These are dark times for climate activists, with Build Back Better stalled and the Supreme Court hacking away at EPA authority. I talked with the head of the group Climate Power about what activists should be doing now and how they should be keeping their spirits up.
One more great thing about the podcast is that Ms Lodes said that Gavin Newsome in California just signed a 50 billion dollar climate change bill. This makes sense because CA has about 10% of the USA population and the Federal BBB is about 500 billion dollars.
To have some some positive hope about climate change, I recently sent an email to republican senator Susan Collins, and she replied to me! I said in the email that the BBB bill will make the USA have 70% of its electric power generated by solar and wind power by 2035. In her reply she talked about her bipartisan legislation that Biden signed and more. I then sent her staff a repeat of the above about the BBB bill. I am eagerly waiting for her response.
Optimism and doomerism have much in common. They both suppose that the "opposition" has a linear future. What one sees now is the future. That view is seldom share by voters later. What will sway voters in November may not even be on the surface of reality now. What may say voters in November of 2024 is as much up to what we conceive of as opposition as it is what we and what support may value or espouse.
The conservative movement of the early 1950s had everything going for them--until Joe McCarthy over-reached and blew their credibility.
The climate crisis adds volatility to the mix. *Nothing*, simply nothing will stop the political and social movements from occurring. There will be no stability for even 8 years, to say nothing of decades, no matter how much conservatives will try to keep a thump in the dike of the climate emergency. The oceans will rise, the winds will blow, and change will come and keep coming. When there is that kind of chaos, there is always hope.
If we look at the polling data and the models and -- while still fighting for whatever political races we're passionate about -- accept as a given that people are going to vote for Republicans and that that party will have control... then what?
I think we need to start bribing Republicans. Seriously. We all know that where a politician gets their money dictates their views. Maybe not for every individual level, for every issue, but over time and in aggregate? Money shapes politics, in a completely unsubtle way.
Environmentalism as a political movement has hitched their wagon to the Democratic party. That can't really be changed now. But if what we care about is the environment, rather than the political movement, then we just need the winning party, whichever that may be, to pass useful legislation.
We won't get carbon taxes out of Republicans. We won't get strict environmental regulations. Two of the biggest hammers are off the table, due to philosophical differences.
But wind energy? It's not partisan. If wind is generating jobs and directing some of their profits into the right pockets, it can get favorable policy. Very, very favorable. Likewise with solar. Or EVs. Or heat pumps.
We all talk about how the technology for lower-carbon living exists now, it's a question of deploying it at a large enough scale, fast enough. Republicans like big spending every bit as much as Democrats, so long as some of the money makes its way back to them. They don't like stuff like big EV tax credits to individuals (where are the kickbacks in that?) but massive tax credits to companies who will be faithful donors? Sign them right up! Interest free business loans for more efficiency? Sure! Building infrastructure to support future growth? You betcha.
Republicans like big expensive programs. They just don't like the big expensive programs suggested by Democrats. As environmentalists, we need to get them to start proposing the sorts of programs they want and will vote for, but which still have an environmental benefit. So long as the policies facilitate the scale out (and cost reduction) of fossil-fuel-free (freedom!) technologies, we really can both win.
We're still early in the game. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit, and the branches keep getting lower as technology matures. Later on, when we're trying to get rid of the last 30% of emissions we'll need really good policies that thoughtfully manage their drawdown. Right now? We just need speed and scale. Republicans can deliver that, if we can convince them it's in their best interests.
Bribe them. It's sure as hell cheaper to bribe a few politicians than it is to buy out fossil fuel industries and shut them down, yet we're okay with putting that on the table.
One more great thing about the podcast is that Ms Lodes said that Gavin Newsome in California just signed a 50 billion dollar climate change bill. This makes sense because CA has about 10% of the USA population and the Federal BBB is about 500 billion dollars.
To have some some positive hope about climate change, I recently sent an email to republican senator Susan Collins, and she replied to me! I said in the email that the BBB bill will make the USA have 70% of its electric power generated by solar and wind power by 2035. In her reply she talked about her bipartisan legislation that Biden signed and more. I then sent her staff a repeat of the above about the BBB bill. I am eagerly waiting for her response.
A review of history can bring optimism. This article has much to offer-
American conservatism’s extraordinary political power and radical future, explained - Vox
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/7/6/23144343/end-of-conservatism-roe?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sentences%20July%206&utm_term=Sentences
Optimism and doomerism have much in common. They both suppose that the "opposition" has a linear future. What one sees now is the future. That view is seldom share by voters later. What will sway voters in November may not even be on the surface of reality now. What may say voters in November of 2024 is as much up to what we conceive of as opposition as it is what we and what support may value or espouse.
The conservative movement of the early 1950s had everything going for them--until Joe McCarthy over-reached and blew their credibility.
The climate crisis adds volatility to the mix. *Nothing*, simply nothing will stop the political and social movements from occurring. There will be no stability for even 8 years, to say nothing of decades, no matter how much conservatives will try to keep a thump in the dike of the climate emergency. The oceans will rise, the winds will blow, and change will come and keep coming. When there is that kind of chaos, there is always hope.
If we look at the polling data and the models and -- while still fighting for whatever political races we're passionate about -- accept as a given that people are going to vote for Republicans and that that party will have control... then what?
I think we need to start bribing Republicans. Seriously. We all know that where a politician gets their money dictates their views. Maybe not for every individual level, for every issue, but over time and in aggregate? Money shapes politics, in a completely unsubtle way.
Environmentalism as a political movement has hitched their wagon to the Democratic party. That can't really be changed now. But if what we care about is the environment, rather than the political movement, then we just need the winning party, whichever that may be, to pass useful legislation.
We won't get carbon taxes out of Republicans. We won't get strict environmental regulations. Two of the biggest hammers are off the table, due to philosophical differences.
But wind energy? It's not partisan. If wind is generating jobs and directing some of their profits into the right pockets, it can get favorable policy. Very, very favorable. Likewise with solar. Or EVs. Or heat pumps.
We all talk about how the technology for lower-carbon living exists now, it's a question of deploying it at a large enough scale, fast enough. Republicans like big spending every bit as much as Democrats, so long as some of the money makes its way back to them. They don't like stuff like big EV tax credits to individuals (where are the kickbacks in that?) but massive tax credits to companies who will be faithful donors? Sign them right up! Interest free business loans for more efficiency? Sure! Building infrastructure to support future growth? You betcha.
Republicans like big expensive programs. They just don't like the big expensive programs suggested by Democrats. As environmentalists, we need to get them to start proposing the sorts of programs they want and will vote for, but which still have an environmental benefit. So long as the policies facilitate the scale out (and cost reduction) of fossil-fuel-free (freedom!) technologies, we really can both win.
We're still early in the game. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit, and the branches keep getting lower as technology matures. Later on, when we're trying to get rid of the last 30% of emissions we'll need really good policies that thoughtfully manage their drawdown. Right now? We just need speed and scale. Republicans can deliver that, if we can convince them it's in their best interests.
Bribe them. It's sure as hell cheaper to bribe a few politicians than it is to buy out fossil fuel industries and shut them down, yet we're okay with putting that on the table.