I've been reading Yglesias on this topic for a long time and my views are very aligned with his, so I don't have anything to add to the main points here.
But I'll push back a bit or perhaps just expand upon on the concluding thought about climate anxiety. I think Yglesias is fails to recognize or is underplays that for most people who care about this problem, there really isn't a clear path to their making a personal impact toward solutions. Not everyone can contribute by using their large writing platform to influence policy! It's great to say that people should apply their talent and intellect toward making geothermal energy viable, but very very few people actually have that capability. Sure, pretty much anyone can contribute in a more generic way in a non specialized role at an organization working on that, but even then, there are too few of those roles to employ everybody who cares about this. The easiest way to contribute is to donate, but many people are just living paycheck to paycheck and can't even do that.
It is not surprising that people who can't see any way to contribute to the solution feel helpless and anxious. I'm curious what Yglesias would suggest for them. Vote?
Those are excellent points. I think Yglesias says in this interview that one of the most impactful things that middle-class Westerners can do is donate to high-impact charities that help the people most at risk from climate change, like those assessed by GiveWell that are focused on avoiding deaths from preventable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously that wouldn't be recommended for someone living paycheck to paycheck, though.
I personally would recommend voting for climate-smart candidates, donating if it doesn't negatively impact your family's standard of living, and supporting positive-climate-impact projects when they come your way-perhaps testifying at a zoning board or town meeting in support of proposed renewable energy development, for example.
Great interview! Your question and answers covered a lot of ground and left this reader with the feeling he understands now Matt's philosophical outlook pretty well: pragmatic, gradualist, forward thinking and concerned with equity outcomes. No "doomer" he! But also very far from laissez faire. Congratulations on having such an important voice weighing in on such important topics. Also, loved your parentheticals!
Thanks a lot! I think your comment is a really good summary of this interview's energy. And thanks for the shoutout-I definitely use parentheticals a lot in my writing, and I try to make them interesting.
I've been reading Yglesias on this topic for a long time and my views are very aligned with his, so I don't have anything to add to the main points here.
But I'll push back a bit or perhaps just expand upon on the concluding thought about climate anxiety. I think Yglesias is fails to recognize or is underplays that for most people who care about this problem, there really isn't a clear path to their making a personal impact toward solutions. Not everyone can contribute by using their large writing platform to influence policy! It's great to say that people should apply their talent and intellect toward making geothermal energy viable, but very very few people actually have that capability. Sure, pretty much anyone can contribute in a more generic way in a non specialized role at an organization working on that, but even then, there are too few of those roles to employ everybody who cares about this. The easiest way to contribute is to donate, but many people are just living paycheck to paycheck and can't even do that.
It is not surprising that people who can't see any way to contribute to the solution feel helpless and anxious. I'm curious what Yglesias would suggest for them. Vote?
Those are excellent points. I think Yglesias says in this interview that one of the most impactful things that middle-class Westerners can do is donate to high-impact charities that help the people most at risk from climate change, like those assessed by GiveWell that are focused on avoiding deaths from preventable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously that wouldn't be recommended for someone living paycheck to paycheck, though.
I personally would recommend voting for climate-smart candidates, donating if it doesn't negatively impact your family's standard of living, and supporting positive-climate-impact projects when they come your way-perhaps testifying at a zoning board or town meeting in support of proposed renewable energy development, for example.
Great interview! Your question and answers covered a lot of ground and left this reader with the feeling he understands now Matt's philosophical outlook pretty well: pragmatic, gradualist, forward thinking and concerned with equity outcomes. No "doomer" he! But also very far from laissez faire. Congratulations on having such an important voice weighing in on such important topics. Also, loved your parentheticals!
Thanks a lot! I think your comment is a really good summary of this interview's energy. And thanks for the shoutout-I definitely use parentheticals a lot in my writing, and I try to make them interesting.