Tag Archives: climate

Links of interest 2/26/24

A Better Climate Theory

She’s wrong on the facts: Climate change is real, and the devastation it’s causing is not good. But politics requires stories about how things could keep getting better. We do have such a story. Unlike Marjorie Taylor Greene’s story, ours is true. It goes like this: By addressing the climate crisis, we are making the world better. With every policy step we take away from fossil fuels, we are cleaning up the air and water, creating new clean industries in which humans can thrive, making our cities greener, more beautiful, cooler, and full of life. People will live longer lives, evading heat waves and devastating storms. Indeed, our children could well have a future that is more pregnant with exciting possibility than the world we live in now.

Liza Featherstone, The New Republic: “Marjorie Taylor Greene’s New Climate Theory Is Absurd. It’s Also Very Smart.

I’d also like to add these:

  • People will no longer need to live on the streets, tents and sidewalks
  • Less people would die from being hit by automobiles
  • More people would be able to get to more places without a car or plane
  • Less people would be victimized by, or driven to, crime and violence
  • Less neighborhoods would be broken up by highways
  • More people would live without segregation contorting their lives from birth to death

Cycling is a Patriotic, Humanist Act

This post by David Hembrow in the Netherlands captures my feelings on the geopolitical, moral and environmentalist importance of cycling at this moment:

When driving a car means funding a country which is attacking Europe, riding a bicycle should be seen as a patriotic act. Insulating homes and other projects to reduce energy consumption should be viewed similarly, as should projects to generate sustainable energy in our own countries.

The Department of the Interior as a Department of Environment and Climate Protection

Reading this article from Vox about why the incoming Biden administration should establish a Department of Climate, the only times it goes into specifics about what this proposed department should look like is when it mentions current gaps in environmental justice, as well as how the Department of Homeland Security was cribbed from agencies in various departments.

If anything, the Department of the Interior, which has been so gutted of agencies over the last century that it has been called “the Department of Everything Else” and currently only manages federal lands and Native American affairs, would be a good candidate for serving as a Department of Environment and Climate.

All it needs is:

  1. a reshuffling of the NOAA from the Department of Commerce (for surveying the environment)
  2. the US Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service from the USDA (to conserve forests and natural resources)
  3. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from the Department of Energy (to support renewable energy, sustainable transportation and energy efficiency)
  4. the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences from HHS (for research into the effects of the environment on human disease)
  5. a (re-)merger of the EPA (for environmental assessment, research, education and regulation)
  6. Some permanent White House Initiatives on Environmental Justice for each ethnic minority community (African Americans, Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, AAPI Americans and Hispanic and Latino Americans)

If all of this (plus some) could be done, the DOI could become a powerful, holistic spearhead of federal climate and environmental policy.

Also: The Patent and Trademark Office should be moved to the DOJ, and the Census Bureau should be moved to HHS.

Two-Party Duopoly’s Effect on Climate Change Policy

If we had a multiparty system, do you think conservative partisans would be so intensely skeptical to climate change?

My idea is that part of the reason why climate change is regarded as such among the American right is because the big-tent nature of the Republican Party forces even those conservative or libertarian partisans who are sympathetic to the idea of climate change from the perspective of free-marketism or religious conservatism to put that on the shelf for the sake of party unity and getting other policies which they may favor into law.

The free-marketism of the oil, coal and natural gas barons and those citizens – entire states of citizens – who depend on their money is a third rail in the Republican Party, and needs to bar climate change as a logical possibility from their minds.

But not every Republican politician or voter lives in an oil/coal/gas-dependent state. And among that subset are those who may be skeptical about the skepticism. And they don’t have control of the party at this moment. Where is their representation?

In a multiparty system, I think they’d have their own party separate from those who are climate change-skeptical/beholden to big oil. And climate change would have far more acceptance than it does right now.