Want a Green New Deal? Here's a better one.

[mia]

WE FAVOR a Green New Deal to save the planet. We believe such a plan can be efficient, effective, focused and achievable.

The Green New Deal proposed by congressional Democrats does not meet that test. Its proponents, led by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are right to call for ambition and bold action. They are right that the entire energy sector must be reshaped.

But the goal is so fundamental that policymakers should focus above all else on quickly and efficiently decarbonizing. They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be.

And the goal is so monumental that the country cannot afford to waste dollars in its pursuit. If the market can redirect spending most efficiently, money should not be misallocated on vast new government spending or mandates....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-a-green-new-deal-heres-a-better-one/2019/02/24/2d7e491c-36d2-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.881260c986f2

[Mr. Quackers]

1. Anything less than boldness

is just status quo bullshit.

We would need 23rd century Star Trek levels of solution-making to solve this global crisis. The entire world must come together as one to solve it.

[mia]

4. Tying effective global action to a federal jobs guarantee in the U.S

may hamstring the best of efforts we could possibly take here and around the world.

[Mr. Quackers]

6. If FDR thought that way

there wouldn't have been a host of federal jobs programs instituted to help solve a national problem during a time of global crisis during the Great Depression.

If the federal jobs involved help address the environmental problem or even our infrastructure problem, then that's a good thing. Just depends on what federal jobs they're talking about.

But I really don't know all the details.

[mia]

8. The New Deal helped to solve an economic crisis.

The crisis we face because of climate change pales in comparison.

I don't know the details either, but am concerned about any effort to redirect the focus away from what I see as 'Saving the Earth'.

[Mr. Quackers]

11. The economic aspect is part of the environmental problem

boldness in approach and coming together to solve the problem is a good start.

[MrsCoffee]

25. If we had the majorities that FDR enjoyed, I'm sure we would be shooting for the stars as well.

Something needs to be done fast.

[karynnj]

22. I agree we need boldness on climate, but as the op quoted article says - the resolution is not

focussed entirely on energy/climate change, but income inequality, minimum wage, and almost every other every social issue that exists.

While each of those things are important, it will make it that much harder to gain the momentum needed on climate change - which unlike border security - is an emergency. All the other issues are on things that need to change and are important, but throwing everything into one resolution means that many people who could be won over to act on climate change would not sign on because they disagree on the other issues.

[Hortensis]

2. Good editorial, but would it have killed to mention the REAL climate activists

among our house and senate Democrats? The ones actually working on making this happen?

I hope the inordinate attention given to Ocasio's political group helps raise consciousness at least. But they're using this new fear to gain power and trying to lure adherents with promises of Green Newe Deal wage increases and guaranteed incomes.

If they were focused on the critical imperative of retooling our nation to avoid the biggest disaster to hit mankind in known history, they'd focus on that, and they'd even have educated themselves on the subject.

Many genuine climate activists ran for congress as Democrats specifically to fight for climate, energy, fresh water, ag, environment from within the seat of power. They've all been assigned to committees focused on their issues, and that's what they are doing.

That includes Senator Merkley, btw (who's reportedly considering a presidential run). He has good experience in these issues and far from being a radical is on many of the committees working on these issues. He's very much one of the "establishment" Democrats whom Brand New Congress imagines itself purging from congress. Could be that Merkley, and other senators expressing support for the Green New Deal idea, are planning a different sort of takeover.

[mia]

7. Yes, and promises of wage increases and guaranteed incomes will likely

limit the legislation that needs to pass in order to effectively deal with this global disaster.

[Hortensis]

12. Hope not! My best guess is "GND" climate will be split off

and that label attached to legislation that's been written and is being revised while awaiting power to pass it. That has to be our biggest priority.

But the need for a UBI, which people will spend to keep business fueled, has become critical also. Anxious and angry people make bad voters. The Republicans have been gutting our treasury, though. We were in much better shape after Democratic Obama, of course, to move to a UBI, and Hillary seriously considered developing one in her first term.

FDR's admin built the New Deal out of a broken economy, though, so we'll see what the same kind of people can do with today's very different realities. And very much to the point once again, FDR tried to work with radical progressives who saw "the establishment" as their big enemy, but ended up fighting off their attacks and creating the New Deal without them. In the end they were a symptom of the need for change that his administration turned to such good use.

[Snotcicles]

3. We're going to see the spin machine trying to water it down because

it goes after so many issues the status quo want protected.

[mia]

9. Water what down?

The Green New Deal as it is currently written?

Why do U.S. employment issues need to be tied to programs that deal with climate change?

[Wounded Bear]

18. Well, for one thing, poor people buy old, high-polluting cars...

Higher incomes lead to people buying newer, more efficient vehicles.

[ehrnst]

14. Who is the "status quo" you're talking about? (nt)

[shanny]

5. "The Market?"

Spare me.

[scarytomcat]

10. it is time

to get to work
government will have to catch up

[shanny]

16. You can't fix a problem using the same system that created it.

Fixing the environment doesn't PAY in the short term, which is the only thing The Market cares about. If it did, we would not be where we are.

[ehrnst]

15. If we demand for the fall of capitalism rather than approve any environmental legislation that

uses any market forces to clean up their act, then we're really not going to get anything done in the next 12 years...

I am reminded of the Clinton Foundation being shamed because they "worked with" big pharma to get affordable HIV/AIDS drugs to people who need them now, instead of simply demanding that Big Pharma either go non-profit, or demand that they just lower all their drug prices.

As a result of their "market" solution, 3/4 of the HIVAIDS sufferers on the planet have medication via the Clinton Foundation partnerships. Yes, 'big pharma" is still private, and yes, they still set their own prices, but people are alive and well as a result of using market forces instead of demonizing or attempting punitive measures.

But Magaziner and CHAI had a plan — one that relied on Clinton’s unique celebrity and ability to bring foreign leaders and pharmaceutical CEOs to the table in the way an ordinary civilian couldn’t. This was the whole idea behind the Clinton Foundation. At the time, Clinton himself wasn’t wealthy enough to influence things solely as a funder. But what he lacked in money he made up for in an extensive Rolodex and unparalleled glad-handing skills. And in HIV/AIDS drugs, he thought he’d found a problem that those resources could help solve.
.........................................................................................

CHAI’s basic approach was to ask drug companies to accept smaller margins in exchange for higher volumes. "In essence, CHAI negotiations helped transform the business model for the ARV industry," political scientists Ethan Kapstein and Joshua Busby write in their history of the global AIDS activist movement, AIDS Drugs for All. Previously, even with prices as low as $350, companies like Cipla and its competitor Ranbaxy were selling at relatively low volumes but with healthy margins. The goal of CHAI was to transform the sector into a lower-margin, higher-volume industry.

In an interview with the Atlantic’s Jonathan Rauch, Bill Clinton put the change this way: "What we tried to do was to get them to go from what I call a ‘jewelry-store model’ to a ‘grocery-store model’—from a high-profit, low-volume, uncertain-payment business to a low-margin, high-volume, certain-payment business."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/clinton-foundation-effectiveness

One could say that providing a family assistance to pay their electric bill is promoting "big coal" and we need to be using those funds to promote and install solar/wind/hydrogen fuel cell technology.

But that family won't get heat, and that is a separate, more immediately solvable issue.

I think that's what the WAPO article is pointing out about the GND.

Natural gas’s displacement of carbon-rich, toxic coal as the country’s top electric fuel source would have seemed a preposterous dream just a decade ago. It has come about with no government mandate and while saving consumers money. When the market demands an outcome, things change fast.

[ehrnst]

13. That makes so much more sense.

Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2019, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)

When the market demands an outcome, things change fast.

[TheBlackAdder]

17. China has secured most strategic metals, minerals, half world's croplands and moving on 5G tech.

.

When the US awakens to the "market demands" that 2030 and beyond will bring... it will be too late.

.

[ehrnst]

19. I'm not sure what this has to do with the article. (nt)

[TheBlackAdder]

24. You wrote when market demands an outcome... it's almost always later than it should be.

[ehrnst]

26. So you just mean generally, not having anything to do with the specifics

laid out in the article, including concrete examples of when market forces drove companies away from coal.

Natural gas’s displacement of carbon-rich, toxic coal as the country’s top electric fuel source would have seemed a preposterous dream just a decade ago. It has come about with no government mandate and while saving consumers money. When the market demands an outcome, things change fast.

Did you read the article?

Especially the parts where this tactic could be used with Carbon pricing?

A high-enough carbon price would shape millions of choices, small and large, about what to buy, how to invest and how to live that would result in substantial emissions cuts. People would prioritize the easiest changes, minimizing the costs of the energy transition. With a price that steadily rose, market forces would steadily wring carbon dioxide out of the economy — without the government trying to dictate exactly how, wasting money on special-interest boondoggles.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the market forces that lead people to drive less, and buy more fuel efficient cars when gasoline is expensive, or how taxing cigarettes induces more people to quit smoking.... and it's been suggested that market forces could keep guns out of kid's hands by requiring liability insurance for gun owners - impelling gun owners to secure their guns in a more childproof way when they are hit with a higher insurance bill for not doing so....

[theophilus]

20. Win the WH, the Senate, and the House and then get busy!

Democrats must use ALL good ideas. If the private sector continues to drag its feet then the Government (the People's government) must step in and do the job. No more time to dither. Time's up. The actions to help fix the problem will provide opportunities for a vast number of good jobs. Robotic replacement of workers and AI takeover for Corps. need to be tempered with the millions of folks needing to live. The lifestyle of the rich and infamous must decline so that we all can survive.

The status quo is a recipe for extinction. Fortune favors the brave. Let's go!

[ehrnst]

21. What do you mean by "status quo?"

And the WAPO article states that we don't have time for bad ideas, hence this article.

Did you read the article?

[hunter]

23. I'm done with magical thinking.

God's not going to save the world.

The libertarian cult of free markets isn't going to save the world.

A combination of the above most certainly isn't going to save the world.

And, a lot of people here on DU are not going to like this:

Wind and solar power isn't going to save the world.

Quitting fossil fuels is like quitting smoking.

We just have to do it.

A society that has quit fossil fuels will look nothing like the high energy industrial "consumer" society many of us now enjoy.