. focused on health , higher ed, housing, and child care, but I immediately thought of clean energy, and how we subsidize demand for solar panels while making them difficult to site, or incentivize new nuclear projects while making licensing reactors a nightmare.
Conversation
As the paper put it, "The traditional socialist call to 'seize the means of production' has thus been updated to something closer to 'subsidize my cost of living.'"
1
6
15
Hence why the Green New Deal turned out not to be much of a New Deal program at all, but rather an extension of grants/tax credits for private sector developers.
1
1
8
Much can be said for this spending. But subsidizing demand for low-carbon technology comes with serious risks if policymakers don’t attend to the supply side by dismantling the regulatory bottlenecks that make it hard to build anything in this country.
1
3
8
From NEPA/CEQA to the Jones Act to onerous regulations on innovation at NRC/USDA/FDA to the Endangered Species Act to zoning, the environmental regulatory morass of last century is blocking the deployment of tech/infrastructure needed to address environmental problems today.
1
6
20
1
2
9
Maybe spending billions of trillions on clean energy deployment will prompt regulatory reform? Don't count on it. As puts it, "order matters."
thecgo.org/benchmark/dere
2
3
5
. read the paper as a clarion call to Republicans to abandon "starve the beast" conservative politics and adopt a more affirmative, disciplining approach to federal spending.
1
1
5
But also noted that cost-disease socialism is equally a problem for the left, which he said needs to develop a new "supply-side progressivism."
1
1
5
1
2
6
So what's stopping this? On environmental issues, the most powerful opponent of an abundance agenda is the institutional environmentalist movement.
Replying to
As I recently told , the problem is policy that "penalizes and regulates technology, infrastructure and growth — often quite explicitly."
1
1
6
Cost-disease environmentalism is the outcome of an environmentalist movement that admits an affection for solar panels and wind turbines while still committed to the broader technophobia, NIMBYism, precautionary principle, and naturalistic fallacy that comprised its origins.
2
2
11
As I noted yesterday, if the goal is an abundant clean-energy future, it might not be possible to just tinker around the edges of conventional environmentalism. More wholesale reconstruction is necessary.
Quote Tweet
These critiques are well-founded by wrong.
Environmentalism wasn’t established to address global environmental problems with technology. It was established to wall local environments off from technology. Sunrise’s stance here is perfectly consistent w/ environmentalism. twitter.com/Noahpinion/sta…
Show this thread
1
2
5
For more on what more comprehensive reconstruction of environmentalism would look like, I encourage you to check out this website.
thebreakthrough.org
/fin
5
7