I mean, the thing is, my family was doing really well under Trump’s economy. At that time, if you'd have asked me to contribute an extra $500 a year in taxes to fight warming, I would have happily given it. I just don't think we are trying to fight climate change in the most productive, cheapest, most environmental way. Watching trees be removed to install solar panels makes me a little sick inside. And, wind? Not reliable. Also, I'd love to have a full self-driving electric car, but I don't live in a populous or rich state. We have 0 infrastructure to even charge those cars and what do I do if it breaks down? Ever tried one of those environmentally friendly hot water heaters for showers? I did. They do not get hot enough and you dont feel clean because the water pressure is horrible. I'm happy to do what I can within reason, but I'd like to be flush with cash on quality of life expenses first.
This is all valid, but please... the president is one of the least important variables on the strength of the economy and inflation. Terms like "Trump economy" are just ridiculous.
You can disagree if you want, but it's not an opinion; it is a very well-established fact that POTUS is one of the least important variables influencing the strength of the economy. Boom-bust cycles are the natural rhythm of markets, largely independent of the president.
I love that you linked this article, it shows exactly what I was saying.
As your article states, presidents can have long-term impacts on the economy through things like FTC and DOJ appointments. These efforts won't have a big impact for years, and when they start to make an impact, they will be blamed on/attributed to whoever is in office at the time. Neither Trump nor Biden could bend inflation through agency appointments right now, but for whatever it's worth, Biden's FTC is doing a great job bringing down inflation in the long-term by breaking up monopolies, banning junk fees, etc.
Your article also states they impact the economy through Fed policy, which is ... sort of true, but doesn't support your argument. Fed policy was the same under Trump, and is generally independent of POTUS besides.
Finally, your article says presidents can have a big impact based on how they respond to a crisis, which is true, but we're not in a crisis. When we were, both Biden and Trump chose to print money to avoid a recession. This was likely the best decision... inflation sucks, but unemployment is worse. Whatever your feelings on it though, both presidents had the same policy response.
Essentially, your article proves my point. Presidents have very little impact on the economy, and in the limited areas they do have influence Biden and Trump did basically the same things.
Our economic situation is the result of decades of money printing under both parties (Trump printed more than anyone before him), and COVID. It's a big-picture, macro trend that far exceeds the authority of the president. As a final note, inflation is (and has been) better in the US than in basically any other country on earth.
Biden continues to print money with student loan relief. He has spent tons of money on covid relief, inflation reduction, war, war, immigration, and so much else. Much of the money he has delegated has been wasted. Inflation has been a disaster and I don't care if we are doing better than other countries. I care if we are doing better now than we were. Have I lost or gained money? What does my bank account tell me? Probably the same thing it's telling the other 67% of people who continue to poll about the horrid cost of day to day goods (which aren't even counted in inflation numbers) You won't convince me that Bidenomics has been good for this country. Has he done some good things? Absolutely yes! And, I love some of his new ideas about medical debt and credit agencies. I'll just leave it here because I think we will just have to agree to disagree on how much I think certain policies have worsened inflation and daily out-of-pocket expenses. I'm just thankful I don't rent because allowing people to go full years without paying rent made landlords skittish and now, they charge double or triple. I appreciate your argument and your maturity. I must get on with my day. Have a good one!
In my experience the supporters of "net zero by 2050" in the Democratic Party's green NGO-corporate-university infrastructure are pushing those policies because they really believe that doing so is necessary to stave off an imminent climate catastrophe. I get that sense talking to people in private, heart-to-heart, not just in reading public pronouncements. I don't think the fear is performative. Maybe it would help if more people in the green Democratic infrastructure could be persuaded not to think of climate change in such catastrophizing terms.
The weirdest thing about it is that the Biden team actually is doing a pretty good job on energy and economic concerns, yet refuses to talk about it. As you noted, the US is now the biggest marginal producer of oil on earth, in history. For whatever reason, probably to appease the vanishing Green activist minority, he and his team won't mention it.
Likewise, Biden's FTC and DOJ are doing a fabulous job taking on monopoly power, bad mergers, junk fees, and other riptide inflationary pressures. As Matt Stoller has reported, however, Biden's press team WILL NOT talk about it:
How anyone could not see this is mind blowing. The Democrats must deal with this political reality. Climate change is upon us and there is no political will to get to zero carbon within the next generation. We have to a) learn to adapt b) invest in nuclear energy and c) where practical invest in continuous improvement in the other green energies such that they become economically politically feasible. Until then it is going to be a “all of the above” energy policy that will work in any political environment. Separate from this whenever we can reasonably clean up fossil fuels we should but eliminating them in any near or mid term plan is just crazy and as usual crazy plans always hurts the poor and middle class the most which is why it is politically infeasible
There's no denying that Team Biden (and the Green Movement in general) have been poor at persuasion on climate and energy issues. That said, do American voters really think there are infinite amounts of cheap oil and gas that can be extracted forever and burned with no negative consequences to their lives or the lives of their children and grandchildren?
Ruy: You are basically pointing out one of the most serious vulnerabilities of democracies: The majority of citizens almost always refuse to make substantial long term sacrifices that are required to assure a stable, sustainable and modern future. The last time the United States made such a sacrifice was in WWII and in that case, the sacrifice was only partially voluntary: The government instituted an industrial policy necessary to defeat the Axis Powers and that meant major rationing at home: but only for a few years, after which we saw "Les Trente Glorieuse" - 30 years of rising growth and decreasing inequality (1946 - 1976)
Today, because the US (and industrial world) have refused to take climate and energy issues seriously for almost half a century, we really do face multiple emergencies: 1) The climate will be getting much hotter for several decades. 2) Fracking will only deliver cheap oil/gasoline for a single digit number or years after which the US will be faced with a major energy crunch (having almost totally failed to electrify its economy). 3) Rising sea levels, decreasing amounts of arable land and drinking water will lead to far more climate refugees (within the US and many other nations).
So, yes, Team Biden and green activists need to do a much better sales job. But - as Ruy reminds us - they are pushing a very reluctant citizenry (which may decide they prefer Trump's corrupt fascism over Biden's perceived heavy handedness). The tragedy is that when the various looming global crises land on our doorsteps, responding to them will be far harder (even impossible in some cases, like south Florida's confronting a rising sea level), far more expensive, and likely to lead to even greater levels of inequality. If we haven't yet lost our democracy, we will then. We will all be living in the world the authors of The Limits to Growth tried to warn us about (way back in 1972).
I am sure this analysis is 100% correct as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. Yes, people don't want to be told what to do, etc. But climate change is real and drastic and realistic and responsible politicians should look for ways to educate the public as to the dramatic challenges of climate that are already starting and the spill over into migration, debt and other major topics. Yes, mollify them and look for the best balance. But don't drop the imperative of getting to less-lethal environmental usages. Some progress on climate has been made. More must be done. Don't let the short-run electoral needs discussed here, important though they are given Trump, eclipse the fundamentals.
"educate the public" ?? -- I think the public just has good sense. Making someone buy an electric car that they can't afford especially when it can't be charged is stupid. Paying rich people subsidies to buy an electric car is stupid. Citizens understand political cronies are dolling out billions to their buddies for solar farms and wind farms, watching these programs perform poorly, fail, or go bankrupt. Citizens are tired of getting scolded by their betters and being told they must lower their standard of living while they watch India and China carry on as usual. And many of the hysterical predications have been so far off the mark that people just ignore them.
Well, good luck. Tell the children now in Kindergarten (who should live into the 22nd Century) that you decided to ignore the extremely well established and worsening phenomenon of damaging climate change because early electric cars were too expensive and people were "tired of getting scolded". The mainstream climate predictions have been wrong only insofar as they underestimated the pace of change. There is nothing "hysterical" about them. EVs are getting cheaper. China and India, though they are huge emitters are making huge investments in renewable power (especially China, which is liable to get ahead of us in that technology). Yes, educate the public. Further ostrich responses will only make the problem worse, for our children and grandchildren. The problem now is how both to overcome the short-term political reticence about responses to climate issues and create broad public-opinion buy-in to the climate analysis: it may still be possible to alleviate the very worst outcomes, but that opportunity will not last.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're "financially comfortable" and already drive an EV. I live in an extremely cold climate and every month I have to take a 200-400 mile trip, and don't feel safe trying to find a working charging station and hanging out for 30 minutes waiting to charge. I I'm also on a fixed income. I will never consider an EV. And what will I tell kindergartners? I will tell them that they are lucky they don't live in the Congo, where young children are slaves and work in the mines to supply precious metals so that first world countries can drive EVs.
Actually, I don’t own a car and I am not especially affluent. I use public transportation, which is relatively ok where I live. Yes, the kindergarteners are lucky not to have to live in the Congo, but the point is, what will they face as adults in the late 21st and early 22nd centuries? Among other things, they will have to face millions of climate refugees from Congo and lots of other places that are likely to become uninhabitable. It is irrelevant to talk about our personal circumstances, such as your fears about having to wait 30 minutes for charging. The point is that, as is well established scientifically, the ability of the population that we have not and can expect to have over the next century to live on this plant is being compromised, seriously compromised, by our inability, politically, to take relatively marginal engineering and financial steps, right now, to counter climate change. If you think that isn’t important, you, like Trump (who said “I don’t care, I won’t be here” at one point) are wishing away the futures of those kindergarteners and, indeed, all our descendants.
So as I understand it, sacrifices that will need to be made (unaffordable, unreliable, safety issues) are sacrifices that must be made by everyone else, but not you? Your lifestyle won't change, am I correct?
Climate change predictions are often dire but don't pan out, so forgive me for being skeptical.
Not sure you'd try to pin the Trump label on me, just for trying to explain why most people aren't interested in buying, driving, or maintaining EVs.
This is sort of amusing: you make odd, personalizing assumptions, which are quite irrelevant to the problem. Whether you or I have to make sacrifices isn't the point. The point is that our society and economy have to adjust, one hopes in a relatively comfortable way (e.g. types of cars, heat pumps vs. furnaces, etc.) that would more or less maintain our standard of living. I don't know why you think I think I wouldn't have to make sacrifices. We all will, if we live long enough. The point about Trump was an analogy, not a label: aside from rejecting a complete scientific consensus, he takes a very short view (reasonably, in a sense, given his age, unreasonably given his pursuit of high office). Whether people are interested in buying EVs is unfortunately relevant only because the crisis will be addressed later (or never) because of their attitudes, but negative attitudes will only accelerate the advent of the crisis (and, of course, there are lots of other things that need to be done: EVs are only a part).
There is no basis for saying climate change predictions don't pan out. They are playing out pretty much as predicted, every day, all around us, and, more ominously, in the "global south". There is strictly no reasonable basis for skepticism about climate change. It's true that not every hurricane or heat wave or whatever is primarily attributable to climate change, but many are, and it is possible to draw a straight, upward trend of climate change through all these events. This is ineluctable, whether we like it or not. I am not a scientist but I took a course at Columbia covering these issues and there is no doubt about it at the macro level, no matter what people want to think.
The political problem (addressed by the Liberal Patriot) is twofold: first, how to get a reasonable, liberal, patriotic majority in Congress and in the White House; and second (my point), how that liberal majority can show some real leadership not only in getting programs enacted but in leading people to embrace the necessity of addressing the issues. You can make an analogy to what FDR had to do, and did, in leading the people to take up the burdens of World War II. It wasn't easy and it took too long, but he did it. That's what's needed.
If you are really afraid of climate change I really hope you support nuclear energy. It is the only thing that will really get us to where we need to be for clean energy. And no, I have no connection to the industry. Our connection is to the bio-renewable energy industry. It may play a small role but nuclear is the only path to get us to where you want to be. My very big issue with the green political fraction is that they run Luke warm to openly hostile to nuclear energy which then makes me just turn them off.
I certainly do support nuclear energy. There are risks, of course, but politics -- and life -- inevitably involves trade-offs and risks are the price of gains. It may be that the new type of smaller nuclear power plants promoted by Bill Gates will be less risky; let's hope so, but, in any case, you are right that nuclear power has to be a big part of the solution, at least in the medium term. Much of the short-term thinking that impedes making the kind of substantial progress that is required on climate issues is unwillingness to compromise or take some risks, which is true of some -- not all -- in the "green political faction", as you say. And that may be just as much a problem as the people who don't want to be inconvenienced or take a marginal economic risk or accept a hit to corporate returns in the very short run for the sake of the crushingly necessary steps that must be taken to address climate change.
Sincere question: What do policymakers do about the problem of voters not embracing electric vehicles to combat climate change, especially when they get cheaper? Or really caring about climate change at all? Is this too abstract an issue for them to be serious about making significant environmental policy change?
Many Climate Crusaders, seem afflicted with the same challenge. They, repeatedly, fail to acknowledge, if everything they assume about the Climate is correct, there is nothing 330 million Americans, on a planet of 8 billion, can do to change the situation. Even John Kerry admits that.
If every American skipped EVs, and all, immediately and permanently, returned to only actual equine power and candles, the world's climate would barely notice, if at all. There simply are not enough of us, as a percentage of world population. Moreover, we have already reduced our carbon footprint back to 1990s levels, when the US population was far smaller.
If the planet needs saving, Climate warriors need to be in Beijing, Mumbai, Lagos, Rio and the like. preaching salvation to the worst offenders. We have visited China multiple times. Most Americans have never seen power plants belch black smoke, as they do outside of major Chinese cities, because smoke stacks, without scrubbers, disappeared from the US in the 1970s.
Smokestacks that lack scrubbers, are still utilized, all over the non Western World, regardless of what fantasies are spouted at UN Climate Conferences. To add insult to injury, many EV Evangelists seem not to comprehend, electricity is simply a delivery system, not energy. The power must still come from somewhere, and sometimes that is a diesel generator, sitting next to an EV charging station.
Shoving EVs down people's throats, and condemning gas stoves, while flying private, is not producing new environmentalists, it is ticking off voters. The above article is well researched, expertly written, and clearly demonstrates, current Climate advocacy is not working. Climate advocates need to change tactics. They should stop trying to foist EVs on the West, pack a bag, and take their medicine to the world's sickest patients.
The most important thing for all incumbents is to get re-elected. Not facing up to this in this election may work, but probably not many more. 4% of voters should yield, be fair about 20 seats in the House,
at some point, diminishing returns usually changes peoples views. At the moment, it looks like the Administration is hoping that "This time will be different.".
I mean, the thing is, my family was doing really well under Trump’s economy. At that time, if you'd have asked me to contribute an extra $500 a year in taxes to fight warming, I would have happily given it. I just don't think we are trying to fight climate change in the most productive, cheapest, most environmental way. Watching trees be removed to install solar panels makes me a little sick inside. And, wind? Not reliable. Also, I'd love to have a full self-driving electric car, but I don't live in a populous or rich state. We have 0 infrastructure to even charge those cars and what do I do if it breaks down? Ever tried one of those environmentally friendly hot water heaters for showers? I did. They do not get hot enough and you dont feel clean because the water pressure is horrible. I'm happy to do what I can within reason, but I'd like to be flush with cash on quality of life expenses first.
This is all valid, but please... the president is one of the least important variables on the strength of the economy and inflation. Terms like "Trump economy" are just ridiculous.
I disagree, but you are allowed to determine what you find ridiculous.
You can disagree if you want, but it's not an opinion; it is a very well-established fact that POTUS is one of the least important variables influencing the strength of the economy. Boom-bust cycles are the natural rhythm of markets, largely independent of the president.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-much-impact-can-a-president-have-on-the-economy/
I love that you linked this article, it shows exactly what I was saying.
As your article states, presidents can have long-term impacts on the economy through things like FTC and DOJ appointments. These efforts won't have a big impact for years, and when they start to make an impact, they will be blamed on/attributed to whoever is in office at the time. Neither Trump nor Biden could bend inflation through agency appointments right now, but for whatever it's worth, Biden's FTC is doing a great job bringing down inflation in the long-term by breaking up monopolies, banning junk fees, etc.
Your article also states they impact the economy through Fed policy, which is ... sort of true, but doesn't support your argument. Fed policy was the same under Trump, and is generally independent of POTUS besides.
Finally, your article says presidents can have a big impact based on how they respond to a crisis, which is true, but we're not in a crisis. When we were, both Biden and Trump chose to print money to avoid a recession. This was likely the best decision... inflation sucks, but unemployment is worse. Whatever your feelings on it though, both presidents had the same policy response.
Essentially, your article proves my point. Presidents have very little impact on the economy, and in the limited areas they do have influence Biden and Trump did basically the same things.
Our economic situation is the result of decades of money printing under both parties (Trump printed more than anyone before him), and COVID. It's a big-picture, macro trend that far exceeds the authority of the president. As a final note, inflation is (and has been) better in the US than in basically any other country on earth.
Biden continues to print money with student loan relief. He has spent tons of money on covid relief, inflation reduction, war, war, immigration, and so much else. Much of the money he has delegated has been wasted. Inflation has been a disaster and I don't care if we are doing better than other countries. I care if we are doing better now than we were. Have I lost or gained money? What does my bank account tell me? Probably the same thing it's telling the other 67% of people who continue to poll about the horrid cost of day to day goods (which aren't even counted in inflation numbers) You won't convince me that Bidenomics has been good for this country. Has he done some good things? Absolutely yes! And, I love some of his new ideas about medical debt and credit agencies. I'll just leave it here because I think we will just have to agree to disagree on how much I think certain policies have worsened inflation and daily out-of-pocket expenses. I'm just thankful I don't rent because allowing people to go full years without paying rent made landlords skittish and now, they charge double or triple. I appreciate your argument and your maturity. I must get on with my day. Have a good one!
In my experience the supporters of "net zero by 2050" in the Democratic Party's green NGO-corporate-university infrastructure are pushing those policies because they really believe that doing so is necessary to stave off an imminent climate catastrophe. I get that sense talking to people in private, heart-to-heart, not just in reading public pronouncements. I don't think the fear is performative. Maybe it would help if more people in the green Democratic infrastructure could be persuaded not to think of climate change in such catastrophizing terms.
The weirdest thing about it is that the Biden team actually is doing a pretty good job on energy and economic concerns, yet refuses to talk about it. As you noted, the US is now the biggest marginal producer of oil on earth, in history. For whatever reason, probably to appease the vanishing Green activist minority, he and his team won't mention it.
Likewise, Biden's FTC and DOJ are doing a fabulous job taking on monopoly power, bad mergers, junk fees, and other riptide inflationary pressures. As Matt Stoller has reported, however, Biden's press team WILL NOT talk about it:
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-does-the-biden-white-house-hate
I think Stoller's question-in-the-headline hits the nail on the head: Why does the Biden WH seem to hate its own agenda?
How anyone could not see this is mind blowing. The Democrats must deal with this political reality. Climate change is upon us and there is no political will to get to zero carbon within the next generation. We have to a) learn to adapt b) invest in nuclear energy and c) where practical invest in continuous improvement in the other green energies such that they become economically politically feasible. Until then it is going to be a “all of the above” energy policy that will work in any political environment. Separate from this whenever we can reasonably clean up fossil fuels we should but eliminating them in any near or mid term plan is just crazy and as usual crazy plans always hurts the poor and middle class the most which is why it is politically infeasible
There's no denying that Team Biden (and the Green Movement in general) have been poor at persuasion on climate and energy issues. That said, do American voters really think there are infinite amounts of cheap oil and gas that can be extracted forever and burned with no negative consequences to their lives or the lives of their children and grandchildren?
Ruy: You are basically pointing out one of the most serious vulnerabilities of democracies: The majority of citizens almost always refuse to make substantial long term sacrifices that are required to assure a stable, sustainable and modern future. The last time the United States made such a sacrifice was in WWII and in that case, the sacrifice was only partially voluntary: The government instituted an industrial policy necessary to defeat the Axis Powers and that meant major rationing at home: but only for a few years, after which we saw "Les Trente Glorieuse" - 30 years of rising growth and decreasing inequality (1946 - 1976)
Today, because the US (and industrial world) have refused to take climate and energy issues seriously for almost half a century, we really do face multiple emergencies: 1) The climate will be getting much hotter for several decades. 2) Fracking will only deliver cheap oil/gasoline for a single digit number or years after which the US will be faced with a major energy crunch (having almost totally failed to electrify its economy). 3) Rising sea levels, decreasing amounts of arable land and drinking water will lead to far more climate refugees (within the US and many other nations).
So, yes, Team Biden and green activists need to do a much better sales job. But - as Ruy reminds us - they are pushing a very reluctant citizenry (which may decide they prefer Trump's corrupt fascism over Biden's perceived heavy handedness). The tragedy is that when the various looming global crises land on our doorsteps, responding to them will be far harder (even impossible in some cases, like south Florida's confronting a rising sea level), far more expensive, and likely to lead to even greater levels of inequality. If we haven't yet lost our democracy, we will then. We will all be living in the world the authors of The Limits to Growth tried to warn us about (way back in 1972).
I am sure this analysis is 100% correct as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. Yes, people don't want to be told what to do, etc. But climate change is real and drastic and realistic and responsible politicians should look for ways to educate the public as to the dramatic challenges of climate that are already starting and the spill over into migration, debt and other major topics. Yes, mollify them and look for the best balance. But don't drop the imperative of getting to less-lethal environmental usages. Some progress on climate has been made. More must be done. Don't let the short-run electoral needs discussed here, important though they are given Trump, eclipse the fundamentals.
"educate the public" ?? -- I think the public just has good sense. Making someone buy an electric car that they can't afford especially when it can't be charged is stupid. Paying rich people subsidies to buy an electric car is stupid. Citizens understand political cronies are dolling out billions to their buddies for solar farms and wind farms, watching these programs perform poorly, fail, or go bankrupt. Citizens are tired of getting scolded by their betters and being told they must lower their standard of living while they watch India and China carry on as usual. And many of the hysterical predications have been so far off the mark that people just ignore them.
Well, good luck. Tell the children now in Kindergarten (who should live into the 22nd Century) that you decided to ignore the extremely well established and worsening phenomenon of damaging climate change because early electric cars were too expensive and people were "tired of getting scolded". The mainstream climate predictions have been wrong only insofar as they underestimated the pace of change. There is nothing "hysterical" about them. EVs are getting cheaper. China and India, though they are huge emitters are making huge investments in renewable power (especially China, which is liable to get ahead of us in that technology). Yes, educate the public. Further ostrich responses will only make the problem worse, for our children and grandchildren. The problem now is how both to overcome the short-term political reticence about responses to climate issues and create broad public-opinion buy-in to the climate analysis: it may still be possible to alleviate the very worst outcomes, but that opportunity will not last.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're "financially comfortable" and already drive an EV. I live in an extremely cold climate and every month I have to take a 200-400 mile trip, and don't feel safe trying to find a working charging station and hanging out for 30 minutes waiting to charge. I I'm also on a fixed income. I will never consider an EV. And what will I tell kindergartners? I will tell them that they are lucky they don't live in the Congo, where young children are slaves and work in the mines to supply precious metals so that first world countries can drive EVs.
Actually, I don’t own a car and I am not especially affluent. I use public transportation, which is relatively ok where I live. Yes, the kindergarteners are lucky not to have to live in the Congo, but the point is, what will they face as adults in the late 21st and early 22nd centuries? Among other things, they will have to face millions of climate refugees from Congo and lots of other places that are likely to become uninhabitable. It is irrelevant to talk about our personal circumstances, such as your fears about having to wait 30 minutes for charging. The point is that, as is well established scientifically, the ability of the population that we have not and can expect to have over the next century to live on this plant is being compromised, seriously compromised, by our inability, politically, to take relatively marginal engineering and financial steps, right now, to counter climate change. If you think that isn’t important, you, like Trump (who said “I don’t care, I won’t be here” at one point) are wishing away the futures of those kindergarteners and, indeed, all our descendants.
So as I understand it, sacrifices that will need to be made (unaffordable, unreliable, safety issues) are sacrifices that must be made by everyone else, but not you? Your lifestyle won't change, am I correct?
Climate change predictions are often dire but don't pan out, so forgive me for being skeptical.
Not sure you'd try to pin the Trump label on me, just for trying to explain why most people aren't interested in buying, driving, or maintaining EVs.
This is sort of amusing: you make odd, personalizing assumptions, which are quite irrelevant to the problem. Whether you or I have to make sacrifices isn't the point. The point is that our society and economy have to adjust, one hopes in a relatively comfortable way (e.g. types of cars, heat pumps vs. furnaces, etc.) that would more or less maintain our standard of living. I don't know why you think I think I wouldn't have to make sacrifices. We all will, if we live long enough. The point about Trump was an analogy, not a label: aside from rejecting a complete scientific consensus, he takes a very short view (reasonably, in a sense, given his age, unreasonably given his pursuit of high office). Whether people are interested in buying EVs is unfortunately relevant only because the crisis will be addressed later (or never) because of their attitudes, but negative attitudes will only accelerate the advent of the crisis (and, of course, there are lots of other things that need to be done: EVs are only a part).
There is no basis for saying climate change predictions don't pan out. They are playing out pretty much as predicted, every day, all around us, and, more ominously, in the "global south". There is strictly no reasonable basis for skepticism about climate change. It's true that not every hurricane or heat wave or whatever is primarily attributable to climate change, but many are, and it is possible to draw a straight, upward trend of climate change through all these events. This is ineluctable, whether we like it or not. I am not a scientist but I took a course at Columbia covering these issues and there is no doubt about it at the macro level, no matter what people want to think.
The political problem (addressed by the Liberal Patriot) is twofold: first, how to get a reasonable, liberal, patriotic majority in Congress and in the White House; and second (my point), how that liberal majority can show some real leadership not only in getting programs enacted but in leading people to embrace the necessity of addressing the issues. You can make an analogy to what FDR had to do, and did, in leading the people to take up the burdens of World War II. It wasn't easy and it took too long, but he did it. That's what's needed.
If you are really afraid of climate change I really hope you support nuclear energy. It is the only thing that will really get us to where we need to be for clean energy. And no, I have no connection to the industry. Our connection is to the bio-renewable energy industry. It may play a small role but nuclear is the only path to get us to where you want to be. My very big issue with the green political fraction is that they run Luke warm to openly hostile to nuclear energy which then makes me just turn them off.
I certainly do support nuclear energy. There are risks, of course, but politics -- and life -- inevitably involves trade-offs and risks are the price of gains. It may be that the new type of smaller nuclear power plants promoted by Bill Gates will be less risky; let's hope so, but, in any case, you are right that nuclear power has to be a big part of the solution, at least in the medium term. Much of the short-term thinking that impedes making the kind of substantial progress that is required on climate issues is unwillingness to compromise or take some risks, which is true of some -- not all -- in the "green political faction", as you say. And that may be just as much a problem as the people who don't want to be inconvenienced or take a marginal economic risk or accept a hit to corporate returns in the very short run for the sake of the crushingly necessary steps that must be taken to address climate change.
Sincere question: What do policymakers do about the problem of voters not embracing electric vehicles to combat climate change, especially when they get cheaper? Or really caring about climate change at all? Is this too abstract an issue for them to be serious about making significant environmental policy change?
Many Climate Crusaders, seem afflicted with the same challenge. They, repeatedly, fail to acknowledge, if everything they assume about the Climate is correct, there is nothing 330 million Americans, on a planet of 8 billion, can do to change the situation. Even John Kerry admits that.
If every American skipped EVs, and all, immediately and permanently, returned to only actual equine power and candles, the world's climate would barely notice, if at all. There simply are not enough of us, as a percentage of world population. Moreover, we have already reduced our carbon footprint back to 1990s levels, when the US population was far smaller.
If the planet needs saving, Climate warriors need to be in Beijing, Mumbai, Lagos, Rio and the like. preaching salvation to the worst offenders. We have visited China multiple times. Most Americans have never seen power plants belch black smoke, as they do outside of major Chinese cities, because smoke stacks, without scrubbers, disappeared from the US in the 1970s.
Smokestacks that lack scrubbers, are still utilized, all over the non Western World, regardless of what fantasies are spouted at UN Climate Conferences. To add insult to injury, many EV Evangelists seem not to comprehend, electricity is simply a delivery system, not energy. The power must still come from somewhere, and sometimes that is a diesel generator, sitting next to an EV charging station.
Shoving EVs down people's throats, and condemning gas stoves, while flying private, is not producing new environmentalists, it is ticking off voters. The above article is well researched, expertly written, and clearly demonstrates, current Climate advocacy is not working. Climate advocates need to change tactics. They should stop trying to foist EVs on the West, pack a bag, and take their medicine to the world's sickest patients.
The most important thing for all incumbents is to get re-elected. Not facing up to this in this election may work, but probably not many more. 4% of voters should yield, be fair about 20 seats in the House,
at some point, diminishing returns usually changes peoples views. At the moment, it looks like the Administration is hoping that "This time will be different.".