How the science of persuasion could change the politics of climate change

MIT Technology Review ^ | April 16, 2018 | by James Temple

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Jerry Taylor believes he can change the minds of conservative climate skeptics. After all, he helped plant the doubts for many in the first place.

He’s president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-leaning Washington, DC, think tank he founded in 2014. He and his colleagues there are trying to build support for the passage of an aggressive federal carbon tax, through discussions with Washington insiders, with a particular focus on Republican legislators and their staff.

Lesson one: Pick the right targets

Political scientists consistently find that mass opinion doesn’t drive the policy debate, so much as the other way around. Partisan divides emerge first among “elites,” including influential advocacy groups, high-profile commentators, and politicians, says Megan Mullin, an associate professor of environmental politics at Duke University.

Lesson 2: Depoliticize the issue

When Taylor sits down across from them, his standard opening goes: “I understand why you’re skeptical. I probably wrote most of the talking points you’ve read. But I changed my mind, and let me explain why I did.”

Lesson 3: Pick the right policies

Former congressman Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, also argues that the GOP will come around to a carbon tax, particularly if parties can reach a grand bargain that includes the rollback of regulatory efforts like the Clean Power Plan.

Lesson 4: Find areas of common ground

Another strategy that political scientists have advanced for enacting climate-friendly policies relates to the “co-benefits theory.” The basic concept is that many of the same steps that will cut greenhouse-gas emissions will also promote technological innovation, energy independence, national security, air quality, health, and jobs.

[Zeppo]

A tax raised revenue. If there is also implemented a corresponding tax elimination of rate decrease of some other tax then the two taxes would be revenue neutral if their net revenue is 0.

This is just a guess, but I'd suspect that his idea of "revenue neutral" is that the government steals money from you and gives it to someone else other than "the government" (such as to him and his handlers and other 'connected' or 'made' organizations and companies and causes, as well as 'returning' some of it to 'taxpayers' who never actually paid any taxes to begin with, so that it offsets their imaginary tax burdens - see General Electric, for example - but you will be the one paying extra for everything and receiving less than nothing in return. It's a great scam, if you're a scammer. Socialist wealth redistribution, complete with the lies and coercion and extortion that always go along with it.). Perhaps via some accounting gimmicks as well.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, also argues that the GOP will come around to a carbon tax

translation: DC Swamp Critters have never met a tax they didn't like. Only fear of political decapitation keeps them at bay.

[Buckeye McFrog]

My Catholic grade school put me through a critical thinking and reasoning program in sixth grade. It has been invaluable to me. The Millenials I encounter for the most part drive me berserk because they appear to have little to no capability in this area. They swallow whatever their iPhone feeds them hook, line and sinker.

[oldtech]

I’m sure that some of these clowns who tell the big lie over & over or just tell what they THINK might be true is going to suppose that after a time more people will start believing it. What they don’t realize is that the evidence AGAINST their mistaken belief is usually building at the same time.

[Boogieman]

Hmm, rule one to conning people is NOT telling them that you are trying to con them by like, publishing a big article about how you are going to do it.

[JayGalt]

I agree, the liars are at the point of diminishing returns. The hoodwinked are awakening.

[Seruzawa]

Stupid kids. First laws have to be passed. THEN the Governor can be pressured.

[DaxtonBrown]

An airliner vapor trail changes the climate. The question is, how much?

[SunkenCiv]

Jerry Taylor... president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-leaning Washington, DC, think tank he founded in 2014... trying to build support for the passage of an aggressive federal carbon tax, through discussions with Washington insiders ...Partisan divides emerge first among “elites,” ...says Megan Mullin, an associate professor of environmental politics at Duke University. Lesson 2: Depoliticize the issue... Lesson 3: Pick the right policies... Lesson 4: Find areas of common ground...

The issue CAN'T be depoliticized, because the AGW HOAX began as a POLITICAL move, and has since been propped up by debate deniers, ALL OF WHOM SHOULD BE TRIED UNDER THE RICO ACT AND THROWN IN PRISON -- so let's start with FAKE LIBERTARIANS who want to impose AGGRESSIVE FEDERAL TAXES. Thanks Oldeconomybuyer.

[SunkenCiv]

The Niskanen Center keyword, they've got their "libertarian" fingers in lots of things:

• Climate Lawyers Hope 'Public Nuisance' Strategy Reverses Years Of Failure [2018]
• Muslim Americans Are More Likely to Reject Violence than Many Groups [2017]
• We can brighten clouds to reflect heat and reduce global warming. But should we? [2017]
• Puerto Rico Aftermath: Jones Act Mystery [2017]
• Liberal Logic [2015]
• The arguments that convinced a libertarian to support aggressive action on climate [2015]
• This Man Is America's Best Hope for Near-Term Climate Action [2015]
• Apple, Google, large tech companies urge the White House & Congress not to renew the Patriot Act [2015]
• Attack of the Dean-Leaners The Libertarian Case for the Democrats [2003]
• Who's Afraid Of Virginia Postrel? Who speaks for libertarianism the Old Right or the Neocon Clones? [2002]