Green New Deal

[d21mike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...95194e-dfca-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html

Klein marshals the most powerful arguments for why climate change cannot be effectively addressed without a simultaneous deep reckoning with our society’s other ills of wealth and income inequality, racial discrimination, and crumbling infrastructure.

Whether or not one accepts every detail of the Green New Deal as currently conceived, it is hard to deny that a successful fix to the climate crisis will involve a radical reduction in corporations’ influence over our political process.

Klein talks about “democratic eco-socialism,” but the examples she holds up are Sweden and Denmark, places where capitalism is alive and well.

I read the article but not planning to read the book. Most of what I read will be the exact reason why nothing will be done. Multiple times it mentions socialism in the context that people will see GND as just that. Well that is actually true. They talk about 12 then 11 and soon 10 years before it is too late. Was not positive if the comment was in agreement or not. But if we are looking at 10 years I would think we should start working on things we can agree on instead of "talking" about things will might never agree on. 10 years will be here in a blink. Probably too late already.

Is the Green New Deal a plot to use the climate emergency as a pretense for socialism? Klein is well aware of this accusation.

 

[d21mike]

Actually I think it was the spike in oil and gasoline prices that started the recession. If money is tight and gas to get to work is now suddenly $600 rather than you $300 budget do you fill your tank to get to work and hope to catch up on your mortgage next month. Or stop driving, likely lose your job, to pay the mortgage this month? Most people opted for the immediate fill my tank. They got behind and if close to the edge it is near impossible to recover.

You are right about the Gasoline prices increasing a lot which actually started with the IRAQ WAR around 2002. The biggest jump was from 2004 (1.88) to 2005 (2.30) and was 3.27 by 2008 before starting back down before returning even higher in 2011.

Anyway, around the same time the Fed Interest rate increased by > 500%. See below from Wikipedia...

This is what Crammer was talking about with the "they know nothing rant" and I was right there with him saying the same thing. The Fed Interest rate affects every other interest rate. Like PRIME which the Variable Home Mortgage is tied too. And of course Credit Card Interest Rates as well. And the cost of money that businesses are charged which is passed on to everyone.

Yes, gasoline prices hurt customers like you said but I believe the Fed Rate was the nail in the coffin which caused the melt down when mortgages defaulted.

The last full cycle of rate increases occurred between June 2004 and June 2006 as rates steadily rose from 1.00% to 5.25%. The target rate remained at 5.25% for over a year, until the Federal Reserve began lowering rates in September 2007. The last cycle of easing monetary policy through the rate was conducted from September 2007 to December 2008 as the target rate fell from 5.25% to a range of 0.00–0.25%. Between December 2008 and December 2015 the target rate remained at 0.00–0.25%, the lowest rate in the Federal Reserve's history, as a reaction to the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 and its aftermath. According to Jack A. Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, one reason for this unprecedented move of having a range, rather than a specific rate, was because a rate of 0% could have had problematic implications for money market funds, whose fees could then outpace yields.

Federal funds rate - Wikipedia

 

[juliusa]

Supporters of the GND leading by example. Lead and they will follow.

Private flight spending soars in Democratic presidential race

 

[JRP3]

And Elon flies a lot, while working to change world energy usage. So? I took extra trips in my truck when getting parts to build my EVs too. It's the long term result that matters.

 

[juliusa]

Do as I say, not as I do.

The leaders in Cuba and Venezuela live large too.

“The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends.” ― Ludwig von Mises

 

[JRP3]

So your solution would be for those candidates to stay home, not get elected, and not be able to make the changes which would improve the world? Elon should not have started Tesla because in the short term he would need to take extra flights? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?

 

[mspohr]

Mark Zuckerberg's plea for the billionaire class is deeply anti-democratic

Mark Zuckerberg's plea for the billionaire class is deeply anti-democratic | Kate Aronoff

Their success, this myth tells us, is a testament to their ability to divine what’s best for society and bring it into existence; their fortunes are commensurate to their genius. Philanthropy, as such, isn’t just an alternative to taxing them more but far preferable. After all, what could some collection of nameless, faceless bureaucrats know better than a man – and they’re usually men – who has built such vast wealth? Vital innovation, Zuckerberg threatens, will only happen if you’re nice enough to him and his rich friends.

As common as this argument is, it also happens not to be true. Take the basis of Mark Zuckerberg’s fortune. The internet was developed out of a small Pentagon network intended to allow the military to exchange information during the Cold War. In her book The Entrepreneurial State, economist Mariana Mazzucato shows that iPhones – the ones that Facebook skims prolific amounts of data off of to sell to the highest bidder – are in large part a collection of technologies created by various state agencies, cobbled together by Apple into the same sleek case.

Moreover, billionaires’ extravagant wealth is by and large not spent, as Zuckerberg suggests, on cutting edge research and philanthropic efforts. After they’ve bought up enough yachts and private jets they mainly invest in making themselves richer through casino-style financial speculation and in luxury real estate in starkly unequal cities like San Francisco, Miami and New York, where mostly vacant homes act as safety deposit boxes to shield wealth from taxation. Their money might also end up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands, where it can sit undisturbed by the long arm of the state. Very little of that ever trickles down to the 99%, where inequality has skyrocketed and wages have stagnated.

 

[SDRick]

So your solution would be for those candidates to stay home, not get elected, and not be able to make the changes which would improve the world? Elon should not have started Tesla because in the short term he would need to take extra flights? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?

What this illustrates is that important politicians, capitalists, bureaucrats and other "special" people seldom do as they say and often live to a "higher" standard, We just need a better mechanism to determine who was special and who is not.

 

[mspohr]

What this illustrates is that important politicians, capitalists, bureaucrats and other "special" people seldom do as they say and often live to a "higher" standard, We just need a better mechanism to determine who was special and who is not.

It sounds like you want people to be hobbled by their current lack of choices for energy to keep them from creating a better world.

 

[SDRick]

It sounds like you want people to be hobbled by their current lack of choices for energy to keep them from creating a better world.

Just making an observation and my solution was tongue-in-cheek. Not interested in hobbling people or hindering creation of a better world.

 

[JRP3]

To initiate change you have to work with things as they currently are. Doing nothing is not an option.

 

[juliusa]

So your solution would be for those candidates to stay home, not get elected, and not be able to make the changes which would improve the world?

No. They should simply fly commercial.

It is clear they see the climate as a convenient crisis, not something they actually care about.

By your logic, there is no need for the US to do anything about our carbon - just preach to the rest of the world about reducing THEIR carbon.

 

[JRP3]

No. They should simply fly commercial.

They aren't flying by themselves, it's team effort with support staff. They have to do a lot of travel day after day and commercial wastes a lot of time.

It is clear they see the climate as a convenient crisis, not something they actually care about.

No that's your spin on it, not reality.

By your logic, there is no need for the US to do anything about our carbon - just preach to the rest of the world about reducing THEIR carbon.

Not even close to anyone's "logic". You're desperate and grasping.

 

[juliusa]

Not even close to anyone's "logic". You're desperate and grasping.

Do as I say, not as I do. Clearly they think "lead by example" is BS.

They aren't flying by themselves, it's team effort with support staff. They have to do a lot of travel day after day and commercial wastes a lot of time.

Rationalization. The climate does not care what the apologists say - it is all about carbon. Yes, yes - they are so busy. Don't have the time to fly commercial - that is for the peons like us.

 

[JRP3]

Do as I say, not as I do. Clearly they think "lead by example" is BS.

The policies they hope to enact would apply to all, including themselves. Try to pay attention.

Rationalization. The climate does not care what the apologists say - it is all about carbon. Yes, yes - they are so busy. Don't have the time to fly commercial - that is for the peons like us.

If they can't cover as much territory as possible they might not win, and winning is crucial, so they can enact widespread legislation that makes a real difference. Your nitpicking attempts to distract from the actual issues are pathetic. Either raise your game or stop wasting our time.

 

[juliusa]

If they can't cover as much territory as possible they might not win, and winning is crucial, so they can enact widespread legislation that makes a real difference.

Since they are all Democrats fighting among each other, how about if they simply agree on a moratorium on flying private for all candidates?? Nobody "might not win" because they are not covering enough territory since they would all have the same restriction. Just like an arms control agreement - a carbon control agreement.

We all know they won't do it, and the corrupt media won't ask that question at a "debate" because it would expose their hypocrisy.

They care about power, not the environment. Look at what lying politicians do, not what lying politicians say.

 

[JRP3]

Ridiculously ignorant comment. Stop wasting our time.

 

[juliusa]

The Democrat party could run a green primary if they so chose - same rules for everyone; nobody would be advantaged.

The chose not to - because they don't care about the planet. Global warming is simply a convenient crisis for them to push their agenda and gain power.

 

[JRP3]

Ignorant.

 

[mspohr]

Labour unveils plans for carbon-neutral energy system by 2030s

Labour unveils plans for carbon-neutral energy system by 2030s

Labour will unveil plans to create a carbon-neutral energy system by the 2030s including insulation upgrades for every home in the UK and enough new solar panels to cover 22,000 football pitches.

The party will set out its fast-track climate strategy on Thursday after adopting plans to work towards a net-zero carbon economy two decades ahead of the government’s legally binding 2050 target.