What is the non-progressive argument for helping poor people survive climate change? The cheapest policy I can think of is welcoming in more climate refugees to the west. But I don’t think that would be popular on the right for other reasons.
I’d venture that there are plenty of conservative folks who want to help the poor, at least in the Christian communities. Maybe not so much in the libertarian contingent.
Energy from natural gas is much lower emission than coal and very cheap and easy. To fossil fuels by 2050 you'd need to be building a nuclear plant every three days to get it all done by then. That natural gas is being dismissed shows anyone looking at this seriously that net zerio will never be achieved.
There are two competing goals. One is to help poor people get out of poverty. This leads to more consumption in the short term and this increase in consumption is partly offset by the fact that richer people tend to have fewer children. The other competing goal is to try to stem the great environmental damage humans do as a result of their consumption. It does no good for everyone to be rich if we are all swimming in our own shit.
When a given topic comes up one goal will carry more weight than the other. There are similar instances of this phenomenon with all political movements.
jdavis703|4 years ago
amanaplanacanal|4 years ago
ndkwj|4 years ago
[deleted]
swader999|4 years ago
syops|4 years ago
When a given topic comes up one goal will carry more weight than the other. There are similar instances of this phenomenon with all political movements.