vox--2020-10-12--The Vox Senate interview: Barbara Bollier is making the Kansas Senate race competitive for Democrats

The open Kansas Senate race was never supposed to be competitive for Democrats .
But given what an unusual year 2020 is shaping up to be , it ’ s a dead heat .
The two candidates in contention are Democrat Barbara Bollier , a state senator and former doctor , and Republican Rep. Roger Marshall , who is also a doctor and OBGYN .
Bollier has only been a Democrat for a few years ; she was a longtime moderate Republican in the state before switching parties in 2018 .
“ Over time , as a person identifying as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constantly at odds with our Republican leadership in Kansas , ” Bollier told Vox in a recent interview .
When Bollier ’ s former state Senate colleague Laura Kelly , a Democrat , won the governor ’ s race in 2018 — Bollier said her decision was sealed .
“ Once that happened , for me it just became clear — I needed to move on , ” she said .
“ I had tried for all these years to help move the [ Republican ] party to a more central position , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election is a good test of whether moderates or conservatives will prevail in Kansas , a deeply red state that hasn ’ t elected a Democrat to the US Senate in close to 90 years .
Kansas may be Republican , but political observers in the state say it ’ s pretty evenly split between moderate and conservative Republicans .
With a good public higher education system , Kansas has a relatively high number of college-educated voters in its suburbs .
President Donald Trump ’ s approval rating isn ’ t as high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states like Kentucky and West Virginia .
“ I think a lot of people underestimate it when really so much of the story of what ’ s going in Kansas is a state that is rapidly shifting away from the Republican party , or at least from Donald Trump ’ s version of it , ” said a senior Democratic strategist .
This race will still be very tough for Bollier to pull off .
Vox recently interviewed Bollier about how she ’ s planning to do so ( hint : health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , why she switched parties , and what she thinks is the future of moderate Republicans under Trump .
In 2018 , Democrats won a key Kansas House race , Laura Kelly won the governor ’ s race .
What do you think accounts for this increased Democratic energy in a traditionally conservative state like Kansas ?
I think people interpreted that because many Republicans have been elected over time , that it ’ s a red state .
The reality is , the Democrats are their party , and the Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives and moderates .
If you take the moderate wing of the Republicans and add it to the Democratic set of voters , you get a majority .
That ’ s different than what it appears like on paper when you just look at ‘ red.
’ The majority of the state is registered Republican , but they represent a different value system ; they look at things differently .
That ’ s been a challenge for the Republican Party and continues to .
When you have seen people like me , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they represent just weren ’ t being followed .
From the Brownback tax experiment , to not funding our schools , to taking away local control , to not expanding Medicaid .
That doesn ’ t fit in with the majority of Kansans ’ values .
So the moderates , they ’ re starting to leave the party .
They aren ’ t able to function in that realm .
When you decided to switch parties , can you talk us through your decision-making ?
I ’ m curious how much it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the national level with Trump , versus what was happening in Kansas .
All those factors combined .
Over time , as a person identifying as a moderate Republican , I found myself constantly at odds with our Republican leadership in Kansas .
Starting with the Brownback tax experiment , I remember voting no and saying ‘ I sure hope I ’ m wrong ...
I ’ m happy to be wrong on this , ’ but I wasn ’ t .
[ Starting in 2012 , Brownback drastically slashed the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , and the tax rate on pass-through income to zero .
The Brownback tax cuts were later overturned by the Republican state legislature as a failed experiment , but not until they blew a $ 900 million hole in the state budget , cutting funding for public schools and state infrastructure in the process . ]
We ’ re still climbing out of that , but also things like when the Republicans were refusing to fund our schools constitutionally , and then went to a block grant system .
Especially things like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you ’ re having to borrow money to pay your bills , that isn ’ t Republican values .
So at some point , you realize it just isn ’ t working anymore .
I didn ’ t change parties at the time , but I endorsed Laura Kelly across party lines .
People weren ’ t standing up in this country saying it ’ s not just about the party , it ’ s about good representation .
Kansans obviously agreed with me and voted Laura Kelly into office .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became clear — I needed to move on .
I had tried for all these years to help move the party to a more central position , and it was failing .
At some point you have to recognize you can function and represent the people better , where you ’ re welcomed and can do your job , can stay on committees — as a doctor on the health committee , etc .
Those are important things for the people of Kansas .
Senate Republicans are moving to confirm [ Judge Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Some progressives in the Senate have floated ideas like adding more seats to the Supreme Court if Democrats are in the majority — to balance out the court ’ s ideological configuration .
Would you support that if Republicans barrel ahead with this confirmation process ?
Well , they ’ re going to do that .
Right now , I don ’ t have any interest in changing the number of Supreme Court justices .
That ’ s just not on my plate right now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ three branches of government — one of the most important institutions that we have — and we shouldn ’ t politicize it .
It should not be politicized .
And it ’ s been disappointing to see this rampage through , for something that ’ s going to last a lifetime for a person .
Careful thought is important .
We deserve that .
The court-packing issue seems to be a symptom of a larger problem that Democrats are starting to diagnose , which is maybe some of our democratic institutions are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
Donald Trump is the president not because he won the most votes , but because he won the Electoral College , which gives disproportionate influence to smaller , more rural , whiter states .
Are you receptive to any ideas , whether that ’ s statehood for DC and Puerto Rico , some kind of gerrymandering legislation ?
Well , Dylan you ’ ve hit a lot of topics there .
I think this is a really important conversation , in that to be a great nation , you need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how you can do better .
Just because you started in a certain place , you should always be evaluating , again and again to say , is this the best that we can do ?
What do we need to do to be better at it ?
I learned that as a physician , you don ’ t just sit back and go , ‘ Okay , I ’ m prescribing this , and then we ’ re not ever going to talk again.
’ You keep evaluating and adjusting as needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with our country , what is working ?
And in the time that you ’ re living , what is the right thing ?
Yeah , it should come to the table , should DC be a state or not ?
Whether they ’ re a state , should those people have the right to vote for a senator and a representative ?
I have a son that ’ s in DC right now at George Washington Law School who lives in Alexandria , Virginia , specifically so that he can vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up that right as a US citizen ?
He wasn ’ t willing to do that and live in DC , even though it ’ d be closer .
That ’ s a perfect example .
What is most important about us , Dylan , as a country and democracy , is our willingness to work together .
I just came off of working in a state Senate , that the leadership completely blocked what 80 percent of Kansas wanted .
80 percent [ wanted ] Medicaid expansion .
We had the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get on the floor .
Is that democracy as most people envision it ?
I ’ m not thinking that ’ s exactly it .
It ’ s our call as elected officials to call out when things are not right , and work toward a better and working democracy .
We do that by being willing to work together and not calling names and denigrating the other side .
We ’ re all Americans , and we need to display that .
You once said the Republican Party was “ hell bent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see as the future of the Republican Party under Trump ?
Where do disaffected moderate Republicans like yourself go ?
You clearly joined the Democratic Party , but do other moderates create a third independent party ?
All right , so , “ hell bent ?
” This is the first election I ’ ve ever been in , that a party is actually standing with me .
The Kansas Chamber [ of Commerce ] puts out a voter freedom index .
One year I voted with them , like 88-90 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ What are you going to do ?
’ And they go , ‘ We ’ ll change the criteria and include last year , so that you can ’ t qualify.
’ It didn ’ t matter if you even were with them .
They didn ’ t want the opportunity as a moderate for anyone to possibly be represented .
So that ’ s hell bent .
Quite honestly , a third party — every single state in this nation has rules in their state legislatures that are built around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no interest in ceding any of their potential power to another party .
You don ’ t have a path , certainly at any state level to have a third party .
They can ’ t [ serve ] on a committee .
There ’ s no place .
So our country isn ’ t going to have a third party .
There ’ s no way .
I kept hearing the “ big tent ” idea on the Republican side ?
No , the big tent ’ s on the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nominated by the Democratic side , it wasn ’ t the extreme .
It was the more centralized candidate .
That ’ s a message to the people .
The Democratic Party doesn ’ t want to go , some people do but not the majority .
The majority of people aren ’ t on either extreme .
They ’ re in that center section .
A couple of questions on Medicaid expansion , if you will .
Why has Kansas not expanded Medicaid today ?
Is it largely intractable Republican opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all there is to say about it .
It ’ s exactly the truth .
As you are now running to join the US Senate , what do you see as your role in advocating for Medicaid expansion as a US senator ?
That is a decision in Kansas , especially without a ballot referendum option , that ’ s entirely up to the legislature and the government .
That ’ s not quite true .
Why do we have Medicaid expansion ?
The Affordable Care Act , very clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Affordable Care Act ; that means ending Medicaid expansion .
I haven ’ t seen a single plan to include those millions of people who are now being able to have preventive care .
As a US senator , I very much will be standing up to keep Medicaid expansion as an option for people with the vast majority of states not only expanding , but making no move whatsoever to end that expansion .
Because it ’ s working .
Joe Biden has proposed an interesting fix for the Medicaid expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those folks into a new public health insurance option .
I know you said in our questionnaire that you would support a public health insurance option , but I wanted to ask specifically about that provision .
Do you see that as a potential alternative route to getting coverage to those folks ?
I will have to read about it , I honestly have not .
To be clear , I ’ m always open to options .
One of the key things to think about when you ’ re looking at change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not just about the health care , it ’ s about the whole process of enrolling people .
That ’ s what bogs systems down , and I would need to see the impact of that and making this massive uprooting change .
I don ’ t know , I would have to look into that .
What would you say is your level of confidence in the public health information that we ’ re getting out of the Trump administration right now ?
Directly from Trump himself , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actually been misleading at times even .
That concerns me because I think leaders should lead on public health .
The CDC — as long as they ’ re following science — but you you hear and read that maybe they ’ re being influenced .
I ’ m looking at data myself , you can follow data very clearly and look to things that are published in medical journals .
This is new , and we ’ re learning .
I ’ ll be very clear .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the simplest things we could do that science has showed us is wear a mask .
And that ’ s become politicized .
It ’ s about public health .
As a physician in the operating room , maybe I didn ’ t want to wear a mask every day , but by gosh , I did .
Because it ’ s what you do to protect others .
In the same vein , there ’ s been reporting and certainly speculation about the potential for political interference in approving a Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confident are you that the vaccine approval process will be governed entirely by science ?
If the FDA approves this vaccine , it should be readily available then to frontline workers , people like teachers included so they can be safe to go about and get our economy and our world back on track .
So I look forward to that day , and I will trust the FDA .
In your practice , as a doctor in Kansas , how have you seen lack of affordable health care impacting your patients ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we did a tremendous number of pediatric dental cases that needed anesthetics .
Those kids , so many of them just had completely rotted out teeth .
Part of that was because they didn ’ t have access to the right foods to eat and not understanding necessarily when they needed to be at the dentist , or not even having access .
They weren ’ t necessarily as healthy because of issues of poverty , that was very clear at that time .
Let ’ s move to now as a legislator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , begging for help when they get diagnosed with cancer .
Women that have no option — it ’ s horrifying .
They ’ ve had to wait so long , they don ’ t have the preventive testing that we all expect as part of our insurance .
They don ’ t have access to that .
[ Paying for preventive testing ] versus feeding your kids , I can tell you — you feed your kids .
And then ending up with a cancer that ’ s way too advanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose from that .
The social , human ramifications of not having adequate health care are almost incomprehensible to me for the leaders of the world that we are supposed to be .
We can and we must do better .
It is morally wrong .
During the Republican primary , a lot of political pundits inside Kansas and nationally were saying the only chance Democrats had to actually win this seat is if Kris Kobach is the Republican nominee .
Obviously , he is not the Republican nominee .
But Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Kansas .
How can you still make this race competitive and win against Republicans ’ preferred candidate in this race ?
To be clear , the Republican ’ s preferred candidate [ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ] didn ’ t run .
The reason I ’ m in this race is because I knew based on the field that was present , that I was a better candidate than any of them , I was willing to work in a bipartisan manner and wanted to actually move health care forward — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in the state .
I always knew it didn ’ t matter who I ran against , because what was being offered from this campaign was so different than what any Republicans seem to be offering to the people .
Ultimately , when you look at these large corporate PACs coming in to save my opponent , we have such tremendous grassroots support , financially , let alone the volunteers .
People from all 105 counties have donated to this campaign .
We ’ ve raised record amounts because the people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we want something different .
Yeah , it ’ s been since 1932 .
And it ’ s time for change .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The open Kansas Senate race was never supposed to be competitive for Democrats. But given what an unusual year 2020 is shaping up to be, it’s a dead heat.
The two candidates in contention are Democrat Barbara Bollier, a state senator and former doctor, and Republican Rep. Roger Marshall, who is also a doctor and OB-GYN. Bollier has only been a Democrat for a few years; she was a longtime moderate Republican in the state before switching parties in 2018.
“Over time, as a person identifying as a moderate Republican, I found myself constantly at odds with our Republican leadership in Kansas,” Bollier told Vox in a recent interview. When Bollier’s former state Senate colleague Laura Kelly, a Democrat, won the governor’s race in 2018, Bollier said her decision was sealed.
“Once that happened, for me it just became clear — I needed to move on,” she said. “I had tried for all these years to help move the [Republican] party to a more central position, and it was failing.”
The 2020 election is a good test of whether moderates or conservatives will prevail in Kansas, a deeply red state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the US Senate in close to 90 years. Kansas may be Republican, but political observers in the state say it’s pretty evenly split between moderate and conservative Republicans. With a good public higher education system, Kansas has a relatively high number of college-educated voters in its suburbs. President Donald Trump’s approval rating isn’t as high there as it is in Rust Belt states like Kentucky and West Virginia.
“I think a lot of people underestimate it when really so much of the story of what’s going in Kansas is a state that is rapidly shifting away from the Republican Party, or at least from Donald Trump’s version of it,” said a senior Democratic strategist.
This race will still be very tough for Bollier to pull off. Vox recently interviewed Bollier about how she’s planning to do so (hint: health care has a lot to do with it), why she switched parties, and what she thinks is the future of moderate Republicans under Trump.
Ella Nilsen
In 2018, Democrats won a key Kansas House race, Laura Kelly won the governor’s race. What do you think accounts for this increased Democratic energy in a traditionally conservative state like Kansas?
Kansas state Sen. Barbara Bollier
I think people interpreted that because many Republicans have been elected over time, that it’s a red state. The reality is, the Democrats are their party, and the Republicans are a divided party — they have conservatives and moderates. If you take the moderate wing of the Republicans and add it to the Democratic set of voters, you get a majority.
That’s different than what it appears like on paper when you just look at “red.” The majority of the state is registered Republican, but they represent a different value system; they look at things differently. That’s been a challenge for the Republican Party and continues to. When you have seen people like me, who realized that the values of the Kansans they represent just weren’t being followed. From the Brownback tax experiment, to not funding our schools, to taking away local control, to not expanding Medicaid. That doesn’t fit in with the majority of Kansans’ values. So the moderates, they’re starting to leave the party. They aren’t able to function in that realm.
Ella Nilsen
When you decided to switch parties, can you talk us through your decision-making? I’m curious how much it had to do with what was happening at the national level with Trump, versus what was happening in Kansas.
Barbara Bollier
All those factors combined. Over time, as a person identifying as a moderate Republican, I found myself constantly at odds with our Republican leadership in Kansas. Starting with the Brownback tax experiment, I remember voting no and saying, “I sure hope I’m wrong ... I’m happy to be wrong on this,” but I wasn’t.
[Starting in 2012, Brownback drastically slashed the state’s income tax rate by 30 percent, and the tax rate on pass-through income to zero. The Brownback tax cuts were later overturned by the Republican state legislature as a failed experiment, but not until they blew a $900 million hole in the state budget, cutting funding for public schools and state infrastructure in the process.]
We’re still climbing out of that, but also things like when the Republicans were refusing to fund our schools constitutionally, and then went to a block grant system. Especially things like local control and fiscal responsibility — when you’re having to borrow money to pay your bills, that isn’t Republican values. So at some point, you realize it just isn’t working anymore.
I didn’t change parties at the time, but I endorsed Laura Kelly across party lines. People weren’t standing up in this country saying it’s not just about the party, it’s about good representation. Kansans obviously agreed with me and voted Laura Kelly into office. Once that happened, for me it just became clear — I needed to move on.
I had tried for all these years to help move the party to a more central position, and it was failing. At some point you have to recognize you can function and represent the people better, where you’re welcomed and can do your job, can stay on committees — as a doctor on the health committee, etc. Those are important things for the people of Kansas.
Ella Nilsen
Senate Republicans are moving to confirm [Judge Amy Coney Barrett] to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Some progressives in the Senate have floated ideas like adding more seats to the Supreme Court if Democrats are in the majority — to balance out the Court’s ideological configuration. Would you support that if Republicans barrel ahead with this confirmation process?
Barbara Bollier
Well, they’re going to do that.
Right now, I don’t have any interest in changing the number of Supreme Court justices. That’s just not on my plate right now.
The Supreme Court is one of our three branches of government — one of the most important institutions that we have — and we shouldn’t politicize it. It should not be politicized. And it’s been disappointing to see this rampage through, for something that’s going to last a lifetime for a person. Careful thought is important. We deserve that.
Dylan Scott
The court-packing issue seems to be a symptom of a larger problem that Democrats are starting to diagnose, which is maybe some of our democratic institutions are not as democratic as we thought they would be. Donald Trump is the president not because he won the most votes, but because he won the Electoral College, which gives disproportionate influence to smaller, more rural, whiter states.
Are you receptive to any ideas, whether that’s statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, some kind of gerrymandering legislation?
Barbara Bollier
Well, Dylan, you’ve hit a lot of topics there. I think this is a really important conversation, in that to be a great nation, you need to continue to evaluate yourself and see how you can do better. Just because you started in a certain place, you should always be evaluating, again and again, to say, is this the best that we can do? What do we need to do to be better at it? I learned that as a physician, you don’t just sit back and go, “Okay, I’m prescribing this, and then we’re not ever going to talk again.” You keep evaluating and adjusting as needed.
It’s the same thing with our country, what is working? And in the time that you’re living, what is the right thing? Yeah, it should come to the table, should DC be a state or not? Whether they’re a state, should those people have the right to vote for a senator and a representative? I have a son that’s in DC right now at George Washington Law School who lives in Alexandria, Virginia, specifically so that he can vote. Because why would he want to give up that right as a US citizen? He wasn’t willing to do that and live in DC, even though it’d be closer. That’s a perfect example.
What is most important about us, Dylan, as a country and democracy, is our willingness to work together. I just came off of working in a state Senate that the leadership completely blocked what 80 percent of Kansas wanted. Eighty percent [wanted] Medicaid expansion. We had the votes; they wouldn’t let it get on the floor. Is that democracy as most people envision it? I’m not thinking that’s exactly it. It’s our call as elected officials to call out when things are not right, and work toward a better and working democracy. We do that by being willing to work together and not calling names and denigrating the other side. We’re all Americans, and we need to display that.
Ella Nilsen
You once said the Republican Party was “hell bent” on removing moderates. What do you see as the future of the Republican Party under Trump? Where do disaffected moderate Republicans like yourself go? You clearly joined the Democratic Party, but do other moderates create a third independent party?
Barbara Bollier
All right, so, “hell bent”? This is the first election I’ve ever been in, that a party is actually standing with me. The Kansas Chamber [of Commerce] puts out a voter freedom index. One year I voted with them, like 88-90 percent of the time. And I said, “What are you going to do?” And they go, “We’ll change the criteria and include last year, so that you can’t qualify.” It didn’t matter if you even were with them. They didn’t want the opportunity as a moderate for anyone to possibly be represented. So that’s hell bent.
[Author note: The Freedom Index is published by the Kansas Policy Institute, a free market think tank. The Kansas Chamber told Vox lawmakers must vote in line with its policy criteria 80 percent of the time or more to receive the chamber’s endorsement, and said Bollier did not meet that threshold when she served in the Kansas state legislature.]
Quite honestly, a third party — every single state in this nation has rules in their state legislatures that are built around a two-party system. Those two parties have no interest in ceding any of their potential power to another party. You don’t have a path, certainly at any state level to have a third party. They can’t [serve] on a committee. There’s no place.
So our country isn’t going to have a third party. There’s no way. I kept hearing the “big tent” idea on the Republican side? No, the big tent’s on the Democratic side. As you know, who is nominated by the Democratic side, it wasn’t the extreme. It was the more centralized candidate. That’s a message to the people. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to go, some people do but not the majority. The majority of people aren’t on either extreme. They’re in that center section.
Dylan Scott
A couple of questions on Medicaid expansion, if you will. Why has Kansas not expanded Medicaid today? Is it largely intractable Republican opposition to Obamacare just on principle?
Barbara Bollier
That’s all there is to say about it. It’s exactly the truth.
Dylan Scott
As you are now running to join the US Senate, what do you see as your role in advocating for Medicaid expansion as a US senator? That is a decision in Kansas, especially without a ballot referendum option, that’s entirely up to the legislature and the government.
Barbara Bollier
That’s not quite true. Why do we have Medicaid expansion? The Affordable Care Act, very clear. My opponent has voted repeatedly to end the Affordable Care Act; that means ending Medicaid expansion. I haven’t seen a single plan to include those millions of people who are now being able to have preventive care.
As a US senator, I very much will be standing up to keep Medicaid expansion as an option for people with the vast majority of states not only expanding but making no move whatsoever to end that expansion. Because it’s working.
Dylan Scott
Joe Biden has proposed an interesting fix for the Medicaid expansion gap, which would be automatically enrolling those folks into a new public health insurance option. I know you said in our questionnaire that you would support a public health insurance option, but I wanted to ask specifically about that provision. Do you see that as a potential alternative route to getting coverage to those folks?
Barbara Bollier
I will have to read about it, I honestly have not. To be clear, I’m always open to options. One of the key things to think about when you’re looking at change is infrastructure. I mean, it’s not just about the health care, it’s about the whole process of enrolling people. That’s what bogs systems down, and I would need to see the impact of that and making this massive uprooting change. I don’t know, I would have to look into that.
Dylan Scott
What would you say is your level of confidence in the public health information that we’re getting out of the Trump administration right now?
Barbara Bollier
Directly from Trump himself, it’s been disappointing at best. It’s actually been misleading at times even. That concerns me because I think leaders should lead on public health. The CDC — as long as they’re following science — but you hear and read that maybe they’re being influenced. I’m looking at data myself, you can follow data very clearly and look to things that are published in medical journals. This is new, and we’re learning.
I’ll be very clear. It’s been very disappointing to see, one of the simplest things we could do that science has showed us is wear a mask. And that’s become politicized.
It’s about public health. As a physician in the operating room, maybe I didn’t want to wear a mask every day, but by gosh, I did. Because it’s what you do to protect others.
Dylan Scott
In the same vein, there’s been reporting and certainly speculation about the potential for political interference in approving a Covid-19 vaccine. Given your background, how confident are you that the vaccine approval process will be governed entirely by science?
Barbara Bollier
If the FDA approves this vaccine, it should be readily available then to front-line workers, people like teachers included, so they can be safe to go about and get our economy and our world back on track. So I look forward to that day, and I will trust the FDA.
Ella Nilsen
In your practice, as a doctor in Kansas, how have you seen lack of affordable health care impacting your patients?
Barbara Bollier
To speak directly from my practice, we did a tremendous number of pediatric dental cases that needed anesthetics. Those kids, so many of them just had completely rotted out teeth. Part of that was because they didn’t have access to the right foods to eat and not understanding necessarily when they needed to be at the dentist, or not even having access. They weren’t necessarily as healthy because of issues of poverty, that was very clear at that time.
Let’s move to now as a legislator and a physician. Knowing people calling me, begging for help when they get diagnosed with cancer. Women that have no option — it’s horrifying. They’ve had to wait so long, they don’t have the preventive testing that we all expect as part of our insurance. They don’t have access to that. [Paying for preventive testing] versus feeding your kids, I can tell you — you feed your kids. And then ending up with a cancer that’s way too advanced to really do anything.
We all lose from that. The social, human ramifications of not having adequate health care are almost incomprehensible to me for the leaders of the world that we are supposed to be. We can and we must do better. It is morally wrong.
Ella Nilsen
During the Republican primary, a lot of political pundits inside Kansas and nationally were saying the only chance Democrats had to actually win this seat is if Kris Kobach is the Republican nominee. Obviously, he is not the Republican nominee. But Republicans have recently put $5.2 million into ads in Kansas. How can you still make this race competitive and win against Republicans’ preferred candidate in this race?
Barbara Bollier
To be clear, the Republicans’ preferred candidate [Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] didn’t run.
The reason I’m in this race is because I knew based on the field that was present, that I was a better candidate than any of them, I was willing to work in a bipartisan manner and wanted to actually move health care forward — which is the number one issue for people in the state. I always knew it didn’t matter who I ran against, because what was being offered from this campaign was so different than what any Republicans seem to be offering to the people.
Ultimately, when you look at these large corporate PACs coming in to save my opponent, we have such tremendous grassroots support, financially, let alone the volunteers. People from all 105 counties have donated to this campaign. We’ve raised record amounts because the people of Kansas are really speaking up and saying, we want something different. Yeah, it’s been since 1932. And it’s time for change.
Update, October 13: This post has been updated with information from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce on its voting criteria and the freedom index Bollier mentioned.


vox--2020-10-12--How affluent people can end their mindless overconsumption

If 2020 teaches us anything , it ’ s that the next crisis we could have prevented is probably right around the corner , and it will be painful .
A pandemic that scientists warned was very likely to occur arrived and has already killed well over 214,000 people in the US .
Dozens of predicted , large wildfires — the latest evidence of the climate emergency — are torching the American West , their smoke more damaging to health than almost any fire season on record .
But it ’ s not too late to intervene and limit climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communications clarifies whose actions in this moment are “ central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions.
” Yes , government and industry leaders are on the hook to decarbonize operations and infrastructure .
But it ’ s also the affluent who use far more resources than the poor — more energy and more material goods per capita than the planet can sustain .
“ Highly affluent consumers drive biophysical resource use ( a ) directly through high consumption , ( b ) as members of powerful factions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving consumption norms across the population , ” the authors write .
The rich or merely affluent , it turns out , are actually the ones blowing through the world ’ s carbon budget — the maximum amount of cumulative emissions that can be added to the atmosphere to hit the Paris agreement ’ s 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming goal .
According to a September report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute , the richest 10 percent of the world ’ s population — those who earned $ 38,000 per year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for 52 percent of cumulative carbon emissions and ate up 31 percent of the world ’ s carbon budget from 1990 to 2015 .
Meanwhile , the richest 1 percent of people — who made $ 109,000 or more per year in 2015 — alone were responsible for 15 percent of cumulative emissions , and used 9 percent of the carbon budget .
The rapidly accelerating growth in total emissions worldwide isn ’ t mainly about an improvement in quality of life for the poorer half of the world ’ s population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds , “ nearly half the growth has merely allowed the already wealthy top 10 percent to augment their consumption and enlarge their carbon footprints.
” In sum , as the report ’ s lead author Tim Gore , head of climate policy at Oxfam , said in a statement , “ The over-consumption of a wealthy minority is fueling the climate crisis yet it is poor communities and young people who are paying the price.
” Somehow , in all the campaigns to inspire climate action , the onus on well-off people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been lost .
But the Covid-19 pandemic may turn out to be the best opportunity — especially for the affluent among us — to shift consumption habits .
Here ’ s why : When we cut back on energy-intensive travel and shopping in the spring , it was easier to see the mindlessness , and even lack of satisfaction , in these patterns .
For some people , “ the Covid-19 crisis has shown that maybe we can do things differently , that a simpler life can be more fulfilling and provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a professor of sustainability research at UNSW Sydney and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper .
Permanently reducing air travel , driving , home energy use , food waste , and shopping to protect our kids and grandkids from climate chaos need not lead to any reduction in quality of life .
In fact , it may even go a long way toward improving it ( for ourselves and others ) .
As Vox ’ s Sigal Samuel reported in June , the top change readers she surveyed said they wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumerism.
” “ A long period of being shut in and not spending as much has led to the realization that so much of our consumer behavior is about instant gratification , not lasting happiness , ” she writes .
We can also use lessons from our new Covid-constrained life for further economic reforms tailored to the climate emergency reality we find ourselves in .
As Pope Francis put it in a Saturday speech on climate change , “ The current economic system is unsustainable .
We are faced with a moral imperative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including means of production , consumerism , waste , indifference to the poor , and harmful energy sources , according to Reuters .
In particular , degrowth is a promising framework for meeting basic needs and improving well-being while staying within the carbon budget and planetary boundaries .
While individual contributions to climate change may be dwarfed by the contributions of fossil fuel companies and heavy industry , individual changes can also spread by “ behavioral contagion , ” social tipping points , and positive feedback loops .
Here we ’ ll lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow fortunates who have the economic freedom to choose how and what they consume .
Individual , grassroots changes are essential to a bigger systemic change ; personal growth and flourishing can happen through resource degrowth .
Yes , individual choices matter , especially if you ’ re affluent From a global perspective , middle-class Americans are in the top 10 percent income-wise .
“ A $ 59,000 income in the United States has enough buying power to put you in the 91st percentile globally for per-person income , ” according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our fellow fortunates all have “ optional consumption ” that we engage in , often unreflectively .
Given that leverage , every energy reduction we can make is a gift to future humans , and all life on Earth .
And we should be on guard for excuses to avoid changing individual consumption behaviors ; they ’ re often based on logical , arithmetic , and moral errors .
For instance , affluent people sometimes argue that their consumption choices don ’ t matter because they ’ re just one person on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But consider the physics of tipping points using an analogy from a 2019 piece we wrote , “ 12 excuses for climate inaction and how to refute , ” which helps explain why our decisions today are so much more critical than they were a decade ago — or even this time last year .
A useful image here is a pile of sand on one side of a weighing scale ; at or near the tipping point , it ’ s easy to see that every tiny grain of sand contributes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls .
Your seemingly tiny contribution — the optional flight , the round-the-clock air conditioning , the thrice-weekly portion of beef — can , arithmetically , add up to make a critical difference .
And “ the bigger your carbon footprint , the bigger your moral duty , ” Greta Thunberg said in her widely cited 2019 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
Where the weighing scale image fails is that there isn ’ t just one tipping point or one single outcome , but rather a spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the nearer to the safer end of the spectrum we can stay , and the less climate chaos we will create .
We usually have options where we can choose to have more or less climate impact .
Every time we choose more and not less , we ’ re imposing compounding burdens on others and on our descendants .
Our choices will determine whether the future is “ merely grim , rather than apocalyptic , ” as New York ’ s David Wallace-Wells writes in his book The Uninhabitable Earth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent the deepening of racial and economic injustice and inequality — low-income people and people of color are among the first to lose the most in climate disasters .
Working toward justice means being a resource-responsible consumer .
“ I think it is important for people to say that they will not do certain types of consumption anymore , ” Julia Steinberger , a professor of ecological economics at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper , tells Vox .
“ It ’ s about making this way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich could show their status and prestige with other things than lots of cars and huge houses and lots of material wealth.
” With all this in mind , here are five potential resource-responsible actions to commit to , in no particular order : • Drive and fly less , since the top 10 percent uses around 45 percent of land transport energy and 75 percent of air transport energy , per a 2020 paper by Steinberger in Nature Energy .
• Retrofit your house and purchase clean energy , since roughly 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come from heating , cooling , and powering households .
• Buy food mindfully ( less meat and dairy , don ’ t waste what you buy ) , since meat and dairy account for around 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions , according to the UN ’ s Food and Agricultural Organization .
• Shop less , since the fashion industry generates at least 5 percent of global emissions .
• Ditch status-signaling SUVs , since SUVs were the second-largest source of the global rise in emissions over the past decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy industry , and even trucks .
The pleasures of much of our consumption are fast forgotten , but the costs are slow and will be felt by generations for centuries to come Despite what consumption enthusiasts and their enablers ( marketers , economists , etc . )
preach , the benefits and pleasures of much of our consumption are fleeting .
Many of us have an inkling of this from our own experience , but we ’ re trapped on the treadmill of unthinking hedonic habits .
That enduring lack of true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Enlightenment , or Nirvana , is the “ the absence of greed , absence of dislike , and absence of egoism , ” as the Buddhist writer and scholar Stephen Batchelor notes in an interview with On Being ’ s Krista Tippett .
And one of the most robust findings in social science , according to economist Robert Frank at Cornell , is the research on how emotional well-being doesn ’ t improve above an annual ( individual ) income of $ 75,000 .
Some of our least effective consumption occurs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re feeling bad , or anxious , or bored , we often seek relief in impulsive shopping , a.k.a .
retail therapy .
What longer-lasting reliefs beat fleeting fun ?
You may have experienced part of the answer in these Covid-constrained conditions .
For many , an activity as simple as a walk has been their day ’ s treat .
That ’ s especially true if you find beauty or curiosity on your walk , where you notice things interesting enough to achieve what Iris Murdoch called “ unselfing ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxieties , even if only temporarily .
( Here ’ s some background on this idea from Maria Popova . )
These spirit-supporting pleasures typically take more effort than reaching for “ junk ” treats ( like a quick online purchase ) .
But , in addition to being more satisfying , they often lack negative knock-on effects , like putting more carbon into the atmosphere .
This carbon cost isn ’ t just about you — it is our collective legacy to our children and all future humans .
Hopefully , Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planetary boundaries and other collective threats we ’ ve long ignored .
On climate , we should wake up to the intergenerational zero-sum game we are playing , where the carbon-generating and resource-depleting consumption we indulge in now compromises the safety of future humans .
Every physical resource is limited , or is renewable within certain limits .
And this logic means there is no “ green growth ” solution here unless we reduce consumption : the approach known as “ degrowth.
” Even before Covid-19 , a fundamental restructuring of the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaping inequities , the shockingly lopsided accumulation — nay , hoarding — of wealth .
The factors that led to that are only being exacerbated by Covid-19 .
But as we recover from the pandemic , richer countries and citizens have a tremendous opportunity to remold under another paradigm .
Degrowth , as the economic anthropologist Jason Hickel puts it , is about rich countries “ actively scaling down resource use and energy use.
” On a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast , he clarified : “ When people hear ‘ degrowth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recession .
But here ’ s the thing ... a recession is what happens when a growth-oriented economy stops growing .
It ’ s a disaster .
People lose their jobs .
They lose their houses .
Poverty rates rise , etc .
‘ Degrowth ’ is calling for a shift to a fundamentally different kind of economy altogether.
” As Wiedmann , Steinberger , and their co-authors describe it , degrowth is a “ downscaled steady-state economic system that is socially just and in balance with ecological limits.
” Taking advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a focus on carbon emissions .
Clean energy , for example , won ’ t deliver a sustainable economy by itself .
It ’ s about our resource use more broadly .
( Even preexisting sweeping proposals like the Green New Deal often don ’ t address material limits . )
As Hickel wrote in June in Foreign Policy : The outer limit works out to be about 6 metric tons per human per year .
The current US average is 35 metric tons , with those toward the top of the income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no avoiding the urgent need for deep cuts in energy and material use in rich nations , especially among those countries ’ richest citizens .
Since we may not be able to remove much of the carbon that has already been emitted , or return the materials that have already been extracted , it ’ s best now to adopt a forward-looking redemption stance .
What matters most is reducing impacts from here on out , rather than prosecuting past “ sins , ” often committed unwittingly , or by rich-mimicking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means choosing not to mindlessly add more grains of sand to the scale .
There are green shoots visible of the vast changes needed .
China committed Tuesday to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak its emissions by 2030 .
Night trains are coming back in Europe partially in response to people demanding low-carbon alternatives to flying .
A group of European central bankers wrote in the Guardian in June that “ the pandemic offers a unique chance to green the global economy ” and is mobilizing businesses , investors , banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks are effectively managed in the financial system.
” You , too , can bank on bettering your personal economy by creating a new normal of mindful consumption and making it visible to others in the affluent class , as Steinberger advises .
You ’ ll be a better , and probably happier , person .
And other humans , including your kids , will thank you .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as $ 3 .

If 2020 teaches us anything, it’s that the next crisis we could have prevented is probably right around the corner, and it will be painful. A pandemic that scientists warned was very likely to occur arrived and has already killed well over 250,000 people in the US. Dozens of predicted, large wildfires — the latest evidence of the climate emergency — recentlu torched the American West, their smoke more damaging to health than almost any fire season on record.
But it’s not too late to intervene and limit climate chaos.
A June paper in Nature Communications clarifies whose actions in this moment are “central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions.” Yes, government and industry leaders are on the hook to decarbonize operations and infrastructure. But it’s also the affluent who use far more resources than the poor — more energy and more material goods per capita than the planet can sustain.
“Highly affluent consumers drive biophysical resource use (a) directly through high consumption, (b) as members of powerful factions of the capitalist class and (c) through driving consumption norms across the population,” the authors write.
The rich or merely affluent, it turns out, are actually the ones blowing through the world’s carbon budget — the maximum amount of cumulative emissions that can be added to the atmosphere to hit the Paris agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming goal.
According to a September report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the richest 10 percent of the world’s population — those who earned $38,000 per year or more as of 2015 — were responsible for 52 percent of cumulative carbon emissions and ate up 31 percent of the world’s carbon budget from 1990 to 2015.
Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent of people — who made $109,000 or more per year in 2015 — alone were responsible for 15 percent of cumulative emissions, and used 9 percent of the carbon budget.
The rapidly accelerating growth in total emissions worldwide isn’t mainly about an improvement in quality of life for the poorer half of the world’s population, either. Instead, the report finds, “nearly half the growth has merely allowed the already wealthy top 10 percent to augment their consumption and enlarge their carbon footprints.” Another recent study found that affluent frequent fliers who make up just 1 percent of the global population are responsible for 50 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aviation.
In sum, as Tim Gore, head of climate policy at Oxfam, said in a statement, “The over-consumption of a wealthy minority is fueling the climate crisis yet it is poor communities and young people who are paying the price.”
Related Why rich people use so much more energy
Somehow, in all the campaigns to inspire climate action, the onus on well-off people to take the lead on sustainable consumption has been lost. But the Covid-19 pandemic may turn out to be the best opportunity — especially for the affluent among us — to shift consumption habits.
Here’s why: When we cut back on energy-intensive travel and shopping in the spring, it was easier to see the mindlessness, and even lack of satisfaction, in these patterns. For some people, “the Covid-19 crisis has shown that maybe we can do things differently, that a simpler life can be more fulfilling and provide more happiness,” says Tommy Wiedmann, a professor of sustainability research at UNSW Sydney and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper.
Permanently reducing air travel, driving, home energy use, food waste, and shopping to protect our kids and grandkids from climate chaos need not lead to any reduction in quality of life. In fact, it may even go a long way toward improving it (for ourselves and others). As Vox’s Sigal Samuel reported in June, the top change readers she surveyed said they wanted to maintain after quarantine was “reducing consumerism.” “A long period of being shut in and not spending as much has led to the realization that so much of our consumer behavior is about instant gratification, not lasting happiness,” she writes.
We can also use lessons from our new Covid-constrained life for further economic reforms tailored to the climate emergency reality we find ourselves in. As Pope Francis put it in a Saturday speech on climate change, “The current economic system is unsustainable. We are faced with a moral imperative ... to rethink many things,” including means of production, consumerism, waste, indifference to the poor, and harmful energy sources, according to Reuters.
In particular, degrowth is a promising framework for meeting basic needs and improving well-being while staying within the carbon budget and planetary boundaries.
While individual contributions to climate change may be dwarfed by the contributions of fossil fuel companies and heavy industry, individual changes can also spread by “behavioral contagion,” social tipping points, and positive feedback loops.
Here we’ll lay out some of the key opportunities for fellow fortunates who have the economic freedom to choose how and what they consume. Individual, grassroots changes are essential to a bigger systemic change; personal growth and flourishing can happen through resource degrowth.
Yes, individual choices matter, especially if you’re affluent
From a global perspective, middle-class Americans are in the top 10 percent income-wise. “A $59,000 income in the United States has enough buying power to put you in the 91st percentile globally for per-person income,” according to the Washington Post. And beyond that, our fellow fortunates all have “optional consumption” that we engage in, often unreflectively.
Given that leverage, every energy reduction we can make is a gift to future humans, and all life on Earth. And we should be on guard for excuses to avoid changing individual consumption behaviors; they’re often based on logical, arithmetic, and moral errors.
For instance, affluent people sometimes argue that their consumption choices don’t matter because they’re just one person on a planet of more than 7 billion. But consider the physics of tipping points using an analogy from a 2019 piece we wrote, “12 excuses for climate inaction and how to refute,” which helps explain why our decisions today are so much more critical than they were a decade ago — or even this time last year.
A useful image here is a pile of sand on one side of a weighing scale; at or near the tipping point, it’s easy to see that every tiny grain of sand contributes to when that side of the scale ultimately falls. Your seemingly tiny contribution — the optional flight, the round-the-clock air conditioning, the thrice-weekly portion of beef — can, arithmetically, add up to make a critical difference. And “the bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty,” Greta Thunberg said in her widely cited 2019 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Where the weighing scale image fails is that there isn’t just one tipping point or one single outcome, but rather a spectrum. The fewer greenhouse gases we emit, the nearer to the safer end of the spectrum we can stay, and the less climate chaos we will create.
We usually have options where we can choose to have more or less climate impact. Every time we choose more and not less, we’re imposing compounding burdens on others and on our descendants. Our choices will determine whether the future is “merely grim, rather than apocalyptic,” as New York’s David Wallace-Wells writes in his book The Uninhabitable Earth.
Restrained consumption is also a way to prevent the deepening of racial and economic injustice and inequality — low-income people and people of color are among the first to lose the most in climate disasters. Working toward justice means being a resource-responsible consumer.
“I think it is important for people to say that they will not do certain types of consumption anymore,” Julia Steinberger, a professor of ecological economics at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper, tells Vox. “It’s about making this way of life more visibly unacceptable. The rich could show their status and prestige with other things than lots of cars and huge houses and lots of material wealth.”
With all this in mind, here are five potential resource-responsible actions to commit to, in no particular order:
Drive and fly less, since the top 10 percent uses around 45 percent of land transport energy and 75 percent of air transport energy, per a 2020 paper by Steinberger in Nature Energy. Retrofit your house and purchase clean energy, since roughly 20 percent of US energy-related greenhouse gas emissions come from heating, cooling, and powering households. Buy food mindfully (less meat and dairy, don’t waste what you buy), since meat and dairy account for around 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization. Shop less, since the fashion industry generates at least 5 percent of global emissions. Ditch status-signaling SUVs, since SUVs were the second-largest source of the global rise in emissions over the past decade, eclipsing all shipping, aviation, heavy industry, and even trucks.
The pleasures of much of our consumption are fast forgotten, but the costs are slow and will be felt by generations for centuries to come
Despite what consumption enthusiasts and their enablers (marketers, economists, etc.) preach, the benefits and pleasures of much of our consumption are fleeting. Many of us have an inkling of this from our own experience, but we’re trapped on the treadmill of unthinking hedonic habits.
That enduring lack of true satisfaction is confirmed by much ancient wisdom: Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is the “ the absence of greed, absence of dislike, and absence of egoism,” as the Buddhist writer and scholar Stephen Batchelor notes in an interview with On Being’s Krista Tippett. And one of the most robust findings in social science, according to economist Robert Frank at Cornell, is the research on how emotional well-being doesn’t improve above an annual (individual) income of $75,000.
Things that don’t matter right now:
- Clothes
- Shoes
- Watches
- Jewelry
- Cars
What’s the new status symbol during a lockdown? — Andrew Wilkinson (@awilkinson) April 3, 2020
Some of our least effective consumption occurs in the form of self-soothing habits. When we’re feeling bad, or anxious, or bored, we often seek relief in impulsive shopping, a.k.a. retail therapy.
What longer-lasting reliefs beat fleeting fun? You may have experienced part of the answer in these Covid-constrained conditions. For many, an activity as simple as a walk has been their day’s treat.
That’s especially true if you find beauty or curiosity on your walk, where you notice things interesting enough to achieve what Iris Murdoch called “unselfing” — taking you out of your self-centered anxieties, even if only temporarily. (Here’s some background on this idea from Maria Popova.)
These spirit-supporting pleasures typically take more effort than reaching for “junk” treats (like a quick online purchase). But, in addition to being more satisfying, they often lack negative knock-on effects, like putting more carbon into the atmosphere. This carbon cost isn’t just about you — it is our collective legacy to our children and all future humans.
Hopefully, Covid-19 can teach us to pay attention to planetary boundaries and other collective threats we’ve long ignored. On climate, we should wake up to the intergenerational zero-sum game we are playing, where the carbon-generating and resource-depleting consumption we indulge in now compromises the safety of future humans.
Every physical resource is limited, or is renewable within certain limits. And this logic means there is no “green growth” solution here unless we reduce consumption: the approach known as “degrowth.”
Degrowth, explained
Even before Covid-19, a fundamental restructuring of the economy was very clearly needed to right the gaping inequities, the shockingly lopsided accumulation — nay, hoarding — of wealth. The factors that led to that are only being exacerbated by Covid-19. But as we recover from the pandemic, richer countries and citizens have a tremendous opportunity to remold under another paradigm.
Degrowth, as the economic anthropologist Jason Hickel puts it, is about rich countries “actively scaling down resource use and energy use.”
On a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast, he clarified: “When people hear ‘degrowth,’ they think that sounds like a recession. But here’s the thing ... a recession is what happens when a growth-oriented economy stops growing. It’s a disaster. People lose their jobs. They lose their houses. Poverty rates rise, etc. ‘Degrowth’ is calling for a shift to a fundamentally different kind of economy altogether.”
As Wiedmann, Steinberger, and their co-authors describe it, degrowth is a “downscaled steady-state economic system that is socially just and in balance with ecological limits.”
Taking advantage of this opportunity also requires going beyond a focus on carbon emissions. Clean energy, for example, won’t deliver a sustainable economy by itself. It’s about our resource use more broadly. (Even preexisting sweeping proposals like the Green New Deal often don’t address material limits.)
As Hickel wrote in June in Foreign Policy:
Ecologists say that the planet can handle maximum annual resource use of about 50 billion metric tons per year. We crossed that planetary boundary in the late 1990s, and today we’re overshooting it by more than 90 percent. This is what’s driving ecological breakdown: Every additional ton of material extraction has an impact on the planet’s ecosystems.
The outer limit works out to be about 6 metric tons per human per year. The current US average is 35 metric tons, with those toward the top of the income scale consuming vastly more. This means there is no avoiding the urgent need for deep cuts in energy and material use in rich nations, especially among those countries’ richest citizens.
Since we may not be able to remove much of the carbon that has already been emitted, or return the materials that have already been extracted, it’s best now to adopt a forward-looking redemption stance. What matters most is reducing impacts from here on out, rather than prosecuting past “sins,” often committed unwittingly, or by rich-mimicking rather than explicit choice. And that means choosing not to mindlessly add more grains of sand to the scale.
Related Social tipping points are the only hope for the climate
There are green shoots visible of the vast changes needed. China committed Tuesday to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak its emissions by 2030. Night trains are coming back in Europe partially in response to people demanding low-carbon alternatives to flying. A group of European central bankers wrote in the Guardian in June that “the pandemic offers a unique chance to green the global economy” and is mobilizing businesses, investors, banks, and governments “to ensure climate risks are effectively managed in the financial system.”
You, too, can bank on bettering your personal economy by creating a new normal of mindful consumption and making it visible to others in the affluent class, as Steinberger advises. You’ll be a better, and probably happier, person. And other humans, including your kids, will thank you.