Green New Deal

@TGHusker

What is the origination of this and why can't I find its source?

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

Ok what I'm reading is the FAQ page got taken down, heh.

Here it is on the way back machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

That's the first version of it and it was posted today. There is no comment like that in the actual proposal that I can see (not that I've read the entire thing) but it does kind of show where her head is at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's a lot easier to say, than to do.
Click to expand...
Depends how we frame it.  Do you currently set aside money for your kids' education and/or health expenses?

The whole argument for estate taxes it so we can pass down assets from generation to generation into eternity.  Why is it okay to make an argument one way and not they other?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
This is disingenuous, comparing the market of beef production and anvil "production". Why is it that this "s#!t happens" approach is only used with opposition to liberal agendas?
Click to expand...


Not really. At one point the horse-drawn carriage industry was probably pretty p#ssed about what Henry Ford was doing. Society moved forward anyway.

It's used now because all of modern science literally tells us that if we don't take steps to address climate change soon, we're literally going to damn ourselves to a horrible deadly future. We could spit in the face of all of modern science, but why risk it? As opposed to something like border control, where one party crafts their argument on the basis of feelings and beliefs. If we don't build a wall on the southern border, the earth isn't going to eventually succumb to natural disasters and doom our species to a fiery death. Immigration rates will just continue to fall.

Also, if you subscribe to the Overton window theory of politics in the U.S., it doesn't really matter if the leftists and environmentalists know what they're talking about. They're advocating for strongly pro-environment policy, which pushes the conversation in that direction, which IMO is sorely needed because one major party's solution to the problem is to literally ignore it because A) it's not real or B) it's too expensive (it's not - they just don't want to upset the Big Energy apple cart).

 
Clifford Franklin said:
Not really. At one point the horse-drawn carriage industry was probably pretty p#ssed about what Henry Ford was doing. Society moved forward anyway.

It's used now because all of modern science literally tells us that if we don't take steps to address climate change soon, we're literally going to damn ourselves to a horrible deadly future. We could spit in the face of all of modern science, but why risk it? As opposed to something like border control, where one party crafts their argument on the basis of feelings and beliefs. If we don't build a wall on the southern border, the earth isn't going to eventually succumb to natural disasters and doom our species to a fiery death. Immigration rates will just continue to fall.

Also, if you subscribe to the Overton window theory of politics in the U.S., it doesn't really matter if the leftists and environmentalists know what they're talking about. They're advocating for strongly pro-environment policy, which pushes the conversation in that direction, which IMO is sorely needed because one major party's solution to the problem is to literally ignore it because A) it's not real or B) it's too expensive (it's not - they just don't want to upset the Big Energy apple cart).
Click to expand...


I can see B.B. point. Food commodities are a little unique compared to other industries. There will always be a demand for food, but at the same time there are many kinds of food. And simply because a good is a necessity doesn't make it immune from needing improvements and adaptation.

 
There is a difference between the public choosing one product over the other due to preference....and the government choosing the winner and loser.

if the customers decide individually they prefer eating tofu over beef....fine. I have an issue with the government telling the public you have to eat tofu instead of beef.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
I can see B.B. point. Food commodities are a little unique compared to other industries. There will always be a demand for food, but at the same time there are many kinds of food. And simply because a good is a necessity doesn't make it immune from needing improvements and adaptation. 
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'd agree. Maybe it just wasn't the best analogy given how they're different beasts.

Anywho, good discussion in this thread. It's nice to hear a lot of different opinions about something that doesn't get the attention it should. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that we're going to have to continue transitioning to renewables (unless your livelihood is staked to fossil fuels, in which case I get the pushback) but disagree over how pressing the need is.

Like, RedDenver pointed out in another thread that nuclear energy is apparently not as cost-effective as renewables. I think it's definitely got cons but makes sense as a way to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewables as pushing too aggressively to shutter too many types of energy could alienate too many people and harm buy-in on this type of policy.

 
BigRedBuster said:
There is a difference between the public choosing one product over the other due to preference....and the government choosing the winner and loser.

if the customers decide individually they prefer eating tofu over beef....fine. I have an issue with the government telling the public you have to eat tofu instead of beef.  
Click to expand...




The government should do the right thing regardless of whether it’s popular. Australia has restrictions on water. People don’t like to have their water restricted but it’s necessary for the good of the country. 

No, I’m not arguing that beef should be banned. Although it would help with climate change. I’m arguing with your assessment that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do, especially within the topic of preventing disaster.

 
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...
Maybe they can do a GMO project in developing fish that tastes like beef.  :blink:

 
A couple of Axios articles on the NGD.  It appears that many inside the Trump Camp believe they have found the winning formula for 2020 - make socialism the enemy and pronounce the  GND as the socialist Trojan horse now within.    While in 2016 it was all about MEGA and border security - I'm thinking that 2020 will now about a rehash of Reagan's famous Goldwater speech from 1964  "A Time for Choosing" (google it - great speech that immediately put Reagan on the map for being 1st a governor of Calif and then president).  Trump will probably make the campaign all about choosing between socialism or democracy.  

https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-trump-socialism-99832f50-2cc7-4b7a-a9d9-2b2c8ca55cdb.html

Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

 


  • It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
  • It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
  • The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. 

The White House, the Trump campaign — and the outside political advisers in Trump’s orbit — seem to be universally excited by the Green New Deal and many Democrats' embrace of socialism.

  • They've been far more optimistic about Trump's re-election chances this week than Swan has heard since the early days of Trump’s presidency.
  • And they're thrilled that so many of Trump’s potential 2020 opponents are endorsing the Green New Deal.
Click to expand...
  •  
https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-55e5dfcb-0155-4ad6-adf1-2973c7981829.html

Democrats just gave President Trump the socialism fight he's been spoiling for with the Green New Deal — which calls for a mammoth expansion of federal investments and market interventions — and the political and planetary stakes couldn't be higher.

Driving the news: Six top-tier Democratic presidential 2020 candidates — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders — are already co-sponsoring the non-binding resolution.

 


The big picture: The GND aims to reduce greenhouse gases to nearly zero, while also providing universal health care and a universal jobs guarantee. Among the objectives of the resolution:
Click to expand...


 
Back
Top