-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
juliusa
Active Member
Does it have bi-partisan support, or no political support? Which republicans and democrats support the plan? Does the bi-partisan climate solutions caucus support the plan? Have they introduced legislation?
Solar power, wind power, EVs and now grid storage have all been heavily subsidized without global agreement. We could be within 6 years of them becoming dominant technologies without subsidy.
When governments of large economies make decisions, they have significant impact.
juliusa
Active Member
So if we adopt Bernie Sanders' GND, what do the scientific models say the impact on global warming will be? Why is there such a lack of science in the GND proposals?
Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act
Here’s how it works:
A carbon fee is placed on coal, oil, or natural gas as it enters the U.S. economy.
The fee starts at $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increases by $10 – adjusted for inflation – every year until GHG emissions are reduced by 90 percent.
All of the money is recycled to American residents in equal monthly carbon dividends, helping consumers adapt while businesses compete to reduce their carbon footprints.
If emission cuts don’t meet mandatory targets, the annual increase can be raised to $15.
A carbon border fee adjustment is placed on emissions-intensive goods that are imported or exported. This discourages businesses from relocating to where they can pollute more, and also encourages other nations to price carbon.
This response is disappointing but revealing.
In your previous response, you agree that models are our best way forward and that you'd agree to use them to evaluate decisions. I'll say that the vast majority of opponents do not agree with you, but I was glad to see that. Then, you follow up with this.
My example was a single taxpayer (me) and the entire US system. It was a voluntary extra payment that didn't make a dent. You somehow extrapolated that to apply to the entire US economy, which is the largest economy in the world, the second highest emitter of GHGs, one of the highest per capita GHG emitters. If "that is what you are saying!" then I guess we're done here.
You're a great opposition party. What is your idea for solving the issue? What do the scientific models say about your idea?
juliusa
Active Member
Single tax payer, single country. Go it alone does not work.
Take California's state-adopted auto emissions standards. Only about a third of the states have adopted them in 50 years.
Still, I am open to a go-it-alone approach. Looking for the science behind the proposals. Shouldn't taxpayers know what to expect for spending $16T?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
- Succesfully worked with Congress to introduce (H.R. 763) The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019. CCL supports this bill, and is working towards its re-introduction in the Senate, and its passage through Congress.
juliusa
Active Member
Revenue neutral because it is paired with a "dividend" back to each resident.
So no bill introduced in the Senate, and one Republican co-sponsor in the House. I guess one R makes it bi-partisan.
Semantics.
You could call it a tax or a user fee or anything you want.
I think it would be good to call it a "carbon dividend". It's a start towards a universal basic income.
If my taxes accounted for 15% of the entire US budget, it would make a hell of a difference.
juliusa
Active Member
There you go. Certainly the people that support the GND make up more than 15% of the entire US budget - could make a hell of a difference. Time to step up and "lead by example", "do the right thing", "make a difference".
A GND go fund me page should do the trick. Count me in. We'll be at $16T in no time.
Again, deflection. The 15% is the GHG proportion, and that's the analogy. Why do you do this? I have an inkling, but maybe you can say it out loud.
What is your plan, by the way? What do the scientific models say about your plan? How soon can you implement it?
juliusa
Active Member
Yes, 15% is the proportion of US GHG emissions - and the assertion is that 15% share can make a measurable difference to global warming.
Well, if 15% of the country thinks we should fund the GND, then doesn't it follow that that 15% share can make a measurable difference in the funding of the GND?
juliusa
Active Member
I'll develop one when I run for President. In the meantime, I will evaluate each candidate's policy proposals - including GND proposals - based on the cost and benefit.
I support the concept of the carbon tax / dividend recently posted to shift the cost of carbon to those that use it. I believe this would accelerate the shift to non-carbon energy and would not require $16T.
So do I. What do the scientific models say about the effectiveness of this? How soon will it have an impact?
He doesn’t support that version or believe it’s viable, based on his responses above.
I’m trying to discern what’s he’s for, because it’s easy to be against everything. It takes no effort to be the opposition, but to support something opens one up to the kinds of attacks he enjoys.
My reference for that, by the way, is the famous Paul Ryan quote:
“We were a 10-year opposition party, where being against things was easy to do,” said Ryan in a post-mortem press conference. “You just had to be against it. Now, in three months’ time, we tried to go to a governing party where we actually had to get 216 people to agree with each other on how we do things.”
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
