I don't disagree with you at all in terms of the solution. I didn't mean to imply that all conceptions of the term "Green New Deal" represent a solution, but simply that there is broad support for doing
something. The policy advocates I take seriously absolutely recognize that a solution cannot constitute more industrialization and emissions, but they also recognize that if we radically do less under our current paradigm, the people who are barely scraping by now will be crushed.
In terms of energy efficiency, it is obviously crucial, but under our current system every improvement simply represents surplus capital which then goes towards growth and expansion. Changing that, again, requires collective long-term planning and decision making which is being subverted.
I think it is giving far too much (or too little?) credit to the powerful to say there is "ignorance at the top". There is not ignorance at the top. They have demonstrably understood this looming crisis for a very long time, and what we are seeing is the expansion and fortification of existing power relationships in the face of it.
If ignorance and lies are being spread at other levels of power, again, I think it's worth asking "by what means?" and "for whose benefit?"
In terms of energy efficiency, it is obviously crucial, but under our current system every improvement simply represents surplus capital which then goes towards growth and expansion. Changing that, again, requires collective long-term planning and decision making which is being subverted.
I think it is giving far too much (or too little?) credit to the powerful to say there is "ignorance at the top". There is not ignorance at the top. They have demonstrably understood this looming crisis for a very long time, and what we are seeing is the expansion and fortification of existing power relationships in the face of it.
If ignorance and lies are being spread at other levels of power, again, I think it's worth asking "by what means?" and "for whose benefit?"