4 ms·
It's perfectly fair, however, to point out the difference in economic scale and political influence between the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy in
by beat 7y ago
It's perfectly fair, however, to point out the difference in economic scale and political influence between the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy industry. The fossil fuel industry is rather larger, and rather more powerful. And by "rather", I mean "tremendously".
It is also perfectly fair to point out the relative likelihood that international political problems around fossil fuels are far more likely to cost the US in blood and treasure than political problems around renewables. We don't go to war for wind and sunshine. Meanwhile, we spent hundreds of billions a year as a nation - not to mention a toll of American military and non-US civilian lives - in order to maintain our semblance of control over flow of oil.
You want to be honest? Sure, let's be honest.
- garmaine 7y agoThe Green New Deal represents a $93 trillion subsidy to renewable energy, if it is enacted. That’s more than comparable.
- beat 7y agoWhere are you getting this from? We don't have a Green New Deal. We don't have a firmed-up bill presented in Congress, even. And how is the number you offered calculated, and by whom? Because it reeks of partisanship.
- garmaine 7y agoIt’s the only estimate I know of. Here’s a critical look at it: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-ne...
- beat 7y agoSeems to me that link more or less debunks the $93T estimate as partisan bullshit, which is what I expected it to be. To put it in perspective, the GDP of the US is currently about $19T, so they're saying the Green New Deal would cost 100% of the GDP for five straight years. This seems... exaggerated.
- gridlockd 7y ago> This seems... exaggerated. Not if you understand MMT and its proponents. AOC believes that every dollar spent by the government on infrastructure magically turns into five dollars of economic growth, so she's willing to go into deep debt to make it happen.
- beat 7y agoNow that definitely sounds like partisan nonsense.
- gridlockd 7y agoPerhaps, but it's true. AOC is a proponent of MMT[1] and has made that "five dollars for every one dollar spent" argument[2]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-explained-aoc-2019-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-e... [2] I can't find the source for this one right now, but it was in a video interview regarding the green new deal, right around when it was announced.
- garmaine 7y agoAdding on to this, the five dollars for every dollar spent makes sense in some contexts. It’s a key factor in support of federally funded basic research like NASA, NSF, DARPA, etc. I actually believe this based on the reports I’ve seen for NASA spin offs. But what AOC is talking about is not basic research, which has a multiplicative effect because it opens up new technologies, new products, and new industries. A New Deal is work for works sake, and economically substitutive... so the return is actually less than a dollar for every dollar spent.
- gridlockd 7y agoOne side may have more "bribe money", but the other side has idealism behind it. That goes a long way. Clearly, the climate apocalypse is what dominates the media narrative, so if you want to make money tomorrow (not yesterday), you're pushing renewables, not fossils.