Green New Deal

TGHusker

TGHusker

New member
Ok, to pick up the topic from the Dem utopia thread.  I want to present this discussion without the inflammatory (mine) words I used previously and look at this more objectively.  

I do not want to dismiss an idea out of hand just because it is a progressive wish list.  The ideas expressed in the GND could be good for the USA IF  they (1) Don't bankrupt us (2) don't enslave us due to high taxes (3) don't limit liberty due to govt control and domination of our lives.  If they don't do these things, in the long run the ideas could/would be good for America and conservatives (true fiscal conservatives and not the fake GOP only ones) should work with progressive to make it work by helping to establish fiscal guidelines that will keep us out of the insolvency ditch. This may mean developing realistic time lines and priorities with 'real' funding models and not by just printing more money.  Hyper inflation we don't need.  But instead of spending money on pointless wars and wasted tax cuts, it would be better that we work together to invest in US - the USA. 

Quantitative leaps in society only happens as we follow big dreams and big dreamers.  Like JFK and Ronald Reagan and FDR and Lincoln.  JFK - challenged us to think of the possibliites of getting a man on the moon in 10 years.  He knew the drive would spin off all kinds of innovative new products that would benefit the society.   Reagan dreamed of an end to the arms race and a world not ruled by fear of nuclear destruction (no thanks to Trump who has now backed out of the INF treaty that Reagan and Gorby signed).  FDR dreamed of a world of financial equality. And of course Lincoln dreamed of a world of racial equality.   I don't want to be small minded. And conservatism should not be thought of as small minded.  Let the progressive dream and if the dreams advance society, then let conservatives find a way to make it happen fiscally and not be road blocks. 

First here is a link from  Data for Progress.  A progressive organization which goes into great depth regarding the GND.  I'll just copy their intro below. 

https://www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal/


INTRODUCTION


The popularity of progressive policies has been rising steadily since the 2016 Presidential Election season and has increasingly moved the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction. Mounting concern over economic inequality, injustice, and the threats of climate change are leading an increasing number of progressive candidates to call for more dramatic action. They propose an equitable transition to a 21st century economy and clean energy revolution that guarantees clean air and water,modernizes national infrastructure, and creates high-quality jobs.


FIRST


A Green New Deal is necessary to meet the scale and urgency of environmental challenges facing the United States, based on the best available research.


SECOND


A Green New Deal can bring job growth and economic opportunity, with particular focus on historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.


THIRD


A Green New Deal is popular among American voters and can mobilize them in 2018.


FOURTH


A Green New Deal can be executed in a way that is environmentally just and distributes benefits equitably.


FINALLY


A Green New Deal is financially feasible and necessary
Click to expand...


Here is a conservative evaluation of the regulatory costs of enacting the GND. The evaluation is fair and goes into great detail. The evaluation is based on the information on the Data for Progress link provided above. Their summary follows the link

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-regulatory-impact-of-the-green-new-deal/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • The Green New Deal, as proposed by the progressive group Data for Progress[1], calls for regulatory schemes that can be classified in four types.
  • These regulations would likely require at least $1 trillion in new regulatory costs, if not much more.
  • The timeline for implementing these regulations would be difficult to meet. Many of the regulations needed would have to be authorized by Congress, further casting into doubt the likelihood of swift enactment.
Click to expand...
  •  


CONCLUSION

The Green New Deal has received a lot of attention for its grand promises. But digging in to the details of the regulations that would be required to implement such a plan reveals an unrealistic and extraordinarily expensive process (to say nothing of the non-regulatory components). It is difficult to imagine any scenario where the economic costs of regulation fail to top $1 trillion, and they could be multiples of that amount. Further, implementing the regulations on the timeline called for by the plan would require astonishing agreement and haste from Congress, federal and state governments, and the private sector.

[1] This analysis uses the Green New Deal report produced by Data for Progress in September 2018 because it includes more specific policies. The Green New Deal has been more closely associated with the organization the Sunrise Movement.
Click to expand...


 


The summary document from my previous post:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

The articles which asks how will it be funded and other basic info.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-budget-1143084

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/green-new-deal-details/index.html

https://theweek.com/speedreads/822456/alexandria-ocasiocortez-wants-pay-green-new-deal-by-essentially-printing-more-money



 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think you know the answer to that.

To paraphrase an old mafia saying: "you don't eliminate the farts, you eliminate the cow."
Click to expand...


And that's not going to go over well, nor should it. I run cattle myself, and while it's not my main source income, I know plenty of families that do rely on it to put food on the table. I would pay to see her show up in person to one of the town hall meetings in BFE America.

Having said all that, I'm not against "going green". My wife and I are avid about recycling, we participate in the "Adopt-A-Highway" program here in Missouri. But, I'll be the first to admit that if "going green" is going to get into my pockets, I'm less concerned with it. All of my company's equipment runs on fuel (obviously), we do some spraying, we treat lawns, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
And that's not going to go over well, nor should it. I run cattle myself, and while it's not my main source income, I know plenty of families that do rely on it to put food on the table. I would pay to see her show up in person to one of the town hall meetings in BFE America.

Having said all that, I'm not against "going green". My wife and I are avid about recycling, we participate in the "Adopt-A-Highway" program here in Missouri. But, I'll be the first to admit that if "going green" is going to get into my pockets, I'm less concerned with it. All of my company's equipment runs on fuel (obviously), we do some spraying, we treat lawns, etc.
Click to expand...
And cows just like cars are a major source of green house gases. Auto companies are adapting. Those who raise cattle need to as well, lest they go the way of coal miners.

 
Well we can all talk about where we'd personally draw the line in a Green New Deal, but the premise is that we really don't have a choice. If climate change means heat, drought, and draining the aquifers, delicious cows will die without being eaten, and everyone is going to have their pockets cleaned. 

I don't think the Department of Energy, or NASA or the Manhattan Project ever operated with a vetted economic prospectus, but the pursuit of government funded theoretical research has yielded trillions of dollars worth of applied technology that is typically licensed to private enterprise for private profit. That's why the U.S. remains the dominant global economy, despite our loss of manufacturing over the decades. Green technology and practices are actually conservative, at least in the correct usage of the term. We could let the left do the tree-hugging and  let the right profit from the enterprise and it might not be such a radical idea at all.

Just curious: would it encourage more support if they called it The Green Manhattan Project? Because in some key aspects, that's more accurate. 

 
ZRod said:
You'll have to adapt. The world is changing. The EPA and DNRs already regulate you to protect the environment. It's more of the same on a much larger scale.
Click to expand...


We'll see. There hasn't been a trace of push back on cattle farming.... None that I've heard, or noticed anyhow.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
We'll see. There hasn't been a trace of push back on cattle farming.... None that I've heard, or noticed anyhow.
Click to expand...
Maybe not now. Lobbying is a powerful thing this country. Why else would a New Jersey Governor running for president care about pigs in Iowa? Eventually things will change, they have to.

I'm just thinking out loud here. Big picture, long term.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
And that's not going to go over well, nor should it. I run cattle myself, and while it's not my main source income, I know plenty of families that do rely on it to put food on the table. I would pay to see her show up in person to one of the town hall meetings in BFE America.
Click to expand...




It actually should go over well. I love beef, so I'm a hypocrite here, but there are much more nutritious foods to eat that don't cause near the pollution and would feed a larger portion of the population. For pretty much every reason that matters a lot, we should consume less of it. The problem is, it tastes good.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
It actually should go over well. I love beef, so I'm a hypocrite here, but there are much more nutritious foods to eat that don't cause near the pollution and would feed a larger portion of the population. For pretty much every reason that matters a lot, we should consume less of it. The problem is, it tastes good.
Click to expand...


The problem is that it's their livelihood.

 
Back
Top