I'm a reliable Democrat. If the party is trying to win my vote, they're wasting their time on what's already accomplished. If they want my money, then sell me on a viable plan to kick Republican ass up and down the ballot because they're not delivering on ANYTHING without a majority. And ESPECIALLY with climate, the critical technology has been developed and the only thing that will stop progress is the government actively fighting against it.
At this point, I barely care about the political views of any Democratic candidate because even an literal right-wing Democrat (as in votes for fewer than 50% of left-wing bills) would be better than a Republican because they're outside of that party's structure. Based on what I'm seeing, I don't see any way how a gun-toting, coal rolling, pro-life Democratic Senator can be worse than a Republican with those same views.
Right now, it's better to be useful than useless. And I'd define useful these days as something that can make the Republican Party small enough to drown in a bathtub.
Oh yea, at the local level I vote for Republicans for every at-large and minority-party reserved council seat, the former for messaging purposes, the latter in the hopes that racedep unseats the moron WFP candidates soon.
I'll vote for whoever runs against Krasner in primary and general until he gets turfed out.
I usually vote for the Republican in my state house and senate districts because they usually run sane good government types and we need more of the GOP caucus to not want to fuck Philly over; having local Republicans to yell at their counterparts from bumfuck is important.
But for governor or any federal office, we're probably getting close to "never again" at this point. Every Republican administration since I was 3 has been a disaster to a large degree.
Local politics is always so individualized. I'd definitely be open to that, though I voted for the progressive in our most recent election because she seemed to best recognize that the city bureaucracy was stifling out ability to do things. But, like with a moderate Republican, I was willing to trade some ideology for functionality.
They'd be doomed if the Republicans were remotely serious about governing and the president wasn't seemingly trying to engineer inflation. Since both parties are making stupid mistakes, elections will be tossups for the time being.
Bernie is pushing against the party, and they can’t throw him out because he is officially still independent—in fact his biggest draw is that he’s the ultimate “outsider.” The hardest thing for Democrats is convincing people not only to support their party, but to support the idea of having a (political) party. People are in a very anti-party mood, ironically at the same time that politics is ultra-polarized in terms of ideological identity.
If you’re a voter with strong opinions on specific issues, I think the most logical strategy is to determine which party is closest and vote for them up and down the ballot. The two political parties have very distinct ideologies!
Parties are real, and in fact they're the only thing that actually matters in 90% of American politics. If you believe, as most of us do, that the Republican party is a corrupted edifice that practices identity politics for morons and corrupt bozos, has no sincere interest in national welfare, and is opposed to the very fundamental democratic structure of the republic, then why would you ever vote for someone sick enough to run under their auspices?
Y'all were in a position to turn me into a swing voter by enacting a traditionally conservative stab at domestic deregulation, working to reform the global trade system and push back on China in concert with the allies that give us the heft to succeed, and taking fiscal rigor seriously.
Oops, it appears I will be voting Democratic at the federal level until... I dunno, at this rate probably until I die.
I'm voting for local Republicans to try to make the local Democrats feel threatened into being less dumb on business and economic issues, and because we have specific City Council seats reserved to a minority party and I'd much rather they be in GOP hands than WFP hands.
There used to be this thing called Downsian theory which posited that parties would fight each other to occupy the center. We now have two parties who view the median voter as a radioactive werewolf that one must run from as fast as possible.
This person absolutely didn’t say “I’m voting Democrat down the line no matter what”. They said they want to vote for people who will “kick Republican ass” and who are “outside of that party’s structure”. Presumably this all means that if the Republican structure changed in some drastic way, then they would be open to voting for Republicans. And they wouldn’t vote for a pro-Trump Democrat. And if a race had a viable third party candidate, they would consider that candidate.
This sounds like the reasonable amount of openness to have.
(Also, my understanding of the concept of “useful idiot” is different from yours. I thought it was supposed to be someone who was willing to defend communism against certain American slanders, even if this person wasn’t up on current propaganda from the Party. The idea is that this person is an idiot, because they don’t understand current Party thinking, but is useful, because they oppose capitalist propaganda. But it’s not about voting or being doctrinaire or even always siding with the Communists. It’s a term that would more accurately apply to a swing voter than a party line voter.)
A "useful idiot" is a term used to describe someone who is unwittingly manipulated or exploited to promote a cause or agenda, often without fully understanding the consequences or true intentions behind it. The phrase is typically associated with political contexts, where individuals naively support ideologies, movements, or propaganda that may ultimately harm their own interests or values. It implies a lack of critical thinking or awareness, making the person a tool for others' purposes.
The term is often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, though there's no definitive evidence he coined it. It gained traction during the Cold War to criticize Western sympathizers of Soviet policies.
This is not a useful idiot. The useful idiots are the Kadets or the Right SRs who believed an alliance with the Bolsheviks could deliver them the policies they desired.
A down the ticket voter is just a traditional machine voter which has been around in American party politics for 200 years. Tons of people vote against their interests without knowing. That is not the point of the term.
The CIA kid who died in Russia is a useful idiot. The Weather Underground were useful idiots. This is far too broad.
You think 45% of votes ever cast in the United States are "useful idiots?"
The term loses most of its meaning then, we're all just useful idiots every time we do something that is against our interests or make a decision without being fully informed.
Would you say the same about down the ticket Fine Gael voters? Or down the ticket CDU? Or down the ticket Lega?
It's fine to have a revulsion to political parties, but this is how they've worked since Hamilton and Jefferson.
I said "down the line" implying if you just blindly vote for democrats at all levels, you're an idiot. i think you probably fall into this category.
for what it's worth. I never voted for trump because even though I have voted for many republicans at state and local levels- i thought he was a bad choice for president, all three times.
P.S are we still saying Trump is a Russian Agent in 2025?
Well, you are right that I was mostly hijacking your comment as an opportunity to talk shit about Lenin, which I am pathologically incapable of resisting. Provenance of the quote aside I am actually quite supportive of voting for third parties most of the time. Vote for who you'd like to be in charge, says I!
I would draw the line at coal-rolling, since that has nothing to do with affordable energy and is basically a just a noxious form of IRL trolling, and no responsible adult conservative would actually do that. One thing I would like to see more of is promoting clean energy for its immediate benefits, ie reducing asthma and other health issues, which is more tangible (and money-saving) than reducing global warming, which is not perceptible and won’t be for the foreseeable future.
Matt writes: "You’re talking about blocs of voters who are drawn to the Democratic Party specifically because of support for Medicaid and other social safety net programs, but who also want competent economic management and material prosperity, and are trying to decide which party will deliver it."
Except for the last phrase, this is an accurate description of me. I'm all for an expanded tent, so I'm fine having people who prioritize climate change or identity-as-destiny as part of the coalition. But the conflict comes when those people push policies that are antithetical to "competent economic management and material prosperity".
I really don't know how to engage the committed believers on these topics and it seems Matt doesn't know either ("I really don't know what to say to that", in regards to the environmentalists who killed clean energy permitting because it would also ease the path for natural gas projects). It is hard to reason with religious fanatics.
People sometimes make broad imprecise assessments like "neither party is trying to win ordinary votes" or a "majority of voters" but in a more technical sense, it is honestly astounding that NEITHER PARTY believes or behaves like they believe "economic growth and stable prices is good."
I think Democrats absolutely understand that (see the Harris campaign and the Biden administration attempting to frame climate policies as inflation reducing).
The problem is that the climate movement is such a loud and visible part of their coalition and they've never done much to truly distance themselves from them.
100% agreed, they also seem to have mastered the Social Media element to rile up people so its tough to have any nuanced debate or conversation with those people. If they can't get 100% of what they want, they would just rather everyone lose.
Because the most politically partisan people have been insulated from the consequences of their imprudent beliefs by the success and excesses of American capitalism.
I admit I’m not familiar with the precise legislative fight at issue but one response might be that the people who insisted on the easing of permitting for natural gas projects instead of accepting a Pareto improvement in permitting reform only for renewables were the ones who were in the wrong here. It takes two to not tango — why aren’t the holdouts on the other side who wouldn’t accept half a loaf not the ones who should be vilified here?
I’m not inclined to think that that view is correct on the merits vis a vis fighting climate change (seems like an empirical question where my priors are that it’s the wrong call to forgo the deal) but it seems like it’s at least worth engaging with the PoV that providing an economic subsidy to projects that don’t emit greenhouse gases in the course of electricity production versus those that don’t is good, actually.
Matt’s big on gas plants as improving emissions on the margin relative to displacing coal and/or as peaker complements to renewables, and this is a valid and important point, but I think he also tends to under-engage with the notion that this is a situation where thinking on the margin that way has particularly acute limitations — down the line you’ve created a whole bunch of gas plants, an economic-technological complex with a dependency on that infrastructure, and crucially all of these plants still emit carbon. Being in a hole, digging more rather than less slowly is an improvement strictu senso but you literally cannot get out of said hole by continuing to dig it deeper.
(Nuclear deregulation is a free lunch and should be done but also unfortunately seems kind of like a red herring — the more informed the take I read the more the conclusion tends towards “the economics of this will never work under private market incentives.”)
They needed Republican votes for any permitting reform bill. Are Republicans who refuse to support clean energy permitting reform by itself in the wrong? Absolutely.
If we write lots of articles focused on complaining about Republicans who oppose clean energy, will that help us win more votes or fight climate change more effectively? I think the opposite is more likely.
Part of the worry with nuclear power from a private developer perspective is the prohibitive insurance costs. Basically you have to insure against Chernobyl (or at least Fukushima). Very very very unlikely, but very very very very expensive in the event.
The author is also letting perfect be the enemy of good. Saying gas emits CO2 = digging a hole misses the idea that efficient gas plants emit half the CO2 of coal plants. So if you shut down coal plants and replace them with natural gas you're filling the hole, more so if renewables are also built. The issue today for the US is power sector demand is rising quite quickly and it might be more power plants are necessary.
While it's true that gas emits less CO2 than coal when combusted, leakage rates from gas operations contribute significant additional CO2e warming that negates most of that advantage. The obvious answer is to reduce the leakage, which is relatively cheap and produces more gas to sell, but that's not what the industry wants, so we get the revocation of rules (and subsidies) for doing it. Instead, we get a push for LNG exports, which are worse for the global environment and will displace more clean energy projects than coal projects at the margin (although ironically it would probably improve US emissions by making domestic gas for power more expensive). MY hits the nail on the head when he highlights the fact that this is an industry-driven movement away from sound CO2 accounting that they have successfully converted into a "local jobs", "local industry" and a collection of culture war issues (gas stoves are freedom!) that tie the production of these economically counter-productive fuels to pro-economy vibes. The climate wing of the Democratic Party has been outflanked, needs to regroup, and needs the Senate to win any significant power to make progress. Pro-nuke and pro-transmission positions are the low hanging fruit, but they just refuse to pick it.
LNG exports also permit the EU to wean themselves off of Russian gas. There's a significant geo-political component to energy policy that I feel the left/greens tend to ignore or minimize.
Yes, LNG exports are good from a national security point of view (now OBE under Trump), but that was never Matt's argument. His take was that it was bad electoral politics. Since increasing exports hikes domestic prices (and increases company profits), I could never figure out the logic apart from some kind of virtue signaling thing.
This is correct only if you *have* to replace coal with gas peaker plants. With the increasing spread of cheaper battery storage, this is becoming less and less true.
>why aren’t the holdouts on the other side who wouldn’t accept half a loaf not the ones who should be vilified here?<
I think mainly because, on policy, the pro "permit reform for energy projects that include natural gas" side is right on the merits. If that's the case, why should they be the ones to compromise on this point?
I'm referring, of course, to the claim that failing to produce enough domestic carbon-based energy doesn't guarantee a reduced national carbon footprint; we'll just burn more *foreign* fossil fuels to replace the domestic undersupply, and thus there's no net gain with respect to climate change. Zero gains, plus economic losses, plus negative (for Democrats) political consequences. It's pure loss.
I think you’re conflating the realtive costs of building plants of type A vs B here (where relative ease of building can act as an implicit carbon tax) with the separate issue of domestic vs foreign hydrocarbon sourcing. ED.: however I’m not familiar enough with the bill specifics to say that with confidence, it was just my interpretation of Matt’s discussion.
I am broadly sympathetic to the rhetorical point that people can over-focus on the left not compromising with obstructionist Republicans to get compromises done, rather than laying blame on said obstructionist Republicans.
However,
1. Complaining about Texas Republicans being unwilling to let you subsidize renewables, without any concessions, in order to long term destroy industries they care about, is a lot like complaining about bad weather. Fair and expressive, not all that useful.
2. Permitting reform is *desperately* needed. You just can't electrify the economy without it. Sacrificing it because "someday the gas assets which climate positive today will be politically challenging to strand when they become climate negative" is just outsmarting yourself. OBVIOUSLY you take the win on permitting which, as a bonus, makes you look bipartisan and gets you more political power for future, less critical, fights down the road when you have high class problems like "we don't need the gas plants anymore in our mostly renewable and nuclear supplied and fully electrified industrial base, how do we axe them".
Agree strongly with #2. Unfortunately, we are going to have to spend money to unwind this terrible, destructive, economically inefficient industry one way or another. In the grand scheme, absorbing the cost of these LNG stranded assets through some kind of federal tax boondoggle in 15 years seems like an acceptable price for getting several TW of capacity out of the queue and onto transmission lines now, because the vast majority of that currently "stranded" capacity (90-95%) is wind, solar and batteries. It does not seem that hard to parse...
Perhaps you missed the point where there are states who have major oil and gas industry and the people they represent want their elected officials to represent their interests...
I agree with this comment, except that I think the climate wing could use a good red herring, since the point of them was to lead hunters away from the actual target before it gets shot or mauled to death! The fact that relatively few new nukes will actually be built even under relaxed regulation for economic reasons (see, e.g., China severely lagging its nuclear power targets) should make it easier for the climate wing to support nuclear deregulation...
I agree broadly with this (hence the like), but to be an annoying pedant I’d point out that “I’m all for an expanded tent, but [non-negotiable tenet]” is just what politics is! I think they’re wrong, but some people really see a (misguided) focus on climate as their equivalent of “competent economic management and material prosperity.”
C-man, I'm happy to give you some tips on how to become the pleasant, charming type of pedant that people fall over themselves to invite to their parties and hold forth on the most exciting topics of pedantry that have captured the public's imagination.
Wisdom is a non-material entity, though devoutly to be wished for. It cannot give you its "embrace."* If you wished to use the word in its metaphorical sense (like talking about "the face of God") you really must be explicit and say "the metaphorical embrace of your wisdom."
* Needless to say to you, the origin of the word is from the Old French verb "embracier" (meaning "to clasp in the arms").
I's not religious fanaticism to believe that fighting climate change requires reducing use of fossil fuels, and that steps that lead to increased use of fossil fuels are not steps which fight climate change, even if they increase the share of energy made with renewables. I think you just disagree on whether climate change needs to be actively combatted or whether everything will somehow just work itself out if we get out of the way.
Expressive politics is spot on here - like politics for them is not a mean for the goal but a vehicle for their self expression…
Environmental movement, I feel like they care way more about movement than environment just like Christian Nationalists care way more about being Nationalist.
This of itself is very politically counterproductive bc it picks a battle where you inherently are on losing side bc it fires up them more - essentially the flip side of coin of MAGA extremist culture warrior.
And I guess the other dynamic here is the their undertone of degrowth and “big business = bad” mentality, which also fires them up more…
Republicans are a complete and utter disaster on climate change, and their policies are what we're getting unless Democrats somehow get back into contention in a number of purple/red states. A focus on climate change just doesn't move the needle for Democrats.
So, if you want action on climate change, DON'T emphasize climate change!
It sounds a bit paradoxical, but the logic is clear.
Yeah, and this is not hard to understand imo if you view politics as a means to an end - but I assume it’s fundamentally irreconcilable to the mindset of those activist types who seem to care more about “fight” and self expression… (to be fair, not all activists are like that and I know activists who care more about tangible outcomes)
Obviously current Republicans being anti-climate is bad, but being pro-climate does not seem to be effective. Being pro-energy independence for national security like China is effective or pro-free energy markets like Texas is effective. Free markets and national security haven't been classic pillars of the Democratic platform.
Or at the very least focus on the economic and health care benefits of a clean energy transition for consumers, rather than the (very real but abstract-sounding) perils of CO2e-driven warming. Energy transition is a win-win-win proposition for society, but it will happen faster in America at least by talking about the first two wins...
I guess progressive activists mindset overall are trapped in that era - I kinda suspect they formed that belief under a condition specific to that era and it’s partially inertia but they also realized that type of black and white confrontational worldview can attract a lot of ppl for self expression…
The quoted below is very important. As a Renewables (RE) developement / investor - my literal day job - the only thing more painful than Trumpist-MAGA RE slagging based on fundamental innumeracy (stuck in 1970s-90s ideas of RE pricing, tech) has been the Green Left / Climate NGOs almost mirror imaging of the same level of thinking - where they seem to be driven also by (1) outmoded reflexs on RE needs hydrocarbons to be strangled to death to find an economic place and replace and (2) a misframed under CO2 as pollution like old 70s era acid rain etc pollution [as recent papers on Sahel-Sahara unexpected partial regreening illustrate, CO2 is perfectly scrumptious for plants and leads in fact to improved plant growth efficicies and so higher CO2 levels are not per 'pollution' although quite clearly long-term bad for human agricultural systems [not same as Bad for Planet - a big error in thinking, bad for people growing food systems... and bad meaning "make more expensive, uncertain, i.e Cost of Living impacts...]
The miss on the permitting was and is a massive own-goal
Nothing is actually more important. The build out of the Electric grids -and a real national unification to allow contitental scale power-wheeling exchange is Sine Qua Non for real success for decarbonisation - strangling off hydrocarbons without having that is going to produce a complete and utter train-wreck, and utterly decredibilise decarbonisation.
And this doesn't happen unless there is major permitting and major regulatory rationalisation.
If that enabled some hydrocarbons infra - so be it, as an actual industrial scale RE investor, I am more than confident on the Economics that decarbonised production IF the grid and the infrastructure - the long-distance as well as distrubtion level (i.e. retail and such consumer level details as EV charging although EVs really are to me nowhere near as important right now as industrial level decarbonisation of energy production for all uses
- EV focus is a classic case of some Retail level consumer visible thing getting an overweight concern compared to the immediately actionable energy consumption drivers whether households or industrial.
"Unfortunately, most of those things aren’t things the environmental movement favors or prioritizes, like making nuclear regulation friendlier to the rollout of advanced reactors. Democrats had two opportunities during the Biden Administration to pass a legislative deal that would speed the permitting process for clean energy projects. But in both cases, environmental groups killed the deal because it also offered concessions to ease the path for natural gas projects. ...
The climate movement got Democrats to make climate change their top priority for a party line bill. The bill poured an enormous amount of money into facilitating clean energy deployment. Democrats are, as we speak, fighting to preserve those programs in the wake of GOP repeal efforts. But the clean energy deployment has been limited by permitting bottlenecks — bottlenecks that green groups refused to prioritize lifting, because their core commitment was killing fossil fuel projects, even though that agenda offers no path to a legislative majority and is equally toxic in a “jobs” frame or a “prices” frame."
The above is entirely spot on the Green Groups right now to me are doing more harm than good from a fundamental lack of pragmatism - and much of them do not really understand or believe in markets.
Whereas from our numbers, if grid infra is expanded and permitting speeded, RE will accelerate and scale (it's fundamentally now attractive as stable costing so long as we have generation stability [as like nuclear but gas is quite fine to enable not to be a purist])
The whole "pollution" model taking from the 1970s-1990s is the wrong framing period (as seen as well in Europe).
One of the political economy hopes of IRA and New Green Deal type projects was to get renewable industries to a place where they have some actual political purchase on their own. By employing a decent number of people and by providing a significant amount of energy that local politicians of either stripe would pay attention to them and be interested in promoting them.
What it looks like we need now is for renewable industry types to form their own political action groups and lobbyists explicitly separate from the traditional environmental groups.
Plus, the cultural orientation of people actually installing RE systems is also a bit different than the Sunrise Movement in a way that is probably more comfortable for normies.
The IRA and the "New Green Deal" (actually, "Green New Deal") are very different things and shouldn't be joined together in a sentence like this. One was a smart approach to get things done legislatively and give us a great push toward a renewable future and the latter was an activist's "everything bagel" wet dream never with any chance of passing but effective in creating all kinds of targets for opponents to shoot at.
The strident opposition to Carbon Capture and sequestration is another big miss for environmental groups. It’s not mature yet but if it does work and is not too expensive it means that we could keep burning fossil fuels a bit longer while not increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere as much. But of course that would delay the move from fossil fuels so it’s a technology to be opposed. Even if it would mean we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in 2100.
I would note that switching to regenerative farming allows for HUGE amounts of natural carbon sequestration, while also building healthy soils and stopping the loss of top soil (which needs to happen anyway).
Far better to make good use of that carbon with regenerative farming.
Farmers are slowly starting to move that way on their own.
You can accelerate that process by providing education on HOW to farm this way, and what benefit they get.
If you are actually interested in the topic, I suggest reading "Dirt to Soil" by Gabe Brown (a fast and very compelling read). The Netflix movie "Kiss the Ground" is also decent.
Regenerative farming is better long term, and you can get comparable yields. But its also harder in the sense that there's more things you need to think about. Because you are focused on nourishing the soil not just the plants.
Of course subsidization would help, the process along quicker, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.
I think the concern is not so much that it's "not mature", but that it can't pencil economically (or energetically) under any but the most implausible assumptions. Emissions avoidance is vastly cheaper and getting more so all the time. By all means, continue to innovate and drive the long-term cost of CCS down, because we will need to suck many GTs of CO2 out of the sky starting in the 2050s, and doing it for $150/tonne will be better than doing it for $1,000/tonne.
The insanity of degrowthers and climate activists has made climate change less saliant of an issue for me. The main contributing factor behind this is that these people almost always seem to ignore the greatest source of emissions (more than half of global emissions), CCP controlled mainland China.
"What Democrats need to do to have a winning strategy on energy is to be accorded the same level of grace that the climate movement accords to Xi Jinping" is a great line.
It's a human reaction to push back against idiots in the climate change movement. But it's either a critical issue which really needs addressing with smart policy or it isn't. I'm with option 1 here.
It's not more than half, best estimate is 35% compared to 12% for the US (lower for them and higher for us on a "consumption" basis, since we outsource some of our emissions to them via manufacturing). On a per capita basis China emits far less than the US (or Canada), and on a cumulative basis (which is what drives warming) Chinese emissions are nowhere near the US, which is the undisputed all-time champion, and likely always will be given the speed of the transition in China. I don't think people in the climate movement ignore any of these facts. But as MY says, they are willing to give China (although I'm not sure about Xi, specifically) some leeway because China is driving all the key technologies and manufacturing systems that will support long-term decarbonization. I wish it were the US and not (solely) China driving, but our addiction to the domestic oil and gas industry continues to make that very hard politically.
You are right about the percentages. I was recalled them incorrectly. What matters now for global warming is marginal added emissions not the total historic stock. Climate forcing is not some decades long process, but has a much shorter time horizon (unless that Nature article I am thinking about from a few years ago was wrong.) Emissions today have a near term impact on global ambient temperatures.
What agency do you think domestic US political activism is likely to exercise over China? Would you be more of less dismissive of them if they fomented nuclear war as a backstop to coecive emissions restriction policy?
My issue is they act like the U.S. is the only cause for climate change and some of the gushing they have over CCP greenwashing of their coal fueled development and subsidies.
I just wish they focused more on serious policies like carbon border adjustments and carbon taxes rather than screaming about how capitalism is going to destroy the world in 20 years.
In short I want them to stop their baseless catastrophizing (the whole extinction of humanity claims) and disregard of potential technological solutions to emissions.
I agree that some of the climate left stuff gets pretty stupid and counter-productive, but I think a lot of it is driven by the natural revulsion we all feel about "negotiating with terrorists", which is how they (not without reason) view the FF industry. Unfortunately, negotiating with terrorists may be the most vivid and accurate description of "doing politics" in modern America. If you can't do it, then you don't really belong in the arena.
I guess I should note that I would put pretty good odds on capitalism destroying the world in 3-15 years, albeit via AGI/ASI. Turns out that "destroying the world is profitable in the interim and no one's charging you for the externalities" is in fact a failure condition.
This is not about the article to be clear, which I think makes fair points, but as someone who’s been reading you for about 20 years, I think you’ve gotten a bit reverse polarized on climate change by the fight with the groups
I think the big difference over 20 years is that we've seen significant technologic leaps in green energy that are changing things from China to Texas. There's no longer a benefit in making it a partisan issue these days. And it is frustrating that there's no "declare victory" mechanism to prevent a movement from overshooting.
Agree, by now the partisanship is pure downside. Left-wing Groups block the permitting reforms that get clean energy built, while the right polarizes against it and blocks clean energy altogether when they are in power, even as solar panels are becoming the cheapest way to add generation capacity.
Problem is, what can proponents of more clean energy do to depolarize the issue? There's "giving Democrats the same level of grace that the climate movement accords to Xi Jinping," but what do we do when the Republicans go, "no clean energy on our watch, even if this hurts our other goals"? Maybe all the Democrats can do on this issue is try to position themselves as the reasonable party, so that (assuming voters are reasonable and future elections are not rigged) they can be elected in the future to implement reasonable and acceptable-to-swing-voters versions of their policy goals?
I’m not sure I see the problem. Are non-renewable power plants allowed to connect to the grid with no oversight? Can fossil fuel plants build wherever they wish with no protection for neighbors’ property rights?
Or are we supposed to treat renewable energy differently for some reason?
I'm joined by “Texas Doug” Lewin to unpack the fascinating contradictions of a state that inadvertently became the nation's renewable energy powerhouse through a free market electricity system that its politicians now seem bent on strangling. Bills before the legislature would require solar and wind developers to also build gas plants, impose extreme setback requirements only on renewables, and potentially cripple the state's economy just as data centers drive unprecedented demand growth.
It's not only happening on the left -- the right is just as committed to counter-productive posturing on these issues and they have become much WORSE over the past 20 years on climate change. We are seeing a lot of reflexive stupidity on both ends of the spectrum and confront the ageless question -- why can't the sensible centrist 60% get our shit together and make the right things happen?
Because even that 'sensible' 60% deeply disagree on important things like abortion access, immigration, LGBT rights, and so on.
Like, the 20% or 30% most liberal Republican voter (which would be the outward edge of the '60% centrist' is still very conservative on social issues even compared to somebody like MGP, Golden, or even Manchin.
Contrary to what some people believe, there actually isn't a majority for what let's be honest here, socially moderately liberal people with center-left economic politics want.
Maybe there's more of a political market for the unreasonable centrists? Appeal to the Kakistocracy Constituency, the kind of people who like Trump precisely because he can't credibly claim to be a better person than them, who like Fetterman more and more as he loses any claim to have a healthier brain than them, etc.
Let's moderate by having the Sunrise movement's opposition to fossil fuels, and the right's opposition to renewables! Let's moderate by having the Defund movement's unwillingness to enforce immigration laws, shoplifting and public disorder against whole classes of people that make good victims, while also having the MAGA unwillingness to make certain officials respect due process for their opponents or refrain from committing certain crimes themselves. Let's moderate by requiring universities to implement DEI programs, and then shutting them down for it!
I kid, but there's a part of me that fears this would be a popular agenda until people noticed a large decline in their standards of living, by which time the country might hope to retain developed-country status if it reverses course, but its leadership as the superpower and one of the world's richest and scientifically dominant countries would be lost forever. (And someone else, likely China, would fill the power vacuum.) The appeal of this is -- it's emotive, ideologically incoherent, and not thought out at all, just like swing voters and populist politicians; and someone who actually tried to implement all of these ideas could hardly claim to be smart and competent, so they can't look down on the masses with double-digit IQs.
The basic fact that fossil fuels have significant negative externalities and renewables do not remains, though. And the (remarkable!) level of technical progress in renewables cannot change this.
Sadly, “price in externalities as a matter of course” is not a universal bipartisan principle. So the issue is necessarily going to remain partisan.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider political economy, of course; that’s Matt’s whole point in this essay. But the fact that climate policy may be unpopular doesn’t change the base truth that (smart) climate policies are good for humanity and the world.
Sadly, MY's other great truth this week is pointing out that the average swing voter is dumber than the average voter, so it's not clear how many "smart" policies are net helpful to electing the people required to enact them. We need smart policies wrapped in dumb packaging, I guess.
Green energy is close to takeoff in which partisan opposition to it (from the Republicans) will become less important. But I don't think we're there yet, so we have to keep fighting the opposition to its spread.
Happy to elaborate! I think the political analysis here is right — most voters don’t prioritize climate, and Democrats need to be very hard nosed about that if they want a majority that can actually enact any change at all. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being critical of the climate movement’s messaging or priorities, especially when they clash with electoral math. It’s a legitimate beat for SB to cover.
That said, I do think there’s been a subtle shift in how SB frames climate overall. Increasingly, there is an undercurrent that climate isn’t all that important, relative to other problems, or that U.S. action can’t meaningfully affect outcomes and I don’t think it holds up.
Take the bit in this piece about nuclear deregulation being one of the best ways to link climate and affordability. I have nothing against nuclear (let a thousand flowers bloom and all) but that’s a pretty narrow solution and calling it a standout option seems like wish casting. Similarly, there was a tweet from Matt a while back (I think it’s deleted now) that said something like, “Now people can admit electric cars aren’t very good.” That kind of reflexive contrarianism is pretty weak stuff when the technology is obviously improving rapidly.
It’s totally fair to critique the climate movement, but when those critiques start shading into “maybe climate’s just not that big a deal,” the publication risks losing its usual rigor and undercuts the actual arguments you want to make.
There comes a point when (justifiably) pointing out the stupidities of the climate change groups starts having diminishing returns. You need to say something else about the issue.
If they continue to do things that are counter productive, I don't see how it's bad to keep criticizing them, as long as the criticisms are valid. They continue to be influential.
I think the SB readership is smart enough to get how bad these groups are. You don't need to keep pounding on that drum. Matt writes a lot about policy. He should do the same thing here (or at least do it more comprehensively than he has done to date).
Idk, who democrats recruit to run for senate is a big deal, and it's a thing that is actively being decided, so I think it's a constructive thing to weigh in on, even if he has made similar points in other articles. Lots of writers have subjects they return to again and again.
It sure seems like Dems prioritized climate and regressed with young voters, championed BLM and regressed with black voters, and softened immigration enforcement and regressed with Hispanic voters. Not great!
I agree with the thesis that emphasizing climate change shouldn’t be a big focus for Dems in the midterms, but characterizing the Washington Post op-ed as some nefarious and ambiguous “they” “sending Jay Inslee out to lie to people” is the sort of paranoid, conspiratorial mode that you should know better than to engage in.
Everything we know about Inslee’s time in office and his 2020 presidential campaign strongly suggests that both a: he’s very deeply committed to the climate issue, b: he probably sincerely (albeit incorrectly) believes in it as an electoral strategy, and c: he probably did this on his own initiative (both because he actually believes it and because he wants to establish thought leadership before 2028.)
Also, have a bit more courage in your convictions about “just go ahead and say the moderate stuff you believe.” You’re never going to impose the kind of message discipline you want on the climate advocacy groups, but you don’t actually have to, and acting like that’s a precondition for frontline candidates pursuing a moderate strategy is silly.
The remedy you need is for candidates like Allred or Peltola to adopt stances on energy issues, explain their positions and their disagreements with the national party, and do it in an attention-getting way. These candidates don’t really have much to fear from “the groups”, and a lot to gain by positioning themselves as heterodox and responsive to local concerns. And they’ve shown that they have the good political judgment to do that. Trust them and let them cook.
But it would be helpful if that national party were closer to the moderate stances on energy issues, leaving those candidates less vulnerable to charges of lying until they can get into Congress and vote in line with the party's too-progressive stances.
I think Matt commented on Twitter that he believed Inslee was lying on the electoral politics of this based on the failure of climate change initiatives in Washington. If they can't win there, then the notion that they're an electoral winner starts to look like...extremely motivated reasoning at best.
I didn’t see the tweet and I don’t live in Washington, but didn’t the ballot initiatives in 2024 mostly go how the climate groups wanted? They upheld the big cap and trade law at least
"This measure would repeal or prohibit certain laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use, and/or promote electrification, and require certain utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers."
This measure passed with 52% of the vote in a state where Trump only got 39% of the vote. Inslee and the environmental groups were able to successfully get the Supreme Court to overturn the measure on the basis that it covered too many subjects, which is not legal for an initiative in the state.
But it proves Matt's point that Inslee knows that these views are a huge electoral loser, but still chooses to lie about it anyways and I think it's fair to question why.
Yeah, but 2117 only got 38% of the vote, about the same as Trump, and that was the one to overturn the state cap and trade program and get to net zero by 2050.
So the state likes reducing carbon emissions, they just don’t want to do it by banning gas appliances, and honestly, fair call? In any case, not news that bans on gas appliances are a very unpopular way to fight climate change.
There was more to 2117 than just reducing carbon emissions that probably swayed voters on the issue, such as the revenue generated being used to fund transportation projects instead of taxes, general opposition from the business community who preferred this program to other regulations, and opposition from moderate-coded groups like the state's firefighters union.
Yeah, but to get back to the original point, you see 2066 pass but 2117 fail and you conclude that Inslee must be lying if he says that climate stuff can get electoral support?
(I think Inslee’s clearly wrong, but that feels like weak evidence to call the man a liar.)
Right, Inslee most likely is not lying unless Yglesias can put up specific evidence to the contrary. Most Democrats actually believe climate change requires banning all new light ICE car sales in 2035, and banning some of them starting much sooner. That's why most Democrats in the House[1] voted to keep a dozen blue states on track for doing so, while 35 of them voted with Republicans to stop these states with the federal EPA under a GOP admin taking superiority.
This idea that Democratic politicians like Inslee or partisan young Democratic activists on climate are lying when they say the climate is causing an apocalypse soon and we have to drastically change or end our material comforts to confront this is wishful thinking. It's a false idol, a sort of worship of the apocalypse that the theorist Theodor Adorno saw as bad (true) and thus included in his original Fascism test (which to be clear does not follow, that's just sloppy social psychology.) But they're not lying. They genuinely believe this, unfortunately. They like the golden calf!
Yeah I voted for a GOP Congress in part because I think these are genuinely bad ideas and Democrats should change their mind on them. I wish Yglesias the best of luck pushing them on this, and after all I want the GOP to be different on things too. But if he has to insist Inslee is definitely *lying*, it's not a good sign!
I mean, buying an EV Audi instead of an ICEV Audi is not "drastically chang[ing] or end[ing] our material comforts". That's what the California waiver calls for, not moving everybody to organic communes and using only pedicabs for transit.
Excellent point. If I believed the average working class commuter is shopping for a brand new Audi, I suppose I too would have the wisdom of a Democrat governing California.
You can't understand climate activists by thinking of them as lobbyists or normal activists, lots of them are full Millenarians who believe the world will end if we don't turn our backs on sin, therefore compromise or alternative energy plans are inherently immoral.
They also believe that their own flight to Peru, their own pet ownership, their own preference for a particular import, etc. does not count towards climate change; and that they would magically retain the same lifestyle if fossil fuel use stopped.
I think this piece is a very disingenious summary of the Inslee op-ed. You seem to equate "talking about climate change" with "talking about striking down fossil fuels", which sure, a lot of climate groups do. But that's not at all what the Inslee piece did!
Nowhere in his op-ed does he even make mention of fossil fuels. His basic idea is that young voters care especially about wealth/prosperity and climate change, and that there is a way to kill two birds with one stone: By aggressively expanding clean energy and creating green jobs. That's not a new tactic, as you mentioned, but it is one that you seem to be championing to a certain degree as well. This feels like you were just itching for another fight with the "groups" instead of actually addressing the issue.
So I think politicians should talk about climate change, but not in the way a lot of environmental groups want to. They shouldn't villify the fossil fuels industry or stoke apocalyptic fears that we're all gonna die. But they should talk about the opportunities for prosperity that green energy is able to deliver.
I even think they can be courageous enough to at least mention the dangers of climate change in a specific context. I think Mary Peltola absolutely should talk about how rising sea levels and thawing permafrost are a threat to coastal communities in her state, or how the dangers of floodings and mudslides and forest fires will become more prevalent for Alaskans. Or simply about how every Alaskan is already paying more for coffee and orange juice because of climate change. You just have to be smart about it.
(Also, I fear that "making nuclear regulation friendlier to the rollout of advanced reactors" will not bring down the cost of living for voters, for the simple reason that those reactors don't exist.)
Vote for Democrats and lose your job, vote for Republicans and orange juice will get more expensive?
Alaskan voters aren’t stupid.
EDIT: Also, Inslee did say this in his op-ed - “In 2021, as governor of Washington, I signed into law a landmark “cap-and-invest” program requiring our largest polluters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…”
He’s bragging about reducing emissions. That doesn’t sound friendly if your personal prosperity is founded in oil and gas, and the exact words he uses aren’t that important.
Only 26% of young people in this poll considered it a top-3 issue for them, which is about the same percentage that care about healthcare, abortion, jobs, and immigration and far behind cost of living, which 64% consider a top-3 issue.
It's even less among young people who didn't vote (18%), which sort of dispels the myth that there's this untapped gold mine of young voters ready to be mobilized if only Democrats run on climate change even harder.
I don't disagree with that. Any electoral strategy that's dependent on the youth vote is doomed to fail. But I also think it's important not to misrepresent what Inslee actually said.
That's because Inslee doesn't say much of anything. He just vaguely refers to the need to "talk about climate change" and young voters swinging to the right and cherry-picks polls to conclude that talking more about climate change will win back those young voters.
His reasoning doesn't make any sense and we both know he's smart enough to know that it doesn't make any sense, but he still uses that reasoning in the article anyways.
How does Jay Inslee live his life? Looking solely at his personal consumption and ignoring travelling in his job, I'm going to bet his carbon footprint is that of an elephant. I could be totally wrong about this, but I bet he owns a big house that is air conditioned in the summer and heated with gas in the winter, and I bet he enjoys flying to places. He will probably own at least one car (no doubt electric) and he enjoys using it to get places.
So I'm betting Inslee is full of shit and doesn't live his life as though climate change is a big issue in his life. He could absolutely do many things to cut his personal carbon footprint, but he doesn't want to it would make his life worse.
I think almost everyone that talks about the importance of climate change is full of shit as well. The kids waving banners about climate have no doubt lived nice middle class lives growing up, being carried around in big SUVs driven by their parents.
So everyone is full of shit on climate, and I think the focus on this matter is just to ease cognitive dissonance.
I don’t love this kind of response. It only encourages the purity mindset instead of the effectiveness mindset. People should care less about purity and superficial consistency, and more about effectiveness.
If Jay Inslee cares about climate change, then he should do whatever will effectively reduce climate change. If that means burning more fossil fuels himself, then he should do it. If it means shutting the fuck up about climate change, then he should do that.
The same obsession with personal behavior that leads Greta to think it matters whether she flies or sails also leads Greta to think that she must speak up, even when speaking up makes it less likely that she will attain her goals.
Me neither. I genuinely believe virtue signaling is about .00002% as effective at realizing the necessary, large scale economic shifts as things like tax code changes and big government spending bills. I don't go out of my way live a green lifestyle. I just vote for politicians who believe in climate science and seem reasonable in terms of policy. And I sleep just fine at night.
I'm sympathetic to Matt's take on Inslee here, but we need not castigate the latter for flying frequently on jets, or eating meat, or owning a big house with lots of fancy electronics. Engaging in such a lifestyle wouldn't mean Inslee is a hypocrite. It probably just means he thinks public policy is what matters, and not the behavior of any individual consumer, himself included.
I'm completely off the grid and have totally electrified but because I live in an industrial economy, I'll never have the lifestyle of a Rwandan subsistence farmer so I guess I better keep my mouth shut.
I think the point is that Inslee's behavior reveals he *doesn't* really think climate change is an existential issue and should stop acting like nothing else matters. It's not that he should change his lifestyle to fit his beliefs, it's that his lifestyle shows his beliefs aren't that firmly held.
No - I kinda think that’s dyspeptic’s point: Inslee’s personal behavior doesn’t actually reveal anything.
I think taxes should be higher, but I’m not randomly mailing $100 bills to the government. I think we should declare war on Denmark over Greenland, but I personally don’t have plans to fly to Copenhagen with a rifle, and I’m not punching out random Scandinavians on the street. Just because you aren’t personally acting out a broad policy you want to see enacted doesn’t make you a hypocrite (unless it’s a policy specifically about personal behavior)
Alternatively, unilaterally forgoing benefits in the context of a collective action problem by cooperating when everyone else defects is stupid and ineffective. I don’t expect people who think Social Security is a dumb program that’s bad for the country’s overall fiscal trajectory to forgo collecting Social Security checks. Dominant assurance contracts exist for exactly this reason.
While true, doesn't the same logic mean their US-only advocacy in the face of Chinese-defection mean they are stupid and ineffective?
Feels like to be consistent, one way or the other, you need to make changes in your life despite what other people do or you need to stop advocating for change in the US because what China does is the real leverage.
I think advocating for solving the part of the problem over which the US probably has agency has value on current emissions margins, (as, obviously, does exerting influence on China to the extent possible), including for encouraging cost-curve improvement, but yes, obviously if you’re like, Greenland, the incredibly high salience of the issue is coupled with minimal agency over it such that your best play is probably to find something higher-leverage rather than to worry about the marginal power plant.
Pushing the only party that cares about climate change to make bad, unpopular political strategies that will make it harder for them to win elections is also stupid and ineffective, but he's doing still doing it.
What are you talking about? How is that in any way relevant? You are trying to push people to extreme environmentalist purity while at the same time attacking the environmental movement! That makes no sense.
In any case, I would guess that Inslee either has an old house (which is automatically greener than a new build) or else has a heat pump system installed - and in a climate like that of Washington, that means he is very likely using much less energy heating and cooling his house than 90% of the country. (I think about 20% of the country lives in west coast climates and he is likely around median on those.)
You joke, but I think BECCS (burn biofuel for energy and capture the CO2) is one of the most underhyped climate technologies out there. They're an order of magnitude ahead of ClimeWorks Direct Air Capture in Iceland, but no one wants to talk about it because the CCS people are all from the fossil fuel industry.
It's not very hard to have a low carbon footprint in Washington because they have relatively low-emissions electricity with lots of hydro (nothing like Vermont's stunningly low CO2/kWh, of course). Drive an EV, use an air-source heat pump, heat pump hot water heater, heat pump dryer, induction stove, LEDs, then maybe install a few solar panels and you will pretty much be at the frontier of footprint-lowering with available consumer technology. I'd be amazed if Inslee has not done all of that and more in his personal life. Flying is a problem, so you can complain that he does not purchase enough high-quality offsets for that, I suppose. He might also eat beef...
One factor to keep in mind is that for the Very Online it’s hard for them to accept that what their algorithmically curated feeds are telling them isn’t what is motivating the average democrat, let alone the median swing voter.
It’s very easy for the algorithms to make people think their positions are wildly more popular than they are.
GREAT point about the need for pro-life Democrats. I have a bias here because I'm a pro-life #NeverTrumper myself. But I think there are lots of people who despise MAGA but have scruples about voting for a pro-choice candidate. Republicans used to be for family values and free markets. Trump has burned the party's bridges to both, but some pro-life conservatives who feel totally betrayed and ashamed still feel required to vote for him, or at least forbidden to vote for Democrats. You can't just think about numbers, you need to think about intensity too.
I think a lot of Democrats know that they lose votes by being so hard-line pro-choice across the board, but they have their own scruples to honor. Please, guys, compromise a little! The survival of constitutional democracy is at stake!
BTW I think that the evoked Youth Climate Mirage is really a subset of a wider Youth Mirage in which the Lefty / Democratic party activist factions via structural blindness duped themselves or blinded themselves into thinking that their own youth staffing - highly educated urbane and urban oriented young college graduates of oft elite schools - were across all political subjects, representative of The Youth: essentially mistaking a sub-set of a sub-set - albeit a Very Online Visible & Very Verbal subset as being The Youth generally, rather than a comparatively comfortable demo that has stopped growing in both absolute and in relative terms. The mis-focus on student debt (which Slow Boring nicely covered) is illustrative.
From the cultural to the economic this myopia as to the narrowness of that opinion base - extrapolating that anything that boosted Dems with this group was / is extrapolatable to Youth in General, ergo doubling down on their agenda would magically turn into votes amongst non-college etc.
To be clear this is not intended to say the College Grad Youth views are wrong - nor to say they are right either, but as a demographic understanding it was evidentallly very very wrong (and very misweighted to where Dems need to gain votes relative to Electoral College.
---
The youth climate mirage
The climate movement maneuvered around this obvious reality for years by trying to hack opinion data and argue that young people or voters of color were especially motivated by the climate issue. This was always based on a pretty obvious bit of deception. If you take a Dem-leaning subset of the population and then ask them how much they care about a Dem-coded issue like climate, then yes, of course you’ll find that subset of the population cares more about climate than the population average.
But do marginal non-white voters care a lot about climate? Marginal young voters?
Well, we just spent 2021-2024 running the experiment of what happens when the Democratic Party makes climate, rather than health care or other aspects of the social safety net, their top legislative priority. And what happened was an unprecedented swing of young people and voters of color toward the GOP. I don’t want to argue that this happened solely because of the climate focus. But to turn around and say that even more climate focus is the answer strains credulity.
Before highlighting the issue, we should actually develop a sensible position on the issue.
a)The accumulation of in CO2 in the atmosphere has produced and will continue to produce economic and other harm to people in the United States and elsewhere.
b) To stabilize and perhaps eventually reduce reduce CO2 in the atmosphere will require investing in technologies that do not emit CO2 into and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
c) Investments are also need to mitigate the harm that already accumulated and as yet to accumulate CO2 will cause and to estimate the geo-physical effects of CO2 accumulation and how those effects produce economic and non-economic costs and benefits.
d) Investing in these technologies comes at the expense of consumption and other investments so we should minimize the cost of those investment.
e) The US should create incentives for public and private decisionmakers to invest in those technologies and should advocate that other countries do the same.
f) The present set of incentives neither in the US nor elsewhere are such as to incentivize the needed investment.
The key word is "investment" in low-carbon tech, which leads to lower overall costs to deliver energy in kWhs than it currently costs to deliver FF-derived energy. I believe MY when he says that the median swing voter is dumber than the average American, but I still think we should stand up for basic math.
I'm a reliable Democrat. If the party is trying to win my vote, they're wasting their time on what's already accomplished. If they want my money, then sell me on a viable plan to kick Republican ass up and down the ballot because they're not delivering on ANYTHING without a majority. And ESPECIALLY with climate, the critical technology has been developed and the only thing that will stop progress is the government actively fighting against it.
At this point, I barely care about the political views of any Democratic candidate because even an literal right-wing Democrat (as in votes for fewer than 50% of left-wing bills) would be better than a Republican because they're outside of that party's structure. Based on what I'm seeing, I don't see any way how a gun-toting, coal rolling, pro-life Democratic Senator can be worse than a Republican with those same views.
This should be the comment of the week.
How anyone can just say “I’m voting democrat down the line no matter what” is beyond me. Lenin had a name for people like this —- useful idiot.
Right now, it's better to be useful than useless. And I'd define useful these days as something that can make the Republican Party small enough to drown in a bathtub.
Agree with this. Although I’d probably vote for a super moderate republican over a DSA type to be mayor or city councilor.
Oh yea, at the local level I vote for Republicans for every at-large and minority-party reserved council seat, the former for messaging purposes, the latter in the hopes that racedep unseats the moron WFP candidates soon.
I'll vote for whoever runs against Krasner in primary and general until he gets turfed out.
I usually vote for the Republican in my state house and senate districts because they usually run sane good government types and we need more of the GOP caucus to not want to fuck Philly over; having local Republicans to yell at their counterparts from bumfuck is important.
But for governor or any federal office, we're probably getting close to "never again" at this point. Every Republican administration since I was 3 has been a disaster to a large degree.
Local politics is always so individualized. I'd definitely be open to that, though I voted for the progressive in our most recent election because she seemed to best recognize that the city bureaucracy was stifling out ability to do things. But, like with a moderate Republican, I was willing to trade some ideology for functionality.
Yeah I mean some mod Republicans end up being huge nimbys too. Individualized is the right word for it.
Pushing AOC/Bernie as the future of the party is going to get you there, just give it time !!!! It's going be the 1980s all over again.
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1920292959825571966
https://x.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1920244919064465575
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1920314742171746755
You're party is doomed until you are willing to throw out these idiots.
They'd be doomed if the Republicans were remotely serious about governing and the president wasn't seemingly trying to engineer inflation. Since both parties are making stupid mistakes, elections will be tossups for the time being.
Talk to me the day after the midterms
Bernie is pushing against the party, and they can’t throw him out because he is officially still independent—in fact his biggest draw is that he’s the ultimate “outsider.” The hardest thing for Democrats is convincing people not only to support their party, but to support the idea of having a (political) party. People are in a very anti-party mood, ironically at the same time that politics is ultra-polarized in terms of ideological identity.
"Right now, it's better to be useful than useless."
BARS
If you’re a voter with strong opinions on specific issues, I think the most logical strategy is to determine which party is closest and vote for them up and down the ballot. The two political parties have very distinct ideologies!
Parties are real, and in fact they're the only thing that actually matters in 90% of American politics. If you believe, as most of us do, that the Republican party is a corrupted edifice that practices identity politics for morons and corrupt bozos, has no sincere interest in national welfare, and is opposed to the very fundamental democratic structure of the republic, then why would you ever vote for someone sick enough to run under their auspices?
Y'all were in a position to turn me into a swing voter by enacting a traditionally conservative stab at domestic deregulation, working to reform the global trade system and push back on China in concert with the allies that give us the heft to succeed, and taking fiscal rigor seriously.
Oops, it appears I will be voting Democratic at the federal level until... I dunno, at this rate probably until I die.
I’m annoyed that just as I came around on so much of the deregulation argument, the GOP abandoned it. Perhaps not a coincidence!
I *try* to find local Republicans to vote for on this and it’s impossible these days.
I'm voting for local Republicans to try to make the local Democrats feel threatened into being less dumb on business and economic issues, and because we have specific City Council seats reserved to a minority party and I'd much rather they be in GOP hands than WFP hands.
The latter are unserious shitheads.
There used to be this thing called Downsian theory which posited that parties would fight each other to occupy the center. We now have two parties who view the median voter as a radioactive werewolf that one must run from as fast as possible.
Ah yes as opposed to the brilliant Swing Voter.
Something, something the better of two weevils...
Nice "Master and Commander" call out. I wish there'd been a sequel to the film.
This person absolutely didn’t say “I’m voting Democrat down the line no matter what”. They said they want to vote for people who will “kick Republican ass” and who are “outside of that party’s structure”. Presumably this all means that if the Republican structure changed in some drastic way, then they would be open to voting for Republicans. And they wouldn’t vote for a pro-Trump Democrat. And if a race had a viable third party candidate, they would consider that candidate.
This sounds like the reasonable amount of openness to have.
(Also, my understanding of the concept of “useful idiot” is different from yours. I thought it was supposed to be someone who was willing to defend communism against certain American slanders, even if this person wasn’t up on current propaganda from the Party. The idea is that this person is an idiot, because they don’t understand current Party thinking, but is useful, because they oppose capitalist propaganda. But it’s not about voting or being doctrinaire or even always siding with the Communists. It’s a term that would more accurately apply to a swing voter than a party line voter.)
A "useful idiot" is a term used to describe someone who is unwittingly manipulated or exploited to promote a cause or agenda, often without fully understanding the consequences or true intentions behind it. The phrase is typically associated with political contexts, where individuals naively support ideologies, movements, or propaganda that may ultimately harm their own interests or values. It implies a lack of critical thinking or awareness, making the person a tool for others' purposes.
The term is often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, though there's no definitive evidence he coined it. It gained traction during the Cold War to criticize Western sympathizers of Soviet policies.
KatemineCal's comment clearly indicate they're useful idiot
This is not a useful idiot. The useful idiots are the Kadets or the Right SRs who believed an alliance with the Bolsheviks could deliver them the policies they desired.
A down the ticket voter is just a traditional machine voter which has been around in American party politics for 200 years. Tons of people vote against their interests without knowing. That is not the point of the term.
The CIA kid who died in Russia is a useful idiot. The Weather Underground were useful idiots. This is far too broad.
Hard disagree
You think 45% of votes ever cast in the United States are "useful idiots?"
The term loses most of its meaning then, we're all just useful idiots every time we do something that is against our interests or make a decision without being fully informed.
Would you say the same about down the ticket Fine Gael voters? Or down the ticket CDU? Or down the ticket Lega?
It's fine to have a revulsion to political parties, but this is how they've worked since Hamilton and Jefferson.
Francis Begbie:
Voting Democratic = useful idiot
Voting for a Republican Party controlled by a corrupt authoritarian cult leader compromised by the FSB = independent thinker!
Tell us more of your wisdom!!!
I said "down the line" implying if you just blindly vote for democrats at all levels, you're an idiot. i think you probably fall into this category.
for what it's worth. I never voted for trump because even though I have voted for many republicans at state and local levels- i thought he was a bad choice for president, all three times.
P.S are we still saying Trump is a Russian Agent in 2025?
P.P.S Jim Gaffigan has never been funny.
No, Trump is not a Russian asset. Yes, Trump is an asset to the Russians.
But I'm in awe of your debating skills. Calling Will I Am an idiot ("probably"): masterful!
So you think he was implying the latter and not the former ?
Is Trump comprimised by the Russians? Let's see:
1. Regularly parrots Russian Propaganda (Zelensky started the war) - check!
2. Hires anti-American leftist and RT superfan Tulsi Grabbard as DNI - check!
3. Took out ad in NY Times decrying NATO - during the Cold War - check!
4. Sons brag that a large section of Trump Orgs funding is from Russia - check!
5. First wife Ivana the daughter of a Czech Intelligence officer in Soviet era - check!
6. Had Hegseth and Grabbard shut down counterintelligence and cybersecurity offices tracking Russian threats within first month in office - check!
But I'm the idiot...
Here let me make it easy for you:
Is Trump Putin’s puppet?
Yes / No
Fortunately, I don't take political advice from murderous lunatics who turned their country into an (even bigger) hellhole.
Good job refuting my point!
Well, you are right that I was mostly hijacking your comment as an opportunity to talk shit about Lenin, which I am pathologically incapable of resisting. Provenance of the quote aside I am actually quite supportive of voting for third parties most of the time. Vote for who you'd like to be in charge, says I!
me too! lenin was a monster.
I would draw the line at coal-rolling, since that has nothing to do with affordable energy and is basically a just a noxious form of IRL trolling, and no responsible adult conservative would actually do that. One thing I would like to see more of is promoting clean energy for its immediate benefits, ie reducing asthma and other health issues, which is more tangible (and money-saving) than reducing global warming, which is not perceptible and won’t be for the foreseeable future.
Matt writes: "You’re talking about blocs of voters who are drawn to the Democratic Party specifically because of support for Medicaid and other social safety net programs, but who also want competent economic management and material prosperity, and are trying to decide which party will deliver it."
Except for the last phrase, this is an accurate description of me. I'm all for an expanded tent, so I'm fine having people who prioritize climate change or identity-as-destiny as part of the coalition. But the conflict comes when those people push policies that are antithetical to "competent economic management and material prosperity".
I really don't know how to engage the committed believers on these topics and it seems Matt doesn't know either ("I really don't know what to say to that", in regards to the environmentalists who killed clean energy permitting because it would also ease the path for natural gas projects). It is hard to reason with religious fanatics.
People sometimes make broad imprecise assessments like "neither party is trying to win ordinary votes" or a "majority of voters" but in a more technical sense, it is honestly astounding that NEITHER PARTY believes or behaves like they believe "economic growth and stable prices is good."
I think Democrats absolutely understand that (see the Harris campaign and the Biden administration attempting to frame climate policies as inflation reducing).
The problem is that the climate movement is such a loud and visible part of their coalition and they've never done much to truly distance themselves from them.
100% agreed, they also seem to have mastered the Social Media element to rile up people so its tough to have any nuanced debate or conversation with those people. If they can't get 100% of what they want, they would just rather everyone lose.
Because the most politically partisan people have been insulated from the consequences of their imprudent beliefs by the success and excesses of American capitalism.
Yes but not in a society where our inequality is rising and people have substandard healthcare and working people have a hard time making ends meet.
I admit I’m not familiar with the precise legislative fight at issue but one response might be that the people who insisted on the easing of permitting for natural gas projects instead of accepting a Pareto improvement in permitting reform only for renewables were the ones who were in the wrong here. It takes two to not tango — why aren’t the holdouts on the other side who wouldn’t accept half a loaf not the ones who should be vilified here?
I’m not inclined to think that that view is correct on the merits vis a vis fighting climate change (seems like an empirical question where my priors are that it’s the wrong call to forgo the deal) but it seems like it’s at least worth engaging with the PoV that providing an economic subsidy to projects that don’t emit greenhouse gases in the course of electricity production versus those that don’t is good, actually.
Matt’s big on gas plants as improving emissions on the margin relative to displacing coal and/or as peaker complements to renewables, and this is a valid and important point, but I think he also tends to under-engage with the notion that this is a situation where thinking on the margin that way has particularly acute limitations — down the line you’ve created a whole bunch of gas plants, an economic-technological complex with a dependency on that infrastructure, and crucially all of these plants still emit carbon. Being in a hole, digging more rather than less slowly is an improvement strictu senso but you literally cannot get out of said hole by continuing to dig it deeper.
(Nuclear deregulation is a free lunch and should be done but also unfortunately seems kind of like a red herring — the more informed the take I read the more the conclusion tends towards “the economics of this will never work under private market incentives.”)
They needed Republican votes for any permitting reform bill. Are Republicans who refuse to support clean energy permitting reform by itself in the wrong? Absolutely.
If we write lots of articles focused on complaining about Republicans who oppose clean energy, will that help us win more votes or fight climate change more effectively? I think the opposite is more likely.
Didn’t the Dems have a trifecta during the Biden admin? Why the need for R votes?
Only the first two years, I think it wasn’t even proposed then, if it had been, still filibuster
A trifecta only really counts for things that you can jam through the reconciliation process, not everything.
During the trifecta years they needed Manchin's vote for a permitting bill, and he wanted permitting reform for pipelines.
You need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster.
Compromise it's a good thing
The red herring is the conclusion that "the economics of this will never work under private market incentives."
Somehow this thinking is never applied to High Speed Rail.
Part of the worry with nuclear power from a private developer perspective is the prohibitive insurance costs. Basically you have to insure against Chernobyl (or at least Fukushima). Very very very unlikely, but very very very very expensive in the event.
The author is also letting perfect be the enemy of good. Saying gas emits CO2 = digging a hole misses the idea that efficient gas plants emit half the CO2 of coal plants. So if you shut down coal plants and replace them with natural gas you're filling the hole, more so if renewables are also built. The issue today for the US is power sector demand is rising quite quickly and it might be more power plants are necessary.
While it's true that gas emits less CO2 than coal when combusted, leakage rates from gas operations contribute significant additional CO2e warming that negates most of that advantage. The obvious answer is to reduce the leakage, which is relatively cheap and produces more gas to sell, but that's not what the industry wants, so we get the revocation of rules (and subsidies) for doing it. Instead, we get a push for LNG exports, which are worse for the global environment and will displace more clean energy projects than coal projects at the margin (although ironically it would probably improve US emissions by making domestic gas for power more expensive). MY hits the nail on the head when he highlights the fact that this is an industry-driven movement away from sound CO2 accounting that they have successfully converted into a "local jobs", "local industry" and a collection of culture war issues (gas stoves are freedom!) that tie the production of these economically counter-productive fuels to pro-economy vibes. The climate wing of the Democratic Party has been outflanked, needs to regroup, and needs the Senate to win any significant power to make progress. Pro-nuke and pro-transmission positions are the low hanging fruit, but they just refuse to pick it.
LNG exports also permit the EU to wean themselves off of Russian gas. There's a significant geo-political component to energy policy that I feel the left/greens tend to ignore or minimize.
Yes, LNG exports are good from a national security point of view (now OBE under Trump), but that was never Matt's argument. His take was that it was bad electoral politics. Since increasing exports hikes domestic prices (and increases company profits), I could never figure out the logic apart from some kind of virtue signaling thing.
This is correct only if you *have* to replace coal with gas peaker plants. With the increasing spread of cheaper battery storage, this is becoming less and less true.
Isn't it? Isn't that the point of the Brightline projects, esp Brightline West?
Same is true for roads and airports.
I don't think High Speed Rail works as a private market measure in any market.
Casey Handmer made that point at length a few years ago: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/10/11/why-high-speed-rail-hasnt-caught-on/
“…will never work under private market incentives”
I.e., real abundance has never been tried.
>why aren’t the holdouts on the other side who wouldn’t accept half a loaf not the ones who should be vilified here?<
I think mainly because, on policy, the pro "permit reform for energy projects that include natural gas" side is right on the merits. If that's the case, why should they be the ones to compromise on this point?
I'm referring, of course, to the claim that failing to produce enough domestic carbon-based energy doesn't guarantee a reduced national carbon footprint; we'll just burn more *foreign* fossil fuels to replace the domestic undersupply, and thus there's no net gain with respect to climate change. Zero gains, plus economic losses, plus negative (for Democrats) political consequences. It's pure loss.
I think you’re conflating the realtive costs of building plants of type A vs B here (where relative ease of building can act as an implicit carbon tax) with the separate issue of domestic vs foreign hydrocarbon sourcing. ED.: however I’m not familiar enough with the bill specifics to say that with confidence, it was just my interpretation of Matt’s discussion.
Possible.
I am broadly sympathetic to the rhetorical point that people can over-focus on the left not compromising with obstructionist Republicans to get compromises done, rather than laying blame on said obstructionist Republicans.
However,
1. Complaining about Texas Republicans being unwilling to let you subsidize renewables, without any concessions, in order to long term destroy industries they care about, is a lot like complaining about bad weather. Fair and expressive, not all that useful.
2. Permitting reform is *desperately* needed. You just can't electrify the economy without it. Sacrificing it because "someday the gas assets which climate positive today will be politically challenging to strand when they become climate negative" is just outsmarting yourself. OBVIOUSLY you take the win on permitting which, as a bonus, makes you look bipartisan and gets you more political power for future, less critical, fights down the road when you have high class problems like "we don't need the gas plants anymore in our mostly renewable and nuclear supplied and fully electrified industrial base, how do we axe them".
Agree strongly with #2. Unfortunately, we are going to have to spend money to unwind this terrible, destructive, economically inefficient industry one way or another. In the grand scheme, absorbing the cost of these LNG stranded assets through some kind of federal tax boondoggle in 15 years seems like an acceptable price for getting several TW of capacity out of the queue and onto transmission lines now, because the vast majority of that currently "stranded" capacity (90-95%) is wind, solar and batteries. It does not seem that hard to parse...
Perhaps you missed the point where there are states who have major oil and gas industry and the people they represent want their elected officials to represent their interests...
I agree with this comment, except that I think the climate wing could use a good red herring, since the point of them was to lead hunters away from the actual target before it gets shot or mauled to death! The fact that relatively few new nukes will actually be built even under relaxed regulation for economic reasons (see, e.g., China severely lagging its nuclear power targets) should make it easier for the climate wing to support nuclear deregulation...
I agree broadly with this (hence the like), but to be an annoying pedant I’d point out that “I’m all for an expanded tent, but [non-negotiable tenet]” is just what politics is! I think they’re wrong, but some people really see a (misguided) focus on climate as their equivalent of “competent economic management and material prosperity.”
Hence my description of this issue as a “conflict” rather than as a reason to kick them (or me) out of the tent.
"but to be an annoying pedant"
C-man, I'm happy to give you some tips on how to become the pleasant, charming type of pedant that people fall over themselves to invite to their parties and hold forth on the most exciting topics of pedantry that have captured the public's imagination.
I eagerly await the embrace of your wisdom!
Wisdom is a non-material entity, though devoutly to be wished for. It cannot give you its "embrace."* If you wished to use the word in its metaphorical sense (like talking about "the face of God") you really must be explicit and say "the metaphorical embrace of your wisdom."
* Needless to say to you, the origin of the word is from the Old French verb "embracier" (meaning "to clasp in the arms").
*Shudders in ecstasy* such good pedantry!
If you can’t persuade them you have to primary them.
I's not religious fanaticism to believe that fighting climate change requires reducing use of fossil fuels, and that steps that lead to increased use of fossil fuels are not steps which fight climate change, even if they increase the share of energy made with renewables. I think you just disagree on whether climate change needs to be actively combatted or whether everything will somehow just work itself out if we get out of the way.
Expressive politics is spot on here - like politics for them is not a mean for the goal but a vehicle for their self expression…
Environmental movement, I feel like they care way more about movement than environment just like Christian Nationalists care way more about being Nationalist.
This of itself is very politically counterproductive bc it picks a battle where you inherently are on losing side bc it fires up them more - essentially the flip side of coin of MAGA extremist culture warrior.
And I guess the other dynamic here is the their undertone of degrowth and “big business = bad” mentality, which also fires them up more…
Republicans are a complete and utter disaster on climate change, and their policies are what we're getting unless Democrats somehow get back into contention in a number of purple/red states. A focus on climate change just doesn't move the needle for Democrats.
So, if you want action on climate change, DON'T emphasize climate change!
It sounds a bit paradoxical, but the logic is clear.
Yeah, and this is not hard to understand imo if you view politics as a means to an end - but I assume it’s fundamentally irreconcilable to the mindset of those activist types who seem to care more about “fight” and self expression… (to be fair, not all activists are like that and I know activists who care more about tangible outcomes)
Obviously current Republicans being anti-climate is bad, but being pro-climate does not seem to be effective. Being pro-energy independence for national security like China is effective or pro-free energy markets like Texas is effective. Free markets and national security haven't been classic pillars of the Democratic platform.
Or at the very least focus on the economic and health care benefits of a clean energy transition for consumers, rather than the (very real but abstract-sounding) perils of CO2e-driven warming. Energy transition is a win-win-win proposition for society, but it will happen faster in America at least by talking about the first two wins...
Yes- expressive adn in end degrowth, anti-business.
They do not actually believe in the economics of Renewable, for me far too much thinking is trapped in a 70-90s understanding and needs to change.
Yeah…
I guess progressive activists mindset overall are trapped in that era - I kinda suspect they formed that belief under a condition specific to that era and it’s partially inertia but they also realized that type of black and white confrontational worldview can attract a lot of ppl for self expression…
Hahah, read a good substack on the effects of electricity inertia, renewables, and the Iberian blackout this week.
The quoted below is very important. As a Renewables (RE) developement / investor - my literal day job - the only thing more painful than Trumpist-MAGA RE slagging based on fundamental innumeracy (stuck in 1970s-90s ideas of RE pricing, tech) has been the Green Left / Climate NGOs almost mirror imaging of the same level of thinking - where they seem to be driven also by (1) outmoded reflexs on RE needs hydrocarbons to be strangled to death to find an economic place and replace and (2) a misframed under CO2 as pollution like old 70s era acid rain etc pollution [as recent papers on Sahel-Sahara unexpected partial regreening illustrate, CO2 is perfectly scrumptious for plants and leads in fact to improved plant growth efficicies and so higher CO2 levels are not per 'pollution' although quite clearly long-term bad for human agricultural systems [not same as Bad for Planet - a big error in thinking, bad for people growing food systems... and bad meaning "make more expensive, uncertain, i.e Cost of Living impacts...]
The miss on the permitting was and is a massive own-goal
Nothing is actually more important. The build out of the Electric grids -and a real national unification to allow contitental scale power-wheeling exchange is Sine Qua Non for real success for decarbonisation - strangling off hydrocarbons without having that is going to produce a complete and utter train-wreck, and utterly decredibilise decarbonisation.
And this doesn't happen unless there is major permitting and major regulatory rationalisation.
If that enabled some hydrocarbons infra - so be it, as an actual industrial scale RE investor, I am more than confident on the Economics that decarbonised production IF the grid and the infrastructure - the long-distance as well as distrubtion level (i.e. retail and such consumer level details as EV charging although EVs really are to me nowhere near as important right now as industrial level decarbonisation of energy production for all uses
- EV focus is a classic case of some Retail level consumer visible thing getting an overweight concern compared to the immediately actionable energy consumption drivers whether households or industrial.
"Unfortunately, most of those things aren’t things the environmental movement favors or prioritizes, like making nuclear regulation friendlier to the rollout of advanced reactors. Democrats had two opportunities during the Biden Administration to pass a legislative deal that would speed the permitting process for clean energy projects. But in both cases, environmental groups killed the deal because it also offered concessions to ease the path for natural gas projects. ...
The climate movement got Democrats to make climate change their top priority for a party line bill. The bill poured an enormous amount of money into facilitating clean energy deployment. Democrats are, as we speak, fighting to preserve those programs in the wake of GOP repeal efforts. But the clean energy deployment has been limited by permitting bottlenecks — bottlenecks that green groups refused to prioritize lifting, because their core commitment was killing fossil fuel projects, even though that agenda offers no path to a legislative majority and is equally toxic in a “jobs” frame or a “prices” frame."
The above is entirely spot on the Green Groups right now to me are doing more harm than good from a fundamental lack of pragmatism - and much of them do not really understand or believe in markets.
Whereas from our numbers, if grid infra is expanded and permitting speeded, RE will accelerate and scale (it's fundamentally now attractive as stable costing so long as we have generation stability [as like nuclear but gas is quite fine to enable not to be a purist])
The whole "pollution" model taking from the 1970s-1990s is the wrong framing period (as seen as well in Europe).
One of the political economy hopes of IRA and New Green Deal type projects was to get renewable industries to a place where they have some actual political purchase on their own. By employing a decent number of people and by providing a significant amount of energy that local politicians of either stripe would pay attention to them and be interested in promoting them.
What it looks like we need now is for renewable industry types to form their own political action groups and lobbyists explicitly separate from the traditional environmental groups.
Plus, the cultural orientation of people actually installing RE systems is also a bit different than the Sunrise Movement in a way that is probably more comfortable for normies.
ABUNDANCE AGENDA, BAYBEEEEE
The IRA and the "New Green Deal" (actually, "Green New Deal") are very different things and shouldn't be joined together in a sentence like this. One was a smart approach to get things done legislatively and give us a great push toward a renewable future and the latter was an activist's "everything bagel" wet dream never with any chance of passing but effective in creating all kinds of targets for opponents to shoot at.
“…to get renewable industries to a place where they have some actual political purchase on their own”
But not economic efficiency? That sounds stupid.
The strident opposition to Carbon Capture and sequestration is another big miss for environmental groups. It’s not mature yet but if it does work and is not too expensive it means that we could keep burning fossil fuels a bit longer while not increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere as much. But of course that would delay the move from fossil fuels so it’s a technology to be opposed. Even if it would mean we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in 2100.
I would note that switching to regenerative farming allows for HUGE amounts of natural carbon sequestration, while also building healthy soils and stopping the loss of top soil (which needs to happen anyway).
Far better to make good use of that carbon with regenerative farming.
Sounds good. How would we move to that? Maybe with government subsidies to get it started?
Farmers are slowly starting to move that way on their own.
You can accelerate that process by providing education on HOW to farm this way, and what benefit they get.
If you are actually interested in the topic, I suggest reading "Dirt to Soil" by Gabe Brown (a fast and very compelling read). The Netflix movie "Kiss the Ground" is also decent.
Regenerative farming is better long term, and you can get comparable yields. But its also harder in the sense that there's more things you need to think about. Because you are focused on nourishing the soil not just the plants.
Of course subsidization would help, the process along quicker, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.
Maybe loans to help purchase no till drillers.
And that sounds great; I applaud it. And it seems that we both agree that there are things that government can do to help speed the process along.
Yes, I'm certainly not a person that says the government should never do anything.
I just want what they do to be efficient and cost effective (well that and a good idea)
Why would we need to subsidize farmers to stop their topsoil from depleting and blowing away?
I'm glad to hear that it's taken off on its own and is a standard practice among farmers now.
Maybe it’s not cost effective.
I think the concern is not so much that it's "not mature", but that it can't pencil economically (or energetically) under any but the most implausible assumptions. Emissions avoidance is vastly cheaper and getting more so all the time. By all means, continue to innovate and drive the long-term cost of CCS down, because we will need to suck many GTs of CO2 out of the sky starting in the 2050s, and doing it for $150/tonne will be better than doing it for $1,000/tonne.
The insanity of degrowthers and climate activists has made climate change less saliant of an issue for me. The main contributing factor behind this is that these people almost always seem to ignore the greatest source of emissions (more than half of global emissions), CCP controlled mainland China.
"What Democrats need to do to have a winning strategy on energy is to be accorded the same level of grace that the climate movement accords to Xi Jinping" is a great line.
San Francisco cleared out all the street addicts for Xi but won't do it for their own residents.
New mayor in town. They are now.
It's a human reaction to push back against idiots in the climate change movement. But it's either a critical issue which really needs addressing with smart policy or it isn't. I'm with option 1 here.
It's not more than half, best estimate is 35% compared to 12% for the US (lower for them and higher for us on a "consumption" basis, since we outsource some of our emissions to them via manufacturing). On a per capita basis China emits far less than the US (or Canada), and on a cumulative basis (which is what drives warming) Chinese emissions are nowhere near the US, which is the undisputed all-time champion, and likely always will be given the speed of the transition in China. I don't think people in the climate movement ignore any of these facts. But as MY says, they are willing to give China (although I'm not sure about Xi, specifically) some leeway because China is driving all the key technologies and manufacturing systems that will support long-term decarbonization. I wish it were the US and not (solely) China driving, but our addiction to the domestic oil and gas industry continues to make that very hard politically.
Cumulative doesn't matter you can't change the past. Per Capita doesn't matter either, what matters are total current emissions.
Why shouldn't per capita matter? Surely we don't expect two nations with dramatically different populations to have the same emissions.
You are right about the percentages. I was recalled them incorrectly. What matters now for global warming is marginal added emissions not the total historic stock. Climate forcing is not some decades long process, but has a much shorter time horizon (unless that Nature article I am thinking about from a few years ago was wrong.) Emissions today have a near term impact on global ambient temperatures.
What agency do you think domestic US political activism is likely to exercise over China? Would you be more of less dismissive of them if they fomented nuclear war as a backstop to coecive emissions restriction policy?
My issue is they act like the U.S. is the only cause for climate change and some of the gushing they have over CCP greenwashing of their coal fueled development and subsidies.
I just wish they focused more on serious policies like carbon border adjustments and carbon taxes rather than screaming about how capitalism is going to destroy the world in 20 years.
In short I want them to stop their baseless catastrophizing (the whole extinction of humanity claims) and disregard of potential technological solutions to emissions.
I agree that some of the climate left stuff gets pretty stupid and counter-productive, but I think a lot of it is driven by the natural revulsion we all feel about "negotiating with terrorists", which is how they (not without reason) view the FF industry. Unfortunately, negotiating with terrorists may be the most vivid and accurate description of "doing politics" in modern America. If you can't do it, then you don't really belong in the arena.
I guess I should note that I would put pretty good odds on capitalism destroying the world in 3-15 years, albeit via AGI/ASI. Turns out that "destroying the world is profitable in the interim and no one's charging you for the externalities" is in fact a failure condition.
But OpenAI is turning itself into a Public Benefit Corporation, so I'm sure we'll be fine...
This is not about the article to be clear, which I think makes fair points, but as someone who’s been reading you for about 20 years, I think you’ve gotten a bit reverse polarized on climate change by the fight with the groups
I think the big difference over 20 years is that we've seen significant technologic leaps in green energy that are changing things from China to Texas. There's no longer a benefit in making it a partisan issue these days. And it is frustrating that there's no "declare victory" mechanism to prevent a movement from overshooting.
Agree, by now the partisanship is pure downside. Left-wing Groups block the permitting reforms that get clean energy built, while the right polarizes against it and blocks clean energy altogether when they are in power, even as solar panels are becoming the cheapest way to add generation capacity.
Problem is, what can proponents of more clean energy do to depolarize the issue? There's "giving Democrats the same level of grace that the climate movement accords to Xi Jinping," but what do we do when the Republicans go, "no clean energy on our watch, even if this hurts our other goals"? Maybe all the Democrats can do on this issue is try to position themselves as the reasonable party, so that (assuming voters are reasonable and future elections are not rigged) they can be elected in the future to implement reasonable and acceptable-to-swing-voters versions of their policy goals?
“the right polarizes against it and blocks clean energy altogether when they are in power”
Really? Do you have any examples?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/temporary-withdrawal-of-all-areas-on-the-outer-continental-shelf-from-offshore-wind-leasing-and-review-of-the-federal-governments-leasing-and-permitting-practices-for-wind-projects/
Solar was also stopped for several months, though apparently it is being allowed again.
Obama stopped offshore oil drilling temporarily in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon debacle. Why is this example different?
That's exactly what i had in mind, thanks!
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/04/16/texas-senate-passes-anti-solar-wind-bill/
I’m not sure I see the problem. Are non-renewable power plants allowed to connect to the grid with no oversight? Can fossil fuel plants build wherever they wish with no protection for neighbors’ property rights?
Or are we supposed to treat renewable energy differently for some reason?
Yes - because they do not produce violently negative externalities. Duh.
Check out the idiotic legislation being debated in the Texas legislature:
https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-in-tarnation-is-going-on-in
Is there an executive summary for that or do I need to read an entire podcast transcript to know what you’re talking about?
Here's the first paragraph of the transcript:
I'm joined by “Texas Doug” Lewin to unpack the fascinating contradictions of a state that inadvertently became the nation's renewable energy powerhouse through a free market electricity system that its politicians now seem bent on strangling. Bills before the legislature would require solar and wind developers to also build gas plants, impose extreme setback requirements only on renewables, and potentially cripple the state's economy just as data centers drive unprecedented demand growth.
It's not only happening on the left -- the right is just as committed to counter-productive posturing on these issues and they have become much WORSE over the past 20 years on climate change. We are seeing a lot of reflexive stupidity on both ends of the spectrum and confront the ageless question -- why can't the sensible centrist 60% get our shit together and make the right things happen?
Because even that 'sensible' 60% deeply disagree on important things like abortion access, immigration, LGBT rights, and so on.
Like, the 20% or 30% most liberal Republican voter (which would be the outward edge of the '60% centrist' is still very conservative on social issues even compared to somebody like MGP, Golden, or even Manchin.
Contrary to what some people believe, there actually isn't a majority for what let's be honest here, socially moderately liberal people with center-left economic politics want.
Maybe there's more of a political market for the unreasonable centrists? Appeal to the Kakistocracy Constituency, the kind of people who like Trump precisely because he can't credibly claim to be a better person than them, who like Fetterman more and more as he loses any claim to have a healthier brain than them, etc.
Let's moderate by having the Sunrise movement's opposition to fossil fuels, and the right's opposition to renewables! Let's moderate by having the Defund movement's unwillingness to enforce immigration laws, shoplifting and public disorder against whole classes of people that make good victims, while also having the MAGA unwillingness to make certain officials respect due process for their opponents or refrain from committing certain crimes themselves. Let's moderate by requiring universities to implement DEI programs, and then shutting them down for it!
I kid, but there's a part of me that fears this would be a popular agenda until people noticed a large decline in their standards of living, by which time the country might hope to retain developed-country status if it reverses course, but its leadership as the superpower and one of the world's richest and scientifically dominant countries would be lost forever. (And someone else, likely China, would fill the power vacuum.) The appeal of this is -- it's emotive, ideologically incoherent, and not thought out at all, just like swing voters and populist politicians; and someone who actually tried to implement all of these ideas could hardly claim to be smart and competent, so they can't look down on the masses with double-digit IQs.
The basic fact that fossil fuels have significant negative externalities and renewables do not remains, though. And the (remarkable!) level of technical progress in renewables cannot change this.
Sadly, “price in externalities as a matter of course” is not a universal bipartisan principle. So the issue is necessarily going to remain partisan.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider political economy, of course; that’s Matt’s whole point in this essay. But the fact that climate policy may be unpopular doesn’t change the base truth that (smart) climate policies are good for humanity and the world.
Sadly, MY's other great truth this week is pointing out that the average swing voter is dumber than the average voter, so it's not clear how many "smart" policies are net helpful to electing the people required to enact them. We need smart policies wrapped in dumb packaging, I guess.
I think what we’ve seen, mostly, are stupid policies tarted up to make them appear smart in the right lighting.
Too true of too many policies for sure.
Green energy is close to takeoff in which partisan opposition to it (from the Republicans) will become less important. But I don't think we're there yet, so we have to keep fighting the opposition to its spread.
Would love to hear you elaborate on this point. Do you think SB overcovers the problem of climate politics in the Democratic Party?
Happy to elaborate! I think the political analysis here is right — most voters don’t prioritize climate, and Democrats need to be very hard nosed about that if they want a majority that can actually enact any change at all. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being critical of the climate movement’s messaging or priorities, especially when they clash with electoral math. It’s a legitimate beat for SB to cover.
That said, I do think there’s been a subtle shift in how SB frames climate overall. Increasingly, there is an undercurrent that climate isn’t all that important, relative to other problems, or that U.S. action can’t meaningfully affect outcomes and I don’t think it holds up.
Take the bit in this piece about nuclear deregulation being one of the best ways to link climate and affordability. I have nothing against nuclear (let a thousand flowers bloom and all) but that’s a pretty narrow solution and calling it a standout option seems like wish casting. Similarly, there was a tweet from Matt a while back (I think it’s deleted now) that said something like, “Now people can admit electric cars aren’t very good.” That kind of reflexive contrarianism is pretty weak stuff when the technology is obviously improving rapidly.
It’s totally fair to critique the climate movement, but when those critiques start shading into “maybe climate’s just not that big a deal,” the publication risks losing its usual rigor and undercuts the actual arguments you want to make.
He still has solar panels on his roof. He’s still an urbanist. That means he’s still to the left of 75 to 80% of the country on climate.
What he posts about it is a more important contributor to actual progress than what he puts on his roof or where he lives.
Most folks gain a good deal of wisdom over 20 years.
Yes - I've noticed that with Trump and Giuliani and Musk and ...
Giuliani is the exception that proves the rule.
I think his criticisms here and in other articles about the climate movement are spot on.
There comes a point when (justifiably) pointing out the stupidities of the climate change groups starts having diminishing returns. You need to say something else about the issue.
If they continue to do things that are counter productive, I don't see how it's bad to keep criticizing them, as long as the criticisms are valid. They continue to be influential.
I think the SB readership is smart enough to get how bad these groups are. You don't need to keep pounding on that drum. Matt writes a lot about policy. He should do the same thing here (or at least do it more comprehensively than he has done to date).
Idk, who democrats recruit to run for senate is a big deal, and it's a thing that is actively being decided, so I think it's a constructive thing to weigh in on, even if he has made similar points in other articles. Lots of writers have subjects they return to again and again.
Yes - Noah Smith pointed this out a while ago...
It sure seems like Dems prioritized climate and regressed with young voters, championed BLM and regressed with black voters, and softened immigration enforcement and regressed with Hispanic voters. Not great!
I agree with the thesis that emphasizing climate change shouldn’t be a big focus for Dems in the midterms, but characterizing the Washington Post op-ed as some nefarious and ambiguous “they” “sending Jay Inslee out to lie to people” is the sort of paranoid, conspiratorial mode that you should know better than to engage in.
Everything we know about Inslee’s time in office and his 2020 presidential campaign strongly suggests that both a: he’s very deeply committed to the climate issue, b: he probably sincerely (albeit incorrectly) believes in it as an electoral strategy, and c: he probably did this on his own initiative (both because he actually believes it and because he wants to establish thought leadership before 2028.)
Also, have a bit more courage in your convictions about “just go ahead and say the moderate stuff you believe.” You’re never going to impose the kind of message discipline you want on the climate advocacy groups, but you don’t actually have to, and acting like that’s a precondition for frontline candidates pursuing a moderate strategy is silly.
The remedy you need is for candidates like Allred or Peltola to adopt stances on energy issues, explain their positions and their disagreements with the national party, and do it in an attention-getting way. These candidates don’t really have much to fear from “the groups”, and a lot to gain by positioning themselves as heterodox and responsive to local concerns. And they’ve shown that they have the good political judgment to do that. Trust them and let them cook.
But it would be helpful if that national party were closer to the moderate stances on energy issues, leaving those candidates less vulnerable to charges of lying until they can get into Congress and vote in line with the party's too-progressive stances.
Agreed, but they could just vote against the party often.
Leadership would need to specifically put up bills that they know will fail to afford the frontline rank-and-file the chance to perform moderation.
They used to understand this.
I think Matt commented on Twitter that he believed Inslee was lying on the electoral politics of this based on the failure of climate change initiatives in Washington. If they can't win there, then the notion that they're an electoral winner starts to look like...extremely motivated reasoning at best.
I didn’t see the tweet and I don’t live in Washington, but didn’t the ballot initiatives in 2024 mostly go how the climate groups wanted? They upheld the big cap and trade law at least
No, it didn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Washington_Initiative_2066
"This measure would repeal or prohibit certain laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use, and/or promote electrification, and require certain utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers."
This measure passed with 52% of the vote in a state where Trump only got 39% of the vote. Inslee and the environmental groups were able to successfully get the Supreme Court to overturn the measure on the basis that it covered too many subjects, which is not legal for an initiative in the state.
But it proves Matt's point that Inslee knows that these views are a huge electoral loser, but still chooses to lie about it anyways and I think it's fair to question why.
Yeah, but 2117 only got 38% of the vote, about the same as Trump, and that was the one to overturn the state cap and trade program and get to net zero by 2050.
So the state likes reducing carbon emissions, they just don’t want to do it by banning gas appliances, and honestly, fair call? In any case, not news that bans on gas appliances are a very unpopular way to fight climate change.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Washington_Initiative_2117
There was more to 2117 than just reducing carbon emissions that probably swayed voters on the issue, such as the revenue generated being used to fund transportation projects instead of taxes, general opposition from the business community who preferred this program to other regulations, and opposition from moderate-coded groups like the state's firefighters union.
Yeah, but to get back to the original point, you see 2066 pass but 2117 fail and you conclude that Inslee must be lying if he says that climate stuff can get electoral support?
(I think Inslee’s clearly wrong, but that feels like weak evidence to call the man a liar.)
I'm unfamiliar with the underlying claim, but this is the tweet thread I was remembering: https://xcancel.com/mattyglesias/status/1919148923832217900
Right, Inslee most likely is not lying unless Yglesias can put up specific evidence to the contrary. Most Democrats actually believe climate change requires banning all new light ICE car sales in 2035, and banning some of them starting much sooner. That's why most Democrats in the House[1] voted to keep a dozen blue states on track for doing so, while 35 of them voted with Republicans to stop these states with the federal EPA under a GOP admin taking superiority.
This idea that Democratic politicians like Inslee or partisan young Democratic activists on climate are lying when they say the climate is causing an apocalypse soon and we have to drastically change or end our material comforts to confront this is wishful thinking. It's a false idol, a sort of worship of the apocalypse that the theorist Theodor Adorno saw as bad (true) and thus included in his original Fascism test (which to be clear does not follow, that's just sloppy social psychology.) But they're not lying. They genuinely believe this, unfortunately. They like the golden calf!
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/climate/california-gas-cars-waiver-house-vote.html
EDIT: ICE, not all light car sales. Important typo to correct.
So they are just stupid, got it. Which means they should not be any nearer power than Trump
Yeah I voted for a GOP Congress in part because I think these are genuinely bad ideas and Democrats should change their mind on them. I wish Yglesias the best of luck pushing them on this, and after all I want the GOP to be different on things too. But if he has to insist Inslee is definitely *lying*, it's not a good sign!
I mean, buying an EV Audi instead of an ICEV Audi is not "drastically chang[ing] or end[ing] our material comforts". That's what the California waiver calls for, not moving everybody to organic communes and using only pedicabs for transit.
Excellent point. If I believed the average working class commuter is shopping for a brand new Audi, I suppose I too would have the wisdom of a Democrat governing California.
Democrats should focus on generating an industry of climate mitigation technologies.
We should stop pretending we’re going to meet global climate goals by restrictions and figure out how to actively mitigate climate realities.
Build Back Biden...
You can't understand climate activists by thinking of them as lobbyists or normal activists, lots of them are full Millenarians who believe the world will end if we don't turn our backs on sin, therefore compromise or alternative energy plans are inherently immoral.
They also believe that their own flight to Peru, their own pet ownership, their own preference for a particular import, etc. does not count towards climate change; and that they would magically retain the same lifestyle if fossil fuel use stopped.
I don’t think that’s an accurate description of Inslee.
It isn't true of Inslee himself, but I suspect it is true of some of his staffers
That's very likely!
It's not even an accurate description of Bill McKibbin, let alone anybody ever elected to a statewide office.
I think this piece is a very disingenious summary of the Inslee op-ed. You seem to equate "talking about climate change" with "talking about striking down fossil fuels", which sure, a lot of climate groups do. But that's not at all what the Inslee piece did!
Nowhere in his op-ed does he even make mention of fossil fuels. His basic idea is that young voters care especially about wealth/prosperity and climate change, and that there is a way to kill two birds with one stone: By aggressively expanding clean energy and creating green jobs. That's not a new tactic, as you mentioned, but it is one that you seem to be championing to a certain degree as well. This feels like you were just itching for another fight with the "groups" instead of actually addressing the issue.
So I think politicians should talk about climate change, but not in the way a lot of environmental groups want to. They shouldn't villify the fossil fuels industry or stoke apocalyptic fears that we're all gonna die. But they should talk about the opportunities for prosperity that green energy is able to deliver.
I even think they can be courageous enough to at least mention the dangers of climate change in a specific context. I think Mary Peltola absolutely should talk about how rising sea levels and thawing permafrost are a threat to coastal communities in her state, or how the dangers of floodings and mudslides and forest fires will become more prevalent for Alaskans. Or simply about how every Alaskan is already paying more for coffee and orange juice because of climate change. You just have to be smart about it.
(Also, I fear that "making nuclear regulation friendlier to the rollout of advanced reactors" will not bring down the cost of living for voters, for the simple reason that those reactors don't exist.)
Vote for Democrats and lose your job, vote for Republicans and orange juice will get more expensive?
Alaskan voters aren’t stupid.
EDIT: Also, Inslee did say this in his op-ed - “In 2021, as governor of Washington, I signed into law a landmark “cap-and-invest” program requiring our largest polluters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…”
He’s bragging about reducing emissions. That doesn’t sound friendly if your personal prosperity is founded in oil and gas, and the exact words he uses aren’t that important.
"disingenious" isn't a word, but it should be.
Damn the English language!
Too late - damed a long time ago...
Young voters don't care as much about climate change as people think:
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/2024-poll-barriers-issues-economy
Only 26% of young people in this poll considered it a top-3 issue for them, which is about the same percentage that care about healthcare, abortion, jobs, and immigration and far behind cost of living, which 64% consider a top-3 issue.
It's even less among young people who didn't vote (18%), which sort of dispels the myth that there's this untapped gold mine of young voters ready to be mobilized if only Democrats run on climate change even harder.
I don't disagree with that. Any electoral strategy that's dependent on the youth vote is doomed to fail. But I also think it's important not to misrepresent what Inslee actually said.
That's because Inslee doesn't say much of anything. He just vaguely refers to the need to "talk about climate change" and young voters swinging to the right and cherry-picks polls to conclude that talking more about climate change will win back those young voters.
His reasoning doesn't make any sense and we both know he's smart enough to know that it doesn't make any sense, but he still uses that reasoning in the article anyways.
Again: I don't disagree with that, so you can really save yourself the trouble
Um okay sorry I upset you
How does Jay Inslee live his life? Looking solely at his personal consumption and ignoring travelling in his job, I'm going to bet his carbon footprint is that of an elephant. I could be totally wrong about this, but I bet he owns a big house that is air conditioned in the summer and heated with gas in the winter, and I bet he enjoys flying to places. He will probably own at least one car (no doubt electric) and he enjoys using it to get places.
So I'm betting Inslee is full of shit and doesn't live his life as though climate change is a big issue in his life. He could absolutely do many things to cut his personal carbon footprint, but he doesn't want to it would make his life worse.
I think almost everyone that talks about the importance of climate change is full of shit as well. The kids waving banners about climate have no doubt lived nice middle class lives growing up, being carried around in big SUVs driven by their parents.
So everyone is full of shit on climate, and I think the focus on this matter is just to ease cognitive dissonance.
“ How does Jay Inslee live his life?”
I don’t love this kind of response. It only encourages the purity mindset instead of the effectiveness mindset. People should care less about purity and superficial consistency, and more about effectiveness.
If Jay Inslee cares about climate change, then he should do whatever will effectively reduce climate change. If that means burning more fossil fuels himself, then he should do it. If it means shutting the fuck up about climate change, then he should do that.
The same obsession with personal behavior that leads Greta to think it matters whether she flies or sails also leads Greta to think that she must speak up, even when speaking up makes it less likely that she will attain her goals.
>I don’t love this kind of response.<
Me neither. I genuinely believe virtue signaling is about .00002% as effective at realizing the necessary, large scale economic shifts as things like tax code changes and big government spending bills. I don't go out of my way live a green lifestyle. I just vote for politicians who believe in climate science and seem reasonable in terms of policy. And I sleep just fine at night.
I'm sympathetic to Matt's take on Inslee here, but we need not castigate the latter for flying frequently on jets, or eating meat, or owning a big house with lots of fancy electronics. Engaging in such a lifestyle wouldn't mean Inslee is a hypocrite. It probably just means he thinks public policy is what matters, and not the behavior of any individual consumer, himself included.
I'm completely off the grid and have totally electrified but because I live in an industrial economy, I'll never have the lifestyle of a Rwandan subsistence farmer so I guess I better keep my mouth shut.
I think the point is that Inslee's behavior reveals he *doesn't* really think climate change is an existential issue and should stop acting like nothing else matters. It's not that he should change his lifestyle to fit his beliefs, it's that his lifestyle shows his beliefs aren't that firmly held.
No - I kinda think that’s dyspeptic’s point: Inslee’s personal behavior doesn’t actually reveal anything.
I think taxes should be higher, but I’m not randomly mailing $100 bills to the government. I think we should declare war on Denmark over Greenland, but I personally don’t have plans to fly to Copenhagen with a rifle, and I’m not punching out random Scandinavians on the street. Just because you aren’t personally acting out a broad policy you want to see enacted doesn’t make you a hypocrite (unless it’s a policy specifically about personal behavior)
“I think taxes should be higher” and “we should declare war on a NATO ally” are the most eclectic pair of political opinions I’ve ever encountered.
Care to elaborate more on why you think we should declare war on Denmark? I'm genuinely intrigued.
People have been saying for hundreds of years that something is rotten there. How much longer???
I took it as a joke, and I liked it.
“If Jay Inslee cares about climate change, then he should do whatever will effectively reduce climate change”
That may seem obvious, but it’s not. Why should the priority be to reduce climate change rather than prepare for its consequences?
Both, Ken, both.
I don’t see why: It may be impossible to avoid climate change, but not impossible to mitigate its bad effects.
Alternatively, unilaterally forgoing benefits in the context of a collective action problem by cooperating when everyone else defects is stupid and ineffective. I don’t expect people who think Social Security is a dumb program that’s bad for the country’s overall fiscal trajectory to forgo collecting Social Security checks. Dominant assurance contracts exist for exactly this reason.
While true, doesn't the same logic mean their US-only advocacy in the face of Chinese-defection mean they are stupid and ineffective?
Feels like to be consistent, one way or the other, you need to make changes in your life despite what other people do or you need to stop advocating for change in the US because what China does is the real leverage.
I think advocating for solving the part of the problem over which the US probably has agency has value on current emissions margins, (as, obviously, does exerting influence on China to the extent possible), including for encouraging cost-curve improvement, but yes, obviously if you’re like, Greenland, the incredibly high salience of the issue is coupled with minimal agency over it such that your best play is probably to find something higher-leverage rather than to worry about the marginal power plant.
"US-only advocacy" is not a thing in the climate movement.
Pushing the only party that cares about climate change to make bad, unpopular political strategies that will make it harder for them to win elections is also stupid and ineffective, but he's doing still doing it.
What are you talking about? How is that in any way relevant? You are trying to push people to extreme environmentalist purity while at the same time attacking the environmental movement! That makes no sense.
In any case, I would guess that Inslee either has an old house (which is automatically greener than a new build) or else has a heat pump system installed - and in a climate like that of Washington, that means he is very likely using much less energy heating and cooling his house than 90% of the country. (I think about 20% of the country lives in west coast climates and he is likely around median on those.)
Plus the grid in Washington is dominated by renewables.
An elephant has a lower carbon footprint than the average American!
It's pretty close though. The elephant is 10 tons/yr and the American is 15 tons/yr.
We need elephant feces capture and storage (EFCCS)
You joke, but I think BECCS (burn biofuel for energy and capture the CO2) is one of the most underhyped climate technologies out there. They're an order of magnitude ahead of ClimeWorks Direct Air Capture in Iceland, but no one wants to talk about it because the CCS people are all from the fossil fuel industry.
It's not very hard to have a low carbon footprint in Washington because they have relatively low-emissions electricity with lots of hydro (nothing like Vermont's stunningly low CO2/kWh, of course). Drive an EV, use an air-source heat pump, heat pump hot water heater, heat pump dryer, induction stove, LEDs, then maybe install a few solar panels and you will pretty much be at the frontier of footprint-lowering with available consumer technology. I'd be amazed if Inslee has not done all of that and more in his personal life. Flying is a problem, so you can complain that he does not purchase enough high-quality offsets for that, I suppose. He might also eat beef...
One factor to keep in mind is that for the Very Online it’s hard for them to accept that what their algorithmically curated feeds are telling them isn’t what is motivating the average democrat, let alone the median swing voter.
It’s very easy for the algorithms to make people think their positions are wildly more popular than they are.
GREAT point about the need for pro-life Democrats. I have a bias here because I'm a pro-life #NeverTrumper myself. But I think there are lots of people who despise MAGA but have scruples about voting for a pro-choice candidate. Republicans used to be for family values and free markets. Trump has burned the party's bridges to both, but some pro-life conservatives who feel totally betrayed and ashamed still feel required to vote for him, or at least forbidden to vote for Democrats. You can't just think about numbers, you need to think about intensity too.
I think a lot of Democrats know that they lose votes by being so hard-line pro-choice across the board, but they have their own scruples to honor. Please, guys, compromise a little! The survival of constitutional democracy is at stake!
BTW I think that the evoked Youth Climate Mirage is really a subset of a wider Youth Mirage in which the Lefty / Democratic party activist factions via structural blindness duped themselves or blinded themselves into thinking that their own youth staffing - highly educated urbane and urban oriented young college graduates of oft elite schools - were across all political subjects, representative of The Youth: essentially mistaking a sub-set of a sub-set - albeit a Very Online Visible & Very Verbal subset as being The Youth generally, rather than a comparatively comfortable demo that has stopped growing in both absolute and in relative terms. The mis-focus on student debt (which Slow Boring nicely covered) is illustrative.
From the cultural to the economic this myopia as to the narrowness of that opinion base - extrapolating that anything that boosted Dems with this group was / is extrapolatable to Youth in General, ergo doubling down on their agenda would magically turn into votes amongst non-college etc.
To be clear this is not intended to say the College Grad Youth views are wrong - nor to say they are right either, but as a demographic understanding it was evidentallly very very wrong (and very misweighted to where Dems need to gain votes relative to Electoral College.
---
The youth climate mirage
The climate movement maneuvered around this obvious reality for years by trying to hack opinion data and argue that young people or voters of color were especially motivated by the climate issue. This was always based on a pretty obvious bit of deception. If you take a Dem-leaning subset of the population and then ask them how much they care about a Dem-coded issue like climate, then yes, of course you’ll find that subset of the population cares more about climate than the population average.
But do marginal non-white voters care a lot about climate? Marginal young voters?
Well, we just spent 2021-2024 running the experiment of what happens when the Democratic Party makes climate, rather than health care or other aspects of the social safety net, their top legislative priority. And what happened was an unprecedented swing of young people and voters of color toward the GOP. I don’t want to argue that this happened solely because of the climate focus. But to turn around and say that even more climate focus is the answer strains credulity.
"...the evoked Youth Climate Mirage is really a subset of a wider Youth Mirage...."
Amen. Over the last 70 years, I have come to believe that young people simply don't exist.
My monthly bills would convince you that they in fact exist in abundance.
Then who's that on your lawn?
"...Then who's that on your lawn?...."
You might as well ask, "then what's that water in the desert?"
It's a *mirage,* I'm telling you. They don't exist.
They’re incipient curmudgeons in denial.
Before highlighting the issue, we should actually develop a sensible position on the issue.
a)The accumulation of in CO2 in the atmosphere has produced and will continue to produce economic and other harm to people in the United States and elsewhere.
b) To stabilize and perhaps eventually reduce reduce CO2 in the atmosphere will require investing in technologies that do not emit CO2 into and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
c) Investments are also need to mitigate the harm that already accumulated and as yet to accumulate CO2 will cause and to estimate the geo-physical effects of CO2 accumulation and how those effects produce economic and non-economic costs and benefits.
d) Investing in these technologies comes at the expense of consumption and other investments so we should minimize the cost of those investment.
e) The US should create incentives for public and private decisionmakers to invest in those technologies and should advocate that other countries do the same.
f) The present set of incentives neither in the US nor elsewhere are such as to incentivize the needed investment.
It's quite clear though that voters are unwilling to accept greater expense to minimize the costs of climate change.
They are fine with mitigating climate change only as long as it doesn't cost a damn thing.
The key word is "investment" in low-carbon tech, which leads to lower overall costs to deliver energy in kWhs than it currently costs to deliver FF-derived energy. I believe MY when he says that the median swing voter is dumber than the average American, but I still think we should stand up for basic math.
Or if you can hide some of those costs. Politicians are good at that kind of thing.