https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
It's the deal AOC is supporting, it's getting some recognition from Senators as well. Extremely ambitious. It's a form of what Jill Stein based her candidacy around in 2012. At that time the democratic party was still in a stay-moderate-to-get-voters phase so the deal didn't get much support.
Now that the Trump admin has made it seem like anything is possible politically, most of the Green New Deal doesn't seem so far fetched. Further, there is ample science and recognition now that we need to do something about climate change. The Green New Deal represents an attempt by scientists and believers of science to rescue the planet.
Do you think any parts of this plan has a chance?
Green New Deal
-
MagisterXF94
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:46 am
- Location: Trieste, Italy
As much as I admire her ambiton, i believe a dose of realism is needed.
That is not to say, that we shouldn't work towards that goal, but its not going to be an instant achievement.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... eal-224928
That is not to say, that we shouldn't work towards that goal, but its not going to be an instant achievement.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... eal-224928
QUOTE ^cashto@Elem (all): yeah, i imagine if you're rusty, you could build op short for no reason, build a naked ref, then go two techpaths even though your mining is by all objective standards $#@!ed[/quote]
Those are some pretty drastic, sweeping changes to the way of life in America.
There is too much money involved to believe that the ultra wealthy wouldn't lobby against the changes proposed.
I think rich America would fight tooth and nail against changes to the banking and business ownership ideas suggested.
An up to 70 tax placed on the rich?
They will just leave the US and take their money with them.
As usual, the bulk of the costs would be dumped on the working class of America,
Although some of the climate issues are being dealt with, the entire New Green Deal is a pipe dream at best.
There is too much money involved to believe that the ultra wealthy wouldn't lobby against the changes proposed.
I think rich America would fight tooth and nail against changes to the banking and business ownership ideas suggested.
An up to 70 tax placed on the rich?
They will just leave the US and take their money with them.
As usual, the bulk of the costs would be dumped on the working class of America,
Although some of the climate issues are being dealt with, the entire New Green Deal is a pipe dream at best.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 9 2019, 01:59 PM) My favorite take so far.
a more serious take: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... -orthodoxy
JimmyNighthawk wrote:QUOTE (JimmyNighthawk @ Jun 30 2013, 11:32 PM) "Bavarian Sausage Anti-Ketchup Soap"[*]
Reservations I have:
1. The right to employment through a Full Employment Program
I don't know that this is workable, tbh. I don't know that there is enough that needs to be done or that can be feasibly done at 40 hours per week per person. And labor is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe if we like, dumped all of our technology, but hard pass on that. I feel like most discussions around jobs and the economy are still rooted in this idea that it's 1850.
4. The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college. We will also forgive student loan debt from the current era of unaffordable college education.
I'm worried this will become MANDATED education through college, which is (imo) an awful idea.
5. The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. We will:
ALL evictions? Eh. There are some evictions that should probably take place. They probably know this though and it probably doesn't need to be explained.
6. The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit.
Phone is unnecessary. Heat is the same as electricity. Whoever wrote this particular line is not giving me a lot of hope.
7. The right to fair taxation that's distributed in proportion to ability to pay. In addition, corporate tax subsidies will be made transparent by detailing them in public budgets where they can be scrutinized, not hidden as tax breaks.
What the $#@! even is this? It reads like something I would hear from a poli sci student or a soc student who got an A on their paper and thinks that makes them a certified brilliant student, rather than someone who spent 80 hours working on a paper when the professor expected 15.
2. Prioritize green research by redirecting research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar and geothermal. We will invest in research in sustainable, nontoxic materials, closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution, as well as organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.
They could just say "we don't actually know anything about science, but I did take an anthropology class once which is basically just biology so I know everything about everything!"
3. Provide green jobs by enacting the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 16 million jobs in sustainable energy and energy efficiency retrofitting, mass transit and "complete streets" that promote safe bike and pedestrian traffic, regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing
There is no such thing as sustainable organic agriculture. Oh, sure, it seems like there is because you hear about these hobby farms, but large scale industrial agriculture is the only reasonable solution to feeding a population unless you are willing to commit ~30% of your labor force to agriculture. Think about 10 people you know. Which 3 of them would choose to be farmers? If you don't have 3 of them choosing to be farmers, you're forcing someone to be a farmer, and hard pass.
All of Section 3 basically reads as "The financial history of the United States is the only financial history the world has ever seen and so it is probably not necessary for us to look at other major economies and how they run things since they're actually just like the United States."
Section 4 is also a woefully ignorant.
Christ. No wonder Pelosi is so critical of this, it reads like someone read an article on Vox and said to themselves, "Ah, yes, now I know how everything works."
1. The right to employment through a Full Employment Program
I don't know that this is workable, tbh. I don't know that there is enough that needs to be done or that can be feasibly done at 40 hours per week per person. And labor is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe if we like, dumped all of our technology, but hard pass on that. I feel like most discussions around jobs and the economy are still rooted in this idea that it's 1850.
4. The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college. We will also forgive student loan debt from the current era of unaffordable college education.
I'm worried this will become MANDATED education through college, which is (imo) an awful idea.
5. The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. We will:
ALL evictions? Eh. There are some evictions that should probably take place. They probably know this though and it probably doesn't need to be explained.
6. The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit.
Phone is unnecessary. Heat is the same as electricity. Whoever wrote this particular line is not giving me a lot of hope.
7. The right to fair taxation that's distributed in proportion to ability to pay. In addition, corporate tax subsidies will be made transparent by detailing them in public budgets where they can be scrutinized, not hidden as tax breaks.
What the $#@! even is this? It reads like something I would hear from a poli sci student or a soc student who got an A on their paper and thinks that makes them a certified brilliant student, rather than someone who spent 80 hours working on a paper when the professor expected 15.
2. Prioritize green research by redirecting research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar and geothermal. We will invest in research in sustainable, nontoxic materials, closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution, as well as organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.
They could just say "we don't actually know anything about science, but I did take an anthropology class once which is basically just biology so I know everything about everything!"
3. Provide green jobs by enacting the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 16 million jobs in sustainable energy and energy efficiency retrofitting, mass transit and "complete streets" that promote safe bike and pedestrian traffic, regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing
There is no such thing as sustainable organic agriculture. Oh, sure, it seems like there is because you hear about these hobby farms, but large scale industrial agriculture is the only reasonable solution to feeding a population unless you are willing to commit ~30% of your labor force to agriculture. Think about 10 people you know. Which 3 of them would choose to be farmers? If you don't have 3 of them choosing to be farmers, you're forcing someone to be a farmer, and hard pass.
All of Section 3 basically reads as "The financial history of the United States is the only financial history the world has ever seen and so it is probably not necessary for us to look at other major economies and how they run things since they're actually just like the United States."
Section 4 is also a woefully ignorant.
Christ. No wonder Pelosi is so critical of this, it reads like someone read an article on Vox and said to themselves, "Ah, yes, now I know how everything works."
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.
Paywall, so I could only read the first few paragraphs, but I have to point out that here in Washington state, one of the few states that is Democratic across almost every demographic, not one but two carbon tax referenda were shot down by voters. The first aimed to be revenue neutral (by reducing sales taxes in proportion), the second was to fund a grab bag of goodies.Terran wrote:QUOTE (Terran @ Feb 9 2019, 04:15 PM)
a more serious take: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... -orthodoxy
Like, I totally agree that a carbon tax is the simplest and best way to make a dent in the climate change problem, and yet it's still politically impossible even in the bluest of states. So I'm not really holding my breath for this GND.
If the GND has any value, it's that every party needs an extravagant, politically impossible but visionary program which would be disastrous if it were ever enacted, only to signal to voters what the party stands for and give voters some dream to believe in. Republicans have abortion, Trump has a wall, and Democrats have this.
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented
Oh, in that case carry on.cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 9 2019, 07:33 PM) If the GND has any value, it's that every party needs an extravagant, politically impossible but visionary program which would be disastrous if it were ever enacted, only to signal to voters what the party stands for and give voters some dream to believe in. Republicans have abortion, Trump has a wall, and Democrats have this.
I just wish it was possible to do the thing where you have extravagant, politically impossible but visionary programs which would be tremendous if ever enacted, if only to signal to voters what the party stands for and also that the party has a $#@!ing clue what reality is like.
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.
Maybe they can only do one or two of those things. The ideas are pretty epic. Hope springs eternal like Cash said.phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Feb 9 2019, 08:55 PM) Oh, in that case carry on.
I just wish it was possible to do the thing where you have extravagant, politically impossible but visionary programs which would be tremendous if ever enacted, if only to signal to voters what the party stands for and also that the party has a $#@!ing clue what reality is like.
Trump will probably win 2020 though because Russians and the democratic party will likely try to swing moderate again.
QUOTE (Economist)In fact, the criticism of the economic approach to climate change implicit in the Green New Deal is not that it is flawed or politically unrealistic, but that it is a category error, like trying to defeat Hitler with a fascism tax. Climate change is not a market glitch to be fixed through pricing, in this view, but part of a dire social crisis. It is hard to judge such arguments without decades of hindsight. But they seem to be winning, raising the possibility that, for the moment, economists have lost the chance to lead the fight against climate change."[/quote]cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 9 2019, 10:33 PM) Paywall, so I could only read the first few paragraphs, but I have to point out that here in Washington state, one of the few states that is Democratic across almost every demographic, not one but two carbon tax referenda were shot down by voters. The first aimed to be revenue neutral (by reducing sales taxes in proportion), the second was to fund a grab bag of goodies.
Like, I totally agree that a carbon tax is the simplest and best way to make a dent in the climate change problem, and yet it's still politically impossible even in the bluest of states. So I'm not really holding my breath for this GND.
If the GND has any value, it's that every party needs an extravagant, politically impossible but visionary program which would be disastrous if it were ever enacted, only to signal to voters what the party stands for and give voters some dream to believe in. Republicans have abortion, Trump has a wall, and Democrats have this.
carbon pricing is the simplest, most logical way to fix the environment without reinventing an economic system that was empirically shown to be the most effective. why can't we just do the logical thing?
JimmyNighthawk wrote:QUOTE (JimmyNighthawk @ Jun 30 2013, 11:32 PM) "Bavarian Sausage Anti-Ketchup Soap"[*]