“I don’t think we “disagree”; but maybe you have a different goal in mind.

I want Hillary to win, and even more so I want down-ticket Democrats to win.”

This implies that I don’t appreciate how important it is for the Democratic candidates to win. No one has argued more consistently about the need to defeat the Republicans than I.

“…and I don’t think putting CC front and center actually helps that much with the groups you are talking about.”

My argument has not been about “putting CC front and center,” but about tying it to issues that have higher resonance, thereby showing how far-reaching climate change is in its effects. Please take another look at what I wrote in #7.

“So, ‘we’re going to do create jobs in renewables rather than in FF extraction’ is the correct platform. This may seem overly subtle parsing to you, but I think it is important.”

This is a straw man. No one has suggested that associating renewables with job creation is incorrect. The job creating potential of renewable energy is one of the issues climate change awareness should be tied to. To the extent that your argument is a repetition of your focus on positive messaging, I would repeat that fear, as the Trump campaign has demonstrated, is a powerful motivator, and note that fear and hope are related. This is about dialectics, not either/or. In areas plagued by fossil fuel related pollution, it would make sense to talk about that threat, and also how it can be dealt with. In areas threatened by rising sea levels, it would be foolish to ignore that. An argument for renewable or clean energy is at the same time an argument against non-renewable or dirty energy.

“What I do disagree about (which may be Greg’s thinking if not yours) is that what is said in the campaign will affect what policies are actually implemented after the election. The reality is that this depends on the makeup of Congress as much as anything.”

Another misrepresentation. Another straw man. Neither Greg nor I have argued that the makeup of Congress is inconsequential. The only ones who seem to ignore the importance of Congress are some of the less reflective Bernie supporters, and I don’t think you can find any evidence that Greg or I belong to that category. My own position has been that this election is not about major new reforms, which because of Congress will be dead on arrival, but about preventing the Republicans from eviscerating approximately 100 years of progress. But does what is said in the campaign have other consequences? Indeed it does.

This is my last contribution to this discussion.

I don’t think we “disagree”; but maybe you have a different goal in mind.

I want Hillary to win, and even more so I want down-ticket Democrats to win. If that happens, and climate change is never mentioned, I will be happy, and I think progress will be made on the FF issue by the new government.

I can only go by my best strategic/tactical instincts as a long-time political junkie on this, and I don’t think putting CC front and center actually helps that much with the groups you are talking about.

Of course it is necessary to show that Dems are on the side of environmental responsibility, but that comes within the context of infrastructure spending and job creation. So, “we’re going to do create jobs in renewables rather than in FF extraction” is the correct platform. This may seem overly subtle parsing to you, but I think it is important.

What I do disagree about (which may be Greg’s thinking if not yours) is that what is said in the campaign will affect what policies are actually implemented after the election. The reality is that this depends on the makeup of Congress as much as anything. If it is a big Dem victory, I’m sure Bernie will introduce a carbon-tax bill, and if it passes (which will require compromise of course) Hillary would sign it.

Yes, I absolutely agree that wealth concentration is a problem– but it is in fact an objective economic one. It distorts the working of markets and leads to economic difficulties for everyone except the wealthy.

But you are the one who brings up psychology when you talk about despair and societal responses.

As for “blaming the victim”, I don’t really think in terms of “blame” but whether I feel sympathy and/or empathy. We can’t ignore the history. The South has traditionally been anti-union. The South also did not worry about mill workers in New England losing jobs when companies “onshored” there to access lower wages and less environmental regulation.

The point is, those people were content to make less money and have wealthy overlords as long as they could feel superior to minorities and women. Now, we still don’t see the nice “solidarity forever” sentiment from those great old union songs; they don’t want to raise everyone up together, but rather round up the dirty Mexicans and ship them off.

And you know that is completely illogical. Change will come when the US underclass stops allowing itself to be divided and conquered because they are afraid of people who look different.

So would mine be, but you’re reducing despair to one possible psychological cause, while ignoring other psychological causes, and, more importantly, the economic reasons for despair.

“If they choose to be anti-union, which most of these people do, that is their problem, not mine.”

To me, this is an example of blaming the victim. There are law firms that specialize in union busting. Many companies oppose unions and persecute organizers. Republican governors and legislatures have repeatedly passed anti-union laws. The mine workers union has been an important line of defense for the people you condemn.

No, I’m not missing the point about wealth concentration. Once again you’re reducing economy to psychology. It is undebatable that the wealthiest Americans are receiving and possess a greater portion of America’s wealth than they did 40 years ago. Looking at the relative positions of the losers doesn’t change that.

” …marginalized a large number of people and caused them to despair and sometimes seek desperate solutions.”

I don’t know your personal history, but I think you are ignoring US history. I was there when US cities were burning because African-Americans were “living with despair and seeking desperate solutions”. And I mean, I worked in one of those neighborhoods; I didn’t watch it on tv. A scary commute for a young white guy.

If people feel despair because they can no longer feel superior to other people, my sympathy is greatly diminished. If they choose to be anti-union, which most of these people do, that is their problem, not mine.

You seem to be missing the point about wealth concentration. The socio-economic change that had the most profound effect was uplift of women and minorities at the expense of white males. Wealth was concentrated before, in the hands of those white males, but more important was relative position. This phenomenon has been well studied. It’s not how much money you have, it’s how much more you have than those in your approximate class. I assume you have read about this.

A few points.
Fear can be a very potent motivator.
Negative things should be described as they are.
When we use the term clean energy we are either explicitly or implicitly contrasting it with dirty energy. The positive is a contrast to a negative.
“…that other concerns shouldn’t be higher.” That climate change is more important.
There’s no talk of a “supposed ‘golden age,’ ” only the reality that socio-economic changes (e.g. concentration of wealth, weakening of unions, globalization, automation) have marginalized a large number of people and caused them to despair and sometimes seek desperate solutions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/a-great-divide-in-american-death-statistics-show-widening-urban-rural-health-gap/2016/04/09/0d8696ae-f2b6-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf

First, there’s no need to be so defensive all the time– I’m trying to refine the argument, not refute it.

Second, on motivating the public: It’s about “framing” and language:

“…reliance on fossil fuels costs more…”

is negative language.

I may be misunderstanding “We can agree that other concerns shouldn’t be higher…”. But I think other concerns should be higher in the framing.

Teslas get great acceleration, have good quality, and have all kinds of tech characteristics that would appeal to the iPhone generation. That’s how you advertise them.

Same with solar panels; jobs and selling electricity and having backup in a storm and all that comes first. Not fear of some bad climate effects in the future.

Because those are positive incentives, OK? The social responsibility aspect is a bonus– important selling point, but people just don’t connect with the future as much as we would like them to.

Now, I don’t want to go on forever, but let me say that these comparisons with the supposed “golden age” are not convincing. Remember that the “good manufacturing jobs” created pollution and shoddy products, and minorities and women were excluded from the economic benefits. Why do you think all those union guys supported Reagan?