Green New Deal

[ohmman]

I didn't mention another aspect of this phenomenon: one finds the most vile treatment of people by those one rung up. This is why poor white trash are the most hateful of racists . The MAG-otts don't really think that Trump is going to improve their lives; they just dread dropping one more rung so they vent their fear by turning those below them into scapegoats.

The less divisive and accusatory way to describe this is motivation by loss of status. I don’t think there is any benefit to using disparaging terms here.

This study found that many white working class people were moved to vote for Trump due to the fear of loss of status. It’s an interesting motivator, for sure.

Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump | PRRI/The Atlantic Report | PRRI

 

[ABCTG]

We can't afford to not do it.
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not

While McConnell and other critics seem to think that they can defeat the Green New Deal by repeating a tired mantra – “we can’t afford to do it” – the real question is: how can we afford not to? Without bold action to tackle climate change, toxic pollution and economic and racial inequity, our society will only see rising fiscal burdens. A Green New Deal would not only help us avoid mounting costs – it also would stimulate broad-based demand in the economy by investing in real drivers of economic prosperity: workers and communities. That’s in stark contrast to the GOP’s expensive recent policy priority – the nearly $2tn tax cuts of 2018 – which did little more than enrich stateless mega-corporations and the wealthiest investors.

Even though are now more jobs in solar and wind than oil and gas, and it's cheaper to build new solar than new coal plants.

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

it's funny that he would say “we can’t afford to do it”

What he should add is; "..and as long as the oil companies can afford to give me millions of dollars, I will continue to say that."

 

[mspohr]

Hundreds of young protesters confront McConnell over Green New Deal
Hundreds of young protesters confront McConnell over Green New Deal


Hundreds of youth climate activists marched on Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s Washington office and 42 of them were arrested by police, according to organizers.

The protesters – who planned for the arrests – were led with their hands behind their backs to a police bus as supporters chanted: “Which side are you on now? Which side are you on?” They filled the Republican leader’s office and the hallway outside, with constituents from his home state of Kentucky telling stories about poverty and their fears of the human cost of climate change.

 

[Objective1]

If Solar is cheaper than coal, then leave the transition up to the market.

The Green New Deal is net value destroyer that would more than double the federal budget and have to get the funds from printing money (which they admitted in the press release.)

Stop assuming anything pro-Green is good. Killing all humans would be pro-green, and it's not good. Impoverishing America is not a good Green solution.

 

[mspohr]

The Green New Deal has reignited the climate debate – and voters support it
The Green New Deal has reignited the climate debate – and voters support it | Julian Brave NoiseCat

Enter the Green New Deal, the first Democratic policy built for the post-Recession age of climate crisis, polarization and wonky leftism.

But the reasoning behind including a broad slate of programs in the proposal is sound: leverage the federal government to spur public and private investments and meet climate targets, create millions of green jobs while modernizing infrastructure and leveling the playing field so that everyone – particularly communities of color, women and working families – can participate in a new economy.

From this view, the resolution – which, judging by the many co-sponsors, has become canon for the rising progressive wing of the Democratic party – is a bold but strategic opening statement and bargaining position in a renewed climate debate. (

 

[mspohr]

If Solar is cheaper than coal, then leave the transition up to the market.

The Green New Deal is net value destroyer that would more than double the federal budget and have to get the funds from printing money (which they admitted in the press release.)

Stop assuming anything pro-Green is good. Killing all humans would be pro-green, and it's not good. Impoverishing America is not a good Green solution.

Fossil fuels are killing man and the environment and impoverishing America.
We must make these investments to avoid catastrophic climate change.

 

[ohmman]

“The market” lags its externalities and is not reflective of true costs. So it’s a ridiculous notion to suggest we should just let it work itself out.

 

[JRP3]

If Solar is cheaper than coal, then leave the transition up to the market.

The market is much too slow to adapt. The "market" wanted industry unregulated to allow pollution to flow.

 

[mspohr]

If Solar is cheaper than coal, then leave the transition up to the market.

The Green New Deal is net value destroyer that would more than double the federal budget and have to get the funds from printing money (which they admitted in the press release.)

Stop assuming anything pro-Green is good. Killing all humans would be pro-green, and it's not good. Impoverishing America is not a good Green solution.

The "free market" created the disaster of climate change. No reason to believe that fossil fuel companies will suddenly decide that their actions in promoting fossil fuel use, subsidies for fossil fuels and climate change denial were wrong and give up their profits.

 

[JRP3]

“It’s easy to call what AOC is doing as far-lefty, but nothing could be farther from the truth,” Nick Hanauer, the venture capitalist and progressive activist, told MSNBC in January. “When you advocate for economic policies that benefit the broad majority of citizens, that’s true centrism. What Howard Schultz represents, the centrism that he represents, is really just trickle-down economics.”

“He is not the centrist,” continued Hanauer. “AOC is the centrist.”

Hanauer is right. And Bernie Sanders is centrist too — smeared as an “ideologue” (The Economist) and “dangerously far left” (Chicago Tribune). So too is Elizabeth Warren — dismissed as a “radical extremist” (Las Vegas Review-Journal) and a “class warrior” (Fox News).

AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for Most Americans

 

[rays427]

Per the Congressional Budget Office the cost of the New Green Deal would be $93 Trillion or $9.3 Trillion per year for 10 years. The current total US income is about $18 Trillion. Total government spending in 2018 was about $7.1 Trillion (Federal, State and Local). So the total budget needed to do the New Green Deal in 10 years along with everything else would be $16.4 Trillion per year. So after tax income to balance the budget would be about $1.6 Trillion. Since there are about 145 million folks that work the average take home would be about $11,000. Let's assume the cost for the New Green Deal is half or expanded to 20 years the cost would be about $4.6 Trillion per year. So 18-4.6-7.1= $6.3 Trillion of after tax income. So that would end up with average take home pay of about $44,000 per year. So that would take care of income inequality since the tax rate would need to be 100% above $44,000. Of course you do get "free" medical, "free" college and a guaranteed living wage.

Now if you think that $93 Trillion is ridiculous just think of the cost just to replace all 250 million ICE vehicles in the US in 10 years. Since it would be mandated your existing vehicle would be worthless. So at about $35,000 per vehicle the cost would be $8.75 Trillion. Including all big rigs and farm equipment it would probably be more so the total would be about 10% of the estimated cost.

 

[ohmman]

Per the Congressional Budget Office the cost of the New Green Deal would be $93 Trillion or $9.3 Trillion per year for 10 years. The current total US income is about $18 Trillion. Total government spending in 2018 was about $7.1 Trillion (Federal, State and Local). So the total budget needed to do the New Green Deal in 10 years along with everything else would be $16.4 Trillion per year. So after tax income to balance the budget would be about $1.6 Trillion. Since there are about 145 million folks that work the average take home would be about $11,000. Let's assume the cost for the New Green Deal is half or expanded to 20 years the cost would be about $4.6 Trillion per year. So 18-4.6-7.1= $6.3 Trillion of after tax income. So that would end up with average take home pay of about $44,000 per year. So that would take care of income inequality since the tax rate would need to be 100% above $44,000. Of course you do get "free" medical, "free" college and a guaranteed living wage.

Now if you think that $93 Trillion is ridiculous just think of the cost just to replace all 250 million ICE vehicles in the US in 10 years. Since it would be mandated your existing vehicle would be worthless. So at about $35,000 per vehicle the cost would be $8.75 Trillion. Including all big rigs and farm equipment it would probably be more so the total would be about 10% of the estimated cost.

The $93T number was from the American Action Forum, not the CBO.

 

[SageBrush]

Per the Congressional Budget Office

Peddle your FUD somewhere else.

--
From Bloomberg:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious plan to fight climate change won’t be cheap, according to a Republican-aligned think tank led by a former Congressional Budget Office director.
The so-called Green New Deal may tally between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, concludes American Action Forum, which is run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the non-partisan CBO from from 2003 to 2005.

That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all.

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” the group said in its analysis. “Its further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag.”



Why ‘Green New Deal’ Has Washington in Such a Lather: QuickTake

Backers of the plan say cost of inaction would be more expensive. The resolution itself, released earlier this month by Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey points to a major report on global warming released by the United Nations last October that says catastrophic climate change could cost more than $500 billion annually in lost economic output in the U.S. by 2100.

“Any so-called ‘analysis’ of the #GreenNewDeal that includes artificially inflated numbers that rely on lazy assumptions, incl. about policies that aren’t even in the resolution is bogus," Markey said on Twitter. “Putting a price on a resolution of principles, not policies, is just Big Oil misinformation.”

 

[JRP3]

Per the Congressional Budget Office the cost of the New Green Deal would be $93 Trillion or $9.3 Trillion per year for 10 years.

Don't post blatant lies on this forum. The GND has no specifics so any "pricing" is complete speculation. Plus, as other's have posted, that did not come from the CBO.

 

[mspohr]

Government matters
Renewable energy policies actually work

But that's likely to be only part of the answer. By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency. Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels.

 

[rays427]

Don't post blatant lies on this forum. The GND has no specifics so any "pricing" is complete speculation. Plus, as other's have posted, that did not come from the CBO.

Sorry about the CBO but that's what I thought. However if you noticed I cut the amount in half and it still would be extremely difficult to accomplish. Remember the New Green Deal is not just doing away with fossil fuels it also includes medicare for all free college and guaranteed jobs. It would require the government to take over most of our economy and would certainly cost more than what I stated as half the cost. As far as only replacing all fossil fuels the cost would also run into the trillions. Much of the cost would probably not be through taxes but just extra costs to the consumers. Electric costs would go up and everyone would need to purchase new cars. So you are right I do not know what it would actually cost but I do know it would be basically impossible to do it in 10 years.

 

[SageBrush]

Much of the cost would probably not be through taxes but just extra costs to the consumers. Electric costs would go up and everyone would need to purchase new cars. So you are right I do not know what it would actually cost but I do know it would be basically impossible to do it in 10 years.

How much is spent on oil in a decade ?
How much is spent on the military to supply the oil over a decade ?
How much is spent on disaster response due to fossils per decade ?
How much is spent on the adverse effects of fossils on health per decade ?

You "arguments" are based on fossils being free but that is nonsense.

 

[jerry33]

How much is spent on oil in a decade ?
How much is spent on the military to supply the oil over a decade ?
How much is spent on disaster response due to fossils per decade ?
How much is spent on the adverse effects of fossils on health per decade ?

You "arguments" are based on fossils being free but that is nonsense.

I'd suggest the easiest way to get political backing would be to have the fossil fuel companies pay for the portion of the cost of military and healthcare related to fossil fuels.

 

[mspohr]

I'd suggest the easiest way to get political backing would be to have the fossil fuel companies pay for the portion of the cost of military and healthcare related to fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, the fossil fuel companies have bought enough politicians to ensure that this will never happen.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

If Solar is cheaper than coal, then leave the transition up to the market.

IMO this should be the repeated mantra of rational progressives to start every day. Renewable energy and EVs are far superior and far cheaper than legacy power and ICE transport, therefore the most expeditious route to scale is creating a rational marketplace via legislation that will then do all the actual work.

I circle back to Germany for the 7,000th time....their energy transition plan created very simple and easily regulated rules facilitating renewable energy access to the wholesale electricity marketplace. These rules took wind from 2% to 16% and solar from 0% to 8% of total electricity generation within a handful of years. Nearly all legislative action since 2014 has been designed to hold back these newly created juggernauts so the rest of the economy and infrastructure can catch up technologically. That's how you do it.

The Green New Deal is net value destroyer that would more than double the federal budget and have to get the funds from printing money (which they admitted in the press release.)

I'm not a GND proponent, but the economic impact of this transition literally can't be screwed up. Any way it's done will be a net creator of just due to it's sustainable nature. We're going from burning resources and putting money in a few people's pockets(mostly foreigners), to collecting free resources that have been falling from the sky forever and can easily dictate who see's the proceeds.

Stop assuming anything pro-Green is good. Killing all humans would be pro-green, and it's not good. Impoverishing America is not a good Green solution.

Again, any way this is done will likely lead to the end of poverty in America within 50-80 years. Done poorly our US debt to outside entities may grow in the short term, but we're doing that to the maximum semi-legal amount right now anyway.