Drum: We Need Radical Thinking On Climate Change

Eh, I doubt it.
I barely deserve an opinion on this at all...but when does that stop me?
Drum say:

   It’s naive to think that things are different today and it’s naive to think that the GND will fare better than any other climate plan once the details get hashed out. Just look at what happened when AOC “accidentally” released an FAQ about the Green New Deal that went only barely further than the GND itself. She pulled it back so fast you could almost see the scorch marks.
   Which brings us to my headline question: What does it mean to think radically? Is it something like the GND, which is indeed huge and all-encompassing, but also vague and timeworn? Is it radical just because of its size, even if it contains nothing new and has no chance of enactment?
   I don’t think so. For 20 years we’ve tried to scare the public into adopting big climate plans that require real sacrifice, and for 20 years we’ve failed. We’ve made absolutely no progress worth talking about with this approach. So maybe a more focused plan of attack is the truly radical one.
   This is why I’ve suggested that we should focus solely on selling a gigantic R&D program. It requires little or no sacrifice from voters and doesn’t violate any of the usual conservative shibboleths. It might actually be something we could pass.

I'm a big Drum fan, but it seems to me that he's under constant pressure from his readership to become a woketard. And that sometimes seems to show when he steps outside his nerdy areas of strength. JMO.
   My $0.02:
   First: yeah, stop trying to scare people into doing things. Stop doing it not primarily because it doesn't work; stop it because it's manipulative and undermines citizen/voter political autonomy. Stop with the radical moonshot nonsense. Shitcan the GND. Beware of a glut of gub'mint R&D money that has no place to go--only so much of it can be profitably absorbed. But do emphasize research and R&D.

   Also: stop  with the GW catastrophe porn. Ruthlessly promote an atmosphere of open debate and public and professional honesty among climate scientists. Stop with the "settled science" BS, the "climate denialist" accusations and all that crap. Re-rationalize the professional and public debate.
   Focus on no-regret and low-regret initiatives like more nuclear, planting trees, and...uh...whatever the other ones are...IDK.
   In short: focus on initiatives that are more modest and realistic and less radical. The last thing we need here is more radical thinking. What we need, in an important sense, is less radicalism of all kinds. The worst-case scenarios aren't going to happen, and shouldn't be running the show. And is we're wrong about that, we're toast anyway. Because most of us just aren't buying it, and we're obviously not going to do the kinds of things that would be required to save us if the catastrophists are right. So let's operate under the assumption that we face a moderate challenge that we can mitigate sufficiently with moderate responses over several decades--unless/until we get actually irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
   Again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. My $0.02 here has to be radically discounted.