| > Yet even the most hardcore “green” politicians talk about the issue as if we can drag our frets another decade or two with minimal impact on current generations. Why the big gulf here? Green politicians demand action yesterday, 'Green new deal' politicians demand 30% reductions in the short term, left-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% reductions over the next 15 years[1], right-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% increases over the next 15 years. The problem is that: 1. In non-proportional-representation countries, a vote for green is a wasted vote. 2. In proportional-representation countries, greens get some votes and government seats, but whether that translates into political power is dependent on blind luck. Depending on how many seats other parties get, they may be included in a coalition (And thus, have some influence on policy), or completely shut out (And thus, have no influence on policy). 3. The United States is the biggest per first-world polluter, and thus has the most low-hanging fruit to be picked. But all else being equal, it tends to vote right-wing. [2] PS. Before anyone says 'China' - China's emission policies can be influenced by tariffs. We just need to get off our asses, and clean up our own house, first. [1] Of course, they won't do anything to curtail carbon-extraction industries - they expect the rest of us to sacrifice so that petro-firms can keep making money. [2] The only reason US emissions have been holding steady, despite 'coal now, coal tomorrow, and coal forever' rhetoric, is blind luck. The unit economics of natural gas became good, because of fracking, and it emits less CO2 per KWH than coal. If it weren't for fracking, the US would be right on the path the Republican party wants it to be. |