Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tham Zhiwa's avatar

This is all very brilliant from a macro perspective, Karen. But I also wonder if expecting climate solutions from the top down, and thus detailed policy discussions in the polity, is also not rather Newtonian. I've seen the solutions percolating from the ground itself up, expressed as co-sovereignty between the feds and Tribes. It is notable that the one speaker at the DNC who spoke directly to the climate crisis was our first Native Secretary of Interior, Deb Haaland, who is in charge of vast federal lands and is actively ramping up the bison transfer program to address biodiversity, and pursuing a co-stewardship agreement with the Tribes to manage bison on the land. At the top levels of politics right now, I think it is more about worldview and permissiveness than the kind of leadership that imposes solutions. E.g., the Biden administrations adoption of the 30/30 goals on biodiversity. Kamala was the climate advocate in the White House that interjected a lot of the climate components in the infrastructure and 'inflation reduction' act, so we know where she stands. But given the current nature of politics in this country, we know as well that she has to speak like a moderate in order to have the opportunity to pursue a much more progressive social agenda. So she mostly lets her surrogates like Haaland, AOC, and that twenty-something Congressman from Florida express her view on the climate. Unlike Obama, I think it is realistic to hope that she is not wedded to the moderate agenda, that it's just code sharing for the purpose of thwarting the Death Star candidate. Everyone knows that the climate is on the agenda. In moderate talk, it is "the future" we are moving "forward" to. And we know that the worldview of the other side is suicidal. Even "democracy" can be seen as a proxy for climate, as this election is seen to be about "survival."

Feels like quantum change to me.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts