Late to this party. As so often activists etc don’t really put their money where their mouth is. They speak in over the top hyperbole about the dangers of global warming, but when push comes to shove won’t actually prioritize the policies that will maximize emission reduction. They seem to be either irrational or else dishonest about their goals.
The administration is trying to kill the fossil fuel industry, while the EIA tells us that petroleum and national gas will be the most consumed forms of energy through 2050. Biden wants to offset domestic production of oil by importing from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Oil firms won’t invest domestically without certainty, and U.S. workers and investors suffer for an environmental shell game. European environmentalists prefer to burn coal over using carbon-free base load nuclear policy. Renewables can’t provide base load power making wind useless in extreme weather events like heat domes. Unregulated carbon offset markets are contributing to the skyrocketing energy costs in the U.K. Biden’s energy policies are going to lead to large increases in electricity prices. If you live in a state with a deregulated electricity market I’d think long and hard before signing up for variable pricing (particularly in California where generating capacity is strained). I can’t stand Trump but he was a heck of a lot smarter on energy then Biden is.
I read the Slate article linked in this post, and I also listened to Matt and Lauren's podcast episode about Nate Silver and his "Both Sides has been replaced with something worse" take.
I feel like this is a great example proving Nate right. I know Slate isn't exactly an example of top-quality journalism these days, but the one-sided hagiography, loaded language and uncritical acceptance of activist statements is so much worse than early oughts articles about Climate Change that would present facts and figures from both Climate Scientists AND some industry-funded cranks that ultimately lets the reader draw their own conclusions. It's a perfect example of how journalism has degraded in the last decade or so.
That's really depressing. I feel like I can trace a lot of bad journalism to the Gawker media empire in the early oughts, their methods and standards being replicated at other sites like HuffPo and Buzzfeed. Then around ten years ago big mainstream newspapers like the Washington Post and the NYT started hiring these people and treating them like they had legitimate experience, and that's a big part of what got us here. That and, of course, Twitter.
For the most part, I agree with your analysis, but let me pushback somewhat.
To me, the environmental movement on the left is probably most akin to the "Pro-Life" on the right at least politically (morally is a totally different question). They represent probably the biggest priorities of your most committed members of your coalition. Both movements have extremist elements that are alienating to the median voter but have huge purchase within the Democratic Party and GOP respectively. Both movements can credibly accused of having views or strategies at odds with the deeply held beliefs of the aforementioned movements. On the environmental side, basically what you laid out above; blocking things like permitting reform (or building multifamily housing) that would meaningfully make a difference to global warming and improvement the environment. On "Pro Life" side, being against policies that would make unwanted pregnancies less likely (restrictions on contraception, inadequate sex-ed) and being against policies that help families and mothers and therefore make it more likely a pregnancy is carried to term (child tax credits, expansion of Medicaid, etc.)*.
But I think you're giving short shrift to the importance of agenda setting. The "pro-life" movement may have extreme and alienating views regarding abortion, but I think they also made sure the GOP took them seriously and made sure any judges nominated to the supreme court would be no doubt about it votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I think an activist within the "pro-life" movement can credibly say that in the 90s, the GOP took their votes for granted, said a lot of the right things about abortion, but ultimately treated abortion as tertiary issues used to excite the base but not actually act upon. The "pro-life" movement made sure to put GOP "feet to the fire" and make sure they followed through. I think can be said for the Sunrise movement. Democrats have been the pro environment party since I was a kid (or at least since GHWB). But actual policies outside of EPA rulings (there's a reason why "non-delegation" doctrine is such a scary thing) were kind of wanting. And to be frank, Democrats have been pretty "hand wavy" about the environment during my life. So the fact that the major piece of legislation passed during a Democratic presidency is one that focuses primarily on the environment should be at least somewhat to Sunrise's credit.
*aware there are pro-life voters who are also pretty in favor of Medicaid expansion, health care and other parts of the safety net. And also aware these voters make up a decent number of "swing" voters in places like PA, WI or MI. But I think I'm pretty firm ground in saying that the typical person who calls themselves "pro-life" is also pretty cool towards the welfare state; especially any plans to expand it. And if we're talking about activists, it's pretty likely the Venn Diagram of "pro-life" and libertarian(ish) attitudes towards the welfare state is close to a circle.
I'm in favor of using natural gas too, so if that's the option let's go. I just don't want blackouts because the wind isn't blowing or the sun goes down.
We can do a 95%+ renewable grid without new (or replacement) nuclear, with already existing energy storage technology, no hydrogen, deep geothermal, space solar power or any other speculative renewable power source, with reliability matching current levels, and prices similar to pre-Ukraine grid prices.
It’s just not true that most of the world needs nuclear, CCS, or some other tech other than what we already have to go most of the way to decarbonising the electricity supply.
I suspect this drives a whole lot of conservative thinking on a lot of issues. I had a text conversation with a friend where she asked the very sincere question "What exactly is the GOP plan to deal with crime?" And the answer was...not much. In NY, Lee Zeldin ran against "bail reform" but from what I've read, bail reform's impact on crime is likely negligible either direction.
But being against "bail reform" does allow for one thing; being rhetorically "tough on crime". Lots of "getting tough" and "take the gloves off" manly man talk. Lots of "just gotta show who's boss" posturing.
It’s really low hanging fruit. They can literally advocate for law enforcement and that alone will put them well to the right of the median contemporary dem da (who routinely declare whole categories of crime as fair game). Also I would be very very suspicious of the claims that bail reform is all fine. The policy as implemented in NY allowed violent criminals to commit crime after crime with basic impunity at least until the end of trial, and in the meantime intimidate (or harm) witnesses etc and literally forbade judges from exercising discretion and ruling that a suspect is too dangerous to release. Very doubtful that such insane policy had no negative effect.
I'm going to pretty harsh here. This is a flat out lie. This specifically "The policy as implemented in NY allowed violent criminals to commit crime after crime with basic impunity" is complete and utter garbage.
The most important thing to note is that crime rose in areas that didn't have any bail reform. I know Matt has done a lot of work pushing back against the worst far left tendencies regarding policing and crime. But it's also incumbent to not belch out NyPost/GOP garbage talking points.
Thanks for the calm and measured reply. Do you deny that people charged with robbery at gun point or physical assault were released shortly after arrest, with no one being able to keep them locked up before trial, thanks to this law? Are you not aware that the law has since been partially amended, some of its former proponents admitting it went to far? critics still claiming the amendment isn’t enough ? Are you even at all knowledgeable of the situation in NY?
Given the politics of bail reform, Democrats scaling back some of reforms is probably smart to placate voters lost in the midterms. I think Matt is (mostly) right about popularism and few gestures at placating voters. Why not. (happen to think having more police in the subways is good thing on substance, but also just again optically). But as a crime fighting measure? Yeah, it's really about optics.
Try reading the links by the way. It's clear you didn't first time around. And oh yeah, my response was measured compared to what I originally was going to write.
Your response consistently evade my questions, and your links -as you yourself present them- are rather besides the point. I pointed out what this law actually does. The kinds of people it lets loose until trial. Is that incorrect? Do your links suggest as much? Because your own response suggests not, so why bother wasting my time reading them when you’re consistently evading the question and shielding the fact with aggressive rhetoric?
At least the Vogtle ratepayers are (probably) going to at least end up with operational reactors when it's all said and done unlike the poor Santee Cooper ratepayers.
This really just comes down to Manchinism vs. the climate left, a policy and messaging battle won so resoundingly by moderates in 2022 that I do have some hope that climate activists will see the light that Matt is shining.
Manchin is the undisputed MVP of Joe Biden's first term just on the IRA alone (much less his other anti-inflationary instincts), and he could have provided even more value, if Bernie Sanders and co. could have seen the forest for the trees on permitting reform.
My quick litmus test for dimwitted leftism is a quick scan of who continues to lump Sinema and Manchin together. One is a self-aggrandizing courtesan to the elite who should be jettisoned at first opportunity for a normie Democrat that can spell the word populism. The other is literally irreplaceable, cannily squeezing maximal value for the Dems in the face of the party's-and his own--tenuous grip on power.
A key part of implementation will be to ensure that the investments that IRA funds pass a CBA in which the CO2 not emitted is price as if we already had a tax on net CO2 emissions.
This gets to something that is a hobby-horse of mine, which you and Ezra Klein have occasionally touched on - the inability of government to effectively do things.
The IRA is currently aspirational - as you note, providing funds doesn't mean those funds will get used wisely or efficiently.
And so I think the fundamental problem that those who believe in technocratic solutions need to deal with is making government more effective. Strangely, there seems to be little interest in doing that.
When it comes to domestic oil production, I think it’s under appreciated that oil production in the US is less environmentally dangerous than in a lot of other countries. We have regulations and we enforce them. I think US natural gas burns cleaner than the stuff from Russia. Oil companies in the US are under pressure to do carbon offsets. That’s not happening in places like Russia or Saudi Arabia, which also happen to have terrible human rights records.
In an ideal world we woul stop using fossil fuels asap. That’s not possible so we’re stuck with picking the best of the non-ideal solutions.
“climate hawks should show some appreciation for the fact that Biden prioritized climate change over health care or preschool or child poverty and try to help him win the damn election.”
So what should I do if I’m mad at Democratic elites for prioritizing climate above issues I care more about and not using their trifecta to implement child allowances or improve health care?
Be mad at the groups that decided to push creating expensive, high-qualification childcare jobs instead of efficiently funding childcare with a child allowance, which raised the cost of BBB and helped sink it.
Express your anger and frustration by doing everything you can for expanded Democratic control over Congress and the White House in 2024 so they have more room take up these other priorities.
I remember when "they" (well, probably a magazine PR flack) called the New Republic "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." SB would be an excellent in-flight Substack. Okay, probably not a thing, but in spirit.
One of the most interesting conclusions I've come to has been that Democratic Senate candidates losing in North Carolina, Iowa and Maine in 2020 was actually very good for Biden and the Democrats overall. Had Democrats won those races, its almost certain that the much more progressive legislation that Manchin (and Sinema to a lesser extent) blocked would have passed.
The filibuster would be dead, the original Build Back Better Plan would have passed with an additional 2 trillion dollars in spending. Sarah Bloom Raskin would be on the Fed. There likely would have been much more aggressive climate legislation passed, etc. All creating significant political thermostatic reaction.
Late to this party. As so often activists etc don’t really put their money where their mouth is. They speak in over the top hyperbole about the dangers of global warming, but when push comes to shove won’t actually prioritize the policies that will maximize emission reduction. They seem to be either irrational or else dishonest about their goals.
The administration is trying to kill the fossil fuel industry, while the EIA tells us that petroleum and national gas will be the most consumed forms of energy through 2050. Biden wants to offset domestic production of oil by importing from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Oil firms won’t invest domestically without certainty, and U.S. workers and investors suffer for an environmental shell game. European environmentalists prefer to burn coal over using carbon-free base load nuclear policy. Renewables can’t provide base load power making wind useless in extreme weather events like heat domes. Unregulated carbon offset markets are contributing to the skyrocketing energy costs in the U.K. Biden’s energy policies are going to lead to large increases in electricity prices. If you live in a state with a deregulated electricity market I’d think long and hard before signing up for variable pricing (particularly in California where generating capacity is strained). I can’t stand Trump but he was a heck of a lot smarter on energy then Biden is.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
Some better ideas for green energy abundance executive actions here 👉 https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/seven-ways-the-executive-branch-can-turbocharge-green-industrial-policy/
I read the Slate article linked in this post, and I also listened to Matt and Lauren's podcast episode about Nate Silver and his "Both Sides has been replaced with something worse" take.
I feel like this is a great example proving Nate right. I know Slate isn't exactly an example of top-quality journalism these days, but the one-sided hagiography, loaded language and uncritical acceptance of activist statements is so much worse than early oughts articles about Climate Change that would present facts and figures from both Climate Scientists AND some industry-funded cranks that ultimately lets the reader draw their own conclusions. It's a perfect example of how journalism has degraded in the last decade or so.
it's really sad to me that Slate became another indistinguishable replacement-level progressive outlet. It used to be pretty interesting!
What's sadder is that Vox feels like it is decaying at the same rate as Slate, it's just starting from a higher quality point.
Jesse Singal had an interesting post today about another media outlet that is now completely captured: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-decline-of-on-the-media-is-very
That's really depressing. I feel like I can trace a lot of bad journalism to the Gawker media empire in the early oughts, their methods and standards being replicated at other sites like HuffPo and Buzzfeed. Then around ten years ago big mainstream newspapers like the Washington Post and the NYT started hiring these people and treating them like they had legitimate experience, and that's a big part of what got us here. That and, of course, Twitter.
For the most part, I agree with your analysis, but let me pushback somewhat.
To me, the environmental movement on the left is probably most akin to the "Pro-Life" on the right at least politically (morally is a totally different question). They represent probably the biggest priorities of your most committed members of your coalition. Both movements have extremist elements that are alienating to the median voter but have huge purchase within the Democratic Party and GOP respectively. Both movements can credibly accused of having views or strategies at odds with the deeply held beliefs of the aforementioned movements. On the environmental side, basically what you laid out above; blocking things like permitting reform (or building multifamily housing) that would meaningfully make a difference to global warming and improvement the environment. On "Pro Life" side, being against policies that would make unwanted pregnancies less likely (restrictions on contraception, inadequate sex-ed) and being against policies that help families and mothers and therefore make it more likely a pregnancy is carried to term (child tax credits, expansion of Medicaid, etc.)*.
But I think you're giving short shrift to the importance of agenda setting. The "pro-life" movement may have extreme and alienating views regarding abortion, but I think they also made sure the GOP took them seriously and made sure any judges nominated to the supreme court would be no doubt about it votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I think an activist within the "pro-life" movement can credibly say that in the 90s, the GOP took their votes for granted, said a lot of the right things about abortion, but ultimately treated abortion as tertiary issues used to excite the base but not actually act upon. The "pro-life" movement made sure to put GOP "feet to the fire" and make sure they followed through. I think can be said for the Sunrise movement. Democrats have been the pro environment party since I was a kid (or at least since GHWB). But actual policies outside of EPA rulings (there's a reason why "non-delegation" doctrine is such a scary thing) were kind of wanting. And to be frank, Democrats have been pretty "hand wavy" about the environment during my life. So the fact that the major piece of legislation passed during a Democratic presidency is one that focuses primarily on the environment should be at least somewhat to Sunrise's credit.
*aware there are pro-life voters who are also pretty in favor of Medicaid expansion, health care and other parts of the safety net. And also aware these voters make up a decent number of "swing" voters in places like PA, WI or MI. But I think I'm pretty firm ground in saying that the typical person who calls themselves "pro-life" is also pretty cool towards the welfare state; especially any plans to expand it. And if we're talking about activists, it's pretty likely the Venn Diagram of "pro-life" and libertarian(ish) attitudes towards the welfare state is close to a circle.
It seems like a lot of conservatives like nuclear power because it sounds more manly than solar. Liberals should call their bluff.
Conservatives like nuclear because it's not intermittant, providing stable and continual electricity.
I'm in favor of using natural gas too, so if that's the option let's go. I just don't want blackouts because the wind isn't blowing or the sun goes down.
We can do a 95%+ renewable grid without new (or replacement) nuclear, with already existing energy storage technology, no hydrogen, deep geothermal, space solar power or any other speculative renewable power source, with reliability matching current levels, and prices similar to pre-Ukraine grid prices.
It’s just not true that most of the world needs nuclear, CCS, or some other tech other than what we already have to go most of the way to decarbonising the electricity supply.
I suspect this drives a whole lot of conservative thinking on a lot of issues. I had a text conversation with a friend where she asked the very sincere question "What exactly is the GOP plan to deal with crime?" And the answer was...not much. In NY, Lee Zeldin ran against "bail reform" but from what I've read, bail reform's impact on crime is likely negligible either direction.
But being against "bail reform" does allow for one thing; being rhetorically "tough on crime". Lots of "getting tough" and "take the gloves off" manly man talk. Lots of "just gotta show who's boss" posturing.
It’s really low hanging fruit. They can literally advocate for law enforcement and that alone will put them well to the right of the median contemporary dem da (who routinely declare whole categories of crime as fair game). Also I would be very very suspicious of the claims that bail reform is all fine. The policy as implemented in NY allowed violent criminals to commit crime after crime with basic impunity at least until the end of trial, and in the meantime intimidate (or harm) witnesses etc and literally forbade judges from exercising discretion and ruling that a suspect is too dangerous to release. Very doubtful that such insane policy had no negative effect.
I'm going to pretty harsh here. This is a flat out lie. This specifically "The policy as implemented in NY allowed violent criminals to commit crime after crime with basic impunity" is complete and utter garbage.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/facts-bail-reform-and-crime-rates-new-york-state
The most important thing to note is that crime rose in areas that didn't have any bail reform. I know Matt has done a lot of work pushing back against the worst far left tendencies regarding policing and crime. But it's also incumbent to not belch out NyPost/GOP garbage talking points.
Thanks for the calm and measured reply. Do you deny that people charged with robbery at gun point or physical assault were released shortly after arrest, with no one being able to keep them locked up before trial, thanks to this law? Are you not aware that the law has since been partially amended, some of its former proponents admitting it went to far? critics still claiming the amendment isn’t enough ? Are you even at all knowledgeable of the situation in NY?
I live in Long Island and work in Manhattan. Thanks for asking. So yeah, a tad "knowledgeable" thank you very much.
As has been pointed out multiple times; crime has risen in places that had bail reform and places that didn't. Crime rose way more in other cities than NYC. And oh yeah, as Kevin Drum has pointed out, stats out of NYC are...dubious. https://jabberwocking.com/the-crime-surge-in-new-york-city-is-beyond-belief-literally/ And oh yeah who, oh yeah backs me up regardingbail. https://www.nycja.org/pretrial-release-dashboard
Specifically, regarding NYC and bail reform, the best you have is "too soon to tell". https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/2/21/22944871/new-york-bail-reform-controversy-eric-adams. I'd like to note that midway down the article bail reform was being blamed for a horrific antisemitic attack in Brooklyn...before the reforms even took place.
Given the politics of bail reform, Democrats scaling back some of reforms is probably smart to placate voters lost in the midterms. I think Matt is (mostly) right about popularism and few gestures at placating voters. Why not. (happen to think having more police in the subways is good thing on substance, but also just again optically). But as a crime fighting measure? Yeah, it's really about optics.
Try reading the links by the way. It's clear you didn't first time around. And oh yeah, my response was measured compared to what I originally was going to write.
Your response consistently evade my questions, and your links -as you yourself present them- are rather besides the point. I pointed out what this law actually does. The kinds of people it lets loose until trial. Is that incorrect? Do your links suggest as much? Because your own response suggests not, so why bother wasting my time reading them when you’re consistently evading the question and shielding the fact with aggressive rhetoric?
At least the Vogtle ratepayers are (probably) going to at least end up with operational reactors when it's all said and done unlike the poor Santee Cooper ratepayers.
Energy abundance? That's a good one. That train left the station in about 1973.
This really just comes down to Manchinism vs. the climate left, a policy and messaging battle won so resoundingly by moderates in 2022 that I do have some hope that climate activists will see the light that Matt is shining.
Manchin is the undisputed MVP of Joe Biden's first term just on the IRA alone (much less his other anti-inflationary instincts), and he could have provided even more value, if Bernie Sanders and co. could have seen the forest for the trees on permitting reform.
My quick litmus test for dimwitted leftism is a quick scan of who continues to lump Sinema and Manchin together. One is a self-aggrandizing courtesan to the elite who should be jettisoned at first opportunity for a normie Democrat that can spell the word populism. The other is literally irreplaceable, cannily squeezing maximal value for the Dems in the face of the party's-and his own--tenuous grip on power.
A key part of implementation will be to ensure that the investments that IRA funds pass a CBA in which the CO2 not emitted is price as if we already had a tax on net CO2 emissions.
On second thought I see this is not aimed at his SB readers but he's trying arguments that may work with people otherwise influenced by "activists."
This gets to something that is a hobby-horse of mine, which you and Ezra Klein have occasionally touched on - the inability of government to effectively do things.
The IRA is currently aspirational - as you note, providing funds doesn't mean those funds will get used wisely or efficiently.
And so I think the fundamental problem that those who believe in technocratic solutions need to deal with is making government more effective. Strangely, there seems to be little interest in doing that.
When it comes to domestic oil production, I think it’s under appreciated that oil production in the US is less environmentally dangerous than in a lot of other countries. We have regulations and we enforce them. I think US natural gas burns cleaner than the stuff from Russia. Oil companies in the US are under pressure to do carbon offsets. That’s not happening in places like Russia or Saudi Arabia, which also happen to have terrible human rights records.
In an ideal world we woul stop using fossil fuels asap. That’s not possible so we’re stuck with picking the best of the non-ideal solutions.
“climate hawks should show some appreciation for the fact that Biden prioritized climate change over health care or preschool or child poverty and try to help him win the damn election.”
So what should I do if I’m mad at Democratic elites for prioritizing climate above issues I care more about and not using their trifecta to implement child allowances or improve health care?
Be mad at the groups that decided to push creating expensive, high-qualification childcare jobs instead of efficiently funding childcare with a child allowance, which raised the cost of BBB and helped sink it.
Express your anger and frustration by doing everything you can for expanded Democratic control over Congress and the White House in 2024 so they have more room take up these other priorities.
That will show the bastards!
Fine piece on a difficult subject. Thank you.
They say people at the White House read Yglesias. I sure as hell hope they read him this time.
I remember when "they" (well, probably a magazine PR flack) called the New Republic "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." SB would be an excellent in-flight Substack. Okay, probably not a thing, but in spirit.
One of the most interesting conclusions I've come to has been that Democratic Senate candidates losing in North Carolina, Iowa and Maine in 2020 was actually very good for Biden and the Democrats overall. Had Democrats won those races, its almost certain that the much more progressive legislation that Manchin (and Sinema to a lesser extent) blocked would have passed.
The filibuster would be dead, the original Build Back Better Plan would have passed with an additional 2 trillion dollars in spending. Sarah Bloom Raskin would be on the Fed. There likely would have been much more aggressive climate legislation passed, etc. All creating significant political thermostatic reaction.
I’d deal with thermostatic issues in exchange for single payer health care
Single payer wouldn't have passed even with 53 senators. Not when the country was told their income tax rate would be increased to 40%.
Was that actually in any proposed legislation?