Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumHow GND Critics Keep Missing The Point; This Is A Fucking Emergency & There Is No "Center"
EDIT
The worst-case scenario, which, contra Wheeler, is virtually never discussed in polite political circles in the US, is, as Wallace-Wells quotes famed naturalist David Attenborough saying, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world. That is alarming and, if you must, alarmist, but as Wallace-Wells says, being alarmed is not a sign of being hysterical; when it comes to climate change, being alarmed is what the facts demand. The status quo continuing along the same trajectory, doing the same things leads to disaster on a scale that is genuinely difficult to comprehend, involving the fate of our species and thousands of others over centuries to come. (Remember, just because our models tend to stop at 2100 doesnt mean warming will stop then. It will just get worse.)
EDIT
The house is on fire. But an odd number of Democrats and pundits just seem to be whistling past it, acting out familiar roles and repeating familiar narratives, as though were still in an era of normal politics, as though there are still two normal parties and some coherent center they are both attempting to capture. One moderate critique of the GND, from Jason Grumet of the Bipartisan Policy Center, is that it overreaches, threatening bipartisan cooperation. But none of these allegedly moderate critics ever explains why, after more than a decade of openly stated, unapologetic, total opposition to anything Democrats propose, the GOP would allow their opponents a victory on one of the most polarizing issues in public life.
For more than a decade, bipartisan cooperation has, with very few exceptions, meant inaction on climate change (and much else). And with every passing year, the Republican Party descends further into ethnonationalism and plutocracy. Why are prospects better now? There is nothing in 21st century American politics to suggest that Republicans will join with Democrats in a dramatic transformation of the economy along more sustainable lines. At this point, it is those who propose bipartisanship as an alternative who bear the burden of proof.
There are those who believe that the structure of US politics is such that bipartisanship is the only route to substantial progress. Theres plenty of evidence and a good-faith argument to be made for that position. But those who believe it should squarely grapple with the implications. Bipartisanship on any appreciable scale, at least based on reason and persuasion, is currently impossible in US federal politics. Republicans have made it so. If real progress is impossible without bipartisanship, then real progress is impossible, the US political system is doomed, and we will suffer the ravages of unabated climate change.
EDIT
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/23/18228142/green-new-deal-critics
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)Which definition of GND are you wanting us to apply when reading this text?
thesquanderer
(12,001 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)like thespians acting out an old, familiar play even as the theater goes up in flames around them.