What I dont understand about you progressives, is that you both sincerely want to fix the environmental issue, but you are happy to leave the core injustices and social relations of capitalism in place. In particular a society based on competition and rule by a capitalist class. Its as if you have a blind hatred of socialism that is baseless and irrational. What gives you guys? Can you and Hickel please make an educated reply?
Why not mention the success of China's green industry? The talk is out of touch with reality. Climate is a global issue. We cannot ignore the huge progress in the green industry in China. What made China successful should be considered in policymaking.
These policy ideas are admirable and necessary but would arouse intense political opposition, some of it manufactured, some of it genuinely felt, around such shibboleths as “freedom of choice”, “the right of the individual”, etc. Nevertheless, an appeal to “emergency” and the consequent for whole-of-society rationing (as in wartime) might, with strong leadership, be politically palatable. Perhaps personal digital technology could also play a positive role here? Individual consumers could be given a certain budget of tradable points for ecologically harmful consumption or activities—with the overall goal of reducing such consumption or activities—such that I could elect to use my points on a skiing trip but have to reduce other activities accordingly; or I could buy someone else’s unused points. The political problem, engendering consent to such policies, seems central.
Doesn't Wall Street and the capitalist class already have a plan ready to implement? Why would Neoliberals want a social democratic plan?
What I dont understand about you progressives, is that you both sincerely want to fix the environmental issue, but you are happy to leave the core injustices and social relations of capitalism in place. In particular a society based on competition and rule by a capitalist class. Its as if you have a blind hatred of socialism that is baseless and irrational. What gives you guys? Can you and Hickel please make an educated reply?
Why not mention the success of China's green industry? The talk is out of touch with reality. Climate is a global issue. We cannot ignore the huge progress in the green industry in China. What made China successful should be considered in policymaking.
Indeed, China's progress in clean energy has been remarkable. That's why I recently devoted an entire piece to just this topic: https://www.theglobalcurrents.com/p/is-china-a-climate-champion?r=5jvrbk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
These policy ideas are admirable and necessary but would arouse intense political opposition, some of it manufactured, some of it genuinely felt, around such shibboleths as “freedom of choice”, “the right of the individual”, etc. Nevertheless, an appeal to “emergency” and the consequent for whole-of-society rationing (as in wartime) might, with strong leadership, be politically palatable. Perhaps personal digital technology could also play a positive role here? Individual consumers could be given a certain budget of tradable points for ecologically harmful consumption or activities—with the overall goal of reducing such consumption or activities—such that I could elect to use my points on a skiing trip but have to reduce other activities accordingly; or I could buy someone else’s unused points. The political problem, engendering consent to such policies, seems central.