A piece in Counterpunch by Stan Cox, Tinpot Legislators, details a problem worthy of note:

Republican state politicians, wielding a lot more than mean tweets, are intent on waging all-out war against private companies that don’t cater to the oil, gas, and coal industries.

Here is the substance of Cox's complaint:

Market-based measures alone won’t bring about the precipitous decline in greenhouse-gas emissions that, in terms of extreme weather, the planet is screaming for ever more desperately. For that, urgent, direct action would be needed to suppress the extraction and use of coal, oil, and natural gas.

It goes without saying that coordinated nationwide action of that sort would be unimaginable in the American political universe of 2023. Even governors and legislatures determined to reduce carbon emissions can only achieve so much, given that their states exist in a national climate-policy vacuum and often share borders with ones in which increasingly authoritarian state legislatures are violating the local autonomy of communities and municipalities by force-feeding them fossil fuels.

Cox is a writer worth knowing. He's affiliated with the Land Institute and has written books such as The Green New Deal and Beyond, a treatise on climate change that recommends degrowthist solutions and measures such as participatory budgeting.

At any rate, Cox's complaint is reminiscent of a Omar El Akkad's novel American War, a speculative-fiction work set in the year 2075 in which parts of the United States have seceded because they did not want to ban the use of fossil fuels. I remember that some critics thought the premise was outlandish -- who would want to secede from the US over fossil fuel use? Cox's exposition makes El Akkad's futuristic premise look pretty reasonable.

At any rate, it serves to note that Cox's complaint about "increasingly authoritarian state legislatures" sticks as well, and so, for instance, you have the Tennessee House, which moved to expel three legislators because, presumably, they engaged in a protest, which (last I heard) was a Constitutionally-protected activity. How about those Tennessee legislators! They must be CPAC people -- you know, the ones who profess such a deep and abiding loyalty to the US Constitution while at the same time attempting to establish their own private dictatorships.

And with the legislatures one recalls the President whose actions were most directly responsible for putting them in office -- I refer, of course, to Barack Obama, whose proxies bankrupted the DNC so that it could be taken over by Hillary Clinton proxies. During Obama's tenure, one might remember, the Democrats lost more than 900 state legislative seats to the Republicans. Thanks Barack! You set the gold standard for the current Democratic Party policy of looking desperately for ways to avoid doing anything to mitigate climate change while at the same time professing a common belief in "science."

Meanwhile, of course, drilling in the newly-defrosted Arctic has achieved a victory in Alaska - they can now build the roads they need to complete the project. The existing system, however you want to define it, proves itself once again incapable of mitigating climate change. We will need a new one once this one collapses.