Obama Had a Green New Deal, and It Worked. Let's Do That Again.

[ehrnst]

More recently, acknowledging the poll (which he brought to my attention) showing that the enthusiasm is heavily weighted against the Green New Deal, Roberts is presenting the grassroots wave as a future aspiration rather than a countable asset. “Intensity is what matters in politics,” he argues. “Democrats and climate hawks need to figure out how to generate some.” Roberts is a brilliant policy analyst from whom I have learned enormously. But I believe the theory of political change upon which he has hung his support for the Green New Deal strategy is showing its fatal flaws.

The second rationale for the Green New Deal is the belief that Democrats need a radically different strategy because what they tried under the Obama administration failed. Mike Konczal defends it as “a reaction to the failed strategy of cap-and-trade.” Kevin Baker, writing in Harper’s, calls Obama’s climate agenda “woefully inadequate in the first place,” and insists it has “now largely been squashed by President Trump.”

......................................................................

The successes, by contrast, occurred with barely any fanfare. Obama’s stimulus included $80 billion in green energy subsidies, the largest investment in renewable energy technology in American history. The stimulus was written and passed in mere weeks, during an atmosphere of economic crisis when its impact on a long-developing environmental problem hardly registered with the news media. (Its tax credits for wind and solar power were extended in 2015, as part of a low-profile bipartisan budget deal.)

..............................................................................

All of this suggests Obama’s presidency offers a model, after all, for how the next Democratic president can address climate change. The three tools used by the 44th president — green energy investment as part of a stimulus bill, tighter regulation, and aggressive international diplomacy — may lack the transformative ambition of the Green New Deal. But the Green New Deal is nowhere close to overcoming either the technocratic challenge of designing workable policies to fulfill its grand designs, or the political challenge of enacting them.

A scaled-up version of Obama’s model, by contrast, is workable. Democrats might have to alter the rules for what kinds of spending the Senate allows to pass with 50 votes to allow for green energy subsidies. That will be a hard task when the 50th Senate vote comes from a red state, but not as hard as getting that 50th vote to approve a revolutionary overhaul of the entire economy. It’s not impossible to imagine a Joe Manchin or a Kyrsten Sinema approving a bill to deploy lots of new green energy infrastructure if it included enough investment for their states.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/obamas-green-new-deal-worked-climate-change.html

[qazplm135]

1. yeah

AOC et al will call that the middle option that will kill us so that won't pass muster with them.

[ehrnst]

3. I'll take "done" over being promised the moon any day.

[zipplewrath]

2. No, it didn't "work"

I'm not saying he did anything wrong, nor that something more effective could have been done. But it didn't create the kinds of reversals that were and are needed. Even worse, now the need is even greater and if they had "worked" they'd no longer be enough. It's all very nice to advocate for policies that might actually pass as legislation, but it distracts ultimately from the fact that none of it is accomplishing anything. It's giving a glass of water to a man dying of hunger and saying "well, at least he's not thirsty".

[ehrnst]

4. So tell us what would have "created the kind of reversals that were and are needed"

if that was so simple.

It's all very nice to advocate for policies that might actually pass as legislation, but it distracts ultimately from the fact that none of it is accomplishing anything.

Can you give an example of enviromental legislation that passed that 'accomplished nothing?' It's like giving jug of of water to a man dying of thirst and him saying saying "It's tap water, so what's the use? Why accept this when I could have Volvic? You have accomplished nothing to save me."

It's giving a glass of water to a man dying of hunger and saying "well, at least he's not thirsty".

Can you specify where the Obama Green New Deal could have been made better, considering that we live in a real world with real GOP obstruction. Particularly in light of saying "he did nothing wrong."

Are there mosquitos that other world? I hate mosquitos.

[zipplewrath]

5. No, that's the point

the things Obama did were never going to work. That's the point. The magnitude of what is happening is growing larger every day and middle of the road measures haven't accomplished anything, and won't accomplish anything except to create a false sense of accomplishment. Opposing those efforts that WILL accomplish something because today you can't find a way to get them through congress is just contributing to the problem. We need to first identify those solutions that will accomplish something. Clearly explain how to accomplish them, and then move forward in building the political consensus to do so. Wasting time on efforts that won't accomplish anything, just because we'll get a "win" is not only wasting time, but is an obstacle to a solution.

[ehrnst]

7. Actually, many things Obama did worked. Did you read the article at all before responding?

Wasting time on efforts that won't accomplish anything, just because we'll get a "win" is not only wasting time, but is an obstacle to a solution.

A "win" is the first step in the solution, isn't it? If it doesn't 'win' then we are no further than where we started.

Clearly explain how to accomplish them, and then move forward in building the political consensus to do so.

Oh, so it's that simple. And Obama neglected to do any of that. Got it. Especially now when any Democrat who works toward building political consensus is trashed as "capitulating" and a "third way shill."

Opposing those efforts that WILL accomplish something because today you can't find a way to get them through congress is just contributing to the problem.

What Democrats are opposing efforts to address climate change? Are you talking about the Senate Democrats that pulled the New Green Deal from the fire that McConnell threw it on by voting "present?" That's the reality of this world, and AOC owes them gratitude for being experienced and savvy enough to save her wish list from a premature death.

In this world sometimes the choice isn't between "very evil bad" and "very good" it's between "not doable and nothing gets done" and "doable and some things get done."

Perhaps in another world someone can stomp their feet and get everything that they want right now, and there are no mosquitos or the GOP.

[zipplewrath]

8. No

A "win" is the first step in the solution, isn't it? If it doesn't 'win' then we are no further than where we started.

No, it's the LAST step.

Oh, so it's that simple. And Obama neglected to do any of that. Got it. Especially now when any Democrat who works toward building political consensus is trashed as "capitulating" and a "third way shill."

First of all, I didn't say any of that. Second of all, no it isn't easy. "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

In this world sometimes the choice isn't between "very evil bad" and "very good" it's between "not doable and nothing gets done" and "doable and some things get done."

And sometimes things are so bad it's a choice between succeeding and failing. Right now we are failing, and it is getting worse every day. Proposing things that aren't going to actually accomplish anything meaningful isn't going to help. It's going to interfere with working on those things that WILL work. And we don't have anytime to waste at all.

[ehrnst]

10. Let's go through this again...

No, it's the LAST step.

If legislation doesn't get passed, there is no first step, let alone a win. Is that clearer? And if you want to call a bulleted list of items, some of which are vague a "win" then you really don't understand legislation. Again... Democrats pulled it off the fire that McConnell threw it on because he knew it would FAIL as it was. AOC owes a debt of gratitude to those who knew enough about "winning" that they saved it by voting "present," instead of "yes."

Second of all, no it isn't easy. "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

You quote a president that was attempting to get the public behind an arms race with the Soviets with soaring rhetoric about technological acheivement and literally promising the moon. He was not talking about legislation. I also hear that a lot when people talk about Medicare for All, as if because it's hard, that means it's better or somehow more ethical than something that is less hard. Because JFK and the moon.

And sometimes things are so bad it's a choice between succeeding and failing.

Like if legislation doesn't pass, it fails to accomplish anything.

Proposing things that aren't going to actually accomplish anything meaningful isn't going to help.

I have no idea what you are referring to here - Obama's actual meaningful accomplishments toward reversing climate change were neither because the problem wasn't solved within his administration?

It's going to interfere with working on those things that WILL work. And we don't have anytime to waste at all.

You still haven't specified what is "interfering" and what is it that it's interfering with. Are you saying that Obama's legislative and diplomatic progress on climate change "interfered" with something that would have done the job already?

Can you clue us in?

[zipplewrath]

16. Okay

I have no idea what you are referring to here - Obama's actual meaningful accomplishments toward reversing climate change were neither because the problem wasn't solved within his administration?

Because they didn't even begin to "reverse" anything, and really the problem has gotten worse in the meantime. They didn't even "slow it down". They just "reduced the acceleration". At the time one MIGHT have been able to make the argument that if the slowing down was sustained long enough, at some time in the future, we could achieve reversal before time ran out. Whether that was true then is highly arguable. Now, we don't have that kind of time. Time IS running out, if it hasn't already.

Are you saying that Obama's legislative and diplomatic progress on climate change "interfered" with something that would have done the job already?

I'm saying that at this point in time, doing something whose time has passed, will interfere with moving towards actual solutions. Being nostalgic for the "good ole days", isn't going to solve this problem. We've wasted DECADES avoiding solutions to the problem. That has reduce the body of potential solutions to a very small set of actions that can and need to be taken.

[ehrnst]

18. Ok...

Because they didn't even begin to "reverse" anything, and really the problem has gotten worse in the meantime. They didn't even "slow it down".

Go the data to back that up?

They just "reduced the acceleration"

That is the defnition of "slowing down."

I'm saying that at this point in time, doing something whose time has passed, will interfere with moving towards actual solutions.

Can you specify why the "time has passed" for what the article in the OP is suggesting - which is updating it. Did you read the article at all?

Being nostalgic for the "good ole days", isn't going to solve this problem.

Straw man... misrepresenting someone else one way to avoid actually discussing the topic. Which is the article. Which it appears you have not read.

We've wasted DECADES avoiding solutions to the problem.

Apparently you didn't read that article at all, did you? But you're happy to lecture people about how "wrong" it is. Got it.

That has reduce the body of potential solutions to a very small set of actions that can and need to be taken.

What has "reduce the body of potential solutions to a very small set of actions that can and need to be taken?" As has been pointed out, looking at solutions that worked, and updating them is not "nostalgia for the past."

[zipplewrath]

20. The data exists

Furthermore, it was acknowledge at the time that these were only the starting measure, there was more work to be done.

And no, "reducing the acceleration" is not "slowing down". In fact it is the exact opposite of that. If you are still accelerating, you are still going faster. You have to DEcelerate in order to "slow down".

Apprently you didn't read all the way through:

Is this suite of reforms going to be “enough”? No, nothing is going to be enough — even eliminating all greenhouse gasses tomorrow would leave the planet dangerously overheated.

Which is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get you to understand. It may already be too late. Our ONLY chance is to stop it QUICKLY and hope that it's ultimately possible to reverse it. It may not be.

[ehrnst]

24. The data exists, but you just can't share it?

Gotcha.

And no, "reducing the acceleration" is not "slowing down". In fact it is the exact opposite of that. If you are still accelerating, you are still going faster. You have to DEcelerate in order to "slow down".

I remember hearing similar from RWers when their came an announcement during the Obama administration that the recession was over, and they howled that they weren't seeing it in their paycheck. Telling them that recession had a specific meaning was lost on them.

Global warming didn't appear overnight, and it will not disappear overnight. Apprently you didn't read all the way through:

No, nothing is going to be enough — even eliminating all greenhouse gasses tomorrow would leave the planet dangerously overheated.

But the Green New Deal is nowhere close to overcoming either the technocratic challenge of designing workable policies to fulfill its grand designs, or the political challenge of enacting them.

Your view is that any plan acceptable to you would have to do those things (which you seem to think that this Green New Deal is capable of - when you can't even find data to back up your claims about the efficacy of previous efforts) and anything that accomplished less would be "wasting time." And that it's EITHER solve it ENTIRELY (not really possible), or give up ENTIRELY, only working on adjusting to the changes that are coming.

In your straw man argument that "nostalgia" is what looking at what Obama did before, you clearly missed this part of the article...

A scaled-up version of Obama’s model, by contrast, is workable. Democrats might have to alter the rules for what kinds of spending the Senate allows to pass with 50 votes to allow for green energy subsidies. That will be a hard task when the 50th Senate vote comes from a red state, but not as hard as getting that 50th vote to approve a revolutionary overhaul of the entire economy. It’s not impossible to imagine a Joe Manchin or a Kyrsten Sinema approving a bill to deploy lots of new green energy infrastructure if it included enough investment for their states.

I highly recommend reading the article before refuting it.

Let us know when you find that data concerning the "lack of efficacy" of the Obama administration policies.

I doubt that it will be any more forthcoming than the 'proof' that Obama 'made the economy worse than it would have been had he done nothing' that I heard from my RWers on social media.

[zipplewrath]

34. I've read it

And no, "reducing the acceleration" is not "slowing down". In fact it is the exact opposite of that. If you are still accelerating, you are still going faster. You have to DEcelerate in order to "slow down".

You heard right wingers say this? That'd be surprising because this is the scientific definition of acceleration. I"m really surprised you'd argue against the point.

But the Green New Deal is nowhere close to overcoming either the technocratic challenge of designing workable policies to fulfill its grand designs, or the political challenge of enacting them.

So we'd better get to work. We don't have alot of time. Because working on a politically achievable policy that isn't a solution is a waste of time.

Most strikingly, the document says the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, which amount to more than 40 billion tons per year, would have to be on an extremely steep downward path by 2030 to either hold the world entirely below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or allow only a brief “overshoot” in temperatures. As of 2018, emissions appeared to be still rising, not yet showing the clear peak that would need to occur before any decline.

[ehrnst]

37. "Because working on a politically achievable policy that isn't a solution is a waste of time. "

You mean like a brand new one that hasn't even been fleshed out yet?

You heard right wingers say this? That'd be surprising because this is the scientific definition of acceleration. I"m really surprised you'd argue against the point.

Yes, about recession, not climate change acceleration. I was comparing their lack of understand of terms with what was demonstrated in your post. They also claimed that Obama's actions to right the economy had "no positive effect" than if he had not done anything. Also- If I'm in a car that's accelerating past the speed limit, towards a cliff, anything that counteracts that is positive in not going over the cliff, and not "useless" because it doesn't stop the car immediately?

So we'd better get to work. We don't have alot of time. Because working on a politically achievable policy that isn't a solution is a waste of time.

Because you say it's a "waste of time?" You can't even find the data you say "exists" that Obama's policies that actually got implemented "did nothing." And Democrats haven't been doing anything to offer an alternative? Please.

As of 2018, emissions appeared to be still rising, not yet showing the clear peak that would need to occur before any decline.

So anything that has been done prior to that had "no effect" as this elusive "data" you say exists says?

Still waiting on that... along with the "data" that the RWers said existed that showed that Obama's economic actions had "no effect" on the economy...

[George II]

6. This is all that the so-called "green new deal" is:

"advocate(ing) for policies that might actually pass as legislation, but it distracts ultimately from the fact that none of it is accomplishing anything"

It's not a plan, it's not a program, it's merely a resolution (who the author of it admitted several times) that, essentially, "we must do something" with very little definition of what that "something" is or how to accomplish anything specific.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

[MGKrebs]

9. It's a commitment to pursue those goals.

[ehrnst]

11. Legislation requires more specificity as to what is mean by pursuing those goals.

Why do you think that McConnell wanted to get it to the floor so fast? Because as it was, it would have not had a chance.

Democratic Senators with more wisdom than the authors saved it by voting "present" instead of yes.

[MGKrebs]

13. Well then why such vitriol about it?

It''s a resolution outlining some goals, that presumably we all pretty much agree with. Why is there suddenly such scorn here for it?

[ehrnst]

21. The vitriol that I see is coming from those who see it as the

one and only possible solution, and anyone who doesn't think so is 'lukewarm' on climate change and has no business running for public office.

The response to that vitriol is what I think you are mistaking for the originating vitriol.

Is that clearer?

[marylandblue]

14. He wanted it to get the floor so they could vote it down without hearings.

But he wasn't planning to let Republicans go on record as believing in climate change.

This would be different conversation if enough Democrats realized what will happen in the next few years, and Republicans believed in climate change at all.

But carry on. Our brains are not actually designed to understand how we can affect the climate 30 years from now. They were designed to believe rain dances will make it rain today.

[marylandblue]

12. So far it's a resolution, but the goal is very clear.

Net-zero carbon emmissions in a short amount of time. The timeline and cost is dictated by physics not politics. If we are going to limit ourselves to "moderate" compromise legislation that provides only a small fraction of the investment needed, we might as well not bother. The money is better spent elsewhere.

[ehrnst]

15. The resolution isn't going to have much in the way of teeth.

The timeline and cost is dictated by physics not politics.

Tell that to the GOP. They are a part of this reality, and they don't do science.

If we are going to limit ourselves to "moderate" compromise legislation that provides only a small fraction of the investment needed, we might as well not bother.

What legislation are you referring to? And doing nothing is always better than something, if that something doesn't do everything that you would like? The investment needed to reverse climate change is mindboggling - and you think anything less than that isn't "worth the bother?"

This sounds more like a support for a particular resolution is more important than working towards an actual solution.

[zipplewrath]

17. Good money after bad.

Ya ever heard that expression? Do you know what it means? If we don't reverse the situation, or at least stop it, the money would be better spent preparing the population for the severe changes in climate that are going to be occuring. It would be better spent on the "climate refugees". It would be better spent on figuring out where our food is going to be coming, on where people will be living, and on how we are going to survive as a species.

[ehrnst]

19. Don't make perfect the enemy of good

Ya ever heard that expression? Do you know what it means?

If we don't reverse the situation, or at least stop it, the money would be better spent preparing the population for the severe changes in climate that are going to be occuring.

You're the one who thinks that we "shouldn't bother" if there is no perfect solution. And in this world, there seldom are - anyone who promises a simple solution to a very complicated problem is selling something or running for political office. The mindset that thinks that there are always clear black and white decisions and if we hold out long enough whoever is "preventing" that perfect solution will be forced to let us have it isn't one that is reflected in the real world.

It would be better spent on figuring out where our food is going to be coming, on where people will be living, and on how we are going to survive as a species.

We can't do both - work on what we can do to slow or reverse climate change and work on dealing with the consequences of it? Again with the all or nothing/ black or white thinking?

Why not?

[zipplewrath]

22. Far from about perfect

No one is advocating for "perfect", just "effective". What is being proposed won't be effective. The article even states that at the end. The author acknowledges that it won't begin to reverse anything, and really, it won't even make things better.

[ehrnst]

26. So you've changed your views since this thread started?

Glad to see that I've had an effect on you - even though your definition of "effective" was far, far higher than most - in fact if it didn't meet your bar it was equivalent to " giving a glass of water to a man dying of hunger and saying "well, at least he's not thirsty".

Please. Just own it, don't try to backpedal. You reject any and all effective measures that don't reverse or stop it as worse than useless, as somehow stopping us from preparing for the changes that are too late to stop:

If we don't reverse the situation, or at least stop it, the money would be better spent preparing the population for the severe changes in climate that are going to be occuring.

If you can't cure the cancer outright, why bother with treatments that might slow or even pause the process of the disease and extend and improve quality of life? Just use that money to plan your funeral, right?

The author acknowledges that it won't begin to reverse anything, and really, it won't even make things better.

Actually, here is what the author wrote:

Is this suite of reforms going to be “enough”? No, nothing is going to be enough — even eliminating all greenhouse gasses tomorrow would leave the planet dangerously overheated. But more is better than less. The Green New Deal’s advocates are already starting to realize how desperately unlikely it is to yield anything resembling its promises. (Roberts calls it “a long shot — a desperate Hail Mary in a game where time is running short.”) Why would Democrats turn their backs on a model that has actually produced important progress for a desperate long shot?

According to you, because it isn't the Green New Deal, so it's going to be WORSE than doing nothing.

Here is what the author talks about as something that won't be effective:

By “this” I don’t mean an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I mean the specific political and policy design choices embedded in the Green New Deal, to whatever extent they exist. Those choices include insisting on a 10-year target for phasing out greenhouse gasses rather than the 30-year schedule required by the Paris climate accords, tossing in an array of non-climate-related policies like universal health care and guaranteed jobs for all, and avoiding important emissions-reducing tools like nuclear power.

And this is what could be effective in the battle against climate change:

In addition to whatever spending can pass the Senate, they can use regulations and diplomacy to leverage enormous amounts of positive change. And, as the Obama era shows, the three tools work especially well in concert. Investing in green energy brings down the cost of these technologies, making tight regulations easier to design and comply with. (Power companies couldn’t easily phase out dirty fuel sources until clean ones became cheaper; car companies can bring down their fuel intake because electric cars have become cost competitive.) Tighter regulations create a market demand for more clean energy innovations. And the more affordable these new technologies become, the easier it is for more leaders of developing countries to commit to a green energy path.

Still waiting on that data that you say shows none of these things had an impact.

[zipplewrath]

35. No

But I've identified that you don't seem to understand the point.

In addition to whatever spending can pass the Senate, they can use regulations and diplomacy to leverage enormous amounts of positive change. And, as the Obama era shows, the three tools work especially well in concert. Investing in green energy brings down the cost of these technologies, making tight regulations easier to design and comply with. (Power companies couldn’t easily phase out dirty fuel sources until clean ones became cheaper; car companies can bring down their fuel intake because electric cars have become cost competitive.) Tighter regulations create a market demand for more clean energy innovations. And the more affordable these new technologies become, the easier it is for more leaders of developing countries to commit to a green energy path.

But will that be enough? It doesn't appear it will. It doesn't appear it will even slow it down enough to detect the changes.

[ehrnst]

36. It's got a better track record that anything newly proposed.

Do you have that data that shows it "didn't make a difference" yet?

Thought so.

[zipplewrath]

39. No it doesn't

Do you have that data that shows it "didn't make a difference" yet?

Yes. we just hit a new record for carbon dioxide and it is still accelerating. I understand you don't know what that word means, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still true and relevant.

[ehrnst]

40. Where is the data that shows Obama's policies did 'nothing'?

Yes. we just hit a new record for carbon dioxide and it is still accelerating.

Nope. Doesn't show what you claim, even if you included data to support it, which you didn't...

Health care costs have risen, but that doesn't mean that the ACA didn't slow the acceleration or make it easier for people to get health care. Is that a clearer example that is easier to understand that illustrates the problem with your statements?

You claim that his policies accomplished nothing, and there is data that shows it.

You have not provided any such data - I know you don't understand what "data to prove your statement" means, but that doesn't excuse your continued unsubstantiated claims about Obama's climate policies having no effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/15/trump-replacement-obama-climate-plan

The Trump administration’s replacement for the linchpin Obama-era plan to combat climate change would increase greenhouse gas emissions in much of the US more than doing nothing at all, according to new research.

Planet-warming emissions would “rebound” under the Trump policy, researchers found, as it delays the retirement of coal-fired power plants. Carbon dioxide emissions would be 8.7% higher in 18 states and Washington DC by 2030, compared with having no policy at all.

The clean power plan, crafted by the Obama administration, would have set limits on carbon pollution and helped phase out the use of coal, the most polluting energy source for greenhouse gases. The plan was halted due to legal action, with the Trump administration intending to replace it with a watered-down alternative called the affordable clean energy rule.

[zipplewrath]

41. I didn't say that

I said they were insufficient.

[ehrnst]

42. Changing your tune when you are called out on it...

Evasion. Just own it - you want to believe it's true, so you do.

But here's some data that refutes your claim - and yes, you made it.

The Trump administration’s replacement for the linchpin Obama-era plan to combat climate change would increase greenhouse gas emissions in much of the US more than doing nothing at all, according to new research.

Planet-warming emissions would “rebound” under the Trump policy, researchers found, as it delays the retirement of coal-fired power plants. Carbon dioxide emissions would be 8.7% higher in 18 states and Washington DC by 2030, compared with having no policy at all.

Despite this urgency, greenhouse gas emissions crept up in the US as well as globally last year. The EPA’s rollback “could make things even worse”, said Jonathan Buonocore, another co-author of the Harvard report the Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “This will throw a wrench into the climate action plans for many states and cities.”

The clean power plan, crafted by the Obama administration, would have set limits on carbon pollution and helped phase out the use of coal, the most polluting energy source for greenhouse gases. The plan was halted due to legal action, with the Trump administration intending to replace it with a watered-down alternative called the affordable clean energy rule.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/15/trump-replacement-obama-climate-plan

[ehrnst]

43. Nope - Your own words:

. No, that's the point

the things Obama did were never going to work. That's the point. The magnitude of what is happening is growing larger every day and middle of the road measures haven't accomplished anything, and won't accomplish anything except to create a false sense of accomplishment.

Care to revise your claim?

[zipplewrath]

44. They didn't

In the sense that they didn't stop the or reverse a problem that is not almost completely out of control. Basically, applying the brakes so lightly that you still hit the car in front of you and die doesn't really address the problem. It just means you died going slower.

[ehrnst]

45. That's not a retraction of what you said.

You said that the policies accomplished "nothing" and "never would," and that there was "data that showed this."

Your 'data' turns out that CO2 levels are higher than ever, but you still provide no data that states Obama's policies didn't have an effect, or that CO2 levels would have been just as high without those policies. Just like the RWers who said that Obamacare "made prices higher than what they would have been," yet offer no data other than saying "prices are higher than they were."

You then denied you said it when I gave evidence that the policies did have a positive effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/15/trump-replacement-obama-climate-plan

The Trump administration’s replacement for the linchpin Obama-era plan to combat climate change would increase greenhouse gas emissions in much of the US more than doing nothing at all, according to new research.

Planet-warming emissions would “rebound” under the Trump policy, researchers found, as it delays the retirement of coal-fired power plants. Carbon dioxide emissions would be 8.7% higher in 18 states and Washington DC by 2030, compared with having no policy at all.

The clean power plan, crafted by the Obama administration, would have set limits on carbon pollution and helped phase out the use of coal, the most polluting energy source for greenhouse gases. The plan was halted due to legal action, with the Trump administration intending to replace it with a watered-down alternative called the affordable clean energy rule.

I think we've pretty much shown your argument for what it is.

[zipplewrath]

46. It was insufficient

From the very beginning what I have been saying is that the policies "didn't work" in the sense that they were insufficient and didn't bring about the reversals needed. I said at best, if implemented long enough, they MIGHT have slowed things down enough to allow us to actually come up with permanent long term solutions. I also suggested that at this point, too much time has passed. And as you point out, Trumps policies have made things significantly worse.

The original article suggested that returning to Obama policies, and improving on them, could "work". That just isn't so. Even improved policies won't bring about enough improvement to stop, or reverse the changes and impacts we are seeing and that are being predicted.

Are you suggesting that there are Obama type actions (that he actually accomplished, not that he failed to get enacted) that in fact will halt or reverse the impacts of climate change in the next 10 years? 20? 30?

[marylandblue]

23. Yup, doing "something" that won't make a noticeable difference is worse than nothing.

We'd be better off putting the entire $80 billion or whatever into removing lead paint from low-income housing where it might actually do some good. Why let children be sick today, just so we can feel good about doing "something" about a future we don't have the will to change.

I do tell Republicans they have their heads in the sand. Now I find myself telling Democrats they have theirs eyes glued to the rear view mirror.

I'm not really sanguine about either group looking far enough ahead. Like I said our brains are not designed to work that way. They are designed to do whatever seemed to work yesterday, with a few tweeks at most, but no radical changes to prevent something that may happens years from now. It's a crisis, but we don't know how to react to one measured in decades or centuries.

[George II]

25. How do we know that this one isn't, to use that suddenly taboo word, "moderate"? We know nothing....

....about it except that people are going around demanding that everyone agree to it.

Motherhood, apple pie, and the green new deal.

[marylandblue]

29. I don't have a problem with the word "moderate"

and we don't need to pass the GND resolution as written. But I would at least like the House hold hearings on climate change and create something that conveys the urgency of it. There's some sort of special committee Pelosi set up, but if they are doing anything, they are keeping it very quiet.

[ehrnst]

30. If they are not pursuing "IMPEACHMENT" at full volume 24/7 then they get trashed for not

doing their job. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't...

But all the same, just because you think that they aren't doing their job where climate change is concerned doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything, or that there isn't any reporting on it.

Update, May 2: The House passed the Climate Action Now Act in a 231-190 vote on Thursday, making it the first climate bill to pass the House in a decade. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the bill would “go nowhere,” so it’s unlikely to come up for a vote in the Senate. Read more about the bill in the story below, first published on March 27 when it was introduced.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283831/pelosi-climate-change-green-new-deal

On Wednesday morning, Brenda Ekwurzel, the director of climate science for the Union of Concerned Scientists, sat before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and calmly, firmly testified about the high cost of climate change. “During the recent outbreak of extreme cold weather that gripped large parts of the nation,” she said, “a University of Iowa student and a University of Vermont student were counted among at least twenty-one people who perished from consequences likely related to the dangerous cold temperatures and wind chill.” Recent studies, she explained, indicate that the warming global climate can, counterintuitively, “cause unusually cold temperatures at mid-latitudes by disrupting the normal winter-season polar vortex in the stratosphere.” She compared the phenomenon to “a weak seal on a freezer door that periodically allows frigid air to flood into the room while warmer air rushes into the freezer.” The icy blast broke wind-chill records in the Midwest and Eastern U.S.; meanwhile, above-freezing temperatures and rainfall in Alaska forced the cancellation of qualifying races for the Iditarod.

The hearing was the first on climate change that the committee had held since 2013, when Republicans hosted one critical of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan. Simultaneously, the House Committee on Natural Resources held its own climate-change hearing—its first since 2009.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/as-climate-change-returns-to-capitol-hill-disagreements-remain-among-democrats

[marylandblue]

31. Thanks for the info. I am glad there is some movement, and I'll read the bill later.

As for impeachment, I agree with Pelosi. It is a distraction at this point. I think we should be talking about climate change, health care, and income inequality 23/7. We can devote 1 hour to impeachment just to cover our bases.

[George II]

32. There have been at least two House hearings on climate change:

February 13 - Science, Space, and Technology Committee,
April 9 - House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

There may have been more, too.

[marylandblue]

33. Thanks. Not getting the attention it deserves, even among us political junkies on DU.

AOCs tweets get more coverage.

[emmaverybo]

27. He had a good healthcare plan, as a starter, excellent comprehensive immigration reform plan,

a job’s plan. The last two were well fleshed out as proposed acts.
Point being, we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can build on the parts we have and add to them.
And we need back in the Paris accords. We need back in the Iran agreement.
Good post!

[mcar]

28. K&R for reality

[betsuni]

38. K&R