The Green New Deal

[kellyb]

That means instead of socialist basic income paying people to sit on their arse,

Just FYI, the universal basic income thing was withdrawn out of the GND and it's FAQ pretty much immediately. Not as part of some sort of coverup/ploy, but because there's genuine widespread disagreement on the left about if one is even possible without causing inflation.

https://www.timesunion.com/technolo...o-Cortez-accidentally-released-a-13603728.php

Later on Thursday, the talking points were deleted off of Ocasio-Cortez's site.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, said the document was "bad copy" that was mistakenly published on the website

 

[The Shrike]

My tone might be a bit sharper than I intend. I actually love it when conservatives roll up their sleeves to help work on environmental and climate solutions. Overall, I love this idea too. Yes, let's use the resources we have to find ways to sequester more carbon!

Right now the farm bill pays farmers to produce a glut of corn and soy in a way that causes AGW, being somewhere in the range of 10-20 % of emissions.

Correct, the Farm Bill is a socialist endeavor.

So right off the bat as soon as we stop paying farmers to over produce corn and soy by means of unsustainable methods causing AGW, they will stop doing it. That reduces emissions at least by 10% alone, using the conservative low end.

Sounds good. I'm in!

Then of course they still need to make a living.

Well, they wouldn't need to make a living under UBI, but most farmers/ranchers I know just enjoy working the land and if we've already bought them a lot of expensive equipment we might as well give them something to do.

So this carbon market with verified carbon offsets will instead pay them to do their farming in a way that sequesters carbon in the soil.

I can dig it. But where does the money actually come from again? Is it polluters paying into funds based on their emissions?

That means restoring the tallgrass prairie ecosystems . . . the most productive terrestrial biome on the planet.

Maybe in some environments we could even flood these fields to make/restore peatlands and sequester even more!

That means instead of socialist basic income paying people to sit on their arse,

Farm Bill is socialist income to pay some people to sit on their arses in air-conditioned mega-tractors that traverse the fields using GPS navigation. (I'm fine with that, btw. Big fan of the Farm Bill!) There are plenty of "hard working farmers" and I love those folks, but there's also a helluva lot of lazy, ignoramus farmers, too. You might also find that there are hard-working city-folk. Some of them are even women, gay, black, etc. and working harder than any farmer you or I will ever know. Point being, the good country folk that we picture as "farmers" is as much a trope as the shiftless bums in the cities who don't know the meaning of an honest day's work.

I don't know that UBI is the answer or even an answer or why it's featured in the Green New Deal. But here are a couple of things I do know.

First technology will increasingly drive automation that accelerates the obviation of working humans. How long will it be before self-driving farming becomes the norm? I can easily envision a not-too-distant future in which one computer-controlled command center uses automation to produce what 100 human farmers are doing today. At some point, the markets will dictate that it's just not efficient to have humans sitting in those tractor seats when we can do it faster, better, and cheaper with robots.

Next, we are at a crossroads of human history in which our collective action or failure to do so will potentially doom or save the next 2 or 3 generations of humans. To be quibbling over "socialism" as some kind of boogeyman reflects to me a failure to understand the gravity of this moment. We need solutions, and I don't care if they're capitalist, socialist, communist, or Robbie Rist – I just want to pursue things that will work.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My tone might be a bit sharper than I intend. I actually love it when conservatives roll up their sleeves to help work on environmental and climate solutions. Overall, I love this idea too. Yes, let's use the resources we have to find ways to sequester more carbon!
...

Hey don't worry about tone. At least you are discussing this seriously. You had a few questions like where is the money coming from.

2 places actually. One is the scaled down farm bill we already have. The other is a carbon fee and dividend as already explained here: The bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA)

The EICDA fees collected on carbon emissions will be allocated to all Americans to spend any way they choose. This is currently a bill already in congress. But we conservatives can do better!

Instead of the revenue neutral dividend that is paid equally to everyone regardless of their efforts at balancing the carbon cycle, I propose the dividends be paid only for actual verified Carbon sequestered in the soil. BCCS. Verified by this protocol as an example: Carbon Sequestration Certification Program

Each state would have it's own version. This just happens to be my State's version. All it awaits is funding and it's off to the races.

But part of the needed dynamic is to gradually scale down the emissions side of agriculture, that means changes in the buffer stock schemes on commodity grains, an overhaul of the whole biofuels program, and redefining GAP (good agricultural practices) to those that are at minimum carbon neutral or better. That redefining of GAP would have a cascading effect that permeates through the entire system since it is required for subsidized loans,
Subsidized crop insurance, starting farmer grants, even commercial buyers like SYSCO, most school lunch programs, wic, etc.... The total savings on these programs would amount to at least 10s of billions annually... up to almost 100 billion a year in savings.

So by redirecting that savings and also redirecting the carbon fee and dividend to actual projects that repair the carbon cycle, we can actually either lower taxes overall or pay down the debt some. (Yeah I know the debt is stupid high and 100 billion a year is a drop in the bucket but hey it at least doesn't add to that.)

Now for FAQ.

1. CO2 output is super easy. It is just a math problem and the records for fossil fuel use and their resulting CO2 footprint are robust. We know how much oil gas and coal is used and we know how much CO2 those fossil fuels emit when burned.
2. CO2 absorption is not needed to be measured at all. Most biomass eventually rots or burns anyway, leaving a net zero sum. Rather we need only to measure sequestered stable carbon deep in the soil profile. A very standard soil sample protocol is all it takes to verify rising soil carbon levels over time. Farmers are already very much used to taking soil samples. Average rates using these new breakthroughs are 5–20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. verified by annual soil samples taken over 10 years +.
3. Output verification to create the fee is easy. The amount of CO2 produced from fossil fuels is well known. And yes Farmers would need to pay for soil samples to be taken themselves to verify sequestration. They usually do this anyway. And it would of course be required before they could receive any offset money. If they didn’t want to participate though, it shouldn’t be required, they simply pass on receiving a check.
4. We don’t avoid the fees being harsh on carbon emissions. We want this. Market forces will drive the price for carbon sequestration. In the beginning probably the first few farmers in on it will make a whole lot, and this will help pay for the new infrastructure required. Later farmers will drive the price back down by competition, but they still do ok because they don’t need to build the new infrastructure. CO2 sources can also avoid high priced carbon markets by converting to renewable energy like solar wind and hydroelectric. Even some nuclear is possible where appropriate by major utilities. Eventually once the balance is restored, the carbon markets will settle at some relatively stable point reflecting true costs including those formerly hidden costs that the market will abstractly account. This concept is referred to as Environmental full-cost accounting, we are simply using a carbon market as a proxy, since all life is carbon based.
5. In the beginning we need this domestic. But later we could use it internationally to help balance trade and get us out of this destructive trade war. There are provisions in the bill for accounting all that already.

 

[BadBoy]

Next, we are at a crossroads of human history in which our collective action or failure to do so will potentially doom or save the next 2 or 3 generations of humans. To be quibbling over "socialism" as some kind of boogeyman reflects to me a failure to understand the gravity of this moment. We need solutions, and I don't care if they're capitalist, socialist, communist, or Robbie Rist – I just want to pursue things that will work.

This.

But also, I'm not convinced that the things people are calling Socialist are in-fact Socialist.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Next, we are at a crossroads of human history in which our collective action or failure to do so will potentially doom or save the next 2 or 3 generations of humans. To be quibbling over "socialism" as some kind of boogeyman reflects to me a failure to understand the gravity of this moment. We need solutions, and I don't care if they're capitalist, socialist, communist, or Robbie Rist – I just want to pursue things that will work.

Very well said!

The same goes for criticism of capitalism as a boogeyman.

Monetisation of increasing efficiency, productivity and leisure time means more money for everyone's welfare.

Here, I'm seeing more and more free health and wellbeing resources for all sorts of people like farmers, for example.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't see the Green Deal working without a UBI component: the coming decades will bring massive upheaval in the labor market, and without some form of income security, people won't support the necessary changes.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Is it true that the GND is going to get rid of all intenal combustion driven vehicals in Ten Years?
That is point blank ridiculous.

Why?

BTW, guess who else is getting rid of all internal combustion driven vehicles...

GM’s Path to an All-Electric, Zero Emissions Future

We are well on our way to bringing at least 20 new all-electric models to market by 2023 – our next step toward a zero-emissions world... make no mistake, even as we deliver the best-ever fuel economy in the vehicles our customers love to drive today, we continue to make progress toward a future with zero emissions.

Our commitment to an all-electric, zero-emissions future is unwavering

 

[kellyb]

I don't see the Green Deal working without a UBI component: the coming decades will bring massive upheaval in the labor market, and without some form of income security, people won't support the necessary changes.

I lean towards favoring the "negative income tax" version of a basic income guarantee, but I'm not really so sure the coming changes in the labor market are necessarily as bad as they're expected to be.

Dean Baker makes a compelling case about that, here:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-robots-taking-the-jobs-industry

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Dean Baker makes a compelling case about that, here:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-robots-taking-the-jobs-industry

thanks for that, though there are some points on which I disagree.
But addressing them might be viewed as derailing the thread.

 

[kellyb]

thanks for that, though there are some points on which I disagree.
But addressing them might be viewed as derailing the thread.

If you want to start a spinoff thread, I'd be interested.

 

[applecorped]

Doa

 

[Zambo]

Doable

 

[applecorped]

Not in reality

 

[Zambo]

Work in progress

 

[WilliamSeger]

In 1971 a Ford Pinto cost $1,919. In 2019 dollars that would be $11,926. A Ford Fiesta costs $14,260 - $21,340. Manufacturing advances in the last 48 years have greatly lowered production costs, yet cars are still significantly more expensive. A Ford Pinto made in 1971 with all the safety features expected in a modern vehicle would have priced it way above its intended market. Even today the extra expense of making small cars safe prices them out of reach for many people on lower incomes.

My brother recently bough a new SUV, which he is paying off. However he also wanted a cheap runabout that he could use without worrying it getting dinged or stolen etc. so he was looking at purchasing a used RAV4. Problem is the older models have a poor safety rating, and my brother is worried about what might happen in a crash. But the newer models are too expensive! My brother isn't poor, but right now the vehicle he wants is unaffordable.

Nuclear power plants are not any more 'unaffordable' than modern cars, they just cost more than alternatives that don't irradiate half the country if they blow up. They could be made cheaper and less safe, but understandably people don't want to take the risk. Because it would only take one incident to completely destroy the nuclear power industry here. Similarly, no car manufacturer would produce a Pinto today, because they would (rightly) be sued into bankruptcy by all the people it injured.

The real issue with the Pinto was how Ford handled it: They knew the car was dangerous but they calculated that fixing the problem would cost more than the lawsuit losses, so they just kept selling them. A similar calculation says that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the expected deaths from radiation poisoning.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Students Love Green New Deal... Until Hearing What's In It

This is the political equivalent of Jimmy Kimmel's "Man on the street" segments. Ask enough people until you find some rube, then only present the rube.

One such segment he approached people on the street and asked "Name any book". People struggled to answer. Of course, that's because everyone in the US is illiterate. There is no other explanation.

 

[mgidm86]

Work in progress

Universal Basic Income - if you want that you damn well better build one helluva wall because everyone in the world will want to come here.

What successful financial model will this oncoming socialist state base itself upon, because I don't see one.

Suppose there really does come a day where automation takes a significant number of jobs away. What are the people with no jobs going to do?

Try and make money in other ways? Have some fun? People (until the latest generation) are not wired to sit around and do nothing. [ETA: kill each other!]

Having fun costs money most of the time. But there aren't enough fun venues to handle this huge new crowd of non-workers. We'll need more fun venues which equals more jobs (assumes people will still go outside at all). Maybe restaurants, theaters, casinos. Even if most of these jobs are also automated someone still has to build, own and maintain the business.

It may not be profitable or practical to automate many things, even if it's possible. I still prefer talking to a cashier at the store.

Maybe we will have more small business owners. Business owners who work and make money and don't require the basic income.

We've been automating industry for a very long time and we still have plenty of jobs. Yes, one day one person could build a machine that can build anything and everything and fix itself forever, but that doesn't mean people can't try and make money somehow.

If automation does take over then I'm for killing off people until we reach a perfect jobs:humans ratio. Hell I'm for it now! Stupid people first.

I totally don't know what I'm talking about, but my beer seems to.

I guess I'm kidding about the "killing people" thing, but catch me on the right day...

 

[Lambchops]

Yeah, it's unthinkable that anything other than capitalism could work.

After all, capitalism is a law of nature, an objective truth. Not a man made system, but a system ordained by god in heaven.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not in reality

Reality isn't doable either.

 

[Orphia Nay]

- The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, February 2019.