Ocasio-Cortez starts to fill in details of 'Green New Deal'

[Born To Slay 10,996]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/428457-ocasio-cortez-starts-to-fill-in-details-of-green-new-deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to fill in details on her proposed Green New Deal in a Monday email to colleagues obtained by Bloomberg.

The contents of bill, which is soon to be introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in the House and by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate, have remained a mystery, though the idea of addressing climate change while creating new jobs has widespread support.

“Next week, we plan to release a resolution that outlines the scope and scale of the Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the letter to her colleagues. “In it, we call for a national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.”

The letter set reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;” creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs” while ensuring prosperity and economic security for all; and investment in infrastructure and industry as goals of the policy.

The bill will include calls for clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food, access to nature and “a sustainable environment for all for generations to come,” according to Bloomberg.

The Green New Deal will also “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”

Ocasio-Cortez said the goals will be accomplished through a 10-year plan of industrial and infrastructure projects.

Republicans have opposed the Green New Deal for its cost, which some estimates put at as high as $7 trillion.

[Othon 34,299]

Can’t imagine why anyone would oppose this. The entire planet is at stake.

[Melech 9,900]

I really don’t like her but i’m with her on this 

[hankhatesyouall 2,731]

8 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Can’t imagine why anyone would oppose this. The entire planet is at stake.

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so so-called “green” energy.
Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal calls for the creation of “basic income programs”
2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.
Whether the Green New Deal is imposed or not, global carbon dioxide emissions are going to rise.
3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.
These higher costs would drive up the price of all goods and services, not just electricity bills. 
4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handout to left-wing special interest groups and industries.
According to the proposal, the Green New Deal would “deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment,” and it promises the “funding (of) massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.” 
5.  It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars.
The Mercatus Center estimates the single-payer health-care proposal supported by Ocasio-Cortez would, on its own, cost more than $32 trillion.

“It’s easy to declare the end of fossil fuels, but actually crafting a plan to destroy the economy is both bad policy and bad politics,” Texans for Natural Gas spokesman Steve Everley said in an emailed statement. “We eagerly await the next walkback from supporters of the Green New Deal.”

[Petie Estie 5,707]

7 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so so-called “green” energy.
Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal calls for the creation of “basic income programs”
2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.
Whether the Green New Deal is imposed or not, global carbon dioxide emissions are going to rise.
3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.
These higher costs would drive up the price of all goods and services, not just electricity bills. 
4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handout to left-wing special interest groups and industries.
According to the proposal, the Green New Deal would “deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment,” and it promises the “funding (of) massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.” 
5.  It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars.
The Mercatus Center estimates the single-payer health-care proposal supported by Ocasio-Cortez would, on its own, cost more than $32 trillion.

“It’s easy to declare the end of fossil fuels, but actually crafting a plan to destroy the economy is both bad policy and bad politics,” Texans for Natural Gas spokesman Steve Everley said in an emailed statement. “We eagerly await the next walkback from supporters of the Green New Deal.”

hey gagadaily here's your usual reminder to ignore this guy bc he has no credibility

[FATCAT 60,888]

7 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so so-called “green” energy.
Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal calls for the creation of “basic income programs”
2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.
Whether the Green New Deal is imposed or not, global carbon dioxide emissions are going to rise.
3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.
These higher costs would drive up the price of all goods and services, not just electricity bills. 
4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handout to left-wing special interest groups and industries.
According to the proposal, the Green New Deal would “deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment,” and it promises the “funding (of) massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.” 
5.  It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars.
The Mercatus Center estimates the single-payer health-care proposal supported by Ocasio-Cortez would, on its own, cost more than $32 trillion.

“It’s easy to declare the end of fossil fuels, but actually crafting a plan to destroy the economy is both bad policy and bad politics,” Texans for Natural Gas spokesman Steve Everley said in an emailed statement. “We eagerly await the next walkback from supporters of the Green New Deal.”

You might want to list that you lifted this from Faux News lmao

[Economy 52,860]

18 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Can’t imagine why anyone would oppose this. The entire planet is at stake.

From an environmental standpoint I think we need to do more

 

It does get a bit on my nerves tho when they make it sound like it's good for the economy

 

Some stats that have been coming out here from Canada show how much fewer jobs these green industries create on a dollar equivalent

 

For example green industries (that are helped with subsidies) now make up over 3% of GDP but only like 1.6% of jobs here in Canada suggesting a poor economic return per dollar spent on these industries

 

So when they say millions of high paying jobs I always clack at that because there hasn't been any evidence to support that green industries are as great for the economy as environmentalists like to sell. I just find it very misleading to the public

 

However Economics aside this planet needs decarbonization so I'm all for cleaner industries even if they are costlier. I just don't like the dishonesty of those who support it

 

Even numbers like the cost of green electricity or electric cars etc when presented by green activists they always conveniently never include government subsidies in the cost structure which always inflates how Economical this stuff really is

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

21 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so so-called “green” energy.
Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal calls for the creation of “basic income programs”
2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.
Whether the Green New Deal is imposed or not, global carbon dioxide emissions are going to rise.
3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.
These higher costs would drive up the price of all goods and services, not just electricity bills. 
4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handout to left-wing special interest groups and industries.
According to the proposal, the Green New Deal would “deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment,” and it promises the “funding (of) massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.” 
5.  It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars.
The Mercatus Center estimates the single-payer health-care proposal supported by Ocasio-Cortez would, on its own, cost more than $32 trillion.

“It’s easy to declare the end of fossil fuels, but actually crafting a plan to destroy the economy is both bad policy and bad politics,” Texans for Natural Gas spokesman Steve Everley said in an emailed statement. “We eagerly await the next walkback from supporters of the Green New Deal.”

4

2. It's not a question of how AOC's plan will curb global warming... It's a question of how won't AOC's plan curb global warming. Her plan is to transition away from fossil fuels -- AKA carbon dioxide emissions. If massive action is taken, like she is proposing, the carbon dioxide emissions will go down. This isn't rocket science and it's an embarrassingly stupid claim.

3. Ask yourself, please, whether the increased costs of goods/services is worth a planet that will be able to provide for our future generations... The scientists (you know, the people who know what they are talking about) say that massive action must be taken or we will kill this planet. Now is not the time to question the economic effects of taking massive action. Take action now, think later, honestly. This, unlike the fake border wall fiasco, is an urgent crisis. 

4. Yes, “funding (of) massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.", is exactly what the scientists say we should do. Not a problem. 

5. Again, we are past the time of worrying about how much this is going to cost us. Money is worth if our planet is dead. Wake up and smell the coffee, please. 

We must not worry about what the consequences of a radical new green deal are... Either we go for it, or we kill our planet in our moment of hesitation. God, the ignorance has jumped out. 

[Economy 52,860]

23 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so so-called “green” energy.
Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal calls for the creation of “basic income programs”
2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.
Whether the Green New Deal is imposed or not, global carbon dioxide emissions are going to rise.
3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.
These higher costs would drive up the price of all goods and services, not just electricity bills. 
4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handout to left-wing special interest groups and industries.
According to the proposal, the Green New Deal would “deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment,” and it promises the “funding (of) massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.” 
5.  It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars.
The Mercatus Center estimates the single-payer health-care proposal supported by Ocasio-Cortez would, on its own, cost more than $32 trillion.

“It’s easy to declare the end of fossil fuels, but actually crafting a plan to destroy the economy is both bad policy and bad politics,” Texans for Natural Gas spokesman Steve Everley said in an emailed statement. “We eagerly await the next walkback from supporters of the Green New Deal.”

I think some of those numbers are highly inflated and over-estimated by those who don't support green investment. I don't see a realistic scenario at all where green innitiatives would cost so much to the point of adding " tens of trillions" to the debt

 

Of course there's the other side of the coin too where green activists tend to underestimate the economic cost and sometimes they are misleading with how Economical an industry, form of clean energy etc truly is because they will conviniently leave stuff out of the math like government subsidies and so they don't represent the true economic cost

 

Both sides tend to exaggerate their case and as a result the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Green transition tend to have greater costs than green activists care to admit but on the other hand the costs aren't as high as some in the far right-winged make it sound like (usually without real legit studies to support the numbers such as the whole it will add tens of trillions to debt)

 

At the end of the day this planet needs a greener economy if it's to survive so I think we need to bite the bullet even if it comes at some cost...

 

But the economy matters too so I also think it's important to be realistic about just how fast some of these transitions can actually realistically happen

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

6 minutes ago, Economy said:

From an environmental standpoint I think we need to do more

 

It does get a bit on my nerves tho when they make it sound like it's good for the economy

 

Some stats that have been coming out here from Canada show how much fewer jobs these green industries create on a dollar equivalent

 

For example green industries (that are helped with subsidies) now make up over 3% of GDP but only like 1.6% of jobs here in Canada suggesting a poor economic return per dollar spent on these industries

 

So when they say millions of high paying jobs I always clack at that because there hasn't been any evidence to support that green industries are as great for the economy as environmentalists like to sell. I just find it very misleading to the public

 

However Economics aside this planet needs decarbonization so I'm all for cleaner industries even if they are costlier. I just don't like the dishonesty of those who support it

 

Even numbers like the cost of green electricity or electric cars etc when presented by green activists they always conveniently never include government subsidies in the cost structure which always inflates how Economical this stuff really is

I understand that folks may be a bit optimistic when it comes to green energy, etc. It's part of their natural survival mechanisms. They see us killing our planet, and they see the solution. I agree that, at times, green activists have spun arguments to their benefit... But how important that is is questionable. We are living in a crisis and we shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who, even if they're being slightly misleading at times, are leaders in trying to fix the problem. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I think some of those numbers are highly inflated and over-estinated by those who don't support green investment. I don't see a realistic scenario at all where green innitiallly would cost so much to the point if adding " tens of trillions" to the debt

 

Of course there's the other side of the coin too where green activists tend to underestimate the economic cost and sometimes they are misleading with how Economical an industry, firm of clean energy etc truly is because they will conviniently leave stuff out of the math like government subsidies and so they don't represent the true economic cost

 

Both sides tend to exaggerate their case and as a result the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Green transition tend to have greater costs than green activists care to admit but on the other hand the costs aren't as high as some in the far right-winged make it sound like (usually without real legit studies to support the numbers such as the whole it will add tens of trillions to debt)

 

At the end of the day this planet needs a greener economy if it's to survive so I think we need to bite the bullet even if it comes at some cost...

 

But the economy matters too so I also think it's important to be realistic about just how fast some of these transitions can actually realistically happen

5

I agree with you for the most part!! But scientists have suggested that this crisis is extremely urgent. They consider today to be a tipping point. We must make these transitions quickly, regardless of how challenging it might seem. If we want to provide a serviceable planet for our future generations, we have to be radical... There are scientists that believe we have waited too long to take action, it's not the time to wonder if we can do this. Massive action must be taken now.

[Economy 52,860]

Just now, TheQueenLG said:

I understand that folks may be a bit optimistic when it comes to green energy, etc. It's part of their natural survival mechanisms. They see us killing our planet, and they see the solution. I agree that, at times, green activists have spun arguments to their benefit... But how important that is is questionable. We are living in a crisis and we shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who, even if they're being slightly misleading at times, are leaders in trying to fix the problem. 

I agree! At the end of the day action is needed even if it comes with a price tag because too much of the planet is at stake

 

I was just pointing out that both sides of the spectrum tend to exxagerate the numbers in their favor

 

Extreme right winged give these insane numbers over the cost of green transition and make it sound like it's gonna cause an economic collapse etc which is blowing it so out of proportion

 

Green activists on the other hand tend to talk about all the supposed economic benefits without including important details in the numbers like government subsidies for example and don't truly represent the actual economic costs of some of these transitions...

 

My province Ontario for example has spent a lot on green innitiatives and there's no denying that the jobs and economic gains so far have not been half as Steller as activists claimed they were going to be

 

Like with most arguments with two opposing points of view, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

 

Green transition isn't as destructive to economy as opposers like to claim but it is more costly than most green activists like to admit

 

But I agree that at the end of the day to save the planet we have to bite a bit of a bullet and just accept some of the economic draw backs in the short term (since destroying our ecosystem in the long term would have it's own economic costs too afterall)

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

The atrocities committed against our planet all in the name of capitalism are almost incomprehensible. 

History will not be kind to us... deservedly so. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

We're at basically our last chance to make a change like this happen.

And thats what we get for letting billionaire's and conservatives destroy our economy and environment in the name of capitalism

So yes, its going to need radical change. That is kind of the point.

I'm ready for it. And for Fox News to say how it will never work, and how Conservatives will not even call it to a vote, etc.

AOC and Dems know this though - it won't stop them from proposing it, or trying to set an agenda for policy in 2020 for if they win the presidency.

Kamala Harris, probably the favored establishment candidate to win as of right now supports a Green New Deal. She also *kind of* supports Medicare for All. If we can keep pushing her left and hold her accountable for backtracking so that she isn't in business of ignoring the impact of big business, we might be able to have a real progressive in the WH, cause that's what its going to take to turn the country around imo. (Assuming Bernie/Elizabeth don't win that is)