Neoliberalism can’t solve the climate crisis. We need activism
Neoliberalism can’t solve the climate crisis. We need activism
Radical action is essential to stop the transition from global warming to global boiling
-
The big problem with this argument is that it blames the ineffectual centrists and the ignored left, when the real villain is the anti-science suicide cult that is the Republican Party.
-
Here is the part in the article that describes what activism needs to take place:
persuasion, argument, nonviolent direct action or other means
That's it. I don't think this is an article about activism at all.
-
It's that good ol' white washed MLK activism. Our world is boiling and all we gotta do is keep making good arguments, as though the ones given haven't been enough.
-
Really couldn't disagree more with this article but here's the big one that stands out:
Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works.
It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don't live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that's definitely true. But that is a different complaint.
-
Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.
The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.
Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.
-
Imagine still believing that governments work for the people and not for the capitalists.. 🤯
-
I gave examples of government solutions working. Your bumper sticker response does not refute that.
-
-
The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
I presume you're either joking or you're trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what's needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?
Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don't and won't exist.
Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.
-
I'm not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than "let corporations do whatever they want." Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.
Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.
-
-
-
-
Ah yes, "blacklikemao" and "nyanarchist" - clearly sage wisdom.
-
Thanks for the links. If I could read, I might not be a liberal.
-
-
I've never seen someone rail against neoliberalism while coherently defining neoliberalism. It always seems to be a buzzword lefties use when they describe people they disagree with who are more moderate. Kinda like the more polite version of shitlib.
-
-
You can't start any action without Democrats in Congress and funding. That funding part is what progressives have a hard time understanding. Taxing the Rich is not funding.
-
“We don’t need the key, we’ll break in.” -
If we're being honest about funding, we need to tax wealth and access profits held in stocks better. That'll get funding. For the big stuff we need to tax everyone, but that usually just results in net savings like in single payer healthcare. The wealthy control more of the wealth than ever before, meaning funding will more and more need to come from them.
-
The progressive wing of Congress is just veiled populism. That's all they care about. So taxing the rich sounds sexy so it gets their focus.
-
I don’t think it’s veiled populism. Do you not agree with their policies? If you do, support them. No politician will be perfect. They are doing their best to work within the system.
-
-