Last November, Zak Ringelstein was the official Democratic nominee in Maine’s U.S. Senate race. The unofficial Democratic candidate was Angus King, the far more electable, politically kindred and establishment–aligned incumbent running for his second term as a professed Independent. That unspoken reality being an open secret, and Ringelstein being perceived as way too much of a risk of a possible Republican upset, King walked away with the majority of the Democratic vote and easily secured his expected return to Washington. 

Ironically, I voted for Ringelstein because, even though he was the purported Democratic challenger, he was clearly the more progressive and truly independent choice. Especially regarding environmental action. He wasn’t beholden to corporate interests, actually or ideologically. His political agenda was about fundamentally changing the status quo rather than believing that progress can only be achieved by working within the system as it is. 

That’s the paradox of our current two-party, us or them, never give an inch, partisan bet-hedging approach to somehow achieving a consensus of who we are and where we should be headed. Capitalism and our seriously flawed representative governance remain unpromising crapshoots in hoping to avert a Titanic outcome in navigating ever-increasing environmental icebergs. Like that doomed ship, too many of our leaders, even those acknowledging the perilous waters around us, somehow believe that technological hubris alone will eventually prevail in keeping us afloat. Too many still think we can have our Green cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, that’s the case with both of Maine’s sitting senators who stand up for environmental progress but only if the safety of the economy comes first. 

Looking at what’s posted on their websites, it’s difficult to say how they differ on climate change. Both acknowledge global warming as an existential threat. Both sponsor legislation protecting the environment and speak of their devotion to safeguarding it for future generations. Googling their voting records again reveals similar concerns and approaches. Those are all good things and far better than their positions being at cross purposes, but it’s a bit disconcerting that Collins sets a more progressive example in bucking Republican environmental opposition while King displays a more conservative approach in comparison to where the Democratic mainstream now positions itself. 

That was made particularly evident in the recently rushed preemptive vote in the Republican-controlled Senate on a Democratic-controlled House’s protracted consideration of a resolution championing a so-called Green New Deal. Though Susan Collins ultimately aligned herself with a unanimous party-line No vote, Angus King readily joined three “red state” Democrats in crossing the aisle to vote with the Republican opposition to the measure. All other Democrats protested the “procedural sham” by voting “present” so as to delegitimize the Senate Majority Leader’s Republican gamesmanship. King can hardly be criticized as lacking Independent credentials in this instance, but it remains a bit confusing as to what message his peculiar environmental odd-man-out display of political conservatism means to convey. It’s certainly an interesting “What if?” to imagine the outcome had Senator King positioned himself with such a vote prior to his re-election run against Ringelstein. 

“In terms of desire to see real, impactful measures to address climate change, I’m second to none.” That’s Sen. King’s unapologetic post-vote assertion that his tenure has furthered “realistic goals” in combating planetary destruction while dismissing the Green New Deal as being far too idealistic in its scope. 

Sen. Collins’ press release similarly rationalizes her own No vote as nevertheless being “committed to advancing reasonable and effective policies in the U.S. Senate to protect the environment.” 

Neither appears to be listening to the soon-to-be major voting block that constitutes the generation that will be irreversibly affected by King’s and Collins’ well-intentioned but clearly failed environmental stewardship. Neither seems to really comprehend the urgency demanded by those who will ultimately inherit the catastrophic mistakes of a myopic bottom-line-first approach to environmental remedy. 

Maybe their hesitancy to embrace a full-bore Sunrise Movement resolve is that would require too much of an admission that they’ve held positions of power that could and should have intervened far more responsibly, far, far earlier. 

Sen. King says there’s “no silver bullet,” while Senator Collins expresses a like-minded political pragmatism that’s incapable of envisioning a total allegiance to rebooting a natural order. 

One of King’s favorite disarming one-liners is that “The cheapest and cleanest kilowatt-hour is the one not used.” That’s hardly of any great solace to Greta Thunberg’s generation which realizes that timid capitalist solutions like “energy efficiencies” fail to realistically acknowledge that so much of our unconscionable energy consumption must be unequivocally curtailed, whatever the economic fallout. King and Collins still believe we have time to wean ourselves from a fossil fuel economy, while 16-year-old Thunberg continues to hauntingly admonish: “Why wasn’t it made illegal.” 

That question is far from being naively unrealistic. The totally actionable silver bullet is for governing grownups to actually listen to these young activists, act as if really responsible adults, and boldly legislate an end to carbon and plastic poisoning of our planet. 

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.