If we look at the polling data and the models and -- while still fighting for whatever political races we're passionate about -- accept as a given that people are going to vote for Republicans and that that party will have control... then what?
I think we need to start bribing Republicans. Seriously. We all know that where a politician ge…
If we look at the polling data and the models and -- while still fighting for whatever political races we're passionate about -- accept as a given that people are going to vote for Republicans and that that party will have control... then what?
I think we need to start bribing Republicans. Seriously. We all know that where a politician gets their money dictates their views. Maybe not for every individual level, for every issue, but over time and in aggregate? Money shapes politics, in a completely unsubtle way.
Environmentalism as a political movement has hitched their wagon to the Democratic party. That can't really be changed now. But if what we care about is the environment, rather than the political movement, then we just need the winning party, whichever that may be, to pass useful legislation.
We won't get carbon taxes out of Republicans. We won't get strict environmental regulations. Two of the biggest hammers are off the table, due to philosophical differences.
But wind energy? It's not partisan. If wind is generating jobs and directing some of their profits into the right pockets, it can get favorable policy. Very, very favorable. Likewise with solar. Or EVs. Or heat pumps.
We all talk about how the technology for lower-carbon living exists now, it's a question of deploying it at a large enough scale, fast enough. Republicans like big spending every bit as much as Democrats, so long as some of the money makes its way back to them. They don't like stuff like big EV tax credits to individuals (where are the kickbacks in that?) but massive tax credits to companies who will be faithful donors? Sign them right up! Interest free business loans for more efficiency? Sure! Building infrastructure to support future growth? You betcha.
Republicans like big expensive programs. They just don't like the big expensive programs suggested by Democrats. As environmentalists, we need to get them to start proposing the sorts of programs they want and will vote for, but which still have an environmental benefit. So long as the policies facilitate the scale out (and cost reduction) of fossil-fuel-free (freedom!) technologies, we really can both win.
We're still early in the game. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit, and the branches keep getting lower as technology matures. Later on, when we're trying to get rid of the last 30% of emissions we'll need really good policies that thoughtfully manage their drawdown. Right now? We just need speed and scale. Republicans can deliver that, if we can convince them it's in their best interests.
Bribe them. It's sure as hell cheaper to bribe a few politicians than it is to buy out fossil fuel industries and shut them down, yet we're okay with putting that on the table.
If we look at the polling data and the models and -- while still fighting for whatever political races we're passionate about -- accept as a given that people are going to vote for Republicans and that that party will have control... then what?
I think we need to start bribing Republicans. Seriously. We all know that where a politician gets their money dictates their views. Maybe not for every individual level, for every issue, but over time and in aggregate? Money shapes politics, in a completely unsubtle way.
Environmentalism as a political movement has hitched their wagon to the Democratic party. That can't really be changed now. But if what we care about is the environment, rather than the political movement, then we just need the winning party, whichever that may be, to pass useful legislation.
We won't get carbon taxes out of Republicans. We won't get strict environmental regulations. Two of the biggest hammers are off the table, due to philosophical differences.
But wind energy? It's not partisan. If wind is generating jobs and directing some of their profits into the right pockets, it can get favorable policy. Very, very favorable. Likewise with solar. Or EVs. Or heat pumps.
We all talk about how the technology for lower-carbon living exists now, it's a question of deploying it at a large enough scale, fast enough. Republicans like big spending every bit as much as Democrats, so long as some of the money makes its way back to them. They don't like stuff like big EV tax credits to individuals (where are the kickbacks in that?) but massive tax credits to companies who will be faithful donors? Sign them right up! Interest free business loans for more efficiency? Sure! Building infrastructure to support future growth? You betcha.
Republicans like big expensive programs. They just don't like the big expensive programs suggested by Democrats. As environmentalists, we need to get them to start proposing the sorts of programs they want and will vote for, but which still have an environmental benefit. So long as the policies facilitate the scale out (and cost reduction) of fossil-fuel-free (freedom!) technologies, we really can both win.
We're still early in the game. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit, and the branches keep getting lower as technology matures. Later on, when we're trying to get rid of the last 30% of emissions we'll need really good policies that thoughtfully manage their drawdown. Right now? We just need speed and scale. Republicans can deliver that, if we can convince them it's in their best interests.
Bribe them. It's sure as hell cheaper to bribe a few politicians than it is to buy out fossil fuel industries and shut them down, yet we're okay with putting that on the table.