Green New Deal

[Skotty]

Cutting off a diabetic leg is also 'radical'... but if it's the only choice it's the only choice. We need a better plan. No plan is not an option. What other option do we have?????

A better option would be for some congress members to come up with a less radical plan that has a better chance of passing. Republicans are starting to come around on climate change, but not if you promise everyone a job, etc, etc. Start smaller.

 

[nwdiver]

A better option would be for some congress members to come up with a less radical plan that has a better chance of passing. Republicans are starting to come around on climate change, but not if you promise everyone a job, etc, etc. Start smaller.

Then I guess the Republicans need to put a viable plan forward.....

 

[Skotty]

Then I guess the Republicans need to put a viable plan forward.....

I know, it's almost a lost cause. We've backed all the way up to just asking Republicans not to support and promote a compromised authoritarian scumbag con man. I guess that's still step 1 for Republicans right now.

 

[nwdiver]

I know, it's almost a lost cause. We've backed all the way up to just asking Republicans not to support and promote a compromised authoritarian scumbag con man. I guess that's still step 1 for Republicans right now.

We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Is 'The Green New deal' a little too radical? Sure... it's a plan from the left... so it's gonna be a plan from the left. Absent an alternative that's what we need to support. No plan is not an option.

 

[juliusa]

Then I guess the Republicans need to put a viable plan forward.....

Depend on the Republicans?? Really?? How about having the Democrats lead on the environment and put a viable plan forward??

 

[juliusa]

Is 'The Green New deal' a little too radical? Sure... it's a plan from the left.

Radical is not the problem. There is no plan, that is the problem. Not even a plan for a plan.

 

[nwdiver]

Depend on the Republicans?? Really?? How about having the Democrats lead on the environment and put a viable plan forward??

They have.

 

[nwdiver]

Radical is not the problem. There is no plan, that is the problem. Not even a plan for a plan.

They've established a set of goals... seems like that's usually the foundation of a plan. Where would you prefer they start?

 

[juliusa]

They've established a set of goals... seems like that's usually the foundation of a plan. Where would you prefer they start?

With a plan for achieving those goals. They have no plan, and either no understanding of what is needed to achieve the goals, or no desire to explain the reality of what is needed to achieve the goals. Perhaps they saw what was going on in France.

Just like the Republicans had a goal to replace the ACA, they had no plan and simply poked around the edges like removing the mandate.

I predict the same for the Democrats. They have no plan. In fairness, they just started thinking about global warming a few weeks ago, so it is not like they could have really thought this through and actually had a plan ready - or heaven forbid actually have public policy proposals or legislation ready.

FDRs New Deal PASSED major legislation in the first months of his presidency.

We will not see a plan to achieve the goals....IMHO. That would be bad politics, and the Democrats are too smart for that. Much easier to say we are going to clean up the environment, provide healthcare and income for all, and the rich will pay for it.

 

[mspohr]

How the media spreads denier propaganda

We Need A Fossil Fuel Primer Because The Media Isn't Telling Us Enough About Climate Change | CleanTechnica

 

[nwdiver]

With a plan for achieving those goals. They have no plan, and either no understanding of what is needed to achieve the goals, or no desire to explain the reality of what is needed to achieve the goals. Perhaps they saw what was going on in France.

Just like the Republicans had a goal to replace the ACA, they had no plan and simply poked around the edges like removing the mandate.

I predict the same for the Democrats. They have no plan. In fairness, they just started thinking about global warming a few weeks ago, so it is not like they could have really thought this through and actually had a plan ready - or heaven forbid actually have public policy proposals or legislation ready.

FDRs New Deal PASSED major legislation in the first months of his presidency.

We will not see a plan to achieve the goals....IMHO. That would be bad politics, and the Democrats are too smart for that. Much easier to say we are going to clean up the environment, provide healthcare and income for all, and the rich will pay for it.

Totally... The Green New Deal is at the resolution phase. Still needs a lot of work. What legislation is further along and more viable? I'll support that instead.......

 

[gilscales]

We will not see a plan to achieve the goals....IMHO. That would be bad politics, and the Democrats are too smart for that. Much easier to say we are going to clean up the environment, provide healthcare and income for all, and the rich will pay for it.

Haha, that sounds about right, then the goal posts will be moved eventually until 50k a year is considered rich, after all once you exhaust the pool of "rich" people and you need more money what can you do?

 

[jerry33]

Haha, that sounds about right, then the goal posts will be moved eventually until 50k a year is considered rich, after all once you exhaust the pool of "rich" people and you need more money what can you do?

It worked pretty well from 1936 to 1982 and I didn't hear of any CEOs or politicians having to stand in food lines.

 

[S'toon]

Haha, that sounds about right, then the goal posts will be moved eventually until 50k a year is considered rich, after all once you exhaust the pool of "rich" people and you need more money what can you do?

Funny how there are still rich people in Europe despite having higher marginal tax rates.

 

[EinSV]

From @Curt Renz in another forum, Chicago has established a goal of switching to 100% renewable energy by 2035. Not 2030, but a big step in the right direction.

Chicago sets goal for 100 percent clean, renewable energy by 2035

 

[mspohr]

The War On Climate Change Won’t Be Won Quibbling Over The Green New Deal’s Costs
The mounting damage of global warming is a crisis far greater than the deficit.

The War On Climate Change Won’t Be Won Quibbling Over The Green New Deal’s Costs | HuffPost

The Green New Deal unveiled last week by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is a powerful and ambitious statement. It’s more than just a delineation of the enormous changes that will be required to stave off the most cataclysmic impacts of climate warming. It offers a portrait of the better world we can create by doing so.

It also has no chance of becoming law, not while Republicans control the Senate and climate change denier Donald Trump resides in the White House.

Markey and Ocasio-Cortez know this. That’s why the Green New Deal is framed as a joint resolution, not a formal law, meaning even if it passed, the measure wouldn’t bind the government to any new policies. This distinction is key to understanding what the Green New Deal is — and is not — and how to usefully talk about it now. It is a major statement of the Democratic Party’s political priorities. It is not a detailed blueprint of how to get there — or how to pay for it.
...
And yet among contemporary thinkers, the Green New Deal’s very clear statement of priorities has prompted furious controversy. Noah Smith intones that Ocasio-Cortez is calling for “unlimited deficit spending” that will march America into “oblivion.” Steven Rattner accuses Green New Deal advocates of “intergenerational theft.” Marc Thiessen declares that Ocasio-Cortez has proffered “the neo-socialist lie that you can get something for nothing.” Even Paul Krugman is warning against putting forward ambitious new government programs without levying new taxes.

But Ocasio-Cortez and Markey haven’t advocated for any of these things. They simply haven’t detailed their tax and debt agendas in this particular piece of symbolic legislation.
...
A month after the UN report came out, the U.S. government’s own climate forecast predicted up to 10 times as much warming by the end of the century. Intergenerational theft, indeed.

 

[SageBrush]

,

We are going to need to re-frame the debate from 'how much does it cost to transition to clean energy' to 'how much does it cost in damages to continue this slow pace of transition'

 

[juliusa]

Totally... The Green New Deal is at the resolution phase. Still needs a lot of work. What legislation is further along and more viable? I'll support that instead.......

This climate change thing snuck up on us so damned quickly - no way anyone could have any actual policy or legislative proposals ready to go.

That is why the GND is politics and nothing more. If there were anyone serious about addressing climate change, they would have policy and legislation at the ready. Can't be at the "resolution phase" and think it is anything but politics. A simple thing like the ACA went into effect 4 years after President Obama took office. The ACA was child's play compared to the GND, and it was passed when one party had full control of the government - the White House, House, and super-majority in the Senate.

Nothing will happen before the election, and I see nothing that indicates the GND supporters will gain that control of the government in 2020. If they do and it takes 4 years to begin implementation that would leave 6 years for a 100% transition off fossil fuels, and transition jobs from oil to green energy.

AOC got it right - the GND is a Green New Dream. Nothing wrong with dreaming, but dreaming is not going to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030. Dreamers are great - but we need policy makers and legislators to get something done.

 

[juliusa]

Haha, that sounds about right, then the goal posts will be moved eventually until 50k a year is considered rich, after all once you exhaust the pool of "rich" people and you need more money what can you do?

Are you talking about the history of Venezuela, or the future of the democratic socialist United States??

 

[nwdiver]

This climate change thing snuck up on us so damned quickly - no way anyone could have any actual policy or legislative proposals ready to go.

That is why the GND is politics and nothing more. If there were anyone serious about addressing climate change, they would have policy and legislation at the ready. Can't be at the "resolution phase" and think it is anything but politics. A simple thing like the ACA went into effect 4 years after President Obama took office. The ACA was child's play compared to the GND, and it was passed when one party had full control of the government - the White House, House, and super-majority in the Senate.

Nothing will happen before the election, and I see nothing that indicates the GND supporters will gain that control of the government in 2020. If they do and it takes 4 years to begin implementation that would leave 6 years for a 100% transition off fossil fuels, and transition jobs from oil to green energy.

AOC got it right - the GND is a Green New Dream. Nothing wrong with dreaming, but dreaming is not going to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030. Dreamers are great - but we need policy makers and legislators to get something done.

Step 1 of planning is setting goals. So you want to go from having no plan to step 5??? How about we start with step 1 (since there's apparently no other plan). And build out from there. Pass the resolution and proceed to step 2.... The Republicans had their chance and they decided on insanity. I would have preferred a Carbon Tax but if a social justice plan is all that's on the table...