I have to wonder about the seriousness of those in Congress who imagine themselves to have an actual response to the climate change problem, yet who actually support Senate Bill 1169, the "Strategic Competition Act."

Now the "Strategic Competition Act" has bipartisan support in Congress. Alleged liberal (and actual Democrat) Jeff Merkley, one of Oregon's Senate representatives, authored "numerous components" of this bill, yet, as the Reuters article argues:

The bill stresses the need to "prioritize the military investments necessary to achieve United States political objectives in the Indo-Pacific." It backs steep increases in security-related funding for the region and closer ties with Taiwan.

So it makes the liberals happy by selling "human rights," while flooding the military with money, something nobody in Congress can say "no" to.

Primary objections to this sort of bill among mere members of the public can be expected from principled pacifists. So, for instance, you have the Union of Concerned Scientists putting out a piece titled "Ten Problems with the Strategic Competition Act of 2021." But a more interesting objection comes from Michael Klare, who wrote a piece in TomDispatch which outlines what the real economic problem is. That is, it outlines what the real problem is if the Democrats have the least interest in actually making good on their promises to do anything at all about climate change (even within their narrow purview of saving capitalism first and the people and the planet second). Here is the paragraph that matters:

To put the matter simply, there is no way the United States or other countries can undertake a massive transition from fossil fuels to a renewables-based economy without engaging economically with China. Undoubtedly, efforts will be made to reduce the degree of that reliance, but there’s no realistic prospect of eliminating dependence on China for rare earths, lithium, and other key materials in the foreseeable future. If, in other words, the U.S. were to move from a modestly Cold-War-like stance toward Beijing to an even more hostile one, and if it were to engage in further Trumpian-style attempts to “decouple” its economy from that of the People’s Republic, as advocated by many “China hawks” in Congress, there’s no question about it: the Biden administration would have to abandon its plans for a green-energy future.

Simply put: if Congress thinks it's going to promote "green" capitalism as a climate change response while ratcheting up some kind of Cold War against China (and, yeah, I don't care how pretty their motives look), they are suffering from a collective delusion of the worst sort.

(Of course, if the solar panels and electric vehicles really can all be manufactured without using any rare earth metals, then there's no need to worry. Right, "green" capitalists? Guess we'll find out soon enough.)