Next book is "Thinking in Systems", by Donella H. Meadows, because eventually I'll have to back up all my mutterings about "self-reinforcing behaviors".
Next book is "Winning the Green New Deal: Why We Must, How We Can", edited by Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti of the Sunrise Movement. A collection of essays by environmentalists and policy folks.
"Indeed, to support fuel conservation during World War II, pleasure driving was virtually eliminated in the UK, and between 1938 and 1944, use of public transit went up by 87% in the US and by 97% in Canada. Twenty million US households - representing three-fifths of the population - were growing #victorygardens in 1943, and they accounted for 42% of the fresh vegetables consumed that year. Interestingly, all of these activities together dramatically reduce carbon emissions."
In his book, "Merge Left: Fusing Race and Class, Winning Elections, and Saving America", Ian Haney López compared two economically populist narratives with a nationally representative sample of 2,000:
"To make life better for the working people we need to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and get government out of the way."
"To make life better for working people we need to invest in education, create better-paying jobs, and make health care more affordable for people struggling to make ends meet."
"The progressive message beat the unrestrained-capitalism message by a whopping 32 points. This result confirms that voters generally prefer progressive over pro-business economic policies." However, the study found that messages that relied on racial fear were more effective. So the developed and tested a counterveilling core narrative:
"(1) distrust greedy elites sowing division, (2) join together across racial lines, and (3) demand that government work for all racial groups, whites included. These elements provided the scoffolding on which we built nine diffeerent messages. The race-class sotry they told proved remarkably powerful." - Studies found that the majority of the represeanttive sample found it compelling.
"([Exxon's] predictions have proven startlingly accurate, with carbon levels today basically in line with their graphs.) And they were believed by their bosses: #exxon began building its drilling rigs higher to compensate for the rise in sea level they knew was on the way."
😱 That's... astounding. They knew that the seas would rise, and their response was to hide this fact and protect their assets? How can anyone think that unregulated business is safe?
Rhiana Gunn-Wright says the pillars "problem, principles, and power... anchor policymaking from conception to execution."
"When it comes to climate change, you will hear people support (or refute) certain policies because it's what 'science dictates.' Science can help us to understand the extent of the climate crisis, identify its causes, and measure its severity. It can even suffrage timelines for action. But science cannot tell us what policy options to pursue. That is a matter of principles."
"If you cut your teeth in policymaking anytime in the past forty years of American politics, you've been surrounded by neoliberal theory presenting itself as 'common sense'."
Yes! It reminds me of the point made in "Inventing the Future", how #neoliberalism itself unseated the reigning ideology of Keynsian economics. Every dominating paradigm is "common sense" until it is displaced.
"... the most significant influence - at least during the early development of the GND - was a body of economic theory called the 'new consensus.' Exemplified by work of economists like Ha-Joon Chang, Mariana Mazzucato, Kate Raworth, Ann Pettifor, and Joseph Stiglitz, the new consensus rejects neoliberalism as the 'right 'governing paradigm for modern states."
"...Instead, [the new consensus] contends that many of the crises that we face are the result not of government overreach but of government's abdicating its economic responsibilities: as a market creator, as an industrial planner, and as an innovator. "
"Three additional principles from the New Consensus economists guide Green New Dealers as we craft policy.
First, the US government, at levels, must have a coordinated vision and strategy for a new "green" economy...
Second, public spending and investment are essential, not just for infrastructure and 'public goods' but for innovation.
Third, the #GreenNewDeal should invest in the real economy, not financialization."
"...But vision alone is not enough. The US has not undertaken a substantial economic mobilization in eighty years, and, in the wake of neoliberalism, policymakers do not know how to design one. They need a framework, which the New Green Deal provides."
"... all GND policy, whether narrow or , serves a triple bottom line: achieve decarbonization goals set of by H.R. 109, reduce income inequality, and redress systemic oppression."
" Second, GND policy works to shape markets and create demand so the low-carbon and no-carbon goods become the default, rather than the alternative to carbon intensive goods."
Joseph Stiglitz - "Even the way the question ["can we afford it?"] is posed wrong: when the US was attached in 1941, no one asked, "Can we afford to fight the war?" It was an existential matter. We could not afford *not* to fight it. The same is true for climate change. Moreover, as we have ... noted, we will pay for #climatechange one way or another, so or makes sense to spend money now to reduce emissions rather than pay a lot more to manage the consequences... in short, we *must* afford it."
Something I'm learning from this book is the power of presenting radical change as obvious and common sense action.
"The Green New Deal is the sensible action that we need to take to build a thriving economy where all working people make progress together. It will keep the cities and towns we live in livable, and it will invest in communities on the verge of falling behind, revitalizing infrastructure and resurrecting neighborhoods that are very ignored."
David Roberts: "An intense, activated constituency beats broad, shallow support every time. Intense constituencies are levers that move politicians. Polls aren't."
Reference to Chenoweth and Stephans book "Why Civil Resistance Works"! https://twitter.com/derekcaelin/status/961231573830991873?s=1
..."when 3.5 percent of the population engaged persistently in nonviolent organizing and action during a movement for liberation - in boycotts, marches, strikes, civil disobedience, and campaigns - the movement was able to overthrow a regime. Consistent mass participation in a nonviolent movement sways the public to ally with the campaign..."
"Historian Adam Fairclough notes that [in 1963] the prospect of further protests forced the White House to change course:
'For two years [US Attorney General] Robert Kennedy had attempted to deal with each racial crisis on an ad hoc basis. Birmingham finally convinced him that crises would recur with such frequency and magnitude that the federal government, unless it adopted a more radical policy, would be overwhelmed.'"
Prakash notes that movements require preparation and organization.
"The student-led sit-in movement of 1960 and 1961 alone involved 50,000 participants across the South. Behind every major movement campaign is years of arduous preparation, including many failures."
Reminds me of the point by Zeynep Tufekci in "Twitter and Teargas" of how hard it is to organize:
NFFM - No Fossil Fuel Money pledge
Campaign tactic: "Bird-dogging", requires only two people: "one person challenges a politician with dual questions and another records the response for the social media and press."
"Studies show that movements that appear visually unified - through using the same chants, songs, and visuals - are more receive at garnering support for their cause. " (Which studies are these? )
@Argus What edge does a prediction give you if you publish it? That only makes sense for untrue predictions.
@Argus the difference between activism and politics
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!