The Green New Deal

[kellyb]

I don't know anyone and by that I mean serious politicians arguing for the UBI at this time much less creating a bill for it.

There's pretty much just this guy: https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/
He describes himself as:

I’m not a career politician—I’m an entrepreneur who understands the economy. It’s clear to me, and to many of the nation’s best job creators, that we need to make an unprecedented change, and we need to make it now. But the establishment isn’t willing to take the necessary bold steps. As president, my first priority will be to implement Universal Basic Income for every American adult between the ages of 18 and 64: $1,000 a month, no strings attached, paid for by a new tax on the companies benefiting most from automation.

A UBI like that would cost at least $1.5 trillion a year.

 

[acbytesla]

The IET (UK Engineering learned society) magazine had an article about the prospects for fusion power in 2013:

I'm quoting myself because the IET magazine link is now broken:

The IET Magazine quoted the director of operations at the Cullham Centre for Fusion Energy (Home of the JET) as saying that we could build a working fusion reactor with today's technology - it is just that the fusion plant would have a lifetime of 2-years, and a capital cost of $10Bn. (I suppose it does mean that in comparison the running costs would be negligible...)

Quote:
“We could actually build a reactor now, but it would not be economic because whilst the neutrons give up their energy and produce the heat we need to generate steam, they also damage the materials we have available now. The physics of fusion is now well mostly understood and resolved, but what is not resolved is the engineering consequences of generating these neutrons.

“You could build a reactor now with today's materials, but it wouldn't be economic because you would have to build a new reactor or remove and replace to core of the machine within two years. This includes everything inside the plasma chamber; ten billions dollar’s worth of plant.

“The machines we have available at the minute are designed to only run for short bursts. The JET can only sustain plasma for 30 or 40 seconds because the coils get hot. In principal you could keep the plasma running for hours, but your coils and power supplies would basically cook. It is not a physics limitation but a balance of plant limitation.”

​

That's saying a lot. We couldn't have thought we could do this just a few short years ago. But the running joke about fusion energy is that it is 30 years away any time you ask the question. The money spent on ITEC is staggering and we are still 30 years away. That said, the payoff would be huge.

But EVERYTHING comes down to how much do we want to bet and what technologies we want to bet on. Solar and wind have the Achilles heel of intermittency and today's silicon solar panels are not as green as people think.

I believe in a distributed approach to the technologies we back. IMV, It's a mistake to bet on one technology and approach. It's also a mistake to do nothing.

 

[Trakar]

...the architects of the economic aspects of the GND are strongly opposed to a UBI, because any amount of money which would be enough for anyone to support themselves on would also cause serious inflation.

The only way I could see BMI (not UBI) being applicable to the GND would be in the area of a means to refund Carbon Tax revenues to the public to complete the cycle of making the carbon tax revenue neutral, while largely mitigating the impacts of the carbon tax on the destitute, poor and lower level income earners. This could also greatly reduce (and possibly even eliminate) some of our current social assistance programs. Combine the money saved from these programs and use the saved assistance to help fund early learning public childcare centers, and tuition-free public/state college education (pre-K to Grad school) opportunities. Of course this still doesn't adequately address health care, or just as importantly justice inequity reform, a constitutional amendment to address Citizen's United, and campaign finance reform,...but the GND, could get us a good start at eventually making a substantive move to deal with a true existential threat facing our nation, our society and potentially, our species.

 

[kellyb]

The only way I could see BMI (not UBI) being applicable to the GND would be...

What's a BMI? Did you mean BIG (basic income guarantee?)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This is a bit of an exaggeration. It turns out Trump's tariffs have cost 18,000 US jobs.

No question Trump was an idiot to start that little war. However, it doesn't make the GND any better a policy.

Still the best plan proposed is the EICDA, even with its flaw of an evenly divided dividend instead of a merit based dividend.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This is not a part of the GND.

I've mentioned that to him before, but it's not sinking in.
Not only is it not a part of it, but the architects of the economic aspects of the GND are strongly opposed to a UBI, because any amount of money which would be enough for anyone to support themselves on would also cause serious inflation.

I am not getting my info from either of you. I got it from here:

Explainer: Why some US Democrats want a ‘Green New Deal’ to tackle climate change

Look at the bullets.

• 100% of national power generation from renewable sources.
• Building a national energy-efficient “smart” grid.
• Upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.
• Decarbonising manufacturing, agricultural and other industries.
• Decarbonising, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure.
• Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases.
• Making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the US, helping other countries transition to carbon-neutral economies.
• Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
• Basic income programmes and universal health care.

Now look at the last two:

• Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
  [*]Basic income programmes and universal health care.

It is agonizingly clear that indeed even if they have backed off Basic Income and guaranteed jobs as inflationary, it is certainly what makes this a "Green New Deal" rather than just Global Warming mitigation strategy.

It's basically the same mental flaw as is in the EICDA, just the EICDA is less ... inflationary.

As was stated a couple of times already, supposedly it is minutiae that will all be worked out later how we can afford all this. Remember? We should be debating it in principle.

Well in principle I think that those last two have nothing to do with AGW at all and have no business ever being part of AGW strategy. How's that for principles?

Meanwhile for days I had a passioned plea to at least have the balls to pay for carbon sequestration, rather than hoping farmers would charitably do it for free just to save your sorry arses who want paid for doing nothing.

That of course got no answer at all. How shocking.

 

[kellyb]

I am not getting my info from either of you. I got it from here:

Explainer: Why some US Democrats want a ‘Green New Deal’ to tackle climate change

Look at the bullets.

Now look at the last two:

• Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
  [*]Basic income programmes and universal health care.

It is agonizingly clear that indeed even if they have backed off Basic Income and guaranteed jobs as inflationary, it is certainly what makes this a "Green New Deal" rather than just Global Warming mitigation strategy.

It's basically the same mental flaw as is in the EICDA, just the EICDA is less ... inflationary.

As was stated a couple of times already, supposedly it is minutiae that will all be worked out later how we can afford all this. Remember? We should be debating it in principle.

That was from a "DRAFT TEXT FOR PROPOSED ADDENDUM" according to the link within the link.

You're arguing about something that never made it into the final version.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That was from a "DRAFT TEXT FOR PROPOSED ADDENDUM" according to the link within the link.

You're arguing about something that never made it into the final version.

"First of all, even if Ocasio-Cortez did walk back her pitch, it was proposed. This might be inconvenient, but it’s also indisputable. Simply because a politician pulls a proposal that’s been dragged across the entire internet and beaten senseless does not mean its existence has been expunged from the record." - David Harsanyi

So what did make it into the final version? Since I don't have a scorecard, but am well aware that this is what always was the holdup since Al Gore in fact. It never was about AGW, but rather about using this issue as a way to further their socialist agenda even more.

Well I am a conservative Republican.

I don't give a rats arse about furthering the Democrats New Deal. From the original, to Johnson's upgrade, to proposals being made now, they were bad for me and mine from the beginning anyway.

But surprisingly I am very interested in Mitigating Global Warming. In fact I have openly and publicly dedicated the rest of my entire life to this issue in general, and to restoring the carbon cycle back into the soil to balance specifically. Literally everything I do every day is dedicated in some direct way to this. You will find NO ONE more focused on this than me. I have zeroed in and doubled down on this one issue. Even to the point that many times people will say...oh no not that again, when they hear it for the umpteenth time.

So you have an ally that will work tirelessly to aid you in your efforts, .... until you contaminate AGW mitigation with lazy arse socialism and communism that guarantee its failure.

I am glad the Green New Deal people at least now understand certain parts of their plan are .. erm ... counter productive. The EICDA hasn't made that realization yet.

But none of ya'll have managed to figure out all you need to do is add good ol' American style capitalism to make the plans functional. Namely PAY for the service of carbon sequestration and it will get done. Hell even FDR knew that for example the work programs he had to PAY the workers.

It doesn't end there though. The people who pay should be the ones creating the emissions in the first place. And since those are mostly corporations, it will raise their costs. However, as there is a remnant of a capitalist supply and demand market still functioning, they probably will have difficulty recouping all of those costs from the consumer. So the biggest users of fossil fuels will either make changes, or lose market share, or lose profits. If they want to keep market share and profits both, they'll need to make changes in the fossil fuels they use.

So now we have two sorts of market pressures. One is pressure to increase sequestration of carbon in the soil, and the other is to reduce emissions in the first place.

The efficacy doubles.

But that's not even all. Because if you use this to replace the highly flawed farm bill and current subsidized food programs, you can save between 10's of billions, and 100's of billions annually.

The cost is substantially less, maybe even negative.

Twice the efficacy for half the price makes a verified carbon market many times better than the so called "Green New Deal"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Feinstein and Pelosi now both have had unflattering images reacting to the 'youth' behind the GND. Pelosi dismissed it with little fanfare in a press conference and Feinstein told a young person off, saying Feinstein knew how to do her job. There's clearly an underlying discord going on there between the old and new guard.

Schoolchildren debate Sen. Feinstein on 'Green New Deal.' Her reply? 'I know what I'm doing.'

Feinstein told the gaggle of students that she doesn't support the deal, mainly because there is "no way to pay for it."

Lesson number one, new guys: "Make an effort to get everyone on board before you launch your agenda because Congress doesn't work by revolution even if you all believe one occurred." IMO of course.

Lesson number whatever, old guys: "You must know by now how to compliment the thing you are not in favor of. Open your eyes." Also IMO of course.

I really do want these guys working together. And the GND is a beginning framework, but it isn't a finished product.

 

[acbytesla]

No question Trump was an idiot to start that little war. However, it doesn't make the GND any better a policy.

Still the best plan proposed is the EICDA, even with its flaw of an evenly divided dividend instead of a merit based dividend.

I'm not a fan of either one at this point. I see the Green New Deal as aspirational. An attempt to start dialogue to address a problem that the White House and unfortunately many Republicans say doesn't exist.

I'm beyond disappointed with Trump's policies on energy and the environment. The support for coal and the reversal of Obama's policies on energy is setting the process back.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I really do want these guys working together. And the GND is a beginning framework, but it isn't a finished product.

Ok I'll bite.

"Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases."

How is that funded? What does it look like? Does this fund the many proposed carbon markets that sprang up around the country and now await funding. Like for example this one:
Carbon Sequestration Certification Program

Which is fundamentally different than this:
Verified Carbon Standard

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok I'll bite.

"Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases."

How is that funded? What does it look like? Does this fund the many proposed carbon markets that sprang up around the country and now await funding. Like for example this one:
Carbon Sequestration Certification Program

Which is fundamentally different than this:
Verified Carbon Standard

You're biting at the wrong thing. It's not legislation, it's a framework of goals.

And before you go off on me, I think the young Congresspersons jumped the gun and screwed up causing a delay in achieving their goals. The GND is too easy to attack and there are too many things that need paying for as you note, putting the cart before the horse.

New job, you really do need to get a feel for the place before you start redecorating the office and giving advice to your bosses.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You're biting at the wrong thing. It's not legislation, it's a framework of goals.

And before you go off on me, I think the young Congresspersons jumped the gun and screwed up causing a delay in achieving their goals. The GND is too easy to attack and there are too many things that need paying for as you note, putting the cart before the horse.

New job, you really do need to get a feel for the place before you start redecorating the office and giving advice to your bosses.

No I get that actually. Like I said, I'll bite. I threw in a proposal for discussion. I asked for your proposal, or whatever other proposals might be out there.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The actual fight over the Green New Deal is States vs. Federal Government, but that will be the case in all Climate change legislation.
Pelosi &co. are hoping for a wedge issue that would make it easier to force States to become more green but wouldn't create so much ideological backlash.

 

[Polaris]

Just the irony of a farmer complaining that other people want to be paid to do nothing...

And after highlighting a part of the GND that calls for guaranteed jobs with a living wage - last time I checked having a job was the opposite of "doing nothing".

 

[acbytesla]

Just the irony of a farmer complaining that other people want to be paid to do nothing...

And after highlighting a part of the GND that calls for guaranteed jobs with a living wage - last time I checked having a job was the opposite of "doing nothing".

It is amusing isn't it? What I love are the farmers in the Eastern half of my state talking about the evils of government spending and the freebies that others get. Never mind that very little of the land that is farmed there would be arable if not for the huge federal water projects. And that's just the beginning of his their livelihoods have been subsidized over the years.

Then to hear this absurd and specious rant about FDRs New Deal and how it resulted in many small farmers losing out when it is more than clear, it was/Is the business model of small farms and economies of scale that is the real culprit.

 

[Upchurch]

White House to set up panel to counter climate change consensus, officials say

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three senior administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

Because

“The president wants people to be able to decide for themselves,” the aide said.

Not decide for themselves based on the best information available, but based on partisan propaganda given a thin veneer of scientific credibility. As they say, "ignorance is strength."

 

[Trakar]

White House to set up panel to counter climate change consensus, officials say

Because

Not decide for themselves based on the best information available, but based on partisan propaganda given a thin veneer of scientific credibility. As they say, "ignorance is strength."

You would think that after what happened in their last attempt at something like this with the Berkeley Earth self-administered spanking, that these people would learn their lesson and leave the hyper-partisan demagoguery to the professionals like Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of those who make a nice living throwing applause bait to the nation's dunderheads looking for someone else to blame for their self-generated problems and issues. But, I guess as long as Dunderheadism is chic, there will be hucksters to enflame their need to give away their money.

 

[Trakar]

It is amusing isn't it? What I love are the farmers in the Eastern half of my state talking about the evils of government spending and the freebies that others get. Never mind that very little of the land that is farmed there would be arable if not for the huge federal water projects. And that's just the beginning of his their livelihoods have been subsidized over the years.

Then to hear this absurd and specious rant about FDRs New Deal and how it resulted in many small farmers losing out when it is more than clear, it was/Is the business model of small farms and economies of scale that is the real culprit.

Most of the small family farmers I knew growing up may have been fiercely independent, but they weren't political ideologues, they didn't ever try to blame others for their problems, and they were generally pretty smart. Of course, most of these farmers also worked at least part-time in shift-work at local factory/industrial centers to insure that they could afford to farm and raise their families. Issues of the benefits of co-ops and unions, and the corrupt profiteering of corporations, mortgage holders, and salesmen (be they realtors/developers or vehicle /equipment hucksters) are not lost on these types of farmers. But, that was more than a half century ago, and times do change.

 

[Trakar]

...New job, you really do need to get a feel for the place before you start redecorating the office and giving advice to your bosses.

If you think that other elected Party representatives have any "boss" other than their electorate, that they should be listening to, it is just a further example of how out of touch you are with regard to elected politicians, and the people who send them to DC to change the status quo.


Welcome to the Revolution.