Thanks for sharing this. I wasn’t very familiar with Giving Green and you bring up interesting points. I would like to push back against two of your points: 1) that progressive groups are the ones making climate change partisan, and 2) that searching for consensus is the best way to find legislative success in our current political climate. You say that “making climate change a partisan issue might look promising in the short-term given the current Democratic trifecta, though the wafer-thin majority and existence of the filibuster somewhat dampens the case even there, but in even the medium term there is an obvious and potentially very large downside to such an approach.”
Climate change is already a partisan issue. I’d argue that it’s partisan mostly not because of what progressive climate activists are doing, but rather because of right wing climate denialism. In my opinion, progressive groups dialing it down wouldn’t make the Republicans any less obstructionist, but rather further defang the left and create even less of a chance for change. Let’s imagine several scenarios:
Scenario 1: Republicans are obstructionist, most/all Democrats push for compromise with Republicans, orgs like CATF push for bipartisan initiatives, orgs like Sunrise don’t do much. Likely outcomes:
Republicans make minor concessions and mildly more progressive climate legislation passes, OR
Republicans continue to be just as obstructionist as they’ve been for the past 15 years and nothing passes (unless the filibuster is eliminated).
Scenario 2: Republicans are obstructionist, some Democrats push for compromise, while others push for more radical change in conjunction with orgs like Sunrise. Likely outcomes:
The issue becomes even more partisan and divided and nothing changes OR
Republicans and moderate democrats bow to strong grassroots pressure and strong climate legislation is passed.
This framing would suggest that strong progressive climate action would offer both higher risk and higher potential reward, which seems accurate to me.
My opinion is that it’s going to take a lot for progressive climate legislation to be passed, and I think if we keep saying “the Republicans are effectively controlling the narrative re climate change and that will never change, we have to push gently so as to not ruffle feathers,” we’re only going to get tiny amounts of change (or none at all). Climate change seems like an issue where we can’t afford to wait. Furthermore, narratives aren’t static; they can change! Think of cases such as the civil rights movement in the ’60s: changing the narrative around civil rights and achieving legislative success came not from finding consensus with recalcitrant segregationists but by an aggressive progressive movement willing to make noise. Of course, the analogy you choose makes a big difference. Feel free to share an analogy that would point to the opposite conclusion, but I’m having trouble thinking of one.
Thanks for reading, and I’m very eager to hear any rebuttals that folks have.
I think you have missed one clear downside: that increasing partisanship will make any action that is passed worse. There have been some clear examples historically of where the association of climate change with left wing politics has been a negative:
The demonisation of nuclear, which has lead to an increase in coal usage in Germany.
The rejection of a carbon tax in Washington State because it was not ‘progressive’ enough, and similar moves in many other states.
The inclusion of terrible policies in the ‘Green New Deal’, like banning air travel (which was eventually removed after criticism from conservatives).
Inability to reduce emissions when this conflicted with the interests of unions.
Including more conservatives and moderates in policy design, and marginalizing extreme left-wing groups, could help both improve the prospects for passing policy and result in better policy. We have strong evidence this is the case—look at the example of the UK, where the conservative-led coalition and then conservative majority government has made climate change a significant focus, partly because they were able to ‘reclaim’ the issue.
I think you’ve outlined a case for why you think progressive climate activism is good. I agree that it is good on-net. I think, from his comment, so does Johannes. But when we evaluate charities the typical approach is to look at the expected value of donations on the margin. This is a very different question to “does the thing seem positive overall”.
As one specific example:
Climate change is already a partisan issue. I’d argue that it’s partisan mostly not because of what progressive climate activists are doing, but rather because of right wing climate denialism.
TSM’s stated goal is to increase polarisation. Making climate change more of a partisan can be bad on the margin even if someone else is primarily “to blame”.
In general, your thinking currently seems to be framed as [minor/not really worth it objectives from CATF] versus [brilliant transformative objectives from progressive activists]. I don’t think this framing is accurate.
As Johannes discussed at length, CATF’s push for new technologies has the potential for global impact, not just national. Climate change is a global problem, not just an American one. This idea of looking at the global picture is not unique to CATF among EA recommendations, see also ITIF for example. Secondly, some of the work I’m most excited about from CATF is their thinking around zero-carbon fuels, which are going to be vital to decarbonising things like long-distance freight, international shipping etc, where battery-technology just won’t cut it. Again, I think this whole-system analysis is extremely far from just pushing for minor, incremental change.
Thanks for sharing this. I wasn’t very familiar with Giving Green and you bring up interesting points. I would like to push back against two of your points: 1) that progressive groups are the ones making climate change partisan, and 2) that searching for consensus is the best way to find legislative success in our current political climate. You say that “making climate change a partisan issue might look promising in the short-term given the current Democratic trifecta, though the wafer-thin majority and existence of the filibuster somewhat dampens the case even there, but in even the medium term there is an obvious and potentially very large downside to such an approach.”
Climate change is already a partisan issue. I’d argue that it’s partisan mostly not because of what progressive climate activists are doing, but rather because of right wing climate denialism. In my opinion, progressive groups dialing it down wouldn’t make the Republicans any less obstructionist, but rather further defang the left and create even less of a chance for change. Let’s imagine several scenarios:
Scenario 1: Republicans are obstructionist, most/all Democrats push for compromise with Republicans, orgs like CATF push for bipartisan initiatives, orgs like Sunrise don’t do much. Likely outcomes:
Republicans make minor concessions and mildly more progressive climate legislation passes, OR
Republicans continue to be just as obstructionist as they’ve been for the past 15 years and nothing passes (unless the filibuster is eliminated).
Scenario 2: Republicans are obstructionist, some Democrats push for compromise, while others push for more radical change in conjunction with orgs like Sunrise. Likely outcomes:
The issue becomes even more partisan and divided and nothing changes OR
Republicans and moderate democrats bow to strong grassroots pressure and strong climate legislation is passed.
This framing would suggest that strong progressive climate action would offer both higher risk and higher potential reward, which seems accurate to me.
My opinion is that it’s going to take a lot for progressive climate legislation to be passed, and I think if we keep saying “the Republicans are effectively controlling the narrative re climate change and that will never change, we have to push gently so as to not ruffle feathers,” we’re only going to get tiny amounts of change (or none at all). Climate change seems like an issue where we can’t afford to wait. Furthermore, narratives aren’t static; they can change! Think of cases such as the civil rights movement in the ’60s: changing the narrative around civil rights and achieving legislative success came not from finding consensus with recalcitrant segregationists but by an aggressive progressive movement willing to make noise. Of course, the analogy you choose makes a big difference. Feel free to share an analogy that would point to the opposite conclusion, but I’m having trouble thinking of one.
Thanks for reading, and I’m very eager to hear any rebuttals that folks have.
I think you have missed one clear downside: that increasing partisanship will make any action that is passed worse. There have been some clear examples historically of where the association of climate change with left wing politics has been a negative:
The demonisation of nuclear, which has lead to an increase in coal usage in Germany.
The rejection of a carbon tax in Washington State because it was not ‘progressive’ enough, and similar moves in many other states.
The inclusion of terrible policies in the ‘Green New Deal’, like banning air travel (which was eventually removed after criticism from conservatives).
Inability to reduce emissions when this conflicted with the interests of unions.
Including more conservatives and moderates in policy design, and marginalizing extreme left-wing groups, could help both improve the prospects for passing policy and result in better policy. We have strong evidence this is the case—look at the example of the UK, where the conservative-led coalition and then conservative majority government has made climate change a significant focus, partly because they were able to ‘reclaim’ the issue.
Hi Sarah,
I think you’ve outlined a case for why you think progressive climate activism is good. I agree that it is good on-net. I think, from his comment, so does Johannes. But when we evaluate charities the typical approach is to look at the expected value of donations on the margin. This is a very different question to “does the thing seem positive overall”.
As one specific example:
TSM’s stated goal is to increase polarisation. Making climate change more of a partisan can be bad on the margin even if someone else is primarily “to blame”.
In general, your thinking currently seems to be framed as [minor/not really worth it objectives from CATF] versus [brilliant transformative objectives from progressive activists]. I don’t think this framing is accurate.
As Johannes discussed at length, CATF’s push for new technologies has the potential for global impact, not just national. Climate change is a global problem, not just an American one. This idea of looking at the global picture is not unique to CATF among EA recommendations, see also ITIF for example. Secondly, some of the work I’m most excited about from CATF is their thinking around zero-carbon fuels, which are going to be vital to decarbonising things like long-distance freight, international shipping etc, where battery-technology just won’t cut it. Again, I think this whole-system analysis is extremely far from just pushing for minor, incremental change.