HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » AOC's Chief-of-Staff says...

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:38 PM

 

AOC's Chief-of-Staff says the Green New Deal was about restructuring the economy - not combating AGW

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.


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.

75 replies, 3802 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 75 replies Author Time Post
Reply AOC's Chief-of-Staff says the Green New Deal was about restructuring the economy - not combating AGW (Original post)
riverine Jul 2019 OP
mr_lebowski Jul 2019 #1
riverine Jul 2019 #3
mr_lebowski Jul 2019 #24
Tiggeroshii Jul 2019 #27
riverine Jul 2019 #44
mr_lebowski Jul 2019 #64
riverine Jul 2019 #65
mr_lebowski Jul 2019 #70
hack89 Jul 2019 #47
myohmy2 Jul 2019 #23
George II Jul 2019 #49
Hortensis Jul 2019 #58
madaboutharry Jul 2019 #2
Post removed Jul 2019 #38
highplainsdem Jul 2019 #4
GulfCoast66 Jul 2019 #5
riverine Jul 2019 #8
dalton99a Jul 2019 #9
GulfCoast66 Jul 2019 #16
sheshe2 Jul 2019 #26
Humanist_Activist Jul 2019 #45
betsuni Jul 2019 #6
dalton99a Jul 2019 #7
PETRUS Jul 2019 #10
riverine Jul 2019 #12
PETRUS Jul 2019 #15
Duppers Jul 2019 #42
Iggo Jul 2019 #52
JI7 Jul 2019 #11
dalton99a Jul 2019 #14
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #13
dalton99a Jul 2019 #17
GulfCoast66 Jul 2019 #18
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #19
GulfCoast66 Jul 2019 #20
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #21
GulfCoast66 Jul 2019 #22
Humanist_Activist Jul 2019 #46
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #48
Humanist_Activist Jul 2019 #67
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #69
Humanist_Activist Jul 2019 #71
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #72
Mariana Jul 2019 #73
Honeycombe8 Jul 2019 #74
betsuni Jul 2019 #25
comradebillyboy Jul 2019 #28
sheshe2 Jul 2019 #29
betsuni Jul 2019 #31
sheshe2 Jul 2019 #33
melman Jul 2019 #30
betsuni Jul 2019 #32
melman Jul 2019 #35
betsuni Jul 2019 #37
sheshe2 Jul 2019 #34
melman Jul 2019 #36
betsuni Jul 2019 #39
sheshe2 Jul 2019 #40
sheshe2 Jul 2019 #41
George II Jul 2019 #61
George II Jul 2019 #50
dalton99a Jul 2019 #53
UniteFightBack Jul 2019 #62
melman Jul 2019 #63
Duppers Jul 2019 #43
lapucelle Jul 2019 #55
MineralMan Jul 2019 #51
dalton99a Jul 2019 #54
MineralMan Jul 2019 #60
Applegate Jul 2019 #56
UniteFightBack Jul 2019 #57
Me. Jul 2019 #59
DFW Jul 2019 #66
Me. Jul 2019 #68
question everything Jul 2019 #75

Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:43 PM

1. Changing the entire economy IS critical to combating ACC

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' ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:48 PM

3. There is no model other than the "debt/growth" model

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:32 AM

24. You are mistaken ... & the current economic paradigm has 0% chance of averting climate catastrophe

I'll leave it at that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:22 AM

27. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 09:27 AM

44. Why can't you name one? Just one?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #44)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 04:34 PM

64. If the economy is 100% reliant on perpetual GROWTH, that requires both more and more energy

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #64)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:48 AM

65. oh, so you would force a Great Depression-like economic coma on the world so that

 

economic Contraction halted all growth?

And literally billions of people starved instead of adding to carbon output?


Okay. Sell that one to the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 12:06 PM

70. Quite frankly I think it's too late, we're f***ed, because you're right

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:21 AM

47. Shouldn't you at least name one alternative ?

To demonstrate your opinion is reality based?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 11:53 PM

23. +1

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:20 PM

49. There's not much to read, it's just an outline with zero details on how to do it or....

....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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:02 PM

58. Mr., it's a matter of focus, right? They want power and

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:45 PM

2. I know a lot of folks here love her,

but I think she will lose her seat sooner or later. The attention she gets now isn’t going to last and she will eventually have a record that will get scrutinized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #2)


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:51 PM

4. I'd say Chakrabarti shot himself in the foot, but it's more like turning an AR-15 on everyone hoping

to promote the Green New Deal as a climate plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:03 PM

5. No shit. All you have to do is read it and the read the platform of the Democratic Socialist!

They did not even try to hide the fact that the first was lifted straight from the second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:25 PM

8. Yes, they exploited the naivete of AOC followers to pose as a climate change fighter

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:30 PM

9. +1. And they blasted Beto's plan saying he got the science wrong, etc.

What a bunch of poseurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:04 PM

16. Not sure I would have posted what I did at the time of release

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:09 AM

26. The GND hasn't even been written.

The Think Tank Struggling to Write the Green New Deal
New Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesn’t aim to publish policy specifics until early next year.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/whats-green-new-deal-nobody-knows/591391/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 09:52 AM

45. Wow, that's some sham considering that she's been pretty open about being...

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:11 PM

6. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:16 PM

7. Pretty nice subterfuge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:37 PM

10. Now they have admitted it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:43 PM

12. Of course! The RW mouth-breathers have always claimed that AGW is a "Marxist plot" all the while

 

denying the science that supports AGW.

AOC just confirmed their suspicions. Really, she/her COS foolishly walked into their trap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:00 PM

15. That's absurd.

She's never been coy about her politics. This hardly constitutes a "gotcha."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 04:17 AM

42. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:37 PM

52. Many are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:40 PM

11. so that's why they didn't support Jay Inslee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:54 PM

14. The Sunrise Movement knows best.

Heck, nobody knows more about climate change than the Sunrise Movement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:51 PM

13. That's the plan that proscribes upgrading every bldg in America for renewable energy or something.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:04 PM

17. Yep - "Replacing or upgrading every U.S. building to achieve maximal energy efficiency,

water efficiency, safety, and durability." As defined by whom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:08 PM

18. Or perhaps a plan it's proponents never took as a serious climate change plan?

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:26 PM

19. No sh*t?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:37 PM

20. I don't agree. They believe in the Socialist economic system.

And I’m 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 don’t 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.

It’s all good and will come out in the wash.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:48 PM

21. I'm afraid some damage has been done just by the mere existence of the GND.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:57 PM

22. Not so worried. It a long time till the primaries.

It may be a problem for those that jumped on the bandwagon. But for others it will mean nothing.

I’m 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 09:59 AM

46. And? Is that somehow an unobtainable goal?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #46)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:51 AM

48. Well, yeah. Duh. Of course that's unobtainable in the real world.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #48)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:37 AM

67. You know that we can upgrade buildings over time, right?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #67)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 11:43 AM

69. Yes. But not ALL buildings in the country.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #69)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 01:26 PM

71. You are making it sound like it would be done overnight, when its not....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #71)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 01:40 PM

72. Changing the subject. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:17 PM

73. To proscribe something means to prohibit it.

Is that what you meant to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #73)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 11:23 PM

74. Prescribes

Sorry. "Prescribes" isn't a very good word for that, either. But that's what I meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:49 AM

25. I guess Nancy Pelosi calling it "the green dream or whatever" wasn't so terrible after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:22 AM

28. Nancy was too kind to AOC and her crew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:28 AM

29. Dear Goddess.

SCIENCE
The Think Tank Struggling to Write the Green New Deal

Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesn’t 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 Pelosi’s office. America’s 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 Consensus—ostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policy—has published almost nothing substantial about it.

“I think they’ve 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 we’re still in the process of getting people to imagine what we’re talking about.” But in the current informational vacuum, the plan’s supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deal’s 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 they’ve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale, and the goals of the Green New Deal,”

I think we’re still in the process of getting people to imagine what we’re 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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:33 AM

31. "This is not about me," said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez... ."

Where have we heard that before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #31)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:45 AM

33. Oh let me think a minute.



Not me. Us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:31 AM

30. You guess wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:33 AM

32. Not so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:02 AM

35. So how come Kamala Harris supports it?

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. I’m a proud cosponsor of Senator Markey’s Green New Deal resolution,” said Harris. “Political stunts won’t 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





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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:05 AM

37. I only chose Harris as my candidate because she's pretty.

We are not married.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:50 AM

34. No she didn't.

Would you link to the plan? In full please.

TIA~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:03 AM

36. Yes

Yes she did.


No. No I won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:11 AM

39. Oh, melman.

Why must we quarrel? People will say we're in love.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:17 AM

40. You have nothing.

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, doesn’t 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 Pelosi’s office. America’s 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 Consensus—ostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policy—has published almost nothing substantial about it.

“I think they’ve 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 we’re still in the process of getting people to imagine what we’re talking about.” But in the current informational vacuum, the plan’s supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deal’s 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 they’ve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale,and the goals of the Green New Deal,”

I think we’re 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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:17 AM

41. You have nothing.

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, doesn’t 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 Pelosi’s office. America’s 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 Consensus—ostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policy—has published almost nothing substantial about it.

“I think they’ve 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 we’re still in the process of getting people to imagine what we’re talking about.” But in the current informational vacuum, the plan’s supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deal’s 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 they’ve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale,and the goals of the Green New Deal,”

I think we’re 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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:15 PM

61. No, you CAN'T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:24 PM

50. It is just a dream - no meat on those bones, no details on how to accomplish it....

....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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:41 PM

53. But all the other plans are no good

because they're not AOC-approved

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:17 PM

62. Is that all you got? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UniteFightBack (Reply #62)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:18 PM

63. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 04:21 AM

43. Single payer

"...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” ...
“I was bruised and battered and I couldn’t tell what I felt, I was unrecognizable to myself, I saw my reflection in a window I didn’t 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.
https://citizenvox.org/2013/11/26/the-top-ten-songs-for-single-payer/


Bye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #43)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:46 PM

55. I think you might be confusing single payer with universal coverage.

Are universal coverage and single-payer health care the same thing?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:35 PM

51. Seems to me that AOC's Chief of Staff is overstepping some boundaries here.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #51)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:46 PM

54. I don't think AOC cares about negative publicity

Au contraire, she thrives on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #54)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:07 PM

60. You could be right, but it will have its effect

in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:50 PM

56. Wow. Addressing climate change is a socialist plot!

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 12:53 PM

57. Do Chiefs of Staff to Congress folks usually RUN THEIR MOUTH? Serious question. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 01:06 PM

59. Isn't It Time For Him To Sit Down & Be Quiet

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Me. (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:00 AM

66. Not if he truly speaks for her

It would be helpful if one or the other of them clarified that in no uncertain terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 10:13 AM

68. Well If It Isn't

she will start taking lumps for what he says and if that's ok with her it will be a moment of truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverine (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2019, 01:11 PM

75. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread