General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAOC's Chief-of-Staff says the Green New Deal was about restructuring the economy - not combating AGW
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/feature/how-saikat-chakrabarti-became-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.389bf17c9d27
Many of us were highly critical of AOC's Green New Deal because it DIDN'T DO A FUCKING THING ABOUT global warming - the most critical issue we face today. It was all about paying for single payer and other highly suspect social programs that are not threats to all life on Earth.
Now they have admitted it.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm not saying the GND is 'the way to do it', I've not read it.
But there is NO MORE IMPORTANT component to fighting AGC as a whole ... than switching the world economy away from the debt/growth based model it now operates on.
Just sayin' ...
riverine
(516 posts)ALL huge projects require investment (debt) whether it is public or private and all economies grow when investment is sound (investing in green energy is very sound).
Your comment has no "there" there.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)I'll leave it at that
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)riverine
(516 posts)All projects require investment/debt whether they be public (Hoover Dam, Tennessee Valley, etc) or private (gas powered plants) or a combination (nuclear) that hopefully result in growth.
Name something else. Power systems just don't materialize out of nowhere. Even solar requires investment/debt.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)and more and more consumers. Both of which are the opposite of what needs to happen if we're going to successfully fight ACC.
The fact that the economy is currently debt-based makes it reliant on perpetual growth to function. Money is 'lent into existence', you see? And that is done based on the idea that the economy as a whole WILL expand. Otherwise, it's not logical to 'print more money' via loans/debt. A contracting economy would necessitate less loans, otherwise, defaults and inflation would explode.
I didn't say 'I have the alternative', but what I AM saying is that it's absolute folly to think that the economic paradigm of perpetual growth that BROUGHT US HERE, to the brink of disaster ... is likely to turn around and magically provide 'the solution'.
The world is going to have to 'tighten it's belt' and accept 'negative growth' (both economically, and population-wise) for a period of DECADES in order to have ANY chance of averting climate catastrophe. At this point, we need to divert massive resources away from production of 'consumer products' and instead apply them towards 'infrastructure' changes ... in order to get anywhere near what 'we need to do'.
Quite frankly I believe a command-and-control 'one world government' is the only viable solution available at this late juncture ... simply put, we 'waited way too long', and allowed our population to explode far too much over the past 40 years since we were first made aware of the potential for this problem. On top of it, we continued to expand our reliance on fossil-fuels instead of doing the opposite as we should have. Had we started 'back then', it might be different.
Laissez-Faire Debt/Growth-based Capitalism and the inherent 'consumerism' it engendered is either sharply curtailed, or we absolutely wreck the environment.
OR ... 3-4 billion people die by some means ... disease, war, starvation, something. Which will involved a forced, massive 'economic contraction', accomplishing a similar feat.
riverine
(516 posts)economic Contraction halted all growth?
And literally billions of people starved instead of adding to carbon output?
Okay. Sell that one to the world.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Nobody wants that.
But we're not going to save the planet w/BS half-measures. We can't go on living like we're living w/o burning up the planet ... our lifestyle is too resource and energy-intensive.
Billions would not have to starve, but we'd need way more local-sourcing, and the model of grocery stores and restaurants, with their staggering amounts of waste, would need phased out. Food would need to be rationed, and delivered for maximum efficiency.
People don't want to accept the true scope of what needs to happen at this late stage. There can no more business as usual.
Tough sell? Yes. Too tough, you're right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)To demonstrate your opinion is reality based?
...
George II
(67,782 posts)....how to pay for it.
The people charged with writing it say it's still about a year away. So, they're rushing everyone to "sign on" but they're taking their sweet time with what we're all supposed to sign on to.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)imagine they will be able to get it and to impose socialism under the guise of combating climate change. Everyone who's paid clear-eyed attention knows that. They're a type acting predictably.
But why on earth is he revealing their "secret" plan to everyone now? I can't help wondering if Chakrabarti's current behaviors aren't a way of threatening Ocasio, who is being pressured to fire him and, I suspect, really wants and needs to. She's up for reelection, and he and his far-left anti-Democratic ideology are NOT good for her.
Also, he and the other guys in JD/Brand New Congress started out the relatively powerful ones, she a nobody in need of their help. Now they're her employees, and she's the one with more power who's supposed to be in charge. Is that resentment also behind this? Would they destroy her to reestablish the pecking order? Extremists are deeply flawed, and they're called extremists because of the ruthless, extreme attitudes and behaviors they're prone to.
If she's not a true LW extremist herself, how does she get out of this and keep her seat? She needs friends in congress, and I don't mean 3 others.
madaboutharry
(40,153 posts)but I think she will lose her seat sooner or later. The attention she gets now isnt going to last and she will eventually have a record that will get scrutinized.
Response to madaboutharry (Reply #2)
Post removed
highplainsdem
(48,731 posts)to promote the Green New Deal as a climate plan.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)They did not even try to hide the fact that the first was lifted straight from the second.
riverine
(516 posts)when their goal the entire time was to foist "democratic socialism" on Democrats.
I saw it as a sham from the first day (and I know you did too).
They did a disservice to those of us who truly want to fight AGW.
dalton99a
(81,073 posts)What a bunch of poseurs.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Too many people heard Green New Deal, never read it and loved it.
By primary time it will be an Albatross around the neck of candidates that hopped on the bandwagon.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)New Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesnt aim to publish policy specifics until early next year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/whats-green-new-deal-nobody-knows/591391/
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rather pro-Democratic Socialist this entire time.
You are going to have to radically change our economic system to combat AGW, plain and simple, we will have to work towards a zero to minimum growth economy, which means profits would be a drag rather than a boon. Is capitalism equipped to do that?
dalton99a
(81,073 posts)PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Looking around the internet, I've noticed this little bit of news is giving right-wingers all kinds of bizarre glee, and many of them are saying exactly that.
riverine
(516 posts)denying the science that supports AGW.
AOC just confirmed their suspicions. Really, she/her COS foolishly walked into their trap.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)She's never been coy about her politics. This hardly constitutes a "gotcha."
Iggo
(47,489 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)dalton99a
(81,073 posts)Heck, nobody knows more about climate change than the Sunrise Movement
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It proscribes updating/upgrading EVERY building in America. No, seriously, it does. That's not a joke. EVERY building in America.
Only a legislator who isn't aware of the size of the country and the number of buildings that surely exist would put such a thing in a plan. It sounds like something a child would say.
dalton99a
(81,073 posts)water efficiency, safety, and durability." As defined by whom?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But a Democratic Socialist rework of the economy.
Read it. Then the platform of the Democratic Socialist Party. In college it would result in a charge of plagiarism.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That's really not cool for a person to use her position as a Democratic Party legislator to push a socialist agenda. As if the Democrats didn't have enough troubles with perception by the voters, as it is.
That's my take on it, anyway, as a standard Democrat.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And Im not talking about social democracy but collective control of the means of production. Social Security, Universal Healthcare, Job protection, meaningful unemployment benefits and such are not socialism. And they support all the above but their ultimate goal is collective ownership of the means of production. All you have to do is read their platform. They are honest about it.
While I strongly disagree with them, I dont think socialist evil. Just wrong.
They came up with a nifty ploy to get democrats to agree with them without reading the details. I mean, who can be against the Green New Deal.
Had any Democratic Candidates or Democratic Members taken the time to read the proposal and then the platform of the Democratic Socialist it would have been apparent what was happening. Some of us did. But that is not on the New Green Deal proponents. That is on those jumping on the bandwagon.
They have not been disingenuous. Just tricky. Which in this case is a compliment.
Its all good and will come out in the wash.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)When I read my Senators' comments on FB, and other things, the GND comes up as an example of the extremist socialist agenda of the Democrats.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)It may be a problem for those that jumped on the bandwagon. But for others it will mean nothing.
Im not really even worried about the much hyped schism between progressives and the rest of the party.
The Democratic Party is not made up of people like those on DU. We are the hyper involved.
Anyone who claims their vote was lost to us because the wrong person or policy won was not a democratic voter anyway.
Remember how all the leftist, many not members of the Democratic Party, were claiming we would lose in 2018 because we were too moderate? How did that work out.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)And its to "maximize efficiency", which seems reasonable and is something that many localities already prescribe.
Here's the actual text, if you actually want to learn about something:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's not NEW bldg construction. It's every building that exists in the U.S. It's rude to laugh, but ......
Requiring new construction to meet current era technology is common. That's done all the time.
Do you have any idea how many buildings exist in the U.S.? Take a guess. That's office bldgs, medical complexes, single business structures, malls, strip malls, fast food places, restaurants, houses, apartment buildings, condos, shacks on the side of the highway that are used for who knows what, warehouses, bldgs associates with all state and federal parks, service stations, big box stores and complexes, hospitals, schools, colleges & universities.
There are 3144 counties/county equivalents in the U S.
There are 19,354 municipalities (cities)
There are 16,364 townships
There are over 37,000 special districts
There are almost 13,000 school districts
If you count the buildings in all these areas, I can't imagine how many bldgs there are. To retrofit them for some sort of renewable energy would cost a sum that would boggle the mind. Trillions, for sure.
I think it's better to come up with a plan that's at least attainable in the real world. It has to be reasonable in cost, as well.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I mean, adding new insulation, replacing old insulation, etc. Not to mention redevelopment, replacing old HVAC units with more energy efficient ones, etc.
Its not like this is unprecedented, many cities and counties already require not only new construction, but old buildings to be upgraded to be up to new codes all the time where practical. You pretend this is some herculean task that's impossible to accomplish when its purposefully vague and that's what makes it obtainable. You seem to not be aware of what is involved in creating building codes or even zoning.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That's not feasible.
Doing it in a city or county is one thing....that's an enormous project with high cost in and of itself. I don't know of any city that has ever done that or plans to do that.
But doing it nationwide? I am puzzled how some don't see how nonsensical such a plan is. It can't happen in the real world. It's HUGE and extremely costly, and would take no telling how many years to complete...if it could ever be completed, in the first place. It would cost trillions. Who is going to pay for that? Are you getting your checkbook out?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on top of that, the ultimate goal is to get to zero carbon emissions as soon as possible. To be honest, its probably too late to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, we are looking at a 3 degree planetary shift upward here within decades, that's catastrophic for the political and ecological stability of the planet.
Billions will be displaced, where would they go? Coastlines and coastal cities will have to be abandoned. Arable land in many places will be useless. Agriculture will have to shift northward, towards the tundras, with there thin top soil and shallow bedrock. Hell, some of these effects are being felt now, this isn't some disaster on the horizon. I find the argument that attempting to fix this is too expensive to be extremely short sighted. I would like for my generation's grandkids to grow up in a reasonably stable world, or hell, for their kids to be able to grow up at all. We are, to put it kindly, kinda fucked right now.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Mariana
(14,849 posts)Is that what you meant to say?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Sorry. "Prescribes" isn't a very good word for that, either. But that's what I meant.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,119 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)SCIENCE
The Think Tank Struggling to Write the Green New Deal
Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesnt aim to publish policy specifics until early next year.
Almost seven months have passed since the November day when a few hundred young people, associated with a new climate-activism group called the Sunrise Movement, crammed into Nancy Pelosis office. Americas youngest congresswoman-elect ever joined them. This is not about me, said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was effectively leading a protest on her first day on Capitol Hill. This is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal.
snip
Yet it remains unclear what would actually be in a Green New Deal. While a handful of candidates have released their own attempts at a Green New Deal, the tight network of progressives most closely linked to the plan have offered little new detail. In particular, the think tank known as New Consensusostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policyhas published almost nothing substantial about it.
I think theyve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale, and the goals of the Green New Deal, Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, told me. I think were still in the process of getting people to imagine what were talking about. But in the current informational vacuum, the plans supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deals terms. One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal, said an activist who asked not to be named to avoid damaging relationships with New Consensus.
Read More: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/whats-green-new-deal-nobody-knows/591391/
Okay. Here's the deal.
I think.
I think theyve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale, and the goals of the Green New Deal,
I think were still in the process of getting people to imagine what were talking about.
Sad fact.
One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal,
This is a slogan and no NGD. This is way to serious an issue to play around with. Our planet and lives are a stake. Please stop messing with us. A slogan is not a plan.
We are so f**ked.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)Where have we heard that before.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Not me. Us.
melman
(7,681 posts)betsuni
(25,138 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Harris Statement on the Green New Deal
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA) released a statement on Tuesday after the United States Senate defeated a stunt effort by Republicans who deny the threat of climate change. Harris is a supporter and original co-sponsor of the original Green New Deal resolution offered by U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA):
Climate change is an existential threat, and confronting it requires bold action. Im a proud cosponsor of Senator Markeys Green New Deal resolution, said Harris. Political stunts wont get us anywhere. Combatting this crisis first requires the Republican majority to stop denying science and finally admit that climate change is real and humans are the dominant cause. Then we can get serious about taking action to tackle the climate crisis at the scale of the problem.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/harris-statement-on-the-green-new-deal
Link to tweet
Was she fooled by the sinister Chakrabarti? In cahoots?
I know it's fun for you to pretend it's all just some frivolous and/or devious thing AOC cooked up, but according to your profile you're a Harris supporter. So what gives. What exactly explains her support if it's so ridiculous.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)We are not married.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Would you link to the plan? In full please.
TIA~
Yes she did.
No. No I won't.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)Why must we quarrel? People will say we're in love.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)No problem. I will do it for you.
SCIENCE
The Think Tank Struggling to Write the Green New Deal
Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesnt aim to publish policy specifics until early next year.
Almost seven months have passed since the November day when a few hundred young people, associated with a new climate-activism group called the Sunrise Movement, crammed into Nancy Pelosis office. Americas youngest congresswoman-elect ever joined them. This is not about me, said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was effectively leading a protest on her first day on Capitol Hill. This is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal.
snip
Yet it remains unclear what would actually be in a Green New Deal. While a handful of candidates have released their own attempts at a Green New Deal, the tight network of progressives most closely linked to the plan have offered little new detail. In particular, the think tank known as New Consensusostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policyhas published almost nothing substantial about it.
I think theyve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale, and the goals of the Green New Deal, Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, told me. I think were still in the process of getting people to imagine what were talking about. But in the current informational vacuum, the plans supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deals terms. One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal, said an activist who asked not to be named to avoid damaging relationships with New Consensus.
Read More: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/whats-green-new-deal-nobody-knows/591391/
Okay. Here's the deal.
I think.
I think theyve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale,and the goals of the Green New Deal,
I think were still in the process of getting people to imagine what we are talking bout.
Sad fact.
One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal,
This is a slogan and no NGD. This is way to serious an issue to play around with. Our planet and lives are a stake. Please stop messing with us. A slogan is not a plan.
I Think. I think. I think.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)No problem. I will do it for you.
SCIENCE
The Think Tank Struggling to Write the Green New Deal
Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesnt aim to publish policy specifics until early next year.
Almost seven months have passed since the November day when a few hundred young people, associated with a new climate-activism group called the Sunrise Movement, crammed into Nancy Pelosis office. Americas youngest congresswoman-elect ever joined them. This is not about me, said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was effectively leading a protest on her first day on Capitol Hill. This is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal.
snip
Yet it remains unclear what would actually be in a Green New Deal. While a handful of candidates have released their own attempts at a Green New Deal, the tight network of progressives most closely linked to the plan have offered little new detail. In particular, the think tank known as New Consensusostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policyhas published almost nothing substantial about it.
I think theyve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale, and the goals of the Green New Deal, Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, told me. I think were still in the process of getting people to imagine what were talking about. But in the current informational vacuum, the plans supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deals terms. One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal, said an activist who asked not to be named to avoid damaging relationships with New Consensus.
Read More: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/whats-green-new-deal-nobody-knows/591391/
Okay. Here's the deal.
I think.
I think theyve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale,and the goals of the Green New Deal,
I think were still in the process of getting people to imagine what we are talking bout.
Sad fact.
One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal,
This is a slogan and no NGD. This is way to serious an issue to play around with. Our planet and lives are a stake. Please stop messing with us. A slogan is not a plan.
I Think. I think. I think.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....and more importantly no details on how to pay for it.
In fact, the people responsible for those details say they won't be available for about a year.
dalton99a
(81,073 posts)because they're not AOC-approved
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Duppers
(28,094 posts)"...single payer and other highly suspect social programs"?!!
WTF? We're definitely not on the same page. Sad to hear a Springsteen fan say that.
Streets of Philadelphia ...https://citizenvox.org/2013/11/26/the-top-ten-songs-for-single-payer/
I was bruised and battered and I couldnt tell what I felt, I was unrecognizable to myself, I saw my reflection in a window I didnt know my own face. Oh brother are you gonna leave me wastin´away on the streets of Philadelphia? After hearing that, how can we leave people out of our health-care system.
Bye!
lapucelle
(18,040 posts)No. Universal coverage refers to a system where all residents have health coverage. Setting up a single-payer plan, where the federal government pays for all residents health care, is one path to get to universal coverage but not the only one.
Some universal-coverage countries have lots of different payers. Japan and Germany, for example, require citizens to enroll in one of dozens of competing health insurance plans (Japan has 3,500 insurance plans; Germany has a more modest 300). These are typically called "multi-payer" health care systems.
There are lots of similarities between single-payer and multi-payer countries like Germany and Japan. All of them, for example, have the government set medical prices at a standard rate. But they're still different paths to getting a country's population insured.
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/18080458/single-payer
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I sort of think he's going to be shopping his resume around soon. He has puffed himself up a little too much for AOC's comfort, I think, and the blowback is likely to be fairly strong.
dalton99a
(81,073 posts)Au contraire, she thrives on it
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)in the end.
Applegate
(96 posts)Ooh, they're sneaky.
Seriously, the glee in trashing Ocasio-Cortez over climate change seems misconceived. And if we are going to do anything effective about it, it is going to require that we do things differently.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)He's not helping her. It sounds to me like he wants to be her so why didn't he run?
And if this in accordance with how she thinks, really, then she won't last. 15 minutes is only 15 minutes.
DFW
(54,057 posts)It would be helpful if one or the other of them clarified that in no uncertain terms.
Me.
(35,454 posts)she will start taking lumps for what he says and if that's ok with her it will be a moment of truth