Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Green New Deal

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Found this in another thread but applies to the current discussion

Capitalism worst possible economic system for a planet ravaged by climate change | rabble.caI

ll fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,


Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

--Oliver Goldsmith.

Twenty years ago, I wrote an op-ed in which I described free-market capitalism as "the most unjust and barbaric economic system ever devised, and one that now oppresses and abuses most of the world's people." I was scorned and vilified by neoliberal pundits, and even chided by some progressives who thought that calling the dominant economic system "barbaric" was going too far.

This is how I responded to my critics at that time:

Look up the word "barbaric" in your dictionary, and you'll find several synonyms, including brutal, cruel, and savage. They all apply to the current capitalist system -- and even more so to its leaders. These suave chief executives don't look or act like Attila the Hun. They dress smartly, talk smoothly, and their table manners are impeccable. But strip away the glossy veneer, and you find the ruthless autocrats beneath the surface.

These modern barbarian chieftains don't personally lead their hordes to invade other countries. They don't physically destroy cultures, openly loot and pillage cities, or brutalize their citizens. But they engage in the equivalent of all these barbaric activities from the seclusion of their boardrooms, sometimes with just a phone call or a tap on a computer key.

Their invasions take the form of "free trade." Their looting and pillaging is done through strip-mining, deforestation, privatization, deregulation, currency speculation, and IMF-enforced repayments of onerous debt-loads.

In the wake of these corporate depredations, billions of people are doomed to poverty, hunger and disease, and many millions to premature death
 
  • Like
Reactions: juliusa
If you had any doubt about the source of the problem

Senators Not Backing Green New Deal Received On Average 7 Times As Much Fossil Fuel Cash | HuffPost

Senators Not Backing Green New Deal Received On Average 7 Times As Much Fossil Fuel Cash
The oil, gas and coal industries' donations heavily favor the lawmakers who have so far refused to back the only climate policy to match the scale of the crisis.
My climate group has taken to pushing our relatively progressive representative (Mike Thompson) about his fossil fuel contributions. In face to face meetings, he has gotten relatively terse with us in his responses, such as "my record speaks for itself," and "I represent people who work at refineries as well." But there is no prerequisite to receive money from the people you represent in order to properly represent them. We plan to continue this push, despite the fact that he's a cosponsor of the Green New Deal. It's entirely possible that he is not swayed by the donors, but the less fossil fuel money there is in politics, the better, in our opinion.
 
How Republicans have seen red over Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal
How Republicans have seen red over Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the American political right’s objet socialiste du jour, recently introduced a Green New Deal – a joint Congressional resolution with Democratic senator Ed Markey calling for a “10-year national mobilization” overhauling nearly every aspect of American society to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those who have read through it will find a hopeful and ambitious but dry legislative document.

However, Ocasio-Cortez says that all Democratic presidential candidates support the Green New Deal, which has sent conservatives into a nonsensical tailspin, claiming it would mean the end of ice cream, hamburgers and the US military.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Unpilot
This is an emergency, damn it

The release prompted a great deal of smart, insightful writing, but also a lot of knee-jerk and predictable cant. Conservatives called it socialist. Moderates called it extreme. Pundits called it unrealistic. Wonks scolded it over this or that omission. Political gossip columnists obsessed over missteps in the rollout.

What ties the latter reactions together, from my perspective, is that they seem oblivious to the historical moment, like thespians acting out an old, familiar play even as the theater goes up in flames around them.

To put it bluntly: this is not normal. We are not in an era of normal politics. There is no precedent for the climate crisis, its dangers or its opportunities. Above all, it calls for courage and fresh thinking.
 
And here is one pathetic senile politician who needs to quit because she is no longer relevant or useful.

Dianne Feinstein Lectures Children Who Want Green New Deal, Portraying It as Untenable

Here she is totally missing the point:
“There’s no way to pay for it,” Ms. Feinstein told the group of about 15 children at her San Francisco office.

(Followed by further condescending comments to the children who were just asking her to do her job.)

It couldn't have anything to do with the money???
We’ve recently learned that during your 2018 Senatorial campaign, after signing the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, you accepted at least two major contributions that are in clear violation of this pledge:
  1. On June 5, 2018, a $5000 contribution from the Tesoro Petroleum Corporation Political Action Committee.
  2. On September 4, 2018, a $2500 contribution from the Phillips 66 Political Action Committee.
As both of these contributions are from political action committees directly affiliated with oil companies, they are in clear violation of the pledge you signed.
 
What ties the latter reactions together, from my perspective, is that they seem oblivious to the historical moment, like thespians acting out an old, familiar play even as the theater goes up in flames around them.
I have written before about a board meeting I want to of my local utility co-op. They spent a lot of time and effort in trying to come to terms with a scale PV project on land they own.

They really wanted it to happen but in the end called it off because the end price would have been ONE penny per kWh more than the coal they are currently buying. That expense, normalized to clean energy for a household would be ~ $8 a month, to make a real dent in avoiding a near term catastrophe.

These people are simply insane.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mspohr
It’s one thing to oppose the grandiose “Green New Deal” as gratuitously imprecise or for its full-throated attack on all-things-ozone and carbon release in our global community.

It feels like something totally other to oppose narrow regulations that could advance the campaign to swap out incandescent light bulbs for light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, a small, practical step that, multiplied into the millions, would passively remove a healthy chunk of energy-eating pollution over time.

Actually, I was surprised to see a recent editorial about all this in The Washington Post, which argued that “Of all the counterproductive policy campaigns conservatives have waged in recent years, among the most irrational has been their war on the federal government’s efforts to update the light bulb.”

<snip>

As the Post editorial argued, “Swapping out all the old incandescent bulbs across the country would save an astonishing amount of energy, which would translate into big savings for consumers and less pollution over time. But Republicans stymied the Obama administration’s efforts to pursue this policy, which has no downside, and the Trump administration is now using its power over federal efficiency standards to extend the rollback.”

It was in 2007 that Congress mandated a shift toward the LED light bulb. As manufacturers invested in manufacturing lights that use these updated technologies, the prices dropped, the bulbs improved and consumers saw lower energy bills for doing very little.

By 2020, all bulbs were supposed to be LEDs, including bulbs for candelabras, recessed lighting, heavy-duty applications and others also be subject added in the latter days of the Obama era. The Trump administration moved last week to eliminate those addition, despite the fact that the 2020 standards would have saved consumers billions of dollars per year and 140 billion kilowatt-hours in energy waste—the equivalent to the output of 45 coal-fired power plants—in 2025, according to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, which advocates stiffer efficiency programs. Exempting candelabra and other lights from the 2020 standard could cut roughly in half the number of bulbs that would be required to use better technology, research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory suggests. The Appliance Standards Awareness Project estimates that the Trump rollback will cost consumers an additional $12 billion per year in 2025.

The editorial noted that the Trump administration has signaled that it would attempt to roll back the 2020 standards further in coming months.

The editorial concluded, “There is no excuse for unnecessary energy waste and every reason for the federal government to coordinate a move toward better bulbs. The Trump administration should halt its know-nothing rollback.”

<snip>
Full article at:
The Republicans dumbest idea yet
 
And here is one pathetic senile politician who needs to quit because she is no longer relevant or useful.

Dianne Feinstein Lectures Children Who Want Green New Deal, Portraying It as Untenable

Here she is totally missing the point:
“There’s no way to pay for it,” Ms. Feinstein told the group of about 15 children at her San Francisco office.

(Followed by further condescending comments to the children who were just asking her to do her job.)

It couldn't have anything to do with the money???
We’ve recently learned that during your 2018 Senatorial campaign, after signing the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, you accepted at least two major contributions that are in clear violation of this pledge:
  1. On June 5, 2018, a $5000 contribution from the Tesoro Petroleum Corporation Political Action Committee.
  2. On September 4, 2018, a $2500 contribution from the Phillips 66 Political Action Committee.
As both of these contributions are from political action committees directly affiliated with oil companies, they are in clear violation of the pledge you signed.



She does like that oil money


Oil & Gas: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets
Oil and gas contributions to Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $251,235
 
They can't even do the easy stuff.
In my environmental balance, we should be seeking out painless, passive ways to make things a bit better. As I am reminded about eating towards better health, we need not go on starvation diets, we just need to pay better attention to everyday habits.

The habit in this administration seems to be doing the opposite.

...
I think the fossil fuel money is a big factor.
 
They can't even do the easy stuff.
In my environmental balance, we should be seeking out painless, passive ways to make things a bit better. As I am reminded about eating towards better health, we need not go on starvation diets, we just need to pay better attention to everyday habits.

The habit in this administration seems to be doing the opposite.

...
I think the fossil fuel money is a big factor.

I just read that oil companies spend about $115 million per year on lobbying. Tom Steyer probably spends more than any single oil company pushing climate change. Our government spends billions per year on climate change.
Key Issues: Climate Change Funding and Management

So if money is the key the oil companies are pikers.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ohmman
We can't afford to not do it.
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not

While McConnell and other critics seem to think that they can defeat the Green New Deal by repeating a tired mantra – “we can’t afford to do it” – the real question is: how can we afford not to? Without bold action to tackle climate change, toxic pollution and economic and racial inequity, our society will only see rising fiscal burdens. A Green New Deal would not only help us avoid mounting costs – it also would stimulate broad-based demand in the economy by investing in real drivers of economic prosperity: workers and communities. That’s in stark contrast to the GOP’s expensive recent policy priority – the nearly $2tn tax cuts of 2018 – which did little more than enrich stateless mega-corporations and the wealthiest investors.
 
We can't afford to not do it.
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not

While McConnell and other critics seem to think that they can defeat the Green New Deal by repeating a tired mantra – “we can’t afford to do it” – the real question is: how can we afford not to? Without bold action to tackle climate change, toxic pollution and economic and racial inequity, our society will only see rising fiscal burdens. A Green New Deal would not only help us avoid mounting costs – it also would stimulate broad-based demand in the economy by investing in real drivers of economic prosperity: workers and communities. That’s in stark contrast to the GOP’s expensive recent policy priority – the nearly $2tn tax cuts of 2018 – which did little more than enrich stateless mega-corporations and the wealthiest investors.
Well, that was the point wasn't it. By consolidating wealth between a few rich families everyone else becomes so poor that they spend every waking hour just trying to survive. No time to think about trivial things like politics or getting ahead. Except for the very wealthy few, it's going to be the technological equivalent of a hunter gatherer society. What with gerrymandering, massive spending, and collusion with religion to justify their actions, they've stacked the decks so badly that there is only a slim chance of reversal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lozza12
Well, that was the point wasn't it. By consolidating wealth between a few rich families everyone else becomes so poor that they spend every waking hour just trying to survive. No time to think about trivial things like politics or getting ahead. Except for the very wealthy few, it's going to be the technological equivalent of a hunter gatherer society. What with gerrymandering, massive spending, and collusion with religion to justify their actions, they've stacked the decks so badly that there is only a slim chance of reversal.
There is another very pernicious problem at play here: the poor side with the mega-rich out of fear of becoming destitute.

Stripped of its ideological trappings the message of the rich Trumpers is a slightly veiled threat: Annoy us, and your situation will get worse. Accept that AGW is real, and the cost to fuel your truck will increase. Thousands of different messages, the same theme.

It is my opinion that the Trumpers could not be more wrong, but I don't live paycheck to paycheck so I have some room to be wrong. The majority of the US is cowed by the threat and then they identify with their oppressors. We live in one big Stockholm syndrome, aggravated by general stupidity and ignorance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lozza12 and jerry33
There is another very pernicious problem at play here: the poor side with the mega-rich out of fear of becoming destitute.

Stripped of its ideological trappings the message of the rich Trumpers is a slightly veiled threat: Annoy us, and your situation will get worse. Accept that AGW is real, and the cost to fuel your truck will increase. Thousands of different messages, the same theme.

It is my opinion that the Trumpers could not be more wrong, but I don't live paycheck to paycheck so I have some room to be wrong. The majority of the US is cowed by the threat and then they identify with their oppressors. We live in one big Stockholm syndrome, aggravated by general stupidity and ignorance.
Stupidity and ignorance says it all!
 
There is another very pernicious problem at play here: the poor side with the mega-rich out of fear of becoming destitute.

Stripped of its ideological trappings the message of the rich Trumpers is a slightly veiled threat: Annoy us, and your situation will get worse. Accept that AGW is real, and the cost to fuel your truck will increase. Thousands of different messages, the same theme.

It is my opinion that the Trumpers could not be more wrong, but I don't live paycheck to paycheck so I have some room to be wrong. The majority of the US is cowed by the threat and then they identify with their oppressors. We live in one big Stockholm syndrome, aggravated by general stupidity and ignorance.
Yup - that’s why poor people don’t vote for what’s in their economic interest. I think Bill Maher did an amusing skit on this issue some time ago. It’s baffling and it hurts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mader Levap
Yup - that’s why poor people don’t vote for what’s in their economic interest. I think Bill Maher did an amusing skit on this issue some time ago. It’s baffling and it hurts.
I didn't mention another aspect of this phenomenon: one finds the most vile treatment of people by those one rung up. This is why poor white trash are the most hateful of racists . The MAG-otts don't really think that Trump is going to improve their lives; they just dread dropping one more rung so they vent their fear by turning those below them into scapegoats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.