Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Green New Deal

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
An example article referring to one study:

Basically, some crops grow better in partial sun.
Bonus: the partial shading from PV reduces evaporation, improving irrigation efficiency.

California is considering putting floating solar on their water ways to reduce evaporation... another win-win-win for those who use their brains. :)
 
Absolutely. But economics also tells you that given that people want meat, agriculture will work to make it more efficient to compensate. Factory farming has been very good at lowering cost.
Considering that it takes about 10x the number of calories from plants for factory animal agriculture to create meat calories, there will always be an economic advantage in eating the corn, soy, etc. directly rather than the wasteful process of running it through animals.
 
What's important is: Even with risk mitigation strategies addressing C02 reduction, and the development of climate resilient communities and infrastructure, the insurance industry considers the earth locked into its present course on the growing effects of climate change for the next 10 years. One of the greatest risks identified is the risk to the earth's food systems. Although one can choose ignore the effects of climate change they will have a profound effect on the cost of underwriting life and property.

 
Ambitious climate policies, as well as economic development, education, technological progress and less resource-intensive lifestyles, are crucial elements for progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, using an integrated modelling framework covering 56 indicators or proxies across all 17 SDGs, we show that they are insufficient to reach the targets. An additional sustainable development package, including international climate finance, progressive redistribution of carbon pricing revenues, sufficient and healthy nutrition and improved access to modern energy, enables a more comprehensive sustainable development pathway. We quantify climate and SDG outcomes, showing that these interventions substantially boost progress towards many aspects of the UN Agenda 2030 and simultaneously facilitate reaching ambitious climate targets. Nonetheless, several important gaps remain; for example, with respect to the eradication of extreme poverty (180 million people remaining in 2030). These gaps can be closed by 2050 for many SDGs while also respecting the 1.5 °C target and several other planetary boundaries.

 
How Liberalism Can Succeed Opinion | How Liberalism Can Succeed

Now, liberals want to do big things again, including remaking American energy and transportation systems to address climate change. The lessons of the 1970s show why the “better” is so vital in President Biden’s “Build Back Better” slogan. Some parts of the new bipartisan infrastructure bill would still lock us into old errors, like the highway network that traps us in a petroleum-centered landscape. Other provisions would do more, by fixing the messes of the past: reconnecting communities divided by those very same highways, for example, and replacing lead pipes that can poison drinking water.

That’s welcome, but the best parts of the proposed new spending and regulating would actively move the country forward. They would create new systems, like an energy grid that could better distribute wind and solar power and a clean energy standard that slashes air pollution and improves public health. That’s how liberalism responds to its own critique of government and propels itself into the future.
 
The Two Economists Who Fought Over How Free the Free Market Should Be The Two Economists Who Fought Over How Free the Free Market Should Be

Profit-seeking business remained very much the norm — America never went in for significant government ownership of the means of production — but businesses and businesspeople were subject to many new constraints. Taxes were high, in some cases as high as 92 percent; a third of the nation’s workers were union members; vigilant antitrust policy tried to limit monopoly power. And the government, following the ideas developed by Britain’s John Maynard Keynes, took an active role in trying to fight recessions and maintain full employment.

Samuelson did write a best-selling textbook that brought Keynesian economics — the idea that changes in government spending and taxes can be used to manage the economy — to American college classrooms. And his concept of the “neoclassical synthesis” — markets can work, but only with government-created guardrails — in effect provided the intellectual justification for the postwar economy.

Friedman, on the other hand, was very much a political animal; pretty much everything he did was aimed at restoring Gilded Age-style unrestrained capitalism.

And where are we now? If you look at the Biden administration’s proposals — which are for the most part very popular, although their legislative fate is uncertain — they’re pro-market, but involve substantial government spending and regulation in an attempt to tilt the arc of markets toward social justice. In other words, they sound a lot like what Paul Samuelson was saying decades ago.
 
The Two Economists Who Fought Over How Free the Free Market Should Be The Two Economists Who Fought Over How Free the Free Market Should Be
Profit-seeking business remained very much the norm — America never went in for significant government ownership of the means of production — but businesses and businesspeople were subject to many new constraints. Taxes were high, in some cases as high as 92 percent; a third of the nation’s workers were union members; vigilant antitrust policy tried to limit monopoly power. And the government, following the ideas developed by Britain’s John Maynard Keynes, took an active role in trying to fight recessions and maintain full employment.

Samuelson did write a best-selling textbook that brought Keynesian economics — the idea that changes in government spending and taxes can be used to manage the economy — to American college classrooms. And his concept of the “neoclassical synthesis” — markets can work, but only with government-created guardrails — in effect provided the intellectual justification for the postwar economy.

Friedman, on the other hand, was very much a political animal; pretty much everything he did was aimed at restoring Gilded Age-style unrestrained capitalism.

And where are we now? If you look at the Biden administration’s proposals — which are for the most part very popular, although their legislative fate is uncertain — they’re pro-market, but involve substantial government spending and regulation in an attempt to tilt the arc of markets toward social justice. In other words, they sound a lot like what Paul Samuelson was saying decades ago.

ne·o·lib·er·al·ism
noun
  1. a political approach that favors free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending.
“Scholars tended to associate it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. Once the new meaning of neoliberalism became established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy. By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and with the Zapatistas' reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation. Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has grown over the last few decades.”

 
CNN: US comes in last in health care rankings of high-income countries. US comes in last in health care rankings of high-income countries


(CNN)The US once again ranked last in access to health care, equity and outcomes among high-income countries, despite spending a far greater share of its economy on health care, a new report released Wednesday has found. The nation has landed in the basement in all seven studies the Commonwealth Fund has conducted since 2004. The US is the only one of the 11 countries surveyed not to have universal health insurance coverage.
 
Our leaders look climate change in the eyes, and shrug | Hamilton Nolan

As overwhelming and omnipresent as the climate crisis is, it is not the core issue. The core issue is capitalism. Capitalism’s unfettered pursuit of economic growth is what caused climate change, and capitalism’s inability to reckon with externalities – the economic term for a cost that falls onto third parties – is what is preventing us from solving climate change. Indeed, climate change itself is the ultimate negative externality: fossil-fuel companies and assorted polluting corporations and their investors get all the benefits, and the rest of the world pays the price. Now the entire globe finds itself trapped in the gruesome logic of capitalism, where it is perfectly rational for the rich to continue doing something that is destroying the earth, as long as the profits they reap will allow them to insulate themselves from the consequences.

Capitalism is a machine made to squeeze every last cent out of this planet until there is nothing left. We can either fool ourselves about that until it kills us, or we can change it.
 
Biden, in a Push to Phase Out Gas Cars, to Tighten Pollution Rules Biden, in a Push to Phase Out Gas Cars, to Tighten Pollution Rules

In a signal of industry support, the president will be flanked by the chief executives of the nation’s three largest automakers as well as the head of the United Auto Workers. The automakers will pledge that 40 to 50 percent of their new car sales will be electric vehicles by 2030, up from just 2 percent this year — on the condition that Congress passes an infrastructure bill that includes billions of dollars for a national network of electric vehicle charging stations, as well as tax credits to make it cheaper for companies to build the cars and consumers to buy them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.