Green New Deal

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
26,015
22,045
537
Hooterville, Vir.
I have not seen this discussed elsewhere.
The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will:
ï‚§ Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy
ï‚§ Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs
ï‚§ Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries
ï‚§ Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities.
 Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
ï‚· A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
ï‚· High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
ï‚· Clean air and water and access to nature
ï‚· Healthy food
ï‚· High-quality health care
ï‚· Safe, affordable, adequate housing
ï‚· Economic environment free of monopolies
ï‚· Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.

Ambitious goals.
The devil is in the details.

100% clean renewables in 12 years? "[T]he plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible." If you are serious about net-zero emission, I would think you would want a massive increase in nuclear power.

Not sure why a Green New Deal would propose paying people "unwilling to work."

"Upgrad[ing] or replac[ing] every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency," "build[ing] charging stations everywhere," and rendering air travel "unnecessary" seem to be both quite expensive and vague.


Some Democrats endorsed the GND (Sen. Markie of Mass.), and then distance themselves once Rep. Ocasio-Cortez released the document above. Ocasio-Cortez's office edited the document, removing reference to "farting cows" (inserting "cow emission" in their place. Then, Rep. O-C's office pulled the document down and dismissed it as a draft. Some mischievous person had released a fake version inserting a provision calling on people to save urine and use it to make coffee and Rep. O-C hinted that the original was also a spoof. Except it wasn't.

In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader offered to bring the issue up for a floor vote, a move Sen.Markie dismissed as "sabotage." ("Yes, Senator Markie, bringing up a resolution you sponsored for a floor vote is 'sabotage.'")

Meanwhile, Saikat Chakrabarti of Re. O-C's office admitted the original was in fact the product of Rep. O-C's staff, but producing it has been a challenge.

Twitter user, Steven J. Burns' response was fairly classic.
"Saikat Chakrabarti: We want unlimited political power and $30 trillion to alter the lives of 7 billion people.

Also Saikat Chakrabarti: We can't manage our own website."
 
Last edited:
I have not seen this discussed elsewhere.
The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will:
ï‚§ Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy
ï‚§ Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs
ï‚§ Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries
ï‚§ Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities.
 Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
ï‚· A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
ï‚· High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
ï‚· Clean air and water and access to nature
ï‚· Healthy food
ï‚· High-quality health care
ï‚· Safe, affordable, adequate housing
ï‚· Economic environment free of monopolies
ï‚· Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.

Ambitious goals.
The devil is in the details.

100% clean renewables in 12 years? "[T]he plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible." If you are serious about net-zero emission, I would think you would want a massive increase in nuclear power.

Not sure why a Green New Deal would propose paying people "unwilling to work."

"Upgrad[ing] or replac[ing] every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency," "build[ing] charging stations everywhere," and rendering air travel "unnecessary" seem to be both quite expensive and vague.


Some Democrats endorsed the GND (Sen. Markie of Mass.), and then distance themselves once Rep. Ocasio-Cortez released the document above. Ocasio-Cortez's office edited the document, removing reference to "farting cows" (inserting "cow emission" in their place. Then, Rep. O-C's office pulled the document down and dismissed it as a draft. Some mischievous person had released a fake version inserting a provision calling on people to save urine and use it to make coffee and Rep. O-C hinted that the original was also a spoof. Except it wasn't.

In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader offered to bring the issue up for a floor vote, a move Sen.Markie dismissed as "sabotage." ("Yes, Senator Markie, bringing up a resolution you sponsored for a floor vote is 'sabotage.'")

Meanwhile, Saikat Chakrabarti of Re. O-C's office admitted the original was in fact the product of Rep. O-C's staff, but producing it has been a challenge.

Twitter user, Steven J. Burns' response was fairly classic.
"Saikat Chakrabarti: We want unlimited political power and $30 trillion to alter the lives of 7 billion people.

Also Saikat Chakrabarti: We can't manage our own website."

Economic security doesn’t necessarily mean “paying” those unwilling to work; food, shelter and clothing might qualify as “paying” (many get food and shelter now), so I’d have to see more details. Also, how many of those “unwilling to work” clog up our jails and court systems for non- violent crimes? It’s not free to arrest, detain, try/convict and imprison them; I’d hazard a guess any “economic security” proposed by this legislation would be far lower than the costs associated with the above. So I’d need more details on this before making a determination one way or another.
But let’s visit the topics one at a time:
I have no problem with the first; move should have been started long ago in earnest. Other countries in Europe, and China, are far ahead of us in this regard. Nuclear energy is not “clean”; other than the fact that nuclear waste disposal is problematic and fraught with potential dangers, Fukushima shows us that these facilities themselves can be at risk due to natural disasters.
I could go on and on, about how even the Dutch are developing “paddle” systems to generate power from wave action on the shoreline, etc, but suffice it to say I have no issue with this at all.
Numbers two - four, again, no issue with this at all. Actually, I have no issue with any of the rest, either.
I’m not completely sold on MMT, but it has its merits. I don’t think the cost of saving our planet (in dollars) is relevant; as a sovereign nation, we can print our own money. Inflation can be controlled with interest rates but the accompanying economic slowdown hurts the wealthy the most (especially if all actions proposed are undertaken); unless/until the vast majority in this country understand that our planet is more important than (increasing) profits, the resistance to this will be too strong. By the time people realize their money won’t buy them enough water to drink and air to breathe, it will be too late.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Not sure why half of TW's post is spent describing things that aren't actually in the text of the resolution, but here is the (short) document for anyone interested in going directly to the source.

LINK
 
don't you know, that's where the devil resides. in the "details"

I guess all those details about abandoning nuclear energy, "cow emissions," and paying people who are unwilling to work must be there in white font, cause I ain't seein' em.
 
OMG - nothing in that bill helps the US at all...
(Blueblueblueblueblue font)

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I guess all those details about abandoning nuclear energy, "cow emissions," and paying people who are unwilling to work must be there in white font, cause I ain't seein' em.

I'm not reading through what is posted now, but at one time those things were absolutely in there - and I read the entire thing from the source from one end to the other. Is completely replacing air travel with high speed rail in the new one that is posted? That was in the old one as well. If those things have been removed then they've been removed.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/08/green-new-deal-intersectionality-ocasio

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/08/green-new-deal-same-old-progressive-poli

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/15/the-green-new-deals-rainbows-and-unicorn

The OP is mostly or completely correct on his points.
 
C'mon guys, what if we spend all of this money and we find out that it doesn't have any impact on climate change and all we have to show for it is cleaner air, cleaner water, less reliance on fossil fuels, etc. I mean think about all of those lost profits for corporations and all of the billions and trillions we could have wasted elsewhere? Like making sure our military budget is 100x the rest of the world combined or what about the pour billionaires that need their pockets lined more? Did you even stop to think of the dangers?!?
 
The OP is mostly or completely correct on his points.

Totally your choice if you'd rather place more weight on the draft than the final document (which was released nearly a week before the OP made this post, and prior to all the links you reference).

Most of his complaints simply aren't present in the document he's complaining about, which seems to be the definition of "old man yells at cloud."
 
Totally your choice if you'd rather place more weight on the draft than the final document (which was released nearly a week before the OP made this post, and prior to all the links you reference).

Most of his complaints simply aren't present in the document he's complaining about, which seems to be the definition of "old man yells at cloud."

Fine, this is the final proposal. The draft was the draft. Don't pretend the draft didn't exist or that it didn't reveal anything about the intentions. From a political perspective it was stupid to publish such a terrible draft that it should have been known would receive a great deal of attention only to walk back many of the original provisions. After reading the draft, I really don't care as much about taking more time to read the final because the original was just....crazy.
 
Fine, this is the final proposal. The draft was the draft. Don't pretend the draft didn't exist or that it didn't reveal anything about the intentions.

I'm not, and I agree that circulating the draft was dumb. I'm just saying that if folks are intentionally criticizing an old revision because they know the current one addresses most of their concerns, that's intellectually weak and overtly dishonest.
 
I'm not, and I agree that circulating the draft was dumb. I'm just saying that if folks are intentionally criticizing an old revision because they know the current one addresses most of their concerns, that's intellectually weak and overtly dishonest.

that happened a lot with the ppaca
 
I'm not, and I agree that circulating the draft was dumb. I'm just saying that if folks are intentionally criticizing an old revision because they know the current one addresses most of their concerns, that's intellectually weak and overtly dishonest.

No, I think the first draft got more attention and fewer people knew there was a revised final draft that removed some of the crazy.
 
No, I think the first draft got more attention and fewer people knew there was a revised final draft that removed some of the crazy.

Fair point. It's probably true that the initial draft got a lot more press from right-leaning media than the actual document that was released a few days later.
 
Fair point. It's probably true that the initial draft got a lot more press from right-leaning media than the actual document that was released a few days later.

I would say it is a newby's faux pas that the draft was even released at all so it's on the newby that the draft overshadowed the newer version everywhere. I'd venture to say the newer version was more a reactionary revision than anything else.
 
I would say it is a newby's faux pas that the draft was even released at all so it's on the newby that the draft overshadowed the newer version everywhere. I'd venture to say the newer version was more a reactionary revision than anything else.

Agreed. I haven't read whether the draft was accidentally or intentionally leaked, but either one would be a mistake that should be learned from. It wouldn't surprise me to all to hear that many of the changes in the final version were in response to media criticism, but that kind of iterating needs to be taken care of behind closed doors; otherwise your message gets lost in the outrage. Again, a learning opportunity that I hope is taken to heart.
 
Agreed. I haven't read whether the draft was accidentally or intentionally leaked, but either one would be a mistake that should be learned from. It wouldn't surprise me to all to hear that many of the changes in the final version were in response to media criticism, but that kind of iterating needs to be taken care of behind closed doors; otherwise your message gets lost in the outrage. Again, a learning opportunity that I hope is taken to heart.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/mit...-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal.html

Published 2:56 PM ET Tue, 12 Feb 2019 [FONT=&quot][/FONT] Updated 12:48 PM ET Wed, 13 Feb 2019
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate would vote on the Green New Deal introduced last week by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
I'm going to say it was intentionally "leaked" in the form of a serious proposal, co-sponsor and all (in the Senate).

Of course the newer version addresses criticisms. It irks me that anyone would then say others are lying about what was there or that it wasn't a serious proposal when it absolutely was. This is all on those who proposed it, not those who opposed it.
 
I'm going to say it was intentionally "leaked" in the form of a serious proposal, co-sponsor and all (in the Senate).

McConnell is talking about the resolution I linked. Which, for the record, is the only real version.

But hey, if you'd rather attack specters than discuss the actual text, you can do that on your own.
 

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads