Green New Deal
I'm pretty zealous about environmental issues but boy is there a lot of gratuitous (and counterproductive to the extent you really want to establish a legislative consensus as opposed to posturing), dogmatic nonsense in there.
bub said:
I'm pretty zealous about environmental issues but boy is there a lot of gratuitous (and counterproductive to the extent you really want to establish a legislative consensus as opposed to posturing), dogmatic nonsense in there.
because there's actually a chance that a GOP Senate will pass a Green New Deal bill?
If there's no chance, and perhaps there isn't, what is the point of this exactly? Legislative virtue/progressive cred signaling? It's infantile. It's a bad sign of your political ineptitude when someone like me, who is on the green bandwagon big time, is alienated by your (pseudo) legislative proposal.
bub said:
If there's no chance, and perhaps there isn't, what is the point of this exactly? Legislative virtue/progressive cred signaling? It's infantile. It's a bad sign of your political ineptitude when someone like me, who is on the green bandwagon big time, is alienated by your (pseudo) legislative proposal.
it's a resolution, so its intent is in fact to send a signal to voters.
specifically which parts are you having a problem with? Which parts are "infantile"?
For one thing, its a manifesto that hits every kind of supposedly progressive button/grievance going way beyond, and even contradicting, green issues. There's also that beloved moral self-blame instinct - this is more the U.S.'s fault so its somehow more our responsibility, even though we humans began burning stuff in pre-history, continued to do so during the original industrial revolution that began elsewhere and now goes on on a massive scale in countries that have many times the population of the U.S. and have far less environmental protections/laws than the U.S. already has. Most people on the earth now live, or want to live, the modern industrial life. Is this really more of a moral U.S. burden than a burden for India, China or 50 other countries? It's hard enough to get something like this done without the gratuitous moral indictments. Why do it? When you're an actual legislator but write as if you are a drafting a manifesto with your rebel group up in the hills of some South American country, you're infantile and counterproductive. My worst fear is that his style, if it takes hold among the Democrats, will keep this country under the sway of Trumpists for a long time.
if you're really on the green bandwagon big time, I don't know why this upsets you so. And I think you are misrepresenting what's actually written in the document. It doesn't suggest that the U.S. has a moral responsibility to address the issue. It's a practical responsibility, given the % of greenhouse gases that are produced in the U.S. Here's the section:
Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation
I couldn't even find the word "moral" in the document at all. What I read was essentially factual. The potential calamities that would result from severe climate change will in fact disproportionately affect already marginalized groups.
And the economic rationale for a Green New Deal should include that it will create good jobs and do things like reduce inequality. Why would anyone support a Green New Deal if it doesn't have economic benefits?
Maybe something more like this...
Whereas we are all ****** if we don't manage global warming and whereas the United States will benefit enormously by seizing the technological lead in renewable energies and whereas many oil exporting countries don't have our interests at heart, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation.
Instead of:
Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation
climate change and related environmental damage are, to me, global, species threatening phenomena. How and who it affects is based on many things, including region, specidic location, elevation above sea level etc. Many rich people's homes will be washed away before some marginalized people are affected. And, again, in the end, we're all in trouble.
Sure, all legislation should bring all good things to all people - a win win for all! Jobs for all, clean air, 65 degree days with blue skies, and on and on. I just don't take it seriously when politician present things that way because it never happens. I prefer sober, specific, realistic, candid nuts and bolts ideas.
This is shaping up as Dems shooting themselves in the foot IMO. I heard on the radio earlier the plan is for young activists to "occupy" the offices of legislators who don't support this thing. Yikes.
Dotard must be licking his chops at the prospect of tying this whole thing to the Democratic party at large.
What I do know for certain is that global warming is THE ISSUE for the 21st Century. Getting through this century without climate change would be difficult enough. Climate change will intensify all existing points of conflict.
for all the talk about how progressive Maplewood is, the conventional wisdom on MOL these days on a lot of issues ("Medicare for all," higher taxes on the wealthy, concern for climate change, etc.) seems generally to the right of the U.S. mainstream.
The Democrats' position on a Green New Deal is likely to be very popular out in the rest of America. Maybe the question should no longer be "will it play in Peoria?" but instead "will it play in Maplewood?"
tjohn said:
What I do know for certain is that global warming is THE ISSUE for the 21st Century. Getting through this century without climate change would be difficult enough. Climate change will intensify all existing points of conflict.
I wish more of the billionaire tech geniuses adopted pet projects about environmental issues. I understand the idea that we will have to get off of this planet one day, so I'm not knocking Musk's Space X stuff, but we will never get remotely close to achieving that if we don't solve our environmental issues. We will be gone. Although not sexy at all and not dreamy like space travel, Bill Gates' efforts to create and promote environmentally friendly toilets will do a lot more to save us than Space X.
Can I still use my gas powered Gillette Mach X or is that no longer AOC compliant.
I like the Onion's take on this:
ml1 said:
bub said:because there's actually a chance that a GOP Senate will pass a Green New Deal bill?
I'm pretty zealous about environmental issues but boy is there a lot of gratuitous (and counterproductive to the extent you really want to establish a legislative consensus as opposed to posturing), dogmatic nonsense in there.
Honestly, there's not all that much of a chance that our civilization survives this self inflicted calamity so you could probably apply that logic to just about anything. Unless we take huge action, we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
bub said:
tjohn said:I wish more of the billionaire tech geniuses adopted pet projects about environmental issues. I understand the idea that we will have to get off of this planet one day, so I'm not knocking Musk's Space X stuff, but we will never get remotely close to achieving that if we don't solve our environmental issues. We will be gone. Although not sexy at all and not dreamy like space travel, Bill Gates' efforts to create and promote environmentally friendly toilets will do a lot more to save us than Space X.
What I do know for certain is that global warming is THE ISSUE for the 21st Century. Getting through this century without climate change would be difficult enough. Climate change will intensify all existing points of conflict.
Never mind. TED talks will save us. Whew! A sigh of relief from over here.
Klinker said:
bub said:Never mind. TED talks will save us. Whew! A sigh of relief from over here.
tjohn said:I wish more of the billionaire tech geniuses adopted pet projects about environmental issues. I understand the idea that we will have to get off of this planet one day, so I'm not knocking Musk's Space X stuff, but we will never get remotely close to achieving that if we don't solve our environmental issues. We will be gone. Although not sexy at all and not dreamy like space travel, Bill Gates' efforts to create and promote environmentally friendly toilets will do a lot more to save us than Space X.
What I do know for certain is that global warming is THE ISSUE for the 21st Century. Getting through this century without climate change would be difficult enough. Climate change will intensify all existing points of conflict.
Gates actually does something, including investment of 200 million in environmentally friendly toilets, so I don't get the TED talk quip.
I especially like her “idea” to Upgrade or replace every building in the United States and eliminate airplanes and replace them with seatrains, all within ten years. Bold as it is childishly batshit crazy.
Detractors of the Green New Deal need to come up with alternative approaches. Doing nothing about global warming is not an option.
tjohn said:
Detractors of the Green New Deal need to come up with alternative approaches. Doing nothing about global warming is not an option.
There are informed, qualified people who have ideas about addressing global warming. It's not like its some forbidden subject that has been bravely exposed by the GND. What we need to do is ignore politicking nonsense like the GND and discuss the subject in an informed, hard headed way like we do with all real problems that we really want to address. A piece of paper that looks like it was written in a dorm room by a leftist student organization high on pot is not a serious starting point for ending global warming.
the resolution is not proposing a Green Deal. It's a Green New Deal. The green aspects are part of a much larger progressive policy initiative. And nearly every aspect of it is very popular with mainstream voters.
It's aspirational and it expresses an incredibly vast and ambitious agenda. But anyone who's a progressive should be pleased that the Democratic Party which has been so timid for the past 40 years finally has some members taking big swings.
And while AOC is the shiny new object that is freaking out the right wing, it should be noted that the other sponsor is Sen. Edward Markey, who isn't anyone's idea of a radical.
This resolution, even if it doesn't pass, is going to be addressed by all Democrats running in 2020. And given how well most of it polls with "real" Americans, it could be a blueprint for legislative priorities in the next decade. If only a fraction of it is enacted, it promises to reverse at least some of the negative trends that have gone against working people in this country for decades.
here's one take on the plan:
ml1 said:
the resolution is not proposing a Green Deal. It's a Green New Deal. The green aspects are part of a much larger progressive policy initiative. And nearly every aspect of it is very popular with mainstream voters.
It's aspirational and it expresses an incredibly vast and ambitious agenda. But anyone who's a progressive should be pleased that the Democratic Party which has been so timid for the past 40 years finally has some members taking big swings.
And while AOC is the shiny new object that is freaking out the right wing, it should be noted that the other sponsor is Sen. Edward Markey, who isn't anyone's idea of a radical.
This resolution, even if it doesn't pass, is going to be addressed by all Democrats running in 2020. And given how well most of it polls with "real" Americans, it could be a blueprint for legislative priorities in the next decade. If only a fraction of it is enacted, it promises to reverse at least some of the negative trends that have gone against working people in this country for decades.
You'd think that in the politics forum, people would understand how politics actually works.
I read that the last time Earth was this warm was during the Eemian interglacial period, sea levels were 20-30 feet higher than they are now. Now, the most dire predictions for the next century don't predict any where close to a sea level increase of this magnitude, but it is certainly food for thought. What is unique about the current global warming is the rate of change.
Some of the complaints with the GND are that it will impose to much economic dislocation on people. However, if some of the more severe scenarios come to pass, rising sea levels will impose this degree of dislocation whether we like it or not.
tjohn said:
I read that the last time Earth was this warm was during the Eemian interglacial period, sea levels were 20-30 feet higher than they are now. Now, the most dire predictions for the next century don't predict any where close to a sea level increase of this magnitude, but it is certainly food for thought. What is unique about the current global warming is the rate of change.
how strange is it that the maps for growing zones in the U.S. have significantly changed just within our lifetimes?
USDA PLANT HARDINESS ZONES HAVE CHANGED: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Politics and denial of science go out the window when people are spending money on plants and trees that they're planting on their property.
What's with this? Although not stated in the resolution, the overview circulated by the proponents notes that the Green New Deal aims to provide "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf
ml1 said:
nearly every aspect of it is very popular with mainstream voters.
I have my doubts about this.
I think the Green New Deal is conceptually popular with mainstream voters, i.e. most people believe that climate change is a thing, and something should be done about it.
But when that nebulous "something" takes on specifics and starts impacting people's day-to-day lives in the year 2019, watch what happens to that support. You think mainstream voters will be okay with getting rid of their SUVs, higher taxes, paying much more for air travel, and having nuclear plants built in their backyards? I haven't read details of the Green New Deal, but I imagine stuff like that is in it.
Back to your statement -- the real litmus test will be whether and how the 2020 Democratic hopefuls embrace GND, or don't. If nearly every aspect of GND is very popular with mainstream voters, the candidates should fall all over themselves to out-green the others. I don't see that happening now at this very early stage, and I'm skeptical that will happen, because I just don't think the electorate is ready to make the leap from conceptual to concrete.
cramer said:
What's with this? Although not stated in the resolution, the overview circulated by the proponents notes that the Green New Deal aims to provide "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf
That's pretty embarrassing. And stupid. I wonder how many people signed off on that FAQ, or was it just written by some low-level noodle-head?
Here it is, folks, introduced today.
Green New Deal Resolution
Talk amongst yourselves.