2 ms·
I agree, but this is a very small consolation to me. In particular, we're talking about a $3.5T budget, of which only a small amount goes to tackling climate is
by throwaway894345 5y ago
I agree, but this is a very small consolation to me. In particular, we're talking about a $3.5T budget, of which only a small amount goes to tackling climate issues and even those provisions are largely symbolic rather than serious. If Democrats were serious about climate, I would expect to see a full-court press on carbon tax (which actually generates revenue) with the social issues put on hold--because as important as social issues are, climate change is an existential threat. Imagine if we were invaded by the Chinese or Russians or aliens for that matter--would we prioritize social issues (perhaps with some half-hearted, billion-dollar gesture toward addressing the invasion), or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat?
- Syonyk 5y ago> ...or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat? Covid says, "We'd fight over whose fault the invasion was to try and make sure the other guy got the blame." Just like every other dying empire seems to manage on the way down.
- throwaway894345 5y agoAbsolutely agreed. Why actually do something when we can deflect to the other side? The partisans will console themselves with the knowledge that they chose the better side while the world burns around them.
- angelzen 5y agoThe fossil fuel momentum is gargantuan, propelled by a growing population hungry for creature's comforts. Politicians will do what politicians do, take credit for the direction in which the wind blows. Doubtful they have any meaningful influence. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...