5 ms·

If politicians, left or right, thought of climate as an emergency, they would behave _completely_ differently. Just look at the Green New Deal. If they truly th

If politicians, left or right, thought of climate as an emergency, they would behave _completely_ differently. Just look at the Green New Deal. If they truly thought of it as an emergency, they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support. Legislation taking climate change seriously would instead look like: - Carbon taxes and carbon capture incentives - Nuclear power That's not what it looks like, though.

dantheman 6y ago
Completely agree, the green new deal isn't about climate change. It's a jobs program.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Is it at all possible it could be both, as perhaps the phrases "green" and "new deal" clearly suggest?
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > Is it at all possible it could be both, as perhaps the phrases "green" and "new deal" clearly suggest? My thoughts exactly, and given the horrid post covid economy (specifically for younger millennials and Gen Z) and the need for a mass upgrade to the US' infrastructure this makes the most sense as it could solve both problems instead of giving trillions to bail out mega corps. Honestly, I cannot fathom the notion where people see th massive amount of homelessness in the US, but specifically in the Bay Area, and think this model was sustainable or even desirable. At least this could put many people who have been displaced from the work force into a skills training program and a trade that could alleviate some of the needless amount of Human misery that has been normalized.
whimsicalism 6y ago
Ah yes, carbon taxes and nuclear power - very uncontroversial and bipartisan
- ralusek 6y ago
  I specifically mean controversial issues being tacked onto the bill that are at best tangentially related. The Green New Deal literally has a stipulation within that guarantees "economic security to those unable or unwilling to work." If you thought climate change was an emergency, would you slip in a stipulation like this? In regards to carbon taxes, there are many Republicans who are fully on board with this. Mitigating negative third party externalities is a role for the state, even within libertarian think tanks.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > The Green New Deal literally has a stipulation within that guarantees "economic security to those unable or unwilling to work." Point me to that phrase in the text of the bill? Not to campaign slogans or Fox news hit pieces or whatever. The gap between "libertarian think tank" and Republican electorate is larger than it has been the last 60 years. There are many people in the world, so I don't doubt that there are "many" Republicans fully on board. Any significant chunk of the electorate though? No, polling doesn't indicate that.
    - ralusek 6y ago
      That exact text is from a draft by Ocasio Cortez. The finalized bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... I've included highlights of the sort below. > providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization; > (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries; > (F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; > (G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition; > (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States; > (I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; > (J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors; > (M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples; > E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”); > (3) to counteract systemic injustices... > (B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and > (C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median; Is this the sort of legislation that you are going to try to get through Congress in an emergency? Not to mention the things directly related to climate, are carried out via overnight bans on certain technologies, and a commitment to rebuild 100% of all buildings in the United States to meet new compliance standards.
Supermancho 6y ago
> If they truly thought of it as an emergency, They who? > they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support The lack of bipartisan support has nothing to do with the emergency, aforementioned. The issue is that the US consumer doesn't believe it's an emergency. That's the THEY everyone addresses, even if someone believes their "they" means someone else. Once the US consumer (70% or so) is afraid of something, political clout follows. See the slow adoption of Marijuana Decriminalization and Bike Helmet Law adoption across states.
hammock 6y ago
>If they truly thought of it as an emergency, they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support. In the spirit of "never let a good crisis go to waste," one might argue that emergencies are typically EXACTLY when politicians are most likely to pass highly controversial and unilateral legislation.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Just look at the Green New Deal. If they truly thought of it as an emergency, they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support. That...makes no sense. If you think its an emergency, and a faction which includes all of the members in office in the opposing political party thinks it is not an emergency, pretty much any policy aimed at dealing with the emergency is going to be both “controversial” and “have zero bipartisan support”. But the Green New Deal isn’t intended to address one such controversial emergency, but two current ones (plus a third, less controversial, one): (1) A climate emergency (hence, the “Green”), (2) An economic emergency not in aggregate output but distribution (hence, the “New Deal”), and: (3) The potential economic emergency, both aggregate and distributional, that would be produced by a narrow, naive approach to the first emergency. So, yes, it has lots in it that isn’t germane to the first emergency, especially viewed narrowly.
- imtringued 6y ago
  There is a savings glut in the US. Automation, urbanization, pension funds, trade deficits, and dozens of more factors cause an excess of savings. Savings are just deferred spending. If someone doesn't spend, then someone else doesn't work. That's how you get an economy with high unemployment. Alternatively, you invest the savings. Yields go down, price earnings shoots up. Turns out, the market is already saturated and there are no investments left. There is nowhere for the money to go. So institutions buy government bonds even if some of them have negative yields. When you buy us treasury bonds, then you are saying "I want the US government to have my money because it can invest my money better than me". How does the US government tap into that money? They are bonds, the government has to go into debt to access the money. This was the prologue so you understand that the US government absolutely must invest. So, what is the US government going to invest the money into? The goal is to produce a reasonable return (1% above inflation). The first obvious choice is education because it ensures that the USA will have a highly qualified workforce in the future. USA is the tech center of the world so anything that strengthens it will ensure a bright future for the US. The second obvious investment choice are green investments. It really doesn't matter what you invest here because fighting climate change is like defending your nation against a foreign army. If the nation is destroyed, there are no returns to be had. If nuclear power is effective then that's how it is but renewables look like a much faster way to deploy the savings. One should question why these obvious investments aren't being made if there is a savings glut. It's because they aren't considered investments. Fossil fuels are still too competitive even though it is obvious that they will fade away over the next 20 years. Of course you can also do generic infrastructure investments. They'll probably net a reasonable return as well. I feel like stimulus checks do help with unemployment because they boost consumption but they aren't sustainable in the long term. It's possible that the savings glut goes away and then the debt becomes unsustainable, which is why the money should be deployed with an intention to net a return.

dantheman 6y ago

Completely agree, the green new deal isn't about climate change. It's a jobs program.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Is it at all possible it could be both, as perhaps the phrases "green" and "new deal" clearly suggest?
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > Is it at all possible it could be both, as perhaps the phrases "green" and "new deal" clearly suggest? My thoughts exactly, and given the horrid post covid economy (specifically for younger millennials and Gen Z) and the need for a mass upgrade to the US' infrastructure this makes the most sense as it could solve both problems instead of giving trillions to bail out mega corps. Honestly, I cannot fathom the notion where people see th massive amount of homelessness in the US, but specifically in the Bay Area, and think this model was sustainable or even desirable. At least this could put many people who have been displaced from the work force into a skills training program and a trade that could alleviate some of the needless amount of Human misery that has been normalized.

whimsicalism 6y ago

Ah yes, carbon taxes and nuclear power - very uncontroversial and bipartisan

ralusek 6y ago
I specifically mean controversial issues being tacked onto the bill that are at best tangentially related. The Green New Deal literally has a stipulation within that guarantees "economic security to those unable or unwilling to work." If you thought climate change was an emergency, would you slip in a stipulation like this? In regards to carbon taxes, there are many Republicans who are fully on board with this. Mitigating negative third party externalities is a role for the state, even within libertarian think tanks.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > The Green New Deal literally has a stipulation within that guarantees "economic security to those unable or unwilling to work." Point me to that phrase in the text of the bill? Not to campaign slogans or Fox news hit pieces or whatever. The gap between "libertarian think tank" and Republican electorate is larger than it has been the last 60 years. There are many people in the world, so I don't doubt that there are "many" Republicans fully on board. Any significant chunk of the electorate though? No, polling doesn't indicate that.
  - ralusek 6y ago
    That exact text is from a draft by Ocasio Cortez. The finalized bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio... I've included highlights of the sort below. > providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization; > (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries; > (F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; > (G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition; > (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States; > (I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; > (J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors; > (M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples; > E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”); > (3) to counteract systemic injustices... > (B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and > (C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median; Is this the sort of legislation that you are going to try to get through Congress in an emergency? Not to mention the things directly related to climate, are carried out via overnight bans on certain technologies, and a commitment to rebuild 100% of all buildings in the United States to meet new compliance standards.

Supermancho 6y ago

> If they truly thought of it as an emergency, They who? > they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support The lack of bipartisan support has nothing to do with the emergency, aforementioned. The issue is that the US consumer doesn't believe it's an emergency. That's the THEY everyone addresses, even if someone believes their "they" means someone else. Once the US consumer (70% or so) is afraid of something, political clout follows. See the slow adoption of Marijuana Decriminalization and Bike Helmet Law adoption across states.

hammock 6y ago

>If they truly thought of it as an emergency, they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support. In the spirit of "never let a good crisis go to waste," one might argue that emergencies are typically EXACTLY when politicians are most likely to pass highly controversial and unilateral legislation.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Just look at the Green New Deal. If they truly thought of it as an emergency, they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support. That...makes no sense. If you think its an emergency, and a faction which includes all of the members in office in the opposing political party thinks it is not an emergency, pretty much any policy aimed at dealing with the emergency is going to be both “controversial” and “have zero bipartisan support”. But the Green New Deal isn’t intended to address one such controversial emergency, but two current ones (plus a third, less controversial, one): (1) A climate emergency (hence, the “Green”), (2) An economic emergency not in aggregate output but distribution (hence, the “New Deal”), and: (3) The potential economic emergency, both aggregate and distributional, that would be produced by a narrow, naive approach to the first emergency. So, yes, it has lots in it that isn’t germane to the first emergency, especially viewed narrowly.

imtringued 6y ago
There is a savings glut in the US. Automation, urbanization, pension funds, trade deficits, and dozens of more factors cause an excess of savings. Savings are just deferred spending. If someone doesn't spend, then someone else doesn't work. That's how you get an economy with high unemployment. Alternatively, you invest the savings. Yields go down, price earnings shoots up. Turns out, the market is already saturated and there are no investments left. There is nowhere for the money to go. So institutions buy government bonds even if some of them have negative yields. When you buy us treasury bonds, then you are saying "I want the US government to have my money because it can invest my money better than me". How does the US government tap into that money? They are bonds, the government has to go into debt to access the money. This was the prologue so you understand that the US government absolutely must invest. So, what is the US government going to invest the money into? The goal is to produce a reasonable return (1% above inflation). The first obvious choice is education because it ensures that the USA will have a highly qualified workforce in the future. USA is the tech center of the world so anything that strengthens it will ensure a bright future for the US. The second obvious investment choice are green investments. It really doesn't matter what you invest here because fighting climate change is like defending your nation against a foreign army. If the nation is destroyed, there are no returns to be had. If nuclear power is effective then that's how it is but renewables look like a much faster way to deploy the savings. One should question why these obvious investments aren't being made if there is a savings glut. It's because they aren't considered investments. Fossil fuels are still too competitive even though it is obvious that they will fade away over the next 20 years. Of course you can also do generic infrastructure investments. They'll probably net a reasonable return as well. I feel like stimulus checks do help with unemployment because they boost consumption but they aren't sustainable in the long term. It's possible that the savings glut goes away and then the debt becomes unsustainable, which is why the money should be deployed with an intention to net a return.