Saikat Chakrabarti - Green New Deal not about Climate Change

[Vic]

If you don't think every individual going back to the 1800's lifestyle wouldn't solve half the problem then there isn't jack shit the government is going to be able to do.

Going back to an 1800s lifestyle would not only not solve half the problem, it would make it worse. Because people in the 1800s didn't live that way out of choice, but because the inefficient technologies of their era forced them too. If we went back to living that way, and using those inefficient technologies, billions would likely die and the environment would be wrecked.
Solving this problem means moving forward not going back. Which of course is why conservatives are so afraid.

 

[Vic]

Your "point" was moot. Government has to step in to affect useful change, because if every Individual made the changes you suggested, it still wouldn't even solve half of the problem.

Government has to step in because the tragedy of the commons is in full effect. Asset holders of fossil fuel reserves have incentive to see their holdings increase in value through depletion. Distributors of fossil fuel energies and technologies fear the risk of the massive investments required to transition to alternative energies and technologies. So the only way the market is going to move if it does it all at once. Which it will do eventually, just as fossil fuels once replaced once firewood and animal power in a very brief of time, but the question there is when.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Going back to an 1800s lifestyle would not only not solve half the problem, it would make it worse. Because people in the 1800s didn't live that way out of choice, but because the inefficient technologies of their era forced them too. If we went back to living that way, and using those inefficient technologies, billions would likely die and the environment would be wrecked.
Solving this problem means moving forward not going back. Which of course is why conservatives are so afraid.

Depends on what specifically you are speaking of. Basically everything I'm referring to is around getting rid of fossil fuel use. There are plenty of communities today that still do things the way they did back then and are doing just fine (not going to say it is ideal). Until someone solves the 'profits drive innovation' issue, you aren't going to see much change. You can tax, penalize, etc etc all you want, but all you are really doing is hurting the middle/poor. Climate change shouldn't be considered class warfare, but until alternatives are cheaper those are the only people who will feel the pinch. You can't take all the money to solve all the country/worlds problems and expect that people are just magically going to continue to drive innovation without some sort of reward. Those people are few. You are going to run out of money before you manage to solve the issues.

I don't deny that profit seeking has been used repeatedly to stifle innovation, and yes, the government could step in there, but you're going to have many many 'capitalists' who aren't going to go for it.

Any of this 'change' that is sought is going to be extremely slower than needed.

 

[Vic]

Depends on what specifically you are speaking of. Basically everything I'm referring to is around getting rid of fossil fuel use. There are plenty of communities today that still do things the way they did back then and are doing just fine (not going to say it is ideal). Until someone solves the 'profits drive innovation' issue, you aren't going to see much change. You can tax, penalize, etc etc all you want, but all you are really doing is hurting the middle/poor. Climate change shouldn't be considered class warfare, but until alternatives are cheaper those are the only people who will feel the pinch. You can't take all the money to solve all the country/worlds problems and expect that people are just magically going to continue to drive innovation without some sort of reward. Those people are few. You are going to run out of money before you manage to solve the issues.

I don't deny that profit seeking has been used repeatedly to stifle innovation, and yes, the government could step in there, but you're going to have many many 'capitalists' who aren't going to go for it.

Any of this 'change' that is sought is going to be extremely slower than needed.

If we got rid of fossil fuel use, without replacing it with a new economy built around more efficient technologies, then billions of people would die from starvation, etc. Most of whom would be from the lower and middle classes.
And if climate change has become about class warfare, that is most likely because the lower and middle classes are generally not asset holders in the fossil fuel economy.

 

[HomerJS]

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.

Leader of the free world is calling climate change a hoax so you have no starting point.

 

[desy]

I've always felt that. The kind of change required to rewire the economy after 150 yrs of fossil fuel build up would turn the old white guys whiter. BTW I am one.
Conservative means status quo, good money in oil, my pension has invested in those companies The blinding pace of the development of man in the last 200 yrs has been done on the back of our machine energy slaves

 

[dank69]

If all that is true about how you live your life, then that is fine. I'm not going to try to dispute it. I was making a point to more than just you. Also, I am getting that there may be a bit of a language barrier here. To clarify, I do believe in climate change and I do think we need to do something about it. I just don't preach about it. I do my part but that isn't something new.

The point is he is doing those things you say he should do but the other 8 billion people are free to fuck up the planet no matter what he does. That is a lesson on why it is stupid to advocate individual action to solve a collective action problem. This is why people are going to call you a moron when you do it. It is tired. It is old. It's unoriginal, been done before a million times, not just for climate change but also for raising taxes on the rich.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The point is he is doing those things you say he should do but the other 8 billion people are free to fuck up the planet no matter what he does. That is a lesson on why it is stupid to advocate individual action to solve a collective action problem. This is why people are going to call you a moron when you do it. It is tired. It is old. It's unoriginal, been done before a million times, not just for climate change but also for raising taxes on the rich.

Yes, we already know you don't believe in personal responsibility.

 

[dank69]

Yes, we already know you don't believe in personal responsibility.

And we all knew you would miss the point.

 

[ImpulsE69]

And we all knew you would miss the point.

Oh I didn't miss the point. I spelled out my position already. Responsibility begins at home. Have fun waiting for 10+ years for those laws to go into effect, if they ever do without getting repealed before the corporations actually enact them. Good luck getting the rest of the worst offenders outside the US to go along as well. That's going to be a long time for you to stomp your feet. I hope you're wearing thick socks. What you want to happen is so unrealistic you may as well start planning the death of the human race now.

 

[dank69]

Oh I didn't miss the point. I spelled out my position already. Have fun waiting for 10+ years for those laws to go into effect, if they ever do without getting repealed before the corporations actually enact them. Good luck getting the rest of the worst offenders outside the US to go along as well. That's going to be a long time for you to stomp your feet. I hope you're wearing thick socks.

Many other countries are already way ahead of us. It's nice to see you are at least on rung 3 or 4 of the retarded denier ladder though.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Many other countries are already way ahead of us. It's nice to see you are at least on rung 3 or 4 of the retarded denier ladder though.

Of course you make that claim. it's easier than facing the truth. Keep being Trump Jr.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I've always felt that. The kind of change required to rewire the economy after 150 yrs of fossil fuel build up would turn the old white guys whiter. BTW I am one.
Conservative means status quo, good money in oil, my pension has invested in those companies The blinding pace of the development of man in the last 200 yrs has been done on the back of our machine energy slaves

I don't agree. Plus, we already need to rewire the damn thing because it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. I don't actually think we need anything drastic though, I think some smart targeted regulation would go a long way towards helping a lot of issues.

Which, with regards to that and climate change related stuff. We might as well take the time to literally rewire the country and modernize it, which would create an economic boom, improve efficiency, and improve our standard of living while preparing us for future problems (things like hostile foreign countries trying to take down our communication or power grid or even random cosmic events like the sun belching out radiation that could harm our infrastructure).

I hope you've been asking your pension fund how they plan to divest from fossil fuels, as it sounds like, in spite of the efforts to buoy them, that they're rather quickly going to turn not profitable (even natural gas is starting to take a beating by renewables). And as other large investments start to shift (lots of big endowments for instance have been specifically looking to divest away from fossil fuels), it'll probably teeter over quicker than someone relying on that for their pension/retirement will be able to handle.

I don't mean to come off as argumentative as I think you're effectively saying that yep, things are messed up and we blinded ourselves so it'll be tough to uproot the status quo. I just disagree that it needs to be that painful. Also, I legit hope your pension looks at diversifying their investments!

 

[pmv]

Yes, we already know you don't believe in personal responsibility.

Most of the time when someone refers to 'personal responsibility it's someone trying to avoid accepting it for those in their group. I'm almost as jaded about that term as I am about invocations of 'common sense' (which usually translates to - "I have no evidence or argument but demand you accept my claims anyway")

For example, politicians will declare getting sufficient physical exercise to be a matter of 'personal responsibility' as they sign the contracts to sell off neighborhood playing fields for luxury housing or shopping malls, or remove sidewalks to create more car-parking.

There's no way to address climate change via 'personal responsibility', invoking it is just a ruse to avoid doing what is necessary. It can only be addressed at the global and political level.

(Which isn't to say it isn't annoying when someone like Trudie Styler flies around the world between her multiple houses using a private jet while lecturing everyone about climate-change. I'll give you that much.)

 

[desy]

I don't agree. Plus, we already need to rewire the damn thing because it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. I don't actually think we need anything drastic though, I think some smart targeted regulation would go a long way towards helping a lot of issues.

I don't mean to come off as argumentative as I think you're effectively saying that yep, things are messed up and we blinded ourselves so it'll be tough to uproot the status quo. I just disagree that it needs to be that painful. Also, I legit hope your pension looks at diversifying their investments!

I haven't seen anything scalable to replace FF industry because it would have changed by now due to economics, the reason a coal plant gets taken offline every 15 days in the US is because of NG substitution, not solar. Its a fantasy to say otherwise. What I'm saying is it will be virtually impossible considering man's short sightedness to do anything other than BAU as the substitutes just aren't shovel ready.

https://www.infrastructurene.ws/wp-...-primary-energy-supply-by-source-figure-1.jpg

 

[Bitek]

You are just as responsible for fixing climate change as "liberals." It's your planet too.

Yes. We've made changes to our lifestyle, such as choices in home heating and other infrastructure for example. All heating/cooling, cooking and water is all electric and 100% provided by renewables. One of the largest areas a homeowner can impact.

I don't have an electric car, and don't plan on buying any new car for at least a decade. Hopefully the models available then will meet needs.

Otherwise I participate in and help drive an environmental sustainably program at work. Also have a large garden that's supplies many fresh veggies spring to fall.

Of all the major contributors I have direct influence over, we try to impact them as much as reasonable.

What I'm not down on is all the virtue signaling and hypocrisy with little tangible effort put into making reasonable changes.

I'm not also in favor of pushing counterproductive bans on products or other dumb laws, especially those designed to have insignificant impact, but gives supporters a feel good moment (and excuse to do nothing else.)

 

[Bitek]

"Tactics"? How about, "fuck off" as a "tactic". There is no tactic to use on people who won't even honestly acknowledge the problem.

Fing off doesn't change anything. Lecturing doesn't change anything.

Market forces and better options have been the most successful bearers of change.

Useful tactic:
Home heating and electricity are a top contributor of GHGs, and changing it doesn't ask people to make big lifestyle changes they might not want/be able to do. Plus ppl don't have emotional attachments to furnaces like they do with cars and food. Just needs to work and not cost too much.

So where is the push to change the market?

The Northeast is by far the highest user of dirty oil furnaces in the US, but even NG furnaces emit considerable GHG.

So the question should be, what are the politicians offering to change this?

So far Inslee is the only one that has any specifics, and he's polling at nothing%.

Jamming in requirements like union labor, diversity requirements and new taxes just distracts and impedes policy.

Offer huge subsides to replace homeowner's carbon furnaces with elect heat pumps. Offer to save people money on purchase/install, lower bills, and raise standard of living.
Not that hard to do.

Fuck all the dumb paygo rules, but maybe give higher subsidies to American manufacturers. This would do way more for Carrier and working class than Trump's stupid tax cuts ever did.

 

[sandorski]

Fing off doesn't change anything. Lecturing doesn't change anything.

Market forces and better options have been the most successful bearers of change.

You can't reach the unreachable.

 

[Bitek]

You can't reach the unreachable.

That wasn't my whole post, wasn't finished. See above.

 

[desy]

Things get so complicated, trying to create carbon tax to rebate back etc. You want to get people into efficient cars? No tax on X mpg, tax on Y mpg, and luxury tax on Z mpg.
We already have so many tools without creating more bureaucracies

 

[sandorski]

That wasn't my whole post, wasn't finished. See above.

That's what Carbon Taxes are for, raising Revenues to spend on such Programs.

 

[Bitek]

Tactic 2:

Huge subs to build windpower.

Give farmers and rural property owners new revenue streams. Many of the best areas for wind are right across the Midwest.
Go right after the red states with money. Use the renewable energy to power all the heat pumps we are building.

Get but American provisions in to give us manf jobs.

Bonus goal. Repeal/ban the ability to use eminent domain to build pipelines, and undercut the ability of NG to compete by stealing land.

 

[Jaskalas]

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?

If you could buy a unicorn, would you?
Of course!

Let's stick to reality. Emissions are INSANELY high. There is no chance of sequestration without first curbing those to a much more reasonable level, likely well below a 1990 level of output.

 

[Bitek]

That's what Carbon Taxes are for, raising Revenues to spend on such Programs.

Why taxes? Controversial. Just borrow and spend.
Rs do for useless tax cuts. Stop fighting with one hand tied.

This creates jobs and long term savings. Treat it as investment and sell it to the masses.

They don't have to believe in CC, just in money

 

[sandorski]

Why taxes? Controversial. Just borrow and spend.
Rs do for useless tax cuts. Stop fighting with one hand tied.

This creates jobs and long term savings. Treat it as investment and sell it to the masses.

They don't have to believe in CC, just in money

Maybe because some people want to do things the proper way and not be deceptive about it.