The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and people like Newsom are acting on the state level. Believe me, I know that global warming is existential for the human race, and I'm pessimistic that it will save itself, but attacking the party that's actually done and doing things by disrupting their meeting is not the way to effect …
The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and people like Newsom are acting on the state level. Believe me, I know that global warming is existential for the human race, and I'm pessimistic that it will save itself, but attacking the party that's actually done and doing things by disrupting their meeting is not the way to effect positive change. I'm a socialist, so in no way is a party as relatively right-wing as the Democrats ever my ideal, but they are not the problem in the U.S., especially today.
They may not be the problem but at this juncture I think they're far from the solution because of the ossified leadership in the party that is just a continuation of the old guard of incremental change when drastic action will need to be taken to fix this and maybe it's past the point of no return.
Any drastic action on climate would be incredibly unpopular and would just result in a red wave in the next election. It's either incremental change or nothing for the foreseeable future.
Because the idiotic/successfully misled American voters keep electing saboteurs like Reagan, the Bushes and Trump, drastic action will be necessary to save worldwide civilization. The alternative will be collapse, and I agree that that's likely, if that's what you mean to say.
Yes unfortunately the sweetspot time for incremental change was 25 years ago and we elected Bush twice . Although honestly I think a lot of the climate proposals you see from the late 90s/early 2000s had some significant issues that would've in some ways made emissions worse than the status quo via unintended consequences (e.g. climate proposals from that period called for MASSIVE investments/subsidies for biofuels for cars)
The sweet spot time was the 1980s. Had Carter been re-elected, he could have continued to concentrate on conservation and solar energy. But the Supreme Court's selection of G.W. Bush may have been the death knell for any sort of effective relatively mild climate transition policy.
Ooh yeah even more massive biofuels would have been a disaster.
Honestly, hybridization out of a “peak oil”/efficiency argument would have been the way to go, and battery tech would have been much better for electrification by present day
Yes bumping the fuel standards up to what would require essentially all vehicles to be at least hybrid would've been the way, but boy back in say 2002 with oil so low, I don't see how you could've ever gotten the political winds to blown those sails.
As someone who lives in the North and experiences winter, snow, and cold temperatures every year, it is frankly appalling how many people here whine and complain about the cold and the snow. And I have increasingly come to the conclusion over the past couple of years that this irrational fear and/or hatred of cold weather is a HUGE reason why there is so little enthusiasm on the part of the electorate to take any action against climate change.
I hate to say it, but the average uninformed voter hears that the climate is warming, and thinks to themselves, "Sounds good to me! No more icy roads or shoveling snow!".
If Democrats really want the electorate to get behind them in terms of dealing with climate change, we have to instill in the American people an appreciation of winter, and snow, and cold weather. Because that appreciation is sadly lacking in way too many people.
People hate MN/Dakota cold, but they love the seasons, and climate change is killing the change of seasons (really the change I've noticed in just the past decade has been really depressing)
I don’t know about drastic but there have been for years now new breaking developments in science to combat climate change and global warming. This particularly includes technology. Same goes with emphasizing sustainable design and development of buildings so they can not only withstand climate change but also translate into cost saving incentives for homeowners.
That said, Democrats running on just simply adapting isn’t going to help them win elections. The party has already been losing in the messaging battle in the LA fires. Thank god Newsom isn’t running for re-election as Governor of California or he’d have serious problems.
They are losing because of conflicting information being spread around and are not doing an effective enough job combating that.
For starters, the timing was immediately off when LA Mayor Karen Bass was coming back from a trip in Ghana and didn’t even respond to reporters questions about the fires and her “absence.” Then there was information spread out by those in not in government like former Mayoral Candidate Rick Caruso who have been talking about lack of water in fire hydrants and not cleaning up brushes in the hills to prevent fires from spreading. Him and others threw out information right there and haven’t let up.
Then there’s also the City of LA Government which isn’t even in complete sync with Mayor Bass on this issue.
I don’t blame Newsom for this situation with the LA fires but on the other hand, as a statesman in this situation he’s not exactly impressed me. If Governor Jerry Brown was still around, he would have a no BS attitude and would pay more close attention to detail.
Bass isn’t aloof but she didn’t seem to be proactive early on in addressing the fire hazard problem in LA County. There are also reports that the fires were started in part because of acts of arson.
Sunrise is very problematic in many ways. Climate/environment is literally my #1 voting position (or maybe tied with healthcare) and I think they are terrible for the cause.
Don't forget the MI, MN and NM trifectas all passed strong climate legislation as well (NM's not as strong as the others but given it's reliance on oil money what they did do has been a big deal)
The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and people like Newsom are acting on the state level. Believe me, I know that global warming is existential for the human race, and I'm pessimistic that it will save itself, but attacking the party that's actually done and doing things by disrupting their meeting is not the way to effect positive change. I'm a socialist, so in no way is a party as relatively right-wing as the Democrats ever my ideal, but they are not the problem in the U.S., especially today.
They may not be the problem but at this juncture I think they're far from the solution because of the ossified leadership in the party that is just a continuation of the old guard of incremental change when drastic action will need to be taken to fix this and maybe it's past the point of no return.
That "ossified leadership" passed and signed the Inflation Reduction Act and had more planned if the fucking voters hadn't sabotaged everything.
Any drastic action on climate would be incredibly unpopular and would just result in a red wave in the next election. It's either incremental change or nothing for the foreseeable future.
Because the idiotic/successfully misled American voters keep electing saboteurs like Reagan, the Bushes and Trump, drastic action will be necessary to save worldwide civilization. The alternative will be collapse, and I agree that that's likely, if that's what you mean to say.
Yes unfortunately the sweetspot time for incremental change was 25 years ago and we elected Bush twice . Although honestly I think a lot of the climate proposals you see from the late 90s/early 2000s had some significant issues that would've in some ways made emissions worse than the status quo via unintended consequences (e.g. climate proposals from that period called for MASSIVE investments/subsidies for biofuels for cars)
The sweet spot time was the 1980s. Had Carter been re-elected, he could have continued to concentrate on conservation and solar energy. But the Supreme Court's selection of G.W. Bush may have been the death knell for any sort of effective relatively mild climate transition policy.
Ooh yeah even more massive biofuels would have been a disaster.
Honestly, hybridization out of a “peak oil”/efficiency argument would have been the way to go, and battery tech would have been much better for electrification by present day
Yes bumping the fuel standards up to what would require essentially all vehicles to be at least hybrid would've been the way, but boy back in say 2002 with oil so low, I don't see how you could've ever gotten the political winds to blown those sails.
As someone who lives in the North and experiences winter, snow, and cold temperatures every year, it is frankly appalling how many people here whine and complain about the cold and the snow. And I have increasingly come to the conclusion over the past couple of years that this irrational fear and/or hatred of cold weather is a HUGE reason why there is so little enthusiasm on the part of the electorate to take any action against climate change.
I hate to say it, but the average uninformed voter hears that the climate is warming, and thinks to themselves, "Sounds good to me! No more icy roads or shoveling snow!".
If Democrats really want the electorate to get behind them in terms of dealing with climate change, we have to instill in the American people an appreciation of winter, and snow, and cold weather. Because that appreciation is sadly lacking in way too many people.
People hate MN/Dakota cold, but they love the seasons, and climate change is killing the change of seasons (really the change I've noticed in just the past decade has been really depressing)
What it amounts to is that most Americans are ignorant or stupid.
I don’t know about drastic but there have been for years now new breaking developments in science to combat climate change and global warming. This particularly includes technology. Same goes with emphasizing sustainable design and development of buildings so they can not only withstand climate change but also translate into cost saving incentives for homeowners.
That said, Democrats running on just simply adapting isn’t going to help them win elections. The party has already been losing in the messaging battle in the LA fires. Thank god Newsom isn’t running for re-election as Governor of California or he’d have serious problems.
How have they been losing on messaging in regard to the L.A. fires?
They are losing because of conflicting information being spread around and are not doing an effective enough job combating that.
For starters, the timing was immediately off when LA Mayor Karen Bass was coming back from a trip in Ghana and didn’t even respond to reporters questions about the fires and her “absence.” Then there was information spread out by those in not in government like former Mayoral Candidate Rick Caruso who have been talking about lack of water in fire hydrants and not cleaning up brushes in the hills to prevent fires from spreading. Him and others threw out information right there and haven’t let up.
Then there’s also the City of LA Government which isn’t even in complete sync with Mayor Bass on this issue.
It’s a mess.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2025/01/08/theres-no-water-coming-out-of-the-fire-hydrants-billionaire-caruso-becomes-top-la-fires-critic/
I see. So this is local to L.A. Because Newsom has seemed from afar to have done his best in this situation. Yeah, it sounds like Bass has fumbled.
I don’t blame Newsom for this situation with the LA fires but on the other hand, as a statesman in this situation he’s not exactly impressed me. If Governor Jerry Brown was still around, he would have a no BS attitude and would pay more close attention to detail.
Bass isn’t aloof but she didn’t seem to be proactive early on in addressing the fire hazard problem in LA County. There are also reports that the fires were started in part because of acts of arson.
Sunrise is very problematic in many ways. Climate/environment is literally my #1 voting position (or maybe tied with healthcare) and I think they are terrible for the cause.
Were they the ones who pulled this idiotic stunt?
Several of them were affiliated with it, according to the article, but it probably wasn't specifically instigated or directed by the group.
Don't forget the MI, MN and NM trifectas all passed strong climate legislation as well (NM's not as strong as the others but given it's reliance on oil money what they did do has been a big deal)