Skip to main content

View Diary: The Dirty Weather Report (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it has to be sold as "jobs" (8+ / 0-)

    Sustainability as stimulus. We currently have an establishment that can't do simple math where Social Security is concerned. The only way to cut through any gridlock is with a Pentagon weapons system like level of spending (read: legal electoral graft) in key districts for some large, hopefully solar, projects.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:02:37 PM PST

    •  Here's a problem with that... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melo, newfie

      It may be a losing proposition to use short-term benefits as a selling point to solve long term problems. Do you want to make the debate all about jobs? There are coal jobs on the line. There are pipeline construction jobs on the line. Yes there are green energy jobs too. But when you take the long term cost/benefit ecology off the table or de-emphasize it then you get into a debate that is less not more favorable. Ultimately, we have to convince people of what is at stake. We are the reality based community. Sometimes that means swallowing hard and making the tough sell even when it means convincing people of inconvenient truths.

      Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

      by play jurist on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:29:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have to attack the enemies strengths (0+ / 0-)

        The extraction industries are all about jobs. The green movement spent decades predicting doooooom and can easily be smeared - yes even after Sandy - as crying wolf. Any reliance on long term benefits as an argument will be derailed by this - or at least has been and there are no reasons for optimism in the next few cycles.

        So attack their strength: There would be more and broader based jobs in solar. There's no way around attacking coal but those votes are geographically limited. Solar would be jobs everywhere, all the time. Sell rail the same way: JOBS. So then the argument is "government can't create jobs" (which doesn't make any sense but will be used) and the response is "private industry isn't creating enough and is too short term" plus, as an after thought, the ecological benefit.

        The politicians that have to move are focused on their election cycles. Obama's focused on his legacy. He's not going to the mat for green energy and wouldn't get anywhere with this House anyway. For the next two years at least JOBS are the only line of attack. Trying to explain to entrenched car culture that we live an unsustainable lifestyle will not sell anywhere except the university and the left wing blogosphere echo chamber.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:01:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can't win this debate... (0+ / 0-)

          over cost/benefit by bracketing out the major costs associated with fossil fuels. That's the bottom line. It is a difficult task to convince people of those costs. No one is denying the difficulty. I'm arguing that it is essential, however difficult.

          Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

          by play jurist on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:01:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (55)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (34)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Education (22)
  • Media (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (18)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site