Nativist hate crimes. Trump. Gun violence. Ugh. But newspapers are beginning to run stories about racist, eco-fascist links so I suppose its a depressing + timely moment to re-up my essay on nativists, violence and Trump. 1/ short thread
It's important we remember that links between nativism and environmentalism are part of a decades-long racist project that helped set the stage for Trump, and involve many of the same far-right figures like John Tanton. 2/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tant…
This piece by @AlexCKaufman is great - except I would not characterize the El Paso shooter or the Christchurch shooter as part of a revival - there is a long and depressing US history of linking immigrants and resource scarcity ...3/
David Pellow and Lisa Park have a great book that explores some of this history - which I recommend. But the point we can't forget is that overpopulation rhetoric fueled US nativism - and now this nativism continues to animate domestic terrorism. 4/
There is so much society has to do to restore sanity in the face of white nationalist violence. Evil in El Paso and NZ remind us of urgent need for gun reforms. We need to confront racism and hatred that have been normalized by our political elites. 5/
It also offers a no less important reminder that environmental justice is central to any imagining of new futures. Without confronting pernicious and racist narratives at the margins of environmental thinking, a vibrant and inclusive climate movement is impossible. 6/6.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Been reading more and more takes that climate bill failed because of shifting public opinion: e.g. the NYT "reported" this week (without empirical evidence!) that the public has soured on climate as the economy weakened. Nonsense. A short 🧵 1/
This zombie idea gets rehearsed every couple months. The central thesis: the public has a finite pool of worry, so when the economy goes downhill, they privilege immediate "economic" security over long-term climate concerns. But is climate opinion really structured this way? 2/
Not really. Evidence mostly suggests the public rewards walking and chewing gum at the same time on climate. And, to state the obvious, Manchin didn't kill the climate bill in response to public opinion, in WV or anywhere. 3/
New research in @NatureClimate w/ @erickUdeM, @ProfKHarrison and I. Stadelmann-Steffen. Two countries have set up carbon tax + rebates: Canada + Switzerland. Have these rebates increased public carbon pricing support, as advocates hope? Not really. 1/🧵 nature.com/articles/s4155…
2/ The politics of carbon pricing are challenging, as @leahstokes and I have written about in the @BostonReview and as I've discussed in my book Carbon Captured. Key problem: carbon taxes make salient policy costs while keeping benefits hidden.
3/ Rebates promise to change this political economy. Redistribute carbon tax revenue through lump-sum dividends and you create a visible benefit. This builds a political support coalition (people like getting money!) And it makes carbon tax progressive. A win-win?
Exciting news! @MichaelAklin and my new provocation is out in @GepJournal. We make a simple but far-reaching claim. **Empirically, climate politics is NOT primarily about collective action or free-riding**. A quick 🧵on why we've all been prisoners of the wrong dilemma 1/
For decades now, we've all assumed that free-riding is the binding constraint on global climate politics. Google "climate change" and "free-riding", and it generates 18000+ unique hits. Economists mince few words about this. Here's a Nordhaus quote for flavor: 2/
The logic of free-riding seems powerful. No country can solve climate change alone. But acting is costly. So every country wants to free-ride off of other country's action. But then no-one has an incentive to act. 3/
Will climate change change political behavior? In new @apsrjournal article, @chadhazlett and I find that experiencing a wildfire drives pro-environmental voting - but only in Democratic areas. Short 🧵 1/ cup.org/309PWte
The politics of climate change politics is tough. Leaders need to impose short-term policy costs to deliver long-term climate benefits. Today, the impacts of climate change are impacting Americans. Will this break the climate policymaking stalemate? 2/
Research is pretty mixed on this topic, as I recently reviewed with @peterdhowe, @mudfire and Brittany Shield in ERL. Also, most work focusses on public opinion, not on the ground political behavior 3/ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
My new book Carbon Captured is out! In it, I explain differences across countries in the timing and substance of their climate reforms. A quick 🧵here on one of the book's key arguments - something I call the logic of "double representation" 1/
Often, we talk about climate change as a left-right thing. But this doesn't line up with empirical reality of climate policy debates in most countries. We can't understand climate politics without recognizing this. 2/
The basic idea: climate change became an object of political conflict beginning in the late 1980s as climate science developed. But across advanced economies, political parties and economic interest groups were already well established 3/
I can't pull my mind away from the horrifying loss of life and land in 🇦🇺. Climate politics in Oz have been insane for decades. (The insanity gets a full chapter in my book). Will these fires change anything? Can they undermine the climate skeptics in power? A short 🧵1/
On the surface of it, it's hard to be hopeful. Current PM Morrison refuses to acknowledge that climate change is happening and wants to expand coal production. Here he is, no joke, bringing a lump of it into the Australian parliament. 2/
Kind of like that time when Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe threw a snowball inside the US Senate to disprove climate change. It was snowing outside, you see. 3/