> Taking coal as an example.. Pro-climate folks would throw the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus, too, to achieve climate policies that pro-climate folks believe will help them long-term.
Let me fix that for you: ... that pro-climate folks believe will help EVERYONEshort to medium-term. As in, stopping the burning of coal will slow the rate of climate change, which will keep our planet more habitable. For example, avoid having the bulk of Florida underwater in a few decades. Avoid ever more powerful storms, forest fires, droughts, floods.
Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous. Again, this is just bothsideism.
Because those pro-climate people also tend to be Democrats, who are the ones who actually care about providing enough unemployment assistance to allow people to live while they are looking for work. Who fund programs that allow people to learn new skills so they can start new careers.
Republicans are the ones cutting benefits, from SCHIP to regular unemployment benefits, and are going out of their way to make getting benefits as incompatible as possible with the daily life of someone struggling to get by. Have you looked at the hoops that some of the red states make the poor and unemployed jump through?
And finally, Democrats want to provide high quality, affordable health care for everyone, not just those people rich enough to afford it, which is the Republican platform. Coal mining is an unhealthy job. Are the coal companies going to pay for all the health care retired miners need?
That pro-climate folks think it'll help everyone else too is irrelevant to the example. Certainly, climate policy aims for outcomes they want for themselves.
The example assumes nothing about the outcome of any such policy other than it surely makes it harder for a coal miner to put food on the table in the near term.
That is, pro-climate folks seek outcomes that are at least short-term detrimental to others. This is a direct contradiction to the earlier claim that one party in the US has a monopoly on such behavior.
> Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous.
Uhh, no.
Source: Extended family that was well-paid within the mining industry until regulatory changes during the prior presidential administration caused a sharp contraction in that industry.
Let me fix that for you: ... that pro-climate folks believe will help EVERYONE short to medium-term. As in, stopping the burning of coal will slow the rate of climate change, which will keep our planet more habitable. For example, avoid having the bulk of Florida underwater in a few decades. Avoid ever more powerful storms, forest fires, droughts, floods.
Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous. Again, this is just bothsideism.
Because those pro-climate people also tend to be Democrats, who are the ones who actually care about providing enough unemployment assistance to allow people to live while they are looking for work. Who fund programs that allow people to learn new skills so they can start new careers.
Republicans are the ones cutting benefits, from SCHIP to regular unemployment benefits, and are going out of their way to make getting benefits as incompatible as possible with the daily life of someone struggling to get by. Have you looked at the hoops that some of the red states make the poor and unemployed jump through?
And finally, Democrats want to provide high quality, affordable health care for everyone, not just those people rich enough to afford it, which is the Republican platform. Coal mining is an unhealthy job. Are the coal companies going to pay for all the health care retired miners need?