Those sketchy Democratic Party election alliances deliver ongoing pain
By Phil Wilson
February 24, 2025
The Democratic Party and their satellite media-sphere have an abysmal record on climate with all time fossil fuel champion Joe Biden – the Mike Tyson of carbon emissions – and Kamala “I love to frack in my spare time” Harris defining the so-called green segment of the US environmental continuum. The Donald “Drill Baby Drill” Trump other end of that continuum gave us a choice between burning as much industrial extinction as we possibly can, and firing up (in theory) a tiny (inconsequential) bit less.
The Democratic strategy, ever since the chain saw wielding Trump has cut the nuts off of all the morally degraded bits of flotsam that still call themselves Republicans, has been to welcome the old Bush neocons into the blue party. One well known faction of renegade Bush whackers is The Bulwark, and for some strange reason, the algorithms fill up my Email and YouTube feed with Bulwark content. Thus I got a full on dose of “bipartisan/centrist” climate happiness this morning – an interview with the Bulwark’s own John Avlon tossing one softball question after another to self proclaimed environmentalist, Rachel Pritzker.
Pritzker is affiliated with The Breakthrough Institute, noted for the promotion of nuclear energy. Pritzker, a Hyatt Hotel scion, calls herself a philanthropist and an ecomodernist, and if she added flat earther or palm reader (she did not, unfortunately) to her bio, those would be the least concerning parts of her self embraced identity. The Breakthrough Institute just received a half billion dollar grant from The Gates Foundation, and if the climate schemes of billionaire cheerleaders for nuclear power don’t keep you awake at night, send me your sleep secrets – I need to catch up on rest.
The Breakthrough Institute and their brainchild, ecomodernism, has, for the past decade inspired a cult devoted to the worship of technology. In our unravelling times of fascist movements, environmental catastrophes and runaway inequity, it may be hard to imagine an organization bursting with optimistic faith in future innovations and free markets, but that is the giddy vibration that people like Rachel Pritzker convey. The Breakthrough Institute denies accepting money from the nuclear power industry, but it does not take professional scrutiny to blow up that claim once we realize that Bill Gates is both a massive investor in Nuclear energy and one of The Breakthrough Institute’s most lavish donors.
The Avlon interview with Pritzker offered no surprises – this is climate narrative so denuded of introspection, and serious analysis as to be fully accessible background noise to be ingested simultaneously with Steph Curry highlights on YouTube. The Pritzker interview lasted for about 12 minutes while you can watch Curry highlights non-stop for hours. Even in our dark age, some elements of proportional satisfaction still prevail.
The Pritzker interview began with a long rant by Avlon complaining that Trump has aligned himself with Putin. He then segued to Pritzker by calling for a “centrist vision for global energy policy” that left me wondering what – other than a centrist energy policy – has been busily destroying the planet since the end of WW II.
Pritzker, for her part, pointedly broke with Avlon on the bile directed at Trump. She rather offered an optimistic view of Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, noting that his confirmation hearings revealed bipartisan support for (you guessed it) nuclear energy. Pritzker launched into Breakthrough Institute talking points about avoiding shrinking “the human footprint” and focusing on the need for “abundance.” In addition to nuclear development, she talked about bipartisan support for “unleashing” the ability to mine rare earth metals by removing the “sludge” (I took sludge to be a euphemism for the treaties giving indigenous people rights to their lands – upon which over 50% of the rare earth metals needed for “renewables” are located globally.
Pritzker confusingly attempted to both distance herself from nuclear energy’s association with atomic weapons, while lauding nuclear energy as a cornerstone of “national security.” This train left the station about seven years ago when Michael Shellenberger, a co-founder of The Breakthrough Institute, “learned to love the bomb.”
I am quoting from the above referenced piece by Jim Green:
“The new sales pitch openly links nuclear power to weapons and argues that weapons programs will be jeopardised unless greater subsidies are provided for the civil nuclear industry. The US Nuclear Energy Institute, for example, tried in mid-2017 to convince politicians in Washington that if the only reactor construction projects in the US ‒ in South Carolina and Georgia ‒ weren’t completed, it would stunt development of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex.”
The simple realities that make climate mitigation nearly impossible is this: climate narratives reflect the influence of money – organizations like The Bulwark and The Breakthrough Institute have fabulously wealthy supporters. It did not trouble me much when The Bulwark or The Lincoln Project made cutesy videos skewering Trump, but I now realize this came at a steep price. Do we really want the Bulwark to now morph into an organization spewing ecomodernist climate disinformation?
Neither Jason Hickel or Kohei Saito (the most prominent voices for Degrowth) have access to the kind of cash dispensed by “Saving Democracy Together,” which donates to The Bulwark, nor to The Gates Foundation which supports The Breakthrough Institute. The public is being continuously bombarded with low quality, deceptive and manipulative climate propaganda bankrolled by wealthy interests. The progressive media, what little there is of it, has to battle a much more powerful foe.
Phil Wilson writes the blog Nobody’s Voice.
Climate Populism is Coming, But Not The Way Progressives Think
What progressives get wrong on climate populism
Progressives are right inasmuch as something along the lines of climate populism is coming, but they fundamentally don’t understand the form it is going to take. For example, the New Statesman article offers the following as examples of what climate populism could look like: “planting fruiting tree and bush varieties that are able to cope with higher summer temperatures”; “the kind of visionary community retrofit programme exemplified by Retrofit Balsall Heath in a deprived part of Birmingham, a Victorian house transformed into a zero-carbon dwelling”; and “restoration of wetlands and peatlands to reduce the danger of flooding closer to source”. These are all kind of interesting things to any climate conscious person, but they do not contain one iota of populism.
The New Statesman article highlights an error at the heart of progressive thinking on this matter: they believe they can take their existing agenda and “make it populist” through some cunning trick of messaging. In short, they think they are going to win on climate by stealthily turning more people progressive: they think that by calling themselves “populist” they will become “popular”. Not only does this strategy not work, but it assumes regular folks are a bit dim; and because they are absolutely not dim, they pick up on that assumption immediately and are put further offside.
The E&E News article is illustrated by a picture of Democrat elite Chuck Schumer, his fist punching the air like some 1960s student radical. Again, trying to summon the dark forces of populism he states, “our theme is we’re on the side of working families; they’re on the side of the wealthy”. Here we see another fundamental—dual—error on behalf of progressives. First, progressives seem oblivious to the fact that—rightly or wrongly—it is them who are perceived as the elites who have been distancing themselves from working families for the past 30 years. Second, they don’t understand who the “enemy” in populism actually is: it is not as simple as “the wealthy” because while this may stir existing progressives with a penchant for pseudo-populism, the “basket of deplorables” are less concerned about the wealthy and more concerned about political corruption which the progressives are again perceived to embody. In short, progressives just don’t get it: it’s populist cosplay, revolutionary LARPing.
So what does climate populism actually look like?
Here are the top ten themes for an authentic climate populism. In essence, it is impossible to remain a traditional progressive while being a climate populist: it requires both an expansion of self-identity and political ideology that transforms any well-meaning progressive into something altogether different.Prioritise the economic wellbeing of regular folks. It is necessary to ensure that any climate policies look after the economic wellbeing of regular folks so they can afford the cost of decarbonisation; this will probably come in the form of a massive carbon fee and dividend scheme in combination with quantitative easing, akin to a carbon-backed Universal Basic Income.
Promote cheap and secure energy. Many people do not have the mental or emotional bandwidth to worry about the future of climate change when they are worried about getting through today; this can be helped by access to affordable renewable energy, which also offers the co-benefit of energy security in geopolitically volatile times.
Transcend the left/right binary. If you tell a progressive that climate populism cannot be progressive, they will automatically assume that means it is regressive; this ignores the possibility of a more integrative political movement where people work together on a common interest and allow civilised room for differences.
Position regular folks in opposition to the elites. Populism is at heart an “us versus them” dynamic, but we need a “them” that works for a broad spectrum of people; this will be something like “the polluters and their cronies in government” where the “polluters” satisfies historical progressives who hate billionaires and “cronies in government” the historical conservatives who dislike state corruption.
Renew class consciousness. In English-speaking countries, the days of mainstream political parties having any duty of care toward the working class are long gone. Even progressives who take great pride in parroting inclusivity seem to have a special disdain for “rednecks” in the US and “chavs and gammon” in the UK: this has to stop immediately.
Talk simply. Many people are excluded from the subject of climate because it is not articulated in a language they understand: this means less “carbon drawdown” and more “pollution”, “clean air”, “clean water” and so on. And while we’re at it, balance out all the journalistic coverage of peer-reviewed science with more discussion of real-life climate impacts.
Platform charismatic leaders. There is a tendency among climate progressives to be anti-hierarchical, echoing the consensus decision-making of the Occupy movement. Climate populism needs hierarchy and stand-out leaders who ideally look and sound like the people they represent and come from outside the current political establishment.
Embrace nature. While this discussion is about “climate populism” it is not just about climate, but also nature; indeed, nature is an easier sell than climate as it is perceived as less political and draws a far broader spectrum of support.
Abandon incremental change. Most theories of change in the climate movement typically seek to influence the current power structure, which has been a total failure. The time for reformism is over: the time for revolution is here, and those theories of change need to take inspiration from Malcolm X and his statement “by any means necessary”.
Embody the right kind of energy. Most people in the climate movement—whether corporate, NGO or activist—are utterly flaccid: they do not have what it takes to move people in the current political zeitgeist. This is because they largely want to succeed within the current system rather than replace it, so they play it safe in the hope they’ll be given a job or board seat next year. The current system is dead, so burn that bridge and send a strong signal of FAFO.
But, but, but…
It is here that progressives will start rattling off a long list of why this will never work or, even worse, retreating into why it shouldn’t work and how everyone should think like they do instead. Or if they can imagine it working, they will claim it will end up being right-wing/racist/anti-democratic/authoritarian/just as bad as everyone else, yadda yadda yadda. But progressives radically underestimate two key points.
First, the climate crisis is an historically unprecedented problem that will require an historically unprecedented solution. So, because a movement such as the climate populism described above has never appeared before is of no significance as to whether it can do so now.
Second, progressives simply do not understand the nature of the “Great Realignment”. They think it is about a few people “switching sides”: of some free speech hippies switching to Trump and some suburbanites switching to Harris. They do not understand that the people are not switching sides, the sides are changing.
Something along the lines of climate populism is coming soon. The only question open for debate is who will lead it: will it be some bad actor who capitalises upon the opportunity to further their own unsavoury agenda; or will it be someone with integrity, who is genuinely in service to life on Earth?
February 23, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
Credit: Chris Yakimov / Flickr
Recently, the concept of “climate populism” has started appearing on the radar of progressives. In a UK context, an article in the New Statesman ran the headline “It’s time for climate populism” with a sub-headline of “as politics turns against net zero, we need to mobilise a genuine mass movement against ecological catastrophe”. In a US context, an article in E&E News by Politico ran the headline “Democrats think they’ve found a winning climate message” with a sub-headline of “the beleaguered party is counting on a populist approach to fight Republican attacks on climate policies”. Like a hipster dad looking at his daughter’s TikTok feed, progressives think they know what’s going on having read some hashtags but ultimately embarrass themselves when trying to slip them—or populism—into conversation.
Credit: Chris Yakimov / Flickr
Recently, the concept of “climate populism” has started appearing on the radar of progressives. In a UK context, an article in the New Statesman ran the headline “It’s time for climate populism” with a sub-headline of “as politics turns against net zero, we need to mobilise a genuine mass movement against ecological catastrophe”. In a US context, an article in E&E News by Politico ran the headline “Democrats think they’ve found a winning climate message” with a sub-headline of “the beleaguered party is counting on a populist approach to fight Republican attacks on climate policies”. Like a hipster dad looking at his daughter’s TikTok feed, progressives think they know what’s going on having read some hashtags but ultimately embarrass themselves when trying to slip them—or populism—into conversation.
What progressives get wrong on climate populism
Progressives are right inasmuch as something along the lines of climate populism is coming, but they fundamentally don’t understand the form it is going to take. For example, the New Statesman article offers the following as examples of what climate populism could look like: “planting fruiting tree and bush varieties that are able to cope with higher summer temperatures”; “the kind of visionary community retrofit programme exemplified by Retrofit Balsall Heath in a deprived part of Birmingham, a Victorian house transformed into a zero-carbon dwelling”; and “restoration of wetlands and peatlands to reduce the danger of flooding closer to source”. These are all kind of interesting things to any climate conscious person, but they do not contain one iota of populism.
The New Statesman article highlights an error at the heart of progressive thinking on this matter: they believe they can take their existing agenda and “make it populist” through some cunning trick of messaging. In short, they think they are going to win on climate by stealthily turning more people progressive: they think that by calling themselves “populist” they will become “popular”. Not only does this strategy not work, but it assumes regular folks are a bit dim; and because they are absolutely not dim, they pick up on that assumption immediately and are put further offside.
The E&E News article is illustrated by a picture of Democrat elite Chuck Schumer, his fist punching the air like some 1960s student radical. Again, trying to summon the dark forces of populism he states, “our theme is we’re on the side of working families; they’re on the side of the wealthy”. Here we see another fundamental—dual—error on behalf of progressives. First, progressives seem oblivious to the fact that—rightly or wrongly—it is them who are perceived as the elites who have been distancing themselves from working families for the past 30 years. Second, they don’t understand who the “enemy” in populism actually is: it is not as simple as “the wealthy” because while this may stir existing progressives with a penchant for pseudo-populism, the “basket of deplorables” are less concerned about the wealthy and more concerned about political corruption which the progressives are again perceived to embody. In short, progressives just don’t get it: it’s populist cosplay, revolutionary LARPing.
So what does climate populism actually look like?
Here are the top ten themes for an authentic climate populism. In essence, it is impossible to remain a traditional progressive while being a climate populist: it requires both an expansion of self-identity and political ideology that transforms any well-meaning progressive into something altogether different.Prioritise the economic wellbeing of regular folks. It is necessary to ensure that any climate policies look after the economic wellbeing of regular folks so they can afford the cost of decarbonisation; this will probably come in the form of a massive carbon fee and dividend scheme in combination with quantitative easing, akin to a carbon-backed Universal Basic Income.
Promote cheap and secure energy. Many people do not have the mental or emotional bandwidth to worry about the future of climate change when they are worried about getting through today; this can be helped by access to affordable renewable energy, which also offers the co-benefit of energy security in geopolitically volatile times.
Transcend the left/right binary. If you tell a progressive that climate populism cannot be progressive, they will automatically assume that means it is regressive; this ignores the possibility of a more integrative political movement where people work together on a common interest and allow civilised room for differences.
Position regular folks in opposition to the elites. Populism is at heart an “us versus them” dynamic, but we need a “them” that works for a broad spectrum of people; this will be something like “the polluters and their cronies in government” where the “polluters” satisfies historical progressives who hate billionaires and “cronies in government” the historical conservatives who dislike state corruption.
Renew class consciousness. In English-speaking countries, the days of mainstream political parties having any duty of care toward the working class are long gone. Even progressives who take great pride in parroting inclusivity seem to have a special disdain for “rednecks” in the US and “chavs and gammon” in the UK: this has to stop immediately.
Talk simply. Many people are excluded from the subject of climate because it is not articulated in a language they understand: this means less “carbon drawdown” and more “pollution”, “clean air”, “clean water” and so on. And while we’re at it, balance out all the journalistic coverage of peer-reviewed science with more discussion of real-life climate impacts.
Platform charismatic leaders. There is a tendency among climate progressives to be anti-hierarchical, echoing the consensus decision-making of the Occupy movement. Climate populism needs hierarchy and stand-out leaders who ideally look and sound like the people they represent and come from outside the current political establishment.
Embrace nature. While this discussion is about “climate populism” it is not just about climate, but also nature; indeed, nature is an easier sell than climate as it is perceived as less political and draws a far broader spectrum of support.
Abandon incremental change. Most theories of change in the climate movement typically seek to influence the current power structure, which has been a total failure. The time for reformism is over: the time for revolution is here, and those theories of change need to take inspiration from Malcolm X and his statement “by any means necessary”.
Embody the right kind of energy. Most people in the climate movement—whether corporate, NGO or activist—are utterly flaccid: they do not have what it takes to move people in the current political zeitgeist. This is because they largely want to succeed within the current system rather than replace it, so they play it safe in the hope they’ll be given a job or board seat next year. The current system is dead, so burn that bridge and send a strong signal of FAFO.
But, but, but…
It is here that progressives will start rattling off a long list of why this will never work or, even worse, retreating into why it shouldn’t work and how everyone should think like they do instead. Or if they can imagine it working, they will claim it will end up being right-wing/racist/anti-democratic/authoritarian/just as bad as everyone else, yadda yadda yadda. But progressives radically underestimate two key points.
First, the climate crisis is an historically unprecedented problem that will require an historically unprecedented solution. So, because a movement such as the climate populism described above has never appeared before is of no significance as to whether it can do so now.
Second, progressives simply do not understand the nature of the “Great Realignment”. They think it is about a few people “switching sides”: of some free speech hippies switching to Trump and some suburbanites switching to Harris. They do not understand that the people are not switching sides, the sides are changing.
Something along the lines of climate populism is coming soon. The only question open for debate is who will lead it: will it be some bad actor who capitalises upon the opportunity to further their own unsavoury agenda; or will it be someone with integrity, who is genuinely in service to life on Earth?
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Joseph Gelfer is a London-based sustainability strategist. He has a special interest in advocating for green jobs and a just transition to a green economy. His previous books include “Masculinities in a Global Era” and “Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy”. He has written for numerous publications such as The Guardian, The Conversation and Vice.
Joseph Gelfer is a London-based sustainability strategist. He has a special interest in advocating for green jobs and a just transition to a green economy. His previous books include “Masculinities in a Global Era” and “Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy”. He has written for numerous publications such as The Guardian, The Conversation and Vice.
No comments:
Post a Comment