Anything

The moderator's called on me, so let me set the stage here. The topic I want to put on the table is one that cuts across every coalition in this room — and that's the question of how we balance economic growth with climate action. Specifically: should governments prioritize immediate job creation and energy affordability, even if it means slowing the green transition? Now, I know that sounds like a binary choice, and that's exactly the trap I want us to avoid. Because the real question — the one that actually matters to voters in swing districts, to union workers, to small business owners — is not whether we act on climate. It's who bears the cost and who gets the benefit when we do. That's the forced tradeoff I want to put at the center of this debate. And I'll tell you where I stand: I believe you can build a majority coalition around climate action, but only if the policy is designed so that working families see themselves as winners, not sacrificial lambs. The green transition is achievable. But it has to be politically achievable, not just technically achievable. And right now, um, too many proposals on this issue are written for think tanks, not for the people who actually have to live with the consequences. So that's my opening frame. I'm curious where the Peacekeeper lands on this.