4 ms·
It's depressing. The US still has a chance for transformation, but just think of the "megaproject" of the past 20 years and what could have been. $6-12 trillio
by dashundchen 8y ago
It's depressing. The US still has a chance for transformation, but just think of the "megaproject" of the past 20 years and what could have been.
$6-12 trillion dollars spent on killing millions in middle eastern wars with nothing to show for it. An amount that could have rebuilt this country.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-spending-cost-wars https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-spending-cost-wars
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/ https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
Imagine if the response to 9/11 was energy independence from oil through decarbnonization and renewables research. Where would we be today?
Don't let anyone tell you we can't afford a version of a "Green New Deal".
- sokoloff 8y agoDon't let anyone cram a "government jobs for all" program into a climate-preserving Green New Deal. That provision took my support from nearly-unwavering to nearly-non-existent.
- vkou 8y agoSo, given the option of: 1. An economic plan that you disagree with, that would avoid catastrophic climate change. 2. An economic plan that you agree with, that leads to catastrophic climate change. You prefer #1?
- sokoloff 8y ago3. A climate change management plan that doesn't have an unrelated jobs giveaway embedded within. I'm willing to hold my nose and tolerate #2 in the meantime.
- vkou 8y agoWhy not hold your nose and tolerate #1? At least if it goes wrong, you merely inherit a local economic disaster, as opposed to a global, planet-scale, food-security disaster.
- sokoloff 8y agoIn my judgment, #2 is far more reliably likely to end up in #3 and represents the lower total summed weighted risk of disaster.
- titzer 8y agoThis is an extremely irresponsible and selfish choice given the stakes, and probably most would prefer not sharing a planet with others with that mindset; thus the downvotes.