I wish it was only about carbon without the social welfare proposals, such as
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages….
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;….
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;….
(O) providing all people of the United States with
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.
You may or may not think these are worthy aspirations, but such social engineering proposals are exactly what turns off some of the (rational) opponents of action on climate change. And I can’t say I blame them. If Republicans came forth with comprehensive climate/energy legislation that also included banning abortions, ensuring nationwide right-to-work laws, and (still more) tax breaks for the wealthy, I’d oppose it no matter what the climate section proposed. I don’t understand why AOC and the 37 other sponsoring Democratic representatives don’t see that.
I agree, though I might still tentatively support this hypothetical Republican plan to mitigate climate change.
The general idea that climate change legislation should only tackle climate change is something I support completely. In order to build a big tent of support for tackling climate change, we need to limit the areas of potential disagreement. Talking about union jobs or taxes for the rich might be important but it isn’t going to reduce emissions and will only drive people away from the climate tent.