Green New Deal

[SageBrush]

WWII killed off enough Americans to sop up the excess labor, and the US did not suffer the infrastructure and industrial damage of its rivals. The New Deal arrested the downward spiral.

I want to add one more detail:

After the war the US had a huge captive market for its goods for the better part of a decade while the war torn countries were rebuilding their infrastructure. If the US involvement in the Euro war was just a cold, Machiavellian calculation, it was brilliant.

 

[mspohr]

Pressed by Climate Activists, Senate Democrats Plan to ‘Go on Offense’ Pressed by Climate Activists, Senate Democrats Plan to ‘Go on Offense’

Facing a showdown vote as early as this month over the embattled “Green New Deal,” Senate Democrats are preparing a counteroffensive to make combating climate change a central issue of their 2020 campaigns — a striking shift on an issue they have shied away from for the past decade.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, outlined the new strategy in an interview last week, casting it as a way to mobilize millennial voters, a key part of the Democratic constituency that the party will need to turn out to win in swing states.

 

[mspohr]

If America can find $716bn for the military, it can fund the Green New Deal
If America can find $716bn for the military, it can fund the Green New Deal | Rev William Barber and Phyllis Bennis

At long last the political debate in the world’s richest country is vibrant with proposals that would help the most vulnerable in our society. And what do we hear in response? A growing chorus of naysayers.

“Just pipe dreams” – that’s how the Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson referred to proposals for guaranteed jobs, Medicare for All, universal childcare, and the Green New Deal.

Like many other pundits and politicians, Samuelson says we can’t afford such luxuries. Taxing the rich wouldn’t raise enough money. We’d have no choice but to resort to deficit spending.

Feinstein responded condescendingly that the military does “important things” with that money. Our never-ending wars say otherwise.

 

[Merrill]

Military spending is discusting, how about taking the 2 billion for the ridiculous wall and funding some of the green new deal. Oh, wait a minute that makes sense!

 

[mspohr]

An Illinois bill leans into the most contentious part of the Green New Deal

Looks like Illinois is considering it's own Green New Deal!

Yet the reason the Green New Deal does include social programs is that, as Vox’s David Roberts put it, “It is not merely a way to reduce emissions, but also to ameliorate the other symptoms and dysfunctions of a late capitalist economy: growing inequality and concentration of power at the top.”

 

[mspohr]

Inside The Sunrise Movement: How Climate Activists Put The Green New Deal On The Map | NBC News

 

[Skotty]

Start by listening to what is said.
Then get a clue and realize that action has been blocked or reversed by the Repukes.
How much climate change legislation was submitted to congress by Repukes ?
How much climate change legislation was submitted to congress by Dems ?
How much was blocked by Repukes ?
How much was blocked by Dems ?

Read the political platforms of each party
Note the policies and AGW positions of the people put in charge of the EPA and DOE by each president.

How many of last 30 Dem candidates for president in Primary elections SAID AGW was real and required action ?
Do the same for the Repukes

This is not difficult.
How did you vote in the last 10 Federal elections ? When did it become apparent to YOU that AGW is real and requires urgent action ?

I defend Republicans sometimes, and am generally fine with most conservative policy, but I've been voting against them for years because they haven't been taking climate change seriously. I don't expect actions as extreme as some here, but as long as they continue to completely deny or ignore it with stupid stunts like bringing snowballs onto the floor, I will continue to vote against them. They defy their own principles as climate change is a matter of national security and personal responsibility, two things conservatives are supposed to care about.

Of course, since 2016 climate change is no longer the biggest issue for me -- upholding norms and decorum now takes top spot on why I'm voting against Republicans.

 

[SageBrush]

I defend Republicans sometimes, and am generally fine with most conservative policy, but I've been voting against them for years because they haven't been taking climate change seriously. I don't expect actions as extreme as some here, but as long as they continue to completely deny or ignore it with stupid stunts like bringing snowballs onto the floor, I will continue to vote against them. They defy their own principles as climate change is a matter of national security and personal responsibility, two things conservatives are supposed to care about.

Of course, since 2016 climate change is no longer the biggest issue for me -- upholding norms and decorum now takes top spot on why I'm voting against Republicans.

I'm not in favor of psychopathic morons either.

Addendum:
And FWIW, I find a lot to dislike in the progressive agenda and the Dems are mostly spineless and corrupt. They only look like gems in comparison.

 

[mspohr]

Exxon hopes people will want to go slow on GND

Exxon Mobil CEO says support for Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal may soon waver. Here's why

Woods says Exxon is focusing on creating biodiesel from algae because it can help reduce emissions from commercial transportation.

The company is also researching carbon capture and storage, a technology that strips carbon from industrial emissions. However, Woods acknowledges that the economics are challenging and the industry needs to find more efficient ways to capture carbon.

 

[SageBrush]

Exxon hopes people will want to go slow on GND

Exxon Mobil CEO says support for Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal may soon waver. Here's why

Woods says Exxon is focusing on creating biodiesel from algae because it can help reduce emissions from commercial transportation.

The company is also researching carbon capture and storage, a technology that strips carbon from industrial emissions. However, Woods acknowledges that the economics are challenging and the industry needs to find more efficient ways to capture carbon.

Translation: Exxon wants to continue selling fossil fuels so they hype pie in the sky mitigation.

 

[mspohr]

Translation: Exxon wants to continue selling fossil fuels so they hype pie in the sky mitigation.

In related news
Exxon Mobil downgraded, stock target cut 25% amid natural gas spending

 

[Merrill]

I love the statement the economic’s are challenging, how about wind and solar. We would not have to capture carbon if we did not spew it into the atmosphere.

 

[nwdiver]

I love the statement the economic’s challenging, how about wind and solar. We would not have to capture carbon if we did not spew it into the atmosphere.

I thought this was amusing.... Wyoming wants to save their coal industry from CO2 regulations. So they're going to use solar PV to capture the CO2 and try to turn it into a product. There's the job guarantee for the GND. Use 1GW of solar to capture the emissions from 1GW of coal. New version of paying someone to dig a hole and someone else to fill it in....

 

[miimura]

If you're going to make work and want to continue to pay people to dig coal out of the ground, why not do something useful with the carbon and figure out how to turn it into graphite for battery materials. Or, even better, graphene.

 

[nwdiver]

If you're going to make work and want to continue to pay people to dig coal out of the ground, why not do something useful with the carbon and figure out how to turn it into graphite for battery materials. Or, even better, graphene.

Because it would be cheaper and more effective to just put up ~1GW of solar. Forget about burning coal and pay people instead to convert it into graphene. The 'problem' is that you'd need a fraction of the people to do more and so some people would end up being paid to do nothing....

 

[miimura]

Because it would be cheaper and more effective to just put up ~1GW of solar. Forget about burning coal and pay people instead to convert it into graphene. The 'problem' is that you'd need a fraction of the people to do more and so some people would end up being paid to do nothing....

My point was that you can still dig up the coal but not release the carbon into the atmosphere. Of course, you and I both know it's just better to leave the coal in the ground.

 

[jerry33]

My point was that you can still dig up the coal but not release the carbon into the atmosphere. Of course, you and I both know it's just better to leave the coal in the ground.

Digging up the coal creates problems of it's own, even if it's never used.

 

[dzmconstr]

Military spending is discusting, how about taking the 2 billion for the ridiculous wall and funding some of the green new deal. Oh, wait a minute that makes sense!

spell much

 

[Merrill]

spell much

Disgusting!

 

[mspohr]

Republicans are the real threat to hamburgers, not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Republicans are the real threat to hamburgers, not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
GOP climate inaction will drive megadroughts that make beef a scarce commodity.

... and this...
No One Is Taking Your Hamburgers. But Would It Even Be a Good Idea?
No One Is Taking Your Hamburgers. But Would It Even Be a Good Idea?
No, the Green New Deal doesn’t ban beef. And while cutting back on burgers can help your own health and the planet’s, getting rid of cows entirely is another question.