Yet another article with a bunch of “plans” that are really just a collection of feel good platitudes with no direction or specificity in how to solve this issue.
Yeah we do need to build new clean technology, but what specific technologies are we talking about and what is the quantity/scale of development?
There is ZERO physical direction with any of these so called “plans”.
And plus neither a Trump or Biden administration would even consider instituting such a plan if it loses a penny for the fossil fuel industry.
These plans really have no idea what they’re thinking. Two of them completely disregard carbon taxing even though that’s going to be the fastest and largest way for a government to generate necessary revenue and incentivize transition away from fossil fuels. Apparently we live in a magical forest where $20 trillion of resources are magically going to be paid for with who knows what…
Not to mention we’re just gonna rap our shoes together and rebuild over 700,000 sq miles of heavy civil infrastructure at massively unprecedented rates compared to historical human performance all while instituting stricter environmental regulations.
If that wasn’t enough we are also magically replacing all fossil fuels immediately despite the fact that many sectors still face technical engineering challenges for developing new substitutes and while some sectors are not chemically able to use different materials other than hydrocarbons. Does it matter that 99.99% of all hydrogen and nitrogen created in this country is from fossil fuel production, which is essential in creating ammonia fertilizer for the entire food supply of this country? Apparently not, because somehow we’re gonna mass produce food for 320 million people with community practices immediately… Do we have any evidence that this would be remotely feasible - no but we don’t care because none of these plans are based on any data whatsoever…
A few common obstructive assertions appear here—the ridiculous idea that a challenge in any one area—real or imaginary—means that nothing can be done in any area, for example. It’s just a variation of the climate denying delayalists’ house-of-cards fallacy of climate science that they’ve used to delay action for half a century.
There are also a number of false and insulting implications apparently used to try to discredit the solutions: clean safe renewable energy; benign, ecological forms of industry; small-scale, low-meat organic permaculture; free public mass transit from EV buses to high speed rail, to replace flying and driving…
Yes, the transition needs to be funded. So do corporate bailouts and the military. Or, I guess really the last 2 don’t, while the transition to a sustainable society must be, for civilization to survive. Since we have to do it, we have to do whatever it takes to pass it, fund it, and carry it out. Regardless of the difficulties some people are determined to magnify, and falsely present as insurmountable, it’s obvious we can do what we need. Cherry picking one problem from one plan and another from another plan, then implying all plans share all problems, is a dishonest, manipulative way of trying to win a debate.
Everything we need to do to avoid catastrophe is technologically doable. Some things are rejected, many without even a discussion, because of the capitalist system’s addiction to profit for the already-rich. But everything that works is rejected for psycho-ideological reasons.
So we can do everything we need. We have all the knowledge we need to move ahead with it in emergency mode. Every part has either been studied or proven in the world or both, so there’s no doubt about any of it. The only question is whether we have the political power to defeat both the completely mentally ill opposition, and others like PaulS who—for reasons they don’t divulge—seem determined to ridicule and beat down every idea raised. Except the ones that have no chance of succeeding.
A carbon price may help some but virtually none that have been passed or even discussed are high enough, fast enough, or loophole-free enough to actually accomplish anything meaningful. (I think there’s one exception in the world.) Saying it’s bipartisan, let alone the fastest way, are both ludicrous statements, either hopelessly naive and uninformed, or grotesquely cynical and deceptive. Republicans have spent tens of millions defeating them whenever they’ve come up (twice in Washington state, eg.
and because they’re wedded to both fossil fuel corporations and a constellation of inevitably linked positions that include anti-(helpful) government ideology, will never agree to any that make the slightest difference. they’ll never agree to any effective action to avoid climate and larger ecological cataclysm. So it depends on taking power, which depends on convincing people 1) there’s a problem, and 2) it can be solved by a truly democratic government.
40 years ago we might have solved the ecological crisis with non-disruptive actions, but it’s too late for that. The actions needed to avoid catastrophe at this point threaten the wealth, privilege, and position of the rich and the right.
The 115+ groups are delusional if they think either of the corporate duopoly candidates will do anything near what’s needed. I hope they know that and have plans to make sure our government does enough in time.
PS Plans don’t think.