Green New Deal

[d21mike]

So would I. But think about it. The most effective way to encourage a move away from fools fuel is to make fools fuel more expensive relative to responsible alternatives. The people that are most responsible for the position we're in are those profited from our addiction to fools fuel are also best able to afford shifting to alternatives and => will be least effected by a rise in the cost of fools fuel. This is what lead to the yellow vest protests in France. Any shift away from fools fuel needs to be on the shoulders of the people that profited most from the addiction.

How do you expect the average person with <$400 to their name to buy an EV and get Solar? Our perpetual addiction to fools fuel is in some ways a symptom of larger problem. It's going to be more effective to treat the disease than the symptom.

Subsidies are required. I am getting 30% Fed Tax Credit on my Solar and Powerwalls. I got $7,000 credit on my Model S and $1875 credit on my Model 3. But as you know the Subsidies are going away. Next year Solar will be 26% and continuing down from there. We are going in the wrong direction with Subsidies.

The poor in this country are most affected by everyday expenses like gasoline (as you are saying) and electricity, water and gas. If they currently have a gasoline car then that means they have a car. With Subsidies then they could also have an Electric Car. Maybe the poorest among us that can only buy the cheapest of cars will need to wait a bit to get the cheapest electric used cars but we have to completely flood the market with electric cars to get cheap used ones. And if they rely on public transportation then great we need to completely replace them with electric busses as an example.

Also, for those that can not afford Solar they should be the ones where the government puts solar on their housing and give them FREE Electricity for their housing and cars at some point. And the Solar should be more than needed so that excess can go into the grid to accelerate the move to all solar energy in the grid.

But first there needs to be 100% (or pretty close) agreement that the US needs to get off of OIL and on to Solar and other renewables as a national emergency from the very top of government and business (like Apple, Google etc). You need to have a full press on this reality. Of course assuming you can make people believe it.

Seems like the media superstars could really help with this. How about instead of just talking about it they do something about it. How about some reality shows feature stars showing off what they are personally doing to their own homes (and I mean all of them) to be completely self sufficient and to add more to the grid. Maybe every week they add solar to at least 1 viewers home. And of course show off all of the electric cars they are driving.

But instead all that is being pushed is the GND and a complete switch to social/economic transformation which will definitely not happen.

 

[nwdiver]

Subsidies are required. I am getting 30% Fed Tax Credit on my Solar and Powerwalls. I got $7,000 credit on my Model S and $1875 credit on my Model 3. But as you know the Subsidies are going away. Next year Solar will be 26% and continuing down from there. We are going in the wrong direction with Subsidies.

The poor in this country are most affected by everyday expenses like gasoline (as you are saying) and electricity, water and gas. If they currently have a gasoline car then that means they have a car. With Subsidies then they could also have an Electric Car. Maybe the poorest among us that can only buy the cheapest of cars will need to wait a bit to get the cheapest electric used cars but we have to completely flood the market with electric cars to get cheap used ones. And if they rely on public transportation then great we need to completely replace them with electric busses as an example.

Also, for those that can not afford Solar they should be the ones where the government puts solar on their housing and give them FREE Electricity for their housing and cars at some point. And the Solar should be more than needed so that excess can go into the grid to accelerate the move to all solar energy in the grid.

But first there needs to be 100% (or pretty close) agreement that the US needs to get off of OIL and on to Solar and other renewables as a national emergency from the very top of government and business (like Apple, Google etc). You need to have a full press on this reality. Of course assuming you can make people believe it.

Seems like the media superstars could really help with this. How about instead of just talking about it they do something about it. How about some reality shows feature stars showing off what they are personally doing to their own homes (and I mean all of them) to be completely self sufficient and to add more to the grid. Maybe every week they add solar to at least 1 viewers home. And of course show off all of the electric cars they are driving.

But instead all that is being pushed is the GND and a complete switch to social/economic transformation which will definitely not happen.

You're describing ~90% of the GND - a working healthcare system...

With Subsidies then they could also have an Electric Car.

Also, for those that can not afford Solar they should be the ones where the government puts solar on their housing and give them FREE Electricity for their housing and cars at some point.

And some might argue that a working healthcare system in place of the disaster we have now could help pay for some of that...

 

[d21mike]

You're describing ~90% of the GND - a working healthcare system...






And some might argue that a working healthcare system in place of the disaster we have now could help pay for some of that...

I am actually not. I am talking about an economy where the focus is on renewables instead of OIL. And that has nothing to do with a complete overhaul of our healthcare system which may or may not cost more than it cost now causing additional financial hardship on the ones that we want to get us off of OIL. And I am not talking about the extremely rich. There is simply not enough of them. For this to happen it will need to come from everyday Americans that commute to work everyday.

To be clear I am a republican but I believe ObamaCare should have been a single payer system. I am also about to go on Medicare next year so I did my homework on what I can expect coming off of a large corporate PPO Plan which we were pretty happy with.

However, "Medicare for All" is NOT the Medicare that I will be getting and that most that are on Medicare are happy with. As a start you would think if they wanted to model the new plan after Medicare they would simply add more people to the already existing and working Medicare Plan. But that is a completely different conversation.

 

[nwdiver]

I am actually not. I am talking about an economy where the focus is on renewables instead of OIL.

I know... my post may not have been clear...

You're describing ~90% of the GND MINUS a working healthcare system...


And some might argue that a working healthcare system in place of the disaster we have now could help pay for some of that...

But healthcare has become inextricably linked to addressing climate change (in the US) because if 70% of a families income is being siphoned away by predatory insurance companies they're not going to care about what's going to happen in 10 years of they're constantly focusing on surviving to their next payday....

Plus if we start subsidizing solar and EVs while people are still struggling with absurd medical expenses all that's going to get us is yellow vested morons dancing in the streets...

 

[JRP3]

The opposition will say that GND has "zero" to do about Climate Change and all about Social Change.

They would be wrong, so not relevant.

This is my point. We can not do anything to solve Climate Change without first doing something about housing cost in the city.

That's not true, it's possible to attack more than one issue at a time.

 

[juliusa]

Good jobs, improved economy, better more affordable technology and a chance that the world remains habitable for humans.

Excellent! Can we do it at a lower cost? Can it be accomplished with $16T?

Who says we have to spend anything?

Bernie Sanders. That is his proposal. $16T.

 

[ohmman]

Nope - just want to see the scientific model and results.

Do you understand and agree with the scientific models of climate change projection?

Do you understand and agree with the scientific models of the future costs of climate change?

My problem with these arguments is that opponents of climate action generally don't seem to be persuaded by the scientific models or results. The conclusions are at odds with their ideology, so they reject them. I'm definitely in favor of doing reasonable modeling, but it raises the ugly act of putting a dollar figure on human lives, human migration, etc. If we value human life the same way that our healthcare system does (how much money will it spend to extend life 2 weeks, for instance), I think $16T is going to be an outrageous bargain.

 

[JRP3]

Excellent! Can we do it at a lower cost?

What cost? The money doesn't evaporate, it goes into the economy.

 

[juliusa]

What cost? The money doesn't evaporate, it goes into the economy.

So let's spend 32T then since it all just goes into the economy. Why not $64T since it doesn't cost anything.

Maybe double the defense budget while we are at it. With all that money going into the economy, surely we can cut taxes.

Just like a sale - the more you spend, the more you save!! I just love this new math.

 

[SageBrush]

When people ask me why I don't just add extra to my taxes, it's a sign they lack any idea of how society works.

That person is telling you to do as you please, and to allow him to do as he pleases

 

[mspohr]

That person is telling you to do as you please, and to allow him to do as he pleases

Society works to prevent people like him from destroying the environment. He can't just do as he pleases.

 

[mspohr]

You can pay me now, or pay me later.

It’s Time to Retreat from the Coastline, Says Science

The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.

"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.

Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.

 

[juliusa]

Do you understand and agree with the scientific models of climate change projection?

Do you understand and agree with the scientific models of the future costs of climate change?

Mostly - like any models and predictions of the future, they are flawed. But they are the best we have.

I just want them to take those models and show three scenarios:
1. No change in US policy.
2. Bernie Sanders' GND plan with no other changes.
3. Bernie Sanders' GND plan with all sorts of assumptions (documented) about changes in behavior in China, India, and other major emitters that would not occur with our current policy.

That is all. Just three different model runs. They already have the models - how hard would it be?

That way we can see how much $16T buys us.

You can pay me now, or pay me later.

It’s Time to Retreat from the Coastline, Says Science

Will Bernie Sanders' GND change the timing by 1 year? 2 years? 100 years?

 

[SageBrush]

Society works to prevent people like him from destroying the environment. He can't just do as he pleases.

Which is why he votes Trump, and you do not

 

[JRP3]

Which is why he votes Trump, and you do not

Because he doesn't believe in an organized society?

 

[juliusa]

When people ask me why I don't just add extra to my taxes, it's a sign they lack any idea of how society works.

That is what I am saying!!

When people suggest the US just add extra carbon reductions programs, it's a sign they lack any idea of how the world works.

The "lead and they will follow", "set the right example", and "do the right thing" arguments apply equally to an individual and a country.

If all countries would agree to reducing GHG emissions by x%, or spending x% of GDP on GHG reductions, or some other plan that applies to all, then I'm 100% in. Until then, I think it is like paying a voluntary tax that we all seem to agree is ridiculous. It helps a little, but does not solve the problem and the one paying is the sucker.

 

[mspohr]

David Wallace-Wells: ‘There are many cases of climate hypocrisy’

David Wallace-Wells: ‘There are many cases of climate hypocrisy’

There seems to be a division in the US Democratic nomination race between candidates who advocate wholesale system change such as the Green New Deal and others who favour a more incremental progress because they claim that’s the only way to get laws passed. Which is the most effective approach?
The science demands a quite systematic response; incremental policy simply isn’t going to be adequate to avoid really terrible levels of warming. But ambitious legislation has to go through the Senate and I don’t think there’s a scenario where a Democratic president takes office in 2021 with more than 60 Democratic votes [a three-fifths majority].

On the other hand, the last few administrations have gotten quite creative in how to use what’s called “budget reconciliation”, which you can use to pass stuff through the Senate with only 51 votes [a simple majority] by defining legislation as essentially budget-based. That’s one reason why you see so many of the Democrats’ plans are essentially investment programmes.

 

[mspohr]

Which is why he votes Trump, and you do not

Something rotten? Trump's state over Denmark at heart of a madcap week

Something rotten? Trump's state over Denmark at heart of a madcap week

“I am but mad north-north-west,” declares Hamlet. “When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.”

Trump seems to think he's an emperor – but we are not entertained
The prince of Denmark’s pronouncements raise questions over his fitness for the throne. But they might seem a little less unhinged when compared to the ramblings of another blond this week.

Donald Trump took umbrage when the Danish government dismissed his notion of buying Greenland as “absurd”, retorting that its prime minister’s reaction was “nasty”. Outlandish as it seemed, this was just one example in an epic session of delirious, dizzying verbal jazz that left some sincerely questioning the president’s mental state.

 

[jerry33]

There is a perfectly good plan that will increase the cost of carbon without an actual carbon tax, is revenue neutral, and provides dividends to people. It also increases carbon costs for imports which will encourage other countries to lower carbon content. Information at Citizens Climate Lobby.

 

[juliusa]

There is a perfectly good plan that will increase the cost of carbon without an actual carbon tax, is revenue neutral, and provides dividends to people. It also increases carbon costs for imports which will encourage other countries to lower carbon content. Information at Citizens Climate Lobby.

Which of the presidential candidates has signed on to that?