Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINALEarlier version: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ
10-Q-2-U.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINALEarlier version: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ
10-Q-2-U.
The climate side of it is only dumb to people who either don't know about technologies which currently exist (in some cases for decades) that can help reduce and eventually eliminate the need for burning carbon fuels for energy or are so politically entrenched that they have a pathological aversion to anything "green" because they see these issues through the prism of partisan politics rather than pragmatism.
They try and justify that stance by citing the costs of moving away from fossil fuels not understanding that climate change and the inevitable more extreme weather events will actually be far more costly and economically damaging than the technological and infrastructure costs.
The Stern Review published by the London School of Economics stated that climate change is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen. So far only carbon taxation has been implemented from its recommendations 13 years ago.
Then there's the more abstract arguments like that moving away from inefficient, antiquated combustion technology is the only way to move up the Kardashev Scale and ensure long term human survival.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Like I said, the climate aspect is ambitious but something every government should aspire to.The other aspects I haven't looked at (healthcare, jobs guarantee etc)
Ok, that's where I want to say that if the topic was infrastructure, technologies, reducing carbon emissions I would get on board.
You then see a lot of crossover into the govt doing a lot of social engineering and ignoring the current climate as it relates to the global economy.
Thirdly a pet peeve is also when they cite examples in their documents to support said bill they should have to reference said studies.
The fact that the I.C.E. is still used today is laughable look no further than computers and how we have advanced with them because someone saw $$$.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The climate side of it is only dumb to people who either don't know about technologies which currently exist (in some cases for decades) that can help reduce and eventually eliminate the need for burning carbon fuels for energy or are so politically entrenched that they have a pathological aversion to anything "green" because they see these issues through the prism of partisan politics rather than pragmatism.They try and justify that stance by citing the costs of moving away from fossil fuels not understanding that climate change and the inevitable more extreme weather events will actually be far more costly and economically damaging than the technological and infrastructure costs.
The Stern Review published by the London School of Economics stated that climate change is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen. So far only carbon taxation has been implemented from its recommendations 13 years ago.
Then there's the more abstract arguments like that moving away from inefficient, antiquated combustion technology is the inevitable more extreme weather events will actually be far more costly and economically damaging
Good post. Three points here I'd like to touch on:
"pathological aversion to anything "green" - This is a huge problem from mostly one side. I recall when the Prius (2nd gen) really started making waves in the early 2000s as the car of the future and how certain climate change deniers attacked it. Because using less fuel than virtually any other car at the time was somehow a threat and a bad thing?
"inevitable more extreme weather events will actually be far more costly and economically damaging" - Again, usually one side that refuses to see or acknowledge this. Though I suspect top politicians and heads of industry do know the truth here, but it's a "let the next generation deal with it; I'm getting mine and my kids. grand kids etc will be set financially" mindset.
"inevitable more extreme weather events will actually be far more costly and economically damaging" - It was you a few years ago that said humanity will die on this planet and you're probably right. It'll be 2020 in less than a year and we still have politicians/lawmakers (even the Trump admin now jumped on this) saying shit like "we don't have to worry about the planet, God is taking care of it."
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The climate side of it is only dumb to people who either don't know about technologies which currently exist (in some cases for decades) that can help reduce and eventually eliminate the need for burning carbon fuels for energy or are so politically entrenched that they have a pathological aversion to anything "green" because they see these issues through the prism of partisan politics rather than pragmatism.They try and justify that stance by citing the costs of moving away from fossil fuels not understanding that climate change and the inevitable more extreme weather events will actually be far more costly and economically damaging than the technological and infrastructure costs.
The Stern Review published by the London School of Economics stated that climate change is the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen. So far only carbon taxation has been implemented from its recommendations 13 years ago.
Then there's the more abstract arguments like that moving away from inefficient, antiquated combustion technology is the only way to move up the Kardashev Scale and ensure long term human survival.
Then she shouldn't have grouped it in with a whole bunch of stupid shit.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So you support a plan despite not knowing how it will be implemented?
I said it's something to aspire to. "It" being the transition away from a fossil fuel based primary energy source. I even contextualised that statement with basic technological and economic examples to show how the idea is feasible.
Is that an endorsement of every minutiae and timescale set out in the plan?
I would say clearly not.