"If you think it’s a terrible list, please, please make a better one."
June 2, 2023 7:07 AM Subscribe
I personally think that's a really bad example (the highway system might have been a thing to shape society - but it's a terrible shape and insanely inequitable! ) but I guess the point is fair enough. You just have to look to other governments outside the US for ones making mostly positive changes rather than terrible ones.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:17 AM on June 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:17 AM on June 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don't know if there's enough popular support in the US to implement these plans, and some of them have been villainized before they've even been tried (eating bugs for example). There is SO much money going into keeping the support for alternatives low.
However, I do like the suggestion to spend some of the military budget on climate change infrastructure, on the basis that it fights "wars that don't have to happen." IIRC the current big climate change infrastructure bill is funded by selling off government assets and particularly, open space so that's obviously a bit counterproductive.
Currently the US military is the largest climate polluter on earth, though, so you can see that's not a priority.
posted by subdee at 8:24 AM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
However, I do like the suggestion to spend some of the military budget on climate change infrastructure, on the basis that it fights "wars that don't have to happen." IIRC the current big climate change infrastructure bill is funded by selling off government assets and particularly, open space so that's obviously a bit counterproductive.
Currently the US military is the largest climate polluter on earth, though, so you can see that's not a priority.
posted by subdee at 8:24 AM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
This is easily the dumbest thing I've read all week, and I've been grading student papers. Its rhetoric is a great example of why ordinary, persuadable people end up voting against Ardent Progressives. I've never understood why conservatives are so good at marketing and progressives are such absolute shite at it.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:30 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
I don't know if there's enough popular support in the US to implement these plans
With respect, it's this belief that public opinion is immutable that puts liberals at such a disadvantage compared to conservatives.
posted by Gadarene at 8:32 AM on June 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
With respect, it's this belief that public opinion is immutable that puts liberals at such a disadvantage compared to conservatives.
posted by Gadarene at 8:32 AM on June 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
Everything on that list other than nationalizing energy companies is already happening, and accelerating. And the electrification of everything via renewable sources is not going to be stopped by Exxon, it's going to be slowed by NIMBYism and culture wars (anti-EVs, anti-cities/public transport, etc.)
posted by gwint at 8:33 AM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by gwint at 8:33 AM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
I mean, I know we have a long way to go with decarbonization, but this chart makes me so happy: Wind power alone will likely provide more electricity than coal in the US by next year.
posted by gwint at 8:39 AM on June 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by gwint at 8:39 AM on June 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's a silly essay but reframing the climate crisis in terms of a literal war would do a lot to help governments change the scope of what trillions in military funds are spent on. A factory-made bullet doesn't protect anyone — not even four-star generals — from starvation on a planet too hot to sustain basic agriculture. However, we can't even get enough people to agree the problem is real to get any traction on that, let alone deal with the very real problem of entrenched defense contractors.
One system that has unfortunately engineered itself to survive and prosper during times of war and strife and social upheaval is capitalism, in one form or another. We're starting to see it slowly respond by making things more expensive or untenable. Insurance companies refusing to paper new construction and existing homes, for instance, will force changes in behavior. Governments are already reevaluating land development in terms of water accessibility.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:53 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
One system that has unfortunately engineered itself to survive and prosper during times of war and strife and social upheaval is capitalism, in one form or another. We're starting to see it slowly respond by making things more expensive or untenable. Insurance companies refusing to paper new construction and existing homes, for instance, will force changes in behavior. Governments are already reevaluating land development in terms of water accessibility.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:53 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
Its rhetoric is a great example of why ordinary, persuadable people end up voting against Ardent Progressives. I've never understood why conservatives are so good at marketing and progressives are such absolute shite at it.
outgrown_hobnail
It’s the result of believing that progressive policies are so self-evidently correct that simply expressing them to people in any manner will instantly result in acceptance.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:26 AM on June 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
outgrown_hobnail
It’s the result of believing that progressive policies are so self-evidently correct that simply expressing them to people in any manner will instantly result in acceptance.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:26 AM on June 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
It’s the result of believing that progressive policies are so self-evidently correct that simply expressing them to people in any manner will instantly result in acceptance.
That's a good one. My take on it has always been that too many progressives can't empathize with other people and can't understand that someone can be a smart and not evil person and still not agree with them. It's always blown my mind how many progressives (though by no means all, or even a majority) are angry, narcissistic people, even though their stated policy goals are all about empathy and equality.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:39 AM on June 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
That's a good one. My take on it has always been that too many progressives can't empathize with other people and can't understand that someone can be a smart and not evil person and still not agree with them. It's always blown my mind how many progressives (though by no means all, or even a majority) are angry, narcissistic people, even though their stated policy goals are all about empathy and equality.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:39 AM on June 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
What I find particularly stupid about this article is its complete disconnection from, and seeming ignorance of, all the positive efforts to mitigate climate change that are already underway.
Does the author know about the massive advances in solar technology, and the corresponding plummet in solar cell prices, of recent years -- far surpassing even the most optimistic projections of 20 years ago? Does he know about the gigantic offshore wind power development program set in motion by the Biden administration? Does he know about the current federal initiative to cut the red tape that is slowing the development of renewable energy, and obstructing its connection to the power grid?
There are also countless promising developments in energy storage, transportation, construction, agriculture, environmental remediation, etc., etc., etc.
To be fair, most Americans don't know much about any of this, because the media does an absolutely terrible job of reporting on it. I know about it because I work in the media covering energy issues (and I try to shape my publication's coverage to feature more about this stuff).
But fantasy football pieces like this Jacobin thing seem to operate in a vacuum, untainted by either facts or realistic political strategy.
So much of Jacobin's writing just seems like poorly informed leftists jerking off into the void.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:27 AM on June 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
Does the author know about the massive advances in solar technology, and the corresponding plummet in solar cell prices, of recent years -- far surpassing even the most optimistic projections of 20 years ago? Does he know about the gigantic offshore wind power development program set in motion by the Biden administration? Does he know about the current federal initiative to cut the red tape that is slowing the development of renewable energy, and obstructing its connection to the power grid?
There are also countless promising developments in energy storage, transportation, construction, agriculture, environmental remediation, etc., etc., etc.
To be fair, most Americans don't know much about any of this, because the media does an absolutely terrible job of reporting on it. I know about it because I work in the media covering energy issues (and I try to shape my publication's coverage to feature more about this stuff).
But fantasy football pieces like this Jacobin thing seem to operate in a vacuum, untainted by either facts or realistic political strategy.
So much of Jacobin's writing just seems like poorly informed leftists jerking off into the void.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:27 AM on June 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
Metafilter: poorly informed leftisOHNOYOUDINT
posted by tspae at 10:33 AM on June 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by tspae at 10:33 AM on June 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
What I like about the piece is it one of many very good illustrations that no on in power really believes there is a crisis coming, because they aren't doing the things that a looming crisis would entail. There are people in government who believe there is a sub-crisis level problem, and there are people investing as if the first kind of people will continue to control regulation ... but real estate on the coast and cattle farms and good oil and gas wells have hardly ever been more in demand.
What I dislike is:
The Ukraine war would show the folly of "just cut defense spending" particularly if one believes we are heading into acute global climate change crisis. It is the lot of the weak in a crisis to be the victims of the strong - possibly before an acute climate change crisis, anddefinitely during and after a crisis of the magnitude he foresees.
I am annoyed at being asked not to eat steak by someone who will always be able to afford steak no matter how expensive his preferred policies make it. I bet he also fervently supports high urban congestion charges whose main impact upon his life will be to assure that his car gets in and out of the city with far less traffic to worry about.
posted by MattD at 10:44 AM on June 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
What I dislike is:
The Ukraine war would show the folly of "just cut defense spending" particularly if one believes we are heading into acute global climate change crisis. It is the lot of the weak in a crisis to be the victims of the strong - possibly before an acute climate change crisis, anddefinitely during and after a crisis of the magnitude he foresees.
I am annoyed at being asked not to eat steak by someone who will always be able to afford steak no matter how expensive his preferred policies make it. I bet he also fervently supports high urban congestion charges whose main impact upon his life will be to assure that his car gets in and out of the city with far less traffic to worry about.
posted by MattD at 10:44 AM on June 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
Since many in this thread are slamming progressives, I am curious to hear the centrist solution to climate change.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:50 AM on June 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:50 AM on June 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
Since many in this thread are slamming progressives, I am curious to hear the centrist solution to climate change.
Slamming a certain sort of progressive. You know, the kind of person who refers to anyone even a hair less leftist as a "centrist".
Create consensus, is the answer. Don't "declare" it an emergency: do the work of actual communication to make it clear to ordinary, persuadable voters that it IS an emergency, without talking down to them or assuming they're stupid like so many progressives do. As with so many other aspects of policy, stay focused on the fact that it's the oligarchy against everyone else. Provide all kinds of incentives to shift over to green energy, you know, like that "centrist" Biden is doing. Get a bunch of generals and admirals to get up and talk about how climate change is a bigger threat than Putin, because those officers already know it. Shut the fuck UP about eating meat, my gods, everyone hates that.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
Slamming a certain sort of progressive. You know, the kind of person who refers to anyone even a hair less leftist as a "centrist".
Create consensus, is the answer. Don't "declare" it an emergency: do the work of actual communication to make it clear to ordinary, persuadable voters that it IS an emergency, without talking down to them or assuming they're stupid like so many progressives do. As with so many other aspects of policy, stay focused on the fact that it's the oligarchy against everyone else. Provide all kinds of incentives to shift over to green energy, you know, like that "centrist" Biden is doing. Get a bunch of generals and admirals to get up and talk about how climate change is a bigger threat than Putin, because those officers already know it. Shut the fuck UP about eating meat, my gods, everyone hates that.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
I mean, the Centrist plan is pretty straight forward. We devour the future of the species in order to make line go up for another couple of years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son
Yum!
posted by Balna Watya at 11:03 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son
Yum!
posted by Balna Watya at 11:03 AM on June 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
Everyone likes positive talk. More incentives for green energy, less talk about meat. Promises and pledges that are comfortably vague and far off.
The question is, are we making enough of a dent in carbon reduction? The world is burning more coal than ever before. You may drive a shiny EV, but on average 70% of the energy powering it comes from coal and other fossil fuels. In India, ‘phase down’ of coal actually means rapid expansion of mining. In the US, even minor proposals for environmental improvement get watered down and rolled back. We're extremely loath to make any real change at the government level.
We need to reduce carbon very rapidly in order to avert disaster. We're not doing this. The idea that a moderate approach is going to get us out of this crisis is like saying that a moderate approach can save a sinking ship.
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:31 AM on June 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
The question is, are we making enough of a dent in carbon reduction? The world is burning more coal than ever before. You may drive a shiny EV, but on average 70% of the energy powering it comes from coal and other fossil fuels. In India, ‘phase down’ of coal actually means rapid expansion of mining. In the US, even minor proposals for environmental improvement get watered down and rolled back. We're extremely loath to make any real change at the government level.
We need to reduce carbon very rapidly in order to avert disaster. We're not doing this. The idea that a moderate approach is going to get us out of this crisis is like saying that a moderate approach can save a sinking ship.
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:31 AM on June 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
Create consensus, is the answer. Don't "declare" it an emergency: do the work of actual communication to make it clear to ordinary, persuadable voters that it IS an emergency, without talking down to them or assuming they're stupid like so many progressives do....
I agree declaring it an emergency would not work now. We're at the stage where the doc told you to cut down on fat & sugar, but you didn't listen, it'll become an emergency later when the stroke start, and likewise with climate, it's likely to be too late and there will be consequences.
But really, what else do everybody need to be told to understand the direness of the situation? If you don't trust the scientific consensus about what's going to happen, what could ever change your mind?
And to be honest, I think most people understand, they're just in denial about the consequences & the level of change that needs to happen to avoid catastrophic results.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
I agree declaring it an emergency would not work now. We're at the stage where the doc told you to cut down on fat & sugar, but you didn't listen, it'll become an emergency later when the stroke start, and likewise with climate, it's likely to be too late and there will be consequences.
But really, what else do everybody need to be told to understand the direness of the situation? If you don't trust the scientific consensus about what's going to happen, what could ever change your mind?
And to be honest, I think most people understand, they're just in denial about the consequences & the level of change that needs to happen to avoid catastrophic results.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
I think most of the general populace in the entire world are well aware that we are tipping into climate crisis and that something really needs to be done. But all the frameworks which might be employed to create the really huge global change that is required to achieve anything is completely owned by entities who feel threatened, maybe justly maybe not, by making any change.
Whether the general populace would find it fine and well to have their lives as completely disrupted as making this change, now and suddenly like it must be done, is another thing.
We should have done things in the Seventies when they were making the first big environmental push during the EPA and Clean Water Act era.
posted by hippybear at 11:53 AM on June 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Whether the general populace would find it fine and well to have their lives as completely disrupted as making this change, now and suddenly like it must be done, is another thing.
We should have done things in the Seventies when they were making the first big environmental push during the EPA and Clean Water Act era.
posted by hippybear at 11:53 AM on June 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
We should have done things in the Seventies when they were making the first big environmental push during the EPA and Clean Water Act era.
We could have elected Al Gore in 2000, but Ardent Progressives said noooo, he wasn't good enough, we're voting for Ralph Nader, and we got the Iraq War and tax cuts for rich people.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
We could have elected Al Gore in 2000, but Ardent Progressives said noooo, he wasn't good enough, we're voting for Ralph Nader, and we got the Iraq War and tax cuts for rich people.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
You may drive a shiny EV, but on average 70% of the energy powering it comes from coal and other fossil fuels.
Do you live in West Virginia? If not, coal is likely a small or non-existent % of your electricity mix. In fact, more than half of US states use less than 10% and 11 states use NO coal. As I linked to earlier, by next year more electricity will be generated by wind power than coal in the US. Every month that goes by, the grid gets greener.
Tracking Progress: Climate Action Under the Biden Administration
posted by gwint at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
Do you live in West Virginia? If not, coal is likely a small or non-existent % of your electricity mix. In fact, more than half of US states use less than 10% and 11 states use NO coal. As I linked to earlier, by next year more electricity will be generated by wind power than coal in the US. Every month that goes by, the grid gets greener.
Tracking Progress: Climate Action Under the Biden Administration
posted by gwint at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
Is this what passes for firebrand progressivism these days, walking around shouting "I declare a climate emergency" like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy? I literally laughed out loud twice while reading this. Hahaha nicely done, my dude.
> If lots of people start talking about “the plan,” maybe Washington DC will stop looking at poll numbers and collecting checks at cocktail parties and work on one too.
That "maybe" is the ballsiest word I have ever seen a dudbro write. BRA. VO. Give this man an award.
> It’s time to challenge the system to do something really radical: actually start solving problems.
Oooh yeah let's triple dog dare the system to start solving problems! It's so easy. How did we never think of this before.
posted by MiraK at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
> If lots of people start talking about “the plan,” maybe Washington DC will stop looking at poll numbers and collecting checks at cocktail parties and work on one too.
That "maybe" is the ballsiest word I have ever seen a dudbro write. BRA. VO. Give this man an award.
> It’s time to challenge the system to do something really radical: actually start solving problems.
Oooh yeah let's triple dog dare the system to start solving problems! It's so easy. How did we never think of this before.
posted by MiraK at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
This is a terrible list. I am working on a better one for your consideration, y'all. My list would contain, at minimum, vehement demands for fully automated gay space communism and a declaration granting a personal magic pony for all of us which eats plastic and poops solar panels. How am I doing so far?
/s
Just to make sure I contribute positively to threads like this one, here is an example of what people who are serious about combating climate issues are doing in our world to solve real emergencies: (SLYT) India's Water Revolution: Solving a crisis in 45 days. If you watch this, you might understand why I hold nothing but contempt for these clowns over at Jacobin.
posted by MiraK at 12:50 PM on June 2, 2023
/s
Just to make sure I contribute positively to threads like this one, here is an example of what people who are serious about combating climate issues are doing in our world to solve real emergencies: (SLYT) India's Water Revolution: Solving a crisis in 45 days. If you watch this, you might understand why I hold nothing but contempt for these clowns over at Jacobin.
posted by MiraK at 12:50 PM on June 2, 2023
I feel like we are at the point in the diagnoses where it has not yet dawned on the patient that this is something that doesn’t get better, they won’t get over it. The good news is it might not be terminal.
posted by interogative mood at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
What is he talking about? The government is here to run the military and the jails. They're not going to nationalize whatever on the orders of Adam McKay.
posted by kingdead at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2023
posted by kingdead at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2023
The audience for Adam McKay's piece is not the government - who don't give a shit about his list, as you note - but the people who watch his television shows and movies - who might.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:59 PM on June 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:59 PM on June 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
I haven’t read the link yet, but holy moly is there a lot of assuming that everyone else in the thread understands what, specifically, your critiques of the article are while very vaguely bemoaning how articles “like this” (how? what is ‘this’?) are an example of how terrible unspecified certain types of progressives are at communicating and garnering support for their goals. Is that some sort of critique by satire, adopting the tone or form of what you are critiquing, that I’ll have to read the link to fully understand, or something?
posted by eviemath at 6:07 AM on June 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 6:07 AM on June 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
On reading, it is odd that the author didn’t mention the Green New Deal, and yes I would quibble with inclusion of carbon capture technologies being nearly important enough to make a list of priorities for government action on climate change. But the specific list is explicitly stated as not the point of the opinion piece, merely presented to illustrate that point. The basic points are (a) that it’s not unreasonable to expect a democratic government to be a tool for everyone to work together on solving major problems that face us collectively, and (b) that it’s not too late for government-level action to have significant or important impact. The first point seems to me to be a pretty reasonable, almost tautological proposition. Yes, there are structural issues with systems of power that interfere with the US government being able to be used in this manner. That’s more of a condemnation of the health of democratic governance in the US than a fault in the initial proposition, however.
On the second point, if you disagree and think that it’s too late for governments to do anything, but also think that advocating for governments to do anything significant and non-centrist is beyond the pale, I don’t know what to tell you except that that sounds to me suspiciously similar to conservatives arguing that government can’t do anything right and therefore we should privatize more (while ignoring how that concentrates wealth and power) while simultaneously doing their best to constrain and limit the ability of government to function well, effectively, and efficiently.
Those of you pointing out what governments are already doing to help solve the climate crisis, thank you. That provides an even better list to illustrate the main points of the article than the list given by the author! Note that you’re supporting not arguing against his main points when you provide such examples, however. Let’s not get sidetracked by the sort of conservative obfuscation that tries to hobble social and climate justice organizing by setting us against each other or at cross purposes.
posted by eviemath at 6:34 AM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
On the second point, if you disagree and think that it’s too late for governments to do anything, but also think that advocating for governments to do anything significant and non-centrist is beyond the pale, I don’t know what to tell you except that that sounds to me suspiciously similar to conservatives arguing that government can’t do anything right and therefore we should privatize more (while ignoring how that concentrates wealth and power) while simultaneously doing their best to constrain and limit the ability of government to function well, effectively, and efficiently.
Those of you pointing out what governments are already doing to help solve the climate crisis, thank you. That provides an even better list to illustrate the main points of the article than the list given by the author! Note that you’re supporting not arguing against his main points when you provide such examples, however. Let’s not get sidetracked by the sort of conservative obfuscation that tries to hobble social and climate justice organizing by setting us against each other or at cross purposes.
posted by eviemath at 6:34 AM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think it's less that progressives 'suck at marketing' and more that conservatives have on their side the fact that they want things to stay the same, or preferably go back to some mythical 'better time' in the past.
It's a much harder sell to get people on board with policies that will result in them having to change or reduce their quality of life, even in the smallest most subtle ways. Jumping straight into eating crickets is not going to work. And I say this as someone who spent much of my winter eating roasted crickets in Mexico. You are not selling John Q Public on a cricket burger on the strength that 'it's the right thing to do'.
When faced with sacrificing comfort or convenience in the moment, humans are fairly often going to opt out, regardless of the long term effects. We are bad at gauging and dealing with long term problems. The only thing that ever counters this is a strong sense of obligation to ones community, which at this point the US is severely lacking. We are not a united people. We are a bunch of in-fighting segments and at least some of them are willing to sacrifice an awful lot of everyone else to ensure they get what they want.
And of course, this lack of obligation to community is amplified globally. Call me a cynic, but I don't see a path through this part of the problem. Climate change needs to be addressed by the major pollutors as a coordinated effort. I dont see that happening with the current power structures in place.
posted by ananci at 8:23 AM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
It's a much harder sell to get people on board with policies that will result in them having to change or reduce their quality of life, even in the smallest most subtle ways. Jumping straight into eating crickets is not going to work. And I say this as someone who spent much of my winter eating roasted crickets in Mexico. You are not selling John Q Public on a cricket burger on the strength that 'it's the right thing to do'.
When faced with sacrificing comfort or convenience in the moment, humans are fairly often going to opt out, regardless of the long term effects. We are bad at gauging and dealing with long term problems. The only thing that ever counters this is a strong sense of obligation to ones community, which at this point the US is severely lacking. We are not a united people. We are a bunch of in-fighting segments and at least some of them are willing to sacrifice an awful lot of everyone else to ensure they get what they want.
And of course, this lack of obligation to community is amplified globally. Call me a cynic, but I don't see a path through this part of the problem. Climate change needs to be addressed by the major pollutors as a coordinated effort. I dont see that happening with the current power structures in place.
posted by ananci at 8:23 AM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Climate change is a very complex problem. One proposal from the author can illustrate this. McKay proposes nationalizing the oil companies. He seems to be unaware that most oil companies are already state owned. Convincing those countries to give up the enormous revenues to the state treasury and all those jobs for their citizens is really difficult.
posted by interogative mood at 8:37 AM on June 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 8:37 AM on June 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
interrogative mood is right - the problem with this article and all others of its ilk is that they propose "solutions" so grandiose that they are entirely simplistic and farcical. "Not even wrong" is the term that comes to mind here.
In my comment earlier I linked to one *non-simplistic* project that was even more audaciously imagined than anything McKay managed to think of here ... and implemented for real on an enormous scale, because it was intended to actually work - as opposed to McKay's article whose only point was... what? To get paid for writing an article for Jacobin? If McKay and his ilk cared about climate change, they would not be writing puff pieces. They would be learning from projects like the one I linked and doing the work for real.
posted by MiraK at 1:33 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
In my comment earlier I linked to one *non-simplistic* project that was even more audaciously imagined than anything McKay managed to think of here ... and implemented for real on an enormous scale, because it was intended to actually work - as opposed to McKay's article whose only point was... what? To get paid for writing an article for Jacobin? If McKay and his ilk cared about climate change, they would not be writing puff pieces. They would be learning from projects like the one I linked and doing the work for real.
posted by MiraK at 1:33 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
This article doesn’t propose solutions to the climate crisis. I mean, beyond having governments involved.
It gives a few examples of what “having governments involved” could potentially look like, in the apparently pointless hope that this will avoid people jumping to “you’re proposing that people eat crickets” (note: not a government policy type proposal; there is a distinction between consumer and cultural behavior versus government policies and programs).
Are you opposed to having government policies to help mitigate the climate crisis? Some people are. Government involvement in solving the climate crisis is an argument that has to be made, unfortunately.
posted by eviemath at 4:22 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
It gives a few examples of what “having governments involved” could potentially look like, in the apparently pointless hope that this will avoid people jumping to “you’re proposing that people eat crickets” (note: not a government policy type proposal; there is a distinction between consumer and cultural behavior versus government policies and programs).
Are you opposed to having government policies to help mitigate the climate crisis? Some people are. Government involvement in solving the climate crisis is an argument that has to be made, unfortunately.
posted by eviemath at 4:22 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
whose only point was… what?
From my previous comment:
The basic points are (a) that it’s not unreasonable to expect a democratic government to be a tool for everyone to work together on solving major problems that face us collectively, and (b) that it’s not too late for government-level action to have significant or important impact [on the climate crisis].
posted by eviemath at 4:28 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
From my previous comment:
The basic points are (a) that it’s not unreasonable to expect a democratic government to be a tool for everyone to work together on solving major problems that face us collectively, and (b) that it’s not too late for government-level action to have significant or important impact [on the climate crisis].
posted by eviemath at 4:28 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Government involvement in solving the climate crisis is an argument that has to be made, unfortunately.
Until governments start simply outlawing using carbon for energy, we will make zero progress on this matter.
posted by hippybear at 4:36 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Until governments start simply outlawing using carbon for energy, we will make zero progress on this matter.
posted by hippybear at 4:36 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
… “this matter”, at least in the part of my comment that you quoted, is the question of whether or not US citizens should be able to expect their government to have a role - any role, not even specified what yet - in addressing the climate crisis. Maybe you meant to quote part (b), about the proposition that it’s not too late for at least some sort of government action to have an appreciable effect?
posted by eviemath at 5:21 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 5:21 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure that your difference is one of degree and not of kind.
if you can envision any form of solution to the climate crisis that happens quickly enough to actually be a solution and just lamenting into the historical winds that DOESN'T involve governmental intervention, I'd be welcome to hear exactly what and how.
posted by hippybear at 5:55 PM on June 3, 2023
if you can envision any form of solution to the climate crisis that happens quickly enough to actually be a solution and just lamenting into the historical winds that DOESN'T involve governmental intervention, I'd be welcome to hear exactly what and how.
posted by hippybear at 5:55 PM on June 3, 2023
I feel like this discussion thread is going like:
McKay: Do you want to grab a coffee some time to talk about the future of our relationship? If so, just to throw a potential time out there as an option, how about next Thursday at 11:00? But let me know what other time would work if that doesn’t!
Commenter 1: I like coffee.
Commenter 2: But that leaves out people who drink tea.
Commenter 3: I don’t think there’s enough support for Thursday at 11:00.
Commenter 4: This is the dumbest thing I’ve read all week. It’s a great example of why people end up voting against Hopeless Romantics.
Commenter 5 (replying to Commenter 3): It’s this belief that puts romantics at such a disadvantage relative to people who hate coffee dates.
Commenter 6: Coffee at 11:00 is already happening.
Commenter 7: It’s a silly ask, but reframing the coffee date question in terms of literal meals would do a lot for getting coffee dates scheduled.
Commenter 8 (replying to Commenter 4): It’s the result of assuming that 11:00 is such an obvious coffee date time that it needs no explanation.
Commenter 4: That’s a good one. My take is that too many romantics can’t empathize enough with others.
Commenter 9: What I find particularly stupid about this is its complete ignorance of all of the other times at which coffee dates could be scheduled.
Commenter 10: Metafilter: sick burn
Commenter 11: What I like about the piece is it’s a good illustration that no coffee shop employee is planning our coffee dates for us. What I don’t like about it is: the Ukraine War shows the folly of Thursdays, and I don’t like being asked to eat scones.
Commenter 13: Since many in this thread are slamming romantics, I’m curious to hear the people who are meh about coffee dates’ ideas for scheduling.
Commenter 4: Slamming a certain sort of romantic. Don’t “declare” that we’re in a relationship. Do the work of communication to explain to us why we’re in a relationship.
Commenter 14: I agree that just declaring it a relationship won’t work now. People are in denial.
Commenter 1: I think most people are aware that it’s a relationship. But the frameworks for discussing the future of the relationship have all been captured by opponents of the relationship. Plus people aren’t going to want to meet right now. A discussion should have been scheduled years ago.
Commenter 4: We could have kept the other coffee shop in business, but no, it wasn’t good enough for romantics. They all went to the independent coffee shop instead.
Commenter 6: Here are more details about the coffee at 11:00 that is already happening.
Commenter 15: Is this what passes for Hopeless Romantics these days? Look at this other couple that are already having coffee at noon on Wednesday.
Commenter 16: I feel like we’re at the point where it’s dawning on us that the relationship has no future.
Commenter 17: What is he talking about? The coffee shop won’t serve us coffee at 11:00 on Thursday.
Commenter 18: McKay isn’t asking the coffee shop employees to coffee, he’s asking his relationship partner to coffee on Thursday at 11:00.
etc.
posted by eviemath at 6:21 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
McKay: Do you want to grab a coffee some time to talk about the future of our relationship? If so, just to throw a potential time out there as an option, how about next Thursday at 11:00? But let me know what other time would work if that doesn’t!
Commenter 1: I like coffee.
Commenter 2: But that leaves out people who drink tea.
Commenter 3: I don’t think there’s enough support for Thursday at 11:00.
Commenter 4: This is the dumbest thing I’ve read all week. It’s a great example of why people end up voting against Hopeless Romantics.
Commenter 5 (replying to Commenter 3): It’s this belief that puts romantics at such a disadvantage relative to people who hate coffee dates.
Commenter 6: Coffee at 11:00 is already happening.
Commenter 7: It’s a silly ask, but reframing the coffee date question in terms of literal meals would do a lot for getting coffee dates scheduled.
Commenter 8 (replying to Commenter 4): It’s the result of assuming that 11:00 is such an obvious coffee date time that it needs no explanation.
Commenter 4: That’s a good one. My take is that too many romantics can’t empathize enough with others.
Commenter 9: What I find particularly stupid about this is its complete ignorance of all of the other times at which coffee dates could be scheduled.
Commenter 10: Metafilter: sick burn
Commenter 11: What I like about the piece is it’s a good illustration that no coffee shop employee is planning our coffee dates for us. What I don’t like about it is: the Ukraine War shows the folly of Thursdays, and I don’t like being asked to eat scones.
Commenter 13: Since many in this thread are slamming romantics, I’m curious to hear the people who are meh about coffee dates’ ideas for scheduling.
Commenter 4: Slamming a certain sort of romantic. Don’t “declare” that we’re in a relationship. Do the work of communication to explain to us why we’re in a relationship.
Commenter 14: I agree that just declaring it a relationship won’t work now. People are in denial.
Commenter 1: I think most people are aware that it’s a relationship. But the frameworks for discussing the future of the relationship have all been captured by opponents of the relationship. Plus people aren’t going to want to meet right now. A discussion should have been scheduled years ago.
Commenter 4: We could have kept the other coffee shop in business, but no, it wasn’t good enough for romantics. They all went to the independent coffee shop instead.
Commenter 6: Here are more details about the coffee at 11:00 that is already happening.
Commenter 15: Is this what passes for Hopeless Romantics these days? Look at this other couple that are already having coffee at noon on Wednesday.
Commenter 16: I feel like we’re at the point where it’s dawning on us that the relationship has no future.
Commenter 17: What is he talking about? The coffee shop won’t serve us coffee at 11:00 on Thursday.
Commenter 18: McKay isn’t asking the coffee shop employees to coffee, he’s asking his relationship partner to coffee on Thursday at 11:00.
etc.
posted by eviemath at 6:21 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
My take is that this opinion piece in Jacobin is likely aimed at two specific sub-categories of Jacobin readers:
(a) those who have given up on the US government being a tool for addressing collective problems (i.e. those who think that the US government is sufficiently undemocratic already that it voting and lobbying and political advocacy are all pointless wastes of time)
(b) climate doomers (those who believe that nothing can be done at this point to avert climate catastrophe).
It would be stronger if it gave more supporting arguments for its two main points, to convince these two groups of Jacobin readers. The second main point - that it isn’t too late for government level action to have significant or important impacts on the climate crisis - is an empirical point which can be supported by science and empirical evidence, given that Jacobin readers tend to at least nominally be in support of listening to and believing climate science. An argument could present examples of government policies (either in the US or elsewhere) on climate issues together with data on not just the amount of resultant carbon emissions reduction but also the actual human impact. Some of the potential examples on McKay’s list of potential example government actions/policies address climate doomerism by focusing on ameliorating the negative impacts to humans from climate change, even if some amount of climate disruption is now unavoidable and already causing harm. Concrete rather than either broad or theoretical examples would be more helpful in making that argument.
The first main point - that we should expect the US government to work for people and be a tool for solving our collective problems - is more philosophical than empirical, so concrete, empirical examples of government doing stuff are going to be less useful in support of this point. What would likely be more helpful here would be historical examples of times in the past where collective action has forced the US government to become more democratic in character and more responsive in meeting collective needs, or similar examples from other countries. The argument that needs to be made for group (a) is why the US government isn’t on an inexorable slide away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. Or why it’s not yet far enough along for people to be able to force their government to do something actually substantive and effective against climate change or the harmful impacts thereof.
Since the audience is Jacobin readers, one thing McKay doesn’t need to worry about or spend time on, however, is arguing for the existence of a climate crisis in the first place.
posted by eviemath at 7:08 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
(a) those who have given up on the US government being a tool for addressing collective problems (i.e. those who think that the US government is sufficiently undemocratic already that it voting and lobbying and political advocacy are all pointless wastes of time)
(b) climate doomers (those who believe that nothing can be done at this point to avert climate catastrophe).
It would be stronger if it gave more supporting arguments for its two main points, to convince these two groups of Jacobin readers. The second main point - that it isn’t too late for government level action to have significant or important impacts on the climate crisis - is an empirical point which can be supported by science and empirical evidence, given that Jacobin readers tend to at least nominally be in support of listening to and believing climate science. An argument could present examples of government policies (either in the US or elsewhere) on climate issues together with data on not just the amount of resultant carbon emissions reduction but also the actual human impact. Some of the potential examples on McKay’s list of potential example government actions/policies address climate doomerism by focusing on ameliorating the negative impacts to humans from climate change, even if some amount of climate disruption is now unavoidable and already causing harm. Concrete rather than either broad or theoretical examples would be more helpful in making that argument.
The first main point - that we should expect the US government to work for people and be a tool for solving our collective problems - is more philosophical than empirical, so concrete, empirical examples of government doing stuff are going to be less useful in support of this point. What would likely be more helpful here would be historical examples of times in the past where collective action has forced the US government to become more democratic in character and more responsive in meeting collective needs, or similar examples from other countries. The argument that needs to be made for group (a) is why the US government isn’t on an inexorable slide away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. Or why it’s not yet far enough along for people to be able to force their government to do something actually substantive and effective against climate change or the harmful impacts thereof.
Since the audience is Jacobin readers, one thing McKay doesn’t need to worry about or spend time on, however, is arguing for the existence of a climate crisis in the first place.
posted by eviemath at 7:08 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
> I feel like this discussion thread is going like:
> McKay: Do you want to grab a coffee some time to talk about the future of our relationship? If so, just to throw a potential time out there as an option, how about next Thursday at 11:00? But let me know what other time would work if that doesn’t!
Oh, I WISH he was saying that. But nothing in this article is as concrete or realistic as a proposed time and date for solving a concretely identified problem together with the correct stakeholder in that problem who also is the most realistic partner in problem solving.
Rather, this article saying something more akin to, "People should date folks like me. Isn't it so obvious that I deserve a date with that person? Duh, of course I do. I demand dates! I also demand that this celebrity should be my wingman and this bartender should help me get that person's info. In conclusion if you do not like my list of demands I suggest you come up with your own list for why folks like me should get dates with that kind of person." Like, I'm all for folks like him dating that kind of person but it's just obnoxious that he's writing random pie in the sky lists of demands from the universe to get him dates instead of putting himself out there and *dating*.
posted by MiraK at 7:28 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
> McKay: Do you want to grab a coffee some time to talk about the future of our relationship? If so, just to throw a potential time out there as an option, how about next Thursday at 11:00? But let me know what other time would work if that doesn’t!
Oh, I WISH he was saying that. But nothing in this article is as concrete or realistic as a proposed time and date for solving a concretely identified problem together with the correct stakeholder in that problem who also is the most realistic partner in problem solving.
Rather, this article saying something more akin to, "People should date folks like me. Isn't it so obvious that I deserve a date with that person? Duh, of course I do. I demand dates! I also demand that this celebrity should be my wingman and this bartender should help me get that person's info. In conclusion if you do not like my list of demands I suggest you come up with your own list for why folks like me should get dates with that kind of person." Like, I'm all for folks like him dating that kind of person but it's just obnoxious that he's writing random pie in the sky lists of demands from the universe to get him dates instead of putting himself out there and *dating*.
posted by MiraK at 7:28 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
hippybear - your comment in which you quoted me was related to main idea (b) of McKay’s piece. My comment that you quoted related to main idea (a) of McKay’s piece. Your comment was not related to my quote. Or, if you prefer, the bit that you quoted from me was not related to your comment.
MiraK - let me try another analogy. McKay presented a plate, and you seem to me to be arguing that his plate is bad because it doesn’t hold soup like a bowl. But it’s not designed or intended to hold soup. The list of proposals is not presented as being complete nor well-researched. He does seem to think that each of the proposals, if implemented, would make some significant impact, climate-wise, and I think there’s certainly arguments to be made against that in at least one case. And yes, carbon capture technology (the case I would definitely quibble with) is kind of a dudebro idea. So I definitely agree with you on those points. But the list is a minor, subsidiary part of the piece; not at all the main point. You’re arguing as if it were some complete, comprehensive, supposed to be fully researched and thought out set of implementable proposals. That is neither the role that it is playing in the piece, nor what the list is presented as. Meanwhile, you seem to agree with McKay’s two actual theses: that we should expect and push for the US government to do something about the climate crisis, and that it isn’t too late for government actions to have a substantive or important impact.
posted by eviemath at 7:58 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
MiraK - let me try another analogy. McKay presented a plate, and you seem to me to be arguing that his plate is bad because it doesn’t hold soup like a bowl. But it’s not designed or intended to hold soup. The list of proposals is not presented as being complete nor well-researched. He does seem to think that each of the proposals, if implemented, would make some significant impact, climate-wise, and I think there’s certainly arguments to be made against that in at least one case. And yes, carbon capture technology (the case I would definitely quibble with) is kind of a dudebro idea. So I definitely agree with you on those points. But the list is a minor, subsidiary part of the piece; not at all the main point. You’re arguing as if it were some complete, comprehensive, supposed to be fully researched and thought out set of implementable proposals. That is neither the role that it is playing in the piece, nor what the list is presented as. Meanwhile, you seem to agree with McKay’s two actual theses: that we should expect and push for the US government to do something about the climate crisis, and that it isn’t too late for government actions to have a substantive or important impact.
posted by eviemath at 7:58 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
You’re arguing as if it were some complete, comprehensive, supposed to be fully researched and thought out set of implementable proposals.
You're saying it's more of a poetic vision than a list of proposals? Fair enough. Yes, I'd probably have found it easy to love in song form or something like that - it's a lot like John Lennon's "Imagine".
posted by MiraK at 6:34 AM on June 4, 2023
You're saying it's more of a poetic vision than a list of proposals? Fair enough. Yes, I'd probably have found it easy to love in song form or something like that - it's a lot like John Lennon's "Imagine".
posted by MiraK at 6:34 AM on June 4, 2023
No, and I’d appreciate it if you’d engage with what I’m actually writing rather than getting sarcastic and snippy. I’m saying that McKay’s list is more of an off-the-cuff list of possibilities to get a discussion started. And also not the main thesis of the opinion piece. Would you critique a list of ideas from a group brainstorming session, or a comedy show writers’ room pitch session, or something similar for not being fully developed and including some duds? Each person of course did think their idea or pitch was good at the time, and would be happy to see it taken up. But the goal is to pull a show together overall, not get their specific ideas implemented.
It’s fine to say that you don’t think the ideas McKay tossed out are good ones, and that he missed a lot of better ideas! But just do so in context and with the appropriate level of vehemence (or lack thereof). He explicitly did not present his ideas as a fully formed or complete policy platform. In particular, he didn’t give a lot of details or backing arguments because that wasn’t the point of his piece. The point of his piece was (a) that we should be able to expect the US government to be a tool for working together to solve our collective problems, and not accept its capture by a relatively small handful of wealthy individuals and businesses, and (b) that it’s not too late for government action to have significant or important impacts on the climate crisis.
posted by eviemath at 7:43 AM on June 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
It’s fine to say that you don’t think the ideas McKay tossed out are good ones, and that he missed a lot of better ideas! But just do so in context and with the appropriate level of vehemence (or lack thereof). He explicitly did not present his ideas as a fully formed or complete policy platform. In particular, he didn’t give a lot of details or backing arguments because that wasn’t the point of his piece. The point of his piece was (a) that we should be able to expect the US government to be a tool for working together to solve our collective problems, and not accept its capture by a relatively small handful of wealthy individuals and businesses, and (b) that it’s not too late for government action to have significant or important impacts on the climate crisis.
posted by eviemath at 7:43 AM on June 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
And those two theses do need discussing in some venues! In addition to my critique about McKay not making a good argument for his audience of Jacobin readers, we’ve seen commenters in this very thread who seem to disagree with thesis (a) (eg. outgrown_hobnail); and commenters who, at least for all practical purposes (not believing that the level or type of government action that could make a difference is achievable), seem to disagree with thesis (b) (eg. hippybear).
posted by eviemath at 7:50 AM on June 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:50 AM on June 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
We'd Beyond Growth 2023 for rhetoric and climate songs last year btw.
'If exposing large swathes of humanity to "significant harm is to be avoided, the just boundary should be set at or below 1C," the scientists said.' via Kai Heron
It's physically possible for governments to stop humanity from making climate change worse, via these or more effective approaches. We'll face significant climate change anyways of course, but we do improve our odds for survival the more we slow down climate change, and less we break other planetary boundaries.
"Eventual global warming due to today's GHG forcing alone - after slow feedbacks operate - is about +10°C." .. "including the amplifications from disappearing ice sheets and non-CO2 GHGs. Equilibrium sea level change is +60m (about 200 feet)." -- Hanson et al. 2023
“Green” finance bankrolls forest destruction in Indonesia
I've no idea how you elect governments who'd choose these approaches, so maybe different governments should impose these measures upon one another?
At present, we've global consensus in favor of economic growth and more rapid climate change, including 63% of current emissions coming from "developing" nations, albeit with China counted among them. It's really possible this changes long before US politics changes though.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:01 AM on June 4, 2023
'If exposing large swathes of humanity to "significant harm is to be avoided, the just boundary should be set at or below 1C," the scientists said.' via Kai Heron
It's physically possible for governments to stop humanity from making climate change worse, via these or more effective approaches. We'll face significant climate change anyways of course, but we do improve our odds for survival the more we slow down climate change, and less we break other planetary boundaries.
"Eventual global warming due to today's GHG forcing alone - after slow feedbacks operate - is about +10°C." .. "including the amplifications from disappearing ice sheets and non-CO2 GHGs. Equilibrium sea level change is +60m (about 200 feet)." -- Hanson et al. 2023
“Green” finance bankrolls forest destruction in Indonesia
I've no idea how you elect governments who'd choose these approaches, so maybe different governments should impose these measures upon one another?
At present, we've global consensus in favor of economic growth and more rapid climate change, including 63% of current emissions coming from "developing" nations, albeit with China counted among them. It's really possible this changes long before US politics changes though.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:01 AM on June 4, 2023
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, eviemath. You were saying this guy's intent is not to provide well thought out, implementable, practical solutions. That means it's a vision statement, right? Like the song Imagine or the I Have A Dream speech. I wasn't trying to diss it by calling it poetic vision. Vision statements are great.
But tbh (and speaking generally to this discussion, not singling out eviemath) I don't think I quite buy the contention that McKay isn't proposing real solutions, because:
> ... really obvious things we should and could be doing.
Here are six actual steps
Use a chunk of it. Now.
... it may help, and we have to try
Dude unambiguously claims that this is a list of obvious and practical solutions we all need to be implementing right now right now right now. I could have gotten behind a vision statement, but this article remains both ludicrous and offensive.
McKay's uses an analogy which might help illustrate why his article is so offensive:
> And much how growing up with a gambling-addict dad makes a family normalize last-second missed free throws meaning no lights or food for a month, we have gotten comfortable with ridiculous levels of corruption and incompetence from our elite institutions.
Let's run with that. How does his article work when addressed to the family of a gambling addict dad, instead of to the populace of a country with a corrupt and incompetent government?
---------------------------------------------
"Listen up, fellow families of gambler dads: your finances are in trouble. But it's not too late to save your family if gambler dad makes drastic efforts to start making excellent financial decisions."
... Rather than being frustrated and feeling powerless, it's vitally important to take a beat and remember one thing:
it's not supposed to be like this.
So just a reminder that no, you're not crazy, there are really obvious things we should and could be doing.
Here are six actual steps that any semifunctioning parent would be doing if they were not a gambling addict:
1. Pay the rent.
Duh. He needs to do it!
2. Save 15% of every paycheck and build an emergency fund.
Oh yeah! The horse racing money! Make him give you a chunk of it.
3. Stop gambling and redirect all that gambling money to pay our family's bills.
What our dads are doing not only endangers our families, it will totally destroy it. So, ya know, he should stop.
4. Invest in brain implants that dad can use to overcome his addiction.
Is this the answer? No. But it may help, and we have to try.
5. Overfund the hell out of all kinds of savings accounts.
He should make separate accounts saving money in advance for home repairs, car replacement, health emergencies, college savings, etc.
6. Transform dad's gambling addiction into family cuddles.
"But I like March Madness!”
So do I. But I like not being homeless just a hair more.
If we all start talking about “the plan,” maybe our dads will stop gambling and work on one too."
-----------------------------------------------
Imagine Jacobin publishing such a piece! LOL. It's undeniable how spectacularly insulting and rude this article is when we use its logic on McKay's own chosen analogy.
(BTW it doesn't help to reinterpret it as: he's not proposing a well researched solution for our troubles. His real point is we should EXPECT dad to stop gambling. Expect it! It's not too late for dads to change and save our families. Keep expecting! 👍")
IMO a lot of it comes down to his total confusion about whom he is addressing and what his point is in reference to the people he is addressing. I'm sure this would seem so much more sane if the article was addressed to the government/the gambler dad. But it's not. Plenty of times he's speaking imperatively at people outside the government. He uses "we" to mean the US government as well as the set of his article's readers, and that's extra confusing! It just fails on every possible level, SMH.
posted by MiraK at 4:25 PM on June 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
But tbh (and speaking generally to this discussion, not singling out eviemath) I don't think I quite buy the contention that McKay isn't proposing real solutions, because:
> ... really obvious things we should and could be doing.
Here are six actual steps
Use a chunk of it. Now.
... it may help, and we have to try
Dude unambiguously claims that this is a list of obvious and practical solutions we all need to be implementing right now right now right now. I could have gotten behind a vision statement, but this article remains both ludicrous and offensive.
McKay's uses an analogy which might help illustrate why his article is so offensive:
> And much how growing up with a gambling-addict dad makes a family normalize last-second missed free throws meaning no lights or food for a month, we have gotten comfortable with ridiculous levels of corruption and incompetence from our elite institutions.
Let's run with that. How does his article work when addressed to the family of a gambling addict dad, instead of to the populace of a country with a corrupt and incompetent government?
---------------------------------------------
"Listen up, fellow families of gambler dads: your finances are in trouble. But it's not too late to save your family if gambler dad makes drastic efforts to start making excellent financial decisions."
... Rather than being frustrated and feeling powerless, it's vitally important to take a beat and remember one thing:
it's not supposed to be like this.
So just a reminder that no, you're not crazy, there are really obvious things we should and could be doing.
Here are six actual steps that any semifunctioning parent would be doing if they were not a gambling addict:
1. Pay the rent.
Duh. He needs to do it!
2. Save 15% of every paycheck and build an emergency fund.
Oh yeah! The horse racing money! Make him give you a chunk of it.
3. Stop gambling and redirect all that gambling money to pay our family's bills.
What our dads are doing not only endangers our families, it will totally destroy it. So, ya know, he should stop.
4. Invest in brain implants that dad can use to overcome his addiction.
Is this the answer? No. But it may help, and we have to try.
5. Overfund the hell out of all kinds of savings accounts.
He should make separate accounts saving money in advance for home repairs, car replacement, health emergencies, college savings, etc.
6. Transform dad's gambling addiction into family cuddles.
"But I like March Madness!”
So do I. But I like not being homeless just a hair more.
If we all start talking about “the plan,” maybe our dads will stop gambling and work on one too."
-----------------------------------------------
Imagine Jacobin publishing such a piece! LOL. It's undeniable how spectacularly insulting and rude this article is when we use its logic on McKay's own chosen analogy.
(BTW it doesn't help to reinterpret it as: he's not proposing a well researched solution for our troubles. His real point is we should EXPECT dad to stop gambling. Expect it! It's not too late for dads to change and save our families. Keep expecting! 👍")
IMO a lot of it comes down to his total confusion about whom he is addressing and what his point is in reference to the people he is addressing. I'm sure this would seem so much more sane if the article was addressed to the government/the gambler dad. But it's not. Plenty of times he's speaking imperatively at people outside the government. He uses "we" to mean the US government as well as the set of his article's readers, and that's extra confusing! It just fails on every possible level, SMH.
posted by MiraK at 4:25 PM on June 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
I note that many people on the left in recent years have taken to denouncing "ecofascism", a buzzword which I usually see used as a label for any discourse relating to how the size of the earth's population may be affecting the environment (the implication being that if you talk about this, you are essentially advocating for some kind of genocide).
At the same time, we have pieces like this one in Jacobin demanding drastic government action to save the climate -- declaring a state of emergency, nationalizing huge swathes of the economy, and other top-down actions -- seemingly regardless of whether these actions emerge from or are supported by the democratic process. This sounds, at the very least, like some kind of eco-authoritarianism.
That seems a tad contradictory.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:24 PM on June 5, 2023
At the same time, we have pieces like this one in Jacobin demanding drastic government action to save the climate -- declaring a state of emergency, nationalizing huge swathes of the economy, and other top-down actions -- seemingly regardless of whether these actions emerge from or are supported by the democratic process. This sounds, at the very least, like some kind of eco-authoritarianism.
That seems a tad contradictory.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:24 PM on June 5, 2023
I give up. You’re all right. Let’s not try to collectively solve anything using the main tools we have for that: our at least nominally democratic governance structures. Plus it wouldn’t possibly make a difference anyways.
posted by eviemath at 6:18 PM on June 5, 2023
posted by eviemath at 6:18 PM on June 5, 2023
I mean, I can certainly believe that people online have been guilty of abusing the term "ecofacism". No doubts there. But I also think there's significant differences between what is generally signified by ecofacism (infringing on people's bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and human rights, usually along racist lines) and what McKay is proposing.
E.g. the main reason you would declare a state of emergency is that it lets you take the $1T Pentagon budget and use it as a slush fund for green projects. There is recent precedent for this when the Trump admin declared a state of emergency so that it could use military funds for a border wall. This action was blessed by the Supreme Court. So if a Democratic admin were to declare a state of emergency, take Pentagon funds dedicated to building nuclear weapons and hunter-killer drones, and instead use those funds to insulate low-income housing and build wind turbines, is that ecofascism? It is certainly abusing the imperial presidency and borrowing the power of the purse from Congress, but not in a way that is new or that the Federalist judges have not already allowed. And in doing so it would be turning swords into plowshares, and reducing the overall militancy and inequality of our society. Is that ecofacism or eco-authoritarianism? It's not the ideal way of getting this done, but it's also a far cry from jack-booted thugs telling you how many kids you can have or sterilizing your wife.
posted by Balna Watya at 7:29 PM on June 5, 2023
E.g. the main reason you would declare a state of emergency is that it lets you take the $1T Pentagon budget and use it as a slush fund for green projects. There is recent precedent for this when the Trump admin declared a state of emergency so that it could use military funds for a border wall. This action was blessed by the Supreme Court. So if a Democratic admin were to declare a state of emergency, take Pentagon funds dedicated to building nuclear weapons and hunter-killer drones, and instead use those funds to insulate low-income housing and build wind turbines, is that ecofascism? It is certainly abusing the imperial presidency and borrowing the power of the purse from Congress, but not in a way that is new or that the Federalist judges have not already allowed. And in doing so it would be turning swords into plowshares, and reducing the overall militancy and inequality of our society. Is that ecofacism or eco-authoritarianism? It's not the ideal way of getting this done, but it's also a far cry from jack-booted thugs telling you how many kids you can have or sterilizing your wife.
posted by Balna Watya at 7:29 PM on June 5, 2023
E.g. the main reason you would declare a state of emergency is that it lets you take the $1T Pentagon budget and use it as a slush fund for green projects.
This argument just seems so facile.
It doesn't engage with the fact that vast amounts of public and private capital are flowing into climate change mitigation already. I mentioned offshore wind investment... which is just part of the massive shift toward renewable energy (including land-based solar, wind, energy storage, and grid enhancements) that's underway, with lavish government funding and correspondingly lavish private-sector investment.
Globally, investment in renewables reached $1.1 trillion last year, and the graphs in this article indicate it's climbing steeply. I would bet that U.S. investment alone will hit the trillion-dollar mark in the next several years.
We could also talk about the tone-deafness of wanting to slash the military budget as we're extending a lifeline of military aid to Ukraine, which is the one of the key global frontline in a very real war against fascism. But "Why not spend the military budget on progressive priorities?" is a time-honored fantasy, I guess. It doesn't make it a cogent argument. The president can't actually redirect the entire Pentagon budget, which is mostly determined by Congress, toward whatever he wants. Those who believe he can and should are really jonesing for a dictatorship.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:03 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
This argument just seems so facile.
It doesn't engage with the fact that vast amounts of public and private capital are flowing into climate change mitigation already. I mentioned offshore wind investment... which is just part of the massive shift toward renewable energy (including land-based solar, wind, energy storage, and grid enhancements) that's underway, with lavish government funding and correspondingly lavish private-sector investment.
Globally, investment in renewables reached $1.1 trillion last year, and the graphs in this article indicate it's climbing steeply. I would bet that U.S. investment alone will hit the trillion-dollar mark in the next several years.
We could also talk about the tone-deafness of wanting to slash the military budget as we're extending a lifeline of military aid to Ukraine, which is the one of the key global frontline in a very real war against fascism. But "Why not spend the military budget on progressive priorities?" is a time-honored fantasy, I guess. It doesn't make it a cogent argument. The president can't actually redirect the entire Pentagon budget, which is mostly determined by Congress, toward whatever he wants. Those who believe he can and should are really jonesing for a dictatorship.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:03 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Adding: I want to quote that that Time article I linked above, because it explains why McKay's desperate, uninformed demands are really behind the curve:
The current presidential administration is really looking like it will be viewed, in retrospect, as the moment when we as a nation got our act together and started making serious policy and resource commitments toward changing our systems. What Biden realized, I think, is that you don't have to dismantle the old world before you start building the new one.
Focusing purely on punitive anti-carbon policies can come off as oppressive and puritanical. But if you focus at least as much on building up compelling alternatives, a green future becomes more attractive, and something that more and more people freely choose.
That doesn't mean there aren't people and groups who Still Don't Get It, and/or who are actively trying to thwart change. But it seems increasingly clear that the climate denialists and fossil fuel diehards are on the losing side of history... whether they understand it yet or not.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:26 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Decarbonization is a game of decades and a game of dollars. Since 2004, the world has invested $6.7 trillion in the energy transition. It took eight years, from 2004 through 2011, to reach the first $1 trillion. It took less than four years to reach the next trillion, and a little less than one more year to reach the latest trillion. One dollar out of every six invested over the last 18 years flowed in 2022.I monitor energy and environmental policy for my job, and I can confidently say there is so much amazingly good stuff happening right now in terms of the energy transition! And yet the mainstream media is doing such a terrible job of conveying the big picture to people.
To paraphrase the late energy investor T. Boone Pickens, the first trillion was the hardest. The most recent trillion was the fastest — but if we are to achieve the deepest decarbonization possible, it will also be slower than every trillion that comes after it.
The current presidential administration is really looking like it will be viewed, in retrospect, as the moment when we as a nation got our act together and started making serious policy and resource commitments toward changing our systems. What Biden realized, I think, is that you don't have to dismantle the old world before you start building the new one.
Focusing purely on punitive anti-carbon policies can come off as oppressive and puritanical. But if you focus at least as much on building up compelling alternatives, a green future becomes more attractive, and something that more and more people freely choose.
That doesn't mean there aren't people and groups who Still Don't Get It, and/or who are actively trying to thwart change. But it seems increasingly clear that the climate denialists and fossil fuel diehards are on the losing side of history... whether they understand it yet or not.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:26 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
> I monitor energy and environmental policy for my job, and I can confidently say there is so much amazingly good stuff happening right now in terms of the energy transition! And yet the mainstream media is doing such a terrible job of conveying the big picture to people.
Yes! This is one of my biggest frustrations. If we don't talk about the projects and success stories and the investments and their impact, we are leaving an easy win on the table in the battle to convince people that the climate fight is worth it, that it's not too late, and that government action CAN and DOES remediate damage done by corporations. There are so many stories to be told and we need to be telling them, not wasting our time paying attention to ignorant blowhards who find it profitable and/or ego-boosting to pretend that nothing is being done and they alone are awake to the existence of this crisis.
The Water Cup project in India has been blowing my mind ever since I read about it, but so few people and media outlets *even in India* seem to be talking about its incredible success. The IIJA just earmarked $90 billion to spend on public transit - but how many news stories even mention this? Even on a much smaller scale is this project - Cool LA, a 2019 city government initiative to coat roads and pavements with an environmentally friendly reflective material which has resulted in entire neighborhoods experiencing on average 15F cooler temperatures compared to surrounding areas of the city.
If we don't ever talk about it, how will we persuade voters to fund more of it?
Here is a website I keep returning to and idly clicking around on whenever I am temporarily seized with the idea that I need to work with local community groups on public policy efforts instead of my usual volunteering gigs: The Center for Public Impact. This is how they describe themselves: "There is a growing movement of government changemakers around the world, who are pushing beyond the current debate about what government does, in order to address the more fundamental questions of how government should be: the beliefs, values and principles that drive government action." They present page after page after page of case studies in public policy initiatives around the world - both successes and failures - and provide analysis and discussion of lessons that can be learned from each on how government can be made to work better. I'm sure this is all stuff that's being taught in public policy college programs but I also wish mainstream news and media outlets would republish pieces from such websites - we need to be taught about these things, as a public.
> I give up. You’re all right. Let’s not try to collectively solve anything using the main tools we have for that: our at least nominally democratic governance structures. Plus it wouldn’t possibly make a difference anyways.
No need to get sarcastic and snippy. Our choices aren't limited to "love this article" vs. "throw in the towel". People are not your enemy (nor enemies of climate activism) just because they dislike this one extraordinarily silly article.
posted by MiraK at 10:22 AM on June 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Yes! This is one of my biggest frustrations. If we don't talk about the projects and success stories and the investments and their impact, we are leaving an easy win on the table in the battle to convince people that the climate fight is worth it, that it's not too late, and that government action CAN and DOES remediate damage done by corporations. There are so many stories to be told and we need to be telling them, not wasting our time paying attention to ignorant blowhards who find it profitable and/or ego-boosting to pretend that nothing is being done and they alone are awake to the existence of this crisis.
The Water Cup project in India has been blowing my mind ever since I read about it, but so few people and media outlets *even in India* seem to be talking about its incredible success. The IIJA just earmarked $90 billion to spend on public transit - but how many news stories even mention this? Even on a much smaller scale is this project - Cool LA, a 2019 city government initiative to coat roads and pavements with an environmentally friendly reflective material which has resulted in entire neighborhoods experiencing on average 15F cooler temperatures compared to surrounding areas of the city.
If we don't ever talk about it, how will we persuade voters to fund more of it?
Here is a website I keep returning to and idly clicking around on whenever I am temporarily seized with the idea that I need to work with local community groups on public policy efforts instead of my usual volunteering gigs: The Center for Public Impact. This is how they describe themselves: "There is a growing movement of government changemakers around the world, who are pushing beyond the current debate about what government does, in order to address the more fundamental questions of how government should be: the beliefs, values and principles that drive government action." They present page after page after page of case studies in public policy initiatives around the world - both successes and failures - and provide analysis and discussion of lessons that can be learned from each on how government can be made to work better. I'm sure this is all stuff that's being taught in public policy college programs but I also wish mainstream news and media outlets would republish pieces from such websites - we need to be taught about these things, as a public.
> I give up. You’re all right. Let’s not try to collectively solve anything using the main tools we have for that: our at least nominally democratic governance structures. Plus it wouldn’t possibly make a difference anyways.
No need to get sarcastic and snippy. Our choices aren't limited to "love this article" vs. "throw in the towel". People are not your enemy (nor enemies of climate activism) just because they dislike this one extraordinarily silly article.
posted by MiraK at 10:22 AM on June 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Artifice_Eternity, I'm having difficulty following your reasoning. I'm arguing that the government should spend more on transitioning our energy system (and not sweat the legislative fine points) since as you and T. Boone Pickens point out, the more we spend the faster we transition and the less damage we suffer. I know that we are already spending large amounts of money on this transition, from both the government and the private sector, but that does not mean that the government should not spend more on it or do more to have a renewable-friendly regulatory environment. On a more personal level, it also sounds like this would mean more money for your job and industry. :D
As to dictatorship, I'm not sure what to do except repeat my previous points. Using the Pentagon budget is currently allowed as long as the President says "it's an emergency". Here are two quick articles about it:
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805796618/trump-administration-diverts-3-8-billion-in-pentagon-funding-to-border-wall
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/court-allows-border-wall-construction-to-continue/
That's the situation as it has been for the last ~5 years. I (and the article) are only arguing that we should use these existing tools to help promote human survival. I agree with you that the imperial presidency is a bad thing in general, but I also think that we can't allow rapid progress on the climate to be contingent upon first un-fucking the American political system.
posted by Balna Watya at 3:13 PM on June 6, 2023
As to dictatorship, I'm not sure what to do except repeat my previous points. Using the Pentagon budget is currently allowed as long as the President says "it's an emergency". Here are two quick articles about it:
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805796618/trump-administration-diverts-3-8-billion-in-pentagon-funding-to-border-wall
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/court-allows-border-wall-construction-to-continue/
That's the situation as it has been for the last ~5 years. I (and the article) are only arguing that we should use these existing tools to help promote human survival. I agree with you that the imperial presidency is a bad thing in general, but I also think that we can't allow rapid progress on the climate to be contingent upon first un-fucking the American political system.
posted by Balna Watya at 3:13 PM on June 6, 2023
Since many in this thread are slamming progressives, I am curious to hear the centrist solution to climate change.
Would a sensible solution suffice? Stop growing our human population, by first doing nothing to encourage it, especially describing social security as a Ponzi scheme that relies on having children in order to exploit them and their desperate parents. We have become hostage to the reliance on patented systems to achieve things like pollination, because survival is monetized. Take something as simple as water, and then assume that every drop must now be accounted for, or sold as a way to conserve it for human use. That's not progress, it's only buying time until the mythical end of world.
A note on the use of centrist. Most moderates, independents, or otherwise uncommitted to the priorities of current right or left, are just middle-class advocates, pulling both ends towards the middle, and they have no dogmatic house to belong to. They don't aim to exploit poverty economically, spiritually or politically, and this is a sticking point, because if poverty goes away by using common sense, so does extreme politics, for lack or needing a revolution or a rapture. About half of the population has a natural aversion to using any emotions or guilt about duty or correctness for others to follow the ideologues. That's just smart.
posted by Brian B. at 10:28 AM on June 7, 2023
Would a sensible solution suffice? Stop growing our human population, by first doing nothing to encourage it, especially describing social security as a Ponzi scheme that relies on having children in order to exploit them and their desperate parents. We have become hostage to the reliance on patented systems to achieve things like pollination, because survival is monetized. Take something as simple as water, and then assume that every drop must now be accounted for, or sold as a way to conserve it for human use. That's not progress, it's only buying time until the mythical end of world.
A note on the use of centrist. Most moderates, independents, or otherwise uncommitted to the priorities of current right or left, are just middle-class advocates, pulling both ends towards the middle, and they have no dogmatic house to belong to. They don't aim to exploit poverty economically, spiritually or politically, and this is a sticking point, because if poverty goes away by using common sense, so does extreme politics, for lack or needing a revolution or a rapture. About half of the population has a natural aversion to using any emotions or guilt about duty or correctness for others to follow the ideologues. That's just smart.
posted by Brian B. at 10:28 AM on June 7, 2023
Artifice_Eternity, I'm having difficulty following your reasoning.
My argument was simply that McKay's article is poor, because while he's demanding that the government should spend a trillion dollars on climate change response, I'm pointing out that, essentially, they already are, and he doesn't seem to be aware of it.
I do think more money should be spent. The good news is that it looks like it will be. And not all of it has to come from the government. The construction of legislation like the IRA and the IIJA was such that they use a certain amount of public funds to unlock larger amounts of private capital. And this is working -- better than anticipated, in fact.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:51 PM on June 7, 2023
My argument was simply that McKay's article is poor, because while he's demanding that the government should spend a trillion dollars on climate change response, I'm pointing out that, essentially, they already are, and he doesn't seem to be aware of it.
I do think more money should be spent. The good news is that it looks like it will be. And not all of it has to come from the government. The construction of legislation like the IRA and the IIJA was such that they use a certain amount of public funds to unlock larger amounts of private capital. And this is working -- better than anticipated, in fact.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:51 PM on June 7, 2023
« Older 40 Years of Natty Novelties | Inside Snopes: the rise, fall, and rebirth of an... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hippybear at 7:24 AM on June 2, 2023 [27 favorites]