Thanks, Hans. I’ll have a look at the Marshall-Monbiot discussion. But what alternative “policy approaches” would attract conservatives and still be effective? The manifesto calls for an end to subsidies, a carbon tax, and increased royalties to drive up the cost of fossil fuels along with higher taxes on the corporations, the wealthy, and investors and cuts to military spending to support massive state/private sector investments in clean energy technologies and infrastructure. These are Keynesian rather than socialist solutions. Which proposals would you drop and what would you put in their place? As it is, the manifesto has attracted the widest possible support from many groups and individuals, as you can see here: https://leapmanifesto.org/en/whos-on-board/
Admittedly, there aren’t signatories linked to the corporations, their lobbies, or the Conservative party, but it’s not realistic to expect there would be. Unless you have other constituencies with “conservative values” in mind which are not apparent to me. > On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Marv Gandall asked: > >> How would you amend the Leap Manifesto, if at all, to bring it into >> line with your views on economic growth and climate change? > > Here is the link to the Leap Manifesto: > > https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/#manifesto-content > > Here is my answer to Marv's question: Economic growth is bad for the > planet, but a manifesto rallying a mass movement around climate change > should not be brought in line with my views on economic growth. This > would be putting the cart before the horse. > > The discussion between George Monbiot and George Marshall in the > Guardian Live forum at > > http://youtub.one/watch/0cCCanfgZ4A > > is relevant for the Leap Manifesto and other policies based on Naomi > Klein's "This Changes Everything." The Leap manifesto raises climate > change as an issue and at the same time promotes left-wing policies to > solve it. According to George Marshall, this is the wrong approach. > Climate change should not be used to promote left-wing policies. > Marshall rejects the vanguard approach which says that the most > committed 20 percent of the populace will be able to determine policies > and the others will come along. Marshall argues the changes in policy > and culture are so big and must happen at such a fast pace that "coming > along" is not enough; conservatives (and everyone else) must be brought > on board as active promoters, not passive or reluctant followers. > (These are my words trying to succinctly summarize Marshall's views, > Marshall uses other words.) Conservatives can be brought on board > because the lifestyles necessary for a sustainable economy are > compatible with conservative values. We need to break Climate Silence > and start a broad discussion based on the recognition of climate change > as an existential threat, in which all policy approaches must be on the > table, not only left-wing policies. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
