Green New Deal

[iPlug]

...My thought is that it really was the blue collar mostly white men of Michigan, Penn etc. Unless those are your peeps, the rest is conjecture perhaps based on articles where they were interviewed...

They exist in every state, just in different proportions. Here in CA, at first glance it seems easy to brush off as Biden had a 30% margin. But most of that is from the several big cities in our state.

In our neck of the CA woods, we are in red leaning purple territory and have had more than a handful of discussions with local Trumpers, some in our own social circles.

 

[mspohr]

How To Stop Climate Change By Financing A Global Green New Deal

A new study by the World Future Council shows that a modest ECB “Climate Bailout” program of €150 billion per year could reduce global CO2 emissions by a whopping one-third by 2030. The program would not even have to create new money, but only to reinvest the proceeds from expiring bonds of former quantitative easing programs. Should other central banks participate in that kind of climate bailout, a reduction of CO2 emissions to net zero globally by 2040 would even be possible.


€150 billion to cope with the global climate crisis appears to be a bargain, compared to the €1350 billion that — reasonably and without relevant opposition — is now being used to overcome the coronavirus crisis.

 

[SageBrush]

How To Stop Climate Change By Financing A Global Green New Deal

A new study by the World Future Council shows that a modest ECB “Climate Bailout” program of €150 billion per year could reduce global CO2 emissions by a whopping one-third by 2030. The program would not even have to create new money, but only to reinvest the proceeds from expiring bonds of former quantitative easing programs. Should other central banks participate in that kind of climate bailout, a reduction of CO2 emissions to net zero globally by 2040 would even be possible.


€150 billion to cope with the global climate crisis appears to be a bargain, compared to the €1350 billion that — reasonably and without relevant opposition — is now being used to overcome the coronavirus crisis.

The linked article does not explain how the 150 billion Euro per year number was calculated.

I will say that I find the premise of state engineered loan risk reduction to be the only catalyst needed to spur a revolutionary CO2 drop to be misplaced. At least in my corner of the world, retiring fossil assets is blocked by utilities for two main reasons:

• The utilities want their unrealized sunk costs reimbursed
• 'Reliability' regulations hand tie utilites into keeping fossil reserves online, even at very low capacity factors that are not profitable.

It is easy to see this in the daily news: utilities are happy to build new green capacity, but they choke on retiring built fossil plants.

 

[mspohr]

The linked article does not explain how the 150 billion Euro per year number was calculated.

I will say that I find the premise of state engineered loan risk reduction to be the only catalyst needed to spur a revolutionary CO2 drop to be misplaced. At least in my corner of the world, retiring fossil assets is blocked by utilities for two main reasons:

• The utilities want their unrealized sunk costs reimbursed
• 'Reliability' regulations hand tie utilites into keeping fossil reserves online, even at very low capacity factors that are not profitable.

It is easy to see this in the daily news: utilities are happy to build new green capacity, but they choke on retiring built fossil plants.

To see how they arrived at their estimate, you have to go to the paper referenced in the news article:

If we use a slightly exploration from the 2018 figures of the FS-UNEP report on global renewable energy investments of the relation of RE-Investments in US-Dollar to the implemented RE-investment in GW a current relation of $1.5bn/GW can be assumed.29 Using this relation, we get around 770 GW for $1,150bn. If we use the reported Gigawatt shares of 2/3 solar and 1/3 wind30 and 1,600 full load hours for solar and 3,000 full load hours for wind31 we will get 1,592 TWh fossil free generated with new installed renewable energy. This short estimation uses a simplified assumption that only existing coal fired power plants will be substituted by the new renewable energy.32 Given an average degree of efficiency from 35 percent for the power plants and a factor of 0.34 KgCO2/kWh for the used coal33 an amount of 1.55 Gt CO2 could be saved by the new fossil free generated renewable energy per year. Until 2030 the global CO2 emission can be decreased from 42 Gt today to 26.5 Gt. T
https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/...ses-and-the-corona-pandemic-recession-2-1.pdf

I agree that utilities are a barrier. However, this paper calls for the central banks to make investments in renewables. These renewables will crowd out entrenched utility fossil fuel assets. If the market is flooded with cheap renewables, they can continue to keep their fossil fuel plants "on standby" and continue to soak ratepayers up to a point. Eventually the market will win out.

 

[mspohr]

Biden Treasury Pick Could Defund the Fossil Fuel Industry, Climate Organizers Say

“The genesis of the Green New Deal is the idea that the entire economy is going to be impacted by taking the climate crisis seriously — that to reduce and reverse climate change, it’s going to take an all-of-government and all-of-economy response,” said Jeff Hauser, founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Revolving Door Project, which focuses on keeping profiteering out of executive branch appointments.


Financial regulatory agencies “have arguably the legal authority to shut down fossil fuel financing at the banks and asset managers and insurance industries,” said Brett Fleishman, associate director of fossil finance campaigns for the environmental group 350.org. “That’s our big goal.” The treasury secretary in many ways sits at the helm of those agencies.

 

[mspohr]

Joe Biden Doesn’t Need the Senate to Boost the Economy and Tackle Climate Change

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer meanwhile is urging Biden to forgive the first $50,000 of everyone’s student debt, which he can do by executive order. The average debt load is around $30,000, meaning that millions of people would see their debt wiped out. The average monthly payment is around $400, which means that people making that payment would now have an extra $400 every month to spend. That’s a serious economic stimulus, and it’s one that voters would reward Democrats for, both as the economy and wages rise as a result and in direct appreciation for such a bold action.

Biden can also direct the Department of Labor to block companies from screwing workers out of overtime, which they do by misclassifying them as managers. Companies like Dollar General are the worst offenders. The people in those stores stocking shelves and working the register are often called managers by the company, which allows the company to pay no overtime on top of their low salary. If that practice is ended, millions of people could see increases in their paychecks.

 

[mspohr]

https://newconsensus.com/files/building-back-better-without-the-senate.pdf

This broad ambition seems to us to entail three distinguishable but mutually complementary objectives – what we can call ‘the three “I”s’:
1.1. Industries: We must foster, nurture, and scale-up to self-sufficiency today the industries of tomorrow – from solar panels through wind-turbine generators and 6G networks, to life-extension, space exploration and far beyond. These industries, again, should be spread across the entire nation, in a manner encouraging even development continent-wide. This is what we did in the 1930s and 1940s, and is what we must do again.
1.2. Infrastructures: We must provide state-of-the-art renditions of all essential shared infrastructures on which business firms, industries, and our citizens rely – from transport networks through communications networks and power grids to above-ground private transit, high tech schools and beyond. Here too it is not just a matter of restoring what we have, but also of building what in future we’ll need.
1.3. Investments: Because 1.1 and 1.2 have many attributes of what the economists call ‘public goods,’ in which private sector actors have neither the jurisdictional authority nor the coordinative or financial capacity to invest in socially optimal amounts, we must collectively make strategic self-liquidating public investments in fulfillment of objectives 1.1 and 1.2, precisely in order to make private investments in future more viable and more profitable.

 

[mspohr]

Covid-19 has changed everything. Now we need a revolution for a born-again world

The main elements of political revolutions have not changed much since Aristotle identified them more than 2,300 years ago. Whatever the objective, he wrote in Book V of The Politics, inequality is the chief cause of revolution. Justice and equality are “the fundamental basis of any state”, and inequality, being a kind of injustice, is potent grounds for challenging that state. “The lesser rebel in order to be equal, the equal in order to be greater. These then are conditions predisposing to revolution,” Aristotle declared.

A revolutionary agenda for the post-pandemic world also includes meaningful steps to address poverty and the north-south wealth gap, more urgent approaches to linked climate, energy, water and mass extinction crises and, for example, the adoption of so-called doughnut economics that measures prosperity by counting shared social, health and environmental benefits, not GDP growth.

It may seem like pie in the sky. But so too did the idea of millions working from home, and halting road and air travel, until it happened almost overnight. Whether recognised as such or not, this is a revolutionary manifesto that, if it is pursued – as a growing body of opinion believes it must be – will demand the utter transformation of current political behaviour and organisation.

 

[rays427]

Biden Treasury Pick Could Defund the Fossil Fuel Industry, Climate Organizers Say

“The genesis of the Green New Deal is the idea that the entire economy is going to be impacted by taking the climate crisis seriously — that to reduce and reverse climate change, it’s going to take an all-of-government and all-of-economy response,” said Jeff Hauser, founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Revolving Door Project, which focuses on keeping profiteering out of executive branch appointments.


Financial regulatory agencies “have arguably the legal authority to shut down fossil fuel financing at the banks and asset managers and insurance industries,” said Brett Fleishman, associate director of fossil finance campaigns for the environmental group 350.org. “That’s our big goal.” The treasury secretary in many ways sits at the helm of those agencies.

What do you think would happen if the fossil fuel industry was shut down? I guess it might work since it would only shut down the US companies and countries like Russia, Venezuela and and those in the middle east could still provide the needed oil. It would greatly raise the price but I guess that would also decrease the use of fossil fuels. It would not only cause a huge decrease in US fossil fuel jobs but also jobs in other industries that rely on cheap fossil fuels. Offsetting this would be the increase in renewable energy jobs. I know you disagree but I believe the loss in jobs in the US would be much greater than the increase of renewable jobs.

 

[rays427]

Biden Treasury Pick Could Defund the Fossil Fuel Industry, Climate Organizers Say

“The genesis of the Green New Deal is the idea that the entire economy is going to be impacted by taking the climate crisis seriously — that to reduce and reverse climate change, it’s going to take an all-of-government and all-of-economy response,” said Jeff Hauser, founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Revolving Door Project, which focuses on keeping profiteering out of executive branch appointments.


Financial regulatory agencies “have arguably the legal authority to shut down fossil fuel financing at the banks and asset managers and insurance industries,” said Brett Fleishman, associate director of fossil finance campaigns for the environmental group 350.org. “That’s our big goal.” The treasury secretary in many ways sits at the helm of those agencies.

What do you think would happen if the fossil fuel industry was shut down? I guess it might work since it would only shut down the US companies and countries like Russia, Venezuela and and those in the middle east could still provide the needed oil. It would greatly raise the price but I guess that would also decrease the use of fossil fuels. It would not only cause a huge decrease in US fossil fuel jobs but also jobs in other industries that rely on cheap fossil fuels. Offsetting this would be the increase in renewable energy jobs. I know you disagree but I believe the loss in jobs in the US would be much greater than the increase of renewable jobs.

 

[jerry33]

What do you think would happen if the fossil fuel industry was shut down? I guess it might work since it would only shut down the US companies and countries like Russia, Venezuela and and those in the middle east could still provide the needed oil. It would greatly raise the price but I guess that would also decrease the use of fossil fuels. It would not only cause a huge decrease in US fossil fuel jobs but also jobs in other industries that rely on cheap fossil fuels. Offsetting this would be the increase in renewable energy jobs. I know you disagree but I believe the loss in jobs in the US would be much greater than the increase of renewable jobs.

The idea that the fossil fuel industry will be shut down like turning off a light switch is just plain silly. It will ramp down in the same way that coal is being ramped down. This will mainly be done by economic factors because renewables plus batteries are very cost effective compared to fossil fuels, and the switch over will happen as fast as industry can economically do it. It won't be done by politicians because every politician, with a very few exceptions, relies on fossil fuel campaign contributions, so it will be done in spite of government interference (applies to North America).

 

[nwdiver]

The idea that the fossil fuel industry will be shut down like turning off a light switch is just plain silly. It will ramp down in the same way that coal is being ramped down. This will mainly be done by economic factors because renewables plus batteries are very cost effective compared to fossil fuels, and the switch over will happen as fast as industry can economically do it. It won't be done by politicians because every politician, with a very few exceptions, relies on fossil fuel campaign contributions, so it will be done in spite of government interference (applies to North America).

Politics will still have a tremendous influence on how quickly we transition away from fools fuel. The PTC is one of the prime reasons wind has expanded so prolifically. Wind makes sense economically but the PTC reduced the payback period from decades to years. Or look at nuclear. Nuclear still provides most of the fools fuel free electricity in the US. We would have ~0GW of nuclear if it wasn't for intense political support for nuclear. What solar needs is access to low interest capital. I hope they create a loan program similar to what nuclear has available but nano-size it. Allow home owners to access the same loan terms that Vogtle got for 5kW of rooftop solar.

 

[rays427]

Politics will still have a tremendous influence on how quickly we transition away from fools fuel. The PTC is one of the prime reasons wind has expanded so prolifically. Wind makes sense economically but the PTC reduced the payback period from decades to years. Or look at nuclear. Nuclear still provides most of the fools fuel free electricity in the US. We would have ~0GW of nuclear if it wasn't for intense political support for nuclear. What solar needs is access to low interest capital. I hope they create a loan program similar to what nuclear has available but nano-size it. Allow home owners to access the same loan terms that Vogtle got for 5kW of rooftop solar.

US political support, are you kidding. There are currently around 50 nuclear plants being built and only 2 are in the US. So other countries can build them economically but the US can't? The reason we are not building more nuclear plants is pressure from environmental groups including excess regulations.

 

[mspohr]

Don't cut government spending to boost Covid rebound – OECD
The UK and other countries should steer clear of cutting government spending to ensure a stronger economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has said.

The OECD said governments were at risk of failing to learn the lessons from the 2008 financial crisis when the UK and other wealthy nations cut back spending in response to record levels of national debt, choking off the economic recovery.

Laurence Boone, the chief economist at the OECD, said: “We made the mistake in 2010; we need to learn from the mistake. We need to keep up the support for the people and those in and out of jobs. We must make sure income is supported.”

 

[mspohr]

'Mock Cop26' activists vote on treaty ahead of 2021 climate summit

Their demands include climate education at every level of formal education, tougher ecocide laws, stronger regulation on air quality, banning the offshoring of emissions and a commitment to limiting global heating to below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

 

[JRP3]

For all those who think we "can't afford the GND" just imagine what could happen if the government supported projects such as this across the country:

This Arkansas school turned solar savings into better teacher pay
"The project that resulted has helped slash the district’s annual energy consumption by 1.6 million kilowatts and in three years generated enough savings to transform the district’s $250,000 budget deficit into a $1.8 million surplus.

Just as Hester envisioned at the outset, a major chunk of the money is going toward teachers’ salaries — fueling pay raises that average between $2,000 and $3,000 per educator."

 

[mspohr]

What If We Just Gave People Enough Money To Live On?

The idea of giving people a basic income is centuries-old. It is supposed to cover your fundamental needs and to act as a cushion, so whatever happens to you ― an illness, unemployment, a natural disaster, a pandemic ― you should have enough money to survive.

In its purest form, UBI is universal rather than targeted based on criteria like income or wealth. It’s individual and unconditional, meaning there are no hoops to jump through and no restrictions on how it can be spent. It is not intended as a tool to force certain behaviors, but as a means to help people afford the basic dignities of life.

Basic income trials launched around the world have shown a range of less tangible, but no less meaningful, positive outcomes. Between 2017 and 2018, 2,000 randomly selected unemployed people in Finland were given 560 euros ($640) a month. Findings showed that, while there was not a statistically significant rise in employment among the recipients, they were more secure, faced less depression and loneliness and had greater trust in policymakers and institutions than control groups.

Concerns that UBI recipients will stop working have consistently been disproved, as have suspicions that the money will be spent in socially undesirable ways. A basic income trial in Madhya Pradesh, one of India’s poorest states, found that alcoholism declined among the 6,000 recipients ― in line with World Bank research that shows basic income does not lead to increased spending on “sin products” like cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[nwdiver]

What If We Just Gave People Enough Money To Live On?

The idea of giving people a basic income is centuries-old. It is supposed to cover your fundamental needs and to act as a cushion, so whatever happens to you ― an illness, unemployment, a natural disaster, a pandemic ― you should have enough money to survive.

In its purest form, UBI is universal rather than targeted based on criteria like income or wealth. It’s individual and unconditional, meaning there are no hoops to jump through and no restrictions on how it can be spent. It is not intended as a tool to force certain behaviors, but as a means to help people afford the basic dignities of life.

Basic income trials launched around the world have shown a range of less tangible, but no less meaningful, positive outcomes. Between 2017 and 2018, 2,000 randomly selected unemployed people in Finland were given 560 euros ($640) a month. Findings showed that, while there was not a statistically significant rise in employment among the recipients, they were more secure, faced less depression and loneliness and had greater trust in policymakers and institutions than control groups.

Concerns that UBI recipients will stop working have consistently been disproved, as have suspicions that the money will be spent in socially undesirable ways. A basic income trial in Madhya Pradesh, one of India’s poorest states, found that alcoholism declined among the 6,000 recipients ― in line with World Bank research that shows basic income does not lead to increased spending on “sin products” like cigarettes and alcohol.

I think 2020 more than any other year broke a lot of cognitive dissonance... which is probably why ~74M Americans appear to have decided to just break with reality.....

I haven't worked for a $ in ~3 years but my net worth increased more in 2020 on both a percentage and absolute basis than any other year in my life.

This year more than almost any other if you made money by working you were in REALLY a tough spot. If you made money by other people working you did REALLY well. 'Yay' capitalism? Anyone that thinks this is fair is completely disconnected from any semblance of reality. We need a UBI now spread out the prosperity. People that work for a living should NOT be in poverty while investors that live off the work of others are doing great. UBI NOW.

 

[ThomasD]

UBI should be non taxable

 

[jerry33]

UBI should be non taxable

As should Social Security.