The Bronx-born AOC as the "future dictator-for-life of the Americas"?
Wow, always nice to start off my Sunday afternoon with an anti-Latina racist stereotype, courtesy of a columnist who continually advocates for placing the diverse citizens of the United States under the dictatorship of the Pope (or, better yet, a more reactionary version of the Pope than the current one).
Maybe Douthat's next column will be a refresher course on Oliver North, perhaps a tutorial for the right in how to illegally repress a leftist political movement?
Why, NYT editors, do you not hold your columnists to higher standards? Granted, Douthat's slur of AOC is not as in-your-face as the vitriol on Fox News, but in my book it still amounts to disrespectful hate-mongering.
61
The comments are moderated for civility, but are the columns?
"Dictator-for-Life" AOC? What condescension from Mr. Douthat.
47
Why must he began is piece with a sexist, sarcastic put down of AOC? I almost stopped reading it so put me off!
29
If Mr. Douthat has a better plan, I'd love to hear it.
24
Without any apology I can only reiterate how foolish, ignorant, unintelligent, ill-conceived, ill-considered, idiotic, reckless, asinine, stupid, and dangerous this ‘green new deal’ truly is. I say this as an experienced professional engineer and as a financial professional with nearly two decades of portfolio management & financial planning experience. Nothing in this ‘new deal’ comes close to resembling a sensible proposal. It’s a bullet list of half-baked gibberish that sounds like the ramblings second graders at recess. Economically and technologically it is a bunch of hogwash.
Caring for others, stewardship of our resources and care for the environment are all necessary and noble ideals in a civil society. This foolish plan comes nowhere close to any of these ideals. Shame on the other dupes in Congress for going along. They’re all poster children for term limits.
24
I would take AOC, dictator, over Trump, president, in a heartbeat.
19
So what is the Green New deal? I decided to go to the source.
I googled and found this: https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/8f737ea195fe56db2f_xbm6ihwb1.pdf
I guess this the grand daddy of GND!
The introduction included this
" In the oil markets, growing numbers of whistleblowers pointed to the probability of an early peak in production, and a possible subsequent collapse of production. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said an oil crunch is likely in 2012."
I stopped reading.
8
As a fan of the coming socialist overlords, I will go two cheers for this column, Mr. Douthat. Enjoyable.
7
I am sure the folks who thought of and then pushed for what we now know of as our social security system heard the same type of abuse dressed up as serious intellectual thought. I know this. Global warming is a problem. Both political parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests. Our fate will depend largely on the brave politicians from wherever on the political spectrum who step forward and acknowledge and then address the problem. I know this. Douthat's party is the worst of the two offenders and his snarky golf clap only reminds me how much he sounds like the truly clueless folks on Fox News and Fox & Friends.
30
If it happens that the earth's climates may be saved from human destruction just in the nick of time, human history will report that United States Democrats helped lead the way.
Republicans, on the other hand, won't be given the merest mention.
23
Why don't we hear more about the real New Deal? The one that actually existed. The one that was actually implemented. The one that actually worked at giving us the best 48 years this nation ever had!
Because the press is owned by the 1% and the real focus of the GOP for the last 40 years has not been "free markets" or any of the other diversionary lines of propaganda they used to con the voter, to repeal and replace all of the rules regs and laws that implemented the New Deal. but more than that they have also worked to literally re frame how language is used in public discourse, to condition the minds of the young to a view of reality that lacks objectivity, all to prevent effective use of teh mind in discussion of the things in society that led to the ideas the New Deal is based on to prevent it coming into existence ever again or for as long as is possible. They have intentionally miseducated a generation of propagandists to prevent "government for the people" (which is what the New Deal is) from coming back into existence.
This articles focus on the propaganda based "fears" of the GOP is a good example. They are not real fears. They are the fears the GOP manufactured from whole cloth to manipulate the voter. Thus why would any adult not pointing out that fraudulence even bother to bring them up?
just sayin...... "The caller is in the house."
12
Perhaps Douthat has never noticed that over the past decades the so-called "Freedom Caucus" has succeeded in pushing the legislative conversation far to the right, and in enacting measures that 20 years ago would have seemed to be on the crazy fringe.
Yet Douthat did apparently get that the Green New Deal is not a package of laws--it is a non-binding resolution. What he seems not to get is that one does not shift the conversation and the realm of what is possible by proposing modest, bipartisan resolutions that everyone can agree on. Or does he get that, but prefer to attack a straw man? In any case, the Green New Deal is an aspiration and a long-term bargaining position. To make it a preemptive compromise would be just dumb.
19
If anybody is curious what the Green New Deal ACTUALLY says, instead of what vested interests and their lackeys SAY it says, you'll find the link below. It's quite easy reading. I'm all for referring to first sources when possible.
Mr. Douthat, you might want to read the actual document as well. It bears very little resemblance to your description.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
19
You go, Alexandria. Time for the young people to take over.
14
Bravo, AOC !!
I say put this program to the people, make it the Democratic platform, and at least let Americans decide if they want their planet to be ruined by climate change or if they want to preserve the coal-industry at all costs.
What frustrates most people who understand climate science is that neither party has ever presented a package that would actually address the problem. The Republicans want to make it worse, the Democrats don't want to make it quite as much worse.
AOC brings an interesting perspective to politics. She is too naive to realise that voters are at heart cynical, selfish and narrow-minded.
Or at least, that's the theory on which both parties have run all their campaigns in living memory.
But what if she turns out to be right? What if the majority of Americans are willing to make small personal sacrifices to address a major emergency? What if they are not cynics?
And if the majority of people who believe in man-made climate change were to act, perhaps even the others would join in. Deep down, there are very few real climate-change deniers. People pretend to be deniers as a way to push their political agendas and justify their selfish acts. But they secretly know that it's true - very few people are stupid enough to truly believe that 99% of the world's scientists form some kind of conspiracy.
And in the context of a movement in which the country came together to address the problem, even many self-styled deniers would join in.
16
AOC puts this out there thinking this will be the magical bait to attract the most coveted 18-26 YO's to the voting booth in 2020.
Sorry to disappoint- but DEMS can promise this group FREE & GREEN anything, and they still won't show up on election day.
5
"....the New Deal’s rollout is even more striking in its green just means everything progressives want ambition."
Oh my...AMBITION! OK--ambition is at work here. Ambition comes in different varieties. A Green New Deal's ambition is informed by a commitment to reverse the degradation and destruction of the natural world. A desire to offer their children and grandchildren a future. Then there's good old-fashioned Horatio Alger ambition. Rise to the top. Get rich! Anyone can do it. Surely Russ has nothing bad to say about that kind of ambition. Ambition in the service of greed is honorable; the highest good. Each new billionaire helps not just himself--his prosperity lifts all boats! A virtuous cycle.
But just plain ambition? Enthusiasm for a goal that would benefit ALL of humanity? Deplorable. Socialist. Just weird.
Russ goes on: "if the Democratic Party makes the Green New Deal vision its own, that shift will empower climate-change skeptics". The old sawhorse. Exactly what they told MLK. "Integration? of course we want it, just like you, but be patient, it's only been 400 years". Same with climate. Go slow. Don't "hurt the economy". But that ship has sailed...after 50 years of inaction. Sometimes urgency is appropriate. We may have a chance, but if we do, it would require national and global mobilization not seen since WWII. Can we do it to"save the world"? A more important question is: "Will we do it"?
10
Many of the criticisms of the Green New Deal have validity. For me, however, the credibility of Mr. Douthat is undermined by his virulent, and unnecessary to his arguments, personal attacks on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I get it. He detests her, as evidenced by his cracks about "social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas" (with snarky comment about some sort of congresswoman) and his parting shot about the "beneficence of First Citizen AOC." What do the attacks add to his argument? They only demonstrate that his bias against Ms. Ocasio-Cortez probably color his perceptions of her proposal. Next time, I hope Mr. Douthat separates his policy arguments from personal attack and saves his criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for a separate article about what he finds so desirable about her.
11
Well, Ross, you’ve managed to adroitly synthesize condescenscion and faintly mocking praise to make yourself sound like what probably passes for reasonable among your tribe. I suppose that’s the approved approach to ridicule whenever any progressive voices begin even tiptoeing toward a left-leaning equivalent of politically extreme where the right has been comfortably at home since at least 1980.
7
When the patient is rushed into the ICU, the conservatives ask what will it cost?
… and that too when the patient is the breadwinner for our family!
2
The "Utopia" to come? How about saving the world from human self-destruction...by wanting to take prudent action before it's too late? By denying science's findings, based on the facts Nature has already shown to be vulnerable (an increased frequency and severity of natural disasters), we may be fooling ourselves into a stupid complacency rich in ideolopy but poor in reason and common sense. And self-preservation. Alexandria has the passion and youth to lead our understanding into deeds, hopefully worth the effort in offering the world a way out. That means, non-Trumpian/McConnellian, Ocasio-Cortezian instead, a revelation of sorts.
6
Bravo, Ross...especially for your pointing to the real-world consequences of Green Deals in places like France, which cannot figure out a way to get the yellow-vests to shut up and take their medicine. Medicine, as always, administered by academics, pols, media-types who bear none of a policy's risks or downside.
In addition, I wait in vain for someone out there in the city that never sleeps (which produces insanity) to explain why Ms. O-C is such a media darling. I predict that the usual media-driven bell-curve is inevitable: infatuation, hyperventilation, adoration--then the discovery of some itty-bitty flaw, lover's remorse, revenge. Set your watches!
7
The commanding heights of the economy were seized long ago when antitrust law determined that businesses would not be allowed to get so big that competition became a joke. They would be allowed to compete but not to achieve the ultimate goal of competition -- winning.
The most left-wing possible agenda would be to turn us into something like the Soviet Union. Our World War II mobilization did not turn us into the USSR, or even plant the seeds for such a change. Our so-called socialists are aiming instead for the social democracy of northern Europe.
If global warming is a dire threat, as dangerous to the human race as Hitler, then we have to fight it by any effective means. We can hope that if we have to do something as distasteful as allying ourselves with Stalin, we will be more honest about the necessity of allying ourselves with evil and about the evil we are allying ourselves with.
Whether global warming is a dire threat or not is to be determined by worldwide expertise, not by desires for small government or the preservation of certain industries and economic interests. All experts must be honest about their biases and their sources of funding; if climate change deniers are pulling the same sort of stuff that cigarette makers pulled, those who do not honestly investigate and condemn this are, by covering up a dire threat, as much enemies of humanity as Goebbels.
9
@sdavidc9
The real point of anti trust laws was to prevent the situation the republicans have intentionally created today in which a business can be so wealthy they in effect become the government.
16
She's an insurance salesman. She tells you the big one is coming and if you're a conservative, you think, it's not here yet and our greatest scientist Donald Trump says it's never coming. But by the time the water starts covering Miami, the insurance company won't sell you a policy at any price.
Of course it's overreach but it beats under reach.
13
I haven't seen any "would be compromisers" in the GOP. Who are they and where are they hiding? The Green New Deal is a basis for talking. We all know that it won't be enacted as originally proposed. BUT LET'S DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF PRETENDING THE ISSUE DOESN'T EXIST, as this president and his party are doing
24
You can fault the proposed Green New Deal for focusing too much on the role of the government. Probably the actual solution, if it materializes, will involve a lot of private investment and initiative.
But this is a government proposal. You can't expect elected representatives to make promises of private action. Hopefully this proposal focuses social, political,and intellectual energies on this problem (really a network of connected problems) in a way that also inspires corporate entities to spark the engines and gun it.
6
The single most effective tool for battling climate change is at once the simplest to enact globally and the least costly and disruptive by far of all proposed policies, and that is to limit population growth.
As long as we’re throwing out radical proposals left and right, why not spend some time discussing the best and most obvious one?
14
@them - Very true. But it's a delicate subject for someone in politics to take on. For a start, population growth within the USA is quite low, less than 1% above replacement level. Population growth is much higher in other countries and the focus of the Green New Deal is, appropriately and pragmatically in my opinion, what we can do here in the USA.
Also, how deeply do we really want the government making policy on reproductive matters?
Personally, I'd be happy to see a US foreign aid policy that prioritizes limiting population growth in poor countries with high population growth. But that's a foreign aid issue, not an internal issue. Also, with ONE American producing as much Co2 as 80 Liberians, for example, there is obviously a lot we can do close to home to move us forward.
The population growth issue does need addressing, but so do the issues AOC has raised in her proposal.
7
@them
You must not know much about Douthat if you are expecting to find that kind of sensible proposal backed in his columns. His number one priority is to coerce white American and European women into full time reproductive duty as baby machines. He's worried about the "West" becoming overrun by non-white, non-Christian hordes.
Though I will admit that some days I find it hard to decide which came (and comes) first, his contempt for women or his fear of people of color.
8
If Republicans had agreed to support and fund" adaptationist public works, on “big, beautiful” infrastructure projects" ten years ago, we wouldn't be in the situation we find ourselves now. Now that we have ignored the problem, we really need to step up the implementation of the Green New Deal. Energy efficiency measures, renewable energy, and major adaptationist infrastructure. Or we could just eliminate flood insurance and retreat from the coasts.
5
I thought Douthat was a climate change “skeptic” so one cheer for him acknowledging it is real?
My thought would be a massive investment in scientific research and jobs for what is, yes, an existential threat to all of humanity. Everyone talks about a giant infrastructure bill. Let’s make it a green one.
Nuclear also has to be part of the answer. We just aren’t there yet on renewables and battery storage, and we have to have a short term answer while we work on the long term one.
5
@Mercury S - Compared to many other technologies, such as rooftop photovoltaic, or more wind turbines on agricultural land in the Midwest and offshore, Nuclear takes a long time to get online. It also comes with high cost and growing security concerns.
Perhaps it should be included as PART of a solution, but it is a budget hog and risks distracting from the many other technologies whose potential has barely been tapped.
It has many more disadvantages than I can cover here. It would take a small book to detail them all.
8
I despair when I read the NY Times because:
1. I realize how susceptible people are to the pressure to conform to one of two views of politics, Democratic and Republican.
2. People can argue with passion on two opposite sides of a debate with nobody seeming to realize that both sides can be wrong.
Climate change is a consequence of too much population growth. World population has doubled since about 1970. Parts of the world are still growing at unsustainable rates. For example, Africa is projected to double in population by 2050.
Slowing population growth would help buy us time, so that we could make the transition to new technologies that can help save the planet. Such as shifting from internal combustion to electric vehicles.
But environmental initiatives can be overwhelmed by additional population growth.
I am now 75. I have watched Los Angeles grow from a beautiful city in the late 60's to a hellish environment with freeways that are almost always congested, the residents being forced to live under a sea of smog.
To mitigate environmental damage driven by population growth, residents of California required all autos to have catalytic converters.
But this requires production of palladium or platinum. The world leader in palladium production is Norilsk Nickel, a mining company that developed from Stalin's system of prisons in the arctic.
To mitigate pollution in cities like LA, we have caused Norilsk to become the most polluted city in the world.
14
Thank you… I have been talking about population growth for a long time…
More people need to be talking about this so eventually we can fashion a good plan that reduces the population over time and does not hurt anyone.
This way, all living things will have enough and we can all enjoy a beautiful healthy planet!
8
There's a theory about social change: that it doesn't come in small incremental steps, but rather in radical quick massive change. By fighting small changes now, the GOP is setting up for the later alternative. And, when it comes, it will be a WOPPER, probably accompanied by social and economic disruption.
Obviously, I lobby for the former, but seeing no action here, I'm afraid it will be the later.
5
This is the key to winning the election. The deal can unite both populist wings of each party, because you can offer a good paying job to people who are climate deniers, precisely because they think it will take away their jobs. If Bernie or Warren win I think it has a very good chance of getting past. Anyone else, however, could stifle any progress on this for generations. There is nothing more dangerous than a fake-progressive winning office--ie Beto, Harris, Booker. They will not do anything. They are not bold, and if they win, the whole movement will just be a huge letdown, and something that everyone will be able to point to as an example of progressives over-promising and under-delivering and it will destroy the reputation of progressives and ultimately harm the planet. These opportunists who don't have a record of being progressive are extremely dangerous and full of platitudes. We must make sure that they do not come out on the other side, because their victory would be catastrophic for any progressive movement in the future that seeks to actually change the country in a positive way. Having frauds represent us is the only way our movement fails. Hopefully, this will become obvious soon enough. None of them are particularly good speakers and are all really bad at seeming authentic. Hopefully, they don't somehow learn how to fake that.
3
The IPCC says we have 12 years left to halt warming to 1.5 C. (A number that is getting smaller everyday.) We need net-zero emissions, not carbon credits.
Cities need to become denser, suburbs as we know them need to change. Cars need to be electric, and so do planes (which don't exist yet.) We'll need better public infrastructure so that everyone can get around within cities and the entire country. Buildings need to be retrofitted. Utilities need to transition. We'll need less cows and chickens, and more plants/lab-grown meat. Better water management. More trees. That means eliminating ENTIRE industries and replacing them. Also, whose lifestyles emit the most? The wealthiest among us, the same who could afford to live as the economy transitions.
And when the warming that we do have fully arrives? More disasters, higher temperatures, and extreme cold snaps. That means flood barriers, storm infrastructure. Lyme disease is running rampant. Every year is the hottest year on record and the worst for allergies, so we'll need quality health care for everyone to insure people will be taken care of - because humans will not be able to adequately live in the environment anymore.
The countries that haven't been polluting for as long as we have will be hit the hardest due to geographic location. That means more refugees, and we have to get their industrialized economies to stop polluting, too.
You want bi-partisan consensus with a party of deniers instead of a living planet?
2
Dear Mr Douthat,
If "unknown unknowns" justified the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, shouldn't conservatives also line up behind the unknown destabilizing effects of climate change?
There is no Planet B, and no thereafter either, I am sorry to tell you. We, not the market, are ultimately responsible.
3
Does it matter if you're right or left? Texas and California are leading the nation in renewable energy and both are going to build bullet trains. California uses public funds and Texas private. Who cares how it gets done. So far so good. Two boxes check off on the green list. However both States neglect their infrastructure.
Remember the near failure of the Oroville Dam last year. They were on notice for years and never fixed it. The last time I checked the upper Colorodo snow pack was 110%. No doubt because of climate change. California's mountains have been getting hit by blizzards. Can we expect a repeat of last year? Somewhere else? Houston was flooded by Harvey. Its been raining since August. The Brazos River was just 6ft below flood stage a few weeks ago. It's usually deep enough to float a rubber duck most of the year. They're still discussing flood control improvements.
Like I said it doesn't matter If you're left or right.
Before branding Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez as a would-be dictator, consider this: environmentalism is an essential means of maintaining free markets, and free markets are the most articulated form of democracy. You see, in a free market system, nobody gets anything for free. Businesses that sell to consumers don’t rely on slave labor, government subsidies, or infringed patents. They also cannot consume public resources without paying a cost. If faced with paying (initially) higher costs for energy in order to ensure continued access to food and breathable air in the near future, most consumers would pay the price.
Rather than subsidizing dying fossil fuel industries with special tax treatment, below market leases, and coal mandates for power plants, the government should be recovering the costs of public resources that these industries consume and return them to the people.
3
@DebbieI'm sorry, invisible-handism isn't the answer.
Indeed, our politics are so balkanized that there is no longer a common good. We no longer even agree on facts. And so, as we hurtle toward another government shutdown at the end of this week over an issue less an existential threat than the environment I am confident that we, as a country, will do nothing, and so condemn ourselves to whatever the environmental future brings. And we will all be to blame.
1
Ross Douthat's arguments are provocative and misleading, at best. The key issue here is that there is NO ALTERNATIVE being offered up by Republicans. Also, Republican's leave no place to compromise. Climate change is the single largest threat to our society and nation, and AOC is merely kick off the long suppressed conversation by setting some directional guide-posts. I would be thrilled to see Ross make arguments for a better way to get to a carbon free future. Rather, he just attacks any attempt to start the conversation. Our country needs more than a single voice to get there. So please, Mr Douthat and Republican Party, what is your plan????
3
Leftists are congratulating AOC for shifting the terms of the debate on climate, and lauding her "ambitious" plan for reshaping all of America. She's "shifted" the debate, all right - directly into the theater of the absurd! Give her a bigger megaphone and watch the GOP roll to victory in 2020.
9
"our future socialist overlords"?
Maybe better than the Koch inspired overlords we currently have.
7
This article is going to appear even more sad, more naive in a few decades. Douthat wants to expose a socialist vehemence behind climate action while baldly ignoring the very real capitalist interests fueling anti-climate propaganda. The Republican Party is selling out the future wellbeing of humanity in exchange for short term greed. America’s excessive and immoral wealth is literally consuming the world. In the words of Alan Ginsburg, “C’mon, pigs of Western Civilization, eat more grease!”
6
Who are you? I can't get past the subtitle right now. Hopefully it's satire? If you don't recognize the owners of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Exxon, Aetna, Lockheed, etc ad nauseam as your capitalist overlords... You are under a very powerful hypnotic spell. I'll try again later; it's too early to read corporate propaganda on a Sunday.
9
Douthat to anti-global warming voices:
'Hey, Green New Deal supporters - you're sounding pretty "Venezuelan" there. Too bad if you made my even-more-right-wing-than-me friends mad and something happened to your legislation...
'What?...Nah, I'm not trying to threaten you - I'm a reasonable intellectual, remember? I'm the good guy here! I'm just trying to warn you about my less understanding friends...'
3
@Jackson None of which bears even a remote resemblance to anything Douthat actually wrote.
I salute the young and new for putting a visionary proposal on the table. While it's way too comprehensive on all of societies ills, it's a discussion starter and offers some HOPE to the younger generations. Mitch and gang are having a hard time convincing the inheritors of our planet to keep their heads in the sand, keep burning fuels, and keep sending the income from their hard work to the 1%. Even with a poor education system our kids are smarter than that.
Back to carbon... the Baker-Shultz carbon dividend avoids the regressive nature of carbon taxation while unleashing the power of capitalism. We won't innovate mass-scale solutions to this existential threat until the price of carbon reflects the real cost to the planet. We should at least start a slowly-ramping tax that overs the cost of disaster relief and infrastructure retrofit. We currently socialize these costs, and thanks to the new tax structure, borrow money to pay for them.
Our kids know that we are kicking the can of future climate and fiscal disaster into their back yard. I salute them for kicking it back at us.
7
The Republican Party wants no change, even removing governmental regulations, when it comes to climate change. They believe we cannot fight Mother Nature, especially when doing so might cut profits. They believe that global warming is either a fiction, or if it exists, human beings have nothing to do with it. They don't seem to have much science backing them up, and a wrong approach over the next few decades could prove disastrous for future generations. Mr. Douthat thinks that incremental change will be sufficient — that is at least encouraging. But what if incremental change isn't fast enough?
3
@Jeff
I don't think (I can only speak personally) that it is anywhere near enough. The warning signs have been made for decades upon decades now.
We now have ice sheets the size of states falling off from ice packs and glaciers. We now are close to having major cities under water. (let alone Venice) We now have major natural disasters that are all ''once in a lifetime'', but happening every couple of years.
The signs are there, but we are unable to read.
5
@FunkyIrishman
I agree. It's like an ocean liner taking on water. The passengers on the lowest deck are seeing the water rising and realize they will need to leave their cabins soon. Meanwhile, up in the first class section, no worry at all. Sipping cocktails. Talking about the stock market. Watching entertainments.
2
As one person rightly noted "...The Green New Deal isn't a nice-to-have. It might be our only chance."
Douthat frames the current struggle between humanity’s survival and its self-imposed path to extinction (and taking with it in this end-game most of today’s living creatures we also share the planet with) as all politics. Let’s hope not for everyone’s sake that political agendas can be separated from political necessity.
The world’s governments, led by the United States and a more enlighten and better educated President on the subject, created the Paris Climate Accord in 2016 - no small task, as it represents an essential beginning in addressing the impacts of burning of fossil fuels, that today primarily energize an unsustainable global economy. The accord was more than politics, which surely played a role in its creation; it recognizes the need for immediate action to migrate the world to a clean energy economy as more than a good idea, but a matter of survival, not politics. A message lost on a co-dependent media and political apparatus of both parties.
1
We have dithered and prevaricated for nearly 40 years since learning with absolute assurance that the scientific fact of climate change was real. We've allowed fossil fuel interests to dictate our policy. Now we are at the brink, and the earliest edge of the catastrophic wave of climate change. We no longer have the luxury of easy and non disruptive action. What we need to avert the very worst outcome is massive, global and radical. Enough with the paternalistic chuckle and "oh silly left wing children, the thing we can aim for are tiny, incremental changes that don't threaten existing industry, incur the need for imposing even the slightest burden on the wealthy, or ask our population to consider any change to their lifestyles. And when we've wasted our window, when the permafrost melts and we tip beyond the threshold of conceivable action to mitigate climate change, when there isn't enough water, food,medicine, electricity or money to rebuild our storm shattered, flooded communities, at least we can say " we were politically pragmatic at the time". Tell that to your grandkids as they starve.
3
A green new deal,day care for all,a fairer tax system, more inclusive healthcare ideas,are issues that need a lot of thought. At least the newly elected are bringing them out for discussion. The present administration has its head in the sand for most of them. Witnesses no more mention of climate changing in federal literature or the efforts the repeal the affordable care act with no idea of a replacement. Conservatives are leading the country by moving forward looking backward. The world we live in is changing very rapidly and the” same old-same old “ doesn’t work any more.
4
In a healthy republic the GOP would also be proposing legislation to prevent the worst of climate disruption. They are not. They likely will not.
In this time with rampant GOP dereliction of statesmanship, Democrats are the only party concerned with establishing legislation regarding issues that really matter!
3
Will you please not add to the hysteria about socialism that is currently the Republican plan to retain its hold on government.
You know very well that this "manifesto" is just that, an effort to express the angst many of us feel about the unsustainable path this country is currently following.
Instead of this tirade, direct your intelligence to asking for details about the precise policies Democrats propose to wean us off fossil fuels, not an easy task but an imperative one.
7
If we had addresses climate change three decades ago, as we should have, conservatives wouldn't have to worry about us going "full socialism" to battle it. But as it stands now, being almost too late, it will take massive government intervention to even attempt a fix. Conservatives have done this to themselves by denying the science for decades.
4
@Steve: The election of Reagan was in part a reaction to Carter's calls for action on climate change.
4
Douthat trots out all the familiar tropes: socialism, Venezuela, command-and-control that seek to conjure up the brutish life under Stalinist Russia. What he shows is that Republicans are the party of No—no to big ideas, no to genuine dialogue that would encourage bipartisanship, no to America’s role in being a global leader to help solve existential challenges. Douthat shows that even the brightest thinkers in the conservative movement are hamstrung by their own ideology. While he says he appreciates the time long ago when our government did big things, he’ll never get behind one because in his world the government is always the enemy.
7
I would like to award the Diogenes Prize for honesty to the conservative who doesn't use the word Venezuela in discussing the Green New Deal. Ross comes close (only one use). Not much about socialism either, kudos for that too. The usual conservative rant is a slander on the memory of Helmut Schmidt and, yes, FDR whose original article, the New Deal was influenced by Norman Thomas.
Inasmuch as the Green New Deal doesn't propose ownership of the means of production (where Atlee's Brit Labor went wrong) it's not even old style democratic socialism. Nor is it a command economy any more than the Morrill Land Grant Act which gave us the "cow colleges" -- later great public universities --and an agrarian reform which gave a federal push to our expanding frontier.
To paraphrase Carville, "It's Industrial Policy, Stupid". of the sort which gave us canals, public schools (sorry, Ms. DeVos) railroads, several agrarian revolutions. atomic energy and medicine, the moon shot, etc. Oh, is there anyone who thinks we didn't subsidize merchant shipping and the airlines?
As Ross says, subsidies are key to a renewable energy revolution. Also, a restoration of regulation of pollution from refineries, transportation and bad water. Like him, I wish OC had not conflated energy with Medicare for All, necessary in its own right (less fossil fuels does mean less costly health care). The kitchen sink approach in the GND may damage prospects for a renewables revolution.
3
Sorry, the time for incremental steps to address climate change passed us by half a century ago. The pain and impacts of withdrawal from fossil fuels will take a concerted, coordinated effort from the government, business and the citizenry . Market driven solutions on their own won't be sufficient. It certainly is made all the more problematic if the President spouts denial, makes jokes and pushes policies that exacerbate the problem at the planet's expense.
The Green New Deal is a proposal that at least has people discussing the problem seriously. Should we continue to just let it ride and see what happens or worse keep heaping on the damage as is our President's course. Stop calling efforts to confront climate change socialism. Start calling the practices and policies of the current administration what they are, ignorant and deadly.
5
My question to Mr Douthat is: where do you think Jesus would stand on this issue -- with the Koch brothers and their ilk, or with AOC?
4
Your children and grandchildren will love you for your moderation, should they survive the oncoming environmental collapse.
5
So the alternatives are a radical new “New Deal” focused on environmentalism vs the entrenched Republican establishment’s focus—Make the Wealthy Wealthier Again?
Ain’t politics grand.
I see the conservatives are still taking aim at the messenger.
Not one credible conservative on this issue. Not one.
You do not distinguish youself with this colunm.
5
Red-baiting old-fashioned populist style: 'You're'exploiting' fears of global warming to manipulate innocents into supporting your left wing agenda!
'We have good reason to attack you!'
Red-baiting new-fangled 'intellectual' style: 'You're going to make my populist-style red-baiting friends think you're exploiting fears of global warming to manipulate innocents into supporting your left wing agenda!
'They'll have good reason to attack you!'
3
Large corporations use bribes to control congress, so our supposed free market is just a scam. Ross laments the coming socialism but clings to this corrupt present that has a field slanted in favor of wealth that buys political action. He should remember that these are democrats who will always destroy themselves with their own hatreds of the people they know are evil. The rainbow coalition eventually always shows that their is just as much animosity for their own ranks as there is for the right wingers.
Additionally, most people are oblivious to reality such that the lies told by the right are considered plausible descriptions of reality. It's not surprising since most people also believe in a magic being in the sky.
The bottom line is that the people will never be able to tell what is real and what is not. They are too deeply brainwashed by their cults. In this state they are incapable of throwing off the yoke of serfdom that the wealthy have imprisoned them under. The media services these overlords and helps to confuse the victims of the cults.
Dothat the sophist minion of the wealthy spins a fearful story about how the poor billionaires will be harmed by having fewer billions of dollars. Oh the horror. How is a billionaire to feed his family on only a few billion.
2
Why ruin an otherwise thoughtful piece with the very juvenile opening attack on Ms Ocasio-Cortez as a "congresswoman of some kind". She was elected as Mr Douthat knows, and not just a salaried op-ed writer employed as a kind of fair and balanced aparatchik.
10
A quick note:
If you take the predictions of future climate disaster, disregard the worst case scenarios (for arguments sake), and then take the best predictions of what we as a species might possibly accomplish in terms of prevention you'll see that there actually is no hope of stopping this thing.
Mitigation is the only way to go.
Luckily for us a mitigation program that's all about improving/expanding roads and bridges and flood control, etc. is just the sort of stimulus program that we need. Especially if we source the materials here in the USA.
Wait a second...where was Douthat when Trump, the Republican Congress, and their billionaire, sugar daddy, fossil fueled overlords exploded the deficit with their tax cut? Open your eyes, Douthat; more people are voting for a progressive agenda than for the GOP agenda that, under the guise of free markets, redistributes wealth from the lower economic classes to the elite of the elites. Despite the effort to label anything good for the majority of people (actual, living people, not corporations) as socialist, while using all the anticommunist rhetoric of the 50s. Like most conservatives, Douthat fears democracy.
3
New York City has a long and honorable tradition of sometimes electing iconoclastic "bomb throwing" Congress
people from the far left of American politics.
Congresswoman Alexandria follows in a long democratic tradition in NYC of sometimes electing radicals of the left. It is good in our democracy that her voice be heard in the national debate in the Congress where her views can be debated, and that her constituents be heard.
Sometimes the voters of NYC are wrong.
For example, in 1948 Henry Wallace ran for president from the left, and in NYC he got enough votes to throw New York State's electoral votes to the GOP Thomas Dewey. The left wing Wallace vote in NYC almost defeated Truman in the 1948 presidential election, but not quite.
It was a squeaker, thanks to the left wing Wallace.
Wallace's position in the 1948 campaign was that America was responsible for the Cold War and that Stalin was for peace.
But when North Korea invaded South Korea with Stalin's permission and help in 1950 and America suffered all those terrible deaths and casualties of the Korean War, to his credit Wallace publicly admitted that he had been totally wrong about Stalin and American responsibility for the Cold War.
Wallace flipped, supported the American side in the Korean War after North Korea's aggression and Wallace supported the Republican General Eisenhower for president in 1952.
As the gilets jaunes demonstrated, there is no real possibility of seriously attacking climate change without a new social contract. My French friends tell me that the cry on the street in France is, "Who cares about the end of world? We can't make it to the end of the month." If we get people get health care and economic security, then we'd be in a position to get consensus on a World War II style mobilization--which is, despite all the conservative tut tutting, what the IPCC scientists tell us we need to avoid a climate catastrophe.
1
Later this year, I will be installing a Tesla roof, Tesla power walls and a completely upgraded electrical system. So, to suggest that I am all in favor of renewable energy would be a gross understatement.
That said, I am not in favor of the "Green New Deal" now being promoted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and an increasing number Presidential hopefuls like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Bernie Sanders.
First, I am skeptical that we can, in ten years, go to one hundred percent renewable power sources. This might be a realistic goal for the next century, but not the next decade.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I am uncomfortable with the unnecessary addition of a number of progressive all-time favorites to the platform of the Green New Deal, including: strengthening antitrust policy, protecting the right of workers to organize, providing every American with “high-quality health care,” “affordable, safe, and adequate housing,” and a green federal job guarantee that every American will have a job opportunity tied to the project of transitioning America to clean and sustainable energy.
This isn't policy -- it's pie in the sky. As The Economist recently pointed out, progressives can promise the moon, but in the end, the only person who will benefit is Donald Trump, who will have a perfect election issue to gin up his base.
Let's try a climate proposal that is a little more practical and down to earth -- please.
3
Kudos to Mr Douthat for acknowledging the positive parts of this plan. At the same time, it is far from clear that this plan is energizing the anti-Trump base at a comparative level to how it is energizing the Trump base. I mean who is saying "I wasn't voting Democrat before but by golly will now that they have this great plan." The plan seems more like a cheatsheet of grist for Republicans to attack through the election. Having not much more than political neophytes behind speaks more to the lack of leadership and cohesion in the Democratic party.
It would be nice if Ross and the Right would spill a little ink to describe the costs of not addressing climate change. They are fixated on the expense of protecting climate. Its cost-benefit analysis that is being done. The benefits of protecting climate are huge.
All the delay and denial has pushed us closer and closer to doing irretrievable harm. (The planet will be fine. Its the humans that will suffer.) The genteel, market friendly interventions of cap-and-trade and carbon tax would have made quite a bit of progress by now if Ross and the Right had passed it in the Senate after it passed the House in 2009. But Republicans knifed it in the Senate and here we are. The normal GOP stall tactic on toxic pollution merely kills people until the bodies in the street pile too high to ignore. Climate is different. The delays push climate closer and closer to changes that many humans will not be able to deal with. (Rich white guys are betting that they will be OK.) So, responding at this late date will require more than gentle nudges toward reasonable behavior. WWII analogies are probably pretty relevant. It was a great deal for the US as protecting climate could be if we would invest and do it. We are all on the same planet (although you would not know that if all you inhabit is the Right-Thinking Blogosphere). When their countries crash, they are coming here, wall-or-not. By then Kansas will be too hot to grow today's crops. Are you working on those GMO's Ross?
1
Doesn't it seem like this is happening a lot faster than you think?
Every year a new heat record. Intense rainfalls. Floods more frequently. Rapidly intensifying hurricanes. Fire inducing droughts. Looming water shortages. Polar vortexes. Melting ice, shrinking glaciers. Tropical diseases moving north. Fish moving north to find cold water. The Green New Deal isn't a nice-to-have. It might be our only chance.
You can argue about this stuff all you want. But the truth is the more carbon we put in the air, the shorter humanity's stay on earth will be.
195
@Patrick
So if global warming will shorten our stay on earth there should be a correlation that people in warmer areas will have shorter lifespans that people in colder areas of the planet?
Any data to support this?
1
@Dennis
That makes zero sense. It's not like we're all going to fry (although the runaway greenhouse theory does say we might eventually).
Environmental degradation most importantly impacts food production and water access, and secondarily transportation and habitation. It's not really hard to see how mass famine / drought and displacement of hundreds of millions could lead to some pretty huge wars. Yeah maybe some pockets of Mad Max humanity survive; that's the future you want?
36
OK, I'm a liberal not immune to the glowing charisma of O-C but being a generation and a half more aged may make me a bit more cautious.
Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and needs to be addressed right now without complicating the issue any more than it already is by the fact that fossil fuel is already here and is comparatively cheap without any public investment.
CEO's and shareholders aren't the only ones with terrible long term eye sight- consider the fact that a mere 8 years after the utter collapse of the world economy due to excessive deregulation of banks and wall st. we elected (sort of) a man who promised to deregulate practically everything, including banks and wall st.
Consider how few years after a disastrous and unnecessary war, the majority of Americans can be coaxed into supporting another disastrous and unnecessary war.
OC's Green New Deal is a gift to the Koch bros and the political right wing fighting to sustain American corpocracy. The entire Dem party is being framed as a Marxist institution.
I'm sorry, but the kind of huge government intrusion she is advocating might somehow create a more egalitarian, democratic and contented society, but I don't think the crucial independent vote is ready to rally around government guaranteed employment for every American along with several other stated goals.
Please, we don't have time to convince them to accept all these policies, our planet is dying- let's focus on that first.
114
Too true! By rolling wish-lists such as universal health care into the NGD and simultaneously excluding the betes noir of the Left such as nuclear energy; air travel; and coal in any form (even married to CCS) - I’m grateful she didn’t also require us to become vegans- AOC and her acolytes instantly lose all credibility.
Having said that, she’s right that to actually achieve the goal of lowering temperatures by 1.5 degrees will indeed take a whole-of-society, whole-of-government (federal, state & local) decades-long commitment.
Yes, it will cost a bit but my guess is that a holistic NGD would just about break even, even before we try to price the benefits of saving ourselves from climate catastrophe.
So, rather than condemn her out of hand (“Shock, horror! Socialism!”), let’s actually examine what we could achieve with a sensible NGD
13
@Will Liley
Engaging in misguided policy debacles can most definitely set back the movement.
Obamacare, which essentially put 80% of enrollees on Medicaid and raised prices for everyone not subsidized, did serious damage.
Many Americans will now question the government's ability to radically alter Medicare, which now covers less than 30% of Americans.
Proponents of these big changes also tend to delude themselves as to the appeal of their proposals. Polls show that many support Medicare for all until they are asked about increased costs and wait times.
Getting swept up is different from actually convincing.
5
Anyone who works on advocacy for changes recognizes that radical ideas are what build movements and shift policy. But anyone who works on political advocacy for change also knows that radical ideas are not what get implemented. The purpose of a radical agenda like the Green New Deal is to shift the terms of debate. By putting on the table a radical vision that you know will not be accepted by many, you make the previous middle look remarkably normal and open up room for those in the Middle who wish to shift towards a more radical stance an opportunity to do that while still seeming moderate. This then shifts the direction of action and gets change that, while not the radical vision, is better than what otherwise would be on offer. This shift is what Ocasio-Cortez helps bring to politics, and I'm sure that Douthat and others on the right recognize this process from their own parties history with the Tea Party and others. But let's also not compare Ocasio-Cortez to the Tea Party. While their positions were remarkably self-interested and reflective of a mostly white, upper class interest, the movement on the political left is much more diverse and egalitarian. Fear monger about "socialism" all you want, but I will take someone who demands care for the sick and poor over someone who offers the sick and poor prayers but nothing else any day.
222
@Merlot very well said!
20
One can quibble with some specific policy proposals within the Green New Deal. Douthat and those like him will always find those points of attack.
The Green New Deal is the only possible future. Of course we will move on to new technology. We always have, and we always will. We can be first or last, or somewhere between, but it is the inevitable direction.
Those who are first will benefit the most. Those who are last will suffer for it.
America was first for a long time. We were first in strengths of representative democracy, and in freedom for our people to innovate. We were first in specific successes, like Continent spanning railroads, the oil industry displacing much of coal (despite our having so much coal), electrification, a vast network of telephones, air travel, and of course space and technology like competers and information more generally.
We can keep doing that, or we can stop and fall behind. That is our choice. We can't opt out of the future, that is going to happen to us either way.
So do we develop new energy sources and modes of transmission, like we did before, or not?
Do we develop new modes of transportation like we always have before, railroads, autos, planes, or not?
Do we transmit energy more efficiently, like we did with electrification?
The Green New Deal is not really new at all. It is what we've always done.
What is "new" is the demand that we once again have good government.
166
The point of socialism is that there should not be any overlords, Mr. Douthat.
3
For the most part Ross the GOP has the country running for the last 40 years the way they think it should be running most of the wealth on the top with everybody else getting the shaft or at least struggling, socialize the loss and privatize the gains to them. The people are feed up with this robbery because they know there are better ways of running the country but it requires taking money from those that have so much me and mine vs. we and ours, they have lost there moral compass there is a balance look up north they are doing fine there country did not collapse because the people have health care taken out of taxing from those that have so much. Do you honestly think our country is better off run by corporations this country has so much it is time for a new direction and it is not the GOP versions. As for deficits they only matter when the Democrats are in power.
2
It will never be possible to combat global warming with leftist policies.
If anybody is curious what the Green New Deal ACTUALLY says, instead of what vested interests and their lackeys SAY it says, you'll find the link below. It's quite easy reading. I'm all for referring to first sources when possible.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
The clarion call of the conservative right: “Ennui for All.”
2
When fools sarcastically and mockingly view the future and they state, there will be no trucks or similar high tech equipment in our future if the Green team has its way. Well, if they don’t get their will the future survivors of our planet enjoy living under the high tech domes placed on explored parts of Mars. Choices of our future planet have to be made. The taggers and framers of conversation of our planets future will use terms like Socialist and Alarmist and worse towards groups who attempt to help the health of our only planet. Hey, it’s only the future health of our planet right. Let the next sucker worry about that. There’s to much money left on the table to worry about Insignificant futuristic matters as the health of our only planet. Well maybe the billionaires and their proxies figure they will cleanup ( not the planet) on all the money left on the table and have plenty of riches to live else where and the other suckers will be left behind on earth.
Yes, liberal socialists overlords! I doubt if Mr. Douthat is being ironic, either.
He obviously prefers conservative corporate overlords deciding life and death issues for the common folk.
Pick your poison!
4
with these initiatives the Democrats have Berkley and the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the bag.
2
“Would-be compromisers in the G.O.P.” Good one Ross!
1
You provided a perfect description of your own rant right there in your column. What you have written is, indeed, paranoid. And it also appears to be the product of a Fox News feedback loop reflecting the science-denying fever swamps sponsored by the Koch brothers.
1
Senators Linsey Graham and Jogn Barrasso say about the green movement: “It’s crazy. It’s loony. It’s socialisi.”
Then I remember these are men who claim that social security is bad (even though they will get a federal pension). Medicare is bad (even though they get taxpayer subsidized health care). Fighting the opioid epidemic is bad (even though addiction treatment is a benefit they have in their insurance plans). Renewable energy is bad. Ensuring a minimum living wage is bad (even though every year they get an automatic cost of living adjustment). Tax breaks for the utra rich are great! Allowing more pollution is great! Confiscating private land to build Trump’s wall is great! Decreasing educational funding is great!
It makes me wonder who is crazy and who is looney.
2
How can we make progress on climate change if even the tiniest initiative is fraudulently demonized as capital-C Communism?
We've got to get the terms straight. Socialism and democratic socialism are not communism, which is the state ownership and control of the means of economic production.
The right wing is deliberately confusing the terms as a scare tactic to prevent any action that would hamper fossil fuels.
Reporters and columnists like Ross Douthat should understand the differences between economic systems and not allow this confusion to be presented unchecked. Just because we care about the health of the planet and its people does not make us Communists!
1
@Spring: Most larger corporations are communist dictatorships.
1
I wonder how many of the commentariat who are avidly supporting for the AOC Green new deal are scientist, have studied economics, have any grounding in reality?
The green new deal won't work. It's silly high school stuff. Even Pelosi recognizes this.
3
@Ralphie
No Ralphie, Pelosi recognizes her bank account, and future "donations" from the petroleum sector. That's all.
2
@Mass independent -- you don't sound very "independent" to me.
Lord knows, I almost never agree with Ralphie (if it's the same Ralphie anyway) but on this one he's right ... and I am a scientist who has spent most of my life on climate physics.
AOC's "plan" is not a plan at all about how to control CO2 and methane -- if one is charitable it is a poorly-thought-out list of objectives; if one is less charitable "Green New Deal" is just a slogan like MAGA, and she's just greenwashing her social policy agenda.
"100% renewable power in 10 years" is not necessary, and it's not achievable by anything short of "war footing and rationing" means.
She is not clear by what she means by "power." Doers she mean production of electricity? That'
s not all power, and it's only about 1/3 of CO2 production.
95% renewable electricity in 20 years would be fine, particularly so if there are major reductions in the other CO2 fluxes.
I'm pretty leftie, and I do not accept that being leftie excuses acting like Trump "because he does."
@Lee Harrison Of course I'm the same Ralphie. And it's nice that we can agree on some things. I'll go along with making the grid more renewable if we include nukes and relatively clean natural gas. An electrical grid that uses hydro, nukes, natural gas, wind and solar is fine with me, and people putting solar on their houses works for me. Nothing wrong with making the electric grid as clean and cheap as possible no matter what your views on climate change happen to be.
Right. Don't have solutions because it will inflame and empower opponents. Got it.
4
To A.O.C., et all: focus on the singular mission of replacing Trump.
Anything damage done in socialist countries hasn't been the result of socialism. It's been because of corruption, incompetence, tyranny etc. Does socialism work? Actually we really don't know, it's never been tried in a vacuum.
Meanwhile, some good has come from capitalism - but it sure puts a lot of people through a lot of misery to deliver mansions to the few and cheap TVs to the many.
Maybe we can admit that, if human hands touch it, it's not going to be perfect. And then agree on some basics that all people deserve, pool the money to provide them, and move on.
2
Does MR. Douthat not see climate change as a greater existential and national risk that WWII? I guess not. His recipe would be, by analogy to WWII strategy: We will mount a great military effort, and at the same time we will send arms to the Axis powers. And in terms of climate change, we will spend a lot of money for "adaptionist" purposes, but we will avoid the hard judgments hard efforts needed to stop the carbon emissions. The Green New Deal attempts to do both, and takes full responsibility for the policy.
I’d very much like the govt to just get out of the way of what is already economically feasible with renewables wind and solar etc, and stop subsidizing the carbon burning industry. THAT is not socialism!
No, the core “conservative” belief is that climate change simply can’t exist. Science and facts are just “liberal” stuff, to be attacked and despised. That’s why there’s no “conservative” alternative to the GND, and there isn’t going to be one. The only genuine debate available will be within the Democratic Party; what’s left of the GOP is fully committed to Trump, and will follow any nonsense that emerges from his “gut”. Anyone who understands that climate change is a very real problem, but rejects the GND, is going to have to bring specific, convincing arguments to change it. Too bad, it’s either that or literally nothing.
Like Trump's wall pitch, the Green New Deal's objective is to aim incredibly high (or in Trump's case low), so the outcome is somewhere in the middle, or even below. Cut the new deal in half, emasculate it, drain it and that will be it's effect on our economy. I think the Pelosi moderates need AOC to propose far left ideas, so they can look like the adults, and walk this back to real policy. Call it good cop bad cop in front of the Tucker Carlson's of the world.
1
@PE -- "high" should not equal "stupid." Better plans would achieve more at lower pain.
Socialism has given us public roads, public schools, public health, public military, social security, medicare, medicaid, cleaner air and water, life saving research, the TVA, airline safety, food and housing for the poor and the list goes on. Capitalism has given us smart TV, smart phones, furniture, cars, clothing, airplanes, private health insurance and that list goes on. America has always been a balance between socialism and capitalism. Since the 1980's it's not socialism that has been out of control in this country but capitalism. If the 97% of the climate scientists are correct, climate change is the biggest threat to the planet and human species. I would say that is enough of a threat to take bold action. We can either face this threat and make radical change or the threat will make it for us and that will not be good for any of us.
4
If the GOP had a plan for dealing with climate change then perhaps we could discuss the merits of both plans. Since the GOP is stuck on denying the obvious then this Green New Deal that is nothing more than an outline is still a better plan than anything the GOP has put forward. Instead of the endless snarkiness over this coming from conservatives, it would be nice to see a counter proposal.
2
Yes it's really uncomfortable to be told the truth for a change. The basic way humans survive at such an artificially high population and consumption level is because these are subsidized by a finite natural resource base. It's time to pay the piper and quite kicking the can down the road for the next generation to fix. Too bad so sad.
4
I have not read the Green New Deal (yet), but at least the Democrats (energized by newly-elected and younger congress people) are making proposals to address social and economic inequality, as well as the threat of climate change. What has the GOP offered recently other than the same-old-same old: reduced taxes for the wealthy and a weakened safety net for the rest of us? Please, I'll take grand, science-based ideals over tired old trickle-down maxims any day. If that makes me a democratic socialist, then so be it. I'm fine with that.
6
It is funny how over stated the press makes the American electorate. It is true the Constitution gives rural America a disproportionate amount of power but the country is not all that divided. It is true that the "socialist overlords" have been improving American life since the 1930s and the likes of Mr. Douthat have been complaining about it ever since.
5
First, Republicans have no business complaining about the deficit after showering the ultra-rich with a budget-busting tax cut. Second, if Douthat were paying attention he would acknowledge that a WW2-style effort to fight climate change is mandatory if we are to come even close to the scientists' urgent call to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2030.
Third, it's been clear for decades that the longer the right opposed action on climate change as being a means to an end for big-government lefties, the sooner that prediction would actually come to pass. The problem is so dire now that we have no option but command and control. Thanks, GOP, for your foolhardy obstinance.
5
Please note that those radical bastions the insurance industry and the military are fully on board with the dangers of climate change/global warming.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Blaming victims is not a solution.
Hatred and labels demean us.
11
If Obamacare taught us anything, it is that Republicans do not negotiate in good faith. Obamacare was a Republican market-driven proposal that Republicans rejected as if it were socialized medicine. Democrats would have been better off actually proposing socialized medicine and getting negotiated down to Obamacare.
The Green New Deal at least starts from the utopian ideal. Why propose a cap and trade system theoretically supported by Republicans when you know they'll scream about it like it was pure socialism?
One way to fund the Green New Deal: government takeover of all fossil fuels. The profits from fossil fuels fund the opposition to taking any action on climate change. Why fight a thousand battles against fossil fuel companies when you can fight one big battle and end the debate for good?
If the government takes over all fossil fuels, you take away the profit motive for staying on fossil fuels. Then you use the profits to fund the green energy transition. The U.S. doesn't end up like Venezuela because we are transitioning from fossil fuels to market-based green energy.
So it's not socialism where government owns fossil fuels and we stay on them. It is a government led transition that uses the current profits from fossil fuels to ease the transition for everyone in society instead of those profits going into private pockets at public expense.
7
@DB
Obamacare also told us that politicians will champion things whether they have the facts right or not. Some are really smooth salesmen, but it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
2
@DB: Enacting Romneycare was Obama's test of Republican good faith. He detected nothing.
2
@Steve Bolger
Nonsense, enacting Romneycare was Obama caving to the Insurance lobby and nothing else. He had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and control of the House. He couldn't get his Own Party to support single payer or a public option. Had nothing to do with the Republicans, not even remotely.
1
Another snarky column that misses the point:
It's not that we can't afford a Green New Deal. It's that we can't afford not to have a Green New Deal. War-footing infrastructure projects will indeed seize much of the economy and require taxes on the rich not seen since the days of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Dwight David Eisenhower. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's time for self-styled "conservatives" to recognize that their movement has been seized by a tiny fringe minority of radical reactionaries at best, anarchists and nihilists at worst.
Delaying and eventually reversing the effects of climate change are profoundly conservative policies.
Dan Kravitz
8
I believe in moderation and incrementalism. I think AOC is too far left but I agree that she brings up some good points. I saw her interview with Chuck Todd. I had expected a flip, not too serious young woman. Instead, I heard a very articulate and logical young woman, whether I agree with her or not. She has some things right and some things wrong. I think it's time we stop putting other labels on people and have thinking people on both sides of the aisle speaking transparently and honestly about the issues of the day, instead of hearing only talking points to secure elections. Oh, yes, and have people really listen. I know it won't likely happen but I can dream.
7
@Katherine Cagle: Honest technical debate requires putting egos aside. It is not a playground for people who deal with everything at the personal emotional level.
7
@Steve Bolger
I agree!
@Steve Bolger Do you mean honest technical debate from scientis without egos or emotions?
1
I wonder whether the columnist who works, and I assume lives, in the increasingly precarious greater New York City climate-induced, rising waters flood zone, has made any plans for evacuation or relocation in the future. If not, it would be prudent and conservative of him to do so. Better the Green New Deal than the relying upon gondolas to get around our coastal communities in the not too distant future.
6
This is terrific. Time to get acquainted with the intelligent, tolerant, and wise beyond her years Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's not selfish. It's time for selfish greed to stop dominating our world before it destroys our world: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plays the 'Bad Guy' to Illuminate the Relentless Corruption in American Politics"
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26250844/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-corruption-congress-money-bad-guy/
Here, on twitter: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1093601038622281728/video/1
7
Tolerant? It's time to take back our land as people with Indian blood.
Mr. Douthat, I am glad you recognize that immediate policy initiatives are necessary to combat climate change.
But I wish you had emphasized in your piece that rigorous policy change would not merely present us with an economic boon but is necessary should the world's children, and our own democracy, survive.
The threats of climate change -- extreme weather events causing species extinction, disease and massive human migration -- will create even more worldwide chaos, environmental and political, than is already beginning to happen.
If the right-wing sees dictatorship coming with a Green New Deal I would ask that they contemplate where we will be without it.
6
@EMiller “If the right-wing sees dictatorship coming with a Green New Deal I would ask that they contemplate where we will be without it.”
Dictatorships are ok as long as they’re our preferred type of dictator. Got it.
@Airman Douthat recognizes (if you read his entire piece) that the fear of a socialist dictatorship has no basis in fact.
I think it is fascinating to watch how this young woman's views are causing conservative heads to explode and pull all their fire alarms. Does anyone else detect a shudder in the Force?
8
@kevin mc kernan . Fasinating indeed. Just had an enlightening conversation with my 29 yr. old grandson, who's father, my son is a staunch Republican conservative. He sounded exactly like the young, intellegent Ocasio-Cortez. This is the generation who will live the reality of the weather disasters we are already experiencing. This is the generation who read right thru the threats of the extremists on the right side of the debate. Get ready folks, they are intellegent, aware and ready to make change and they are not socialists. They are the adults bogged down by college debt, expensive medical insurance and high taxes!
1
It never fails. When in a corner, conservative ideologues resort to red-baiting. You don't like an ambitious plan to deal with climate change, describe the woman who champions it as "the future dictator for life of the Americas." Refer to the bill's supporters as "our future socialist overlords."
What this sort of thing reveals, of course, is the intellectual bankruptcy of the right. Douthat, who is no dummy, comes across as positively stupid in this column. But in politics, stupid sometimes works. Sadly, even in this day and age, you can still scare (some) people by pointing at the opposition and shouting "socialism," hoping that voters will run in horror from the great red bogeyman. Raise taxes on the ultra-rich? Socialism! Medicare for all? Socialism! Equal justice for all? Socialism!
President Trump is one step ahead of Douthat. In his State of the Union Address he signaled that he'll make fighting the red menace a signature issue of his re-election campaign. And you can bet that the rest of what passes for the conservative intelligentsia in this country will take up the hue and cry, lest America's aristocracy of obscene wealth have to give up one iota of its privilege.
What's frightening to the right is that American voters seem at long last to be fed up with a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy to the exclusion of the common good. The spirit of the original New Deal is stirring once again.
9
"our future socialist overlords"?
Mr. Douthat shows his true colors - just another paranoid, right-wing religious zealot. So sad.
7
@Glenn W. AOC proudly and publicly claims the mantle Douthat describes. While you may agree with her anyway, at least be honest with yourself that Douthat’s description is apt.
2
@Airman it may be apt but was intended to be snarky and increase comments. I am sure he still believes God will fix the climate before it's too late for us higher primates.
2
@Airman
"future socialist overlords" isn't "apt" at all. Its right out of the Koch and other fringe right-wing talking points. It is evidence of how far to the fringe the Republicans have gone. They should just call themselves the John Birch Society Reborn.
1
"...our future socialist overlords aren’t thinking small."
Don't worry Ross, our current corporatist overlords won't allow any form of socialism except socialism for the rich. So long as their necks avoid the guillotine, crony corrupt capitalism will survive.
9
Oh Ross, here you go entering into the “AOC is a dangerous communist” gang! IF YOU think Climate Change is a hoax, I hope you don’t own property on of our coastal cities!
Republicans will continue to side with the American oligarchs like the Kochs, Big Oil...etc.! They will continue to spew fear about the SCARY socialism! Laughing all the way to the bank, while our Middle Class dies.
Folks, if you haven’t watched Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9” please do!
And those of us, who agree with the brilliant Alexandria Ocasio Cortez must spread the truth and educate ourselves about the Green New Deal! This may not be perfect, and will be tweaked and amended but it IS a START!
4
The GND is hilarious, in the way of a bad high school presentation. That said, I will miss cars, airplanes and cows. I look forward to transport by Unicorn farts.
We are in an existential crisis as a set of civilizations, and maybe as a race, yet, resolutions designed to directly address and deflect this existential threat stand little chance of getting past the US Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches.
Let that sink in.
Say it again: Climate change is here and just beginning. There is little chance of deflection due to special political (nee economic) interests, and our media blandly report this as though they were discussing rising or falling cosmetics prices.
But, the media and in this case, Douthat, are right. Nothing is likely to be done in time in the US. Fortunately, many other nations have taken the lead to do what is necessary to ensure our survival. Thank you other nations.
3
For decades, one effect of globalization has been the hollowing out the American middle class by transferring jobs abroad without adequate replacements at home. A former steel worker whose mill closes down can buy cheaper goods at Wal-Mart but no longer has a middle class salary with which to do so or a means of acquiring skills that would allow for comparable compensation. A Green New Deal recognizes climate change as a reality but also that working class and poor communities are likely to bear a substantial burden for greening the society and world, even if something like credits are returned to them to compensate for carbon taxes. Properly understood, a Green *New Deal*, evoking FDR's language, is thus a recognition not only of the need to fight climate change but also of the negative effects of decades of economic polices on the jobs that sustained a manufacturing economy before hyper-globalization. It is, in that sense, forward-looking but also remediative. There are, however, legitimate points of concern to raise. There are legitimate concerns about cost; legitimate concerns that government may become too powerful and fanatical in pursuing legitimate ends; and that it may thereby create a beast that needs to be constantly fed with more and more infusions of public money. These concerns seem to me to be mitigated by the fact that, however radical a version of a GND is put forward initially, any enacted version of it in the foreseeable future will be more modest.
4
You've left out another of A.O.C.'s proposals.......highly taxing obscene wealth.The question becomes what you do with the "windfall."You use it to build a massive infrastructure project relying on alternative energy and replacing fossil fuels.This would create millions of new jobs.As a matter of fact it already has created many more jobs than then Trump's "clean coal" fantasy ever could.We are facing a crisis much greater than WWll.One that could take down the entire world.What makes you think that the income inequality created by conservative policies wasn't a radical idea?
5
Incremental decreases in per capita carbon emissions on the order of 10%, 50% or even 100% in the U.S. are going to be offset *entirely* by the combined effects of economic and population growth in the developing world.
An additional 3 billion Africans who don't exist today (by 2100) are going to use energy.
There are only 325 million Americans.
We do need a Green New Deal. But it has to be something more like a Green Manhattan Project. New technologies the world can take advantage of. And I personally think geo-engineering will become necessary.
And we need to curtail population growth. There are only so many levers to pull if we need to reduce aggregate global emissions.
5
@Mmm - At present it takes 80 Liberians to produce the amount of Co2 as ONE American.That is typical for much of Africa.
There is a lot we can do TODAY to slow the trend. We can't solve the world's problems alone. Other countries, especially China and India need to do much more. But so long as we are not doing our utmost we have no moral authority to pressure them successfully.
And as we solve our own problems we will be that much better able to help Africa find a path to development that takes advantage of our solutions.
2
The histrionic belief that Democrats are becoming socialist reveals how little many Americans know about the developed world or even our own history.
Taxing incremental income of billionaires at rates of 70%, providing a public health option and subsidized higher education are not wild ideas. The rest of the industrialized world has had these things for decades, and in Germany’s case, over a hundred years. These “socialist” proposals also Dovetail into our country’s successful and popular New Deal ancestry.
To repeat: This is not weird. This is not socialism. We have been here before. Our capitalist allies are already here. Rather, it is amnesia, myopic political views and the far right’s capture of what is acceptable policy, that prevents us from attaining these things.
Wake up!
7
Clever name. eye roll
The new green dream might be the silliest unpractical thing I have ever seen.
First, what is the cost? Several Independant news agencies have estimated the cost at $6-$7 trillion per year. The current budget is $4.5 trillion and we raise $3 trillion in tax revenue. Government spending would rise to $11 trillion! Taxes would need to more than triple to support this. You can’t cover that with taxes on the one percent. This would require massive across the board tax increases on everyone.
Second, it is hugely unpractical. High speed rail crisscrossing the country, massive solar and wind farms, mean the government will have to take enormous amounts of private land. Even then, how would we solve the intermittency issues of solar and wind power? No electricity at night when the sun goes down? God forbid we get a few days when it rains and the sun don’t shine.
Third, we need to scrap all internal combustion, cars, trucks, planes, boats, tractors and construction equipment. All current power plants scrapped along with your gas or oil heater, your gas stove etc. All of this in ten years. Think of the cost of scrapping tens of trillions of dollars of productive useful assets.
I could go on, but how on earth can anyone remotely take this seriously? The dems just handed the republicans a gun with a handful of bullets to shoot them with.
3
@Dave..."First, what is the cost?"...First and foremost, it won't cost nearly as much to do it as it will if we don't do it.
5
@Dave - AOC is not proposing anything that isn't already being done by other wealthy industrial countries.
What do you propose?
Oh, and by the way, I did the math too, like all those other experts. I got $7,458,304,127,521.43.
Yes, that's nonsense, as is much of what the "experts" are throwing around.
Example: AOC proposes programs to encourage the upgrading of insulation in existing homes all across the USA. What will be the cost? We can only know if we also know the benefits, and define a time frame.
How much will homeowners save in utility bills for the next 30 years?
How many new jobs will be created in the construction industry to do all this insulating?
How much new Federal tax revenue will these new jobs provide?
How much more profit will insulation manufacturers make?
How will increased energy independence impact our national security and will this result in cost savings related to reduced security risk?
What other factors have I overlooked?
That covers home insulation. Now on to the next item...
We have spent decades arguing about the climate. Many of the fierce GOP madmen are either dead or out of office. So they don’t care.
Finally we are going to have progressive democrats talk and fight for our future. The days of being ignorant have been over for decades.
Let’s get busy open our minds and start thinking on how we can proactively address the future. Ask questions find solutions change the solution if it doesn’t work but act as if we are in the fight for our lives because we are.
2
The plan to decarbonize is doomed without a massive expansion of nuclear power. Look at what happened in German. Their emissions are up!
2
@Ripudaman NO. They are not.
1
Funny how conservative Republicans have been selling their version of utopia since the Reagan administration, benefits to the wealthy are nothing more than good strong capitalism and everything else that may benefit the 90% is bad socialism. We have tried your way Ross for the last 40 years and what conservatives have done is create a foul swamp and now the swamp gases are destroying our environment and the alligators have eaten all the small fry. What bold vision have we seen since the Republican takeover of congress, weakened environmental laws, weakened financial regulations, attacks on women's rights and voters rights, an effort to take healthcare away from millions and oh yes the most sacred of Republican causes "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations". Time to step aside Mr. Douthat and let the big girls have a try.
5
As any crisis management team knows, the first step to solving a crisis is accepting ownership, responsibility, and accountability for it. Climate change is clearly the most serious crisis modern humankind will face, and the Republican right will clearly never accept accountability for change. Humankind may be saved because the Democratic party is willing to try.
As a group, they would literally rather let their children and grandchildren die than impact the profitable fossil fuel status quo. All right wing GOP politicians share 2 fatal flaws, a lack of empathy, and a lack of imagination. They can't turn scientific data into a visceral understanding of what our dystopian future looks like.
The great irony in all this, is that the transition to sustainable renewable energy is the greatest economic opportunity we will ever see. The country that develops the best renewable energy solutions will have unlimited opportunity to export those technologies to the rest of the world. Very soon, the transition will become undeniably mandatory, and the US will be caught staring into an oil well hole. Incredible things are happening on the R&D front, but the GOP right is determined to cede global leadership, and that economic opportunity, to China and Europe. Go ride in a Tesla if you want to know what an electrified future looks like. You'll go home and throw rocks at your internal combustion car.
4
@GFM
It hasn't helped that the most vocal advocates have behaved like zealots, attacking anyone who dares question a model based on hypotheses as "deniers".
That's the last thing that should be done to encourage ownership and buy-in.
The real travesty is the "true believers" have set back the cause a decade. They really need to go.
2
@AACNY
Exactly how are you not a "true believer" in hating the facts and evidence of climate change and fighting it with everything you have.
99% of experts, and the victims of increasing weather weirding, suggest that you wake up and notice that we need to work together to solve problems, not to discredit the truth until it knocks us over.
We need clean air, water, and earth. The evidence is overwhelming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
3
@AACNY....So tell us. What do you believe? Is climate change real? Is a major cause of climate change increased CO2 emissions? If we don't do anything and sea level rises, how much will damage mitigation cost? Will the country that leads in alternative energy be better off or worse off economically? It is easy to sit on the side lines and bad mouth what others try to do; tell us instead what you would do.
2
To Ross et al.: the underlying problems are not the release of greenhouse gases per se. The problems are overpopulation juiced up by rapid industrialization and urbanization. The greenhouse gas emissions—largely due to combustion of carbon-based fuels and release of methane from agriculture, are symptoms, not root causes. It’s like saying we need to reduce the fever when the patient is suffering from Ebola. India wants air conditioning. China wants cars. End of discussion. Game over. I hope you can swim if you don’t live more than 100 feet above sea level.
4
What people like Russ Douthat want us to forget is how to negotiate. For decades the dems have been starting their demands from their final desired result. That is why we have moved so far to the right (republicans have raised the national debt much more than the dems not to do anything for americans but only to enrich the top .1%).
Now we have a starting point for negotiations to the left of the likely final resting place.
Hooray for AOC and the dems who are realizing they have been played.
5
If Ross doesn't want a left-wing climate proposal, he should blame Republicans and moderate Democrats for ceding the issue to the left. This is a serious issue, and the left are the only people taking it seriously. This is how they choose to solve it.
Call Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi and tell them you want the Earth not to fry but also hate Kensyian economics, don't just whine and moan.
1
The single most dangerous thing in the world today is the US GOP. Its handmaids are trying to tell us that's not so. Don't believe them.
5
Ross -- I'm disappointed that you are using the dog whistle "socialism" even in the title. I think the readership of the NYT can handle fact-based opinion pieces absent the verbal emoticons.
When I finally read the "Green New Deal" (https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal), there clearly are some proposals that would require a sea-change in our culture (jobs for all, etc). However, one of the most important to me is #IV, focusing on campaign finance. How many readers of NYT believe their Congressional representatives represent them or the people in general (raise your hand). See: nobody! Why? Because people who can't vote for your representative can have more influence on the election that you can - especially if you're poor.
Unless and until we have true representation in our government, the Green New Deal - or any other plan to actually create a fair society - will make for great copy but will fall flat.
2
This column is little more than a multi-syllabic word salad. It lacks any specificity on the components of the Green New Deal. It is borderline hyperbolic ("socialist overlords!") and virtually ignores the fact that climatologists are warning us that urgent and aggressive measures are needed now.
While Douthat may have fulfilled the required the word count for this column, he utterly fails in substance. Readers of the Times deserve better.
2
One big problem with this Ross. After denying the science of climate change for decades, the GOP can't really present itself as a reasonable centrist approach to the problem. It just completely reeks of hypocrisy. Where were all the policies and solutions to climate change when the GOP had complete control of the U.S. government? Probably in the forgotten bottom drawer along with all their big health insurance alternatives to Obamacare.
Climate change deniers are like the segregationists of the 21st century--hopelessly stuck in the past and careening towards total irrelevance in the future.
1
You can't possibly believe that a lurch to the left would leave the country as a whole worse off than it is under present circumstances.
4
Ross, a bit of advice: Stop using the word Socialism. Each time you use it demonstrates your appalling misunderstanding the word as it applies to the American society. A social democracy fulfills the promises made in the U.S. Constitution’s preamble.
3
After recently listening to the podcast, The Argument, I have learned from the right (via Ross) and I have appreciated some of his opinions and insights. But his need to add “I believe she’s also a congresswoman of some sort” is disappointing. Why did you have to add that to your piece? It’s rude, sexist and dismissive. Last I knew, she was voted in by a democracy. Your opinion would be stronger if you just stated the facts and left out the rude, dismissive, and demeaning comments. Stay above the fray.
2
Ocasio-Cortez is already a caricature of herself. She is a rookie, freshman congressperson who represents only one (1) District in New York. She does not represent the whole country, and she does not represent the whole and entirety of anything. At this point she is just another New York noise-maker who is being foisted on America.
Ocasio-Cortez is a flash in the pan whose time in Congress will not be long. She is a one hit wonder and a one trick pony. The sooner we see her disappear from the national scene the better off America will be.
4
While I agree that her notoriety is so far unearned given her lack of experience, it’s also premature to dismiss her as a “flash in the pan”. You have absolutely no basis for that assessment as of yet. Let’s see where things stand a year from now. While many details of the Green New Deal are questionable, drastic action is clearly a matter of survival and I applaud her for taking the initiative on this. Also, I’m glad that Ross took a break from Trump bashing to remind us of how regressive and discriminatory most of his views are.
Reggie, my friend. Democracy is a powerful thing. Elections have consequences. Gravity exists. Listen to the noise she created. She is a first term Congresswoman. What is unfair are our out-sized expectations for her. Too much has been placed on her. But she is strong. The solutions to our climate change catastrophe and our living wage for meaningful work equation are obvious. She states the obvious. For us. For your children. And my grandchildren. It’s clear.
1
@Reggie
She has become a mascot for the left. By defending her, they believe they are defending their principles. In fact, they are making themselves less credible, but they are always the last to realize these things.
1
Why must conservatives always paint liberal progressive policies as dictitorial, socialist and equate them with the worst of world's counties. Douthat is smart enough to understand that working together though democratic processes does create good outcomes. The unnecessary bashing does not become him.
1
"...future dictator-for-life of the Americas"
Um... Mr. Douthat...you do know that the typical right wing nut job would love to see Donald Trump declare himself exactly that...right?
It's just totally hilarious to see a right wing apologist act fearful of a 27 year old new congresswoman when we have an out of control, lawless, immoral mad man currently in the white house.
First, the Green New Deal is aspirational. You must identify goals before you start planning and legislating.
Second, the Green New Deal recognizes the mortal danger the planet is in, and like WW2, tinkering around the edges to mitigate some of the damage is a policy worthy of Neville Chamberlain.
Third, because the economy and energy are interconnected, there has to be a major economic plan to deal with the transition from fossil to green energy. The French yellow vest movement is the perfect illustration of why it is necessary. Any plan must be carefully done to mitigate as much pain as possible...and that is true even in socialist countries.
Fourth, there is some good news in Ross's little article here. At least he doesn't deny that climate change is happening and it's man made. But the effect on the economy was always going to be the greatest hurdle to overcome.
Fifth, failure is not an option. Well, not an option anyone should choose, but something that will happen if we stick out heads in the sand and continue to pretend the problem of climate change is too big to solve.
4
Social Security is not a swear word.
A nation without basic healthcare is an indication of mismanagement and ignorance. Wise up. We are throwing billions at Medical insurance but we have no money for Medical care. Medical commercials or medicine? Ask your doctor? I'm sick. Of throwing money away.
2
OK, we know you don't like uppity AOC. What's your alternative comprehensive plan for lessening the impacts of global warming . . . hello, hello, Ross are you still there? As I thought. Infrastructure mitigations, while necessary, are just band aids that don't address the source of the problem. If we want to lessen the massive societal impacts of global change, then bold thought is needed. The New Green Deal may not be the final plan, but it's a start. And by the way, name two would-be compromisers in the GOP.
4
"Dictator for Life"? we already have one--at least a wanna be Dictator for Life--currently serving as President of the United States. Yes, Ross, be very afraid of Ocasio-Cortez. She may even take away your guns !
2
My wife and I recently moved to a somewhat remote area. We weighed the options of running power from the local electric company or installing an off grid system. We decided on the off grid option. Solar panels, batteries, inverters and chargers are now our power plant. It’s liberating to flip a switch and know the power comes from sunshine. But the energy comes with a cost. The initial cost of the system was not cheap, but with the 30% tax federal tax credit and $1000.00 tax credit from Arizona the cost was comparable to running lines from the power company. There is also maintenance involved with the system, making sure the 24 batteries have water, checking specific gravity , occasionally performing an equalization. It’s not for everyone. But we have no electric bills! We have a neighbor who is a rabid Trump supporter. He is also off grid and emphasized that he did it for the independence, NOT because he is a “tree hugger”. I believe that having Al Gore (who I respect) as the front man for “global warming “ was a huge mistake, as it immediately made it a liberal issue and alienated half of the population. Do you want to bring the right wing onboard? Start by telling them that their rugged individualism will be greatly enhanced by climbing on.
,
96
@Donato DeLeonardis
Except rugged individualism is not real and climate change is.
29
@Donato DeLeonardis: Your system evidently stores energy in lead-acid batteries that need replacement every ten years or so, even when well maintained. The Tesla Wall system uses maintenance-free lithium ion batteries that are expected to last longer.
11
@Donato DeLeonardis
Al Gore was demonized from day 1 on purpose by dedicated big fossil interests. He was branded and labeled, as are other honest heroes who have tried to get the facts out.
For example. One typo in 1000 pages, 2350 was written as 2035. This has never stopped being mentioned.
He is fundamentally honest and well informed, tolerant and patient. Trumpsters and big fossil, not so much.
49
When will we see a “conservative” blueprint for dealing with climate change? Two years ago, I sat in the office of a senior GOP senator from a very conservative state who acknowledged that climate change was happening, and while maintaining that the science was inconclusive on the extent to which human activity is responsible (a common argument of climate skeptics that disregards the scientific consensus), said that, “even if human emissions of greenhouse gases were only responsible for 5% of warming, we nevertheless have a responsibility to reduce them”, and claimed to be working with other conservatives on “market-based solutions” for reducing emissions. Sadly, less than a month later, I saw that this senator had joined 20 of his colleagues in signing a letter urging President Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, and I have seen no trace of a conservative plan to reduce emissions. If, as Mr. Douthat suggests, the best we can hope for from conservatives are “projects that don’t pretend to solve climate change but do mitigate its consequences”, I’d like him to tell me how I should explain this response to my young grandsons (ages 8 & 11) who have no reason to doubt what scientists are telling them about the threat and causes of climate change.
2
@John Steed: Every new coal-fired power plant built now is expected to run for forty years.
2
Yes, Ross. The core conservative reaction following their suspicion is resist any change. It hardly matters what is presented or what the rationale. It is a core principle that animates action, as in voter suppression, racial injustice, gun violence, and by the way, a soaring deficit. As long as things are going their way, preserve the system. The conservatives have demonstrated their dedication to ignoring the other side. It may be time for the taste of their own medicine.
2
The only people who have dismissed " all worries about deficits ... with a Venezuelan insouciance," is the Republican Party which just passed the biggest deficit causing tax legislation ever.
6
The GND might as well be a manifesto to continue to bury our head about climate change. It seems to be intended to bolster Cortez's social media standing, instead of being a serious attempt to address climate change. It is an identity-politic-laden sham. It does not give anyone, other than the far left, something to work with, and it does not even address how foreign policy will be used to address climate change. What an utter joke!
1
I am very disappointed in your column. It is snarky and condescending . I suggest that the Green New Deal proposal provides a opportunity to discuss important national issues that are and will have a substantial impact on our lives. It at least puts a series of proposals on the table, something the GOP has failed to do for the last eight years. Instead the GOP spent six years obstructing the Obama administration and the last two years pandering to Trump's anti-immigration, build the wall, misogynist and bigoted agenda .
1
The reason these ideas have any traction at all is the full bankruptcy of the Republican Party “idea machine”.
If there were actually a proactive set of policies coming from your party there wouldn’t be oxygen for this. As it is though, the ridiculous retread of tired and inequitable policy leaves the playing field wide open.
Instead of bashing these policies you and your party should come up with something better than, “cut taxes”, “eliminate Obamacare” and the always popular “Amaerica First” tropes.
Right now you are not even competing.
1
The ultra rich just don’t want to lose their rotten tax breaks, Ross.
2
Douthat must have really been hurt by a "liberal" at some point in his childhood to explain his compulsion -- it's certainly not his usual pretense to reason -- to reach so far into ideological nonsense and with such snearing contempt and buzz-word laden, absurdly, deliberately hyperbolic mischaracterization of a genuine attempt to address what are in fact extremely serious problems before it is too late.
To use his own snarky words, "It isn’t just that [Douthat] dismisses all worries about [climate catastrophe and the basic human need for healthcare] with a Venezuelan insouciance, or that [he] seems lukewarm about any policy or technology that might [address those problems] or be tainted by [liberalism or disliked by oligarchicp] interest groups."
"Insouciance" to base climate policy on science and healthcare on compassion, Ross? Your blythe -- nay, venal -- contempt for AOC, Markey and anyone else untethered to the existing, strangling plutocracy renders you the opposite of that guy nailed to a tree. You seem to prefer him nailed and mute rather than risk his presence and the implications of his message.
A little genuine humility is in order...maybe a soul-searching sabatical? You have lost your bearings and have become a vocal purveyor of lies and political sophistry.
3
@TS
I think he was just so ridiculed and held in contempt at Harvard that he never got over it.
@TS
Excellent turning the words into truth in paragraphs 2 and 3. Well done!
1
So a duly-elected congresswoman promoting a blueprint for legislation that would require a majority vote of other duly-elected representatives is, in your words, a "future dictator-for-life"? Saying it tongue-in-cheek doesn't make it any less nasty or ignorant. You are supposed to be the smart, mature voice for conservatism.
Oh, Ross...don’t be so snide. Our little cabin has solar panels that produced over 40 kilowatts yesterday and sent back to the grid more than half of them. And besides that clean energy being made available to others, our house was a toasty 75 degrees on a frigid NH day!
1
At this point, it should be quite obvious that you will never have both a “green” future and a growing population.
1
Oh, Ross! Name calling now? Tsk, tsk, tsk ... Are you that scared of one person? Oh, yes, she’s a young woman and a good dancer, unforgivable sins in Conservativestan. I am a moderate Democrat and I don’t have much use for the left wing of my party (I remember too well what Socialists like Mitterand did to my country of origin), but a little enthusiasm and a few provocative ideas are good for a party and for a country. Relax, mon ami.
The more one crunches the numbers and thinks about this "green new deal" the more idiotic it becomes. It doesn't work from an engineering perspective nor an economic perspective. Just think during this coldest winter in decades how folk would have stayed warm without natural gas or coal? Millions would have died from hypothermia.
What a piece of pure propaganda, Russ. We had our chance for incrementalism back in the 1970s when politicians began heeding the warnings of scientists. L.A. freeways were supposed to permit only all-electric cars by 2000. What happened to that proposal? What happened to the electric car?
Kicking the can down the road has gotten us to the dire situation we find ourselves today. Radical reforms are needed if we hope to save ourselves.
Rules and regulations are rarely welcome or comfortable. But they are necessary to effect large-scale change, which is what we desperately need to avert global catastrophe.
We have become addicted to the comforts and power we have gained by living irresponsibly. And the more comfortable and powerful we are, the stronger the addiction. History has shown us that the rich and powerful will do anything -- no mater how inhumane -- to maintain their advantages. This includes sacrificing others.
It is indicative of the spiritual and emotional emptiness of the wealthy that they are willing to sacrifice innocent lives and this beautiful planet, rather than pare down the excesses they are addicted to.
When the bottom fell out of the stock market in 1929, men leapt from windows and plunged to their deaths believing they were "ruined" because their wealth and comforts had been erased. These poor people had grown so identified with materialism and their inflated egos that nothing else in life was valuable.
Sadly, it appears we're still there.
1
Ross, you may have noticed much of the media has descended to the level of the worst of 45's tweets, (see SNL cold open last night). You have taken on a very serious subject in this column, yet you handle it with the same snark as the bottom feeders. If you represent the conservative, moral, religious voice, surely you can do better.
I love how much fear AOC stokes in conservatives! She’s been in office for a little over a month and almost half that time the government was shutdown. Yet Douthat calls her a future dictator for life!?! Why so scared? Someone who actually wanted to be dictator for life, Dick Cheney, claimed almost 15yrs ago that we have no energy policy. The world is still waiting for the GOP to come up with a plan—any plan. Meanwhile AOC is rising thanks to Fox’s and all the other cons’ obsession with and fear of her.
1
Sorry Ross, but you are totally off base! By dismissing the very real potential that Climate Change has for destroying civilization as we know it, you are playing into the hands of the fossil fuel industry that puts short-term profits above the future of our world.
Your kids, and grandkids (if you have any) will likely spit on your grave. Surely you know better, but still use your influential public platform to impede Climate Change solutions. How irresponsible is that?
2
Two people sit in a building burning to the ground. The flames aren’t that bad says one. Yes they are says another. We should jump out the window says one. No we should go through the door says another. Only a fool argues in a burning house. If we do not rapidly change our means of producing energy, this argument means nothing. We are all going to burn.
2
If you're going to descend to calling liberals and progressives 'socialist overlords' and 'protosocialists' -(echoes of 1950's McCarhyism smear tactics), don't be surprised if people were to refer to as a far right conservative or protofascist overlord?
3
@Hadel Cartran
Would you agree that Venezuela has descended into a fascist state?
1
I'm guessing this was tongue in cheek, but I stopped reading here,
"the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas (I believe she’s also a congresswoman of some sort)".
My distaste for your writing grows with nearly every column. Earth to Ross, save the planet before it's too late. Dare to do BIG things.
2
The new lazy thinking Republicans have settled on “socialist, socialist” as the new fear tactic. When will they try to do some real thinking. I know it is hard, but it does seem necessary.
If anybody is curious what the Green New Deal ACTUALLY says, instead of what vested interests and their lackeys SAY it says, you'll find the link below. It's quite easy reading. I'm all for referring to first sources when possible.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
1
I would gladly trade my present corporate overlords for a Norway style overlord any day.
2
All out Socialism or the Trump worship cult...
It has finally come to this.
Or was it always Bernie vs. Donald?
2
@Carl Hultberg
You're right Carl. It was and now we have experienced one side of it first hand. So now it's going AOC/Bernie all the way. Moderation lost.
2
Sounds like someone is already mourning the loss of his plutocratic aristocracy.
Just remember this, you opposed common sense reforms for years, and you armed the revolution.
2
Mr. Douthat:
This hodgepodge of illogicalism is almost hysterical in its stridency. It could pass as satire if we all didn't know you better.You start out with an ad hominum attack that is obviously tainted with misogyny. Is that why you chose to throw in the kitchen sink with the rest of this paranoid response?
I had no idea, until I read this, that proposing something that addresses the common good is, somehow, socialism with a capital S. Despite her ambitious agenda Ms. Ocasio-Cortez
may not be the wild-eyed loose cannon you paint her to be.
Let's all give her some time before we judge too harshly.
She seems to be garnering too much attention for your ego to take. She is not a "social-media personality". She is a duly elected member of Congress. I hope you regret your lack of decorum on this point.
We already have a putative wannabe dictator for life in the oval office. You might want to focus your attention on that threat once in a great while. Meanwhile, your advice to avoid
the bullies in the playground for fear of a fight rings hollow here. It is past time we stood up to the bullies in our politics and stood up for the rest of us.
1
The first major policy intervention from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas (I believe she’s also a congresswoman of some sort)..."
Sorry, Ross. You lost this reader from that egregiously snarky and sarcastic start. If you wish to convince, you should avoid alienating your reader with such a poor opener.
And by the way, it is apparent from the snark and insults hurled daily at AOC that the right is truly afraid of her and all she represents.
4
@Edward Well said!
It used to that if a person compared the US to Greece with statements like "We're going to go bankrupt like Greece!", he illustrated such ignorance of basic economic ideas as well as of arithmetic, that you could safely ignore everything he said. "Greece" was a marker indicating ignorance if not stupidity.
Well, today with Greece growing faster than the US, the ignorati has had to find a new marker to point that hadn't the faintest idea of what they are talking about, The new marker Is Venzeula (which is much harder to spell). So when Ross talks about dismissing "all worries about deficits or inflation with a Venezuelan insouciance", you can easily tell he is like the guy who comes his hair over his bald spot to make sure you know he is a smuck.
As another commenter trenchantly wrote, the Venezuelan currency, the Bolivar, is really just a coupon based on the price of oil. When the price of oil plunges, its currency also plunges. Thus it gets hyperinflation. This is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, like the US economy.
4
@Len Charlap Corrections:
"the ignorati has had to find a new marker to point OUT that hadn't the faintest idea of what they are talking about"
"he is like the guy who comBes his hair over his bald spot"
I think that Mr. Douthat needs to go back and read Friedrich Hayek and get a refresher on what socialism means.
2
I'm going to lose my mind if every conservative is going to be throwing the word "socialism" around in every column from now until election day 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is no more representative of the Democratic Party than Steve King is of the Republican Party. She is a figure of interest for her extremism, as most extremists are. But, her influence is far below her outsized reputation. There are fringe characters on both sides of the aisle. None of them deserve entire columns to be written about them. It's disappointing that Douthat has sunk to Trump's level in using the "S" word. It's as bad in it's way as calling Trump a Nazi. Let's all rise above, shall we?
1
You know, if you took the “socialist overlords,” crud out, you’d actually end up with a pretty decent op-ed. Of course Douthat’s pretty committed to the Catholic (you know...all-containing) Church and an imposition of right-wing values upon all, which makes me wonder what “socialism,” is code for in his own ambitions.
4
Really? How have we been waiting for politicians to do something about climate change. Here, listen to the voice of reason from a teenager who will be left holding the bag of our arrogance.
https://youtu.be/EAmmUIEsN9A
2
After being depressed by the small-minded meanness of the column I read the comments and was heartened. As they say "we did win WW2". Let us be clear that as evil as Hitler was he did not threaten the continuation of human life on this planet. Global warming does.
7
@Wayne Hankey Very True! Ross Douthat is a Roman Catholic who is “pro-life” there is nothing more pro-life than being pro-Earth! No Earth, no life!
Thank God there is at least a hint of reason in the NYT op-ed section about this lunacy.
A goal to eliminate either air travel or farting cows in the next decade?
Not as stirring as JFK's call to land a man on the moon, which shows you just how berserk this proposal is.
1
@badubois
The big difference between the moon walk and the progressives' climate change proposals is that only one is grounded in reality -- that is, the moon walk was a real measurable event. It was not a utopian dream that would occur in some distant future and and defy measurement. It relied not on wishful thinking but physics.
Would that the democrats were putting forth such realistic proposals.
1
"Socialist overlords" is too contentious and plain stupid to boot. Already you don't take the idea that we have to look at climate change with new, open eyes seriously. But AOC is right, and it doesn't have anything to do with socialism, or communism, or democracy, or conservatism, or whatever else you ideologues have to spew out. Our time is up, we have to find a way to fix climate change now. Or else we won't even have grandchildren to save from socialism.
4
The Green New Deal is a visionary statement based upon real “Whereasses” in the unnumbered House Resolution and as the Good Book states “Without vision people perish”.
I think the GND has to think bigger, not smaller. It has to deal with the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system of which the US and its GND is an integral part. The GND can start with the national monetary system and strengthen the public debate on money creation and public banking that has been going on since the 1930s. Then it can initiate the public debate on basing the international monetary system on the monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such proposed carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" with additional background at www.timun.net.
Declared an outstanding economist and climate specialist about this Tierra global governance system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
1
My God, you deterred the monster, socialism hiding behind efforts of elected people to save the planet. (Applause)
3
Once oil and gas development is slated for elimination by any green new deal, it will end. Investors will no longer spend on carbon development Meaning sky high fuel, power, etc costs until clean energy can take over. How do you cross that bridge?
@Bill Kaetzel - Have you read the Green New Deal document? (link below)
It focuses on creating incentives to further develop sustainable power generation and to expand markets for it, in part through national infrastructure projects and in part through promoting energy efficiency in buildings.
Investors who understand the path it lays out will see that there is a future in moving their investments from oil production to other areas of energy generation and efficiency measures.
For example, it proposes a program to encourage the retrofitting of existing housing all across the USA with more insulation, thus reducing building energy use, one of the large contributors to Co2. This will generate jobs in the construction industry and ALSO increase demand for insulation. Investors currently supporting fossil fuels would do well to consider moving their capital into companies that are well placed to increase their insulation manufacturing, such as Johns-Manville, for example.
My hunch is that the visionary capitalists will continue right on making money. And those who lack vision or the ability to adapt will fall by the wayside.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
Getting control of one house of Congress has so emboldened leftists that they no longer rely o n rhetorical tricks to hide their agenda. Conservatives are skeptical of environmentalism up this point, but not because they can't read thermometers and data from a little over a hundred years. They know that the AOC solution isn't about the environment, it is about political control. That is what lies at the heart of conservative resistance. If we want to restore the Earth to the time before mankind became a threat to its well-being, we a need to reverse the industrial revolution. This proposal will not reverse anything but the basis of government and our relationship to our politicians. If it is possible to remove socialism from environmentalism, a lot could happen. Will it be enough? Who knows, but I put my money on free minds well before collectivist minds.
2
@TD - "If we want to restore the Earth to the time before mankind became a threat to its well-being, we a need to reverse the industrial revolution."
Not true, and trying to "sustain" an Earth in which mankind is "a threat to its well-being" is impossible. That is the very definition of "unsustainable".
AOC is proposing nothing that isn't already being done in other wealthy industrial countries. There's no reason why we can't do it too.
Have you read the actual document? It's not long. I encourage you to do so if you haven't.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
It appears that most Americans accept the notion that the only country capable of bootstrapping itself into a leadership role in the 21st Century is China. They've come a long way in just a few decades since Mao's long march. Under Trump's spiritual leadership Americans are perfecting the art of small-ball and navel-gazing. If we would only build more border walls and pull all of our American marbles closer to home, we will regain that elusive greatness that Americans seem to want...... sad. Go big or go home, America.
3
The author sounds like a driver being pulled over for driving recklessly, and like an idiot doing the mental trigonometry of risk-reward for stomping on the gas to flee the cops.
3
A job for every American. That’s easy. Deport every single illegal alien and there will be jobs aplenty.
2
@NorthernVirginia
Simple answer: no
In fact, your planet - clean air, earth, and water - is collapsing, and all for short-term profits for your trickle-up buddies.
Roll back the 20th century. Let only the greediest of the superrrich have a voice.
2
What you and the rest of the Right ignore is the fact that nothing on the table, from Democrats, let alone the Republicans who insist on keeping their heads firmly planted in the sand, will keep us below 2 degrees Celsius. If we want any hope of preserving some semblance of a manageable level of climate change, we have to stick to 2 degrees. Otherwise, “decadent America” (and yes, the rest of the top emitters today) is damning future global generations to a level of suffering that increases the hotter we get. Dramatic action is the ONLY way to make progress fast enough. Support for the New Green Deal is essentially a litmus test of whether you care enough to make a difference.
3
Mr Douthat
you sound very old in your thoughts. Enjoy your world as it dies a very slow painful death. The "kids " will enjoy the sunrise bright and all encompassing
3
We wouldn’t expect a Republican corporate cheerleader to support the GND.
2
You show exactly where you are with your slime "future dictator-for-life." Where in the world did you get that, other than from the Trump slime/insult folks? Your first paragraph essentially discredits any claim you might have to honesty and fairness.
4
After reading this opinion piece I really have no idea whether Douthat is for or against a serious effort to combat climate change. His first paragraph states that AOC and Senator Markey's position confirms the concerns of the republican party - so that sounds like he is against it - with a typical snide comment about AOC wanting to be "dictator for life". (Hmm, why are repubs talking about someone who "might" want to become dictator for life when their corrupt guy sits in the White House and has already stated his desire for that title? Inquiring minds want to know! Call the Pecker(R) and have him get on the case, Ross.)
After Ross gets his inner demons out, he then seems to find a single virtue in the idea of trying something grand in an effort to combat climate change - all the while not endorsing nor affirming that climate change is a serious threat to the entire world - because his party's official position is still that climate change does not exist - just ask HIS dictator for life for a confirmation of that fact.
He then throws in some French words to subtly display his language skills. (I thought repubs hated all things French but Romney, Douthat and others must have missed the memo!)
As usual with a repub opinion and cure, there is a little something here for everybody (and VERY little for anyone other than corporate repubs). Just enough conflicting sentences to mask whatever his true intention is and some left-handed swipes at a Democrat with a real idea.
5
@Byron Wow. What he said. Thanks!
Trite, fact free and just another standard outdated conservative whine.
3
I'm going to freakin scream if I hear one more person/commenter/whatever carry on about the looming threat of a Socialist takeover.
Bury the word. Remove it from the dictionary.
Could we possibly, just for a moment, focus on an issue, and some solutions WITHOUT getting our panties in a wad over what we're going to "become"?
If we could do that just a few times, we might become what we once were, great, cause we ain't great now.
3
When all is said and done, it is a start..stop being pessimistic and get behind at least the open discussion of ways to make “green” doable for all of us.
Just like gun control...start somewhere for heaven’s sake. To nothing is stupid!!
I find it weird that, whenever a conservative commentator decides to snark-it up about the environment and the threat of government overreach, they always trot out a joke that's some version of the wail: "Oh no, I'll be forced to live a future where my comfortable house is powered in non-polluting sustainable way that, honestly, would also be far cheaper for me than short term Earth ravaging we're doing now." Is there really a demographic that stays up late at night quaking in fear that the Greenstapo is coming to move them into pleasant, affordable housing that doesn't destroy the Earth?
@MJB...
But I do quake in fear that the Greenstapo hasn't a clue as to what their proposal might actually require and have even less of a sense as to the other effects that their plan might have on those who have to live with it.
Ed Markey's business experience was as an ice-cream salesman while Alexandria Occasio-Cortex served cocktails at a bar.
Markey was the next one standing when Ted Kennedy died, and received his position by acclamation from the sheep of Massachusetts, where he is affectionately known as the Distinguished Third Senator from Maryland. (Maryland is where Markey lives with his wife who works for the federal government.)
Occasio-Cortez was lucky to come on the scene when the electorate was getting tired of the old bulls, even if the old bulls had the power to make a difference. She has proven time-and-again that she is not the deepest thinker in Congress or well prepared when she speaks to the public.
With these two leading Greenstapo, is it any wonder that the plan is more of a wish list than a practical prescription for change that has a chance of becoming law?
I side with the wag who suggested that Mitch McConnell submit this dream to the CBO for scoring. The results might put into perspective just how practical the proposals might be in budgetary terms.
I'm not a nay-sayer though. Let's set up an agency like NASA to tackle research and engineering development. Set ambitious goals and let them take on the task.
We might just get progress.
2
@The Owl
Yes, with science not wishes.
1
If the US is ever to shed its decadence, it will do so by embracing laissez-faire capitalism, which has never been implemented fully in the US but has been blamed for all its ills.
I think Douthat's praise is faint only because the conservative ideals he holds dear make it difficult for him to loudly proclaim what he seems to actually understand: that the GND is exactly the sort of bold vision the US needs today.
It's time to recognize that our modern way of life—based on technological innovation and mass production—while it produces an unprecedented quality of life for billions of people around the globe also leads to three problems that could create an existential crisis not just for the US, but for the world:
First, amidst vast wealth, there is increasing financial insecurity for billions of people. In today's world, survival requires a steady income, yet the jobs that provide that income are increasingly unreliable. Globalization, automation, and a corporate focus on maximizing shareholder value increase productivity, but also leave workers vulnerable and insecure, with an ever present risk of job loss and subsequent financial disaster.
Second, our economic system requires mobility of workers and this in turn separates workers from family and communities. Without these connections, workers have fewer places to turn for support if income dries up.
Finally, our technology—and the huge population it permits—is putting extreme stress on the natural environment. Climate change, waste, and pollution may together destroy the ecosystem our lives depend on.
The GND addresses all three of these problems holistically—that's its praiseworthy brilliance.
1
Faint praise indeed. 2018 was the 4th hottest year in recorded history (the last three years being the three hottest), this tells me there needs to be action, NOW. With the current space occupier in the White House, nothing is going to happen to curb Climate Change. We have 12 years folks, to significantly reduce our carbon footprint or we are doomed as a species. That alone suffices for urgency. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is no longer an option.
Global warming has already affected agriculture in the Central American economy; why do you think migrants are going north for a livelihood? Duh? Our crises is not with something so insignificant as a border wall (which is a red herring) it's the obvious expression of EXISTING Climate Change!
I'm 65 and it will have little effect on my remaining years, but I'm dumbfounded after decades of the knowledge, we have done nothing.
I greet any action. It has to start. The analogy with WW2 really isn't accurate. Climate change is like emphysema; a slow suffocation. It allows for denial in the early stage, but none as it progresses.
A good column. It's certainly the most charitable view one could hope to cobble together of a program that is a total and laughable disaster. The Progressives will never live down this utopian attempted remake of America. I doubt that history has a "curve", but if it does the Green New Deal ain't it.
Here in snowy, freezing Seattle (we haven't had such snow since the blizzards of 1888 and 1916 (neither of which would have been caused by climate change)), we have a new motto: Cold is Warmth. Such is the doxology of climate change and its believers.
@Uysses: The recurrent disintegrations of the polar vortex are a recent manifestation of climate change.
1
@Uysses
Once again, the primary answer for skeptics & non-believers of climate change is "It's still cold in the winter, so how can it be true?" You can join James Inhoffe & his snowball stunt on the floor of the Senate.....
At some point in the not too distant future, when islands are disappearing, and mass migrations of refugees from droughts & rising seas become commonplace- there will be a mass realization from the dimmest bulbs in our population that this problem is only getting worse, and that it would have been far cheaper to do something about it (like remaking the energy economy without massive carbon emissions) when we had the opportunity than to mitigate and repair all the damage caused by it.
Good article. The imperative is to de-politicize climate change. All other issues will pale by comparison. If those on the far right are concerned about immigration, climate change will exacerbate that problem exponentially. If the far right is concerned about economics, they should be very concerned about climate change. It isn’t a political issue, it’s a human issue. We should all be working together and individually to do all we can now! I’m not waiting for some government plan, I’ve started now by a number of lifestyle & energy use changes. You know what? It’s pretty cool stuff AND I’m saving money! In other words, it’s enjoyable.
2
I see this as a major step backward for those concerned about the climate. AOC has turned it into a circus. The cause has already been set back a decade by zealots who could brook no questions to their models and labeled anyone who raised a legitimate question as a "denier." A very childish strategy.
Now we have this gibberish.
Climate change is a serious issue. We need grown ups, not zealots or wild-eyed politicians. It affects everyone, and they deserve a voice. Climate change activists do not own this issue, and someone needs to take the car keys away from them, and let the rational people take over the driving -- because we need rational doable solutions. It's that important.
2
sadly ms ocasio-cortex version of a much needed new and green deal is like most of her prattle, shallow and, so opens the way for AOC trashers to trash the message as well...and so they have.
a more measured and specific approach to both the green and the new (as in WPA) deal with at least one do-able first step to demonstrate her grasp and her proposals potential,, might have been better....leadership demands both boldness and demonstrated ability...shake up the troops, the promise of alternative energy and infrastructure repair are seductive, but viable plans for first steps (that lead to second steps) would be inspiring.
how about the WPA, a training and work program targeting our worst bridges and, highways, schools and, remember how quickly we mobilized after pearl harbor?
how about research to develop nuclear reaftoes than can be located locally to power car charging stations (they don't not have to be life threatening monsters, think nuclear submarines).
and so on...
how hard would it be to fix the problem of homelessness
..american citizens, many of them vets, hungry and exposed to the elements...difficult but not complicated...everybody hates it but, still, there they are, fellow americans whose "general Welfare" is rather neglected than promoted as the preamble promises.
it is not that mrs ocasio-cortez is unique in her lack of grasp, its epidemic in the congress, its rather that, as a new voice, she may offers sound and fury, but little significance
1
Ross begins by introducing proposed government actions intended to float all boats as “socialist totalitarianism” installing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “dictator-for-life of the Americas”.
Ross ends by saying that maybe there is something here, but it will never sell to those mesmerized by “Fox News feedback loops and the science-denying fever swamps”.
That 85% of Republicans following Trump as Messiah are beyond reach anyway.
So we have to focus upon the rest of us, who see it as a simple fact that government must step in to solve widespread problems that the me-me-only-me modern capitalism will not address. Because solving these problems helps everyone, while instead capitalists today fund a supine GOP legislating competitive advantage strictly for the few.
4
First of all, give respect where respect is due. AOC is a congresswoman and should be addressed as such. Disagreement with her policies is no reason for diminishing her title.
Now, I wish the Republican Party could look at climate disaster as a military threat. Somehow once the military is involved, all concerns over deficit spending, the limited role of government, and even extreme measures (like torture) go out the window.
Maybe AOC should say radical Islam is being aided by climate change and get an immediate $200 billion spending bill approved.
3
In the end this piece was much more complimentary of the resolution AOC and Sen. Markey put forward than I had thought it would be. I essentially agree with Times Pick commenter Oh please, though, that Republicans offer no solutions, and that a war posture is appropriate given the dire consequences of climate change that will be happening in the next couple decades. This is a document worrhy of consideration by everyone, even if you are terrified of the socialist boogieperson.
For " First Citizen AOC " to become nationally viable, she must first somehow shed the "Socialist" label she proudly defends. I've watched several lengthy interviews with her and I'm impressed with her knowledge and the articulate manner in which she explains her positions. She should be an asset for most of her beliefs or anyone running for office that she endorses. But because of her unwavering support of Socialism, she is a huge detriment to the political theater.
Don't agree? Do this simple word association exercise... Conservative?... Republican; Liberal?... Democrat; Socialist?... Communist. Or maybe, Socialist?... Russian.
My point is most American voters, (GOP, Democrats, Independents, and Undecided), view Socialism as evil. They picture "torture in Russia", "unfair trade issues with China", "crazy leadership in North Korea", and 100 miles away, the suppressed citizens of Cuba.
I'm not sure how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets away from her Socialist label, (or if she even wants to)... but if she can't, her incredibly important voice will be lost.
You must overreach to assure reaching your goal. For a golf analogy, you aim your put just past the hole, to assure reaching it. That's all this is. How many times have we seen 5-year or 10-year plans changed during the assigned years? These are lofty goals and must be tried.
And quit reworking the word, socialism. Our police, fire, public library and our military are good examples of the benefits of socialism.
1
Why not fear totalitarianism from the left? They're well meaning , moral and good. Do something stupid but not crimminal when you were a teenager why not have it put in your permanent record where it affect the rest of your life. Only good people need apply. The BBC is now prohibiting any contradiction to climate change. Australia was having a severe drought and now severe flooding is because of and made more severe for climate change. They won't allow mention similar weather occurred during the forties. Their greater good takes precedent over the truth. Why am I imagining smug laughter?
The dogmatic thinking isn't working for either side. Fox conservative Republican act appeals to working people who gave up on the Democratic party. They argue against high energy prices because people can't afford it while the rest of the media argues for the planet. To broad? Obama believed in low energy prices and he was elected by those Fox viewers twice.
I was shamed for pointing out the happiest country in the world reports 28% of its working age people don't. If that's what AOC is aiming for well that makes only a few "good" people happy. Its about jobs not free money.
I would be open to learning the Why's and How's behind Mr. Douthat's trouble with the Green New Deal, and moderating my own enthusiasm, if his tone were not so snide and dismissive. And if he'd refrain from the manipulative and misleading invocation of the Socialism bogeyman. Douthat has a powerful platform, an opportunity to do more than indulge his own "Opinion." He could help us understand how aspects of Isms can inform and improve each other, help us find our ways to more educated, thoughtful opinions of our own, in the interest of productive conversations and real solutions. We are tired enough of politicians inflaming our worst human instincts without journalists piling on. If you don't have something useful to say, just - be quiet. Please.
1
Start big and bold, and then negotiate as necessary in order to arrive at as broadly acceptable policy solutions as possible. AOC is young and a bit naive, but that’s why she’s a light in the darkness; I'll take that over old, greedy, willfully ignorant and cynical any day. At least AOC and all those advocating for green solutions are on the right side of history; the GOP and its robber baron donors are not, and it's an absolute abdication of leadership that is morally—and possibly criminally—negligent (i.e., inaction on climate change is literally killing people and costing billions of dollars, and America is being left behind by countries that are embracing and developing green technologies).
1
This is not one of your better efforts, Ross. First of all, what's this "dictator for life" nonsense? Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez got her position by going door to door and persuading her constituents to vote for her. What could be more democratic than that? And in that comment, aren't you stereotyping politicians of Latin descent? Then there's the "socialism" bugaboo. Why can't we get clear that "socialism" is government ownership of the means of production. No-one in this country, on the right or left, is proposing that. Health care for all is not socialism. Otto von Bismarck introduced the beginnings of that in Germany in the 19th century and he was no socialist. If we want a "good" society, where people have a shot at equal participation in productive enterprise, why wouldn't we want everyone to have access to health care? It's hard to be productive when you're sick. Finally, I suggest you read the recent research on climate change. Spend a few weeks. Immerse yourself in it. Interview some scientists. Not pundits: real scientists. Then write your next column one the subject. I've done that and I have no doubt climate change is an emergency of such proportions, it dwarfs even the Second World War.
1
Seeing the amount of attention this rookie congresswoman is getting I can't help wondering (honestly) what percent of of mainstream journalists match her demographic. Not race or gender demographic (although they certainly contribute) so much as young, urban, well-educated at elite college etc.
I was saddened by Ocasio-Cortez's proposal precisely because, in its college radical naiveté, it will scare people away from the practical steps that we need to take both to address global warming and longstanding social issues.
The problem is, the Republican response to warming has been one of complete denial. We are in essence saving ourselves some minor economic pain by inflicting dire pain on the future -- pain of which we're getting just a foretaste as we experience what used to be once-in-100 year storms and catastrophic blazes.
So here's a question for you, Ross. By ignoring the ever-increasing GINI index and the suffering of American workers, and by refusing to tackle or even acknowledge warming, aren't Republicans forcing the public into the radicalism of Cortez, and of Trump as well?
If the Republicans wanted, they could advocate for the more responsible, practical measures that we need to mitigate warming, and for simple measures that would help working people too, such as reversing decades of tax cuts on the rich and the chronic opposition to programs like universal health care that benefit working people.
I've often said that it isn't Trump and Ocasio-Cortez that are the problem. Rather, they're the symptoms of a decaying establishment that can no longer reform itself and compromise to do what is best for the American people, and that forces people to turn to radicalism for results.
@Josh Hill
I think you're wrong about "complete denial." This is a position that fuels too much climate change zealotry. Challenging, inquiring and, yes, skepticism are all part of the normal process. What other major issues denies the right to question and challenge? No one owns this issue. It affects us all, and we are all entitled to engage.
Demanding total fealty to climate change, as defined by those who claim the world is ending, is no different from demanding fealty to religious god. It has always been a fool's errand.
1
@AACNY
No one serious claims the world is ending. Climate scientists are virtually unanimous in their prediction that climate change is a disaster. The precise magnitude isn't known but we do know the range, and the consequences will be terrible.
Anyone who ignores or denies the climate science is in denial, and the Republicans are doing just that, refusing to lift a finger to follow scientific recommendations and even inventing conspiracy theories to pretend it isn't real.
The sad thing is, people on both sides of the aisle are equally twirly-eyed, as witness that my comment didn't receive a single recommendation, despite the act that it's based on established science (warming) and engineering (nuclear energy).
Psychologists find that most people are incapable of rational thought, and, unfortunately, this issue is no exception -- if I'd said "climate change is a fraud!" or "nuclear energy is deadly!" I would have gotten a million recommendations.
I've given up on getting people to think. They'd much rather follow idiots like Ocasio-Cortez and Trump, all the while telling themselves how wise they are, and how terribly misguided the other side is. It would be comical if it weren't so remarkably sad.
Well, I suppose some faint praise should be offered to Mr. Douthat for his offering of faint praise of a clearly "liberal" idea, to wit, establishment of some sort of program to save the world from its own worst impulses, driven by many governments. I think it is correct that such a platform needs to be far-reaching in its goals and aspirations, simply in order to withstand the relentless attacks and absolutely certain winnowing and watering-down, before any element of such even gets to the point of actual evaluation by voters and legislators.
I have been reading Jane Mayer's book "Dark Money" recently, and it paints a truly horrific picture of how rich conservatives, especially those opposed to the economic consequences of reductions in fossil-fuel use, end up controlling the discussion in society. This occurs through the use of mis- and disinformation generated by conservative-funded think tanks and "research institutes", along with phantom organizations purported to be grass-roots membership-driven groups that are actually only a p.o. box somewhere. The point here is that the resistance to such a broad change in how our economy rewards energy producers will be fierce, unstinting, and employing every tactic of "dirty pool" imaginable. Examine carefully the motivations and connections of all who cry "Foul!".
1
@Matt Exactly, like the oil-rich Koch brothers-backed "AstroTurf" (i.e., artificial grass roots) campaign against light expansion rail here in Phoenix. Fooling the undereducated into voting against their own best interests is how the robber barons maintain their grip on power.
1
Interesting that you cannot come up with any urgency when faced with an existential threat like climate change. Perhaps because nobody can come up with a way to make profits and sell securities while fighting it.
If we had had that attitude in WWII the world would be quite different.
2
@Chris Martin
Calling it an "existential" threat, doesn't mean people are going to abandon common sense and rational thinking. If anything, a rational approach is even more critical.
Criticism of the Green New Deal can be leveled in many ways. Some see it as an agenda to replace capitalism with socialism.
My criticism is more fundamental. It represents a breathtaking dumbing down of the political debate in our country. Buffoonery from our administration seems to energize buffoonery from the left.
The GND is rife with magical thinking. Here are just two examples in the idea of a 10-year elimination of our carbon- based industries by renewable energy sources.
First, relying substantially on wind and solar for power and railways for transportation would require vast new rights-of-way for transmission lines and railbeds. The authors seem blind to government obstacles to gaining rights-of-way. Prairie chickens, figworts, every stream, lands of indigenous peoples, and property rights of all citizens can and do have their days in court that often tie up gaining rights-of-way for years. Perhaps the GND advocates want to brush all these environmental and civil rights aside.
Second, trillions of dollars of long-term bonds are outstanding supported by future cash flows from energy companies, utilities, and other industries that would be eliminated under the GND. Obviously there was no interest in having input from greedy Wall Street and corporations who might point out the resulting financial crisis from the devastation to pension fund, insurance companies, banks and individual retirement accounts.
The level of ignorance reflected in the GND is scary.
2
When the Affordable Care Act was in its formative stages I had a few debates with acquaintances opposed to any attempt to present a collective face to challenge the absolute power of the health consortium. To a person they would eventually, in a trancelike state, blurt “socialism” with a look in their eye and tone in their voice that said: debate over.
Our corporate overlords know that when their minions show up at the castle door asking to see a doctor, or for a few extra coins to feed their children or care for the elderly, or to escape rising floodwaters, they need only send court jesters like Douthat to the door, wrapped in the American flag, chanting “socialism, freedom, patriotism,” and the peasants will turn their spears on one another, leaving the castle walls unscathed.
The castle burns, but the fiddle plays on.
4
It may be too late for the kind of incrementalism that Ross seems to see as the silver lining in the AOS proposal. We may have as little as five years to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide if we are to avoid +1.5° warming which scientists see as the threshold beyond which lies disaster.
1
@Charles...
From a pure technology standpoint, there is no way that we could put in place the measures necessary to achieve your goal in five years.
I doubt seriously that anything effective could even be demonstrated in a decade, let alone implemented.
Finally, I have no doubt that we will be having this same conversation with the terror-filled rhetoric from the Greenies and the laissez-faire attitudes of the Deniers a decade or five from now.
But, hey, it fills column inches in newspapers and keeps the faithful from both sides thoroughly agitated because no one is listening.
2
Of course all this stuff eventually boils down to politics. I admire AOC's passion and desire to find creative solutions. But the US legislative process was designed for slow incremental change. So all the best intentions of big bold sweeping changes will not come to pass unless they are preceded by a calamity with consequences like WW2 or the Great Depression. Perhaps if we had not bailed out the banks in '08 and allowed our people to feel the pain of unrestrained capitalism a different future would have been ours. But "Socialism" won the day as we redistributed our wealth to AIG, GM and the Big Banks. We are a confused society.
1
We may lack the time for "incremental change" to combat climate change. Every year is warmer than the last, storms are larger and more sweeping, forest fires are larger and more frequent, islands are disappearing from rising oceans, and increased ocean temperature is affecting the fish and mammals who reside there.
Yet here we have a conservative opinion writer who mocks a politician who at least has some ideas and is willing to put them forth. Perhaps he is in the same club as Trump who keeps his blinders on to what is obvious to even the casual observer.
In my mind, you can either be part of the solution or remain part of the problem. Douthat has made his decision.
5
Forgive me for asking this question, Mr. Roberts...
Where is it written that the homo sapien is immune from Mother Nature's temperament and natural selection?
I would appreciate if you could be specific in your reply.
1
At the beginning of the Superman story, Jor-El, Superman's father, and Krypton's leading scientist, goes to the ruling council of Krypton and tells them the planet has become unstable and will explode. That they have to evacuate their populace if they are to survive.
The ruling council laughs at him, forbids him from talking about his findings, or from leaving the planet.
Even when I was a child, this seemed childish to me and took away from my suspension of disbelief. This, I was sure, is not how things would be handled in the real world by adults.
As an adult, I'm gobsmacked. The Superman story was as accurate and sophisticated in its understanding of human nature as anything in literature.
And we are a dying civilization.
6
The advent of nuclear weapons caused many people to think about the inevitability of humans destroying ourselves.
1
Hi Ross, I’m so glad to see a conservative offering a good-faith take on the Green New Deal. I work in climate, and I noticed in the climate change episode of the Argument that yourself and other Times columnists use “mitigation” and “adaptation” somewhat interchangeably. In the context of climate action, particularly internationally, they mean two very different things- mitigation refers to action to reduce green house gas emissions, and adaptation refers to action to adapt to the effects of climate change that are already happening or are inevitable.
Most people in the United States are not aware of the difference, which will probably be a key distinction embedded in any actual Green New Deal legislation. I hope yourself and the rest of the Times journalists/columnists can start elevating our US climate discourse, we need it!
2
Since Republicans have rejected, torpedoed, sabotaged the practical and productive solutions advanced by President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (Clean Power Plan, Paris Climate Accord, higher fuel standards), and now are determined to reverse course in order to go back to the a 1950s society (and all that implies), they have left no choice but to go all New Deal. The notion of achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions in just 10 years time reflects the fact that scientists say there are only 12 years before, at this rate, the planet hits that 2-degree threshold, which changes the ecology faster than evolutionary adaptation will be able to cope. (The argument that the planet has always gone through heating/cooling periods, ignores the reality that such periods usually take tens of thousands of years, not decades.) If Right-Wingers think that refugees are a national security emergency now, just wait until 200 million are forced from their coastal homes because of rising sea levels - that includes New Orleans invading Texas.
3
Achieving zero net emission of CO2 in one decade would strand many trillions of dollars of assets servicing outstanding loans.
1
Mr. Douthat’s pessimism is breathtaking. No aspiration to confront and combat the dire effects of global warming head on, no belief in the ability of our science, our culture and our technology to meet the challenge. The best he can suggest is just a failed-before-we-start approach of half-heartedly attempting to mitigate some of the damage global warming will do at some of the places likely to be most damaged. Threats of the scale and nature presented by global warming require bold vision and bold action to counteract. I, for one, am encouraged that some of our legislators are willing to step up.
4
I think part of the problem is: Republicans see ‘climate change’ as a wedge issue. It is not that they would not like to halt it. Rather, since it is obvious the Dems have the lead on the charge to make a difference, it would preclude ( in the dark minds and cold hearts of US politics ) that the Dems would need to be in charge of government to accomplish the best features of their plans. In other words, to hold federal legislative and executive branch power. It cannot be done by the states. So, beyond the inconvenience of the truth of being wrong on the issue, the Republicans would be out of office too.
2
Socialism. The single word dismissal for anything GOP backers and their party dislike. It will be socialism when the last forest burns or is eaten away. Socialism that draws beach homes into Atlantis. Socialism that burns crops year after year. But it will be Communism that seizes control over the enormous markets for clean energy, electric vehicles and smart homes. China knows environmental peril while our clever conservatives protect dying, lethal industries. Come up with a real plan before simplistic labels.
5
I haven't yet read up on the "Green New Deal" which Ross mentions. If he's correct, it's won't get anywhere, politically speaking. With regards to the menace of global warming, a high-enough carbon tax would eventually do a lot to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S., partly by stimulating development of new technology. Alas Republicans have been very resistant about carbon taxes. And reading of his stress on adapting to global warming rather than confronting it, I see Ross appears not to understand the threat well. But that's also true of many Americans in general.
2
True leaders don’t try to tap into prejudices and fears for support. True leaders have a vision, see a present or future need, and inspire the support of the people to action. That is what we need to combat global warming. Luckily, many of the steps we must take will be highly beneficial and raise our standard of living.
5
Negotiating 101: Ask for more than you're going to get, then expect to negotiate some of it away.
Obama could have tried this with health care. If he had insisted on single payer, we'd have the public option.
When political reality runs into the hard reality of sustainability, political reality wins, even if it causes ecosystems to collapse. Ask the ancient Greeks how well that worked against the Persians. Sure, the Greeks won a couple of battles, but the Persians prevailed because the Greek city states couldn't cobble together a lasting strategy which would have required them to cooperate over the long haul. Their elites were too intent on hanging on to their positions and competing with each other.
We need something radical and we need it right now, but we can't get it. Too many important rice bowls would get broken.
5
@mlbex
I wish this was true. While the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate in 2009, it didn't have 60 votes to pass the public option. Joe Lieberman, who had to run as an independent after losing the Democratic primary, and Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska, refused to back a public option in the ACA.
1
@allen roberts: The idea is to flip one or more opponents by asking for more. But you might be right; the insurance industry wouldn't tolerate it. I wanted to see Obama try just to make their machinations more difficult and more obvious.
@mlbex...
So I take it you are not averse to the negotiating tactics that President Trump is using?
Trump's had a lot more experience at that game than most politicians in government today.
1
Meanwhile,the only plan or ideas the Republicans have is to cut taxes on the 1% and spend more on Defense. Given the void of any real proposals ,this has given AOC and others to propose progressive ideas. You don’t have to agree and the enactment into law will be a long hard slog . Oddly,with many hard working people struggling to make ends meet, you think the concept of health care as a human right is like Soviet tanks rolling into Prague in 1968.
8
If you are interested in layoff policy read SPARK by Frank Koller listed as one of the top ten economics books in 2010 by Princeton University. It uses Lincoln Electric as it spine while covering research on the effects of layoffs on company health, families and communities.
Since the 1940's Lincoln has had a no layoff policy even in 2007-2009. And Employees share 33% of company profit each year based on their performance. Guess what...not done for altruism but for the bottom line. They are the world's largest producer of arc welders.
A kinder capitalism is possible and profitable Read the book.
4
Mr. Douthat, no cheers for this old deal today. It illustrates perfectly why there can be no meeting of the minds on critical matters. Yours is walled in by fixed attitudes about those who would think beyond the way things are to imagine how they could be, resulting in your closing off consideration of what they are saying. What are you afraid of if not a withering planet and an administration that seeks to represent a minority to the exclusion of rest of the country?
Thr green new deal that your party gave us benefitted 1% of the population. It further exploded the deficit you mention in passing when you dismiss any notion of progressive changes to meet real need.
To suggest Rep Ocasio Cortez seeks dictatorial power for life is absurd (did her dancing upset you?). It was Mr Trump who wistully noted the wish to try it when he complimented Pres Xi for just such a move.
Some socialist ideas already have been realized here, you know what they are. People like them and want them protected. You should know that. The country, at least much of it, is at a crossroads. It will by an act of the people, take the left turn.
5
I have yet to hear any conservative or 'moderate' propose a plan that would invest in future job growth and increased economic output that even remotely comes close to a green new deal. Green technology is the future and it continues to baffle me as to why large swaths of the population are so abhorrent to investments in this sector. Should the world's largest economy create and maintain a green infrastructure, from renewable energy, to efficient public transportation, it would cement the US as the economic forerunner for generations to come. The amount of jobs that this would create and sustain would also allow the US to serve as the main supplier to green technology growth in both the developed and developing world. However, many right wing and centrists are too concerned with lining the pockets of themselves and their Wall Street companions. If you just follow the money, it is not hard to see why this has drawn so many critics
7
Yuck!
"Our future socialist overlords" is a disgusting exaggeration. European Democratic socialism has worked well for everyone.
We are talking about putting a leash on extreme exploitation and the greed is good mentality that took over with Reagan and Grover Norquist.
When a large majority of working stiffs can't get a decent job with decent benefits, it's time for the government to step in. That is, our public servants who are elected to serve the people have to stop serving their masters who bought and paid for them.
Rolling back the 20th century and returning to wage slavery is not the answer.
When you are OK with poisoning the environment for short-term profit, somebody needs to step in on behalf of all of us.
By the way, I suggest that all people who call themselves Christians should read the gospels and follow Jesus.
That doesn't mean excluding people, blaming victims, and treating profiteering as a gift from God. Ruining our environment is not good for children and other living things.
Treating knowledge as lies and lies as truth, and ignoring wisdom and understanding is wrong.
7
She seems to be more interested in making a statement and staying in the limelight than she is in actually performing the job she was elected to. Too bad for the people she represents, they will get the high moral ground but nothing else.
4
Actually, we're pretty happy with our new Congressperson.
3
I’m surprised at how rarely comments on the Green New Deal mention the sensible, bipartisan “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act” already proposed in the House and Senate. The basic features of the Act are to charge a fee on carbon on sources of energy when they are extracted or imported, and to return the fees collected to the American people as a monthly dividend. Nothing promotes changes in behavior or unleashes the creative powers of American society like increases in cost. That’s probably why these features have been endorsed by 27 Nobel laureates in economics, all living former chairs of the Fed and of the Council of Economic Advisers, and by George Shultz and James Baker (WSJ, Jan 17, 2019). Douhat should know about the Bill. It merits more than one cheer.
6
Bret is a conservative and conservatives live in their own fantasy world, romanticising bygone years that never existed. Today, Bret trots out that boogeyman word to scare all the children (a/k/a conservatives) SOCIALISM! Boy we are all scared now Bret, good job. Fortunately, the younger generations are smart enough to not fall for that tactic, and more and more of them are turning against capitalism. Yes it seems rational thought may yet prevail over conservative fantasy.
3
this column was written by Ross...not Bret.
Bret ? Or is it Ross you refer to ?
We all have an autonomic nervous system that performs many of the functions essential for life. There is no thought or conscious effort. It governs how many blood cells, how much saliva, how much hair we produce. We have similar public functions that serve our vital needs, if they are allowed to work: safety, transport, air and water and food can be provided automatically. When they don’t work our government has failed.
A genuine discussion about socialism would incorporate fundamental vital needs. Conservatives insist that government’s function is to protect private property and national defense. Socialists believe that national defense includes healthcare, environmental safety, public education, safe food, and childcare among others.
Science also distinguishes between conservatives and socialists obviously in their approach to evolution and climate change. Selfishness denies evolution and climate change. Equality embraces science and refuses superstition. All humans evolved from Africa. Only superstition denies equality to women. Fetuses are not babies to scientific persons but fetuses are babies to the superstitious and Conservatives exploit racism and religion to exploit divisions for selfish ends.
The Green New Deal is a real threat to the far right. Pollution, hydrocarbons, regulation of banking and monopoly and provision of healthcare and education and equality for all is a threat. But unregulated markets unregulated banking and food and healthcare are cancerous.
3
In the column it states - "It isn’t just that it dismisses all worries about deficits or inflation with a Venezuelan insouciance"
What I understand about the Venezuelan hyperinflation is that it has been mostly caused by a huge debt that Venezuela owes the U.S. which has to be paid in $U.S. a currency is cannot print itself. When the oil prices tanked V.. could no long meet these payments and so had to print V..$ to sell for $US on the currency exchange which drove up the price of $US which required more printing of V.. $. This together with US sanctions for years and $7billion of its assets held by the the US has been a primary cause of the V.. problem. I understand the corruption in the V.. government but with the above facts they are fighting a huge headwind. Perhaps these facts are wrong but if they are not why does no major newspaper seem to mention them.
@Nessier
You're right that falling oil prices and US sanctions have contributed to Venezuela's economic catastrophe, but the reason Venezuela (and many other developing countries) borrow in US dollars is because lenders don't trust loans in the local currency. It isn't a law of nature that the US gets to borrow in our local currency and developing countries don't. We enjoy the privilege of borrowing in our own currency because lenders trust that we won't do anything crazy with that currency like print tons of it to fund the Green New Deal.
3
I don't know if this "adaptationism" will work for us or not, but it sounds pretty unfair to the billions of people in poor countries who contribute little to climate change and thus cannot afford the expensive public works needed to adapt.
2
In my mind this sure beats the every man for himself record if the current and past republican platform, coupled with a failed and chimera type tax policy.
Sensible approaches to what might be an existential threat, seems a lot more humane than, deregulation and capitalism gone wild.
Shame on you for this opening, Mr. Douthat "The first major policy intervention from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas.."
Because a strong, smart woman has a plan to try to save OUR planet and is getting the press attention she deserves you would call her a "dictator".
Don't be a fool in your attempts to destroy powerful, smart, Socially Conscious Women and men.
8
He was being cute in his open. He balanced it out well.
@njglea - Douthat can't argue against the content of her policies so he uses derogatory language instead. She is indeed a threat to him and his circle!
2
I followed the link that was supposed to support the claim that carbon pricing schemes "get compromised toward inefficiency in practice" and found only a Guardian piece critical of the European cap-and-trade effort, but no criticism of a carbon tax. Carbon taxes may be harder to implement, but they're also harder to game (which may be why they're harder to implement). If we're going to innovate our way to a zero carbon future, then businesses operating in a market economy need to have the right price signals.
Time is short. The political reality is that we won't have a carbon tax or a Green New Deal before 2021 at the earliest, and probably not before 2023. That's almost half way to 2030. Which is too bad, because we're probably close to having a veto-proof supermajority of citizens who believe we need to take action to address climate change. If all the people and institutions who have divested from fossil fuel corporations would pledge one or two percent of their assets to a climate action fund, that fund could accelerate the transition to a zero carbon economy through strategic purchases of companies that are standing in the way of progress.
3
This piece really misses the mark. The only thing anyone can get out of this is that carbon markets don’t work, climate change is not worth trying to solve because it costs Americans too much money (because socialism), and maybe we can build some infrastructure projects to help protect us from the awful consequences.
Wish the author would take this opportunity to think of some real opportunities for compromise on this issue. This is an audience that thinks, and cares, deeply about this topic. Instead, he chooses to tout the normal oblivious and foolish party line on the topic.
This really is not a party issue, and the cost of prevention is far, far less than the cure. Any economically-minded person should understand that. So I’m really hoping for another article from Mr. Douthat that takes the time to discuss what he thinks can be done on the prevention, rather than adaptation, side.
3
I would hope we could get beyond celebrity as the primary qualification for elective office. Mr. Douthat's description of AOC as a "social media personality" is unfortunately accurate. Combined with good looks and outrageous proposals she gets much more attention than a rookie politician deserves.
But the Republicans will be glad to make her the face of the Democratic Party. She is Trump's greatest hope.
5
@J. Waddell - She is getting a surprising amount of attention. But it doesn't follow that all, or even some of her ideas are therefore wrong.
3
As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If there was a conservative plan to deal with climate change we could evaluate its merits. Those who hand off both the problem and its solution can't complain about the action plan.
7
Climate change is most assuredly real. But the NGD seems unlikely to do much about it if it turns into a Christmas tree on which we hang a dozen ultra-progressive wish list items.
If this over-reaches, if it devolves into a punch line about unrealistic "socialists" and their desire to have the central bank print up funny money and pass it around, it could just as easily be a setback as a step forward.
2
In everything I've read about the "Green New Deal" from both advocates on the far left and opponents on the far right, one thing I have never read is this simple fact. US emissions of green house gases represent about 15% of the total global emissions (China is currently at 25%). The US share as % of global emissions is also going to decline (we are an advanced economy and are not increasing energy consumption the way emerging economies around the world are).
So even if we implement this program, and drive US green house gas emissions to zero (at some huge, unspecified economic cost.....) what global benefits will result if emissions from the rest of the world continue to grow?
2
It’s presumable along with the unilateral side of this, a Green Deal would entail a return to Copenhagen and Paris Accords of climate change adjustment. If one considers China as the polluter, a great portion of the industrial pollution it emits is in the production of cheap consumer goods that are shipped to US and globally. In good measure and allocation that carbon output can be attributed to our purchases in WalMart and Dollar Stores items “made in China”.
4
@Will Eigo The Copenhagen and Paris Accords are not legally binding on any country, do not go anywhere close to the extent that this "Green New Deal" would as far as disrupting existing economies, and the pledges that other countries have made under these Accords are so far in general not being met.
And the Chinese economy is changing, China has 1.4 billion consumers, and its economy is shifting more and more to one driven by domestic growth. It is now the largest car market on the planet, and its energy demands are growing rapidly. I think your statement that the "great portion of industrial pollution (I assume by which you mean carbon)" produced in China is driven by exports is wrong today and will be even more wrong in the future (and we haven't even got into the growing emissions of carbon in India, Africa, Southeast Asia and other developing countries).
Is the “utopia-think” of the green new deal brash? Perhaps it is, but we’ve been living the numbness of capitalism so long that even its dystopias have the unfair advantage of seeming to be more reasonable. I see the green new deal’s utopianism as a necessary corrective for a capitalist mindset that has had its own issues—one of which has been bringing the world to the point of actual environmental catastrophe.
6
The idea that we should somehow take responsibility for global warming and therefore change the way we exploit our natural resources and pollute our home planet is absurd. Why should those of us living relatively comfortable lives risk those fine comforts for some future unborn brats who won’t appreciate all that we’ve done for them. Imagine how much those of us alive today would suffer from unfair privations if we allow those miscreants who do care about future generations to promote alternative energy sources, pollution reducing technologies and a little wealth sharing. It would be truly horrible. This means it’s up to each of us to continue to consume the earth’s resources as rapidly as possible and ensure efforts to reduce pollution and garbage are unsuccessful. Most importantly, we must fight against any and all efforts to reduce the amount of energy needed to support our lifestyles and continue to fetishize competition over cooperation.
6
Mr. Douthat, give me a guess as to the number of republican politicians, conservative columnist’s, and Fox News talking heads who claim that the fossil fuel industry “does not” contribute to global warming, short-term or long-term health complications, destruction of our ecosystem, but nevertheless, decided “not to live” in close proximity to coal mines, oil pipelines, or fracking operation sites. What would be their reasoning besides their place of employment.
How many die-hard Trump supporters do you suppose want to live near fossil fuel industry sites. Not many I guess.
4
To take one example of a person on the left as representing the entire Democratic Party is like taking any number of the crazy extremists on the Republican right as representing the whole Republican party! Oops, most of them do!
@buffnick: One always finds the toniest neighborhoods of industrial cities upwind of their manufacturing centers.
1
Mr. Douthat describes the American electorate as aging and risk-adverse. There are actually more millenials than boomers, and as boomers die off, that contrast will grow more stark. He advocates incrementalism, yet voters aren't on board. In 2016, voters chose a "just move fast and break things" candidate over the "play it safe" incrementalist.
Creeping incrementslism is what we've had for the last forty years, and it has increased wealth inequality, shrunk the middle class, eroded safety nets, air, and water quality to the point of emperiling communities like Flint.
Millenials have already lost so much ground to the 2008 crash, and the four preceding decades of policies that favored short term financial gains at the expense of future generations. The time for incrementalism is over. Climate change is here. Wealth inequality is devastating. Go bold or go home.
8
@Mary M: The US is a vast encrustation of uncoordinated band-aids.
1
I hope that this Green New Deal recognizes that the US would be foolish to economically hobble itself while the rest of the world blithely goes along polluting. By itself, the US reductions in greenhouse gas emissions won't make much of a difference in combating climate change.
Also, the supporters of this plan should lead by example. No more commercial or private aircraft use, disconnect your residence from fossil fuels and use an electric vehicle or bicycle to get around.
1
Dear Mr Wolfe
Most if us would love to do these things. I recycle, compost and walk to work. But solar panels and a new electric car are out of my financial range (although if I wasn’t still diligently paying my student loans they wouldn’t be). I can’t afford to build a smart energy grid in my state on my own. As long as most people are living paycheck to paycheck we aren’t going to be able to do these things as consumers, and no company expecting to make a profit for shareholders will either. So let’s do these things as tax payers. The Green New Deal may not be perfect- the details of any one policy point or another are up for debate but lets stop pretending that our environmental problems aren’t linked to a few extracting wealth at the expense of the health and future of the rest of us. We have to do something or we aren’t going to have a future. Go bold or go home because the clock is ticking.
And for those who say what about China, well this is the national level of let’s put solar on our house before we worry about the neighbors.
3
Mr. Douthat, isn't it wonderful when visionaries give you something real to debate? Thanks for writing something meaningful, in response to one of the only meaningful visions offered by an American politician in decades.
You say AOC's Green New Deal represents a progressive wish list, much of which does not directly relate to climate change. I say it is a proposal that follows a direction similar to the Hippocratic Oath, to first, do no harm. AOC says, to paraphrase, that D.C. legislation often addresses one problem, while creating a dozen others. Her proposal aims to push back on numerous societal ills simultaneously.
Secondly, you make a point about mitigating the impact of climate change without addressing it's source - fossil fuel greenhouse gases. Seawalls for coastal cities, firewalls for towns near forests, maybe super fortresses in the hurricane zone? Why wouldn't that be good enough, you suggest, while leaving carbon alone? Because
We can mitigate the impact of climate change short term, but definitely not long term, because the inevitable long term impact of climate change and ecocide is death. Moreover, AOC is savvy enough to know that impulses to merely mitigate the impact without addressing it's cause, will have the result of protecting the rich and the connected, at the expense of the poor and unconnected, as legislation from D.C. so often does.
2
I am glad we have leaders now willing to offer something bold and take the challenges of the 21st century head on. I am sick of centrist Democratic incrementalism. All it has accomplished is to redefine the political center in U.S. politics as neoliberal capitalism with its extreme inequality and deregulation.
The bold Green New Deal will help redefine the center farther left while providing us a new vision - a humane, empathetic vision - of what to strive for. And that's worth more than a single cheer.
3
Too many of the Ross Douthats out there rely way too much on exaggeration and hyperbole to the detriment of creative and constructive issue resolution. It's easier I suppose to take the extreme view of anything than to actually think about reality, pros and cons, and alternatives in a constructive way and make sense out of complex matters. It's also easier to fall back on the old tried and true arguments because they so readily play well to the old tried and true audiences. We deserve better, because this kind of writing gets us nowhere.
4
Being well-read and pious guarantees nothing but well-read piety. And, as with Douthat, ideological, creedal self-certainty and weekly pontification are inevitable.
But hey, he used the word "insouciance" against his feared "socialist overlords" so he can pose as if it didn't apply to himself.
Gary, YOU NAILED IT! Your words describe where our nation is headed as in seen in the movie, Idiocracy.
Mr Douthat may have earned his solar powered cabin for recognizing the reality of climate change. But what prevents him from winning something more luxurious is his inability to see that what is euphemistically called free market capitalism is on the brink of ruining the planet as a human habitat. The term "New Deal", has a heritage which is instructive to consider in the present historical moment. When FDR instituted it, the plutocrats of his age were aghast and predicted the doom of American democracy. In fact, his program rescued democracy and revived the idea that everyone had something to contribute to the common good. The same thing can happen now. America won't be in danger of becoming Venezuela with a Green New Deal. It will make it a better country and society, just like Roosevelt's New Deal did.
5
@Bob Chisholm: Venezuela is a leading-edge example of a nation that overpopulated itself on a petroleum boom.
2
Conflating climate change with the far left is the absolute worst thing that could happen to the cause. As Douthat says, it reinforces the rabid right. They'll tell swing voters that climate change equals ultra-liberal takeover of the country. These voters will believe them because, well, they'll be right. Thanks AOC.
2
No, unthinking right-wing zombies will believe such knee-jerk tripe because of incapacity and venality, not because it is true or right.
@BarrowK: Submitting to the laws of physics is socialism now.
1
Why do people on the right adhere to the conservative principle of incrementalism only when addressing social welfare issues, but have no trouble cutting the top marginal tax rate in half or abandoning the constitutional principle of checks and balances?
Raising taxes on the top 1% won't destroy American enterprise. We had rich people even when the top marginal tax rate was 70%: Mellon, Rockefeller, Getty, DuPont, Howard Hughes, etc.
Returning to the tax system that built the best military in the world -- interstate highways, the Apollo program, free state universities, reliable power grids, seaports and airports and bridges that don't crumble -- isn't that much of a reach. I'd give it two cheers.
11
Surely It's time for the democratic socialist movement to consider rebranding itself? If you polled 1000 'trump country' voters and asked them if they approved of Socialism, I suspect they would overwhelmingly say no. However, if you asked those same people if they'd like a certain portion of their tax dollars to pay for the ability for them and their family to enjoy quality health care, and perhaps another portion of their taxes to go toward ensuring their children and grandchildren have the right to quality education, I suspect they would overwhelmingly say yes.
The word 'Socialism' has been demonized for too long. Even from a simple marketing perspective, it's a public opinion battle that can't be won. The word is politically toxic. However, the core principles are not.
Why can't we rebrand those core principals as something else?
'New Americanism' perhaps?
6
@Jaayemm: Calling oneself a social liberal is sure to be misinterpreted in the US.
The compromise Douthat is suggesting is to do nothing to address CO2, but build sea walls around Manhattan and shanty towns for climate refugees.
That’s what we’re going to have to do anyway, as climate change really starts to bite; that’s no kind of compromise.
3
...so much personal sarcasm directed towards AOC, comparison to Venezuela (which is totally unfounded) and no acknowledgment that the danger to the World and all American's of climate change is as serious, though very different, as World War 2 was.
Leaders should inspire change and put forward ideas to be debated and improved on. Now, thanks to the proposals for the Green New Deal, the conversation had begun.
10
Apparently this author thinks it’s better for the US to be an oligarchy rather than a social democracy. Corporations have run this country for decades and all its done is create a new Gilded Age for the 1%. Capitalism doesn’t work for the middle class anymore.
17
It's hard to overlook the snarkiness in the opening sentences of this commentary when describing a certain new member of the House of Representatives in order to launch an attack on a subject that every American, no -- every person on the planet should be concerned about; namely climate change as the result of global warming.
This is neither a conservative, liberal, right or left-wing issue no matter how much one tries to politicize it, because in the end it is a problem that's far greater than all of that since it threatens the whole of humanity.
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that something is very wrong with the picture, even if you're the leader of the free world who doesn't believe in scientific proof.
Of course as far as this country is concerned, the writing was on the wall when the U.S. was yanked out of the Paris Climate Accord, and then saddled with an administration that couldn't advocate burning fossil fuels and ravaging the environment for a profit fast enough.
At this point, instead of criticizing the Green New Deal for what it supposedly means (i.e. a "Socialist" grab for power and progressively liberal agenda), we should be making every effort to address the inevitability of what Mother Nature has in store for all of us if we don't -- because time is no longer on our side.
16
Somehow the US survived the first New Deal and we were better off for it for a long time. Until unbridled greed made Americans so desperate they elected Trump. It is clearly time for another New Deal that re-enfranchises the American people. Republicans will bleat and moan as they did the first time. The people will out because the country needs economic and social justice to survive.
12
If the French Yellow Vests were just against carbon taxes, why are they still protesting two months after the taxes were reduced?
Conservative climate carenothings misconstrued those actions from the beginning, because nothing bothers them more than being asked to set their selfishness aside and leave a decent world for those who follow.
8
OK so the President of the United States could be an agent of the Russian government and the biggest issue now is some liberal proposals that have little chance to be enacted as they exist. Really.
5
Really, Ross - hyperventilate much? "The first major policy intervention from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas (I believe she’s also a congresswoman of some sort), is a quite-extraordinary document"
2
The only dictator-for-life candidates I see are the men legislating away women's reproductive rights, locking children in cages, and fiddling away regulation on cancer-causing toxins and carbon emissions while the Earth burns.
We have become a nation of snarky, supercilious editors who criticize the people trying to effect change - entirely ignoring that, by every measure, nine out of ten of the last recessions have been during Republican presidencies, and every single Democratic presidential administration since World War II has enjoyed a better economy than every Republican administration. Those who demand to include Trump's economy on that list of economic successes ignore the fact that, yes, Trump has added 25 months to Obama's 75 month upswing after he rescued the economy from Bush's freefall, but Trump has also exploded the deficit with his trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy, and, combined with his illogical tariff war, Trump threatens our country with yet another Republican-driven recession.
In other words, to edit myself for brevity - you're backing the wrong horse here, Mr Douthat.
16
This wouldn’t be a problem if there was a real, functioning, moderate faction in the Democrat Party. Moderates should take the dreams of radicals like Osacio-Cortez, study them, figure out how to pay for them, make them workable, and sell them. Buy into the dreams but understand that they are dreams and it takes a lot to make them a reality.
.
Sadly the “moderates” we have now are more interested in fighting the radicals for control of the party and selling their own, uninspiring at best (nonexistent at worst) platform.
8
There is no lack of plans to pay for global warming mitigation efforts or for humane universal healthcare. It's just that they would require a change of heart and so policy by those invested in the current blind and venal status quo. Anything -- ANYTHING -- that threatens our painstakingly-built plutocratic system and which threatens a more fair distribution of our common wealth is opposed with extreme prejudice by those who built and maintain their rigged game of theft and corruption.
1
@ZAW
Could anybody please explain to me what "moderate democrat" means in practise? The only thing I might know is what it doesn´t mean. Beside this I really have no idea unles I ve tried heard in recent years to understand. But "no idea" isn´t a persuasive political agenda I think. So there is much room left for Ms. AOC to bubble over with her own ideas.
The problem of AOC is that there is no room for a green party in the two party system of USA as it had been with Green parties in Europe. Many European Greens had the opportunity to learn and get experienced for ten or twenty years within those parties.
When I look at political panels in USA it´s a weird combination of too old and too young/unexperienced persons. The middle generation - this means prominent and respected leaders in best politicians´s age - is almost absent at present. After Mr. Gore The "Obama generation" was unable to take over sustainably so there is a big huge hole.
The sarcasm and misogyny apparent in the first sentence is just appalling. It negates any critiques of the Green New Deal that Douthat brings up. Obviously, he has a personal problem with young women providing ideas and leadership.
I don’t understand why it’s OK to dole out billions in taxpayer dollars for a Foxconn plant, but investing in rescuing our planet before it’s too late is “socialism”. AOC is representing what her constituents and most young Americans want and understand, that drastic action is needed to save the climate and address income inequality.
I have never agreed with anything Ross Douthat has written (that I can remember), and I’ve never read an attack this personal and condescending from him before. Trump must be rubbing off on him. Congresswoman AOC is an impressive person and deserves respect, even if one doesn’t agree with her policy goals.
13
Trump was predicted in the 70's by the philosopher Rorty, given the excesses of folks like AOC. In fact AOC and crew are in conflict with Trump because they share the fundamentals concerning things like, you know, the Truth; i.e., Truth is what we say it is. If you doubt this, just research the French philosopher Foucault, and his influence in the Academic new/old left. "Foucault's theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions." To Trump and the lefties (BTW, I am a lefty, just not the AOC kind; I actually believe that argument and truth should guide us, not the whims of infants.) the sole or primary purpose of the world is to use it to make your private individual self the best thing since sliced bread.
1
You misunderstand AOC. Have you actually listened to her, or have you just read what pundits say ABOUT her? Don't fuel the right wing bandwagon just to pretend to relevance. Find the interview AOC did last Sunday on MTP and listen to her passionate, yes, but reasonable idealsm. She is no lightweight and her intentions are much more centrist -- if by "centrist" we mean favored by the greatestvnumber of citizens -- than they are portrayed, especially by the likes of Douthat and his Fox-addled cohort.
Her concrete propsals are a starting point, not an end point in the policy discussions to come. Unworkable aspects will be tempered. That's what politics is for, and the toxic residue of the Trump-Cult and Fox Hive-Think will prevent a full hearing, much less full consideration or implimentation. Their knee-jerk panic at her emerging popularity is evidence enough that she is on the right track.
But this 70-yr old thinks that without that youthful, idealistic energy (like many of us had in the 60's) and intelligence our decline into Trumpian dystopia will continue.
That they fearfully call her "bimbo" means she has won already.
Ross has written about how he and his right wing buddies loved to watch TV shows about the suffering of young women trying to make their way in a hostile misogynist world.
Turning from the spectre of women defending their reproductive freedom to the spectre of a powerful young woman asserting herself with brio and passion to help figure out how to save the planet, Ross' fascination and revulsion keeps expressing itself now on an almost daily basis
6
Republicans must accept climate change so they can be part of the solution. But the New Green Deal is a communist manifesto complete with the necessary Soviet-like 10 year plan. Trump Derangement Syndrome has proven contagious to my Democratic friends who insist on helping Trump to win four more years. Many Republicans, including this writer, want to join with Democrats to reverse climate change. But the lunacy of the New Green Deal will stop that effort because rather than the promise of a hippy dream, it is a long bad trip. Venezuela did as Thatcher predicted and ran out of spending other people's money. Then they printed more.
2
In our case, however, we just send all the money to the 1% for safe-keeping. Then it's no longer "other people's money". If that's prudence, I'll take "socialusm" any day.
In reading comments by the supposedly sober, fiscally responsible Right (and their "centrist" enablers)the shallowness of comprehension, the lazy dependence on slogans, the lack of even rudimentary compassion and the resort to perjorative epithets as if they are cogent argument is, well, simply depressing.
@dudley thompson keep your comment in your wallet because when the climate change really gets going you will be talking a different story.
We need dramatic thinking and leadership and the alternative to bold leaders like AOC are regressive science-denying know-nothings like Trump and the entire GOP. She should be applauded for her attempt to confront the problem not called names and disparaged.
6
@alan
Anyone who believes that AOC's "new green deal" is a reality denier. Just to replace gasoline with some kind of electric power would mean building 12965738 Megawatts of new generation. That is more than all the
electric generation currently installed in the US. And that is just gasoline.
4
Ross has written about how his right wing buddies love to watch TV shows about the suffering of young women trying to make their way in a hostile misogynist world.
Turning from the spectre of women defending their reproductive freedom to the spectre of a powerful young woman asserting herself with brio and passion to help figure out how to save the planet, Ross' fascination and revulsion keeps expressing itself now on an almost daily basis
1
I like the part where AOC said that she, to prevent climate change, will never fly in an airplane again.
Oh wait, she didn’t say that?
7
Or use a car with an internal combustion engine, or purchase anything that was transported in any of its component forms using an internal combustion engine, or use any electric vehicle with juice generated by fossil fuels (i.e. most of current production), or either eat or use an animal product... etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps she could also refrain from continuously exhaling CO2, which apparently causes the previously unknown phenomenon of hurricanes.
4
@RLS , @Bob Why not just throw all your garbage in the street? According to this mornings Times, Andromeda is going to crash into the Milky Way someday, so what's the point? If nothing much matters, why even write in the comment section?
I'm glad you weren't tasked to fighting (and beating) the Axis powers.
@Almighty Dollar
Your impressive command of facts and logic has converted me! Let’s tear up industrial society and beat the Axis powers together! Then we can relax together under a windmill, enjoy a locally grown cocktail, and toast the unendingly perfect climate we have achieved!
I am not a fan of socialists or fascists. I dislike hypocrisy. Ross is in the glass house throwing stones. I could make a list hundreds of pages long that detail the many ways the Republican Party engages in what Ross describes as socialism (for example, government programs providing support for farmers, ranchers, oil and gas, mining....). The debate he creates is around economic philosophy, which is a lie - it is all about means to an end and who benefits from government spending. Ross seizes a moral high ground built on sand.
3
Ross, as a left of center citizen I find this particular screed most heartening.
I mean you could have just taken a ten year old column that screamed SOCIALISM!!!, word processed it a bit and voila you've changed it from attacks on health care, (Clinton's or Obama's) to climate change.
To me this means that conservatives can't even come up with new lies, much less new actual ideas (see "repeal and replace" ), with no actual replace.
Without some intervention in markets, lots of people won't use seatbelts, will always buy the cheapest, and least efficient light bulbs, but big shiny gas guzzlers, etc.
But by all means let's wait until lower Manhattan is underwater, the inland sea returns to the middle U. S. and the people already seeing their shoreline and island homes around the world shrinking year by year become massive waves of refugees seeking space on ever disappearing dry land.
4
Once again I tried to read Mr. Douthat with an open mind. But when a Conservative starts expressing concerns about budget deficits and the national debt I hear a loud ringing in my ears that pretty much drowns everything else out.
Here's an idea, Ross. Use your energy to help clean up your own house and the incredible budget debacle created by your own leadership and then you can return to scolding us and our "Socialist Overlords." (I know you meant that as some kind of joke, but it landed with a thud as most political dog whistles do.)
10
The New Deal of the 1930's could have been called Socialism, too. The government went into debt and created work for those suffering the consequences of the Great Depression.
But it wasn't, and hasn't been, labelled perjoratively. It helped the American people.
Now, everyday Americans have not seen their spending power increase in decades. Wages are stagnant. Since right before the 2008 Great Recession, corporations have hoarded or reinvested their liquid assets. Trump's tax reduction was funneled into stock buy backs.
With a Senate and administration currently supporting environmental pollution, cutting healthcare, replacing public with private schools, removing civil rights protections, not fixing rotting infrastructure, not training workers for a future of robotics, tech and AI, laying tariffs that punish Americans, and an obstinate refusal to support green energy and green products for the benefit of fossil fuel barons,
there is a huge void to be filled by a New Deal. Support of Green tech jobs and products. Public school and infrastructure upgrades. Re-installing Obama-era environmental protections and hiring people to enforce them. Hiring more people at the border to screen immigrant applications. Hiring more immigration judges. Strengthening FDA food and drug screening for carcinogens, and hiring people to do these evaluations. A return to proportional taxation.
Essentially, a New Deal for the average American, not the 1%.
3
It is columns like this that remind me why we should be banding together to vote out every Republican at the local, state and federal levels. Our two most pressing non-social issues are health care and climate change. Republicans won't/can't even discuss possible solutions or alternatives because they don't even acknowledge that there are problems.
However, when it comes to climate change, let's be blunt. No matter what we do in the United States climate change is coming. The developing world in particular China and India will overwhelm whatever fossil fuel emission reductions the US and Europe achieve in the next 50 years. That means that any New Green Deal needs to include mitigation policies such as land use planning in coastal areas to lessen the impact of larger, more frequent storms.
3
Dear Ross,
Your statement “blueprint for fighting climate change that manages to confirm every conservative critique of liberal environmental activism, every Republican suspicion of what global-warming alarm is really all about” shows the core disbelief in science that is the basis for environmentalism. The objective evidences demonstrating that global warming is real are overwhelming. No one can completely predict the consequences however it is highly likely that they are already and will continue to be significant. This is not a socialist plot nor were the significant air and water pollution in the USA in the 80s that were significantly remediated by environmental laws. Back then many conservatives used the same ignore the facts, paint the environmentalists as socialists and out to destroy the economy. Now, as then, the youth of the country know what is real and what is at stake and will insist on action for their futures. AOC is speaking for that youth and it is healthy for our country. Where is the Republican AOC to present a compelling alternative solution? There isn’t one which you should tell you about the future of the Republican Party.
By giving young workers the flexibility to pursue new job opportunities, including trying a start up of their own, universal health care would help revitalize the economy.
2
As is so often the case, labels, such as "socialism" and "socialist," become handy bullseye targets for those who wish to denigrate, rather than discuss, the proposals of someone like AOC. It's so much easier to label and dismiss than to engage in serious discussion of the issues it raises. That Ocasio-Cortez's proposal is so broad and sweeping only makes it that much easier to reflexively mark it for extinction.
It has been obvious, given the propensities of the Trump administration, that the incrementalism of the Obama era can, in so many ways, be easily erased, let alone dialed back. So it's certainly not unreasonable to consider that AOC's broad, sweeping and directional thrust contains some commendable nuggets that are well worthy of consideration. This is not only because they would reinstate some of the Obama-era goals, but also because they take a look over the horizon, see where we're heading, and offer a serious look at alternatives that would improve life for so many.
The challenge for Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters will be to flesh out the proposals in a serious way, highlighting details, consequence both positive and negative, costs and challenges in order to precipitate a serious discussion of what she's suggesting.
The bigger challenge will be to convince a sufficient number of Americans to overlook the big, red badge she so proudly and loudly wears: "socialist."
First they dismiss and idea. Then they mock an idea. Then they combat the idea. Then the idea takes hold. The Green New Deal is the opening salvo in a revolution of policy, technology, energy revolution, political alignment, and new direction that will someday overtake this country. This is so because our very existence depends on it. The road we are travelling, with it's income inequality, increasing poverty, climate catastrophes, and rampant dark money, self-dealing, and corruption throughout all of government is unsustainable. If you want to look at what is unrealistic just look at the neo-liberal, trickle down, economics with attendant deficit spending we have been following since Reagan. For once, with the Bushes and Clintons swept away we are seeing fresh faces with fresh ideas come to the fore. Will it all happen the way it's laid out in the GND? No, it won't. However, the conversation has begun. Engagement has begun. The new is being born. In the end, hopefully, we will find the way forward as we reinvent ourselves once again.
10
The Green New Deal is a smart opening bid in a high stakes game being fought for the future of humanity on this planet, made with the knowledge that in any deal negotiation it is better to start big so that the opposing side's response offers something to compromise over. It is to be devoutly hoped that the final deal will result in playing the game in 'no Trump'.
3
In 1961, John F Kennedy launched the "man on the moon" project, in response to Sputnik and the Soviet space program. It created a powerful commitment to and vision of the US as leader in the space program and provided NASA with the tools and finances to launch this major US program. The program was a huge success, with a man walking on the moon in 1969. A Green New Deal is the same idea. The US government would spearhead a movement to make us the leader in creating viable alternative energy resources that could literally save the planet. A 10 year crash program to do this would focus attention on climate changes and put the United States in the forefront of world attention. Cheap and sustainable renewable energy programs could improve the lives of people all around the world. And of course it would not be solely a government program, but a public-private initiative in the best sense. We probably have to wait for a new president to value this idea, but it's a vision worth proposing and supporting. My thanks to the "future socialist overlords" (very silly statement) for proposing this idea and beginning such an important discussion.
5
Like health care, and more specifically the ACA, conservatives are full of criticism, ridicule, and skepticism but offer nothing in the way of an alternative plan.
And now that they have their precious tax cuts, their answer to everything will be "No thank you" and then it's off to the airwaves to accuse liberals of - God forbid - trying to make the world a better place.
5
Most of the critics here conflate two issues: first, the world is ending, we must do something and second, what we must do is destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist utopia ala the Green New Deal. Ergo, if you are against the second, you must be denying the first.
On the contrary, one can believe we should do something about climate change while also believing that the best way is to harness the unparalleled power of free markets, capitalism, and human ingenuity.
3
Climate change is real. The consequences will be dire. Action is required now.
Constructive thought here is useful, necessary and needed.
This article is none of those.
4
What the left is learning from France is that is won't do to ask those on the losing end of extreme and pointless inequality to shoulder the burden of changing the world for a better future. Social and environmental sustainability demand the same thing, taking care of each other through an enormous shared effort.
That this may frustrate the short term interests of our current corporate overlords is hardly an argument for capitalism. A more accurate term for what we are now calling socialism is just cooperation. Capitalism has had long enough to show that we aren't going to compete our way to solving climate change.
1
Is socialism really that bad compared to the failing plutocracy we have now?
4
Yes
@ray
Perhaps you should ask some Venezuelans?
Good for you!! this is not a political issue; it's a human one. Why not just go big?
1
It’s been clear to me from the beginning that this was the plan all along. Global warming is the perfect excuse for seizing total control over all aspects of society and the economy. All human activities generate carbon dioxide, therefore regulating carbon dioxide is the power to regulate literally everything, including- what kind of car you drive, what kind of house you should live in, what kind of food you should eat, how many children you should have, how long you should live. Little things like that. Why shouldn’t the socialists reach out to take that power?
4
I refuse, at least for today, to read a column that begins with a potshot mockery spit at Alexandra Octavio-Cortez. Why is it so hard to support a politician who, regardless whether we agree with her politics or not, is passionate and alive, seems to care about regular working class, middle class people, looks like a female version of FDR? Why the necessity to cruelly mock her just for trying to make life on a burning to death planet earth better for its species? Has Republicanism’s deep-dive into money and power and greed killed off all forms of passionate political life?
15
So We’re Done With GOP claiming that Climate Change is not real- - It’s now a disingenuous left-wing plot -
6
Sure, there's plenty to poke at in the Green New Deal, but "future dictator for life of the Americas" and other assorted extreme hyperbole? Ross, why do you gotta be that way? You can write circles around me with one hand tied behind you back (metaphorically speaking) but you don't need to dial it up to 11.
3
Please, spare me the socialist fear mongering. This isn't about socialism. This is about power, money, and selfishness. The ultra-rich want only to keep their billions no matter what. Paying their fair share so we can begin to heal the planet is not acceptable. Well guess what. The rest of us are finally saying enough.
4
The Republicans think they have a socialist ogre to maintain their rule of fear over the uneducated voter. But storms, fires and rising waters are continuing to show voters what is truly horrifying.
Just read a handful of comments and sadly saw that they corroborate Mr Douthat's observations beyond what I might have imagined --- it's just abut the socialist agenda rather than a "vision" of sorts.
Nuclear energy fixes climate change tomorrow -- period.
1
The weakest Democratic candidates often wind up with most money and publicity in this utterly fake simulation of democracy.
1
No Ross ... you're just reciting the same old right wing pablum. Why are conservatives so afraid that America might actually become a working, deliberative democracy .. instead of the sad, twisted parody that it has become out of fealty to dogma and utterly fallacious nostrums?
How bout three cheers for the New Green Deal, and making America truly great again!
2
Sorry, but it is not the goal of the Left to realize the worst nightmares of the Right wing media. It is the goal of the Right wing media to convince you that anything the Left proposes will result in a totalitarian nightmare.
3
I don’t understand how it is you advocate for spending more money on “basic science”, when you are completely ignoring what basic science warns about climate change. It isn’t just some tides and storms and heat, it’s millions of lives lost, trillions in economic damage, and the potential for a feedback loop that becomes unmanageable and ends up wiping out most of humanity. Your ideas and viewpoint are usually very well thought out and eloquently presented, but on this subject you have no substance to contribute because you refuse to engage with the real risks we face.
3
This is the classic sales technique of putting the first ask so high that after a vast, vast compromise -- after a purchase of only .001% of what you were pretending to sell -- you get the sale you wanted all along.
Socialism is snake territory. Just snakes.
2
Turning from the spectre of women defending their reproductive freedom to the spectre of a powerful young woman asserting herself with brio and passion to help figure out how to save the planet, Ross's hysteria keeps mounting.
4
The idea of free everything for everyone, even or especially non-citizens, is a socialist mirage (or a demonstration of blinding stupidity).
Confiscating the wealth of a relatively small number of US billionaires may provide a one-time windfall, but watch what happens when billionaires and multi-millionaires move offshore.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
4
@Ro Ma - The notion that people like AOC and Sanders advocate "free everything for everyone", is a right-wing mirage.
Saint Ronnie Reagan brought the top tax rate down from 70% to 50%. If 50% was good enough for him it's good enough for me. Personally, I'd be thrilled to see the top rate raised to 50%. If it takes threatening 70% to get there then by all means, threaten away, AOC et al.
Of course there's a lot more to the tax issue than that, i.e. capital gains, investment income rates, tax shelters, etc. But the conversation has to start somewhere and AOC provides as good a starting point as any.
If raising taxes means our precious billionaires flee like Ayn Rand's FICTIONAL John Galt and his buddies that's fine with me. Where would they go? Europe? Taxes are higher there. Russia? They'd probably be very welcome among the oligarchs. Of course, back home in the USA you can be sure we'd be doing everything legally possible to stop them moving their assets. If they really want to get away from pesky regulations and taxes they could always go to Somalia.
2
It’s truly frightening to me to see that significant numbers of people could see this plan as anything other than completely insane.
5
@Greg - Have you read it, the actual plan, not just the reporting on it?
Here's a link to the actual document. It's not that long and worth reading. I struggle to see what is insane in it. It basically proposes that the USA do things similar to what a lot of other wealthy industrial democracies are already doing.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
@Greg
Partisan and ideology are two things that make fools of people. Also give the crazies a lot of air cover.
1
Democrats are making a big mistake by going off the deep end. The issue is can the country afford to do what they are proposing and they need to sell the need to the general public. This could be a greaat way for Trump to get reelected.
4
So far the Democrats area doing everything possible to lose the 2020 elections big time.
4
@Asher Because Trump has so much to offer.
The idea of free everything for everyone, even or especially non-citizens, is a socialist mirage (or a demonstration of blinding stupidity).
Confiscating the wealth of a relatively small number of US billionaires may provide a one-time windfall, but watch what happens when billionaires and multi-millionaires move offshore.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
4
@Ro Ma.... "socialism " has become another GOP dog whistle. The NGD does not suggest the "idea of free every thing for everyone , even or especially non-citizens". There is no plan to "confiscate" the wealth of anyone. Rather it calls for a fair , efficient and progressive tax system.
I suggest that you do not believe everything you think.
why the faint praise, Ross? It's not like anything you or your fellow right-leaning intellectuals have come up with anything more effective, know what I'm saying?
3
With her/their Green New Deal, I hope that Sen. Markey, my home state, doesn't buy the bigotry and anti-semitism that seems to come along with it.
5
Some ‘faint praise’ after trying to shred the proposals by viewing them through his own (myopic IMHO) ideological lense. Too bad Ross still doesn’t grasp that we are truly in a crisis. How many more polar vortices, level 5 hurricanes, and fire storms like those in Calif the last 2-3 years will it take for him and others to get over their denial?!? Our children, and in my case grandchild, need us to take charge here. Instead, we dither along.
2
Get your terminology correct: you may mean "social democracy," such as the governments in some Scandinavian countries.
Perhaps you mean a socialist government like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Stalin, which is the only true example we have. Most "conservative Republicans" use the term to frighten Americans with that vision of government.
1
Of more immediate concern than climate change is the storm surrounding O.A.C. Your sarcasm belies a systemic problem in our society today. Other than being a social media savant the 'congresswoman of some sort' has done nothing in her life but sense the vulnerability of a supposedly secure Democratic congressman. Perhaps if this New New Deal was coming from someone other than a publicity hound, it would actually accomplish something. The glaring absence of the name Pelosi from this article says as much about the matter as what you do say.
2
Are you echoing Nancy Pelosi's "green dreams or something? With the complicity of the majority of the democrats in congress and you guys with your lobbyists you have sold out our children's future on this planet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presents a plan to begin addressing this outrage. We can help by calling out any of our representatives who take money from big oil, coal & gas. That money is a bribe to keep polluting the planet at an even faster pace before clean energy makes fossil fuel obsolete. Go to opensecrets.com.
We are attempting to turn the Titanic before it hits the iceberg, and it's late and the power of global corporations is against us. Who will put their shoulder to the wheel?
4
This comment unlocks the greatest mystery of life—why people don’t live forever. Quite clearly, the answer is that if people were able to live forever, they would most certainly kill themselves, rather than have to endure the same regurgitated nonsense that conservatives spew.
It is if there is some ancient, dusted playbook that is uncovered every political cycle to speak to the evils of change. Ironically, the average conservative would rather flush our planet down the toilet than make even slight adjustments to a capitalistic system that has existed an almost insignificant period of humanity’s existence.
Happily for conservatives this latest bogeyman has a number of qualities that help the reaction— she is young, a woman, and has some tint to her skin.
Get ready for her to be the star Democrat, not by the Party’s choice but by the real powers that control every lever.
The thinking that presents this column reaffirms my belief that our planet is doomed.
2
When I hear about this idea I think of John Kenney's speech in 1962. Here's a quote from the speech:
"But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold. " We made it in 1968.
Ten years before our 5th grade teacher told us that we would land on the moon in our lifetime. We didn't believe it. I see this is a similar charge. I think it's the best thing this country has seen in decades.
1
The Green New Deal can open an overdue discussion that offers a third path - beyond socialism and capitalism: The Second Income Plan.
The late Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP - used by 11,000 companies, recognized the need for an answer to automation and in the process outlined an approach to economics that can end poverty, sharply reduce inequality, and provide every individual with the purchasing power needed for a healthy economy.
Wise implementation would include a Universal Basic Income which otherwise has no chance of becoming law. This would be temporary, as Second Incomes supersede it. The combined program would have no net cost too the Treasury, as rising incomes would repay loans that launch The Second Income Plan
Worry about stock market gyrations can be eliminated by Nissam Taleb's suggestion in his book The BLACK SWAN for 85-90% of individual investment to be in ultra safe Treasury Bills and the rest in a wide assortment of high risk ventures.
BLACK SWANS are highly improbable events with enormous implications. Positive BLACK SWAN technologies can replace fossil fuels much faster. They include cheap and easy conversion of vehicles to running on water instead of gas, diesel or jet fuel. Also, engines have been invented which need no fuel - and self-powered air conditioners requiring no refrigerants.
New science is attacked as impossible. See aesopinstitute.org to learn more about SECOND INCOMES & breakthrough technologies.
4
Th last major Opinion intervention from Ross Douthat, the noted partial Catholic priest personality posing as a jouranlist and present-day propagandist for the right-wing white Christian alliance, opens with this:
"The first major policy intervention from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas (I believe she’s also a congresswoman of some sort)..."
This is the most irresponsible opening line in the history of the NYT Op-Eds, in my view.
Coming from Ross though -- whose pieces are informed mostly by scripture, and who sides with the science deniers who work assiduously to bury the overwhelming evidence of global warming from man-made dependence on fossil fuels -- it comes as no surprise.
As an American, I am proud to have a women of conviction, who speaks truth to old white men in power, as a member of the United States Congress.
14
@GM - I used to enjoy reading Douthat even though I usually disagreed with him. But in the last 2-3 weeks he seems to be changing. He is becoming derisive, derogatory. Whatever it is that is troubling him I hope he gets over it soon.
1
@GM ... and I am a 62 year-old white male note from her Congressional district. But AOC represents me so well!!
1
My guess is that a full blown socialism, American /Swedish/Danish style, without the El Cadillo south of the border corruption-ridden/Marxist authoritarian cudgel, just might be necessary to tackle the most intractable problems of climate change. Stockholm isn’t Caracas or Havana and Washington will never forget Jefferson’ charter.
2
At the end of the day, all Douhat cares about is having a reactionary right wing court that will give men like him complete dominion over a woman’s reproductive system and give “Christians” like him the right to legally discriminate against gays in the name of their intolerant God.
The fate of the planet is no concern to Christian extremists.
8
I oppose the "Green New Deal." FDR must be rolling over in his grave at the sound of it. Such a boondoggle will raise my taxes! Moreover, AOC and her foolish followers will never be my socialist overlords. Thank you.
2
@Southern Boy..... Sir you are apparently only concerned about taxes. In case you missed it, taxes are what make civil society possible. The tax adverse GOP seems only concerned with their own wealth and welfare, not the welfare of our citizenry as a whole.
@Nicholas DeLuca,
I support taxes for legitimate things like national defense, things that have meaning, things that have a purpose, not Green New Deal nonsense. Thank you.
With this op-ed Mr. Douthat reaffirms his membership in the group talking heads who chooses to misrepresent what he opposes.
I encourage readers to turn to first sources whenever possible, while still reading the generally more legitimate news media such as the NYT, despite its occasional failings.
Here is a link to the actual document presented to Congress. It is only 14 pages long and the first few pages can be skipped because they are the usual "whereas" and "it is resolved" stuff.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
5
@J Jencks
Perfect! I agree completely with your advice to seek out the primary materials.
I am headed there right now.
2
@john.jamotta - Thanks!
When I read it I fail to find any hidden pernicious Socialist plot to undermine "Amerika's values". Of course, if it's there and I'm somehow missing it I welcome people providing me with convincing evidence of its presence. I might even change my opinions. It's been known to happen. But I'm not going to be swayed by misrepresentation such as Douthat's.
1
@J Jencks Where ever the conversation takes us, I am impressed by your advice. Which is, if I may paraphrase a bit, citizens need to do the hard work of being educated about the circumstances of our culture. In your example, if you want to opine about the GND, at least read the document that you are either for or against.
I appreciate you.
What if climate change is just a big hoax? We will have created a cleaner, greener, and safer world...for nothing!
6
If you look at the CO2 graph that's been charted since 1950 from atop a mountain in Hawaii, it is has gone up along side global temperature. The evidence is so obvious, a third grader could figure it out.
@Bard I see what you did there.
Nice.
Really? A desire to see the earth saved for future generations is really a conspiracy to take control by socialists? And you have gathered the info for a conspiracy where? Wiretaps? FBI investigations? Tell-tale slips of the tongue? Russ’ views are so bizarre as to stagger the imagination. Particularly in a country which just gave corporations >$1 trillion in tax breaks. This must be part of the socialist conspiracy. Bankrupt the US economy so socialists can take over. This surely must seem more likely to be the socialist conspiracy.
5
At least the left is finally honest in telling us that they want to rule every part of our lives
4
@Common Sense Returns
Indeed! Look at Bret Kavanaugh he promised Susan Collins one thing and then turned around and did just the opposite. So Susan Collins has to live with that.
2
So, Douthat denigrates Liberals with the sam tires "Socialist Overlords" meme. (Yawn.)
Meanwhile, he, being the good Catholic that he is, wants to be a Conservative Dictator over most aspects of other people's lives, like the right for women to have autonomy over their opwn bodies, the right for LGBT to be treated equally under the law, the right for non-Christians to be fully embraced by American culture, etc.
Sorry, but I'll take a Socialist Overlord over a Conservative Dictator any day!
(And for all of you AOC-hating pundits: You're just jealous that she suddenly has achieved more attention and has prompted more meaningful discussion about important socio-political issues in just a few months than you have managed to do over your entire careers!)
4
This is a belated (sorry!) response to the column “Staying Catholic at Christmas” (12/23/2018)
It’s not just that I “don’t find that message credible,” as Douthat fears: I find it hateful and antisemitic. He insults generations of biblical heroes, beginning with Abraham and Isaac, as “long-dead Israelites” and “a pack of egregious sinners.” There is no shame in being long dead (it will happen to all of us). Only antisemites disparage Israelites out of hand. I can think of plenty of long-dead Christians whose medieval detritus can be laid out next to their Israelite predecessors.
Douthat seems not to understand basic Christian theology. There’s a good reason those “begats” are there. It has nothing to do with misgivings about the begotten. The main tenet of Christianity is the dogma of Jesus as messiah. In Jewish tradition, the messiah will be a descendent of King David. If Jesus is not a descendent of King David, then the Christian religion is a nonstarter. Ergo the “begats” (and other efforts of Christian scripture to identify Jesus with David).
(con't.)
At last we have someone in high office, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, addressing Global Warming and offering policy changes to address it.
Now, we can argue about how to implement these changes, but any thinking person knows that we need to address Global Warming.
Mr. Douthat, you are a columnist for a very important news platform. If you don't like Ms.Ocasio-Cortez's ideas then critique them intelligently and offer your solutions. Your snarky review is not helpful and is in fact damaging.
6
AOC will be elected President one day.
4
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is so busy branding herself and planning to watch the Grammys with Chrissy Teigen that her very disturbing, laudatory phone call with Jeremy Corbyn seems to just have been swept under the rug. When asked about the disgusting anti-Semitic history of Mr. Corbyn, Ocasio-cortez remarked that she'd "get her team on it.."
Really??
I've read The Green New Deal, and the FAQS ,which I recommend highly for another explanation of it..Offering strong strategies to combat climate change is urgently needed, there's no doubt. So is a level of common sense and practicality. I can view some strengths in the GND, and also see the negatives. On top of removing our usage of nuclear and hydroelectric power, retrofitting every building in the United States, etc., we're facing a huge commitment to retraining millions of people (I think that's a necessity for the future..) But then, it also includes a complete restructuring of our government, including the strange phrase about providing a comfortable life to all those "unable or unwilling to work." Something of this amorphous shape and enormous breadth should be able to be looked at in its entirety, with careful consideration and attention to what scientists and economists say. I'll do that, but to ignore that it's a wish list for the Justice Democrats is ridiculous, and to act like support of it is a litmus test is equally so. I want to hear many ideas, even those that seem more immediately achievable.
"Our future socialist overlords" are trying to save the planet and its human civilization from unprecedented climate catastrophe before it's too late. Sadly, it may already be too late.
AOC is on the right side of history, science and morality but this might be enough to clear the mountain of stupidity AKA "conservatism."
6
It's all very well for Ross Douthat to sit and scoff over his straw man fantasies about Dictator-For-Life Ocasio-Cortez. After all, he thinks God is going to make everything ok in the end, so we don't have to worry too much.
Well, I think we are a bunch of monkeys on a small rock with a big problem, and we're all on our own. So to me, Douthat's scoffing comes across as the most absurd and reckless hubris.
7
Aw gee, Ross, couldn't you exercise your intellect just a little more to avoid that standard conservative bogeyman--socialism? It's like the irresistible crack for the right. I know you want to stop, but you just can't.
Having said as much, the sooner Ocasio-Cortez is shuffled out of the body politic, the better. At least the blow-dried talking heads on Fox just pretend to know nothing in the honorable service of pandering. AOC is the real thing.
Her Green New Deal is toweringly ignorant of technical realities, despite her smug assertion of certain expertise. Her only redeeming virtue, other than having some dance game, is that she drives conservatives batty.
A sick disgusting and vicious attack on science and reality is something one hopes for on Sunday morning. It is doubly welcome coming from someone who purports to be Christian on Sunday morning.
At a time when Europe is culling its herds of cattle and the Dutch are hoping to make all its buildings energy neutral in the decade Ross Douthat wants to bring us back to the time of the Irish Starvation because that was the time of real freedom. It was a time time when men of means could cull two million souls from the Irish economy and The Economist could applaud the death of a million peasants and the deportation of a million others in a land where food export was Ireland's wealth and food was readily exported and food for subsistence was forbidden entry. It was after all God's will and the potato blight was God's way of showing us who should live and who shall die.
This time however not only the poorest peasants will die but we will save the economy for the non biological life forms that we have created.
I am disgusted, we all know much of America is demented and AOC only reflects the scientific consensus of 90+% the world's experts but who can argue with a lunatic who listens to God. Who needs a Pope when Douthat speaks directly to God?
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose as we inherit the wind.
7
The fundamental problem with the Green New Deal is that it mixes several issues about which reasonable people can (and always will) disagree with a near-term existential issue about which no reasonable people ought to disagree. We can debate paths to address climate change or even its pace, but the science has advanced to prove a clear and present danger.
Full employment, universal healthcare, and broader social justice issues are all important, and they can even be debated and acted on simultaneously if possible, but they must not be linked. Progressives must not hold the future of the planet hostage to progressive ideals.
We’ve made climate legislation to complex before, and Senator Markey should know. The Obama era cap and trade scheme, the Waxman-Markey Bill, became mired in feeding trough fight for which special interest groups would be given allowances that could be sold for cash. Anyone who didn't get "enough" allowances opposed the deal.
Ross is correct that the Right will use this as proof of progressives' using climate as an excuse for government intervention. It is not necessary to win over Repbulicans (I'd argue there are no more Republicans--only Trumpists), but it is necessary to bring in the center, and the tactic of pushing any potential Democratic candidate to declare immediate and full support for the Green New Deal furthers shrinks the tent.
Let's focus on the existential issue where Reason has only one side.
2
Bravo, David Wenstrup!!! You said it so much better than I did.
1 important factor in the rise of national popularity of AOC is that she is young , has a pretty smile and knows how to show off very expensive accoutrements. Were she 49 instead of 29, doubt that she would enjoy the same acclaim, benefit of the doubt, and her ideas would be subject to heavier scrutiny. Media loves youth. We all love youth and if no longer young seek in our heart of hearts to find a "deuxieme jeunesse!"Over glasses of whiskey in the home of JJ Susini, "former "bete a penser" of the OAS, but then living at 11 rue Cernusci, he informed me that many of the French army officers who defected to the OAS were veterans of the Resistance and and sought to recreate their experience underground by joining the Secret Army and resisting De Gaulle's plans for Algerian independence! Congresswoman Cortez understands the value of youth, and is capitalizing on it. Thus,hats off to her, "chap[eau!"Youth is her buffer zone, which is why she replies to calls to debate by Ben Shapiro by calling him a heckler and gets away with it!
1
Of course the Green New Deal is overreaching and borderline cartoonish. So was the idea of mobilizing an army capable of invading another continent while simultaneously fighting a ferocious enemy in the Pacific. Perhaps, as you suggest Ross, the overreach will simply prompt a movement in the right direction. If a conservative such as yourself is willing to make one cheer, how can the notion be that preposterous.
Of course, conservatives could come up with a technological fix that would save the planet and capitalism at the same time. We're waiting.
4
While I agree that Sanders & Co tend to be unrealistic, we are facing an existential crisis for all of humanity. Capitalism has failed and we need some fresh, radical ideas. People like Ross are afraid of the wrong things.
5
Ok Ross, research/resilience/directed spending; a good place to start. A beginning which can grow with both the necessities of climate change and the results of resilience efforts which prove worthy.
"...would spend more [taxpayer] money on basic science, alternative-energy adaptations and mitigation in the communities most likely to be affected by storms and tides and heat."
Would that be California, New York and Florida? And would that government spending enable the populations in those locales to further build in wildfire prone areas and along ocean fronts threatened by rising water levels?
1
Ross' first critique of the Green Deal is that it doesn't address the possibility of "deficits and inflation."
Hasn't he heard? "Deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney, and implicitly, any Republican who signed on to Trump's tax plan. When Obama was President, deficits (created by Bush W.'s tax plan and crashing of the economy) were an existential threat to the USA and prevented a quicker Recovery. (Although, it is worth noting that the "deficit austerity" that Republicans' counterparts in Europe insisted upon delayed their recoveries). But now that Trump's tax plan has returned the USA to $1T annual deficits, deficits don't matter.
So forgive us if we don't take this part of Ross' critique seriously.
4
I think Mr. Douthat is being overly obtuse in his analysis. In my reading this is more like the Republican Contract With America. It's a statement of values, intents and purpose. So, yes it is far reaching and I don't expect any serious person who supports it expects all of it at once, or at all. It does provide direction.
Since this is a proposal from the Democrats, we see that deficits are now the first line of defense. Where was/is that concern regarding the Republican tax gives-a-way to the rich?
Mr. Douthat could have used "socialist" more, but I'm not sure how. It will soon occur to him that most of US, especially those under 40 years old, don't see that as a bad thing. Many of them look at is as feature, not a bug.
OH, and if Corrupt Donnie intends to use "socialist" as a weapon against this, he will find his association with Vlad and his lack of proof of taxes paid by him and his family will undermine his standing faster that it will for Mr. Douthat.
3
AOC's Green New Deal could only rectify a small part of the problem in the US today.
The problem with an immediate need is correcting income inequality which began when middle class wages stagnated and income and wealth for the plutocrats skyrocketed.
In the 1970s corporations' share of tax revenue was in the mid-30-percentile. Now it is less than 7% and even zero.
After WWII, GIs came home demanding more and the democrats gave them the GI Bill of Rights, which elevated the level of education from high school to college, moving the middle class to be able to buy homes, have cars and a decent lifestyle predicated on a livable wage.
In the 1970s, corporations went on a course to take away the post-war middle class advances. Reagan called it trickle down economics. Now, as a result of republican policies (including major tax cuts for the rich and elimination of unions and deregulation), there was no trickle down but an up-flow of wages and wealth to corporatists and the oligarchs. There is a new glass ceiling in the US today which discourages prosperity for the middle class in the form of a decent living wage and other work benefits, which were secured for workers after WWII.
It's true that environmental issues are critical, but more critical is the breaking of this new glass ceiling, which since the 70s has diverted a sharing of the wealth from the middle class to the corporatist oligarchs.
So, do we want an oligarchy or a democracy? That's the critical problem to be solved.
7
Mr. Douthat, stop parroting Trump's Red Scare campaign tactic about the socialist bogeyman. Socialism is not communism. Every democratic nation on this earth has a social safety net, many better than ours, to protect the poor, the sick, the old and unemployed. It is simply a hallmark of good government. And if the democratic socialists who won our votes now seek to do something about climate chante and protect our environment, I say "Right on!"
20
"Economic security for all those unwilling to work". Karl Marx must be smiling in his grave
8
@Utopian
There is no one unwilling to work when work pays off. There are many who are unable to work, many who are prevented from working and many who work and are paid slave wages, while the fat cats get fatter and fatter and fatter.
Ayn Rand must be smiling in her grave.
@Utopian
Now they're claiming she meant "incapable" of working. AOC's vocabulary cannot be that bad.
I'm part of that dying breed, a centrist. I like my ideology tempered with practicality and pragmatism. But having lived through nearly a decade of idiot ideology from right wing zealots, I am not ready to condemn the left. Maybe, like some giant mathematical expression, they will cancel each other out.
If we are required to suffer fools -gladly or not -I am perfectly willing to suffer ones who value air and water. And who value human existence as a greater goal than driving the tax rate to zero.
Want this centrist to resist the left? Rein in the confederacy of dunes on the right.
16
The GND is a piece of absolute political brilliance. Start out with something so ridiculous, you will achieve a lot of policy objectives by getting just 2% of what is in there
6
It is simply amazing how ignorant the NYT’s readers are. Germany already tried their own version of the GND, the “Energiewende”. It failed miserably. They closed nuclear power plants and invested heavily into solar and wind. They had to build coal plants to back up the intermittent nature of renewables. Electricity rates are now nearly 4x US rates and their carbon footprint is growing. German automakers are now building plants in the US because energy is too expensive at home.
Then there are the Yellow Jacket riots in France. They were caused by a mere $0.20 tax increase to the price of petrol. But that’s because the common man had to pay it. Like AOC they would have okay with the tax if just the rich had to pay it.
The GND is no different than any other liberal idea. Even if it is ineffective throwing money at the problem is good so long as it is someone else’s money.
6
Actually, the reason of Yellow jackets is not the tax increase, but tax increase on poor while cutting taxes on rich and weakening worker's protection?
Sort of like starting wars for no good reason.
It's unfortunately not amazing in the least that petro-capitalist screeds make up nonsense to bamboozle those unwilling to check the facts.
As to the German experience, start here, and follow links to real ... reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany
Not everything has gone perfectly and the German decision to abruptly shutdown most of the nuclear reactors after Chernobyl is easy to criticize (I do). Nonetheless the facts are "From 1999 to 2014 renewable energy production rose from 29 TWh to 161 TWh, while nuclear power fell from 180 to 97 TWh and coal power production fell from 291 to 265 TWh."
Then read here:
https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-coal-power-20190126-story.html
ALL of those coal plants, are closing.
1
What nonsense you speak Mr Douthat. The American idea of left wing socialism is what most sensible countries consider moderate centrism.
4
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
The Green New Deal document could have been written by Lenin, Stalin, Castro, or Kruschchev -- all the great failed central planners of history. Let's hear a Bronx cheer for this absurdity.
But make no mistake, the federal government's role as "funder of first resort" is important. DARPA funded discoveries underlie our tech reality (most every technology in your smart phone derived from DARPA investments as did GPS), and ARAP-E (signed into law by George W. Bush) underlies the fracking revolution. More funding for ARPA-E makes sense.
Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science recently ran an editorial (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/105) espousing the virtues of nuclear energy -- which the New Green Deal rejects. And Bill Gates -- not the Federal government -- funded the breakthroughs in carbon capture technology, which the New Green Deal also rejects.
The 4 cardinal sins of the left -- sloth, wrath, pride, and -- most perniciously -- envy. Dante calls...
5
And how these programs benefit to the middle class, it address the inequality, or decrease the deficit. Greed, cruelty, hypocrisy and fear mongering are the four sins of right
Let them have their fun. In two years she’ll be Cuomo’s migraine as a State Senator, the SCOTUS will be 6-3 on the way to 7-2, anti-trust proceedings will have begun against Amazon and FB, the Wall will be built and coastal elites will have no mortgage interest deduction either. Oh. And we will all STILL be laughing at those nude photos, Jeff.
1
It should be called the Red New Deal.
3
Yes Ross—let’s not do anything about climate change and keep pretending that the problem will go away. Brilliant as usual.
2
The Green New Deal is bringing out the naysayers as well as supporters of a thought process of a drastically altered society and planet. The world is changing and it's changing at lightening speed. In 70 years, world population has increased from 2.5 to 7.5 billion people. The prospect of humans turning this planet into a garbage heap is real. It's been quite a miraculous achievement how we have lifted the lives of so many, but it can also go the other direction as more and more have less and fewer and fewer have more. These are tricky times and making thoughtful and science based decisions will be critical. Older generations are accustomed to the best of times have difficulty letting go. The days of feeling safe behind national borders are over. We are facing a new world where the unbelievable becomes believable. We either all work together in fixing the dismal trajectory or face all the results of inaction together.....in which most of the older generations who contributed to the crisis will be gone leaving the legacy to their offspring.
3
Democrats need to read 'Gulliver's Travels', at least the parts about the airborne island of Laputa with its distracted intellectuals, which I think is currently floating about somewhere just west of San Francisco, and the island of Balnibarbi, with it's Royal Academy of Lagado teaming with scientists doing impractical experiments for the betterment of mankind. If Dems don't see themselves in these places there's no hope.
“the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas (I believe she’s also a congresswoman of some sort)”
If you cannot respect others - especially elected others, why should anyone respect you?
7
Our “future socialist overlords” May indeed be thinking big but our current fascist leadership isn’t thinking at all.
5
As the quotation often misattributed to Gandhi goes:
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."
In just over a month in Congress AOC has made it to the third step of the process.
Change, long overdue, is coming. And, Ross, "You will love it, Comrade!"
4
Yes, we are only a few small steps away from the benevolent rule of the Khmer Green. All it will take is for people to stop laughing. Hooray!
2
@John Graybeard - AOC is an avowed socialist that will achieve nothing more than getting Trump re-elected
2
Mr Douthat,
I understand a reasoned debate about the GND which is covered in most of your column.
But a simple question for you, why the snark?
I cant fathom how that helps, but I am open to your view.
2
Why is it that the way to solve climate change is for a bunch of self serving politicians to tell the public what needs to be done. That is not the way Eisenhower and Kennedy advanced scientific research and space exploration and yes national defense. They set a strategic goal and left the actual problem solving to the experts. When the two parties come out of their respective corners and work together using goals that could be set by the government combined by methods and metrics set by science and industry we can make progress. As long as the Left chooses to promote a command economic model and Right promotes climate change denial nothing will happen but each side earning political talking points to take to the next election campaign.
2
because the solution of problems requires money, that are not limitless so somebody should decide how prioritize. It could be done by the Government who has the feedback from the voters, it by scientists who have their own ideas that often clash with ideas of other scientists. Seems to me it is more logical to allow the Government to prioritize and allow to scientists to solve technical problems.
Its wonderful that a new, young politician like AOC is championing a big idea. Democrats are the ones with good, bold ideas. What ideas did the GOP bring during their POTUS years of Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 and now Trump? Just stupid lies and wars! It was Bill Clinton & Al Gore who talked up the Information Superhighway which became the Internet of today with all its opportunities of new ways to doing business, creating jobs, improving economy. Even if the New Green Del does not happen in its current form, just talking up big, bold ideas will bring new opportunities and exciting possibilities! Don't minimize AOC's bold plans! Leaders need to talk up a big vision for people to take it in slowly and then create something new!
4
Mr. Douthat's snide tone and sophomoric humor are totally inappropriate when discussing this existential threat. At least AOC, Markey and their supporters take it seriously. Douthat - even at this late date - still thinks it's another political game. What a guy.
5
After a billion Europeans and North Americans spend the 20th century sucking the life out of the planet for the excesses of upwardly mobile lifestyles without temperance or moderation, they now expect the 4 billion formerly third-world contributors to their luxury to forego the same. So they may enjoy the fruits of their exploitation without the inconvenience of an increasingly uncomfortable climate. Such a first world attitude - condescension wrapped in sanctimony.
Not an intervention, but a non-binding resolution sponsored by AOC and Senator Markey. You should know the difference.
Comparing this global warming to a # and full socialism and seizing America's economy is nothing more than ludicrous.
By the 5th paragraph, you are really showing your lack of insight of the resolution and what the future scope of the Green New Deal can do; you close your eyes to the very notion for working policy changes so entrenched in a #Capitalism way of doing business in America.
The narrative has been started.
Thanks for the exposure of this resolution to the editorial pages of the Sunday NY Times. Every little bit helps!
Look beyond for what it will and can accomplish- many issues we all want to be decided for our betterment, and our neighbors, for our society, we all belong to.
This is just the start for the next cheer!
1
Wow, and I always thought Jonah Goldberg had the market cornered on snide. Mr. Douthat's piece is one of the most cynical, vituperative dredgings from the bottom of the well of bitterness that I've encountered in a while. If his snarky style of communicating his viewpoint is representative of the right wing's idea of playing respectfully with others with whom you have differences, or working on serious problems facing our citizenry in a respectful, cooperative manner, then move over Jonah Goldberg.
4
AOC and her progressive colleagues are correct to evoke WW2 as an example of the national effort needed to confront global warming. The climate catastrophe is not arriving at the pace of Hitler’s blitzkrieg, which makes it a harder media sell, but the consequences will be far worse even than if Hitler had obtained the atom bomb. Average sea level has risen half a foot in my lifetime and this pace will accelerate in the coming decades. The all hands on deck moment is right now and tepid responses like the Paris climate agreement are a losing strategy. If the Green New Deal be socialism, make the most of it.
Anyone who starts an article about climate change or our feeble responses, but doesn't begin with pure alarm, has failed.
The world is on fire, Ross. Start there. Please. I have children and grandchildren whose lives look increasingly dire.
The world is on fire, and we need this younger generation to speak their honest truth through people like AOC, and we need to engage with them without cynicism. It's their future we have set alight.
The world is on fire. We need to do something big, huge, dramatic. We need to do it soon.
The world is on fire, and the kinds of autocratic measures we can expect when our citizens are starving or fighting disease and drought, when displaced peoples really are amassed on our border, will make the worst of the Green New Deal look like a weak tea of authoritarianism.
The world is on fire, Ross. And this column does nothing at all to move any solutions forward.
4
How dare you talk about deficits and socialism when your Republican Party just wrote a gigantic 1.5 trillion dollar welfare check to corporations and billionaires. That is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the working class and that is why Republicans depend on scapegoats, racism and any divisive social issue to sell their very unpopular and disingenuous scam that is trickle down 'economics'. Fox news own polling revealed that nearly 70% favor a 70% tax on income over 10 million, including a majority of Republicans. And if you want to talk Dictator, conservative economic policy is a fraud and a scam just like your Dear Leader who sounded exactly like Francisco Franco in his SOTU. I am a product of the New Deal and tax rates on the wealthy were as high as 90% during the reign of the radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower who presided over a thriving economy that actually produced broadly shared prosperity unlike the trickle down debt slavery that your GOP, along with neoliberal centrist Democrats, have created for working people in this country.
11
This is a surprisingly rightwing opinion piece by someone who got some bad information about the New Green Deal.
3
I guess you would have been skeptical about “Fulton’s Folly,” the Erie Canal, Transcontinental Railroad and Man On The Moon. Ross, it is called “vision,” the “ big picture.” Vision, outlandish vision, built America. Get out of the way!
2
A shorter Ross Douthat- What's not to like about disaster?
According to Douthat, the Iraq War, its failings & the resultant backlash, brought about Obama & the Democratic Congress of 2012.
By extension he would say-
the Trump/Koch axis made for the Green New Deal, the holocaust created Israel & the asteroid implosion brought on mammalian ascendancy.
Douthat respects disaster!
Next, declining church enrollment will urge Douthat to double his tithes to help make up for abandoning youth joining the socialists. Oh wait?
2
So , Ross, Do you parents refuse to accept social security??
2
Ha ha. Ross Douthat is so funny and global warming is such a joke! I guess the hurricane that devastated Houston to him is amusing. Or maybe the one that devastated Puerto Rico. Or, I know, the fires that devastated Paradise, California! I guess to him it's a real hoot that deadly heat waves in Australia are killing thousands of flying foxes. Ho ho ho. Ross, you should do stand up, really. Oh, I forgot to mention the devastation wrought on the Northern Mariana Islands last year or Hurricane Michael in the Florida panhandle...and I'm forgetting Bangladesh; help me out Ross. For your next column, just print out a list of all the climate related disasters of the past 5 years and we can all yuck it up together.
1
Where is the Ross that we know and tolerate, and what have you done with Him ???
Seriously.
2
I going to break bad and become a cheeseburger cook ala Walter White.
From Ross' piece; "compromising on adaptationist public works, on “big, beautiful” infrastructure projects (to borrow our president’s rhetoric) that don’t pretend to solve climate change but do mitigate its consequences."
Ross, if we don't eventually stop our human -caused climate change, mitigation of its harmful effects will never end. Should we plan to adapt to a catastrophe that we willfully continue to bring on ourselves, and that could be prevented? Yes, adaptation and mitigation will be (and is now) necessary to save lives and protect property. But adaptation and mitigation may well be dangerously counterproductive, and ultimately futile, if human caused climate change is not slowed now and ultimately stopped.
3
You may not agree with the solution, but AOC is offering a bold vision for a real problem affecting us all. This in contrast to the right offering a narrow vision (a wall) for a minor problem (crime caused by people coming in from Mexico) affecting a few.
9
Sure, R&D will eventually address man made global warming, but only out of desperate necessity after a crisis point is reached.
"Research and resilience" is not a viable strategy going in, because it really not a strategy at all. It's a rationale to to do nothing, to perpetuate the status quo with token lip service to incrementalism.
Any meaningful attempt to mitigate the worst effects of climate change before we are in a purely reactive mode is going to require top-down coordination, and sacrifice. That is, after all, why we elect our "leaders". We will not have it have it both ways. No spontaneous libertarian groundswell of altruism will save us in our complacency. Worried about blowback from the "gilets jaunes" rioting over a few euros? What about food shortages or mass immigration?
But I agree on certain aspects of your critique of today's progressives. However, I don't see it is a failure of ideas, but a failure arising out the the lazy, arrogant assumption that a good idea alone is enough, that it's wisdom must be obvious to all, and consensus building, the hard work that builds durable political solutions, must compromise the idea. That leaves legislative fiat as the only recourse.
1
The majority of scientists have concluded that our Planet has stage four cancer and immediate action is needed to save it's life.
The Democrats, with their Green New Deal, want to put millions to work operating on the tumors, treating the patient with chemotherapy and trying to ameliorate the pain we are already suffering.
The Republicans solution, take two aspirins and call me next century.
3
I agree with Douthat's singular cheer. There are certain sayings that enter the lexicon of popular culture and are repeated ad nauseum. In today's case, it's "go big or go home."
And that's what the Green New Deal does. By reaching for the stars, it's a good bet that at least a moon or two of these progressive and much-needed changes can be reached.
Or we could stay with the GOP's philosophy of "Do nothing and stay put in my job."
1
I am of an age at which I will see only so much more of this century.
Most of it to come belongs to my grandchildren.
The issue, fight, battle of their lives, of the lives of their generation and the generation they will parent is climate change.
It is that simple and that complicated and we, especially people so cavalierly dismissive as Douthat, are making it much more complicated.
The entire planet is at risk and the risk is growing, not diminishing.
Ocasio-Cortez speaks on this for her generation and the next because climate change is the fight of their lives for their lives.
10
@Carl Zeitz. Like you I don’t expect more than 2 or so decades to watch the weather get ever more destructive, fires to burn, sea coasts to sink beneath waves. But even more harrowing will the disruption of the lives of tens of millions who’ll be fleeing not Oligarchs and gangs, but the simple inability of their current countries to produce the food needed to sustain them. Even the Pentagon says climate change will be an enormous risk for our security. Hard to fathom.
The Green New Deal is a Herculean idea that with collective (right, left, middle, Rep., Dem., Socialist, Communists, big people, little people, dogs, cats, etc.) input and modifications is doable albeit a whole lot of very, very, very hard work. It has potential for outsized positive impact on the global environment, U.S. and global economies, on our and the world's social fabric, and on our very survival. Thank you, Mr. Douthat for moving it forward even if in your hand wringing, anxiety-ridden way of pretending, for your base, that it’s socialist fantasy.
4
Ross -- if you do not like AOC's climate plan (and I too think it is mostly inchoate word salad ) advance a better one of your own, or support something others suggest. Mere dripping snark and rightwing dogma makes you less responsible than AOC.
Further, your lukewarm approval of "moving... away from... pricing carbon toward direct spending" because you see it as "politically feasible" ... ye gods, from a "conservative?" Really? Where do you propose to to obtain the funds for this "direct spending" other than a tax? The glaring absurdity of AOC's "plan" is that she doesn't answer this question. Is everybody addled with Ryan-caca economics? Dr. Krugman isn't; go talk to him if you need further explanation.
I support a uniformly-applied carbon tax, starting at ≈ 40 $/MTCO2 (metric ton of CO2), rebated uniformly to all adult citizens residing in the USA.
I agree that substantial "new deal" legislation is also required (that I will not discuss here further), but AOCs attempt to yoke the two is sloganeering attempting to hide the fact that she has no real plan for either. Dealing with CO2 (and methane) does not automatically create "new deal," nor does "new deal" automatically create "green." ( I can see some synergies.)
You'll note that AOC's attempt to create a Bolshevik-wing "committee" with plenary powers didn't fool Pelosi or anybody else in DC. She isn't going to achieve her goals by putsch and defenestration, nor by huff and puff.
3
Lost the economy debate, heh progressives?
The economy was stagnant under 8 years of Obama. Trump comes in like a bull, shreds Obama’s legacy by reversing thousands of his regulations, cuts taxes especially for corporations, and the economy takes off. We are booming and setting record by every metric. What will a Democrat candidate promise us, a better economy?
So now climate change is your main issue?
Sorry folks, that doesn’t pay the bills and give my family a good life.
Better luck in 2024.
@Sports Medicine
Interesting revisionist history...There was something called the Great Recession in 07/08. Obama came in and the New Administration helped to end the Great Recession. The economy, albeit not working well for most Americans and STILL isn't, then began to grow steadily under Obama. That SAME economy is still growing under Trump. Climate Change, universal healthcare, raising working and living conditions so that Obama's and Trump's "great" economies will actually benefit the vast majority of people--those have been progressive ideas for quite some time.
3
@Sports Medicine
At a time when the Robber Barons had taken control of our Government and hoarded all the wealth for themselves, FDR introduced the New Deal that created the first prosperous middle class in American history.
Now the 1% have taken control of our government and hoarded all of our wealth for themselves, it is time for another new deal; only this time, instead of building camps and parks The Green New Deals wants to use this opportunity to save the planet.
The Green New Deal will put money into your pocket and provide you family a chance at a good life now and in fifty years from now, unless you are one of those with over $50 million in net worth, in that case your family doesn't need any help living the good life.
1
Well my goodness! Ross is back in full throated cry against anyone putting any energy into actually doing something. Back to name calling. What, pray tell, has been accomplished by the GOP recently that is actually good for anyone but the tippy top? While I do not agree with everything AOC is saying, for cryingoutloud she's making an effort to do something for, GASP, the Greater Good. Which is I might point out, the whole job description of Governing.
Ross, it looked for a while like there was hope for your thought processes, but this knee jerk screed is a letdown. Backsliding into supporting willful ignorance by damning with faint praise is such a disappointment.
7
Isn’t it strange that France has had 13 weeks of consecutive protests after Macrons socialist blunder, but it’s like it didn’t happen according to the NYT? Imagine that, but 100x times greater if this lunacy Green Deal proceeds. No nuclear, cow farts or airplanes; a grand socialist dream it is!
@AntiDoxDak
Macron tried to make the poor and middle class pay the price for 100 years of Corporate rape and pollution of our planet instead of sending the bill to those who should be paying.
I guess it would be a better idea to try to compromise with the Republicans in Congress, sort of the way Obama approached health care instead of insisting on universal coverage. Then Republicans can spend the next four to eight years obstructing the government on the claim that ideas they formerly supported are destroying the country and push their racist, reactionary base even further into outright lunacy. This way they will starve the beast even further so Elon Musk can shuttle Davos attendees to his new country club community on Mars while the rest of us burn in hell.
3
The date for the goal of "decarbonizing the American economy" has been set by scientists who tell us that global warming consequences will be catastrophic if the world does not become carbon neutral by 2050. The items included in the Green New Deal are not a 'progressive wish list' but are directly related to reaching the goal of being carbon neutral. As the economy transitions from fossil fuels to renewables there will be millions of people who will need retraining, a social safety net including health care, and a new job in the new economy.
3
No, we should let big business run things. They've done so well so far and are always making decisions based on rational thinking and solid evidence. (I am reminded of Dr Strangelove, the War Room cigar exchange.) From a lapsed Catholic to a practicing Catholic: pray for us all. With the "leadership" we have and the theatrics of it all and the refusal to do anything substantive that we must do, maybe God will do something. (I say the democratic socialists, good intentions and all, don't go nearly far enough in proposing what we really need to ensure that humanity can continue its collective privilege of living on this planet.)
3
The 'Green New Deal' is the first serious effort to address the reality of Climate Change. The economic, technological and societal loose ends in this particular proposal might be too loose to sew up, but at least one side of our political family is putting up something for discussion.
Conservatives have responded by denying that the greenhouse effect - and thermometers - exist. The Center has done nothing. At least nothing at the required scale. Ever since we knew about the problem in the 1960s.
So give AOC some credit. She's taking a real problem seriously.
If someone else wants to be a part of a serious dialogue, please join.
4
@Murray "The 'Green New Deal' is the first serious effort to address the reality of Climate Change. "
Nonsense.
https://www.carbontax.org/
A broad (no grandfathering, no exclusions) carbon tax with per-capita rebate is very widely supported by scientists and economists, including a surprising range of conservative economists.
2
AOC (All Out Crazy) is the greatest reelection gift Trump could ever receive. She will push millions over the fence to Trump, as the prospect of a "Democrats in full control" alternative becomes much more disturbing.
1
The green new deal epitomizes Rahm Emanuel’s saying that you never waste a crisis to push your political agenda through. Yes, climate change is real, and a threat to be addressed, but the fact that it ignores the realistic and positive impact of nuclear power is a major clue that this deal is a raw one. The other obvious clue that this new deal is nothing more than a laundry list of extreme left wing policy programs is the statement that “income should be provided to be unable or UNWILLING to work.” I’m all for serious measure to address climate change - turning the United States into Venezuela isn’t the answer
4
Two points.
Climate change is so dangerous that WWII war footing to combat is entirely appropriate.
The right and the Republican party have no ideas or plans to correct the inequality that is rampant in the U.S. and isn't getting any better. Do they really think that this can just keep on going without the general public finally waking up? The arrogance of Howard Schultz and even Michael Bloomberg regarding high tax rates is breathtaking.
388
@Oh please - this plan is mostly a laundry list of extreme left wing policy programs. Please tell me how “providing income to people unable or UNWILLING to work” is a solution to climate change? It isn’t. All this plan does is give an opening for Donald Trump to get re-elected, which is as much a disaster as climate change.
12
@Rich Actually a federally guaranteed job program is a great idea that goes all the way back to Tom Paine in 1791. It has been studied extensively. See See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
The federal gov would become the employer of last resort. It would guarantee a decent job or paid training for such a job to everyone able to work.
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
It is an historical fact that when people are working, producing, buying and selling, when workers are paid in line with their productivity, the country prospers as in the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973.
(If you want to raise the "Europe was Rubble Myth,". look at
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F1.1.pdf
which shows that the out put of Europe was about the same as the US in the Great Prosperity.)
38
@Rich - The phrase from the actual document in question reads "“economic security for all people of the United States.”
Now if we could only allocate some funds for a project that would convert conservative snark into useful energy.
Talk about your renewable resources . . .
50
Climate disruption will change the world order, inevitably and irreversibly. Douthat is hardly alone in clinging to the established social structures. He doesn't get the urgency of the situation, and he believes existing institutions can address the problem successfully. They cannot.
It then becomes a question of what comes next. Will it be chaos and collapse, or a shift to a society governed by an ecological ethic rather than one built on exploiting the Earth?
5
The frustration to me is that, while the Green New Deal is an overdue manifesto against our collective delusion and denialism about climate change, it comes packaged in its own delusion and denialism about economics, courtesy of the simplistic Bernie/AOC approach to inequality.
You can't address climate change and introduce a Scandinavian social safety net just by taxing the rich. You need to revive the middle class (the private-sector middle class), and the fact is that the reduction in tax rates on the rich that began with Reagan is just one factor in the decline of the middle class. (It wasn't tax cuts that led to workers losing jobs with employer-sponsored health insurance.) Let's also consider how business has used the global labor pool against American workers.
More to the point, you can't seriously address climate change without unleashing the power of markets. You need to give the 99% a monetary incentive to change their own behavior. You need to put a price on carbon. The obvious way to mitigate that pain is to make it revenue-neutral. Heck, since 1993 we haven't even had the guts to raise the federal gas tax from its paltry 18.4 cents a gallon. That would be the perfect way to pay for high-speed rail.
Yes, we need a Green New Deal. We're living a lie. The global economy is built upon the unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels. Effectively, 21st-century civilization is built upon quicksand.
Forgive me, though, for not wanting to replace one lie with another.
168
@Mitch Gitman
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has explained many times that she is aware that not everything in the deal will be implemented and that the chance that it will be implemented in the timeframe is also unlikely. She did, however, stress that the more we do in ten years. the better off the planet will be.
That is the spirit in which this plan was put together.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking [2019] https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
62
@Rima Regas, so taxing the 1% to fight climate change is a core feature but taxing the 99% is just an implementation detail? Are we going to hold out hope we can get Mexico to pay for it?
Ideas like a revenue-neutral carbon tax or an increase in the ridiculously low gas tax are not tiny details to be worked out later. Fundamentally, they are political asks that can only be answered by marshaling public support.
If we decide they're not feasible politically, then fine. We can take Ross Douthat's perspective and accept that mitigation is the best we can do and arresting climate change does not merit the sort of wartime mobilization that worked for WWII. Fact check: we didn't beat fascism for free.
And let's remember that our nation's last great legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was founded on a three-legged stool, one of which legs was the individual mandate and getting everyone to pay in. The Democrats promoting health-care reform demonstrated a political and policy seriousness that I have yet to see here, and which we so desperately need. If cost and shared sacrifice is a topic too sensitive for this movement to countenance, then I'm going to say that this climate change movement is not serious about climate change.
27
@Mitch Gitman
Republicans demand that every little detail be worked out and every expense accounted for when it is a Democrat proposal. However, when Republicans pass legislation, they do it in the dead of night, with nothing paid for, and most questions unanswered. Like the recent Huge Tax Cut For The Rich.
142
Is a New Green Deal needed ?
Numbers , please
CO2 Emission, Metric Tons per Capita
United States 16.49
Germany 8.89
United Kingdom 6.50
France 4.57
Denmark 5.94
Sweden 4.48
Germany is heavier industrialized per capita than the US and emits half.
Since 1960 the US increased its emissions per capita (in 1960 it was 16.00). whereas Europe decreased it (e.g in 1960, the UK emitted 11.15 tons per capita). Over the same period, American switched from passenger cars o ever larger SUV's and Pickups
What is need is the courage to tax gasoline (and more generally carbon based fuels) at the EU level.
Ross Perrot was the last Presidential candidate to propose it. Since then, no candidate hat the courage to propose what is needed and what, see the EU, works.
Data
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
4
Ocasio-Cortez and Markey have presented a bold plan that makes silly our baby steps the last few years (now undone by the current inept and climate disaster denier administration). As the waters wash over our beautiful city of Charleston,SC , we can use paper straws and recycle plastics but we know, if we are realistic, that those well meaning, limited result efforts won’t count when the first building on the Battery washes away. We are wasting time, and while some of the proposed may not be possible in the time frame given, why have we, for example, over all of these years fumbled on a clean, fast National rail service? That fumbling is what is really unAmerican.
229
@Martha
Asia and Africa are the major polluters in the world - they comprise 90% of the plastic which is polluting our oceans.
US efforts to become Green pale to the neglect those 2 continents have displayed over the last decade.
I think it’s great we’re improving our carbon footprint- but, in the end, it’s not up to us.
4
@JMS This sort of stance demoralizes the fact that it is still necessary that we (and everyone else!) still do something. Also, you conflate the US’ pollution of plastics- an important issue only indirectly tied to GHG emissions- with our carbon footprint. The US is one of the leading producers of CO2/GHG emissions, both overall and per capita, and we should definitely be taking a leading role on fixing that.
23
The US is less than five percent of the global population.
What about the other ninety five percent?
Sure, there is a great amount of lunacy in the proposals. You start with the premise that global warming is the most important issue we face (it may we’ll be), and then you wrap all sorts of really expensive stuff with it and refuse to talk about the cost. It also falls into a very U.S. centric trap, if the U.S. decarbonized that it would change the world trajectory we are on since China, India, and Africa are spewing out ever more carbon to escape poverty. That does not mean we should not try, but, it does point us towards what is most important. What we need is tons of money going towards research. The world needs new technologies to help us cope with the future. It may be next gen nuclear, it may be non food crop biofuels, better battery storage, it may be other things. So, fine. Increase subsidies for clean energy, but, do not lose sight that even if the U.S. decarbonizes that it will make much difference. That is why research is so important and is where a substantial amount of the money should go. And,if global warming really is the issue of our time, do not hamstring the effort with massive spending on other things.
4
"every Republican suspicion of what global-warming alarm is really all about."
I guess their alarm should rightly be that a great many of us no longer wish to remain complicit in socializing all the costs of living big on fossil. And that we are not absolved of our collective sin of destroying the commons by demonizing those who bring such inconvenient truth to the fossil collective.
3
Well -- we did win WWII with "war socialism"... and build the
Interstate Highway System and with the Apollo Program place a man on the Moon. Let's not forget New Deal era mega-projects including TVA which help build the "New South" of industry while taming flooding and improving navigation.
Yes, while Amtrak hasn't done much outside the NEC concerning "High Speed Rail" since its creation, the state owned railways JNR in Japan and the SNCF in France created the Shinkansen and the TGV. If you look at the rapid economic and social progress after WWII in the "West" you'll see that government played a very big part in not supplanting but aiding, partnering, and leading private enterprise to a greater public good.
Gee, be great to do that again -- but I don't ever see any conservatives want to get on-board that train. They don't care about the future, only about the dollar in their pocket today.
577
@Benjamin
Mariana Mazzucato a British Economist has been saying the same things now for several years
13
@Benjamin--did you know that the oil-rich Koch brothers have been on a state-by-state, city-by-city, door-to-door misinformation campaign about electric transportation, in order to let fossil fuel dependence, and their wealth, grow?
They have well-organised data bases of voters who support electric transit in all cities considering implenting it. This includes high speed rail.
They approach voters and tell them their taxes will skyrocket (not true) if they support electric public transport. By the time the issue comes to a vote in city councils across the land, the Koch brothers have successfully turned "yes" into "no" votes.
As to the a Green New Deal, and the Depression Era New Deal, these are examples of using tax dollars for the public good, which I whole heartedly support.
38
@Benjamin The authoritarians on the right stoke a fear of "socialism" while the problem is not socialism or capitalism, but authoritarianism.
30
Mr. Douthat,
What, they don't teach you what words actually mean at Harvard anymore? Socialism means the workers own the means of production. The green new deal says not one word about nationalizing a single industry. It goes no further than a workers bill or rights, in a market economy. It talks about investing money in said market economy to drive renewable energy projects. It is noticeably less socialist than the original new deal, which wasn't socialist at all.
8
The "economies commanding heights" being taken over by liberals, socialists or progressives would be quite a feat, requiring mass presence in the streets in Thoreau/Gandhi-like Passive Resistance for I don't know how long...and these peaceful revolutionaries will be among many of their fellows who will be beaten, murdered and imprisoned.
They can win if enough people are wanting to take that path, wherein the plutocrats and oligarchs are eventually overcome with fear of the huge numbers wanting a closing of the wealth gap and income inequality, taking care of our environment and a serious attempt to end the threat of nuclear war.
1
Douthat misses a central point about the Green New Deal. Democrats, much less AOC, don't currently control the Senate. Any New Deal is a non-starter right now. Why not ask for everything you want? No one expects the GND to become a reality in any literal sense. However, we do want politicians who recognize the seriousness of climate change and are willing to do something about it.
The Republican Party is currently bent on preventing climate change intervention in every conceivable manner. We don't need a crystal ball to know which Party has the better chance of politically succeeding on ANY climate change legislation. Republicans had the House and Senate for two years. They could have done things their way. Nope. Instead, the President is out tweeting climate change denials during extreme weather events.
Here's the basic truth: Any plan is better than no plan. Republicans have no plan. Unlike illegal immigrants, climate change actually is an existential threat to humanity. That's why the issue is climbing the Pentagon's list of national security risks. If I have to choose between a fascist dictator and mass global extinction, I'll choose the fascist.
Meanwhile, the longer we wait the greater the cost of intervention. The Green New Deal might seem timid compared to the plans we'll see in 20 or 30 years if we continue doing nothing. The best way to preserve democracy and thereby capitalism is to get out ahead of this issue. Republican are way, WAY behind right now.
2
Once again, the media demonstrates its leftist bias by giving AOC unlimited and glowing attention. Her plan is childishly naive but it may actually accomplish its goal. Once the economy is destroyed there will be no food, thus mass starvation and no need to worry about climate change. I can only imagine the laughter in Beijing when they watch American politicians propose such a plan. The RNC should send her money because the more exposure she gets the better for Trump.
1
Ross, some kind of "Green New Deal" is baked in the cake. In the very near future, it will be understood that industrialized countries, be they Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, dictatorships or democracies, are committing national and global suicide. Will mankind sow the seeds of its own extinction? I doubt it. Our own Department of Defense sees man-made climate change as an existential threat to our national security. You can demean AOC all you want. But in your heart, you know she's right.
2
I love the fact that this neophyte politician put the term GEEEN in her platform. Yes, it is. GREEN always stood for ENVY.
The progressive is nothing if not full of envy.
As the astute George Orwell noted, the Left is not FOR social justice as much as against those with more: income, education, assets.
AOC is what you get when preparation is subordinated to emotion and noise.
I hope she talks our ears off.
4
@Stuart
Martin Luther King, Jr. warned against the inhumanity of the confluence of capitalism, militarism and racism. America is first in money, arms and prisoners by malign cruel intent and indifference.
2
Socialism is a word I embrace.
I will not run from it.
Healthcare, global warming, infrastructure, science, regulations on corporations are issues that require leadership and expert advice to address and remedy.
Give me a Green New Deal. Consider it an umbrella over which various policy initiatives will be covered. The fact that the right utters the word ‘socialism’ with contempt when these policies are addressed and formulated is juvenile. We have no need to wring our hands as to what to call the fireman when he comes to put out the fire. The word has no meaning if he does not show.
2
Regarding climate change...
The consequences of this author and his like being wrong are existential. The consequences of AOC being wrong are new jobs in a new segment of our economy, and cleaner air.
2
Human beings, along with every other species currently on earth, survived the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, and Holocene Climate Optimum, all of which were as warm or far warmer than today. It should be fairly obvious, therefore, that there is no existential threat from global warming. Nor do the possible future impacts outlined by the IPCC lead to the conclusion that there are any existential threats to our species.
The GND, on the other hand, would replace a set of speculative impacts that aren’t expected to occur for at least the next 80 years with an enormous expenditure of countless trillions of dollars today. It is hard to imagine what possible future impacts of global warming could possibly be worth the current cost of retrofitting almost every building in America, replacing almost every car, destroying air travel, destroying meat production, destroying 80% of our power generation, building millions of miles of rail tracks, etc., etc., etc.
The GND is simpleminded and insane. Trying to justify it with nonsense about existential threats is not helpful.
1
“And buried inside the sweeping command-and-control vision of the Green New Deal is the material for a more modest alternative: basically, an emphasis on research and resilience, which would spend more money on basic science, alternative-energy adaptations and mitigation in the communities most likely to be affected by storms and tides and heat.”
One question, one proposal.
Question: Mr. Douthat, scientists agree almost unanimously that the climate is warming dangerously as a result of human activity and that what comes next will be devastating. But Republicans refuse to listen because they love coal and oil. Why do you think “basic science” would help this situation?
Regarding mitigation in communities most likely to be affected by climate change: HOW ABOUT A BIG WALL!!??? all the way up and down the Florida coast, between the beach houses and the beach, and more WALLS separating Texas and Louisiana from the Gulf? Wow!
She's a freshman representative with zero bills passed and, so far, one serious policy proposal. You talk about her as a "future overlord". There's only one explanation for that disconnect: despite all their bluster and anger, conservatives actually do understand that their positions are empty and worthless, and they fear AOC because they know her views represent the future of humanity.
7
A few important details that should convince anyone the Green New Deal will NEVER happen. First of course is the simple fact that this Congresswoman has her seat thanks to a whopping total of 15K Primary Voters. That's the total of votes she had when she beat her opponent and 'won' her seat. Second, almost as important, is the simple fact this Congresswoman does not understand even simple fundamental concepts. And lastly, she had FAQ's that went so far as to say even people 'unwilling to work' would receive an income. This has now been scrubbed. It is obvious she is catering to the uneducated, unmotivated and unAmerican masses with this proposal that will go absolutely nowhere.
1
Can Donald Trump win re-election 2020? Seemed highly unlikely not that long ago. But now I believe three words(technically 2 and 1/2 words) indicate that he can indeed: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
3
Well, that's a new one: reject the Green Deal not because it's everything Mr. Douthat hates, but because it will get Trump re-elected. And, while we're at it, dump the rest of the progressive agenda and the "dictator-for-life" (who bears not the slightest resemblance to the "caudillos" of Latin America, the more violent of whom were and are avidly promoted by the U.S. government and the Republican party) because Democrats shouldn't force "reasonable" Republicans like Ross to vote for Trump.
What'surgently needed is a one-term center-right Democrat, to give a Jeb Bush Republican a decent chance.
Can't progressives like AOC play fair?
1
Painting the Green New Deal as some "socialistic takedown" is to not see the forest for the trees. There are environmental threats that are so significant, so daunting, so forever altering the world as we have known it, that future folks will describe our babbling about political philosophies as pathetic beyond words.
I don't care what you call being a good steward of this planet. Give it a name - any name. Come to think of it, "Conservative" would work. To conserve and protect vs ravage and ruin? Doesn't that sound pretty good?
Count me as a Socialist when it comes to education, healthcare, prisons and protecting our Earth and all our fellow travelers.
Count me as Capitalist for the means of production and some services.
Count me as a Socialist when it comes to protecting citizens from the robber barrons in NYC and DC.
Count me as a Capitalist who wants to breakup the monopolies and duopolies that rule our lives.
Call us anything you want. But AOC is such a breath of fresh air, I feel as if I have been given an injection of optimism. What a wonderful human being.
And I add that to the fact that I watched Warren's announcement yesterday. Although she may be considered less "electable" by some, her statements echo AOC and were wonderfully presented.
I am not sure if I will vote for Warren in the Primary. And I am sure AOC will make some youthful mistakes. Who doesn't? But I am so glad we have them both. They are our hope for the future.
Ross seems to admit that global warming is real and will have devastating consequences. But then he says the Green New Deal justifies climate-deniers' claim that concern about global warming is really just a way for Dems to enact "socialist" policies.
Ross's argument is akin to thinking that someone being treated for cancer with chemotherapy that kills their appetite and causes their hair to fall out is using cancer as an excuse to lose weight and save money on haircuts.
1
The entire “progressive” agenda is a thinly disguised (or, in the case of the “Green New Deal”, not disguised at all) attempt to transform the United States into a socialist country, economically and politically. The lessons of history are easily learned through a study of the Soviet Union, China and numerous other examples of unsustainable economic ideas forced upon people through political terror and repression. Don’t be fooled.
2
Larry--
Your concern over totalitarian, communist regimes is understandable. However, equating those w "socialism" is a huge leap.
"Socialism" may mean providing through communal means what private markets and private for-profit corporations don't provide effectively or affordably. Public schools, farm coops, rural electric coops, Medicare, Social Security and public roads are examples.
Sometimes private enterprise is preferable, sometimes not, depending on the nature of the problem. By contrast, some major societal risks or challenges may require coordinated societal undertakings to manage them, eg, national defense, cancer research, albeit with some private companies as part of the overall approach. The risk and impact of global climate change is so enormous that a societal (socialist) approach may be the only sensible one.
Btw, you may find Michael Lewis' recent book The Fifth Risk instructive.....FYI.
When! I was afraid for a moment that Ross would miss the anti-socialism train! Have no fear, Ross is right on time!
1
Agree or disagree, it is just a vision for America. It would be different to have real discussions, debates on these proposals. The reaction (overreaction) to this proposal is the result of the destructive identity political paradigm we have sunk to in this country. You're with us or you're evil, no need to talk.
So clever. Am saving this piece to re-read on a future canoe trip through either the former downtown Miami or the former Manhattan. Now, that's "resilience". That's the "utopia to come".
2
Dealing with the effects of climate change already in the pipeline -- and now unavoidable -- is called adaptation, not mitigation. But to work on it, Republicans will have to discard their weird fantasy that there is no such thing as climate change. There is not even one cheer for that baldfaced lie.
1
Ross; there is no time for compromise.
Here are the facts:
There is a high probability that within this century or by the next. Temperatures will reach 150 degrees Fahrenheit (65.57 Celsius) on certain areas of the planet and then accelerate.
A methane CH4 feedback loop will then occur in the Arctic. As a result there will be a methane feedback loop.
A 1972 World Bank Report confirmed this possibility.
Hundreds of millions, possibly billions, will die.
Then in another 100 years we will be facing human extinction.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
1
I should think that a conservative who writes for The New York Times would recognize and admit that there are no true socialists of any prominence in American politics. Even those who call themselves socialist are really European-style social democrats, no more in the traditional socialist mode than Lincoln’s land-grant colleges or homesteads under the act of that name. I suspect that Mr. Douthat knows that, but is willing to overlook it in order to have a convenient target. In that he is similar to his bete noir, Donald Trump.
3
....the Green Deal - so pathetic.
No one, especially, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has any true understanding of the regulations and changes to our industries and infrastructure the Green Deal would require to meet those levels.
Asia and Africa are increasing their levels of pollution and they are the major polluters in the world. Whatever the U.S. does pales in comparison to the neglect of other countries.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve - we should - but all this hype is just what it is - hype.
It's all a big political drama - it will be back page news in a month.
Let's talk about poverty issues - hunger and medical attention for those in poverty, especially children.
I'll wait on getting Green.
34
@JMS
Right. You'd rather humanity poisoned our air, earth and water and ignores the increasing evidence that things are going badly wrong.
You'd rather treat truth as lies and wait until the flood, fire, drought, poisoned water, air and earth come to your dooryard.
44
@JMS - Did you read the actual Green New Deal? It contains a lot of language relevant to social justice and poverty alleviation. Granted, it is focused on the USA. But if we can't solve our own problems we certainly can't solve the problems of other countries.
I'd also like to point out that the USA is still VERY high on the list of top Co2 producers per capita. Looking at the Asian and African countries you probably have in mind, countries like Liberia for example, it takes 80 Liberians to produce as much Co2 as ONE American.
Our positive actions would have a huge impact on the world. Would it be enough to change everything? Of course not! But if we took the driver's seat, instead of peddling backwards, we would then have the moral authority to push countries like India and China towards better policies. We would also have the knowledge and political will to share our advances with countries like Liberia, helping them to alleviate hunger, improve health AND advance their economies.
Here's a link to the actual text of the Green New Deal:
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
35
Blythe denial, misinformation and crockadile tears are self-serving tactics to avoid inconvenient truths and pose as prudent and and humane.
And appeals to a faux-fiscal conservatism (given what so-called "conservatives" actually do with our common treasure when they decieve and lie effectively enough to get their hands on it) are now so obviously fraudulent as to be dismissed with laughter. And tears.
23
Good move, use the undefined word "Socialist" to scare people into inaction? I put a question mark because I am not sure what your point is.
"Conservative" or what can be called modern day 1950's Russian "Communist" has the one solution that works cut taxes on the rich and let the "Businessman" pollute. If they only make 3 Million dollars on the 10 million ABOVE the first 10 million they will stop working. And if they have to clean up the mess they make selling their products they will go out of business.
3
"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." -GB Shaw
What about the insidious conservative tyranny that has held sway over our environment and economy for the past 40 years? Decades of trickle down economics, deregulation, corporate welfare, drill baby drill, inequality widening, do nothing, thoughts and prayers conservatism? Mr. Douthat, would you have written the same about radical and progressive ideas such as Abolition, the original New Deal, Civil Rights, NASA, the EPA, the war on Big Tobacco, Health Care, and Gender Equality?
"Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be." Khalil Gibran
2
What the GND does is address our most pressing problems -- climate, our costly and inefficient health care system, and obnoxious inequality -- in a single plan. Yes it is ambitious but would leave us pretty far short of Sweden. It offers solutions that anyone with the sense to look around us can support. The climate crisis is urgent and can be mitigated, but only by a rapid transition to clean energy. So thinking BIG is the only rational response as Ross concedes. Since climate is a world problem, the richest -- us -- need to lead.
6
@Bob -- the problem is that AOC's "green new deal" is on par with a "single plan" to put new shingles on your house, get a new job, and take a vacation to Bali.
Yes, the climate problem is urgent. No, AOC's "plan" for it is no actual plan at all ... and she's just using that to greenwash her social agenda.
I am leftie enough to buy into a chunk of her social agenda, but there is no necessary connection between the two, and her CO2 "plan" is "I click my heels three times and I'm back in Kansas."
1
Confused by Douthat, readers might think that “in theory” he understands energy policy. But he does not, as evidenced by his confusion about “carbon markets” versus “carbon pricing”.
Infrastructure and development of adaptation strategies are needed to save life and property over the next 30-50 years. Existing human development will be impacted, so we need to protect our communities. But if we do not stop emissions during that time, our adaptive strategies will be overwhelmed by the increasing impacts. What standard are we adapting to if sea level keeps rising? That is why we need carbon pricing, a dividend returned to American households, and a Border Adjustment tax. And lots of R&D into energy innovation.
One of the oddities of our climate discussion is that I have not heard an actual argument against this policy proposal. I have read a lot of misdirection from analysts like this writer. But no actual argument. I wonder why?
5
Ross has fallen into the same trap that's captured so many conservatives: he takes no position of his own but mocks a sincere effort that's not perfect.
He vilifies AOC as "the noted social-media personality and future dictator-for-life of the Americas" while conveniently dismissing the meat of the proposal by seizing on elements that affront his sensibilities.
I've tried to look past my own disagreements with him about religion and social mores, and he's often come off as quite reasonable. In the NYT podcast, he seems engaging and can take positions without belittling the views of his cohosts. But this article is a veritable "snark" attack lacking even an insincere veneer of respect.
Perhaps Ross would feel more at home at Breitbart are the Daily Caller.
10
If I ever hear another Republican complain about deficits I think I'm gonna throw up.
And regarding "empowering climate change skeptics" I'd like to know exactly how a green new deal would change the science behind climate change and give deniers any kind of credibility.
BTW Ross, please get on the record; do you believe climate change is real? If so, what's your plan?
11
The original FAQ sheet called for high-speed rail lines across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans as well as a guaranteed income for "everybody unwilling to work." After the inevitable laughter, Democrats said the document was a GOP forgery, then said it was released as a joke after the metadata indicated it was authored by AOC's chief of staff. Even if the silliness of the policies doesn't cause concern, the mendacity should.
3
One must admire the energies of this confused work of would-be bipartisanship. But, really, a dictator? I guess it's all in fun, name-calling. The issue isn't funny, though. Decarbonizing?
The gods of slick irony are smiling.
2
Everyone needs to realize that the green new deal isn't just a takeover by the guv of the energy sector, but the entire economy. No other way to do it.
So, we've had a pretty good deal going with capitalism for the last 200+ years, and now a bunch of silly (if not inebriated) progs want to throw all that away to ensure the climate boogey man doesn't get us. But before we do trash capitalism and go the way of Mao, you would need:
-- unequivocal proof that warming is occurring (hint, the data isn't strong enough)
-- prove gw is man caused
-- show the most effective solution is to do away with fossil fuels now rather than mitigate the supposed negative effects later
-- demonstrate that what we do here in the US now will have an impact given the increasing carbon emissions of emerging countries
-- prove alternative energy sources are scalable and reliable
-- the means to pay for it
Beyond that -- you would need to be able to convince the population that this is not only doable, but must be done so that people willingly comply. Anything less will lead to a civil war if progressives try to implement this green new deal.
I don't think the progressives can meet those requirements.
Do you?
2
I think this
Climate change slams us frontally every single day
I think those not wanting to do ANYTHING about it are dichotomous
What dies it matter who and what is causing it ?
It’s here and in our power-to mitigate it
And leave a better planet for our kids and future descendants
What is your problem with wanting to solve thus?
@Adam Stoleru Adam, if it were a real problem I'd of course want to solve it. There just isn't strong enough evidence. But let's suppose there were and I was convinced that something must be done.
I wouldn't think the way to go about it would be to make a radical change to our economy. You'd have to conduct complex cost benefit analyses to determine which options appear to be the best. I'd start with simple things like incenting people to drive less, fly less, turn their thermostats down. I'd also encourage them to make their homes more energy efficient, to down size their McMansions, to buy locally grown produce as well as other goods and services. I'd also demand transparency re the carbon footprint of all goods and services. Such voluntary, non coerced actions on the part of a large majority of citizens would create in huge drop in emissions.
I'd then lobby congress for more nukes. Then I'd encourage US leaders to formalize emissions reductions requirements with all countries. If we cut back but emerging economies don't, we're simply wasting our time.
But I wouldn't demand a takeover of the US economy. I'd ask government for a plan to make their buildings more energy efficient and offer tax breaks to companies and individuals who do. I'd then want detailed forecasts on negative (& positive) impacts of warming in various locations and the cost of mitigating the damage. I'd fund research into ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, etc.
That was a great first paragraph. Ross reads much better when he comes out swinging than when he takes a mealy mouthed compromise position. Full disclosure: I’m not a conservative.
1
Liberals spouting this kind of nonsense are going to be slapped down in the next Presidential election.
But they won't care that much because the ones who will suffer won't be them. It will be real people.
Covey's book: Seven Habits of Successful People had this as one of its habits: Start with the end goal in mind.
The end goal is not to remake the world into a better place. The end goal needs to be removing a lunatic from the Presidency.
In the lasts election cycle, Sanders trashed the only hopes for keeping a lunatic from being President---siphoning off votes from Clinton and trashing her and the Democrats relentlessly.
His end goal was to be "right." Now we are decades away from being where we were even two years ago.
That's what happens when you lose sight of the end goal.
3
These comment just prove the old PT Barnum adage that a sucker is born every minute. Sure, green new world, free everything, and the billionaires will pay for it. If you kill every billionaire in central park and take all their money it won't pay one cent on the dollar of the cost of this pie in sky fantasy. It would take doubling or more the income tax burden on middle class families and a big national sales tax to boot, and it still might not come close to paying the numbering they are throwing around. Let's see how much everyone loves it when they have to pay for it instead of someone else.
3
Luckily, because of Douthit and the bright lights in the Trump-McConnel Republican Party, will keep us from becoming communist Scandinavia.
Are you happy that we are in a new Gilded Age? If we are going backwards to Make America Great Again, don't we get to go backwards to the '50s, 60s 0r 70s when we had a more progressive income tax rate and a top marginal rate of 70%. Hey, Ross, we are not Democratic Socialists, we are social Democrats and we believe in community and a government that helps people and is proactive.
You say that you are not a Trump supporter, but the things you do support are pretty reprehensible and the hyperbole you use to advance your argument is really ludicrous.
3
Ross I read your columns because I think you think you do what you do (entice people to think in your terms) because it will help the betterment of humankind.
Your motivations seem unlike those of most of your GOP's plutocratic movers and shakers.
You're obviously intelligent and well versed - one can learn from you and be compelled to think.
And sometimes you even let some rays of liberal compassionate Catholicism sneak past that wall of hard conservationism that encapsulates your faith.
BUT mostly your bottom lines come out wrong - really wrong.
Admittedly I am mostly the polar opposite of you politically/religiously but I don't say you are wrong because I do not agree with all your arguments. Indeed I often agree with aspects of your arguments.
I think you are wrong bottom line because your brain MUST take your arguments and twist and turn them to support your presuppositions/psychology even when they really do not.
You probably are brilliant but you are a horrible "scientist"; you seem to never look to falsify your beliefs but rather to justify them.
This article illustrates that phenomena. You may not realize the straw-men, red herrings, and gas lighting you do but you do.
I bet even though there is a preponderance of supporting evidence you canNOT say "the Ds are existentially righter about GW than the GOP; even if GW is a fait accompli their existential direction/efforts will make us stronger economically, healthier, and more egalitarian (Christ-like?)"
1
Douthat wants to hide his head in the sand instead of engaging in political dialogue (and, yes, compromise) about the disaster mankind is facing with climate change.
1
Mr. Douthat, you almost lost me at the sub-head, but I soldiered on. I assume that you have read John Dingell's op-ed in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-dingell-my-last-words-for-america/2019/02/08/99220186-2bd3-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.5918fff59601&wpisrc=nl_ideas&wpmm=1), in which he succinctly lists the programs passed by Congress that were at the time labeled Socialist at best and the big C word if needed. He neglected to point out that the Republican party wants to undo all those things, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, clean water, clean air, safe food, keeping cigarettes out of the hands of children and others, now in the name of preventing Socialism.
Oh, and the deficits - you really didn't think that was a winning argument, did you?
2
Calling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a dictator-for-life is hysterical. If we do not listen to her very sensible proposals, the earth will no longer be inhabitable. The whole world is tired of American capitalists destroying the environment, exploiting the poor, waging ridiculous wars and having only one goal in mind, enriching the richest people on earth. We need a new form of socialism now more than ever before.
5
@Robert Dole, Ross is scared of millennials and the Force they represent. Instead of joining hands with them he is exhibiting full throated ingratitude for all that he received while growing up in Massachusetts.
Perhaps they don’t teach gratitude in Ross’ Sunday school. Shudder to think what he’s teaching his own children.
1
Not a parent are you, Mr. Douthat? Don't have any children and you won't have to worry about it. That seems to be the logical extension of the GOP's denial.
1
I enjoyed the column, Ross. But at the present time, there is only one person who wants to be Dictator for Life that we need to worry about. Hint: He's not a Democrat.
5
Ross,
Perhaps an analogy (and one you should understand well) might work better for you.
Let's pretend that the earth's climate now is the Republican party of, say, the Reagan years.
Looking back in hindsight, you can see that there were signs of problems with racism, misogyny, homophobia, denial of science, exclusion, etc..within the party even back then.
But it was OK because the GOP was rolling along and gathering steam, right?
However, those problems that were noticed even back then didn't resolve themselves with time. They continued to fester and grow and grow over the years until the hatred of "others" that had built up in the GOP meant that you eventually had to leave the party because it was unrecognizable to you anymore.
Neglecting those problems over the years is what led your party to where it is now...led by a dilapidated, execrable collection of nitwits, ne'er-do-wells, and naysayers.
The lapdog of Donald Trump.
Now, if you had a time machine and could go back to those years to try to fix the problems, to make your old party something that you would proudly introduce to your children...would you?
You're darn right you would.
Suffice it to say that we are at (or even past) the "Reagan years" for the earth's climate.
But we can't just walk away from this party. We have nowhere to go.
So we have to fix it.
Now.
Before the analogy becomes reality, and our children pay the price of our neglect.
3
What is it about AOC that is driving conservative pundits crazy? Is it her youth, her passion, her courage, her working class background, her compassion for the ordinary American? The response from FOX and others, is to joke about socialists leanings, or more serious commentators to actually put a pencil to paper and say her numbers don't add up---as if decades of supply side/voodoo economics added up. No, what is driving these pundits mad is AOC is just plain likeable---a quality that is all but missing in a political class dominated by very unlikeable representatives---just picture Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell or Matthew Whitaker. And, likeability is right now what the public is craving for.
2
What did AOC major in? Does she have any scientific training? A physicist perhaps, or a statistician? Did she conduct major research in a university or corporate setting before becoming a barista?
My suspicion is no. Thus she is advocating for something based on nothing more than a political narrative that she wants to take advantage of.
I believe that if any objective individual looked closely at the actual temperature data they would call into question how settled climate science is. I've done quite a bit of digging into the temp records, down to the individual station level in some locations, and based on what I've seen and analyzed, I wouldn't cut back mowing my lawn to only twice a month in summer to stop warming based on the mess I've seen. The globe is warming at an unusual pace is one of the great scientific scams of our time.
I'm a scientist, I have no political agenda re climate change, although I recognize the left is trying to leverage (well, leverage is wrong, how about cram CC down our throats) CC for political advantage and I don't like that. I also recognize that renewable energy is a good thing as fossil fuels are finite. But this set our hair on fire about CC is nothing more than progressive politics as all the solutions to save us from ourselves involve 1) getting rid of the robber barons who run oil and gas, 2) redistributing wealth, 3) taking over the means of production, 4) directing others lives.
2
"If the sweeping ambition of the Green New Deal leads to positive incremental change, I think that’s the most likely way it happens."
This line sums up the reality of the New Green Deal. It is not a deal at all but a joke (Fyre Festival) to get newly minted college kids and the uneducated masses excited about "saving the planet" and "jobs for everybody." The New Green Deal is not only pin in the sky, it is pie, ice cream and all the candy you can eat in the sky.
For beginners- replace all carbon vehicles in 10 years. The educated question would be, well, just how many cars are we talking about? research shows we're talking about 253 million vehicles (cars and trucks). Well, how many new vehicles are we producing now- about 2 million (including imports). At our current rate we'll have 20 million new vehicles in ten years unless we increase our production more than 10 fold and that involves more factories, hiring and training more workers in the new technology and finding the material resources to replace 253 million vehicles.
An that's just for starters. The New Green Deal defies the laws of physics, the laws of nature and the laws of reality but it may get votes people Americans are, well, the brightest people on the planet.
1
@Jimbo I don't where your number of 2 million comes from. US motor vehicle production in 2017 was over 11 million. Worldwide production was over 97 million vehicles.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198488/us-and-global-motor-vehicle-production-since-1999/#0
This fact doesn't necessarily argue in favor of Ocasio-Cortez's proposal, but you need a better argument against it.
Notwithstanding the reality of climate change a different reality pervades our our local, state and federal elections. If one day the Koch’s and Halliburton’s of the world found a way to make more money in the production and implementation of green technologies than in their current businesses, that different reality would change.
3
This column is spot on. As a Republican who is trying to work on climate change issues, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs succinctly sum up the new challenges I will face among my peers because of this manifesto. Conservative websites are already gearing up commentary regarding this "gift" to the 2020 election cycle. Rep. Pelosi's dismissive reponse in calling it a "green dream" but "they're for it right, so that's something" is illustrative of her recognizing the problem this could cause for the Democrat Party. Maybe it will inspire some young socialists, but they remain concentrated in states that already voted for Clinton in 2016. What it does do is provide a vehicle to reincite fear in the middle ground states in 2020, and that may not be helpful to whomever the Dems nominate.
And, it just plain makes the process of trying to find public consensus on ways to work on reducing CO2 pollution more difficult than it already was two months ago.
3
Ross can pull out his one-word billy club at any moment:
SOCIALISM. Conservatives think they have won the debate against anything even remotely capable of being targeted as socialist. They are super-confident on this point.
If we enter the industrialized world norm and provide medical insurance for all, we are SOCIALISTS. That must mean we want to take over. If Greenland and the Arctic are melting, and if Florida coastal towns and cities are flooding regularly, it means we are SOCIALISTS because we want to prevent it. If we want to build toward the burgeoning Green New Deal, both for our planet and our economy, we are on the edge of DICTATORSHIP. Plllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllease, Ross.
Liberal and Socialist have been allowed to be tarred and feathered, but Conservative, as in old-fashioned, crotchety, ancient, backwards, antideluvian, stubborn and rigid, is just peachy and fine in Ross's world. One cheer for Ross!
4
Reading Mr. Douthat this morning brings to mind Teddy Roosevelt's "Man In the Arena" speech. And not in a good way.
When, in the face of an unprecedented existential threat such as climate change, one side's entire response is to obstinately deny that the threat even exists or to tell lies about it for money, it should come as no surprise that at some point the other side determines that the only recourse is to develop a plan that completely rolls over them.
I have completely given up on the right to offer any solutions to the environmental crisis that has already begun. They have no plan other than deny and obfuscate with the hope that they won't have to live to see the results of their inaction.
As Roosevelt put it so well, "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds..."
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the other young members of congress are in the arena, fighting for their future, a future that will be seriously dimmed by a changing climate, and like every conservative I know these days, all Mr. Douthat brings to the table is derision and snark.
7
It never ceases to astound me that proposals to mitigate the RISK of climate disruptions are deemed socialistic or that infrastructure that benefits everyone, like the interstate highway system, are acceptable and supported by the "capitalists". If you really object to modernizing the transportation system or dramatically improving health care, let's completely privatize all of it and every other "public" endeavor, including libraries, museums, water systems, sewer systems, street lighting, all paved streets, the inter-coastal waterways, the airports, DHS, national parks, etc, etc, etc.
Give us a break!
If you really want to engage "an aging and risk-averse population" let's really reduce risk by dramatically improving the infrastructure to operate without additional CO2 dumping and improving our health care system instead of our "sickness insurance system" that calls itself a health care system.
Sure, everyone must pay their "fair" share of supporting the country... even if they have to learn how to live on a mere $50 Million/yr, or even, pray tell, only $5 Million/yr.
2
The drooling contempt and dismissiveness of the first sentence is grotesque and misogynistic. The Times should expect more from its commentators.
That aside, Douthat critiques the New Green Deal for coupling the urgent needs to prevent further climate change and adapt to what is inevitable with economic and social policies that aim to advance the wellbeing of all. For decades conservatives have said we can't do anything about climate change because it will make energy more expensive, cause job losses in the fossil fuel industry and disrupt communities. Indeed, in France an effort to reduce emissions with a gas tax did cause economic pain and a backlash. Now the New Green Deal recognizes the problem the conservatives pointed out and makes clear that energy transformation in the US must go along with an ambitious plan to provide the jobs, security, health case and education that will make it a win-win situation. Kudos to its authors for recognizing that dealing with climate change requires a broad plan that prevents the negative consequences conservatives have used as an excuse for dangerous inaction for decades. Conservatives should at least recognize that the New Green Deal addresses the problems they have brought up again and again and enter a strong debate and not waffle on about dictators, socialist overlords, and other trivializing nonsense. I suspect they are afraid to enter into a real debate because the facts and public opinion are not on their side.
4
just think of the actions required had we addressed climate change when the science was originaly settled in 1979! we would have been forced to drive more efficient, smaller cars and live a more sustainable lifestyle that does not include shopping for baubles as entertainment. after ignoring the persistnet and growing signs of catastrophe for 40 years, the required actions seem extreme. imagine what the proposed actions will be in 20 years after we've squandered our last best chance for mitigating this disaster. does anyone think capitlistic solutions will be deployed when a billion people are roaming the planet struggling for survival? the irony is tht delaying actions for 40 years because of concerns of global socialistic society will eventually reult in a global socialistic society as our only way of managing complete societal collapse. may Science help us.
5
Yes, there was indeed a “scientific consensus” on climate change in the mid to late ‘70s, but it was about the Earth entering a new Ice Age. A little detail that the Holy Church of man-made Climate Change certainly doesn’t want to be remembered.
What Douthat wants to call a core conservative suspicion about the motives for and models of addressing climate change by the “secret socialist” left is really his disingenuous way of not recognizing how conservatives have not addressed climate change and have not shown they have the will or the tools to do so. He would rather play to his political dogma than address the planet’s most pressing existential dilemma.
6
Ross, the data do more than make a compelling case for climate change. The data chronicle the history of climate change. The only debatable questions remaining are what must be done and when do we get started. The data establish the urgency of these questions.
The answers to these questions necessarily involve radical change. The prospect of radical change is more than most conservatives can bear. That's why conservatives have gone AWOL on the eve of the definitive battle of your lifetime, Ross.
Their desertion is shameful. They have first-class minds and should be contributing to and not leading the national effort to lead the world in addressing climate change.
4
It’s a blueprint for Democratic Socialism, disguised as a plan for global warming concerns.
The fact is we already have Democratic Socialism is called Social Security. Then there’s Medicare, Medicaid and an alphabet soup of federal and state programs.
2
Speaking as a progressive, for progressives out there, here's an insight from Ross' piece: conservatives fear our desire to take their money and give it to someone else. They're largely right about that being our desire, the same way we want to have the government take away their guns (c'mon, you know you do...). We like to argue the details, but they're really good at using this argument to beat us over the head. The structure of the US Senate, heavily favoring lightly-populated rural states, means they win politically every time. Sure, get your fellow Brooklynites excited about it. But, if you aren't building an effective coalition with conservative-leaning people in, say, Idaho, Utah and Alabama you're going to lose. Again.
4
Douthit says: "It isn’t just that it dismisses all worries about deficits or inflation with a Venezuelan insouciance..." New Rule, conservatives are no longer allowed to talk about the dangers of deficits. It's not just the Trump-Ryan tax cuts, which is only the most recent of GOP budget busting moves, it's the constant and continual explosion of deficit growing budgets made up usually of tax cuts and or defense spending going all the way back to post WWII. The fact that so many people still believe "conservatives" have any right to claim fiscal responsibility is a great shame of journalists.
11
@Matt
Of course Republicans are hypocrites when they talk about deficits, but if the party of Slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK can talk about racism, then anyone can talk about anything. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice oays to virtue. There are worse things.
It's been clear to me for a decade that the purpose of green socialism is to seize control of the exploration, mining, refining, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels and that they are using the largely inconclusive, exaggerated, and speculative science of "climate change" (nee "global warming") to achieve that. By that I don't mean they want ownership of the paramount industry in the world's economy. What they want is control without the responsibility. Once you achieve control of the that industry, you largely control the world's economy for better or worse.
Yes, folks, it really is that bad. Even if they are operating on the assumption that if you demand the stars and only get half or a quarter of what you want, they are still a danger to the widespread economic prosperity that has spread throughout most of the world since WWII.
Venezuela with the world's largest oil reserves and where the socialists did seize de facto ownership ownership of the petroleum industry, is apparently the model for this kind of statist and regressive environmentalism.
Is it because of Trump that the left has become so irrational? Certainly that's part of it. Granted, Democrats will probably recoil and nominate a centrist sleep-inducing candidate like Biden anyway, but the danger the green socialists represent to the world order cannot be exaggerated.
5
Really? A desire to see the earth saved for future generations is really a conspiracy to take control by socialists? And you have gathered the info for a conspiracy where? Wiretaps? FBI investigations? Tell-tale slips of the tongue? This is just the least of Dougal’s ridiculous claims. Dubious science? Just the vast majority of scientists and the history of this planet argue otherwise. But then we’ve shown that Americans believe in Bigfoot and UFO’s. Why shouldn’t Douglas believe equally absurd ideas?
@Dougal E
Sorry, total nonsense. Venezuela is a wreck not because of socialism, but because it's a society built on a corruption and a petro-klepto economic model (it's socialism, they just call it that) that captures all the benefits of the petroleum reserves for a small kleptocracy.
@Roberto Veranes Every one wants to save the earth. I gather my evidence by reading the newspapers, watching media and studying experts. The vast majority of scientists are all over the map on the amount that human emissions are affecting climate and no self-respecting scientist pretends to know what climate will look like in fifty or a hundred years. You apparently have forgotten that skepticism is how science advances IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Until they eliminate natural variability from the list of causes of the slight warming we've seen, there is no consensus worth the paper it's written on.
Ross' use of the term "overlord" in the subtitle should not be overlooked, or underestimated.
It's great fun to point at Trump and make the claim that he's dictatorial. But in the end, the things that he has ever pointed at and made some utterance indicating he would bypass democratic processes to achieve them are few, and small in scope.
Ocasio-Cortez is cut from a different cloth.
She is a tyrant.
The real thing.
She has plans for forcibly controlling the behavior of millions of people, and absolutely no compunction about abusing power and authority to achieve that goal.
Hopefully, she will remain in the spotlight up to 2020, highlighting the point that the progressive left end game is actually her end game.
She and her cohorts are real threats to liberty.
7
@Objectivist
All the more dangerous because she looks cute and non-threatening. Steve Brannon pointed out that she has the magic dynamic touch. The charisma that can not be taught or faked, and a pure embodiment of Nietschze’s Will to Power.
@KBronson
I think she is a devotee and adherent of Alexandra Kollontai
Invariably, so consistently that I could set my watch by it, conservatives always invoke that tired old mantra of Socialism as a reason for just letting things alone.
Here we are, on the cusp of a meltdown—literally and figuratively—which will make the planet a virtual heat sump, destroying entire species, creating chaos in patterns of living among humanity, and conservatives cry "Socialism!" or "Big Government" interfering with their sacred free market economy, the kind which has got to where we are right now.
We're past the point of a slow gradual shift away from hydrocarbon. We either start thinking in terms of an emergency or simply move to higher ground worldwide.
The earth will strike its own balance. Whether or not it includes Homo sapiens, in my opinion, is less than an even bet.
My third grandson will be born next month. What kind of earth he lives on, 50 years from now, frightens me to death. He will likely remember than we did nothing but argue when the chips were down.
It may turn out that we're not so "sapiens" after all. Maybe we're just another species passing through time. Stay tuned, as they say.
30
@Bob Burns
Excellent comment
Humans are just another species living on this planet and just as we have caused the extinction, or near extinction, of many other species, we can certainly cause our own.
8
@Bob Burns
Humans are in the triad of supreme adaptability along with rays and cockroach’s. Humans will survive climate change.
As for what kind of life our descendants will live, I expect that we would be offended if we could see it but the same could be said of my ancestors who killed over breaches of their freedom that are trivial compared to the hyper-regulated life their descendants live with on a daily basis. They will adapt to whatever realities present.
"projects that don’t pretend to solve climate change but do mitigate its consequences."
In reality this is going to happen one way or the other. There's no stopping climate change. But we are resilient, and if the wreckage of the GND gets us to this resilient faster and less painfully then it will have been worth it.
4
@Mike A.
It’s going to happen over a mountain of the corpses of people who disagree- just like Communism.
Okay Russ, just because a Congresswoman and Senator launch a plan to address environmental issues facing the Nation (and the World), your education and experience demand a rational rebuttal if you disagree. Your work here today is a simple "shoot the messenger" effort. Unrestrained Capitalism has real costs, with income disparity and environmental damage topping the list. No one is advocating taking control of business or seizing assets for redistribution. Sensible fair and moral regulations to protect people and the environment is decent, American, and what Democrats and Progressives want. "At least our future socialist overlords aren’t thinking small."? If this accurate, then, "At least our former lords and nobles are no longer destroying the land and the masses on it".
21
What's the message here? That socialism equates to dictatorship? Or that radical ideas may be needed to inch us in the right direction? Seems like Mr. Douthat's saying both.
His dictatorship paranoia ignores the fact that tyranny knows no political ideology. President Trump is exhibit A: He's a tyrant, by all accounts, and a would-be dictator (but for the Constitution), AND he has absolutely no discernible political ideology whatsoever apart from self-aggrandizement.
After dismissing the Green New Deal as essentially liberal propaganda, Mr. Douthat then offers praise that it may actually lead to positive change, even if incremental. But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't those of us centrists who long for rational progress be in favor of radical efforts on the left to counterbalance the radical conservatism that has overtaken the executive branch?
Unfortunately, it is Mr. Douthat's derision that is likely to stick. We can count on conservatives who may read this column to focus only on the classic (i.e. cliche) critique of socialist ideals as evil. The good stuff will once again be overshadowed by baseless rhetoric.
11
Ross, Please keep your editorials focused on promoting the Catholic Church and its doctrines as a replacement for the United States Constitution and government.
Republicans are setting up China to be the next and only superpower as it redirects its enormous economy to build all the needed infrastructure for a green revolution.
Natural disasters associated with climate change are increasing exponentially. There is no way to claim that they could be beneficial for people or economy.
10
The Green New Deal policies criticized here may be flawed for reasons of economic efficiency and ineffective regulatory design like those proposed by Douthat. However, adroit or inept, they are simply, mixed economy progressive liberal or, at most, social Democratic reforms. They are not "socialist." Neither is the authoritarian populist policy fiasco of the Chavez-Maduro response to a corrupt oligarchs capitalist Petro State a relevant to the United States of America even in response to two decades of increasingly pernicious GOP sabotage of efforts at responsible environmental policy.
8
1993, universal healthcare faced-off against what the R's called "socialized medicine." With such a far-reaching proposal as the Green New Deal now thrown on the table, it's hard not to recall the political battles that erupted around that most ambitious of legislative proposals.
1994 launched the Gingrich / Republican revolution, of course. That was a midterms vote, however, whereas 2020 will be dominated by the presidential vote. High stakes, high drama.
1
Well, anymore when I start to read an op-ed and see that the content basis rests on terms like Socialism, Capitalism, or most any ism, I skip over the text cause it's inherently shaped and driven by a host of unexamined assumptions.
10
Ross Douthat deserves credit for admitting the obvious, market solutions cannot solve every problem. While carbon taxes sound reasonable in theory, in practice the cost of the tax falls disproportionately upon the less affluent. A billionaire can always spend more money on his jet fuel because he has lots of discretionary income. People whose income is just enough to get by cannot easily absorb the cost of gasoline prices doubling when they have to drive to get to work.
There are lots of societal problems that demonstrably cannot be solved with market forces. Healthcare, education and wealth distribution are the obvious one. Perhaps conservatives like Douthat should except that reality and try to come up with ideas that work to solve these problems, even if they feel a bit "socialistic".
5
@Glenn I agree except for a carbon tax. It would keep it in the ground, almost immediately. A carbon tax rebate? Also the revenue could support free, clean mass trans.
Please, Enough of AOC! The newly elected Congress person has absolutely NO EXPERIENCE!
Yes we need to work on many issues presented in the New Green Deal but there must be realistic goals and plans to reach them.
These Democratic Socialists should be very careful that they don’t get President Trump a second term.
3
@HPS
Too late.
The accusation of opportunism to elevate “socialism” in the Green New Deal is a distraction from possible solutions to problems many conservatives simply ignore or deny. It would be more informative for the public to have different ideas on how to solve problems, but conservatives are not budging from their entrenched position of offering nothing.
Those who read history can conclude large social programs have been successful in solving problems American society could not solve on its own. These programs did not make our government “socialist” (one can look up the definition easily enough) and demonstrated a capitalist economy can work extraordinarily well even when taxed and regulated. One can also conclude from history society does not work well when government refuses to act on behalf of the governed.
Climate change is a much, much larger problem where world leadership is essential in demonstrating acting on behalf of all living things, not just humankind, can produce positive results. The US can be that leader. The alternative of doing nothing is no longer an option. The consequences of climate change are dire. All people will have to give up something - whether it is some wealth, convenience, time, or lifestyle - to effect change, which is better than giving up lives to stubborn ideologies.
11
She's a breath of fresh air. She's genuine and truly cares about all life on our planet. And we're at a point where centrist, run-of-the-mill policies are woefully insufficient. Bold measures are needed in order to adequately confront monumental problems.
12
Mr Douthat,
Why do you start your piece with such snark directed at the congresswoman: "future dictator for life of the Americas (I believe she's also a congresswoman of some sort)"? Does the conservative paranoia against progressive thought have to lead with the innuendo -- that a bright young Latina congresswoman, speaking truth to power and to the American people about the urgency with which we need to respond to climate change -- will inevitably seek dictatorial socialism like Chavez, Maduro and Venezuela? The Green New Deal is aspirational towards Climate Change activism and progressive social democratic change in our country. I applaud Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey for moving the debate in our country to the forefront, including progressive ideals, much as we need to thank Bernie Sanders for reintroducing Medicare-for-all into the 2016 Presidential debate (when no mainstream politician would whisper such heresy). Social democracies in the European Union have much we could learn from when it comes to addressing climate change, equitable health care and policies that support future generational success. Are you similarly worried Denmark or Norway are headed to dictatorial rule or are you just out to snark and smear and keep us thinking progressive policies are not what America can make work?
22
Ross, when the "free market" doesn't work, you have to install guard rails. That's not socialism, it's protecting capitalism. If you don't, the result is capitalist failure and a much less desirable future alternative.
17
Like many conservative writers, Mr. Douthat hates when progressives seem to have all the answers, thus the last paragraph. But, if we rely on the evidence, something does have to be done to contain global warming, given that it cannot be stopped anymore because humans have dragged their feet. I don't necessarily think socialistic programs have to be used as the answer, but I have no issue with them. The right-wing fear that you have to have a dictator to have socialism is completely based on irrational fear.
Do the Democrats need to be more careful and savvy in order to win in 2020? Yes. Right now Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, the people that drive millions of voters to the polls in America out of fear, are having a great time comparing AOC's ideas to Americanism. The choice is clear to these right-wing fear mongers, Socialism vs. Americanism. Of course, what truly defines Americanism is hard to decipher, but definitions are unnecessary for the fear-based crowd. When you start hiding behind the flag, details are unnecessary. Therefore, Dems need to package their ideas in ways that will appeal to a variety of voters. Remember, simply bashing Trump will not win elections. Dems need to have palatable ideas.
11
Currently there is something approaching the international left in American politics. Democrats for too long have embraced a position of starting from the center then further compromising to the right leading to a huge rightward drift in US politics which in turn has lead to an increase in income inequality and lowered working conditions.
Americans now work longer hours for less pay than their European counterparts, environmental protections have been eroded, and the intergenerational standard of living has decreased.
Finally there’s a slight pushback, and yea a leftist pushback is going to be a leftist push back. It only seems extreme because for so long the right has been opposed to a milquetoast centrism they forgot what a leftist agenda actually looks like.
11
Preserving democracy would be nice (for I quite like it), but preserving a human habitat is what I would call essential. The amount of electricity used in the world will double in this century because the developing world is, well, developing, and they will produce it with coal if we (U.S., Europe & China) don't develop a better way and get them all to implement it. What we do in America is almost beside the point. We will convert to clean -- two or three decades late at the price of a few coastal cities (Miami adios!) -- but the continental U.S. occupies a little less than two percent of the planet's surface. Nothing we are doing even begins to address the magnitude of the problem. If the worst comes, as I believe it will, your concerns about personal freedom and forms of government will seem quaint and truly out-of-touch.
12
Regarding the Green New Deal: we have no choice. No choice unless we wish to see our grandchildren and descendants living in an unbearable world of flooding cities, frequent and devastating storms, heat waves and droughts, famines, mass migrations and never-ending conflicts over territory. I repeat: we have no choice but to boldly begin addressing the consequences of industrialization-global warming and climate change. The train left the station and mankind stands on the concourse arguing Party politics, culture, economic theory, life-style and religion (aka God's will?). AOC is the (dreaded) messenger; for this courageous young woman we should be grateful.
20
@Jack The Ex-Patriot. Such drama. Since you are now in Mexico, YOU will be paying for none of this. Why don’t you tackle the pollution in Mexico City?
The right time for announcing environmental plans and proposals is the day when Trump is finally disposed of. Until then, we should be doing nothing that will strengthen his hands.
3
Movements are not built in a day, and this is bigger than Trump. Until now, Democrats didn’t have a credible plan for addressing the true magnitude of climate change either; Trump’s GOP was in full denialist mode. Now maybe we can have a real conversation.
6
I don't know. It's one thing to care about global warming, and another thing to use it as an excuse for grabbing political power. This sounds a lot more like the second to me.
3
AOC is keeping her campaign promises and if the columnist finds this threatening to the billionaire class I and my family are subsidizing, so be it. The whining and sarcasm harkens to the similar punditry from the right during the discussion about the Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation while they were pending in congress. "Go slow," the Babbitts warned. "Now" was Dr. King's response.
35
@Doc 500 people are not a “billionaire class”. Please don’t compare the debatable climate change with civil rights.
Methinks Ross might be just a teensy bit jealous of the attention a certain young Representative has been getting.
Not that AOC doesn't have some aspects of her program that can be criticized on various grounds of efficiency and realizability. But at least she's putting out ideas--big, broad reach ideas. Compared to what Ross' political family is offering, I'll have what she's having.
37
Please don't lump us old folks in the aging AND risk adverse "category". I at nearly 76, for one, take heart in the transformative movements of the past and fervently hope that the Green New Deal's vision will gain the support it needs to translate into policy and action.
65
Ross and co are still fighting the New Deal. I suppose the Socialism of Roosevelt has gone on long enough. Time to take back what was rightfully earned by the ruling class, toss out both the aging Boomers and lay waste to what remains of the earth. Sarcastically calling AOC "first citizen" is simply another smear tactic to deprive the have nots of what the haves assume they are entitled to; clean water, fresh air, equal opportunity. In short, the very constitutional protections Ross and his ilk claim to cherish. The blatant hypocrisy can make one choke almost as much as the unrestricted pollution from the "beautiful, clean coal" industry, the drill baby drill oil and chemical spills from sea to plastic filled sea.
5
@michaelene loughlin
I'm in that aging (75) club as well.
And proud not to be risk averse. Because, surprise, I have friends and family that do not wish to miss the delights and disappointments of aging because of sycophants and Quislings.
I love the energy of and in these posts.
Gemli is especially quick and incisive. But, oh, the so many others. A joy.
3
As shown by many comments here, no leftist true believer can distinguish between climate change per se and taking political advantage of climate changing. One obviously does not exclude the other, but there are precious few minds left that can handle apparently contradictory truths and still continue to function, to paraphrase the author of “The Great Gatsby”.
3
The newly elected Congresswoman has addressed climate change—-whether one agrees with the particulars in her plan—-or not—-at least it is now under discussion. I approve of this development for the sake of my grandchildren. I did not hear Mr.Trump address his proposals for climate change in last week’s State of the Union Address—-and would suggest that every grandparent will consider this to be a major issue in the 2020 election (again: out of concern for their own grandchildren).
45
Mr Douthat writes "an emphasis on research and resilience, which would spend more money on basic science, alternative-energy adaptations and mitigation"
He spotlights the most promising solution to the climate crisis, which sprang from unanticipated side effects of 19th Century fossil energy generation technology. That solution is to replace polluting technology with more cost-effective 21st Century green tech.
This should be an entirely natural process. After all, how many other 19th Century technologies are still around? The problem is that billionaires whose wealth depends on their ability to treat Earth's atmosphere as a free dump for their industrial waste greenhouse gasses have purchased one of the two major US political parties as a hedge investment.
That's why meeting the climate challenge requires beating back the ascendancy of the predatory capitalism that Douthat in particular and the Political Right in general so fervently embrace.
32
To paraphrase a former Republican Presidential candidate; moderation in defense of the planet is no virtue, extremism in defense of the planet is no vice.
20
Okay. So what’s the republican plan to forestall the catastrophic effects of climate change and ameliorate the negative impact on our world that we’re already seeing and that is only going to get worse?
Last time I checked the party was rife with climate deniers who are handing over millions of acres of pristine national parkland to oil and gas interests, enthusiastically repealing environmental regulations, and trying to revive the dying coal industry.
Forgive my cynicism but you don’t actually seem to have a plan. So kindly get out of the way of those who are trying to preserve the habitability of the planet for future generations, socialists and climate deniers alike!
128
"...infrastructure projects... that don’t pretend to solve climate change but do mitigate its consequences."
Projects that would mitigate climate change consequences for a while; buying time.
We could build a permanent twelve foot sea wall around Manhattan, but without the same around much of the Bronx and most of Long Island, and much of New Jersey, what's the point? The same goes for every coastal city on the planet.
Mitigation without reversing; not slowing, not stopping, but reversing the process of injecting millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is pointless.
Jimmy Carter was right; this is the moral equivalent of war; this is an existential threat not just to the nation but to all of civilization.
Looking at that, what program/policy can be too radical?
24
Progressives have seized the climate-change field because conservatives have abandoned it.
20
Democrats, progressive or moderate believe in science. Conservatives (which all republicans seem to identify them self’s as) don’t. Millennials and independents do not support ignorance. No wonder the right is scared. They are a truly dying breed. Extinction can not happen soon enough. Bring on the 2020 election.
2
Oh, I thought Ross was happy because he thought the New Green Deal had a huge tax cut for the rich, the only thing conservatives thinks works, although history proves it never does.
19
Unless climate change causes a calamity that sends us back to the Stone Age (which is entirely possible), the Internet will preserve this column for your descendants to read when they are dealing with the catastrophes that global warming has wrought.
21
Spoken like a true believer of the Holy Church of Man-Made Climate Change. The non-believers should be burned to the stake !
"... The core conservative suspicion is that when liberals talk about the dire threat of global warming, they’re actually seizing opportunistically on the issue to justify, well, #fullsocialism — the seizure of the economy’s commanding heights in order to implement the most left-wing possible agenda. …"
You completely blew it in the 2nd paragraph.
Global warming is already ongoing, and baked in for decades to come.
Population explosion: At 7.7 billion, increasing by 80 million annually.
This drives everything. This alone swamps out any and all attempts at 'damage control'. And we are not going to do anything about it. The population of this planet more than doubled in my lifetime. It's all over folks.
Climate change is simply one of many looming disasters.
The Keeling curve currently at 411 ppm CO2 and rising drives the rise in sea level, temperature, and acidity. This is already baked in, and will continue for many decades to come no matter what mitigating attempts are made.
We have already passed a number of tipping points. I'm not going to enumerate these any more. It is an exercise in futility. I will support any person or entity that will do the right things, even though it is utterly pointless at this point.
ps. Need following disclaimer: I'm well aware that the US represents 6% of world's population, and generates 25% of the CO2. It is completely disgusting, it embarrasses me to be identified as an American citizen on this point.
41
@oldBassGuy
The climate change 'lag time' window is closing fast as the oceans are losing their capacity to serve as a 'heat sink'. This is a link to an alarmist blog which nevertheless offers a lot of very good current information about the state of the planet, in particular the fast-warming arctic :
arctic-news.blogspot.com
The February 2nd entry is particularly relevant. Yes, we have indeed 'already passed a number of tipping points'. The extreme weather events of the last few years are NOT an anomaly any more, they are harbingers of a much more variable climate in the
very near future. To the point where annual agriculture may no longer be possible in many areas . . .
@oldBassGuy
Don't be embarrassed, population explosion alone is enough to doom our species. Even if we Americans went Carbon Neutral Tomorrow, population bomb will still be our undoing. Spend your money and eat your fill nothing you do or don't do will change the future.
The laws of thermodynamics underlie the design of our cars’ engines, our power plants, and everything else Mr Douthat says Republicans wants to protect. These same laws also note that petrochemical resources are a limited resource, one that will run out someday.
Our culture is like a trust fund kid spending down the trust’s capital rather than live off the income. Why not plan to transition to a sustainable lifestyle before those once unlimited resources run out?
On a side note: the Republican Party wants to mandate every aspect of our personal lives, from our sexual habits to which religion we practice. When will Mr Douthat condemn this as a form of intrusive social control, the way he condemns things such as free basic health care?
46
Ross fears government spending & regulations in the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans and overwhelmingly supported by the majority of Americans.
On the other hand Ross supports a "free market" economic system designed, rigged and controlled by a 1% plutocracy, which is not in the best interests of the overwhelming majority, nor is supported by the overwhelming majority.
Ross fears a "dictatorship" devised by elected leaders and supported by the overwhelming majority
On the other hand Ross supports a dictatorship by un-elected corporate masters.
Ross and his ilk can continue to ignore the fact that government spending in the New Deal era, and massive, historic government spending during World War II created the greatest economy the world has ever seen in 1945-1975, but we know the truth.
35
Oh I forgot the Koch brothers as payers for infrastructure
4
Socialism bring it on! A new green deal, yippee! And don’t forget
Free day care
Free college
Single payer health plan
Increased payment for Social Security
Impeach president trump
Infrastructure plan costing lots of money paid for by Jeff Bezos
Michael Bloomberg
Walmart founders
Starbucks
Kentucky fried chicken
All the other billionaires
And so on
4
What a waspish column, even for you, Ross. Clearly AOC hits your last nerve. The thing about climate change that you Republican ostriches don't understand is the urgency of the problem. Not only is climate change here, but it will increasingly affect every policy issue, from employment to global conflict to immigration going forward, and quickly. You can yap about socialism all you want, but if Roosevelt hadn't come up with the New Deal, a bold way for government to save the day, and the country, there's no telling whether our country would have survived. Likewise, it's time to think outside the box on climate change, find new ways for government to propel us forward and do what needs to be done to rescue this earth. You would do well to remember that the private sector corporations, and the politicians they own, couldn't care less whether your children have clean air and water.
20
If, and that's a big IF because it would cost more than then entire US GNP, the GND were put in place totally, what impact would it have on global warming? Not much, because the US produces only about 14% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere. And don't expect emerging economies like India to abandon economic development to avoid CO2 emissions.
7
@TDi'd: First 14% is not nothing. Second, we've outsourced much of our pollution to China. The billions of dollars of Chinese products we buy are built with electricity from coal fired power plants. Thirdly, the per capita CO2 in India is far less than in the USA. Perhaps the fruits of a green revolution would be exportable? That would be nice. Yes?
P.S. It is not just the CO2 being produced now that is causing climate change, but the CO2 that has been produced for decades. I believe the USA is still the leader in that category.
1
Ross, you're absolutely right about this: the GOP has always contended that climate change politics was as much about more government control over the everyday lives of Americans and an excuse to create a command economy. The liberals always denied this - now they have put it in writing. Explain to the average American what happens to their backyard grill, their ability to travel and the curtailing of basic freedoms - I think this will have as much support in suburban swing districts as school busing.
6
Perhaps at the moment this idea sounds extreme. But climate change ain’t slowing down—in fact it’s speeding up. With every passing year the salience of a big idea on climate will grow, especially during the summers with each accelerating heat wave. We’ll still be talking about this in 2020 (and perhaps 2024 if Trump wins re-election), and my guess is that it will start looking more and more popular. This idea of the Green New Deal has staying power; soon, we won’t need to convince each and every suburbanite to get on board. The scale of WWII really is the right analogy for this.
@Chris And what exactly happens to “their backyard grill and ability to travel”? Did the National enquirer or Fox News tell you they’re going away? Just like Obama took away all your guns the way they said he would, right? Except he didn’t.
1
If the average American can’t think beyond their backyard grille then we are doomed.
2
Douthat ignores several pertinent facts in this column. In the first place, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her allies represent one faction within a diverse Democratic coalition, a reality which would force them to compromise on some of the more unpopular parts of their program. Most of them are new to politics, and they have not yet mastered the art of the possible. Nancy Pelosi will undoubtedly help them learn.
Secondly, they and their Democratic colleagues face a radicalized GOP, in which the moderate center has virtually disappeared. The economically absurd tax cut of 2017, the almost successful effort to destroy the ACA, the reliance on gerrymandering and voter suppression to maintain their grip on power, along with their support of the most dangerous president in our history, all of these actions expose a party in thrall to the most extreme elements within its ranks.
The Democrats, consequently, have no negotiating partner on the other side of the aisle. Even as the climate shifts in ways dangerous to our survival, the Republicans deny that we face the most dangerous problem in human history. Moderate measures will no longer suffice.
Ocasio-Cortez may have devised a program which lacks political viability in its present form, but she and her allies have grasped the grim fact that incremental measures will no longer save our civilization. A modified version of their approach offers us our best hope.
22
Ross, I thought you weren’t on the payroll. AOC is trying to turn us into Venezuela? Our DOD, not exactly a hotbed of socialism, has repeatedly deemed climate change as the greatest existential threat to us and to world order. And who exactly are those Republicans who might be persuaded to consider a Green New Deal?
And those horrible, unworkable ideas? Healthcare as a right? Last I heard, our life expectancy was decreasing and infant mortality is the highest in the developed world. Free college for everyone? When I went to Brooklyn College, part of the City University of New York, a semester cost $53. If that wasn’t available to me I doubt that I could have gotten a degree. A livable wage? Where would all the money be for stock buybacks?
25
Hard to remember a column (1) as completely backwards as this one, or (2) as free from facts, evidence and logic or (3) as laden with Fox News style mythology, although the coincidence of those three features is hardly a novelty or a surprise.
It is true that there is nothing particularly "green" about sketchy job creation programs (just as there is nothing particularly sane about a political party with policies on energy and climate rooted in massive lying about basic science), but it is hardly "socialist" despotism to adopt measures long followed in Western Europe, whose economies, living standards, and business sectors are as successful and vibrant as America's, and certainly more stable and viable than Donald Trump's shady real estate boondoggles.
Even the "one cheer" cited sounds more like a flippant afterthought than a reflective concession. A "green new deal" is better than carbon pricing which looks "good" only in "theory"? Gasoline taxes price carbon higher, but have been efficiently collected for nearly a century, helped build and repair highways in America, and supported development of low-carbon mass transit in Europe.
16
Solar and Wind power is great, use it, but these are expansive sources of power; you need concentrated sources to power the Northeast and populated areas. Where is all the land needed going to come from and its cost. Of course the answer will be all that empty desert and plains. That kind of arrogance reminds one of the early settlers and their attitude towards acres and acres of woodlands. Oh by the way, do we really know the environmental impact of acres and acres of wind machines and solar panels on the environment? Remember all the folk songs praising the building of dams. Now everyone wants to tear them down.
1
@Gregory -- You don't know how, so it can't be done? "That kind of arrogance reminds one" of self defeat and giving up.
We've seen societies go that way. It can happen.
It needn't happen to us. We can employ better minds to find ways. Or we can give up and be lost.
9
@Gregory -- have you been to Denmark recently? Or have you even been to Iowa?
Denmark frequently produces more electricity from wind-power than it's total electric consumption: the excess goes to Germany and the rest of Europe. (Sometimes there's even so much that the present transmission capacity can't handle it, and it is "curtailed")
Denmark is not destroyed by wind-turbines.
At present Iowa produces about a third of its electricity with wind. It's not dying from wind turbines.
Cities have always imported energy as well as food and other supplies. The cities of the east coast already import a lot of electricity from very far away ... as far as northern Canada, Illinois, etc.
In the future we will need HVDC transmission to span the continental US; we can do that.
There will be some environmental costs, you will see wind turbines and solar cells. That will be reality, because the alternatives are worse.
1