At one point you criticize "technocratic-minded people" doing models which are "replacing dirty energy with clean energy," but then not being emphatic enough or "taking sides" or something. For sure those folks need to scream, particularly when all this legislation, policies, programs, boards, etc., don't actually get us on that track.
I'm not sure it's the technocrats' job to be the political activists. The disconnect I see in the struggle to bring down FF emissions is that many, many stop/end/divest activists, who do have a voice and do get media attention, just leave it there. They need to shout, rally, etc., for realistic solutions to replace and displace fossil fuels. And from what I can see and hear personally, they don't have the stomach for it. They are bred to be NIABY's (A=Anybody's). At the first sign of a victim (human or otherwise), they retreat to degrowth at the only solution, or to some incredibly limited subset of perfect solutions. E.g. the new guy at 350 you interviewed who wanted a focus on "solar on schools." The enviros near me who want solar over irrigation canals; never on farmland, rangeland, viewsheds.... Made and installed by diverse union labor...
NYC is ground zero in the battle for offshore wind, but in all the pictures I saw of protests last month I never saw a sign or banner supporting that.
Often at public hearings for big renewable projects, there are technocrats from "Big Wind" and a utility or off-taker, but there is all kinds of whipped up opposition to some devilish foreign-backed, big-city, wildlife-killing renewable power cabal, and no presence from other activists saying this is a great way to "stop fossil fuels."
Thanks guys really enjoyed this chat. As an Australian the discussion about the swift boat episode sounded like you were talking about the national vote we just went through on a proposal to recognize First Nations people in our constitution via a ‘voice’ - a new body that would represent indigenous peoples that could advise the govt but have no actual legislative power. Proposed by the centre left Labor govt the idea seemed obviously fair and good on its face, but we then faced the same ‘tripartite failure’ - opponents were more dishonest and disgusting then anticipated, the Yes campaign chose mostly not to respond while the media did a generally terrible job of covering ‘both sides’. (the referendum failed last weekend) We have seen elements of this before but not in such a sustained way, really hope this doesn’t set the tone for the next 20 years of Aus politics (but my hopes aren’t high). Ps please find that billionaire, love the idea of a new Witness network!
Overall, a nice pod. But Dave! Let your guest finish his thought!! You interrupted way too often and far more than when you are interviewing a sustainability SME.
American podcasts, being extemporaneous, can be very revealing about American outlook and values. From "Pod Save the World", I realized that even the most-liberal Americans were simply unable to imagine America not having an effect, and actions to take, on every problem in the world. The very idea of "none of our damn business, let's just hang back" doesn't even occur, the way it would to a Canadian or Spaniard.
From Brian today, I found out how very deep the America two-party system is embedded in your very heads. Brian goes on and on about how much would have to be done to de-MAGA the Republican party, 'if only we could wipe out the last 40 years'(!!) at one point.
What he's describing is a creating a new party, and that's legal. Just start one. The American Conservative Party would stand for all the things that the Republican party stands for, save for allowing Limited Abortion Access, criticizing the Iraq War, and calling Trump a treasonous con man.
Whether that would work, or not, is isn't my point - which is that talking about it is about 1% as crazy as a ramble about duplicating America, removing the last 40 years, and creating a new timeline without even the Avenger's Time Stone for help.
But to Americans, discussing that "American Conservative Party" is crazier than endless lamentations about Republicans Are Bad.
Love hearing you both. I'm just young enough to have started reading both of y'all when y'all were new and it's great following everyone. It feels like every writer I read from that time has their own newsletter or works for NYTimes lol.
I think Josh Marshall calls it "dominance politics" now haha
That point you made around 1:09 about how bad the opinions of people who don't express them publicly, because they don't ever practice defending their opinions was really good. I would definitely read a whole essay that was just about that.
At one point you criticize "technocratic-minded people" doing models which are "replacing dirty energy with clean energy," but then not being emphatic enough or "taking sides" or something. For sure those folks need to scream, particularly when all this legislation, policies, programs, boards, etc., don't actually get us on that track.
I'm not sure it's the technocrats' job to be the political activists. The disconnect I see in the struggle to bring down FF emissions is that many, many stop/end/divest activists, who do have a voice and do get media attention, just leave it there. They need to shout, rally, etc., for realistic solutions to replace and displace fossil fuels. And from what I can see and hear personally, they don't have the stomach for it. They are bred to be NIABY's (A=Anybody's). At the first sign of a victim (human or otherwise), they retreat to degrowth at the only solution, or to some incredibly limited subset of perfect solutions. E.g. the new guy at 350 you interviewed who wanted a focus on "solar on schools." The enviros near me who want solar over irrigation canals; never on farmland, rangeland, viewsheds.... Made and installed by diverse union labor...
NYC is ground zero in the battle for offshore wind, but in all the pictures I saw of protests last month I never saw a sign or banner supporting that.
Often at public hearings for big renewable projects, there are technocrats from "Big Wind" and a utility or off-taker, but there is all kinds of whipped up opposition to some devilish foreign-backed, big-city, wildlife-killing renewable power cabal, and no presence from other activists saying this is a great way to "stop fossil fuels."
Started reading Brian’s newsletter about a year ago because of something you posted and it has been very insightful.
Thanks guys really enjoyed this chat. As an Australian the discussion about the swift boat episode sounded like you were talking about the national vote we just went through on a proposal to recognize First Nations people in our constitution via a ‘voice’ - a new body that would represent indigenous peoples that could advise the govt but have no actual legislative power. Proposed by the centre left Labor govt the idea seemed obviously fair and good on its face, but we then faced the same ‘tripartite failure’ - opponents were more dishonest and disgusting then anticipated, the Yes campaign chose mostly not to respond while the media did a generally terrible job of covering ‘both sides’. (the referendum failed last weekend) We have seen elements of this before but not in such a sustained way, really hope this doesn’t set the tone for the next 20 years of Aus politics (but my hopes aren’t high). Ps please find that billionaire, love the idea of a new Witness network!
Overall, a nice pod. But Dave! Let your guest finish his thought!! You interrupted way too often and far more than when you are interviewing a sustainability SME.
American podcasts, being extemporaneous, can be very revealing about American outlook and values. From "Pod Save the World", I realized that even the most-liberal Americans were simply unable to imagine America not having an effect, and actions to take, on every problem in the world. The very idea of "none of our damn business, let's just hang back" doesn't even occur, the way it would to a Canadian or Spaniard.
From Brian today, I found out how very deep the America two-party system is embedded in your very heads. Brian goes on and on about how much would have to be done to de-MAGA the Republican party, 'if only we could wipe out the last 40 years'(!!) at one point.
What he's describing is a creating a new party, and that's legal. Just start one. The American Conservative Party would stand for all the things that the Republican party stands for, save for allowing Limited Abortion Access, criticizing the Iraq War, and calling Trump a treasonous con man.
Whether that would work, or not, is isn't my point - which is that talking about it is about 1% as crazy as a ramble about duplicating America, removing the last 40 years, and creating a new timeline without even the Avenger's Time Stone for help.
But to Americans, discussing that "American Conservative Party" is crazier than endless lamentations about Republicans Are Bad.
Love hearing you both. I'm just young enough to have started reading both of y'all when y'all were new and it's great following everyone. It feels like every writer I read from that time has their own newsletter or works for NYTimes lol.
I think Josh Marshall calls it "dominance politics" now haha
That point you made around 1:09 about how bad the opinions of people who don't express them publicly, because they don't ever practice defending their opinions was really good. I would definitely read a whole essay that was just about that.