warren had the right answer for the cowspiracy people, anyways. that could very well turn out to be the most substantive part of this long, surreal charade.

she seems to think that the answer to the problem is to legislate emissions targets and let the market figure it out, a mentality that i would argue is actually a part of the problem. we're not going to solve the problems that markets have created in our society by insisting on the implementation of more markets, that's the definition of insanity. solving the climate crisis means turning market theory on it's head, which has been the entire crux of the movement on the left, from the start. what warren is saying sounds more in line with a greenwashing campaign, or the imposition of "green capitalism".

she seems wary of carbon taxes, and i share that lack of enthusiasm, but if you think a carbon tax will have minimal effect, why would you expect a regulatory process to have an effect? doesn't recognizing that people are willing to pay more for gas (at the expense of consumption spending in other sectors) imply realizing that businesses are willing to pay the fines as a cost of business and consumers are willing to eat cost increases as just another type of inflation? and, where do you think that banning behaviours or products is going to get you, if the reason you're resorting to it is that you can't find an incentive system that actually works?

i would not be likely to support these kinds of proposals. as more and more details of them emerge, you can expect me to be increasingly critical of them. and, i will debunk them using their own language, that is the language of market theory.

this should be seen as a defining difference between warren and sanders. the world needs america to pony up and spend on transition, not some more twentieth-century platitudes about incentivizing actors in free markets; that's been the status quo for thirty years.