In a piece at Bloomberg Matthew Yglesias argues that Green New Deals, carbon taxes, or even lesser measures targeted at decarbonization will go nowhere. He blames the American people:
If you’re a climate hawk, it’s easy to be mad at politicians for their timidity in the face of an urgent crisis. But there’s also genuinely no point in asking ecologically minded elected officials to fall on their swords and lose elections over unpopular ideas, turning over control of the government to people whose ideas are much worse. All of this leads to a difficult truth: The problem here lies not with the politicians, or even with the billionaires or oil companies. It lies with voters themselves, who recognize that climate change is a real problem but are not necessarily willing to sacrifice much of anything to tackle it.
I think he’s missing something basic. Yes, the voters are a roadblock to the “climate hawks'” agenda but that’s because they’re approaching the problem in the wrong way or maybe trying to solve a problem other than the one they claim to be. Why the opposition to nuclear power? Why is carbon capture given such short shrift? Why so much emphasis on electric vehicles when small diesels might produce even fewer carbon emissions than EVs over their productive lives, don’t depend on technological breakthroughs that may never arrive, and would be more immediately useful without requiring vast investments in recharging stations, transmission lines, etc.?
I think there’s a soup of wishful thinking, conflicts of interest, errors, and bad assumptions being made by politicians that are impediments at least as serious as popular reluctance. Start with this question: why ask people to sacrifice?
I’ve been reading a lot of Yglesias lately, mainly because I’m subscribed to his substack. “Do things that are popular” is a theme he’s emphasized a lot, particularly to progressives who have this tendency to demand perfect (in their view) policies.
Let me get this straight. I am supposed believe the same idiots that could not save Afghanistan will save the world? It should be painfully obvious that the experts are idiots, at best.
“Yes, the voters are a roadblock to the “climate hawks’†agenda ……”
Multiple reasons.
I think there is information asymmetry. How many people know about carbon capture, or the real risks of nuclear or benefits of small diesels? Most people are too lazy to become informed. EV’s sound neat, clean and easy.
But the people are also inundated with out and out propaganda from people with non-environmentalist motivations.
The politicians are getting paid by lobbies; they really don’t give a shit about a relatively complacent populace.
And yes, sacrifice doesn’t sell as well as willful delusion or free beer.
You could do a whole series of posts on sugar, and the attendant issues of Big Sugar, metabolic disease, health care costs and so forth. Last time I looked, health care costs were a big issue in the US. All those issues I just cited would be prominent. Blood on a lot of peoples hands. Not much more than grousing from critics, and no calls for consumers to change behaviors.
Ever wondered why the cost escalation of Big Pharma gets press, doctor’s salaries gets press, hospital costs get press, but the single biggest root cause (perhaps bigger than the previous 3 combined) problems of sugar and third party payment don’t?
Actually, I have. My focus was on “Big Sugar” and the geopolitics of sugar. Gosh, that was nearly 20 years ago.
In this household we don’t eat what is thought of as a normal American diet—few processed food, a pound of sugar or salt will last us for years (except for my wife’s famous English toffee at Christmastime of which I eat, maybe, two pieces).
20 years ago I was 25. 🙂
I was old then. Still old.
What the fuck is wrong with sugar?
I have 2 teaspoons in everything.