A final interesting observation from #COP26 about the politics of climate and wealth inequality. I keep thinking about a conversation I had with a clean energy developer who'd built projects all over Europe...
...his observation was that in the Nordic countries where wealth inequality is lowest, support for immediate action on climate is highest. And places like the US are in the opposite situation. He noted that the two things are connected, in a Maslow kind of way.
Namely, if you don't know whether you'll be able to pay rent next week, or feed your family, or keep the heat on, you can't afford to advocate for climate action, even though you are most at risk of climate devastation.
I think there is wisdom there. And it's a reminder that we are all in this together. Not just political leaders to drive change. Not just the wealthy to make charitable contributions. It's on all of us to provide a more just world, no matter where we sit.
And when we do, to trust that folks will look out for the collective good of us all, even if our current, more self-absorbed era can't conceive of that reality.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So there's a video going around of a church leading their congregation in a chant of thinly veiled obscenities. I'm not going to share it, but do want to offer some thoughts on the power of the pulpit and it's temptations to corruption. Thread:
1/ Any preacher, musician or politician who's ever had some modicum of success has, at some point, found themselves in a position where they were moving a crowd towards something that was simultaneously dangerous and intoxicating.
This is so important and one of the biggest things I was tracking in Glasgow and now watching from afar. Any global, or domestic commitment to reduce GHGs lacks teeth without a robust Article 6 rulebook. (For those who want less jargon, a brief thread):
2/ At core, A6 is about transparency and accounting. Transparency being the thing that allows any country that pledges to cut their emissions from X to Y tons/yr to have open records so that any other country can audit their sources and sinks and verify the number.
This is really interesting. Even in the absence of sufficiently strong GHG policy, markets increasingly prefer the risk profile of clean cheap energy that doesn't have the price volatility of fossil fuel. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
To be clear, this has been coming for a long time. I've long maintained that it's easy to predict what's going to happen in energy markets - it's just hard to predict the timing.
(Because capex cycles are so long and market fundamentals are, well, fundamental. But dumb money and/or bad contracts make the timing of liquidity moves hard to predict)
Another observation from #COP26 on climate finance. Im.struck by the fact that the parts of that which are politically hard domestically are easy internationally. And vice versa. Brief thread:
1/ Climate finance has two pieces: mitigation and adaptation. The 1st describes investments to lower GHG emissions. The latter is mitigating the pain of a warming planet.
2/ Domestically, we can always get bipartisan consensus on adaptation. Seawall, rebuilding after forest fires, etc. But it's damned hard to get domestic political consensus to cut CO2
Seeing a lot of summary of the Infrastructure package we passed Friday night. Some accurate, some goofy, lots with opinion masquerading as fact. So herewith a thread on what's in, what's in the BBB and why it's in 2 separate bills:
1/ First, remember that Biden campaigned on transforming our hard and soft infrastructure. After getting elected, he gave us his American Jobs Plan as a framework. See here for details: whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
2/ It was ambitious. Highways and bridges, yes. But also lower drug costs, address the climate crisis, expand access to education, housing and broadband, slash child poverty... and much more.
Today, I continued my commitment to vote against any bill sponsored by members of Congress who watched what happened on January 6 and then voted with the seditionists to overturn the will of the people. If you want to know why, read this: washingtonpost.com/politics/inter…
I have no more or less right to my opinion than any of my colleagues, and even on areas of strong disagreement I would never hold their opinions against them. Such is the nature of a democracy, which it is my honor to serve in and my oath to protect.
But January 6 was different. On that day, 138 House Republicans voted to overturn an election. Voted against the very principle we all took an oath to defend. Voted against democracy.