So what you're saying is that we should push policies we think will not generate popular support that can't pass, regardless of the consequences? I genuinely don't understand the point you're making, not trying to be difficult.
Legislatures have a much better chance of voting for a carbon tax than the people, and they should prioritize this over other green initiatives.
The more fundamental issue is how the climate issue is framed in the US. The narrative is that we can drastically cut emissions without affecting the average family's livelihoods, but the greedy Republicans just won't let that happen. In reality, everyone needs to make a sacrifice, and we can do a better job of acknowledging these sacrifices. As coal becomes becomes less popular, thousands of people will lose their jobs. It's disrespectful to suggest that this isn't a problem because we can just retrain them to build windmills. I don't have a good solution either, but much more effective legislation would be passed if Democrats and Republicans worked together rather than spend time fighting.
I'm sure you'll point that Republicans are less willing to compromise than Democrats, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
> Legislatures have a much better chance of voting for a carbon tax than the people, and they should prioritize this over other green initiatives.
Without public support I just have trouble seeing that happen. I don't think we disagree that much though.
> It's disrespectful to suggest that this isn't a problem because we can just retrain them to build windmills.
I certainly would agree that the people who lose jobs would mostly not be the same people who would be trained to take the new jobs that would be created. I remember reading Janesville and being pretty clearly convinced that skills training programs to people who lose their jobs are often counter-productive. That said, I do still think overall for the economy it'd be a positive.
