Environmental Politics, Maryland and the Nation: if "Paradise" burning could not suffice, what can?

Thanks for the steady flow of info.  I've been preoccupied with a physical move, the proverbial downsizing, since early March, so I have not been writing much on politics and the environment.  I also thought it was the decent thing to do to give President Biden his first 100 days honeymoon without being subject to the full Monty of  Green New Deal inspired policy disputes.  Except on the $15 minimum wage, which I have supported (actually higher than $15, easily justified by looking at productivity and inflation since the 1970's) back when it was a Utopian feature pushed by Dean Baker and myself and not many others in Maryland.  I was working at Target in MoCo for $8.50 an hour at the time, with not many hours.

I just read, this morning, the following Op-Ed piece at Maryland Matters on the big piece of climate legislation we did not get.  I do not know the author's name at all, nor many of the groups or individuals which make up her organization.  But it was a clearly written piece which focused on the politics of Chairman Kumar Barve, and a lot of her criticism rang true to my years of experience with him.  And I like the way the writing addressed his rationales for watering it down: counterpoised to different experts from outside Maryland and at odds with the usual Maryland power centers (real estate, building, energy)  opposing environmental legislation.    Here's the piece:  https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/04/15/opinion-the-house-is-listening-to-the-wrong-people-for-climate-solutions/  (The author is Cecilia Plante, Co-Chair of the Maryland Legislative Coalition and Chair of the MLC Justice Wing.) 

Would love to know what you think of her conclusions.

In the same spirit,  I'm still following Todd Fernandez and his crew at Climate Crisis Policy,(CCP) and this is a brief summary video of where we are:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sADVOz2Lsg 

In a nutshell, the strategy is to have one major piece of legislation which has the support of the entire range of environmental groups around the country, which number 5,000-7,000 by some counts, and which has been developed outside the legislative sausage making factory (but is well aware, as their site shows, of where all the introduced bills have been and who has and has not supported them, an incredible compilation led by an enviro grad student at Columbia Univ. , Rachel Goodgal.)... now the very interesting thing about Todd is that he comes out of the sexual rights revolution and immigrant causes, is a lawyer who in my judgement has a very similar assessment of the political/policy cycle as my own, as I have seen it over the years:  write the bills that will get the job done, not where you think the "center" will be, get the broadest sign on, and then take it to the legislative arena.   Needless to say, this is probably pretty threatening to the major national groups, but they deserve a little constructive criticism.   Compromise always happens; the question is at what stage of the process and whether the compromises can actually get the job done.  I was at an online mtg. last Saturday, and was impressed with the critique Jim Walsh of Food and Water Watch gave of all the faux solutions most on the lips of legislators and the center, including cap and trade, offsets, carbon pricing and hydrogen driven models.  And, oh yes, he panned  carbon capture and storage.  (Jim is the policy honcho for FWW.)   Here's the link - I found it to be a most informative hour or so...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZ1Hq3RHK0

I think I know political charisma when I see it - Jamie Raskin and AOC, right out of the gate - and Todd has it, tempered by a judicial bearing in handling meetings and  respectful of opposition.  I found it both interesting and refreshing to see a very savvy policy and political organizer from outside the conservation community come in and look at why we haven't succeeded - and propose a remedy.  In one sense, "outside the box," but not outside how our system currently operates when faced with major policy initiatives. In many ways in both a macro and micro sense, CCP has undertaken the work which should have been done by the Select Standing Committee on the Green New Deal which Speaker Pelosi gave thumbs down on.  An enormous job.  

Yet it is still an open question whether this nation, and Congress as it stands, can accomplish the vast changes CCP calls for, or any major and effective climate policy legislation.  Right now, we are not capable of the scale of change required either on a practical or theoretical/ideological level.  Yet what else can we do but prepare the bills we believe will do the job, and hope for the breaks which unknown events might deliver in our favor?  "Paradise" burning down was not sufficient.  It is not clear that enough institutional leader's minds can be persuaded in time or that we can overcome the 70 million or so voters who supported a candidate who doesn't see a crisis at all, just a leftist power grab underneath a "fake crisis."  

Best to you all,

Bill of Rights

Frostburg, MD

PS It has become fashionable among commentators to share what they are reading.  I'll keep the list as short as possible: Rick Perlstein's "The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan"; Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin"; Simon Schama's "Landscape and Memory."  And two movies online that you can find at YouTube, they go with  the findings of "Bloodlands" and "Landscape and Memory."  They are "Come and See," and "72 Hours."  They are a warning to us all, to  where the type of divisions which led to January 6th have gone in other countries in Central and Eastern Europe in the 20th Century.   One half my heritage.