Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: Republicans oppose environmental protection because it's a class issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/opinion/paul-krugman-pollution-and-politics.html?gwh=983CE4FE218C454230F8D7406588CB5D&gwt=pay&assetType=opinionideology is only part of the story or, more accurately, its a symptom of the underlying cause of the divide: rising inequality.
The basic story of political polarization over the past few decades is that, as a wealthy minority has pulled away economically from the rest of the country, it has pulled one major party along with it. True, Democrats often cater to the interests of the 1 percent, but Republicans always do. Any policy that benefits lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the elite like health reform, which guarantees insurance to all and pays for that guarantee in part with taxes on higher incomes will face bitter Republican opposition.
And environmental protection is, in part, a class issue, even if we dont usually think of it that way. Everyone breathes the same air, so the benefits of pollution control are more or less evenly spread across the population. But ownership of, say, stock in coal companies is concentrated in a few, wealthy hands. Even if the costs of pollution control are passed on in the form of higher prices, the rich are different from you and me. They spend a lot more money, and, therefore, bear a higher share of the costs.
In the case of the new ozone plan, the E.P.A.s analysis suggests that, for the average American, the benefits would be more than twice the costs. But that doesnt necessarily matter to the nonaverage American driving one partys priorities. On ozone, as with almost everything these days, its all about inequality.
The basic story of political polarization over the past few decades is that, as a wealthy minority has pulled away economically from the rest of the country, it has pulled one major party along with it. True, Democrats often cater to the interests of the 1 percent, but Republicans always do. Any policy that benefits lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the elite like health reform, which guarantees insurance to all and pays for that guarantee in part with taxes on higher incomes will face bitter Republican opposition.
And environmental protection is, in part, a class issue, even if we dont usually think of it that way. Everyone breathes the same air, so the benefits of pollution control are more or less evenly spread across the population. But ownership of, say, stock in coal companies is concentrated in a few, wealthy hands. Even if the costs of pollution control are passed on in the form of higher prices, the rich are different from you and me. They spend a lot more money, and, therefore, bear a higher share of the costs.
In the case of the new ozone plan, the E.P.A.s analysis suggests that, for the average American, the benefits would be more than twice the costs. But that doesnt necessarily matter to the nonaverage American driving one partys priorities. On ozone, as with almost everything these days, its all about inequality.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1080 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (20)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman: Republicans oppose environmental protection because it's a class issue (Original Post)
HomerRamone
Nov 2014
OP
snot
(10,481 posts)1. The super-rich
are super-powerful; at least, they have the power to bend governments and whole populations to their will through bribes and the euphemistically-named public relations.
They also have the power to buy not just survivable but luxurious living spaces protected from the ravages of global warming, etc.
But are they really going to want to live in the world they create in this way?
pampango
(24,692 posts)2. "On ozone, as with almost everything these days, it’s all about inequality."
So true. And:
Democrats often cater to the interests of the 1 percent, but Republicans always do. Any policy that benefits lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the elite like health reform, which guarantees insurance to all and pays for that guarantee in part with taxes on higher incomes will face bitter Republican opposition.
hatrack
(59,446 posts)3. And, of course, hippy-punching . . .
As someone else noted, the purpose of approving and building Keystone XL is to defeat those who oppose approving and building Keystone XL.
Tribal bullshit at its finest and most predictable.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)4. Paul, I understand you're a Keynesian, but.......
maybe one day you'll realize that Marx was right. It's ALWAYS class based because it's capitalism.