But 2/3rds support more government action. Unfortunately, that 2/3rds is not proportionately represented in Congress, which is why a big part of our job is to get many more of that group active. Think Environmental Voter Project.
One thing not commented on that I could see: given our COVID and recent election experiences as examples, about 1/3 of our population can be expected to passionately oppose any government initiated data based efforts intended to mitigate or adapt to climate change.
We can take some satisfaction in that we have an administration that recognizes the challenge of climate change.
I am thinking that this change however doesn't mean that we can relax. There is a term describing where corporations go through the motions of being environmentally concerned when their actions contradict their professed concern. I’m speaking of “greenwashing.”
After understanding some of the stuff that's been slipped into reconciliation regarding forests, I am thinking we're going to need another term, don't know what that is, but essentially it covers the situation where special interest groups get money from the federal government under the guise of mitigating or adapting to climate change when all that's going on is a transfer of taxpayer money to private industry, and more than likely along with it additional CO2 emissions.
So just saying something is a goal doesn't mean it's a goal. And when it comes time to implement any of these concepts, I think the key thing is not going to be so much the language, it is going to be the goodwill of those who implement the policies.
As an example, I'm thinking of constitutional rights like the right to free expression or equal protection under the law. Those words don't mean much if they are not implemented by people of goodwill, and the intent can be significantly distorted by those of ill will.
But 2/3rds support more government action. Unfortunately, that 2/3rds is not proportionately represented in Congress, which is why a big part of our job is to get many more of that group active. Think Environmental Voter Project.
NYT Short Summary of Climate Threats in Plans
We can take some satisfaction in that we have an administration that recognizes the challenge of climate change.
I am thinking that this change however doesn't mean that we can relax. There is a term describing where corporations go through the motions of being environmentally concerned when their actions contradict their professed concern. I’m speaking of “greenwashing.”
After understanding some of the stuff that's been slipped into reconciliation regarding forests, I am thinking we're going to need another term, don't know what that is, but essentially it covers the situation where special interest groups get money from the federal government under the guise of mitigating or adapting to climate change when all that's going on is a transfer of taxpayer money to private industry, and more than likely along with it additional CO2 emissions.
So just saying something is a goal doesn't mean it's a goal. And when it comes time to implement any of these concepts, I think the key thing is not going to be so much the language, it is going to be the goodwill of those who implement the policies.
As an example, I'm thinking of constitutional rights like the right to free expression or equal protection under the law. Those words don't mean much if they are not implemented by people of goodwill, and the intent can be significantly distorted by those of ill will.
Curam aeternae.