NYT Editors: "The Green New Deal Is Better Than Our Climate Nightmare"
No it isn't.
But here's their argument, for your consideration.
The GND is the progressive equivalent of a Trumpian sea-to-sea concrete wall: a crack-brained overreaction to an actual, serious problem, based on hysteria and a misunderstanding of the nature and extent of the problem and the real options with respect to solutions.
Well...sorry...that's my current view, anyway. IANAC (I am not a climatologist). But I think the road to hell is paved with these kinds of arguments. That is: oh, sure, this utterly daft solution based on sheer fantasy may not be exactly right...but it's still awesome in that it:
(a) ...is better than what the other guys want!
and/or
(b) ...is better than what we have now!
and/or
(c) …"changes the 'conversation'"!
and/or
(d) ...is symbolic!
I'm all for taking reasonable--even accelerated--steps to reduce GHGs. But I simply don't believe climate catastrophism. The case for catastrophism, at least as it trickles down to someone like me, is simply too weak, and the evidence of cheating is too strong. And: the track record of science, when it intersects with progressive politics, is too bad.
The GND is a nutty pipe dream and a stalking horse for other progressive preferences. Anyone would genuinely thought there were only 10 years left before a catastrophic tipping-point wouldn't include nonsense like UBI in their plan. They'd be clamoring for more nuclear, not for moonshots at renewables. Blah, blah, blah.
There is a sane, sensible case to be made for adopting sane, sensible carbon emission goals. But the GND isn't a set of sane, sensible goals. In fact, contra the NYT editors: it isn't even better than what we have now. And IMO this is the same pattern we see--shockingly, to my mind--repeated over and over in our politics: it doesn't take all that much to offer something better than what the GOP is offering. But the blue team can't manage to do that.
(Although! The adults really are still in charge of the Dems, to at least a large extent. See e.g. Feinstein's recent response to the people who sent the kids in to manipulate her with respect to the GND...)
Also: I have no right to be as sure about AGW as I am right now. My pendulum is swinging all over the place.
But here's their argument, for your consideration.
The GND is the progressive equivalent of a Trumpian sea-to-sea concrete wall: a crack-brained overreaction to an actual, serious problem, based on hysteria and a misunderstanding of the nature and extent of the problem and the real options with respect to solutions.
Well...sorry...that's my current view, anyway. IANAC (I am not a climatologist). But I think the road to hell is paved with these kinds of arguments. That is: oh, sure, this utterly daft solution based on sheer fantasy may not be exactly right...but it's still awesome in that it:
(a) ...is better than what the other guys want!
and/or
(b) ...is better than what we have now!
and/or
(c) …"changes the 'conversation'"!
and/or
(d) ...is symbolic!
I'm all for taking reasonable--even accelerated--steps to reduce GHGs. But I simply don't believe climate catastrophism. The case for catastrophism, at least as it trickles down to someone like me, is simply too weak, and the evidence of cheating is too strong. And: the track record of science, when it intersects with progressive politics, is too bad.
The GND is a nutty pipe dream and a stalking horse for other progressive preferences. Anyone would genuinely thought there were only 10 years left before a catastrophic tipping-point wouldn't include nonsense like UBI in their plan. They'd be clamoring for more nuclear, not for moonshots at renewables. Blah, blah, blah.
There is a sane, sensible case to be made for adopting sane, sensible carbon emission goals. But the GND isn't a set of sane, sensible goals. In fact, contra the NYT editors: it isn't even better than what we have now. And IMO this is the same pattern we see--shockingly, to my mind--repeated over and over in our politics: it doesn't take all that much to offer something better than what the GOP is offering. But the blue team can't manage to do that.
(Although! The adults really are still in charge of the Dems, to at least a large extent. See e.g. Feinstein's recent response to the people who sent the kids in to manipulate her with respect to the GND...)
Also: I have no right to be as sure about AGW as I am right now. My pendulum is swinging all over the place.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home