I strongly disagree with this, in fact I think an anti capitalist movement would be devastating for the climate. The usual disclaimers about not being an expert. But I think the primary problem with that way of thinking is that it paints climate change as an American problem. But climate change isn't a local problem. There is no question we have had an outsized impact historically, but our share of worldwide emissions is dropping significantly year over year. Even if we were to got he anti-capitalist route and regulate away our carbon emissions to zero (putting aside for a second the significant impact this would have on the living standard of our citizens), this is unlikely to meaningfully change the overall climate trajectory of the planet. We need to think bigger! We are the richest fucking country in the world, and I say we have a responsibility to do more than just clean things up inside our borders, I say we have an obligation to put *the world* on a path to a carbon free future. So how can we do that?
First, I submit that any country, but especially a developing country, is looking to improve the living standards of its people. In order to do so, it needs stuff. And that stuff -infrastructure, food, shelter, transport- it all requires energy. And the cheapest way to get that energy has historically been burning carbon. Even overtly socialist economies (Bolivia, for example), when presented with the trade off between improving the living standards of their people and harming the environment, they choose helping their people every time. And so the world burns. But it need not be so! It's already changing. Germany has in some ways shown us the path. They subsidized clean energy when it was expensive and shitty. With those subsidies, it became competitive with coal and natural gas, and so private investment came in as well, ramping up production. And as production ramped up, we got way better at it. Wrights law in action. And now it's *cheaper* in much of the world to use wind or solar than to burn coal or gas. That's how we change the game, not by convincing the developing world that they should make sacrifices now to save their peoples' future, but by making it cost effective for them to do so.
We need massive investment in R&D. I'm not saying throw money at the private sector, government R&D has been hugely successful historically (birdman alluded to NASA above, right?) and I think a big part of the answer going forward. We need the government to help develop the tech, but there is also nothing wrong with then utilizing markets to do exactly what they are good at doing with that tech. Imagine a world where instead of dirty steel and cement with have clean alternative for infrastructure. Imagine carbon neutral agriculture with significantly decreased demands on land use. These are the ball game...how we change the world.
To be clear, I'm not against regulation. And I think the parts of the Evergreen plan requiring, for example, carbon neutral energy by 2030, would go a long way. And they do talk about beefing up the EPA specifically through things like Clear Air Act rules to crack down on pollution. We absolutely should take steps to crack down on domestic polluters. I just think it's fairly small time, unlikely to make a big dent in emissions, and should be no where near the centerpiece of any serious climate policy.
