We bailed out the banks but we’re not prepared to bail out the planet
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Even another Hn post saying the US needs more/better defence is just priming the public for republican propaganda to get votes and move the spending to ‘real things’ instead of the pesky planet; ‘it’s been here for 6000 years, why worry?’.
I'll be real, if you want things to get better you gotta get rid of first-past-the-post voting.
Keep in mind that somehow, it’s fascism for democrats to ignore republican input, but when republicans steal Supreme Court appointments, it’s just “how the government works”.
At that point, democrats were still very much playing “if we take the high road, people will see republicans for what they are”, but the problem is that this didn’t happen at all, and it fact, all it took was reinvigorating public displays of racism to fire up their base.
Party is an abstract to these people, it's all about interests. In Lieberman's case, one of his interests was to protect the health insurance industry which contributed more than $1M to his campaigns over the years. [1]
[0]https://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/inde...
[1]https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1211/Healthcare-holdouts-...
And they only had that for 6 months in latter half of 2009.
The days of Democrats being progressive are over if they existed like we pretend. The President that was most left in this country was FDR and he pulled us out of the Great Depression and set us up for an era of excellence. Democrats ran on left-adjacent policies and held Congress for decades.
Modern Democrats, 1970s forward really, keep rushing to the "center" that doesn't exist to capture imaginary voters as a result of Right-Wing propaganda (Intentional Overton-Window shifting, Two Santa Claus Theory, PR games).
Republicans, and most other morons, think that Democrats had a functional majority starting in 2009. However, Republicans intentionally held up the 60th seat for months. Then Kennedy died not long after Al Frankin was seated. That broke the supermajority.
Democrats have several conservative members (who I think should be expelled from the party but whatever) which resulted in us getting right wing healthcare policy and nothing meaningful being done. You can tell the people who fell for the RNC/Fox News PR campaign as they think Democrats had a supermajority for years rather than weeks.
- $3.4 billion Smart Grid Investment Grant (part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), which would affect 49 states and has the potential to reduce electricity use by more than 4% by 2033
- The recovery act included more than $70 billion in tax credits and direct spending for programs involving clean energy and transportation.
- The launch of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) project under the Department of Energy
- New efficiency standards for home appliances
- Extending the investment tax credit for solar energy
- Extending the production tax credit for wind energy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Ob...
This year is the first year I’ve personally been impacted by wildfires (4000+ hectare fire on the edge of my town), and it made climate change 10x more real for me than it was before, and I was fully on board before! How long can the right stay on the wrong side of history with respect to climate change when they are losing their homes and farms and dealing with one thing after another?
In other words, I wouldn't hold my breath.
The Democrats did mess up by not taking that 3-4 month window more seriously, but they thought they had Massachusetts in the bag.
See the part at the end about Krugman "tearing his head out", and also
> It was also obvious to me, although apparently not to Obama officials, that they had only one shot at getting it right — that if the plan failed to produce a vigorous recovery, Republicans would say, “See, stimulus doesn’t work,” and nothing more would be done.
No, they are not. "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/26589529219124838...
This is what the leader of right wing thinks about global warming.
Unless they said it but messed up more, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Which of those wings do you think has been bad on the environment?
Personally I’d say it’s the “pro-economy” neoliberal wing more than the left. Say what you want about how effective or practical the left has been, but generally they’re not the ones stripping regulations on hazmat trains or signing off on drilling in nature preserves or building pipelines across crucial aquifers.
I suppose the first question is, why are people voting for your opponent? Probably because they don't like you or your solution.
That's the whole problem of democracy to some people - you have to actually convince others and get them onboard instead of forcing your way.
So, we need a party that solves world hunger, keep us safe, I want iPhone etc etc and the right gives a window for that in the coming 4 years, while the left has nothing but pain. If you believe in a party that has short term (<30 years) solutions, you are already lost. We left it too long for fast grabs. And almost no one looks beyond their own life or maybe their kids.
Real solutions are not short term or simple and they won’t be nice at first. If you don’t suck it up, this time the world is at stake.
People don’t vote for anything beyond their horizon and many will openly tell you, and I am 100% trump would and does, that after their death, who gives a crap.
Never is a long time. Richard Nixon's administration accomplished quite a bit. Nixon created the EPA and signed the endangered species act. Why couldn't environmentalism become an issue for the Republicans in the future?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Governmental_ini...
What a sad emboldened new era that was. It was fueled by bold new levels of manufactured consent & spin doctoring. And the result of this ungamesmenly Hastertian dark-realpolitick has been a near collapse of any bipartisanship, and a decay of our union.
Fox news. The right wing in the US could never do what Nixon did because they'll get hung in the media machine designed to protect them (and keep them in lockstep)
I do not have any sympathy to right but I have big doubts about left being those warm and fuzzy creatures that are "for the people". I do not think they give a shit. Only difference in my opinion is whom do they fuck the worst.
Democrats are willing to talk about mitigating climate change, and Republicans aren’t, but the vast majority of Americans aren’t willing to actually incur decreased quality of life. Gas needs to be like $10+ per gallon. But even when it hit $4 last year, Biden was calling to suspend the gas tax to make it more affordable.
You’re correct that, on this issue, the right cares only about themselves. But so does most everyone else. Even most Biden voters want to be able to take their SUV to the beach this summer without high gas prices. Biden won traditionally red states like Arizona and Georgia blue, because Biden voters are leaving urban areas in the northeast and Midwest for places like Arizona and Georgia where they can afford bigger houses, more cars, etc.
The average American has zero savings and is living hand to mouth. If we hadn’t spent the last four decades hollowing out the middle class, maybe people would have the luxury of being able to look past their next paycheck and consider spending extra to avoid ecosystem collapse.
$10/month would represent 0.17% of that income.
2) Household debt has declined significantly over the past 15 years:
I am all for taxing the hell out of billionaires, but deference to their interests isn't what's keeping you from having free grad school and high-speed rail; it's deference to the interests of ordinary people living in suburbs holding that back.
(tptacek lives in the Chicago area as I recall.)
Warren barely finished ahead of Michael Bloomberg (2.8 million votes to 2.4 million votes). Sanders did better, but note that he’s extremely careful on environmental issues, since a large share of his support comes from working class hispanics.
Politics aside, “billionaires will pay for it” is the ultimate cop out for the left these days. Reaganism has won so completely that it’s unthinkable that any viable party could ask the middle class or even the upper middle class to pay for anything. They must maintain the illusion that we can have our cake and eat it too—we can mitigate climate change, but we don’t need to make any change to our standard of living or pay higher taxes because billionaires will pay for it.
I think it's a matter of refusing to believe that the disease and the cure can be the same. The realization that the industrial revolution was the root cause of climate change creates an aversion to believing that we can solve it scientifically, and a push toward demanding we slam the brakes on industrial society and move in reverse.
It's a fundamentally conservative stance. And one that's clearly wrong. The only way out is through. We're only going to solve the problem by accelerating toward a future of clean energy.
The old adage that people become more conservative as they age, I think, has a fundamental truth to it, but every generation finds a new and unique way of expressing that conservatism. With degrowth, we're seeing a blossoming of one of these odd paths in real time.
I would like to see an analysis of how much CO2 emissions could be reduced if 30 years ago there were, say, 500 more nuclear power plants than now. What about cars and trucks? According to the EPA.gov website, transportation is still the #1 cause of greenhouse gases.
So basically it is a combination of no nuclear power + severe restrictions on density (zoning most famously, but also two-track building codes) that prevented this "natural solution".
I put nuclear first because it is much more global, while the problems of suburbs + NIMBYism is most pronounced in American. (Still a problem elsewhere but never quite as bad.)
On transportation, I’m reminded of old popular science mags where the cars were predicted to have mini reactors in the trunk. obviously with 1970s tech that’s much too dangerous to be viable, but maybe we would have developed nuclear batteries over time to skip over our porches with EV batteries.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
But clean energy cannot be the whole solution. What happens in even the best-case scenario when everyone uses clean energy like solar/wind for everything? It will make humanity even more efficient and give us even more space to grow, but the biosphere will still be in trouble and all that clean energy will make people consume even more of earth's resources.
So, it's clear that while clean energy is a start, it is not even close to an end to get people to be in equilibrium with the rest of our planet.
The global population will soon be contracting. The UN puts the bump somewhere at the end of the century but their hypothesis are completely crazy and most specialists think it will be sooner.
Eventually humanity’s energy usage is going to have to flatline. And people really really don’t like that idea, but even solar energy has this problem. That’s still energy being captured that mostly would have reflected back out into space.
I find degrowth arguments that call on governmental power to limit demand worrying. Application of force there is artificial and goes against what people naturally do. It's particularly distasteful to people who value life with limited government intrusion - and this is a very large cohort, so taking this avenue is going to have a lot of friction.
A future where these problems are solved by voluntary adoption of superior technology is so much brighter!
Some environmentalists might say that our power is unchecked because we've killed our last predators and destroyed all the other checks on our resource consumption, but they just aren't looking far enough in the future or with a wide enough view at the system. The checks are there, and they will check us since we're incapable of checking ourselves. And it's gonna hurt my kids.
Where does the article suggest this?
It is self-flagellating for self-flagellating's sake without understand there actual material basis of modern society. This is extremely common in the environmental movement and for decades has been a massive political failure except for empowering perl-clutching NIMBYs.
I would be a lot more sympathetic if consumption reduction was the only way to go. But it is not. Abundant apartments without parking, abundant e-bikes, abundant transit are feasible, get the job done, and way more popular. (People love to romanticize low density, but rents reveal different preferences.)
I mean a writer needs to actually say something in order for you to criticize it, failing to mention something or focusing the article on a particular topic of discussion isn't a position.
For decade environmentalists have asked for political martyrdom (por political petard). It's never worked, unless you count Putin pissing off his natural gas customers (lol). Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible.
A stylistic choice like scope is not an error, so neither.
>Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible.
The article did not, you are attacking a strawman.
It's written by their economics guy and even in the sub-headline he's calling for government investment.
—Kurt Vonnegut
Also the irony is that the "bank bailout" was a failure too! The 2010s were a lost decade because the politicians were afraid to adequate stimulus, the Europeans are still afraid!
So the idea that the politicians are afraid of doing unpopular things is also dis-proven --- avoiding recessions would also be popular.
There was a fear of doing anything at all, and now there is less of that. The IRA is very much a political theory that:
- Green male jobs in red states will stave off fascism
- Green suburbia is necessary because we can't get our shit together on density/transit fast enough.
These environmental types need to becomes aware of the massive era-demarking shifts we've seen in policy in politics in recent years. And they better also support way more multi-story housing because giving people cheap apartments without parking spots is far more popular than directly curtailing driving / ICEs.
Also do nuclear power but the brits already have some decent plans there.
While city life can be attractive to young and single people, people don't want to be forced to live in Mega-City One, especially as they grow older and have families.
Animal agriculture is 35% (80% of all agriculture lands).
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
Both are destructive for our environment. But one is worse that the other.
See https://www.niskanencenter.org/sprawl-can-be-good-actually-e... where calling it "sprawl" is actually a massive troll because promoting walkable small towns connected by rail as they have in Europe (or America in the ~1920s) is nothing at all like our car-oriented sprawl.
Why can't we have environments that are somewhere between dystopian 'mega-city one' and unsustainable Las Vegas suburbs?
This is the first time I've ever heard this, how do you even begin to justify this claim.
* American life expectancy rate of increase slowed down since the Great Recession, to the point that life expectancy went down between 2014 and 2017 and only then recovered. 2019 life expectancy was still slightly below 2014. And then COVID arrived...
(There are slight changes due to various data issues and slightly different definitions, but the general shape of the graph is identical everywhere you'd look)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?end=2021...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819...
* Foreign policy far too desperate to woo every US adversary, starting with the famous 'reset' with Russia and turning a blind eye towards Putin's crimes. That worked out really well, didn't it?
It's not an accident Obama was followed by Trump, or that the D primary was so savage that year - the failures of 'moderate' 'responsible' technocracy were already showing themselves, the voters wanted it to change. Fortunately, Biden is smart enough to understand that he must be the change the voters want. He just needs to put this into practice more.
> Put simply, the Ulez seeks to improve London’s air quality by placing a charge on the use of older petrol and diesel vehicles, which tend to be not just the most polluting but also the most likely to be owned by poorer households already struggling with Britain’s cost of living crisis.
Tangentially but still related, but taxing anything with negative externalities without compensating is absolutely stupid, and regressive - hurting the poor the most. A bachelors economic student will tell you that, and I know it because that was the level that I learnt at. For the mayor('s party) to plan such a thing, that's on them. But, carbon taxes themselves needn't be bad if you also provide say a per capita dividend.
I've been a very, very selfish, very rich prick in my past, so this is probably a good experience for me!
Or offset by reducing other taxes, like sales tax. This would be more of a tax-shifting strategy.
If so that may also have side effects as sales tax can be distortionary and may be more difficult to control (as you'd need to change sales taxes whenever you change carbon taxes.) Not saying it's necessarily bad, it'll just be important to take care of side effects to make it a good idea.
This may start a philosophical shift from the type of tax to the total revenue needed, which I think would be helpful. That would give increased room for flexibility in the form of taxation, which might give easier paths to address legitimate concerns with tax types.
That is the issue, no one whats to change their life style and people do not like change.
MAGA people will not change, even the many environmental left wing people will not change their life styles all that much. Never mind changing your life style is difficult in many places due to Infrastructure in the US.
So, unless politicians make the hard choices, nothing will be done to address Climate Change in time to even keep under 2C.
What we need is a system to tie the direct effects of the actions of politicians to the personal lives of politicians. For example, like doctors, they should be held liable for political malpractice.
We also need to find a way to get people into office who aren't as hungry for wealth and power like most politicians are. Seems like from the start we are setting ourselves up for failure if we elect people who are good at being elected.
Perhaps politics should be like jury duty: it should be more distributed and citizens should have to serve in it.
If you really want 'free' elections, you need to make it so that literally anyone can run instead of only rich people.
The (crude) analogy that comes to mind is something akin to the "checks and balances" of U.S. government, with the head of one checking the ass of the other, but instead everybody's head is under everybody else's ass.
We have extreme wealth concentration effected by advanced technology, a hugely complex global economy with immense inequality, and a failing biosphere... I agree with you that the whole system is the problem but is there any hope beyond a massive reform caused by devastating ecological disasters?
Personally, I am not too worried for myself. I am sure I can live out the rest of my life in relative comfort, but what about a couple generations down the line?
The more complex the system you have (and our civilization is pretty complex), the less is enough to take it out of balance, and to cause complete collapse. Those 'devastating ecological disasters' might not give us any time to fix anything then (large scale crop failures, for example).
The data shows that the changes in the environment are starting to speed up. The changes will be faster and faster, and nobody knows how fast it will deteriorate. Cascading tipping points make predicting the future extremely hard.
I'm also scared for future generations. But I think that those who'll be there when the shit hits the fan were already born.
Short of eliminating FPP voting and overhauling campaign finance and government-industry revolving doors, (which we should do but will not because the current issues are a feature, not a bug, for the people in control) we need some kind of a people’s mega-PAC to wield effective power in the government and restore some sense of actual democratic control.
We need to figure out a way to organize people together in different ways, so they can get a seat at the table. The closest I can come up with are unions, but they struggle enough just to exist. Non profits and charities work (they make money), but they are corporation adjacent.
Hopefully technology can make this possible. Imagine a people’s PAC, where participants pool $10 a month to fund it.
We have been, currently are, and will be feeling the negative repercussions of the government’s “speedy” and “decisive” actions for several decades. This is not a very good comparison.
As long as the pollution isn't stopped, environmental conditions will never stop getting worse and do so at an accelerating pace. You cannot "just become resilient and deal with it" indefinitely. People in the US and Europe also need food and water, for which it's great to be able to work outside without dying and also great to not have never ending droughts, floods and hurricanes.
What do you do when China just outright declines to swap all the way to renewables?
And when you go down this rabbithole and you go back to pandemic level people-never-traveling and emissions are STILL only down 6%.. what then? Rolling blackouts? No meat ever again?
At some point the angry mob will simply correct the situation back to the mean.
You can replace China with Russia or Venezuela.
And it is caring about the future of humanity. You can give up eating meat, dairy, driving, planes and go live in the woods and we may still have the exact same problems.
If you want to propose a solution, it's on you to show it works.
If you just want excuses not to change your lifestyle and effect political change, both of which are required, no amount of "showing" will ever convince you of anything. Do you enjoy saying: "I'm not convinced this will work, so screw everyone, I'm not helping (and thus actively preventing a solution)"?
The solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and this will happen one way or another. Maybe it happens through international cooperation following political initiatives, maybe it happens once civilization collapses across the globe.
I have a strong preference for the first scenario. The vibe I get from you (maybe by mistake?) is that you just don't care very much. The way how to get there is abundantly clear. It just sounds so inconvenient. So, you ask, can't we just blame someone else and hope it won't be that bad after all? That kind of thinking has never solved any problem. Predicting the future to say "this won't work anyway" is incredible arrogance. Noone knows what will happen. People have abolished slavery and monarchies before.
Or they're finally doing the right thing and fixing the negative externalities of industrialization that they've been passing off to everyone for about a century?
To keep this going, you need ever more people but for this to be sustainable, they now need to be confined to tiny boxes in megacities, fueling the economy mostly by producing and consuming virtual items, and keeping their physical consumption to a bare minimum.
Meanwhile, the billionaire class has the rest of the world as their playground, and can happily get around by supercar or private jet.
> economic growth relies on population growth
No it doesn't.
> they now need to be confined to tiny boxes in megacities
Completely wrong.
If there was even a quantum of honesty from the climate fear mongerers they would first and foremost insist on significant tariffs against the polluting nations.
But all they insist upon is lowering the living standards, purchasing power and upward mobility of the masses within their countries.
Gee, who would have thought that upper class kids could have something against the plebs surpassing them on the social ladder?!
https://i.imgur.com/LaEFQmV.png
> if there is one thing solved there’ll be the next thing at hand to continue the program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all symptoms of ecological overshoot.
> who would have thought that upper class kids could have something against the plebs surpassing them on the social ladder
:)