Home | About | Donate

Young Leftist Candidates Are Breathing New Radicalism Into Stale Climate Politics


Young Leftist Candidates Are Breathing New Radicalism Into Stale Climate Politics

Kate Aronoff

On the same day that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won an upset victory in her primary against Wall Street-friendly incumbent Joe Crowley — one of the most powerful Democrats in the House — a New Yorker nearly 50 years her senior fed rumors that he would seek the highest office in the land.


Wow…I thought this article was going to say something… Even at the end…it states the two candidates would be different on how they confront climate change…and…the… Nothing.


I think it is fair to say that neither Bloomberg nor Ocasio-Cortez know how to solve the climate change problem and neither does anyone else. The biggest obstacles are political and neither have any idea on how to overcome that. Simply have a plan of what we should do doesn’t help much if there is a lack of political will. And I am not sure if a suburban girl with great organizing skills who pulled one of the great upsets in recent years by winning in an overwhelmingly Democratic district in the Bronx and Queens against one of the highest ranking Democratic members of the House signifies a new era in Democratic politics.


A New “ERA” for the Democratic Party? Oh it’s in a new era alright. If progressives showed up and tried to change things they’d Seth Rich their arses.


Yeah, it speaks more for the voters than the DNC.


Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, renewable sources are profitable with a level playing field. The technologies are here and the profits could be massive except for one little problem: Government policy that subsidies fossil fuel. Duh! When your established competitor receives massive tax and other government subsidies and you as startup do not, the challenges of competing are almost insurmountable. It is amazing that even against all odds, renewable and sustainable technologies are beginning to emerge with profitability. Every time in the last 30 to 40 years that the sustainable industry has been on the threshold of profitability, government has stepped in and changed policy so that OPEC could reduce prices to knock the legs out from under the emerging industries.


The left (or are they right wing agent provocateur trolls posing as leftists?) is already revving up their opposition to Occasio-cortez for being insufficiently pure and daring to run as a Democrat - using the usual ad-hominem attacks and fabricated rumors - such as “she grew up in a white collar household in Westchester County!” “She cheated a co-worker at a bar she worked of tips!” and the like. Go to the comments in the Intercept article - it is amazing.

and as far as running as a Democrat, do you think she would have ANY chance at all of getting a seat in the House - as opposed to her current shoo-in status - if she had run as an independent or Green?


You had to click on the link to go to the full article at the Intercept.


Was the headline supposed to read Leftish, and not Leftist?


The problem with your claim is that fossil fuels receive the majority of their subsidies NOT for electrical generation, which is the sole purpose of solar and wind generation. When people compare fossil fuels to solar and wind subsidies they make the crucial mistake of comparing net subsidies. However net subsidies for fossil fuels includes money for industries that solar and wind are not even remotely a part of such as:

petrochemical feed stock production, hydrogen production, concrete production, international extraction, fertilizer production etc.

How do you consider the playing field to be level if solar and wind started to receive subsidies for industries they contribute nothing to? Or what do you think the economic ramifications would incur if you removed subsidies from other industries, simply because you wanted the net amount of money to be equal for solar and natural gas?


“I think it is fair to say that neither Bloomberg nor Ocasio-Cortez know how to solve the climate change problem and neither does anyone else.”

Not quite. Try a read of this short pamphlet for answers.

A socialist society requires that the productive system as a whole should meet the needs of its members and be sustainable for the rest of nature. In other words, what humans take from nature, the amount and pace at which they do so, the way they use those materials and dispose of them after use, should all be done so as to leave nature to go on supplying and reabsorbing those materials after use. In the long run, this implies stable or only slowly rising consumption and production levels, though it does not rule out carefully planned initial rapid growth over a period to reach a level at which consumption and production could then level off. Production would be geared simply to meeting current needs and to replacing and repairing the stock of means of production (materials and instruments) required for this.


I don’t think she would have a chance for a seat running as Democrat in most districts of the US but she is running in a very safe district. Had she run in a district like the one Zephyr Teachout ran in she would probably lose to the Repubiican as Teachout did and she had much stronger credentials that Ocasio-Cortez. Meanwhile assuming she wins, she will not be replacing a Republican. She will probably be a media sensation for a little while longer and then people will go back to the most important thing which is control of the House. However, if Cynthia Nixon should defeat Andrew Cuomo for governor in NY then I think it can be concluded that something big is going on in the Democratic Party.


Corporate Dim response to recent headway made by progressives reminds me of the King of England’s July 4, 1776 diary entry: “nothing of consequence occurred today”.


With corrupt elections, this country will never change by voting. TPTB would never allow it.


Based on what exactly? Explain what policy wise the public largely disagrees with her about. Not a damn thing. You are a dinosaur.

For you above to say that no one knows what needs to be done shows that you haven’t delved into the matter. It isn’t the case just because you haven’t read about this. People know what needs to be done. They have to take on the people you support though, and those people have a million times more money. Those people give wonderful speeches, and acknowledge science, and do very little to actually deal with the problems, because they require radical solutions and they know it. Naomi Klein has a book, This Changes Everything. In the opening of the book she talks about the right wingers and how unglued they become when talking about the environmental crisis. She, correctly, points out that they have a far better understanding of the implications of the environmental crisis for the capitalist system than people like you do, and they fight the actual science of the crisis because if they have to acknowledge objective reality and want to take part in policy discussions, they know that they cannot hold onto the system. My guess is that you would be far more likely to just let it all burn down and to argue that it is too late to do anything than to at least try. In your world, it is far more “pragmatic” to support people whose policies will lead to the collapse of human civilization than to support radicals that are willing to make the needed structural changes. The end of the world is far more pragmatic.

The problem for people like you is that you are dead set against structurally changing the system, and structural changes are needed to address the environmental crisis. So you and your consultant friends, and those paying your checks, might not have a clue as to what to do, because you are only willing to consider very narrow policy options that are non-solutions. But people have been writing the limits to markets, the limits to growth in throughput and the limits in regards to pollution generation for well over a century now. There are elements of this in the classical economists in the early 19th century. You go read “The Stationary State” by Mill. To also argue that it isn’t economic is absurd. Of course it is. The market ignores many impacts, many of these impacts have no market values. Many economists have talked about how to produce and distribute goods, resources and commodities without relying heavily on markets. There is an entire school of economics, ecological economics, devoted to this. And capitalism, this system, is not a system that functions without growth, yet there are clear limits to growth. That necessitates structural changes. People like you don’t have anything to add to the discussion. You snipe from the right and try your best to keep things as they are.


Well, for one, she isn’t the only actual leftist winning and taking part in the political system, challenging the corrupt politicians you support. I mean, you were recently talking about a person, Cuomo, swimming in corruption, someone that has done everything he can to push back against the left, as a possible presidential candidate. Fucks sake. To deny the growth of the actual left is absurd. Whether it, in the end, happens in your party or not is the question, but if people like you succeed in beating back the left in your party, it will die. The so called “centrists” are dead ends, have no energy, are propped up by big money and offer no solutions to anything.


You’re supposed to read the linked article.


Dare to dream small


Why do you say the “the left” is sabatoging her? I think you mean Corporate Dims and Cons.


Thank God you’re thinking didn’t prevail at the start of the auotomobile industry, or we’d be scooping up the shit from our horse and buggy.

Dare to dream small.