[heavenlyhash]

I agree with the "we won't do all the things" thesis, and that it's probably wise to acknowledge that and plan accordingly around that self-knowledge.

Almost everything else in the comment after that seems a bit off-kilter to me:

> The Green New Deal has turned into a jobs program

"turned into"? Are you familiar with the "New Deal" of historical note that it's deriving the very name from? It's always been a jobs program. That's part of the point.

> Soviet Union

As sibling commenters have already pointed out, I don't see how this comparison was particularly well-connected or topical.

> Increasing middle class prosperity is inherently incompatible with reducing carbon output.

No?

> The Green New Deal, together with the climate strikes have become vehicles for socialist ideology.

I don't disagree with that; what's your point, though? Are you trying to run with the association that "socialism=bad"?

I'm writing you from fairly-darn-Socialist (and fairly-darn-functional) Norway, so I'm not picking up.

> despite experts broadly agreeing that we need things like carbon taxes, the Global Climate Strike platform categorically rejects market mechanisms to address climate change.

Almost every single person I've talked to who has participated in or associated with the climate strikes has been an advocate for carbon taxes.

So, no. Those people and platforms do not categorically reject market mechanisms. In fact those that I've talked to seem to be essentially _on your side_.

> we can do it without world government

I'm sure that's true, but also, I'm not sure where there's been a suggestion of "world government" that you seem to be responding negatively to. Everything you've mentioned in your own comment is single-government internal proposals, or, groups of people advocating for general directions within their own local governments.

So in total: while I think you and I would agree in many many details about how to plan reactions to climate change, can I council you to polish your message to _focus on that_ and skip the world-socialist-government-conspiracy tinge? It's just not necessary. It seems to be making you believe you disagree with a bunch of people who... by and large agree with you, and are in fact interested in (and pursuing) market-oriented solution paths.

[rayiner]

> I don't disagree with that; what's your point, though? Are you trying to run with the association that "socialism=bad"?

> I'm writing you from fairly-darn-Socialist (and fairly-darn-functional) Norway, so I'm not picking up.

Socialism is bad, but Norway is not socialist. Norway is a market economy with a large welfare state. https://www.heritage.org/index/country/norway. The two things are completely different.

Nearly all the countries that call themselves "democratic socialist" are in fact capitalist, with strong welfare states. Some, like Denmark and Sweden, and to a lesser extent Norway, are among the freest markets in the world. The lynchpin of the "Nordic model" is not socialism, but free markets that generate a large surplus, which is then taxed to provide a strong welfare system. Countries like Sweden have high taxes on individuals, even as they aggressively pursue deregulation and cut corporate taxes.

The Nordic model is a strong contrast from the "New Deal" which was strongly anti-market. It was built on government regulation of the economy, price controls, nationalization of industries, etc. It was an economy where the government decided how much it should cost for a flight from New York to LA. The ends might have been similar to Nordic social democracy (higher social welfare), but the means were wholly different.

Climate justice folks are advocating a return to the New Deal, not a turn to Nordic market-oriented welfare states.

The "Green New Deal" is by its terms about a government takeover of the economy: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-top-aide-admits-green-...

> It goes on to say that “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal”

See also: https://demandclimatejustice.org

> In mitigation and adaptation (“maladaptation”) such as offsets and carbon trading, marketbased approaches to forests (REDD) and agriculture (“Climate Smart”), soil and water, large-scale geo-engineering, and techno-fixes, nuclear energy, mega hydro dams, agro-fuels, “clean” coal, GMOs, the waste to energy incineration industry, large-scale “re-modeling”;

Also: https://www.peoplesdemands.org (referenced from the Global Climate Strike website)

> 5. Facilitate and support non-market approaches to climate action.

> we must take immediate action, including policies for stopping all new fossil fuel projects, drastically scaling up finance and technology transfer from rich countries to the global South, and eliminating dangerous distractions like carbon market schemes.

> to reject false solutions like carbon markets, bioenergy and techno-fixes

[heavenlyhash]

> Nearly all the countries that call themselves "democratic socialist" are in fact capitalist, with strong welfare states.

Well, then, there you go: that's the meaning of the word, then. Or at least it certainly is to a lot of people.

I think we again don't much disagree, other than in a very surface level about the words. I go out for a beer with some Norwegians, and they self-describe to me as having ideals they call "socialist", because they're ideals around being social and building a society together, and that's what the word means to them. I accept this definition. Maybe you've got a different one in mind; words are tricky like that.

I similarly don't know what to tell you about the utility of taking the precise wording of websites as the ultimate truth of anything. Did every person in every klimastreik around the world read those two websites and sign off total agreement on every detail they proclaimed? Probably not.

I offered anecdata that many people on the ground, even around those causes, are very positive to carbon taxes or other forms of market-aware schemes to make a difference. It is, of course, anecdata. You can take it as a note of hope, perhaps? Or, not. Up to you.

[rayiner]

Regardless of what you call Norway’s system, the animating principles behind the Green New Deal and the “climate justice” movement are not that. If you want to call Norway “socialist” so be it, but then you need a new name for something like the Green New Deal’s “wartime mobilization” and “fundamental change” of the economy. (Calling it “Marxism” seems over the top. Which is why I think it’s better to call that what it is—socialism, and more accurately describe the Nordic model as welfare-capitalism.)

And while not everyone who participated in climate strikes subscribes to the full range of ideas within the umbrella of “climate justice” it’s hard to deny the influence of the radical left on the movement as a whole: https://peoplesclimate.org/platform (look at the big list of members, including mainstream organizations like Sierra Club). It’s kind of like being a Republican in the current US political climate because you believe in a balanced budget. It may well be true that many republicans believe in fiscal responsibility. But the party has its own dynamic overall, and it’s not rooted in fiscal conservatism.

Climate justice leaders are not speaking the language of market-oriented Democratic “socialism.” They’re invoking the language of Marxists. They’re taking the failed ideas of big-S socialism, which countries like Norway rejected in the 1980s and 1990s, and are trying to rebrand them with climate change as the motivating principle. And the end result will be devastating. Those ideas were consistently a disaster throughout the 20th century, and they wasn’t work any better the next time around.