The other party puts forward a figleaf of caring to appease its climate-minded constituents, while actively doing the doing the dirty work in the interests of some of the largest polluters on this planet.
Sure. If the political center of the U.S. shifted leftward to what it was back in the 70s then maybe the left leaning party would push for more tangible policies.
In my mind, part of the problem is that both parties are pandering to a base with nonsensical policies. One party wants to do nothing because that is popular. The other party is apparently allergic to economically-based policies like cap-and-trade or a revenue neutral tax and instead wants to throw money at the problem. Neither approach is particularly effective.
(At least one side is willing to acknowledge that the problem exists. That’s worth something but maybe not very much.)
It's not the parties, it's the people. In Washington state some environmental groups fought against a revenue-neutral carbon reduction plan because it didn't give them a slush fund. A couple years later they got an initiative which involved teaching carbon and sending them the money -- surprise, voted down too. Been six years IIRC since we could have had a tax on carbon.
Democrats have proposed cap and trade for carbon and indeed supported this when it came to acid rain. I think your view about both parties pushing absurd positions on this topic is incorrect.
