Green New Deal

[jimm01]

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.

A concern is population growth. The distribution of income is from the bottom up, (as opposed to trickle down). The dynamics of capitalism today require a corresponding growth in population for income to increase with GDP. Basically, more poor people means a few more rich people. It’s part of the fundamental nature of a consumption economy. If one were to dissect capitalism in to pros and cons it is this artifact that is the most troublesome. Low population growth in high-income countries can negatively affect national GDP. As a corollary population growth without income growth (i.e. a decline in the distribution of per capita available income) means more consumption expenditures, less savings, and greater inequality. Thomas Piketty, in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", makes the argument that when the net rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the growth rate of output (g) wealth inequity increases. This translates into, like valence electrons, those who gets gots [sic]. Restated, the return on capital (r) on accumulated wealth, which is held disproportionately by a few, the rate of growth in the economy (g) as a whole decreases and wealth inequality increases. Marginally the only way to make the pie bigger, without conquering space, is to increase population. The thing is the environment and to some extent energy can reveal the fragile nature of this aspect of capitalism at any moment. The whole issue reminds me of the poem “The Hangman” by Maurice Ogden.

 

[JRP3]

Low population growth in high-income countries can negatively affect national GDP.

What if the population of poor people are less poor? A smaller population of people with more spending money could create the same trickle up effect as a higher population with less money.

 

[jimm01]

What if the population of poor people are less poor? A smaller population of people with more spending money could create the same trickle up effect as a higher population with less money.

I think that’s the point, it’s not counterpoint. In any case, this is not the present dynamic and the opposite is true. Another case to consider is countries with a large population of poor can experience slow development. China is an interesting case in that there is a large population of poor people but has experienced rapid growth. However, in China there is/was talk of increasing the birth rate due to an aging population. Age is a key factor in GDP and productivity (i.e. labor). Younger productive works support older less productive retirees. The basic function of population growth in a consumer economy is that it increases the total size of the economy and therefore the demand for labor. There are more people purchasing goods and services, this increases demand and grows the economy.

 

[mspohr]

A concern is population growth. The distribution of income is from the bottom up, (as opposed to trickle down). The dynamics of capitalism today require a corresponding growth in population for income to increase with GDP. Basically, more poor people means a few more rich people. It’s part of the fundamental nature of a consumption economy. If one were to dissect capitalism in to pros and cons it is this artifact that is the most troublesome. Low population growth in high-income countries can negatively affect national GDP. As a corollary population growth without income growth (i.e. a decline in the distribution of per capita available income) means more consumption expenditures, less savings, and greater inequality. Thomas Piketty, in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", makes the argument that when the net rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the growth rate of output (g) wealth inequity increases. This translates into, like valence electrons, those who gets gots [sic]. Restated, the return on capital (r) on accumulated wealth, which is held disproportionately by a few, the rate of growth in the economy (g) as a whole decreases and wealth inequality increases. Marginally the only way to make the pie bigger, without conquering space, is to increase population. The thing is the environment and to some extent energy can reveal the fragile nature of this aspect of capitalism at any moment. The whole issue reminds me of the poem “The Hangman” by Maurice Ogden.

First, GDP growth is only important to rich capitalists. What is most important to most people is wealth inequality. It's very feasible to tax the rich and redistribute wealth to poor people through housing, health care, food, income subsidies, etc. There is a lot of excess wealth at the top which could be a virtually limitless source to eliminate poverty (the top 10% have 76% of wealth, the bottom 50% have 1% of the wealth).
There is no need to worry about population growth or decline (we have discussed this in this thread).
Also, we need to move away from the consumption economy. It destroys the environment and social structure.

 

[mspohr]

I think that’s the point, it’s not counterpoint. In any case, this is not the present dynamic and the opposite is true. Another case to consider is countries with a large population of poor can experience slow development. China is an interesting case in that there is a large population of poor people but has experienced rapid growth. However, in China there is/was talk of increasing the birth rate due to an aging population. Age is a key factor in GDP and productivity (i.e. labor). Younger productive works support older less productive retirees. The basic function of population growth in a consumer economy is that it increases the total size of the economy and therefore the demand for labor. There are more people purchasing goods and services, this increases demand and grows the economy.

I think we need to get away from the idea that we need to keep "growing the economy", increasing consumption and providing low quality slave wage jobs.
Much better to have a society where everyone has their basic needs met and have social and family time. This is easily achievable by tapping the unproductive excess wealth of the rich.

 

[Big Dog]

I guess GND is union-only...

Tesla just got snubbed by Biden’s electric vehicle summit

President Joe Biden will be celebrating ambitious electric vehicles goals by automakers at the White House on Thursday. But he’ll be doing so without the world’s largest maker of EVs: T…

www.mercurynews.com

 

[eevee-fan]

I guess GND is union-only...

Tesla just got snubbed by Biden’s electric vehicle summit

President Joe Biden will be celebrating ambitious electric vehicles goals by automakers at the White House on Thursday. But he’ll be doing so without the world’s largest maker of EVs: T…

www.mercurynews.com

"
The three automakers issued a joint statement early Thursday announcing their “shared aspiration” for plug-in vehicles to comprise 40% to 50% of their sales by 2030. But that total would include plug-in hybrids that also have a gasoline-powered engines.
"

If Elon was there, he'd roll his eyes. LOL

 

[jerry33]

"
The three automakers issued a joint statement early Thursday announcing their “shared aspiration” for plug-in vehicles to comprise 40% to 50% of their sales by 2030. But that total would include plug-in hybrids that also have a gasoline-powered engines.
"

If Elon was there, he'd roll his eyes. LOL

Yep. Basically they just agreed to keep the status quo.

 

[nwdiver]

if any of these folks as an example have a fancy cell phone, well, ......

Totally... not buying a $400 iPhone could have staved off being evicted for at least another week. That's THOUSANDS of minutes! THOUSANDS!

 

[mspohr]

Totally... not buying a $400 iPhone could have staved off being evicted for at least another week. That's MILLIONS of minutes! MILLIONS!

I bet they eat lobster also.

 

[jimm01]

Mainstream climate and environmental policy has developed over the years with a certain assumption — that we can get rid of the bad things while still preserving the good things. That is, it’s sought to figure out how to reduce carbon emissions, preserve ecosystems, and save endangered species while continuing to improve material living conditions for everyone in the world.

But to a vocal slice of climate activists, that approach seems increasingly doomed. The degrowth movement, as it’s called, argues that humanity can’t keep growing without driving humanity into climate catastrophe. The only solution, the argument goes, is an extreme transformation of our way of life — a transition away from treating economic growth as a policy priority to an acceptance of shrinking GDP as a prerequisite to saving the planet.

At the core of degrowth is the climate crisis. Degrowth’s proponents argue that to save Earth, humans need to shrink global economic activity, because at our current levels of consumption, the world won’t hit the IPCC target of stabilizing global temperatures at no more than 1.5 degrees of warming. The degrowth movement argues that climate change should prompt a radical rethinking of economic growth, and policymakers serious about climate change should try to build a livable world without economic growth fueling it.

Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?

The "degrowth" movement to fight the climate crisis offers a romantic, utopian vision. But it’s not a policy agenda.

www.vox.com

 

[mspohr]

Mainstream climate and environmental policy has developed over the years with a certain assumption — that we can get rid of the bad things while still preserving the good things. That is, it’s sought to figure out how to reduce carbon emissions, preserve ecosystems, and save endangered species while continuing to improve material living conditions for everyone in the world.

But to a vocal slice of climate activists, that approach seems increasingly doomed. The degrowth movement, as it’s called, argues that humanity can’t keep growing without driving humanity into climate catastrophe. The only solution, the argument goes, is an extreme transformation of our way of life — a transition away from treating economic growth as a policy priority to an acceptance of shrinking GDP as a prerequisite to saving the planet.

At the core of degrowth is the climate crisis. Degrowth’s proponents argue that to save Earth, humans need to shrink global economic activity, because at our current levels of consumption, the world won’t hit the IPCC target of stabilizing global temperatures at no more than 1.5 degrees of warming. The degrowth movement argues that climate change should prompt a radical rethinking of economic growth, and policymakers serious about climate change should try to build a livable world without economic growth fueling it.

Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?

The "degrowth" movement to fight the climate crisis offers a romantic, utopian vision. But it’s not a policy agenda.

www.vox.com

Consumption of consumer goods is the problem.
You can improve health, nutrition, education and community well being without consumer goods.
Increasing GDP is a false god.

 

[bro1999]

Dems in the Senate released the budget reconciliation language this morning. Guess we still have to wait for the full bill text to be released in the fall to see what's actually in it though, policy-wise.

 

[jimm01]

Consumption of consumer goods is the problem.
You can improve health, nutrition, education and community well being without consumer goods.
Increasing GDP is a false god.

Delivered at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas , March 18, 1968.

Remarks at the University of Kansas - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?"

 

[eevee-fan]

What's opposite of GND? LOL

 

[mspohr]

UN climate report raises pressure on Biden to seize a rare moment

Much of that global action will hinge upon the response mustered by the US, the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. Biden’s narrow window of opportunity to drastically cut emissions is dependent upon the contents of a $3.5tn bill that Democrats hope to pass before midterm elections next year, when the party may well lose control of Congress.

If senators truly followed the science in this report, we’d have 100 votes for climate action,” said Ed Markey, a Democratic senator who help craft the Green New Deal proposal with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Markey said the IPCC report “must be the final warning to the world that time has run out to save the planet from dangerous and irreversible climate change”.

 

[mspohr]

What's opposite of GND? LOL

Interesting. She has identified corporations as the problem but blames the government.

 

[zikronix]

Dems in the Senate released the budget reconciliation language this morning. Guess we still have to wait for the full bill text to be released in the fall to see what's actually in it though, policy-wise.

This was in one of the amendments. (source: Reddit)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...697b00-fa47-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html

Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska proposed prohibiting people making more than $100,000 a year from claiming EV tax credits and to end tax credits for EVs that cost more than $40,000 -- levels that would exclude many of the electric vehicles on the market or planned to come to the market in the next few years, including those promoted by President Joe Biden recently at the White House.

This amendment passed 51-48, so it looks like there's no incentive on the horizon for all you folks who were holding out.

Ars lists the only battery vehicles that qualify:

Perhaps more significantly, Sen. Fischer's amendment also restricts the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000. Consequently, the only battery EVs that will still be eligible for the tax credit will be the Hyundai Ioniq Electric ($34,250), Hyundai Kona EV ($38,565), Mini Cooper SE ($30,750), and the Nissan Leaf S Plus ($39,220). Chevrolet's Bolt EV and Bolt EUV are both below the price threshold, but in 2019 the automaker sold its 200,000th plug-in vehicle, at which point the tax credit began to phase out.

It's unfortunate that there's any restrictions being imposed on the electrification of the US auto market, but if this is the cost of getting those who are least likely to be able to afford an EV (lower income folks) to consider purchasing, this is better than nothing.

FULL DISCLOSURE:

It's a non-binding amendment that's still up for debate. (OP didn't mention that part).

"The Senate voted 51-48 for a non-binding amendment to the budget resolution aimed at limiting who can get a tax break for buying an electric car or truck and which vehicles qualify, potentially shaping the coming debate as Democrats prepare to expand the tax credit."

 

[juliusa]

WTF??

White House Urges OPEC to Boost Oil Output Amid Covid-19 Economic Recovery

National security adviser Jake Sullivan said recent planned production increases by OPEC would “not fully offset previous production cuts.”

www.wsj.com

How about "urging" more renewable energy?
How about "urging" more domestic production if renewables are not enough?
How about "urging" a pipeline to Canada - an ally - if domestic sources are not enough?

What happened to "Made in America"? "Good paying union jobs"? "We all live on one planet"? "National Security?"

All I can think of is Biden is under pressure from his war lobbyists to continue the world's dependence on middle east and Russian oil. Or maybe Hunter has something going on with OPEC.

 

[bro1999]

This was in one of the amendments. (source: Reddit)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...697b00-fa47-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html


This amendment passed 51-48, so it looks like there's no incentive on the horizon for all you folks who were holding out.

Ars lists the only battery vehicles that qualify:


It's unfortunate that there's any restrictions being imposed on the electrification of the US auto market, but if this is the cost of getting those who are least likely to be able to afford an EV (lower income folks) to consider purchasing, this is better than nothing.

FULL DISCLOSURE:

It's a non-binding amendment that's still up for debate. (OP didn't mention that part).

"The Senate voted 51-48 for a non-binding amendment to the budget resolution aimed at limiting who can get a tax break for buying an electric car or truck and which vehicles qualify, potentially shaping the coming debate as Democrats prepare to expand the tax credit."

So all that (non-binding) amendment does is further water down the existing tax credit, it doesn't even renew the credit for GM or Tesla. No way that passes as is in the final bill, but I can definitely see income/MSRP limits for credit eligibility imposed.