Green New Deal

polling shows that higher taxes on the wealthy are popular, providing everyone with health coverage is popular, a living wage is popular.  The big ticket items poll very well among all voters.

drummerboy said:

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?

as always, context is everything.  Retired people are technically "unwilling" to work.  As would a parent who chooses to stay home to raise children.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

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?

as always, context is everything.  Retired people are technically "unwilling" to work.  As would a parent who chooses to stay home to raise children.

It probably should have been spelled out then. I picked it up in some tweets of people who are generally in favor of it, who are concerned that its DOA as it stands.   

cramer said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

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?

as always, context is everything.  Retired people are technically "unwilling" to work.  As would a parent who chooses to stay home to raise children.

It probably should have been spelled out then. I picked it up in some tweets of people who are generally in favor of it, who are concerned that its DOA as it stands.   

people on the left tend to be weak.  It's why they lose all the time.  Write something and stand by it.  Does anyone on the right wing bother with wordsmithing their documents because they're concerned that a phrase might cause someone on the left to go batshit?  Of course not.

The people who are going to flip out over that sentence were going to flip out over the general concept of a GND anyway.  

This isn't the time to start retreating.  Just explain what that statement means and move on.

In any event, the Overview is worth reading: 

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

From the overview: "92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal."

This kind of undermines credibility here IMO. The ink is barely dry on this thing and I'd imagine the vast majority of the electorate knows little if anything on the details. So where do these numbers come from? 

Smedley said:
From the overview: "92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal."
This kind of undermines credibility here IMO. The ink is barely dry on this thing and I'd imagine the vast majority of the electorate knows little if anything on the details. So where do these numbers come from? 
   

 From what I've read, the great poll numbers are based on a very brief description, in a few sentences, of the pro green orientation of the then yet to be released "plan," not that the document itself is anything like a plan.

Smedley said:

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.

 You’d be wrong about some of that stuff.

The support numbers are misleading IMO. They should have said something like 92% D and 64% R support "a broad-based initiative to address climate change" or something generic like that. 

bub said:

Is this really more of a moral U.S. burden than a burden for India, China or 50 other countries?  

 One argument goes something like this: The U.S. bears a greater burden because, unlike India, China, etc., it has been making this mess for a lot longer and has already reaped the rewards. Does that hold any sway?

this is why the left always loses.  There isn't even any legislation being worked out yet, but people are nitpicking the GND to death.

The right wing never does this.

DaveSchmidt said:

bub said:

Is this really more of a moral U.S. burden than a burden for India, China or 50 other countries?  

 One argument goes something like this: The U.S. bears a greater burden because, unlike India, China, etc., it has been making this mess for a lot longer and has already reaped the rewards. Does that hold any sway?

another argument is that the U.S. has the means to develop new technologies that can be exported to other countries like China and India.

And yet another argument is that if the U.S. doesn't take this technological initiative, a country like China will beat us to it, and own the market on clean energy.

One of the first lines of GND overview, it says 

• This is a massive transformation of our society

So of course people are going to want to parse details rather than just buy into it sight unseen. I don't think that is irrational or self-defeating nitpicking. 

The Overview/FAQ, which was sloppy, has been removed from Ocasio-Cortez’s website. 

Smedley said:
One of the first lines of GND overview, it says 

• This is a massive transformation of our society

So of course people are going to want to parse details rather than just buy into it sight unseen. I don't think that is irrational or self-defeating nitpicking. 

but no one is going into anything right now.  It's a manifesto, a wish list, whatever you want to call it.  Until they start discussing legislation, there are no details.

And just my opinion, but carping about the survey results they cite really is nitpicking.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
One of the first lines of GND overview, it says 

• This is a massive transformation of our society

So of course people are going to want to parse details rather than just buy into it sight unseen. I don't think that is irrational or self-defeating nitpicking. 

but no one is going into anything right now.  It's a manifesto, a wish list, whatever you want to call it.  Until they start discussing legislation, there are no details.

 Literally, “it is the sense of the House of Representatives.” (ETA: the resolution.)

And just my opinion, but carping about the survey results they cite really is nitpicking.

 There were dropped words, typos, at least one misspelled name — just not ready for prime time. (ETA: the overview.)

From the Overview:

“Like, we can totally build sea trains in ten years.  Like, if we could succexxfully fake the Moon landing, sea trains (which are totally cool, btw), would be a snap.  duh!”

Robert_Casotto said:
From the Overview:


“Like, we can totally build sea trains in ten years.  Like, if we could succexxfully fake the Moon landing, sea trains (which are totally cool, btw), would be a snap.  duh!”

Granted, the part about making air travel obsolete was .......(insert word.) 

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:
One of the first lines of GND overview, it says 

• This is a massive transformation of our society

So of course people are going to want to parse details rather than just buy into it sight unseen. I don't think that is irrational or self-defeating nitpicking. 

but no one is going into anything right now.  It's a manifesto, a wish list, whatever you want to call it.  Until they start discussing legislation, there are no details.

 Literally, “it is the sense of the House of Representatives.” (ETA: the resolution.)

And just my opinion, but carping about the survey results they cite really is nitpicking.

 There were dropped words, typos, at least one misspelled name — just not ready for prime time. (ETA: the overview.)

all fair points.  And the overview has apparently already been ditched.  So no need for anyone to cite it as an objection at this point.

Agree there's no point in critiquing the overview in terms of what may ultimately move forward.

But for people who want to see Trump a one-term president, there's plenty to critique about who the heck is on first here and why such a half-baked document saw the light of day. Whether it's been ditched or not, the genie is out of the bottle and the Trump 2020 machine has fresh talking points to cast the Dems as loony libs. 

DaveSchmidt said:

bub said:

Is this really more of a moral U.S. burden than a burden for India, China or 50 other countries?  

 One argument goes something like this: The U.S. bears a greater burden because, unlike India, China, etc., it has been making this mess for a lot longer and has already reaped the rewards. Does that hold any sway?

 By this logic, Britain and France should bear the heaviest burden.   The nuts and bolts reality of this, if it ever gets close to reality, is going to be really wrenching and expensive and, like all dreams, far more difficult and messy  than the utopian talk makes it seem.  The timing of industrialization and the extent of its evolution in each country is a matter of happenstance, not moral difference.  Everyone is dirty, literally, and everyone will die if we don't do something.   On a practical level, how does this provision help get anything done?  It plays right into the hands of climate change deniers who will seize on the lefty American self-hatred theme.  

bub said:

DaveSchmidt said:

bub said:

Is this really more of a moral U.S. burden than a burden for India, China or 50 other countries?  

 One argument goes something like this: The U.S. bears a greater burden because, unlike India, China, etc., it has been making this mess for a lot longer and has already reaped the rewards. Does that hold any sway?

 By this logic, Britain and France should bear the heaviest burden.   The nuts and bolts reality of this, if it ever gets close to reality, is going to be really wrenching and expensive and, like all dreams, far more difficult and messy  than the utopian talk makes it seem.  The timing of industrialization and the extent of its evolution in each country is a matter of happenstance, not moral difference.  Everyone is dirty, literally, and everyone will die if we don't do something.   On a practical level, how does this provision help get anything done?  It plays right into the hands of climate change deniers who will seize on the lefty American self-hatred theme.  

 Yes.  At this point, and maybe at any point, trying to assign blame is going to poison any discussions.

bub said:

By this logic, Britain and France should bear the heaviest burden.   

From 1990 to 2016, according to the OECD, Britain cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 39% and France by 15%. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. rose 2%.

DaveSchmidt said:

bub said:

By this logic, Britain and France should bear the heaviest burden.   

From 1990 to 2016, according to the OECD, Britain cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 39% and France by 15%. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. rose 2%.

 But "we didn't start the fire," to quote your piano man.

bub said:

But "we didn't start the fire," to quote your piano man.

No, but we ran with it. And we’ve got a way about us.

Anyway ...

DaveSchmidt said:

bub said:

But "we didn't start the fire," to quote your piano man.

No, but we ran with it. And we’ve got a way about us.
Anyway ...

 Certainly, no society in history has been as profligate in its use of resources as ours, but lecturing Americans on that point is not going to be helpful.

Smedley said:
cast the Dems as loony libs. 

yeah, there was no way they would have done that without this document...   

bub said:

It plays right into the hands of climate change deniers who will seize on the lefty American self-hatred theme.   

only those who are dishonest.  There's no "self-hatred" in this initiative.  And the number of climate change deniers continues to shrink.

Let's face it, entrenched interests on the right are going to fight this tenaciously no matter what.  So trying to placate those forces is a fool's errand.  At the risk of repeating myself again, no one on the left should give a [expletive] about them.  They aren't reachable, and it makes no sense for the people promoting the GND to second guess themselves in order to address dishonest, hysterical objections.

And the notion that the GND will cause nothing but pain is dubious to say the least.  It will be painful mainly for people who are deeply invested in old technology. If we compare this to the industrial effort to fight WWII instead of comparing it to the New Deal, we probably have a better analog.  The misery of WWII was the death and the destruction, not the industrial retooling.  An entire economy was remade, people were put to work, and a massive industrial output was achieved.  The GND wouldn't even be as transformative as the WWII effort had been.

And as others are pointing out, the costs of doing nothing are likely far, far more disastrous than trying to implement this initiative.

ml1 said:

And the notion that the GND will cause nothing but pain is dubious to say the least.  
 

Global warming is going to cause pain.  The only choice is whether we try to gain some control over how and when that pain will be felt.