,
28 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Hey, it's worth unpacking this latest column from @BretStephensNYT, because it's saying outright what has been a quiet strategy of the Carbon Lobby for decades.
And that strategy is one that every person who wants to act of climate needs to understand.
nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opi…
And that strategy is one that every person who wants to act of climate needs to understand.
nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opi…
What it says is this: Climate change is either a civilization-threatening crisis, or it's not.
If it is, we need massive action, "and we don’t have a moment to lose in substantially decarbonizing the global economy, no matter what the financial cost or political pain."
2/
If it is, we need massive action, "and we don’t have a moment to lose in substantially decarbonizing the global economy, no matter what the financial cost or political pain."
2/
If it not that kind of a crisis, though, we should (he says)
"think of climate change roughly the same way we think about global poverty—a serious problem we can work patiently to solve without resort to extreme measures..."
3/
"think of climate change roughly the same way we think about global poverty—a serious problem we can work patiently to solve without resort to extreme measures..."
3/
"If the former, then another windmill subsidy or carbon-trading scheme won’t do. We need to take extreme measures: to declare a national emergency, strictly ration every citizen’s carbon footprint, raise taxes on the rich+ middle class alike to fund trillions in green [projects]"
(Note here that he is setting up the straw man that the only way to cut emissions would be to take the most unpalatable steps of raising middle class taxes and rationing people's use of carbon... This is purposeful.)
"If the latter, however, then can we at least end the apocalyptic talk, especially since we aren’t prepared to take more than piecemeal steps?"
Here we come to the purpose of this piece.
6/
Here we come to the purpose of this piece.
6/
For decades, a core part of the Carbon Lobby strategy has been what I think of as "scare and despair."
The first part of that is to raise the threat of dire hardships if we act on climate: Rationing! Socialist gulags! Lawn taxes!
7/
The first part of that is to raise the threat of dire hardships if we act on climate: Rationing! Socialist gulags! Lawn taxes!
7/
The second part of this strategy, though, is induced despair.
As a corrupt politician was quoted by the great journalist Lincoln Steffens
"We know that creating public despair is possible and that it is good politics.”
8/
As a corrupt politician was quoted by the great journalist Lincoln Steffens
"We know that creating public despair is possible and that it is good politics.”
8/
A primary mechanism of the creation of public climate despair is keeping folks focused on the gap between the scale of of policies we need—state carbon taxes; Federal action like the GND; stronger global treaties that embrace 1.5º as our goal—and what can be won politically.
9/
9/
But in this effort, both the definition of winning and the nature of the fight must be what the Carbon Lobby wants them to be, and climate advocates have to agree to both.
10/
10/
Winning must always mean massive action at the highest levels of power, delivered thru mass-mobilizing campaigns
"Whatever else might be said of it, the Green New Deal [is] a remarkably honest attempt to offer a massive answer to what its authors see as an epochal problem"
11/
"Whatever else might be said of it, the Green New Deal [is] a remarkably honest attempt to offer a massive answer to what its authors see as an epochal problem"
11/
And the nature of the fight must always be presented as the reluctance of the population to do anything real about the climate catastrophe.
In this stance, climate inaction is the fault of all of us, of human failings. We're just not up for tackling a challenge this big...
12/
In this stance, climate inaction is the fault of all of us, of human failings. We're just not up for tackling a challenge this big...
12/
As in: "Most people don’t even want to spend pennies, at least if it’s their own money. In November, voters in Washington rejected a carbon fee by a margin of 12 percentage points. That’s a blue state."
13/
13/
This definition of the fight is critical, as we can easily see if we completed Stephens' statement here to include the whole truth, which is that voters rejected the initiative *after oil companies spent a record $32 million dollars to defeat the campaign"
14/
14/
Because the climate fight is not a fight against citizen apathy, it's a fight against the Carbon Lobby's organized predatory delay.
Predatory delay strategies are not just a *part* of climate politics these days—they're the fundamental conflict of climate politics.
15/
Predatory delay strategies are not just a *part* of climate politics these days—they're the fundamental conflict of climate politics.
15/
And the fundamental victory here is not cutting emissions, it's defeating the Carbon Lobby.
In America, comprehensive climate policy will come as a follow-on effect of winning that political fight, not as the means to winning it. This is especially true at the Federal level
16/
In America, comprehensive climate policy will come as a follow-on effect of winning that political fight, not as the means to winning it. This is especially true at the Federal level
16/
But the American people can't win a battle they don't know they're fighting against an enemy they don't understand exists.
That's why these two strategic messages—victory is winning huge comprehensive policy gains & the fight is against human nature—are repeated so often.
17/
That's why these two strategic messages—victory is winning huge comprehensive policy gains & the fight is against human nature—are repeated so often.
17/
Because if folks saw what the real fight to save civilization from a planetary emergency—and how within our grasp the breakthrough victory is—they might get ideas.
They might act.
And the whole point of predatory delay is avoiding that, as long as possible.
18/
They might act.
And the whole point of predatory delay is avoiding that, as long as possible.
18/
Interested in understand how that fight can be won and what the fruits of that victory would look like (and how they would then enable the kinds of comprehensive, top-down actions we certainly will need to get to zero emissions in the time remaining to us)?
Stay tuned!
19/
Stay tuned!
19/
I'll have a lot more to say on the topic of what winning climate strategies need to look like now, in this coming week.
In the meantime, here are some related threads that might interest you:
20/
In the meantime, here are some related threads that might interest you:
20/
A thread on why Nathaniel Rich's @NYTmag cover story, Losing Earth, was so off-base.
(Hint: it relates directly to the thread above...)
(Hint: it relates directly to the thread above...)
A thread about induced despair, and how it's being deployed by the Trump gang and the GOP to enable delay...
22/
22/
Why denialism is offensive: because it's fundamentally dishonest, with serious consequences.
23/
23/
Why we shouldn't waste time arguing with denialists, but instead demand conversations that begin in truth.
Why climate denialists like Bret Stephens should not be given platforms like the NYT.
25/
25/
Denialism has adapted to changes in public opinion. No longer denying outright that climate change is a problem, but asserting that the only "realistic" policies are slow and incremental ones.
26/
26/
A great example of what I was saying above.
The strategy called for here is passing a Federal carbon tax—which has the twin advantages of being both incremental+ currently impossible.
The means? A bipartisan coalition that doesn't exist, and never will.
The strategy called for here is passing a Federal carbon tax—which has the twin advantages of being both incremental+ currently impossible.
The means? A bipartisan coalition that doesn't exist, and never will.
More here on why advocacy for the Green New Deal is part of opening up a new set of strategies for climate politics.
