Green New Deal

[Guest]

That mentality is exactly what a lot of global warming denialists fear - that global warming is a means to pressure collectivist policy.

What you don't seem to understand is that the worse the global warming crisis becomes, assuming it is real, and insufficient voluntary and informed collective action is taken to ameliorate it, the greater will be the impulse and even desperation and perceived necessity and inevitability of enforcing draconian, mandatory collective action to do so. There are a lot of proposed solutions to the impending global warming crisis that require only that intelligent, people of good will voluntarily work hard together to implement, and that the government can best encourage by providing incentives and freedom to implement them. The longer we wait to do anything about it, the more expensive and draconian the necessary policies to prevent or minimize the consequences must become.

[_EAllusion]

Remember when liberals used to say that Somalia is the inevitable result of free market philosophy? Dumb as hell, right? That's what this is.

[_EAllusion]

What you don't seem to understand is that the worse the global warming crisis becomes, assuming it is real, and insufficient voluntary and informed collective action is taken to ameliorate it, the greater will be the impulse and even desperation and perceived necessity and inevitability of enforcing draconian, mandatory collective action to do so.

Collectivism =/= collective action. It has a more narrow meaning than that. It does not follow from the fact that global warming is a serious problem worth addressing through government policy that a person must support what essentially is an ambitious expansion of new deal politics to address it. Those two policy goals aren't even inherently related. Support or opposition for one has no implications about your support or opposition to the other.

[_Gunnar]

Having read the proposals and goals of the Green New Deal, I find it impossible to believe that any truly scientifically literate, rational and fair minded person could be opposed to it.

The proposal is a lot more "new deal" than it is "green." As an environmental bill, there are much more direct, efficient ways to go about addressing climate change than this. Further, the proposal does zero to address or even really acknowledge that broad redistribution policies significantly increase consumer activity (that's the goal!) which has substantial negative environmental impacts.

Now you might like the new deal aspect of this, but just because it addresses environmental issues that doesn't mean only a scientifically illiterate person would oppose it. Being scientifically literate doesn't mean every single piece of legislation that addresses climate change and other environmental issues in some capacity is automatically good. That mentality is exactly what a lot of global warming denialists fear - that global warming is a means to pressure collectivist policy.

If I proposed instead to have a very large carbon tax that paid for an increase in military spending, I think it would be inappropriate to say that only a scientifically illiterate and unfair person would oppose it. What, don't you believe in global warming? Don't want national security? There's lots of room to disagree with how to address environmental issues or combine them with other policy goals while still believing there is a problem.

Still, the proposed Green New Deal provides a good and rational start to addressing the problems of global warming and environmental degradation inherent to it. Sure, encouraging over consumption by consumers is bad, regardless of how clean and green our energy sources are, and there is no such thing as sustainable economic or population growth, no matter what rational assumptions we make about how we produce and use energy. But we can encourage fairer and more equitable and sustainable distrubution and use of resources. And I agree that using revenues from a carbon tax or increases in energy availability to increase our military is a bad idea.

The Green New Deal still looks like a good plan to me, and better than any alternative so far proposed.

[Guest]

What you don't seem to understand is that the worse the global warming crisis becomes, assuming it is real, and insufficient voluntary and informed collective action is taken to ameliorate it, the greater will be the impulse and even desperation and perceived necessity and inevitability of enforcing draconian, mandatory collective action to do so.

Collectivism =/= collective action. It has a more narrow meaning than that. It does not follow from the fact that global warming is a serious problem worth addressing through government policy that a person must support what essentially is an ambitious expansion of new deal politics to address it. Those two policy goals aren't even inherently related. Support or opposition for one has no implications about your support or opposition to the other.

I don't entirely disagree with that, but it appears to me that the current government under Trump is actively trying to discourage even voluntary initiatives to develop sustainable, clean energy at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. We ought to at least push for government policies that don't stand in the way of effective solutions to the problem, and push to eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel companies that they obviously don't need. And I see nothing wrong with the government helping to fund scientific research to develop and implement sustainable energy, and help fund the more modern and smart electrical grid infrastructure needed to make the most efficient use of it.

ETA: I recognize that there is a difference between collective action and collectivism, but I doubt that Ajax recognizes that

[_EAllusion]

Sure, the Trump admin is as an environmentally hostile a government as we've seen in a long time. Certainly to at least before Nixon, and I'm hesitant to go further back than that only because my knowledge of environmental policy in admins gets foggier before that time. It plausibly could be the worst in relative terms since before Teddy Roosevelt for all I know. But doesn't that make "better than Trump" a very low bar to clear when it comes to environmental policy?

The EPA is essentially under regulatory capture and is being run by anti-science people intent on damaging the environment for profit. Being better than the Trump admin basically means being anyone but Trump.

[_subgenius]

That was obviously a typo! Nothing in the actual Green New Deal proposal states or implies that is to insure jobs for the "unable or unwilling!

No matter the font you use, nobody here with a pulse believes that "able and willing" could ever be mistyped as "UNable OR UNwilling".
Your insistence that this is a typo that permeated Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's website, faqs, and media releases is the stuff morons and Democrats are made of.
But the campaign of apologetics and walk-backs is certainly entertaining.

[_subgenius]

Having read the proposals and goals of the Green New Deal, I find it impossible to believe that any truly scientifically literate, rational and fair minded person could be opposed to it. To not see or accept the wisdom and benefits of the environmental and economic benefits that would result and the enormous potential for creating new and lucrative entrepreneurial opportunities and jobs and a better quality of life for everyone, one would either have to be ignorant as a stump or incurably misanthropic!

What rational person could be opposed to living in a cleaner, healthier environment and more efficient use of energy and other resources, making it possible to achieve more with what we have? To adamantly oppose the goals and potential of the Green New Deal borders on insanity, as does reelecting an incurably corrupt, incompetent, pathologically dishonest and self-serving idiot like Donald J. Trump!

No one is opposed cleaner, healthier, and "better"....but that's not what the NGD is proposing.
Its like who would be opposed to Americans being safe and defended from harm in outer space?

[_Gunnar]

That was obviously a typo! Nothing in the actual Green New Deal proposal states or implies that is to insure jobs for the "unable or unwilling!

No matter the font you use, nobody here with a pulse believes that "able and willing" could ever be mistyped as "UNable OR UNwilling".
Your insistence that this is a typo that permeated Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's website, faqs, and media releases is the stuff morons and Democrats are made of.
But the campaign of apologetics and walk-backs is certainly entertaining.

You are simply wrong. The fact still remains that that expression does not occur anywhere in the published NGD proposal.

[_Gunnar]

No one is opposed cleaner, healthier, and "better"....but that's not what the NGD is proposing.
Its like who would be opposed to Americans being safe and defended from harm in outer space?

Again, you are stubbornly and obtusely wrong, as you so often are. That is precisely an important part of what the NGD is proposing. Your reading comprehension, as often observed, is abysmally poor.