@shadihamid If anything a bit more “Islamist” (just broadly traditionalist on cultural values) influence on Democrats would be welcomed by me and many others.
New England has been much more effective at blocking new fossil fuel infrastructure than Colorado has, but much less effective at achieving these kind of goals that actually make people's lives better.
Some relevant lessons in this.
Big clean power milestone in Colorado!
More than half of the state's power across the year is now generated from wind, solar, and a bit of hydro.
Wind and solar power have more than tripled in the last decade, pushing fossil power below 50%, down from over 80% in 2015.
There’s a reason Mike Rogers has the worst favorable/unfavorable ratings of any Michigan statewide candidate. If you scoured the state, you could not find a less likable person to run for Senate. Yet the GOP elites pushed for him to be the nominee—twice!
Amidst a lot of vogueish radicalism on economic policy, my sense is we’ve somehow managed to actually talk less about the problems of poor people which IMO is the main issue with the American economy.
Perlstein once made a version of this argument where he analogized his preferred vision for progressive politics to Airbus' success at betting big on the A 380.
...Making and sticking to moral commitments builds political power in the long term, because it makes voters see your party as trustworthy, whereas the alternative--trimming on moral issues--makes you seem squirrelly: unworthy of THEIR trust.
A big theme of my next book.
As we continue to dig into the BAAJA language, I’m particularly interested in seeing emissions reductions front and center.
RFF has new and encouraging reporting showing the bill could reduce CO₂ emissions by 1.8 billion metric tons through 2041—equivalent to the annual emissions of 4,710 natural gas-fired power plants.
From where I sit, it appears the divide in the environmental community on permitting reform is between those who make money from expansion of renewable energy and reduction in CO2 (who support it) and those who make money from filing lawsuits (who oppose it).
Unfunded inclusionary zoning counts on housing scarcity as its financing mechanism so cities that pursue it can’t — by definition — ever eliminate structural housing shortages no matter what else they do in other areas.
Everybody should be able to get free (or maybe super-cheap) health care services from the government ... not sure if this is "Medicare for All" or not.
We have reached the “actually, the clean energy industry is bad” phase of the Ouroboros cycle.
This model of advocacy cannot take a win, it has to always be fighting—in this case, against the Senate’s foremost climate champion, Sheldon Whitehouse—otherwise it would case to exist.
I think moderate members need to draw their own hard line here and insist that Jeffies not bring bills that don’t have 218 to the floor — there is no point in doing this except to make frontliners look bad.
I don’t understand these PDF-length treatments of AI bubble scenarios.
I don’t think a crash is coming but if it happens the only needed policy response is “don’t do anything.” Some investors will lose money and interest rates will fall. It’s fine. That’s my PDF.