I oppose any Green New Deal because it is uniquely authoritarian and statist. At the outset I disagree with the premise that “it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal”. What they want is the government to seize control of the economy and our very livelihoods, level entire industries and replace them with new ones.

I think they could get away with updating electrical grids and other infrastructure, but in the Green New Deal (at least in the US) they sneak in such things as free education, job guarantees, upgrades to all buildings, and the typical classism. The concept of “national mobilization” has vanguardism written all over it.

Sooner or later a community is going to oppose such measures. What then?

What they want is the government to seize control of the economy and our very livelihoods, level entire industries and replace them with new ones. — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

You're showing your ignorance and reactionary phobia's once again LOL. If the government incentivized automotive transportation [industry] instead of supporting horse and buggy to save more horses, why should there be any objections? Replace or phase-out one industry for another over time; embracing change to make things better (or in your case MAGA) ironically, doesn't seem to work for you. You're living in the past.

Otherwise, you didn't learn the lesson of what the foreign imports/ingenuity did to the US automotive industry in the late 70's early 80's. Don't fear change and better engineering Dumpertrumper, or you'll be out on the street without a pot to piss in Hahaha.

Don't mind me 0thru9, but NOS4A2 (Dumpertrumper) has a nasty habit of trolling threads in order to spread his fake news along with his own version of extreme politics :wink: .

You don’t need a government to phase-out an industry or to make it better or to innovate. I think change is welcome, just not from the rule of a government. Your cradle to the grave statism will only stifle your own innovation.

Incorrect. Generally speaking throughout history government has had to step in to avert greed and/or to protect workers, and/or otherwise the general public, all in the interest of public safety, fraudulent practices, unsafe conditions, transportation, environmental quality, resteraunt inspection , ad nauseum. It's a no-brainer. It's an unfortunate reality for those of us too stubborn, greedy or self serving to see the big picture.

You've got to slay your Gilligan's by ridding yourself of the tape that plays all government intervention is bad. The old right-wing extremist paradigm dichotomizes governmental intervention just like your dad Dumpertrumper.

Ideally, when done equitably, obviously governmental checks and balances are appropriate and appreciated. Otherwise you need to make the case why watchdog agencies/laws that protect citizens such as : ADA, FDA, CDC, Homeland security, Highway safety, etc.etc . are not needed and a waist of time.

Look at it this way when you have public safety laws, they in turn can create jobs. In fact, quality assurance work is in demand.

So when you say you don't need government to make it better, that's just an ignorant statement.

What’s stopping you from protecting the environment, providing solutions and providing the services you demand of government? What’s stopping you from mobilizing your countrymen to some form of action? Only your own inactivity. So I think it’s more a matter of self-interest and self-concern to demand others fund what you yourself refuse to do. And that you would hand off our freedom so you can continue to do nothing and maintain a peace of mind is what irks me, to say the least.

What’s stopping you from protecting the environment, providing solutions and providing the services you demand of government? What’s stopping you from mobilizing your countrymen to some form of action? — NOS4A2

This mobilization of countrymen would require some sort of organizing administration or, as some might call it, government. Hey wait a tick, we already got one.

This "Green New Deal" if enacted would cause a massive economic recession or even collapse, meaning less consumption, less production, probably starvation, so yes, it would have an environmental impact (as everything does).
Meanwhile, population and economic growth in other parts of the globe would continue, so if the 300 mio US citizens choose to degrade their society, it would not make that much of a difference (beside of course the expected chaos in supply chains, the collapse of the Pax Americana etc.)

I oppose any Green New Deal because it is uniquely authoritarian and statist. — NOS4A2

By opposing any Green New Deal, does that mean you oppose any government interventiions that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

If yes, do you really believe the free market can solve the problem?
If no, then what sort of interventions do you favor?

What’s stopping you from protecting the environment, providing solutions and providing the services you demand of government? What’s stopping you from mobilizing your countrymen to some form of action? Only your own inactivity. So I think it’s more a matter of self-interest and self-concern to demand others fund what you yourself refuse to do. And that you would hand off our freedom so you can continue to do nothing and maintain a peace of mind is what irks me, to say the least. — NOS4A2

Sure...nothing at all! That's the beauty of living in a free democracy. We are so blessed and don't know it. I can't imagine living in a communist country... !!

And as such, that is exactly what comprises part of our current public safety programs. We do that all the time in order to make improvements to it, as well as having created same. In a free society, we are free to critique and tweek our programs. The creation of Homeland Security was a result of 911 in early 2000.

Next question?

BTW, you seem like you have an axe to grind. Ever thought of channeling that energy in a positive way?

LOL

By opposing any Green New Deal, does that mean you oppose any government interventiions that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

If yes, do you really believe the free market can solve the problem?
If no, then what sort of interventions do you favor?

Well, I’d go further and say I oppose government intervention in general. I don’t think we need it to tackle climate change. I do believe that humans can get together and cooperate to solve problems without the coercive force of the government.

Well, I’d go further and say I oppose government intervention in general. I don’t think we need it to tackle climate change. I do believe that humans can get together and cooperate to solve problems without the coercive force of the government. — NOS4A2

I can respect the libertarian principle that less is best for government, even though I don't embrace it. But where collective action is needed, like climate change in particular, there is no hope for this being solved by a free market or by individuals voluntarily choosing to behave nobly.

If you set aside your belief that action is unnecessary, and accept the premise that action IS needed (hypothetically), would you agree?

I can respect the libertarian principle that less is best for government, even though I don't embrace it. But where collective action is needed, like climate change in particular, there is no hope for this being solved by a free market or by individuals voluntarily choosing to behave nobly.

If you set aside your belief that action is unnecessary, and accept the premise that action IS needed (hypothetically), would you agree?

Well, we’ve all been raised to believe the government will fix our problems, so it’s probably true that people will not collectively mobilize until it is too late. They would demand governments do something before they do it themselves. If we were to educate the opposite—that government does not fix our problems and only exacerbate them—I think it would be otherwise. But I still hope innovation will lead us to less pollution and cleaner water and I thInk the free market is best equipped to solve those problems than any government.

What about you? Will the governments of the world be our hero in the battle against climate change?

What about you? Will the governments of the world be our hero in the battle against climate change? — NOS4A2

The odds are against governments eliminating the problem, but there's a good chance governments can produce meaningful benefits - so it's wothwhile to push.

Well, I’d go further and say I oppose government intervention in general. I don’t think we need it to tackle climate change. I do believe that humans can get together and cooperate to solve problems without the coercive force of the government. — NOS4A2

Well, we’ve all been raised to believe the government will fix our problems, so it’s probably true that people will not collectively mobilize until it is too late. They would demand governments do something before they do it themselves. If we were to educate the opposite—that government does not fix our problems and only exacerbate them—I think it would be otherwise. But I still hope innovation will lead us to less pollution and cleaner water and I thInk the free market is best equipped to solve those problems than any government.

What about you? Will the governments of the world be our hero in the battle against climate change? — NOS4A2

(Alright then... I’ll play along, lol.) So what exactly are you saying here? Are you advocating some form of anarchism? Utopianism? Your line of reasoning is unclear to me. I am not a fan of large bureaucracies either, and think the USA’s two-party system is a virtual monopoly, as discussed in this thread... Any possible solutions that you could share with the classroom? Or just a potential “next step in the right direction”? I’m usually open to hearing innovative or original thoughts. Please share your practical ideas and solutions...

What country are you a citizen of? (By the way, if you don’t mind the question... )

Free market? You mean multi-national corporations? Small businesses? Equipped to solve any problem, beyond its own bottom line and shareholders? Who then? Tesla? Uber? Amazon? Apple? Could they join forces and produce a combination smart phone and electric vehicle that delivers your groceries to you, and also to starving homeless people while giving rides to working mothers? Sign me up! Excuse the facetiousness and bad jokes please, because I’m a closet Utopian and idealist. Even though pragmatism and a healthy grounded practical realism can be boring sometimes, but is necessary in any attempt at a large-scale improvement.

According to the Wikipedia page on the Green New Deal linked in the OP, here’s some of the specifics of the plan: (for what it’s worth...)

...the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

I’m not so certain I’d go so far as anarchism, but I tend in that direction. Definitely anti-statist. Mostly my guiding principle is liberty and freedom when it comes to politics, so I err on the side of personal responsibility rather than government coercion.

Im an American expatriate living in the Commonwealth.

I would suggest education and personal responsibility would lead to better results than technocratic tinkering with entire economies and industries. I fear that giving the government that much power is not worth the loss of freedom and gains in taxation, even if it were to achieve its goal of saving us from a coming apocalypse.

I fear that giving the government that much power is not worth the loss of freedom and gains in taxation, even if it were to achieve its goal of saving us from a coming apocalypse. — NOS4A2

So you would actually prefer an apocalypse if it meant lowering taxes and regulations?

I’m not so certain I’d go so far as anarchism, but I tend in that direction. Definitely anti-statist. Mostly my guiding principle is liberty and freedom when it comes to politics, so I err on the side of personal responsibility rather than government coercion.

Im an American expatriate living in the Commonwealth. — NOS4A2

Ok, cool. Fair enough. Thanks for your reply. :smile:

Mostly my guiding principle is liberty and freedom when it comes to politics, so I err on the side of personal responsibility rather than government coercion. — NOS4A2

With freedom comes responsibility, as Roosevelt said, but unfortunately there is mountains of evidence that proves the fact that many industries, in effort to increase profits or please shareholders, act irresponsibly in regard to sustainability or long-term human flourishing.

So you would actually prefer an apocalypse if it meant lowering taxes and regulations?

I think of all the times people have predicted an apocalypse and their claims were never realized. People cannot predict the future. So when someone bursts in in claiming we need to level entire industries, freedoms, traditions to save the future, we should proceed wth caution.

Is this a version of what you will tell your doc when he informs you that you have Stage 3 cancer?

"Well, a voodoo priest and a gypsy with a crystal ball told me before that I would die and they were wrong, so on that basis I will proceed with caution regarding fact-checked medical advice."

Is this a version of what you will tell your doc when he informs you that you have Stage 3 cancer?

"Well, a voodoo priest and a gypsy with a crystal ball told me before that I would die and they were wrong, so on that basis I will proceed with caution regarding fact-checked medical advice."

Is that how you treat all politicians, like a doctor giving medical advice?

And here I thought it was the scientists predicting climate catastrophe!

And here I thought it was the scientists predicting climate catastrophe!

Just like they did in the 70's and 80's. Still waiting, I suppose.

So, my analogy is accurate.

Thanks for the insight. If I may, let's go threw them with some brief comments:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

What on Earth is Green in this one? Even for citizen of a Nordic welfare state, this sounds ambitious.

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

Only part (iv) is partly about the environment. And not about the environment, but the consumption of water, air and produce. Others like (i) to (iii) might go against (iv) and the environment, if done wrongly.

"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."

Again, the environment???

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

Umm... 100 percent? Meaning every goddam fossil fuel motor on a land vehicle, ship and aircraft will be replaced? Or is this referring only to electricity production? And when would this happen?

"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

Uh...yeah, the US infrastructure is partly in bad shape. But how does that follow up with zero-pollution, zero greenhouse gas emission clause. How much more costly does it make everything?

"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

This sounds OK to me. Nothing against smart grids.

"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

A L L BUILDINGS? Jesus.

I can just think of the old middle of nowhere in Montana crapper having built ages ago for passing by cowboys on some ranch having to cope with the Green New Deal requirements. It has to be upgraded! :razz:

And every goddam old house in the US. What a blessing for the building inspection community. Hey, just GO THROUGH EVERY GODDAM BUILDING IN THE US and check them for maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability including through electrification. Well there's a bureaucratic wonderland for everyone to enjoy.

"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

Put it that way, I hope this doesn't politicize high-speed rail. I'm a great fan of high speed rail, It works best only at some distances, but not at longer distances. New York - Boston or Dallas - Houston are the kind of distances where it wins air travel, but on long routes like NY - LA it simply doesn't compete with passenger jets. Unfortunately only one word, affordable, is mentioned here about the positive things HSR has to give to transportation and every thing else is about making the environment better or Greta Thunberg happy (or something like that).

"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

Much as is technologically feasible? Yeah, forgetting that ugly thing called competitiveness or that manufacturers have this intent to make a buck is something that is truly forgotten.

"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

Lol. Working "collaboratively". As if collaboration is the new way to force feed new regulation on a tiny segment of the population that has had to endure the downsides of the agricultural revolution all their life and which is showing no signs of slowing down with more automation and computerization. Nope, now you have to look firstly at your pollution and how much your cows fart! But it's done collaboratively.

Ahh.... this is true social democracy.

In every way, with every word and scent.

The whole deal above just reeks social democracy in it's purest form!

It sounds like... my country's present leftist administration would have been given the chance to imagine "What would you do, if you would have all the resources of the World at your disposal to make country and the environment better" and then drafted it to a policy agenda.

Yep. AOC would fit in just perfectly into this administration (in picture below) now ruling my tiny country...(Ed Markey would ruin the picture.)

Perhaps "Green Leap Forward" is a more accurate term than "Green New Deal". Sooner or later some nutter in a backwoods isn't going to want to have his mobile home replaced. What then?

Perhaps.

There are totally reasonable things there, but the leftist rhetoric and attitudes hide them. Yet one has to understand what the GND is about.

One purpose pf the GND is to get attention, to be clear, simplified and easy to understand. It is intended to be radical and progressive, stand out from the Joe Biden realm of thinking. Just like the utterly whimsical Trump declaration: "I will build a big beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it". Well, Mexico didn't pay for it. Even holding both houses Trump had a problem to fund it. But that doesn't matter, it was a great catchphrase and it got the followers excited. Here was someone talking something totally different. You see, a more conventional approach, saying things like "I'll put more money into border control and tackle the issue of illegal immigration with a coordinated inter-department effort working closely with federal authorities, the bordering states and with Mexico itself" will simply not fly. How many politicians have said something like that. Isn't it actually quite the way that Obama saw the issue? That kind of strategy might actually work far better than pouring money into a concrete wall, but who cares in the end?

In the end, it got the supporters excited, the haters angry and Trump got into the center of the whole debate. Great! And that's basically what a declaration like the GND is about: get your fans excited, your haters angry and you in the center of the debate.

Hence wording like uprgrading all existing buildings in the US, "meeting 100% of the power demand" and naturally taking care of all Americans (so Bill Gates will be happy to get his welfare perks he so desperately needs) is simply this grandiose rhetoric which isn't even thought to be accepted as is, but to make the writers of the GND to stand out from the "ordinary" consensus Washington crowd.

Easy to understand:


The nuts and bolts of how to get their doesn't matter so much either. This is the real tragedy. China might put objectives into being a World leader on this and that strategic industry or capture some strategic market (like capture the rare earths production or corner the wind and solar power market, etc), but even if it is green tech and renewables that are talked about above, a focused industrial policy how to get there is far too ugly for many voters.

So let's make nice sounding plans, offer some perks and money for the industry if we get really into power and hope for the best. People will forget the plan in a few years anyway. And you can always blame the GOP for ruining it (like not closing GITMO)! But what counts is to get people excited.

"A US science institute is on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research.

The National Ignition Facility uses a powerful laser to heat and compress hydrogen fuel, initiating fusion.

An experiment suggests the goal of "ignition", where the energy released by fusion exceeds that delivered by the laser, is now within touching distance.

Harnessing fusion, the process that powers the Sun, could provide a limitless, clean energy source."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58252784

Maybe fusion is almost here...

Their last test was the best so far, but it's much too soon to even shop for the Champaign, leet alone popping the cork.