That climate change is happening is not a matter of politics. What to do about it is a matter of politics.
Seizing on a crisis to demand sweeping new powers for government presents perhaps an irresistible temptation to use those powers to rebuild society to your desired specifications. Hence all the unrelated demands that encrust these manifestos.
The protests of that era were mostly self-organized, homegrown affairs. They didn’t have brand names and the lockstep uniformity we see here. Maybe that’s due to social media and maybe that’s due to a few generations of improvements to political merchandising.Originally Posted by catherine
Yes, I think that social media has definitely sped things along, but that doesn't make them less homegrown. I'm thinking of Extinction Rebellion which had local roots and spread globally quickly through social media and there are local chapters now all over the world.
And, Extinction Rebellion expressly disallows people from profiting from their branding.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
Maybe if the republicans would actually get involved in the debate, instead of claiming that there isn't a problem, while simultaneously trying to force car companies to make less efficient vehicles and open up any and all public lands for oil drilling, we could have a national debate about this. But for now there are only two choices on the table. All. Or nothing. As someone who hopes to inhabit this planet for another 30-40 years I'll take the all option. And frankly, everything really IS connected. The reason farmers in Brazil are burning down the rainforest responsible for 20% of the earth's conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen is because china now wants to buy food from them because trump is a stupid ass who wants to destroy american agriculture with his trade war.
You've put your finger on what was bothering me about their overreaching manifesto.
The explicit demand for compulsory education of K-8 students, laying out the reason, was a bit hair-raising.
As was the demand for some sort of tribunal with subpoena powers and so on.
Historically, these sorts of intersectional movements have become less intersectional once they have achieved success, and my kind are often the first against the wall.
What if not being all over the place DOESN'T WORK. Full stop. Period.Yeah, it mirrors the Green New Deal in a way, right? That also has everything but "free ice cream for everyone" in it. I'm not sure it's wise to be so all over the place.
I understand why people who really don't care about the issue as a priority don't care if it works or not. Ultimately it doesn't matter to them at the end of the day. They are more interested that society fit some set mold. That's what they accuse GND advocates of, and it might be true for some, but I think that's mostly projection and is far more their own stance than anything. I would like society to be decent, I want humane policies that goes without saying, but beyond that I want us to work on the environmental crisis as priority, much follows from that, a society we need to get there. This scares people that we have to think outside the box to get there. I don't care.
Because more narrow environmentalism has been tried. I don't think it's bad or anything. I just think like much else it's FAILED (to address the scope of the problem). GND folks are trying to actually learn from things like the Yellow Vests, that was an attempt to punish carbon use, it failed, despite the climate emergency, people would not accept it. That's why people have moved on to "climate justice", even if their main concern was climate. They realize the economics of it all must be addressed, it can't just fall on the most vulnerable, not just because it's unjust although it is, but because it doesn't necessarily work as getting policy implemented. If you want things to work you welcome this type of learning and modifying accordingly.
Now that's economics and climate economic justice, identity politics and stuff, maybe it needs to be addressed, maybe not, I don't know. It's not really my wheel and it's sometimes seems it is used to undermine movements.
Republicans, oh who knows if they ever become a party that cares about environmental issues decades hence (if we have decades), then they might be worth a second look occasionally (though I'm not a Republican). They are worthless right now and not worth any attention except to replace them with people who do give a darn.
Trees don't grow on money
The "lungs of the world" figure ignores the impact of respiration that occurs in the Amazon basin, the net oxygen released is nowhere near 20% (https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...-worlds-oxygen) . If you want to credibly claim the mantle of science as your own, I think you need to be more precise.
The "all or nothing" claim, is also the sort of thing demagogues say to frighten the masses into submission. As if redacting one comma from the Green New Deal spells doom for us all, much less accepting a regime of control by people with an agenda that includes a lot more than climate change.
I'm also getting a bit fed up with support of LGBTQ+ folks being hauled out by by various groups as some sort of sign of their wokeness, good intent, progressivism, intersectional credentials or whatnot. It makes me feel like a dancing bear, brought out for party tricks.
And in this case, it's ludicrous.
I’m only saying all or nothing because those are the only choices that seem to be out there currently. If you want another choice get your failed party to actually offer a choice beyond nothing.
I don't have a party.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote