Having snarked on them a last time recently, I thought I would take one last look, to see what it did, or did not, write about the climate crisis, being a bunch of neoliberal types, overall.
I wasn't snarkily disappointed.
ML Clark says the US won't get the election it deserves, and can't find one line of electrons to write about third parties, let alone third parties of the left, let alone Democrats' connivance with Republicans in keeping third parties off the ballot.
Earlier, she rightly bashes COP28 for a cop-out. She wrongly fails to mention "carbon tax" or "carbon tariff" as part of the solution.
Adam Lee has a good piece about minimalism in possessions, but without mentioning directly its ties to the climate crisis. And, that's offset by his piece from last fall being a sucker about Biden on the picket line.
Back to Clark, the main writer on this.
She earlier talks about the fifth US climate assessment. Several missing items here. First, "adjustments" to agriculture are nowhere near enough. Regenerative ag and feed to cut methane belches aren't enough. Eating less meat — a LOT less beef, and a fair amount less pork — are the ticket.
Lee then writes about the "Green New Deal" without telling you it's the Dems' fake Green New Deal, not the original Green Party one.
Weirdly, per Pew data that Ryan Burge misread or whatever, all these folks miss the biggie. NONE of them tie secularism specifically to how seriously people view the climate crisis, or even that they see it as a crisis at all. I wrote about that earlier this year.
"You had one objective .... " and you failed.
Beyond not really anchoring the climate crisis to secularism, to the degree anybody offers solutions, they're not that much.
No comments:
Post a Comment