Julian overstated his case here and deserves some of the push-back he's getting.

But the point he's making isn't wrong. https://twitter.com/jnoisecat/status/1391771504514420738

The technical challenges of energy transition are immense.

Everyone agrees we can get to around 90% renewable, but the last 10% is the most technically difficult.

Some want the 10% to be all renewable no matter cost. Some prefer nuclear, or natural gas w CCS, to fill the gap.

Where you fall largely depends your interests.

Environmental justice groups advocate 100% renewable in hopes of avoiding further fossil-fueled sacrifice zones.

Unions with a stake in the fossil fuel sector prefer to leave the door open for CCS.

The truth is, politically, given the closeness of labor to Team Biden, there is no path to a 100% renewable commitment under this administration.

But we can win a CES that puts us on the path towards 80-90% renewable by 2035, with gold-standard EJ provisions on the 10-20%.

In my experience, good faith and clear eyes are incredibly rare in these debates.

Everyone (I mean everyone) marshals evidence to defend their preestablished positions.

I've seen the same people talk past each other for literally years on end. It can be incredibly discouraging.

I dream of a progressive movement that can parse the difference between:

(a) the world we deserve
(b) what we're fighting for right now
(c) what we are willing to settle for in negotiations

Too often the three are synonymous. In a governing moment like this, that's a problem.

Idealists refuse to settle for anything less than all of it; hard-nosed realists forget that we deserve more than is winnable at this moment.

May we all learn to listen a bit more, hold the contradictions, and even change our minds from time to time.