Tackling the Climate Emergency:Economic and judicial instruments

[Bird on a Fire]

Further to the discussion of ending support, and not just subsidies, for fossil fuels, erstwhile political party the Lib Dems have a sensible idea: Lib Dems propose ban on new listings of fossil fuel companies on LSE.

New listings of fossil fuel companies would be immediately banned on the London Stock Exchange as part of a proposal by the Liberal Democrats that the party says could help the UK become a leader in tackling the climate emergency.

Under the plan outlined to the Guardian by the Lib Dem leader, Ed Davey, another immediate policy would be to stop new bonds being issued in London to finance oil, coal or gas exploration.

Fossil fuel firms already listed in the UK would then have two years to produce a coherent plan about how they would reach net zero emissions by 2045, or risk being struck off the LSE.

In the longer term, pension funds would have to disinvest from fossil fuels by 2035, with all companies with fossil fuel assets removed from the exchange by 2045.

Davey, who on Friday marks the first anniversary of becoming the permanent leader of the Lib Dems, said such plans had the potential to achieve more than the UK’s own move to net zero emissions, or even its chairing of November’s Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow.

“The reality is that no matter how much governments spend, it’s going to be totally dwarfed by the amounts banks, private equity and hedge funds invest every day,” Davey said.

“So if you’re going to really take on climate change you’ve got to get that private capital to switch from dirty into clean. And this is a fundamental role for Britain in global leadership on climate change.”

It's the first I've heard from this Dave Eddey guy, but he makes a good point. The UK is a huge hitter in the world of finance generally, and carbon-intensive industries too. If you have money in a mainstream UK bank, or a pension from pretty much any normal fund, your money is funding the exacerbation of the climate crisis.

This proposal would be good for UK savers and pensioners, as their investments would no longer be exposed to the imminent carbon bubble when the market final realises all its unburnable carbon assets are stranded. And it would also be good for the world, by reducing the amount of funding available to continue f.cking up the atmosphere.

(I'm not sure how to get it from the Lib Dems to somewhere it could actually happen, though.)

XR are also calling for a ban on all new fossil fuel investments. Despite their sometimes questionable publicity tactics, they do have very sensible demands about the climate emergency. It's absolutely nuts that corporations are still allowed to invest in fossil fuels at a time when most people in the world want decarbonisation and a sustainable future.

[Millennie Al]

As interesting as the definition of a subsidy might be academically, I don't think it's hugely germane to this discussion of the climate emergency.

That depends on whether you want to have convincing arguments or ones that foster disagreement. If an argument uses a term such that it gets misunderstood, that will make people tend to disbelieve the whole argument.

Perhaps some sources are using the word 'subsidy' too broadly. If we replace it with "governments are providing $trillions in support to fossil fuels, via subsidies, tax breaks, in-kind assistance and other mechanisms," the idiocy of the status quo is still readily apparent. People need, and governments have committed to providing, a rapid reduction in fossil fuels. That means they need to end most forms of support as soon as possible, including but by no means limited to direct subsidies, and channel those resources into the transition to sustainability.

So what are these "direct subsidies".

If you're stuck down a deep hole, it would be stupid to continue paying the salary of the guy digging it. But you also wouldn't lend him your spade, cook him dinner, or give him a back rub. You'd demand he stopped, and probably beat him up.

It may turn out that the only way out is to dig steps in the side of the hole. Then you'd look pretty stupid for having made an enemy of the guy who is good at digging.

The climate emergency will continue to worsen until we shut down the fossil fuel industry. There is no sensible justification for continuing to support it by any means.

Unless you want widespread famine we need to be cautious. Current food production and distribution uses a lot of energy derived from fossil fuels.

[Millennie Al]

Further to the discussion of ending support, and not just subsidies, for fossil fuels, erstwhile political party the Lib Dems have a sensible idea: Lib Dems propose ban on new listings of fossil fuel companies on LSE.

New listings of fossil fuel companies would be immediately banned on the London Stock Exchange as part of a proposal by the Liberal Democrats that the party says could help the UK become a leader in tackling the climate emergency.

It's the first I've heard from this Dave Eddey guy, but he makes a good point.

It's complete nonsense. There are other stock exchanges and how many new fossil fuel companies are being listed anyway?

This proposal would be good for UK savers and pensioners, as their investments would no longer be exposed to the imminent carbon bubble when the market final realises all its unburnable carbon assets are stranded. And it would also be good for the world, by reducing the amount of funding available to continue f.cking up the atmosphere.

There is no reason why a UK pension fund would be restricted to investing in companies listed on the LSE. In fact, it would be a very poor one which did, since it would be in violation of the law requiring appropriate diversification of assets.

XR are also calling for a ban on all new fossil fuel investments. Despite their sometimes questionable publicity tactics, they do have very sensible demands about the climate emergency.

Their demands, according to https://rebellion.global/ are:

1. Tell the truth.
2. Act now
3. Go beyond politics

Which are merely vague generalities.

Then in their FAQ (https://rebellion.global/frequently-asked-questions/) they say

we do not propose or endorse specific solutions ourselves

So they want something, but don't know (or are not prepared to say) exactly what it is.

[Bird on a Fire]

Those interested in the variety of ongoing climate litigation cases might find this a useful resource http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/

[Bird on a Fire]

Their demands, according to https://rebellion.global/ are:

That's a global umbrella site - obviously they don't make specific demands there, as actions are determined by local grassroots organisers according to the jurisdiction they're operating in.

If you go to the XRUK site, you'll find the following:

This Rebellion we are making an immediate demand: Stop all new fossil fuel investment NOW!

It’s not a radical ask, in fact it’s the least the government could do to show they are serious about tackling the climate and ecological crisis ahead of hosting the COP26 UN Climate Talks in November.

And it’s not just Extinction Rebellion saying we have to stop pouring petrol on the fire. The International Energy Agency said in May this year that there must be no new oil, gas or coal development if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, and over 100 Nobel Laureates, including the Dalai Lama, have signed the Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty.

Before we begin to repair the damage, we need to stop making the crisis worse.

confirming what I said, which was also in the Guardian article I linked to.

[Millennie Al]

Their demands, according to https://rebellion.global/ are:

That's a global umbrella site - obviously they don't make specific demands there, as actions are determined by local grassroots organisers according to the jurisdiction they're operating in.

If you go to the XRUK site, you'll find the following:

This Rebellion we are making an immediate demand: Stop all new fossil fuel investment NOW!

If that's such an obviously correct demand, why is it not endorsed by XR global? Do they think that some other part of XR might disagree? Or is it actually that they're a bunch of well-meaning, ineffective fools? In support of the latter, see: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/about-us/ item 6:

6. we welcome everyone and every part of everyone
...
Discriminatory behaviour, language or behaviour that exhibits racial domination, sexism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, homophobia, ableism, class discrimination, prejudice around age and all other forms of oppression including abusive language towards others, either during an action or elsewhere, is not accepted whether physically or online.

So every part of everyone is accepted, except for the bits they don't like. Typical facile slonganeering. Why say something as stupid as "we welcome everyone and every part of everyone" in a headline only to admit it's not true a short while later?

So they're a bunch of useless fools who don't know what they want and don't even know who they are.

[Aitch]

But at least one of them is good at slapping up posters all over this area.

Hmm, we haven't had any new ones for a while. I hope he/she/it/they haven't been hit by Covid.

[discovolante]

Is anyone planning to go to any COP26 demos or is that too hippyish and counterproductive?

[discovolante]

Is anyone planning to go to any COP26 demos or is that too hippyish and counterproductive?

C'mon, they'll probably be as effective as the anti Brexit ones

[Bird on a Fire]

Is anyone planning to go to any COP26 demos or is that too hippyish and counterproductive?

C'mon, they'll probably be as effective as the anti Brexit ones

Yeah. I wouldn't call them hippyish (concern about the climate emergency is totally mainstream now, and one of the few issues uniting voters across the political spectrum), nor counter-productive despite the media's best efforts to paint environmental activists as fringe weirdoes.

But I'm not sure what the point is in these kinds of demos. At COP26, the evidence is overwhelming that there's a real problem, that voters want it solved, and that governments in developing countries want it solved. It's not clear to me how a bunch of people turning up with signs really adds much.

Direct action can be useful, of course, but it needs cleverly-chosen targets and a strategy to cause genuine disadvantage to problematic actors. Standing behind a police cordon at an event where governments are already talking about the issue doesn't seem likely to do all that much.

That said, if there's one locally in Lisbon I might go, if only to network with local groups and find out what other useful stuff is going on.

[Bird on a Fire]

Looking forward to seeing what comes out of the Labour conference https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference

Throwing out a grassroots motion for being "too broad" isn't a good start, when broad joined-up responses are absolutely what's needed. The example given - affordable rural broadband - would obviously be very useful for reducing the kind of commuting that's most difficult to shift to mass transit. It's a very sensible green policy with loads of added value in other areas Labour cares about, but it seems like they're more concerned about avoiding the stench of Corbynism.

Hopefully the Starmer central command will come up with ideas that are equivalently sensible and transformative, as well as the obvious basic stuff about insulation and energy generation. Fingers crossed. The public conversation with Sanders is a good start, as he's managed to get Biden on board with a bunch of good green ideas.

[basementer]

Looking forward to seeing what comes out of the Labour conference https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference

Throwing out a grassroots motion for being "too broad" isn't a good start, when broad joined-up responses are absolutely what's needed. The example given - affordable rural broadband - would obviously be very useful for reducing the kind of commuting that's most difficult to shift to mass transit. It's a very sensible green policy with loads of added value in other areas Labour cares about, but it seems like they're more concerned about avoiding the stench of Corbynism.

Hopefully the Starmer central command will come up with ideas that are equivalently sensible and transformative, as well as the obvious basic stuff about insulation and energy generation. Fingers crossed. The public conversation with Sanders is a good start, as he's managed to get Biden on board with a bunch of good green ideas.

You fibber. The article doesn't mention that, it says universal free broadband, which would be a daunting infrastructure project.

[dyqik]

Looking forward to seeing what comes out of the Labour conference https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference

Throwing out a grassroots motion for being "too broad" isn't a good start, when broad joined-up responses are absolutely what's needed. The example given - affordable rural broadband - would obviously be very useful for reducing the kind of commuting that's most difficult to shift to mass transit. It's a very sensible green policy with loads of added value in other areas Labour cares about, but it seems like they're more concerned about avoiding the stench of Corbynism.

Hopefully the Starmer central command will come up with ideas that are equivalently sensible and transformative, as well as the obvious basic stuff about insulation and energy generation. Fingers crossed. The public conversation with Sanders is a good start, as he's managed to get Biden on board with a bunch of good green ideas.

You fibber. The article doesn't mention that, it says universal free broadband, which would be a daunting infrastructure project.

It's the same amount of infrastructure, tbh. Rural broadband is pretty much all that's missing from broadband supply generally.

Making it free is a different question, more to do with who pays to keep the infrastructure running. That's not obviously stupid either. The government pays for physical communication (roads etc.) out of general taxation so that people can get to work and receive physical products, so paying for digital communication so people can work remotely and receive digital products isn't completely bizarre.

[Bird on a Fire]

It's a while since I read the plan in detail (2019 presumably) but IIRC the emphasis was on building new internet pipes to underserved areas, which the private sector is failing to do. I don't see why they'd need to build new internet pipes to places that already have them. And if the government's going to build essential infrastructure, privatisation doesn't seem to have good results (water in the UK, or at least England, is currently a literal shitshow).

But point taken - the rejected plan was to build rural broadband and make it free. Maybe Starmer will have a plan to build it and make it not free.

[Bird on a Fire]

Client Earth's summit is next week.
https://www.clientearth.org/latest/late ... ister-now/

They're doing a really impressive job of using existing legislation to ensure governments enforce evidence-based sustainable policy, and setting powerful precedents when they win. Really interesting range of experts and topics too.

[discovolante]

Is anyone planning to go to any COP26 demos or is that too hippyish and counterproductive?

C'mon, they'll probably be as effective as the anti Brexit ones

Yeah. I wouldn't call them hippyish (concern about the climate emergency is totally mainstream now, and one of the few issues uniting voters across the political spectrum), nor counter-productive despite the media's best efforts to paint environmental activists as fringe weirdoes.

But I'm not sure what the point is in these kinds of demos. At COP26, the evidence is overwhelming that there's a real problem, that voters want it solved, and that governments in developing countries want it solved. It's not clear to me how a bunch of people turning up with signs really adds much.

Direct action can be useful, of course, but it needs cleverly-chosen targets and a strategy to cause genuine disadvantage to problematic actors. Standing behind a police cordon at an event where governments are already talking about the issue doesn't seem likely to do all that much.

That said, if there's one locally in Lisbon I might go, if only to network with local groups and find out what other useful stuff is going on.

Never got round to replying to this. I mostly agree. I find excuses not to take part in perhaps more disruptive direct action because I really don't want to lose my job. I'm making excuses here and being a bit big headed but although I'm definitely far from irreplaceable I do work in a relatively niche area that you have to train and have certain experience and skills in and which I think does some good, so that's my self-justification.

I'm under little illusion that the COP demo(s) will achieve an awful lot on their own, although I do think they can be differentiated from the Brexit ones slightly. They seemed to be largely campaigning against a done deal and were arguably a bit counterproductive by contributing towards a bit of an ideological war. A COP demo has the potential to drive momentum towards something that people already want to happen, by raising awareness (yes I know) of governments' failings in achieving its purported goals. Yes the Brexit demos aimed to raise awareness of the problems with Brexit but in a way that was perhaps more antagonistic towards a big chunk of the general population than a climate demo would be. And they were a bit erm, smug, a lot of the time.

Obviously any mainstream demo has its usual pitfalls (including thinking that turning up to a demo is all that's needed) and I'm not suggesting that a climate demo would suddenly cause a u turn in bad policy, but I'm not currently totally sure it would do more harm than good at the moment. Obviously the media could change that if it decides to turn against everyone but hey...

On a separate note I recently met a friend of a friend who is just recently over from Chile doing a PhD comparing Scottish and Chilean climate policy and the interaction between the public and private sectors and communities. I'm gonna be picking that guy's brains none stop whenever I see him because what an interesting and important topic it is.

[Bird on a Fire]

Those are all very fair points.

I was recently looking at these guys, Green New Deal Rising, who are planning a bunch of demos and seem to also have a policy proposal ready to go, which is a good combination of activism and pragmatism for my money. But the devil will be in the details, and I haven't had time to look through them yet

Anyway, here's a link https://www.gndrising.org/updates/come-to-cop-with-us/

I think I'm coming round to the idea of joining something in Lisbon as well.

[discovolante]

They do look interesting. Although I'm genuinely starting to be at the point of questioning whether I can be classed as a 'young person'

I've also signed up for some legal observer training, which if I actually get off my arse and put it into practice could be a decent use of my existing skills and what have you. I don't know much about protest law and rules of arrest and stuff in Scotland to be honest (just enough to pass my exams and promptly forget) but I'm in a reasonably good position to learn fairly easily.

[Bird on a Fire]

They do look interesting. Although I'm genuinely starting to be at the point of questioning whether I can be classed as a 'young person'

I've also signed up for some legal observer training, which if I actually get off my arse and put it into practice could be a decent use of my existing skills and what have you. I don't know much about protest law and rules of arrest and stuff in Scotland to be honest (just enough to pass my exams and promptly forget) but I'm in a reasonably good position to learn fairly easily.

Ooo very good - I definitely think leveraging existing specialist skills is a good way to maximise your value. I've yet to find a protest movement that needs someone to spot birds or analyse data, sadly

Also, the ClientEarth summit was super interesting. I think "activist lawyers" are amongst my very favourite branches of environmental activism - one of the speakers made the point that using the law in robust, creative ways is a very powerful weapon to bring to such an asymmetric fight. We're working quite closely with some on something at the moment, and seeing the way they've combined traditional, solid arguments with more ambitious, precedent-setting stuff is very very cool. And I got to spot birds and analyse data

[Woodchopper]

C'mon, they'll probably be as effective as the anti Brexit ones

Yeah. I wouldn't call them hippyish (concern about the climate emergency is totally mainstream now, and one of the few issues uniting voters across the political spectrum), nor counter-productive despite the media's best efforts to paint environmental activists as fringe weirdoes.

But I'm not sure what the point is in these kinds of demos. At COP26, the evidence is overwhelming that there's a real problem, that voters want it solved, and that governments in developing countries want it solved. It's not clear to me how a bunch of people turning up with signs really adds much.

Direct action can be useful, of course, but it needs cleverly-chosen targets and a strategy to cause genuine disadvantage to problematic actors. Standing behind a police cordon at an event where governments are already talking about the issue doesn't seem likely to do all that much.

That said, if there's one locally in Lisbon I might go, if only to network with local groups and find out what other useful stuff is going on.

Never got round to replying to this. I mostly agree. I find excuses not to take part in perhaps more disruptive direct action because I really don't want to lose my job. I'm making excuses here and being a bit big headed but although I'm definitely far from irreplaceable I do work in a relatively niche area that you have to train and have certain experience and skills in and which I think does some good, so that's my self-justification.

I'm under little illusion that the COP demo(s) will achieve an awful lot on their own, although I do think they can be differentiated from the Brexit ones slightly. They seemed to be largely campaigning against a done deal and were arguably a bit counterproductive by contributing towards a bit of an ideological war. A COP demo has the potential to drive momentum towards something that people already want to happen, by raising awareness (yes I know) of governments' failings in achieving its purported goals. Yes the Brexit demos aimed to raise awareness of the problems with Brexit but in a way that was perhaps more antagonistic towards a big chunk of the general population than a climate demo would be. And they were a bit erm, smug, a lot of the time.

Obviously any mainstream demo has its usual pitfalls (including thinking that turning up to a demo is all that's needed) and I'm not suggesting that a climate demo would suddenly cause a u turn in bad policy, but I'm not currently totally sure it would do more harm than good at the moment. Obviously the media could change that if it decides to turn against everyone but hey...

As I think one of you wrote, demonstrations can be a good way for activists to meet and organize doing other things. So at least in my experience they would probably lead to more activity rather then less. The people who think that turning up to a demo means that they've done their bit probably wouldn't do much else anyway.

Demos may generate some publicity, even if everyone has heard the message that's a good thing so long as the publicity is positive. Messages do need to be reinforced else other issues get more attention. Politicians tend to be focused upon the short term so they need to be prodded.

But as you write, and Remain is a good example, awareness raising is just the start. Demonstrations are more effective when they are focused upon achieving a specific goal rather than just raising awareness of a problem. Back to the analogy, Remainers never managed to agree upon how to stop Brexit.

[discovolante]

They do look interesting. Although I'm genuinely starting to be at the point of questioning whether I can be classed as a 'young person'

I've also signed up for some legal observer training, which if I actually get off my arse and put it into practice could be a decent use of my existing skills and what have you. I don't know much about protest law and rules of arrest and stuff in Scotland to be honest (just enough to pass my exams and promptly forget) but I'm in a reasonably good position to learn fairly easily.

Ooo very good - I definitely think leveraging existing specialist skills is a good way to maximise your value. I've yet to find a protest movement that needs someone to spot birds or analyse data, sadly

Also, the ClientEarth summit was super interesting. I think "activist lawyers" are amongst my very favourite branches of environmental activism - one of the speakers made the point that using the law in robust, creative ways is a very powerful weapon to bring to such an asymmetric fight. We're working quite closely with some on something at the moment, and seeing the way they've combined traditional, solid arguments with more ambitious, precedent-setting stuff is very very cool. And I got to spot birds and analyse data

Yeah but protesters need info and data to justify their actions

Haha glad you've become a lawyer lover. It's certainly only a small part of the solution but I think at least explaining and using legislation can be a helpful way to educate too. E.g. Naomi Klein (and no doubt others) explaining the inherent conflict between trade rules and environmental rules, and how environmental rules have often lost due to lack of teeth.

Woodchopper, yes I agree. I think environmental campaigners have a lot of tools and info at their disposal to say what can be done, compared to anti-Brexit campaigners. There is a lot of 'peripheral' stuff eg anti racism, hype about new economic theories/approaches that can be used to bolster the main arguments about decarbonisation etc.

[Millennie Al]

I was recently looking at these guys, Green New Deal Rising, who are planning a bunch of demos and seem to also have a policy proposal ready to go, which is a good combination of activism and pragmatism for my money. But the devil will be in the details, and I haven't had time to look through them yet

Anyway, here's a link https://www.gndrising.org/updates/come-to-cop-with-us/

They look like the usual useless bunch of idealists who want everything. From https://www.gndrising.org/what-is-the-green-new-deal/ it seems they want:

1. decarbonise, fast
2. jobs and a just transition
3. transform the economy
4. protect and restore
5. promote global justice

and they've got a ten-year plan. No focus. They should join the Labour party. They'd be right at home with the useless fools there who can't bring themselves to fight a Conservative party that even its own supporters think is hopeless mismanaging the country.

If you're going to set up a campaign, it needs to have one clear goal - like votes for women or brexit.

[Bird on a Fire]

I think you're a bit out of touch there, Boomer Al.

Decarbonising the economy is a single goal, supported by evidence from the IPCC and the UK's commitments under the Paris Agreement which it's currently not on track to meet, somewhat embarrassingly as it's hosting the COP next month.

But obviously rapid changes to the economy have the potential to cause undesirable side effects. Look upthread and you'll see people concerned about fuel prices, food prices, loss of jobs, etc.

So any sensible plan incorporates ways to protect workers and the poor. Biden's Green New Deal is hitting most of the points, for example, despite being a product of mainstream US politics. The UK could do the same if the political will were there.

If you want to see details, you might have to read beyond the five headline summary bullet points as well.

[Millennie Al]

Decarbonising the economy is a single goal,
...
If you want to see details, you might have to read beyond the five headline summary bullet points as well.

I have read more. From the same website it expands:

transform the economy

Transform our economy so the financial system serves the needs of people and the planet, with an accountable and democratic government in the driving seat. Our economy must work in the interest of everyone – with greater democratic participation, accountability and common ownership – empowering those communities currently marginalised and respecting natural ecological limits.

End ‘austerity’ once and for all – we need to invest in our public services and end the transfer of wealth from public to private sector
Change Treasury rules to ensure all public investment is aligned with climate targets
Work internationally to end the ‘race-to-the-bottom’ on corporate tax, workers rights, and environmental standards

That's quite clearly a different and independent goal. Maybe decarbonising can only be achieved in time by allowing market forces to cause a revolution in power - for example, by solar generation being cheap enough to drive things like coal out of business. Maybe that needs a small number of businesses to become hugely successful and their owners to become billionaires. The switch from horses to motirised transport in the twentieth centuary was not a result of political planning - it was caused by advancing technology, market forces, and resulted in huge, wealthy companies (e.g. oil producers, car makers) owned by extremely wealthy people who obtained great political influence. How can we be sure that decarbonisation won't need to follow a similar path?

And then it says:

These are just a few examples – there’s loads more!

so, as I said, no focus.

[Bird on a Fire]

For market mechanisms to work, carbon's costs need to priced effectively, which they are currently far from being.

Those pot-smoking hippies at the Internation Monetary Fund have wheeled out their controversial definition of subsidies once again, claiming that

The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

Setting fossil fuel prices that reflect their true cost would cut global CO2 emissions by over a third, the IMF analysts said. This would be a big step towards meeting the internationally agreed 1.5C target. Keeping this target within reach is a key goal of the UN Cop26 climate summit in November.

Agreeing rules for carbon markets, which enable the proper pricing of pollution, is another Cop26 goal. “Fossil fuel price reform could not be timelier,” the IMF researchers said. The ending of fossil fuel subsidies would also prevent nearly a million deaths a year from dirty air and raise trillions of dollars for governments, they said.

Now, whether you want to call that a subsidy or not, at the moment society as a whole is bearing enormous costs from the combustion of fossil fuels, rather than passing those costs on to polluters. That means the market has an uphill struggle, and reforms are necessary.

Merely slapping a tax on carbon for consumers to pay, though, would be a regressive measure hitting the poor hardest. That kind of thing is unpopular, and often used as an excuse to delay action (see upthread for examples). So to get ahead of criticisms - not to mention advocating for things that are socially fair - climate campaigners generally acknowledge that the economy is connected to other aspects of life, and suggest measures to minimise negative impacts, especially those that would disproportionately harm the most vulnerable. That's not necessarily a lack of focus - though "Green New Deal" packages specifically tend to be quite broad.

I think relying on the market alone to deliver 45% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 - the science-based target underpinning the Paris Agreement - would be fairly courageous, given the slow pace of progress so far and the many problems with the market itself.