One of the most bizarre aspects of US climate politics is that "Republicans aren't going to go along with this & will probably ruin your plans" is implicitly framed as a *critique of Democrats*.
Climate denialism used to be taken seriously, so at least Republicans could say, "we're not taking action because it's not real." Now they (at least GOP elites) have dropped the denialism, but still won't do shit. By their *own lights*, they're dooming us to suffering.
But they never, ever, ever have to answer for it. Justify it. Explain it. EVER.
They don't have to explain or apologize for decades of denialism. They don't have to explain why their current plans are so inadequate relative to the science they claim to accept.
Instead, DEMS are asked to answer for it. "Why haven't you talked Republicans into behaving responsibly on this? Aren't your plans bad because Republicans are going to impede them?"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know, I know, I'm grumpy about everything, but this bugs me, this notion that science dictates what we must do about climate change, and if you just accept science, you accept the whole program. It's not so.
Don't get me wrong: I'm super into aggressive action to address climate change, largely along the lines supported by Dems & Biden (but faster/bigger). But I don't support it because "science." I support it because I value human life & believe in the value of collective action.
When people on the left smuggle their values in under cover of "science," it (rightly!) convinces their opponents that there's some slight-of-hand at work. It's irksome, because those values are *good & worth explicitly defending*.
If I'm being totally honest, I kinda think that US "states," in general, are totally arbitrary geographical delineations that have almost no real social or economic significance. There's something bizarre about the fact that we reverse-engineer so much policy based on them.
If you want to have coherent sub-national units, with actual discernible histories, characteristics, & interests, it seems like you'd look to metro clusters.
Final gripe: for all the whinging from rural folks about being "heard" etc etc., one of the most common conversations in my career is: city officials frustrated that they can't control their own fate b/c they're governed by state gov'ts dominated by rural interests.
For some reason *Democrats* have taken on responsibility for protecting coal communities through the transition. Coal executives? Coal-state Republicans? They haven't done shit.
A couple of people have asked: yes, Hillary Clinton had a $40 billion proposal to protect & transition Appalachia. Yes, Republicans (with the media's help) totally distorted her position. Yes, the left utterly failed to defend her on the point. vox.com/energy-and-env…
These guys are so instinctively repulsed by the idea of inconveniencing themselves on other people's behalf -- the idea that someone would do it when they *don't absolutely have to* just drives them mad.
When people behave unselfishly, it is an inherent challenge to the worldview of those who believe everyone is as selfish as they are. They have to render it false or fake somehow. That's what the whole "virtue signaling" thing is about.
People who denied, downplayed, or refused to take basic precautions to prevent the virus are responsible for more than a half-million American deaths. People who wear or call for masks even when they're not absolutely necessary are responsible for...what? What justifies the fury?
Extremely Seattle-specific question: I was thinking of taking the dogs on a walk around Lake Union today. 6.4 miles. The question is, where's the best place to park & start? Fremont is closest to me but parking in Fremont is deepest hell. alltrails.com/explore/trail/…
Drvolts Walk Review™️
From the red dot to the purple dot (1,2,3,4) is pretty bleak. It's near the water, but not on it or interacting with it in any meaningful way (save a few pocket parks). Not well marked.
From purple back to red (5,6,7) is *gorgeous* & full of people today.
At no point in this entire walk, save when you're inside Gas Works Park itself, are you out of sight of a busy road.
Give it up to Ben for efficiency. Old-school deniers used to learn a lot of climate science, just to sound more credible. Ben has realized that everyone in his audience shares his gut-reaction-to-first-line-in-Wikipedia-article level of knowledge & desires nothing more.
Older cons still remember a time when they had to be able to code switch & talk to normal non-bubble people. Today's Fox natives have lived their whole lives in the bubble. Nobody listening cares for credibility or expertise, so no need to code switch. Why learn to fake it?
If you tune in to any given 5 minutes of Shapiro or Kirk or whoever, it's immediately evident: these are arguments that you could only conceivably find convincing if you had *never spoken to an actual human who disagrees*. They are cartoon arguments against cartoon enemies.