Carrol wrote: > If I believed what Hans argues here (that more or less everyone must be "on > board") I would simply give up politics of any sort.
Even if everyone agrees that substantial action is needed because of climate change, species extinction, etc., there is still lots of room for politics. Politics not as the art of the possible and attainable, but the art of making that possible what science tells us is necessary. (Hermann Scheer, Der energethische Imperativ, p. 27). In some countries, climate change is a bipartisan issue, and there is still vivid discussion about what to do about it. Marshall says that different countries have different national traditions, and he sees it a political task to find ways how to integrate climate change action in these national traditions. For instance Germany takes pride in its post world war II reconstruction (Wirtschaftswunder); I witnessed that myself when I grew up there. Then they take pride in the 1989 reunification, and now they take pride in the Energiewende, in being pioneers for a powerful industrial nation switching to renewable energy. On the other hand, Germany also has a strong auto industry, this is why they are not equally pioneers in sustainable transportation systems, despite their high speed trains. Denmark is much smaller and even greener than Germany, so is Iceland. Switzerland neither has a car industry nor a fossil fuel industry; they are able to have a debate about climate change, although the finance capitalism they are housing is the worst kind of capitalism. Australia is a settler nation in which the tradition always has been to get as much out of the land as possible. (Marshall said that in that discussion I quoted). The Leap manifesto also builds on the Canadian national traditions: "respect for Indigenous rights, internationalism, human rights, diversity, and environmental stewardship." Marv asks: > what alternative “policy approaches” would attract conservatives and > still be effective? The manifesto calls for an end to subsidies, a > carbon tax, and increased royalties ... I think an end to subsidies would appeal to conservatives, and increased royalties too. A feed-in tariff is a petty bourgeous autonomy dream: sell the electricity generated by the solar panels on your roof on the market and get a nice return on your investment. What is there not to like for a conservative? Some people want market-based solutions not because they are capitalists but because they are conservatives (and I would say they are naive about markets). We do not want to exclude them from the discussion but invite them in. I am confident they will quickly learn, exactly because they are not capitalists but conservatives. There is lots of room and a need for socialist politics: socialists have to point out the class nature of the problem and of the solutions, have to distinguish bogus solutions from real solutions, etc. Marshall said about the Climate March in NYC: there was nothing in the climate march that would make a conservative feel at home. Someone had a poster: never ever ever ever ever vote republican. This is the wrong approach. I personally have witnessed "keep it in the ground" actions in Utah in which people brought Bernie Sanders posters. Then they are surprised that so few Mormons show up. I think it is wrong to bring Bernie posters to a climate event. Hans _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
