lord help me but i'm doing a Thread bc i want to say more about this approach to climate policy. it's very common among liberal wonks and assumes a policy realm where any incrementalist tweaking = progress. this is totally divorced from the material reality of climate change. 1/5 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1248254193703493633

the IPCC report is unambiguous on this: if we do not hit the requisite emissions targets within the requisite timeframe, we are inviting catastrophe. if a plan does not meet these standards, it should rightfully be deemed a failure. *climate reality precludes gradualism.* 2/5

this is the fundamental failure of framing climate policy within the context of what's offered by Rs/Ds: you're reduced to truisms like "cutting emissions > raising emissions" that perpetuate the *false* notion that either option on the table is even remotely sufficient. 3/5

this is not to say that cutting emissions isn't better on some level than increasing emissions, but *any* plan that fails to meet these standards is fundamentally inadequate. grading climate plans on a curve that requires flouting the earth's material limits is nonsensical. 4/5

organizations like @sunrisemvmt are often accused of being impractical, but their grades are the most realistic of the bunch. the policy folks that insist on binding their evaluations to political discourses that ignore our climate reality are the ones adhering to fantasy. 5/5