Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TennesseeTuxedo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “New Green Deal”

Recommended Posts

reo   
4 minutes ago, Cyrus said:

This is where I think some progressives/liberals have a major blindspot, and are a bit tonedeaf themselves. The Green New Deal is a political trap in many ways, born of what Democrats inherently think are good intentions (they are), but is essentially unfeasible in every practical way (including politically). There's a reason why calculating party leaders are either trying to put it to vote (McConnell) or distance themselves from it (Pelosi). 

 

The Green New Deal is in many ways not real, but it "feels good". It's like virtue signaling at a Congressional/Federal level. Of course, the Republicans are jumping all over and needlessly distorting it, but it is relatively easy fodder. I'll remind Democrats or lean-left individuals that it's not about the values of what the Green New Deal represents, but that it's not possible to really implement - especially in the "10 year mobilization" that is mentioned in the resolution. It also greatly exaggerates the tech we have now, and our ability to manufacture said technology. (specifically for net-zero emissions which would require battery technology we don't have, or mineral extraction at rates that are not currently possible). 

 

Much of the Green New Deal is dependent on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) insofar as it's dependent on further, limitless deficit spending. If true (MMT), we have access to limitless investment through the Fed printing cash - or we have runaway inflation that crushes the poor and middle class and is economically devastating. Some, who think we are near a catastrophic climate threshold might go along with it, but it's an incredibly risky proposition.

 

For centrists like myself, this is a huge problem. More moderate candidates like Clinton (LNG as a bridge technology) and McCain (LNG + Nuclear) might have brought along more incremental change that would have tangibly reduced CO2 emissions over the last decade (from 2008). But political purity and it's orthodoxy makes any type of incremental, modest change extremely difficult. Making changes ten or more years ago would be far better than revolution ten years in the future when we might be more desperate for reform.

 

So my suggestion is this: Don't take the bait. Be more persuasive. Be an advocate for change, but realize that accomplishing something better is better than doing nothing. Don't let be perfection be the enemy of the good.

I actually agree for the most part. They're going to try and use it as a wedge issue to get Republicans back in the fold and behind Trump by classifying everyone else as much worse.

 

It's a dangerous game that could very easily work to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bink   
1 hour ago, WG53 said:

So she is quoting the UN report and you are sensationalizing it because you are a moron. Got it.

 

I guess the demons have a hold of you and won't let you be truthful.

Soxcat sensationalizes everything and 90% of his posts are just emotional outbursts presented as facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG53   
18 minutes ago, Bink said:

Soxcat sensationalizes everything and 90% of his posts are just emotional outbursts presented as facts. 

Oh I know.

 

Must be the demons controlling his fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patsplat   
5 hours ago, Soxcat said:

The libtards are the ones who think the world is going to end in 12 years.  Focus on the facts here.  We need to get our CO2 emission to zero or we are dead. 

Amazing how someone can say something that fing stupid and even dumber asses jump on the people saying it is fing stupid.  That makes you even dumber.

Do you or pat need help feeding yourselves?  Saying the world is going to end in 12 years isn't non-sense and trying to invoke fear?  Damn you people are dumber than a rock.

 

 

3 hours ago, Cyrus said:

This is where I think some progressives/liberals have a major blindspot, and are a bit tonedeaf themselves. The Green New Deal is a political trap in many ways, born of what Democrats inherently think are good intentions (they are), but is essentially unfeasible in every practical way (including politically). There's a reason why calculating party leaders are either trying to put it to vote (McConnell) or distance themselves from it (Pelosi). 

 

The Green New Deal is in many ways not real, but it "feels good". It's like virtue signaling at a Congressional/Federal level. Of course, the Republicans are jumping all over and needlessly distorting it, but it is relatively easy fodder. I'll remind Democrats or lean-left individuals that it's not about the values of what the Green New Deal represents, but that it's not possible to really implement - especially in the "10 year mobilization" that is mentioned in the resolution. It also greatly exaggerates the tech we have now, and our ability to manufacture said technology. (specifically for net-zero emissions which would require battery technology we don't have, or mineral extraction at rates that are not currently possible). 

 

Much of the Green New Deal is dependent on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) insofar as it's dependent on further, limitless deficit spending. If true (MMT), we have access to limitless investment through the Fed printing cash - or we have runaway inflation that crushes the poor and middle class and is economically devastating. Some, who think we are near a catastrophic climate threshold might go along with it, but it's an incredibly risky proposition.

 

For centrists like myself, this is a huge problem. More moderate candidates like Clinton (LNG as a bridge technology) and McCain (LNG + Nuclear) might have brought along more incremental change that would have tangibly reduced CO2 emissions over the last decade (from 2008). But political purity and it's orthodoxy makes any type of incremental, modest change extremely difficult. Making changes ten or more years ago would be far better than revolution ten years in the future when we might be more desperate for reform.

 

So my suggestion is this: Don't take the bait. Be more persuasive. Be an advocate for change, but realize that accomplishing something better is better than doing nothing. Don't let be perfection be the enemy of the good.

@Cyrus makes the far more convincing argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Biden is smart by waiting to announce, he knows he's going to run as a centrist, so he can allow all the other Dems to get in early and have to choose whether or not to embrace the more left initiatives being put out there and he can come in later and still embrace the concepts with more practical policy initiatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...