“activists can start rethinking green within the context of social protection, and focus on building policies around social equity—from subsidizing green power for low-income households, to shifting jobs from coal plants to the solar panels. Environmentalism can be a populist movement—if the political framing of climate policy centers not on just cutting carbon but cultivating justice.”
scary paragraph
Indeed, that is one of the weirdest paragraphs I’ve read in a long time. I worked in scores of industrial and utility power plants as a field service engineer right out of school, and I can tell you, out of the hundreds of plant workers I worked with, NOT ONE was concerned about “cultivating justice.” They cared about getting their checks and keeping their jobs.
The author is saying the envirokooks can create a populist movement if they focus on “cultivating justice.” Shouldn’t populist movements by definition arise on their own free accord? If public opinion has to be shaped and molded so we all see the wonders of “cultivating justice,” then it cannot be a populist movement.
These people are scary because of the outsize disproportionate control they have over our everyday lives. How the tiny extreme fringe of envirokooks came to dictate how we live our lives and force things we don’t want on us is a huge mystery. Shutting down coal plants, destroying dams, light bulbs, microcars with 57 mpg, appliances that don’t work, toilets that don’t flush, and on and on.
It’s The Nation. It’s basically an old school publication for unreconstructed Marxists who are up on using all the new Leftist terminology. No one there with a lick of sense about real business.
Why I instinctively start puking when I hear that phrase “social justice” or getting “justice” of some sort. When you hear someone spouting that phrase or words, you know you have an ignoramus or an outright communist.