Saikat Chakrabarti - Green New Deal not about Climate Change

[BonzaiDuck]

What are you a commie?

Markets would function to save the planet if they had always accounted for the future costs of climate change. But they never have done so to any sufficient degree.

The oil companies keep dreaming up new ways to extract oil that had previously seemed impractical. But the best estimates available put the world supply at a finite level that will run out in less than 100 years. Do you think the oil companies are accounting for this in the present? I don't think so.

I think things are worse than even Inslee and the others argue they are. We'd like to avoid cataclysmic change. But if we had been serious about it all along, people would've retrofitted their cars to run on natural gas or some other low-carbon-emitting alternative. That opportunity is over -- done. Electric cars, new infrastructure, renewable solar and other energy sources -- the only feasible options. Maybe -- nuclear -- with the risks.

I feel daily distress about all this. And all we get from the Right is denial, denial, denial; racism, racism, racism -- war, conflict and a belief that we'll all "rapture" into heaven when it ends.

So who cares whether Chakrabarti derives his agenda from multiple underlying motives? It's absurd to suspect him of anything sinister, unless you think -- still -- that climate change is fake news.

If the civilized world is headed toward more socialism and less freedom, it's only because the deniers have dragged their feet too long in addressing the problem. Should've happened years ago. Any Chucklehead could've seen what was coming when LA Times ran a feature article about the melting in the Arctic circle and prospects for a "northwest passage" from Europe to China. Now . . . .the Russians and American oil companies are salivating over a melted Arctic that makes it easier to extract more of the limited world supply of petroleum.

In the midst of this insanity, you have people worried about the "survival of the white race". There is no entitlement to the survival of any group. We'd best worry about the human race, and the bigots should make an effort to become members again.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If projects like carbon recycling or some other technology could reduce CO2 emissions sufficient to end the climate change problem without ending fossil fuels or fundamentally transforming the economy, would you support it?

What bearing does thart have on anything?? I presently drive a car with no emissions!
I support getting away from fossil fuels!

 

[sandorski]

GW/CC doesn't care what your Economics are. Conservatives had 30 fucking years to act and chose not to. Offer nothing, expect someone else to offer a solution that may not be to your preference.

Womp Womp

 

[dank69]

If projects like carbon recycling or some other technology could reduce CO2 emissions sufficient to end the climate change problem without ending fossil fuels or fundamentally transforming the economy, would you support it?

Gosh, if only liberals could just figure out how to stop climate change without resorting to stopping the industries that are responsible for dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, maybe then we could talk. Just one more brick in the case proving how incredibly stupid you are.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If conservatives actually think climate change is a problem but that Democrats are going too far you are literally able to offer a better solution at any time.

At. Any. Time.

Did you idiots not realize this?

Republicans have a plan,

 

[Bitek]

If progressives honestly don't know why conservatives are slow-movers on combatting climate change, this is a pretty good reason. If there were a way to resolve climate change without necessarily restructuring America's (and the world's) economy, I wonder if progressives would support it.

There is a truth to this, and a position held my many conservatives. Unfortunately I do think some ppl on the left can go about CC policies in all the wrong ways, and end up being very ineffectual in bringing results.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1149772840016732160

Another example of this is when policies designed more for in the spirit of punishment for modernity, and pushing everyone to reduce standards of living. It just sparks backlash and unwillingness to do anything.

Forcing public transportation where it's a poor fit and ends up expensive is another bad policy.

Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy was much smarter than just seeking to punish carbon use.

I'd cut subsidies for the very mature oil econ, direct and indirect, and redirect that into growing and maturing the green sector.
Otherwise plow money into improvements that raise standards of living and cut costs for regular folks. Just threatening to raise their fuel bill for cut their jobs is a loser.

That said, conservatives need to also work constructively and not cry "Chinese hoax" at every debate on what to do.

 

[Atreus21]

Scientists, the real ones, have been trying to convince people for decades to start acting on it.

So far, nothing of substance has been done.

So, now either the economy is restructured so we quit lighting the fucking planet on fire for corporate profits, or we just go ahead and burn down the fucking planet for corporate profits.

You can try to spin the reality of what is happening in whatever way makes you feel better about you and your political allies feet-dragging that has resulted in us being in this situation however you want.

You can call it socialism, or Marxism or communism or The! End! Of! America! if you want. But that's where we're at.

Because we no longer have the option of re-arranging a few things here and there. We either stop burning the planet down, or we keep doing it. If you're for keeping on with burning the planet down, than just come out and say it. But no one here cares if you try using the talking points you've been trained to recite.

There comes a time when a fire extinguisher is no longer adequate to put out a raging fucking inferno. We're at that point.

Sooner or later you guys are going to actually have to address what he said, because what you just said isn't what Chakrabarti said.

He didn't say that destroying the economy was necessary to address climate change. He said the Green New Deal is not about climate change, but rather the complete change of the entire economy.

 

[K1052]

Sooner or later you guys are going to actually have to address what he said, because what you just said isn't what Chakrabarti said.

He didn't say that destroying the economy was necessary to address climate change. He said the Green New Deal is not about climate change, but rather the complete change of the entire economy.

The context is that the economy should be more sustainable with economic benefits that accrue not just to the very top. I mean who can imagine liberal Democrats talking like this? The scandal.

 

[Atreus21]

Gosh, if only liberals could just figure out how to stop climate change without resorting to stopping the industries that are responsible for dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, maybe then we could talk. Just one more brick in the case proving how incredibly stupid you are.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sooner or later you guys are going to actually have to address what he said, because what you just said isn't what Chakrabarti said.

He didn't say that destroying the economy was necessary to address climate change. He said the Green New Deal is not about climate change, but rather the complete change of the entire economy.

I addressed it back at #16.

Your maudlin raving about "destroying the economy" vs the desire to change the economy is standard right wing fear mongering.

 

[Atreus21]

The context is that the economy should be more sustainable with economic benefits that accrue not just to the very top. I mean who can imagine liberal Democrats talking like this? The scandal.

And that's not possible without completely restructuring the economy?

 

[K1052]

And that's not possible without completely restructuring the economy?

Given the level of wealth concentration we are at and look to be headed I'll go with a "nope" on that.

 

[K1052]

I notice you didn't answer the question.

What you're really talking about is a carbon neutral synthetic fuel replacing fossil fuels (oil chiefly) at scale. This has been a holy grail of energy research for decades with only modest progress to show for it, certainly nothing that portends commercial applications in the near term.

Meanwhile the costs and effectiveness of other solutions continues to improve at commercial scale. I'm much more confident of battery technology as a viable replacement especially over the next decade.

 

[Sunburn74]

Sooner or later you guys are going to actually have to address what he said, because what you just said isn't what Chakrabarti said.

He didn't say that destroying the economy was necessary to address climate change. He said the Green New Deal is not about climate change, but rather the complete change of the entire economy.

You realize many problems society faces require broad systematic changes to address them. We won't address our obesity problem until we reset out food systems, city designs, car cultures and motivations for exercise. The same for problems in our our health care systems or our education system or political systems. There are no simple one or two step fixes for these issues and often our various social constructs are deeply interrelated.

Big broad complex problems generally require big broad complex solutions that yes may cause sweeping changes across an entire culture, industry, or way of life. This is just how things have always worked. It's why our history as a species has so many periods of "revolutionary change". I can count at least 10 such major revolutionary changes in the US alone in the last 250 years easily.

 

[zinfamous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.015b1dbcea46



If progressives honestly don't know why conservatives are slow-movers on combatting climate change, this is a pretty good reason. If there were a way to resolve climate change without necessarily restructuring America's (and the world's) economy, I wonder if progressives would support it.

It was also impossible to end slavery without "restructuring the economy of the South" (and really, the country and our trade partners in Europe at that time--everyone was dependent on Southern cotton). But you know, we did. Those people got angry and went to war over owning people, but shit had to be done.

I don't think we need to go to war over this, but the absolute truth is that many wars will (and already are) happen(ing) due to climate change and human migration as resources and livable land area depletes.

We can do the hard things, you know. We used to do hard things. Conservatives just cower in fear to protect their puny wealth, because doing the right thing, planning for the future and actually increasing real wealth is just too hard. This is why your billionaire betters have been driving the notion into your brain for so many years that education is bad, only work for your corporate overlords is good, and give us more money because we will promise you shitty, life-depleting jobs, because we know what is good for you. Science bad because it makes us all work hard.

 

[Indus]

And that's not possible without completely restructuring the economy?

Just eliminate inheritance over 10 million dollars all together with a 100% tax.

Use that tax money to create medicare, college for all US citizens. Problem of income inequality solved!

And when Americans are educated with job skills.. watch the economy flourish!

 

[dank69]

I notice you didn't answer the question.

It's a stupid question. Why wouldn't we support it? It would be like saying we don't support unicorns that shit rainbow sherbert.

 

[dank69]

Sooner or later you guys are going to actually have to address what he said, because what you just said isn't what Chakrabarti said.

He didn't say that destroying the economy was necessary to address climate change. He said the Green New Deal is not about climate change, but rather the complete change of the entire economy.

Then Chakrabarti is a fucking fool. Nobody cares about why liberals adopted a policy decades ago, especially because if we had all adopted it decades ago we would be decades ahead of the problem we face right now.

 

[dank69]

There is a truth to this, and a position held my many conservatives. Unfortunately I do think some ppl on the left can go about CC policies in all the wrong ways, and end up being very ineffectual in bringing results.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1149772840016732160

Another example of this is when policies designed more for in the spirit of punishment for modernity, and pushing everyone to reduce standards of living. It just sparks backlash and unwillingness to do anything.

Forcing public transportation where it's a poor fit and ends up expensive is another bad policy.

Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy was much smarter than just seeking to punish carbon use.

I'd cut subsidies for the very mature oil econ, direct and indirect, and redirect that into growing and maturing the green sector.
Otherwise plow money into improvements that raise standards of living and cut costs for regular folks. Just threatening to raise their fuel bill for cut their jobs is a loser.

That said, conservatives need to also work constructively and not cry "Chinese hoax" at every debate on what to do.

Stop letting them frame it as punishment. That is bullshit. They have managed to avoid paying for the privilege of polluting our atmosphere for way too long. Not only that, but they charge our ass for it.

 

[hal2kilo]

are you really that brain dead??

Yes.

 

[balloonshark]

I don't get why we are worrying about costs. How much do you think a gallon of gas would cost if you factored in the costs of securing the means to drill for oil in other countries and the cost of securing our interests because we're in another country? How much do you think climate chance mitigation and damages will cost since we kicked the can down the road for too long.

A complete economic overhaul is only the tip of iceberg. We also have to change how we behave such as what we eat and how we obtain our food. The single most effective thing we as individuals can do to mitigate climate change is eating more plants versus animal derived foods. We also need to start growing and sourcing locally grown foods versus shipping them across the country or planet. The amount of fossil fuels used for meat and dairy production as well as methane emissions have a huge impact on climate change. We are growing plants to feed to the animals that feed us. The good news is cutting out that middle man will make us healthier lowering healthcare costs. Now factor in the fact that about 3 billion more people will be joining us on this planet in the next 30 years and we don't have the luxury of slowing making changes any longer. It's time to flip the switch or face the horrible consequences.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Conservatives generally don't think climate change represents the threat that democrats supposedly do. Furthermore, Chakrabati's admission reveals that he doesn't either. It's just a means to a political end.

Can I say something...….
ok, I will anyways -- Who gives a flying rats ass what conservatives or Chakrabati thinks about climate change?
The facts say something entirely different and so does the science involved and the scientists!
The sad part is most of Trumps conservative base are uneducated morons or rednecks or racists who can`t even tell you what H2o is...capice?
The threat is very real and by the way you are acting it leades me to believe that you do not think the threat is very real!!

 

[senseamp]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.015b1dbcea46



If progressives honestly don't know why conservatives are slow-movers on combatting climate change, this is a pretty good reason.

Oh, we know why, don't worry.

If there were a way to resolve climate change without necessarily restructuring America's (and the world's) economy, I wonder if progressives would support it.

Sure, car electrification. But cons won't support it because Koch brothers refining businesses would suffer.

 

[darkswordsman17]

There is a truth to this, and a position held my many conservatives. Unfortunately I do think some ppl on the left can go about CC policies in all the wrong ways, and end up being very ineffectual in bringing results.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1149772840016732160

Another example of this is when policies designed more for in the spirit of punishment for modernity, and pushing everyone to reduce standards of living. It just sparks backlash and unwillingness to do anything.

Forcing public transportation where it's a poor fit and ends up expensive is another bad policy.

Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy was much smarter than just seeking to punish carbon use.

I'd cut subsidies for the very mature oil econ, direct and indirect, and redirect that into growing and maturing the green sector.
Otherwise plow money into improvements that raise standards of living and cut costs for regular folks. Just threatening to raise their fuel bill for cut their jobs is a loser.

That said, conservatives need to also work constructively and not cry "Chinese hoax" at every debate on what to do.

Sorry that's fearmongering bullshit. The reason why they resorted to talking about stuff like carbon taxes is because right wingers screamed about there not being a viable economic policy solution to dealing with climate issues, back when they used to be able to pull the wool over people's eyes by pretending that just because they call their bastardized beliefs legitimate economics that somehow makes them legitimate. Meanwhile economists pushed carbon taxes and carbon credits because they know its economic policy that works, and so it could be implemented immediately and it would start working to rectify the situation. So as real policy using real economics grew into development, right wingers now just make shit up and scream that anything else is socialism or whatever.

Its fucking insane that people like you will buy this line of bullshit when its observably every bit as bullshit as the other bullshit that conservatives push. They used to push that because they thought liberals hate economics and government in general and so thought it gave them an air of legitimacy against "peace and love, man" hippy shit. When that turned out not to be true, and liberals instead buckled down and worked with economists and people that know shit, to come up with effective policy (as opposed to blanket bans) to transition and try to eliminate negative impacts. Conservatives then just started screaming that it was evil socialism and communism and pushing their bullshit economic policies (that were always bullshit, as so much of conservatives' policies have come to be revealed as such; based on them just making shit up and when held to scrutiny falls to pieces). It should tip you off about how the "well I'm a conservative and I believe climate change is real, but I don't believe that liberals actually care about it and are instead looking to put chains on me" dishonesty that conservatives are pushing with this shit.

Its not like they didn't rail against all the stuff you're talking about as being better either. They've been railing against all of it because they're full of fucking shit. Stop buying it. They have no legit policies or arguments, they have nothing but shrieks of everything anything else does as being evil and like, climate change might not be bad even if it does actually exist.

What "policies designed more for in the spirit of punishment for modernity" (whatever that even means)? Reduce standards of living? Can you be specific at all because this reeks of blanket conservative bullshit, and you linking those tweets reinforces that.

Where is public transportation being forced where its a poor fit? You do know they're starting to find that putting in light rail lines seems to lead to economic prosperity (via businesses building up along the light railway), right?

Ok, now finally something specific. I completely agree. Absolutely. Its fucking insane that we've been subsidizing the shit out of the most profitable companies in the entire world. Just as it was for us to be subsidizing tobacco farmers.

Again, can you specify what you're actually talking about? What standard of living do you think is being diminished by liberal policies? Except that actually works, we know it works, because we've done it before. Where you're getting this idea that it doesn't and just punishes people is just baffling, let alone whatever you're claiming with regards to it diminishing standard of living.

It worked on cars (weird that we got better in every way cars despite the drastic increases in fuel costs; on top of other regulations like for emissions and safety - which without those we'd probably have efficient but disgustingly polluting diesel engines in tin cans). Certainly you should be mindful of it impacting lower income persons worse, which is why you then subsidize or re-imburse their costs (I prefer the latter, so that it makes them seek out better efficiency as they'll have to afford it at the time, but then get compensated for the extra hit; but a tax reimbursement can and often would be used by them to say buy a more efficient vehicle or more efficient fridge or insulate their home better or move to better housing and make a bigger change than them saving a bit here and there on their fuel costs, while providing a mechanism for them to seek out efficiency the entire time).

 

[Atreus21]

Can I say something...….
ok, I will anyways -- Who gives a flying rats ass what conservatives or Chakrabati thinks about climate change?

Considering that he's the guy who recruited AOC as well as the brain behind the most comprehensive and radical agenda to supposedly address climate change in the Green New Deal, and that this apparently is just a pretext to achieve policy objectives that would otherwise be unreachable without a crisis, I do, and anyone who cares about honesty should too.

The facts say something entirely different and so does the science involved and the scientists!
The sad part is most of Trumps conservative base are uneducated morons or rednecks or racists who can`t even tell you what H2o is...capice?
The threat is very real and by the way you are acting it leades me to believe that you do not think the threat is very real!!

I'm not convinced of it, correct. And apparently neither are most voters.