Stephens makes a good point that Pelosi and the Democrats should step up their game on climate change. Conveniently, he ignores that the Republicans are AWOL, as usual. But its not fair to even pin this on Democrats or Republicans. Its the electorate who must accept a "World War III-level challenge". Will they? Now, its doubtful, as Stephens point out. They must be inspired and believe the urgency. I believe only a president has the political clout and moral/ethical standing to do this--congress can only follow what must come from the top. But then, this effort must span multiple presidencies, multiple world leaders, multiple decades. Can it? I doubt it. But we must do everything in our power to try.
17
It’s been nearly 30 years since the first report by the IPCC. Nearly 30 years in which we could not plead ignorance, yet our emissions have increased 60 percent since then.
How to explain that to a young person?
151
With all due respect, Mr. Stephens, it reads as though you are of the "Wizards" camp. Constructively speaking, permit me to suggest you stick your nose in a new work by on of your journalistic peers, Charles C. Mann. The title is "The Wizard and The Prophet," publisher is Knopf. After reading this column, I'm thinking, to be charitable, reading it will do you no harm.
6
I appreciate this article.
1
Who cares if burning fossil fuels is causing climate change or not???? Let's end it!!!! It smells and is filthy and cars are a space-taking, stupid way to transport ourselves. LET'S CHANGE JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT!
6
This is nuts. Don’t start with with a “solution” that is convenient and politically comfortable. Start with the moral courage to face the problem and understand the science: we are in the midst of catastrophe and need big changes quickly. A GND.
The science is real and uncompromising. Make your representatives compromise, negotiate and get a GND off the ground.
18
Bret all of your cheap journalistic shots aside you take no stand, you offer no solutions or approaches. It is time to man up.
26
I’d like an example of a single, supposed practical bipartisan piece of climate legislation? I’ll wait . . . right. As I expected, there is none. It’s disingenuous to speak of some mythical compromise with the right on climate legislation when they’ve retreated into climate science proof bunker of Chinese hoaxes and cold weather denialism. Hell, republicans gutted the most basic underpinnings of reasonable rational clean air standards with the lifting of progressive cafe standards. How on earth can you expect them to arrive at reasonable and rational steps to avert something the profess to believe is bogus?
The middle way suggested by Stephens hasn’t worked. The problem is bigger than the piecemeal approach he suggests is capable of tackling. And we’ve seen that the time for timid politics on the issue has passed. Shoot for the moon and take what you can get while continuing systematic pressure.
11
In conclusion, you say: "Pelosi’s seal clap sealed the fate of the Green New Deal. Now it’s time to move climate policy beyond impractical radicalism and feckless virtue-signaling to something that can achieve a plausible, positive and bipartisan result."
Actually, its time to move beyond Nancy Pelosi and other similar minded politicians and set goals that will work and work like hell to achieve them. Even if we don't achieve all of them, we will be a lot better off than if we don't.
13
Among Americans, human caused climate change (AGW) is still too abstract and remote. There is little new momentous and persistent evidence that demands an urgent response of magnitude that would shake up our economic, political and social order. AGW may be viewed as the early stages of a life threatening disease. You only feel occasionally ill and recover quickly, the signs can be ignored for the moment and life goes on. Or maybe you get some medicine to overcome the symptoms and hope a cure can be found in due time, as a serious medical intervention would ruin you financially. But the disease rolls on. Unfortunately climate change has not even achieved this level of concern in the mind of most citizens. To expect most Americans and for most of the rest of the world to respond as if it were a WWIII crisis is political hara-kiri, particularly in this Trump era, and Nancy Pelosi and most of her fellow Democrats know this. For them the first order of business is to restore effective governance and restore faith in it through fair and fact-based legislation. Only then can we shift gears towards seriously addressing our challenges. Embracing most or all of the Green New Deal as a political goal at this time only gives Trump and the Republican a strong political weapon to be used in the 2020 elections. Every delay in addressing climate change, however small, will make even adaptation- a poor alternative- a nearly unachievable goal. Four more years of Trump is unacceptable.
4
I am blown away by conservative views that building defenses against climate change is the answer to the very problem of climate change.
Ocean levels will rise, so we can build sea walls? Around the entire southern coast of Florida perhaps? Dynamic market economies will create wealth to support environmental protections? Are we counting on the fossil fuel industry to fund research into developing alternative energy sources for the here and now?
If government does not take the initiative now to fund basic research into the storage and distribution of clean energy we will remain captive to the "free market" fossil fuel industry forever. Well, at least until we are wiped off the planet.
Individual initiatives are important for sure. But voluntary efforts on my part to reduce my personal carbon footprint are relatively meaningless. Government must demand that individuals adopt appropriate life-style changes as soon as they become possible and provide support.
People like Stephens who claim that humans will never completely rid themselves of the need for fossil fuel have zero empirical facts to back up their arguments. But, even if they are correct there is no excuse for our failure to create as much energy as we possibly can from alternative sources right now.
Incremental change does not mean baby steps. Incremental changes of significance, leading to permanent solutions, are possible and necessary if the life of complex beings on our planet is to be sustained.
16
Yes, I am concerned about climate change but I am more concerned with what will happen in 2020, because if we don't dump Trump and take the Senate the GND becomes moot. And much of the stuff in the GND is so open to caricature by Trump, like eating less meat to reduce cow flatulence. This is not the way to win an election and that folks is job ONE.
73
Does this column serve any useful purpose? Ignoring the important stories to insult us with garbage?
17
All this talk about quibbles inside the Democratic party, and not one mention of the GOP's theocratic, plutocratic climate denialism.
One side (Stephens' side) pretends there is no problem, accuses climate scientists of being part of a grand conspiracy, and brings snowballs into the Senate to show that warming is Fake News.
The other side is debating like grownups about which solutions are workable.
And Stephens chooses to attack the side that is trying to do something.
Yup, he's a Republican, all right.
18
I'm not a Marxist or even a socialist, but I can tell you this: a fundamental flaw in capitalism is its dependence on unlimited resources. You can't practice unlimited growth and consumption on a limited planet. Refuse to accept this physical reality and you will destroy the living world. That isn't opinion, it's just fact.
Humans argue. Nature acts. (Voltaire)
20
Mr. Stephens needs to read Jedediah Purdy’s essay in the same issue of the Times today. Making it real.
3
As a progressive, I am also disappointed in Nancy Pelosi when it comes to this issue.
But it pales in comparison to the disappointment I feel towards congressional republicans and the American right at large. They would burn the entire world so that a small handful of disgustingly rich people can get even richer.
those in congress and their ilk do it for the money. they have bamboozled their ignorant supporters into supporting their deadly agenda with fear-mongering about "socialism".
they are aided in this brainwashing by their base's willingness to shut off their brains and do whatever fox news tells them -- as well as a virulent strain of american evangelicalism whose adherents are living for the afterlife even if they were to believe in climate change in the first place
it's undeniably true that the green new deal is politically unachievable. that isn't because the framework resolution (NOT legislation) is fundamentally flawed. It is politically unachievable because the GOP are bought and paid for
12
If the greedy of the world would release free-energy technologies, the technologies used to "dustify" the twin towers, we could fix global climate change in a year. We have the technology to give everyone free and unlimited power. Those who are capitalizing on energy presently will not let those technologies out of their "top secret" hiding places of greed.
1
Please..... PLEASE!
Pelosi or not Pelosi.
"Isn’t it, in fact, like trying to put out a forest fire with a plant mister?"
Yes! ... EXACTLY! And that is what the world was and is doing. Climate Havoc is not just here to stay, is here to stay and grow ... exponentially.
Several climatologists like Guy McPherson even affirm not only that it is too late, they demonstrate that a hypothetical "global" CO2 drastic reduction will super accelerate the temperature rise.
Worth learning about it.
Is Pelosi a climate skeptic? Oh, Stephens says she isn't! Is the Republican party a climate denier? Well, emphatically and obstinately yes. How about the fact-based position of virtually all of the scientific community along with the Pentagon! Wouldn't it be interesting and informative to hear Stephen's thoughts on the dangerously irrational governmental leadership strategy of the Republican party? Or would that strategy be summed up in a three word opinion piece "Delusional and demented!"?
8
Ha! Bret Stephens- child of petrochemical privilege and the NYX's token science denier- parsing the fine points of climate change! Too perfect.
-And "seal clap" Mr. Stephens? Really? I'd call out your lack of class for turning a phrase like this but I know it's just the flop sweat talking.
By this point I'd expect you to be trampling children and making for a lifeboat, not questioning the existence of ice bergs. Soon though.
12
Mr. Stephens, read Jedediah Britton-Purdy.
5
The oligarchs, both American and Russian, do not have to worry: they will retreat to isolated compounds protected by air licks and armed guards, while the rest of us suffer because of their greed.
2
This is so stupid it makes my head spin.
Pelosi's imagination has gone into remission; she's out of touch on this one.
Try proposing to someone 50 feet from a raging wildfire than he or she gradually get in the car and gradually drive to a safer place.
Get in their way--and they're very likely to run you over. (Especially if you're a politician.)
Anybody proposing a way forward that doesn't involve making huge changes fast is whistling in the dark.
People will endure the idea of global climate change for years, but actual wreckage ... not so much. When more and more lives and livelihoods get wrecked, ... well, the very idea of representative democracy will seem quaint.
Panic will take over. It'll be awful.
To escape that, we must act now--and stop defining the future in terms we're we're accustomed to.
Remember Einstein: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
BTW, I'm a 69 year-old, life-long New York City & San Francisco Democrat. Pelosi and Feinstein are woefully out to lunch on this one..
8
Here's an important paper to consider when deciding how much action to take, published last month from PNAS titled: Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017
"We use updated drainage inventory, ice thickness, and ice velocity data to calculate the grounding line ice discharge of 176 basins draining the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1979 to 2017.
We compare the results with a surface mass balance model to deduce the ice sheet mass balance. The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017."
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
That is close to the 10 year doubling time which James Hansen noted in a 2016 paper would bring multimeter sea level rise in around 50 years.
Historically however, sea level rise has not followed a smooth, exponential curve, but has been marked by periods of rapid rise known as meltwater pulses.
Here’s a graph of post glacial sea level rise from the last deglaciation http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png
During Meltwater Pulse 1A the ocean rose 4m per century for four centuries.
3
Another negative piece from BS. The air quality in Los Angeles is poor to moderate half the time, but it’s much better than it used to be. This is because of auto exhaust technology and inspections. We are doing our best to move toward renewables and electric cars. The young Democratic push towards the Green deal might be idealogic and currently impractical for most of the Country, but it’s a goal post we should look to. Nancy Pelosi knows this. It takes time to get anything done in Washington, but one has to start somewhere to get the ball slowly rolling. It should be obvious to anyone who believes in science or has been in Beijing on a bad smog day that if we are to survive on this rock, we have to change. Change takes time.
90
Here's the plan - sit down, bend over, put our heads between our legs, yada, yada…
1
I don’t see Stephens point. We have to start somewhere. The truth is very depressing and demotivating, which is that even if we start taking climate change seriously, we will still have released so much carbon that we will see devasting effects. But at the same time, we must act, because if we don’t, the results will be not be devastating, they will be apocalyptic. Given the terrible reality, it’s easier to plod along, kind of hoping it won’t be as bad as we fear.
People are often not logical. It’s much easier to take a positive approach and emphasize all that we can do. We can get excited about a massive investment in green energy — jobs and America once again saves the world with its breakthrough technologies. Our government invented the computer, the internet, and of course, we put a man on the moon. We need to emphasize our efficacy, not the damage we’ve already done.
As for the Green New Deal, I think it erred by lack of focus. It didn’t need to squeeze in a bunch of other social justice causes, regardless of whether they deserve our attention.
2
Pragmatic, incremental, bipartisan--how have these efforts been going so far? Arrayed against climate change legislation are the wealthiest, most entrenched, political manipulators we've had since the Gilded Age. Their resources are poured disproportionately into one of our political parties, so the notion of bipartisan solutions is one giggle removed from a guffaw. Effective climate policy would be necessarily disruptive to the civilization fostered by climate disregard. Our politicians will have to bite the hands that feed them in order for us to move forward. Guts and grand ambition will be required. Where are they going to come from if not youthful ferocity? This is not a rhetorical flourish, it's a pragmatic question. Where?
5
The criticism should be directed to where it belongs which is the white house. Civilization is a race with catastrophe and there is mockery of the problem on twitter about this from the president who is not only not leading the country on renewable energy strategy, but is opening up more public land for oil drilling and talking about bringing back coal.
3
The world is going down because the greatest nation that ever was has two parties dedicated to past centuries and growing an already unstable economy.
Neoliberalism has already murdered one million Irish peasants and deported one million more in the 19th century. This time it will take the lives of most of the world's people. This is not political or economic philosophy this is a choice between going green or going extinct. Lemmings go over the cliff because they endanger their species survival by threatening their food supply.
We mistakenly call ourselves Homo Sapiens. We develop technology that gives us more than enough necessities but we will destroy our civilization because we believe enough is not nearly enough.
FDR's New Deal saved you from the excesses of Capitalism and the back and forth of right wing and left wing governments that we see in Canada and other liberal democracies. The New Deal is turning out to be a catastrophe for the planet as America still believes it is still the 20th century.
You have less than 12 years to turn the ship around before we really don't need to worry about future generations.
3
If you want to know why a problem exists, look to see who benefits from that problem. Plenty of people with investments in Wall Street are benefitting from companies that contribute to Climate Change, and not just the oil and gas companies.
I recently started an IRA. I was careful to choose a couple Environmental Social and Governance funds that didn't include oil and gas investments. But when I went to carefully look at what exactly was in the funds, I saw Pepsi and McDonalds. Yikes. All that corn syrup grown in monoculture to make Pepsi. All those soy and corn fed over medicated cows in contained feed lots to make the McDonalds burgers. And worse, cutting down the Amazon to grow the soy and corn to grow the cows to make the McDonalds burgers.
What am I to do? I want to save for retirement. But how can I do it without contributing to Climate Change?
This seems to be where we need to go. From beyond just stopping investments in oil and gas to actually putting it towards good investments in a livable, green future.
We need to treat this crisis as if it is a crisis, in all aspects of our lives, including and especially our investments.
6
Bret should keep this one around for his grandchildren, what with the droughts, food shortages, mass migrations and desertification of current breadbaskets they will be facing in their time. Our time, metaphorically, is not as the Titanic approaches the iceberg, but rather after the collision as the big ship tilts. The band may be playing on but things are about to become much worse. Read more Bret, feel the tilt.
8
California has entered the next stage of climate change. The responses here, and lack of them, will be instructive. Last summer's megafires created a class of invisible refugees, living in trailers, motel rooms, homes of family and friends. Add the failure of the state's largest energy company with no alternative in sight, the looming fire season ahead with millions of acres of spark-ready, populated forestland remaining, and you have a set of problems far beyond the present capabilities of government. The contours of the real Green New Deal are revealing themselves here. It will be more costly in every way than we can imagine. Once the tipping point is reached, you don't get to choose. Pure human need drives it.
5
"Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday."
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
The article was published in 2015...
8
Can there be any doubt that we are destroying our planet?
Yet we have at the highest levels of political and economic
power those who profess to be climate change deniers
and skeptics. Their posturing is more to
protect the continuing increase in profits and market value
of their industries than any attempt to arrive at the
truth of the dangers the changing climate holds for future
generations. Our own National Academy of Sciences and
its counterparts throughout the world have long ago come
to the conclusion that climate change is real , man made
and a an existential threat to our small planet. Even if you
are not a scientist you just have to read and view accounts
of the vanishing of species, the endangerment of others,
the melting of polar ice caps and on and on. You just have
to experience the wild weather changes in temperature,
fires, storms etc. as well as the carbon pollution from cars
smokestacks, industrial plants. I know what I see and I
would rather take my chances with serious and acclaimed
people who have spent a lifetime of study on the science of
climate than on the money changers of the polluting
industries, their priests of the temples of gold and their
acolytes in the federal and state governments. As for
Speaker Pelosi, if she has nothing useful and productive to
say then she should be seen but not heard. The GND is a
first step and and an important start of a much needed serious discussion.
4
@Elliott Jacobson: The discussion isn't serious when the importance of family planning is left out of it.
@Elliott Jacobson
You make good points but the use of the word "Green" is troubling here and loaded with negative connotations. "Deal" is a Trumpian word and commonly used to promote a sale on a used car lot. Nothing convenient, fast and effective will be done anytime soon. The genius in the white house wants to resurrect coal. Imagine. Put in another words, there are good ideas out there but NOT the political will to bring them to fruition. Most people like their affluence and will not willingly sacrifice that just to save our planet.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s pragmatism, and Bret Stephens moderation, are out of synch with the coming generation and the one after that. In the regard of younger cohort, we will appear as troglodytes at best for having twiddled our thumbs for these past 20 years. While generally astounded at the lack of vision of the Republican leadership, I am disappointed at these Democrats dismissal of the values of the coming Americans.
4
@Stephen Galloway: The US went into hard core climate change denial with the election of Ronald Reagan, who promptly removed Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the White House when he moved in.
11
I'd say the single, biggest global move we could make, and it won't be easy, is a global pledge to end coal burning, without carbon capture. We could start in the US, in fact we are already on our way. Still, nearly half our electricity is still produced with coal. That must end. Then China and India need to get on board. Tall order.
1
Pelosi is nothing if not a political realist. She knows that if Democrats go all in on the GND, they will lose in 2020. Period. Why? Because, as Mr. Stephens claims, Americans aren't ready to make the dollar investment, much less the personal sacrifices, such policies would require. The Speaker has been around long enough to recognize that the GND offers a feast of political fodder to the Republicans, who, as ever, are eager to brand anything that takes money out of the pockets of the 1% as a socialist existential threat to the Republic. AOC and company should get a clue; these newbies need to listen and learn from the Doyen. Call it unfortunate if you will, but in D.C., as in the rest of the country, incrementalism (think Civil Rights, think Gay Marriage, etc.) is just the way it is.
5
Our first goal—an existential goal—must be taking back the White House in 2020, and if possible, the Senate. Unless backed by political power, all such "green" proposals are just "virtue-signaling."
In fact, the Green New Deal may be counter-productive in terms of winning next year. For now, let’s talk about a carbon tax, which is easy to explain and could have a profound impact all by itself. Then, we can see how the election goes.
7
Keep fiddling, Brett.
I am amazed by the denial on the right. Your concept of economy, your notions about private sector incremental responses to a crisis that will completely turn our way of life upside down are naive at best... tragic, at worst.
7
Conservatives were and remain an obstacle to civil rights. They were and are an obstacle to women's and gay rights. They are an obstacle to any sane foreign policy that doesn't support endless war on four simultaneous fronts. People who share Stephens' politics--his ilk as my granny would say, deny science, evolution and physics.
So when a conservative opposes sane and perhaps planet saving greenhouse gas emissions and other efforts to combat global warming I know for sure which side I am on. It is NOT Stephens'.
8
The goal is to start having a meaningful conversation. The goal is not to produce a manifesto that’s inculcated from critics. Does anyone really believe that republicans would NOT criticize a more modest green new deal? Brett doesn’t see this for what it is...a conversation changer. Now people are forced to think about things like meat consumption and can quibble about the effects of transportation...we are no longer having the “scientists don’t all agree” nonsense...this forces a discussion that ASSUMES the reality that is climate change.
4
The Green New Deal seems to me to be pretty much exactly what we need to do now, but of course that isn't going to happen. AOC and her team probably understand that as well as anybody, but what they are putting out is a dream wish, something we as a nation should aspire to. It is not really the choice exactly, but ask yourself -- would you rather have billionaires or the New Green Deal? Which is better for the average citizen?
6
A true leader would look forward to a world where all ground transportation is powered by clean renewable electric power. A world where crops are raised to feed people, not animals to be eaten.
2
Bret Stephens sets up a totally false "contradiction" of climate policy (and even borrows an old Marxist technique to do it!).
We don't need "war socialism" to mobilize our country's resources to meet a threat. The U.S. has essentially been on a war footing for 78 years (WWII, the Cold War, the War on Terror) and we don't have socialism yet. We're spending over $700 billion annually on defense, mostly to meet imaginary threats; addressing the real one of climate change will cost much less.
Nor is the problem of global poverty analogous to the problem of climate change. Global poverty is interrelated with climate change in complex ways but in itself doesn't pose a threat to the habitability of our planet. While it may be a moral challenge, there is no time clock, set by nature, that forces us to eliminate global poverty within in the next 30 years or so.
Stephens presents himself as a moderate compromiser but his rhetorical strategy is to polarize the discussion so as to make realistic action more difficult.
11
Mr. Stephens pontificates that:
"We need to take extreme measures: to declare a national emergency, strictly ration every citizen’s carbon footprint, raise taxes on the rich and middle class alike to fund trillions of dollars in green infrastructure projects worldwide, and even impose economic sanctions on China and India if they don’t stop building new coal plants".
Unfortunately he has forgotten to do his home work, especially about China.
China has started to close most of the coal mines with many thousands if not millions losing their jobs over years already.
As of 2017 the solar sector of China employed 2.5 million, while the US has only created 26,000 jobs in the same industry.
In addition China also produces 1/2 of all wind turbines.
Trump digs coal why his supposed buddy, President Xi is closing as many coal plants as possible.
Yes, climate change is - along with Trump - the greatest national and international emergency to strike this planet.
9
I don’t get the argument here. All the science, and the evidence of our own eyes, tells us the effects of climate change have already started and are in the long term, likely disastrous.
There is also agreement that the window for taking decisive action is shrinking.
Stephens talks like a fool here, but also the political class clearly lacks the mandate, vision or courage to respond to this issue proportionately.
Like any massive change, it will be the people who push the politicians into line. Let’s hope a movement arises soon enough to force things along before it’s too late.
9
What happened to the myth that Democrats were the adults in the room? That vanished into thin air the minute ignorant neophyte Democratic millennials were elected to Congress. So far they've regaled America with everything from anti-Semitic cheap shots to trying to turn the clock back to bygone era before the advent of automobiles and air planes. The children have seized control of the nursery.
2
@sharon5101 -- not all progressives are AOC. Markley is not young ... though childish he remains.
Provocative title but Pelosi’s “seal clap” (really Mr. Stephens? She doesn’t catch sardines in her mouth the GOP throws at her) is from the grizzled perspective of measure and successful experience legislating not skepticism.
2
If the climate scientists tell us we have a truly urgent problem, where is the realism or practicality in ignoring or ridiculing plans for action that attempt to address the problem? If the Democrats are too cowardly to explain this to the American people, there is (long-range) no point in electing them -- unless you count on most climate scientists being wrong. What are the odds of that and why are you willing to risk everyone else's lives when the odds are pretty bad? Democrats must lead the country, not pander to its ignorance.
3
@Barbara -- I am a climate scientist. Yes, the problem is urgent. "GND" is not a plan for action; it is not a "plan;" go look that word up.
A reasonable plan is the "broad carbon tax, 100% REBATED PER CAPITA, starting at at lead $40 /MTCO2." There's broad consensus from scientists and economists that this works ... if it isn't working enough then jack the tax rate up from there.
Pelosi's problem is that Trump is president and the Republicans control the senate. Nothing will get legislated until the Democrats control the presidency and Congress.
There's no value (and some real harm) to taking votes that will not legislate anything.
4
maybe if the threat of terrorism was not as dire. Because the media scares people into Islamophobia why can't it scare people about rising waters and strong hurricanes
2
The GND illustrates that so called climate change is just a ruse, a Marxist fallacy. The intent is to seize control over our economy and our lives. Dictating what we eat, how we travel, where we live and just about everything else in our lives.
1
@jaco
How does reducing dependence on fossil fuels and changing over to new energy sources--which must be done anyhow within a few decades--seize control over our economy and our lives?
PLEASE tell us all how that would work. Not one person has ever answered that question.
5
Dear Nancy: "Thirty years ago, we could have saved the planet," read small white letters in the all black cover of NYTimes Magazine. It featured "Losing Earth," one huge article and photos documenting damage the earth has already suffered, and the points in time when we "almost" took the needed steps toward aversion. Now those opportunities are lost. NYT Magazine, Nathaniel Rich, George Steinmetz, photography, August 5, 2018
3
Nice tiny violin playing! Tears in my eyes, knowing that Stephens' expression of concern is bogus and also that Nancy Pelosi represents his hard right views.
Pelosi is not a progressive, she is barely a Democrat. Don't even think about getting between her and her corporate river of money and power. There are only 2 options under Neoliberalism, to slow the public realization of this slow moving disaster or to utterly corporatize it (Yeah you can bet they are at work on this right now) so they can all continue to rake in billions. Win win for the rich. The Democratic party really needs to get it's neoliberal monkey off its back.
2
What did you have in mind Mr Stephens? Any solutions to think about? Yeah, there's a few sides to the issue, but its time to go big...or write on another topic.
2
Climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, religious fundamentalists all have in common the denial of science based on independently verified facts.
9
"Are we dealing with a problem so severe that it requires the political and economic equivalent of war..."
Yes--of course--like LBJ's "war on poverty"
Stephens disgraced himself in his intro NYT column on climate change--displaying a Trump like disregard for logic.
He continued to rail against academics teaching Marx--however critically--i.e. dialectically--thus displaying ignorance about the difference between academia and religion--especially his religion aka "Capitalism".
He now fuses them with the phrase "war socialism"--as though climate change realists were advocating violence against moneyball, and such violence must be labeled with his pet "bogeyword" "socialism."
1
Speaker Pelosi you reject the Green New Deal. What is your plan?
3
The person who wrote the article, who has an established influence, is part of the group of people who write about climate change but don't know anything about it. His platform, the NYT, is considered the best newspaper in the world.
2
When a four degree climate hike, even two or three deghrees grabs hold, kiss your temperate climate goodbye forever or as long as your grandchildren endure.
2
So, our civilization is not going to make it.
69
@SqueakyRat
Civilization should be in quotes....
13
@SqueakyRat
Yeap!
4
"Climate Change just means change" is an ignorant thing to say. For too many of our fellow citizens and human beings, it has meant death and suffering. We'll see more and more unless bold action is taken.
Marginalized people and vulnerable communities - people of color, the poor, seniors, disabled, etc. - are disproportionately impacted by our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. Addressing this inequity is at the heart of the Green New Deal.
First, climate change intensifies disasters like wildfires, droughts, and hurricanes. These communities are hit first and worst by this increased intensity (see Hurricane Maria, Harvey, Katrina...), often because their infrastructure has been neglected by policy makers and they are situated in high-impact areas like flood-zones due to cheaper living costs and systematized or historical placement.
Second, fossil fuel infrastructure is placed in these communities. Traditionally marginalized communities have less of an ability to push back against politicians and industry, so they are continually stepped on or through (see Cancer Alley, Standing Rock, or Gov Northam's current Atlantic Coast Pipeline fight in Union Hill, VA). These facilities emit harmful toxins into the surrounding air and water, putting the health of humans and life nearby at great risk. Safeguards against this pollution to favor industry is what Trump's E.P.A. is doing away with as I write this.
If we truly value the lives of these people, we need to act boldly.
5
"isn’t Pelosi’s incrementalist approach to climate absurdly inadequate?"
Someone should inform Mr Stephens of a thing called "the Senate", where the residents of large but thinly-populated states dictate terms to everyone else.
I wonder how Gen-Xers like him will deal with the political mantle passing from Boomers to millennials?
1
Well said. Are we just concerned about proclamations that make us feel good or results? Let's not let perfection drown out the accomplish-able.
1
The dithering will end when it is too late. Were histories possible, they would charge the political manipulation of Big Oil and the self-serving and immoral rationalizations, similar to that in the time of slavery, who do not want to change.
Democrats face the problems that environmental advocates have had to deal with for decades: How do we present environmental issues in a manner that will express the urgency of doing something, but not making things sound so dire that the response will be "that's impractical" followed by denial. Virtually all environmental problems progress incrementally, allowing people to become accustomed to the changes so that they don't easily see the situation worsening. Selling a massive intervention that will reshape people's lives is impossible, even if our survival as a species requires it. So, as Bret Stephens has noted, environmentalists are a contradiction. As a sometime activist myself, I can tell you that we all are quite aware of the inconsistency. Environmentalists work for small bits of change as they can, hoping that enlightenment will someday come to the political class and the population at large.
1
Whatever Speaker Pelosi really thinks, the overwhelming scientific data establishes that global heating poses an existential threat to our way of life and our species, and may do so within the lifetime of our grandchildren. The threats are enormous and we certainly could have headed them off decades ago had we listened to scientists (and a few politicians).
But the only question is what can we do now to stem the massive amount of greenhouse gases that we continue to emit on a daily basis.
I do believe that we have a fair, effective and doable remedy in imposing a national (and hopefully international) steadily increasing fee on fossil fuels. We now have a bi-partisan bill in the new Congress which, if passed, will immediately begin to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a predictable and economically sound manner.
The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, HR 763, https://energyinnovationact.org,
will require fossil fuel companies to include the externalities of the costs of remediating the social and health damage caused by the use of their products and will employ market forces to force them to compete with clean renewable energy on a level economic field.
Further, and consistent with the thrust of the Green New Deal, the entire net carbon fee will be distributed monthly to every household in the country, just like Social Security deposits.
A boarder adjustment will protect American industry from unfair foreign competition.
763 is our clear next step.
3
First - we must get rid of Trump and Trumpism. Nothing can be allowed to jeopardize that.
Politics is the art of the possible and it takes real suffering, like in the 1930s, to make a radical transformation possible. Prediction, no matter how soundly based, just won't do it.
We have to be ready for the time when climate change really begins to bite. That means having the right people in office, the right technologies funded and developed, the right international agreements signed and honored.
We have to focus on those goals and build the political offering to achieve them. Sensible people know what they are and, more importantly, what they are not.
1
Everyone is beginning to understand that climate change is real and dangerous. Now we need to figure out a way to fix it. It won’t be easy. But it is doable.
Of course, the United States can respond to an emergency. We are a resourceful and resilient nation. Unfortunately, we have a political system that is totally corrupt. The political system encourages elected representatives who are skillful at obtaining campaign contributions from wealthy donors rather than thinking about innovative solutions to difficult problems.
What we need is a new system of picking our representatives that does not involve graft and corruption. Perhaps, public funding of elections replacing funding by interest groups would allow us to pick representatives who are more imaginative. If we can’t get good people into the government, we can’t get people who will be able to solve our difficult problems.
Check out makeitfair.us.
We are an organization dedicated to getting money out of politics. If we can’t do that, we will not have the caliber of elected representatives to solve our difficult problems.
Ted Deutch’s H.R.763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, is sitting right in front of us and offers the most cost effective and timely method to put the fossil fuel industry out of business. And it does it without adversely affecting those that can’t afford an increase in prices. So contact your representative and ask them to support this bill. But note, the EPA continues to under estimate agricultural methane emissions and Deutch needs to add agricultural methane emissions to his bill.
Here’s the bill, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text?r=763&s=2
5
"Are we dealing with a problem so severe that it requires the political and economic equivalent of war socialism?" asks Bret Stephens, as if he is genuinely willing to entertain that possibility. A few column inches lower and that disingenuous openness has predictably been discarded in favour of business-as-usual and the "politics of the possible" (that is, the politics of do-as-little-as-possible and nothing that might affect the Dow), and any strategy that actually faces up to the apocalyptic threat we confront derided as "impractical radicalism and feckless virtue-signalling."
Bret Stephens is no more a climate scientist than I am. His views on the likely future direction of climate change simply reflect his ideological predispositions. At best they are wishful thinking. By contrast, those who do study and understand the science - such as the 91 multi-national authors of last October's IPCC Special Report - suggest that a global extinction-level event (and accordingly the dramatic steps necessary to mitigate it) is not the straw man Stephens implies but terrifyingly real.
Does Stephens have the humility to accept the best available facts? If so he must accept the logic of his own stated position. War socialism would be a good start.
6
I am one of those that believe climate change in combination with ocean plastic pollution, overfishing, overpopulation will bring catastrophic consequences to the world in a relatively short time. However, what concerns me now is, if the Democrats seem too radical and disorganized, we will get Donald trump reelected. There is nothing worse for the environment, democracy and world improvement than that. The general public is not ready for radial action. We need to educate the population on the dangers by openly supporting science and explaining the risks. I totally fear a backlash if the Democrats push too hard for massive social and environmental change while trying to win the Senate and White House. The U.,S. is a big ship, it turns slow. Now it is turning the wrong direction, we need to fix that. Also, we are not the world. We have to lead in convincing China and other countries. There are many environmental issues to address, we need to to get started now. We cannot tolerate another 4 years of Donald Trump. I doubt we can even tolerate another 22 months but we may have to.
4
Nice try. Might work on humans. But climate change isn't listening. It can't be fooled into being incrementally manageable no matter how long we delay, no matter how little we do. It's not the least sensitive to the profit margins of those making fortunes off denial and buying politicians to preserve them. It doesn't care a whit about bipartisanship either.
Mr. Stephens' is a two strawman argument that he might look the reasonable party in the middle. No one sensible, and Speaker Pelosi is one, is either a denier or a prophet of doom. It's in the vast middle were the details and the devil lies. And notably Mr. Stephens proposes absolutely nothing that he would consider a "plausible, positive and bipartisan result." Doing so would expose where he stands, and that this column is really just a troll of those who know we must act. We are not moving incrementally forward on climate change, as if there were a question of moving too fast. We are moving rapidly backward under the Trump administration. That, not the high flying rhetoric nor any sophistically manufactured "contradictions" of the Green New Deal, is what threatens us.
6
"It shouldn’t be hard to make the case, even to conservatives, for large-scale investments in climate resilience, such as better coastal defenses." What? Those "conservatives" have made climate change denial a core belief, a touchstone of conservative identity, a matter of emotion not reason. Now it should be "easy" to convince them otherwise? On what planet?
2
Speaker Pelosi is not a climate skeptic. She passed a cap and trade bill thru the House in 2010. It was an extremely heavy lift for her. It went to the Senate & there simply were not enough,votes to pass it. Obama spent lots on solar and wind when he was president and she helped get those thru.
The “Green New Deal” is not done yet as it has to go thru several more Committees. It’s more a wish list that won’t become reality. The US Government’s Climate Change Assessment that came out the day after Thanksgiving & predicted we had about 12 years to blunt what is coming.
2
This opinion piece was so nice that I wish I could like it twice. We need realistic solutions to our issues not radicalism and phony outrage.
2
"...voters in Washington rejected a carbon fee by a margin of 12 percentage points."
Why would anyone consider a poll as some type of reasonable argument for addressing climate change. It is just another of the silly logical fallacy so often used by people making an ideological point instead of actually trying to learn something.
Again, independent of climate change, fossil fuel source have only a few decades of viability. Fossil=finite.
So, why argue about changing energy sources, no reason, but it will continue. It is too late essentially anyhow. Bret...you will be wrong forever.
Climate change is complicated . Most really do not understand it and yet have strong opinions. They ignore the science and act on their beliefs. The anti genetic engineering with crops do the same. We make these religious crusades and beliefs rather then science. Weather is different then climate changes. CO2 different effect then Methane. Small particles more dangerous then CO2 etc. These are many proven , practical things to help already. Conservation practices and energy efficient houses and increase gas milage standards would decease billions of tons of pollutants. The Green Dream is a start and needs to be discussed , and the main things put into action NOW! I support all those who are trying to get this to the attention of the world. Rather the attack the messengers lets deal with the problems.
1
The mighty, all-knowing market that Stephens is so proud of really must be a fragile, delicate little flower if it is so heavily dependent on fossil fuel and only fossil fuel to survive.
4
@Diego: The flow of every commodity is mirrored by a flow of money.
Such drastic measures as ending capitalism aren't needed to fight global warming- that's just a silly strawman argument.
Already solar and wind power are as cost effective as fossil fuels in many areas and the drive for energy storage solutions will soon solve the intermittency problem.
Meanwhile, the ability to grow meat products from stem-cells will hit the mainstream within a decade, solving the issue of livestock producing methane and the deforestation that goes with raising cattle.
There are are plenty of things are government could and should be doing to further these goals.
4
Green New Deal is not about stopping climate change. It is a naked power grab disguised as a concern for the environment. It gives unprecedented powers to the government by promising things that no government can deliver without descending into dictatorship. How is the promise of universal employment connected to protecting the environment? In fact, the two are at odds because geoengineering and carbon tax will require enormous changes in the economy that will leave many people unemployed. “Green jobs” is an empty slogan. My job requires me to fly frequently abroad. What will be offered to do instead? Retrofitting solar panels? But most importantly, the GND is silent about the coercion necessary to implement some of its proposals. Take a look at France where the popular movement of Yellow Vests sprung up in reaction to a modest surcharge on fuel. What will the reaction be if people are told to stop eating beef or having children? If you are in favor of green dictatorship, come out and say it openly. Otherwise, AOC and her cohorts are either secret totalitarians or empty demagogues.
1
Follow the money. Corporate beholden and loyal politicians are unable to seriously address the climate issue.
2
The Green New Dealers are fundamentally right about the goal and the urgency. They however are fundamentally wrong about the solution. Of course there is no easy political path forward because nobody wants to pay.
The path forward is not to end capitalism, but to change the rules and harness capitalism to solve the problem. Change the rules to account for externalities, harness the initiative of a billions of people toward a balanced solution. There are thing that need to be done that capitalism can't do -- i.e. it's not very good at infrastructure. Invest in green supporting infrastructure and basic research and re-training, and pay for the investment with carbon taxes.
We need to stop making all policies about preserving the past and those that have already won and start making them about the future.
These changes would hit some pocketbooks in the short run -- but in the long run would build a cleaner, greener, new, diverse, strong, sustainable, economy with good paying jobs and new entrepreneurial opportunities.
The oil embargo of the 70's was a real life experiment in how fast the economy can adapt to economic incentives. In a very short time people insulated their houses, cars got dramatically higher mileage, solar panels showed up on roofs. Then the price of gas went down and people bought suv's and Reagan took the solar panels off the roof of the White House.
It is time for change
2
@conrad: If you want to conserve capitalism, you need an orderly liquidation of investments in fossil fuel resources to fund the reconstruction of the energy industry to renewable resources.
2
Bret, as a representative of the side that has obfuscated and lied about the threat of climate change for decades, you are in no position to point out hypocrisies of the Democrats. Given the political constraints, any steps we can implement at this point will be too late and too little. But such steps should still be taken, as they will give us a wider range of options when it dawns on us what climate change will mean for us.
6
Stephens is right. Most Americans believe climate change is a serious problem. And they are willing to do their part to confront it as long as it doesn't cost much money or convenience. Take plastic bags and cartons. We can see the cataclysmic damage they have done to sea life and to the ocean in general. Businesses have cut way back on them. Yet shoppers see them as necessary for carrying produce, takeout food and other consumer items. Here on the central coast of California we have tried diligently to cut way down, but my morning newspapers come wrapped in plastic. It's a difficult problem.
1
Nancy Pelosi is very much about getting policy done. The Green New Deal, while an excellent goal, is so far from being realistic policy that I don't think she wants to spend time on it.
Doesn't mean the more ambitious members of the party should stop striving for it, though.
1
I have for decades shared Bret Stephens's worry that severe environmental problems would lead to a too-powerful government. That is precisely why we need to tackle climate change now, before it gets worse. Suppose that, a couple decades hence, an important staple crop does not germinate or pollinate properly. Suppose that sea level rise or crop failure produces millions, even tens of millions, of migrants. Those would be true national emergencies, and would lead to a massive expansion of government. Tackling the vast problem of climate change requires much more than the half-measures Stephens endorses. We should get serious, and get started. Now.
6
Environmental issues have never ranked at the top of voters' list of concerns, and so Nancy Pelosi does not care about climate change, even though it may well be the most crucial challenge that human beings have ever confronted. I hope that the liberals who have crowed about Speaker Pelosi's political acumen over the past several weeks will now acknowledge that the Speaker is no liberal heroine, much less a progressive.
2
Environmentally speaking, we were much better off as hunter-gatherers. Our search for comfort and meaning beyond simply repeating an unchanging cycle of eating, procreating and dying paved the way to our current climate challenges. It seems to me that we need to balance the demands of our higher order brain functions against our basic survival needs, recognizing that no matter what we do, in the long run (with apologies to Keynes) we are all dead. It's just a matter of when.
2
Bret, that’s a very reasonable argument for common sense solutions to combat change. But what if the worst case scenarios are correct? Many scientists believe that this is the case. So half measures and common sense solutions aren’t going to do us any good.
3
Ms. Pelosi has been in politics long enough to know what is possible and what is wish fulfillment. Something as massive as the GND has almost zero chance of passing, even if it were filled out with procedures as to how the goals would be achieved. For the most part, this country does incremental change, not a Great Leap Forward.
1
Celebrities like Nancy Pelosi shouldn't say anything about politics.
2
Climate change is “...real but manageable...” ? The science (those pesky numbers) says real and catastrophic (in 40 years) for most on the planet.
But maybe you misspoke, and meant to say ‘real but endurable for those with means...’
4
The magic of this planet is that the triple point of water is here
Just think?
40 years ago, anyone advancing the idea of giving a 1.5 trillion dollar tax break to millionaires and billionaires would have been committed to a looney bin. Today they get reelected to Congress. 40 years ago the idea of a governor being pressed to resign because he wore blackface makeup once 30 years earlier was unthinkable. The idea of openly gay people being married and running successfully for high public office was unthinkable.
Times change; sometimes quietly and slowly and sometimes in a sudden dramatic burst. Public opinion can be easily swayed by those willing to employ the proper psychological methods.
5 years ago the idea of a lying, racist, sexist, willfully ignorant, business bankrupting, reality tv star being elected President of the US was also laughable. Anything is possible.
7
Here for the comments attacking Bret for making a reasonable argument
1
Easy to say if you’re, say, 60 or above and ignorant of the facts.
3
Last time I checked, most Republicans believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
Why don’t you leave climate change to the Democrats, a party that actually believes in science?
6
@Sterling
Although Republicans are winning by a fairly large margin in the race to ignore science, the Dems tend to be anti-vaxers a bit more and also believe in Non-medicine...commonly known as "alternative med."
@Sterling I am a Democrat and a scientist (not to mention an atheist). I know the age of the Earth. And I am totally opposed to this demagoguery masquerading as defense of the environment, just as I am opposed to your condescending, ignorant and stereotyping comment.
First things first: Public perception of climate change is largely divided on generational grounds. Voters who have 50 years or less left on their life expectancy tend to be more casual in their assessment of climate change. People who see the effects of climate change even before they're old enough to vote tend to approach the issue a bit more seriously.
If the older generation is wrong, the younger generation suffers all the consequences including possible extinction. If the younger generation is right, the older generation is mildly inconvenienced after years of unrelenting prosperity.
The IPCC has been making exactly this point for as long as I've been old enough to read it. The risk of doing nothing is potentially catastrophic. However, the risk of doing something now costs less at worst and probably provides a net economic benefit in the long run.
The real sense of urgency is we're rapidly reaching the point where carbon reduction is no longer enough. We'll need mitigation and reduction and carbon capture just to keep wheels on the earth turning. That's not a dream; that's a nightmare.
Bret is worried about household carbon rationing? The future under the casual approach is potentially much worse than turning off your lights or buying efficient appliances.
Imagine a world where cow flatulence isn't the reason you can't find meat. Instead, all our pasture land has been blighted by drought and fire. The US is importing beef from Canada. That's our future right now.
2
@Andy I agree with most of your points but must challenge your assumption about the older generation. I probably have less than 10 years left on this earth but I care deeply about climate change as does almost everyone I know in my age bracket. The only ones I know who don't are crazy Trumpsters. Another point about Bret's column, He states that WA is a blue state but in reality it is only blue in the western half. Just like the rest of the US we are divided rural against cities so we win only because our populations are larger.
4
“Let’s assume the most dire predictions are right...”
And there’s your problem. Predictions, not science, and they’ve always been wrong. Why assume they will be right? Because climate nuts love the precautionary principle, which is no principle at all. Do it my way or we’re all going to die!
See you in thirteen years, my friends...
Conservatives - like Stephens. Brooks, and Douthat- who are disgusted by Trump, but can't let go of the Republican dogma they have clung to all their lives, seem to have only one tool left: snideness.
5
AOC should just tell Nancy she needs to vote for the bill so she can know what is in it!
1
USA must wake up! Global warming caused by humans use of fossil fuels is completely scientifically proven! The Earth is not flat, and global warming is caused by humans use of fossil fuels, those are proven FACTS!
It is already too late, the use of fossil fuels should have been made totally illegal more than ten years ago if we wanted to avoid a catastrophic global warming! All we can do now is try to reduce the catastrophic damage, and the less we do today the more our children have to pay tomorrow!
Capitalism/greed is totally incapable of dealing with global warming!
Today we are using the money and resources and life... that belongs to future generations! We, you and I, are egoistic thiefs...!
It is now totally impossible to avoid a temperature raise of two degrees Celsius, it will probably be more than four degrees Celsius global warming within the next hundred years! 4 degrees Celsius does not sound much, but remember that during the latest ice age the global temperature was only about four degrees Celsius coulder than today!
1
That was satire, right?
2
When I read something from “realists” like Stephens and Pelosi I just sort of chuckle to myself as I think about Nero and maybe Chamberlain. There is nothing in the background of pundits such as he and politicians such as she that warrants any confidence or surety. You can’t imagine a world you have never lived in. Like the one we well all soon be in.
Trillions for these “feckless” idealists? How about trillions for the war on terror instead? I think we might be too stupid to avoid the ecological collapse headed our way. I’ll take the Green New Deal even if it seems impossible. Seems like a better deal than anything I’ve been offered in my adult life. I’ve had to deal with idiots starting with Reagan. I expect failure and this column reeks of it.
Waiting for Dunkirk, Mr. Stephens? It won't be long, and I for one don't see any Churchill lurking in our politics. A surfeit of Chamberlains, maybe, but not too many Churchill's.
1
It would be interesting and useful if the New York Times set up and published (videoed? live streamed?) a discussion between Bret Stephens and Farhad Manjoo. Perhaps use the book Manjoo discusdes and one of Stephens' choosing as the starting point, with advance notice to readers of the date/time and books. Better than challenging each other by embedded link, suggesting a reply riddled with embedded links that requires further reading that, to get the full thrust of the article needs reading as well--and then returning to article, original link etc., etc. I believe in the urgency of climate change, and Manjoo's piece alarms me. Stephens seems to somewhat accept that its real and needs real responses. So the additional urgency is remedy--and the way to achieve it. That cant really be suggested by the Times (even by the editorial board, which after all is a separate entity thar that does not moderate) and would be useful to the Times mission of supporting democratic engagement.
Bret, look in the mirror.
Your opinions these days are either ridiculously biased and double-standard (on Iran), or astoundingly lack of self-awareness (on Pelosi).
You are right: even Blue states don't want to pay, as Washington's voting down of a carbon tax shows.
But you are also perpetrating a myth: the Green New Deal is not legislation, it is an aspiration, at most a basis for negotiation, if negotiation were ever to occur.
You may joke about banning meat, but beef production is an incredibly destructive activity for the environment - not just cow flatulence but all the land, water, and other resources involved in raising cattle and dealing with the manure. Taking action to mitigate that is not unreasonable.
And this is not necessarily anti-capitalist: In a true market economy, the cost of anything should reflect its true cost, including for externalities. The carbon tax is a recognition of that. And communist countries of old had huge pollution problems, because nobody had a property right in clean air or water, or faced a financial penalty for fouling them.
1
Set up a straw man, and then knock him down?
1
POTUS is right. Global warming is a Chinese hoax meant to slow the robust growth of capitalism. That was on the ballot. America voted. The hoax lost.
1
This piece, with its Fox-News-like jab at Pelosi, reads like a tongue in cheek hit piece from a partisan who doesn’t believe there is a climate change crisis anymore than his fellow party members do.
1
Your heart’s treasure is your true measure.
Dear reader please note how Brett chooses to approach the issue of global extinction. He shows his measure when he twists the issue of humanity destroyed by stupid greed into the idiot slap fight of the day.
Mind you this is hard to do. It requires skill and misdirection and a certain mens rea. Not to worry. The Times and Brett have that mens rea. Who they are. What they do. They are verrrrryyy pleased with themselves. Don’t say they didn’t let you know their true measure. And the survival of the species is not their heart’s treasure nor their true measure.
I would actually feel badly for you, Mr Stephens - the issue with that is that I can't spare an ounce of empathy to the "thoughts and prayers" answer for all, science-denying, ignorant conservatives such as you and the deplorable cult of trump supporters. The inhabitants of the earth will all pay for your collective ignorance and all that you do to sow inaction.
1
Bret Stephens
“.............for large-scale investments in climate resilience, such as better coastal defenses.“
Seriously? How do you suggest Florida protects all of Florida?
2
No, she isn't. Bret, you can't find something more immediate to base your column on today? Shame on you!
I wonder what Bret Stevens thinks of the incrementalist policies of the Roosevelt Administration during the Second World War in regard to reports and evidence of the Holocaust, in which the US essentially chose to, "move beyond impractical radicalism and feckless virtue-signaling to something that could achieve a plausible, positive and bipartisan result."
"dealing with the issue of cow flatulence by reducing meat consumption"
I suppose that is how a technocrat might see the problem. But a more holistic view would also see the great environmental and ecological costs of growing the corn, industrially, to feed the beasts: neonicotinoid seed treatments contributing to the insect Armageddon, great losses of top soil, nitrogen and phosphorus washing off the fields, degrading public drinking water sources on the way to the dead zone in the Gulf, the 2,4-D and dicamba herbicides volatilizing into the air and causing off-target damage to sensitive plants and crops broadly across the heartland. The great losses of CO2 into the atmosphere are just a symptom of the great inefficiencies, environmental, social and political costs of this industrial way of "feeding the world".
So, Bret, please consider the next time you cut into your prime rib, cow farts can be easily discounted and not mark your conscience, but the whole cost of your non negotiable way of living big will bring a very fast, cascading end. Big capital is bringing its own end. Sea walls ain't going to stop the 6th extinction that will very likely include New Yorkers in the end.
When Mitch McConnel and his GOP cronies are stranded on the Capitol building's roof, waving frantically for a boat to rescue them, maybe the Republicans will admit to a climate problem--maybe.
1
Oh my gosh! Did you not even bother to read this to a trusted friend or colleague before submitting it. It is a perfect demonstration of what has become of the vaunted ”meritocracy”. Pathetic.
Nancy P will put forward a realistic but agressive bill on Climate Change to show 2020 voters the direction a Democratic
Administration will pursue when Senate control will permit and executive action can enable in part.
President Trump is meanwhile clueless and feckless, lost in the fantasy world that began on Election night 2016 when the Russian stars and US voter coin tossing led to his unlikely and near fatal win.
Meanwhile Brett Stephens is writing pointless pieces and investing his paychecks so when the NYT editorial board figures out how trivial his "OPINION" pieces are and ship him off to the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times, he can continue his lifestyle.
TL:DR Classic straw-man arguments, and boring to boot.
I am tired of reading articles like this. Not a single fact cited. Just another opinion on climate change by a non scientist doing nothing to suggest a solution and with a clickbait title about Nancy Pelosi.
3
Left wing Democrats...open mouth, insert foot, open door for Republicans in 2020, let them walk in!
2
Stephens keeps his head firmly implanted in ground. The earth is flat and there is no need to worry about droughts, fires, super-typhoons, coastal flooding, access to clean water, etc, etc. It’s just some scientific “prediction.” Denialism is rampant on this editorial page. Dude, Mother Nature does not care a wit about your nonsense ideology.
2
This is a completely dishonest article. What Pelosi said is irrelevant to the issue. She wasn't making a real claim about what she believes or about Climate Change, and then you use that to make an either or distinction. Shame on you.
Maybe you should ask her directly.
You really got it in for this aspirational Green New Deal Mr.
you have a headline that is denied in the first sentence. This essay is trolling the new Republican way learned from the Russians who learned it from the CIA.
What do you have against breathing ?!
What a dumb question? Of course Pelosi is not a climate skeptic. She is only interested in thoughtful legislation that can be passed. Not some pie in the sky wishful thinking.
1
Mr. Stephens do you even read the NYT articles concerning the earth’s environment. Those articles are found in the Science section - not the “opinion” pages. Duh!
1
Brett Stephens is not an asset to the New York Times. The science is clear. Stop spreading lies and giving climate change deniers a forum for spreading their dangerous lies.
1
how wonderfully rich a column from the mister right guy to balance out the nyt. no thanks, I get my climate info from scientific resources, not a right-leaning pundit from the nyt.
The difficulty with climate change is the sheer number of people willing to lie about the magnitude of the problem. In 2005 the Republican Party had not gone full more anti-science as Bret and his crones are now. The liars make is far more difficult. You should be ashamed of yourself bret. If you gave a rat's rear end about your children and grandchildren you'd be using your pen to propose solutions rather than simply generating disinformation. SHAME SHAME SHAME
I was a dumb kid once, so here's some advice those dumb kids having their sit-in: stop being dumb by predicting the end of the world in 12 years, and stop being economically as well as philosophically illiterate by insisting that you have a "right" to a "good" job at an arbitrarily high wage. You don't. Grow up before you become a dumb adult following Comrade Cortez on Twitter.
1
You take this opportunity to cordially slit Pelosi's wrists with your velvet knife. Ok, I get that. For conservatives she is a favorite target. But you then use what you interpret as her less than flippant response to the Green Deal as way of splashing cold water on the enthusiasm for what you yourself seem to cite as a bold, maybe too bold, solution for a major crisis. And then you further tar Pelosi who you characterize as less concerned than you are. And then your final paragraph is a near condemnation of the Green Deal as a step too far, almost silly. Do you hate Pelosi so much that you cannot pass up an opportunity to smear her while you try to state an opinion on one of the major future challenges facing the US, Climate change? It muddles you intent and cheapens your opinion. Why not state cleanly how you feel and why? Let me make my opinion clear. You, and all who fail to see the importance of this issue and who "poo poo" large scale efforts to deal with the effects of climate change - including Pelosi if she is in that camp - are taking your responsibility to inform and influence the general public too lightly. Bret. Your words count. Please leave politics out of this and take another whack. And please, read the bill again. It's not that long. And it is too important.
1
Nancy only cares about Nancy. Ask her how letting in millions of immigrants decreases our carbon footprint.
1
If u don't think climate change is real, u r delusional.
If u think climate change is real, but we can fix it later, after it really gets bad, u r equally delusional
1
Seriously....nobody over the age of 35 should be making policy at this point. All the warning signs are there that we are going to have a global crisis like humanity has never seen before and yet we turn away figuring our children and their children will deal with it. We are idiots.
1
Unfortunately, for all of us living on the Third Rock, climate change appears to be quite real and it is uncertain that the problem will ever be manageable, short of draconian measures that will have drastic consequences.
So how to proceed? Bret accuses progressives of being impractical, if not outright hysterical. Conservatives trivialize the science while massive hurricanes powered by a warming ocean devastate coastal communities and entire islands (Puerto Rico).
The fossil fuel industry has little incentive to help. Renewable energy faces an uphill battle to drive down costs and overcome the all too common NIMBY objections to wind farms and large scale solar arrays.
I fear that future historians are going to pass a harsh judgement on our generation for doing far too little at a time when it might have been possible to forestall disaster.
What is the harm in taking sensible measures that the current administration seems hell bent on rolling back? Shutting down dirty coal fired electrical plants. Setting higher standards for auto emissions. Economic incentives for renewable energy. And, god forbid, taking another hard look at nuclear power.
In my view the Green New Deal is simply a reaction to the lack of urgency that prevails in government, industry and the general population. Over the top? Sure. Misguided? Not so sure about that.
1
And the Stephenson Solution is {Ta-Da!}: [sotto voce] Now, lets not be hasty here. No need. You may be right; you may be wrong...but...think of the cost.........
If Bret had been around to criticize JFK and NASA, and won the argument, we'd still be working on putting a chimpanzee into orbit.
1
Governments are often reluctant to take action unless they have to. When the major cities on the East Coast submerge even a moron like Trump might take action, well if he can make a profit from it.
Yeah, those lefty progressive liberal socialist naifs are at it again. Thinking there's a climate crisis! Thinking they might have solutions!
How absurd. There's no crisis, the GOP has told us for years. The Koch and bull fossil fuel industry has steered the policy and has decreed that there not only is no climate change but there is no climate change and they have snow balls to prove it.
Yeah, Stephens tells us a Green New Deal is impossible. He isn't sure why, other than that there are still GOP obstructionist dinosaurs in the way. Stephens says we must move to "something that can achieve a plausible, positive and bipartisan result."
Something? Hmmm. The GOP cop out. Here's what Stephens, his party and his president really say:
It can't be done, but if it could, it costs too much and god knows we can't raise taxes to save our lives and our way of life.
Even if it can be done and doesn't cost too much, it won't work and even if it will work, the fossil fuel industry won't bribe us anymore.
So there will never be a "something" and Stephens is just blowing hot air. The GOP and its president are experts at adding only more hot air to the subject of climate change.
About the only thing they are good at.
2
"But obtaining 100 percent of America’s power needs through renewable energy, “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States” to meet “maximal” efficiency standards, and dealing with the issue of cow flatulence by reducing meat consumption, as the Green New Deal proposes? Fuhgeddaboudit." Really? Consider what we've done over the past century to build out and sustain a global fossil fuel economy and infrastructure. We have gone to any lengths, left no stone unturned, no bookable reserve untapped, no war unfought. The Green New Deal is a "dream'? Well, the oil age may have begun as a dream but will end as a nightmare. We've already turned the corner...its already a bad dream, but it will get much worse. There is nothing crazy or preposterous or naive about the Green New Deal. It is sane. Everything else is crazy.
1
Strange bedfellows, you and Pelosi.
This is not your best work, kind of snarky, and the subject is science, not potshot commentary.
....and a Pelosi clap to you, too.
1
Let's see... in two little towns in Maine - a bridge over the Benjamin river will be raised by two feet due to deterioration of the concrete and steel - but also to account for projected sea rise. This bridge in a sparsely populated area is projected to cost 1.5 million. Think of this situation multiplied countless ways over other communities who have to deal with the realities of climate change. More diddling around over this issue is wasting so much time. The Gulf of Maine is one of the fastest warming bodies of water on the globe. The new green deal may be extreme - but likely contains a lot of doable ideas. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I'm giving up on you, Bret Stephens. You are not a serious intellect.
Great article, Bret, but your flatulence statement about cows is coming from the wrong place (so to speak).
The gasses emitted by these bovines are belches, and not that other form of gas release.
Jesus Bill... At some point I'd like to think that a mature, well educated and "thoughtful" person can pull their head out of the darkest holes but you seem unable to get past your overarching ignorance on climate science. I keep hoping you'll get it one day. Actually, I keep hoping the NYT fires you but you're their token whack-job so....
Mr. Stephens:
Although you start by pointing to the paradox that the "mainstream" political response to climate change warnings, even by most democrats, has been incremental and one could even say conservative - given the predictions of the scientific community of fast approaching and widespread world-wide environmental calamity; you conclude by assuming - with no evidence - that the actual threat from global warming has been grossly overstated. You call for moderation. So, apparently you assume that the concerns of the vast majority of climate scientists are just a bunch of baloney and "handleable" with modest changes in policy. In doing so, you firmly plant your feet in the camp of the skeptics. But you never explain why. Why do you doubt the science? It's one thing to blame politicians for doing too little, given the high likelihood of devastating storms, rising sea level, worldwide drought and the political havoc and human misery such events will undoubtedly unleash over the next several decades. It's another to deny that any of this will happen, and smugly assert that those who are concerned are alarmists. So again, Mr. Stephens, why?
1
The scientists tell us we will be in big trouble unless we hit peak climate change gas out output in a few years and bring them to zero in about 25 years.
No question that is a daunting task. But because most of us ignored the warnings for 30 years that is where we are.
Yes many of the solutions are extreme in some ways but I would rather have radical solutions implemented than take a gradual slow approach which leaves chaos for future generations.
We no longer can solve the problem with business as usual gradual solutions.
The good news is that many of the solutions are proven and will actually save us money, but we just need to scale them up very quickly.
Go to the Project Drawdown web site to see 100 of the solutions that go far beyond just things like solar, wind, and electric cars.
1
Let's start with a proper definition of skeptic. Those who dismiss vast and wide-ranging science and evidence supporting the obvious - climate change/global warming is here, it's been warned about since the 1970s/1980s, and is largely human caused - are not skeptics by any legitimate definition.
Hardworking qualified scientists are skeptics. That's what they do.
Those who pick and choose assertions, no matter how contradictory of each other and of the real world we live in, are not real skeptics. They claim the mantle of skepticism because they are uncomfortable with the obvious.
The way we live, founded in Genesis, "dominion" over a finite earth for the sole comfort and profit of exploiters and looters, earth's apex predator, humans, is not sustainable.
We can get together and solve problems, or we can find people to hate and exclude and blame, preferably those without the power to object to their victimization.
Lomborg and Pielke Jr. are primary supporters of the do-nothing comforters who explain that letting the rich get richer and waiting for some "genius" to come up with some heretofore undreamed of "solution." They, for all their accusations of their detractors as profiteers, are making a very good living and are not experts on climate or planetary dynamics. RPJr is a political scientist and a darling of Republicans in Congress. Lomborg is a busy bee, but the foundation of his business is profits, not facts.
Bret Stephens needs to be more skeptical.
3
@Susan Anderson: Practical nuclear fusion is either a Black Swan or a pipe dream.
Unfortunately, "something that can achieve a plausible, positive, and bipartisan result," is what we always aim for and we get short-term budget fixes, a half-way healthcare program (that never did even get bipartisan support), toothless gun control measures, etc. Our compromise policies have left us with a deteriorating infrastructure, ineffective climate-change policies, bloated military, and inadequate immigration policy. The bulk of scientific opinion sides with the impending disaster version of the effects of climate change and an incremental approach is going to fail to avert these disasters. Everyone who pooh-poohs more dramatic approaches (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) or favors gradualism (e.g. Brett Stephens) is on the wrong side of the argument. We, and the rest of the world, need something like the Green New Deal, or we are sticking our heads in the sand at our own peril.
2
@Casey Dorman: One needs to freeze a technology to implement it on a huge scale. Right now wind turbines and solar cells are practical ways to generate intermittent renewable energy that can be smoothed out over long distance grids, while electrochemistry to store energy is still under development.
1
Pelosi is smart enough not to give the republicans a cudgel to smack the democratic base with with for two years. Remember when democrats had Al Gore and John Kerry as candidates, before they figured out people wanted beer with their presidents? Then democrats got wise and got an exciting candidate for president who was inspiring enough to win twice, but could not fully deliver the goods due to the under current of racism (and, to be fair, anti liberalism) and deep republican intransigence that cynically sought to make use of that racism. If democrats have learned anything it's that winning matters. This is a longer fight than a new jobs program or new budget deal. Let the left, of which I am one, win hearts and minds while the adults, Pelosi, supervise.
3
Well, the solution is very simple. Let each side to present their solutions and their arguments, and if the left will convince people that their solution is real, so be that. It is silly to expect winning from the first reading of proposal, and with all respect to Pelosi she is not the God, but a human who could be mistaken and could change her positions.
Brett, you've marvelously underlined the fundamental contradiction in the current reality of climate change in your piece today.
Neither market forces, nor the command and control state run capitalisms of the like that sprung up in Russia and China not long after their revolutions, will be rapidly responsive enough to this crisis to be sufficient.
While the Green New Deal articulates a vision and ultimate goal (what it would absolutely take both to reduce carbon and methane footprints to sustainable levels -- and this includes reduction of meat consumption, yes, sorry), without some drastic, accomplished-in-three-years transformation, we're still going to be primarily reliant upon oil, gas and yes, coal for energy needs right up to the point in 2030 where we're all going to be thoroughly fricasee'd.
If it were otherwise, you can be sure China and India would have gone after something other than choking themselves to death in their big cities by now.
So, here's the problem: we're not going to be rid of the excesses of capitalism, of oil, gas, coal in time to save ourselves. No measures extreme enough can be enacted in time, successfully. Fact. Even with complete, radical political and economic change.
What then? What if we have until 2030 and no longer? What's your solution?
1
Not "skeptic", denier...
Climate change is a fact, like gravity.
2
@mike
But the climate Apocalypse prophecies are not fact. They are prophecies based on flawed computer models.
1
I didn’t know that anybody has a right to a job much less a green one.
We compete for jobs in this country—if for no other reason than people come here from all over the world to work and make their lives better for their children.
The New Green Deal is a threat to the Democratic Party because is it utterly ridiculous and is completely out of touch with reality. It these people have any sway at all it will guarantee a second term for the Donald.
3
"internal contradictions of climate policy"???
NO: stevens is just trying to use lack of consensus among Dems to justify doing zero about the environment. Because of people like him, there is NO climate policy.
Sissified knuckle-draggers like stevens, douthat, brooks--and the even more obviously benighted crew at WaPo offer nothing to promote solutions to obvious environment crises. All they do is attack people who make an effort--they don't even, ever try to help advance a solution.
Chicken Little is right: The sky is falling, and all they can do is try to belittle her. They should look up and see what is coming down.
2
so-called centrists: "if you like your climate change you can keep your climate change!"
Just when the climate change argument was being won OAC and Markey come along and give climate change deniers the perfect foil. Good going if you want another decade of pointless arguing over the reality of climate change.
1
Here is the oh so clever Bret Stephens’ position on climate change:
April 2017: In a statement to the Huffington Post, Bret Stephens described himself as a “climate agnostic”
November 2015: Writing at the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens characterized climate change as “hysteria” and listed it among other “imaginary enemies.” Other “imaginary enemies” included “hunger in America,” “the campus-rape epidemic,” and “institutionalized racism”
November 2011: Writing at The Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “The Great Global Warming Fizzle,” Stephens compared mainstream climate science to religion
April 2010: Stephens declared that global warming was “dead” in his column at the WSJ:
“So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we're going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place,” he wrote.
The New Green Deal is a maximalist - but aspirational and inspirational for many - non-bonding legislative negotiationing postion to a real emergency opposing the Republican/Trump position of climate change denial and withdrawal from Paris Agreement. The New Green Deal, for all its real shortcomings, is infinitely better than the Republican/Trump insanity and greed, but at least that insanity/greed is obvious.
Stephens presents himself as a reasonable contrarian or agnostic on climate change, but as the above sources/quotes show Stephens’ extreme views are insidious.
2
Has AOC been informed of Nancy Pelosi's blasphemy??? I mean no self respecting Democrat would dare question the wisdom of the Green Deal!! The Green Deal will save the planet by dragging everyone back to life as it was in the 19th century. What's not to like?
Does AOC know where we can get good, sturdy Conestoga wagons? We'll need them once those life saving bans against cars and airplanes go into effect.
2
Like Hillary, Pelosi is and always has been corporate friendly.
1
Climate change is real, see the IIPC report. It is already here.
If we actively work to stop the worst effects on civilization, it will cost an unbelievable amount of money. We will still lose human lives and other species. But if we are proactive we will have at least some control over outcomes.
If we keep dithering about acting to limit the effects of climate change and passively deal piecemeal with them, our reaction will cost many, many, many times more money, plus more lives and species lost, mass migrations, diseases, economic and social disruption, famines, and further horrors yet unimagined.
As a mother, I know which I choose.
If there's anyone left to tell the tale, the failure of humankind (I do mean everyone) to deal with climate change will go down as our biggest failure. The remedies being proposed do not come close to being sufficient. Two critical issues rarely even mentioned: population control and the need for a major restructuring of the economy away from one built on consumption. Changing building standards and increasing the mileage of gas powered vehicles is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs.
3
Overpopulation is what caused this disaster in the first place. Global warming and income inequality could be partially assuaged by fewer human births. We have known this catastrophe was coming for decades. Al Gore's movie received sarcastic comments and an obstinate refusal to admit what scientists were telling us. Meanwhile, several European countries are making investments in green energy, and we'll be purchasing their wind machines and electric cars in the near future. Denial is powerful, and we'll just keep pretending climate change is a cycle, and we can't do anything about it.
3
I’m no fan of Nancy Pelosi, but bravo to her for telling the tantrum throwing idiots from the socialist Left that they need their nap times. And that Cortez person with her tantrums has already cost New Yorkers jobs. Pathetic!
2
"Cow flatulence".... again? Is it so hard to learn a little about what you live on? It's more than ignorance; it's disrespectful. Methane is released by ruminants through their mouths.
A Green New Deal that's of any use shouldn't come out of Washington DC from politicians who don't know one end of a steer from the other. Many here give AOC the benefit of the doubt because she's young. This may be charitable. But favoring youth may also be a product of a disposable society. We're quick to replace older people - especially once their consumption levels fall.
1
I can't afford health care. I can't afford a new electric car. I don't like bean burgers and never knew cow farts were so lethal. I can't afford solar panels. Or a windmill. I can barely pay my heating bill and keep my thermostat low as it is. I can't really afford vacations so I don't really fly anywhere. The jobs in my town went to China where I hear the air is bad they can barely breathe. My job now pays a third of what I used to get. They tell me we were right-sized. That efficiency is good. I don't buy coffee in paper cups as I only make my own. I make my own lunch sandwiches and can't afford to eat food in disposable bowls. I don't have student debt because I couldn't afford college anyway. Even if I could have got into one. If someone has a good paying green job for me tell where to sign up. But then maybe I am too old.
2
You haven't the faintest idea of what your talking about. This is probably the most idiotic column you've written. It's real. Immediate. Have you even the most basic idea of data analysis?
For God's sake, man, take a course or two. If you know nothing say nothing.
3
This article's pitch is subversive and disgusting. For BS to say at this point words to the effect : if it's real then we need to declare an emergency-- Implying, if we don't take it that seriously, the problem doesn't exist-- is clumsy disingenuousness.
Question for BS: Who is to call this emergency? It's about time BS just shuts up about climate change. His voice gives credence to the deniers, which he is too much of a con man to count himself among and about which he has been hedging for years.
Many are calling for an emergency to be called over climate change. His voice among many is aimed at suppressing such calls. And how subtle and cute to implicate NP as a suppressor instead. Get lost, BS.
1
It is impossible to get anything done until we deal with the fact that the GOP does not believe in science. Evolution is a fact. Climate change is a fact. As long as a major political party can just pretend that scientific data is the equivalent of an opinion, then we are stuck.
2
Don't have children. Don't encourage other people to have children. This is the most important thing that we can do. Each human creates hundreds of tons of waste in a lifetime if they live like we do in the U.S.
Not having a child is the greatest gift you can give the planet.
1
And is that a practical solution? If we all commit suicide, we definitely will decrease our footprint, but what the goal of such reduction?
Ending our suffering.
There are reasons why it's been so easy to ignore this crisis- many of them have to do with money and the lies that money has paid so many politicians and journalists to tell. Some others go a little a bit deeper: if it doesn't feel so terrible now, how can it be such a major problem? It's a bit like the early symptoms of the plague: you don't really feel like you're about to die, yet. So why worry? Because, of course, of what climate science has revealed: business as usual is a suicide pact for the global civilization based on fossil fuels that we've built over the last century. Sea level rise measured in meters, crop failures across large regions, shifts in precipitation that threaten agriculture -- already causing migration and war: a major drought in Syria preceded the civil war and flood of refugees, changing the politics of Europe. If we cannot respond, soon and vigorously, our children will inherit the whirlwind. But, of course, what's 'politically feasible' must come first... A recipe for tragedy, and collapse.
2
As Sen. Schumer has pointed out, no Republican plan to address climate change has ever been brought before the Senate under Majority Leader McConnell. What he didn't point out, however, is that no proposal of any sort about addressing climate change has ever been met with anything other than sarcastic rejection by Republicans and pseudoconservative pundits like Brett Stephens. The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine's message, through the Heartland Institute and other venues, has been absorbed into the ideological underpinnings of pseudoconservatives so thoroughly that they cannot accept any response to any proposal except to stick their fingers in their ears and go, "La, la, la, la, I can't hear you!"
2
You're usually pretty good, but on this one you're pretty much a bullying political flack. Which is to say you're full of it.
So is the left, about equally. But, the 1500 word limit here means you're the target for today.
I've heard this kind of Establishment swagger before.
From 1965 to about 1967, more and more young people joined the cause of ending the Vietnam War.
The Pelosis and Stephenses of that time laughed at our lèse-majesté. Such delusions of grandeur: taking them on in their august splendor, indeed.
They called us "The Children's Crusade", not unrelated to such current condescension as "The Adults in the Room."
In a debate, William Bundy, little brother of the architect of the War, McGeorge Bundy, snarled at my friend: "you're not as strong as you think you are."
He was right. We were stronger.
Don't you and the other Olympians forget it.
On 6 January 1967, Time named us its "Man of the Year".
In 1968, we brought down the LBJ regime.
By the 1970s, stories of fragging, the blowing away of officers with fragmentation grenades, began to appear in the media.
The crisis of the troops' antiwar attitude mounted. The spectre of mutiny hung over the prosecution of the War.
The Nixon regime gave up on Vietnam. 27 January 1973. Draw your own conclusions.
********
You have no program other than ignoring the crisis.
There's no arguing with your smugness.
There's no need. Water over your ankles will persuade you.
5
One Climate Change issue that's not politically correct is to attack obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that over 95 million adults and 13.7 million children are overweight or obese. The youths rate had more than doubled during the past 20 year.
Obese individuals eat more more of our food supply. The cost of excessive weight means more fossil fuels tor their transportation as well as the extra costs to transfer food to their grocery markets.
Unfortunately, since many of our politicians are obese, it's unrealistic to assume that they would cave in to healthy people who care about their health.
So the question that I raise is "If a politician can't take care of their own body, why should they be elected to try to control every aspect of our lives?"
Reality is a “fools paradise!” Anyone who could read has read about climate change since Al Gore’s ground breaking documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” released in 2006. That was 14 years ago. When I first read it, I dismissed it the same way I dismissed the so-called “experts” who said years ago that Lake Erie was dead, and would never recover. Guess what? All we really had to do was stop dumping poison into the lake, give Mother Nature a little time to work HER magic and Shazam, it was back stronger than before!
Unfortunately, Climate Change isn’t that easy to fix. Whether you believe or dismiss it, reality has a way of pushing through the cracks in the damn.
Hollywood can always come through for us and save the world, even under the worse conditions. That life raft sank as soon as the movie was over.
I don’t know if we can reverse climate change, even under the best of conditions, but I really do believe we can slow it down. Will we? Individually Yes. Globally? Not unless and until every human being on this planet is directly affected by it. In other words, I’m going to the movies.
1
What we need is for everyone to take the threat of climate change seriously and agree to consider the the options and then act. Too many moneyed interests refuse to acknowledge the very real dangers of climate change because fixing it would adversely affect their lifestyles and/or their pocketbooks. The GND is not a detailed roadmap but an aspirational and inspirational attempt to get us started. When Republicans quit denying science and come to the table to work out solutions, then we can all work on the details. Climate change may not yet be as apocalyptic as the Plague but it's getting damn close and it has lingering, long term, irreversible effects. Instead of chiding the GND and its authors, aim your pen at the Republicans and oil barons.
1
Cows, along with goats, sheep, buffalo, and even camels, are known as ruminant animals, and all of them burp methane. This powerful greenhouse gas comes from the rumen, which is the first of the four sections in a cow's stomach, and most of it is belched—despite folklore about gases from the other end.Aug 3, 2015
Burp by Burp, Fighting Emissions from Cows
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/.../150803-cows-burp-methane-climate-scien...
Not sure what your definition of “internal contradiction” is, but it for sure isn’t how you describe the policy choice between a massive WWII like mobilization to decarbonize and a more incrementalism approach. A contradiction would be, for instance, supporting climate policy and fracking; fighting for racial/social justice as well as tax breaks for Wall Street and Corporations; advocating for democracy in Latin America but then supporting authoritarian repressive regimes that murder and disappear their own citizens. And so on...
Brett, I am 100% convinced test your great-great-great grandchildren will curse you and rest of conservative America since they conserved nothing. Be proud!
1
Speaker Pelosi's condescending remarks are a travesty of leadership. Shame on you Ms. Pelosi. Now go apologize to your grandchildren.
93
@Andy L
I disagree. The Green New Deal is a travesty of a document. Sound proposals to combat climate change is one thing, but a free working wage, whether one wants to work or not? Reaching CO2 goals in ten years? Really? Fix every building? Free education on top of free health care? This is a gift to the Republicans because it make Democrats look stupid. Produce a proposal thats smart and realistic, not pie in the sky.
24
@Andy L Should have said that the Democrats are the party of ideas. Let's explore.
3
@Andy L She does what she gets paid by our corporations-are-people to do. And does it the way Hollywood applauds wildly for.
4
Jay Inslee, current governor of Washington, is thinking about running for 2020 and climate change is his #1 priority. I want to hear more from him.
If he runs for 2020 perhaps he will bring climate change to the forefront.
Climate change truly is a national emergency.
3
Stephens & company do not seem to be troubled by the spending of $5 trillion to destroy Afghanistan and Iraq (socialism for the military industrial complex) but are apoplectic about investing in renewable energy. he and his ilk won't be satisfied until the planet is uninhabitable for humans
2
Hey people! Mr. Stephens! Its only a few weeks into this new Congress.We're not even at the 100 day mark!
This "Green New Deal" (GND) is the seed. A seed not truly even planted in good soil yet!
Its amazing how all the pundits (Right or Liberal) columnists and zealots are making the GND out as the be-all and end-all of the Progressive platform (who is the Progressive leader? AOC, Sanders? And where's the actual caucus?) much less the Democratic platform!
The GND is a starting proposal. That's it! No one in their right mind, except maybe AOC (and while I like her, she's not in her right legislative mind yet! far from it.) is gonna run full-steam ahead waving the GND as the whole and final of any platform.
What I see the GND actually doing, and what its most capable of doing - is forcing the conversations that we have been avoiding. Or in the case of McConnell avoiding do much of anything legislatively at all. (outside of appointing judges)
The GND, much like the candidate hype around Medicaid for all, is forcing conversations that we need to be having! Much like Trumps' deplorable behaviors on the southern border - is forcing us to have the right conversations (although hyper emotionally) about immigration policy.
If Trump does anything positive, it will be to force us to face our ills, to face the problems that our elected employees have been avoiding and handing off to the Executive office to deal with thru EO's, etc.
Its time we have the hard conversations!
At this point it is doubtful that humankind will wake to the emergency before until it is too late.I am holding out a sliver of hope for the extreme solution of a massive volcano that reduces world temps by a degree or two.
We will act when we are standing in water up to our needs (that might merit an emergency declaration).
1
Ahh Brett as a semi= republican I would think you read the Great Book Art of the Deal where one starts off with a grandiose list of wishes.
We wasted 2 to 3 Trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine if we had treated the murder of civilians in the WTC the way we treated the murder of civilians in Las Vegas. A criminal justice matter instead of an unending war on terror.
Humanity wrecking events are in the eye of the beholder.
It's not about spending trillions, it's about changing our priorities of what and where we spend on. Political power in this country is based on spending money not fiscal responsibility. I accept the basic premise of this terrible shortcoming in our political system. I chose to support priorities that benefit our citizens and the world over war and destruction.
2
First let me say, nobody needs an Escalade. That being said, if some version of the New Green Deal survives and the world survives this global crisis: hooray for the good men and women of our planet ! If the Trumpsters and Chinese polluters win.
Guess what will happen. The human race will mutate into another life form to deal with what will be left of our once glorious planet.
1
It’s always interesting to me that so called conservatives think they are the ones who know how to build wealth after ruining the American economy for liberals to fix and then taking credit for it. I am waiting for them to shut up.
Here's a happy thought for you liberals out there. The world is heating up. If we slow the change we only prolong the damage This will lead to more extinction as the small islands of ecological diversity on the planet are destroyed. As an example, think of the Amazon rainforest disappearing each day.
So, go ahead and live your life. Recycle, pray, whatever. The faster civilization collapses, the less damage we do.
1
Because Nancy Pelosi is not enthusiastic enough about the Green New Deal, therefore climate change is not a big deal??
Does this even count as an argument, Mr. Stephens?
3
Feckless? As in irresponsible? That pretty much sums up Bret Stephens' longstanding role in the climate change discussion.
I invite all greenies who seriously think the world is ending to pick up a rifle and do something about. Extreme measures are required to save the planet, aren’t they?
More casuistry from Bret Stephens. The "stillborn green dream" is an aspirational political marker .. nothing more, nothing less. As to "alien invasions" .. perhaps Bret might point to the GOP's specious, apocalyptic assertions that migrant asylum seeking is a "humanity wrecking event" .... then, he'd have a legitimate point to make. But, I guess its more fun to equate Green Deal advocates with Marxists ....
1
In his recent book Hal Hartley outlines a set of climate policies that would provide a 50-50 chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature increase by 2100. They are aggressive but not as ambitious as the GND. Think about it -- a goal that gives us a 50% chance of avoiding climate catastrophe. 50%!!! That's really what Pelosi is talking about, and it isn't the kind of risk that any of us would accept under any circumstances. It's worse than playing Russian roulette.
1
If history is prologue, DJT will be re-elected on climate change and immigration issues, and I'm sure the Dems can find a few more wedge-issues for the GOP to distort to their advantage.
The GOP is fully prepared to cook the earth just as long as they can remain in power.
People say they want change; this is easy. But when the rubber hits the road it is a different matter.
Social warrior-ing gives meaning to the organism; and meaning is what drives the unenlightened; the enlightened organism knows there is no meaning to be had, just sublimation, which drives this madhouse
Climate change is going to make life on earth very unpleasant, but not for some time, say 30-yrs; and by the time the human animal realizes this it will be way too late. N.b., it is already too late, but this is beside the point. Humans need dreams.
To believe that Man is going to pull its bacon out of the fire as to climate change is to reveal to other people that one has an extremely ignorant view of the subject.
The upside of climate change is that Man shall get its comeuppance.
Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself
Philip Larkin, from "This Be The Verse" from High Windows
I have seen the winged man, and he was no angel.
R. S. Thomas, ‘The Refusal’
N.b., Sublimation is defined as the conversion of sexual energy (libido) to social activity e.g., bridges, buildings, monuments...in short civilization
". . .impractical radicalism and feckless virtue-signaling . . ."
I was sort of with Bret until that offensive characterization, which soiled his otherwise balanced argument. Those of us who see this as an existential matter are not impractical, feckless or virtue-signalers.
It may be that "plausible and bipartisan" efforts will extend the habitable era on our planet. They are necessary but insufficient and my grandchildren will be the victims.
Shame on anyone who demeans the Green New Deal as radical or virtue-signaling.
1
Phony assumptions you're spreading here, Bret. The Green Deal was not a plan - it's a set of ideals. I doubt Pelosi sealed its fate - she flagged that it needs to be shaped.
Climate change is (and has been for decades) dire. We do need a large scale plan. Don't contribute to the inertia.
1
My God! You ARE a partisan. You spend column time faulting the DEMOCRATS on climate change? And you allow yourself such faulty logic and tendentious language without fundament?
Mr. Stephens, this is shameful. Look up the scientific work, sir. It is an emergency AND it can be dealt with if we get past political obstructure. And YES, of course incremental steps are preferable and CAN be taken. My God, man. How do you live with yourself?
Here is a bit of logic for you. Even if the scientific evidence and consensus were NOT overwhelming, see Pascal's Wager dude. Some of the prettiest logic of old times. On second thought, don't visit it. Doing so means you either lose your Wormtongue livelihood or your integrity. One feels you have already lost one.
1
In any negotiation the parties have to BEGIN at some point where the outcome might be reasonably satisfactory. To begin where you believe the outcome is politically feasible is to begin at the loser position and then give ground. "Lose, lose" is the name of the game and it's part of the GOP strategy. Nancy should be ashamed. She's the team leader b/c of experience not her vision for the future.
Second, the world is coming to an end! We're told this by the most reputable scientific groups, not individuals. Groups of people who stake their lives on being right about this. All over the world. Who ya gonna believe, people who know, your lying eyes or Sean Hannity?
1
I wonder if, as a society, it would be cheaper to just buy out the oil oligarchs and shut down their pollution factories, than try and beat them politically?
I think the more interesting question is why Bret Stephens is a climate skeptic. Bret is obviously intelligent, thoughtful and capable of analytic thought. He has read the reports, is aware of the conclusions of the overwhelming numbers of scientists from a number of relevant fields, can use his analytic skills to consider the data and the arguments these scientists have advanced and yet he remains a climate skeptic. Why? What is it that he is missing that seems to be so obvious to the rest of us? I don’t know the answer but I implore you Bret, to use one of your articles, or maybe a series of your articles to lay out the case for your skepticism. It is one thing to be skeptical of the approaches proposed to deal with the problem and quite another to be skeptical that there is a problem. It’s a bit like 1938/1939 and being skeptical of the approaches being proposed to deal with Hitler, as opposed to being skeptical that Hitler was a problem.
With regard to Pelosi, of course she would be skeptical of the Green Dream because she she is the ultimate practical politician. Her job is political and her focus has to be on what will enable the Democrats to keep the House and win the Senate and win the White House in 2020. It will be the job of one of the Democratic candidates for the presidency to lay out the case for making environmental policy the lynch pin of their presidency and showing how it will weave together all of the other elements of the Democratic agenda.
1
A Green New Deal that can be real!
Second Incomes: The late Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP - used by 11,000 companies, saw the threat of automation and outlined a plan that can sharply reduce inequality, providing every individual with the purchasing power needed for a healthy economy.
Wise implementation would include a Universal Basic Income which otherwise has no chance of becoming law. This would be temporary. Second Incomes will supersede it with no net cost to the Treasury. Taxes from rising incomes would repay loans that launch The Second Income Plan.
End stock market worry with Nassim Taleb's suggestion in his book The BLACK SWAN for 85-90% of individual investment to be in ultra safe Treasury Bills and the rest in a wide assortment of high risk ventures.
BLACK SWANS are highly improbable events with enormous implications. Positive BLACK SWAN technologies can replace fossil fuels much faster. They include cheap and easy conversion of vehicles to running on water instead of gas, diesel or jet fuel, as well as engines needing no fuel; self-powered air conditioners requiring no refrigerants and room temperature superconductors.
Revolutionary science is attacked as impossible with, in one case, rants featuring falsehoods.
See hard to believe breakthrough technologies and SECOND INCOMES at aesopinstitute.org
Rapid fossil fuel replacement need not await government action. All it needs is bold support of high risk enterprise!
Bret, exactly what are you proposing? If you’re struggling to come up with something both sides of the aisle can get behind, here’s an idea for you to consider.
You said not so long ago that, “If it were up to me, I’d double defense spending.” OK, put your money where your mouth is. Think of climate change *just* as a national-security imperative. Here’s a little background on the issue:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/064002007
One of the most distressing absences from the GND “plan” is that it doesn’t say a thing about electric-grid security. Say what? In a nutshell, if North Korea (e.g.) really wants to take out the US, by far the easiest way is to detonate a high-altitude nuke over Kansas and destroy our grid. Look up "Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse" on Wikipedia.
Do this is mid-January and just wait for half the country to freeze to death: Advantage, Kim Jong-Un.
The solution? A high-voltage DC transmission network criss-crossing the US. We need it anyway, but what’s the GND connection? HVDC is an enabling technology to transmit power—"green" or otherwise—from where it’s generated to where it’s needed. It’s all spelled out in Dr. Alexander “Sandy” McDonald’s proposal:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/Macdonald_space%20weather%2027apr16%20v0.pdf
McDonald was a colleague of mine at the Dept. of Commerce.
Ball’s in your court, Bret.
Brett, do you really think that Mitch “Benedict Arnold “ McConnell will do anything to help abate the dangerous aspects of climate change? Talk about a feckless person...
It is virtually impossible for rich Americans to avoid spending their retirement years globetrotting to punch their bucket lists.
1
Another week, another dishonest column by Stephens, a professional member of the Republican Commentariat. First, he uses Republican SOP by intimating repeatedly that climate change may not even be real. Second, he employs the usual black-white dichotomy: climate change is either immediate doom, or it’s a slow process we don’t have to worry much about. Third, of course, is an attack on everyone on the Left: the “crazies” want to do big things now to mitigate climate change’s damage and silly pragmatists want to do what is more achievable in a world where the right has convinced its base that climate change isn’t even real. No room for shades of gray among Right-thinking Republicans. Maybe the first step America should take in battling climate change is a New Red, White and Blue Deal to neutralize the increasingly dishonest, detached from reality, and even unhinged Republican Party. Collateral benefits would include a more informed citizenry and a less bitterly divided nation.
I well recall Bret’s 1st 2017 NYT column, that showed his obvious bias---“Climate of Complete Certainty”.
Quotes:
Claiming total certainty about the science traduces (traduce means to denigrate, I looked it up) the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong.
Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. (Also a fair question are Bret’s ideological intentions)
Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.
(such hyperbole)
Ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power. (Uh oh, the real threat is -- ‘scientism’)"
End of quotes.
But Bret, ordinary citizens (we the people) have a right to be skeptical especially of overweening ( means arrogant and domineering) centers of wealth and power.
Bret, we also know that history is positively littered with apologists for special interests and moneyed elites married to politics.
Especially in the current US system of unlimited corporate donations per Citizens United.
What’s the effect on climate ‘skepicism’? (Euphemism)
We’re skeptical all right-- of your rationalizations and diversions.
There is nothing more frustrating in a newspaper than reading an opinion piece without knowing the columnists opinion. Republicans like Trump say it isn't a problem, others think it is a manageable problem, others an epic crisis. Where does Brett stand? Who knows? It's time to get off the pot.
1
Macron’s approval rating is in the teens due to his gas tax and the yellow-vests movement it spurred.
1
There's one thing we need to do worldwide: Stop dependency on population growth for economic growth. Encourage people to have fewer children. Make large families culturally undesirable. Incentivize religions so they stop encouraging population growth to grow their religions.
Surely we must be able to find a way to live how we want without needing to grow populations. Greed = bigger populations. It's another manifestation of greed.
Occasionally a houseplant will get brown leaves that die and fall. I look closer. Spider mites reproduced out of control and start to take over and kill entire branches. There's always mites, but when there's too many, the problems start. This makes me think of humanity on Earth.
All this talk of imminent catastrophe brings out the pessimist in me...
Maybe climate change is nature's own solution to the problem...the problem being human overpopulation... and we might just as well let it proceed. Over time the species will poison itself, populations will dwindle and a dark age will dawn. Today's wondrous technological world will be remembered only as a myth.
Those who don't want to wait that long could anoint a Green Messiah who ushers in a modern day Gotterdammerung, destroying vast populations with nukes and biological warfare so that humanity can begin anew with new "green" values.
Take your pick.
You're missing the part where climate change really is the crisis you point out is so extreme. Ironically, in your attempt at absurdity you actually spoke truth. The climate will demolish the high functioning modern society we have. Space aliens are a good analogy. Do some research on the issue before pretending the problem is just the sniffles.
Time to step aside and let the next generation tackle this problem. Mocking and nay saying are faux luxuries of backward looking ignorance. More power to the next generation as they seize the reins! Opinions such as those expressed in this piece will be completely irrelevant within the next few years. The times they are a-changing!
Conservatives -like Stephens, Brooks, Douthat- who have the good sense to reject Trum p, acknowledge some real issues like climate
"Pelosi’s seal clap sealed the fate of the Green New Deal." She finally did something right after 32 years in Congress.
1
Hey man...like, it's only climate scientists who say global warming is an existential threat, so how urgent can it be?
Here's another internal contradiction for you. Conservatives pretend to want dynamic market economies, but have created a world in which money flows perpetually upward into great inert piles that pay for nothing other than billionaires' bragging rights. If they really wanted a market that can help solve problems, they would back their hind ends out of Reaganism and admit that without governments to make and enforce rules, then money will make the rules. And money cares for nothing but itself.
2
Fight! fight! fight! yells Bret Stephens from the sidelines, watching resurgent Democrats argue about how to handle the legitimate threat of climate change. A gang of young hoodlums demands the impossible, and is willing to die on the ramparts to prove it, swinging wildly at everyone, including their friends. Meanwhile, wizened old Pelosi wants progress, but knows that some is better than none, and the best way to lose is to overplay your hand.
Meanwhile, Stephens loves it, knowing that nothing but a great show will happen as long as Democrats don't remember who the real enemy is. And that's what conservatives want: for nothing to happen.
1
Let's talk inconvenient truths:
1. A Green New Deal would be marginally effective at best because fossil fuel emissions in the developing world will ultimately determine what happens to the worlds climate. China has substantially more fossil fuel emissions than the US currently and India will catch the US in the next few years.
2. It will be hard to mobilize the US to aggressively reduce fossil fuel emissions because climate change will be gradual. It is hard to sell the case that your utility bill should go up 100% today because if you don't your house on the shore will be threatened by rising seas in 80 years. Most peoples attitude will be in 80 years I won't be alive so who cares.
3. Given fossil fuel emission rates worldwide global temperature rise is baked in for 2050 and probably for 2100. What we are fighting for now is what our planet will be line in the 22nd century
1
Humans were not designed to solve problems of this magnitude. Millions of years with the Earth taking care of us has programmed us to believe the Earth will continue to provide. Having it turn on us does not compute.
We need to take extreme measures. The time to patiently address the issue was in the 1960s.
It is too late to save most of the planets ecology. It is already dead. What is left is just its corpse.
It is too late to save most of the coastal cities. They should be considered uninhabitable. We can do nothing, at this late stage, to prevent them from being under-water.
What we can do now is try to save what we can. Our only saving grace is that this will be a slow-moving catastrophe. Cities will melt away neighborhood by neighborhood over decades. We'll just move people inland until the resources run out.
Our big problems will be a lack of food and drinking water. The insistence on importing more and more people will only exacerbate those problems. Human over-population is the main driver for all of our woes.
Its a very bleak future for us. Thanks Mr. Stephens for working so hard, along with your friends, on making sure this disaster will be the biggest our species has ever faced. Little kids all over the planet are thanking you for leaving them such a nice gift to deal with.
You and your ilk have managed to make sure that nothing has been done on this issue. I hold you, and all those who obfuscate this issue or stymie all attempts to address it, in complete contempt. You are wrong and your position is immoral.
1
The current media discussion of climate change invariably fails to note that the greatest contributor to it is the American automobile industry.
Bret - A key part of the solution to our global climate crisis has just been introduced in the House. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR 763) will achieve 40% reduction in US CO2 emissions by 2030 by (1) charging significant and rising fees on fossil fuels, (2) giving the fees back to households, and (3) adjusting fees at the border to level the playing field with countries that don't charge for CO2 pollution. HR 763 is an effective way to dramatically reduce emissions, good for people, good for the economy, and revenue-neutral. It has bipartisan support. Check it out!
Mr. Stephen's points aside, I noticed that the demonstrators outside Ms. Pelosi's Office all had t-shirts that read "we have a right to good jobs". Perhaps those demonstrators are unaware of the fact that there are over seven million job vacancies in this country that are vacant because there are not enough folks with the skills needed to fill them. But maybe being a welder is an occupation that they would sneer at because it is below their social station. And if welding isn't an option, why not get an education in a field where you could actually help solve the problem? Create an electric engine that is more efficient and economical than an internal combustion engine. Create much more efficient and economical means of harnessing wind, thermal and solar power. Create a product that will make plastic obsolete. There are jobs for all of these things and if you did any of them it might also make you quite rich - which I suspect might make you a pariah among your peers. Virtue signaling will do nothing to solve the climate crisis. The only way to fix this problem is to do the things listed above and many others. I would suggest you get off your duff and begin to do so.
1
Most people are pragmatic, which is why it's so frustrating to watch the GOP, virtually as a whole, do nothing and with zeal UNDO the small, reasonable steps already attempted.
Additionally, doing things like installing the likes of Pruitt and Wheeler at the EPA, ousting scientists and aggressively scrubbing public information of research, data, etc. isn't exactly the high ground.
1
So, we have a grand vision for the future, which will be transformed by both events and negotiations. All sorts of people will be part of these developments. But it is a vision, and it looks to the future.
What is Bret Stephens' plan for the future, any future? And where is his party? Chasing a national emergency on the southern border?
1
Wrong, Brett, climate change DOES mean doom for business as usual, and that’s what the United States is all about, these days, both political parties that our government facilitates what’s good for the United States, and that is business. This administration is just much less opaque about their Federalist Society agenda to amplify only the interests of multinational corporations at the expense of everything else, like the future habitability of our planet. I doubt anyone, any political entity can change this administrations direction on climate change policy until they are out of power and even then real change, real impactful change means rewriting the average americans daily dna to reduce our consumeristic lifestyle, that’s all we know.
1
So is Pelosi’s approach commensurate with the threat?
Consider we’ve already committed to around 6m of sea level rise, a large fraction of which could arrive within 100 years.
That’s 20 feet. Bye NYC and most of our large cities.
But hey, let’s take an incremental approach.
2
China is seriously engaged in developing wind, solar, and hydro power, along with refurbishing their power grids and advancing new battery technology (e.g., vanadium-flow) for green-energy storage. The Chinese will also soon have over 100 nuclear power plants, more than any other country (some using experimental mechanisms such as radioactive pellets and thorium molten metal in their cores).
More importantly, they continue with their one-child policy, with strict penalties for noncompliance.
Are Americans willing to take these actions? Not yet.
When it comes to climate change, we in America are largely unresponsive to potential loss of human life, and of species, and of ecosystems.
The best plan is to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that climate change will affect the economy and jobs and, of primary relevance, American wallets.
If we in the U.S. do not get onboard, immediately, other countries will leave us in the economic dust. And we may never recover.
Maybe that will get people thinking?
2
They've modified the 1 child policy to 2 children. They'll still jave a steep population reduction. The tendency to select males has changed the replacement rate to much higher then 2.
1
Whether climate change is a manageable problem or gloom and doom depends on the scale, and we don't know what the scale will be. The manageable problem scenario means more weird weather, and tidal flooding in coastal cities mostly on the East Coast where the terrain is flatter. The worst case scenario means that the center of America becomes a vast, shallow inland sea.
We don't really know. We do know that the ice is melting, the sea is filling up with plastic, the methane hydrates are being released, and the 6th great extinction is happening, all on our watch.
One planet, one experiment. Perhaps a bit of urgency is called for. The extremist are reminding us that we'd better do something effective, and we better start soon.
2
Data is in for doom for many of us. What's in doubt is extinction.
1
I usually accept that Bret Stephens and I live on the same planet, but this column gives me serious doubt. Such phrases as “It shouldn’t be hard to make the case, even to conservatives....” are simply stunning, at least if he considers Congressional Republicans to be conservatives. Made case or not, they don't seem to be having any. In light of which reality, his remark, “If Pelosi is skeptical of their [the Green New Dealers'] policies....” is even more amazing. Did she say she disagreed, or has she simply recognized the political reality? And if the Green New Dealers became a bigger force in the Congress, isn't it likely that the same forces which massively funded the opposition to a carbon fee in Washington State would put on the same full-court press against federal legislation?
3
She may accept the science and the need for dramatic action, but what do you think that will get the Democratic Party except a trip to the minority? What use would that be for all the other Democratic Party objectives? Sure, the Democrats will ride the ship to the point where it sinks under the waves, but at least they aren't piling on ballast like the GOP. Given that FOX creates an alternate reality and fossil fuel interests fund congress, where does one go?
In our own house, we've done just about everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint as far as personal choices go. Structural changes are needed for us to lower our footprint.
1
I have regretfully come to the conclusion that there will never be the political will to do anything about climate change. As Brett says everybody is for action until it costs them money. All I can hope for is that my grandchildren survive the storm. Pretty depressing but that is how I feel.
4
What an exciting well written essay. The central conceit,however, that there is huge contradictions in climate is a bit overblown. There are huge contradictions in just about everything from sposal love, to work, to well , all human endevers. Nice writing fun.
1
Climate advocates claim that the crisis is so serious that the issue overrides all other considerations and must be dealt with regardless of social and financial costs. But the test of how serious they are is nuclear power.
That energy source is here, it works, and it's carbon-free. But most climate activists reject it. So for them the catastrophe of climate change takes second place to the disadvantages of nuclear power, and it is therefore not the highest priority that they otherwise claim it is.
4
Solar, wind, and hydro power are here and they work.
1
"...a plausible, positive and bipartisan result." So far the Republican response is "what me worry" at best, and often "there is no climate change" or "It's a Chinese plot". So, there is no bipartisan, it's only the Democrats and scientists, and not all journalists evidently. The Green New Deal is a non-starter I will say as a scientist and a Democrat, but someone has to get moving in government, and it won't be the party of Stephens. As PeterKa said here, the Democrats made themselves an easy target (again).
1
Not endorsing the green new deal doesn't mean you don't care about the climate as much as someone who does.
Reality check: there's no evidence whatsoever that the green new deal is the only or best way to deal with climate change.
1
Talking about climate change without talking about population control is a waste of time. As the economies of third world countries improve, their people want a lot of the "stuff" we have had for years....air conditioning, cars, etc. Talking about climate change without talking about how "austerity" has hugely enriched the rich at the expense of everyone else is also a waste of time. Climate change is going to wipe out the human race, or at least, kill enough people to bring the population down substantially...Maybe those left will survive, but it won't be pretty for quite a long time. In just the 10 years or so I have lived in Florida, our 90 degree day season has gone from about a month to six months... Yes, it's an emergency, but not enough people have died yet.
1
Agree. I moved to Florida and it is warmer. You need a catastrophic event so out of the ordinary to get people’s attention.
This is exactly the kind of realistic discussion we need to have about climate change.
2
I have never been a Pelosi fan but I applaud her reining in of her party’s more extreme wing. Her leadership stands in stark contrast to the total lack of leadership shown by the senator from Kentucky in moderating the extreme right.
5
Once you get past the catchy headline, you discover the writer is exactly on the same page as Nancy Pelosi with respect to climate change. In other words, carry on pretty much the way we are, even if the evidence shows this is leading to a dark place. He claims the people are not ready for radical change, but how can they be when established leaders and pundits throw water on all new ideas? I’m afraid the radical change will happen - because it’s foisted on us.
3
I understand how you feel about a perceived lack of action or concern by the leadership in the democratic party, but the Speaker is a realist(as the article points out). She's also a brilliant parliamentarian and knows where her hard limits are with the people. She is unwilling to cross the people, she's happy to anger the opposition and even some of the leadership of our party to accomplish something she sees as important. She does see this as important and indeed she was talking about and supporting climate change policy thirty five years ago. There are much more sensible solutions we can avail ourselves of as a species, to address this issue(as best we can at this point as we passed the point of no return) without such abandonment of democratic principles that have guided our nation since it was born out of rejection of oppression by the crown. That narrative is one were taught from third grade and it does speak to who we become as adults(boldly independent and determined to fully control our future).
I'm happy to talk about the way we're taught history in this country and how we can do better(with education in general frankly), but that is as good a way as I can think to illustrate for a Canadian what we're taught and what that means for us as a nation in the international community.
1
What Stephens points to here is not a contradiction; it is a secondary effect.
The question is not "is there or isn't there a serious emergency?"; with every passing year the data confirms that it is. The question is: what is the best way to cut through the denialism, fatalism, pundit sophistry, and private monied interests that will fight tooth and nail against any action on any scale?
Some say it is imperative to declare outright how serious it is, never mind the charges of alarmism.
Others say we should try to get half a loaf (since even that is probably unrealistic) by underscoring incremental advances that work. Then we will be a little bit better positioned in 50 years and eco-systems begin failing on a much wider scale.
4
Nancy:
I can understand how you feel about immigration however the idea that is an emergency is simply not supported by facts in any way. As a matter of fact the data shows the exact opposite. Illegal immigration on the southern border is down by over 90% in the last 18 years. The caravans are not new they've been coming for years seeking asylum and following American law in an attempt to escape violence and death in their homeland. They are not criminals and drug dealers they are the very people that the tablet in Liberty's arms in New York harbor speak of. They are the tired the poor the huddled masses. We as a nation long ago said give us the people you don't want we will welcome them we will help them to a better life(and they in turn will help to build prosperity for our nation which is what immigrants have done for centuries). I personally am sickened that any American would ignore the guiding principal of immigration in our nation just because the immigrants aren't white Europeans anymore. Muslim immigrants make America stronger Latino, Jewish, Asian, African, European, Oceania, they all make this nation better stronger and wealthier. The human being that solves the climate change problem could be a small Honduran child in that caravan and if we don't let them in they may never get the education they need to save our species. We need to stop fear mongering and start embracing immigration. Everyone after all is a human being. We are all brothers and sisters.
37
@Kevin Queen
There are simply too many people. With the stress of climate change this will become an immigration nightmare. Soon, welcoming "huddled masses" won't look so good.
You sound like a nice person. I think that counts.
No, Nancy Pelosi is a politician who doesn’t have the votes, and votes are what she counts not climate damage.
“Better coastal defenses” will not be any more successful than prayer in most cases unless we are talking about just moving away from those coasts. As the sea level rises we are talking about being under water during normal weather and the coastal areas cover thousands of miles. How realistic is that kind of wall building? The Green New Deal looks much more realistic.
My proposal for progress on climate change is elimination of disaster relief to areas affected by climate change. Coastal flooding won’t be what drives people out of these areas. It will be those 50-75 inches of rainfall they get regularly from the latest tropical storm. Last I looked the areas damaged extended considerably inland, so get ready for some major population movement, especially where climate change is “too expensive to solve”.
In CA, people will need to abandon living in the wilderness and make their neighborhoods more fire resistant, but the flooding coasts have no easy solution.
Just be clear: the world won’t come to an end, but large parts of where people now live will be under the ocean and no tweaks to “coastal defenses” are going to hold it off.
4
Jazz
The green new deal is a no go it will never be implemented. The GOP would never allow that(meaning their billionaire owners). I want to be clear here I don't oppose one single thing in that bill but I oppose the bill because it won't ever happen and frankly it isn't a climate bill it's got bills about free money for no work and all sorts of non climate of pork that frankly most democrats oppose including myself. They should scrap the bill they have and write a realistic climate bill. They do that I'll go door to door advocating for it. I loved for many years on the beach in California and I love California and that coast, but there's likely not much hope of saving the coasts what we may need to do is kinda a Venice thing like renegineer buildings that will end up underwater so that the first five floors can be totally submerged. I think our best hope is that Manhattan and Los Angeles become ocean cities instead of those cities(and many other coastal cities) are not just abandoned. I appreciate your willingness to join the conversation and the movement and present your views because you and I talking is how we find a teneble achievable goal. Let's keep talking with an understanding that we both care strongly abiut both coasts of our country and indeed the coastal cities of the world. If we can do that and we can talk with the few on the right that agree we can sole this problem.
Also not to be negative but coastal flooding is one of many affects that will impact us. For example in the great plains where I live now(bread basket of the world) will eventually revert back to desert in the next century and nothing will grow there. The rising ocean temperatures will trigger massive auqautic extinction and potentially a collapse of the ocean food chain. Coastal flooding is just one of many issues and if we continue to do nothing for another decade or less then we'll be looking at solutions that involve us living in biodomes because the surface can no longer sustain life.
@Kevin Queen
While CA will lose some current low-lying beach areas, we won’t lose as much as the east coast,or the southeast because of the contours of of the continental shelf. We have a steeper land falloff here, so it takes more water to move the coastlines in many areas.
The Venice approach may work in very sheltered areas, but it will not be practical against ocean encroachment. Storm surges and surf will too powerful. There is still the problem of what to do when 50-75 inches of rain falls across most of the land of the Carolinas.
My point is, if you think the Green New Deal is too impractical or expensive, then prepare to wholesale abandon major areas where populations now live because mitigation strategies won’t work against this type of water problems.
The Green New Deal as drafted may well be excessive, making it politically infeasible and an easy target for people who benefit greatly from mining coal and wasting energy. The fact remains that climate change is almost certainly an existential crisis; if those who deny that are wrong, they may not live to see the crash of our civilization, but their children or grandchildren will. Denying it is like leaving a loaded gun on a table in a kindergarten; maybe no kid will pick it up; should we take the chance.
2
The gun analogy is a perfect lead in to my comment Thomas. A portion of the country would say yeah leave the gun there they won't touch it. When the kid shoots themselves in the head it's then someone else's fault. As much as we disagree with them at least for now(i hope at some point the american people wake up and elect democrats everywhere but I'm not holding my breath)we need some of the conservatives on board. Is it better to stick to our goals in the face of complete and total defeat on a bill because it's too extreme and be part of the problem or should we do whatever we can get done as soon as possible and just keep pushing forward as fast as we can?
Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a climate skeptic in practice, as all legislators must be who depend on corporate contributions to ensure their re-elections. And yes, Mr. Stephens, we need to go on a war socialism footing as soon as feasible in order to ensure the continuance of organized human society. Columns like this make me wonder how big an effort folks like Mr. Stephens must go to to avoid articles like this that carefully depict how feedback loops and other ecological mutual dependencies will likely accelerate some of the worst case scenarios:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/uk-report-claims-environment-in-five-different-crises/article/543170
Lastly, I can't wait for Stephens' shocked commentary when the reinsurance companies officially warn that they will simply stop insuring the companies that insure his ilk's beach houses, or any structure in Miami or Atlantic City etc.
3
I think maybe we lose sight of the fact that if we don't take corporate money on the left we will never be able to beat the right. George soros is considered a corporate donor. He's also a man who runs a company advocating for democracy and freddom around the world. He would not be able to give money to the DNC to promote freedom. We need to ban corporate spending and repeal citizens United. We don't need to demonize politicians forced to participate in a corrupt system. To not fight the war were in would be to ensure that climate change and all our other policies are completely defeated and we wake up in a theocracy where pat Robertson is executing gay people and athiest among others.
@Kevin Queen Points taken. I'm not demonizing Pelosi, but if the Dems are just another party of donors in a corrupt system, we can't have hope. How to get out of this Catch 22? It's hard toagain become a party of working, regular folks when taking in the oligarchy's bucks. That said, of course Soros does some good things. If he didn't, he wouldn't be so demonized the by the right.
I drove through Nebraska a couple of times!
The real problem is that "progressives" rarely envision the future consequences of their actions. Obama's war on coal put entire communities out of business---and for no good reason. We are so short sighted that we don't remember the climate fluctuations of the past, and we refuse to plan for the changes we can forsee. We didn't build adequate dikes in New Orleans; we won't manage tinder dry forests in California; we let people rebuild houses that flood repeatedly on the banks of the Mississippi river. And on and on....so we blame all these personal, historic failures on Trump or "climate change" (since Global Warming turned out to be lots of really cold weather and deeper snow.) Let's start planning for a DIFFERENT tomorrow, using the resources we already have.
1
@Bill Clayton I’d like to believe you are arguing in good faith. But it is hard to believe when you speak of “Obama’s war on coal.” The biggest reason coal plants are unprofitable is that there are already cheaper and cleaner alternatives, with or without Obama-era regulations. Trump is pleading for the TVA to keep old coal plants open—and in vain. If THAT’S not interference with the free market, then I don’t know what is.
1
The real truth is that if the Congressional committee system functions, the proposals will be modified and compromised until a final bill comes out.
That's what we're supposed to want and be working for isn't it? A functioning Congress and democracy.
1
Bob
Totally. That's how our government should work. Two opposing positions and policies that end up in a compromise that no one likes but everyone can live with. Unfortunately these days on the right if they don't have the ogres to pass their bill they simply don't allow any bill to move forward.
1
The sad truth is that avoiding the worst effects of climate change probably would require a drastic and immediate change in our use of fossil fuels but that the problem is so overwhelming and the fixes would have to be on such a grand scale that it won’t happen in time. I’m afraid if we calmly take our time, as Mr. Stephens suggests, there won’t be much left to save in the future.
4
"Or should we think of climate change roughly the same way we think about global poverty — a serious problem we can work patiently to solve without resort to extreme measures"?
Bret Stephens here shows that he does not understand the science of climate change. Unlike social and economic problems, climate change is both cumulative and essentially irreversible in its effects. The changes we are experiencing now are due to emissions from roughly 20 years ago; the green house gasses being emitted now will have their effects roughly 20 years in the future. Moreover, there are numerous tipping points that can bring about rapid and irreversible (on a human scale) changes to our environment. Unlike social problems, you cannot do a "do over" with climate change. Working patiently and gradually to solve the problem of climate change would have been possible 30, 20, or even possibly 10 years ago; it is not an option now. This does not mean that we should not do what we can now because even lessening the current future effects is better than not doing so. Switching almost entirely to renewable energy, subsidizing farmers who grow vegetables rather than meat and dairy farmers, using compost instead of artificial fertilizers, etc - all these things are perfectly doable, if we want to.
In the meantime, the New Green Deal has done what it was supposed to- make people at least think about the very real problem of climate change.
in the meantime,
5
That human-caused environmental damage is likely to reshape the natural world is not a proven fact, but a pretty convincing possibility with an enormously catastrophic outcome if true. Unfortunately, it appears to be the sort of problem that humans have not evolved to handle.
Whether out of individual ignorance, greed, or apathy, it is clear we're not going to approach it on a scale that will have any effect. Most of us know we'll be dead before true catastrophe arrives, if it ever does. Thus, it's not our problem. From a high minded moral point of view that's shameful, but we're just animals. We're lucky we have the conceptual powers to even see the problem coming but it's clear we don't have the neurology to forestall it.
Building sea walls around cities is more than pointless if the changes fundamentally alter the survival of sea life, insects, and chlorophyllic plants. Like the proverbial lemmings, we are helplessly heading for the cliff. Get over it -- and hope the drop is only 6 feet.
5
I'm sorry. I omitted that there are billions of people struggling to get by that have few options for taking action on environmental issues. Ignorance, greed, or apathy don't even come into play until you have some excess resources.
The Green New Deal is a counterpoint to today obsession with political power. Solving climate change means that we must transcend politics; it is the only way forward. To think we can solve climate change by working within the confines of our current political dynamics, institutions and economics is ludicrous.
The millennials and younger generations intuitively already know this and understand that it's this system that created this problem. For far too long, this country has allowed the populous to vote on whether they want to eat their broccoli. Time and time again we vote for pizza instead and then wonder why we are so unhealthy. The limits of democracy are indeed being tested. In the end, with insect and animal extinctions accelerating, food shortages, cities underwater, and millions dead will it be consolidation enough to know we decided our own fate?
4
I have just finished reading Bret Stephens editorial and he has convinced me that Nancy Pelosi may not be doing enough about climate change. I was not aware that this might be the case, and will certainly write to her. There is not much time left to do something really substantive about the worst danger our civilization has ever faced.
9
It is laughable to witness how far a conservative like Bret has come on climate change. Apparently he believes its happening and something must be done to combat it. That's quite a bit of rational thinking for a conservative. And so, notwithstanding Bret's scurrilous attack on Speaker Pelosi with the requisite false equivalencies, the drift left towards rational thought continues!
5
We are dealing with a problem so severe that it requires the political and economic equivalent of war socialism. We're also dealing with the political reality that a significant portion of the country refuses to acknowledge that problem.
6
We are a conservative, shortsighted nation. We don't like change and resist it. Unless we perceive an immediate benefit for ourselves.
Yet less beneficial change is going on all the time, whether we like it or not, much of which we cause ourselves. This is cognitive dissonance on a national scale. We wait until the wildfire reaches our doorstep before we reach for a bucket.
The thing that worries me most about climate change isn't the science and physics of it, it's our own nature I fear will doom us.
5
Twenty-six billion per year in US fossil fool subsidies... Give 52 cities $500 million each to build and operate solar panel plants, free of charge to end user. That would be a start at NO COST. California could add another several billion dollars a year if it imposed an oil and natural gas severance tax like every other state. Impose a "wrecking the planet" tax surcharge of 10% on all oil company profits and that's another $10 billion a year. Pretty soon, as Tip O'Neill put it, we're talking about some real money.
6
While I agree with everything this article speaks to regarding the green new deal being as massive and expensive as every other proposal from the far left I wish that in articles like this the author would suggest some alternatives. Do the leg work and find out what does work what we could do without taxing every American out of their lives.
This column has not faced the possibility, more and more a conviction among many seriously engaged on this matter, that liberal democracy is not capable of dealing with this life or death for humanity problem. Liberal democracy, not the political smarts of environmentalists is on trial.
3
In my opinion(Also not being a Canadian I can't speak directly to this with you) democracy has served us well for hundreds of years. We need to renovate our democracy for the 21st century and challenges the founders could never have imagined(like climate change). Fortunately the founders were forward thinking enough to make our constitution a document that can be modified and added to until the end of time. The constitution is a living document that is meant to evolve as our culture does, not be this stagnant old thing in a museum. The founders envisioned this dynamic ever evolving experiment in freedom. What we have is alot of dusty paper and very little dynamism(again i speak of the US constitution but Canada has a similar governing document though I have honestly no idea what it says).
2
@Wayne Hankey
If the alternative is some new form of green Communism- you can keep it.
Brett,
You are quick to condemn, the Democratic Policy that is still in the working stage of the Green New Deal. Much as everyone jumped on the ACA, before they recognized the good beginning and the access to Healthcare for tens of thousands of Americans, which now stands teetering on the brink of extinction.
What exactly is the Republican Policy or do they even have a policy, other than to enrich the benefactors? Yes they did quickly pass the magical tax law that did just that. But not Environment nor Healthcare, could it be that their donors would need to pay more in taxes? Taxes are our shared commitment for together we can.
2
Carol:
You're right it is a work in progress and as a liberal and a lifelong Democrat I appreciate that it's just that. My problem is that it doesn't start at a place that will enable compromise at the end. The green new deal is like build the wall. At the end of the day it's so far away from the universe the opposition lives in that it would be impossible to actually create a bill around it. Climate change is a big deal and it needs to be addressed so we can either work on a deal that has a remote chance even of passing either house or we can be part of the climate change problem. No American is going to support austerity for any reason even to save their lives.
The fundamental problem with the Green New Deal is not excessive "green" ambition, it is that it ties this ambition to various money grabs.
Imagine saying in 1942 that we need to go fight the Axis powers, but only if everyone involved is guaranteed a job for life with collective bargaining. It would be fair to wonder if the average person would conclude that it must not be such an emergency if the proponents only want to do it for a fatter paycheck.
There is a counter-argument. Many wealthy people care about global warming, and many do not care much about helping a large percentage of workers. This is one of the few levers for workers to achieve some form of redistribution.
The implication is that a lot of people will push for various "green" policies and then make sure the goals that motivated them are never achieved. We are unlikely to get lasting climate change policies until they are decoupled from efforts at mass income redistribution as much as possible (obviously, people doing work on these initiatives will get paid, and many of them paid very well). This might also be why the GND includes high-speed rail (very costly, would take decades to build and might sit mostly unused), but not nuclear power - which would clearly work.
Halting climate change is as much about behavior as policy. Profiteers have no legitimacy to call for the needed personal sacrifices.
Alan
I appreciate your perspective and I see that for the most part your points are valid. On high speed rail and nuclear power however I wanted to present an opposing view.
I have lived in cities with mass transit and light rail systems and what I have seen is whee they are built they are used by large numbers. Denver, definitely a city of cars(i was there yesterday) where their freeways are so congested from massive legal Marijuana population growth that traffic rarely moves at full speed on I-25 anytime of day, has light rails and busses that are packed all times of day. I think a High Speed Rail System would be good for the country and also something those mass transit users would use alot. The trick.is to seamlessly integrate it with local mass transit like they have in LA and SF for the new bullet.
The Inverse is of course that nuclear power is too dangerous and is totally unnecessary to remove us from our dependence on fossil fuels. Wind hydro solar combined provide all the energy we need and they don't produce nuclear waste. Also there are new technologies like algae to generate energy there are so many zero polluting options to solve our energy needs that to consider something so polluting as to need to store waste in casks buried underground for half a millenia is not needed at all and is in my opinion just as bad as fossil fuels if not worse.
2
@Kevin Queen
Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
I was running up against a character limit so I did not distinguish between commuter rail and long-distance passenger rail. Commuter rail in various forms makes sense in a lot of places - particularly those with traffic problems. It can be a reasonable public investment if it is not abused too much. I used both the "El" (a subway-ish network) and Metra (a commuter railroad) extensively when I lived in Chicago and they were vastly superior to driving or the bus. Intercity rail, which would require an enormous up-front investment, long lead time, and might be just slightly better than a car, bus or plane once it is built, is very likely to be a disaster of an investment in most places.
Nuclear energy is far from ideal, but it also can scale up much faster than any of the renewable technologies. I see it as a bridge that will help to force out coal (and some gas) and "buy time" until the technologies you list can meet demand in a world that will likely have electric building heat and electric cars. It is possible that such a bridge is unnecessary, but I do not know enough other than to say it seems like there is significant risk that it is and that it seems like the downside of climate change is far worse than the downside of storing some more nuclear waste, but I expect a reasonable case could be made either way.
1
The Green New Deal is not a plan; it's a wish list that would require a complete re-structuring of our civilization in the next decade. Furthermore, most supporters of the Green New Deal are against nuclear power, a carbon-free energy source that currently accounts for 20% of the electricity generated in this country, and a much higher percentage in many states. They actually want to shut these plants down, and replace them with renewable energy. Many of the Green New Dealers are also against hydro-power, another clean energy source that provides 65% of the electric power in the state of Washington.
I agree with Nancy Pelosi. It seems that there was little thought or planning done before this "plan" was rolled out. It risks alienating not only climate change skeptics, but reasonable, science-based climate change believers.
3
And, this is why Establishment politicians, beholden to their corporate masters, on both sides of the aisle, have to go!
4
What Nancy Pelosi is afraid of is the Dem party becoming the next Green "TEA Party" and diluting the party's steady and intended goals. 2020 elections are less than two years off. Anyone with the type of experience Pelosi has realizes what it takes to pass things in Washington. And it is slow. But Pelosi has proved it can be done. Look at Trump and the wall. Right now we are in damage control with our current Republican leadership. That is the job at hand. Get this Constitution shredding Republican President and party out. Meanwhile.....
AOC and other inexperienced young and ambitious leaders, anxious to make their mark, would be better off soliciting open-minded business leaders and making them realize that under a Democratic President and Congress. That the big money going forward will be in renewable energy and green jobs, offering a brighter future for our young voters and future leaders. That is where AOC should be plying her new found trade and energy. Pelosi is majority leader. Let her lead the party. She knows.
1
Mr. Stephens is in favour of making "large-scale investments in climate resilience, such as better coastal defenses". Why conservatives are always in favour of spending money on the consequences but not on the causes of climate change? Is it because it will allow their cherished fossil fuel industry to continue to cause the problem in the first place?
3
Managing climate change is a far-off dream. Capitalism and the ways of old are not going to happen in a lifetime. I am resigned to the fact that climate will have to damage capitalism so much that they will eventually strive to change in order to protect themselves against the world which they created. One thing obvious is that they have to live in this same world as even the most impoverished. No one escapes climate change and there will be fewer and fewer places to hide. The laws of physics will always correct any imbalance and maybe provide proof that there is a God.
1
You start with a big vision and end up with a compromise closer to your goals. You start with a modest plan and end with a compromise that nobody likes and pay a heavy political price. The best example is Obama care. If the Democrats would have started with a single payer blue print we might have ended with a public option and not a bill that benefit the insurance and drug industries and the Republicans taking over congress.
3
The Green New Deal does at least bring climate change policies back into the national conversation.
That’s a start.
We have to rid ourselves from the presidential antics and tweets that dominate the media and talk of town.
It’s a weirdo show with rapidly declining ratings
I am hopeful we will over the next two years pay more attention to solving real problems that will improve our society and prevent harm.
The Green New Deal is just a rough draft but a comprehensive one.
It’s not enough to make little adjustments to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The core of the Green New Deal is justice and fairness for all, humans and life on earth.
That’s a vision we should embrace and work towards it together.
3
Bret Stephens appears to believe that climate change may be real but it’s no big deal, something we can work away at bit by bit. While some of the goals in the GND are unrelated to climate change or are not feasible in the timeline suggested, it is a realistic outline of what we, and the rest of the world, need to do to slow down or even reverse clumate change. Scientific evidence is not just suggesting climate change is real, it is proving climate change is occurring rapidly and is about to overwhelm us!
Mr. Stephens suggests that we prepare to live with these effects rather than take steps to avert them. Is this really the world we want to leave to our children? Are we so selfish that we will ignore all the warnings nature has given: droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, huge swings in temperatures? This is a NOW problem that we must recognize and fight.
3
Mr. Stephens has left out an important financial truth in the way we develop public policy. The money interests that thrive in our existing environmental policies are much stronger than those seeking to change it. Money and is he stays who it supports wins in our public arena until it finally loses because of undeniable facts, consistent pressure from advocates and some undeniable horror, i. e. , civil rights, AIDS, tobacco, opioids, nuclear accidents and on and on.
1
Climate change has become a religion, including creeds, priests, and inquisitions. It no longer has anything to do with science. Politicians who refuse to prostrate themselves before the alter will suffer the consequences.
2
@Greg To the contrary, it is the denialists who have staked out a religious, or ideological, position. I have heard some denialists state that climate change is not happening at all; others, that it is happening but is completely natural; yet others state it is actually good for life on earth; and finally, still others admit that it is human-driven, and bad, but now it is too late and too expensive to change our ways. No matter what, the conclusion is always the same: stick to business as usual. How do you have the brass to accuse *others* of taking a “religious” position on this issue?
4
@Stephen
Yup, as scientific evidence has accumulated in the last 20 years, liberals and progressives have increasingly recognized that climate change is real and urgent; on the contrary, although the right wing increasingly recognizes climate change is real, the 15% who say it is serious has not changed in 20 years:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/consensus-emerges-climate-change-debate-n950646
Mr. Stephens, thank you for inviting your readership to adopt a partisan view, where Mother Nature is looking her best this early morning, icy and clad in sunlight in our Green Valley.
Whether one is a socialist, communist, liberal or conservative, weather exchanges bring us together. It is time to address many matters that impact on our Nation, and the Honorable Pelosi is standing as a lighthouse, averting our country from a possible shipwreck.
Our president is distraught over the delay in building his wall, losing the respect of some powerful media voices who have him under their thumb and control. Trump is no Ulysses of mythology, who was able to hear at sea the chanting of sirens and returned safely to his home.
'Even liberals worry that the GND is trying to bite off more than we can chew. Only time will tell if something like the GND will become the law of the land - and many greens are keeping their fingers crossed' - (EarthTalk)
A reminder to wear layers when venturing out, while preparing for the Green Parade in mid-March, not so long away.
1
I must admit that a good number of friends say and post the right things but then jet around the eorld for fun as if they were climate change deniers. For me the fundamental truth is that if we treat blunting or reversing climate change as a matter of personal virtue we'll have a "Tragedy of the Commons." Therefore we need national action at the legislative and regulatory level, with upstream solutions for better design and sourcing of energy and materials.
3
If Nancy Pelosi had jumped on every bandwagon over the last 30 years, she'd still be a backbencher. She's just not built that way after watching her father in Baltimore, and then wading into micro-factious San Francisco politics.
At least some of the new Democratic plans are aspirational - seems like that's what made America's 20th century leadership so compelling, and what makes the anaphylactic reaction so disappointing. Is anyone really against clean air & water and predictable food supplies, and for wildfires, blizzards and rising sea levels? Seems like every voice has to go to "11" right away, without listening to all the facts and others' opinions.
The problem is that the Green New Deal sounds like an advertising slogan.
Going green will soon be mainstream. Most will follow the numbers. It's the human way.
There will be no "positive and bipartisan result, " Bret. That won't happen unless Mitch McConnell gets coal miner's disease or Mar a Lago is under ten feet of water.
Climate change is a national emergency for my children and grandchildren. Yours too.
Civil rights had to be shoved down the throats of the old segregationists. Climate change will have to be shoved down the throats of the deniers.
2
Ah yes...
Age vs Youth.
The superannuated anachronisms who run the world are a luxury the planet cannot afford.
Trillions of dollars? A small price.
1
Natural phenomena are not the cause of climate change. It is caused by human actions. Any scientist can tell you that the glaciers that were a mile deep 8000 years ago over where I live, melted because early man used campfires carelessly.
Bret Stephens uses the term alien invasion in this article. If beings from other planets ever visited earth, their very advanced scientific abilities would preclude violence, war or destruction. Only humans will destroy the only home we have (Earth) and continue wars with each other at the same time. We not only need a green new deal, we need to leave greed and fear behind and mature as a species.
Though your piece is well written, you still follow the denialist playbook religiously. If we propose a gradual approach, you call us hypocrites; if we propose an ambitious approach, you call us kooks. It’s like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book, but one where denialists somehow always land on the same page: business as usual. And when the consequences become impossible to deny, denialists will turn on a dime and blame scientists for not doing enough to warn us.
1
You say "It shouldn't be hard to make the case to conservatives..." for some kind of incremental, relatively pain free way of dealing with climate change. You're the one who's dreaming. The fact is, anything that threatens the bottom line for the giant lemmings who rule a capitalist system will simply not be tolerated. Wake up, Bret. A dramatic change in the way humans live their lives on this planet is needed or soon we'll all be paying the price -- "conservatives" included.
1
Democrats are virtually always liberals and environmental zealots - until these ideologies threaten their power & money. Tell Nancy she’ll pay 70% rates and suddenly she’ll become a conservative even if she doesn’t openly admit it. Just look at all of the wealthy liberals who suddenly have found much to dislike about AOC’s ‘green new deal’.
1
The GND people are perhaps "ahead of the curve;" however the "curve" is catching up. Then people like Pelosi and Stephens will be scrambling to "catch up." Hopefully it won't be too late.
2
Thank you for a new installment of bizarre observations without any concern for causes.
While democrats have no constituency that matters, republicans have built a solid phalanx. The self-satisfied smugness of democrats - who are quick to throw a hissy fit, disengage, and pout - is no match for the raw blood lust of the republicans. Nancy can do, only so much.
Deep ethno religious nationalism, and open warfare on environment, justice, and education - as is now apparent - are default options of America's population. We define progress in terms of how many people we can render miserable, for how long, and how much. As long as residents of Flint are drinking poison, and rural boys are dying in far off lands - we Americans are pretty happy.
We have indeed made our choices, Nancy can only do so much. We don't want access to healthcare. We don't want a clean environment. We don't want infrastructure. We don't want justice or education. Because we want healthcare only for ourselves (no one else), a clean neighborhood (which is meaningless unless you are living in filth and drinking brown water), or infrastructure only between where I live and where I work (because then you will come to where I live). I want education just for my children (because your uneducated children are my vote bank; and they must hate whom I tell them to hate). We want justice for us in a way that guarantees injustice for others.
Nancy, therefore, can only do so much. You should know this.
1
So the conservative climate skeptic himself is skeptical the lack of skepticism in the climate position of a political opponent? Not really. Reminds me of “Seinfeld”, which you will recall, was an entertaining comedy about nothing.
1
A bait and switch from our esteemed opinion columnist. Our President calls Climate Change a hoax. Our GOP Senators' PACs are underwritten by the great polluters, the Koch Brothers. Our GOP Senators have rolled back rules to help heal the planet. Our GOP Senators want to drill, drill, drill. But Mr. Stephens tries to call out Nancy Pelosi as insufficiently invested? Nice try, but no cigar.
2
Interesting that you mention the Sierra Club. They actively promote national and international trips for hiking and other "self-fulfilling" vacations, and their hypocrisy about the air travel it takes (with resultant pollution) to get to the destinations is just amazing.
I can understand a conservative person who doesn't care about causing pollution for gratuitous reasons, but the Sierra Club?
That just shows there's plenty of hypocrisy going around - it's not exclusive to any single political viewpoint.
The Green New Deal conversation is the natural and appropriate result of the bi-elections. It’s a foot in the door that was locked. It’s turning a big light on a necessary conversation. And the prospects are that it’s more right than wrong. We can reject the warnings like we tried on the eve of WW II or not even pay attention to them, as Bush did before 911, but this is science and the data are showing increasingly that climate change is a reality knocking down the door. For those who don’t like the world-wide refugee crises, look to climate change. For those who think the civil war in Syria was only about Assad and power politics in the Middle East, look to years of drought. For those who want to build a wall, look to climate change (and read about the emperor Justinian’s useless wall against the Slavs). Increments won’t work. A massive reconfiguring of all infrastructure is what’s necessary... and even then it may be too late. Miami IS flooding. So are Boston, and Jakarta, and the San Francisco Bay. You are not going to get there by raising car mileage or increasing solar and wind generation. It’s about carbon consumption: everything from plastics to gas.
While talking of economic "justice," and new taxes generating radical amounts of money, the Green New Deal ignores full restitution for slavery, in effect, relegating all of slavery's descendants to the back of the bus, again. No thanks.
2
Stephens’ hopelessness is typical of a conservative. It’s a lack of political imagination. Sometimes things can move quickly. The Washington state referendum was poisoned by huge oil company spending on propaganda. In a larger field that may or may not work. Trump has destroyed his party’s credibility. Your reading is behind the times.
2
Climate change means change, not doom? Uhhh, I think climate driven sixth extinction meets any reasonable standard of doom as only one example.
1
Climate change is a lot more of an emergency than the dwindling number of illegal immigrants coming across our border with Mexico. I personally would not be in a state of panic if the government was at least moving in the right direction.
What Mr. Stephens seems go believe is that we can deal with this problem with a plant mister. All I can say, as a political realist, is that Government is doing nothing, in fact it is doing less than nothing and the longer we wait to take action the more drastic measures we will need to take in the future. That is the choice. If you are interested in saving capitalism and peaceful democratic society you had better become a climate activist now while you have a chance. Or maybe you are so angry at climate activist that you are willing to spray gasoline on the fire and cut off your nose despite your face.
1
Mr. Stephens mocks the Green New Deal for costing trillions of dollars ---- but how many more trillions will it cost to re-locate New York and other coastal cities inland when sea levels rise 20+ feet? Calling that a "manageable problem" is burying your head in the sand. The GND is a rational investment that will pay enormous dividends in future savings.
2
“Fuhgeddaboudit”
Pelosi is misreading this.
The so-called “political reality"is changing with the climatic one. Pelouse can get in front of it and do the work, or she can weigh it down and suffer the effects.
1
Pelosi is too pragmatic to support a vague program until it is distilled into a bill with widespread public support.
Bret Stephens suggests the GND could include sanctions against China or other countries to bring them onboard. Two problems with Stephens's view is that China has signed Paris, and anti-China policies that hinder growth will force it to scale back investment in clean energy.
3
In 1905, 236 million metric tons of coal were mined in Great Britain giving us a crude estimate of when we began fouling our collective nest. Over the ensuing 100 plus years, we have raised the human capacity to disrupt the environment to an art form.
Power generation has generally provided much of the planet's citizens lives healthier, more comfortable and less dangerous lives. So, the question is: can we entirely reverse the planetary environmental mess we've taken so long to create in any number of years through concerted global planning and corrective action?
The answer is a simple no.
Which leads to the conclusion we simply must adapt to survive. It's what we, as a species, do. Definitely, we can harness alternate, renewable energy sources. We can build more efficient transportation systems that attract more commuters and travelers than reliance on today's planes, trains, and automobiles. But even given the long-shot odds, we cannot afford the luxury of ignoring the problem.
The New Green Deal is too ambitious to be passed as a major legislative initiative. Saying no, never, is however kicking the can down the road aimed squarely at our kids and grandkids teeth.
Pelosi is part of a fading group of legislators who seem to actually read legislation rather than tweeting about it. This attribute is dismissed by progressives in their ageist “out of touch,” “we need the next generation” narrative. But the t-shirts say it all - these people feel they have the “right” (translation “entitled”) to a new job, not the “right” to work hard and earn a job fairly. The Green Deal is just a progressive temper tantrum, and augurs poorly for what this next generation will do to the country.
1
There will come a time soon when inaction becomes more costly than action. If home property insurance exceeds affordability for both new and existing buildings due to their
rising flood risk, a real-estate collapse induced depression will ensue affecting not only homeowners but construction in affected areas. Due to the nature of insurance, everyone gets an increase to keep insurers solvent. How about 100% increases?
Mitigating the risk of flood becomes an imperative to avoid severe economic risk. This speaks nothing to the lives of those living in the affected areas – which our society will always ignore.
That attitude is best exemplified by former Florida governor Rick Scott, who banned the use of the term climate change in his domain. Floridians rewarded his stance with a Senate seat.
Hopeless? Yes.
2
Notice that in this piece, Mr. Stephens doesn't actually try to *prove* that climate change isn't a drastic issue. He just takes it as a given that whether or not the ocean will swallow Miami in his childrens' lifetimes is a matter of "belief" with two opposing sides, when virtually all research on the topic indicates that we're dead-set on that path if we do nothing. Stephens goes on to point to Pelosi's statement as proof that his "belief" is winning, without having proven that this even is a topic where beliefs or differing interpretations can come into play.
In truth, he can't argue that climate change doesn't demand the radical action of the GND because there's no evidence to support that thesis. It really is that bad, people. As this very paper published earlier this week, the GND is what realistic, to-scale climate policy looks like.
Framing climate change in a language of "beliefs" -- whether through denying the issue is real, or denying that humans caused it, or now denying the problem's seriousness --- is a fallacy that has been the linchpin of conservative pushback to climate action for over a decade. When virtually every scientist who studies the issue says "yes, it really is that bad," Stephens shouldn't get to pooh-pooh that as a matter of different opinions. Yet he needs to if he hopes to dismiss the GND as unneeded radicalism. So in this column, he just refused to offer any proof for the core of his thesis, and the Paper Of Record let him get away with it.
Any serious attempt at reducing climate problems would focus on India and China, and their expanding use of coal power, which the Times discussed in an under appreciated article several months ago. (US CO2 emissions are actually dropping because of fracking and its production of cheap, clean natural gas...thank you capitalism!) The Chinese and the Indians only care about cheap power, and think that "climate change" is a subterfuge by rich nations to keep them down. If AOC and her comrades really were serious they would, as Brett points out, try to impose sanctions on those countries. But in reality the left only seeks to control the commanding heights of the economy. Green is indeed the new red.
1
@Achilles
Imposing sanctions is an easy change to make and implement. To not be viewed is hypocritical, the U.S. would have to have taken strong actions to reduce its emissions of green house gases.
Its hard to take a realistic multi discipline approach to climate change in the United States when the opposition comes from self interest and bad faith. The best example is coal based electrical systems. There is nothing good about using coal, we’ve known that for decades, even before the emphasis on climate change. Its not even cheap when you reckon the governmental subsidies and the health and environmental costs into the price. Yet here we are arguing about coal still with the president acting as a cheerleader for a fuel source that remains among the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. If we can’t work out ending just coal then how will we reach a workable consensus on the harder choices? How can we even discuss market and government based solutions when dishonest actors like the Koch’s muddy the waters with lies and redirection and fossil fuel flunkies own the process. I get it, humanity has a hard time with multi generational challenges and the complexity of environmental systems. But coming to an understanding and addressing humanity’s many challenges is less likely when powerful influences undermine the discussion out of short term interests and greed. We can do better than we are without straying into apocalyptic rhetoric or dismissive reaction, but the bad faith of climate change denial must be marginalized by Bret’s compadres if we’re ever going to get to actually creating solutions to this very real challenge we’re facing.
2
One could advance the idea that Bret Stephens is indeed an action oriented individual with a plan to reduce fossil fuel usage through reducing the supply, boosting the cost & curbing usage. This would be accomplished by bomb, bomb, bombing Iran. Is he an ally in the fight against climate change or what?
As for Nancy Pelosi, in his view, she like Donald Trump, is mostly wrong until she's right. The cave bears & saber toothed tigers are never far away. Best to stay armed & dangerous. Strength through exploitation. It's how we got where we are. Every conservative sees himself or herself in the final analysis as a combat engineer. At least through fantasy. Keep on trekkin.
@Apple Jack But AJ, doesn't the disaster formula coincide with the far seeing, portending progressive Koch Bros., a finger in every dike, virtual inventors of the hedge concept, presence felt on every continent, mortal, yet content with Pharoanic treasure vis a vis rising prices, phase out, etc.
Yeah, you got me there. Agreed.
Well I take this as faint praise for Mrs. Pelosi, who obviously is not a climate denier, nor one to argue against government policies that create a more just and safe society. The Green Dream is a potpourri of ideas about such policies. It will play an important role in determining how we deal with this emergency. It will gain more adherents as the harm becomes more evident and personal. Mr. Stephens offers nothing but the glib change happens, deal with it trope. I'd prefer he tell us what harm he expects from the change, and what he would do to address it?
2
At least we should acknowledge the problem as if it is real because it is. That one simple action will make an enormous difference in how people act. Limit trips by planning ahead,
bicycling or walking when possible, and trying to find housing close to your job are easy changes to make. At least we should implement progressive taxes to help fund the needed changes and to allow people to retrain for new jobs. We should have mileage standards for cars, and energy efficiency. We can fund research. There are so many steps to be taken that are not that expensive. It takes time to get a major program started. Lets at least acknowledge the problem and begin.
A much more informed op-ed piece on climate change appeared alongside this article in the print version of the NYTimes titled, "The Green New Deal's Realism" by Jedediah Britton-Purdy. In that article Purdy rightly points out that governments always direct subsidies and government aid towards infrastructure that impacts our environment. The oil industry exists today because the government decided to build roads across America and not railroads or mass transit. Oil companies along with ag-businesses receive billions in subsidies that support what they do. (That's socialism Bret) All of this creates jobs. The Green New Deal will also be an engine for job growth and private enterprise as well as the US shifts its policies and directions to confront a growing crisis. This is called mobilization and we are always mobilizing for something. Right now, we're mobilizing to increase extraction drilling of fossil fuels. When, and if, a New Green Deal begins to be implemented our mobilization will shift, new companies will be born, new jobs will be created, and new infrastructure will be built. It's ambitious but if the human race is not going to go the way of the dinosaurs it must adapt. Putting bandages (carbon taxes) on a cancerous plague is not going to solve it. The question that remains is can the human political system adapt or are we condemned to fail because human nature is such that it couldn't adapt. We shall see.
3
Mr. Stephens is so churlish and cynical that responding is difficult. Regardless of his wishful thinking, the Green New Deal will continue to attract more and more attention, thanks in no small part to his attempts to dismiss it.
And, so far, “dynamic market economies” are not necessarily making it easier to deal with climate change. Au contraire.
1
Nancy Pelosi was right to rebut the socialist radical Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who is bent on redistributing (read confiscating) the wealth, all the failures of such measures in history to the contrary notwithstanding.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi still represents the rational core of the US political parties that has been lately under attack from the extreme left, as well as the extreme right.
1
Your binary breakdown leaves out a third analysis: that climate change is a true emergency, but one that can’t be dealt with by tinkering around the edges (I drive a hybrid car and bike when I can and am still responsible for far more CO2 than I would like to be) and that our current politics won’t address as long as one party is prepared to ignore or discount its effects for as long as they can get away with it. Under that analysis, activists are not engaging in what you dismiss as “feckless virtue-signaling” but are doing their best to keep a politically impossible idea alive until the day arrives, as it has many times before, when the impossible becomes inevitable.
4
I think Pelosi will reign in the freshmen to a degree, and it is not as if the proponents of the deal actually expect to meet their 10, 15, or 20 year goals. But it is a starting point, and if you engage people, however extreme your topic, it spawns talking points.
The unfortunate reality about climate change is that it’s worse - far worse - than Bret and most Americans realize. The “practical”, “politically feasible”, and “bipartisan” solutions will never secure close to the level of action required to stave off catastrophe.
The answer is changing the political feasibility, which we already have seen happen with the GND. I’m a climate policy professional - the radical plans are the only actual plans to tackle this.
The climate policies considered radical now will be conservative in 20-30 years, and it’s important to try to internalize that. We have a reality-shifting problem on our hands.
2
Stephens might be more a more plausible climate pundit if he yielded his ideological agenda to the only actual authorities on the matter. One assumes he entrusts his medical care to science-based practitioners...or does he also sort them ideologically as well?
1
I'm not sure what the answer here. We're dealing with the human problem, so well articulated, if not intentionally, in this article, that humans are so adaptable right up to the collapse of their societies. I bet if it was determined that a meteor was going to hit New York City in 6 months, folks like Mr. Stephens would argue that this might not be the time to evacuate and that there was always the possibility that the meteor might break up or veer off course. If that's a possibility why expend all that money and effort to move people out of the city and besides where would they go? Science has already determined as best it can, there is no control planet, that global environmental degradation, including climate change, is moving us towards catastrophe and this time it is the whole planet. We can't move or mass migrate as humans have done so often in the past, when they have degraded their land beyond repair. Our greatest strength, adaptability, is also our greatest weakness, we adapt and make excuses right up until its too late.
3
Mr. Stephens has his smug head buried in the sand. I listen to what scientists say in the UN-IPCC report, our own National Climate Assessment, Michael Mann, James Hansen et al. Empirically it should be obvious to anyone who has a set of eyes and a half functioning brain that climate disruption is upon us. The Green New Deal is a pragmatic response to the climate crisis we are in otherwise our ability to live in an organized civil manner will be severely tested (just ask the pentagon) in a few decades.
1
What Stephens elides here (to borrow his concept) is that NO ONE knows (meaning informed scientists) just how bad climate changes will be under the present trajectory. Will it "merely" be seriously inconvenient (the more equatorial and poor your nation, the more "inconvenient") or so disruptive as to threaten many indicia of what we currently think of as civilized existence. Given the uncertainty, a prudent person would err on the side of caution, taking whatever measures necessary to at least keep temperature increase under the 1.5 degrees Celsius now thought, by scientific consensus, to be the level beyond which problems go from "inconvenient" to possibly "catastrophic." If Repubs cannot lose their obeisance to the fossil fuel industry, their science denialism, and their objection to collective action taken for any reason other than war or commerce, they cannot be part of any solution to the climate problem. No attempt by Stephens to make the current inaction seem somehow logical will save he and his fellow travelers from what may one day be a devastating verdict of history for those who chose to obfuscate the issue, their heads buried securely in the sand.
1
Americans and especially the Press have forgotten that Obama, was always a creature and mouthoiece of coal industries in his neck of the woods. At the time he was a senator, it clearly seemed most important to ensure more energy and more energy jobs , especially for black voters in Illinois. As a lawyer, Obama never would have had the (STEM) education or understanding to realize what is different about the "climate" problem from issues like jobs, , attracting big industry to one's state or foreign policy. Essentially, Obama was an early 20th or late 19th century pol in arapidly evolving world. I doubt if other powerful Democrats are any better informed on this subject then their GOP opponents. This is a reason why most of my own friends thought the election of moderate to right wing Obama ,was the closest thing to the Second Coming they could imagine.
In fact, Obama was little different from Bill CLinton or the two Bush Presidents. In the end, he will vanish into Presidential History like numerous GOP Presidents chosen to do as little as possible.
"Those who believe climate change will become irreversible, uncontrollable and catastrophic in a few years should get to work on their fallout shelters."
Stephens doesn't quite get it.
There are no "fallout shelters" for climate change.
8
The Green New Deal: Easy to criticize, not so easy to just dismiss.
6
I know the GOP is licking their chops over the burst of progressivism idealism coming out of our new freshman class of representatives---and, Mr. Stephens is correct, the country is not ready for the cost or inconvenience of a Green New Deal. Now, having said that, Mr. Stephens assumes that climate change is manageable---that gradualists policies, implemented over time, will ameliorate the extreme climate conditions were are all experiencing in all parts of the country. Sounds sensible...The problem of course, is that the game is over already---all national and international reports on this issue say the same thing--our race with mother nature is essentially over---we, no, not we, our grandchildren are losers---They will be living a life very differently than we are now experiencing in ways we cannot even imagine, primarily because our generation made the realists decision to go lite on climate change.
3
The thesis of the Times climate magazine issue last year was fairly succinct; democratic societies are psychologically unable to deal with climate change. The same magazine came remarkably short in describing what real climate policy might look like. The Green New Deal is exactly that and is not only proof that what it proposes is nearly impossible to achieve (on its stated timeframe) but politically untenable. Democracies are not only psychologically unable to take on climate change, but politically as well. Short of an eco-fascist agenda, because that's what is necessary, the American people will not tolerate such drastic changes to their own lives in the name of saving the global environment. Its long been clear from the environmental movement itself that the primary target was the corporations and big oil, never the consumers. Though who could ever be to blame? Eating local and flying less have always floated on the peripheries of the argument as feel good measures but never as real policy. And so the Green New Deal pitches the case and the public suddenly realizes who is going to have to make the sacrifices that always have had to be made. I've been an ardent environmentalist for most of my life but I've since lost hope on true climate progress in America. Baby steps will come, but the eco-revolution many of us had hoped for never had a chance.
3
Stop arguing and take action!
RIGHT NOW, in congress, there is a bill that that would have a dramatic effect on carbon pollution: the Energy Innovation and Dividend Act, HR 763.
Washington state voters rejected last year's carbon fee initiative because it was't clear how the funds were to be used! HR 763 takes the fees imposed on fossil fuels are returns them to all Americans via a monthly dividend check. This is consistent with the philosophy of the Green New Deal.
Read about H.R. 763 here: EnergyInnovationAct.Org.
Then contact your representatives and ask them to co-sponsor this bill.
How about we need a commitment to transition from fossil fuels to renewables and an agreed upon time scale for meeting the commitment?
We are already late in making the commitment. And a time scale that requires significant progress toward meeting the commitment in the coming decade, and making considerably more progress in the decade is not unreasonable.
That’s an engineer’s understanding of the meaning of a time scale.
And, that’s a proper reading of the point of the GND.
In the 1970s we passed strict pollution laws and polluting industries moved out of America and we imported the products. All we did was transfer the jobs and the pollution to China and India.
3
The GND is at once idealistic and unrealistic. But that doesn’t mean it should be dismissed. While much of it is impractical or flat unaffordable, it still addresses a real problem. There is no doubt global climate is changing and will impact everyone on the planet, but that impact, for most people, is far enough in the future that it is easier to ignore.
Plus, the effects most people will notice are just different weather. In the US, residents of northern states may think shorter, milder winters a good thing. Longer growing seasons can be a benefit. Meanwhile, people who have the Atlantic Ocean in their living rooms may feel differently.
Still. In America at least, humans react only to crises where there is a smoking gun. And no amount of scientific data about climate change will provide that to a populace that is either willfully ignorant or has not been directly affected by a changing climate. Unfortunately, wildfires, heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and visits from the polar vortex are not conclusively tied to climate change. So life goes on, and no one cares, especially if it might cost money or (gasp!) require a change in lifestyle.
The only way Americans will get behind any plan or program to address climate change will be if there are multiple disasters, demonstrably linked to climate change, one after another, for 2-3 years. And still, the 60% that remain skeptical will deny, whine and complain.
1
Let’s be honest, the Green New Deal idea was going to be ridiculed by the Republicans no matter what it said because it was advanced by Democrats. That’s how things work now. The far right has so poisoned their party that no idea from the other side can even be considered. On top of that, AOC was the face of it and she is not an old, rich, white man and therefore knows nothing. She is a socialist or whatever other name she can be tarred with.
It seems to me there are things we could do to begin moving in a greener direction. Why aren’t we moving to outfit houses across the sunbelt with solar panels? Why should we be burning fossil fuels any more than needed to mostly aircondition homes in the South? Besides those jobs in the Permian basin. There will probably be long term need for oil products. But those alone might not fuel the constant explosive growth in stocks.
Ground source geothermal is another way to heat homes in areas that are not as warm year around as the south. Couple solar and geothermal and homes could need very little power created by fossil fuel plants.
That is the real rub. The business of America is business. It’s more important to keep those dollars flowing by producing coal and oil than it is to worry about the environment or whether we are killing ourselves with greed. The short term mindset of American business, next quarterly report please, does not allow them to look long term and their bought and paid for minion in Congress follow along.
1
It would be funny if it weren't so serious that the Democrats have been taken over by the ultra progressive left wing. The policies of social reengineering, identity politics, income redistribution, government takeover of healthcare and hate the rich while ignoring any fiscal impact is the new litmus test.
The Party desperately needs an adult like Nancy Pelosi, Mike Bloomberg, or even Biden to bring things back to the center. Otherwise, welcome to Trump 2.0
4
The center? We have moved so far to the right Nixon, even Regan, would have a hard time being nominated by the Democrats because they are too far left.
The GND will never pass as written, it was never meant to. Anyone who has ever had to go into negotiations knows you don’t start with what you can accept, you shoot for the moon, otherwise you end up with a 5% increase in fuel efficiency over 20 years, read nothing.
If you're over 50, an incremental approach sounds reasonable.
If you're under 30, you will likely EXPERIENCE global climate change as the greatest crime against humanity in human history.
Resilience is to proactively respond to known threats. Any idea how the recently described insect armageddon will manifest? When we haven't even known about it until recently? Quick: what's the plan for "resilience?"
Please describe a concept of resilience that would apply to a significant crop failure that was unforeseen.
6
Mr. Stephens,
Other than pointing out the Ms. Pelosi is being very inconsistent, nothing you say makes the slightest sense. Leaving aside the problem that "dynamic market economies" will never get us anywhere with anything, most especially the climate, the fact is that climate change is different. It clearly requires a universal solution, and quickly. And hey, I don't even believe the climate models - but it's clear humans are warming the planet. Coastal defenses won't help. Unless someone comes up with a cheap way to scrub CO2 out of the air, or someone gets serious about geoengineering, everyones life is about to get much much harder. How exactly is your "dynamic market economy" going to deal with hundreds of millions of people forced to move from the coast, to mention just one problem. Miami will be underwater any minute. New York will flood badly every year. Political reality has nothing to do with this, climate change is what everyone used to think nuclear weapons were, humanity eliminating itself. Nuclear weapons were easy, climate change is hard.
3
It’s easy to describe the problem, Mr. Stephens. It’s quite another to choose a working solution. How, given the worst case scenario, is your solution—investing in climate “adaptation” and “protections” against extreme weather—any less expensive and unrealistic (not to mention insufficient to meet the scale of the problem) than that of the Green New Deal?
1
The Green New Deal is more frightening than anything Orwell could have dreamed up. The majority of Americans are finally willing to take on climate change and the Green New Deal is a major setback to the cause. If you want progress on climate change then don't disguise it as a plan for government control of everything. Offer something attainable, feasible, and affordable.
5
@dudley thompson. Such as? There are two solutions. Eliminate CO2 from the air, or cool the planet some other way. That's it. The GND picks option 1. I don't think you're suggesting option 2. You're suggesting doing nothing which will help at all. This requires government control, since it requires UNIVERSAL behavior.
2
No, but I am a "Bret Stephens knows what he talking about" skeptic.
2
All these "greenies" are missing the boat by not even discussing fourth generation advanced nuclear reactors that can CONSUME rather than PRODUCE nuclear waste, in the process of producing vast amounts of affordable, clean electricity.
Want some insight on what advanced reactors like the GE-Hitachi PRISM reactor is capable of? First, google "James Hansen on Nuclear Power", and second, google "PRISM reactor" to learn about the potential that advanced reactors hold for solving Climate Change.
7
@Bobcb
America's leftist "environmentalists" all but killed clean, non-polluting nuclear energy with their foolish lies and propaganda (remember The China Syndrome?). How much "greenhouse gas" does a nuclear plant emit? That would be none. The chickens have come home to roost for America's leftist "environmentalists."
1
Bret Stephens is rarely right about anything. But he is right that the proposals of Wall Street Democrats like Nancy Pelosi (est. wealth $100 million) are utterly inadequate to the catastrophic climate predictions of scientists that they also endorse. Judged by her deeds rather than her words, Pelosi IS a climate denialist.
The problem for Bret is that those catastrophic predictions are already coming true.
Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Resolution is a statement of intentions rather than a detailed piece of legislation. Rightists like Stephens have mocked the social and economic components of the GND, but they are critical to building the political will that Pelosi and co presently lack.
The details will have to be ironed out, but the GND is absolutely the right scale of response to the climate catastrophe unfolding before our eyes.
Pelosi’s (as well as Stephens’s) climate denialism will be remembered by future generations with the same revulsion that we reserve today for apologies for slavery and genocide. Explaining it is not difficult. As with much else wrong in this world, it’s all about the Benjamins, baby.
The political will to do what needs to be done will have to come from below, in the form of street protests, mass civil disobedience, primary challenges to every single Wall Street Dem (including Pelosi) that doesn’t change their tune, and open revolt as necessary. The stakes are too high and threat is to urgent to do anything less.
1
The Green New Deal may be radical to Americans, but European youth is protesting every week for more climate change action by their governments.
And the EU is already light years ahead of the US in terms of carbon dioxide emission reduction.
3
Whether climate change is “real” or not (I think it is) the successful politicization by the opposition of the phrase slows down,if not dooms, making effective changes to rectify the situation. Instead, let’s just focus on pollution, it’s toxicity and financial/human costs that hurt everyone, workers/CEOs, Dems/GOPs, etc. in health and the bottomline.
Also, we are notoriously poor prognosticators of technological innovation. I can’t remember his name, but a statistician early in the 1900s wrote that Manhattan would be knee-deep in horse manure by the 1930S. He failed to “see” the invention of the automobile and the reduction of horses as a mode of transport in the city.
There are two companies at work on technology that will scrub the air of CO2–obviously early days, and it will take a long time to scale up in any way that makes a significant difference. However inventions and tech promise that there are many possible ways we can restore our planet. There is already photosynthetic exterior paint, solar roof tiles as well as panels, geothermal heat/AC, hybrid and electric cars, wind and water power, etc. All require scaling up and reduced costs to hasten their adoption by capitalists and the general population. It can be done.
2
Sounds kinda like, Jim Crow, separate but equal. Placate but really do nothing to address a major problem, Gotcha.
1
And at what point do you, Bret Stephens, decide to stop writing thinly veiled climate denial dribble and actually do fact based reporting based on overwhelming scientific consensus.
3
And not one mention of the greatest factor causing climate change : Extreme Overpopulation. Why not, Bret ? Afraid that your conservative brethren will call you a wanna-be Liberal, an Abortion promoting RINO ???
Do better. Please.
3
Climate doom might be an overstatement (it was not for many Puerto Ricans when early climate catastrophe harbinger Maria said hi), but climate change is certainly a euphemism. Let's meet in the middle (and the rubble) of the impending climate calamity that science did the math on. It's like the climate is putting on a backpack nuke (on its flying prayer carpet) and we need a very regal, very cool Wall of defense measures to halt the terrorist, deal?
In 2016 Bernie Sanders knew the math, yet he had the message discipline to appeal to Independents and the left-behind Midwest first that needed a different promise of urgent relief, as did the youth that wanted a start into life without a ton of burdens, etc. Then when he was asked to propose candidates to the DNC, Bill McKibben was his choice.
This is not a bad strategy, and I don't think Pelosi is that far apart from it.
The Green New Deal and their proponents have a tremendous plus though: they put the Rs on the defensive, and are actually out-airwaving the hate radio talking points for a minute or two. This has been missing long time.
The Green New Deal can appeal to broad support by high-fiving Hillary's campaign slogans:
I'm with the children and grandchildren.
I'm here with bold determination to help them, and with living modestly, responsibly, and simply, so they can simply live.
Longer together.
If your child threatens to perish, would daddy deign to bring a sacrifice? As they say in Hawaii: What would Eddy do?
2
This column simply doesn't take seriously the past few years of climate science. The science unambiguously supports the idea that we just a few years away from catastrophic and irreversible climate change. The incrementalist approached could have made all the difference in the nineties. Now, the solution is indeed politically impossible, so the younger generation is turning to organizing and civil disobedience to redefine the politically possible--a tall order but, again, the only strategy that matters given the science.
2
Behavioral change is hard. You are not going to get someone who eats fast food burgers every night to go vegan. Where I live, there is exactly zero public transportation, and my commute is 40 minutes. I’m on the gig economy so carpooling isn’t feasible. My house is old and the walls would have to be ripped out to put in more insulation.
Our house got hit by a tornado. Not as much damage as our neighbors, but we lost our beautiful shade trees. We had to replace our windows to help with the blazing sun. Spent $30k on repairs even with good insurance. Climate change is expensive.
I don’t want to argue with people about where they put their thermostat or whether they can afford an electric car. When your power plant is coal fired, electric cars don’t help. We need big systemic change on a governmental level. We need wind and solar and credits for making good consumer choices.
Big tech sounds great and gives me pride in America. Nitpicking people’s personal situations is going to hit resistance right away. OK, you’re smart, but be smart enough to win people’s cooperation.
1
How is this a surprise? All you need to do is compare the evolution of European cities to American ones (which are Democratically governed) over the last 30 years: Here there are no Low Emission Zones, no separate bike lanes and wider tree-lined sidewalks, traffic lights everywhere, recycling is a joke, ...
No politician stands in between an American and his car/truck full of cheap gas, and makes it through the next election.
Sad but true.
1
Among a number of issues, climate is probably the most important to me - second behind defeating Donald Trump in 2020. Nancy Pelosi could have been a bit less dismissive in her response - but it was the right response. I agree with Brett Stephens. My concern is that many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls seem to following the Green New Deal down the rabbithole - to their peril.
Bret,
The first column that you wrote for the NY Times a mere two years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html
"The science was generally scrupulous but the boosters were not"
Why blame Pelosi when you cannot make your mind up?
3
Plausible, pragmatic, and bipartisan. happens all the time, eh, Bret? Like with healthcare or immigration or sensible gun control or in dealing with foreign influence in our elections. Those kind of issues. What are we fighting about legislatively? A wall no one wants. So if you can't even get to first base legislatively, why even consider sending signs to steal second? Ms. Pelosi recognizes a grand, elaborate, expansive program will sit there for decades. Like healthcare has. It was in the 90's Hillary Clinton led a group aiming to overhaul healthcare. And, tell me Bret, after that was shut down, where is healthcare today? Do you think single payer or Medicare for all would be on the radar screen in the 90's? So a leader who recognizes you have to use 1 rung of the ladder at a time and not rely on the elevator will get you there. You went to your mother to intervene with your father for a reason. Because, eventually, the urgency will come home to roost. And where will America be then? So when the urgency arrives at the front, not back, door, the rest of the world will be well on their way. And if Republicans are in charge here, we will be offering them "More Coal?". Pelosi is a patient woman. Like with children...scream and yell and get no where. Let them come to you and ask for help on your terms. Eventually the children come around to your way of thinking.
Mr. Stephens, what you, (and apparently every other clueless Republican/Democrat) don’t understand is that the American people (lower and middle classes) have had enough. We’re done with rampant lobbying in Washington, we’re done with jobs being dismantled and shipped overseas, we’re done with people dying so that pharmaceutical companies can get rich, we’re done with the environment getting trashed, we’re done with the 1% accumulating all the wealth, we’re done with our children getting killed in school, and we’re especially done with fracking, fossil fuels, and climate change destroying our environment.
Politicians have dithered long enough. The citizens of this country are going to rise up with pitchforks and upended the Monarchy. The status quo is not working. Get ready to help with progressive ideas that will actually change our country and the world for the better, or move aside.
2
@PC
Lobbying is the pitchfork free way that citizens petition their governance in between elections. Rich people are citizens too.
If you are jealous of billionaires, don’t buy the products that they are selling you. Don’t use Amazon, computers, the internet, or a smart phone. Don’t buy optional insurance policies. Don’t burn petroleum. Grow your own food without petroleum based fertilizer. No need to threaten violence.
Climate Change is:
a) an extant and developing existential threat to life on earth
b) a myth fabricated by tree hugging lefties and mendacious scientists
Both can't true. There is zero evidence that "b" is correct, and an enormous amount of evidence that "a", is in fact the case. This evidence includes hours of news footage from just the last eighteen months: extreme floods, extreme heat, extreme cold, hurricanes, wildfires, avalanches, record rainfall, record drought, retreating glaciers, holes in the ice-caps, rising oceans, disappearing species and mass migrations.
For skeptics this evidence is just nature's "business as usual." And so it may be. However the shockingly arrogant short-sighted and pig-headed reaction to just write off manifest warnings of disasters to come is only going to end in untold unnecessary deaths and unimaginable financial costs. You can deride "Climate Change" as sensationalistic "green" propaganda, but the climate, is, changing - and no one believed Noah before the rains came.
Nancy Pelosi may "seal clap" the GND, but Ms. Pelosi most definitely sees the big picture and the so-called new progressives know that too. Ms. Pelosi understands that you need to be in power to act, and if a preposterously large number of people have bought into the GOP rhetoric that we need more coal, lower gas prices, fewer environment regulations and that climate change is baloney you have to play your hand very carefully.
@StuartM
c). Just climate change. Not neither real but not doom. Another change in the endless train of change that is life, one that reasonable people who aren’t stuck in rigidly pig-headed black and white thinking will deal with just fine.
What about option c)... a true problem that will result in continued rising temps, rising sea levels, and shifting biomes, but not an existential threat to humans?
The evidence of manmade global warming (and associated climate change) TO DATE is overwhelming and clear, but future consequences are not as clear.
Your binary choice (a or b, its all or nothing) might be taking us further from finding solutions.
If we were all willing to acknowledge c) is a possibility, many of the skeptics might be willing to come to the table, and accept the current conditions instead of their knee-jerk rejection of any proven science.
1
Stephens always has a lot of fun making fun of liberals and their many contradictions. What should worry him and all conservatives is that they have absolutely no place at the table of modern science.
@JaneDoe
Is Portland, Oregon conservative? The Portland area is where there is a measles outbreak due to the anti- vaccine science denier nut jobs.
Progressives need to grow up and not so blithely play into the hands of the radical right.
1
As usual, Nancy has it about right. As for Bret, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
1
Oh my gosh Bret you're right this is such a conflict! We Democrats need to start brutally infighting immediately.
Thanks for your advice, as always given in good faith!
“a serious problem we can work patiently to solve without resort to extreme measures like ending capitalism or depriving equally serious priorities of the attention they deserve?”
Had the U.S. taken some mildly uncomfortable, patient ,steps toward bringing down carbon emissions over the last 20 years, we would not be facing what most people in the world ( including virtually all scientists) consider impending doom.
Coastal flooding, extreme droughts, and unlivable heat waves are currently destabilizing entire countries, giving rise to mass migrations and famines. Such calamities have given rise to extreme ideologies based on religion (ISIS, the present governing party of India), Right -wing proto-fascist parties in every single traditionally liberal party in the world. Autocratic states such as China use ethnic hatred to put 2 million Muslims in concentration camps. Russia is autocratic, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim to the core.
The largest emitter of carbon,currently opposes any action to reduce emissions, based on a lunatic conspiracy theory floated by its President and ruling party.
The GND is certainly an extreme solution and exists only as a rational response to current climate trends that are reaching a clearly defined tipping point.
But we may reach a political tipping point where we will have some form of “war socialism” that will be mostly war. Missing out on your burger will be the least of your problems.
If climate change is an urgent problem, Stephens opines, "we need to take extreme measures...[declare] a national emergency...raise taxes on the rich and middle class alike to fund..."
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for getting to the bottom of right wing rejection of the GND - not to mention the findings of almost the entire scientific community on global warming:
"But...nah! Nah! It's gotta be a liberal plot. Because if it was happening...that would mean the government was needed and...and that would cost money!"
1
'Serious' action on climate change will occur when at least 1/3 of the people in the developed world think they are suffering from global warming on a personal basis.
We're not there.....yet.
The same is true of 'serious' gun control.
Sorry, (most) New York Times readers.
Or am I missing something here?
Everyone made a mountain out of a mole hill with Speaker Pekosi’s response. I know deep down she supports the ideas in the Green New Deal but at that moment of her response she was dealing with the immediate and increasing dangers of Trump’s presidency, McConnell’s intransigence, and the fallout of the shutdown. It was also a news conference that wasn’t focused on the GND but on a range of things and it just wasn’t her priority THAT DAY, NOT forever.
Nothing will get done, nothing, if she isn’t focused like a laser beam on the chaos and obstruction coming out of the White House and the Senate. Of course, she can’t think GND when the government just ground to a halt! This nitpicking of minor utterances completely removed from all context and history is ridiculous and totally irresponsible journalism. Oh wait, of course this is written by a conservative pundit who earned my disdain after his first column. I didn’t realize it until I was done reading.
But really, people, stop looking for and focusing on imagined division in the Democratic Party (though there are some, this is not one of them). And next time headlines go bananas over a single statement excised from an entire speech or news conference, please read the entire transcript and, especially, look at the day, time, political happenings, and the most pressing issue of that day before jumping to conclusions about a speaker’s underlying convictions concerning broader issues.
1
Nice attempt at scaremongering. Demonizing the Left and coddling the Right will end up with Mother Nature ending the debate. Capitalism is not the human religion. God, if it existed is not a capitalist nor a socialist. The Earth is all we have and we are putting it in very serious jeopardy by our wishful thinking and finger crossing attitude to the possible end of life as we know it.
Bret you are a trouble maker.
I find it very interesting that the majority of those who support the fact that global warming is happening and affecting us right now with the worst yet to come cannot see the forest for the trees and hence avoid answering the question: What is the primary cause of this warming trend?". Are you ready to learn of this primary cause? Well, here it is: The primary cause of global warming is SEX. If the human animal did not have the instinctual needs to procreate at a rate far greater than that which Mother Nature could handle, then this is what results. We now have the choice to let Mother Nature increase her retaliation or we begin to lower the birth rates worldwide before she speeds up her response to reduce life expectancy via having far more deaths related to starvation and disease. Now, after learning this have you changed how you might begin to deal with this unquestionable human failure?
1
Nancy is against green new deal or any other kind of climate change deal because she is too in love with the money she gets from businesses who do not want any focus on climate change.
If New Green Deal could bribe her with more money than she already gets and more power,she would be touting it to the skies. It is amazing how money makes someone not care about the planet or other people or future generations. So Money is very instrumental in destroying this planet.
1
I suppose it’s more convenient than facing the truth: Americans left and right don’t care about climate change and environment.
All the climate action in Europe is happening in cities: youth protests, but also Low Emission Zones, reducing traffic lanes in favor of more space for inhabitants etc.
In our Democratic cities: nothing, zip, zilch, nada.
It’s not even a topic in the mayoral race here in Chicago.
Conservatives who know better about climate change still don't know any better. No suggestions, no alarm, no plan, no thoughts. The GND is over the top, but then again so is the hot house earth that we absolutely are heading towards if we don't take action across numerous domains as a species.
Deny, delay, diminish, distract. The modern 'conservative' playbook for the most important issue of our time. I'm not sure there are any words to capture the sheer scale of the abdication and self gaslighting we are witnessing from the right.
5
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’m not here to argue yours. But there is one statement in this article that I would like to address. You imply that “ending capitalism” could be a solution for global poverty. I’m not here to argue that capitalism doesn’t have its flaws, but it has also played an instrumental role in lifting millions of people out of poverty in a way that no other economic /social construct has been able to replicate.
3
Given Republican opposition to anything and everything except low taxes, corporate welfare, and blaming us - it's somewhat naive to posit that the Green New Deal is pie in the sky. We could be dropping like flies from heat and they'd still find a reason to savage any proactive ideas.
2
Sadly this article is too true. A real Green New Deal would not focus on College Affordability, or even Social Justice. Either this is THE crisis or its not. I believe it is and we need politicians to stop trying to have their cake and eat it too.
3
Climate change is a sufficiently great problem we cannot wait for someone else to solve it, like Congress. Our political leaders have shown little ability to even dent more soluble problems like gun safety or income inequality or food insecurity. Expecting a top-down approach to work is foolishness and a form of dangerous delay.
With no risk to human health, we can cut meat consumption with its attendant high carbon costs by 14%. It's called Meatless Mondays.
We can help our neighbors and improve our personal health by shopping at farmers' markets whenever possible. Locally sourced foods are better for us and a wise investment in land use. Plant crops and not endless strip malls.
Support local zoning with housing close enough to walk or bike for some shopping. Get some exercise when you can. Rather than always widening roads, build a network of bike paths in our cities and suburbs.
Raise the minimum wage to allow a family to do well enough on one income to have one parent at home (less child care costs; one fewer car to worry about).
Increasing this bottom-up set of actions can meet the top-down efforts of Congress whenever they might awaken from their torpor.
2
Honestly, Bret! "War Socialism", ending capitalism, WWIII, etc., all noises of right wing, establishment hysteria. In this crowd of self-interested, self-seeking, "I'm all right, Jack", head in the sand, pseudo-liberals one find prominently displayed none other then Speaker Pelosi.
The GND is an aspiration; it is not a set of detailed proposals. Yet, it is being treated by the political establishment and their corporate elite paymasters as a Leninist Manifesto. Of course Pelosi, et al, are climate change deniers; Their interest is in maximizing short-term economic and political advantages while paying lip service to a problem they see as maybe down the road. Refer to American attitudes toward rearmament in the late 1930's.
It should be clear that environmental policy is economic policy, and mitigation of GhG emissions and associated global warming has to begin now. If you don't believe this to be true, you are a climate change denier. Expectations of a magical techno -fix or "dynamic market economies" creating wealth, as they have since the Industrial Revolution, and miraculously using it to mitigate global warming - without major economic incentives - is, to be polite, shear foolishness.
Whether a Carbon Tax that is sufficiently large, globally applied and exemption free, or a more direct set of interventions, such as severe regulations and penalties, global warming is real and its consequences potentially devastating to human welfare. Believe it.
2
Bret Stephens whole opinion piece is totally talking down to the young people who support the Green New Deal, calling them politically naive, and unrealistic. But suppose Climate Change is a major emergency on the order of a tsunami we have warning of? There are many things we can actually do immediately. 1. stop subsidizing fossil fuels, directly, or in the tax code 2. change building codes so that at least all new building is maximally efficient and includes solar panels. 3. Subsidize solar and wind projects. 4. Finally fund the transit projects that have been on the books in many cities for decades. The Green New Deal simply signs on to a policy direction that puts us on a realistic path into the future.
2
We should be on a war-time footing to deal with climate change. The philosophy behind the GND -- urgency -- is the correct one. But many of its specifics seem to be over the top. If the one political party which denies the existence of climate change would wake up to the realities and do a 180 instead of obeying its wealthy campaign contrbutors, we could have a constructive discussion on solutions.
3
"It shouldn’t be hard, either, to make the case even to liberals that dynamic market economies are essential for creating the kind of wealth that makes environmental protections affordable [...]"
Overconsumption is one of the main reasons for climate change. Market economies encourage and thrive on overconsumption.
This is a text by a man who wants action on climate change, but is unwilling to give up an inch of his lifestyle to enable action on climate change.
@Emil: The present world population has been reached on the expectation that nuclear fusion energy would be practical and economical by now.
1
Practical solutions to complex problems has never been the Progressive's strong suit. Nor are 280 character Tweets helpful.
The disastrous state of the climate was centuries in the making. If the Green New Dealers think their proposals can alter the world's climate in a decade or two they are sadly mistaken and scientifically uninformed.
If the whole planet went "green" tomorrow, the Green New Dealers and their progeny for a few generations to come will be dead and buried before The Planet's climate returns (if ever) to something resembling the pre-industrial (about 1750) climate.
The essay on climate inertia is worth reading:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-inertia.html
1
We have two things working against us. One is an economic system that requires growth or it will collapse. The other is a finite planet that will limit growth and eventually become unlivable. People only see the perpetual growth leading to environmental disaster. A finite planet constraining growth can also lead to an economic collapse.
With complex international trade bringing vital spare parts from all over the world, and infinitely complex systems needed to operate everything, it would not take much for the whole thing to collapse, and food and gas could stop magically appearing for consumers.
If we don't look at the root cause of our problem- perpetual growth- an economic collapse could turn out to be the actual 'Green New Deal'- reducing pollution drastically as billions of people collapse into poverty.
1
The problem with this analysis (and pretty much everything Stephens writes) is that it probably isn't true. Pelosi was skeptical about the Green New Deal because she knew it didn't make good politics and she was right. It doesn't make good politics but that doesn't mean it's not necessary. I don't know the pace of climate change and neither does Brett Stephens. He just makes up whatever set of facts suit his right wing ideology. So, anyone out there who does have evidence of the pace of climate change, please offer evidence since Stephens didn't.
1
@Edward How about ANY evidence of climate change whatsoever???
Just wait till Miami is underwater, Bret. You will see popular opinion turn. The Republicans have been lying to the public for three decades about global climate change. What will turn the tide is, literally, the tide. And it is coming.
Back in the 80s and 90s, nobody thought that gay marriage would ever be legal. Even those of us who supported gay marriage thought the possibility was far-fetched. But as more families had children who were openly gay, public opinion changed.
The Supreme Court cases supporting gay rights on constitutional grounds did not come out of nowhere. They happened because public opinion had been influenced by the numbers of Americans who had openly gay family members. A look at judicial history will confirm that, regardless of their intentions, judges are not immune from cultural trends and attitudes.
I am not comparing coming out as gay to disasters such as hurricane Sandy and the potential flooding of Miami and other low-lying coastal cities, but rather pointing out that experience is the greatest teacher. Right now, most Americans are not dealing directly with climate change. Soon they will be.
Nancy Pelosi is correct that, right now, she does not have the votes. But she will.
1
@RCT You're going to conflate the timelines for social change and climate, really? Wow.
1
I’m going to suggest that climate change is in the offing and that public opinion drives policy and legislation. Social change is driven by public opinion and activism and experience shapes public opinion. The social change that resulted from the gay rights movement was the result of activism and its results - including that activism encouraged many young people to come out, thereby changing their views. Accelerating climate change will impact ever greater numbers of Americans, increasing awareness of the threat doing nothing and encouraging the. What problems you have with that?
My post posted before I’d finished. It will take a change in opinion – in fact, a kind of social change – to induce the general public to support radical climate change policies.
Opinions change because experience changes. The gay rights movement was social change, but what accelerated that movement was a change in attitude by millions of Americans. I think the change in attitude was accomplished in great part by LBGTQ people coming out of the closet. People got to know openly gay Americans, realizing too that there were gay Americans in their own families.
Most Americans today have not directly experiences climate change, but that will change in the coming decades. For example, salt water is already pouring out of the sewers in Miami on sunny days . The increase in hundred year storms means that more cities will endure the hardships of New Orleans and Houston. This is not a good thing, but I think that, as with what you term social change, Americans will become aware of the need for legislation and stronger climate change policy, even if these inconvenience them and are expensive.
“Really!”
Campaign on the pragmatic approach to win the presidency and both houses of congress but then govern with the greater "Green New Deal" urgency. And if you don't win the Senate, then use our country's newly created executive powers to divert $10 billion from ICE, corporate subsidies, foreign aid, etc. to fund it.
1
Democrats have done almost as little as Republicans on environmental subjects. They have done more. The Republicans are openly hostile the Democrats say a few things.
N Pelosi has not been a good leader on this in the past.
Now the Democrats and Republicans are being challenged by things like the Green New Deal. Like it or not if there are climate issues change will have to come.
Forget the Green New Deal as perfection. If we look back to 1918 it was another human world. It was also another world for living things. To go forward in a good way will take massive change. To do little or nothing is a recipe for oblivion.
Climate change is a very serious problem. However, just stating this fact and proposing a no plan with all sorts of other unrelated issues attached is beyond naive and it makes a disservice to the cause. I believe this is what Nancy Pelosi, rightly, is worried about.
3
"Those who believe climate change will become irreversible, uncontrollable and catastrophic in a few years should get to work on their fallout shelters"
There will not be an "all clear" signal. Once nature moves we humans are no different than ants. A few years in geological time could be fifty or a hundred or a thousand years.
At sixty-six my "irreversible, uncontrollable and catastrophic" change is coming up hard on the right. Nature's way.
A thinking twenty year old might feel differently.
1
I see a lot of migration in Russia and Canada's future, while Australia may no longer be a rich country. Warming is actually going to increase arable and livable land in those two countries while making many already warm countries unlivable. India, Nigeria and Bangladesh face the greatest threats in terms of sheer numbers of people that will need to be moving. At some point the US will probably annex Canada. Just thinking about scenarios like this 50-100 years from now shows the scale of the emergency. But the fact that it's over 2 human generations rather than 10 years also shows why political systems (other than those like China's) can't respond with the requisite urgency. It's very hard for politics in democracies to move faster than the understanding of the majority of their voters. Even with massive educational campaigns it would take a decade to educate enough voters to swing the tide. Right now only under 30s get it in large majorities, and they don't vote enough. Given this the only hope for now is a revenue neutral increasing over time carbon tax coordinated globally, so that any country not participating cannot trade with the participating bloc without paying stiff tariffs.
Hanson predicted climate catastrophe in 1988. He gave us 20 years to avoid the consequences of a hotter, wetter planet that we are now experiencing. Recalcitrant self-righteous right wing dodos have undermined any incremental reductions for 30 years. When will they bear the guilt that they have bought upon us through inaction? How can we overcome the disinformation and delusion they have fostered. Have they not committed a crime against humanity?
1
The theory of apocalyptic climate change is pretty simple - all they have to do to shake loose trillions and put us on a war footing is prove the following:
- the globe has undergone unprecedented over the last 140 years (hard to do as the temp record is full of holes)
- the warming trend, if accurate (laugh track) isn't cyclical
- fossil fuel use is the cause
- the impacts will be devastating, all bad, and nothing we can adapt to if and when they occur
- China, India and other emerging countries will immediately join in the war
- Green energy sources such as wind and solar are scalable and reliable and won't require half the available green space (what about the trees)
- Nukes will be part of the solution
- we have the money to pay for it now
- People will do whatever it takes willingly, w/o coercion
None of that is going to happen. AOC and her fellow alarmists aren't scientists or states people and probably have never studied science or economics. They are leftist ideologues who want to take over government and see CC action as the way to do it as all the solutions to CC seem to neatly fit into the progressive/socialist play book.
I think global warming theory is misguided science. But nothing wrong with environmentalism and developing alternative energy sources as fossil fuels are finite. But this hysteria is ridiculous. The reason that the green dream is laughable is because they haven't and can't discuss any of the points above.
3
Ah, the old-time Marxists. I miss them, because they were dead-on right about the internal contradictions of capitalism.
Faith in Free-Market Capitalism is a true-belief faith, like faith in a religion. It can only be dispelled when there is evidence that the free-market system has failed. But for true-believers, even multiple failures can be excused. Just as with religion.
Air and water pollution in the 1960s was a market failure caused by externalization of the cost of waste treatment. In other words, skip the cost of treating industrial waste, just throw it out into the environment. Our air and water are much cleaner now, because of governmental regulation.
Destruction of the ozone layer by freon was another market failure, only remediated by strong governmental regulations. Free markets would never have addressed the problem, because, where's the profit in it?
The economic collapse in 2007-2008 was another market failure; crisis averted by governmental intervention to prop up the economy. Instead of Depression, we just got the Great Recession.
Global warming and climate change is another, more massive market failure, again created by placing profits before people.
Unlike the other failures, this one will not appear critical until it is much to late for the government to intervene.
To that extent, Bret Stephens is correct and, likewise, humanity is doomed.
1
For thirty years, from the time I began to write editorials about climate change, I've heard pleas for pragmatism . That and plenty of promises to have a handle on carbon emissions-- oh, sometime; some ten, twenty, thirty or fifty years down the road. And here we are. Down the road. This week students in the UK left schools in protest. More student-led protests are planned mid-March. I hope their self-interested demands and green-dreams succeed. Patience and pragmatism have certainly failed. When Florida is floundering and Manhattan's awash you might think more kindly about impractical radicalism.
It hardly matters whether climate change is so acutely threatening it requires a radical solution or a manageable problem if we are doing little or nothing to address it. So can we agree that climate change is real and human activities are at least contributing to it and some of those activities can be altered, curtailed or compensated for to remove at least some of the human contribution to climate change? The root of the problem is the release of too much carbon into the atmosphere, so we need to sequester some of that carbon before the level of climatic alteration makes those efforts ineffective. We need a GND, but it needs to be a GND on which we can obtain buy-in by the majority. You may think the proposed GND too radical, but if we do not start where its backers have started with all the possible solutions on the table, we will only end up with more half-measures. Let them roar. I trust the Speaker to guide this to a softer landing and in the process actually accomplish something.
Framing the issue in diametric terms of “World War III” vs. what should be termed “Environmental Engineering” is an unhelpful oversimplification. The question should be asked in terms of “Is Overcoming Climate Change a Global Task”
As an unabashed Universalist, I defined, in 1989, a task as global when it fulfils four (and a half) necessary conditions:
1. Performing the task is necessary to confront and solve a problem, posing an existential danger, which is recognized as common, and relatively equal, to the majority of the actors in world politics.
2. The task cannot be performed and the problem solved by the actions of some actors against other.
3. The completion of the task will not result in a radically more privileged relative position for some of the global actors.
4. In the context of world order, the danger confronted must be recognized by all the relevant (necessary for the solution) actors as surpassing the Survival Predicament (as defined by the Realist World View).
5. Accommodating but not necessary: the completion of the task necessitates the (relative) participation of all major actors. It cannot be solved by the actions and contribution of few of the actors (“free riders” problem).
There is nothing confronting humankind more justifiable to be termed as a Global Task than the (practical) abolition of nuclear weapons. The issue then is: by now, should fighting Climate change be recognized and dealt with as a similarly clear and present Global Task.
The world needs to bring back nuclear power. It's zero carbon and able to provide all the power needed into the future. Policy should be developed so as not to preclude all the other green options, including wind and solar, so that as green storage technologies improve to the point where these other technologies can do the job, the marketplace can adopt them.
Adding nuclear to the mix would change the GND from aspirational to doable.
3
Ban iPhones for the carbon costs in production, close Starbucks for the fossil fuels used to transport the coffee and turn off the oil and natural gas pipelines to the Northeast. Let's see what sort of reception that gets in Manhattan and the Tony suburbs of Boston.
2
Climate change is just one of several severe environmental problems we face. The mass extinction event underway is equally alarming, as is the ubiquity of toxins in our environment. The Green New Deal recognizes that these problems cannot be solved with incremental change. They will be solved only by the radical reorganization of our current economic system. But of course, doing that seems utterly impossible, which is why pragmatists like Pelosi call it a dream. It may indeed be one.
But we are playing a game of Russian roulette. I suspect we'll hold the gun to our head and pull the trigger. Let's hope the chamber is empty. But if it's not, there's no trauma room that will save us.
I guess Trump is skeptical of the idea of more independence, because we still participate in European events, instead of pulling out all together. He must not really be for border security— couldn’t we shoot invaders for coming over the border? For that matter, why are we still speaking English, instead of coming up with our own language.
I’m remjnded of Dan Quayle speaking to a large group criticizing the Family Keave Act, because it doesnt cover companies with less than 50 people; as if the Republicans would support an Act that covered firms with less than 2 million workers.
Thanks for a contrived opinion piece criticizing Ms. Pelosi for not supporting green policies that you will never support. I’ll stick with the Party that tries to solve problems, rather than one that uses deception and division to try to garner close to a majority.
Just because Nancy Pelosi isn't a climate denier, doesn't mean she's a climate confessor. She knows that about 80% of the world's carbon is produced by other countries. So everything America does can be negated by the rest of the Third World let alone the rest of the World. So she may not be hot to trot to throw herself on an extreme left wing plan, and in political terms that's what it is, when it may be academic in the end.
2
If the one or two percent can amass and consolidate their obscene fortunes, (via vehicles like the immoral Trump tax cut), they will be more than able to get behind their walls and do their own self absorbed mitigation and if the rest of the world goes up in flames, too bad, for they will be sitting pretty. They will be the rulers of the world.
by making outrageous, mock-able demands, climate apocalysts undermine those who would argue for common sense anti-pollution measures... the majority of Americans who are sensible about these things are turned off by the extremist climate changers (and Amazon job-killers) who are only helping re-elect our humble, self-effacing, ultra-diplomatic President - perhaps only by a single, non-Russian-purchased Electoral College vote - but re-elect nonetheless... there's environmental destruction and then there's self-destruction
3
Dear Mr. Stephens,
you write in beautifully dismissive tones from the perspective of someone who won’t have to live thru the lasting effects detailed in the recent IPCC report...and for that matter neither will Speaker Pelosi!
those folks pictured being arrested and whom you portray as feckless ideologues will be living with those lasting effects!
my reading about about the dire future versus my reading of the ‘what-me-worry’ future (along with 67 yrs of open, honest, humble life experience) lead me to embrace those same open, honest, humble folks pictured! WE NEED THE GREEN NEW DEAL!
1
"It shouldn’t be hard to make the case, even to conservatives, for large-scale investments in climate resilience, such as better coastal defenses."
Right, give a cancer patient aspirin to treat the "symptom" of pain, while ignoring the "disease," then call your treatment a success.
Grow up, Bret. Climate change is serious stuff. Not only does it have the likely potential to limit where humans can live, it will likely result in numerous wars fighting over that remaining livable territory.
Couple that with the increased production of "tactical" nuclear weapons and the Earth may just experience its 5th great mass extinction.
Chortle. Anything that widens the crack between those not wearing propeller hats and those that are promises to be the next binge-worthy spectacle. I have a daughter that resembles the hyphenated hellion, and a mother-in-law that resembles the Baltimore-bred Brahmin running the House - I take the dogs out where they are in the same area code. My daughter fits a dress like the former; the mother-in-law would kill for Madam Speaker’s size of course. Anyway...all aboard the whaler for the sunrise sanity cruise!
2
Suggestion: Bret Stephens and advisors to Nancy Pelosi should read articles I cite below.
"How to Cut U.S. Emissions Faster? Do What These Countries Are Doing. Brad Plumer & Blacki Migliozzi 20199-02-13
Doing what other countries are doing is hardly a new idea as you readers (critic Lee Miller first) will see if you read this Times article: Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags" E. Rosenthal 2010-04-12.
She reported that Denmark is a world leader in converting solid waste to energy, and so too is Sweden. Examples at my blog.
In my most recent comments proposing use of waste to energy, engineer Lee Harrison offered this reply 2/14:
"Again I remind you that burning trash produces CO2. It's not an efficient source of power in terms of CO2 emitted per kWh ... it's actually worse than coal."
Miller wants my city, Linköping, home of the most advanced waste to energy system in the world to return to coal! Trump has found a supporter!
The least Miller and other anti-incineration readers could do is consider this from Rosenthal:
"... a 2009 study by the E.P.A. and North Carolina State University scientists came down strongly in favor of waste-to-energy plants over landfills as the most environmentally friendly destination for urban waste that cannot be recycled."
The least the Times could do is republish Rosenthal.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
@Larry Lundgren - Correction Harrison, not Miller in my sentence "Miller wants...".
Lee Harrison, engineer, strongly favors fossil fuel systems over the renewable energy systems that are helping put Sweden ahead of the USA in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
However, I see that he does have a highly satisfactory comment on Carbon tax, which I support.
Larry L.
When Republicans confront an insurmountable movement they step back and infuse legislative action with poison pills.
The primary intent of this essay is to reinforce Reagan’s meme: government is not the solution....government is the problem. Exceedingly strange for an newly sworn head of state to denounce the state. And in a democracy, demonizing the government is a betrayal of the people for whom it exists. Democrats have been mesmerized by Reagan’s spell. The proof: Democrats have never demanded to know who should the people turn to if their government cannot be trusted. The Republican answer has always been plutocracy and corporations. Who can we trust if not a rich guy? After all, if a Pearson is rich they are smart, right? Sadly, that is a myth. Donald Trump is an example of wealth based on birth and leadership based on lies, and sociopathic hubris.
Pelosi and AOC, now there’s a combination that if it becomes a partnership can reshape government. The “Green New Deal” is really just the New Deal with a survival agenda. It would be wise for Republicans to get on board because there’s money to be made! Sure, rising tides and weather catastrope’s are the road to quick profits for those with “means”, but so is a plague war, and economic collapse. Republicans are like passengers on the Titanic, looking for a way to make a buck.
Stephens ridicules to provide a rationale for 1. Business as usual, 2. A non governmental profit centered private base. He forgets Katrina.
The unborn will know how serious it is -- we the living will not -- a "known unknown" that cannot be known in our time. The question is how to start to deal with it given that ineluctable fact.
Can “centrists” really find a middle-ground compromise between science and anti-science, between facts and lies? Well, yes. Is that really a wise, reasonable, effective way to solve the climate change problem? No, of course not.
So which is it, a looming extinction event or just a serious problem to be solved? And if it's the former and the present form of government refuses to mobilize on a scale equivalent to the disaster, are you really suggesting that we should just dig a hole in our backyard and accept humanity's demise in the service of next quarter's profit margins? I view the Green New Deal as more of a shot across the bow of American consumer capitalism and the government embodies it. Ignore it at your peril.
Bret,
What is your proposal? We're waiting.
Capitalism has only been possible because of the “discovery” and subsequent exploitation of 300-million year old fossil fuels.
Capitalism is, at its base, an exponential growth curve. Investor Joe wants 15% ROI. When company X falls short, Joe moves his money to company Y, which has moved its factory from the US, where the EPA exists, to China, or Vietnam, or Indonesia, where there are fewer or no environmental rules, and Y can burn cheap coal and, as a bonus, employ workers who have no pension, no health care, no benefits. (Wait, am I describing Vietnam now, or the US?)
Capitalism cannot live side by side with restoring carbon levels to 300 ppm...unless it can find a new energy source that is, from the human perspective, able to grow exponentially.
There is only one such solution: the sun. Wake up.
Global warming caused by humans use of fossil fuels is a scientifically proven fact! "Climate skeptics" are no different than "flat Earthers" who still believe that the Earth is flat even though it is totally scientifically proven that the Earth is not flat!
@Gandalfdenvite Oh really? Where are the facts. Are you a scientist Have you examined the data? We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- but it is only one factor that affects climate.
The "fantasy" brushoff Pelosi gave the Green New Deal wasn't about the seriousness of the issue or the effectiveness of the policy proposals, it's about the unenforcability of a nonbonding resolution.
Mitch McConnell—counter to his antidemocratic mantra that he won't bring up for a vote any legislation the president won't sign—has only pledged to bring it up because he knows Trump WON'T sign it, and wants Democrats to twist in the wind for a politically difficult stand one way or the other on a bill with no chance at becoming law.
President Obama didn't endorse a gas tax in 2009 because he was (successfully) trying to save us from a second Great Depression, and your ilk had mobilized the nonsense "TEA Party" erroneously accusing him of raising taxes. He did propose a gas tax after the economy recovered.
He and I are both with you on "dynamic market economies are essential to create the kind of wealth that makes environmental protections affordable." You do know we HAVE that, nevertheless every Republican president undoes the energy & environmental policies of their Democratic successor.
It "shouldn't be hard to make the case for large-scale (infrastructure) investments," yet in two years the self-proclaimed "builder president," with a massive infrastructure deficit, a roaring economy and Congressional majorities, has completely failed to do so.
Apparently only Republicans are allowed to come up with plausible, positive and bipartisan results. So what are you waiting for?
1
Perhaps the "extremists" on the left will have some impact on the "extremists" on the right, the people who deny the science, refuse to open their eyes, protect the polluting practices of the industries that provide their campaign finances and post-congressional jobs, or who trust that the lord almighty will protect the planet, and they will come to a reasonable compromise position.
But I am a sceptic.
"Then again, if climate change is a potentially humanity-wrecking event, why shouldn’t we treat it as an alien-invasion equivalent? "
If your scenario above is correct, then future generations will look back at your statement that the Green New Deal is "impractical radicalism and feckless virtue-signalling" as the tragic illusions & stubborn denial of corporate centrists in the face of existential catastrophe.
1
Nature is not going to wait . Republicans may wait; Democrats may wait. Nature doesn't. Nature happens.
1
Warning signs are all around us. They are raising the question as to whether we will be able to continue to survive in the symbiotic planetary relationship that has allowed us to come this far. That relationship has for the last several million years allowed our species and all others extant today to recycle and renew. This is no longer the case. Our post Axial Age rapacious consumption of planetary resources is the cause.
Planetary resource depletion and destruction (negative external costs) were never a part of Adam Smith's pricing equation nor was recompense for ongoing irreparable ecological consequences. The Green New Deal calls for a pricing recognition of negative external costs beginning with fossil fuels.
We desperately need to change the way we think.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
1
Bret is in thrall of the creative destruction of capitalism. So the worse it gets the more remarkable and dynamic will be what comes next.
2
So, after decades of being told that we were just wrong, alarmist, or worse, making it all up in order to bring down capitalism—now our problem is that we are not being alarmist ENOUGH!? What you are seeing, Bret, is the scientific and policy community tiptoeing through the political minefield that the deniers and radical skeptics have put in our way.
The people who reject the scientific evidence of glacial melting and ocean warming are kind of like Trump supporters: they have shown themselves to be impervious to the truth. Our only hope is that they die off soon enough that the generation that will bear the brunt of climate change have time to at least partially mitigate it.
"Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try." JFK.
2
It is not difficult to imagine Americans demanding a wall, but this time to keep out the oceans.
And if that happens, it truly will be a national emergency.
Nancy Pelosi isn't being a climate skeptic so much as she's reminding any upstart just who speaks for the House.
3
My first question is - Is 'virtue signaling' some kind of new catchphrase? My second question is - Are you serious Bret?
So the latest fad is that the world will end in 12 years. Just ask any of the people who take that as a “scientific fact” if they know the difference between data, a hypothesis and a forward model in science.
Just publish an extensive interview with a respectable climate scientist, who is well aware of the reality and dangers of climate change, and ask him what should the public think about this 12 year deadline to doom. Dare to explain how we should understand the value and uncertainty of the best climate forward models. Ask if we understand the complexity of climate and climate change enough to believe that climate is like a thermostat: you just move the dial and in a few years you get what you want.
Since many of us are likely to live another twelve years, I have a question: if the end of the world will not come, will all the fanatics apologize ? Will they learn that for science you go to scientists, not self-serving journalists ?
3
> War socialism? Or global poverty?
Neither. We're facing another ice age or Triassic–Jurassic asteroid event. We will have to react and adapt nimbly without imagining we can control events.
Shakespeare is useful here Bret:
"discretion is the better part of valor"
1
@Randy King yes, if discretion costs little or nothing.
Liberals of Pelosi's age thought they could radically change the world in the 1960's and though Nixon was eventually driven from office, in reality he and his kind won (the Black Panthers were exterminated; same with AIM, the environmentalists and civil rightists were infiltrated). The 60's liberals learned that they couldn't change the world, and if the "me generation" couldn't, then nobody else ever can either in their minds. Only Bernie apparently didn't take that lesson away from that era. All the others got pragmatism beaten into them. They followed the Clintons into neo-liberalism. And now that generation is doing better and better financially, while each successive generation is a little worse off. And that generation knows that they won't be around when climate change really kicks into high gear (presumably we ain't seen nothing yet), so I don't know if the "me generation" can really wrap their heads around something that won't directly affect them; they tried the altruism thing big time 50 years ago and it still stings. They won't retire; they won't give up power; they won't trust anybody under 60, just like they wouldn't trust anybody over 30 back then. I doubt Biden would prioritize climate change; Warren would to a greater degree, but we really need a new resurgence of youthful energy on the left like there was in the 60s to try it again and the Pelosis and Bidens should resist being the old guard standing in the way.
The worst predictions are the most likely, and the vast majority of humans are incapable of conceptualizing the necessary changes to their lifestyles that are necessary. It is more likely that humans will allow their grandchildren to bear the weight of the horrors they have bequeathed them. It is amazing to me how political columnists can divorce political expediency from reality. It's never a question of truth for them, it's how foolish Democrats are for supporting a policy that's unpopular. Our political systems are unequipped to handle the problem of global warming. The human race is doomed. If you are reading this newspaper you are among the luckiest of humans in history. Enjoy your life. Kindly suggest that your children not procreate, and do something to mitigate the pain and suffering of those less fortunate. Life will go on without us, for better or worse, it's only ourselves, or our descendants really that we're hurting. It's sad really but most of us don't really care.
1
Memo toBrett Stephens:
“And in the face of such charges, Nero searched for a scapegoat for the fire. He chose the Christians and persecuted them ruthlessly, torturing and executing them in hideous ways. Despite this public spectacle, Nero still found himself blamed for the fire, so Nero did fiddle while old Rome did burn”
-History Channel-
2
Well said - kudos...
Even the unsaid part is well said...
2
"If Pelosi is skeptical of [the GND], where do [progressives] imagine the rest [of] the country is?"
Catching up with them fast, Stephens, that's where:
"[T]here is big agreement that climate change is a real thing and is happening before our eyes, according to a massive survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication.
"That data showed 70 percent of Americans believe 'global warming is happening' and 57 percent believe 'global warming is being caused mostly by human activities.' In a nation as divided as the United States is right now, those are remarkable numbers."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/consensus-emerges-climate-change-debate-n950646
2
Nancy and all other boomers are, at heart, skeptics of anything that would be mildly inconvenient to them. Remember this is the first generation that is leaving the world a worse place for their children.
Higher mileage standards, more subsidies for wind and solar, signing the Paris climate deal? Those are the sorts of policies Nancy Pelosi believes in, and would happily endorse if stars align under a future Democratic president.
http://www.gari.pk/accessories/
1
Climate change is already irreversible, uncontrollable and catastrophic. The attendant mass extinction started decades ago and is getting worse. Once, in the 1980's when it became clear that human activity was affecting the global climate, I had hope that human beings would respond. Jimmy Carter even put solar panels on the White House. But short term economic imperatives, along with heavy doses of greed and stupidity, thwarted any action. Many more species will disappear, and millions of people will suffer and die. Humans will probably (unfortunately) continue to be the dominant species, but they will be in a totally different world. My only regret is that I will probably die before seeing Mar A Lago under water. But I take solace in knowing that under water it will go.
2
"Are we dealing with a problem so severe that it requires the political and economic equivalent of war socialism?"
"War socialism"? What? Oh, right - that's what the right wing labels a WWII-type national mobilization of resources when the proposal comes from progressives.
Good job joining up to serve your party, right alongside Sen. Cotton, Stephens, since Trump fired the first "socialism" shot at Fort Sumpter in his SOTU:
"Judging by their initial reactions to the Green New Deal resolution...Trump, Republican leaders, and other longtime opponents of climate action seem to have decided that the best way to block such an economy-wide mobilization is to try to paint it as 'socialism...Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) went so far as to claim the Green New Deal begins with 'socialism' but 'ends with the Gestapo.' Major media outlets, like Axios, have already begun parroting the GOP line of attack....But the Green New Deal’s mobilization isn’t socialism any more than America’s remarkable undertaking to win WWII."
https://thinkprogress.org/green-new-deal-ocasio-cortez-7c9ac944b37d/
Beware of what a loud vocal minority can accomplish.
It was a loud vocal minority that persuaded Amazon to abandon its LIC plans, Most people in NYC approved of Amazon going there.
Loud vocal minorities are the guerilla fighters of activism. They move quick, strike fast, and make life miserable for everyone else. They are the modern freedom fighters. They are on the right side of history. If you are not with them you are against them.
When Florida is underwater, I am sure it will be a comfort to know that Bret Stephens favored rational and cautious incrementalism and that the American public remained realistic in all their environmental demands
So what climate change controls and reversals does Mr Stephens' party suggest and support. Oh, sorry, they still regard it as a hoax.
Mr. Stephens is awfully "iffy", the main ifs being "if climate change is real and if it will lead to the forecasted disasters. He doesn't know the science, or perhaps as a liberal arts guy, he doesn't understanding it. (Unlike Trump, though, he is not a "dotard" who may have a learning disability making it difficult for him to learn from the written word (where all the detail is) and gets his information from haranguing speed freaks to make up for it) Or being intensely aware of Israeli survival, he may think that is enough of an ongoing emergency for a conservative (or liberal) government to address. He also doesn't seem to realize that go-slow-on-climate-change is from deliberate opposition and disinformation by the fossil fuel industry to protect their worldwide oil oligarch monopolies. They routinely buy politicians, another problem in itself, because American law and Court rulings make it so easy for them to do. And in recent yrs the price of oil over $30/bar. in a carbon tax would have paid for the switch to renewables; plus we'd have cheaper energy. There is also the loss of biodiversity and mass extinction of plant/animal organisms that is part of this.
Environmental justice is also social justice. Nancy Pelosi has been fighting for social justice as long as i can remember. Real people will be harmed by climate change, just as real people were harmed by not stopping the Nazis. The voices of a Green awakening need to be heard now. There is a tipping point.
1
Core issue us the risk is highly asymmetric on the downside. Just pray the negative feedback loops are containable.
Russian roulette anyone....
Bret writes as though it's all a matter of tone and politics. If that is all that was at stake, nobody would care about climate change very much. One of his two alternatives is the case: apocalyptic trouble ahead--or not. This is a scientific question, not something to be analyzed by political thinkers. So far the scientists are saying it's the former: apocalypse ahead. Red lights & sirens, calling for all of that annoying lefty Green New Deal stuff. Does Stephens know something the rest of us don't?
1
This is a totally uninspired bit of writing. People with a platform like Brett has have a unique opportunity and responsibility to urge aggressive action on climate change. What a terrible waste for Brett to give us more of the same: inertia, procrastination, and inaction. Can’t you do better than that Brett for your grandchildren?
2
Now capitalists talk about the contradictions of capitalism.
This is the most anti-intellectual, unscientific discussion ever launched by NYT. How can anyone comment on the problem without assessing the true (statistical?, scientific?) extent of both the problem and the solution. Even with the best and most dispassionate assessment the problem is an improbale estimate. Further, no one is able to predict the response of the many nations that could not exist in modern times without carbon-based fuel. It is more clear that the GND would destroy the world order more surely than climate change.
1
I'll believe global warming is a serious problem when liberal politicians and movie stars sell their mansions and move into reasonably sized houses and drive reasonably sized cars.
I'll believe global warming is a serious problem when the leaders of poorer countries decide to join the fight against climate change by encouraging their people to use birth control instead of just demanding money from rich countries.
I'll believe global warming is a serious problem when media companies like the NY Times stop cutting down millions of trees every year to make news print when it could easily publish 100% on-line.
In other words, when the hypocrisy stops, then I'll believe this is a real problem.
Bret Stephens is a climate change denier, and a denier that he is a climate change denier.
2
The best piece I've seen on what we should be modeling US efforts after was in the New York Times article below this week - please read it, and pass it on so that we can get a real discussion going:
How to Cut U.S. Emissions Faster? Do What These Countries Are Doing. https://nyti.ms/2E7x2cV
1
Hypothetical. Why not bring all the best scientists, urban and rural planners, and other professionals with relevant expertise together – in Israel to have an international Manhattan project – to try to come up with solutions to climate change?
Would Stephens be for it because it would place Israel in a positive light while also upsetting the progressives?
Would Stephens be against it because it would drive a wedge between Israel and conservatives who have failed to respond to climate change?
Would Stephens be for it because Israel has some of the best scientists in the world and is exposed because of its position next to the Mediterranean Sea?
Would Stephens be against it because – what the heck do scientists know? Only businessmen have the ability to solve problems.
Asking for a friend – while billions of friends.
More pertinent to this article: does Bret Stephens have a shred of dignity, honest, and compassion left? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Translation: I need a wedge issue to use to mock the left so I can keep my credentials as a member of the right wing. Mocking Pelosi and AOC will chalk up a lot of points for me, and if you notice, I didn't take a side, so I can jump ship at any time.
As for me, Hugh, Global climate change is the insanity test of our time. If you spend time ridiculing it, you fail.
Nancy Pelosi is an expert on what the voters will listen to and how far to push agendas. That is all she is doing, making sure things stay on track until 2020. I give her a pass, for now. The American people, as a whole, are too ignorant and greedy to embrace the changes that need to be made to give children born today a chance at a healthy life in 50 years, so they need to be brought along slowly.
Kind of like how women's rights, and civil rights, were (mostly) brought into law. Slowly.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
1
Brett leave Nancy alone.
There is a committee fir that problem.
We were NEVER going to decarbonize and prevent whatever is to occur from fossil fuel usage. To think so is innane denial of the nature of the human animal, as real a natural phenomenon of nature as is climate. Competition for resources is foundational to the tool making ape. The only hope of decarbonization is that some of the apes will make tools that render fossil fuels the less immediately economical choice.
“Climate change means change, not doom.”
It is only doom if we make it so in dysfunctional reactions.
The answer is resilience. Resilience is not a plan, it is a capacity. The capacity to absorb shocks, expected or unexpected, and adapt. History shows us some things about what fosters resilience.
Resilience is fostered by decentralization. All humans are in error practically most of the time. Centralized economic control leads to massive crippling system wide errors instead of local private errors that others learn from. Socialism will spell doom.
Resilience is fostered by traveling light without being burdened by debt, having the credit capacity to borrow to adapt to the unexpected and being freed of paying interest in yesterday’s lifestyle. Continuing national deficit spending to bankruptcy is doom.
Resilience requires intellectual pluralism. Treating people with differing social, political, and scientific notions limits the range of possible responses. Ideologically closed minds spell doom.
1
@KBronson
Resilience is fostered by individuals and subsidiaries having the freedom to act without waiting on permission from central authority.
A capacity by central authority to compel collective action in narrow circumstances is a feature of resilience societies, but only when used narrowly with a light hand, lest it destroy the greatest foundation of resilient societies, which is freedom.
1
"Pelosi’s seal clap sealed the fate of the Green New Deal. Now it’s time to move climate policy beyond impractical radicalism and feckless virtue-signaling to something that can achieve a plausible, positive and bipartisan result."
No, it isn't.
It's time to double, or triple the effort, and make it clear that the only way that we can all be saved is or the government to manage all aspects of personal life that impact a carbon footprint.
By 2020, the Democrats should make it clear that they are the only ones who can save the United States, and the world, and that central control of the entire society's behavior is the only thing that can work.
1
I find it hard to swallow any words from Bret Stephens on the subject of climate change policy when he has made a career of dancing around and avoiding the facts of the science: that cllimate change is real amd primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Every professional scientific society in the world accepts that. I don't know about Bret Stephens.
1
Climate change zealots have set back the cause a decade. It's time for cooler heads to step in and allow everyone to engage. If it's as critical as claimed -- and I firmly believe it is -- then skepticism and questions MUST be allowed. They do not own the issue. It affects everyone, and everyone is entitled to a voice.
Let the grown ups step in and let's finally have a real discussion, which allows dissent and healthy skepticism.
7
@AACNY,
Amen! Until there is a real discussion there will never be a real consensus about future strategy and tactics.
And, Brett,
Please lay off the "coastal defenses". Covering everyone's favorite beaches in concrete is NOT going to happen. It's a career-ender for any local politician by the shore and a cruel way to treat future generations of kids.
1
Do conservatives want to talk? Listen? Learn?
A Green New Deal may have been "stillborn" in the past, but it has risen from the dead. We are the people behind this congress and we say nothing less than keep it in the ground. Stop exporting fossil fuels. Satisfy our own needs until clean energy takes over. Put Americans to work in solar, wind and the technology of the future.
Capitalism as practised by the global behemoths benefits only the 1% and must be regulated. Everybody knows that now, just as we all know climate change is real. We don't have time to "work patiently" with it. And don't worry about China and India--they have their own plans for a better future and are still in the Paris accords (unlike us.)
You are throwing it all against the wall and hoping something sticks. But don't go by the Washington vote against a carbon tax which was defeated by the monied interests. We will just keep coming, as you can see by the Green New Deal.
You defeat the pupose by recommending "coastal defenses" while still exporting fossil fuels; and it is your "dynamic market economies" that are choking the planet.
3
Yes, some climate change solutions can be enacted now in an incremental way that doesn't discomfit too many people. But, the longer we wait to make these changes, the more draconian they will have to be. So, it behooves us to get started now while real change can be made without the radical inconveniences that will be necessary if we wait.
3
Lighten up people. The Green New Deal is not going anywhere any time soon.
What makes the Green New Deal so important is that finally, finally, the discussion is about the future. It acknowledges that, although we have a right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, we also have a personal responsibility to ourselves and each others.
This is a conversation that is long overdue. Congress, remember conversation, friendly debate, compromise? Do you do that any more?
I applaud AOC and Senator Markey for bringing this issue forward, reminding us of what is at stake. The Green New Deal is worth the time for all of us to study it. Is there any alternative?
4
Sure enough, the best conservative commentators the GOP has to offer invoke Marx. How surprising. To Stephens and every other Republican who opposes Democratic ideas, it’s a requirement that they compare them to the horrors of Soviet-style command-and-control, which by the way is a total misreading of Marx’s ideas. Anyway, how about reviving cap-and-trade, a Republican idea for creating a pollution market in which industry would trade credits for the right to pollute? The overall effect would be to decrease the aggregate amount of pollution. McCain was on board with it in the 1990s until the GOP went off the rails to the right. That, I guess, is the reason Stephens and others in his party don’t even engage in a mature dialogue about climate pollution because then they’d have to confront their own intellectual dishonesty.
3
Comparing it to global poverty is an Interesting way to put it, but the good thing about the Green New Deal is it is the first time someone has put out legislative proposals that look at the problem in a serious and comprehensive way. Now we are finally talking about it. Moving away from fossil fuels and making buildings more energy efficient takes time and investment, and that is what is needed. And while the right focuses and meat reduction to discredit all climate change, it is barely mentioned in the proposal.
And according to every government agency, world body and scientist, massive global climate shifts are coming and will be disrupting our lives, and it is going to cost money to address, whether you like it or not. So tone down the condescending ridicule and start thinking of counter proposals if yo do not like what you see,, Change is coming whether you want it to or not.
2
If the planet is to be saved for future generations, something has to be done. And any 'green' initiatives we can come up with to turn things around, will come from initiatives like what the Green New Deal will result in.
In the late 60's, the architect Paolo Soleri, after studying in Wisconsni at Taliesen under the tutleage of Frank LLoyd Wright, initiated his brainchild 'Arcology', design theories to put in place because of increasing density of mankind's populations throughout the world.
Arcology served as an alternative to the way rapidly emerging populatioins were being settled, what we typically call 'sprawl'. Soleri's visionery Arcology continues today. It was radical, but a beginning.
In order to survive as a species, we must adapt, Modernity being the era at hand we are evolving through. Electic cars, automated industry have surfaced for example.
So let's embrace The Green New Deal for what it is, what may come from it, but not let the nay-sying types use it as a political tool to besmirch their opposition, like what the Repulican Party is attempting to do in this time of need.
1
Here is my climate forecast: I predict that Bret Stephens will one day regret writing this snide, dismissive, "What, me worry?" column. His grandkids, who will endure the ravages of climate change, will say, "Grandpa Bret was a wonderful man, but he was totally out to lunch when it came to the issue of climate change."
I am not a scientist. But I have read that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that climate change poses an urgent threat to humanity, which requires an equally urgent response. A few years ago, the Pentagon ranked climate change a serious threat to America's national security, because it has the potential to create millions of migrants and undermine political stability around much of the globe. So I cannot understand why Bret Stephens remains so cavalier about this pressing issue.
4
How about we start effective climate policy based on serious economic theory. William Nordhaus, Nobel laureate , 2018, has established a solid economic theory that shows the cost-benefit of rapid transition to non-carbon energy sources. Billions spent now will saves $$trillions by 2050. The sooner we transition, the lower the cost.
We apply cost benefit analysis to many other problems routinely, why is it so difficult for free-marketeers to act on decarbonization. I don’t think we have to look far.
1
“By contrast, those who think climate change is a real but manageable problem would do well to say as much, too. Climate change means change, not doom.”
This is just another example of Bret not understanding the problem ahead. The environment doesn’t conform to economic curves, there’s no “one more unit supplied leads to one less ecosystem”. There are tipping points that we can’t anticipate. We’ve seen what new-age natural disasters look like in Houston and Paradise, CA. Buckets of water flying sideways, people burned in their cars, sounds apocalyptic to me.
1
Problem with all these 'green' initiatives is that they all reduce to the marketers dream -- 'just buy the right products and everything will be wonderful'. But the rub is that this approach does nothing to mitigate the harm being caused by climate change right now -- nor can it. And fails to address the larger issue of how to adapt to a changing climate and re-engineer human society and centuries of the built environment. And as has been observed by the climate scientists -- if humanity ceased to exist it would still take centuries for the impact to be felt. So the 'buy stuff' approach is just wrong, IMHO. A different and perhaps better approach would be to help those being harmed now first. Then develop a road map into a future where climate change and humanity are both factors. After all, the 'buy stuff' approach only works if one is rich -- a problem not shared by a large percentage of humanity.
1
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The GND proposes to remake society, our culture, and is inconsistent with our history and who we are. It is a utopia that is being proposed. An avalanche of changes for people who usually can't even keep a New Year's resolution to call their mothers once a week.
It is a shame that the proposal did not just focus on climate. We might have been able to make progress there. But because it was a way to slip in the socialists' economic goals for our country, less will be accomplished. In fact, we will go the other direction.
Socialists don't learn from experience. Data showed that Sanders, with his paranoia about mistreatment by the DNC and about how the Democratic Party had failed (huh?), turned some Democrat voters into Trump voters and others into third-party voters. It was enough to cost Clinton the Presidency. With Clinton as President, we could actually have made progress on climate control.
And it will happen again. The socialists will get us another four years of Trump and another four years of degradation to our environment.
And, in their minds, it will always be someone else's fault.
4
@Dan
Progressives tend to fall in love with their utopian proposals, fueled by their sense of moral superiority. When reality collides, as it always does, and their proposals falter, they never fail to blame everyone else.
3
Clinton lost the presidency because of her's and the Democratic Party's ineptitude and lack of any real vision of how to move the country forward. And the sooner some Democrats stop blaming Sanders or Nader or whomever for their repeated losses and take responsibility for their party having abandoned its former core principles and turned the party into a corporate owned Republican-lite version, and thus a perennial loser, the sooner they will start winning again. The Democrats chose a terrible candidate who stood for basically nothing beyond the status-quo and she lost, so please own it, move on, and stop casting blame on everyone else for her loss. Her loss rests on her and her supporters, and no one else.
@Peter
What a naive view of history. Do you not realize what this country would be like today if it hadn't been for what Democrats have stood for and accomplished the past 50 years?
This is the typical stuff one gets from socialists--that because things weren't perfect then it was Democrats' fault, completely ignoring the uphill battless that have been won over the years.
Clinton wasn't perfect. She was, however, good. And you are showing here how perfect is the enemy of the good.....and ends up with bad.
The Democratic Party has never abandoned its core principles. It just was never "perfect."
Welcome to reality. Go ahead and search for the perfect, the GND being a prime example. It will set us back. And then you can keep blaming Democrats.
Nader got us the Iraq War and Sanders/socialists got us Trump. And you still can blame Democrats? Time to wake up to reality, guy.
I don't know Mr. Stephens' age, but as a boomer climate activist, I can tell him that, while the aging population of the US seems to be unable to grasp the urgency of climate destruction, they youth gets it. Lack of urgency about our real disaster is one big reason why so many progressives were skeptical about Pelosi and the other senior citizens who are in charge in the House.
If we lived in a culture where leaders considered the consequences of their actions on the next seven generations, instead of only on their bank accounts, we would have been turning the environmental ship around decades ago. It is time for my generation to think more about our great grandchildren and less about owning the newest and shiniest things.
8
Leaders lead. For all the trash talk about the green new deal at least it takes a risk by throwing some ideas out there. The reaction shows that people are uncomfortable with the need to change their current lives to make the future better; situation normal.
Pelosi's reaction and yours, demonstrate that people of a certain age, class and priveleged who have leadership roles aren't concerned because they'll be able to insulate themselves from climate problems.
Sure, our capitalist system will always find a way. Carbon tax everyone, the hoi poli can walk or bus, while the wealthy continue to fly.
Part of the point is that we are all in this together and the solution in the short time frame we have is going to require sacrifice from everyone and contributions from everyone. As long as you and fellow columnists and politicians spend energy mocking the green new deal instead of offering workable solutions you say it lacks, climate solutions will remain a dream as we head into a climate nightmare.
2
The New Green Deal is too radical to survive our partisan legislative process and as the column points out political dynamite. Let's face it, we as citizens are not willing or ready to give up our SUV's, go vegetarian, lose the AC, stop taking airline flights, make profit and so on. We are so used to doing what we want regardless of the consequences. There is a reason the United States has a bigger carbon footprint than any other nation. So we will continue to do practically nothing until it comes to a critical mass. Then we will have to enact something like the NGD to survive.
2
Equating doing something about climate change with the end of capitalism is classic, conservative, preserve the privilege of the ruling class at all costs obfuscation of the worst kind. Maybe the flag being run up the flag pole by people who Stephens so haughtily dismisses isn’t the final edition. Maybe it shows the imagination and forward looking perspective that is needed. Maybe the industries that will solve the problem haven’t gotten off the ground yet. Maybe if people like Stephens quit shilling for the Koch brothers and their ilk other entrepreneurs might come along and creative destruction will send the fossil fuel industry where it belongs. People like Stephens are fine with picking the winners as long as they’re already winners. Losers are the ones who ride bicycles to work, right Brett?
2
Washington State's vote was over-run by carbon corporation's donations. Out spent out advertised etc etc....a bad example in the article's context.
And it still had a fairly large proportion of support even in the final tally.
2
This is so much similar to what Lincoln faced with slavery.
The abolitionists turned out in the end to be 100% right but it took America 100 yrs. to agree with them ie they were 100% wrong at the time with the tactics they used, throw out the constitution, violent slave uprisings etc. As Lincoln said if he had listened to the abolitionists he would have lost the Civil War and slavery would spread west and we would have probably ended up like South Africa, ending de facto slavery in circa 1990 instead of instead of the beginning of the end in 1865 for America.
Lincoln knew that and went slow with emancipation. He won the Civil War first and then freed the slaves because without the former he could not get the latter.
1
Appallingly callous and ill-informed pessimism, as usual. Let's break it down:
1. Climate change is far more pressing than Stephens implies; see recent IPPR report for one example.
2. GND has widespread support; look at Yale polling data
3.Washington carbon fee: this carbon fee was poorly designed in that it did not return a measurable and direct benefit to those hit hardest, though it did forgo the technocratic tax structure of the previous attempt in Washington. It also faced massive opposition spending by oil & gas industries, which completely overshadowed the Yes campaign.
4. Fallout shelters quip: A defeatist view helps no one, and the GND's level of press coverage demonstrates the value of ambition. This defeatism is cowardly.
5. "dynamic market economies are essential"
(a) fossil fuel monopolies do not guarantee efficient market outcomes; they'll invest in what benefits them (CCS) even if more expensive in total.
(b) Arguments for endless growth are all premised on completely ignoring the self-undermining externalities it imposes, in the form of ecological destruction and social instability. Endless growth is bad.
(c) substantive innovation has historically come from massive government investment, similar to the GND. The "free markets = innovation" trope is tired.
9
Bret, yes of course the Dems could do better on climate policy in both talk and action. What is your party doing besides denying the science, taking lots of money from fossil fuel execs and pushing policies that exacerbate global warming?
11
It couldn't have been said better. The corporate democrats can feel safe from doing anything. They have it perfect with a total bozo President they can hammer at will and they can stand up for Bezos. They can give standing ovations to Netanyahu as he lies about the nuclear threat from Israel. Then deny any succor for abandoned Palestinians. But they boo and hiss when Trump actually wants to push a war with Iran. Yea Nancy can give her husband insider business tips. She is the princess of gentrified super star cities. The new green deal needs work to make a viable legislative agenda. But this never going to happen back of hand speaks volumes to the corporate democrat sensibilities. Nancy loves the Citizens United world where the grass roots are just the little people.
1
Seek a bipartisan approach to climate change? There doesn't seem much point. To borrow from recent commentary in these pages, conservatives will not be content until the earth is " .... used up, overpopulated .... " and left nearly destitute of clean air and water. Once that "God's work" is complete, I expect conservatives would frame a reaction to the debacle through their trusty lens of monetization ... only to discover too late that writing a check is not just inadequate, but sadly the lone response of which they are capable.
The climate predictions are based upon models. Inadequate models with not all factors nor their interactions included. The predictions are of course never better than the models. But these models get adjusted and get better. And so do the predictions.
If you have been following the predictions over the last few decades there is an obvious trend. The predictions get worse and worse every time the models are improved.
Of course the very rich can move to places where the consequences are not that bad so don't expect any serious material contribution from them. Due to the, a.o., deplorable educational level of most US citizens, a massive minority doesn't believe these predictions and those will refuse to contribute either. So indeed the author is right that if there would be some US action to decrease green house gases it has to be minor because politically there is not enough support. Actually given this fact we can be sure that the goals of the Paris climate deal will not be reached. And that is even with the current not perfect models a disaster. But it wouldn't be surprising if in the next round of updated models it turns out that, even if we take the measures that this author call ridiculous, we cannot prevent the climate to change dramatically, and in an exponential way, to a level where possibly a billion poor people start to migrate. The only way to avoid that is a war or an epidemic that would kill the majority of the world population.
3
Climate change is that serious, but you have to get the attention of mainstream politicians, journalists and the public. It doesn't mean you have to do everything in The Green New Deal, but it could become the basis of a serious discussion, including whether things in it not directly linked to climate change (e.g. recognizing injustices) should be, and things not mentioned in it should be, like a carbon tax. As it is getting so much attention, and even slightly softening conservatives like Stephens and Douthat, it begins to show its power. What are not helpful are the caricatures of it like ending capitalism, which does not mean that capitalism does not have to evolve (see my comment on Goldberg's column yesterday), imputing it contains things it doesn't, meaningless labels like "socialism," saying as Egan did today that it doesn't have "details," which can come once you have attention. With that attention and seriousness, you also can begin to generate creativity, as well as pick up on creativity that was always there but had been missed. And what's wrong, at least in most cases, with "upgrading all existing buildings?" Pragmaticism can come later, once you've gotten that attention, established urgency, catalyzed creativity. Then be as pragmatic as you can be. We do want the measures to come to work as well as possible, including the prototypes, which will certainly need tweaking. Once we start on this, then perhaps Pelosi will post it, and the next President will sign it.
2
I appreciate your pragmatism. In fact, we are all climate skeptics. But, we all could do much better under the motivational banner that real leaders are supposed to display. Most of the readers are too young to have listened to JFK:
" Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors.
Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap
the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce."
And of course, I can still hear the laughter of some when JFK declared:
"We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too."
Turned out that somehow these things were not just slogans.
1
You write "Climate change means change, not doom.", Bret. That seems the essence of your position. If you are correct, the gradualist approach may yet mitigate things sufficiently. But if the 'tipping point' predictions of many climate scientists prove even partly correct, your opinions and Nancy's pragmatism matter as little to this as Trump's bombast. From glaciers to coral reefs, "its nature's way of telling you something's wrong."
2
What’s missing in this article is what’s missing for most skeptics and apparently the political center: science. I’ve worked in land conservation for ten years and have seen the changes with my own eyes. In the southwest we are already looking at the collapse of the dominant tree species and that will trickle down to every western ecosystem. We can survive the forest fires and hurricanes, but not the loss of pollinators and food supply.
I don’t get it, my family back east whose region has been less directly impacted will wait until this is in their front yard before they will acknowledge the true severity. Apparently Pelosi and most of the USA feel the same, thats far too late. Last year was too late. If your home is on fire you don’t deny it until it gets to your bedroom, you call the fire department. If democrat leadership won’t take this on in earnest, I will be donating to the campaign of any challengers to their leadership who will.
11
Bret Stephen's use of a certain word shows that he, like Green New Deal advocates and many columnists, does not have a grip on the problem. In his article he uses the word "we" twelve times, all clearly meaning what we in the US should be doing.
More savvy commentators know that the US produces but 14% of world carbon emissions, a proportion that is declining as China, India and the rest of the developing world prioritize catching up economically with the developed world ahead of them being willing to make the great sacrifices necessary to solve the climate change problem.
Any honest assessment of the GND knows that it would wreak havoc with the US economy. But it is said that it would be worth it if it saves mankind. The problem is that unless the rest of the world joined the US in the GND, the US's heroic efforts would hardly make a difference, making the US economic martyrs, crippling us to the advantage of other countries.
So, facetiously, AOC and her entourage might better spend their time trying to sell the GND in China, India and the rest of the developing world.
The naivety of Mr. Stephens’ article becomes apparent if you substitute "we the peoples of the world" for his plain "we". In a similar column, Gail Collins at least acknowledged that it would be necessary for the developing world to join in the GND, but in anticipating their reluctance for economic sacrifice, she delusionally suggests that the US should be prepared to subsidize their participation.
I am persuaded that global warming is occurring and that human activity is a major factor causing it. I also know that even severe emissions reduction by the US and Europe will not be effective because the world's largest emitter by far is China, and China plans to increase its emissions by another 25% by 2030 (as China declared to the world in the Paris Climate Accord, which plan was stupidly approved by the US and Europe). By 2030, China will be causing global warming all by itself, regardless what the US and Europe do. However, all is not as bad as the environmentalists and politicians claim. To be sure, there are many costs which global warming will impose in the future. But there will be redeeming benefits, too. As the earth warms, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor and global rainfall will increase (scientists estimate about 1%-2% increase in global rainfall for each 1 degree of warming). That increase in fresh rainwater will mitigate the shortage we are now experiencing. Increased rainfall and warmer temperatures will increase the ability to produce food as growing seasons lengthen and more rain both provides more water for irrigation and reduces the need for irrigation. I do not know whether the benefits from global warming will be greater than the costs, or the same, or less. But it will not be the all negative, disaster which environmentalists and politicians repeatedly tell us. The greatest threat to our future is increasing population, not global warming
This paper recently reported that when people see the effects of climate change they are more willing to urge action and spend the money to achieve it. If they understood better the costs of the natural disasters we have yet to fully mitigate: Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, etc., etc., they would also understand better the economic disaster that is continued dependence on fossil fuels. Keeping the population ignorant of the costs we are already paying for past decades of do-nothingism on climate is a nice way to maintain the status quo. And don't forget that the primary reason for the failure of the carbon pricing scheme in Washington was the millions of dollars spent lobbying against it by the very oil industry that claims it cares about climate change.
All efforts to deny the reality of economic/environmental disaster must end, and Nancy Pelosi must get on board with an aggressive decarbonization program.
3
Dear Bret,
Thanks for the best op-Ed on the Green New Deal so far. The key is to have open congressional hearings and debate on the implications and potential responses to global warming. Your column infers but does not explicitly state that you believe global warming is real. Do you? This needs to be point #1 in the debate. So many government agencies have written their affirmation yet congress has not done so. Point #2 is to then gauge the actual and potential consequences which will be difficult. My philosophy is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Finally, the last is to agree on solutions. I agree this part has to be devoid of other issues like income inequality in order to have any chance of success. Many believe the solutions can actually benefit our economy through a combination of renewable, nuclear and carbon trapping hydrogen carbon energy sources. As we are a semi-capitalist society, use of regulations, subsidies and taxes in addition to massive infrastructure improvement should be the tools to move forward. If we can have agriculture subsidies and food safety laws for so many years it seems logical we can use similar tools in our energy policy. I think substantial subsidy of carbon trapping technology would help to bring along the executive branch and many of his constituents in high carbon extraction states. Time to stop focusing on the wall and get to doing something about the potentially devastating consequences of global warming.
3
Potentially devastating? Are you paying attention to the science?
@Denise
Of course. I believe we can avoid some of the devastation and therefore it is potential. The actions in my comments are based on current science. Windmills and solar cannot supply all the US energy needs. Nuclear and carbon-trapping tech have to be part of the solution. Also, creating new infrastructure that will enable us to function in the face of environmental changes that we cannot avoid. Are you paying attention to the science or just looking to nitpick?
1
The Green New Deal suffers from unrealistic timelines (ten years to 100% GHG-free is not realistic), excessively broad scope (jobs, energy, ag, etc.), and imbalanced implementation (government, which I approve of, can't solve everything at once). As others have commented, it's a shame that a more practical and plausible plan wasn't brought forward. We need a bold plan that also makes sense technically, economically, and even politically.
3
Frightening that the solutions to the climate change threat may be beyond the grasp of the usual constitutional decision processes. Civilizations do unravel, crashing and burning after ignoring existential threats either by unwise political choices in electing leaders and adopting policies. In the end, no one will be celebrating the virtues of human autonomy and freedom of elections after catastrophes destroy our way of life. No, that doesn’t mean autocracy is the answer, a sort Platonic rule of the wise; what it does mean is raising the volume on the alarm should be unlimited. Pragmatic solutions, yes, minimizing the threat in the interest of sounding moderate, no.
1
Bret, the people who believe that climate change is an emergency are probably right, and were probably right 30 years ago, when no one paid the least bit of attention.
It probably *is* something we need to globally address with urgent change. The idea that it is manageable only comes with territory. It might be OK here in the US, but is likely to devastate drier regions, and hot countries. It is like to create migrations which will be Trump's national emergency and which won't be stopped by a wall, anymore than Africans are stopped by a treacherous sea.
Pelosi is the realist knowing we won't get anyone to act broadly, conclusively. But the New Green Deal? We need to look at it as a blueprint and start wising up.
Want to know what convinced me climate change will bear disastrous, expensive, brutal results? The insurance industry and the military planners think so.
4
I recommend reading Naomi Klein’s book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. Capitalism has no conscience and is leading the planet earth to destruction. Trump took America out of the Paris climate agreement and is now starting a new nuclear arms race with Russia. The capitalists in the military industrial complex are enriching themselves and we the people let it happen.
3
One reason I feel Bernie is real is because he is emotional about what he feels he needs to do so that his children and Grandchildren have a better world. Pelosi has children and Grandchildren too and I wonder what she says to them about what has to be done?
1
Hair shirts are hard to sell. The vast majority of people do not want to suffer for their own good, let alone the good of others, let alone the good of others in future generations.
But climate change is a consequential threat to humanity and must not be ignored. If anything the threat is being under reported with regard to ocean acidification.
How to solve it? With good old capitalism. People like to build stuff because building stuff creates jobs and profits. The New Deal was more about building stuff than redistributing wealth. A Green New Deal should be dedicated to building things too.
What to build? Infrastructure for carbon sequestration. That's what. It's really the only solution we've got because hair shirts never sell. It can be done and the question really comes down to whether or not we are willing to invest enough resources to make it happen.
Let's provide incentives and focus to make it happen. Let oil and coal mining companies get in on the action and make money by helping pull the carbon out of the air that they helped put into it. And let's continue to develop renewable energy sources so that they are cheaper than carbon and nuclear energy sources: demand for oil and gas will then die a natural death.
We don't need hair shirts. We need a Green New Deal that focuses on carbon sequestration. Let capitalists make their profits along the way. The effort will create good jobs and save the planet too.
3
carbon sequestration is all expense and no profit (without intense government regulation enforcement and subsidy) . Capitalism cannot do it. Especially not "good old capitalism"
@roger It's just another infrastructure project. Government provides the profit. Capitalism does the rest. Just like the original New Deal.
@Mike Marks
Hair shirts are all natural and biodegradable, too.
1
If she is anything, Speaker Pelosi is an experienced, clear-eyed, and practical politician. She understands that, if we wish to address any of the myriad crucial and even existential issues that face our country, we must first right the ship of state. Normal, rational government is not possible without first overcoming the delusions of Trumpism. That must be the first priority.
6
Everyone who’s expiring in the next 40 years is a skeptic because they can afford to be. So get out of the way old timers.
3
Is Bret Stephens a dissembler? Of course not.
We need some idealism to combat climate change, and here it is. We need to move the Overton Window, and here it is.
And yes, capitalism may allow (wealthy) humans to avoid the worst of climate "doom". May I remind all that it's not just humans who require a livable planet.
2
Mr. Stephens is correct. For climate change to be addressed realistically, we need a pragmatic approach. We need a plan that Republicans can get behind that involves profit potential. Like the heavy government spending of the World War II era, corporations will have to benefit from the plan. Climate change, opioid addiction, and gun violence are the real national emergencies, so let's treat them as such, but let's not have a plan that will alienate millions of Americans.
3
People who will be around in 2050 are rightfully alarmed .They will live in a different world-a world altered by climate events-a world where some areas will no longer be livable.Those who have a shorter timeline can afford to advocate for incremental and non controversial steps.This is truly a generational divide-we plan year to year instead of scores of years ahead for the time when our grandchildren will be our age.
4
Little will be done to combat climate change until it is so obvious that anyone who denies it will be deemed a fool. Or until the very rich begin to suffer, like when they did from the government sequestration that hobbled air travel. Suddenly, air travel was exempted from the reduced funding.
1
@Betaneptune - I should have written ". . . until it is so obvious that Fox News and Republicans finally accept it."
I have a different take. I fear human change more than climate change. My main concern is how we are still running over ecosystems everywhere. With tiny proudly protected areas here and there, more a testament to the conqueror than to the will to preserve.
Climate change is accelerating the ongoing catastrophe to the ecosystems. There is to me the major contradiction. Prevent climate change to protect what? Something that we will destroy or find a way to modify a little later?
If climate change makes (inconsistent) new dealers see humans for what they are, a force of invasion, then I welcome climate change. So we at least get a shot at preserving coral reefs, forests, grasslands and more. Otherwise, population growth will continue, poverty will keep pushing people to move to richer and freer countries. The faster we deal with all these issues, the better.
As for Manjoo's poor idea, considering climate change an alien invasion, I can only say that irony knows no bounds. Are we not the invasion you fear?
Climate change is about you and me changing.
Climate change is about loving this old wonderful earth, our mother our home. It is about loving this life, this amazing life. We are children of this little blue ball of a planet. Revolving around the sun in a universe so vast that we have no idea to as to it’s vastness, having no idea as to how life begins. And we can only guess to how the universe began. We really don’t know that much about this life do we? Otherwise humans would be treating themselves, others and this planet with a deeper understanding. Maybe if we slow ourselves down and take a look around and within ourselves we might see a mystical world so beyond words that that might be the only thing we need to know to guide us through this life. And if we take a look around this planet to see the madness we are collectively creating it might be the best reason to getting passed our unfounded fears, hate, greed, paranoia, and to electing representatives for the people and planet and not lobbyist for those who benefit from our collective confusion as to how we all want to live. Why are we so dependent on “leaders” when we know ourselves what fairness and sense of equality looks like and the need for it? Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote “We won’t be equitable to to the our planet until we learn to be equitable to each other”.
2
I mentioned in a previous comment that now it's capitalists who are talking about the contradictions of capitalism. One of the big contradictions boils down to overproduction and under-consumption. For instance, in the quest for greater and greater profits at the expense of employees' salaries you begin to run out of customers. The NY Fed just released information regarding the increase in late payments on car loans - yes, even in this "great" economy. Another contradiction (although maybe not a classic one) is, once again, in the quest for creating wealth any which way possible, you end up destroying the environment, your society, and yourself in the process. Why? The main problem is that capitalism (especially laissez-faire) has no mechanism for resolving any of its contradictions since all it's interested in is making money for a usually restricted group of people - that's it. So, unless we decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater, i.e., get rid of capitalism, we are forced to apply solutions from outside the system since the system doesn't HAVE much incentive for creating solutions. I agree that the Green New Deal is "green" in more ways than one, but if we don't start coming up with some solutions to our growing economic and environmental problems we are in for some really hard times ahead to say the least.
1
@Sisyphus Happy
Yes. We must acknowledge that the biggest contradiction of unfettered capitalism is that it panders to greed. Why isn’t 3 or 4% growth of savings enough? It is. But someone greedy wants 10% or 100% — remember the dolt who raised the price of the medicine he sold by 600%?
One hundred years ago, we had a world population of 1 billion but barely any electricity. Now, 8 billion and they all want electricity, and cars, and a/c and an iPhone. The only way to power that kind of growth is with an energy source that can grow exponentially...which oil, gas, coal appeared to be able to do. Until they are gone.
The sun shines everyday, and is delivered free to our doorstep, bathing the earth on far more energy than even 8 billion people can use. The only way to solve this problem is to dump fossil fuels, immediately, and switch to carbon free sources. Sigh. So obvious.
1
When people get upward in age they become skeptics and cynical of everything new or bold. Too many failures and misdirections, I suppose, causes it. They forget when they were young things like the moon landing proposed before the technology existed was seen as hopeful, purposeful, and the destiny of those countries that aspired to be great. Where has all the great visionary gone? It certainly won't be found in the Republican party.
2
@Veritas Odit Moras
Hey! I’m old, and the only thing I’m cynical about is young people who sound like old people! BTW, failure is how we learn. Don’t be afraid of it.
1
As Bret Stephens mentioned, China is still building coal fired power plants, as many as six a year. Even a moon shot effort by the U.S. is going to have a minimal effect on the world's climate. And it's unlikely China and India will follow our lead. These countries have tens of millions of poor people who want electricity NOW. Can we really tell them, "No you have to stay poor for the sake of the planet?" This problem is probably unsolvable. Adapting to climate change might be the best we can hope for.
This perspective of Stephens' I fear will last...until Florida is underwater. Until millions in Asia and Latin America are going without food and governments suffer their own Arab Springs and nasty radical uprisings. Until we are very possibly experiencing runaway global greenhouse emissions from sea floors and the Arctic which could, as an actual real risk, turn the earth into an uninhabitable graveyard. What then?
If climate skeptics are right (and each day they appear more wrong) then incrementalism might work to allow certain aspects of daily business to continue somewhat normally. If they are even a bit wrong, they have visited untold and completely avoidable suffering on the rest of the world's people and life.
What a pretty planet to give up for such stupidity as not looking closely at what the science is screaming to us, and not acting with all we've got to reverse an existential threat.
The politics must match the reality, not the other way around.
3
incramintalist are not leaders they're followers. And I won't be voting for them. We need drastic change now. The weird thing is: it's doable. We have the technology to go green. Wind, solar, nuclear,hydro, geothermal, biofuels bio materials are here but we're blinded by our xenophobia. We need a 10 year plan and incramintaly get there.
3
We live on a small organic farm in Kansas and see the results of climate change daily. When the spring is frigid and dry instead of warm and wet, and/or the summers are too hot, the plants we grow for food stall out. In their wealthy suburban and urban bubbles, most Americans think that McDonald's, Pizza Hut and Applebee's will always be around the next corner. They're wrong.
No food, no people.
5
Mrs. Pelosi is dead wrong here. She needs to deal very seriously with young people and their desire to save the planet for themselves and their children. She is missing the boat big time.
The real emergency is not the wall, it is the climate and the planet. It might not be convenient for Mrs. Pelosi to take the New Green Deal seriously but it is foolish for her not to. Someone will take it very seriously and the next generation will support that person.
While we are living under a president who takes advice from the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh (makes me shudder), to be bold and challenge the American people would be a stroke of genius. What was done in WWII, sacrificing for a common cause, could be done again and could rally people from all walks of life, since we all breathe the air. It's absolutely doable - all it needs is LEADERSHIP.
She will have her hands full with the Trump fiasco but as soon as she can manage it, she should smell the roses and lean toward green.
4
The tension in the policy debate is between those who recognize the problem and those that don't – or won't. Given that the latter (the GOP) hold the Senate and the White House, the expectation that the Dems are going to go all in now on "alien invasion" scale policy now is silly. Posturing for or against a Green New Deal at this point is not so much about policy but about whether it helps or hinders the Democrats' political effort to capture the White House and Senate. Without a complete repudiation of the GOP, policy difference are merely on paper... and going nowhere.
2
Get off it, Brett. You are a Pelosi skeptic. As you well know, this Green New Deal is a resolution of which the details have not yet been defined. It is more a statement of purpose than any full fledged bill whose principles are to save the planet and to save humans their livelihoods.
What Pelosi understood about this Green New Deal is that it would give red meat to conservatives like yourself as well as to Faux news to attack Democrats before they get out of the starting gate. Pelosi is a realist who cares about the environment as well as the humans who inhabit the planet. She realizes that idealism needs to be tempered with pragmatism to get the job done. All you want to do is criticize.
2