Ocasio-Cortez And Markey Unveil Green New Deal Resolution

[appalachiablue]

Source: CNN

1:25 PM. Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts unveiled their "Green New Deal" resolution Thursday, which outlines the definition of the massive piece of legislation the two hope will tackle a litany of issues related to the US' role in global climate change.

"Climate change and our environmental challenges are one of the biggest existential threats to our way of life. Not just as a nation, but as a world," Ocasio-Cortez said at a news conference outside of the Capitol Building. "What this resolution is doing is saying this is our first step. Our first step is to define the problem and define the scope of the solution," she added. "And so we're here to say that small, incremental policy solutions are not enough. They can be part of a solution but they are not the solution unto itself."

The legislation has become a key policy initiative for Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive New Yorker who, shortly after being elected in November, joined the Sunrise Movement to protest over the climate change issue in the office of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She later paired up with Markey, who represents Massachusetts, to begin working on the legislation.

Ocasio-Cortez, surrounded by Markey and other congressional Democrats, said that the resolution is "comprehensive, it is thoughtful, it is compassionate and it is extremely economically strategic as well." -MORE, SEE VIDEO of Press Conference.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-green-new-deal/index.html

---

In an NPR interview Ocasio-Cortez said the solutions are bold, but "nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us to our country, to the world." "And so while carbon taxes are nice, while things like cap and trade are nice, it's not what's going to save the planet. It could be part of a larger solution."

The resolution says that the deal will "promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression" to a dozen communities, including indigenous peoples, migrant communities and low-income workers."

NPR, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline, Feb. 7, 2019
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

Common Dreams, With Major Party Backing, Ocasio-Cortez & Markey Unveil Green New Deal Outlining 'WWII Scale Transformation' Feb. 7, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/02/07/major-party-backing-ocasio-cortez-and-markey-unveil-green-new-deal-outlining-wwii

Related: CNN, What Is The Green New Deal? Jan. 31, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/what-is-the-green-new-deal/index.html



Press Conference, Feb. 7. With the early support of at least 60 House Democrats & major 2020 Democratic presidential contenders- including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) & Cory Booker (D-N.J.)- the resolutions calls for a "national mobilization" to build "resiliency against climate change-related disasters" & "achieve 100 percent of the power demand in the U. S. through clean, renewable, & zero-emission energy sources" within the next 10 years.

[George II]

1. Why did she decline being appointed to the climate change committee earlier in the day?

[zipplewrath]

3. Probably more than one reason

For one thing, it may leave her with some "independence" from the committee to advance her own positions.

[Kurt V.]

4. not sure . but they won't have power to write legislation. maybe that's it. also reports are

going around that pelosi snubbed her. AOC: "that's not true"

[George II]

5. "After her weekly press conference Thursday...

....Pelosi told reporters she invited Ocasio-Cortez to be on the panel and that she declined."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/pelosi-climate-change-panel-1154847

[Kurt V.]

8. Thats what meant in a clunky way. Thanks for the link

[joshcryer]

10. Neutered committee.

Lots of work, lots of reports being done, very bureaucratic. No power to effect change.

[Dave Starsky]

16. She's on a lot of other committees, too.

Maybe climate change isn't her bailiwick, although she knows it's important.

Remember, first and foremost, that she was elected to represent her district. Her primary responsibilities are to her own constituents.

[George II]

18. Two others*. "Climate change isn't her bailiwick"?

...She's been talking about it going back to the campaign and helped organize that demonstration in the hallway outside Pelosi's office in November, demanding that this committee be created. Now it's not her "bailiwick"?

* http://clerk.house.gov/committee_info/oal.aspx

Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria, 14th NY:

Financial Services.
Oversight and Reform.

[Dave Starsky]

19. She is a FRESHWOMAN Congressperson, for fuck's sake.

Let her learn and settle into her job first before we saddle her with the hope for humanity.

[George II]

21. What is her top issue? CLIMATE CHANGE. So she declined to serve on the CLIMATE CHANGE Committee?

[Dave Starsky]

25. Her top issue is serving her own district in Congress.

That's what she was elected by her own constituents to do.

There is a cult of instant celebrity that social media foments and mainstream media tries to maintain. We think that AOC should fall into that. She should be doing and saying everything that we would expect a young media savvy Congresswoman to do.

But she is representing her district. That's what she was elected to do.

[George II]

26. Then what was the point of the demonstration she organized outside Pelosi's office in November?

[ZapataViva]

32. I don't know

But I can only guess that she was involved in the demonstration outside Pelosi's office in order to highlight the seriousness of the issue. Does that mean that it's her raison d'etre? Apparently she considers other issues at least as important.

[CTyankee]

27. I feel that way, too. She needs to try her wings a bit.

I know we Dems are starved for our leadership to shine on and on and on. But let's let them take their time and get it right, which they WILL because they are Dems!

Onward!

[George II]

34. Didn't she bash Whoopi Goldberg for saying just about that same thing?

[hueymahl]

37. Why do you love to throw shade at AOC

Every chance you get?

[melman]

41. Good question

[scipan]

43. That's what I'd like to know n/t

[Loki Liesmith]

2. Too broadly focused for my taste

[GeorgeGist]

14. It's a BIG problem ...

the biggest humanity has EVER faced.
Extinction level BIG!

[Loki Liesmith]

30. That's not clear

It’s very bad, and an extinction level event for a too-large number of animals. Probably not us but a risk I’d prefer to avoid.

But the too broad nature of the GND: it lacks significant policy specifics, while focusing on a lot of only marginally climate related issues. Also I’d like to see more emphasis on carbon tax as an income tax abatement. More market mechanisms toward GHG reductions also desirable.

[ZapataViva]

33. What?!?

You do understand that the ice caps are melting, and releasing into the oceans levels of carbon that we haven't seen since the last great extinction, right? Even Al Gore in his research explained that the temperature on the earth's surface will keep on rising--it's not going to stop rising--until the surface of the planet is fried. Very little life will be able to withstand the temperatures that are coming. Global warming is not just about rising sea levels and increased hurricanes, wildfires, etc. It's about unlivable temperatures frying the planet.

[Loki Liesmith]

36. I've done climate modeling

Almost none of what you said is strictly accurate. A runaway greenhouse effect is a very unlikely scenario. Almost to the point of zero probability. Fossil fuels will be unextractable (extraction costs will exceed profits) before we get to that point. Much more likely are radical and disruptive climate shifts, adverse economic impact and specific biome (potentially quite broad) collapse. Which is really quite bad enough.

Given developments in renewable energy we are on track for an earth we can just survive *as a species*. But many species will not and whole nations of poor people will die.

[MichMary]

6. Among other things,

her proposal calls for "upgrading all existing buildings in the country for energy efficiency."

DH has looked into the cost/benefit of upgrading to solar for our house. Apparently Tesla has a website that uses Google Earth to determine how much sun your house gets. The cost for us would be $48,000 for the system, and over a 30-year period would provide a cost savings of $150. That's $150 TOTAL. Over 30 years.

I don't know how this is feasible. Are we to pay that $48,000 out of pocket? Would there be subsidies? How much would taxes have to increase to subsidize upgrading EVERY building in the country?

[Silver1]

13. Do you mean the Tesla's solar roof tiles?

Tesla solar roof tiles are very expensive. I looked into using them too.

But regular solar panels are much, much cheaper to purchase and install and make a lot of sense.

Also, most states have subsidies for solar panels, so you end up getting a refund for 2/3 of the overall cost.

[MichMary]

15. Apparently, no subsidy

here anymore, and the maximum when it was available was $500.

Also, the Tesla tiles last 30 years. The others don't.

This will be prohibitively expensive for most people.

[NickB79]

28. Solar panels all last beyond 30 yr

What wears out are the invertors, but they are fairly easy to replace for a few thousand every decade or so.

[Silver1]

35. Wow, $500? That's nothing. That's just wrong.

Sounds like fossil industry shenanigans!

Our state is much better that way. There is real incentive for solar panels. The refunds and incentives are due to expire, but I believe will be renewed. I would think a green new deal would cover that everywhere.

[NickB79]

31. We were just evaluated for solar here

Southern exposure, just have to remove one big tree for perfect conditions. Upfront cost for a 7.9 kW system was $25,000, but with state and federal subsidies it would be $16,000. Payback time was estimated at 8-9 years since our utility pays us for excess energy fed into the grid. And that's up here in Minnesota, with our short, cold winter days.

Solar panels have a useable lifespan of 30+ years, even with some efficiency declines as they age. Since we already pay $1000+ in electricity annually, adding in inflation that's $40,000 in electricity over 30 years that we'd pay if we did nothing. Solar would save us $24,000 over 30 years. Even with replacing an invertor every decade, we'd still save $20,000. If we added an electric car, the math gets even better.

Were you trying to go off-grid, with a battery bank? That is still not very economical just yet, though the Tesla PowerWall battery does show promise if costs come down.

[hueymahl]

38. You have bad info

Solar panels, if put on a roof with a proper exposure, have about a 9.5% return on investment if the only incentive you get is the Federal 30% tax bracket. We just had them done on our house.

[joshcryer]

7. Won't work without a carbon tax.

[NNadir]

9. I'm not sure if this post will stand, but scientifically, it's pure nonsense.

Markey is a fierce opponent of the only technology that will work.

The components of the "Green New Deal" is actually an old deal that did not work, is not working and won't work.

The reason is physics.

We hit over 411 ppm of carbon dioxide this week, after 50 years of jaw boning about this stuff, and sinking trillion dollar amounts of money.

We can fantasize all we want, but reality is reality and reality matters.

I'm a Democrat second and a scientist first. As a scientist, it would do well to consider the work of another Democratic Party and Scientist from the past, Glenn Seaborg

Markey is not in the same class as Dr. Seaborg. It's not even close.

[joshcryer]

11. As long as fossil fuels are cheap...

...we will use them.

[MichMary]

20. Don't know how

we'll ever rid ourselves of farting cows, either.

[Jedi Guy]

22. There's a solution, or at least a possible solution.

Not that long ago I stumbled across an article about how cow flatulence is a major cause of climate change. Whatever group it was that did the study found that adding a very cheap enzyme derived from seaweed to the cows' feed drastically reduced their methane output.

I'll try to find the article again when I get home and link to it.

[MichMary]

24. Interesting!

I wonder if it would work on dogs.

And husbands.

[hueymahl]

39. Let me guess -

The solution you allude to is nuclear?

[NNadir]

40. Absolutely, without question. I consider it a crime against humanity...

...to oppose nuclear energy, particularly on the very stupid and ignorant rote nonsensical claim that "nuclear is too dangerous."

Compared to what?

I consider my political philosophy to center on the notion - not always embraced by all members of my party as much as I hate to point it out - that begins with the statement that facts matter, and that the denial of facts is where, why and how dangerous and irresponsible decisions are made.

The following statements are facts:

As I point out frequently, dangerous fossil fuel waste, coupled with dangerous biomass combustion waste is responsible for more than 7 million deaths per year, which breaks down to 13 human beings every damned minute.

Here is the most recent full report from the Global Burden of Disease Report, a survey of all causes of death and disability from environmental and lifestyle risks: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

In more than half a century of operations, the entire commercial nuclear energy industry has not killed and injured as many people as will die in the next two or three days from air pollution, the rate of death from air pollution - dangerous fossil fuel and biomass waste - being 19,000 people/day.

Then there's climate change, also a function of dangerous fossil fuel waste, which is rapidly killing the entire planet.

For this reason, as a paper co-authored by one of the world's leading climate scientists, Jim Hansen, demonstrates irrefutably nuclear energy is not dangerous because nuclear energy saves lives.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

As a scientist, and a lifelong Democrat who has consistently voted Democratic, I regard the anti-nuke wing of my party with the same contempt, embarrassment, and disgust as I would imagine a Republican evolutionary biologist might regard the creationist wing of his or her party.

Ed Markey has been a leader of the anti-nuke wing of our party.

Since you were able to infer what I meant, you may be able to infer what I think of Ed Markey.

While I admire many of the in-your-face things Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has brought to the table, she is clearly no scientist, and clearly has some poor judgement about the company she keeps.

Ironically, it is her generation that will suffer for what my generation has criminally done to this planet, and she's not helping.

The "Green New Deal" is tired, old and worthless thinking that hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work.

We spent two trillion dollars in the last ten years on this planet - more than the annual gross domestic product of India, a nation with well over a billion human beings in it - on solar and wind energy alone, and the result, the tragic result, the crime against all future generations, is that the rate of climate change degradation is increasing at the fastest rate ever observed, 2.3 ppm of CO2 per year.

This is also a fact.

Thanks for asking.

[Lucid Dreamer]

44. Well said. Information like this is ignored at our peril.

Climate change pronouncements that are political are defended with religious fervor.
Data from knowledgeable sources is gold. I know there is still debate in the scientific community, but I want to hear opinions and studies from people educated in the field.

[Voltaire2]

12. I thought she was too busy being a social

media star to do any legislating.

I’m sure I’ve read that.
Or something like that.
Repeatedly.

[X_Digger]

29. It's not actual legislation, it's a resolution.

The actual meat of it is 6 pages long.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution

[Calista241]

17. Before the end of the week, Republicans will ask the CBO for a price tag of all this.

And that will end any further serious consideration of this plan.

[Achilleaze]

23. Excelsior!

[Politicub]

42. Heartbroken that LGBT community not included in the

List of “frontline groups”.

I am in full support of the aims of the green new deal. And I also believe that leaving out the LGBT community minimizes the historic and systematic marginalization of the community.

See for yourself:

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers,
women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this reso- lution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’)

From page 5, line 21 of the bill’s outline.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf

I don’t understand why we were left out of this history-making document.