ItsTommyBitch 12,640 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 8 hours ago, PoshLife said: This brings to mind a rather odd moment at the most recent debate, where Klobuchar said she supported getting to net-zero emissions by 2050 and Sanders shook his head saying it wasn't enough. It's not enough to completely eliminate our nation's carbon footprint in three decades? Give me a break. Does he not understand the sheer quantity of R&D, new technology invention and deployment, new strategies for sustainable farming, new build-out of infrastructure, and more and more that will take? It's a moonshot. But Sanders wants to argue over a specific year. I think it's part of this reflexive "whatever moderates say isn't good enough" mentality that I just don't buy into. To be clear, the Green New Deal is not a climate bill. It's a non-binding resolution that just has a bunch of messaging about reducing our carbon footprint to zero and then goes way beyond that with things like a federal housing guarantee. But when its supporters talk about the GND, they never talk about all that other stuff - they keep the wool over everybody's eyes. Even the left-leaning pollsters who are trying to tell us the GND is popular in swing-districts - it's not, believe me - aren't explaining the GND accurately in their poll questions. Look at the bottom of page 2 for the sample question. It's unbelievable. Sen. Markey and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez should be more upfront about what GND supporters are putting their names on. Yes, some scientists literally believe getting to net zero emissions by 2050 will not be fast enough. Others say 2030 isn't feasible. So we're left with options. The political side to it is that if we aim for a goal of 2050, knowing the significant barriers we'll have to overcome to even get it started, its likely we would not meet that goal. Now, that would be devastating, so a goal of 2030, 2040, etc. is more aggressive and more likely to succeed (even if it doesn't do it by 2030 lets say - which some say is a stretch, but thats the point) In general, this is one of the points of progressive policy. We have a long history of conservative policy blowing up in our faces for not doing enough, no matter how noble the goal, and we don't want to do that with climate change Aiming for high standards and fighting like hell to get them should be the goal, not settling for worse out of fear every time. M4A is in some ways a long shot, but it has 0% chance of happening if we try to compromise on a public option plan b4 it even starts, so lets go the distance with it (You'll remember that Obama tried to include a public option into the ACA - It was resoundingly destroyed by the same people who are now fighting M4A, and who would dismantle and decline to support ANY healthcare changes proposed by Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, etc. It's all going to be labeled socialism, so the thinking is why weaken ourselves going into a fight first. That didn't work out for Obama. ) And yes, this is a non binding resolution, not a bill - but it has very good goals of where we should head forward legislatively and ideas that should guide our thinking towards moving towards a green economy. Some of them are pie in the sky, others are actually very possible, but the spirit of the resolution is a net positive. Also, I read that entire link, and I'm not seeing the problem. I've read the entire "Green New Deal" resolution before, and I believe it was accurately framed in that poll question As the data showed, it has a lot of different angles that you can argue from because of how expansive it is, some much more persuasive than others, so there is no wool being pulled over people's eyes who think its just like a massive carbon tax and more regulations lol, its very upfront about its multifaceted nature, and AOC has given press conferences and town halls explaining why this is in response to this criticism that its too ambitious. (Also, any person that endorses a plan, bill, resolution, etc. without knowing what its about is... an adult responsible for their own behavior, though the GND has been explained very well by the people who have promoted it the hardest. Its rather fearmongering about it from detractors that creates negative impressions of it (e.g. "the green new deal will get rid of hamburgers, planes, cows, ice cream, everything you love AND raise your taxes!" on fox news and right wing news) which is also tangentially referenced through this analysis's bias charting of different news sources. I'll send you my copy of "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky ) 私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Health Care and pharmaceutical companies need to shift away from 'profit' based goals.... HOW??? Is Bernie (or anyone) capable? Climate Change.... Its gonna happen, regardless of the US ... the contribution to heat trapping emissions can be reduced slowing down the effect, but the damage is done... Adapting to a changing earth , accenting green energy and ecological preservation is the most logical approach to leadership imo... Cutting fossil fuel cold turkey will kill and starve millions of people. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,932 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Woolfsmck said: Health Care and pharmaceutical companies need to shift away from 'profit' based goals.... HOW??? Is Bernie (or anyone) capable? Climate Change.... Its gonna happen, regardless of the US ... the contribution to heat trapping emissions can be reduced slowing down the effect, but the damage is done... Adapting to a changing earth , accenting green energy and ecological preservation is the most logical approach to leadership imo... Cutting fossil fuel cold turkey will kill and starve millions of people. The only issue with that thinking is that if everyone thought like that (that it will happen regardless of them) no one would so anything And since Europe is being pretty agressive, and China is investing a lot in greens too because of their pollution problem, the US should join too And get more agressive ASAP cuz I know cold turkey would never work despite what some say so the moment we get more agressive it will realistically take many years so... We should be doing a bit more i think As for pharmaceuticals yeah I think that's nonsense. Regulations to prevent price gauging like many countries have or make adjustments to patent laws so they don't be exclusive for so long without competition i can support But saying they should not make profit (if that's really what was said and is not words being twisted). Companies would not care to innovate or do anything if suddenly they were forced into being charities Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 19 minutes ago, Economy said: The only issue with that thinking is that if everyone thought like that (that it will happen regardless of them) no one would so anything And since Europe is being pretty agressive, and China is investing a lot in greens too because of their pollution problem, the US should join too And get more agressive ASAP cuz I know cold turkey would never work despite what some say so the moment we get more agressive it will realistically take many years so... We should be doing a bit more i think As for pharmaceuticals yeah I think that's nonsense. Regulations to prevent price gauging like many countries have or make adjustments to patent laws so they don't be exclusive for so long without competition i can support But saying they should not make profit (if that's really what was said and is not words being twisted). Companies would not care to innovate or do anything if suddenly they were forced into being charities I'm taking a page out of Bernie's pod cast … so my opinion is still in the research and conclude stage... Health Care and Pharmaceuticals being profit driven vs. national interest …. Canada's system , EU's system … ect differ from the U.S. in cost per capita as well as total expenses ... Nationalizing the Healthcare and medicine (research) seems to be the only way to ensure the public is served by these two services … Currently the system in the US serves to fatten the wallets of insurance and chemical producers .. the public health isn't better or even a concern to the US leadership at the moment … I'm seeing Bernie's argument here …. but my point is , can he or any other leader really change that without total a total over haul since they currently control 10 of billions of dollars and a lot of lobby power in gov. Money buys votes in US .. so ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Climate Change ... Currently big oil companies control so much money they impact the economy and gov. laws that get passed ... so any 'green' initiatives will be met by a huge financially advantage segment of the US system … Can Bernie really make a difference …. ?????? I still think focusing on adapting to future climate change is the only logical plan viable given the current situation with the US system … its not a fvck it we're doomed anyway mentality … its a realistic pragmatic approach to life in the future regardless ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,932 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: I'm taking a page out of Bernie's pod cast … so my opinion is still in the research and conclude stage... Health Care and Pharmaceuticals being profit driven vs. national interest …. Canada's system , EU's system … ect differ from the U.S. in cost per capita as well as total expenses ... Nationalizing the Healthcare and medicine (research) seems to be the only way to ensure the public is served by these two services … Currently the system in the US serves to fatten the wallets of insurance and chemical producers .. the public health isn't better or even a concern to the US leadership at the moment … I'm seeing Bernie's argument here …. but my point is , can he or any other leader really change that without total a total over haul since they currently control 10 of billions of dollars and a lot of lobby power in gov. Money buys votes in US .. so ... Well depends what he's doing The reason drug costs are cheaper here is because we have price control limits to prevent gauging for medications with few manufacturers and little competition and up till now we've had shorter time frames for patents. I'm not 100% sure but under the new NAFTA we had to agree to a standard I think so patent time horizons were increased But they are still profit driven regardless. Regulations prevent extreme gauging but they are still companies and have not been banned from making profits I dunno what Bernie's stance is ok this particular issue so this is not directed at him but I've heard a lot of far leftists think profits should be banned which would be a disaster The only way that could work is if the government stole the companies and took over... But Governments have like no experience in running pharmaceuticals what's so ever. I would expect a mess for quite some time if we went that route Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,932 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: Climate Change ... Currently big oil companies control so much money they impact the economy and gov. laws that get passed ... so any 'green' initiatives will be met by a huge financially advantage segment of the US system … Can Bernie really make a difference …. ?????? I still think focusing on adapting to future climate change is the only logical plan viable given the current situation with the US system … its not a fvck it we're doomed anyway mentality … its a realistic pragmatic approach to life in the future regardless ... I would say yes because lobbiest main influence is campaign money (except in cases where they pay under the table in bribery to sway Congress. I'm sure it must happen at least sometimes but how often nobody knows. It's a risky thing to do not every business would attempt that) Campaign funds on their own do nothing for votes if ur message can't sway ppl. If Bernie energizes the croud and demands change, social pressure is a huge motivator in politics Social pressure and public opinion influence government in a democracy even more than it influxes companies cuz politicians literally depends on voters Can he pass much I'd say depends how many government officials he can convince to get on his side and how well the pressure tactics works Bernie may also find he might need to become a little less against the idea of compromise in order to get things passed If he gets elected and keeps a my way or the highway attitude once in Government that will probably backfire and almost nothing will get passed Him voting against the new NAFTA as a senator for what he thought was insufficient improvements in labor and environmental standards may sound ethically good to voters... It got passed anyway and he got his protest message across But as the actual President, things are not as simple as voting yes or no. Ur gonna take the lead in passing agendas, if ur stubborn it's gonna work against u I might get a lot of crap from Bernie supporters... And I'm not trying to hate in him because he has many good qualities I think... But I also get the feeling he's gonna be stubborn (at least at first) and when he sees he can't pass almost anything that way he's gonna learn to have to compromise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, Economy said: The only way that could work is if the government stole the companies and took over... But Governments have like no experience in running pharmaceuticals what's so ever. I would expect a mess for quite some time if we went that route Nationalizing and turn it into a socialist system .. Canada and the EU have profit controls so they're not socialist but a hybridized set up... I think he's bringing up a very important subject that needs to be addressed ... but like he said , the money that will oppose any efforts to make changes is staggering ... and a lot of the brainwashed ..(left and right and moderates) will think he's gonna do more harm than good. ... I like his ideas and he's right in my opinion ... be he needs a lot more support to implement any real change.. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,932 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: Nationalizing and turn it into a socialist system .. Canada and the EU have profit controls so they're not socialist but a hybridized set up... I think he's bringing up a very important subject that needs to be addressed ... but like he said , the money that will oppose any efforts to make changes is staggering ... and a lot of the brainwashed ..(left and right and moderates) will think he's gonna do more harm than good. ... I like his ideas and he's right in my opinion ... be he needs a lot more support to implement any real change.. I agree with the majority of Bernie's ideas actually (like 80% or more of them) Where I sometimes disagree on certain things is how far he wants to take them. Crossing certain thresholds can just make good intentions backfire But I'm not too concerned about that anyway cuz the Government will ultimately balance out his targets. Presidents influence direction but they are not dictators. Without enough approval of at least their own party (even with house majority) things do not get passed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Economy said: I agree with the majority of Bernie's ideas actually (like 80% or more of them) Where I sometimes disagree on certain things is how far he wants to take them. Crossing certain thresholds can just make good intentions backfire But I'm not too concerned about that anyway cuz the Government will ultimately balance out his targets. Presidents influence direction but they are not dictators. Without enough approval of at least their own party (even with house majority) things do not get passed I'm neutral on Bernie at the moment ... If he gets the nom, I think it will be harder for him to win the white house because his ideas threating two of the biggest $ in corporate America .. and 4 years of Trump will only do more damage to he US . Biden will get a lot more moderate support from the right , if the far left would just shut up sometimes ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,932 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: I'm neutral on Bernie at the moment ... If he gets the nom, I think it will be harder for him to win the white house because his ideas threating two of the biggest $ in corporate America .. and 4 years of Trump will only do more damage to he US . Biden will get a lot more moderate support from the right , if the far left would just shut up sometimes ... It's hard to say... I definitely wouldn't want Trump either U may have noticed I'm a tad bit more to the left than I used to be... I still think left wing politics taken too far is always bad and will hinder investment and competitiveness... But re-evaluating the way the economy works now in modern times I've also arrived at the conclusion that trickle down economics don't work as well as they may have at one point in time and some left wing policies to keep income inequality in check have becoming necessary... I want to explain why I've arrived at that conclusion and have shifted from a centre-right or centre position to maybe more of a centre left... It's not out of emotion. There's good reasons why I re-evaluated my opinions. @Florian may also be interested in my explanation given our exchanges U may have noticed that the link between GDP growth and the gains the middle class make has been deminishing especially in industrialized Nations. It's not trickling down half as much as it used to. That can also be seen when u look at productivity gains per worker vs their pay compensation Automation and mass production makes production of goods and services less labor intensive per unit of production with each passing year making it possible for profit margins to rise for big companies without the same amount of labor competition Because the economy is also global now, unlike a century ago, if you give companies a tax cut, they may not expand all their operations and hire in your country, they could open a factory overseas... It used to be that for every $1 of tax cuts for Corporations, if they invested it, it would be on your own soul, now that's no longer guaranteed each time and as a result some tax cuts that are supposed to increase domestic investment result in absolutely nothing so it's just lost revenue There's also the issue of skills mismatch as the world becomes ever more technical... There are MORE job openings in the US right now than unemployed people, but those good paying job opportunities do little good for the people if they aren't qualified to take them. It's also an issue for companies long term too Companies have already been investing enough to provide enough jobs so that's not the issue... Even more tax cuts for the rich to create jobs like right wingers want won't really accomplish anything, we have jobs. Now we need to empower people to actually be able to take them and that means more money for affordable education and skills trainings programs for example which would do more for the economy and people than just tax cuts Anything taken to an extreme is usually bad... And every policy has pros and cons that to some extent balance eachother out... So which policies would have the most net benefit I think ultimately depends on what the biggest issues and needs are at the time, maybe capitalism was indeed the best thing in 1950... But the issues and needs brewing since the 1970s onward I think can be better helped by socialist type policies to force some equalizing because capitalism on its own no longer causes trickling down half as well as it used to. The economy just works differently now and traditional trickle down economics thinking I think is based on an outdated view of the economy, a view of an economic system that has evolved passed an era where that may have worked the best Of course, this also always hinges on the government being competent at deploying tax dollars on education, well thoughout infrastructure etc... It does little good to tax the rich if the government doesn't know how to invest it properly and create something to show for it. So that's always an important part too. U don't wanna drain Capital resources and labor from private sector if your gonna waste it on nothing useful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoshLife 17,019 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 9 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said: Yes, some scientists literally believe getting to net zero emissions by 2050 will not be fast enough. Others say 2030 isn't feasible. So we're left with options. The political side to it is that if we aim for a goal of 2050, knowing the significant barriers we'll have to overcome to even get it started, its likely we would not meet that goal. Now, that would be devastating, so a goal of 2030, 2040, etc. is more aggressive and more likely to succeed (even if it doesn't do it by 2030 lets say - which some say is a stretch, but thats the point) In general, this is one of the points of progressive policy. We have a long history of conservative policy blowing up in our faces for not doing enough, no matter how noble the goal, and we don't want to do that with climate change Aiming for high standards and fighting like hell to get them should be the goal, not settling for worse out of fear every time. M4A is in some ways a long shot, but it has 0% chance of happening if we try to compromise on a public option plan b4 it even starts, so lets go the distance with it (You'll remember that Obama tried to include a public option into the ACA - It was resoundingly destroyed by the same people who are now fighting M4A, and who would dismantle and decline to support ANY healthcare changes proposed by Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, etc. It's all going to be labeled socialism, so the thinking is why weaken ourselves going into a fight first. That didn't work out for Obama. ) And yes, this is a non binding resolution, not a bill - but it has very good goals of where we should head forward legislatively and ideas that should guide our thinking towards moving towards a green economy. Some of them are pie in the sky, others are actually very possible, but the spirit of the resolution is a net positive. Also, I read that entire link, and I'm not seeing the problem. I've read the entire "Green New Deal" resolution before, and I believe it was accurately framed in that poll question As the data showed, it has a lot of different angles that you can argue from because of how expansive it is, some much more persuasive than others, so there is no wool being pulled over people's eyes who think its just like a massive carbon tax and more regulations lol, its very upfront about its multifaceted nature, and AOC has given press conferences and town halls explaining why this is in response to this criticism that its too ambitious. (Also, any person that endorses a plan, bill, resolution, etc. without knowing what its about is... an adult responsible for their own behavior, though the GND has been explained very well by the people who have promoted it the hardest. Its rather fearmongering about it from detractors that creates negative impressions of it (e.g. "the green new deal will get rid of hamburgers, planes, cows, ice cream, everything you love AND raise your taxes!" on fox news and right wing news) which is also tangentially referenced through this analysis's bias charting of different news sources. I'll send you my copy of "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky ) I appreciate where you're coming from on this. But it's not just about the science, which of course has shown us how urgent it is that we decarbonize. It's also about what's economically feasible. Take zero-emissions vehicles, for example. Some studies have estimated it takes as long as 15 years for the entire US car fleet to turn over because of how long people keep their cars. That means that if ZEVs had 100% market share starting today, we still wouldn't eliminate emissions from surface transportation by 2030. (And we're far from 100% market share - I believe ZEV's finally broke 2% market share in 2019 but we don't have year-end data yet). Of course, that doesn't account for policies like tax credits to incentivize quicker adoption. But I can't imagine an incentive that would actually get someone to buy a new car several years before they otherwise would. And that's just one element of surface transportation. Trucking will likely have to run on hydrogen fuel cells because the charging necessary for long-haul electric trucking (even with a supercharger) would mess with state and federal Hours of Service requirements, which is a major Teamsters/labor issue you won't want to get on the wrong side of. So there's more R&D needs there. And then there's the fact that there's been precious little movement on clean fuels for aviation - not even zero-emissions fuels, just cleaner fuels - and for maritime shipping. And that's all just in the transportation sector, which I highlight as an example because it's my professional area of focus. In the electricity sector, there's been remarkable progress over the past few years towards making large-scale energy storage cost-effective, which will help make it easier to scale up more renewable but variable technologies like wind and solar. I'm sympathetic with those (like many moderate Democrats) who see natural gas as a "bridge" to a truly clean electricity grid because it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels and is cheap, but fracking is disgusting and it hurts public health in nearby communities so I'm not a supporter. So anyway, I talk about net-zero by 2050 and not in 10 years because the scope of our R&D needs is so great that we're nowhere close to having economies of scale on these technologies to enable large-scale deployment without it being crazy expensive for consumers. I 100% support increasing federal funding to do that R&D. But I think a 10-year timeframe goes beyond ambitious and is just setting us up for failure. And I maintain that the GND goes well beyond climate policy. Some of the goals include providing all Americans with healthy food and access to nature, as well as universal health care and a housing guarantee. I appreciate why those goals are in there, and you may argue that those are all climate-adjacent, but it's tangential and it frankly reeks of big government. I've talked to farmers who want to be more sustainable but say the GND sounds like a gigantic unfunded mandate that would hurt their ability to do business (even though the resolution makes reference to supporting family and small farms). I've also talked to college-aged young adults who are super supportive of the GND but said they wished they had more information from the bill authors about the "non-climate" stuff I mentioned, which is what really informed my previous statement about "wool over the eyes." I feel that Ocasio-Cortez and Markey took what could have been an inspirational and compelling messaging tool about addressing climate change and turned it into a much broader Democratic-Socialist manifesto. It invited controversy that it didn't need to, and made it harder for moderate Dems who actually DO care about addressing climate change but represent tough districts to sign on. And that's why the House will never vote on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.