Green New Deal

[mspohr]

Word of the Day

Hasn't stopped Trump and the folks at Faux News from attacking Greta.

 

[mspohr]

In that case I hope Climate Change is not really a crisis because that will not happen anytime soon.

What makes you think the Climate Disaster isn't real?

 

[Xenoilphobe]

So teenagers don't have a right to free speech?

Sure they do, but not when indoctrinated.

Meet her handler/groomer, a well-known climate activist from Germany by the name Luisa-Marie Neubauer (pictured).

 

[traxila]

So teenagers don't have a right to free speech?

No, many people stridently feel that they do not. Stunning, really.

 

[JRP3]

This is the critical issue. Those that may agree we have a Climate Change Crisis do not agree we have to tie the solution as you are saying is required.

The people against one are usually the same people against the other so not much of an issue.

 

[JRP3]

Sure they do, but not when indoctrinated.

Meet her handler/groomer, a well-known climate activist from Germany by the name Luisa-Marie Neubauer (pictured).

Wait, so you're saying people who have similar ideas may actually work together? Scandalous!

 

[d21mike]

What makes you think the Climate Disaster isn't real?

Did you not read what I said?

I said in that case “I hope” because to otherwise means that with nothing going to be done it means a disaster. Sounds like you feel let’s role the dice because nothing can/will be done without combining economic injustice with Climate Change.

 

[d21mike]

The people against one are usually the same people against the other so not much of an issue.

Well you met one. Maybe watch other opinions other then the left and you may fine others agree with me.

 

[JRP3]

Well you met one.

Yes, one.

Maybe watch other opinions other then the left and you may fine others agree with me.

Apparently I watch more other opinions than you since it's no secret that most of the same people who deny climate change also oppose a push for income equality. They are generally called "Republicans", though not always of course.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Wait, so you're saying people who have similar ideas may actually work together? Scandalous!

No, what I'm saying is a 24 year old adult may be manipulating a minor to achieve an objective. It was obvious pedophrasty was in full force. This poor girl has enough to deal with, with her history of self harm. I'm not attacking her, but question the motives of the group that has picked her as poster child.

This is beyond my lack of political alignment with her message, this young lady has a history of years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD.

She also suffers from selective mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside her closest family. When she wants to tell a "climate researcher" that she plans a school strike on behalf of the environment, she speaks through her father.

Self-Harm Versus the Greater Good: Greta Thunberg and Child Activism - Quillette

 

[d21mike]

Yes, one.


Apparently I watch more other opinions than you since it's no secret that most of the same people who deny climate change also oppose a push for income equality. They are generally called "Republicans", though not always of course.

Republicans do not believe in solving income inequality thru redistribution of wealth. They do believe in creating opportunity for all to succeed. So, with that mind set they will never go along with 50% of the GND thereby simply rejecting it completely. However, Climate Change and going with superior technology at a lower cost is something to consider.

 

[JRP3]

No, what I'm saying is a 24 year old adult may be manipulating a minor to achieve an objective. It was obvious pedophrasty was in full force. This poor girl has enough to deal with, with her history of self harm. I'm not attacking her, but question the motives of the group that has picked her as poster child.

This is beyond my lack of political alignment with her message, this young lady has a history of years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD.

You assume pedophrasty because you don't like her message and the fact that it's having an impact. Apparently you can't handle the reality that she is speaking her mind and pursuing these actions on her own.

When she wants to tell a climate researcher that she plans a school strike on behalf of the environment, she speaks through her father.

Seems as if a previously troubled person has found a passion and direction which improves the condition of her life, since she is obviously now able to speak in public to thousands. That's a bad thing?

 

[JRP3]

Republicans do not believe in solving income inequality thru redistribution of wealth. They do believe in creating opportunity for all to succeed. So, with that mind set they will never go along with 50% of the GND thereby simply rejecting it completely. However, Climate Change and going with superior technology at a lower cost is something to consider.

Consider that most of your fellow Republicans still don't think climate is an issue:

Since 2013, the portion of Democrats who consider climate change a “major threat” has risen by 26 percentage points — a whopping 84 percent of Democrats surveyed this year are worried about it. That increase was even bigger among people who identify as liberal Democrats — 94 percent consider rising temperatures a major threat to the nation now, up 30 points from 2013.

Meanwhile, across the aisle, Republican opinions on the matter remain relatively unchanged. A little more than a quarter of GOPers consider climate change a major threat. Between 2013 and 2019, the share of conservative Republicans who consider climate change a major threat has risen only a few percentage points, an uptick Pew called “not statistically significant.”

Poll: Democrats are getting worried about climate change. Republicans? Not so much.

Unless they are younger Republicans:

It’s no secret that Republicans and Democrats aren’t on the same page when it comes to human-caused global warming. But a new poll suggests that Republicans and Democrats between 18 and 38 might as well be in the same party. Any red-vs-blue difference between them “virtually disappears,” according to the survey from Ipsos and Newsy.

Younger Reps are also more likely to support the GND as well.

On climate change, younger Republicans now sound like Democrats

 

[JRP3]

 

[Norbert]

My proposal if there really is a Climate Change Crisis.

1. Get everyone to believe it. GND is mostly a prescription for disagreement as seen here. Can there be any agreement to solve the Climate Crisis?
2. Move to Renewables because it is simply better.
3. California has a bill (I have heard) that in 2020 ALL New Homes must have Solar that will cover their usage. I believe this should be nation wide. And they should allow each home to go higher than 100% of usage. If each New home could go 200% then that would be better. Current restrictions say you are not allowed to go over 100% even though most do. Why not encourage it?
4. Encourage ALL home owners to install Solar at 200% of their usage requirement to help with the Climate Crisis.
5. Encourage apartments to install as much Solar as possible and provide financial benefits.
6. Heavily promote EV Adoption that can be charged from Solar in your home.
7. Encourage Business to follow the lead of Google, Microsoft and Apple to install Renewable to run their business. Amazon, just order 100,000 EV Vans. This should be a no brainer. I mean this is a Climate Crisis, right? Business want to make a profit and they want customers to like them and buy their products. We should support businesses that do this.

Everything above would help the economy and not cost the government that much. However, utility companies would make less if they did not adopt changes.

Some say this did not work in the past so radical changes are necessary now. Like a complete social overhaul. I disagree. Solar in particular has come down in cost a lot in the past 20 years. Likewise the cost of Battery's for EV's and Storage is much cheaper. And EV availability over the next fews years it expected to climb making it more affordable. With all of that you would think that with proper promotion and maybe continued subsidies the economy (public) would embrace it. No need for the government to should "ban" anything. Once the demand is reduced the "for profit" business will make adjustments.

There really is a climate change crisis, the question may just be how urgent it is to act individually and/or politically.

Do we need to buy an EV right now if we are able to do so at all, or is it ok to say: my next car will be electric, and to reduce the mileage as much as reasonably possible? Do I need to reduce the mileage even if I have an EV? Do we need to vote for a democrat even if we are republican otherwise?

I think your plan, even within its smaller scope, very much hinges on removing the "if" and succeeding with step #1. Currently many politicians simply call climate change a hoax, it seems to me simply because that is the most convenient way to deal with it while maintaining a maximum cooperate profit policy.

In case you figure out how to "get everyone to believe it", and admit it, do let me know.

 

[juliusa]

Ah yes... the other common thread... pathological hatred of a democratic economy.

Do you think we could have eradicated small pox, made it to the moon in the 60s, built a trans-continental railroad in the 19th century... etc, etc without encouragement, guidance and/or funding from government(s) ?

There are legitimate roles for government. Defense and infrastructure fall in that category.

We need to focus on Climate Change and stop trying to couple it with a complete social change and redistribution of wealth. Addressing Climate Change is easy. All these other things will simply cause nothing to be done which has been the case for many years.

Top Democrat Aid Admits Green New Deal Not About Climate Change

Yep. Nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with a new social order. Nothing wrong with wanting a new social order - but they should make a case for it, not hitch it to the climate change crisis. Never let a good crisis go to waste!

It is not difficult. The difficult part is how to go about it. Adding more layers of socialism is only going to make it more difficult or impossible.

Not just more difficult. Take the US and China. Which country is lowering their coal emissions each year? Which has a centrally planned and controlled economy?

The Green New Deal is a government initiative to address the climate disaster. Efforts to date have been ineffective.

What?? It seems the US has been the most effective so far. So much for the Paris Agreement. We saw that at the UN - basically countries giving a lot of lip service and doing nothing, while the US reduces emissions.

My position is that the generational wealth of society being used for the benefit of society is no different than the generational wealth of a family being used for the benefit of a family.

Correct! Socialism is a great thing when it is a family. It even works in small homogeneous communities. Diversity of values is its undoing.

 

[juliusa]

I spite of overwhelming evidence there remain a few loud dissenters (and, of course, the rich who don't want to accept the reality).

That is absolutely false, and a smear that shuts down legitimate debate.

"Most" sane people accept the science that the climate is warming, and most believe it is a problem.

But legitimate questions remain.
1. How much of the climate change is caused by man, and how much is not? A good reason for skepticism is the recent revelation that THE SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG and admitted the climate is warming faster than their models predicted. Alaska has warmed in 5 years what they predicted would take 50 years. THEY HAVE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION why the "settled science" was simply wrong. ONE possible explanation is they don't really understand the causes of climate change, and the "other than caused by man" factors are greater than their models assume.
2. How much should we invest in slowing climate change vs mitigation of impact? We've already established that "climate science" has not been very accurate at predicting the future. To blindly accept their predictions is folly. It was not long ago "climate science" was predicting the coming on an ice age.

"Most" sane people believe we should phase out fossil fuels for many reasons, including climate warming. Where there is legitimate debate is how fast and at what cost is "optimal". Are we trying to maximize preservation of human life, or maximize preservation of the environment and the most diversity of species on earth? My personal belief is the latter, since there is a finite number of people the planet can support and the sooner we deal with population the better - and human population also happens to be the leading cause of man-made global warming. Why is population growth not part of the climate change discussion?

I would like to see the climate scientists show us what their models say the impact of population would have on global warming - for example, if we target population to pre-1990 levels, what would that do to climate change? What is the impact if we get there by 2030 instead of 2050 or 2100?

 

[juliusa]

It's really very simple. Kill all the cows to reduce animal farting, don't eat meat and temperatures will remain stable

You may be joking, but transitiong from a meat-based diet may have similar impact to sustaining the planet as transitioning from carbon-based energy. Along with managing human population.

 

[nativewolf]

Republicans do not believe in solving income inequality thru redistribution of wealth. They do believe in creating opportunity for all to succeed. So, with that mind set they will never go along with 50% of the GND thereby simply rejecting it completely. However, Climate Change and going with superior technology at a lower cost is something to consider.

Sadly that is the idea that the Republican party believes in creating opportunity is a leadership position of yesteryear. Over a century ago Teddy Roosevelt helped lead the world into an age of awareness of the need to conserve and sometimes protect our natural resources, to clean up the filth that was destroying our industrialized cities. From then until Ike both parties broadly supported some moves to protect the environment, establish parks, etc. Regan really threw the environment leadership under the bus and during his tenure there began a pretty voracious and unending attack by the Republican party on environmental measures of any kind.

Like it or not environmental measures transcend property boundaries, ecosystems carved up into little pieces on plats in courtrooms are still the same ecosystem. Todays Republican Party is not the thought leader of yesteryear, the Republican party seems willing to trample property rights to build gas pipelines (in VA a great example of a completely useless pipeline seizing land they don't want to pay for so Duke power can better negotiate pricing on NG contracts) but screams when a rare species whose survival requires a modest change in a few landowner behaviors. At this point we have to face the fact that the Republican party is simply a party of greed, pure unadulterated greed. They have been completely willing to engage in grossly hypocritical behavior as regards the environment and externalities, the backers of the republican party are the same backer of the PR campaigns of fake science that distort and cause unnecessary delay. Why? Because they have no leadership at all.

Conservation means being Conservative with resources, recognizing the needs of the future generations. The fact that it is the Democratic party being pro Conservation is a source of personal sadness to me, a son of lifelong conservationists and republicans.

Of course today the Republican party has abandoned any pretense of alignment with past idealism, just take budgets: they have led an orgy of government spending and deficits unparalleled by any since Regan. Regan at least was solely focused on defeating the USSR in the cold war. He had a goal and a belief and success came about in his lifetime and he was gracious when it happened. When he was governor of CA he agreed that CA had to do something to get rid of smog, thus the CA exemptions. He was politically flexible when faced with obvious needs (Ozone legislation was passed during his tenure as President). Today's republican party though is simply driven by greed, there are no morals, no thought leadership but simply reactions against the leadership presented by the democratic party. T

Take national defense, we are striping our DofD budgets to build an unneeded wall to keep out people who want to work. They trashed John McCain, an honest to god war hero, to support Donald Trump a draft dodger. They had GW Junior with a cabinet with every single one the top people draft dodgers with the exception of the independent Colin Powell.

In summary, the republican party is a party of opposition with no thought leadership on any issue of relevance, that is proliferate in spending our children's future and driving unprecedented increases in our budget deficits, they have a president that is likely guilty of treason (2x) and who conspires with the ex head of the KGB and parties with Dictator Kim and does not believe in free trade. What a sad world we live in when we have to count on the Democrats to be conservative, not just the environment but on defense, on trade, and on spending.

 

[nativewolf]

That is absolutely false, and a smear that shuts down legitimate debate.

"Most" sane people accept the science that the climate is warming, and most believe it is a problem.

But legitimate questions remain.
1. How much of the climate change is caused by man, and how much is not? A good reason for skepticism is the recent revelation that THE SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG and admitted the climate is warming faster than their models predicted. Alaska has warmed in 5 years what they predicted would take 50 years. THEY HAVE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION why the "settled science" was simply wrong. ONE possible explanation is they don't really understand the causes of climate change, and the "other than caused by man" factors are greater than their models assume.
2. How much should we invest in slowing climate change vs mitigation of impact? We've already established that "climate science" has not been very accurate at predicting the future. To blindly accept their predictions is folly. It was not long ago "climate science" was predicting the coming on an ice age.

"Most" sane people believe we should phase out fossil fuels for many reasons, including climate warming. Where there is legitimate debate is how fast and at what cost is "optimal". Are we trying to maximize preservation of human life, or maximize preservation of the environment and the most diversity of species on earth? My personal belief is the latter, since there is a finite number of people the planet can support and the sooner we deal with population the better - and human population also happens to be the leading cause of man-made global warming. Why is population growth not part of the climate change discussion?

I would like to see the climate scientists show us what their models say the impact of population would have on global warming - for example, if we target population to pre-1990 levels, what would that do to climate change? What is the impact if we get there by 2030 instead of 2050 or 2100?

It might be interesting but it is meaningless specificity. We have a good understanding of what is happening. We can make good projections of the outcomes and they are horrific. Why throw something like population trends into it? Population researchers have only a slightly better understanding of pop trends and they are slow moving hard to impact trends.

You can always look for a reason to stick your head in the sand. The republican party did that en masse right before WWII and enabled the greatest horror of the modern age. They were completely complicit in enabling and supporting Hitler and Stalin.

On climate change we should start acting today, asap. It doesn't really matter what the models show at this point, we might be too late and we might just be in time. The probability that we are acting with undue caution...0%. How does any delay help reduce or mitigate the issue? It just shifts the burden down the generations.