3 ms·
I don't think it's a straw man. Look at the two examples I cited. This is the first thing that comes up when you google 'green new deal': "A Green New Deal is
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
I don't think it's a straw man. Look at the two examples I cited.
This is the first thing that comes up when you google 'green new deal':
"A Green New Deal is a big, bold transformation of the economy to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change. It would mobilize vast public resources to help us transition from an economy built on exploitation and fossil fuels to one driven by dignified work and clean energy."
https://www.sierraclub.org/trade/what-green-new-deal https://www.sierraclub.org/trade/what-green-new-deal
And here's AOC's chief of staff on the green new deal: "“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” "
Second is Jay Inslee, the democratic running for president who has made fighting climate change the centerpiece of his campaign.
https://www.jayinslee.com/climate-mission https://www.jayinslee.com/climate-mission
Look at his four points. Point three is "fighting for environmental justice & economic inclusion". Two of the other points are subsidies, one for clean energy, the other for a jobs program. The last one -- getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuel industries -- is a good idea. Control f'ing for the word tax (as in carbon tax) gives no results. Neither does cap, nor trade.
- crazygringo 7y agoI guess I just don't see how this is "worthless value signaling". There's more to the environment and economy than just carbon reduction -- these are real, positive things. Jay Inslee's page states "net-zero greenhouse gas pollution" and "transitioning off fossil fuels". I think it's clear these could be accomplished via tax or cap and trade, and most voters probably don't care much about the specific details of which. The main point is, I don't see any evidence that if Republicans offered up a carbon tax bill, that Democrats would vote against it because they wanted something bigger. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest this is Democrats' fault because they want to do even more. Responsibility here lies 100% with Republican obstruction, and it's just disingenuous to suggest otherwise.