7 ms·

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Is a Winning Climate Strategy

77 points by indigodaddy 8y ago

everdev 8y ago
> The single most crucial aspect of the Green New Deal is its proposed job guarantee, a controversial policy that says that every American can have a job with the government if they want one. One of the pros/cons of capitalism is that companies and workers will fight policies that make them less money. The Holy Grail for any capitalist policy is something that does the right thing and makes money. Doing the right thing is unfortunately optional. Making money is not. Idealists want big government policy to just do the right thing. Capitalists want businesses to have unrestricted access to making money. If we can align policy with both interests I think we can make serious progress. In my opinion, I think we have a better chance at fighting climate change with a bill that fits in s piece of paper rather than thousands of pages of regulations and loopholes.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Solar is already winning in terms of cost and I think there's more efficiency to come: https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5/ https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-20... This was predicted a decade ago. Solar will bring electricity costs down, then electric cars will gradually take over.
- sintaxi 8y ago
  One of the pros of capitalism is money is made by giving people what they value and giving people what they value is the right thing. No bills are needed only a change in values.
  - everdev 8y ago
    > No bills are needed only a change in values. I think there are exceptions to this rule like slavery, segregation, climate change, etc. Sometimes the damage from certain ideas and behaviors is so severe that waiting for culture to change isn't the best course of action.
- dj_gitmo 8y ago
  I guess I agree that the legislation should be simple. For example legislation that ban carbon pollution within certain industries by a certain date. Say, by 2035 for electricity, 2045 for agriculture. That would really set things in motion wouldn't it. It would make a lot of old folks mad, but the younger generation would know which skills to build for the new economy.
  - gaius 8y ago
    the younger generation would know which skills to build for the new economy Homesteading, hunting, fishing, foraging...
    - dj_gitmo 8y ago
      I'm not a primitivist. A sustainable economy will require more people, to work in agriculture and energy to reduce carbon intensity. It will require more of our best minds working on these problems instead of using their talents to get more clicks using machine learning. Our economies are more planned than we like to admit. It's just that right now we don't exercise any control over the direction or goals of our economic production.
- stebbins 8y ago
  > One of the pros/cons of capitalism is that companies and workers will fight policies that make them less money. The Holy Grail for any capitalist policy is something that does the right thing and makes money. I am really sympathetic to this idea but I think there's a bit of a underlying assumption here -- this requires _rational actors_. This isn't always the case. For example, racial or gender hiring discrimination happens, but it's irrational, since artificially shrinking a hiring pool can lead companies to miss out on great candidates that would have led to greater profits. Frankly I think the world would be a better place if "the market is rational" but I don't see a lot of strong historical evidence for that. It would be a lot easier to create policies to shape behavior in positive ways if that were the case. I certainly don't disagree that addressing climate change will be impossible until there's a Holy Grail solution, but I'm skeptical that it would adopted quickly or by everyone. > If we can align policy with both interests I think we can make serious progress. Agreed 100%
dev_dull 8y ago
At this point I’m reserving all judgement until I can closely examine the financials. Often these types of extravagant projects involve the same type of “forward looking” growth estimates that almost never pan out after every middle man takes their slice off the top. I really hope we don’t become too enamored with new political alternatives that our critical eye gets lazy.
- makotech222 8y ago
  "The planet is burning, but how can we afford to fix it???"
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  "new political alternatives" New political alternatives to the status quo of a 1.5º celsius temperature increase by 2030 and an overall increase of 3º celsius, resulting in catastrophic climate change? Or am I misunderstanding you?
  - dev_dull 8y ago
    Look here: catastrophic global warming predictions. Don’t look here: junior incoming legislature proposes laws that mandate the government employ everyone at taxpayer expense. Don’t look here: middlemen are historically extremely good at extracting money from every government dollar. Don’t look here: there’s zero proof or evidence that any of this legislation will make any material impact on global warming. Or am I misunderstanding you?
    - Latteland 8y ago
      I think you are arguing that reducing carbon fuels usage, reducing carbon added to the atmosphere won't make any impact on slowing climate change. That is wrong I believe. Or are you arguing something different, that we can't correlate laws to reduce carbon use with actual carbon usage. Both ideas seem wrong to me.
assblaster 8y ago
Is Solyndra a good example of why government intervention to spur solar deployment has unintentional downsides that cost far more than the benefit provided? I think that as the cost of solar and wind come down, then markets will purchase more of it. Heavy handed government mandate just doesn't work due to inefficiency and bureaucratic mismanagement.
- tedsanders 8y ago
  I'm curious about that too. I think Solyndra by itself is not strong evidence of anything. Any big loan program will have big failures. The real question of efficacy is not "were there zero losers" but "were there enough winners in the portfolio to make up for the losers". Furthermore, I think the case could be made that governments are partly responsible for solar's historic price decline. The manufacturers needed economies of scale and learning, and demand subsidized go by governments (Germany, USA, China, Spain, etc.) really helped accelerate those private sector advancements. I'm not really sure how to evaluate this narrative, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some academic economists who have looked at it.
- jyounker 8y ago
  Arguably Solyndra failed because the Chinese government pumped far more money into their solar industry then the US did, managing to produce developments that dramatically reduced traditional solar production costs.
- elicash 8y ago
  What was the downside? It was part of a loan program that made money -- and while Solyndra didn't survive, it's because solar prices plummeted in a way that's good for consumers and good for the environment.
  - assblaster 8y ago
    It's more an example of the government picking a winner, and the winner actually losing in the market. What if it wasn't a loan guarantee but rather a direct investment or payment by the federal government?
jeffdavis 8y ago
Everyone wants to protect the environment. But I watch out for two important costs: economic, and centralization of power. Unfortunately, this seems likely to have high costs in both areas. I prefer a decentralized approach. People nearly always underestimate the rate of technological change. Solar panels, battery tech, and electric cars are a winning combination. Some investments/incentives for public charging infrastructure and maybe some gas taxes will go a long way. Once electric car total ownership costs get low enough, then gasoline cars will be worthless scrap heaps over night. Once solar power and battery tech improves enough, it will take over very quickly. I don't see a case for radicalism here. It feels like a fight and will disrupt many lives, and it doesn't need to be that way. Resistance to clean tech disappears quickly when you show people that it works. Maybe just some minor policy tweaks to push it along.
- glibgil 8y ago
  > Once electric car total ownership costs get low enough What does car ownership have to do with two billion people around the globe moving one mile inland? Why would car prices help during a bread riot?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Strawman much? GP comment was clearly directed in support of a decentralized "winning tech will win without the need and costs of centralized government planning". My Nissan LEAF is wildly cheaper (~40-70% cheaper) to operate per-mile than my wife's very sensible Honda CR-V. Her car is wildly cheaper all-in because it's a 2005 vs the 2015 LEAF. Give it 5 more years for the common electrics to be readily and plentifully available on the used market and this will even out. The electric cars are already coming. Quickly. This is all happening without the need for a government program to guarantee a job with the government for anyone who wants one as the article pitches as an essential part of the "Green New Deal". (What does a government job have to do with sea level rise either?)
    - jabl 8y ago
      > This is all happening without the need for a government program to guarantee a job with the government for anyone who wants one as the article pitches as an essential part of the "Green New Deal". If we're going to decarbonize the economy at a decent rate, we most likely will need to find a just solution for those whose jobs will be disappearing under them (e.g. workers in the fossil fuel industry). See the riots in France for what happens when you give tax cuts to the rich and try to make the working classes pay for decarbonizing. Some kind of federal job guarantee could be a way to guarantee some amount of income for displaced workers.
thrill 8y ago
Meanwhile, headlines are remarkable in the emphasis of their own agenda, whichever way the banana peels: https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-pretty-much-fantasy-land/ https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-gr... 'What is more, such programs would entail a massive expansion of government spending and power. Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, told the Free Beacon by email that in his view, "the plan seems more about [Ocasio-Cortez's] socialist leveling philosophy than reducing pollution."'
Aunche 8y ago
> But voters—who have more quotidian concerns than optimally elegant economic policy—don’t always feel the same way. They don’t want gas prices to go up. The US is never going to take a substantial action against climate change until there's a huge change in attitude. On one side, conservatives are in denial. On the other side, liberals want companies or the government to pay for change and magically shield the cost away from the people. A carbon tax would be much more straightforward and effective than a "Green New Deal," but you don't get elected for promising to raise taxes. Instead, we get feel good programs like Cash for Clunkers and solar panel rebates that mostly just help the wealthy.
- elicash 8y ago
  > On one side, ... On the other side, ... Your brilliant solution is carbon tax, which is exactly what liberals ALREADY tried to do and couldn't get through because of Republican opposition. It's fine to fault both sides, but lazy to do so when it makes no sense just because you want to elevate yourself as some kind of free-thinker. And as far as popular support, I'll note that it just failed as a ballot initiative in the liberal state of Washington -- and while that proposal was a stronger one than other efforts, good luck trying to do carbon tax nationally given the track record there. I think we still try, but the arrogance with which people treat environmentalists bothers me -- get off the sidelines and join the efforts if you want to push for something else. An effort that focuses on green jobs, like the Green New Deal plan, is actually quite creative. I don't know if it's the best thing to push, but I'll support any effort that's gaining momentum that I think will be a good thing. You have to work as a coalition among people who are willing to put in the work.
  - Aunche 8y ago
    This isn't about assigning blame to a political party. Democrats only have so much political capital, and they can't afford to waste it on a pie in the sky, like cap and trade or a green New Deal.
    - elicash 8y ago
      When you say "this isn't about assigning blame to a political party" what I hear is "there should be no political price to pay for opposing measures that we need to address climate change." If you want to argue a measure is bad on the merits, then fine argue that.
koywae 8y ago
I am just curious if people from the fossil fuel industry hang around here and how they feel about this stuff...
- spunker540 8y ago
  I am just curious if people who buy fossil fuels via gasoline or plane tickets or products distributed via fossil fuels hang around here and how they feel...
rayiner 8y ago
If you want to stop climate change, stop lashing it to unpopular and divisive ideas like conservation or socialism. Efforts to avoid climate change would have been a lot more succeasful if environmentalists hadn’t hijacked it to push anti-consumption (and anti-capitalist) ideas. Universal nuclear power would have slashed CO2 emissions while allowing unabated growth.[1] Instead they told everone to put on a sweater. [1] People talk about costs for wind and solar “coming down” but it’s been too late for awhile now. We could have addressed this in the 1960s with nuclear. Now we’re pissing into the wind.
- prklmn 8y ago
  How do you know conservation is unpopular?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Because nobody does it, at least not at any scale sufficient to matter. SUVs are the most popular type of new passanger vehicle in the US! The same is true in China and Indian where per-capita energy use is exploding.
    - knewter 8y ago
      Hunters are intense conservationists. We should encourage more people to hunt and we'll get lots of conservation.
flagfeedingusa 8y ago
why are only white countries responsible for climate change? when are people going to admit billions of people in africa, india, and china are going to have a much greater impact? when are people going to admit overpopulation is the main issue? oh right because that will destroy the narrative white countries need a constant supply of immigrants.
Clanan 8y ago
> The single most crucial aspect of the Green New Deal is its proposed job guarantee, a controversial policy that says that every American can have a job with the government if they want one. Data for Progress, a leftist advocacy group, claims that the Green New Deal could generate 10 million new jobs across the country over 10 years. Let's deal with Climate Change by implementing socialism. Yes, I'm sure that will work. Reminds me of the regexp joke. Have a problem? Use a regexp! Now two problems.
- elicash 8y ago
  The "capitalism" approach - cap-and-trade - didn't work because Republicans on Congress successfully opposed it and some people were concerned about economic impact. So the end result is that now people are pushing for something that prioritizes "jobs." And now people like you are opposed because it's socialism. The truth is that some people will ALWAYS oppose anything that hurts the fossil fuel industry and will find excuses to oppose it no matter what.
  - Clanan 8y ago
    U.S. emissions have declined three years in a row. (Sounds like the capitalist approach might be working?) But by all means, instead of going after countries whose emissions are actually increasing, let's instead implement one of the most murderous political philosophies of all time. If these politicians were serious about addressing the issue, they wouldn't tie it to such a controversial measure.
    - elicash 8y ago
      This issue is urgent and no, we aren't doing enough here to avert disaster. And we need to do more at home WHILE we do more abroad -- we cannot use that as an excuse for inaction. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo...
- 8y ago
wyck 8y ago
Any system that ignore's incentives with regards to human behaviour will turn into a formula for tyranny and misery.
- jadell 8y ago
  Climate change will do that anyway. The first thing to go when resources get scarce (I mean truly, decades-long-famine-level scarce) is individual liberty. We're talking back to a worldwide feudal warlord society within 100ish years.
  - Aunche 8y ago
    Humans are surprisingly adaptable. We're a species of Saharan apes that somehow managed to find a way to thrive in the Arctic before the miracles of modern technology. Currently, we "waste" a lot of economic productivity on things like advertising and entertainment. In the time calls for it, we'll turn Siberia into a breadbasket before we let society collapse.
    - untog 8y ago
      I feel like that statement brushes over the frankly enormous amount of suffering throughout history - war, famine, genocide, and so on. While we might survive it's worth at least considering the costs we'll encounter along the way.
    - jadell 8y ago
      Life was brutal and short for the vast majority of humans for hundreds of thousands of years. The last 1-2 hundred are a complete anomaly, brought on by exactly the types of practices that are currently destroying our environment. Sure, we won't probably won't wipe ourselves out completely. But I do not look forward to 99.99% of the remaining population going back to a pre-industrial level of civilization. The type of technological save you're talking about is already possible. The problem is we have no political or societal will to get it done. Turning Siberia into a breadbasket to feed the world (among many other needed solution) most likely requires exactly the type of tyranny the OP is talking about.
snackematician 8y ago
To avoid a climate disaster we need to make major changes to our economic system, and soon. Passing this ambitious political program will also require populist support, and needs to reverse the rise of inequality rather than exacerbate it (see gilets jaunes). The Green New Deal is the only mainstream political proposal out there close to achieving this. Those who say we cannot achieve this due to deficits, are making a bad analogy between household spending and the spending of the most powerful government on earth that controls its own fiat currency. We've fought world wars, had the New Deal, and continue to spend exorbitant amounts of money on our military. It won't be easy, but we can do this.
jorblumesea 8y ago
The Dems can talk as much as they want, but to achieve any meaningful lasting changes they will need consensus across the aisle. Making these policies palatable to the American people instead of mandating from on high will be the key. Otherwise, once the political winds shift, everything will be rolled back again.
durakot 8y ago
It's great that people are talking about the Green New Deal in a broader context, and that Ocasio-Cortez is pushing it into the US mainstream, but it's worth remembering that the idea (and policy targets) of a "Green New Deal" have been around for at least 10 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
yongjik 8y ago
Why is this story being flagged? Auto-flagging due to "controversy"? Or have climate deniers finally realized that grandiose talks of government overreach don't sell any more, and started to adopt "suppressing dissenting opinions"?
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Politics. "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

77 points by indigodaddy 8y ago

> The single most crucial aspect of the Green New Deal is its proposed job guarantee, a controversial policy that says that every American can have a job with the government if they want one. One of the pros/cons of capitalism is that companies and workers will fight policies that make them less money. The Holy Grail for any capitalist policy is something that does the right thing and makes money. Doing the right thing is unfortunately optional. Making money is not. Idealists want big government policy to just do the right thing. Capitalists want businesses to have unrestricted access to making money. If we can align policy with both interests I think we can make serious progress. In my opinion, I think we have a better chance at fighting climate change with a bill that fits in s piece of paper rather than thousands of pages of regulations and loopholes.

chrisco255 8y ago
Solar is already winning in terms of cost and I think there's more efficiency to come: https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5/ https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-20... This was predicted a decade ago. Solar will bring electricity costs down, then electric cars will gradually take over.
sintaxi 8y ago
One of the pros of capitalism is money is made by giving people what they value and giving people what they value is the right thing. No bills are needed only a change in values.
- everdev 8y ago
  > No bills are needed only a change in values. I think there are exceptions to this rule like slavery, segregation, climate change, etc. Sometimes the damage from certain ideas and behaviors is so severe that waiting for culture to change isn't the best course of action.
dj_gitmo 8y ago
I guess I agree that the legislation should be simple. For example legislation that ban carbon pollution within certain industries by a certain date. Say, by 2035 for electricity, 2045 for agriculture. That would really set things in motion wouldn't it. It would make a lot of old folks mad, but the younger generation would know which skills to build for the new economy.
- gaius 8y ago
  the younger generation would know which skills to build for the new economy Homesteading, hunting, fishing, foraging...
  - dj_gitmo 8y ago
    I'm not a primitivist. A sustainable economy will require more people, to work in agriculture and energy to reduce carbon intensity. It will require more of our best minds working on these problems instead of using their talents to get more clicks using machine learning. Our economies are more planned than we like to admit. It's just that right now we don't exercise any control over the direction or goals of our economic production.
stebbins 8y ago
> One of the pros/cons of capitalism is that companies and workers will fight policies that make them less money. The Holy Grail for any capitalist policy is something that does the right thing and makes money. I am really sympathetic to this idea but I think there's a bit of a underlying assumption here -- this requires _rational actors_. This isn't always the case. For example, racial or gender hiring discrimination happens, but it's irrational, since artificially shrinking a hiring pool can lead companies to miss out on great candidates that would have led to greater profits. Frankly I think the world would be a better place if "the market is rational" but I don't see a lot of strong historical evidence for that. It would be a lot easier to create policies to shape behavior in positive ways if that were the case. I certainly don't disagree that addressing climate change will be impossible until there's a Holy Grail solution, but I'm skeptical that it would adopted quickly or by everyone. > If we can align policy with both interests I think we can make serious progress. Agreed 100%

dev_dull 8y ago

At this point I’m reserving all judgement until I can closely examine the financials. Often these types of extravagant projects involve the same type of “forward looking” growth estimates that almost never pan out after every middle man takes their slice off the top. I really hope we don’t become too enamored with new political alternatives that our critical eye gets lazy.

makotech222 8y ago
"The planet is burning, but how can we afford to fix it???"
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
"new political alternatives" New political alternatives to the status quo of a 1.5º celsius temperature increase by 2030 and an overall increase of 3º celsius, resulting in catastrophic climate change? Or am I misunderstanding you?
- dev_dull 8y ago
  Look here: catastrophic global warming predictions. Don’t look here: junior incoming legislature proposes laws that mandate the government employ everyone at taxpayer expense. Don’t look here: middlemen are historically extremely good at extracting money from every government dollar. Don’t look here: there’s zero proof or evidence that any of this legislation will make any material impact on global warming. Or am I misunderstanding you?
  - Latteland 8y ago
    I think you are arguing that reducing carbon fuels usage, reducing carbon added to the atmosphere won't make any impact on slowing climate change. That is wrong I believe. Or are you arguing something different, that we can't correlate laws to reduce carbon use with actual carbon usage. Both ideas seem wrong to me.

assblaster 8y ago

Is Solyndra a good example of why government intervention to spur solar deployment has unintentional downsides that cost far more than the benefit provided? I think that as the cost of solar and wind come down, then markets will purchase more of it. Heavy handed government mandate just doesn't work due to inefficiency and bureaucratic mismanagement.

tedsanders 8y ago
I'm curious about that too. I think Solyndra by itself is not strong evidence of anything. Any big loan program will have big failures. The real question of efficacy is not "were there zero losers" but "were there enough winners in the portfolio to make up for the losers". Furthermore, I think the case could be made that governments are partly responsible for solar's historic price decline. The manufacturers needed economies of scale and learning, and demand subsidized go by governments (Germany, USA, China, Spain, etc.) really helped accelerate those private sector advancements. I'm not really sure how to evaluate this narrative, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some academic economists who have looked at it.
jyounker 8y ago
Arguably Solyndra failed because the Chinese government pumped far more money into their solar industry then the US did, managing to produce developments that dramatically reduced traditional solar production costs.
elicash 8y ago
What was the downside? It was part of a loan program that made money -- and while Solyndra didn't survive, it's because solar prices plummeted in a way that's good for consumers and good for the environment.
- assblaster 8y ago
  It's more an example of the government picking a winner, and the winner actually losing in the market. What if it wasn't a loan guarantee but rather a direct investment or payment by the federal government?

jeffdavis 8y ago

Everyone wants to protect the environment. But I watch out for two important costs: economic, and centralization of power. Unfortunately, this seems likely to have high costs in both areas. I prefer a decentralized approach. People nearly always underestimate the rate of technological change. Solar panels, battery tech, and electric cars are a winning combination. Some investments/incentives for public charging infrastructure and maybe some gas taxes will go a long way. Once electric car total ownership costs get low enough, then gasoline cars will be worthless scrap heaps over night. Once solar power and battery tech improves enough, it will take over very quickly. I don't see a case for radicalism here. It feels like a fight and will disrupt many lives, and it doesn't need to be that way. Resistance to clean tech disappears quickly when you show people that it works. Maybe just some minor policy tweaks to push it along.

glibgil 8y ago
> Once electric car total ownership costs get low enough What does car ownership have to do with two billion people around the globe moving one mile inland? Why would car prices help during a bread riot?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Strawman much? GP comment was clearly directed in support of a decentralized "winning tech will win without the need and costs of centralized government planning". My Nissan LEAF is wildly cheaper (~40-70% cheaper) to operate per-mile than my wife's very sensible Honda CR-V. Her car is wildly cheaper all-in because it's a 2005 vs the 2015 LEAF. Give it 5 more years for the common electrics to be readily and plentifully available on the used market and this will even out. The electric cars are already coming. Quickly. This is all happening without the need for a government program to guarantee a job with the government for anyone who wants one as the article pitches as an essential part of the "Green New Deal". (What does a government job have to do with sea level rise either?)
  - jabl 8y ago
    > This is all happening without the need for a government program to guarantee a job with the government for anyone who wants one as the article pitches as an essential part of the "Green New Deal". If we're going to decarbonize the economy at a decent rate, we most likely will need to find a just solution for those whose jobs will be disappearing under them (e.g. workers in the fossil fuel industry). See the riots in France for what happens when you give tax cuts to the rich and try to make the working classes pay for decarbonizing. Some kind of federal job guarantee could be a way to guarantee some amount of income for displaced workers.

thrill 8y ago

Meanwhile, headlines are remarkable in the emphasis of their own agenda, whichever way the banana peels: https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-pretty-much-fantasy-land/ https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-gr... 'What is more, such programs would entail a massive expansion of government spending and power. Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, told the Free Beacon by email that in his view, "the plan seems more about [Ocasio-Cortez's] socialist leveling philosophy than reducing pollution."'

Aunche 8y ago

> But voters—who have more quotidian concerns than optimally elegant economic policy—don’t always feel the same way. They don’t want gas prices to go up. The US is never going to take a substantial action against climate change until there's a huge change in attitude. On one side, conservatives are in denial. On the other side, liberals want companies or the government to pay for change and magically shield the cost away from the people. A carbon tax would be much more straightforward and effective than a "Green New Deal," but you don't get elected for promising to raise taxes. Instead, we get feel good programs like Cash for Clunkers and solar panel rebates that mostly just help the wealthy.

elicash 8y ago
> On one side, ... On the other side, ... Your brilliant solution is carbon tax, which is exactly what liberals ALREADY tried to do and couldn't get through because of Republican opposition. It's fine to fault both sides, but lazy to do so when it makes no sense just because you want to elevate yourself as some kind of free-thinker. And as far as popular support, I'll note that it just failed as a ballot initiative in the liberal state of Washington -- and while that proposal was a stronger one than other efforts, good luck trying to do carbon tax nationally given the track record there. I think we still try, but the arrogance with which people treat environmentalists bothers me -- get off the sidelines and join the efforts if you want to push for something else. An effort that focuses on green jobs, like the Green New Deal plan, is actually quite creative. I don't know if it's the best thing to push, but I'll support any effort that's gaining momentum that I think will be a good thing. You have to work as a coalition among people who are willing to put in the work.
- Aunche 8y ago
  This isn't about assigning blame to a political party. Democrats only have so much political capital, and they can't afford to waste it on a pie in the sky, like cap and trade or a green New Deal.
  - elicash 8y ago
    When you say "this isn't about assigning blame to a political party" what I hear is "there should be no political price to pay for opposing measures that we need to address climate change." If you want to argue a measure is bad on the merits, then fine argue that.

koywae 8y ago

I am just curious if people from the fossil fuel industry hang around here and how they feel about this stuff...

spunker540 8y ago
I am just curious if people who buy fossil fuels via gasoline or plane tickets or products distributed via fossil fuels hang around here and how they feel...

rayiner 8y ago

If you want to stop climate change, stop lashing it to unpopular and divisive ideas like conservation or socialism. Efforts to avoid climate change would have been a lot more succeasful if environmentalists hadn’t hijacked it to push anti-consumption (and anti-capitalist) ideas. Universal nuclear power would have slashed CO2 emissions while allowing unabated growth.[1] Instead they told everone to put on a sweater. [1] People talk about costs for wind and solar “coming down” but it’s been too late for awhile now. We could have addressed this in the 1960s with nuclear. Now we’re pissing into the wind.

prklmn 8y ago
How do you know conservation is unpopular?
- rayiner 8y ago
  Because nobody does it, at least not at any scale sufficient to matter. SUVs are the most popular type of new passanger vehicle in the US! The same is true in China and Indian where per-capita energy use is exploding.
  - knewter 8y ago
    Hunters are intense conservationists. We should encourage more people to hunt and we'll get lots of conservation.

flagfeedingusa 8y ago

why are only white countries responsible for climate change? when are people going to admit billions of people in africa, india, and china are going to have a much greater impact? when are people going to admit overpopulation is the main issue? oh right because that will destroy the narrative white countries need a constant supply of immigrants.

Clanan 8y ago

> The single most crucial aspect of the Green New Deal is its proposed job guarantee, a controversial policy that says that every American can have a job with the government if they want one. Data for Progress, a leftist advocacy group, claims that the Green New Deal could generate 10 million new jobs across the country over 10 years. Let's deal with Climate Change by implementing socialism. Yes, I'm sure that will work. Reminds me of the regexp joke. Have a problem? Use a regexp! Now two problems.

elicash 8y ago
The "capitalism" approach - cap-and-trade - didn't work because Republicans on Congress successfully opposed it and some people were concerned about economic impact. So the end result is that now people are pushing for something that prioritizes "jobs." And now people like you are opposed because it's socialism. The truth is that some people will ALWAYS oppose anything that hurts the fossil fuel industry and will find excuses to oppose it no matter what.
- Clanan 8y ago
  U.S. emissions have declined three years in a row. (Sounds like the capitalist approach might be working?) But by all means, instead of going after countries whose emissions are actually increasing, let's instead implement one of the most murderous political philosophies of all time. If these politicians were serious about addressing the issue, they wouldn't tie it to such a controversial measure.
  - elicash 8y ago
    This issue is urgent and no, we aren't doing enough here to avert disaster. And we need to do more at home WHILE we do more abroad -- we cannot use that as an excuse for inaction. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo...
8y ago

wyck 8y ago

Any system that ignore's incentives with regards to human behaviour will turn into a formula for tyranny and misery.

jadell 8y ago
Climate change will do that anyway. The first thing to go when resources get scarce (I mean truly, decades-long-famine-level scarce) is individual liberty. We're talking back to a worldwide feudal warlord society within 100ish years.
- Aunche 8y ago
  Humans are surprisingly adaptable. We're a species of Saharan apes that somehow managed to find a way to thrive in the Arctic before the miracles of modern technology. Currently, we "waste" a lot of economic productivity on things like advertising and entertainment. In the time calls for it, we'll turn Siberia into a breadbasket before we let society collapse.
  - untog 8y ago
    I feel like that statement brushes over the frankly enormous amount of suffering throughout history - war, famine, genocide, and so on. While we might survive it's worth at least considering the costs we'll encounter along the way.
  - jadell 8y ago
    Life was brutal and short for the vast majority of humans for hundreds of thousands of years. The last 1-2 hundred are a complete anomaly, brought on by exactly the types of practices that are currently destroying our environment. Sure, we won't probably won't wipe ourselves out completely. But I do not look forward to 99.99% of the remaining population going back to a pre-industrial level of civilization. The type of technological save you're talking about is already possible. The problem is we have no political or societal will to get it done. Turning Siberia into a breadbasket to feed the world (among many other needed solution) most likely requires exactly the type of tyranny the OP is talking about.

snackematician 8y ago

To avoid a climate disaster we need to make major changes to our economic system, and soon. Passing this ambitious political program will also require populist support, and needs to reverse the rise of inequality rather than exacerbate it (see gilets jaunes). The Green New Deal is the only mainstream political proposal out there close to achieving this. Those who say we cannot achieve this due to deficits, are making a bad analogy between household spending and the spending of the most powerful government on earth that controls its own fiat currency. We've fought world wars, had the New Deal, and continue to spend exorbitant amounts of money on our military. It won't be easy, but we can do this.

jorblumesea 8y ago

The Dems can talk as much as they want, but to achieve any meaningful lasting changes they will need consensus across the aisle. Making these policies palatable to the American people instead of mandating from on high will be the key. Otherwise, once the political winds shift, everything will be rolled back again.

durakot 8y ago

It's great that people are talking about the Green New Deal in a broader context, and that Ocasio-Cortez is pushing it into the US mainstream, but it's worth remembering that the idea (and policy targets) of a "Green New Deal" have been around for at least 10 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

yongjik 8y ago

Why is this story being flagged? Auto-flagging due to "controversy"? Or have climate deniers finally realized that grandiose talks of government overreach don't sell any more, and started to adopt "suppressing dissenting opinions"?

nostrademons 8y ago
Politics. "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html