1. Like a lot of other left-leaning people, climate-change environmentalists are not really interested in winning the argument as they are in inhabiting the vibes and counterculture of the environmentalist movement, which is why any attempt to moderate or normalize their approach to persuade voters seems like a betrayal to them.
2. This is a drum I beat every time climate change comes up, but it is clear that we would be well on our way to if not fully arrived at a low-carbon emissions society globally if nuclear power was never demonized by the environmentalist movement in the 70's and 80's. It has always been clear to me that the movement itself was never serious about creating new forms of clean energy to meet humanity's needs, but instead was and is singularly focused on degrowth.
I get your point, but i disagree here. Here’s a quick little 🧵.
“Voters care more about affordability than climate”. If so, the solution is to connect climate change to affordability.
We should connect climate change to affordability by linking rising housing costs to climate. We should connect climate to high gas prices by highlighting how bcuz oil is a globally traded commodity, the only way we will truly achieve energy independence is through renewable energy. That is incredibly important.
Most importantly, we must highlight how trump is driving up utility bills with his attack on renewables.
Climate hushing looks weak and sticking to our gut on climate looks strong and makes us look like fighters.
Yes, it’s true that policies banning combustion engines and total fossil fuel phaseouts are unpopular. But the solution is not to not enact them. The science says that we must enact them in order for civilization to survive, so the solution is to enact them alongside social programs that will improve the material conditions of working class Americans’ lives.
Building a big majority is incredibly important to enact real climate legislation. This does mean an affordability and corruption focused message is needed. But we do need to connect climate change to affordability. I mentioned the ways we can connect these dots.
We can connect the dots between climate and corruption by pointing out how Trump is doing all of the horrible policies he is doing bcuz of money he got from fossil fuel billionaires. One of the best ways to attack trump’s anti renewable pro fossil fuel policies is to paint those policies as corruption.
Banning new fossil fuel extraction on federal lang would not materially reduce American oil and gas production, as federal land accounts for a tiny portion of American oil and gas production.
Blocking fossil fuel projects is yes, unpopular. But the solution is not to not do it. The science says we must do it. The solution is to pair blocking phases fuels on public land and water with a streamlining of renewable energy and grid technology, and also to pair this energy policy with other policies that will materially bring down the cost of living.
At a time when climate change is rapidly accelerating, it doesn’t make sense to talk less about climate.
I will confess that in order to win states like Texas, you kinda can’t be too anti fossil fuel, and even though i personally disagree with James talarico’s views on oil, i fully understand why he would take them and I’m not mad at him for it.
The way people like talarico would support a reconciliation bill that includes major climate policies that are much more bold than the IRA is to make sure it benefits their states and invests in jobs training programs. If that case, he would present the bill as a boon to the growing clean energy industry in Texas while including jobs training programs and economic policies that will reduce cost of living and increase government revenue for public services.
With Mary Peltola or Talarico, we could also go the LBJ route with them, by relying on them to pass anti corruption policies and economic reforms while battling them to pass climate action. LBJ relied on midwestern conservative republicans like Everett Dirksen to pass the civil rights act, and fought them like hell to pass Medicare and the war on poverty. LBJ also relied on Jim Crow southerners like Wilbur Mills and Russ Long to pass Medicare and the war on poverty, and fought them like hell on civil rights. And you know what? LBJ won a landslide in 1964 due to all of this!
You’re right that We need to win majorities in order to pass climate legislation. And we must focus on affordability and corruption in order to win majorities. But climate hushing is not the solution. We must continue to talk about climate, and we must connect these dots between climate, corruption and affordability.
The central problem with polling is that it assumes the public has a static opinion on the salient issue. In other words, a poll simply projects what the public's opinion on an issue is, based on the public's understanding and/or concern at that moment. The problem is that political advisors then tell a candidate that if they take a contrarian approach to that issue, they will lose votes. This ignores a candidate's ability to educate and persuade, which is the hallmark of actual leadership. So yes, the public has been a bit distracted away from climate change due to a number of other shiny objects being dangled in front of them. And despite the fact that you can go anywhere in the world and see the effects of climate change every day, much of the public is like the story of the frog that is slowly boiled to death because it never gets enough of signal to just jump out of the pot. This, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by regular catastrophes that science links to climate change. It's always someone else problem, or something that will happen in the future. Real leadership on climate change would start by educating the public on these effects. And that would start by elevating science and fact-based decision making, in lieu of the cult-like, denialist religiosity of maga.
This is a very good article. Exactly what I think. Super important issue, but not politically salient in a way that the climate activists would like.
A couple of things:
1. Like a lot of other left-leaning people, climate-change environmentalists are not really interested in winning the argument as they are in inhabiting the vibes and counterculture of the environmentalist movement, which is why any attempt to moderate or normalize their approach to persuade voters seems like a betrayal to them.
2. This is a drum I beat every time climate change comes up, but it is clear that we would be well on our way to if not fully arrived at a low-carbon emissions society globally if nuclear power was never demonized by the environmentalist movement in the 70's and 80's. It has always been clear to me that the movement itself was never serious about creating new forms of clean energy to meet humanity's needs, but instead was and is singularly focused on degrowth.
I get your point, but i disagree here. Here’s a quick little 🧵.
“Voters care more about affordability than climate”. If so, the solution is to connect climate change to affordability.
We should connect climate change to affordability by linking rising housing costs to climate. We should connect climate to high gas prices by highlighting how bcuz oil is a globally traded commodity, the only way we will truly achieve energy independence is through renewable energy. That is incredibly important.
Most importantly, we must highlight how trump is driving up utility bills with his attack on renewables.
Climate hushing looks weak and sticking to our gut on climate looks strong and makes us look like fighters.
Yes, it’s true that policies banning combustion engines and total fossil fuel phaseouts are unpopular. But the solution is not to not enact them. The science says that we must enact them in order for civilization to survive, so the solution is to enact them alongside social programs that will improve the material conditions of working class Americans’ lives.
Building a big majority is incredibly important to enact real climate legislation. This does mean an affordability and corruption focused message is needed. But we do need to connect climate change to affordability. I mentioned the ways we can connect these dots.
We can connect the dots between climate and corruption by pointing out how Trump is doing all of the horrible policies he is doing bcuz of money he got from fossil fuel billionaires. One of the best ways to attack trump’s anti renewable pro fossil fuel policies is to paint those policies as corruption.
Banning new fossil fuel extraction on federal lang would not materially reduce American oil and gas production, as federal land accounts for a tiny portion of American oil and gas production.
Blocking fossil fuel projects is yes, unpopular. But the solution is not to not do it. The science says we must do it. The solution is to pair blocking phases fuels on public land and water with a streamlining of renewable energy and grid technology, and also to pair this energy policy with other policies that will materially bring down the cost of living.
At a time when climate change is rapidly accelerating, it doesn’t make sense to talk less about climate.
I will confess that in order to win states like Texas, you kinda can’t be too anti fossil fuel, and even though i personally disagree with James talarico’s views on oil, i fully understand why he would take them and I’m not mad at him for it.
The way people like talarico would support a reconciliation bill that includes major climate policies that are much more bold than the IRA is to make sure it benefits their states and invests in jobs training programs. If that case, he would present the bill as a boon to the growing clean energy industry in Texas while including jobs training programs and economic policies that will reduce cost of living and increase government revenue for public services.
With Mary Peltola or Talarico, we could also go the LBJ route with them, by relying on them to pass anti corruption policies and economic reforms while battling them to pass climate action. LBJ relied on midwestern conservative republicans like Everett Dirksen to pass the civil rights act, and fought them like hell to pass Medicare and the war on poverty. LBJ also relied on Jim Crow southerners like Wilbur Mills and Russ Long to pass Medicare and the war on poverty, and fought them like hell on civil rights. And you know what? LBJ won a landslide in 1964 due to all of this!
You’re right that We need to win majorities in order to pass climate legislation. And we must focus on affordability and corruption in order to win majorities. But climate hushing is not the solution. We must continue to talk about climate, and we must connect these dots between climate, corruption and affordability.
The central problem with polling is that it assumes the public has a static opinion on the salient issue. In other words, a poll simply projects what the public's opinion on an issue is, based on the public's understanding and/or concern at that moment. The problem is that political advisors then tell a candidate that if they take a contrarian approach to that issue, they will lose votes. This ignores a candidate's ability to educate and persuade, which is the hallmark of actual leadership. So yes, the public has been a bit distracted away from climate change due to a number of other shiny objects being dangled in front of them. And despite the fact that you can go anywhere in the world and see the effects of climate change every day, much of the public is like the story of the frog that is slowly boiled to death because it never gets enough of signal to just jump out of the pot. This, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by regular catastrophes that science links to climate change. It's always someone else problem, or something that will happen in the future. Real leadership on climate change would start by educating the public on these effects. And that would start by elevating science and fact-based decision making, in lieu of the cult-like, denialist religiosity of maga.