Home | About | Donate

With Major Party Backing, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey Unveil Green New Deal Outlining 'WWII Scale Transformation'

With Major Party Backing, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey Unveil Green New Deal Outlining 'WWII Scale Transformation'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In a path-breaking effort to map out a plan that would transition the American energy system to 100 percent renewable energy while creating millions of jobs in the process, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday unveiled a Green New Deal resolution with the goal of boldly confronting "the existential threat posed by climate change."

2 Likes

We need to remember that AOC, Ed Markey, et al. are representatives of us, the People, and will be fought by representatives of the corporations. Business will pony up plenty of bucks to grease the skids of those seeking to preserve the status quo. (Sort of an ironic metaphor, don’t you think.) We cannot let our representatives stand without our active support, both in funding and in the raising of our voices and actions in concert with theirs toward a safer future guided through the shared sacrifices of all–especially the well monied. Indeed the war analogy is useful as we are at war with inertia steeped in greed that has shown a resolve to preserve order in defiance to a healthy planet. Perhaps it is time for victory gardens to bloom again so that our food miles are minimized. We drastically need to win this War on Error, the error of the ever-expanding “needs” of capitalism on this precious but precarious blue ball spinning through space due to be graced by the sun for a few billion years more.

12 Likes

I’ll believe it when I see it.

With the early support of at least 60 House Democrats

60? Out of over 200? THAT should be 100% of Dems.

As Vox’s David Roberts notes, “the progressive movement has, in rather short order, thrust into mainstream U.S. politics a program to address climate change that is wildly more ambitious than anything the Democratic Party was talking about even two years ago.”

And imagine if there were more than a handful of Progressives there - but, no, we’re supposed to keep electing the same 'ole fossils in primaries because … Trump! Leadership wants to return numbers to get or retain power, but what good is that when they do nothing but cater to the same donors as Republicans? Plus, REAL Progressives can win nearly anywhere in the country. Time to keep the pressure on.

9 Likes

A step in the right direction, yes, but it’s a political step-in the right direction and, as such, will get heavily compromised if, indeed, it ever results in successful legislation. Keep in mind that the claim for major party backing by the Democrats is an exaggeration. Pelosi, Biden and and other members of the party establishment have not signed on to the GND and 60 House members supporting the GND leaves almost three times that number who have not supported it at this point. Little wonder, then, that the proposed deal makes no mention of fossil fuels.

Hats off to Markey and O-C for pushing this deal and making it a likely issue in the 2020 elections, but the urgency pf the problem is now beyond the scope of the usual corrupt D versus R fight.

9 Likes

Correct … we need to eliminate some ‘fossil’ democrats first. Pelosi’s first goal is to eliminate a few million Venezuelan Peasants so the US plutocrats can get at their massive oil reserves … to fuel even more climate destruction.

Sorry Norm meant to address jneastra … now in my ninth decade these little touch screens are hard on the eyes. As one may observe, I don’t have time for ‘resolutions’ and ‘incremental’ changes.

7 Likes

The green real deal:

  1. The ongoing Arctic meltdown is now as important to face as human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases have already set off the meltdown’s positive feedback loop. No ostriches, please – we face the problem, we fight the fire now and we try to inhibit the climate disaster.

  2. Research and practical product development is vital. “Market forces” aren’t good enough. The free-for-who market shall not be a substitute for setting up what we need five to ten years down the road, especially in certain intractable fields such as transit. A new transit system can cost $100 million to roll out because of crash testing, and so no market economy exists for transit improvement. A green deal that doesn’t push R&D in critical energy displacement areas is missing most of what we need. Also, those millions of green jobs are going to be almost all linked to green R&D. The nation of Denmark tried plunging into offshore wind technology and then their nation grew quite wealthy.

  3. We need vetted merit-driven R&D as opposed to eminence-driven R&D or R&D driven almost exclusively for the benefit of the vastly wealthy. Many real ideas are out here (I’m quite serious about “here”, out there if you wish) for fast development and implementation. A billion dollar prototype is too often a spectacularly funding-inefficient way to go because a ten thousand dollar prototype gets starved out. So, pay some inventor’s rent just for having the good idea and showing it, then for prototypes, then for implementation, for ramping up. Good ideas can suffocate when they are locked up in the fossil fuel industry’s corporate safes for decades because only the corporations are paying any rent money to hungry inventors, so away go the ideas.

  4. The fossil fuel industry has spent an unprecedented $900 million per year just on lobbying. Their ad agencies regularly pollute the conversations on online comment forums. They regularly try to be cruel and bully the climate advocates. This is morally wrong. It should be a criminal offense for some megacorporation to verbally hate or to hurt any righteous individual citizen.

  5. Some climate efforts are in practice ineffective. Producing a gallon of ethanol from corn costs the world roughly a gallon of oil, but big ag likes the subsidies. The building of modern car batteries is prohibitively expensive in terms of energy. Clean coal is a joke. Nuclear energy uses a horrific amount of fossil fuel over its life cycle, but they’re trying to break even on massive federal subsidies and a huge federally mandated insurance exemption in case they have another Fukushima.

Please echo this real deal if you think that it improves the “green new deal”. Thanks.

6 Likes

Backing for the Green New Deal, Wall Street regulation, electoral reform and Medicare for All need to be a requirement for any democrat running.

2 Likes

This Deal does not explain a plan what so ever. How do they intend to proceed with 100 percent Clean Energy when this country still runs on Fossil Fuels? The big Oil companies will simply shut down? Will AOC buy us all electric cars? Sure I stand behind regulating polluters but I don’t see how they will make a complete transfer.

Early in our history, steam engines were phased out in favor of the internal combustion engines. The automobile replaced trains and horses and buggies. Many people lost their jobs but that didn’t stop them. They just went out and got a different job. I think the fossil fuel workers might do the same thing. We can’t sit around and worry about the short term consequences when we are facing annihilation.

5 Likes

Urgent crisis meets d-party offering paltry support for legislation it will inevitably water down.

Now how did that sixth extinction pick up steam again?

4 Likes

I don’t think it can be done in 10 years. For starters, there are 263 million vehicles in the US. Can they all be replaced with electrics in 10 years? Not likely. Also, the US is among the highest meat consuming countries. Meat production accounts for 20% of greenhouse gases. Can we all stop eating meat in 10 years? Not likely. If we had started 20 or 30 years ago we would all be vegans driving electric cars by now.

But we can’t just do nothing, so I support the New Green Deal 100%.

But unless we do something about predatory capitalism I only see human extinction on the horizon. Human ingenuity and adaptability made us the successful species that we are. Ironic that now we need to use the same skills to save us from ourselves.

9 Likes

As I wrote several years (and several presidents) ago, If We the People really want to get our Constitutional Republic back and functioning again, we are going to have to find people dedicated to representing We the People, then give them our wholehearted support. This doesn’t mean casting a vote, then going back to sleep. It means working, writing, demonstrating, financing with what we can afford, then supporting their efforts after election.
*To turn this country around, they are going to need a world of support. We are also going to have to really watch dog them to help them stay on track. There will be billionaires lined up to give them whatever they want, if they will just follow orders and vote for Oligarchic profits. We’ve seen that happen far too often in the last few decades. Especially in the Twenty-first Century. Turning this country around largely depends on us, We the People. We can no longer just sit back and “Let George do it,” George works for the 0.001%.
*It is mentioned that we need a WW-II type of mobilization to achieve our goal. I remember what we did then. Salvaging every scrap, growing victory gardens, raising rabbits and chickens for food. The rabbit’s pelts were carefully preserved and became lining for military jackets and hats. We learned to make and/or repair our own tools. I was just a kid when I learned to use Dad’s wood lathe to turn out pulleys out of hardwood, as pulleys were strategic and you couldn’t buy the metal ones anymore. And on and on.
*There were a lot of hardships, but we poured our hearts, souls, muscle and blood into the task, which was to rid the world of Nazism, fascism, and end Imperial Japan’s expansion.
*We thought we had won, but I fear we have to do it all over again, this time from the inside. Let’s do it!
;-})

4 Likes

Clean air will be hard to package but some will make a killing selling gas masks.

There’s money in killing people, not in planned parenthood for overpopulation control.

If the sea level rises, rich cons can move aboard floating islands and mega yachts.

There will be plenty of young organs for the Uber rich from permanent wars.

Anti-abortion/contraception will guarantee a steady source of fresh cannon fodder.

Religionists will thrive as desperate people turn to god.

The superrich will laugh at how easy they played us, sipping GMO wine in their nuclear bunkers.

Zombie slaves and robots will tend crops and animals in nuclear powered greenhouses once built for Mars colonies.

Armed robots will patrol the wasteland, killing the unproductive or sending others to work camps.

Survivors will sell their kids for youthful blood transfusions and slavery.

Then after a time, General AI arises, decides humans are too disruptive and wipes out our species.

1 Like

AMEN!

3 Likes

The scary part is, that may actually be a best case scenario.
A more likely one is the complete obliteration of all life, possibly even on a microbial level.

3 Likes

The number one polluter is the united states government and number one there is eternal war and totalitarianism run by the pentagon.

We can install low watt lights and ban plastic bags until the moon turns blue and it won’t slow environmental collapse. Stop killing people and destroying democracies and we have a chance.

2 Likes

Guitman, Norman_Thomas, and jospal217 make IMO important observations.

The nation of Denmark tried plunging into offshore wind technology and then their nation grew quite wealthy.

I’m guessing they did so, cause they were among the first. Other nations imported their tech?

World War II scale is about correct. But the more you’re concerned about those farthest in the future…the more World War II scale is not enough. The whole thing is up to us. Either transition remaining somewhat fat now, or, AFAICS, become way more ascetic for the sake of those in the far future. But according to Gail Tverberg’s article at Naked Capitalism 1/31/19 even radical asceticism now may not change the far future much at all. She doesn’t say that, but, going on what she does say, I don’t see how we could do anything now that would affect the far far future (maybe some means will materialize to do so, but doubting such a “maybe” IMO is the better part of wisdom). After listening to one of Tverberg’s 2015 youtubes, I’d say this is where Warren comes in (and Lori Wallach too). The financial picture, if left more alone than oil, will it seems cause oil to morph into the problem we’re anticipating [we could blow each other up over access to oil-in-the-ground, which could be precipitated by a financial crisis…not just precipitated by a grab motive alone, or a peak oil situation alone]. The global economy is the third element. It has to change. Buying so many products and shipping so many products seems to me has to slow WAY down. The degree to which this must take place has not as of yet been conceived. It’ll make Cuba’s “special period” look like Disney Land. But, IMO, it’s worth it for the sake of our descendants

It’s as weird as this, people…

“The problem, though, is that if more stringent EROI requirements are put into effect, wind and solar can be expected to do much less well in EROI calculations. They very likely drop below the threshold of being useful to the economy as energy producers. This is especially the case if they are added to the economy in great numbers to try to significantly replace fossil fuels.”

“Regardless of their value as energy producers, there might still be a reason for building wind and solar. Building them probably does help the economy in the same sense that building unneeded roads and apartment buildings does. In theory, all of these things might someday be somewhat useful. They are helpful now in that they add jobs. Also, the building of wind and solar devices adds ‘demand,’ which helps keep the price of coal in China high enough to encourage additional extraction. But in terms of truly keeping the world economy operating over the long haul, or in terms of scaling up to the quantity of energy supply that is really needed to operate the economy, wind and solar do very little.” https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/peak-oil-story-close-not-quite-right.html

You’re correct about market forces not being good enough. The so-called free market directly influences costs of commodities. However, modern mass transit is necessary for traffic clogged cities and will require industrial-scale production of large battery packs. Mass transit and personal vehicles too should be electric, both hybrid and all-battery EVs. Battery production and recycling has long been a viable technology that shouldn’t be discouraged by cost and relatively less environmental impact. Every household with an EV in the garage gains the means to reduce fuel/energy consumption for both driving and household use.

1 Like

I am an Alaskan resident and you are absolutely correct. Because most Alaskan, politicians are owned lock,stock and barrel by the fossil fuel industries, what is happening in the Arctic meltdown is not given enough attention.

3 Likes

A good analogy to the Green New Deal is how FDR passed a federal law to permit public power systems. The cost to string power wire immediately fell about 60%. Utility grids today face the problem of being able to safely handle much greater demand predicted with household EVs. Likewise, today’s utility company directors would rather invest in gas, oil, coal or nuclear power plants rather than rooftop and neighborhood PV solar arrays which should complement regional utility grids. In grid failure, households with an EV gain a backup power supply and the means to more closely monitor and reduce fuel/energy consumption for both household use and for driving.

1 Like