The "Green New Deal" Sounds Great.

[MineralMan]

That's why it's popular with some voters and primary candidates.

I mean, it's "Green," and that sounds terrific. "Green" evokes environmentalism, so that's a plus for everyone who cares about the planet.

"New Deal," too. It shouts FDR, so you can't beat that. He's the quintessential progressive.

Put them together and you have a prize-winning conceptual, aspirational goal, with a perfect name.. You don't even have to explain what it is exactly or how it will work. It sounds so great and rings so many bells, it's a no-brainer.

Who could be against a "Green New Deal?" It's obviously uber-progressive, even if it remains undefined and has no details of how it might work. It's a concept, see. We'll figure it out later, don't worry. Branding is everything now.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to hear some details. I work in marketing. It's a great brand, but where's the actual thing?

[RHMerriman]

1. There is no "thing" ...

Not to be blunt, but even the Sierra Club sums it up as close to "mom and apple pie" in terms of anything approaching actual legislation.

[link:https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/what-green-new-deal-anyway-alexandria-ocasio-cortez|]

The New Deal (the original one) included a wide range of legislative and regulatory changes, which were thrashed out in FDR's 1932 campaign.

The GND is basically a slogan, at this point, used to sum up a non-binding House resolution, HR 109.

See:

[link:https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html|]

and

[link:https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text|]

[MineralMan]

2. Hmm...a brand. A slogan.

Ok, then. What the heck, then. I might as well be for it then...eh?

Wait...what?

[George II]

4. Kind of like this:

[MineralMan]

6. Hey, that sounds good. I love chicken!

Yummy! I can almost taste it.

[Blue_true]

16. Chicken cooked in a pot? Screw that unless it is fried in the pot.

Better to roast it in an oven or on over a spit over a fire.

In his celebrated history lesson yesterday, Trump failed to mention that we defeated the British because the ate boiled chicken and hard tack, hell, just thinking about that makes me want to surrender and I am not even fighting.

[RHMerriman]

8. Republicans ... lying to you about the economy since 1928 (if not before)

Republicans ... lying to you about the economy since 1928 (if not before).

That's a slogan to run with.

[RHMerriman]

7. Just as long as you don't say anything "hurtful" about it...

Just as long as you don't say anything "hurtful" about it...

You'll be put on notice you're being mean to your fellow Democrats.

Campaigns are slogs; sometimes the candidate needs to inspire, and sometimes the candidate needs to persuade.

But most of the time? The candidate needs simply to prove they can walk and chew gum. Manage a speech without implying the Continental Army included the Continental Air Force.

Simple competency is a force multiplier.

Especially for a Democrat running against Trump and the GOP in 2019-2020.

[MineralMan]

9. No, I mean it sounds like a good thing.

I just want some details about something that crucial before I vote. I mean it's a terrific brand concept. It just needs some flesh on its bones.

[RHMerriman]

21. Sure ... better jobs, lower taxes, higher spending, what's to dislike?

At the moment, though, given the only piece of legislation is a non-binding house resolution that has no force of law whatsoever, it's so much blue sky...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. The Sierra Club is supporting the Solidarity for Climate Action Plan as part of its work with the

Blue-Green Alliance.

https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/work-issue/solidarity-for-climate-action/

[Honeycombe8]

40. I can't find that the Sierra Club is involved w/that.

Either on the link yu provided or on Sierra Club's site.

You have any information or link on that?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

43. It's a founding member of the BlueGreen Alliance.

https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/the-latest/labor-environmental-leaders-release-historic-solidarity-for-climate-action-platform/

“The only way we can tackle the climate crisis is with a broad coalition working to build and grow the clean energy economy that works for every community,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. “The Sierra Club is proud to be a founding member of the BlueGreen Alliance and prouder still to support this platform to tackle the dual crises of climate change and inequality while creating new family-sustaining careers across the country.”

[Honeycombe8]

44. Thanks.

I wonder why Sierra Club doesn't mention the BGA on its site? That would be helpful.

In any case, thanks. I DO follow the Sierra Club and am interested in whatever it thinks is a good thing to do.

[George II]

3. Not only that, but we're still a year away from seeing what the "green new deal" actually is....

....introducing in in the House and Senate (actually it hasn't yet, that was only a "Resolution" to think about it!!!! ) was way premature.

[MineralMan]

5. Wait! We have to decide on a President before we

find out what this involves and how it might work? No, see, I can't work that way. You mean there's not even a prototype of this flying car I can look at?

Never mind, then. I'm voting for someone solid. We can work this out later, OK?

[brooklynite]

11. Has any Presidential candidate endorsed GND?

[brooklynite]

10. Reminds me of the 60s comedy LOVER COME BACK...

Where an Ad Executive seduces a model by promising her the lead in the “VIP” ad campaign...without actually coming up with a “VIP” product.

[marylandblue]

12. Actually Roosevelt wasn't very specific about the New Deal before he took office.

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2019, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

The first time he used the term was after he was nominated:

Upon accepting the 1932 Democratic nomination for president, Roosevelt promised "a new deal for the American people", saying:
Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.

And he didn't say much about it during the campaign so

Roosevelt entered office without a specific set of plans for dealing with the Great Depression—so he improvised as Congress listened to a very wide variety of voices.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

By contrast, the Green New Deal does have a reasonably detailed outline that you can can tell basically what.the will do, to wit:

1) Get the US Government to finally officially admit there is an actual fucking problem, which FDR didn't have to worry about, but for some reason we are much dumber today,

2) Spend trillions of dollars on a crash program of building out solar power, wind power and carbon capture technology (that is, plant a lot of trees) to replace fossil fuels and hopefully save the planet before the Sixth Great Extinction, and

3) Since we already figured out everybody is sort of dense we are telling you the painfully obvious fact that if you spend trillions of dollars building stuff, it will create a lot of jobs.

Now, there are tons of things you can criticize about it, and yeah it's not like a 2,000 page law or anything like that, but don't tell me you need more details because.at bottom it really is that simple.

Now if you have a specific question, maybe I can answer it, but then again maybe not.

[quakerboy]

17. Thanks for an injection of reality

in the midst of whatever this was supposed to be.

[RHMerriman]

24. Reality - the New Deal had immediate, short-term, mid-term, and long-term elements

The obvious "immediate" action was the bank holiday and creation of the FDIC; one via executive order and the other by legislation, and both in 1933, immediately after FDR's inauguration. The Banking Act of 1933 formed the FDIC ,and was modeled after the state-level deposit insurance program enacted in Massachusetts.

For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover's presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults.

Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock.

another were the CCC and the CWA, the WPA's predecessor, which were both created in 1933, and were modeled on state-level work programs (and for that matter, federal mobilization programs dating back the Civil War)...

See: [link:https://prospect.org/article/learning-new-deals-mistakes|]

We have yet to see anything concrete regarding the GNG other than HR 109, which is a non-binding resolution, without the rule of law, that has yet to even be passed in the House...

So it's a concept, at best; sloganeering, at worst.

[quakerboy]

31. Reality is we have the same thing

To start from and work towards. Your entire post is proof of what you try to argue against

We had a slogan, some ideals, and a government that turned it to actions once put into office.

We have a slogan, some ideals, and a chance to have a government that can turn it to actions once put into office.

Or we can think small and do nothing.

[RHMerriman]

22. Wikipedia, quoting a biography of Frances Perkins?

Um, no.

The reason the "Hundred Days" are known as just that is because FDR had a long list of liberal policy concepts, going back to the Progressive Era, to push forward, including Social Security (Perkins' priority), as well as:

In his speech accepting the Democratic Party nomination in 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt pledged "a New Deal for the American people" if elected. Following his inauguration as President of the United States on March 4, 1933, FDR put his New Deal into action: an active, diverse, and innovative program of economic recovery. In the First Hundred Days of his new administration, FDR pushed through Congress a package of legislation designed to lift the nation out of the Depression. FDR declared a "banking holiday" to end the runs on the banks and created new federal programs administered by so-called "alphabet agencies" For example, the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration) stabilized farm prices and thus saved farms. The CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) provided jobs to unemployed youths while improving the environment. The TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) provided jobs and brought electricity to rural areas for the first time. The FERA (Federal Emergency Relief Administration) and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) provided jobs to thousands of unemployed Americans in construction and arts projects across the country. The NRA (National Recovery Administration) sought to stabilize consumer goods prices through a series of codes. Through employment and price stabilization and by making the government an active partner with the American people, the New Deal jump-started the economy towards recovery.

AAA , Agricultural Adjustment Administration, 1933

BCLB , Bituminous Coal Labor Board, 1935

CAA , Civil Aeronautics Authority, 1938

CCC , Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933

CCC , Commodity Credit Corporation, 1933

CWA , Civil Works Administration, 1933

FCA , Farm Credit Administration, 1933

FCC , Federal Communications Commission, 1934

FCIC , Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 1938

FDIC , Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1933

FERA , Federal Emergency Relief Agency, 1933

FFMC , Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, 1934

FHA , Federal Housing Administration, 1934

FLA, Federal Loan Agency, 1939

FSA , Farm Security Administration, 1937

FSA , Federal Security Agency, 1939

FWA , Federal Works Agency, 1939

HOLC , Home Owners Loan Corporation, 1933

MLB , Maritime Labor Board, 1938

NBCC , National Bituminous Coal Commission, 1935

NLB , National Labor Board, 1933

NLRB , National Labor Relations Board, 1935

NRAB , National Railroad Adjustment Board, 1934

NRA , National Recovery Administration, 1933

NRB , National Resources Board, 1934

NRC , National Resources Committee, 1935

NRPB , National Resources Planning Board, 1939

NYA , National Youth Administration, 1935

PWA , Public Works Administration, 1933

RA , Resettlement Administration, 1935

REA , Rural Electrification Administration, 1935

RFC , Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 1932

RRB , Railroad Retirement Board, 1935

SCS , Soil Conservation Service, 1935

SEC , Securities and Exchange Commission, 1934

SSB , Social Security Board, 1935

TNEC, Temporary National Economic Committee, 1938

TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933

USEP, United States Employment Service, 1933

USHA, United States Housing Authority, 1937

USMC, United States Maritime Commission, 1936

WPA, Works Progress Administration, 1935


See: [link:https://www.fdrlibrary.org/great-depression-facts|]

[marylandblue]

25. Yes, he had a lot to choose from, point is, he wasn't very specific during the campaign

And what you posted did not counter that.

If the huge array of progressive proposals he had available to him is sufficient to say people knew what The New Deal was before the election, then there are a vast number of environmental and progressive policy proposals and actions that we all know about, anyone can look them up and they go right back to the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps. They should provide sufficient detail to answer any question the OP may have about the Green New Deal.

[RHMerriman]

30. The legislative priorities for the Hundred Days were well understood and had been debated...

The legislative priorities for the Hundred Days were well understood and had been debated for decades, and fully or partly imposed in previous crises at federal, state, or local levels. Banking holidays, federal banking insurance, job programs/work projects for the unemployed, old age insurance, federal controls over the economy, etc. all had histories among Democrats, Liberals, and Progressive Republicans that included state-level efforts to deal with the Depression, wartime rationing and economic controls under Wilson during WW I, Progressive Era reforms related to monopolies and trust busting, and federal regulation of labor-management relations and farm supports going back to the creation of in 1913 and 1862, respectively.

So far, the GNG is sloganeering. Anyone asked if they support the GNG should be able to point to proposed legislation; HR 109 is a Christmas List.

[marylandblue]

49. Everything in the Green New Deal resolution is well understood and has been debated

since the Carter Administration. The labor mobilization model is literally older than the pyramids.

Of course you might like a lot of things in that resolution. Go ahead and debate them if you want. The point of a non-binding resolution is to plant a stake in the ground, it is not to actually accomplish anything, because it is, uhhh, non-binding.

Oddly enough, we have an entire party claiming to be concerned about climate change, but only a handful are willing make a non-binding committment to do anything about it.

Me, I'd be happy to have Congress pass a non-binding one-sentence resolution that says, "We believe in science," but I don't think even a majority of Democrats actually do believe in science, so we won't even get that.

Our monkey brains weren't made for science and I see evidence of that every day, not just in climate science.

[RHMerriman]

50. Point towards any legislation other than HR 109, please.

Point towards any legislation other than HR 109, please.

I'll wait.

[marylandblue]

52. You provided a list from Roosevelt.

[RHMerriman]

53. So where's the equivalent from GNG advocates?

So where's the equivalent from GNG advocates?

[marylandblue]

60. You provided a list of things Roosevelt did after he was elected.

Where is Roosevelt's list of things he said he would do before he was elected? I've been asking this all different ways, but you have not provided such a list. You made a vague reference to various prior actions and proposals going back to the Civil War. I am not aware of any such list he himself made during his campaign, and if you don't provide one now, I'll just assume you don't have it.

[RHMerriman]

63. FDR's not asking for my vote in 2019, is he?

FDR's not asking for my vote in 2019, is he?

FDR's 1932 Commonwealth Club address was written by Adolf Berle, a member of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust who drew deeply upon earlier Progressive thought, especially that of John Dewey. Among the points:

...Wilson, elected in 1912, saw the situation more clearly. Where Jefferson had feared the
encroachment of political power on the lives of individuals, Wilson knew that the new power was
financial. He saw, in the highly centralized economic system, the despot of the twentieth century,
on whom great masses of individuals relied for their safety and their livelihood, and whose irresponsibility and greed (if they were not controlled) would reduce them to starvation and penury....
A glance at the situation today only too clearly indicates that equality of opportunity as we have
known it no longer exists....
Clearly, all this calls for a reappraisal of values. A mere builder of more industrial plants, a creator of
more railroad systems, an organizer of more corporations, is as likely to be a danger as a help. The
day of the great promoter or the financial Titan, to whom we granted anything if only he would
build, or develop, is over. Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or
necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources
and plants already in hand, of seeking to reestablish foreign markets for our surplus production,
of meeting the problem of underconsumption, of adjusting production to consumption, of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the
service of the people. The day of enlightened administration has come....
As I see it, the task of Government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights, an economic constitutional order. This is the common task of statesman
and business man. It is the minimum requirement of a more permanently safe order of things....

[marylandblue]

64. Right, as I suspected, you have nothing, but AOC, who isn't even running for President

has to spell it all out today, as if nobody ever heard of Al Gore or Jimmy Carter. But all FDR had to do was mention Woodrow Wilson and that was that, oh, a few nice words about moving wealth around, reallocating business resources and something about an economic declaration of rights, whatever that might be.

But everyone laughs their asses off when someone suggests we should build solar power plants and provide a living wage to workers at the same time. Who ever heard of such nonsense? Those are just slogans right? And no politician in history used slogans ever, least of all successful ones.

The stupid is strong with the human species. We deserve the horror coming our way. We just don't know how to think more than a few years into the future, and we are lucky when we can even do that.

[RHMerriman]

65. Slag all you wish...

Until or unless AOC says something factual about what the hell they're asking for, who gives a damn?

You may think empty slogans are worth fighting internecine conflicts between Democrats over who's more woke, but no one who lives in the real world is going to vote for a Democratic candidate based on the kind of vagueness the GND advocates have rolled out so far...

TVA is a perfect example. Where's the equivalent of a GND-focused pitch?

[marylandblue]

67. She said something factual, only nobody is listening. Nobody listened to Al Gore either.

Or Jimmy Carter. Or Svante Arrhenius for that matter.

You are not listening either. You think this is all about AOC. But climate change is no more about her than it was about Al Gore.

On edit: MM is not listening either. That's what I am really responding to. He is complaining about a slogan and a nonbinding resolution.

Biden is not listening. He still thinks the Paris Accords were a great achievement even though they were both technically and politically inadequate from the day they were signed.

People aren't reading the daily news stories about burning forests and record heat waves. Inslee's, O'Rourke's and Biden's own proposal are just one-day news stories. Al Gore's book didn't do it. IPCC assessments don't do it. NASA scientist Jim Hansen sounding the alarm in 1988 didn't do even though he was quite accurate in his predictions.

I've been aware of this since the mid-80s and I'd say nothing has changed in all that time because whatever people say or do, the message is always too alarming or not alarming enough, the messenger is always wrong, the solution is always either inadequate, unworkable or a liberal plot to take over the world. Funny about that liberal plot thing though, even liberals don't know when they've got a good plot to engineer.

So carry on. Far be it from me to ruin your fun over a problem I've been tracking since before AOC was born and that I could teach Al Gore a few things about.

[Honeycombe8]

41. The U S Govt has admitted there is a climate change issue.

The U S Govt before the Trump Admin. The Trump Admin. will never admit that because it would be political suicide. But any Democratic Govt would admit that (again). And possibly a moderate Republican admin.

2. I like that part (planting a LOT of trees).

3. Okay.

The Green New Deal says a lot more than those 3 things. Wiki lists these parts to the GND:

"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."

The first three items have nothing to do with climate change specifically, except in the sense that everything that happens on earth has a connection w/climate change.

These are lofty goals to strive for, but they can't actually happen because of cost, mainly. So it's okay as far as being a list of lofty unattainable goals, but I'd prefer a realistic "deal."

[marylandblue]

42. Yes it says a lot more than what I wrote

Probably should have saud "US Congress" instead of "US Government" because the part of the government sometimes admits it depending on who is president and what government scientists can sneak through.

As for the rest, those are details which OP claimed didn't exist, so I didn't bother with them. The big picture is what I said it is, that's where most of the money and effectiveness goes.

As for cost, cost is not the real question, who pays is the real question. If you don't earn a living wage, you make up the difference in more hours worked or in suffering. If you get a living wage, your employer pays. Either way, someone pays.

It's true the GND doesn't answer who pays, and that is of course a very important question. But at least you asked it. OP pretended there was nothing there to ask about.

[Honeycombe8]

45. Cost matters, no matter who pays.

Because we ultimately ALL pay.

"Updating/upgrading ALL buildings in the country"? Seriously? Whoever wrote that doesn't have a clue how many buildings there are, and what it would cost to "update/upgrade" them ALL. That's not gonna happen. Ever.

[marylandblue]

48. Like, I said, I was answering the OP who said these details don't exist at all.

Now you are quibbling over the cost of details. I could add more detail about how that could work out in real life, but what's the point? Either they said too much or not enough. Either it's too unrealistic or we believe in science. We can't even get a nonbinding resolution through, the Paris Accords were woefully inadequate yet nobody will even meet their Paris goals. All we do is laugh at AOC when we are not laughing at Trump.

I am not optimistic. Our species is too just dumb to understand the climate crisis.

[NYMinute]

13. "Where is the beef?" -- one of the Burger commercials nt

[crazytown]

15. Mondale to Hart

Zinger from the VP who flipped nothing burgers.

[PatrickforO]

18. Good point.

But, like FDR and the original New Deal, we're probably going to try a bunch of things, some of which will work, and some which won't.

To my mind, and many of you have heard me say this - we need to change the primacy of the shareholder doctrine.

Hoyt and I were discussing free trade and he came up with something brilliant that is germane to this point:

I went to a conservative school in late 60s, but even our professors talked about “satisfying profits” (considering society, workers, company, customers). I don’t know what moved us to maximizing short-term profits. But that’s where we are now.

Somehow we need to get back to that like Scandinavian countries. Fact is, we’ll never have all the things we want — healthcare, stable jobs, higher wages, education, response to climate change, bolstered Social Security, and so much more — without a partnership with corporations and a global market that is growing in wealth too.

Here's the link to his comment, and you can look at the thread of our discussion if you want.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=191451

Back to what you're saying, I do not believe we can have a green new deal without iterative discussions that lead to the type of public-private partnership that recognizes the needs of all stakeholders - workers, consumers, communities, shareholders, and the earth itself.

I call this 'growing up' as a species because in the end, it will transcend nation states.

[MineralMan]

46. What I see is a demand that all nominees pledge allegiance to the GND,

specifically. Those who question it or have a different approach get demonized by some.

That is what I'm talking about. Upthread, someone posted some of the point-by-point goals of this GND. All are terrific goals, which most of us can agree with, but how to achieve those goals is left unspecified. And that's the problem. What are the priorities of those goals, if we cannot achieve them all simultaneously.

That's why I use the word "aspirational." Yes, we all aspire to such things, but we can't promise them until we can find ways to make them happen. Just saying we want them is simply not enough.

That's why some candidates aren't automatically signing on to stand behind that specific list of goals. That's why the resolution hasn't been passed in the House of Representatives. Politics demands results, or at least plans that seem likely to achieve goals.

Once we regain control of federal government, and more state governments, we can introduce such an aspirational set of goals and flesh them out with concrete programs that have those goals as targets. Until then, we can do nothing, as we have seen.

First, win elections. Then create detailed plans, one goal at a time. That can work. Just listing goals without plans satisfied nobody, nor does it work to achieve the goals.

[marylandblue]

51. Fair enough. But then I would like the house to debate an alternative resolution

that acknowledges climate change and suggests some consensus ideas to deal with it. I don't know why we can't even have that.

[MineralMan]

54. The real problem at the moment is that Democrats control only

one house of Congress. Nothing they come up with will pass both houses and be signed by the President. We cannot do anything right now, except to prevent Trump from getting things he wants. Unfortunate, but true.

If we do everything, and I mean everything, right in the next year and a half or so, we might change that. Might. Then, and only then, we will be in a position to propose and adopt beneficial changes and plan for the future.

While I think aspirational documents and proposals are OK, they serve no real function, especially if they cannot even be enacted by the single legislative house we control. So, demanding support for GND as a requirement for our next presidential nominee makes no sense. It remains a minority proposal that has not even been passed in the House.

It is not a requirement for the next President, who will be expected to propose his or her own framework proposal in the first State of the Union message. The Green New Deal is putting the cart before the horse, when the location of the horse is not even known. That cart will not get to market.

[marylandblue]

58. Pelosi has been smart to pass a lot of legislation that is now stuck in the Senate.

This gives every Democrat runnng in 2020 (both for president and congress) a menu of legislation they can pick from and run on. IMO, one glaring omission is environmental legislation. It doesn't have to be what AOC wants, but we really should have something that all Democrats can agree on.

[Galraedia]

19. The Green New Deal was only suppose to spark a discussion.

It wasn't a real plan and while it's good to expand renewable energy, it is unrealistic to expect "100% of power demand in the country through clean, renewable, and zero-emission" in 10 years.

[quakerboy]

33. Why?

With climate change happening, more solar and wind in more places seems likely. And developments in energy storage seem promising. Electric transportation is a growing commercial reality now. In fact, for an upcharge, my electric company will provide me differing percentages of renewable now.

Switching to clean energy looks a lot more like a matter of will than of ability.

[airplaneman]

20. Thom Hartmann did a great video on how Germany put solar panels up.

&t=13s

-Airplane

[comradebillyboy]

23. Much like Medicare for All the Green new deal isn't much more

than an aspirational slogan.

[YOHABLO]

27. Did you make any effort to find out the details? I think not.

Here read this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text


I would love to hear what the Republicans have proposed for lowering carbon emissions and saving out planet. Oh, that would be nothing. They don't believe in climate change. What is their plan: Let go, let God?

[MineralMan]

47. The Republicans will do nothing, of course. That's why the first goal should be

to regain control of government. That may well be the most difficult goal of all, especially in many states. Could we reach 100% clean energy in 10 years? Perhaps, if we were willing to focus almost entirely on that goal and had the political power to implement measures that would accomplish it. The cost will be enormous to accomplish that in such a short time. And, since we hold elections for all House of Representative seats every two years, the pressure would also be enormous.

If we didn't make the kind of progress that was promised, the voters would boot House members in the next two-year cycle.

It's a complicated thing, our politics is.

[quakerboy]

35. Dang 120 page slogans.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384

[rusty quoin]

26. Well fuck it all and all our kids kids are dead. Thanks for trying.

Come on, it’s an attempt. You gotta work out the details later.

Or of course we can fuck off mass migrations millions die, hey watch this in the news.

It’s about planning.

[betsuni]

32. It isn't AOC's Green New Deal or nothing.

[YOHABLO]

29. Oh don't be sorry, but do read:

H.Res.109 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

[MineralMan]

38. I recognize the duty of the Federal Government to find

concrete ways to deal with the climate change crisis. I don't know what those ways will eventually be called, though.

[tonedevil]

34. Republicans having an epiphany sounds great too. /nt

[MineralMan]

36. Bump, because reasons...

Why did I write this? Because the "Green New Deal" lacks details on how it might be implemented. It is an aspirational framework, not a well-developed plan.

Without detailed plans, it isn't something that solves climate change, the economy, or anything else. It is just the name of something that still required enormous amounts of work to flesh out. Hanging our hat on this won't actually change anything. Details are needed on exactly how we can accomplish the necessary goals.

Anyhow, I'm bumping this so people can look at it again.

[Autumn]

37. It's not quite as popular as the ACA mandate is to Republicans but it will get there.

[MineralMan]

39. If we are dedicated enough to elect enough Senators, House members, and

a President who are all Democrats, then we can begin working on viable programs that lead to coping with and then reversing global climate change. We might even call a combination of those viable programs the "Green New Deal," but we also might not.

The bottom line, though, is that slogans and names of programs will not get it done. Only electing Democrats at all levels of government will make accomplishing any of those goals possible.

We don't need allegiance to a cleverly-named concept. We need to elect Democrats, so we can actually get to work on actual projects. Until we do that, we will accomplish nothing.

[questionseverything]

57. i c what u did there and i aprove

the aca mandate isn't just unpopular among repubs

in fact Obama original was against it...he said, "I trust the American people to do the right thing"


so many things need fixed I could not believe the mandate was what biden thought peops would get excited about

[Autumn]

59. And to think that the individual mandate will be more popular compared to what the other

candidates are offering is ridiculous. No one will be excited about being mandated to purchase private insurance.

[calguy]

55. According to republicans.....

The Green New Deal means democrats want to take away your car and kill all the cows.
"Branding" works both ways.
Why do we insist on giving them ammunition?

[MineralMan]

56. Well, the Republicans will attempt to rebrand anything we propose.

And you're right, they will try to make the GND be about taking away cars and forcing everyone to become a vegetarian. Of course, that's not what it's about. But, it's difficult to frame what it IS about in a way that appeals to the average voter. In part, that's because it lacks detail.

If you say the GND creates new jobs, the oilfield worker or auto company worker says, "For me?" And there isn't an answer that works for that question in any immediate way. It's easy to frame it negatively, but difficult to frame it positively in a general way.

Most people live paycheck to paycheck, frankly. I do, and I don't even have a regular paycheck. If what you propose doesn't somehow seem to ensure that paycheck won't go away, even for a short period of time, your proposal will be opposed by people who can't survive without their current job.

There's also the intellectual vs. the practical issue. Maybe you'll propose a UBI program. "How much?" is the question. "How soon?" is the next question. If you can't provide a clear answer that is satisfactory, the proposal will be opposed. It's easy to talk about theoretical systems, but that talk does not satisfy the average or typical voter for one moment.

It goes on and on like that. That's one reason that sweeping proposals for major change are rarely popular and rarely are implemented. There are too many questions that remain unanswered, so they are opposed by too many people and never are adopted.

Politics is about practicality. Elections demand practical solutions that can be immediately understood.

[Saviolo]

61. Very soon, environmental collapse will not be a political issue.

I've said it before.

It will be a crisis everywhere. It's already a crisis. We're seeing 100-year storms every couple of years. Massive wildfires beyond anything we've seen. Droughts, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, temperatures rising, crops failing. Drastic measures need to be taken, and quickly. This isn't an abstraction, the entire west coast was on fire this past year. This has nothing to do with your chosen candidate, has nothing to do with a political party or platform, this is an actual crisis.

We have to start somewhere. We have to have a conversation on a starting point.

[MineralMan]

62. Yes, I agree. However...

the population is getting mixed messages from the media they follow. There is no general understanding of it, and the Trump administration is making it their policy to deny the reality of climate change. Our news media do not present the information clearly or factually, either.

So, without a uniform message, the danger is not recognized by the people who vote for politicians. Further, the general population does not want to accept that things are bad and getting worse. That's an unpopular message, so the bearers of that news are disliked.

Eventually, it will be obvious to everyone, but that might be too late. Hell, it might already be too late.

Here's what I think: It's all population-based. We did not take the lesson of the dangers of exponential population growth. Now, we have 7.7 Billion people on this planet. In the mid 1960s, when the dangers were pointed out, the global population was only 3.5 Billion. I listened and, in 1965 pledged not to reproduce. Some others did the same, but not that many. Instead, a sizable percentage of people in industrial countries decided to reproduce only themselves. The result of that was to more than double the population in about 50 years, because all of those people are still alive.

More people, more energy used. So, in away, the climate change problem is and was a population problem. How about that for ignoring a message of caution? We don't like warnings of doom. So, we ignore them, generally.

[marylandblue]

66. It's not all population based. Your refrigerator uses more energy than

the average African uses in a day. So even though you did your bit for population, you probably didn't do it for energy use.

I don't think the problem is that people don't like to hear bad news. The problem is that we are really, really, really bad at risk assessment. We overestimate small short risks like flying and underestimate large long risks like global extinction. All of us, media, politicians and ordinary people alike included. A few scientists and actuaries are good at it, but that's about it. Al Gore is good at it, but the rest of us were too busy laughing at "Mr. Wooden" to pay attention.

So when somebody comes along and says, hey you know, we need more good jobs and we need to change our energy base really 'fast, so let's create a lot of good jobs by changing our energy base," we are more concerned about whether she should have really have called that "The Green New Deal" and her latest spat with Nancy Pelosi.

Because what people are really, really, really good at, is gossip.

Gossip was a tribal survival skill once, but changing the climate except through rain dances was never a thing. Until now.