Thread by @DoctorVive

One of my least favorite forms of climate commentary is dunking on climate activists for being stupid and/or wrong about climate politics when the pundit, himself, is stupid and/or wrong about climate politics.

Take this @mattyglesias substack attacking Sunrise....

🧵

First of all, Yglesias accuses "the left" of believing that "there is a latent desire among the mass public...for sweeping climate-related change."

Seriously? Literally no-one believes that.

Did he not see Don't Look Up? Has he not read any climate comms scholarship?

2/n

One of the biggest challenges facing the world is the fact that the American electorate is only weakly committed to climate action, even as the number of people who are alarmed and concerned about the climate crisis continues to grow.

3/n

But what's weird about the Yglesias take is that he says this disengagement *doesn't matter* because, ready?, elites have got this.

Even Manchin, who he calls "not terrible on climate issues," is, according to this newsletter, on the case.

I mean, whaaat??

4/n

Yglesias backs up his claim with literally zero evidence, just a hand-wavy sentence asserting that Manchin is better on climate than "every single Republican."

Oh? Where are the votes that show Manchin is better on climate than any Republican. Not cited in this piece.

5/n

It's hard to cite things that don't exist.

Another thing Yglesias doesn't cite: Manchin at S&P Global’s CERAWeek, where he used the pronoun "we" to describe himself and fossil-energy industry representatives, as documented by @KateAronoff.

newrepublic.com/article/165746…

6/n

What Yglesias does discuss: the bipartisan packages (supported by Repubs!) that were marketed as "clean energy" support, but that regulated diesel emissions and HFCs only while funneling money to carbon capture via the Trump-era USE-IT Act.

epw.senate.gov/public/index.c…

7/n

Funneling money to carbon capture means subsidizing oil and gas companies, mostly.

(Congress has been subsidizing carbon capture at least since Obama, by the way. The tech still cannot capture enough carbon to meet even industry goals, at least in the power sector.)

8/n

And Manchin, in particular, is very clear that he supports what he calls "innovation" (the USE-IT Act cashes out as "Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies" Act) because "innovation" will supposedly allow the world to keep using fossil energy.

9/n

"'I have repeatedly stressed the need for innovation, not elimination,' Senator Manchin said in a statement. 'I stand ready to work with the administration on advancing technologies and climate solutions to reduce emissions while still maintaining our energy independence'."

10/n

That quote is code for: "I'll vote for things that don't mandate, directly or indirectly, the 'elimination' of fossil fuels."

(Quote is from here: nytimes.com/2021/01/26/cli…)

11/n

Manchin *is* terrible on climate, come on.

12/n

It's vaguely amusing that Yglasias claims Manchin has "every incentive" to go full-on denialist.

Manchin *doesn't* go full Inhofe becuz now he gets to block effective climate policy in Congress *and* get praised by marginally informed centrists at the same time.

13/n

Of course, exposing Manchin's advancement of fossil-energy interests in Congress, and how those activities are hidden by his messaging, doesn't in itself move climate politics forward. That requires a separate analysis.

14/n

But for sure you can't advance such an analysis if you fundamentally misunderstand the positions and activities of some of the main players.

Maybe a little more research, or at least curiosity, might be in order?

/fin

Citing sources, substack here: slowboring.com/p/sunrise-move…