Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Berkut]

Sure, but I think it's a useful rhetorical device and the plan doesn't matter. I think it needs a mindset shift of being willing to spend a proportion of GDP that is like a war, a new deal, a moonshot or whatever.

It is a terrible rhetorical device because it plays into the climate deniers basic claim that the entire thing is just a silly way for socialists to disguise their agenda to make us all into Socialists by exaggerating climate change.

Turning around and putting together a "rhetorical" plan to address climate change that mostly seems to involve a lot of very strictly socialist programs, seems like a poor way to win that rhetorical battle.

It makes people like me, who is anything BUT a climate denier, and who thinks we should absolutely be spending on this problem as if it was an existential war (because it is) pretty skeptical that those promoting the Green New Deal actually care much at all about climate change, and really care about socialism and social justice, and the climate crisis is just a handy tool to push that agenda.

So great, I get to choose between one side that pretends it doesn't exist, and another side that says it does exist, and is a excellent reason to give everyone health care, college, and reparations.

Money spent in a manner that cannot solve the problem is, I think, actually worse than money not spent at all to solve the problem. Either way, we still have the problem.

[Sheilbh]

As I say the details don't matter and won't get passed - from what I've read the plan is fairly incoherent, but actually quite an impressive political document.

What matters is it's the first attempt I can think of, from a political leader, of moving the debate on climate change from cost/benefit tinkering to: new deal, war on x, moonshot territory.

The other thing is you see this as a problem because it empowers climate change deniers. I think it's the opposite. I think this is the consequence of climate change denial. If the conservative right's entire response to climate change is trolling Greta Thurnberg and laughing at XR protesters in MacDonalds then they are ceding the entire debate to the left. Every solution will be a left-wing solution, because they're the only ones talking about the issue. If the most far right-wing person who cares about or is interested in this at all is, say, Joe Biden, then the solutions proposed will be left-wing.

I think that'll be a problem for conservatives shortly if they don't start engaging. If you're not acknowledging a big issue exists you're kneecapped when it comes to trying to solve it.

We don't have climate change deniers really in the UK mainstream, but there are more sceptical voices. But I do think Gove's time as Environment Secretary was interesting because he pushed climate change environmentalism with traditional conservationism. And I think there's a fairly strong right-wing potential version of environmentalism that emphasises reducing immigration, returning to traditional values, valorisation of the countryside over the urban. A sort of hard-edged Prince Charles - and those trends do feed into the far-right environmentalism.

[Admiral Yi]

How is laughing at XRs removing oneself from the debate?  They're goofs.  It will probably piss off XR types, but that's their problem.

You keep talking about New Deal, war, moonshot, but no one had to be bought off to support those things.  The need to buy off interest groups undercuts the entire point you've been trying to make, that climate change is being elevated to a sacred mission.

[Sheilbh]

How is laughing at XRs removing oneself from the debate?  They're goofs.  It will probably piss off XR types, but that's their problem.

If that's the extent of what you're doing. As I say there are exceptions like Michael Gove. But if your entire response to climate change is to deny it or spend your time trolling a protester I don't think you get to act surprised or shocked

You keep talking about New Deal, war, moonshot, but no one had to be bought off to support those things.  The need to buy off interest groups undercuts the entire point you've been trying to make, that climate change is being elevated to a sacred mission.

What do you mean by interest groups?

It's not about a sacred mission it's simply that if you believe the risk and the impact we're having, then I don't think climate change can be treated like other pollution or obesity or maybe even climate change 30 years ago. It's probably not enough to treat it as a purely economic issue if it is existential, it's like trying to beat the Nazis with a fascism tax. I think if we'd been putting those taxes and incentives in place 30 years ago, we might be in a different situation, but that didn't happen because not enough people cared and also I think there were fairly powerful industries lobbying against them.

That means we're in a worse position and need something like a new deal or war-effort to actually shift our economies.

And I do think there's a tension about this which the Green New Deal sort-of tries to address. Because if we do nothing we, in the West, have reasonably comfortable lives and in the future they will become more significantly more difficult and costly. There is stuff around research and infrastructure and supporting the right sort of changes by companies that government can do (this is also why I like the New Deal metaphor - it was all over the place, they were trying anything). But there will probably have to be some lifestyle changes of consuming less meat, flying less, using cars less which will potentially make our lives a little less enjoyable now. That's a really difficult ask politically, which is why I think it is probably necessary to chuck in a few bungs for current voters too. Personally I think the US left also needs to get over its weird issues with nuclear - nuclear on its own isn't sufficient but it's a useful part of the mix with renewables.

Edit: I suppose my point is I think it's a brand not a plan. The politics of climate to me is that if you see it as existential it can be overwhelming and cause inaction, if you treat as you would normally through cost/benefit etc then it's probably not enough. The Green New Deal seems like the only attempt going at threading that needle.

[Razgovory]

You keep talking about New Deal, war, moonshot, but no one had to be bought off to support those things.  The need to buy off interest groups undercuts the entire point you've been trying to make, that climate change is being elevated to a sacred mission.

All of these events in US history needed special interests groups to be appeased before they could happen.  Note: I'm making an assumption that "war" was the 2nd World War.

Southern Democrats needed to be appease for the New Deal, an appeasement that required northern Democrats drop demands for civil rights, the war required convincing of the America First committee along with many Northern Democrats (predominately those with Irish or German backgrounds.  There is a reason that the US military was commanded by guys named Eisenhower, Nimitz, and Spaatz.  Roosevelt didn't pick these names out of a hat.)  There was significant left-wing opposition to the space program.  African Americans were particularly skeptical of the space program.  This was happening during the Civil Rights movement, the war on poverty, and the Vietnam War and most thought that there was better ways to spend money than shooting explosive junk in to the sky.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf

By interest groups I mean the people who stand to get free money from the Green New Deal.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf part 2

I think I understand the point you are trying to make about branding.  In your thinking, the important element of Green New Deal is the signaling of the magnitude of the effort required. 

The obvious problem, of course, is that "the effort" requires actual policies to implement.  FDR didn't just make a speech about making the world safe for democracy then wait for the Axis to surrender.  He conscripted millions of men, he built hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes, he poured billions into building atomic weapons.

So good luck holding on to the idea that the Green New Deal is valuable as an inspiring slogan while ignoring the fact that the actual details of the Green New Deal undercut your very premise.  If climate change is in fact such an urgent mission, and one that requires the equivalent of total war mobilization, what the hell are we doing devoting finite resources to issues totally unrelated to winning that war?  Forgiving student debt doesn't reduce emissions by a single atom of carbon.

[Zoupa]

[Oexmelin]

The obvious problem, of course, is that "the effort" requires actual policies to implement.  FDR didn't just make a speech about making the world safe for democracy then wait for the Axis to surrender.  He conscripted millions of men, he built hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes, he poured billions into building atomic weapons.

This is the war effort - a comparatively simpler program which addressed a problem for which the solution - mobilization - was well within everybody's instinctual grasp, and following an attack that did much of the propaganda effort that all of the previous communications about the dangers of fascism could ever accomplish. The New Deal was considerably more messy, more socialist, and a lot more incoherent that you'd probably prefer. It poured a lot of money on public arts, for instance - something that was unlikely to solve the unemployment problem, but participated in a messy attempt to produce a sense of collective purpose. There is a point in forgiving crippling student debt, as an attempt to free up creativity and riskier initiatives from more than just people who enjoy the free money they have inherited.

But Sheilbh's tangential point still stands: what is the right's solution to bring stakes to the forefront? To propose plans and measures at the level of the stakes we face? So far, it seems to have been mocking whatever is being proposed, diluting it into irrelevance, or proposing to wait and see. The problem the current right will always be facing with the current crisis, is that it requires tremendous collective and coordinated action, a concept that is has been bred to distrust, mock and disparage.

[Sheilbh]

@Shelf part 2

I think I understand the point you are trying to make about branding.  In your thinking, the important element of Green New Deal is the signaling of the magnitude of the effort required. 

Magnitude plus optimism.

I think one of the issues I have with XR is that if you do believe the predicted impact and that it's not slowing down - Uninhabitable Earth stuff - then I think it can be overwhelming. It's hopeless to try and stop it and it's so big that there's no political project or response that can address it.

What I like about the Green New Deal is as you say it signals the magnitude, but is also something that can be achieved. And it also legitimises failure which I think is really important. I think we need to spend lots on different projects and a lot of them may fail. This is also what I mean by war as a legitimising principle. In general in public policy you want something that's efficient and doesn't fail. With New Deal or war as part of the organising principle you accept that failure on certain parts is okay and you'll keep going to be effective and deliver, in the long run those failures may lead to better things/lines of research in the distant future. But in normal politics a waste of taxpayer money etc undermines normal policies - that's the other reason I like this sort of language.

It's a shame it's so US-centric, but it's something that is inspiring politicians in Europe to talk about what their Green New Deal would look like which, again, I think is a great thing.

The obvious problem, of course, is that "the effort" requires actual policies to implement.  FDR didn't just make a speech about making the world safe for democracy then wait for the Axis to surrender.  He conscripted millions of men, he built hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes, he poured billions into building atomic weapons.

Sure but look at the New Deal. It was entirely incoherent and often contradictory: Emergency Banking Act, shutting the banks down; the Economy Act cutting expenditure hugely; then huge investment in infrastructure and support of industrial cartels. None of this makes sense as an "effort" similarly with WW2 there was just as much incoherence and contradiction it was the momentum of mobilisation that worked. I like FDR a lot, so I think the model of "bold, experimentation" is a really good one.

Personally I would prefer Moonshot as the branding because we don't have the tech at the minute - we cannot go 100% renewable because of our grid and because of our storage - but also the US landed on the moon but it feels likea  human accomplishment. While the New Deal is a very American reference and still quite a partisan one.

So good luck holding on to the idea that the Green New Deal is valuable as an inspiring slogan while ignoring the fact that the actual details of the Green New Deal undercut your very premise.  If climate change is in fact such an urgent mission, and one that requires the equivalent of total war mobilization, what the hell are we doing devoting finite resources to issues totally unrelated to winning that war?  Forgiving student debt doesn't reduce emissions by a single atom of carbon.

Yeah. So I think there's a few angles going on there. The first is that I don't think this plan matters, I think it will change and different politicians will claim ownership and adapt it. I suspect the branding will last. Also if you are fighting a total war mobilisation I don't think you start planning with finite resources in mind.

Part of it as well I think is to distance itself from previous Democrat policies on the environment. That was focused on carbon taxing basically. The Green New Deal isn't a plan right now. It's a set of idea each of which would require loads of policies and we'll see where it develops. I think forgiving student debt would be a good idea anyway, given the levels it's at. But also if you're are going to try decarbonise the economy I think you need free education at multiple levels or you will be locking people out of jobs and entire communities out of the economy. I don't know how you try to entirely shift the economy without providing for education for people coming up, but also for adults. It's a bit like carbon taxing a punishment of the working class by the middle class.

[Sheilbh]

But Sheilbh's tangential point still stands: what is the right's solution to bring stakes to the forefront? To propose plans and measures at the level of the stakes we face? So far, it seems to have been mocking whatever is being proposed, diluting it into irrelevance, or proposing to wait and see. The problem the current right will always be facing with the current crisis, is that it requires tremendous collective and coordinated action, a concept that is has been bred to distrust, mock and disparage.

Yeah. As I say I think "war" would have been the organising principle, but that's been debased by Vietnam, Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on terror. I don't think we'll see another American president declaring war on something - like Nixon and the war on cancer which caused huge biotech innovations in the 80s.

[Admiral Yi]

This is the war effort - a comparatively simpler program which addressed a problem for which the solution - mobilization - was well within everybody's instinctual grasp, and following an attack that did much of the propaganda effort that all of the previous communications about the dangers of fascism could ever accomplish. The New Deal was considerably more messy, more socialist, and a lot more incoherent that you'd probably prefer. It poured a lot of money on public arts, for instance - something that was unlikely to solve the unemployment problem, but participated in a messy attempt to produce a sense of collective purpose. There is a point in forgiving crippling student debt, as an attempt to free up creativity and riskier initiatives from more than just people who enjoy the free money they have inherited.

But Sheilbh's tangential point still stands: what is the right's solution to bring stakes to the forefront? To propose plans and measures at the level of the stakes we face? So far, it seems to have been mocking whatever is being proposed, diluting it into irrelevance, or proposing to wait and see. The problem the current right will always be facing with the current crisis, is that it requires tremendous collective and coordinated action, a concept that is has been bred to distrust, mock and disparage.

You call New Deal art funding messy and incoherent, I call it stupid and pointless.  That's hardly a compelling argument for including elements unrelated to the stated goal in the Green New Deal.

I'm straining to find polite language to describe my reaction to your insinuation, delivered in your elliptical literary style, that debt forgiveness will unleash creative solutions to climate change.

You and other posters have mentioned several times that the right is doing nothing, as if that somehow buttresses the Green New Deal.  How the fuck does that work?  There are alternatives to the Green New Deal, the most obvious being a carbon tax and cap and trade.  Why doesn't the absence of a rightist plan buttress those alternatives instead of the Green New Deal?

[Admiral Yi]

Sure but look at the New Deal. It was entirely incoherent and often contradictory: Emergency Banking Act, shutting the banks down; the Economy Act cutting expenditure hugely; then huge investment in infrastructure and support of industrial cartels. None of this makes sense as an "effort" similarly with WW2 there was just as much incoherence and contradiction it was the momentum of mobilisation that worked. I like FDR a lot, so I think the model of "bold, experimentation" is a really good one.

This argument might work if we had very little idea why global temperature is rising.  Unfortunately, we have a pretty good idea that it has something to do with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  So policies that have zero relationship to carbon emissions can't be defended on the basis of bold experimentation.

[The Brain]

I respect the attempt to implement an unrelated political agenda under the smokescreen of climate change. I would do the same if I had the same set of values and priorities.

[Sheilbh]

This argument might work if we had very little idea why global temperature is rising.  Unfortunately, we have a pretty good idea that it has something to do with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  So policies that have zero relationship to carbon emissions can't be defended on the basis of bold experimentation.

But we want to retain our lifestyle broadly and we don't have the technology to decarbonise without a significant change in quality of life. We also know that decarbonising will have huge social impacts. I think any project that is around shifting the economy to zero carbon will need to protect people's lifestyles and employment.

For example we're moving to an electric future in all sorts of products, including vehicles. We're nowhere near producing enough energy for everything that could be electrified to be electrified. At the same time we don't have the tech anywhere in the world for our current electricity grids to work on majority renewable energy. Similarly what does a decarbonised construction industry look like?

So I get the point on reducing carbon emissions, but this is about building a zero carbon economy. I think the policies will need to be broader than just direct reduction of emissions - that's part of the shift from a cost/benefit economic policy of reducing emissions, to the larger shift of our entire economy.