General Green New Deal

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,416
57,815
What the fuck are you cunts talking about?

If God wants us to live, then he will cool the Earth down again. If he wants us to die, then he won't. Simple.
Well then. There it is. We all just need to get to church.

 

Wild

Zi Nazi
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
85,008
123,340
I got a green new deal. Give tax breaks to corporations who let their employees work from home. Cuts down on traffic, emissions, building costs. People have more time with their families because they no longer spend two hours on the road.

I know, great idea
I like it.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Yes. That's a large part of the point. Other means that are currently instituted at national levels. I am not just grabbing pie in the sky options, but looking at what we could go after right now. That's better than this bill. I'm not just saying its not good enough because its not perfect.

You want buy in from the naysayers? You have to at least try to make it a responsible stewardship of the funds. Hell, even if you are fully bought in, you should hope we are doing things in a financially feasible and efficient way...if only to guarantee the longest and broadest funding of the interventions.

I haven't complained about the total cost. I'm pointing out that the current bill has data suggesting its a bad use of funds.
You make the suggestion that I don't know if those prices will scale...then show me they won't. Show me the scaled price is the Green New Deal price. But I don't think you'll find that because 1> it probably won't scale to 10x the current EU offered cost 2> The bill rejects nuclear and current programs designed to find the scalable cost.

It very much reminds me of when GW Bush pushed natural gas cars. Do not pick the tech to get the job done! We'll get a bunch of Solyndras while the market place is finding more efficient mechanisms. Pick the goal and X prize or bid the process. The green new deal attempts to pick the tech by subsidizing only some low/zero carbon output processes and rejects bidding/competing like the German examples that naturally adapt to technology/scalability.

The bill fails to focus that developed western economies aren't the longterm problem and have already made considerable gain, and will continue to naturally. India and China are going the wrong way and will keep doing so. Winterizing detroit is costly, inefficient, and not exportable. It's a make-work scheme. A bad one. And its going to alienate people that would have come along if they had confidence in a process like Germany's subsidy bidding for solar.



It is the worst thing if that transparent move pushes the votes to kill it on arrival.



The fed doesn't need to create a labor force to weatherize homes which is barely tangentially related to emergency response, even in this conversation.

The skills and force to weatherize homes is already in existence. The point of the conversation is that currently lowering the carbon output via cleaner energy is done cheaper/more efficiently by increasing zero carbon energy output than it is preventing residential energy losses.

I'm not worried about creating a labor force of insulation installers. Not maximally effective, not exportable, more costly. The bigger concern should be moving to tech that is profitable and cheaper, that can then be sold as a low cost solution to the developing world and adopted broadly domestically.



If you can explain how spending more money to reduce less carbon output gets us away from that future, I'm game (boy that was an awkward sentence). I'm suggesting that the bill pushes us in the wrong direction through setting a stake that's DOA...and for many valid, tangible reasons. We already know better ways. And yet we are pushing this?
My old pal, you're hearing me wrong on this one. The thing I'm saying is that all estimates on how much it's going to cost to get us away from the future that's coming are woefully inadequate. "Zero carbon energy output" is a fictional construction. So is "residential energy loss." Nuclear is DOA politically until things get a little worse environmentally or better geopolitically.

So far as I can see, the GND has two goals: 1) Total Mobilization of American society around the concept of staving off environmental catastrophe and 2) Tethering "green" to "jobs" once again, as Obama unsuccessfully tried during the stimulus.

Progressives see this as a long form win for them because they neuter the energy sector's influence in politics, start an ambitious works progress administration redux, and potentially get to claim victory if we don't slide into Armageddon at some point in the distant future. Moderates see this as a pie in the sky fairy tale. Conservatives see this as whatever they see it as. Ecocommunism probably. But hear me: It's too late. The fight is over. We lost. At best, what we're scrambling for is a blueprint to realign things someday after the worst of times is over. Maybe a framework to avert the Ecofascism that is sure to result. Marco Rubio, little Marco himself, said yesterday in his vote against the budget that a state of emergency could be used tomorrow for climate change if we use one now for the wall, and he's right! States of emergency will be the default. There are already plenty of people, particularly in the design community, who are drawing up the plans for post-democratic/post-labor strategies to deal with the aftermath of what's to come. China is seen by several of the wealthy elite to have the only system actually prepared to deal with what's coming because they don't have to worry about pesky things like democracy.

The cost is going to break multiple banks. The political project of Total Mobilization is more costly in the short term, but will be a more coercive, more expensive inevitability. The private sector won't be up to the task and already has limited interest in it. I'm sorry to speak in broad strokes, but I'm trying to get something done today. Key thing: When you read up on environmental fixes, green new deals, etc, read beyond realpolitik and situate it in the geopolitical conversation happening around what's likely, the theoretical conversation of what it'll mean, and the scientific literature around viability of preventive mechanisms. GND is a weird Frankenstein of ideas and ideals, but it's goal isn't so much face passage as nudging the rhetorical space ever so slightly toward understanding the inevitability of Total Mobilization.