Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama Had a Green New Deal, and It Worked. Let's Do That Again. [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)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 Deals 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 dont 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 couldnt 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So tell us what would have "created the kind of reversals that were and are needed"
ehrnst
May 2019
#4
Actually, many things Obama did worked. Did you read the article at all before responding?
ehrnst
May 2019
#7
"Because working on a politically achievable policy that isn't a solution is a waste of time. "
ehrnst
May 2019
#37
Legislation requires more specificity as to what is mean by pursuing those goals.
ehrnst
May 2019
#11
He wanted it to get the floor so they could vote it down without hearings.
marylandblue
May 2019
#14
Yup, doing "something" that won't make a noticeable difference is worse than nothing.
marylandblue
May 2019
#23
How do we know that this one isn't, to use that suddenly taboo word, "moderate"? We know nothing....
George II
May 2019
#25
If they are not pursuing "IMPEACHMENT" at full volume 24/7 then they get trashed for not
ehrnst
May 2019
#30
Thanks for the info. I am glad there is some movement, and I'll read the bill later.
marylandblue
May 2019
#31
Thanks. Not getting the attention it deserves, even among us political junkies on DU.
marylandblue
May 2019
#33
He had a good healthcare plan, as a starter, excellent comprehensive immigration reform plan,
emmaverybo
May 2019
#27