Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by mspohr, Dec 14, 2018.
'We need to be realistic': AOC predicts Miami won't exist 'in a few years' without Green New Deal
This is basically Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) which is a hot topic these days.
Naomi Klein: 'We are seeing the beginnings of the era of climate barbarism'
Do you feel encouraged by talk of the Green New Deal?
I feel a tremendous excitement and a sense of relief, that we are finally talking about solutions on the scale of the crisis we face. That we’re not talking about a little carbon tax or a cap and trade scheme as a silver bullet. We’re talking about transforming our economy. This system is failing the majority of people anyway, which is why we’re in this period of such profound political destabilisation – that is giving us the Trumps and the Brexits, and all of these strongman leaders – so why don’t we figure out how to change everything from bottom to top, and do it in a way that addresses all of these other crises at the same time? There is every chance we will miss the mark, but every fraction of a degree warming that we are able to hold off is a victory and every policy that we are able to win that makes our societies more humane, the more we will weather the inevitable shocks and storms to come without slipping into barbarism. Because what really terrifies me is what we are seeing at our borders in Europe and North America and Australia – I don’t think it’s coincidental that the settler colonial states and the countries that are the engines of that colonialism are at the forefront of this. We are seeing the beginnings of the era of climate barbarism. We saw it in Christchurch, we saw it in El Paso, where you have this marrying of white supremacist violence with vicious anti-immigrant racism.
Here's how the system works in the UK... similar to other "developed" economies:
The British class system is an organised racket. It concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the few, while 14 million Britons languish in poverty.
If you are dim but have rich parents, a life of comfort, affluence and power is almost inevitable – while the bright but poor are systematically robbed of their potential. The well-to-do are all but guaranteed places at the top table of the media, law, politics, medicine, military, civil service and arts. As inequality grows, so too does the stranglehold of the rich over democracy. The wealthiest 1,000 can double their fortunes in the aftermath of financial calamity, while workers suffer the worst squeeze in wages since the Napoleonic wars. State support is lavished on rich vested interests – such as the banks responsible for Britain’s economic turmoil – but stripped from disabled and low-paid people. The powerful have less stressful lives, and the prosperous are healthier, expecting to live a decade longer than those living in the most deprived areas.
Never mind ‘tax raids’, Labour – just abolish private education | Owen Jones
Is that a political prediction or a scientific prediction?
Yes!!! Nailed it. The GND has nothing to do with carbon or global warming; it has everything to do with transforming our economy.
"Green" is the marketing name. Economic New Deal just doesn't poll well.
Perhaps. In the chart below, can you identify which model is reducing carbon emissions?
Extra credit: Identify which countries are and are not signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement.
Not sure why you insist on pretending it can't be both economic and green/sustainable, since that's exactly what it is.
I'm fine with that. But the common misconception is that it is about global warming. It is not. It is a new economic order that will solve all the world's problems - world hunger, global peace, global warming, racism, nuclear proliferation, brutal dictatorships, etc.
Maybe if people really understood what it was all about, and the scope of the issues it was addressing, they would be more willing to embrace the $trillions it will cost.
This is why I think we need to separate the "Green" and "Economic" new deals. "Green" can be accomplished without the government taking over the economy with huge taxes and expenditures.
The carbon fee/credit already discussed in this thread is a good way to incentivize the move to non-carbon energy.
Here is another - sort of like ZEV credits - where government could mandate carbon reductions that could be achieved with swaps.
These are real solutions to global warming accomplished without a government takeover of the economy - or even the energy industry. It has worked pretty well with cars - why not energy?
How to Get Rid of Carbon Emissions: Pay Farmers to Bury Them
(Sorry - I know it may be paywalled. Excellent short article if you can get it)
"Mr. Hora experiments with “regenerative growing practices” that improve soil health, boost yields, reduce water and fertilizer use, and carry a significant collateral benefit: they sequester in the soil carbon released from burning fossil fuels."
"Companies and consumers with voluntary or compulsory commitments to reduce their carbon footprint can, rather than reduce emissions themselves, pay farmers to do it for them."
"they can pay farmers like Mr. Hora $15 to sequester one metric ton of carbon dioxide in the soil."
"an acre of agricultural land can sequester one to 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide a year."
So do we just leave the hundreds of thousands of people employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas out in the cold to the mercy of the market? Do we just return to nature all the towns dependent on coal plants, mines and refineries?
This is the other common denominator between Industry 4.0 and AGW. The problems with both are rejected by some people not on any logical basis but because they can't find a solution they like. That's an absolutely INSANE reason to reject a problem.
We currently need ~2 Consumers to support every job. That ratio is going to rise exponentially over the next 20 years. We need a way to return purchasing power to consumers. Purchasing power and employment is already decoupled for some people. We need to decouple it for everyone else to preserve our consumer base.
No. The government interferes with the market.
1. Carbon fee/dividend. Discussed earlier.
2. Carbon swaps. Recent post.
This will tilt the scales as much as we want. The fee/dividend could result in a $10/gallon "fee" on gasoline. The carbon swaps could require businesses to be carbon zero in 2020, or pay a fine that would be returned to individuals via a dividend. That will reduce emissions as fast as we want. Or as slowly as we want, to allow for job transition.
This is DOA because government does not get the things they want most - size and power. Global warming is simply a convenient crisis to use as a means towards their end.
Want to restructure the economy?? Have at it. But propose it separately. If there is an employment crisis, let's address it. Perhaps stop (or lower) immigration?? Legal immigration is about 12 million people over 10 years - not sure what the numbers are for illegal immigation, but we could address that too if we wanted to.
....... so......... do we just leave the hundreds of thousands of people employed in the extraction of coal, oil and gas out in the cold to the mercy of the market? Do we just return to nature all the towns dependent on coal plants, mines and refineries?
How is immigration changing the ratio of workers to consumers? If anything immigration is HELPING reduce unemployment because immigrants are doing the work native born people are unwilling to do for the wages to make that work possible and becoming consumers. If it weren't for immigrants much of that labor may have been automated already and machines are REALLY bad at being consumers....
No need to change the ratio. Less jobs, less people. Remember, the jobs are going away due to increased productivity, so economic output is unchanged. We simply generate the same amount of energy with fewer people.
LOL! That's not how math works. If an immigrant is performing a job that either would have not been performed or would have been performed by a machine that person is adding a consumer to the economy and reducing unemployment. Immigrants are not the cause of unemployment that's a myth perpetuated by ignorant bigots.
And why settle for the same output with fewer people? Why not increase the output and ensure everyone benefits? If an automated factory can produce 1B widgets with 100 people when previously it required 1000 people to produce 1M widgets... can't we structure our economy so 1B people can get a widget if they want one? Why contain our output?
Actually, the myth being perpetuated is that immigrants are somehow better than people that are here.
I think our disagreement is that you believe productivity will create unemployment, while I do not. I think people will simply be more productive and do more things - thinks we have not even thought of.
But if there is unemployment, then in your consumer/worker theory you are assuming immigrants will IMPROVE the consumer/worker ratio. I say for that to be true, we would have to change our immigration policy to be merit-based - and only take immigrants that are "better" than people already here in terms of their benefit to the economy.
Edit: What about remittances to other countries? Immigrants that earn wages here and then remit them to other countries hurt the "worker/consumer" ratio since the work is here and the consumption is not, right? Perhaps we should tax remittances at 50% so the government can spend the money to help the economy here.
By you? I've never heard anyone say that until just now on this thread. How do you define 'better'? If by that you mean willing to work for a wage that cannot sustain any decent quality of life by American standards I agree but I don't think that makes them 'better'...
Regardless the math is clear. Immigrants are not the reason labor participation is falling. Automation is the main reason. If anything immigration is helping delay the inevitable. Why invest in automation when you have a group of people willing to work for <$10/hr? As the cost of automation keeps falling eventually even those wages will no longer make sense.
The Wal-Mart near where I live always struggles to find workers in the oil patch. Their starting pay is $15/hr. They recently converted ~90% of their registers to self-checkout. As this technology keeps getting cheaper the wage inflection point will keep lowering. People need to eat. Machines don't. What's the solution? Is our consumer base going to be limited to people that receive most of their income to stock dividends and reduce our manufacturing output to ~5% of its potential to match that level?
Would you really prefer a world like Elysium just so you have the satisfaction of ensuring no one gets something that their grandparents didn't earn for them?
Did you watch 'Humans need not apply'? Do you think better technology 'Makes more better jobs for horses'? Some new jobs will be created no doubt but it's a rounding error compared to the jobs lost to machines and the transition to responsible energy use.
'Merit-based' Immigration will hurt job prospects for native-born people since those are jobs most people ARE willing to do. Remittances don't negatively effect the economy because it's global. Same reason a trade deficit is fine. Our economy benefits when other countries have enough wealth to buy iPhones and Teslas.
The immigration piece of this problem seems the easiest to solve.
Immigration (non-asylum) should not be static but rather dependent on the ever-changing needs of the country. As unemployment goes up the need for more workers and immigrants goes down. As open jobs go unfilled, immigration numbers should be increased.
In either scenario, immigration should be legal and no skipping ahead of the line illegally. Penalties for both lawbreaking immigrants and employers.
I'm sure I am missing something and fortunately the folks around here are not shy and will let me know.
I agree, many countries do this for example New Zealand. They give you credits for your profession, education and age. They adjust the amount of credits based on the need they have for immigration at any particular time, raising the number when they want less and lowering the number when they want more. Of course they do not want any old people just the younger demographic.
Yes. The definition of the word 'ratio'. We need more consumers for every worker as machine learning progresses. Most immigrants are willing to work for so little that they're effectively automation that is also a consumer. They don't increase unemployment.
If a farmer can pay immigrants $0.25/lb to pick blueberries he may delay the purchase of a $100k blueberry harvester until he can buy one for $50k. If those immigrants weren't there he would just automate the harvest reducing the number of consumers (The immigrants being paid to harvest blueberries). We need consumers.
Meanwhile in the real world...
New Green Deal May Die Due to Lack of Skilled Workers – InsideSources
The U.S. construction industry is facing 'a uniquely post-Great Recession experience'
We NEED robots to replace workers to free them up to fill jobs.
We NEED to eliminate the fossil fuel jobs to free up workers to fill jobs.
How does workers sending remittances out of the country affect this increased need for consumption in our country?
So it is not good for the US economy, but is good (or neutral) for the world economy?
Maybe. Another way to fill unfilled jobs is increase wages, isn't it? For unskilled jobs it should have an immediate impact; skilled jobs longer term due to training/apreticeship needs.
If we use immigration as a way to fill job openings, would it make sense to have immigration be driven by the jobs - sort of like the way the H1b visa program is supposed to work? Or would we simply replace all direct immigration with a H1b visa-like program which would apply to the worker and immediate family, allow the spouse to work, and have a pathway to permanent residency/citizenship for them?