislating, Inglis challenges Republican officeholders to understand the benefits of a policy that would tax fossil fuels and use the revenues raised to reduce other tax burdens.
Inglis’ selection as a Profiles in Courage Award winner brings to mind President John F. Kennedy, the man who inspired the award. Kennedy will always be remembered as the president who challenged America to “send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth before the end of the decade.” Kennedy went on to say “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
At the time Kennedy made his challenge, virtually nothing was known about what it would take to send a man to the moon, much less return him safely to earth. The U.S. had only just launched Alan Shepard into space, and Shepard’s trip did not even include orbiting the earth. Development of multi-man space modules, lunar landers, and manned orbital rendezvous all came later. In spite of our collective ignorance at the time, the U.S. met Kennedy’s challenge with months to spare.
The spinoffs and benefits of the space effort are legend, but ultimately landing on the moon had little impact on life back on earth. But Bob Inglis’ pursuit of Republican support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax is all about life on earth and protecting us from catastrophic climate change. Unfortunately for Inglis, he isn’t President and can’t issue his own challenge—but other Republicans could.
Take, for example, Governor Charlie Baker. Baker knows we face energy shortages because demand for natural gas is outstripping pipeline capacity. The easy solution of expanding capacity has been challenged by well-organized grassroots opposition to increased use of fossil fuels and growing concern that Massachusetts will not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas-emissions-reduction goals.
When Bob Inglis comes to Massachusetts to accept his award on May 3rd, Charlie Baker should meet with him. Hearing firsthand from Inglis about the economic and environmental benefits of a revenue-neutral carbon tax might give Baker the courage to make Massachusetts the first state to implement this approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Baker should borrow a lesson from both JFK and Bob Inglis. He should challenge the state to reduce dependence on natural gas by 50% in ten years while continuing to grow our economy at or above the national average. Rather than ask Massachusetts taxpayers to fund a clean energy revolution, he should support implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax to mobilize the free market to achieve these goals.
Unlike when Kennedy proposed putting a man on the moon, we already have many of the technologies and knowledge we need to achieve this goal. Conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources will all help. Demand-management, smart meters, and microgrids will all be perfected using private funds, generating jobs for our residents and profits for investors.
Massachusetts’ youth yearn for inspiration, challenge, and opportunity. All three would follow if Gov. Baker started the clean energy revolution we so desperately need by supporting implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax in Massachusetts.
JFK and Bob Inglis have led the way. Does Charlie Baker have the courage to follow?
SomervilleTom says
I see a promotion comment at the top, but at least at noon on 2-May-2015 it’s not (yet) on the front page.
Charley on the MTA says
Do not really get along. *sigh*
Peter Porcupine says
…Kennedy’s kid brother screwed up the most promising green energy project in decades.
TheBestDefense says
Is it maybe a little excessive to say that Bobby Kennedy Jr “screwed up the most promising green energy project in decades? ”
Maybe the defeat of Cape Wind had something to do with the millions of dollars spent by the Koch brothers to kill it. Let’s not forget the endless opposition of your party to renewable energy credits, including the refusal of the GOP Congress to extend the wind tax credit for any meaningful length of time, even letting it expire at the end of last year. Or your party platform opposing it. Mitt Romney was an opponent with a lot more capacity to kill the project than RFK, Jr. Add in the mix of ignorance and selfishness demonstrated by your neighbors on the Cape who opposed it, including your Cape Cod Commission which refused to approve it in 2007. The utilities’ refusal late last year to continue their support of their previous power purchase agreement (at rates that look pretty good right now) was the kill shot but it was only possible because of millions of dollars and thousands of hours spent by people solely with self-interest in mind.
Do you or anybody else believe Bobby Kennedy had the power to stop the project? I don’t absolve him, Teddy, John Kerry and the list of bi-partisan turds who opposed the project but this is supposed to be “reality based commentary.” Shame on you for your comment and the upraters who just want to get in an easy punch at a guy who is an increasingly pathetic figure.
I was involved in this project in its earliest stages and I am pretty sure I never saw anybody from BMG in those critical days. It is big of you all to try to re-write the history of Cape Wind but it ain’t gonna go unanswered as long as I am here.
Peter Porcupine says
…and his damn boat.
I was involved before Jim Gordon with Tim Caffyn and Brian Braginton-Smith and I was at the initial meetings with Walter Brooks, Jim Liedell, and Mark Rogers.
So I think my involvement is as long term as yours.
And the Dems back then were ad terrified of Ted as they are of DeLeo now.
TheBestDefense says
My apologies for assuming that you were writing about Bobby Jr, not Teddy, but my main point still holds. Cape Wind was not killed by one person.
Cape Wind was extraordinarily ambitious, maybe too much so, so it was easier to kill it than see it through. It became clear to me after Teddy’s initial opposition that he was not putting any serious effort into stopping it (he could have in a flash). It died because too many parties with money fought it, starting with our governors, pre-Deval, and the Koch types who had the money to fight it every step in courts, and all of the other parties I mentioned. This was a bi-partisan cluster-f*ck as I noted in my post.
I still hope something might yet arise from the ashes, as our region needs the power and the wind staging project in New Bedford would have been an immense economic engine for my peeps on the South Coast and made the region one of the world capitals for offshore wind.
BTW, I assumed you were referring to Bobby because the “Profiles” project is now Carolyn’s baby, even though she has had to remove herself from it during her current position and I mis-connected her and her cousin Bobby Jr with your reference. So I was twice wrong. Again, my apologies.
Charley on the MTA says
Are you suggesting that BMG didn’t call out Democratic Cape Wind opponents? TK, Tom Reilly, et al?
I suggest you use the search bar above and look through our archives going back to the beginning of this site.
centralmassdad says
I see it a bit like the DeLeo issue. BMG certainly criticizes Democratic Party elected officials, but doesn’t care enough to do anything beyond that. That way, when elected officials from the Democratic Party depart, in fairly significant ways, from what I suppose are “liberal values,” you have the ability to say, with indignation– but we did indeed criticize that position! And then swing into an explanation that the actual non-liberal policy result is really the Republicans’ fault.
That way, you can pretend that CapeWind failed, not because elected Democrats stood by and watched it die, when any political support from anywhere would have saved it, but because of a conspiracy by the Koch brothers.
It really is just a reformulation of actual events in order to fit a partisan political argument of the moment. Kind of like reverse Foxification.
See, Massachusetts, progressive taxation in
DeLeo, election of
MBTA, support for
Police surveillance, support for
Casinos, establishment of
It is certainly difficult to contend with these departures from party policy by the party’s elected officials, since in America no political party is a monolith, and therefore every one of these departures has to be weighed against a hundred other things.
But, in the end, that’s just another way of saying that CapeWind was allowed to die because Democratic Party voters decided that lots of other things were far more important.
jconway says
It was a big reason a lot of us backed Deval over Tom Reilly, a notable Cape Wind opponent who suffered an electoral defeat due to his position. I guess we should be sorry no opponent challenged Ted Kennedy from the left over that issue? (see Ed Reilly, candidacy of, against John Kerry, for how that practically works). And Baker did strongly oppose Cape Wind in his 2010 campaign against Deval, along with denying climate change, so we weren’t just linking him to national Republicans then-he a local one loudly denying it.
Now, Charlie Baker 2.0 is committed to stopping climate change. Thus, I see no reason for him not to buck DeLeo and pass Democrat Michael Barrett’s proposed carbon tax. He has strong incentives to do so. I see no reason why the most popular politician in America can’t afford the risk of actually fulfilling his stated commitment as his spokesperson stated during the campaign that “as governor (he) would work aggressively to reduce the Commonwealth’s greenhouse emissions,”.
What’s more aggressive than a carbon tax? A revenue neutral one like the kind proposed by more conservative Republicans such as the aforementioned Bob Ingliss or late economists like Gary Becker and Milton Freidmen? If the carbon is priced according to how much it actually costs, the market will force us to pursue alternative solutions and suddenly the cost of Cape Wind will go down significantly. Time for the blame game to end and the man in the Corner Office to put his money and his political capital where his mouth was during the campaign. Ball is in his court. I will proudly consider a vote for his re-election if he does so.
paulsimmons says
…and I remind you that tax bills must originate in the House.
Frankly the structural advantages were better last year with Conroy-Barrett, essentially the same bill, that died a lingering death in study committee last year.
As you noted, we didn’t have a Republican Governor in 2014.
If – I say IF – the environmental folks create a tangible base in the requisite House Districts to, first, kick the bill out of committee, and, then, create and enforce a veto-proof majority, and if a similar majority can be created Senate-side, things will be different, but such is not the case now, alas.
paulsimmons says
Article VII. All money bills shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.
Mark L. Bail says
If BMGers were only more moderate (and less hypocritical), we’d vote for Republicans who would get rid of the people who stand in the way of us progressives. Voting for a Republican is the only real alternative to voting for a Democrat.
Occasionally, there is a progressive to primary a sitting Democrat, but generally speaking, there’s rarely any choice. My town has two progressive state reps who are part of DeLeo’s team. Who’s going to primary them? Who’s going to run to their left? No one. People aren’t going to elect a progressive rep over another progressive rep because of the fked rules of the House.
Blaming Democratic voters for not changing how the House is run is as ridiculous as blaming the Republicans for failing to elect enough Republicans. Being Democrats doesn’t mean we have control over a bad system any more than being Americans gives us some control over American foreign policy.
If people are falsely attributing the cause of Cape Wind’s downfall to the Kochs and such, then it is a failure of fact, not political association.
(I have no opinion on Cape Wind).
TheBestDefense says
I am aware of the BMG history on Cape Wind. I simply indicated the folly in blaming its demise on Teddy and the invisibility of the BMG commentariat in DC lobbying for things like extension of the wind tax credit, killed by the GOP. Writing on BMG does not count as lobbying in DC. Teddy spoke against Cape Wind but he did not kill it, as evidenced by the fact that federal agencies approved it both during his life and after his death. If you believe he was the all-powerful Oz who wanted the project dead, Cape Wind would have died at the federal level long ago.
The real causes of its death are found in my first post on the subject.
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate and partially agree with your observations about the role of BMG in Cape Wind, along with the rest of the many topics we explore here. I wonder perhaps “invisibility” is too strong a word, though. While BMG may not have been a significant factor in Cape Wind, I think it’s only fair to also note that Cape Wind predates the launch of BMG. Some of why you “never saw anybody from BMG in those critical days” is that BMG didn’t exist!
My commentary is read by key staffers and at least some of my elected officials. That’s more influence than I ever had while writing letters to the Globe, and more than I have when writing directly on topics besides direct constituent service. I’m quite sure that John Kerry, while Senator, ignored my opinion about issues of the day. I’m reasonably confident that Elizabeth Warren at least listens.
At least while we have a Democrat in the Oval Office, writing on BMG is far more effective at influencing federal policy than any other lobbying I can do myself. I don’t have cash to throw towards candidates, and I don’t have powerful industry connections. I am reasonably certain that BMG is read by at least staffers of our house and senate delegation. The friendship between Deval Patrick and Barack Obama has been widely documented, and senior members of Mr. Patrick’s staff (like Doug Rubin) were frequent contributors here. I think it is more likely than not that Mr. Obama received and passed along to his staff recommendations about BMG. Elizabeth Warren announced her Senate campaign here, after all.
While we may not wield the clout of the Koch brothers, perhaps the BMG commentariat is in fact more than “invisible” in influencing Democrat officials at the national level.
jconway says
A staffer for an office I’ve applied to waived the writing sample requirement since she was familiar with my presence on BMG (if only I knew Spanish I’d be working there now). Several state senators and reps mention reading these forums, and we are one of the better known state blogs. My friend at the DNC in DC had to read this blog daily as part of his job during the Warren/Brown campaign. It definitely has some influence.
As for donations I’m largely in the same boat, though I want to throw some money Bernie’s way and pay for a BMG membership this year. It seems this winter every month the wedding fund got depleted a little bit due to car trouble, but I am hoping we are out of the woods on that front and can start diversifying where our surplus goes.
merrimackguy says
would anyone here at BMG ever vote for Bob Inglis ever? The answer is clearly no so not sure why anyone wants to pat him on the back.
He’s had some counter-party votes but he’s way conservative on a number of issues.
He got stomped in his primary, and not just because of his climate change votes.
So he’s really just a fringe player in the scheme of things.
Don’t get me wrong the GOP has to come around (and for some that’s a serious understatement) on climate issues, just don’t think that this guy is going to have any real impact on anything.
Charley on the MTA says
“Real impact” is an extremely hard thing to measure, don’t you think? I don’t think any single ex-congressperson is going to have “real impact” by your apparent definition, at least not like a President can have. But conservatives need to feel that it’s OK, that it’s not a betrayal of their values, to take climate change seriously. Whatever influence he has in that regard is most welcome. Conservative people — as individuals — don’t have anything to gain from climate change.
Here’s how I view issue advocacy: You activate the ones who agree with you, and try to persuade the persuadables. You’re never going to win over your die-hard opponents. But you can neutralize or soften their resistance, make them hesitate, or influence them to choose different territory to defend. This is happening on gay marriage — actually it already did. Also Obamacare, in case you didn’t notice. Inglis may well persuade some of the conservative persuadables, in whatever number they exist. And he may well neutralize those who have denialist views that they don’t hold particularly dearly.
I didn’t vote for Charlie Baker. I probably won’t in 2018, if someone like Maura Healey or Dan Wolf were to run against him. Would my tone towards him soften if he truly fixed the T and took the lead on climate change? Absolutely yes it would.
merrimackguy says
I think one of the problems in the country/the US political culture is “my guy is always right, or at least he’s better than your guy.” I hear it time and time again here on BMG. I have voted for Democrats. This isn’t about Inglis- it’s just anti-GOP.
As for the Baker portion
Great. I should try very hard to increase my pay 50% while continuing to improve my relationship with my wife and become more engaged with my children.
I enjoy how everyone wants to tell Baker what to do why simultaneously blaming him for every problem, all the while stating they’d never vote for him. I’m sure he’s motivated by the fact you’d “soften your tone.”
Your chance was when Patrick was governor and you still have the legislature. Go tell them what to do. My guess is that Baker will not focus on what the furthest right of what the GOP want (they are already apoplectic), and not what the BMG crowd wants but he’ll address the interests of the middle 60% of the electorate, and that includes lower electric rates.
stomv says
I was so close to uprating you, then this:
There’s no reason to think that reducing our gas consumption will cost money or raise electric rates. On the contrary, reducing gas consumption in New England will actually push electric prices down, because gas-fired generators set the wholesale prices, and reduced demand for gas means fewer hours where the pipelines are constrained and getting higher prices [or forcing generators to switch to oil]. Reducing gas demand through gas efficiency, electric efficiency, and/or renewable generation will reduce the price of electricity generation by gas-fired units, and that means lower electric bills.
merrimackguy says
Typically increased supply means lover prices. Reducing demand is a much harder proposition.
The then Chairman of the Joint Committee on Energy, (then Rep, later Sen) Barry Finegold, told me directly the problem with energy costs in MA was not enough pipelines.
If one of the main players in MA energy policy for many years (though also a proponent of alt energy) thought that, why should I disagree?
SomervilleTom says
Since I am not likely to ever live where Mr. Inglis will appear on a ballot, the question of whether I’d ever vote for him is irrelevant. Having said that, given a choice between a conservative who denies climate change and a conservative who recognizes its reality and urgency, I’ll take the latter every time.
I can recall a great many important issues where the vanguard was comprised of courageous fringe players who blazed a trail in the political wilderness that others could follow. Perhaps no single man or woman had a “real impact on anything” acting alone. Taken together, they changed the world for the better.
If the GOP is ever to come around, it will require “fringe players” like Bob Inglis.