I do not think any reporter will ask Harris is she is for energy abundance, even if it means an end to her dream of a Green New Deal. Should this miracle question get asked, expect her to skate around it, refusing, as she has with most questions, to provide any answer to it.
I hate this essays not because,of its core message but because it is lazy and ultimately dishonest. (1) I am a deep climate change believer (2) I did not support the green new deal because I thought a lot of it had nothing to do with climate (3) I am also a deep pessimist about the capacity of the human species to reason regarding g the long run (4) there is nothing in this essay behind the assertion that energy production is popular and therefore should be pursued. (5) this is true. - not ‘right’ or smart or perceptive. But it is true. (6) therefore we will do nothing really about climate change
When I read self obvious assertions like this essay I wish the writers would be honest. Either (1) ‘we don’t believe in this climate change nonsense and are in favor of drill baby drill, as a principle’ or (2) we do believe in climate change and we are confident that nothing will or should be,done about it
I do not deny the thrust of your argument, but have you considered the upheavals in everyday life, that would be the result of putting climate first and foremost? Maintaining a peaceful, or mostly so, society is of upmost importance if we are to achieve anything. If enough people start to think there is no future for them or their children, because of the severe limits put on them in how much energy they can use, we will be quickly past rioting, and into civil war. The difference here will be the people will be against the government, however it ends, it will not be pretty.
According to the Pew Research Center 23% of Americans think they’ll have to make major sacrifices in their everyday lives because of climate change. 48% expect to make minor sacrifices because of climate impacts and 28% of Americans expect to make no sacrifices at all.
I agree that "climate change policy, to be politically successful, must be embedded in and subordinate to, the goal of energy abundance and prosperity." But, beyond the exigencies of the current election process, that has to be coupled with some serious leadership to emphasize and deal with the compelling, appalling reality of climate change. The next President must tell people to get their heads out of the sand and face the facts of climate change, but that if they do that successfully, prosperity can be maintained. It can even be enhanced: as TNR pointed out, Trump's focus on gasoline-powered cars basically means conceding the industrial future to China. Harris can offer the opposite. We have to build for the new reality (cf. the change from steam to diesel and electric railways in the 50s). But we can't let the culture slide into denying that reality because of focusing on the short-term difficulties and inconveniences. We must focus on extracting prosperity from the inevitable disruptions of change. That means both (a) cutting away all the irrelevant lefty baggage that got attached to the concept of the "Green New Deal" and (b) not allowing the right or the fossil-fuel industry or just people's myopia about what is possible and what change means to get in the way of actually confronting the crisis.
The two Harris quotes about fracking are not in conflict with each other. As she explained in the statement that contained the out-of-context quote "my values haven't changed": She still wants to put an end to fracking eventually. But she now believes that eventually fracking will phase out naturally through free market forces, so there is no need for a government ban on it. It's really irresponsible that the news write-ups of her position have said that she only made an empty claim about values, without quoting her explanation of what she meant by that statement.
There are certainly people in the environmental movement who preach "Live simply, that others may simply live" But the Green New Deal is not in conflict with an abundance agenda. On the contrary it is designed to harmonize the goals of both abundance and environmental safety: Creating New Jobs by creating new green energy sources. There is nothing in the GND about forcing people to live with less. It's all about creating abundance sustainably, not learning how to live without abundance. Perhaps there's a need to shift emphasis in how it is publicized. But you don't present any evidence that people are rejecting the GND itself, or that anyone talking about it is pushing any sort of scarcity agenda. It looks to me that the GND is the solution to the problem you think it is causing.
I do not think any reporter will ask Harris is she is for energy abundance, even if it means an end to her dream of a Green New Deal. Should this miracle question get asked, expect her to skate around it, refusing, as she has with most questions, to provide any answer to it.
I hate this essays not because,of its core message but because it is lazy and ultimately dishonest. (1) I am a deep climate change believer (2) I did not support the green new deal because I thought a lot of it had nothing to do with climate (3) I am also a deep pessimist about the capacity of the human species to reason regarding g the long run (4) there is nothing in this essay behind the assertion that energy production is popular and therefore should be pursued. (5) this is true. - not ‘right’ or smart or perceptive. But it is true. (6) therefore we will do nothing really about climate change
When I read self obvious assertions like this essay I wish the writers would be honest. Either (1) ‘we don’t believe in this climate change nonsense and are in favor of drill baby drill, as a principle’ or (2) we do believe in climate change and we are confident that nothing will or should be,done about it
I do not deny the thrust of your argument, but have you considered the upheavals in everyday life, that would be the result of putting climate first and foremost? Maintaining a peaceful, or mostly so, society is of upmost importance if we are to achieve anything. If enough people start to think there is no future for them or their children, because of the severe limits put on them in how much energy they can use, we will be quickly past rioting, and into civil war. The difference here will be the people will be against the government, however it ends, it will not be pretty.
According to the Pew Research Center 23% of Americans think they’ll have to make major sacrifices in their everyday lives because of climate change. 48% expect to make minor sacrifices because of climate impacts and 28% of Americans expect to make no sacrifices at all.
I agree that "climate change policy, to be politically successful, must be embedded in and subordinate to, the goal of energy abundance and prosperity." But, beyond the exigencies of the current election process, that has to be coupled with some serious leadership to emphasize and deal with the compelling, appalling reality of climate change. The next President must tell people to get their heads out of the sand and face the facts of climate change, but that if they do that successfully, prosperity can be maintained. It can even be enhanced: as TNR pointed out, Trump's focus on gasoline-powered cars basically means conceding the industrial future to China. Harris can offer the opposite. We have to build for the new reality (cf. the change from steam to diesel and electric railways in the 50s). But we can't let the culture slide into denying that reality because of focusing on the short-term difficulties and inconveniences. We must focus on extracting prosperity from the inevitable disruptions of change. That means both (a) cutting away all the irrelevant lefty baggage that got attached to the concept of the "Green New Deal" and (b) not allowing the right or the fossil-fuel industry or just people's myopia about what is possible and what change means to get in the way of actually confronting the crisis.
The two Harris quotes about fracking are not in conflict with each other. As she explained in the statement that contained the out-of-context quote "my values haven't changed": She still wants to put an end to fracking eventually. But she now believes that eventually fracking will phase out naturally through free market forces, so there is no need for a government ban on it. It's really irresponsible that the news write-ups of her position have said that she only made an empty claim about values, without quoting her explanation of what she meant by that statement.
There are certainly people in the environmental movement who preach "Live simply, that others may simply live" But the Green New Deal is not in conflict with an abundance agenda. On the contrary it is designed to harmonize the goals of both abundance and environmental safety: Creating New Jobs by creating new green energy sources. There is nothing in the GND about forcing people to live with less. It's all about creating abundance sustainably, not learning how to live without abundance. Perhaps there's a need to shift emphasis in how it is publicized. But you don't present any evidence that people are rejecting the GND itself, or that anyone talking about it is pushing any sort of scarcity agenda. It looks to me that the GND is the solution to the problem you think it is causing.