Aaron Regunberg’s essay ‘Why Climate Politics Can’t Wait’ published last week in Boston Review reads as an anxious sermon aimed at wavering Democratic strategists as the mid-term elections approach. Its target is what the party’s own consultants now call ‘climate hushing’ – the quiet retreat from apocalyptic messaging.
As Matt Huber recently wrote in the New York Times, “The Democratic Party remains deeply unpopular. The way out is to stop elevating a litany of single-issue policies that appeal to the already converted. When it comes to climate change, for now, it might be better to say nothing at all.” Huber, like his compatriots on the Left, argues that Democratic advocacy on climate has pushed working people away from the party and that rebuilding a working-class base requires dropping the fight for climate action. New York’s Kathy Hochul, California’s Gavin Newsom, and a growing list of other Democrats – the party’s hitherto leading climate change ideologues – have concluded that talking incessantly about decarbonisation is an electoral liability rather than an asset for the party.
The Boston Review is not some marginal activist newsletter. Founded in 1975 and published in partnership with MIT, it has spent five decades as one of the American Left’s most serious intellectual addresses – the venue where figures like Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen and Cornel West have published, and where the ‘Boston Review Forum’ format has shaped how progressive policy elites argue with each other. When something appears there, it is aimed not at
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
GeoengineeringWatch.net. Engineered weather has become the norm and most people choose to ignore the reality.
Things must be getting bad if the Democrats are actually worried about winning votes as opposed to just printing them weeks after the polls closed or having their external friends change the voting machine records.
Ah yes, polls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks&t=12s
I don’t see a quiet retreat of any kind. Quite the opposite.
Twice in the last week I’ve heard pilots in London airports describe the conditions in hyperbolic terms – scorching, steaming – asking passengers to put th shades down to protect the cabin from the heat. The temperature was in the mid to high 20s.
I see the same incitement to hysteria as in covid. Then it was trying to persuade everyone people were dropping dead in the streets. Now it’s convincing everyone it’s boiling outside.
And the hypnotic repetition works. I hear people sincerely claiming it’s insanely hot in the most ordinary weather one coukd imagine.
I agree. The “narrative” of the necessity for “climate action” is breaking down not only because people don’t want to pay “green” subsidies, don’t want to see industries trashed and jobs exported to China, and don’t want to see the environment despoiled with pointless wind and solar farms, but because the narrative is false (or unfalsifiable which is the same thing really). I would go further and say that the works of the climate industrial complex are fraudulent (Exhibit A: Drax; Exhibit B: Bovaer; Exhibit: C:Dale Vince).
I agree. Maybe people are realising that every industry exported to China is another set of coal fire power stations built there with their excreta blowing over their way soon.
Let’s face it, the average voter’s knowledge of CO2 stops at how to spell it. Quite a few would even struggle with that.
It doesn’t help that android appears not to have a subscript 2.
Yes, but does any other widely used platform?
Test
CO₂
Renders, but not accessible through the keyboard.
Spotted on the BBC today –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/ckg4gqlye02o
“First, our climate is changing – fast.”
This is the first time I’ve seen the use of “fast” to describe climate change.
The narrative is slipping. They are starting to get desperate.