Green New Deal - Is it actually ridiculous?

roughdraft274 · Apr 22, 2019

Down below is the link to the full text of the green new deal in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I've spent a few minutes actually looking it over and see nothing that is outlandish or obviously silly as many seem to believe. With all the mock and ridicule, I'd really love to know exactly what part of it is so worthy of this mockery etc.

To try to keep this on topic, I think a good practice would be to quote the portion of the resolution that you want to criticize and then list your grievances or make your comments. There has been a lot of misinformation that I simply can't find in the actual text of the resolution, and if we actually quote the relevant portion this will help us stay on track and not stray off on to possible misinformation from various talking heads.

Again, I fully understand that many people don't believe in climate change, many people hate AOC etc. but I want this to be an actual discussion about the actual resolution and to stay on topic. There are hundreds of threads to post on to bash AOC or to argue climate change.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Thanks,
RoughDraft274

Felis Leo · Apr 22, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Down below is the link to the full text of the green new deal in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I've spent a few minutes actually looking it over and see nothing that is outlandish or obviously silly as many seem to believe. With all the mock and ridicule, I'd really love to know exactly what part of it is so worthy of this mockery etc.

To try to keep this on topic, I think a good practice would be to quote the portion of the resolution that you want to criticize and then list your grievances or make your comments. There has been a lot of misinformation that I simply can't find in the actual text of the resolution, and if we actually quote the relevant portion this will help us stay on track and not stray off on to possible misinformation from various talking heads.

Again, I fully understand that many people don't believe in climate change, many people hate AOC etc. but I want this to be an actual discussion about the actual resolution and to stay on topic. There are hundreds of threads to post on to bash AOC or to argue climate change.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Thanks,
RoughDraft274

I have read it. It appears as a purely hortatory resolution without substantive policies to be implemented.

roughdraft274 · Apr 22, 2019

Felis Leo said:
I have read it. It appears as a purely hortatory resolution without substantive policies to be implemented.

Agreed. It seems to me to be a simple resolution of "these types of policies are a good idea going forward" type declaration. These types of resolutions are fairly common in congress, so I'm not sure why it's gotten so many headlines compared to others. Any specific portions that you think are silly, outlandish, ridiculous?

ElChupacabra · Apr 22, 2019

The reaction to this has been pretty interesting because many took it as a final plan. I think the Green New Deal just offers the genesis of a paradigm shift, but requires a lot more to be defined in terms of actionable items. Most of the reaction has been more ideological than anything else.

sangha · Apr 22, 2019

Felis Leo said:
I have read it. It appears as a purely hortatory resolution without substantive policies to be implemented.

That is exactly what it is. Basically, a list of goals with no concrete plans for implementation

AlphaOmega · Apr 22, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Down below is the link to the full text of the green new deal in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I've spent a few minutes actually looking it over and see nothing that is outlandish or obviously silly as many seem to believe. With all the mock and ridicule, I'd really love to know exactly what part of it is so worthy of this mockery etc.

To try to keep this on topic, I think a good practice would be to quote the portion of the resolution that you want to criticize and then list your grievances or make your comments. There has been a lot of misinformation that I simply can't find in the actual text of the resolution, and if we actually quote the relevant portion this will help us stay on track and not stray off on to possible misinformation from various talking heads.

Again, I fully understand that many people don't believe in climate change, many people hate AOC etc. but I want this to be an actual discussion about the actual resolution and to stay on topic. There are hundreds of threads to post on to bash AOC or to argue climate change.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Thanks,
RoughDraft274

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

Some green new deal supporter please tell us how much fossil fuel will be used to upgrade...and this is the best part...all existing buildings in the U.S. Jesus....who thinks this is even possible much less a good idea?

roughdraft274 · Apr 22, 2019

AlphaOmega said:
(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

Some green new deal supporter please tell us how much fossil fuel will be used to upgrade...and this is the best part...all existing buildings in the U.S. Jesus....who thinks this is even possible much less a good idea?

Very fair point. Its a lofty albeit pretty much impossible goal. It should be worded differently. But is this honestly that ridiculous? The idea that we should make stuff more energy efficient where possible?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

tres borrachos · Apr 22, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Very fair point. Its a lofty albeit pretty much impossible goal. It should be worded differently. But is this honestly that ridiculous? The idea that we should make stuff more energy efficient where possible?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

No, it isn't ridiculous. The achievable is a fair one. We have to become energy efficient. We have to look down the road to the future, for the good of the Earth.

My problem with the GND is that it's long on platitudes and short on real ideas. And unfortunately, that's when good ideas tend to die. Sad but true.

I don't support the GND but I support its goals. I just haven't got a clue how to get there.

Checkerboard Strangler · Apr 22, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Down below is the link to the full text of the green new deal in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I've spent a few minutes actually looking it over and see nothing that is outlandish or obviously silly as many seem to believe. With all the mock and ridicule, I'd really love to know exactly what part of it is so worthy of this mockery etc.

To try to keep this on topic, I think a good practice would be to quote the portion of the resolution that you want to criticize and then list your grievances or make your comments. There has been a lot of misinformation that I simply can't find in the actual text of the resolution, and if we actually quote the relevant portion this will help us stay on track and not stray off on to possible misinformation from various talking heads.

Again, I fully understand that many people don't believe in climate change, many people hate AOC etc. but I want this to be an actual discussion about the actual resolution and to stay on topic. There are hundreds of threads to post on to bash AOC or to argue climate change.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Thanks,
RoughDraft274

Some parts of it were poorly thought out or poorly expressed but seeing as how we've become used to GAVEL READY legislation being pumped out by think tanks like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which can afford to pay top dollar lawyers and former legislators turned lobbyists, and AOC was basically limited to enlisting the help of a few volunteers over a kitchen table, it is possibly understandable.

All that said, it is NOT "legislation" at all, it is merely a proposal.
And the beauty of proposals is that they get hammered on, they get critiqued, they get revised and they get rewritten countless times, as this one should be, of course. The base elements of this proposal come from sound thinking, and if AOC can marshall the resources to lay that out in a more concise and accurate manner, the proposal will grow legs.

Some of it will never get consideration but much of it will, again and again, in the coming years.
AOC started the conversation, so good for her because someone needed to.

That conversation deserves to be continued.

AlphaOmega · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Very fair point. Its a lofty albeit pretty much impossible goal. It should be worded differently. But is this honestly that ridiculous? The idea that we should make stuff more energy efficient where possible?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Except it doesn't say that it says upgrade all existing buildings in the U.S.
That's one sure fire way to exponentally spike our use of fossil fuel. And what is the new power source they speak of that is going to make us 100% renewable clean energy? I have yet to see anything about it.

Fletch · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Down below is the link to the full text of the green new deal in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I've spent a few minutes actually looking it over and see nothing that is outlandish or obviously silly as many seem to believe. With all the mock and ridicule, I'd really love to know exactly what part of it is so worthy of this mockery etc.

To try to keep this on topic, I think a good practice would be to quote the portion of the resolution that you want to criticize and then list your grievances or make your comments. There has been a lot of misinformation that I simply can't find in the actual text of the resolution, and if we actually quote the relevant portion this will help us stay on track and not stray off on to possible misinformation from various talking heads.

Again, I fully understand that many people don't believe in climate change, many people hate AOC etc. but I want this to be an actual discussion about the actual resolution and to stay on topic. There are hundreds of threads to post on to bash AOC or to argue climate change.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Thanks,
RoughDraft274

I reject the entire premise that it is the 'duty' of the state to address this at all. The entire document is a central planners dream which can only be accomplished by granting to the federal government dictatorial powers. Thank you but I prefer to live in a free society not a despotic one.

roughdraft274 · Apr 23, 2019

AlphaOmega said:
Except it doesn't say that it says upgrade all existing buildings in the U.S.
That's one sure fire way to exponentally spike our use of fossil fuel. And what is the new power source they speak of that is going to make us 100% renewable clean energy? I have yet to see anything about it.

So it's ridiculous because the non-binding purely aspirational resolution gives an incredibly high bar. But the goal itself isn't silly, just the scale of it?

roughdraft274 · Apr 23, 2019

Fletch said:
I reject the entire premise that it is the 'duty' of the state to address this at all. The entire document is a central planners dream which can only be accomplished by granting to the federal government dictatorial powers. Thank you but I prefer to live in a free society not a despotic one.

So, if I understand you correctly, even if climate change is 100% real and humans are having a big impact on it, and we figure out regulations that could help limit that impact, the government should still be forced to stay on the sidelines? Or should they stay on the sidelines just because you feel that this isn't the case?

jonny5 · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Down below is the link to the full text of the green new deal in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I've spent a few minutes actually looking it over and see nothing that is outlandish or obviously silly as many seem to believe. With all the mock and ridicule, I'd really love to know exactly what part of it is so worthy of this mockery etc.

To try to keep this on topic, I think a good practice would be to quote the portion of the resolution that you want to criticize and then list your grievances or make your comments. There has been a lot of misinformation that I simply can't find in the actual text of the resolution, and if we actually quote the relevant portion this will help us stay on track and not stray off on to possible misinformation from various talking heads.

Again, I fully understand that many people don't believe in climate change, many people hate AOC etc. but I want this to be an actual discussion about the actual resolution and to stay on topic. There are hundreds of threads to post on to bash AOC or to argue climate change.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Thanks,
RoughDraft274

Thats a resolution to create a Green New Deal, not the actual Green Deal. Which do you want to discuss?

"(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 resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);"

What does this have to do with the evironment?

The 10 year goal is indeed ridiculous. What has govt every accomplished in 10 years? Hell weve had the New Deal for 70 years and there are more poor, more debt, and things cost more than ever. Especially not

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

There is absolutely no possible way to produce 4 trillion KWH with renewables in 10 years, maybe not even 50 years. Whats most ridiculous is giving this much power to govt, and the cost.

AlphaOmega · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
So it's ridiculous because the non-binding purely aspirational resolution gives an incredibly high bar. But the goal itself isn't silly, just the scale of it?

No its ridiculous because it gives a child like goal and doesn't come anywhere near a real one. I asked...how much fossil fuel will it take to rebuild every building in America? I also asked what the new fuel source is....us normal people are not aware of AOC's new globe changing fuel source.

roughdraft274 · Apr 23, 2019

AlphaOmega said:
No its ridiculous because it gives a child like goal and doesn't come anywhere near a real one. I asked...how much fossil fuel will it take to rebuild every building in America? I also asked what the new fuel source is....us normal people are not aware of AOC's new globe changing fuel source.

Probably a **** load, unless we can invent/improve different energy sources that don't rely on fossil fuels. They are already constantly getting better. You seem to be incredibly upset that it sets a very very lofty goal.

I think it's odd that people's biggest problems seem to be "the goal posts are too high and impossible" rather than the actual direction that the resolution is pointing. Personally I'm more interested in the direction (on a non-binding resolution) because even if we miss the mark, it puts us on the right direction (if you agree the direction in general is correct).

AlphaOmega · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Probably a **** load, unless we can invent/improve different energy sources that don't rely on fossil fuels. They are already constantly getting better. You seem to be incredibly upset that it sets a very very lofty goal.

I think it's odd that people's biggest problems seem to be "the goal posts are too high and impossible" rather than the actual direction that the resolution is pointing. Personally I'm more interested in the direction (on a non-binding resolution) because even if we miss the mark, it puts us on the right direction (if you agree the direction in general is correct).

It is not a lofty goal. It's a goal of a clearly crazy person. This is like cutting off a finger because you have a splinter. Yep...you got rid of the splinter.

roughdraft274 · Apr 23, 2019

jonny5 said:
Thats a resolution to create a Green New Deal, not the actual Green Deal. Which do you want to discuss?

I posted a link to the resolution. So I think that's a pretty good hint at what I'm getting at.

jonny5 said:
What does this have to do with the evironment?

The 10 year goal is indeed ridiculous. What has govt every accomplished in 10 years? Hell weve had the New Deal for 70 years and there are more poor, more debt, and things cost more than ever. Especially not

There is absolutely no possible way to produce 4 trillion KWH with renewables in 10 years, maybe not even 50 years. Whats most ridiculous is giving this much power to govt, and the cost.

1. It's talking about this:

Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting 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 preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

2. I'm surprised you think that "things cost more now than they did 70 years ago" is an argument against the new deal. But, that's neither here nor there and nothing to do with the topic.

3. We don't know how much we can create with renewables unless we actually try.

cabse5 · Apr 23, 2019

Fletch said:
I reject the entire premise that it is the 'duty' of the state to address this at all. The entire document is a central planners dream which can only be accomplished by granting to the federal government dictatorial powers. Thank you but I prefer to live in a free society not a despotic one.

I agree and further claim these measures will not deter climate change since CO2 is the only greenhouse gas in the 'sphere that is being monitored and slashed (slashed if China, Russia and India, for examples, were participating in it).

jimbo · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Very fair point. Its a lofty albeit pretty much impossible goal. It should be worded differently. But is this honestly that ridiculous? The idea that we should make stuff more energy efficient where possible?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Yes it's that ridiculous. We're already making stuff more energy efficient. The GND is not about making stuff more energy efficient.

jonny5 · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
I posted a link to the resolution. So I think that's a pretty good hint at what I'm getting at.

1. It's talking about this:

2. I'm surprised you think that "things cost more now than they did 70 years ago" is an argument against the new deal. But, that's neither here nor there and nothing to do with the topic.

3. We don't know how much we can create with renewables unless we actually try.

2. I said the 10 year plan is ridiculous because the old 10 year plan also failed. Thats how its to do with the topic.

None of your other answers are actual answers. Just, nuh uh. Lets try is not a policy. And thats what makes it ridiculous. We know what a failure socialism, policies for social equality, and massive govt plans are. No need to try again and hope for a different result.

roughdraft274 · Apr 23, 2019

jonny5 said:
2. I said the 10 year plan is ridiculous because the old 10 year plan also failed. Thats how its to do with the topic.

None of your other answers are actual answers. Just, nuh uh. Lets try is not a policy. And thats what makes it ridiculous. We know what a failure socialism, policies for social equality, and massive govt plans are. No need to try again and hope for a different result.

"A 10 year plan a long time ago failed, therefor this 10 year plan will fail" is a logical fallacy and doesn't address any of the details of this 10 year plan. So it's either off topic, or logically incoherent.

I'd give better responses, but I didn't see anything that really merits a response. "SOCIALISM!" just isn't a discussion that I see being productive or on topic.

jonny5 · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
"A 10 year plan a long time ago failed, therefor this 10 year plan will fail" is a logical fallacy and doesn't address any of the details of this 10 year plan. So it's either off topic, or logically incoherent.

I'd give better responses, but I didn't see anything that really merits a response. "SOCIALISM!" just isn't a discussion that I see being productive or on topic.

You dont think its logical to point out that the last New Deal still hasnt delivered, and therefore we shouldnt go off on yet another new deal? That just seems like common sense. SOCIALISM is an easy discussion. It encompasses failure in a single word. If something is socialism which the Green New Deal is, then its doomed. Hence, its ridiculous. You asked, there is your answer.

roughdraft274 · Apr 23, 2019

jonny5 said:
You dont think its logical to point out that the last New Deal still hasnt delivered, and therefore we shouldnt go off on yet another new deal? That just seems like common sense. SOCIALISM is an easy discussion. It encompasses failure in a single word. If something is socialism which the Green New Deal is, then its doomed. Hence, its ridiculous. You asked, there is your answer.

Well, it's fair to point it out if they were anything alike. Other than the name they have almost nothing to do with eachother. It's like saying that if you open up a business called "The brown bistro" that it will be awful because the Cleveland Browns are terrible. On top of that, when you tried to give examples of the new deal not working you cited that stuff has gotten more expensive over the last 70 years, as though that's proof it didn't do what it was intended to do. I can't explain how illogical that is without being patronizing.

jonny5 · Apr 23, 2019

roughdraft274 said:
Well, it's fair to point it out if they were anything alike. Other than the name they have almost nothing to do with eachother. It's like saying that if you open up a business called "The brown bistro" that it will be awful because the Cleveland Browns are terrible. On top of that, when you tried to give examples of the new deal not working you cited that stuff has gotten more expensive over the last 70 years, as though that's proof it didn't do what it was intended to do. I can't explain how illogical that is without being patronizing.

They are both example of massive govt programs making big promises and failing to deliver anything except debt and democrat dominance.

The promises were balanced budgets, ending poverty, rural improvements, even Puerto Rico prosperity, redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality. What we got was debt, bureaucracy, and massive increase in govt size. People are still poor, rich are still rich, the debt is bigger than ever, social security is running out of money after having to have the tax rate increased from 2% of earnings to 12%.

Green New Deal - Is it actually ridiculous?

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!

sangha

AlphaOmega

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

AlphaOmega

Fletch

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

jonny5

AlphaOmega

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

AlphaOmega

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

cabse5

jimbo

jonny5

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

jonny5

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

jonny5