Green New Deal

[mspohr]

We Can’t Afford to Shrink the Infrastructure Bill Opinion | We Can’t Afford to Shrink the Infrastructure Bill

When centrist Democrats argue against new spending, they often bring up the interests of future generations — whatever bill we run up now, our grandchildren will have to pay off. But when it comes to climate change, the opposite is true. The cost of mitigating and preparing for climate change is very high, but the cost of not doing those things is even higher.

The second reason is climate mitigation, which requires the reduction of fossil-fuel emissions. It involves an economic concept known as the social cost of carbon, or the cost to future generations of the carbon we emit today. The economist William Nordhaus has pegged the social cost of carbon at $44 per ton, meaning each new ton we emit incurs future costs worth at least $44 in 2010s money. The Obama and Biden administrations, relying partly on his model, arrived at a social cost of about $50.

 

[eevee-fan]

Democrats Call for a Tax on Imports From Polluting Countries Democrats Call for a Tax on Imports From Polluting Countries

The move to tax imports was made public Wednesday, the same day that the European Union outlined its own proposal for a similar carbon border tax, a novel tool that is designed to protect domestic manufacturing while simultaneously pressuring other countries to reduce the emissions that are warming the planet.

The budget plan also includes a number of significant Democratic priorities on climate change, including a mechanism known as a clean electricity standard that would require power companies to gradually ratchet up the amount of electricity they generate from wind, solar and other sources until they’re no longer emitting carbon dioxide. There are also new tax breaks for wind, solar and other renewable energy, as well as electric vehicles, a “methane reduction fee” and funding for a civilian climate corps, modeled after New Deal-era programs, to create jobs in addressing climate change and conservation, according to lawmakers.

Level the playing field to take away their unfair advantage, I like it!

 

[navguy12]

We Can’t Afford to Shrink the Infrastructure Bill Opinion | We Can’t Afford to Shrink the Infrastructure Bill

When centrist Democrats argue against new spending, they often bring up the interests of future generations — whatever bill we run up now, our grandchildren will have to pay off. But when it comes to climate change, the opposite is true. The cost of mitigating and preparing for climate change is very high, but the cost of not doing those things is even higher.

The second reason is climate mitigation, which requires the reduction of fossil-fuel emissions. It involves an economic concept known as the social cost of carbon, or the cost to future generations of the carbon we emit today. The economist William Nordhaus has pegged the social cost of carbon at $44 per ton, meaning each new ton we emit incurs future costs worth at least $44 in 2010s money. The Obama and Biden administrations, relying partly on his model, arrived at a social cost of about $50.

“…Recent large studies estimate the social cost of carbon as high as $417 tCO2[12] or as low as $54 tCO2.[13] Both those studies subsume wide ranges; the latter is a meta-study whose source estimates range from -$13.36 to $2,386.91.[13] Note that the costs derive not from the element carbon, but the molecule carbon dioxide. Each tonne of carbon dioxide consists of about 0.27 tonnes of carbon and 0.73 tonnes of oxygen.[14]…”

Social cost of carbon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Big Dog]

Biden heads to Capitol Hill to boost Democrats’ ‘human infrastructure’ plan

Biden joined Senate Democrats for the closed-door lunch where he sought their support and discussed strategy for passing both a $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure deal to rebuild America’s roads and bridges, and the larger Democratic package that also addresses environmental measures and the need for stronger social services.

An Ipsos poll conducted this month for Reuters found that most Americans want the kind of infrastructure improvements that are included in the Biden plan. It also found that nearly two-thirds of the country supports increasing taxes on “the highest-earning Americans” to pay for the improvements.

Too bad the Guardian chooses not to hyperlink the sources of the studies/surveys that they are referencing so that their readers could read the original data themselves to become better educated (and not have to see the numbers thru teh biased lenses of the journalists).

Perhaps this is the survey that they referenced?

Support for President Biden's American Jobs Plan remains lukewarm

​

While Americans continue to be supportive of individual infrastructure initiatives, they are split along party lines over support for President Biden's American Jobs Plan...

_____________​

It found that 46% of Americans support the plan.​

​

46% is hardly a 'majority' at least when I took Stats in college. Now it may be a plurality (of those that responded to the survey), but still less <50%.

Or this,

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll​

​

If true, Guardian should have clarified that in the article particularly since the title of the first link clearly shows 'lukewarm support' for paying for the proposals, and a wealth tax is significantly different than increasing corporate and individuals tax rates. (Not to mention that a wealth tax might not even be constitutionally-legal.)

As far as funding for these projects, though, Americans do not want the U.S. government to go into greater debt (only 35% support this) nor wish to pay more in taxes (only 37% support the idea) to fund infrastructure projects.

(sorry about the bolding, as I could not undue it)


.

 

[mspohr]

Too bad the Guardian chooses not to hyperlink the sources of the studies/surveys that they are referencing so that their readers could read the original data themselves to become better educated (and not have to see the numbers thru teh biased lenses of the journalists).

Perhaps this is the survey that they referenced?
While Americans continue to be supportive of individual infrastructure initiatives, they are split along party lines over support for President Biden's American Jobs Plan...
46% is hardly a 'majority' at least when I took Stats in college. Now it may be a plurality (of those that responded to the survey), but still less <50%.

From the poll on the Ipsos web site:
Support for the individual infrastructure improvement proposals included within the package benefited from strong support, particularly among Democrats. In particular, Americans support repairing or replacing American ports, railways, bridges, and highways (84%) and investing in supporting home-based care for the elderly or disabled (76%).
The most popular proposal is providing incentives or tax credits to develop clean or renewable energy (68%).

If true, Guardian should have clarified that in the article particularly since the title of the first link clearly shows 'lukewarm support' for paying for the proposals, and a wealth tax is significantly different than increasing corporate and individuals tax rates. (Not to mention that a wealth tax might not even be constitutionaly
It also found that nearly two-thirds of the country supports increasing taxes on “the highest-earning Americans” to pay for the improvements.

As far as funding for these projects, though, Americans do not want the U.S. government to go into greater debt (only 35% support this) nor wish to pay more in taxes (only 37% support the idea) to fund infrastructure projects.

 

[JRP3]

As far as funding for these projects, though, Americans do not want the U.S. government to go into greater debt (only 35% support this) nor wish to pay more in taxes (only 37% support the idea) to fund infrastructure projects.

Since probably 95% of Americans wouldn't be paying more taxes I'd imagine support would be higher if this were explained to them.

 

[jerry33]

Since probably 95% of Americans wouldn't be paying more taxes I'd imagine support would be higher if this were explained to them.

The problem is inflation/currency devaluation. If I remember correctly, the original income tax would only affect people with over $200,000 income in today's dollars. Taxes have a way of filtering down to the middle class.

 

[nwdiver]

Hopefully the EU carbon tariff will take into account the fact that the carbon bootprint of a 'mercan worker is ~3x that of a European worker. Maybe they can account for this more regionally.

 

[jimm01]

'Ahead of his time': How astrophysicist Carl Sagan predicted 2021's problems -- 25 years ago

"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."

He also expressed concern about America's future generations being "dumbed down."

Sagan continued, "The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."

'Ahead of his time': How astrophysicist Carl Sagan predicted 2021's problems -- 25 years ago

Carl Sagan in 1995 ultimately predicted a number of pitfalls and challenges the United States would be facing 25 years later when he published his last book just months before his death in 1996.During the July 12 segment of MSNBC's "11th Hour," the network paid homage to Sagan describing him as...

www.rawstory.com

 

[mspohr]

Minimum wage workers can't afford rent anywhere in America

Housing has become so expensive in the United States that the typical minimum wage worker cannot afford rent, according to a new report.

www.cnn.com

 

[jimm01]

"The Biden administration on Thursday will roll out a tool that enables instant local permitting of rooftop solar installations, addressing a major source of industry delays and possibly lowering costs for homeowners, the Energy Department said."

U.S. seeks to speed rooftop solar growth with instant permits

The Biden administration on Thursday will roll out a tool that enables instant local permitting of rooftop solar installations, addressing a major source of industry delays and possibly lowering costs for homeowners, the Energy Department said.

www.reuters.com

 

[eevee-fan]

"The Biden administration on Thursday will roll out a tool that enables instant local permitting of rooftop solar installations, addressing a major source of industry delays and possibly lowering costs for homeowners, the Energy Department said."

U.S. seeks to speed rooftop solar growth with instant permits

The Biden administration on Thursday will roll out a tool that enables instant local permitting of rooftop solar installations, addressing a major source of industry delays and possibly lowering costs for homeowners, the Energy Department said.

www.reuters.com

Nice, maybe this will nudge me to getting rooftop solar. Current price is just uncompetitive in my case.

 

[mspohr]

California passes US’s first state-backed guaranteed income plan

California lawmakers have approved the first state-funded guaranteed income plan in the US, which will see $35m used for monthly cash payments to qualifying pregnant people and young adults who recently left foster care, in a move that could spur other states to follow its lead. The effort passed with bipartisan support in the state legislature on Thursday, a sign of the growing momentum for the idea of guaranteed income across the country. Dozens of local programs have sprung up in recent years, including some that have been privately funded, making it easier for elected officials to sell the public on the idea.

 

[Merrill]

"The Biden administration on Thursday will roll out a tool that enables instant local permitting of rooftop solar installations, addressing a major source of industry delays and possibly lowering costs for homeowners, the Energy Department said."

U.S. seeks to speed rooftop solar growth with instant permits

The Biden administration on Thursday will roll out a tool that enables instant local permitting of rooftop solar installations, addressing a major source of industry delays and possibly lowering costs for homeowners, the Energy Department said.

www.reuters.com

If the utilities in California have there way we will not need a way to speed up the permitting process for solar because nobody will want to do solar.

 

[eevee-fan]

 

[JRP3]

As data comes in, there’s scant evidence that canceling the extra $300 per week federal jobless payment is boosting employment in Republican-led states. “There is little sign that workers are flooding back into the labor market in states where unemployment benefits have been cut,” Moody’s Analytics explained in a July 15 analysis. “The preponderance of evidence suggests that reduced benefits are not the cure for worker shortages.”

Job search firm Indeed found that search activity ticked upward after a few of the first Republican states announced they would be ending federal jobless aid. But that trend reversed, and last month Indeed reported that job-search activity in 12 GOP states that cut off jobless benefits was lower than it had been earlier in the year. “It is unclear why search activity is below the baseline in states where federal benefits have ended,” Indeed economist Jed Kolko wrote. “If overly generous federal UI benefits were holding back job seekers, then we would expect search activity to increase, relative to the national trend, in states where those benefits have ended.”

The Republican labor-shortage fix looks like a bust

Evidence is mounting that cutting off an extra jobless benefit isn't forcing people back to work.

www.yahoo.com

 

[mspohr]

Child allowance payments are the biggest help in decades. Republicans just see welfare | Robert Reich

The party of ‘family values’ does not really support needy families

www.theguardian.com

The first: will a payment of up to $300 per child every month – totaling up to $3,600 per child per year – cause parents to become couch potatoes? That seems doubtful. Even a family with three kids under six would receive no more than $10,800 a year. That’s way below what’s needed to pay even subsistence expenses, and still far below what a full-time job at the federal minimum wage would pull in.

But even if the payment caused some parents to work a bit less, it raises a second question: should children be penalized because their parents aren’t working, or are working less than they would without the child payment?

Let’s be clear. Mike Lee’s Republican party – the putative party of “family values” – doesn’t really support needy families. It supports a pinched and, in these perilous times, unrealistic view of personal responsibility – children be damned.

 

[mspohr]

Joe Biden’s Monumental Environmental Gambit Opinion | Joe Biden’s Monumental Environmental Gambit

 

[Merrill]

Joe Biden’s Monumental Environmental Gambit Opinion | Joe Biden’s Monumental Environmental Gambit

Unfortunately it will not let me in.

 

[JRP3]

Turn off Java Script or try a private browser window. I can view it with Java Script off.