[noduerme]

So? What about the cliff? Isn't that more important than getting people out of debt? It's this kind of thing that makes reasonable people who do want to avert climate disaster wonder whether the cliff analogy isn't just a rallying cry to push an agenda of nationalization and redistribution of private property. In other words, just because we do swerve doesn't mean the socioeconomic upheaval is likely to work out in favor of people who want to eat the rich, or anything resembling justice either. More likely what will happen is everyone will get poorer in a somewhat linear fashion, meaning the rich will still be rich and the poor will be below water.

If the only way to cure the climate crisis is to prevent people from flying having tchotchkes, how naive is Corey to think that the rich will somehow stop those things before the middle class and poor do?

But it's dangerous and flawed to mix climate targets with social justice targets for this very reason. Hinging the swerve on a social/economic revolution means it will never happen.