David Roberts @drvox Seattleite transplanted from Tennessee; now blogging for vox.com/ about energy politics. Climate hawk, deficit dove. Not a doctor. Apr. 29, 2019 1 min read

Even being forced to say this makes me feel like I'm on drugs, or in a dream or something, but: if the US were to reach 50% decarb by 2030 & 100% by 2050, it would be one of the greatest collective achievements in human history.

It is, based on everything we know about the speed of politics & social change, *highly* unlikely. It's physically possible -- that we know how to do -- but we have only the vaguest idea, only guesses, about how to generate social change that big/fast.

I would love nothing more than if we all came to consensus around that target and started talking seriously about how to achieve it. It's a big thing - MUCH bigger than the oft-invoked moon shot - but it is within the realm of the conceivable at least.

But to say "100% decarb by 2030" takes you out of the conceivable into the ludicrous. The only way you could pull that off is through something akin to martial law, with gov't taking direct control of multiple industries & consciously scrapping trillions in assets.

As I said, all this feels vaguely dreamlike, since in reality, US GHG emissions are rising & we aren't doing jack shit about it. Beto has a plan that, a few years ago -- hell, FIVE MINUTES ago -- would've been viewed as wildly, head-spinningly ambitious.

Indeed, it IS wildly ambitious. Any plan to decarb by 2050 is wildly ambitious. To go out telling young progressive activists that this plan is some kind of milquetoast sellout ... it just boggles my mind.


You can follow @drvox.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Become member.