And that people don't give a fuck is the problem. It's the same attitude on the right that led to them electing Trump. I'm condemning exactly that apathy.
As a for-instance, looking over his climate plans (which is where my own expertise mostly lies), there's a lot of "this is an issue" and "we need to spend and do more", but a lot of what he proposes doesn't go much further. When it comes to the local level, he talks about a new big spending regime on "regional resilience hubs". And let's look at a paragraph describing these, in detail;Please explain why you think he's an empty suit? Do you think he lacks conviction? Do you think he lacks policies? Because I can tell you he's been saying the same thing since before he started running. His team also has released a ton of detailed plans...
https://peteforamerica.com/issues/
https://ask.peteforamerica.com
https://peteforamerica.com/toolkit/policy-printables/ for the quick read versions.
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/2112163...tion-primaries
I've added the colors and numbers, just so I can make my critique easier.We must protect communities by establishing next-generation Regional Resilience Hubs to help communities understand and manage their risks.(1) The Hubs would be complemented by $5 billion per year in Resilient America Grants to support building resilient infrastructure and set a national climate risk reduction standard for federal investments (2). We will create a National Catastrophic Disaster Insurance program to provide stability to individuals and communities who experience the major disruptions caused by climate change and other natural risks such as earthquakes (3). And we will prioritize equitable disaster preparedness and relief so that all communities get the resources they need to prepare for, recover from, and rebuild from disasters, particularly communities of color; people with disabilities; seniors; and other populations especially vulnerable to climate impacts (4).
First, the words in red are basically meaningless. They set no standards or specifics, and hand-wave the expectation. They're weasel words.
The words in green all require massive explanation and definition. They're used liberally in climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, but having written a fair bit, you need to be citing exactly what definition you're using, or defining the terms for your own use, for them to actually mean anything. You can write entire chapters of a book defining and explaining a single one of those terms; I know because I've done so.
(1); This seems very top-down, but expecting support from the ground up, and that's a pattern doomed to failure. The moment any community doesn't want the feds telling them what to do, things go south, fast. And it framed paternalistically enough that I foresee a lot of that reaction. You either need to empower locals, or tell them how it's got to be, you can't claim the former while doing the latter.
(2) You really need specifics on who is getting access to this funding and how. Is it aimed at ameliorating costs in smaller infrastructure projects? In funding a few megaprojects (the seawall project in NYC is projected to cost something north of that, all by itself)? $5 billion is peanuts, frankly, too. Also, climate risk reduction is a particularly tricksy way to frame things. Do you mean reducing impacts? Then say so. Do you mean reducing losses due to insurance payouts from impacts? Not great for the person whose house got washed away, no?
(3) One of the issues around climate change is people rebuilding with insurance payouts, on the same land plot that got hit in the last storm. One of the big things I've pushed for with groups like the IDB is not allowing rebuilding in such locations, with insurance payments. It often means you need to threaten to deny insurance coverage, rather than boosting it, ironically.
(4) Talking about the need to focus on more-vulnerable communities first is so obvious it feels manipulative to include it. People with disabilities and seniors are often parts of a community, but aren't communities unto themselves, so that's also weird. It's just weirdly phrased.