Forum Thread

The New Green Deal: What does it mean?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 20 1 2 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    House Resolution: Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal

    I've been reading misleading media accounts of what is in the New Green Deal Resolution introduced in the House by Rep Ocasio-Cortez. So I went to the language in the Resolution.

    The Resolution (link above), of course, is non-binding but serves to mobilize and focus Democrats and any other environmentally conscious people on an ambitious 10 year program to help combat the effects of climate change. It cites the October 2018 ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5o C’’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the "November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report" which, among several other findings, states that:

    (4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050.

    The language of the New Green Deal Resolution does not specifically adopt these UN goals above, nor does it have any other date specific goals, but some in the media have interpreted it as such. Some have interpreted the 10 year mobilization goal below for projects as a 10 year target for zero emissions. I suppose that can be inferred by the language I have bolded below, but for me it doesn't say that explicitly. Furthermore the New Green Deal is not confined to climate change exclusively, but also addresses the jobs and social programs that an ambitious New Green Deal project would indirectly create and support including a job guarantee.

    I have extracted some of the language from the Resolution as follows:

    "Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

    "(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal— (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers; (B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; (C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century; (D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment; and (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’’);

    "(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects— (A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies; (B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including— (i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible; (ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water; (iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and (iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change; (C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including…."

    You can read the rest of the resolution at the above link. I can support all the initiatives outlined above, but to be clear, I do not subscribe to the notion that net-zero greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved in a decade or by the year 2030 cited by some in the media. The 2050 date in the UN report, however, is technically achievable, but perhaps not politically achievable until we can change Republican brains.

    Comments?

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I will add my perspective. In my opinion, the two biggest challenges in the world today are climate change and economic inequality. There are others (e.g. health care) but I put these at the top.

    We are already seeing the effects of climate change on the economic viability of countries and the impact that mass migrations are causing on the cultural and social infrastructure of countries. It will only get worse, and while Republicans have their heads in the sand, at least the US military is making contingency plans for global unrest caused by climate change.

    The continuing trend in economic inequality globally and within the United States is not only morally reprehensible, it also gives rise to civil unrest and wars. Globally, the United States cannot adopt an isolationist posture while at the same time reaping the benefits of cheap labor in extracting the valuable resources from foreign countries with little regard to the environmental impact. At home, a decent wage and job guarantee should be a right. The New Green Deal projects encompass many opportunities for expanding employment.

    Ideologically many have recognized these global problems. Implementing practical solutions are considerably more difficult, and as a realist I do not ascribe to the "revolution" ideas of the Bernie Sanders movement as being practically achievable in our current political and demographic divide. I do support the New Green Deal initiatives as a program for incremental change over several years, without getting caught up in the politics of socialism versus capitalism.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I will add my perspective. In my opinion, the two biggest challenges in the world today are climate change and economic inequality. There are others (e.g. health care) but I put these at the top.

    We are already seeing the effects of climate change on the economic viability of countries and the impact that mass migrations are causing on the cultural and social infrastructure of countries. It will only get worse, and while Republicans have their heads in the sand, at least the US military is making contingency plans for global unrest caused by climate change.

    The continuing trend in economic inequality globally and within the United States is not only morally reprehensible, it also gives rise to civil unrest and wars. Globally, the United States cannot adopt an isolationist posture while at the same time reaping the benefits of cheap labor in extracting the valuable resources from foreign countries with little regard to the environmental impact. At home, a decent wage and job guarantee should be a right. The New Green Deal projects encompass many opportunities for expanding employment.

    Ideologically many have recognized these global problems. Implementing practical solutions are considerably more difficult, and as a realist I do not ascribe to the "revolution" ideas of the Bernie Sanders movement as being practically achievable in our current political and demographic divide. I do support the New Green Deal initiatives as a program for incremental change over several years, without getting caught up in the politics of socialism versus capitalism.

    Schmidt, sure I fully agree with you as well these "challenges" . The point is however "who" is running this country and is "for" these subjects. Right now forget it ; there will be only obstruction from the "right" . Just look at who is running the EPA; the guy is totally "anti" environment as well his "boss" Trump and the polluting industries. Promoting "coal" for instance. etc.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    On Meet the press, OC did decribe it as a road map, and that the details had to be worked out by congress. She said, what would, and would not be on table, would depend on the layout of congress. Clearly nothing would ever pass unless there was a democratic president. Trump wouldn't look at it, unless of course he could get something extremely huge in return, such his businesses gets to be exempt from all US laws, taxes, and regulations.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    First healthcare, living wage free college. The rest will follow. More wine and cheese sensitivities will set the world backwards.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    AOC has a ton of MMT allies in her camp FYI. She attended the 2nd MMT U.S. conference at the New School in Sept.

    On NPR she called for decoupling the idea that tax revenue is needed for the govt to spend and implement the GND.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    A living wage, healthcare and free education are the minimums needed to keep the country from descending further into plutocratic oppression. A high progressive tax code is just as necessary as gun control to maintain safety in a control. Money has to be forced into jobs producing industries. Makes no difference where the money comes from but penalty taxing of finessed profits is in the national interest. Taking trillions of dollars from finessed schemes is not in the national interest. A nation does not exist for a few people to plunder while millions suffer and die earlier because they can't afford to live. Climate change is exascorbated by scheming to create billionaires and billions of profits from 3rd world countries while the citizens of those countries live in the worst poverty on earth.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    In One of the Richest Countries in the World, Extreme Poverty Is on the Rise

    A new book shows the impact of the financial crisis on everyday lives.

    By Beverly Gologorsky

    June 18, 2018

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AOC is looking better every day. Will that be minimized ultimately by the poor voting habits of Democrats and the evil misogynistic bad mouthing of the opposition party ? Time will tell.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Washington Post: Ocasio-Cortez retracts erroneous information about Green New Deal backed by 2020 Democratic candidates

    "Rep Ocasio-Cortez’s staff posted online and sent to reporters a list of “frequently asked questions” about the Green New Deal. Those pages included language and policies not included in the resolution itself such as providing economics security to those “unwilling to work” and ruling out nuclear power as part of the solution to the climate crisis."

    Rep Ocasio-Cortez had to retract the information, but it provided fodder for the right wing media while out there.

    She is learning.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Hi Schmidt,

    So I'm friendly with Bob Hockett who went on Tucker Carlson's show the other night and had to face onslaught of questions about the FAQ. He was unaware of what had been posted.

    I'm pretty sure it was a copy and paste error about the "economic security for those unable or unwilling to work."

    Able and willing is a concept used to define true job seekers and you will see the phrase "a job for all those able and willing to work" used by MMT'ers when talking about the JG.

    AOC herself; her chief of staff; and numerous advisers are all MMT allies. The number of Congressman and women and staff that are familiar with MMT has exploded and shit is changing in D.C. rapidly, but we still have to deal with the centrist holdouts who are economically illiterate. The polling shows the public doesn't really care and deficit reduction/pay go/Austerity are all political losers. The GND explicitly calls for deficit spending.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think a better purpose of GND would be to work with third world and developing countries to use all their pollution credits and dispensations to actually produce less billionaires and more clean air. Trading pollution credits should be criminalized.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Hi Schmidt,

    So I'm friendly with Bob Hockett who went on Tucker Carlson's show the other night and had to face onslaught of questions about the FAQ. He was unaware of what had been posted.

    I'm pretty sure it was a copy and paste error about the "economic security for those unable or unwilling to work."

    Able and willing is a concept used to define true job seekers and you will see the phrase "a job for all those able and willing to work" used by MMT'ers when talking about the JG.

    AOC herself; her chief of staff; and numerous advisers are all MMT allies. The number of Congressman and women and staff that are familiar with MMT has exploded and shit is changing in D.C. rapidly, but we still have to deal with the centrist holdouts who are economically illiterate. The polling shows the public doesn't really care and deficit reduction/pay go/Austerity are all political losers. The GND explicitly calls for deficit spending.

    Unfortunately, Warren Mosler was apparently harsh on his introduction to her team and he's not a fan of linking the JG to the GND or all the justice issues; as he doesn't want to see people's ideological problems with those concepts get in way of a JG. He prefers to call it a "transitional job guarantee" as it will play better with the Republicans.

    I talked with him recently and we are trying to set up a meeting with AOC by end of March. A lot of people are working on that.

    My main mantra is spend spend spend. I would go after trusts and lazy money forcing it into products and services. There would be more money than people would know what to do with.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Hi Schmidt,

    So I'm friendly with Bob Hockett who went on Tucker Carlson's show the other night and had to face onslaught of questions about the FAQ. He was unaware of what had been posted.

    I'm pretty sure it was a copy and paste error about the "economic security for those unable or unwilling to work."

    Able and willing is a concept used to define true job seekers and you will see the phrase "a job for all those able and willing to work" used by MMT'ers when talking about the JG.

    AOC herself; her chief of staff; and numerous advisers are all MMT allies. The number of Congressman and women and staff that are familiar with MMT has exploded and shit is changing in D.C. rapidly, but we still have to deal with the centrist holdouts who are economically illiterate. The polling shows the public doesn't really care and deficit reduction/pay go/Austerity are all political losers. The GND explicitly calls for deficit spending.

    Unfortunately, Warren Mosler was apparently harsh on his introduction to her team and he's not a fan of linking the JG to the GND or all the justice issues; as he doesn't want to see people's ideological problems with those concepts get in way of a JG. He prefers to call it a "transitional job guarantee" as it will play better with the Republicans.

    I talked with him recently and we are trying to set up a meeting with AOC by end of March. A lot of people are working on that.

    I would have preferred to see the New Green Deal confined to just environmental issues, but I certainly understand how the Green Deal can be sold economically. While there certainly are plenty of jobs to be had with a major environmental program, the Job Guarantee probably could have been left out as a separate issue. Not a big deal at this early stage, but some of the candidates may want to massage the Green Deal more. I'm not sure that Amy Klobuchar is fully on-board with the non-environmental aspects.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It’s calling for a New New Deal that’s Green :)

    and it’s functioning as a guide to incremental legislation in a lot of areas to come.