“The Green New Deal Is Out. Now What?”
Does anyone have the contact information for the headline police?
OAC for president - really!
This is an excellent rallying point that can serve, like a vortex, to aggregate people to address the myriad of issues.
I think for example what the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is encouraging people to contact representatives about:
Pass a Carbon Pricing Bill
The science is clear: climate change is real, is worsened by human activity, and will continue to harm our communities without significant action.Congress has a moral obligation to protect vulnerable communities and seriously address climate change in a bipartisan fashion.
Carbon pricing is one of many important policy tools Congress should use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states, “Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies.”
Many economists agree that pricing carbon is the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary.
» At minimum, the carbon fee should be high enough to reduce emissions by80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, the goal set out in the Paris Climate Agreement. If reduction targets are not met, the price should increase.
» The legislation must ensure that the costs of a carbon price are not borne by marginalized and low-income communities.
» Polluters must not move operations to other countries to avoid paying for their emissions.
» Legislation should include reporting and transparency mechanisms to measure emission levels.
What this ignores is that the US is a SHITHOLE, and Green New Deal programs won’t change that!
What now?! We pat the children on the head and tell them how cute they are, then get back to work. 100% renewable energy in 11 years? Not even remotely possible. Even if you could find a way to force everyone to drive an electric car, moving freight by train or truck by purely renewable electricity is a long, long way off. And today I can buy a round trip ticket from Chicago to Honolulu for $700 and be there 18 hours later. There is no high speed rail to Hawaii. And there are no longer sailing ships to make the crossing. Are we dooming every US citizen in Hawaii to permanent exile? Chicago to London is $500 and 8 hours. Does anyone believe that a suitable zero emission alternative is going to be commercially viable in 10 years? Even JFK’s great moon launch challenge only put two men on the surface. We need to move hundreds of thousands of people every day across oceans. Just the transportation aspect of the GND is laughable. Set aside the idea of providing a living “wage” for people UNWILLING to work. If you tried to write a parody of liberal positions, you could do no better than this ridiculous piece of legislation.
I appreciate you pointing out the rarely heard complexities of switching to a zero fossil fuel “economy”, not really the partisan ending though.
Maybe the constant international cardiovascular system of trucks and ships moving what fossil fuel energy has mined, refined, and produced is something we can not do with renewable energy. But if we can reorient our value system on what a sustainable civilization could be, maybe we can do without constant commercial activity that exceeds your footpath radius. Or maybe we can work hard at perfecting clean ways to import geo-specific national treasures, such as herbal medicine, valuable minerals (ack), and culture among others. Also air travel which eh, is great and I think falls into the nimby category of rearing children.
This GND has more momentum than I’ve seen in a while, and while touched by D.C. “realsim” it already is opening thoughts. The truth is, no political movement will convince people convinced by the convenience of modern life and maybe tribal politics.
I’m pretty sure most Hawaiians would be delighted to reduce tourism to a trickle as soon as possible. Oh sure, we all need to go fly somewhere, anywhere to get away from the traffic-clogged ugly boring places we call home and neighborhood. The US could use a functionally reliable, frequent and safe passenger-rail system, but they don’t have to travel 200+mph if that’s what you’re thinking. As a matter of fact, plug-in hybrid cars and trucks have more potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption and emissions than all-battery EVs, no matter what the purist nitwits of Silicon Valley may say otherwise.
Well, it sounds good in the abstract.
Some of the people involved are worse than questionable, but selecting from a group of politicians will have that result.
“Do you endorse the Green New Deal?” and immediately know what their public stance is on issues like climate change, environmental justice, and infrastructure spending”
How does the Green New Deal accomplish this, when it is extremely vague on climate mitigation, environmental policy and infrastructure spending.
Sure you want to increase efficiency in every building in the USA, but there are hundreds of ways to do this, and your proposition gives zero direction of how specifically we should accomplish this. It also doesn’t provide any resemblance of cost analysis or budget, so how can someone even determine what projects we can develop without knowing how much money we have to spend?
The Green New Deal calls for 100% renewable energy, but it never explicitly defines why this proposal is the best way to mitigate climate change. Renewable does not mean low carbon - in fact biomass and biofuel are not even carbon neutral in some cases. Why is this proposal the best way to mitigate our problem compared to thousands of other energy proposals that include the production of nuclear, CCS, HELE and CHP? This proposal contains zero analysis or comparison, so in reality there is no major grounds for comparison, and because its so vague its nearly impossible to calculate its potential compared to other published proposals in scientific journals.