When the Good is the Enemy of the Sufficient
October 20, 2020 12:42 PM Subscribe
By all accounts, Biden’s second climate plan is better than his first. But how much “better” will it take to save the world?
A 4,000 word essay about how Biden's climate plan isn't good enough-- two weeks before the election? jfc. Along with the current polls, this is more 2016 deja vu-- I remember all the October think pieces about how insufficient this or that Clinton plan was, not in comparison with Trump's plans, but with some ideal, as if speaking in opposition to an actual, sworn in President Clinton.
Do you really think progressives don't know what it will take to get below2C (too late) 2.5-3C? We know! We've read articles like this for years now! But if things go south in two weeks, we'll have a whole bunch of more pressing existential issues to deal with.
There is a huge movement in the US and abroad ready to push the needle on climate issues at the national and international level once there is an administration in place that can actually be reasoned with. We've seen a lot more progress in the last 4 years with business and at the state and local levels.
In addition, there have been very large shifts outside of the US-- major announcements from China and the EU with carbon reduction targets much more aggressive than Paris. The clean energy transition is happening faster than anticipated. Yes, we will be fighting for our survival for the next two generations but there is still hope.
posted by gwint at 1:11 PM on October 20, 2020 [76 favorites]
Do you really think progressives don't know what it will take to get below
There is a huge movement in the US and abroad ready to push the needle on climate issues at the national and international level once there is an administration in place that can actually be reasoned with. We've seen a lot more progress in the last 4 years with business and at the state and local levels.
In addition, there have been very large shifts outside of the US-- major announcements from China and the EU with carbon reduction targets much more aggressive than Paris. The clean energy transition is happening faster than anticipated. Yes, we will be fighting for our survival for the next two generations but there is still hope.
posted by gwint at 1:11 PM on October 20, 2020 [76 favorites]
Some links to back up the above:
* EU Parliament votes for 60% carbon emissions cut by 2030
* China aims for 'carbon neutrality by 2060'
* Renewable energy giant NextEra surpasses ExxonMobil in value
* Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’
posted by gwint at 1:15 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
* EU Parliament votes for 60% carbon emissions cut by 2030
* China aims for 'carbon neutrality by 2060'
* Renewable energy giant NextEra surpasses ExxonMobil in value
* Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’
posted by gwint at 1:15 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yes, we will be fighting for our survival for the next two generations but there is still hope.
I mean, I agree there is still hope, but it is hope despite Biden's incrementalist climate change plan, not as a result of it.
The hope is that massive progressive/leftist energy forces Biden to not follow Obama down the woke ecocidal pathway despite all the resistance by the fossil fuel industry and incrementalist liberals and centrists who love the status quo.
I don't think Biden's support of fracking and traditional extraction of fossil fuels *and* placing all of his hopes and dreams on NETs that don't exist yet is going to save us.
posted by Ouverture at 1:29 PM on October 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
I mean, I agree there is still hope, but it is hope despite Biden's incrementalist climate change plan, not as a result of it.
The hope is that massive progressive/leftist energy forces Biden to not follow Obama down the woke ecocidal pathway despite all the resistance by the fossil fuel industry and incrementalist liberals and centrists who love the status quo.
I don't think Biden's support of fracking and traditional extraction of fossil fuels *and* placing all of his hopes and dreams on NETs that don't exist yet is going to save us.
posted by Ouverture at 1:29 PM on October 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
"A 4,000 word essay about how Biden's climate plan isn't good enough-- two weeks before the election? jfc."
Agreed. Step One in addressing climate change is to get Biden elected instead of the other guy. After that, we can try to get him to move closer to where we need to be. At this point, doing our part on climate change means holding our noses when Biden and Harris talk so enthusiastically about fracking in Pennsylvania (as example) and voting him in anyway.
We all know it's not the best lifeboat, but it's the only one we have right now, and let's just get in it and start rowing.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:29 PM on October 20, 2020 [12 favorites]
Agreed. Step One in addressing climate change is to get Biden elected instead of the other guy. After that, we can try to get him to move closer to where we need to be. At this point, doing our part on climate change means holding our noses when Biden and Harris talk so enthusiastically about fracking in Pennsylvania (as example) and voting him in anyway.
We all know it's not the best lifeboat, but it's the only one we have right now, and let's just get in it and start rowing.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:29 PM on October 20, 2020 [12 favorites]
This is the sort of thing that's liable to get me shot by both sides, but part of the problem with a lot of climate change mitigation programs is that they can have strong second- and third-order effects on the working poor. Please hear me out.
I think about the Yellow Vest riots spawned by Emmanuel Macron's fuel tax increases. Do we need to reduce fossil fuel use? Absolutely. How do we do this in a way that doesn't put a significant financial burden on those who rely on fossil fuels to make their living?
I'm not saying there isn't a way to do this: perhaps government could significantly subsidize replacing gas guzzling vehicles with hybrids and other vehicles that use less fossil fuels and produce less emissions. (Oh, yes, and penalize the fuck out of the 100 companies that produce 70% of carbon emissions, but even then you risk putting a lot of people out of work.)
I tend to lean towards incrementalism and gradualism in making changes to our economic and social systems, in large part because I want to make sure we don't leave people behind, creating an aggrieved underclass that will happily undo the little progress we make because they see it as harmful to them. Especially since, yes, in the short-term, it does harm them. Paying more money for fuel means less money for rent, food, and healthcare even in an economy with a safety net. It's hard for people to think about the long-term health of the climate when they're struggling to pay this month's bills.
Again, this doesn't mean we shouldn't take aggressive climate action. We should. We desperately need to. But we can't do it in a way that causes harm to people who are already struggling to get by.
posted by SansPoint at 1:31 PM on October 20, 2020 [13 favorites]
I think about the Yellow Vest riots spawned by Emmanuel Macron's fuel tax increases. Do we need to reduce fossil fuel use? Absolutely. How do we do this in a way that doesn't put a significant financial burden on those who rely on fossil fuels to make their living?
I'm not saying there isn't a way to do this: perhaps government could significantly subsidize replacing gas guzzling vehicles with hybrids and other vehicles that use less fossil fuels and produce less emissions. (Oh, yes, and penalize the fuck out of the 100 companies that produce 70% of carbon emissions, but even then you risk putting a lot of people out of work.)
I tend to lean towards incrementalism and gradualism in making changes to our economic and social systems, in large part because I want to make sure we don't leave people behind, creating an aggrieved underclass that will happily undo the little progress we make because they see it as harmful to them. Especially since, yes, in the short-term, it does harm them. Paying more money for fuel means less money for rent, food, and healthcare even in an economy with a safety net. It's hard for people to think about the long-term health of the climate when they're struggling to pay this month's bills.
Again, this doesn't mean we shouldn't take aggressive climate action. We should. We desperately need to. But we can't do it in a way that causes harm to people who are already struggling to get by.
posted by SansPoint at 1:31 PM on October 20, 2020 [13 favorites]
If you put thousands of people out of work and deprive them of a paycheck, you've got thousands of people mad at you. But if you take money from billionaires and redistribute it to the jobless people, you've only got a small handful of people mad at you.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:37 PM on October 20, 2020 [23 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:37 PM on October 20, 2020 [23 favorites]
This is the sort of thing that's liable to get me shot by both sides, but part of the problem with a lot of climate change mitigation programs is that they can have strong second- and third-order effects on the working poor. Please hear me out.
Yeah, I posted this piece earlier this summer that talks specifically about the issues of liberal solutions to climate change.
A country as powerful and wealthy as the United States can absolutely decarbonize and still make poor people's lives better as a result of it. This is the entire point of the Green New Deal (which Biden has to distance himself from in order to get the polite white supremacist moderate votes he needs to defeat Trump).
But that requires giving up on the bizarre, ahistorical, bipartisan idea that The Market will save us...from what The Market has wrought.
posted by Ouverture at 1:39 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
Yeah, I posted this piece earlier this summer that talks specifically about the issues of liberal solutions to climate change.
A country as powerful and wealthy as the United States can absolutely decarbonize and still make poor people's lives better as a result of it. This is the entire point of the Green New Deal (which Biden has to distance himself from in order to get the polite white supremacist moderate votes he needs to defeat Trump).
But that requires giving up on the bizarre, ahistorical, bipartisan idea that The Market will save us...from what The Market has wrought.
posted by Ouverture at 1:39 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
Climate change is probably the single most important existential issue of the century. But critiquing the climate plan of a candidate who may not even be elected, when the only alternative candidate is a fascist who not only doesn't have a climate plan but is actively sabotaging any attempts to address climate change and frequently talks about jailing those who do push for such plans, two weeks before the election, is honestly a waste of time. It's basically sealioning. It's like arguing about whether there's enough room in the grain silo to store what's needed to last the winter while the fields are on fire and the whole crop is being lost. Yeah, we're fucked if we can't store enough grain, but we're also fucked, and much sooner, if the field burns out, so let's put out the damn fire and talk about the silos afterward.
In fairness, the article does at least acknowledge this point. But the whole thing is premised on the idea that there's a whole bunch of people in climate science and activism who are so confused that they think a slightly better plan than his original one is better and therefore good enough. I don't buy this at all. No one who's thought about it for more than five minutes is under any illusions that Biden is a great candidate for achieving what needs to be done with climate change, and no one is voting for him out of a belief that doing so will fix our problem with climate change. People are fighting to elect Biden so that, six months from now, we'll have a chance to fight him for what actually needs to be done so we can survive the next hundred years. Because the alternative is that in six months we'll still be fighting fascists so we can survive the next four, and no progress will be made on the climate, again.
posted by biogeo at 1:39 PM on October 20, 2020 [42 favorites]
In fairness, the article does at least acknowledge this point. But the whole thing is premised on the idea that there's a whole bunch of people in climate science and activism who are so confused that they think a slightly better plan than his original one is better and therefore good enough. I don't buy this at all. No one who's thought about it for more than five minutes is under any illusions that Biden is a great candidate for achieving what needs to be done with climate change, and no one is voting for him out of a belief that doing so will fix our problem with climate change. People are fighting to elect Biden so that, six months from now, we'll have a chance to fight him for what actually needs to be done so we can survive the next hundred years. Because the alternative is that in six months we'll still be fighting fascists so we can survive the next four, and no progress will be made on the climate, again.
posted by biogeo at 1:39 PM on October 20, 2020 [42 favorites]
I doubt discussion of Biden's climate plan on a site like Metafilter is going to sway anyone' vote. I agree that the US is going to be dragged along somewhat by regulations and policies in the rest of the world. U.S. companies are going to have to play by the rules of the markets they sell in, which means, for example, American car companies have to get serious about electrification. China pledging "carbon neutrality" by 2060 doesn't exactly fill me with confidence though, not that there is anything a US President can do to directly affect that.
Regarding the current election, my sense is Biden is doing better right now than Clinton was at this time, so there is that.
Regarding Macron, my sense is that he is more centrist to center-right, so I think there was more to the protests than the gas tax; although that was the inciting event. Certainly policy incrementalism as its practiced in the US isn't doing much to alleviate any kind of economic distress. Giving middle to upper middle class suburbanites tax cuts to buy premium to luxury electric cars is hardly going to help those displaced and impacted by climate change. It will certainly reward the Democratic base though.
posted by eagles123 at 1:43 PM on October 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
Regarding the current election, my sense is Biden is doing better right now than Clinton was at this time, so there is that.
Regarding Macron, my sense is that he is more centrist to center-right, so I think there was more to the protests than the gas tax; although that was the inciting event. Certainly policy incrementalism as its practiced in the US isn't doing much to alleviate any kind of economic distress. Giving middle to upper middle class suburbanites tax cuts to buy premium to luxury electric cars is hardly going to help those displaced and impacted by climate change. It will certainly reward the Democratic base though.
posted by eagles123 at 1:43 PM on October 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
No one who's thought about it for more than five minutes is under any illusions that Biden is a great candidate for achieving what needs to be done with climate change, and no one is voting for him out of a belief that doing so will fix our problem with climate change.
I mean, I've been hearing a fair number of people saying this, as part of the general sentiment of "Won't it be great to be able to have brunch again on January 21st and not have to think about who's president anymore?" , so it's probably worth getting this sort of thing out there ahead of time so it's there in 2022 when the defense shifts to "Biden can't possibly pass climate fixes now, it's election season and he needs 'race-precarious' moderates to keep Ted Cruz from winning!"
posted by CrystalDave at 1:49 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
I mean, I've been hearing a fair number of people saying this, as part of the general sentiment of "Won't it be great to be able to have brunch again on January 21st and not have to think about who's president anymore?" , so it's probably worth getting this sort of thing out there ahead of time so it's there in 2022 when the defense shifts to "Biden can't possibly pass climate fixes now, it's election season and he needs 'race-precarious' moderates to keep Ted Cruz from winning!"
posted by CrystalDave at 1:49 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
When faced with a monumental, seemingly-insurmountable problem, you can either sit there paralyzed at the scope of it, or you can break it down into smaller steps and start in on Step 1. One of these ways gets results, the other one does not. The argument that we don't have time to be incrementalist about climate change is pretty wrong-headed IMO; the fact is, we are way past the deadline already, even we could halt all carbon production with a wave of a magic wand we'd still be coming in years late to do so, so what is the value of shouting "there's no time"? Incrementally is the only way anything will actually get done.
And that's the value of Biden's climate plan: that it can actually get done. I'm not arguing against the scope of the problem - indeed I'm not even as convinced Sanders' $16 trillion plan would be sufficient as the author seems to be - but comparing the plan Sanders proposed to the plan Biden proposes is the wrong comparison: the real comparison is between the plans they could actually deliver on. I'll take a $2 trillion plan that actually happens over a $16 trillion plan that never gets through Congress or gets slashed by $14+ trillion by the time it does.
Once you have a climate change plan in place that you're actively working on and spending on, the debate shifts from "should we do something?" to "are we doing enough?" and that seems like a much easier debate to keep having, not least because it gets us past a whole bunch of the fossil-fuel-industry disinfo that has been honed and disseminated for years.
In other words: Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. Biden's plan does not do enough by itself, but it puts us clearly past Step 1.
posted by mstokes650 at 1:51 PM on October 20, 2020 [18 favorites]
And that's the value of Biden's climate plan: that it can actually get done. I'm not arguing against the scope of the problem - indeed I'm not even as convinced Sanders' $16 trillion plan would be sufficient as the author seems to be - but comparing the plan Sanders proposed to the plan Biden proposes is the wrong comparison: the real comparison is between the plans they could actually deliver on. I'll take a $2 trillion plan that actually happens over a $16 trillion plan that never gets through Congress or gets slashed by $14+ trillion by the time it does.
Once you have a climate change plan in place that you're actively working on and spending on, the debate shifts from "should we do something?" to "are we doing enough?" and that seems like a much easier debate to keep having, not least because it gets us past a whole bunch of the fossil-fuel-industry disinfo that has been honed and disseminated for years.
In other words: Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. Biden's plan does not do enough by itself, but it puts us clearly past Step 1.
posted by mstokes650 at 1:51 PM on October 20, 2020 [18 favorites]
Frustrating how an article on Biden's latest climate plan avoids saying what Biden's plan actually contains. Apparently it's better than it was! But the author is studious about not describing the actual plan.
From a publication / forum generally focused on climate change I'd probably read with more interest. From one generally focused on disliking Democrats it rings a little false. (I know they wrote that defeating is Trump good so they feel they should be immune from this framing. Whatever.) This isn't really about engaging on climate policy and paths to solutions. It's about criticizing Democrats. I get the sentiment; Biden was my last choice and he's eminently criticizable. But there are other hobbies.
One comment on this framing: There is simultaneously nothing sufficient and nothing useless. The best plan we can get enacted will reduce harm. A mediocre plan in 2021 is better than a good plan in 2031. And there's no defense for a heighten-the-contradictions approach on this issue, since the impact of a bad policy is so delayed.
By all means, continue to improve on what we'll get out of Biden. It's encouraging he moved to the left on this issue after winning the nomination. But we also need to sell whatever we can get, too, or we get nothing.
posted by mark k at 1:54 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
From a publication / forum generally focused on climate change I'd probably read with more interest. From one generally focused on disliking Democrats it rings a little false. (I know they wrote that defeating is Trump good so they feel they should be immune from this framing. Whatever.) This isn't really about engaging on climate policy and paths to solutions. It's about criticizing Democrats. I get the sentiment; Biden was my last choice and he's eminently criticizable. But there are other hobbies.
One comment on this framing: There is simultaneously nothing sufficient and nothing useless. The best plan we can get enacted will reduce harm. A mediocre plan in 2021 is better than a good plan in 2031. And there's no defense for a heighten-the-contradictions approach on this issue, since the impact of a bad policy is so delayed.
By all means, continue to improve on what we'll get out of Biden. It's encouraging he moved to the left on this issue after winning the nomination. But we also need to sell whatever we can get, too, or we get nothing.
posted by mark k at 1:54 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
I'm not sure who counts as "progressive," but the vast majority of likely Biden voters have no idea what it would take to get PPM down materially. Those things cannot be snuck past people while they aren't looking, or imposed by social betters while the masses gradually come around to it: they are going to happen only after someone earns a mandate to do so with a forthright campaign.
posted by MattD at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by MattD at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
Only rich, stable countries have the luxury of worrying about climate change, a problem that will neither be fixed in our lifetimes nor will it kill us all in the same timeframe.
posted by meowzilla at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by meowzilla at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
"that requires giving up on the bizarre, ahistorical, bipartisan idea that The Market will save us..."
The "market" will not save us in the sense that voluntary individual actions will never prevent or even significantly moderate climate change. But using market forces can absolutely work. To start, just institute a goddamn carbon tax and redistribute the revenues progressively.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:56 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
The "market" will not save us in the sense that voluntary individual actions will never prevent or even significantly moderate climate change. But using market forces can absolutely work. To start, just institute a goddamn carbon tax and redistribute the revenues progressively.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:56 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
This article is absolute nonsense when it comes to having a theory of how to effect change. It positions "convincing Joe Biden to adopt a better climate plan" as something that is important. It isn't.
US presidential politics is not the level of the system where this kind of change is possible. You can choose between 4 degrees and democracy, or 7 degrees and fascism - how exciting! Joe Biden is not going to advance a sufficient climate plan because it wouldn't be popular enough to win, and the two-party system forecloses on other options.
Many other avenues of activism have more potential. If all the coal power plants start going bankrupt, it doesn't matter what Joe Biden's timeline for shutting them down was. Divestiture, lawsuits, direct action, targeting other levels of government or legislative bodies that are not "all or nothing", targeting support functions like banking and insurance...the list goes on.
posted by allegedly at 1:56 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
US presidential politics is not the level of the system where this kind of change is possible. You can choose between 4 degrees and democracy, or 7 degrees and fascism - how exciting! Joe Biden is not going to advance a sufficient climate plan because it wouldn't be popular enough to win, and the two-party system forecloses on other options.
Many other avenues of activism have more potential. If all the coal power plants start going bankrupt, it doesn't matter what Joe Biden's timeline for shutting them down was. Divestiture, lawsuits, direct action, targeting other levels of government or legislative bodies that are not "all or nothing", targeting support functions like banking and insurance...the list goes on.
posted by allegedly at 1:56 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
If you were a good faith climate advocate, why would you write or publish this article now? If Trump wins reelection, then Biden's climate plan is irrelevant. If Biden wins election, there will -- by law -- be a period of months before he can do a single thing about this plan or any other. Surely if your sole aim was to get a president-elect Biden to do the best job possible on climate, you would write an article for after the election, when at least his team will actually be thinking about how to govern more than how to campaign.
posted by Superilla at 1:57 PM on October 20, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by Superilla at 1:57 PM on October 20, 2020 [19 favorites]
We already passed cap and trade and tax cuts for electric cars during the 2008 to 2010 period when the Democrats last controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate. That didn't suddenly cause the GOP to embrace climate science. We're already in the "what more should we do" phase.
All these issues come down to the simple question of whether this or that plan addresses the scope of the problem as it exists in reality. Constantly we are sold half-measures on the promise of future, better plans that will ultimately fix the problem. Just when we are allowed to ask for those additional measures and how exactly they will be enacted over the presumed opposition that prevented them the first time is always left unclear. I've paid attention long enough to remember when the Republican anti-christ was GWB, then the Tea Party, and now Trump. There is always another election to win.
What's funny is that governments around the world enacted and continue to enact much harsher and more invasive measures to confront a disease that, if it we around in the 19th century, would barely register. Climate change threatens much more severe damage, including a torrent of similar, potentially even worse diseases. Ask the ancient Romans what malaria becoming endemic did to their city.
But, of course, your local public health officials and your governor don't have to go through congress to essentially lock you in your house and enact laws that destroy your business. Nobody talks about incrementalism then, and liberal spaces feel free to speculate about all sorts of apocalyptical scenarios that would imply we will be living in a bubble for the rest of our lives.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we had more comprehensive health reform back in 2008-2010 so we could have had a better pandemic response. Maybe we could have mitigated the uncontrollable spread somewhat over the summer, even in states with dipshit Republican governors, if we actually had some sort of real public health infrastructure. Maybe if we directly addressed the racial and economic inequities in our health care delivery NYC wouldn't have had one of the highest infection fatality rates for COVID in the world.
Incrementalism has a price, and climate change is even scarier.
posted by eagles123 at 2:18 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
Tax fuels for both particulate and CO2 externalities and then take that tax and redistribute it as UBI and the market will absolutely save us.
Forcing the least bad presidential & legislative candidates to adopt policies that will make them unelectable will absolutely doom us.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:20 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
Forcing the least bad presidential & legislative candidates to adopt policies that will make them unelectable will absolutely doom us.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:20 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
I want to make sure we don't leave people behind, creating an aggrieved underclass that will happily undo the little progress we make because they see it as harmful to them
Too late :(
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:25 PM on October 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
Too late :(
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:25 PM on October 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ahh, the circular firing squad returns.
I was so worried it had faded away with the rise of Trump and the return of the Nazi Party, but here at last it has come 'round again to provide such solace, such succor, such faith that I am smarter than every other human being alive and if you mostly agree with me but do not adopt my exact line of reasoning you are actually a worse enemy than Nazi Satan.
Next up, my fifteen-part essay comprised mainly of densely-argued points which fail to directly address the substance of my argument! Remember to Like and Subscribe!
posted by aramaic at 2:32 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
I was so worried it had faded away with the rise of Trump and the return of the Nazi Party, but here at last it has come 'round again to provide such solace, such succor, such faith that I am smarter than every other human being alive and if you mostly agree with me but do not adopt my exact line of reasoning you are actually a worse enemy than Nazi Satan.
Next up, my fifteen-part essay comprised mainly of densely-argued points which fail to directly address the substance of my argument! Remember to Like and Subscribe!
posted by aramaic at 2:32 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
What's funny is that governments around the world enacted and continue to enact much harsher and more invasive measures to confront a disease that, if it we around in the 19th century, would barely register. Climate change threatens much more severe damage, including a torrent of similar, potentially even worse diseases.
I don't know if you actually meant to imply everything that this quote implies, to me, but I will say that I am increasingly uncomfortable with how many allegedly-progressive folks I've encountered who seem like they would be totally fine with naked authoritarianism as long as it were done "for the right reasons" by somebody on the left. Eco-fascism is still fascism.
posted by mstokes650 at 2:36 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
I don't know if you actually meant to imply everything that this quote implies, to me, but I will say that I am increasingly uncomfortable with how many allegedly-progressive folks I've encountered who seem like they would be totally fine with naked authoritarianism as long as it were done "for the right reasons" by somebody on the left. Eco-fascism is still fascism.
posted by mstokes650 at 2:36 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
I don't know if you actually meant to imply everything that this quote implies, to me, but I will say that I am increasingly uncomfortable with how many allegedly-progressive folks I've encountered who seem like they would be totally fine with naked authoritarianism as long as it were done "for the right reasons" by somebody on the left. Eco-fascism is still fascism.
I'm just trying to illustrate the point that we unquestionably committed to drastic and disruptive measures to address a problem that ultimately is much less serious than climate change could potentially be. I'm not sure how everyone defines "authoritarian", but public health responses to diseases certainly seem to fit that description to me. Of course, that's a separate question from whether or not such a response is justified.
posted by eagles123 at 2:41 PM on October 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm just trying to illustrate the point that we unquestionably committed to drastic and disruptive measures to address a problem that ultimately is much less serious than climate change could potentially be. I'm not sure how everyone defines "authoritarian", but public health responses to diseases certainly seem to fit that description to me. Of course, that's a separate question from whether or not such a response is justified.
posted by eagles123 at 2:41 PM on October 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
>
Using police powers and other compelling measures to enforce quarantines, stop people from dumping their chamberpots out the window onto the sidewalk, or levy taxes to build gigantic underground sewage networks and processing plants (or to force off-utility homeowners to build real septic systems at their own expense rather than a hole in the ground that contaminates the water supply and causes cholera epidemics) is not fascism, though, nor is successfully dealing with climate change—saying that those activities of government are authoritarianism or fascism (while, typically, ignoring at the same time actual characteristics of authoritarianism and fascism elsewhere in society) is simply a pejorative way some people oppose those things so as to defer cost or risk onto others or purely for their own convenience.
Very much like with the anti-COVID-mask mania and violence. (...and terrorist kidnapping plots.)
posted by XMLicious at 2:59 PM on October 20, 2020 [11 favorites]
What's funny is that governments around the world enacted and continue to enact much harsher and more invasive measures to confront a disease that, if it we around in the 19th century, would barely register. Climate change threatens much more severe damage, including a torrent of similar, potentially even worse diseases.
I don't know if you actually meant to imply everything that this quote implies, to me, but I will say that I am increasingly uncomfortable with how many allegedly-progressive folks I've encountered who seem like they would be totally fine with naked authoritarianism as long as it were done "for the right reasons" by somebody on the left. Eco-fascism is still fascism.
Using police powers and other compelling measures to enforce quarantines, stop people from dumping their chamberpots out the window onto the sidewalk, or levy taxes to build gigantic underground sewage networks and processing plants (or to force off-utility homeowners to build real septic systems at their own expense rather than a hole in the ground that contaminates the water supply and causes cholera epidemics) is not fascism, though, nor is successfully dealing with climate change—saying that those activities of government are authoritarianism or fascism (while, typically, ignoring at the same time actual characteristics of authoritarianism and fascism elsewhere in society) is simply a pejorative way some people oppose those things so as to defer cost or risk onto others or purely for their own convenience.
Very much like with the anti-COVID-mask mania and violence. (...and terrorist kidnapping plots.)
posted by XMLicious at 2:59 PM on October 20, 2020 [11 favorites]
I'm just trying to illustrate the point that we unquestionably committed to drastic and disruptive measures to address a problem that ultimately is much less serious than climate change could potentially be.
We didn't "unquestionably" commit to drastic and disruptive measures. For something that, while less serious than climate change, is also understood to be much more temporary than climate change. Lockdowns have been protested against and ignored by people all over the country, and the results are plain to see in the ongoing spread of COVID cases. And even among folks who were fine with it for a month, or a few months, would balk at making those kinds of drastic lifestyle changes for a decade, or three decades, or however long you'd need to implement measures to make an appreciable dent in climate change. So realistically, if we couldn't handle COVID that way, and the numbers make it clear we couldn't - then how do such drastic anti-climate-change measures come about except through authoritarianism? (I would be inclined to agree that lockdowns, contract tracing, etc. fit the definition of authoritarianism, except that government enforcement of the measures seems to range from nonexistent in Republican-controlled states to inconsistent elsewhere.)
posted by mstokes650 at 3:09 PM on October 20, 2020
We didn't "unquestionably" commit to drastic and disruptive measures. For something that, while less serious than climate change, is also understood to be much more temporary than climate change. Lockdowns have been protested against and ignored by people all over the country, and the results are plain to see in the ongoing spread of COVID cases. And even among folks who were fine with it for a month, or a few months, would balk at making those kinds of drastic lifestyle changes for a decade, or three decades, or however long you'd need to implement measures to make an appreciable dent in climate change. So realistically, if we couldn't handle COVID that way, and the numbers make it clear we couldn't - then how do such drastic anti-climate-change measures come about except through authoritarianism? (I would be inclined to agree that lockdowns, contract tracing, etc. fit the definition of authoritarianism, except that government enforcement of the measures seems to range from nonexistent in Republican-controlled states to inconsistent elsewhere.)
posted by mstokes650 at 3:09 PM on October 20, 2020
Next up, my fifteen-part essay comprised mainly of densely-argued points which fail to directly address the substance of my argument! Remember to Like and Subscribe!
Maybe this is an extreme form of irony you are performing here, but what did you find disagreeable with the piece other than insufficient devotion to the pro-fracking Democrat?
posted by Ouverture at 3:26 PM on October 20, 2020 [6 favorites]
Maybe this is an extreme form of irony you are performing here, but what did you find disagreeable with the piece other than insufficient devotion to the pro-fracking Democrat?
posted by Ouverture at 3:26 PM on October 20, 2020 [6 favorites]
We didn't "unquestionably" commit to drastic and disruptive measures. For something that, while less serious than climate change, is also understood to be much more temporary than climate change. Lockdowns have been protested against and ignored by people all over the country, and the results are plain to see in the ongoing spread of COVID cases. And even among folks who were fine with it for a month, or a few months, would balk at making those kinds of drastic lifestyle changes for a decade, or three decades, or however long you'd need to implement measures to make an appreciable dent in climate change. So realistically, if we couldn't handle COVID that way, and the numbers make it clear we couldn't - then how do such drastic anti-climate-change measures come about except through authoritarianism? (I would be inclined to agree that lockdowns, contract tracing, etc. fit the definition of authoritarianism, except that government enforcement of the measures seems to range from nonexistent in Republican-controlled states to inconsistent elsewhere.)
I'd say opinion from far left to center right was generally supportive, though. That reaction seems universal to me across countries. Of course there were always the extremists and crazies, perhaps more numerous in America, but "respectable" opinion certainly was supportive. We took those measures without a clear idea of how long they would be required or how we would support those adversely affected economically or even psychologically. Indeed, I read a lot of mainstream commentary speculating about what industries would not come back and writing off the inevitable increases in suicides and substances abuses as inevitable casualties of the war against COVID. At least plans like the Green New Deal incorporate supports for those displaced by the shift from a carbon based economy.
I agree that indefinite lockdowns and other anti-COVID measures aren't sustainable, but I am not sure what anti-global warming measures I would classify as authoritarian. We ban and essentially regulate out of existence mining of dangerous chemicals all the time both for health and environmental reasons.
posted by eagles123 at 3:30 PM on October 20, 2020
I'd say opinion from far left to center right was generally supportive, though. That reaction seems universal to me across countries. Of course there were always the extremists and crazies, perhaps more numerous in America, but "respectable" opinion certainly was supportive. We took those measures without a clear idea of how long they would be required or how we would support those adversely affected economically or even psychologically. Indeed, I read a lot of mainstream commentary speculating about what industries would not come back and writing off the inevitable increases in suicides and substances abuses as inevitable casualties of the war against COVID. At least plans like the Green New Deal incorporate supports for those displaced by the shift from a carbon based economy.
I agree that indefinite lockdowns and other anti-COVID measures aren't sustainable, but I am not sure what anti-global warming measures I would classify as authoritarian. We ban and essentially regulate out of existence mining of dangerous chemicals all the time both for health and environmental reasons.
posted by eagles123 at 3:30 PM on October 20, 2020
Using police powers and other compelling measures to enforce quarantines, stop people from dumping their chamberpots out the window onto the sidewalk, or levy taxes to build gigantic underground sewage networks and processing plants (or to force off-utility homeowners to build real septic systems at their own expense rather than a hole in the ground that contaminates the water supply and causes cholera epidemics) is not fascism
Alright, I think maybe it's my own fault for getting off into the weeds about COVID lockdown enforcement when that's not really my central point. My question, fundamentally, is this: how do you envision Joe Biden implementing a sweeping, drastic climate change plan in say, January 2021, that doesn't essentially require him to just act as a dictator and trample a bunch of the United States' already-battered democratic institutions and norms? Do you just also assume that the election will hand over both houses of Congress to the Dems? And that such a sweeping, drastic plan wouldn't immediately cost those Dems the next election, and see the GOP roll it all back? Or do you just not care if he tramples those democratic institutions and norms, as long as a sufficiently aggressive climate change plan gets put in place?
It just kinda feels like people are arguing "No, Medicare For All wouldn't be government overreach!" when my point is not to say that the concept of the government instituting single-payer is government overreach, but that in the present day when we're struggling just to hang on to the hard-won and paltry benefits of the ACA, there's simply no path to implementing Medicare For All that doesn't require disrupting the way our government works just to get from Point A to Point B. Same thing with climate change. Is it fundamentally problematic for the government to attempt to enforce solutions to climate change? Obviously I don't think so (though specifics may vary depending on solutions implemented). But is there a way for Biden to implement a sweeping climate plan that doesn't involve headlines like "Biden suspends Congress"? I don't see one.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:51 PM on October 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
Alright, I think maybe it's my own fault for getting off into the weeds about COVID lockdown enforcement when that's not really my central point. My question, fundamentally, is this: how do you envision Joe Biden implementing a sweeping, drastic climate change plan in say, January 2021, that doesn't essentially require him to just act as a dictator and trample a bunch of the United States' already-battered democratic institutions and norms? Do you just also assume that the election will hand over both houses of Congress to the Dems? And that such a sweeping, drastic plan wouldn't immediately cost those Dems the next election, and see the GOP roll it all back? Or do you just not care if he tramples those democratic institutions and norms, as long as a sufficiently aggressive climate change plan gets put in place?
It just kinda feels like people are arguing "No, Medicare For All wouldn't be government overreach!" when my point is not to say that the concept of the government instituting single-payer is government overreach, but that in the present day when we're struggling just to hang on to the hard-won and paltry benefits of the ACA, there's simply no path to implementing Medicare For All that doesn't require disrupting the way our government works just to get from Point A to Point B. Same thing with climate change. Is it fundamentally problematic for the government to attempt to enforce solutions to climate change? Obviously I don't think so (though specifics may vary depending on solutions implemented). But is there a way for Biden to implement a sweeping climate plan that doesn't involve headlines like "Biden suspends Congress"? I don't see one.
posted by mstokes650 at 3:51 PM on October 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
I've been working on climate policy for about twenty years, including as a nonprofit litigator, a state regulator, and an adviser on federal legislation. I think Biden's plan is really quite good -- and notably is serving as a useful umbrella to pull together the political coalition needed to pass it, and strengthen it. It's the best plan any general election candidate has ever run with, and is doing useful work in the campaign by motivating climate voters without unduly alienating anyone. And it will absolutely be just a starting point contentious organizing work after the election and through inauguration.
On the politics -- well, Current Affairs's basic purpose is to provide a space for provocative essays like this. I tend to think this kind of bomb-throwing doesn't do much, but in the margins it probably helps build the left flank needed to get this stuff passed and strengthened. It's only toxic to the degree it causes people to walk away from the table altogether, since we deeply need to start getting a (sure to initially be inadequate) climate frame together. As long as people stay at the table, get a first thing done, and then keep pushing and organizing, that's fine.
More broadly, I suspect the next round of climate policy -- which Biden's plan reflects -- will need to be a massive industrialization/infrastruture push on renewables and zero emission vehicles. To get that, you need a coalition of labor, EJ groups, and folks who just need work. Biden will come into power with that coalition, and with a chance to do a massive green stimulus. He's well placed, so in a lot of ways thing to do is to get him in seat, do a bunch of democracy fixes to make action more permanent (e.g., court-packing, democracy reform), defend at mid-terms, and keep going.
posted by SandCounty at 4:13 PM on October 20, 2020 [22 favorites]
On the politics -- well, Current Affairs's basic purpose is to provide a space for provocative essays like this. I tend to think this kind of bomb-throwing doesn't do much, but in the margins it probably helps build the left flank needed to get this stuff passed and strengthened. It's only toxic to the degree it causes people to walk away from the table altogether, since we deeply need to start getting a (sure to initially be inadequate) climate frame together. As long as people stay at the table, get a first thing done, and then keep pushing and organizing, that's fine.
More broadly, I suspect the next round of climate policy -- which Biden's plan reflects -- will need to be a massive industrialization/infrastruture push on renewables and zero emission vehicles. To get that, you need a coalition of labor, EJ groups, and folks who just need work. Biden will come into power with that coalition, and with a chance to do a massive green stimulus. He's well placed, so in a lot of ways thing to do is to get him in seat, do a bunch of democracy fixes to make action more permanent (e.g., court-packing, democracy reform), defend at mid-terms, and keep going.
posted by SandCounty at 4:13 PM on October 20, 2020 [22 favorites]
From articles in the scientific journals I read, I'd say we're probably a decade or two from an early Jackpot state. Arctic methane ices are melting faster than models were predicting, and that's runaway warming that we will not be able to control by shutting down carbon industry. We're also wiping species off the biosphere at a rate only slightly slower in geological time than an asteroid collision, and that will have knock-on effects we're only beginning to understand, let alone plan to manage.
But if the argument is for voting third-party, at least by doing what it takes to get Trump out now, we might be able to get a few policies in place that will somewhat mitigate deaths and suffering, and get humanity to a place where some non-sociopathic element will get to survive. Everything else seems to be coming, either way. I'm glad I don't have children.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:31 PM on October 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
But if the argument is for voting third-party, at least by doing what it takes to get Trump out now, we might be able to get a few policies in place that will somewhat mitigate deaths and suffering, and get humanity to a place where some non-sociopathic element will get to survive. Everything else seems to be coming, either way. I'm glad I don't have children.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:31 PM on October 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you were a good faith climate advocate, why would you write or publish this article now?
I think that you've answered your own question here. They obviously aren't writing this in good faith. If they really cared about climate change, they'd wait two weeks and publish it if Biden wins and throw it out if not. 'Cause like it or not, one of those two men will be the next president and one of those has spent the last four years doing his best to remove as many regulation on polluters as he can and the other has published a workable starting plan for combating climate change and has selected a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal as his running mate.
Candidate's proposals are just that, proposals. If Biden wins and if we get a Democratic senate, the work then starts on putting together legislation. Pissing on the campaign plan right now is just stupid and counter productive.
posted by octothorpe at 5:20 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
I think that you've answered your own question here. They obviously aren't writing this in good faith. If they really cared about climate change, they'd wait two weeks and publish it if Biden wins and throw it out if not. 'Cause like it or not, one of those two men will be the next president and one of those has spent the last four years doing his best to remove as many regulation on polluters as he can and the other has published a workable starting plan for combating climate change and has selected a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal as his running mate.
Candidate's proposals are just that, proposals. If Biden wins and if we get a Democratic senate, the work then starts on putting together legislation. Pissing on the campaign plan right now is just stupid and counter productive.
posted by octothorpe at 5:20 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
My question, fundamentally, is this: how do you envision Joe Biden implementing a sweeping, drastic climate change plan in say, January 2021, that doesn't essentially require him to just act as a dictator and trample a bunch of the United States' already-battered democratic institutions and norms?
How about you give an example of something a Biden administration would unavoidably have to do which you are equating with
naked authoritarianismand
eco-fascism? I mean, conservatives (
conservatives, I guess we should probably scare-quote it de rigueur at this point) are having fainting spells in abject terror over the possibility of having to eat fewer hamburgers.
(Seriously—Trump literally actually came out as pro-government-death-squad as the actual President of the United States in an actual U.S. election. You cannot handwave your way through imputing fascism onto the Democrats.)
posted by XMLicious at 5:30 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
I was so worried it had faded away with the rise of Trump and the return of the Nazi Party, but here at last it has come 'round again to provide such solace, such succor, such faith that I am smarter than every other human being alive and if you mostly agree with me but do not adopt my exact line of reasoning you are actually a worse enemy than Nazi Satan.
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying criticism of the article is the circular firing squad, so I'll proceed on that presupposition. If I'm not, then consider my comment below to be directed at anyone defending this damning-with-faint-praise hit piece and its curious 14 days before the election timing of its publication.
Biden's proposals are not immune to criticism, nor should they be. But today is October 20, and the election is on November 3. If you don't think the timing of this article isn't calculated specifically to damage enthusiasm for Biden, you're living in a fantasy. Context matters. And a crucial -- I'd even say definitive -- part of the context of this article is it's released two weeks before the election. I consider that sufficient context to say that the people who chose to write and publish this article are of the accelerationist mindset.
Accelerationism is Fascism's useful idiot. Don't be a useful idiot when we literally have a choice between *gasp* incremental progress! and the repudiation of fact-based empirical reality and, oh, that other thing, the actual destruction of the Republic.
posted by tclark at 5:31 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying criticism of the article is the circular firing squad, so I'll proceed on that presupposition. If I'm not, then consider my comment below to be directed at anyone defending this damning-with-faint-praise hit piece and its curious 14 days before the election timing of its publication.
Biden's proposals are not immune to criticism, nor should they be. But today is October 20, and the election is on November 3. If you don't think the timing of this article isn't calculated specifically to damage enthusiasm for Biden, you're living in a fantasy. Context matters. And a crucial -- I'd even say definitive -- part of the context of this article is it's released two weeks before the election. I consider that sufficient context to say that the people who chose to write and publish this article are of the accelerationist mindset.
Accelerationism is Fascism's useful idiot. Don't be a useful idiot when we literally have a choice between *gasp* incremental progress! and the repudiation of fact-based empirical reality and, oh, that other thing, the actual destruction of the Republic.
posted by tclark at 5:31 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
If anyone here really thinks people posted this to get people to jump ship on Biden and not hold his feet to the fire post-election, maybe you should do some fucking soul searching instead of trying to accuse people of trying to "be divisive."
Literally is there a single Trump supporter on Metafilter? I haven't seen one. So whose minds are we trying to change and what are we trying to change them to?
Because we have some people preaching doom and gloom like the only alternative is to vote for Trump.
You guys realize we can critique the Democratic candidate and say "he doesn't go far enough" when he doesn't and it doesn't mean we're in the bag for the orange shithead and four years into this shit I'm so sick of being accused of this because I fucking care that Biden doesn't go far enough and people will suffer for it.
So glad that all of you are okay with it just being a fraction less people suffering.
This happens in every thread that critiques the Democratic party in any reasonable way, and this attitude is what is pushing progressives out of the party, that our valid critiques mean we must support crazy bullshit.
Can you people cut the shit and accept that it's okay to say the person you're voting for isn't going far enough and to critique their positions? I'm sick of this purity test bullshit where if I don't support the Democrats in the right way I must not be one and my opinion must not count. It's a bunch of fucking shit, guys.
"Don't be a useful idiot when we literally have a choice between *gasp* incremental progress! and the repudiation of fact-based empirical reality and, oh, that other thing, the actual destruction of the Republic."
Literally what I am referring to. Who in here who is a "useful idiot" who is going to vote for Trump? Fucking none of the people who support what was written here. Take a hike with this shit.
posted by deadaluspark at 5:41 PM on October 20, 2020 [13 favorites]
Literally is there a single Trump supporter on Metafilter? I haven't seen one. So whose minds are we trying to change and what are we trying to change them to?
Because we have some people preaching doom and gloom like the only alternative is to vote for Trump.
You guys realize we can critique the Democratic candidate and say "he doesn't go far enough" when he doesn't and it doesn't mean we're in the bag for the orange shithead and four years into this shit I'm so sick of being accused of this because I fucking care that Biden doesn't go far enough and people will suffer for it.
So glad that all of you are okay with it just being a fraction less people suffering.
This happens in every thread that critiques the Democratic party in any reasonable way, and this attitude is what is pushing progressives out of the party, that our valid critiques mean we must support crazy bullshit.
Can you people cut the shit and accept that it's okay to say the person you're voting for isn't going far enough and to critique their positions? I'm sick of this purity test bullshit where if I don't support the Democrats in the right way I must not be one and my opinion must not count. It's a bunch of fucking shit, guys.
"Don't be a useful idiot when we literally have a choice between *gasp* incremental progress! and the repudiation of fact-based empirical reality and, oh, that other thing, the actual destruction of the Republic."
Literally what I am referring to. Who in here who is a "useful idiot" who is going to vote for Trump? Fucking none of the people who support what was written here. Take a hike with this shit.
posted by deadaluspark at 5:41 PM on October 20, 2020 [13 favorites]
Literally what I am referring to. Who in here who is a "useful idiot" who is going to vote for Trump? Fucking none of the people who support what was written here. Take a hike with this shit.
Maybe a bunch of readers of Current Affairs? You really think that posting a damning-with-faint-praise article 2 weeks before the election is going to.... make very-lefty folks MORE enthusiastic for Biden?
I'll hike right here with this shit, because it seems that you delicately elided that I didn't oppose criticism for Biden -- heck, it's even in the very same comment you quoted! -- but that the timing of this article stinks to high heaven. And it absolutely does. If you think the timing and content of this article wasn't designed to aid Trump, you need to get out of your filter bubble more and see how many people I've seen are barely holding on to their noses to vote Biden over Trump (just like many did in 2016, and ended up not able to "make themselves vote for Hillary" and stayed home) and are looking for an excuse to not bother at all again this year. It's accelerationism all the way down. I'll stand right next to you in holding Biden's feet to the fire on January 22. Until then, let's not give oxygen to accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling masquerading as critique.
posted by tclark at 6:02 PM on October 20, 2020 [12 favorites]
Maybe a bunch of readers of Current Affairs? You really think that posting a damning-with-faint-praise article 2 weeks before the election is going to.... make very-lefty folks MORE enthusiastic for Biden?
I'll hike right here with this shit, because it seems that you delicately elided that I didn't oppose criticism for Biden -- heck, it's even in the very same comment you quoted! -- but that the timing of this article stinks to high heaven. And it absolutely does. If you think the timing and content of this article wasn't designed to aid Trump, you need to get out of your filter bubble more and see how many people I've seen are barely holding on to their noses to vote Biden over Trump (just like many did in 2016, and ended up not able to "make themselves vote for Hillary" and stayed home) and are looking for an excuse to not bother at all again this year. It's accelerationism all the way down. I'll stand right next to you in holding Biden's feet to the fire on January 22. Until then, let's not give oxygen to accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling masquerading as critique.
posted by tclark at 6:02 PM on October 20, 2020 [12 favorites]
If anyone here really thinks people posted this to get people to jump ship on Biden and not hold his feet to the fire post-election
Perhaps this is the point of difference, though: the idea that this is about holding Biden's feet to the fire is predicated on assuming that he will win. That is far, far, far from certain. Yes, the polling data and the fundamentals are encouraging, but polling analytics currently estimate the odds of a Trump win of about 1 in 8, and that's without accounting for unprecedented voter suppression or other dirty tactics we know the Republicans are using this year. If you believe that this election is basically over, then maybe the idea of holding Biden's feet to the fire makes sense. If you believe that this election is still very much in play, then that is a pointless distraction right now, we can do that in a few weeks if things work out. (Only one of these beliefs is substantiated by the data, though.)
posted by biogeo at 6:09 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
Perhaps this is the point of difference, though: the idea that this is about holding Biden's feet to the fire is predicated on assuming that he will win. That is far, far, far from certain. Yes, the polling data and the fundamentals are encouraging, but polling analytics currently estimate the odds of a Trump win of about 1 in 8, and that's without accounting for unprecedented voter suppression or other dirty tactics we know the Republicans are using this year. If you believe that this election is basically over, then maybe the idea of holding Biden's feet to the fire makes sense. If you believe that this election is still very much in play, then that is a pointless distraction right now, we can do that in a few weeks if things work out. (Only one of these beliefs is substantiated by the data, though.)
posted by biogeo at 6:09 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
then that is a pointless distraction right now, we can do that in a few weeks if things work out.
Can we? I'm not sure historical precedent holds that out. Assuming the good case, in a few weeks it'll be "The votes are still being counted, we don't want to distract from what's going on", a few weeks after that it'll be "Trump's in his lame duck period, we don't want to dampen support for the protests we'll need to materialize to make sure he doesn't change his mind", a few weeks after that it'll be "Can't we come together in a show of civility for the inauguration", a few weeks after that it'll be "Sure Kris Kobach is running ICE, and that's not ideal, but what would you have us do?", a few weeks after that it'll be "He's fighting Congress to pass another military budget bill because that's where a fraction of a percent of COVID relief is tucked away"
Turns out there's never a polite time that won't be read as "accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling".
Given how much concern there is about "people barely holding their noses for Biden over Trump", there sure is a consistent message to push people away from Biden by sticking him with the worst excesses of the American political system as if it's owed.
I'm not sure we're pointing at the right things as "accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling masquerading as critique"
posted by CrystalDave at 6:23 PM on October 20, 2020 [6 favorites]
Can we? I'm not sure historical precedent holds that out. Assuming the good case, in a few weeks it'll be "The votes are still being counted, we don't want to distract from what's going on", a few weeks after that it'll be "Trump's in his lame duck period, we don't want to dampen support for the protests we'll need to materialize to make sure he doesn't change his mind", a few weeks after that it'll be "Can't we come together in a show of civility for the inauguration", a few weeks after that it'll be "Sure Kris Kobach is running ICE, and that's not ideal, but what would you have us do?", a few weeks after that it'll be "He's fighting Congress to pass another military budget bill because that's where a fraction of a percent of COVID relief is tucked away"
Turns out there's never a polite time that won't be read as "accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling".
Given how much concern there is about "people barely holding their noses for Biden over Trump", there sure is a consistent message to push people away from Biden by sticking him with the worst excesses of the American political system as if it's owed.
I'm not sure we're pointing at the right things as "accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling masquerading as critique"
posted by CrystalDave at 6:23 PM on October 20, 2020 [6 favorites]
Turns out there's never a polite time that won't be read as "accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling".
You must have me confused for someone fickle and arguing in bad faith, and that there is never a good time to criticize someone I support, so I'll make a deal with you. If you ever hear me say after January 21 during a Biden administration, and before the 2024 election starts heating up, that "now isn't a good time" to offer criticism (or words substantially to that effect), I'll paypal you, or a charity of your choice $50. No kidding.
But I'll also set a reminder, and if I have never uttered words to that effect before the primaries are over in 2024, you can send $50 to support Metafilter or to the ACLU. If, as you say, I'm going to come out and move the goalposts, you got nothing to lose.
posted by tclark at 6:32 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
You must have me confused for someone fickle and arguing in bad faith, and that there is never a good time to criticize someone I support, so I'll make a deal with you. If you ever hear me say after January 21 during a Biden administration, and before the 2024 election starts heating up, that "now isn't a good time" to offer criticism (or words substantially to that effect), I'll paypal you, or a charity of your choice $50. No kidding.
But I'll also set a reminder, and if I have never uttered words to that effect before the primaries are over in 2024, you can send $50 to support Metafilter or to the ACLU. If, as you say, I'm going to come out and move the goalposts, you got nothing to lose.
posted by tclark at 6:32 PM on October 20, 2020 [10 favorites]
The waffling leftist, uncertain between casting their vote for Biden and tossing their vote away out of disgust, is about as rare and unlikely to be affected by anything as the waffling swing voter, certain between Biden and Trump. Basically you need the budget of an NBC focus group or a $50 million super pac to even find one of these people, let alone convince them of anything. As the motionless polls have shown, the vast majority of supposed swing voters have long ago made up their minds, and the remainder are basically coin-flippers. The same goes for the even rarer lefty who might-or-might-not vote for Biden. The waffling disgruntled leftists have long ago either decided, or are essentially random. If the ten thousand Trump scandals just since September have had almost zero effect on swing voters, then even something ten times as significant as an article like this would have absolutely zero electoral effect on anyone. And that holds even more for how people discuss such an article -- here, Twitter, wherever -- though a fraction of zero is still zero.
posted by chortly at 6:37 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by chortly at 6:37 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
Turns out there's never a polite time that won't be read as "accelerationist bullshit concern-trolling".
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
posted by aramaic at 6:39 PM on October 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
posted by aramaic at 6:39 PM on October 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
The waffling leftist, uncertain between casting their vote for Biden and tossing their vote away out of disgust, is about as rare and unlikely to be affected by anything as the waffling swing voter, certain between Biden and Trump.
posted by tclark at 6:42 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
In 2016 in Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes, according to current totals on the state’s official website.You're talking like it wasn't just the very last election we had that was decided by razor-thin margins, and that every error, even the most minuscule, added up to 10,704 votes in Michigan, and 22,177 votes in Wisconsin.
And in Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.
posted by tclark at 6:42 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yes, but almost all of those people had made up their minds long before November. And the remainder were, by almost all statistical measures, essentially random. The fact that it is razor-close doesn't mean that infinitesimally tiny events have significant effects.
posted by chortly at 6:50 PM on October 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by chortly at 6:50 PM on October 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
There are non-Republican people out there just looking for a reason to not vote, and it seems to me that articles like this being published at this particular moment in time are giving them exactly what they want. It could have waited a couple of weeks!
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:51 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:51 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
Lots of people seem to believe this, but the polling data suggests that people genuinely "looking for a reason to not vote" (or switch from Biden to Trump) -- ie, people whose vote intention could genuinely be affected by encountering some sort of new information -- are almost entirely non-existent at this point. Most of those claiming such a thing are actually already decided on their course of action, or are essentially random and are neither predictable nor affectable.
posted by chortly at 6:56 PM on October 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by chortly at 6:56 PM on October 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
How about you give an example of something a Biden administration would unavoidably have to do which you are equating with "naked authoritarianism" and "eco-fascism"? I mean, conservatives ("conservatives", I guess we should probably scare-quote it de rigueur at this point) are having fainting spells in abject terror over the possibility of having to eat fewer hamburgers.
I already gave an example in the post you are quoting: suspending Congress. Or, if you want another example: spending $16 trillion dollars (pricetag of the Sanders plan) without Congressional approval (you recall which branch of our government has the "power of the purse" right?). The President flagrantly ignoring our laws, norms, courts, and Constitution is fascist; it's fascist when it's Trump doing it and it'd still be fascist if it were Biden (despite how honestly hard to imagine that hypothetical even is, given what a hidebound centrist Biden is). You don't need to hit the point of full-blown death squads harassing people on the street to be fascist, as the early years of the Trump administration should have made extraordinarily clear to everyone.
Now feel free to answer my still-unanswered question: how exactly does Joe Biden implement a vast, sweeping climate change plan come January without acting as a dictator?
posted by mstokes650 at 7:03 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
I already gave an example in the post you are quoting: suspending Congress. Or, if you want another example: spending $16 trillion dollars (pricetag of the Sanders plan) without Congressional approval (you recall which branch of our government has the "power of the purse" right?). The President flagrantly ignoring our laws, norms, courts, and Constitution is fascist; it's fascist when it's Trump doing it and it'd still be fascist if it were Biden (despite how honestly hard to imagine that hypothetical even is, given what a hidebound centrist Biden is). You don't need to hit the point of full-blown death squads harassing people on the street to be fascist, as the early years of the Trump administration should have made extraordinarily clear to everyone.
Now feel free to answer my still-unanswered question: how exactly does Joe Biden implement a vast, sweeping climate change plan come January without acting as a dictator?
posted by mstokes650 at 7:03 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
With all due respect, that's almost a deliberate misreading of the article. I'm not about to go throwing around accusations of bad faith like the people accusing Current Affairs of being useful idiots for Trump, so let me be clear what my understanding of the article is:
I’d like to address what “sufficient” might mean here and to suggest the nature of the Biden plan’s failure in that regard. But I want to clarify first that the plan’s insufficiency doesn’t mean that defeating Donald Trump isn’t imperative. It means rather that, however devoutly that outcome is to be wished and worked for, defeating Trump should not itself be confused with taking the drastic urgency of climate change seriously.
Those words are from the article. In other words, first we must defeat Trump. Defeating Trump is step number one to addressing climate change. The author states that right in the article. They go on to argue, however, that defeating Trump is not enough to avert disaster due to AGW and that Biden's plan is part of a legacy of inadequate Democratic plans to address AGW. Therefore, we must push Biden to do better.
That's it. I don't see anything about not voting for Biden. If someone gets that idea from the piece, then they must have reading comprehension difficulties. I also don't see anything about Biden assuming dictatorial powers or instituting martial law or whatever. The thought never crossed my mind reading the article, and I haven't seen anyone suggest Biden take those measures either. Really, the suggestion goes beyond straw-manning to I don't know what.
What this is really about is both the Democrat's opening bargaining position and how we should view whatever deal eventually is reached in the context of addressing AGW.
On personal note: I already sent in my ballot for Biden, just like I already sent in my ballot for HRC by this time last year. I always vote for the Democrat, whether its a midterm year or a presidential year. I also just got finished listening to one of my union reps basically say there was nothing they could do to prevent me from exposing myself and my family to COVID when most other members of my union are still protected. There was nothing they could do, you see. Compromises needed to be made. That may or may not be true, but I'm still gonna complain. If I don't, my voice never will be heard. Luckily, that individual heard the displeasure of my group from an individual much more eloquent than I. I salute her.
So, to those people who appointed themselves to negotiate on my behalf: Thank you for your service, but the condescension is not appreciated. Somehow, you all never adopt that tone when you ask me for money or to volunteer. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
posted by eagles123 at 8:26 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
I’d like to address what “sufficient” might mean here and to suggest the nature of the Biden plan’s failure in that regard. But I want to clarify first that the plan’s insufficiency doesn’t mean that defeating Donald Trump isn’t imperative. It means rather that, however devoutly that outcome is to be wished and worked for, defeating Trump should not itself be confused with taking the drastic urgency of climate change seriously.
Those words are from the article. In other words, first we must defeat Trump. Defeating Trump is step number one to addressing climate change. The author states that right in the article. They go on to argue, however, that defeating Trump is not enough to avert disaster due to AGW and that Biden's plan is part of a legacy of inadequate Democratic plans to address AGW. Therefore, we must push Biden to do better.
That's it. I don't see anything about not voting for Biden. If someone gets that idea from the piece, then they must have reading comprehension difficulties. I also don't see anything about Biden assuming dictatorial powers or instituting martial law or whatever. The thought never crossed my mind reading the article, and I haven't seen anyone suggest Biden take those measures either. Really, the suggestion goes beyond straw-manning to I don't know what.
What this is really about is both the Democrat's opening bargaining position and how we should view whatever deal eventually is reached in the context of addressing AGW.
On personal note: I already sent in my ballot for Biden, just like I already sent in my ballot for HRC by this time last year. I always vote for the Democrat, whether its a midterm year or a presidential year. I also just got finished listening to one of my union reps basically say there was nothing they could do to prevent me from exposing myself and my family to COVID when most other members of my union are still protected. There was nothing they could do, you see. Compromises needed to be made. That may or may not be true, but I'm still gonna complain. If I don't, my voice never will be heard. Luckily, that individual heard the displeasure of my group from an individual much more eloquent than I. I salute her.
So, to those people who appointed themselves to negotiate on my behalf: Thank you for your service, but the condescension is not appreciated. Somehow, you all never adopt that tone when you ask me for money or to volunteer. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
posted by eagles123 at 8:26 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
mstokes650: It seems tautological for you to be saying
I don't get what the connection is between eagle123's mention of public health measures now and in the 19th century, whatever went through your head reading it, and suspension of Congress or $16 trillion being unavoidably naked-authoritarian eco-fascistically necessary in January. (Like... a matter of weeks away.) It seems completely contrived to me.
I'm kind of woozy right now and in the grip of sleeping medication but in good faith I'll take my best shot at your question: Biden could exercise the full range of executive powers possible to de-permit and prohibit the extraction and interstate transport of fossil fuels. Shut down all the pumps, close the valves, get the tankers off the roads. Trump's Muslim Ban, but for carbon. (Of course, what you'd want to do in reality is try to plan everything out to achieve a smoothly attenuated supply, with some more-essential industries favored and cruise ship operators can go screw themselves, etc. But like I said this all seems contrived, to drive towards just any massive widespread changes by January.)
That, to me, seems like wartime austerity; no dissolving Congress or anything but unusual restrictions and rationing. But maybe any kind of wartime austerity you would also equate to naked authoritarianism and fascism; if so, you may be correct that under your definitions, successfully solving climate change will inevitably lead to what you'd regard as authoritarianism and fascism. (But I think there's a big difference.)
posted by XMLicious at 8:34 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
He'd be fascist because he'd suspend Congress! Obviously!Why would he shut down Congress? What would he be trying to do? What series of events would have led up to it? Similarly with the $16 trillion—why is it so unavoidable? And so urgent—how does it result in the instafascism?
I don't get what the connection is between eagle123's mention of public health measures now and in the 19th century, whatever went through your head reading it, and suspension of Congress or $16 trillion being unavoidably naked-authoritarian eco-fascistically necessary in January. (Like... a matter of weeks away.) It seems completely contrived to me.
I'm kind of woozy right now and in the grip of sleeping medication but in good faith I'll take my best shot at your question: Biden could exercise the full range of executive powers possible to de-permit and prohibit the extraction and interstate transport of fossil fuels. Shut down all the pumps, close the valves, get the tankers off the roads. Trump's Muslim Ban, but for carbon. (Of course, what you'd want to do in reality is try to plan everything out to achieve a smoothly attenuated supply, with some more-essential industries favored and cruise ship operators can go screw themselves, etc. But like I said this all seems contrived, to drive towards just any massive widespread changes by January.)
That, to me, seems like wartime austerity; no dissolving Congress or anything but unusual restrictions and rationing. But maybe any kind of wartime austerity you would also equate to naked authoritarianism and fascism; if so, you may be correct that under your definitions, successfully solving climate change will inevitably lead to what you'd regard as authoritarianism and fascism. (But I think there's a big difference.)
posted by XMLicious at 8:34 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
That's it. I don't see anything about not voting for Biden. If someone gets that idea from the piece, then they must have reading comprehension difficulties.
Allow me to reiterate, for the kids in the back row: this article was posted two weeks before the election. That is, in its entirety, what I find objectionable about the piece. I don't consider their reasoning flawed, I don't consider their description of the problems of climate change or their description of the criticality of the solutions to be inapposite. Two weeks before the election, a major outlet going "Biden? Meh." is, ispo facto, causing harm to the goal of defeating Trump. And I do not believe that to be an accident.
Maybe Jim Comey thought he was putting candidate Clinton in her place by taking a potshot at her a week before the election. Maybe Current Affairs feels like they're doing the same. Today is not the day to put Biden in his place for 'being crummy before, and maybe a bit less crummy -- but don't forget crummy! -- now. Don't forget crummy! 14 days to the election, and we find Biden's climate change plan unconvincing.'
Yeah, like this article couldn't have come out November 4th? Bull. Shit. The timing is not a coincidence.
posted by tclark at 10:12 PM on October 20, 2020 [9 favorites]
Allow me to reiterate, for the kids in the back row: this article was posted two weeks before the election. That is, in its entirety, what I find objectionable about the piece. I don't consider their reasoning flawed, I don't consider their description of the problems of climate change or their description of the criticality of the solutions to be inapposite. Two weeks before the election, a major outlet going "Biden? Meh." is, ispo facto, causing harm to the goal of defeating Trump. And I do not believe that to be an accident.
Maybe Jim Comey thought he was putting candidate Clinton in her place by taking a potshot at her a week before the election. Maybe Current Affairs feels like they're doing the same. Today is not the day to put Biden in his place for 'being crummy before, and maybe a bit less crummy -- but don't forget crummy! -- now. Don't forget crummy! 14 days to the election, and we find Biden's climate change plan unconvincing.'
Yeah, like this article couldn't have come out November 4th? Bull. Shit. The timing is not a coincidence.
posted by tclark at 10:12 PM on October 20, 2020 [9 favorites]
defeating Trump should not itself be confused with taking the drastic urgency of climate change seriously.
Are people really doing that, though? I haven’t seen anyone doing that.
I mean, of course taking the urgency of climate change seriously is one motivation people have for wanting Trump defeated, because we all know nothing’s going to be done about it while his administration is in power.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:22 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
Are people really doing that, though? I haven’t seen anyone doing that.
I mean, of course taking the urgency of climate change seriously is one motivation people have for wanting Trump defeated, because we all know nothing’s going to be done about it while his administration is in power.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:22 PM on October 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
Allow me to reiterate, for the kids in the back row: this article was posted two weeks before the election. That is, in its entirety, what I find objectionable about the piece. I don't consider their reasoning flawed, I don't consider their description of the problems of climate change or their description of the criticality of the solutions to be inapposite. Two weeks before the election, a major outlet going "Biden? Meh." is, ispo facto, causing harm to the goal of defeating Trump. And I do not believe that to be an accident.
Fair enough. Personally, I don't believe an article posted in an obscure leftist journal is going to convince people not to vote for Biden. Agree to disagree on that. I can only respond to the text as written, which I read as telling people to vote for Biden as a first step to addressing climate change. For what its worth, it looks like Biden is a stronger position than Clinton, and it seems like the author takes it as a given that Trump will lose. Maybe they are wrong in that. I hope they are not.
posted by eagles123 at 10:24 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
Fair enough. Personally, I don't believe an article posted in an obscure leftist journal is going to convince people not to vote for Biden. Agree to disagree on that. I can only respond to the text as written, which I read as telling people to vote for Biden as a first step to addressing climate change. For what its worth, it looks like Biden is a stronger position than Clinton, and it seems like the author takes it as a given that Trump will lose. Maybe they are wrong in that. I hope they are not.
posted by eagles123 at 10:24 PM on October 20, 2020 [7 favorites]
There are lots of ways to frame criticism of a policy. You could focus on the wonky details. You could talk about political strategies necessary to do better. You could point to better, actually enacted policies. And so on. What approach does this article take? The frame is as "Biden is committed to ecocide and he's horrible and Obama was horrible and the Democrats are worse deniers* than Republicans." Published in a magazine whose editor in chief despises (his word) Joe Biden.
Maybe not surprising it's not leading to a good discussion? The point of the article was to get people talking about how Biden sucks, not to get people talking about what good climate policy looks like or how we might get it enacted. So that's what we're discussing.
I completely don't understand this approach if you care about climate policy--not now, not after the election. How does framing it as "Democrats love ecocide" get you closer? It won't inspire the left to get this passed, and a failure to pass this won't inspire the center to pass something better. You need the current generation of Democratic politicians to take action. On things like wealth taxes or labor protections or universal income or M4A you can at least make the case that it's a decades long project to get there and working towards that is something better than something tomorrow. If you think we have that time to wait for climate initiatives you don't care about climate change.
"more pervasive" is the phrase.
- - -
Related: Here's David Roberts, a superb climate change policy reporter and not remotely afraid to criticize centrist Democrats for being centrist wusses:
posted by mark k at 11:04 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
Maybe not surprising it's not leading to a good discussion? The point of the article was to get people talking about how Biden sucks, not to get people talking about what good climate policy looks like or how we might get it enacted. So that's what we're discussing.
I completely don't understand this approach if you care about climate policy--not now, not after the election. How does framing it as "Democrats love ecocide" get you closer? It won't inspire the left to get this passed, and a failure to pass this won't inspire the center to pass something better. You need the current generation of Democratic politicians to take action. On things like wealth taxes or labor protections or universal income or M4A you can at least make the case that it's a decades long project to get there and working towards that is something better than something tomorrow. If you think we have that time to wait for climate initiatives you don't care about climate change.
"more pervasive" is the phrase.
- - -
Related: Here's David Roberts, a superb climate change policy reporter and not remotely afraid to criticize centrist Democrats for being centrist wusses:
Biden’s climate plan is easily the most ambitious ever put forward by a presidential candidate. It would target 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, which is faster than even the most progressive states have pushed. It would invest $2 trillion and channel 40 percent of all federal green spending to vulnerable communities. It would retrofit millions of buildings, ramp up federal research, reorient US foreign policy around climate, beef up EPA enforcement, and on and on.Another article a few days later by him summarizes foreign policy intiatives Biden could take on climate.
It’s not the GND, but it’s a really good deal.
To have any hope of doing any of it, Biden needs to get elected, and to do that, he needs to walk a fine line: avoid appearing too closely aligned with the activist left, to avoid spooking swing voters, but remain closely enough aligned to keep the left on his side. That, in a nutshell, is what he was trying to do at the debate, and what Trump was deliberately trying to prevent him from doing.
posted by mark k at 11:04 PM on October 20, 2020 [8 favorites]
We aren't having good discussion because we can't even agree on the intent of the posted article or the message it is trying to impart. Calling Biden's plan "the most ambitious ever put forward by a presidential candidate" doesn't really say much considering the weakness of past proposals. I don't think even the author of the posted article would disagree with that statement. I also don't think anyone would disagree that its important for Trump to be defeated, or that Biden's plan would be better than nothing. To me, the question posed by the article is whether the plan goes far enough, which is an empirical question that exists outside the realm of political considerations.
posted by eagles123 at 11:38 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 11:38 PM on October 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
Why would he shut down Congress? What would he be trying to do? What series of events would have led up to it? Similarly with the $16 trillion—why is it so unavoidable? And so urgent—how does it result in the instafascism?
Don't take it up with me -- that's literally the premise of the article in the OP, a lengthy declaration that Biden's climate plan is not enough and has to do more, faster, with several comments in it about how Sanders' $16 trillion plan might've been sufficient, but a confident assurance that Biden's current plan is too little, too late. The author is the one asking for a plan that Does Everything, ASAP and literally saying that Biden's plan is an enemy of that; I'm just trying to point out that President does not (and should not) rule by fiat, and that a plan that Does Everything, ASAP is not politically feasible. At least not without serious erosion of democracy.
I don't know from a legal/constitutional scholar standpoint whether a president could enact those wartime-style measures you describe without actually being granted wartime powers by Act of Congress (one the one hand, I feel like since the War on Terror or possibly the War on Drugs, the executive office has grabbed a lot of leeway; but on the other hand, Trump's Muslim Ban [thankfully] got soundly drubbed in the courts) but I do feel pretty confident in predicting that A.) such measures would almost certainly result in a 1-term presidency, and B.) just 4 years of such measures wouldn't accomplish much. Which leaves us back at where we began: to implement such measures and make them last long enough to do any good, we'd be looking at serious erosion of democracy.
I'd much rather have Biden's centrist-friendly, woefully insufficient plan, than the "more" the author is insisting we need right now - not because we don't need more, but because there's currently no way to implement "more" that doesn't require opening the door to a whole lot of bad. As I said in my first post in this thread, I hope Biden's plan will make it easier to implement bigger, more ambitious plans in the future. It's not just that it's better than Trump's non-plan to let the world become a flaming hellscape (...duh) - it's that it's probably pretty darn close to the best possible plan that can be legally, democratically implemented right now. We may want more, but to make another wartime metaphor, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want - and a population who couldn't handle wearing masks, social distancing and self-quarantining for a few months to stop the spread of COVID isn't gonna go along with immediate rationing/phasing out of fossil fuels or whatever Do Everything ASAP plan would make the author of this piece actually happy.
posted by mstokes650 at 12:04 AM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Don't take it up with me -- that's literally the premise of the article in the OP, a lengthy declaration that Biden's climate plan is not enough and has to do more, faster, with several comments in it about how Sanders' $16 trillion plan might've been sufficient, but a confident assurance that Biden's current plan is too little, too late. The author is the one asking for a plan that Does Everything, ASAP and literally saying that Biden's plan is an enemy of that; I'm just trying to point out that President does not (and should not) rule by fiat, and that a plan that Does Everything, ASAP is not politically feasible. At least not without serious erosion of democracy.
I don't know from a legal/constitutional scholar standpoint whether a president could enact those wartime-style measures you describe without actually being granted wartime powers by Act of Congress (one the one hand, I feel like since the War on Terror or possibly the War on Drugs, the executive office has grabbed a lot of leeway; but on the other hand, Trump's Muslim Ban [thankfully] got soundly drubbed in the courts) but I do feel pretty confident in predicting that A.) such measures would almost certainly result in a 1-term presidency, and B.) just 4 years of such measures wouldn't accomplish much. Which leaves us back at where we began: to implement such measures and make them last long enough to do any good, we'd be looking at serious erosion of democracy.
I'd much rather have Biden's centrist-friendly, woefully insufficient plan, than the "more" the author is insisting we need right now - not because we don't need more, but because there's currently no way to implement "more" that doesn't require opening the door to a whole lot of bad. As I said in my first post in this thread, I hope Biden's plan will make it easier to implement bigger, more ambitious plans in the future. It's not just that it's better than Trump's non-plan to let the world become a flaming hellscape (...duh) - it's that it's probably pretty darn close to the best possible plan that can be legally, democratically implemented right now. We may want more, but to make another wartime metaphor, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want - and a population who couldn't handle wearing masks, social distancing and self-quarantining for a few months to stop the spread of COVID isn't gonna go along with immediate rationing/phasing out of fossil fuels or whatever Do Everything ASAP plan would make the author of this piece actually happy.
posted by mstokes650 at 12:04 AM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Loudly declaring to everyone who will hear that effective action on climate change is impossible is a self-fulling prophecy. If, for the sake of morale, we should withhold criticisms of Biden at this moment, then likewise, for the sake of morale, we should be doubly cautious about arguing against aggressive climate action. Take your reservations about the feasibility of immediate decarbonization and pack them into the same mental box where your doubts about Biden go.
posted by Pyry at 4:49 AM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 4:49 AM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
I don't know from a legal/constitutional scholar standpoint whether a president could enact those wartime-style measures you describe without actually being granted wartime powers by Act of Congress (one the one hand, I feel like since the War on Terror or possibly the War on Drugs, the executive office has grabbed a lot of leeway; but on the other hand, Trump's Muslim Ban [thankfully] got soundly drubbed in the courts)
I'd also point out that U.S. participation in many actual state-on-state wars during the past century have not involved declaration of war by Congress.
posted by XMLicious at 4:57 AM on October 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
I can only respond to the text as written
My own response is mainly to the text when written.
There's a three-part test that everybody ought to apply when deciding whether or not to publish a thing, and hitting the Post button should only ever be done if all three parts pass.
1. Does this need to be said?
2. Does this need to be said by me?
3. Does this need to be said by me right now?
The article manifestly fails part 3. It should not have been published this close to the upcoming election.
posted by flabdablet at 5:18 AM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
My own response is mainly to the text when written.
There's a three-part test that everybody ought to apply when deciding whether or not to publish a thing, and hitting the Post button should only ever be done if all three parts pass.
1. Does this need to be said?
2. Does this need to be said by me?
3. Does this need to be said by me right now?
The article manifestly fails part 3. It should not have been published this close to the upcoming election.
posted by flabdablet at 5:18 AM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
Yeah, like this article couldn't have come out November 4th? Bull. Shit. The timing is not a coincidence.
So what is it then? What dark, sinister forces have led to this article being published? Are they of a...Russian nature?
Allow me to reiterate, for the kids in the back row: if this article was posted on November 4th, it would have been too soon because of likely election news chaos. The stakes would be too high to disturb such a fragile moment in time. If this article was posted after Biden's hopeful inauguration, it would have been too soon because the Democrats need all the party unity they can get because oh, don't you know, we have to worry about the midterms. The stakes would be too high to disturb such a fragile moment in time. Do we wait after the midterms? Oh goodness no, because we have re-election to worry about. Next thing we know, it's 2028 and even though Biden has done nothing about fossil fuel extraction, we just can't bring it up because the stakes are going to be too high and Democrats don't want to alienate the white moderate boomer voters in Pennsylvania again.
This chastising of leftists and progressives is what happened under Obama. It helped suck out much of the energy out of room for leftist agitation during the Obama years because the stakes were always too high. For those who actually read the article, this was the result under Obama:
posted by Ouverture at 5:26 AM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
So what is it then? What dark, sinister forces have led to this article being published? Are they of a...Russian nature?
Allow me to reiterate, for the kids in the back row: if this article was posted on November 4th, it would have been too soon because of likely election news chaos. The stakes would be too high to disturb such a fragile moment in time. If this article was posted after Biden's hopeful inauguration, it would have been too soon because the Democrats need all the party unity they can get because oh, don't you know, we have to worry about the midterms. The stakes would be too high to disturb such a fragile moment in time. Do we wait after the midterms? Oh goodness no, because we have re-election to worry about. Next thing we know, it's 2028 and even though Biden has done nothing about fossil fuel extraction, we just can't bring it up because the stakes are going to be too high and Democrats don't want to alienate the white moderate boomer voters in Pennsylvania again.
This chastising of leftists and progressives is what happened under Obama. It helped suck out much of the energy out of room for leftist agitation during the Obama years because the stakes were always too high. For those who actually read the article, this was the result under Obama:
Indeed, even as the prospects for preventing the most apocalyptic scenarios dwindle, and as paying pecksniffian obeisance to the “existential crisis” has for Democrats grown increasingly de rigueur, Obama’s ecocidal boasting has continued unabated. In November 2018—the month after the IPCC defined the necessity of immediate and drastic greenhouse gas emissions requiring “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”— Obama referred to the “rising energy output under [my] watch and sudden talk of America’s leading role in oil and gas production,” and beamed “That was me, people. Just say thank you.”This is the electoral version of a tone argument. The issue isn't timing, it's the actual content (that, tellingly, very few people here seem to want to engage with). And it stinks of the immense privilege of people who will not face climate change's worst consequences for a relatively long time.
posted by Ouverture at 5:26 AM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
You're talking like it wasn't just the very last election we had that was decided by razor-thin margins, and that every error, even the most minuscule, added up to 10,704 votes in Michigan, and 22,177 votes in Wisconsin.
Remember Clinton basically dropping out of MI and WI with just weeks to go in the election because she thought she had them in the bag, despite warnings from her staff? Or the fact that Sanders voters switched to Trump at a far lower rate than Clinton voters did to McCain? This argument that we know 100% that BernieBros lost the election for her was, and has always been, a myth used fuel for revenge fantasies against the left.
Yeah, like this article couldn't have come out November 4th? Bull. Shit. The timing is not a coincidence.
Yeah, yeah, we know how this game goes. "Don't pressure them before the election" becomes "don't pressure them before transition" becomes "don't pressure them before X bills are passed," and like magic, it's 18 months out from the midterms with murderous Republican ghouls like John Kasich and Meg Whitman in the Cabinet, and it's back to "don't pressure them before the election" all over again. Have you considered that maybe people don't want to wait until Biden actually engages in horrifying centrist fuckery to start pointing out ways to get him not to do that?
Also, liberals turning a single article critical of Biden's climate plan--which even they admit is insufficient!--from a magazine with ~6k subscribers into an insidious, wide-ranging leftist plot to destroy the Democrats would be laughable, if it wasn't contributing to a growing call within the party to paint the left as backstabbing traitors (and the implication that they be treated as such).
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:34 AM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
Remember Clinton basically dropping out of MI and WI with just weeks to go in the election because she thought she had them in the bag, despite warnings from her staff? Or the fact that Sanders voters switched to Trump at a far lower rate than Clinton voters did to McCain? This argument that we know 100% that BernieBros lost the election for her was, and has always been, a myth used fuel for revenge fantasies against the left.
Yeah, like this article couldn't have come out November 4th? Bull. Shit. The timing is not a coincidence.
Yeah, yeah, we know how this game goes. "Don't pressure them before the election" becomes "don't pressure them before transition" becomes "don't pressure them before X bills are passed," and like magic, it's 18 months out from the midterms with murderous Republican ghouls like John Kasich and Meg Whitman in the Cabinet, and it's back to "don't pressure them before the election" all over again. Have you considered that maybe people don't want to wait until Biden actually engages in horrifying centrist fuckery to start pointing out ways to get him not to do that?
Also, liberals turning a single article critical of Biden's climate plan--which even they admit is insufficient!--from a magazine with ~6k subscribers into an insidious, wide-ranging leftist plot to destroy the Democrats would be laughable, if it wasn't contributing to a growing call within the party to paint the left as backstabbing traitors (and the implication that they be treated as such).
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:34 AM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
The issue isn't timing
That's the only issue I have with it. Arguing that Biden's position on climate change mitigation is incorrect was perfectly appropriate before Biden got selected as the Democratic candidate; now that it will be either him or Trump in charge of driving US policy on climate change, the right time to argue with his position is after he's elected. Because between now and then, the only thing that matters about Biden's position on climate change is that he's not the barking-mad fabulist fuckwit whose tiny hands are currently on the levers of power.
if this article was posted on November 4th
then I would have no problem with it.
If this article was posted after Biden's hopeful inauguration
then I would have no problem with it.
Do we wait after the midterms? Oh goodness no, because
we already published as soon as Biden got elected.
liberals turning a single article critical of Biden's climate plan--which even they admit is insufficient!--from a magazine with ~6k subscribers into an insidious, wide-ranging leftist plot to destroy the Democrats
This particular liberal is performing no such melodrama. The article's timing is poorly judged, is all. And I sincerely hope that none of those ~6k subscribers let it dissuade them from getting up and helping vote the incumbent fascist moron out of office.
posted by flabdablet at 7:16 AM on October 21, 2020 [8 favorites]
That's the only issue I have with it. Arguing that Biden's position on climate change mitigation is incorrect was perfectly appropriate before Biden got selected as the Democratic candidate; now that it will be either him or Trump in charge of driving US policy on climate change, the right time to argue with his position is after he's elected. Because between now and then, the only thing that matters about Biden's position on climate change is that he's not the barking-mad fabulist fuckwit whose tiny hands are currently on the levers of power.
if this article was posted on November 4th
then I would have no problem with it.
If this article was posted after Biden's hopeful inauguration
then I would have no problem with it.
Do we wait after the midterms? Oh goodness no, because
we already published as soon as Biden got elected.
liberals turning a single article critical of Biden's climate plan--which even they admit is insufficient!--from a magazine with ~6k subscribers into an insidious, wide-ranging leftist plot to destroy the Democrats
This particular liberal is performing no such melodrama. The article's timing is poorly judged, is all. And I sincerely hope that none of those ~6k subscribers let it dissuade them from getting up and helping vote the incumbent fascist moron out of office.
posted by flabdablet at 7:16 AM on October 21, 2020 [8 favorites]
Also, the only insidious wide-ranging plot to destroy the Democrats is the one being run by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk (and am I the only one who thinks of an "ilk" as a sinister-looking thing like a rather shifty moose in dark glasses and a trenchcoat?).
There is no leftist plot capable of destroying the Democrats. Improving the Democrats? Sure. Bring that on. Grab the DNC by its lapels and shake the shit out of it until it wakes the fuck up. But vote the Republicans out first.
posted by flabdablet at 7:36 AM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
There is no leftist plot capable of destroying the Democrats. Improving the Democrats? Sure. Bring that on. Grab the DNC by its lapels and shake the shit out of it until it wakes the fuck up. But vote the Republicans out first.
posted by flabdablet at 7:36 AM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
> Yeah, like this article couldn't have come out November 4th? Bull. Shit. The timing is not a coincidence.
>> So what is it then? What dark, sinister forces have led to this article being published?
They aren't particularly "dark" but accelerationist lefties certainly have a track record of making themselves into useful chumps for Trumpers' benefit.
posted by MiraK at 8:11 AM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
>> So what is it then? What dark, sinister forces have led to this article being published?
They aren't particularly "dark" but accelerationist lefties certainly have a track record of making themselves into useful chumps for Trumpers' benefit.
posted by MiraK at 8:11 AM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
They aren't particularly "dark" but accelerationist lefties certainly have a track record of making themselves into useful chumps for Trumpers' benefit.
So where is the evidence this author is an "accelerationist leftie"? Or that this article serves that purpose?
posted by Ouverture at 8:15 AM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
So where is the evidence this author is an "accelerationist leftie"? Or that this article serves that purpose?
posted by Ouverture at 8:15 AM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is the electoral version of a tone argument. The issue isn't timing, it's the actual content (that, tellingly, very few people here seem to want to engage with).
Tellingly, there is no content. You posted a lightweight article that doesn't talk about policy in any significant way. It mostly explains how both Biden and Obama are bad people. The headline claim ("the good is the enemy of the sufficient") is asserted but not supported. It doesn't mention a single substantive thing that is in the plan. It does use the word "ecocide" a lot. That's where the energy lies.
Do you like the article for anything except the tone? If the article were headlined "Three things we want Biden and the Democrats to strengthen their climate proposals" would you have posted it here?
posted by mark k at 8:32 AM on October 21, 2020 [8 favorites]
Tellingly, there is no content. You posted a lightweight article that doesn't talk about policy in any significant way. It mostly explains how both Biden and Obama are bad people. The headline claim ("the good is the enemy of the sufficient") is asserted but not supported. It doesn't mention a single substantive thing that is in the plan. It does use the word "ecocide" a lot. That's where the energy lies.
Do you like the article for anything except the tone? If the article were headlined "Three things we want Biden and the Democrats to strengthen their climate proposals" would you have posted it here?
posted by mark k at 8:32 AM on October 21, 2020 [8 favorites]
Tellingly, there is no content. You posted a lightweight article that doesn't talk about policy in any significant way.
I have to disagree. These sections are what I really liked about the article and how it went into the significant flaws in Biden's plan:
Biden's plan is actually really interesting because of its heavy reliance on NETs that don't exist yet. In some ways, it is an incredibly radical plan because it hedges the entire survival of the human species on the possibility that we might be able to make billions, if not trillions, of carbon scrubbers and other massive geoengineering projects.
If the article were headlined "Three things we want Biden and the Democrats to strengthen their climate proposals" would you have posted it here?
Absolutely. But man, it is telling who gets loyalty tests demanded out of them on this site.
posted by Ouverture at 9:16 AM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
I have to disagree. These sections are what I really liked about the article and how it went into the significant flaws in Biden's plan:
Don’t Leave It in the Ground.If 1,400 words (and plenty of links to other sources) on Biden's plan alone isn't enough on the topic, then I don't know what counts as "substance" for you.
What Is NET Worth?
Winning the Century, Losing the World
Biden's plan is actually really interesting because of its heavy reliance on NETs that don't exist yet. In some ways, it is an incredibly radical plan because it hedges the entire survival of the human species on the possibility that we might be able to make billions, if not trillions, of carbon scrubbers and other massive geoengineering projects.
If the article were headlined "Three things we want Biden and the Democrats to strengthen their climate proposals" would you have posted it here?
Absolutely. But man, it is telling who gets loyalty tests demanded out of them on this site.
posted by Ouverture at 9:16 AM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
This thread is kind of ugly and I don't want to contribute to escalating the fight (I recognize and share a lot of the bitterness from leftists, but I really do not want to indulge it right now; I can also admittedly see how the timing might be perceived as "divisive," but I spend a lot of time up to my neck in actual propaganda and this does not raise red flags for me so I think it is a difference in clashing worldviews rather than bad faith), but the article goes into several specifics from Biden's climate action plan, which itself is directly linked to in the third word. It even breaks its specific criticisms down into a numbered list:
1) It doesn't address how to move away from fossil fuel extraction.
2) It relies on nonexistent fantasy technology to do the heavy lifting.
3) It emphasizes nationalism and competition with the US' rivals rather than the global cooperation necessary for any serious response to climate change.
These are pretty basic criticisms that also apply to nearly every other climate action plan. Inslee's plan is probably the most detailed I've ever seen, but still muddles through these points. The Green New Deal was better than Biden's original plan, but he's since adopted at least some of that - and it also failed to get over these hurdles.
Putting together a viable climate action plan is difficult because an effective response does have to involve 1) an unprecedented degree of global cooperation (this will realistically never happen and, worse, world powers are moving in the opposite direction, away from networks of mutual cooperation), 2) an emphasis on degrowth (no one is going to do this willingly, especially as competition for land/resources intensifies - that only invites the holdouts still playing empire to crush you) and 3) a culture of trust - trusting fellow citizens, trusting scientific authorities, trusting elected officials (the US is about as far from this as possible, but much of the world is already here).
Anything less is inadequate. Mitigations are still worth doing - one of the aspects of climate change that even people who are into this stuff often can't seem to wrap their heads around is that the differences between 3C and 3.2C are significant and potentially dramatic. Anticipating crises and mitigating damage done at any scale is worthwhile, here.
That being said, the idea that capitalism can simply be switched over to "electric" and "renewables," and the damage undone by magical technology that doesn't exist and probably won't, ever, is a fantasy that many people need to let go of. Anything that reinforces that fantasy is not helpful.
My own approach to Biden's climate action plan is fairly realpolitik. It is plain the man himself does not believe in climate change. I am sure he believes he believes in it, but nothing in his words or actions suggest it is anything beyond an interesting intellectual exercise to him. Even so, the SARS CoV2 pandemic and gigafires and big smokes and microbursts and fire tornadoes and double hurricanes are all pretty real and tangible crises that have forced him to adopt some policy from his more left-leaning colleagues. He does at least listen to some scientific bodies, as well, even if he doesn't take this as seriously as it needs to be. That is cautiously goodish, and is probably the best we can ever hope for. It will not be good enough to stop billions of people from starving, dying of heatstroke or being killed in genocides in the coming decades, but any degree of mitigations are worthwhile. It is too late to stop the Jackpot and it is probably not possible to respond globally as a species for maximum mitigation and soft landings, so mitigations are more likely to be national, local and inadequate for preventing or undoing most of the death and damage. Maybe on the other side of it, we will realize we have made the Earth an alien planet and be serious about surviving in it, but that isn't going to happen on this side.
I know that is a bleak view that some here will perceive as hopeless or will receive as an excuse to indulge in hopelessness, but "mitigation at any scale is worthwhile" is a good mantra to keep in mind. It is grim, but it is not hopeless. Humanity can still have a future. It just won't look anything like this.
Also, I really do not think it needs to be said, but just in case: obviously, Biden's plan is actual worlds better than Trump's. Trump has no formal plan at all, and informally plans to accelerate and compound the damage done because he is an old narcissist who clearly does not care if anything survives him. He will be dead - what does it matter if anything else lives? The likeliest scenarios I see if the Trumps, Bolsonaros, Orbans, Dutertes, Modis, Xis and so forth of the world remain in power is the rise of actual "eco-fascism" - "actual" to distinguish from leftists critiques that get accused of "eco-fascism" for advocating degrowth, scarequotes because "eco-fascism" is just fascism hiding behind the trappings of climate activism. That is, "blood and soil" ideologies using climate change, resource depletion, agricultural failure and so on as excuses to commit genocide and do ethno-nationalism. This is a very bad outcome that throws any and all mitigations out the window. Despite using the language of climate activism, "eco-fascist" responses have tended to look a lot like Bolsonaro's plan to raze the entire Amazon to grow grass to feed cattle. This is a very, very, very bad outcome that we should run away from as hard as we can.
Which means, yes, voting against him right now. But the pressure on Biden to not fail the entire world has to be continuous - before the election, during the transition, once he is in power - or he will lapse into old habits.
posted by Lonnrot at 9:23 AM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
1) It doesn't address how to move away from fossil fuel extraction.
2) It relies on nonexistent fantasy technology to do the heavy lifting.
3) It emphasizes nationalism and competition with the US' rivals rather than the global cooperation necessary for any serious response to climate change.
These are pretty basic criticisms that also apply to nearly every other climate action plan. Inslee's plan is probably the most detailed I've ever seen, but still muddles through these points. The Green New Deal was better than Biden's original plan, but he's since adopted at least some of that - and it also failed to get over these hurdles.
Putting together a viable climate action plan is difficult because an effective response does have to involve 1) an unprecedented degree of global cooperation (this will realistically never happen and, worse, world powers are moving in the opposite direction, away from networks of mutual cooperation), 2) an emphasis on degrowth (no one is going to do this willingly, especially as competition for land/resources intensifies - that only invites the holdouts still playing empire to crush you) and 3) a culture of trust - trusting fellow citizens, trusting scientific authorities, trusting elected officials (the US is about as far from this as possible, but much of the world is already here).
Anything less is inadequate. Mitigations are still worth doing - one of the aspects of climate change that even people who are into this stuff often can't seem to wrap their heads around is that the differences between 3C and 3.2C are significant and potentially dramatic. Anticipating crises and mitigating damage done at any scale is worthwhile, here.
That being said, the idea that capitalism can simply be switched over to "electric" and "renewables," and the damage undone by magical technology that doesn't exist and probably won't, ever, is a fantasy that many people need to let go of. Anything that reinforces that fantasy is not helpful.
My own approach to Biden's climate action plan is fairly realpolitik. It is plain the man himself does not believe in climate change. I am sure he believes he believes in it, but nothing in his words or actions suggest it is anything beyond an interesting intellectual exercise to him. Even so, the SARS CoV2 pandemic and gigafires and big smokes and microbursts and fire tornadoes and double hurricanes are all pretty real and tangible crises that have forced him to adopt some policy from his more left-leaning colleagues. He does at least listen to some scientific bodies, as well, even if he doesn't take this as seriously as it needs to be. That is cautiously goodish, and is probably the best we can ever hope for. It will not be good enough to stop billions of people from starving, dying of heatstroke or being killed in genocides in the coming decades, but any degree of mitigations are worthwhile. It is too late to stop the Jackpot and it is probably not possible to respond globally as a species for maximum mitigation and soft landings, so mitigations are more likely to be national, local and inadequate for preventing or undoing most of the death and damage. Maybe on the other side of it, we will realize we have made the Earth an alien planet and be serious about surviving in it, but that isn't going to happen on this side.
I know that is a bleak view that some here will perceive as hopeless or will receive as an excuse to indulge in hopelessness, but "mitigation at any scale is worthwhile" is a good mantra to keep in mind. It is grim, but it is not hopeless. Humanity can still have a future. It just won't look anything like this.
Also, I really do not think it needs to be said, but just in case: obviously, Biden's plan is actual worlds better than Trump's. Trump has no formal plan at all, and informally plans to accelerate and compound the damage done because he is an old narcissist who clearly does not care if anything survives him. He will be dead - what does it matter if anything else lives? The likeliest scenarios I see if the Trumps, Bolsonaros, Orbans, Dutertes, Modis, Xis and so forth of the world remain in power is the rise of actual "eco-fascism" - "actual" to distinguish from leftists critiques that get accused of "eco-fascism" for advocating degrowth, scarequotes because "eco-fascism" is just fascism hiding behind the trappings of climate activism. That is, "blood and soil" ideologies using climate change, resource depletion, agricultural failure and so on as excuses to commit genocide and do ethno-nationalism. This is a very bad outcome that throws any and all mitigations out the window. Despite using the language of climate activism, "eco-fascist" responses have tended to look a lot like Bolsonaro's plan to raze the entire Amazon to grow grass to feed cattle. This is a very, very, very bad outcome that we should run away from as hard as we can.
Which means, yes, voting against him right now. But the pressure on Biden to not fail the entire world has to be continuous - before the election, during the transition, once he is in power - or he will lapse into old habits.
posted by Lonnrot at 9:23 AM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
This Just In: Climate Change Affects Whole Planet, Entire Nations Don't Give a Shit that it is an American Election Year.
Literally what liberals have been screaming at Republicans who claim COVID is a hoax and meant to hurt Trump. Well take some of your own fucking medicine. The rest of the world fucking exists and they can write about Joe Biden and his climate change plan any time they fucking want and it doesn't mean they're trying to undermine American democracy. Maybe they just have a fucking opinion, you know?
But sure, we should never write anything down on paper that could maybe influence people's politics before an American election. (Fuck other countries elections though, who cares about them? Like who gives a shit about Evo Morales?) /s
Nevermind that it's technically always before an American election, because there is always another one coming.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:31 AM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
Literally what liberals have been screaming at Republicans who claim COVID is a hoax and meant to hurt Trump. Well take some of your own fucking medicine. The rest of the world fucking exists and they can write about Joe Biden and his climate change plan any time they fucking want and it doesn't mean they're trying to undermine American democracy. Maybe they just have a fucking opinion, you know?
But sure, we should never write anything down on paper that could maybe influence people's politics before an American election. (Fuck other countries elections though, who cares about them? Like who gives a shit about Evo Morales?) /s
Nevermind that it's technically always before an American election, because there is always another one coming.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:31 AM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
Really looking forward to starting in two weeks a glorious four years where criticisms of Biden are rebutted on the merits and preemptive "not now" arguments are happily laid aside.
Or I guess, since "not now" has been active at least since Super Tuesday, that means that 2024 will be a "not now" year; and I presume the time between November and January will be a "just wait and see" period; and of course in 2022 there will be a need to rally around Democrats against the midterm Republican onslaught; and hopefully there will be a few major battles in Congress around major bills, which once the Democratic strategy is fixed, will imply that further intra-left argumentation is pointless and should be directed instead at bringing the necessary swing Senators and the public on board. But at least we can look forward to criticisms of Biden from the left being embraced with open arms and discussion on the merits for a few happy months sometime between February 2021 and December 2021!
posted by chortly at 11:32 AM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
Or I guess, since "not now" has been active at least since Super Tuesday, that means that 2024 will be a "not now" year; and I presume the time between November and January will be a "just wait and see" period; and of course in 2022 there will be a need to rally around Democrats against the midterm Republican onslaught; and hopefully there will be a few major battles in Congress around major bills, which once the Democratic strategy is fixed, will imply that further intra-left argumentation is pointless and should be directed instead at bringing the necessary swing Senators and the public on board. But at least we can look forward to criticisms of Biden from the left being embraced with open arms and discussion on the merits for a few happy months sometime between February 2021 and December 2021!
posted by chortly at 11:32 AM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
deadaluspark: there is always another one coming.
I sincerely hope so.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:09 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
I sincerely hope so.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:09 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
The rest of the world fucking exists and they can write about Joe Biden and his climate change plan any time they fucking want and it doesn't mean they're trying to undermine American democracy.
This is a link to Current Affairs org, which appears to be U.S. based. The author of the piece is a professor in New York State.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:17 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
This is a link to Current Affairs org, which appears to be U.S. based. The author of the piece is a professor in New York State.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:17 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
Also it's about Joe Biden's plan. You know the guy running for election this year? You want us to read an article criticizing the candidate for president in the year 2020 but we're not allowed to discuss it in the context of the election that he's running in 13 days from now?
posted by octothorpe at 12:21 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:21 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
This is a link to Current Affairs org, which appears to be U.S. based. The author of the piece is a professor in New York State.
So then why all the fucking hand-wringing in here about how they're trying to get Trump elected as if they're some foreign fucking adversary and not a *gasp* concerned citizen?
Just people in here clutching their fucking pearls about the election when people who are technically on the same side as them have the audacity to critique the person they are voting for.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:24 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
So then why all the fucking hand-wringing in here about how they're trying to get Trump elected as if they're some foreign fucking adversary and not a *gasp* concerned citizen?
Just people in here clutching their fucking pearls about the election when people who are technically on the same side as them have the audacity to critique the person they are voting for.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:24 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
? I thought you were asserting that the rest of the world can complain about Biden anytime they want...I thought you were saying it was a foreign web link article so I looked it up.
A concerned citizen would wait to criticize our only chance to do ANYTHING about the climate for the next four years, is what many here are saying.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:26 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
A concerned citizen would wait to criticize our only chance to do ANYTHING about the climate for the next four years, is what many here are saying.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:26 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
A concerned citizen would wait to criticize our only chance to do ANYTHING about the climate for the next four years, is what many here are saying.
There are obviously many "concerned citizens" RIGHT IN THIS THREAD who obviously disagree with that sentiment, and have presented their reasons for why they disagree with that sentiment, and it has been roundly ignored and we are treated as NOT "concerned citizens" because we have the audacity to critique a climate plan that barely got released two months ago. If his new climate plan was only released right before the election, and according you folks, we can't critique it until after because it's too soon, does that mean that all candidates can just shoe-horn in their "plans" right before the election and just keep claiming its too close to the election and no one should take a serious look at it?
Because that sounds like a strategy the Republicans would fucking LOVE to use themselves.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:32 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
There are obviously many "concerned citizens" RIGHT IN THIS THREAD who obviously disagree with that sentiment, and have presented their reasons for why they disagree with that sentiment, and it has been roundly ignored and we are treated as NOT "concerned citizens" because we have the audacity to critique a climate plan that barely got released two months ago. If his new climate plan was only released right before the election, and according you folks, we can't critique it until after because it's too soon, does that mean that all candidates can just shoe-horn in their "plans" right before the election and just keep claiming its too close to the election and no one should take a serious look at it?
Because that sounds like a strategy the Republicans would fucking LOVE to use themselves.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:32 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
Right...disagreement I get, all the swearing at those who disagree, I don't get.
And I don't understand further because at least one person here (hey me too!) would be fine with this article if it came out Nov. 4th. So please don't generalize because people who disagree with you are making you angry.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:35 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
And I don't understand further because at least one person here (hey me too!) would be fine with this article if it came out Nov. 4th. So please don't generalize because people who disagree with you are making you angry.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:35 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
does that mean that all candidates can just shoe-horn in their "plans" right before the election and just keep claiming its too close to the election and no one should take a serious look at it?
Also...no.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:36 PM on October 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
Also...no.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:36 PM on October 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
If his new climate plan was only released right before the election, and according you folks, we can't critique it until after because it's too soon, does that mean that all candidates can just shoe-horn in their "plans" right before the election and just keep claiming its too close to the election and no one should take a serious look at it?
Sometimes I wonder how many people don't actually understand the very existential peril the US is in right now and are so hidebound and unable to visualize that where we are today is light-years off of politics as usual. And comments like this? I think this is one person who literally doesn't get it.
posted by tclark at 12:49 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
Sometimes I wonder how many people don't actually understand the very existential peril the US is in right now and are so hidebound and unable to visualize that where we are today is light-years off of politics as usual. And comments like this? I think this is one person who literally doesn't get it.
posted by tclark at 12:49 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
People here in this thread are saying that right now, two weeks before the election, is a dumb time to publish an article critiquing the climate policy of Joe Biden, who may well not win this election, and who has already shown significant improvement on this issue since the primary.
No one here is saying that it's always a bad time to critique elected Democrats' policies on climate change. Those of you making the argument that this is happening, perhaps you are reacting to past comments by individuals who are here in this thread that suggest they may think this? In which case please address them specifically. Or perhaps you are reacting to other arguments you've had in the past with other people? In which case please recognize that those people are not here. And when people tell you that they believe one thing (right now this criticism is pointless because Biden may well lose and we need to pass that hurdle), don't insist that they really believe something else (never criticize Democrats), that makes discussion impossible, and leaves nothing but empty shouting.
And for the record, no, I don't think this article is some kind of subtle voter suppression tactic, and in fact I think that's a pretty silly idea. I think it was published now because the author has already decided that Biden is going to win, so critiquing his climate policy is relevant, and that right now it's likely to get more shares and views than it would after the election. But Biden isn't necessarily going to win, and in fact there is a good chance he won't, and regardless of intent I think the effect of this article being published at this time is to be a pointless distraction from the necessary first step of getting Trump out of office, albeit a relatively small one in the grand scheme of things. In fact I feel like an idiot for even engaging with it as much as I have now, instead of spending that time doing something to help get out the vote.
posted by biogeo at 1:13 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
No one here is saying that it's always a bad time to critique elected Democrats' policies on climate change. Those of you making the argument that this is happening, perhaps you are reacting to past comments by individuals who are here in this thread that suggest they may think this? In which case please address them specifically. Or perhaps you are reacting to other arguments you've had in the past with other people? In which case please recognize that those people are not here. And when people tell you that they believe one thing (right now this criticism is pointless because Biden may well lose and we need to pass that hurdle), don't insist that they really believe something else (never criticize Democrats), that makes discussion impossible, and leaves nothing but empty shouting.
And for the record, no, I don't think this article is some kind of subtle voter suppression tactic, and in fact I think that's a pretty silly idea. I think it was published now because the author has already decided that Biden is going to win, so critiquing his climate policy is relevant, and that right now it's likely to get more shares and views than it would after the election. But Biden isn't necessarily going to win, and in fact there is a good chance he won't, and regardless of intent I think the effect of this article being published at this time is to be a pointless distraction from the necessary first step of getting Trump out of office, albeit a relatively small one in the grand scheme of things. In fact I feel like an idiot for even engaging with it as much as I have now, instead of spending that time doing something to help get out the vote.
posted by biogeo at 1:13 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
Just people in here clutching their fucking pearls about the election when people who are technically on the same side as them have the audacity to critique the person they are voting for.
I mean, seriously. Dial it back a notch. It's okay for people to disagree on whether or not the criticisms are valid, and whether or not the timing is smart. If you think timing is not an issue, criticize away. Your right to free speech is not being stripped away.
posted by JenMarie at 1:18 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
I mean, seriously. Dial it back a notch. It's okay for people to disagree on whether or not the criticisms are valid, and whether or not the timing is smart. If you think timing is not an issue, criticize away. Your right to free speech is not being stripped away.
posted by JenMarie at 1:18 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
No one here is saying that it's always a bad time to critique elected Democrats' policies on climate change.
And a point which has been repeated, multiple times in the thread by many people, not just myself.
"You say now isn't a good time, but I bet there'll NEVER be a good time"
"How about January 22nd."
"But then you'll say that's not a good time either. See? Never!"
"How about January 22nd."
"Then it'll be like 2 weeks before you say it's a bad time! Never!"
"No, really. January 22nd."
This type of willful disregard of someone's actual, literal comments, and selective quoting to refute a speciously-extrapolated straw man is probably Metafilter's second favorite game, right up there after Most Uncharitable Possible Interpretation.
posted by tclark at 1:19 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
And a point which has been repeated, multiple times in the thread by many people, not just myself.
"You say now isn't a good time, but I bet there'll NEVER be a good time"
"How about January 22nd."
"But then you'll say that's not a good time either. See? Never!"
"How about January 22nd."
"Then it'll be like 2 weeks before you say it's a bad time! Never!"
"No, really. January 22nd."
This type of willful disregard of someone's actual, literal comments, and selective quoting to refute a speciously-extrapolated straw man is probably Metafilter's second favorite game, right up there after Most Uncharitable Possible Interpretation.
posted by tclark at 1:19 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
Fucking...fucking...fucking...fucking...clutching their fucking pearls...fucking.
Well, I don't know about anyone else but that argument certainly has me convinced.
posted by aramaic at 1:31 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Well, I don't know about anyone else but that argument certainly has me convinced.
posted by aramaic at 1:31 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
And a point which has been repeated, multiple times in the thread by many people, not just myself.
I'm sorry, but I think I missed the part where someone posted evidence that sharing this article now on Metafilter would have a negative electoral effect for Biden. I scanned through the comments again, but could not find that evidence. Could someone please repost that evidence?
If the stakes are truly this high in terms of what is discussed on Metafilter, should there be a rule that no negative comments about Biden be posted until after January 22nd?
posted by Ouverture at 1:32 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm sorry, but I think I missed the part where someone posted evidence that sharing this article now on Metafilter would have a negative electoral effect for Biden. I scanned through the comments again, but could not find that evidence. Could someone please repost that evidence?
If the stakes are truly this high in terms of what is discussed on Metafilter, should there be a rule that no negative comments about Biden be posted until after January 22nd?
posted by Ouverture at 1:32 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
If the stakes are truly this high in terms of what is discussed on Metafilter, should there be a rule that no negative comments about Biden be posted until after January 22nd?
> This type of willful disregard of someone's actual, literal comments, and selective quoting to refute a speciously-extrapolated straw man is probably Metafilter's second favorite game
posted by tclark at 1:36 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
> This type of willful disregard of someone's actual, literal comments, and selective quoting to refute a speciously-extrapolated straw man is probably Metafilter's second favorite game
posted by tclark at 1:36 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
I'm asking genuinely: what is the evidence demonstrating that leftist critique from minor publications leads to negative electoral outcomes for liberal politicians, especially at the presidential level? And if this is the case, what are the boundary conditions for it? 2 weeks before an election? 2 years before the mid-terms?
I would love to hear and read more about this because it seems like a lot of people here are operating under some objective understanding about electoral politics that I haven't yet read about. And the last thing I want is to be some useful idiot for a white supremacist war criminal with the blood of millions on his hands.
posted by Ouverture at 1:50 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
I would love to hear and read more about this because it seems like a lot of people here are operating under some objective understanding about electoral politics that I haven't yet read about. And the last thing I want is to be some useful idiot for a white supremacist war criminal with the blood of millions on his hands.
posted by Ouverture at 1:50 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
No, jesus, post away, no one is trying to stop you. All people are saying is they think this is exhausting and pointless. I have no evidence that this is having a negative electoral effect on Biden, obviously, that's ridiculous. I do have evidence that it's having a negative emotional effect on me. You've got a right to post what you want and say your piece, I've got a right to respond. For the moment, that's how free speech works.
Also: But man, it is telling who gets loyalty tests demanded out of them on this site.
In my experience, literally everyone. Not one of this site's better traits, I'm afraid. We'd all be better off if we'd read and respond to what people actually write instead of whatever enemy we're carrying around in our own heads.
posted by biogeo at 1:50 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
Also: But man, it is telling who gets loyalty tests demanded out of them on this site.
In my experience, literally everyone. Not one of this site's better traits, I'm afraid. We'd all be better off if we'd read and respond to what people actually write instead of whatever enemy we're carrying around in our own heads.
posted by biogeo at 1:50 PM on October 21, 2020 [7 favorites]
And the last thing I want is to be some useful idiot for a white supremacist war criminal with the blood of millions on his hands.
One of the reasons why the tone & content of all this is emotionally taxing for me is that you're probably talking about Biden here. Sigh.
posted by MiraK at 1:53 PM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
One of the reasons why the tone & content of all this is emotionally taxing for me is that you're probably talking about Biden here. Sigh.
posted by MiraK at 1:53 PM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm asking genuinely: what is the evidence demonstrating that leftist critique from minor publications leads to negative electoral outcomes for liberal politicians, especially at the presidential level?
>Sometimes I wonder how many people don't actually understand the very existential peril the US is in right now and are so hidebound and unable to visualize that where we are today is light-years off of politics as usual.
To answer your question more fully, I fully believe, from the top of my head to the tips of my toes, that defeating Trump is the single highest political priority right now. This article talks about sufficient, and without a sound, unmistakable repudiation of Trump in America, we aren't even up to the threshold of necessary.
There is no higher political priority in the US than the defeat of Trump. I consider it arguable that there is no higher political priority in the world right now than the defeat of Trump. This means anything, in the last crucial days before election day, that does not aid in Trump's defeat is aiding a Trump victory. But I've said this already before, way up in the thread. Your pleas for evidence look like sealioning to me.
posted by tclark at 2:01 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
>Sometimes I wonder how many people don't actually understand the very existential peril the US is in right now and are so hidebound and unable to visualize that where we are today is light-years off of politics as usual.
To answer your question more fully, I fully believe, from the top of my head to the tips of my toes, that defeating Trump is the single highest political priority right now. This article talks about sufficient, and without a sound, unmistakable repudiation of Trump in America, we aren't even up to the threshold of necessary.
There is no higher political priority in the US than the defeat of Trump. I consider it arguable that there is no higher political priority in the world right now than the defeat of Trump. This means anything, in the last crucial days before election day, that does not aid in Trump's defeat is aiding a Trump victory. But I've said this already before, way up in the thread. Your pleas for evidence look like sealioning to me.
posted by tclark at 2:01 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
Good catch, MiraK. That "clever" phrasing went over my head. Conversations here will be easier if people say explicitly what they mean instead of asking disingenuous questions and/or trying to disguise what they are saying behind sarcasm and poorly judged "gotchas."
posted by JenMarie at 2:02 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 2:02 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
No, jesus, post away, no one is trying to stop you. All people are saying is they think this is exhausting and pointless. I have no evidence that this is having a negative electoral effect on Biden, obviously, that's ridiculous. I do have evidence that it's having a negative emotional effect on me. You've got a right to post what you want and say your piece, I've got a right to respond. For the moment, that's how free speech works.
Ah, that I understand. When people keep saying "don't post this until after Biden gets inaugurated", I read what they actually write and assume they mean that literally. And I assumed there was a very good reason for that and not because they are negatively emotionally affected by the content.
I think my realization of living in the moment right before the Jackpot means it is difficult for me to parse or understand the emotional scales that other people operate on.
One of the reasons why the tone & content of all this is emotionally taxing for me is that you're probably talking about Biden here. Sigh.
Why would I be talking about Biden here? From the perspective of fighting climate change, Biden's foreign and domestic policy legacy over the last three decades has some very positive highlights in terms of mandatory degrowth.
posted by Ouverture at 2:12 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
Ah, that I understand. When people keep saying "don't post this until after Biden gets inaugurated", I read what they actually write and assume they mean that literally. And I assumed there was a very good reason for that and not because they are negatively emotionally affected by the content.
I think my realization of living in the moment right before the Jackpot means it is difficult for me to parse or understand the emotional scales that other people operate on.
One of the reasons why the tone & content of all this is emotionally taxing for me is that you're probably talking about Biden here. Sigh.
Why would I be talking about Biden here? From the perspective of fighting climate change, Biden's foreign and domestic policy legacy over the last three decades has some very positive highlights in terms of mandatory degrowth.
posted by Ouverture at 2:12 PM on October 21, 2020 [2 favorites]
When people keep saying "don't post this until after Biden gets inaugurated", I read what they actually write and assume they mean that literally.
Yes, this is probably a literal request from people who are worried it will negatively impact Biden's chances in the election. That doesn't mean they have evidence, as that would probably be next to impossible to come by given the variables.
Why would I be talking about Biden here?
If you are not, great. There is a lot of innuendo in this thread so I am not surprised it wasn't clear to everyone (myself included).
posted by JenMarie at 2:17 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
Yes, this is probably a literal request from people who are worried it will negatively impact Biden's chances in the election. That doesn't mean they have evidence, as that would probably be next to impossible to come by given the variables.
Why would I be talking about Biden here?
If you are not, great. There is a lot of innuendo in this thread so I am not surprised it wasn't clear to everyone (myself included).
posted by JenMarie at 2:17 PM on October 21, 2020 [4 favorites]
be easier if people say explicitly what they mean instead of asking disingenuous
I don't think it's disingenuous or insincere - which is one of the problems here. It's exhausting to try to have a conversation with someone who generally uses these same hyperbolic descriptors for people like Obama or Clinton or Biden as we (or they) would use for Trump. And yeah, technically Ouverture is right! Obama and Clinton and Biden and everyone else who has held high political office in USA can all be quite credibly accused of massacring millions of brown people overseas during their tenure (at the very least). But, like, if we are sticking to technicalities, we, too, literally all of us individually, are slavers and child abusers who torture human beings for our fun - we are using computers and phones to go on the internet, so here we are at the reductio ad absurdum of purity tests.
Ultimately that's the problem with this article, too. This guy from New York who hates Biden for not being pure enough pens an article mainly to trash Biden for not being pure enough on climate change plans two weeks before election day. Considering who Biden's opponent is, this too is the reductio ad absurdum of purity tests. (It's a purity test, not advocacy, because the election is still two weeks away and therefore there's no chance of Biden seeing this and going, Oh! Wow! That sounds great! Let's do that!)
Upon preview - thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean Biden this time, Ouverture.
posted by MiraK at 2:21 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
I don't think it's disingenuous or insincere - which is one of the problems here. It's exhausting to try to have a conversation with someone who generally uses these same hyperbolic descriptors for people like Obama or Clinton or Biden as we (or they) would use for Trump. And yeah, technically Ouverture is right! Obama and Clinton and Biden and everyone else who has held high political office in USA can all be quite credibly accused of massacring millions of brown people overseas during their tenure (at the very least). But, like, if we are sticking to technicalities, we, too, literally all of us individually, are slavers and child abusers who torture human beings for our fun - we are using computers and phones to go on the internet, so here we are at the reductio ad absurdum of purity tests.
Ultimately that's the problem with this article, too. This guy from New York who hates Biden for not being pure enough pens an article mainly to trash Biden for not being pure enough on climate change plans two weeks before election day. Considering who Biden's opponent is, this too is the reductio ad absurdum of purity tests. (It's a purity test, not advocacy, because the election is still two weeks away and therefore there's no chance of Biden seeing this and going, Oh! Wow! That sounds great! Let's do that!)
Upon preview - thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean Biden this time, Ouverture.
posted by MiraK at 2:21 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
But, like, if we are sticking to technicalities, we, too, literally all of us individually, are slavers and child abusers who torture human beings for our fun - we are using computers and phones to go on the internet, so here we are at the reductio ad absurdum of purity tests.
That we cannot live in this society without irreparably harming others and the world around us is exactly the point of leftist critiques of carbon capitalism and imperialism. The leftist viewpoint is that this is not a bug in the system to be reformed, but an inherent feature of it.
And what exactly makes these descriptors hyperbolic? I strive for accuracy when describing what this country's legacy.
Conflating the choices of an individual living under the coercion of capitalism with the most powerful person in the world is an interesting analysis. I, along with everyone else here, am forced to participate in interlocking systems of oppression that help destroy the world. What forces Trump to put children in cages and drone strike Muslims?
posted by Ouverture at 2:39 PM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
That we cannot live in this society without irreparably harming others and the world around us is exactly the point of leftist critiques of carbon capitalism and imperialism. The leftist viewpoint is that this is not a bug in the system to be reformed, but an inherent feature of it.
And what exactly makes these descriptors hyperbolic? I strive for accuracy when describing what this country's legacy.
Conflating the choices of an individual living under the coercion of capitalism with the most powerful person in the world is an interesting analysis. I, along with everyone else here, am forced to participate in interlocking systems of oppression that help destroy the world. What forces Trump to put children in cages and drone strike Muslims?
posted by Ouverture at 2:39 PM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
I, along with everyone else here, am forced to participate in interlocking systems of oppression that help destroy the world. What forces Trump to put children in cages and drone strike Muslims?
I didn't object to you calling Trump a white supremacist mass murderer! I thought you meant Biden when you said that. And, like, yeah, the fact that you do use those terms to describe Obama/Clinton/other Dem leaders makes it difficult to have conversations about Biden with you, especially when that conversation is cloaked under the veneer of pseudo-climate change advocacy (pseudo, since advocacy would have waited until Biden was in office).
I would love to dig into what forces act on people at the top of politics in this country to make them invariably turn into mass murderers. I really would. But I'm not sure you do want to dig into that. And I don't really want to turn this into a one on one convo with you, so I'll step out of the thread.
posted by MiraK at 3:06 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
I didn't object to you calling Trump a white supremacist mass murderer! I thought you meant Biden when you said that. And, like, yeah, the fact that you do use those terms to describe Obama/Clinton/other Dem leaders makes it difficult to have conversations about Biden with you, especially when that conversation is cloaked under the veneer of pseudo-climate change advocacy (pseudo, since advocacy would have waited until Biden was in office).
I would love to dig into what forces act on people at the top of politics in this country to make them invariably turn into mass murderers. I really would. But I'm not sure you do want to dig into that. And I don't really want to turn this into a one on one convo with you, so I'll step out of the thread.
posted by MiraK at 3:06 PM on October 21, 2020 [5 favorites]
I fully believe, from the top of my head to the tips of my toes, that defeating Trump is the single highest political priority right now
Speaking as somebody who lives on the other side of the world from the US, I absolutely concur on the basis of pure self-interest.
Love it or loathe it or otherwise, it remains a matter of inarguable fact that the US is currently this planet's dominant culture. The 5% of the world's human population who live in it exert an incredibly disproportionate influence on what happens everywhere else.
So it matters to me what kind of person sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. It matters a lot. And from a climate change mitigation point of view, the worst possible people who could be sitting behind that desk form a very short list that Joe Biden is not on and Donald Jerkoff Trump totally is.
The single most consequential step that the US can take right now toward mitigating climate change is depriving that fucker of his job, which it has a real opportunity to do less than two weeks from now. So sure, hold Biden's feet to the fire on climate change but do that once he's certain to hold office. Unless and until that happens, the difference between Biden and Trump on climate is so stark that there is zero upside in publishing articles that might have even a vague chance of helping swing the election in Trump's favour.
It's been said that the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago and the second best time is today. But the thing about trees is that they're slow-growing. In twenty years there will be no discernible difference between a tree planted now and one planted in two weeks. So the thing to concentrate on, for the next two weeks, is making sure that no short-fingered vulgarian remains in a position to pour concrete over the planting site.
And for what it's worth: Ouverture, when I wrote about three-way tests for deciding whether or not to post things I was talking about the linked article's original publishers, and the original publishers of the many similar articles that are unfortunately almost certain to start doing the rounds before election day, not about you.
posted by flabdablet at 6:13 PM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
Speaking as somebody who lives on the other side of the world from the US, I absolutely concur on the basis of pure self-interest.
Love it or loathe it or otherwise, it remains a matter of inarguable fact that the US is currently this planet's dominant culture. The 5% of the world's human population who live in it exert an incredibly disproportionate influence on what happens everywhere else.
So it matters to me what kind of person sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. It matters a lot. And from a climate change mitigation point of view, the worst possible people who could be sitting behind that desk form a very short list that Joe Biden is not on and Donald Jerkoff Trump totally is.
The single most consequential step that the US can take right now toward mitigating climate change is depriving that fucker of his job, which it has a real opportunity to do less than two weeks from now. So sure, hold Biden's feet to the fire on climate change but do that once he's certain to hold office. Unless and until that happens, the difference between Biden and Trump on climate is so stark that there is zero upside in publishing articles that might have even a vague chance of helping swing the election in Trump's favour.
It's been said that the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago and the second best time is today. But the thing about trees is that they're slow-growing. In twenty years there will be no discernible difference between a tree planted now and one planted in two weeks. So the thing to concentrate on, for the next two weeks, is making sure that no short-fingered vulgarian remains in a position to pour concrete over the planting site.
And for what it's worth: Ouverture, when I wrote about three-way tests for deciding whether or not to post things I was talking about the linked article's original publishers, and the original publishers of the many similar articles that are unfortunately almost certain to start doing the rounds before election day, not about you.
posted by flabdablet at 6:13 PM on October 21, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm just going to quote my own damn self from August:
...Because everything up until November is going to be this. Not similar to this. Exactly this. If we're ever collectively dumb enough to have another, I'm just going to be able to search through this and find exactly the comment I want for any response...
-- We need to do everything we can to un-elect Trump, regardless of your feelings about the Dem nominees
-- Yes, but these nominees are the most centrist of all possibilities
-- Yes, but that's because they're the nominees who can actually carry the five or six states that apparently decide all Presidential elections now
-- Yes but the reasons we're depending on such centrists is because anything more progressive has been resisted
-- Yes but look how the Overton window has changed on $ISSUE
-- Yes but look at (insert link to something candidate's platform says against $ISSUE)
-- Yes but what about (something candidate did earlier in their career on $ISSUE)
-- Yes but isn't the change in their viewpoint evidence of progression?
-- Yes but isn't it gaslighting for them to say they support it now when so many were hurt by their earlier lack of support
-- Yes but if you don't like when they don't support $ISSUE and you won't accept it when they do support $ISSUE, aren't you essentially saying you're withholding your support?
-- Yes but aren't you flexing your privilege/dismissing the underprivileged/displaying your Whiteness when you ask these concerns to take a back seat?
-- Yes but doesn't that make you an accelerationist if you're conditioning your support contigent on something that can only happen after the Dems are elected?
-- Yes but isn't the unbearably slow pace of legislative change already enough of a disaster for human beings in this country?
-- Yes but the only way we can get the fix started is we need to do everything we can to un-elect Trump, regardless of your feelings about the Dem nominees
and forever and ever amen, like an improv troupe that ends every show by hurling insults at each other and the audience. Instead of a snake eating its tail, imagine a snake shitting on its own head.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:21 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
...Because everything up until November is going to be this. Not similar to this. Exactly this. If we're ever collectively dumb enough to have another, I'm just going to be able to search through this and find exactly the comment I want for any response...
-- We need to do everything we can to un-elect Trump, regardless of your feelings about the Dem nominees
-- Yes, but these nominees are the most centrist of all possibilities
-- Yes, but that's because they're the nominees who can actually carry the five or six states that apparently decide all Presidential elections now
-- Yes but the reasons we're depending on such centrists is because anything more progressive has been resisted
-- Yes but look how the Overton window has changed on $ISSUE
-- Yes but look at (insert link to something candidate's platform says against $ISSUE)
-- Yes but what about (something candidate did earlier in their career on $ISSUE)
-- Yes but isn't the change in their viewpoint evidence of progression?
-- Yes but isn't it gaslighting for them to say they support it now when so many were hurt by their earlier lack of support
-- Yes but if you don't like when they don't support $ISSUE and you won't accept it when they do support $ISSUE, aren't you essentially saying you're withholding your support?
-- Yes but aren't you flexing your privilege/dismissing the underprivileged/displaying your Whiteness when you ask these concerns to take a back seat?
-- Yes but doesn't that make you an accelerationist if you're conditioning your support contigent on something that can only happen after the Dems are elected?
-- Yes but isn't the unbearably slow pace of legislative change already enough of a disaster for human beings in this country?
-- Yes but the only way we can get the fix started is we need to do everything we can to un-elect Trump, regardless of your feelings about the Dem nominees
and forever and ever amen, like an improv troupe that ends every show by hurling insults at each other and the audience. Instead of a snake eating its tail, imagine a snake shitting on its own head.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:21 PM on October 21, 2020 [3 favorites]
And for what it's worth: Ouverture, when I wrote about three-way tests for deciding whether or not to post things I was talking about the linked article's original publishers, and the original publishers of the many similar articles that are unfortunately almost certain to start doing the rounds before election day, not about you.
It never would have occurred to me that you would have meant anything else. If it does indeed need to be said, this is also what I meant when I wondered why it couldn’t have waited a few weeks.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:30 AM on October 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
It never would have occurred to me that you would have meant anything else. If it does indeed need to be said, this is also what I meant when I wondered why it couldn’t have waited a few weeks.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:30 AM on October 22, 2020 [1 favorite]
The single most consequential step that the US can take right now toward mitigating climate change is depriving that fucker of his job, which it has a real opportunity to do less than two weeks from now. So sure, hold Biden's feet to the fire on climate change but do that once he's certain to hold office. Unless and until that happens, the difference between Biden and Trump on climate is so stark that there is zero upside in publishing articles that might have even a vague chance of helping swing the election in Trump's favour.
I'm voting for Biden and Harris because I see no other choice forward. Biden's currently insufficient plan of ecological hospice is still better than Trump's plan of actively fascist ecological collapse. Even in the worst case scenario, the difference might only be a few decades, but that's still a few decades of life under tragic, heartbreaking decay instead of outright, malevolent death. I'll be getting up early to go to my polling place to cast my ballot despite being in multiple high-risk groups for COVID-19. I'm casting my ballot fully well understanding the best possible option means the only choice still means fighting even harder than I have ever fought in my life if Biden hopefully wins.
I posted this on Metafilter because I think it is an incredibly important thing to discuss in a space where I do not see a chance of it affecting people's voting behavior. There is a stickied, direct endorsement of Biden and Harris on the header of every page on Metafilter. I want to think that it has far more influence than my post two days later (and likely even more an effect than a small site like Current Affairs could hope to have).
These conversations leave me extremely disheartened for what happens after Biden hopefully wins. The singular focus on Trump (instead of Republicans as a whole and the Democrats who enable, praise, and collegially hug them) and the rise of the Lincoln Project over the last four years indicates to me that for many, many people, Trump is indeed the only problem we ever need to worry about in terms of actually protesting in the streets as though their lives depended on it. 4 years is a long time to wait for brunch, after all.
It feels like 2008 all over again, except all the decisions made in the last 12 years mean there really is no time left anymore.
posted by Ouverture at 12:06 PM on October 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I'm voting for Biden and Harris because I see no other choice forward. Biden's currently insufficient plan of ecological hospice is still better than Trump's plan of actively fascist ecological collapse. Even in the worst case scenario, the difference might only be a few decades, but that's still a few decades of life under tragic, heartbreaking decay instead of outright, malevolent death. I'll be getting up early to go to my polling place to cast my ballot despite being in multiple high-risk groups for COVID-19. I'm casting my ballot fully well understanding the best possible option means the only choice still means fighting even harder than I have ever fought in my life if Biden hopefully wins.
I posted this on Metafilter because I think it is an incredibly important thing to discuss in a space where I do not see a chance of it affecting people's voting behavior. There is a stickied, direct endorsement of Biden and Harris on the header of every page on Metafilter. I want to think that it has far more influence than my post two days later (and likely even more an effect than a small site like Current Affairs could hope to have).
These conversations leave me extremely disheartened for what happens after Biden hopefully wins. The singular focus on Trump (instead of Republicans as a whole and the Democrats who enable, praise, and collegially hug them) and the rise of the Lincoln Project over the last four years indicates to me that for many, many people, Trump is indeed the only problem we ever need to worry about in terms of actually protesting in the streets as though their lives depended on it. 4 years is a long time to wait for brunch, after all.
It feels like 2008 all over again, except all the decisions made in the last 12 years mean there really is no time left anymore.
posted by Ouverture at 12:06 PM on October 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
>>These conversations leave me extremely disheartened for what happens after Biden hopefully wins.
FWIW I think your concerns are well founded, that many who are politically engaged now will not be so engaged if (inshallah) Biden is elected. The level of political engagement we're seeing from people in general (even on MeFi) right now is abnormal and entirely Trump-driven. You're right, there are lots of people who do think Trump is the only problem, and they'll go back to their lives if Trump is defeated - these folks were never your audience to begin with. But even other people who would normally be interested and eager to engage with those causes are burnt out from cumulative effect of the past four years, and might well be disengaged for a little while after Biden is elected just to recuperate. We're all human.
But honestly, the main thing is that in these last few days before the election, Trump-driven anxiety is at an absolute fever pitch. The election is both immediate and potentially catastrophic... it leaves no room for engaging with other concerns, no matter how important those may be.
I would encourage you not to be disheartened based on this thread. The best odds of keeping everyone engaged is probably to start these conversations right after Biden is inaugurated, when relief and celebration can be harnessed as positive energy for these causes (instead of trying to channel the abundant negative doomscroll-anxiety energy now). Your audience does exist. It might help you feel a little less frustrated if you read the strong reactions in this thread as "they're too overwhelmed with election stress to engage with this right now".
posted by MiraK at 1:18 PM on October 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
FWIW I think your concerns are well founded, that many who are politically engaged now will not be so engaged if (inshallah) Biden is elected. The level of political engagement we're seeing from people in general (even on MeFi) right now is abnormal and entirely Trump-driven. You're right, there are lots of people who do think Trump is the only problem, and they'll go back to their lives if Trump is defeated - these folks were never your audience to begin with. But even other people who would normally be interested and eager to engage with those causes are burnt out from cumulative effect of the past four years, and might well be disengaged for a little while after Biden is elected just to recuperate. We're all human.
But honestly, the main thing is that in these last few days before the election, Trump-driven anxiety is at an absolute fever pitch. The election is both immediate and potentially catastrophic... it leaves no room for engaging with other concerns, no matter how important those may be.
I would encourage you not to be disheartened based on this thread. The best odds of keeping everyone engaged is probably to start these conversations right after Biden is inaugurated, when relief and celebration can be harnessed as positive energy for these causes (instead of trying to channel the abundant negative doomscroll-anxiety energy now). Your audience does exist. It might help you feel a little less frustrated if you read the strong reactions in this thread as "they're too overwhelmed with election stress to engage with this right now".
posted by MiraK at 1:18 PM on October 22, 2020 [6 favorites]
It feels like 2008 all over again, except all the decisions made in the last 12 years mean there really is no time left anymore.
I know a lot of people who became climate activists explicitly because of Obama's inaction during his presidency. I assure you we will be giving Biden hell once he is inaugurated.
In 2008 30% of adults in the US considered climate change a top priority for the President. In 2020 that number is up to 52%. We have the support. We have the momentum. But first we need back our democracy and we need need Biden as president.
posted by gwint at 2:02 PM on October 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
I know a lot of people who became climate activists explicitly because of Obama's inaction during his presidency. I assure you we will be giving Biden hell once he is inaugurated.
In 2008 30% of adults in the US considered climate change a top priority for the President. In 2020 that number is up to 52%. We have the support. We have the momentum. But first we need back our democracy and we need need Biden as president.
posted by gwint at 2:02 PM on October 22, 2020 [5 favorites]
And the kids aren't slacking either. Two youth-led groups that didn't exist in 2008:
Sunrise Movement
Extinction Rebellion
posted by gwint at 2:12 PM on October 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
Sunrise Movement
Extinction Rebellion
posted by gwint at 2:12 PM on October 22, 2020 [2 favorites]
NYT: A Debate Pledge to ‘Transition’ From Oil Puts Climate at Center of Campaign Finale
Joseph R. Biden’s pledge Thursday night to “transition away from the oil industry” to address global warming put the topic of climate change on center stage for the final stretch of a campaign year in which the issue has played a larger role than ever.posted by gwint at 2:09 PM on October 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mr. Biden’s statement in the closing moments of Thursday’s debate gave President Trump what his campaign saw as an enormous opportunity to blunt his opponent’s appeal to working-class voters. Mr. Biden’s campaign tried to downplay it, saying he was merely stating that he would phase out longstanding tax subsidies for the oil industry.
But transitioning away from fossil fuels is the inevitable end game of Mr. Biden’s promise to end net carbon pollution by 2050. That policy has energized some young voters and helped unite the Democrats’ left and moderate wings, but has always carried risks for Mr. Biden.
“Last night, Joe Biden issued a crystal clear threat to 19 million Americans with his promise to eliminate the oil industry. No amount of spin or clean up from Biden or his team can rectify this error,” Steve Guest, a Republican National Committee spokesman, said Friday morning.
« Older I can stop a war with my crystals | A Republican and a Democrat are running for... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is the main reason it is hard to take any slow approach climate change plan seriously, because we needed a serious, TODAY plan seven god damned years ago.
Every effort we move forward from now has to be way more momentous and world changing than the plans that could have come before.
Even the Green New Deal isn't a serious enough proposal for radical change to the worldwide economy to truly make a dent.
It has to be a worldwide coordinated effort that is much more serious than the Paris Climate Agreement, and we can't even get people to adhere to that.
Every plan I have seen is a plan that seems based on a world pre-2013, and pre-400ppm carbon in the atmosphere. None of them seem to take into account the exponential effects of climate change at this point, something we are headlong into.
"The failure of Biden’s climate plan to mention any limitation on the mining and burning of fossil fuels, its reckless dependence on carbon capture technologies, and its extreme, amnesiac nationalism thus signify a continuation of the ecocidal history of his party. If the point is to stop the house from burning down, Biden’s election remains a necessary condition, but real sufficiency will mean his making—or being compelled to make—not merely incrementalist steps in the right direction but a radical and timely break from that history of pyromania. "
Precisely. We needed to have officially put an end to those practices a decade ago, and the unwillingness to face it now is hurtling us all headlong towards a grim extinction.
Biden winning is a god damned band-aid on bullet hole.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:02 PM on October 20, 2020 [15 favorites]