Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/28/who-can-afford-green-new-deal-we-can
Not if you listen to the corporate stooges.
This article is flat out wrong. The GND does not need tax revenue. The investment of 400bn to 600bn per year eliminates the purchase of 1000bn fossil fuels. The GND self finances, makes money, does not need subsidies.
We can’t afford NOT to.
What’s the current going rate for a new habitable planet?
How do we pay for it? How do we come up with 600bn a year?
Easy, cut the MIC, including the alphabets by 75%, two birds with one knife.
All that is needed is the courage to do so, and well trained security personnel.
If all the wars stopped—how much would we save and put into the New Green Deal?
That seems like the quickest and most efficient way —as all nations would put into a pot for," Earth Save, " and the military and war machine makers would just have to transition to building a way out of disaster for the planet—lots of giant wind farms, and housing that would reflect the needs of each geographic area. Plus making sure that our air , water and soil was cleared of all the corporate poisons. Maybe if we stopped wars–we would choose and learn to lose that power through war death which is so popular to so many.
The Green New Deal is an excellent concept. But what are we doing in our own lives to reduce our carbon footprints WHILE we promote the Green New Deal?
I radically changed the way transport myself and drectly and indirectly use fossil fuels in 1998. But in 2019, I am more alone than ever in doing so.
I was going to say, how could anyone write an article on this topic without the slightest mention of our so-called “defense” budget, which currently exceeds the $600B GND estimate and has been going on for way more than 30 years already!
But there’s another yet more compelling reason to cut “defense” in order to pay for the GND, which is that DOD not only emits more carbon than 140 nations combined, but DOD couldn’t become carbon neutral if its life depended on it, for the simple reason that modern warfare is utterly impossible without cheap and abundant oil-based fuels: Any country’s army that didn’t go along would literally be running circles around ours! (OK, we could always resort to nukes, but let’s hope not.)
For a detailed history of how we got to this unenviable place, read “Oil, Power and War: A Dark History” by Matthieu Auzanneau.
Thank you aa I have another new reading source.! The people who read Common Dreams are such great sources for new information. : )
I’m in agreement all these suggestions, but we have to get past the misconception that spending federal dollars requires corresponding revenue. Not true according to MMT (modern monetary theory). But don’t take my word for it. Go to the experts, Stephanie Kelton among the most well-known. Google her by name or just “MMT” to experience a whole new way of viewing the economy.
Off Fossil Fuels Act.
I gave up my car in 1996 so I could “walk my talk” as an advocate for better mass transit, starting with light rail. Better buses and bus routes integrated with light rail lines was then and even more so today a part of that advocacy. Land-use and transit-oriented development is an integral part of the solution too, not simple solutions, but a fundamental starting point. I don’t begin discussions with cost as much as specific benefits. Example: Land-use should include public park/plaza space in most urban/suburban development. Developers will object to “unprofitable” parkspace until they realize that the value of property surrounding parkspace goes up. They may place no monetary value on parks and plazas as mere amenities. Nor may they view adding such amenities and transit necessities to existing development a monetary benefit. That said, I do not consider any of the current GND proposals as effective in these regards. They all call for investments in battery technology and all-battery EVs, as if this alone could reduce our carbon footprint where and how we live.