Democrats had better figure out what they stand for, because their endless cheerleading on behalf of illegal migrants swarming into our country year after year is the absolute antithesis of resource sustainability.
14
It’s all very well, Michelle, to speculate that Millennials are the hope of the future, but, you ignore the very real possibility that the lunatic occupying the Oval Office could blow us all up before they get that chance.
11
This is it....time for a real change....OAC is already showing us how it’s done.
5
Cows don`t fart methane, sorry AOC. They "belch" it when ruminating.
5
Its really not about liberal overreach. Its about completely ripping the Republican Party down to below its roots then recreating a two party system where there are two rational players.
Right now there is no Republican Party to speak of. The cancer that's been eating its heart since Reagan has resulted in the monstrosity of the Oligarch's Party at the expense and through conning conservative and often very religious (and sadly bigoted) folks of limited means (in many ways).
Trump is and has been a distraction. A monstrous bulbous grotesque distraction, but a distraction nevertheless. Hidden behind his abject incompetency and awfulness are the fat cats.
This is no longer about overreach. Its about tearing these thieving conniving appalling conmen apart to the bone and saving our country and our planet. The table is set.
20
Instead of talking about the post-Trump world how about the post-climate change world.
4
There can be no further debate about taking action on global climate change instead of just having a "climate accord". A list of things we can do right away is desparately needed, with other actions that can be taken in 2/4/6 years etc. drawn up. I am no fan of Chinese
human rights abuses, but if they want something done you do it, without going to the lengths of a N.Korea (anymore anyway). We fought a civil war almost no sooner than we declared independence from England, so unification American style usually means we fight and we die. Is THAT what it's going to take again?
I deplore radicalization per se, but we better get off our methane-producing butts and face the music. Science makes I-phones, and
it can solve this problem, too.
3
I grew up by a river that was crystal clear. Now that river is cloudy and polluted by fertilizer and cow feces runoff. I wish I could die thinking that my grandchildren or great-children could see that river run crystal clear once more.
19
Trump's nascent fascism does not make progressivist change more likely. This is just wishful thinking. It is just as likely that he will use the extremist GND and AOC phenomena as foils to make himself look competent and reasonable, ushering in a new stage in transitioning from liberal democracy to autocracy.
It is unfortunately all too easy to split the Democratic party, and it's clear that Trumpian (not "conservative", they are in no sense conservative) forces are playing off GND. It is a much needed foil for them; an extremist agenda that invites ridicule from the Trumpians and fear among moderates. Who could possibly think that is recipe for a progressive political victory?
4
The caption to this Opinion piece says it all. Except for how to be rid of him. Now.
1
Just to set the record straight cow don`t fart that much, they are ruminants with three stomachs, so they mostly belch or burp. Twenty percent of greenhouse gasses are from all ruminants.
2
Oh Ms. Goldberg. My fears outweigh my hopes.
Consider: Mr. Donald J. Trump is indeed a minority President. But he IS President. Lots of people voted for him. I still remember (with a shudder) those innumerable Make America Great signs all over central Pennsylvania.
Sometime, Ms. Goldberg, look up (on YouTube) that video back in 2016. Some Carrier honcho (suit and tie--the works) talking to hundreds of Carrier employees--
--telling them their jobs were kaput.
"Now this was a BUSINESS decisions," he declared (raising his voice) amid a chorus of groans and boos.
Things like THIS, Ms. Goldberg--
--are why Mr. Donald J. Trump was elected President.
NOT--because of carbon levels in the air. NOT--because of "farting cows" (huh?). NOT--because of climate change. Or the environment.
Please don't get me wrong. Those things are important. But I would suggest, Ms. Goldberg, there are two eminent priorities right now:
(1) Get this guy out of the White House. His administration (as you rightly point out) has been an ongoing catastrophe from Day One.
(2) Labor to correct the horrendous economic inequality that is poisoning American democracy--that is poisoning our society--that enables persons like our President to sing the siren songs of a populist--
--that have so misled--cheated--bamboozled millions of American voters.
Let's do those things first. That other stuff--important, nay vital, as it is--
--it can wait.
4
much better investment than wasting billions on foreign handouts to countries like Israel.
2
I would have understood what was said and its inference regardless of which motif "bovine flatulence" or "farting cows" was used. The point is that if you are a comedian, late night talk show host or just talking around the water fountain, such humor is fine. I enjoy it.
However, if you want something as sweeping as the GND to be considered seriously, as a public advocate, you need to be serious.
Such cute asides give people the impression that you are just putting on a show and that the serious issues addressed in this ambitious manifesto are just a lark to get attention.
3
"Donald Trump is President and Anything is Possible"
First positive headline Ms. Goldberg has had since joining the NYT.
1
Anyone who takes the GND as a declaration of war is nuts. "Run that flag up and see who salutes it!" "Fly a kite..." we have various expressions for floating new ideas. And at heart, there is little new in the GND. The heart of it is survival of the human race with liberty and justice for all. I don't read proposals like that anymore, and I don't buy green bananas. I don't know what new science may offer us in the way of solutions, but this is certain: unless we agree on the problem and the need for solutions, we're just part of the problem.
6
I love you, Michelle. Thank you.
1
Hogwash. Who needs a bunch of naive grandstanding? You want to see what ridiculous preening and virtue signalling in politics comes to? Come to Canada - prince charming Trudeau, over whom you all swooned, is in big trouble because reality has set in.
2
I think a lot of Nancy Pelosi. I'm proud of her strong leadership and good sense. she's dealing with mountainous problems in our government, right now. but Pelosi is looking at 80, even though she seems decades younger. quite possibly, she is so much more politically savy than I that she sees the Green New Deal as an unsupportable risk for Democrats - holding the notion that Democrats are basically boomers, or older. but that is not our future. we will never progress unless we allow our reach to exceed our grasp: that's what President Kennedy meant when he committed the USA to putting a man on the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. it will take bold ideas and "outlandish, unrealizeable" demands for younger voters to commit and move things forward. if all we do is work to hold off today's many disasters, we are lost before we begin.
7
Canadians would love to share ideas about universal health care in the US and partner in establishing yours. Ours is certainly not perfect; however it has served to provide a shared value. We care about each other's well-being enough to pay help pay for those who cannot afford medical help. A partnership would help in improving ours and give you an edge in avoiding errors.
Start your revolution by relieving people's anxiety surrounding family health care.
7
So the "Green New Deal" is supposed to appeal to the working class?! The name alone demonstrates obliviousness. No... it was created for educated and out-of-touch liberals by liberal politicians/careerists. The establishment of both parties are probably delighted to see this proposal, knowing it's DOA. Just let the liberal elite add on environmentalism or some other privileged, idealism and it's sure to go nowhere (except maybe for those sponsoring it.) A reactivated New Deal (minus the Green) WOULD appeal to the working poor of both parties, Independents and the non-affiliated. Given their vast numbers and desire to see real change, this could result in MAJOR economic reform (a scary prospect for the corporate/political/media establishment.)
The frustrating part of this scenario is that it would likely do FAR more to protect the planet than would all of their green policy proposals, combined. The consumption and destruction of natural resources drives globalization - and open markets for goods and labor are its prerequisites. By closing our borders to the influx of cheap labor and the outflux of business capital, as well the outsourcing of our pollution (both industrial and personal), we can start to build an economically- and environmentally-sustainable society.
5
We need to move beyond the myopia of tax policy and college for all. This planet has too many humans who generate too much garbage. We have new technologies in hand that can replace much of the workforce, but instead of figuring out how to use them to make life better for everyone, we allow their benefits to make a lucky few absurdly wealthy while everyone else fights over the scraps. We spend far more time working than people did 10,000 years ago-- how is that progress?
I dream of a world where we work much less, make things that last, spend our time educating ourselves and creating art, enjoying the company of family and friends, traveling. A society that doesn't encourage all the pointless accumulation of junk for the sake of status that is thrown away as soon as it becomes tiresome.
There's gotta be something better than what we got going now...
6
"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
~ Samuel Adams
9
I think if anything, the Sclerotic Wing of the Democratic Party — of whom Hilary Clinton is a member — might be the real risk for 2020.
The Green New Deal represents a significant, and I would suggest, majority consensus that is already there in the United States, Millenials or no.
The Ancien Régime of the GOP and its white-haired, doddering old fools have actually been in a panic, and holding on by their fingernails for a decade now.
Let us not imitate them, okay?
If what I suggest be true, Pelosi and Manchin and others like them better get with the picture quickly.
It has long been understood, even since Earth Day 1970, that a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy, built on goals other than Profit Uber Alles, are inextricably intertwined. You cannot have one, without the other.
The fingers of the dead hands of the past, coated in oil and coal, must be prised from our global future.
The hijacking of internationalism and globalism by a super-rich elite, when it should be the founding set of concepts for all the rest of us, united, instead; and be in our control, not theirs, for our purposes, not theirs, must be undone, as a key part of this vision.
It’s all quite clear, once you pull the wool out of your eyes, and put on your yellow vest.
4
This reader was heartened by Ms Goldberg's optimism until she called out Nancy Pelosi for insufficient Green New Deal enthusiasm. Nancy Pelosi, as the last hope for liberal democracy in the US if for no other reason, deserves a little latitude for triggering the hair trigger apostasy meter of left leaning columnists.
5
The real problem with the left is not lofty aspirations, it's that it's a misfit in a country that has always been center right. America is a place where individualism is exalted; leftism (and I consider myself left) skews toward communalism, group solidarity. When it comes down to it, most Americans would rather live far away from their fellow citizens. Where I live, barely anyone knows his neighbor, we have gated communities across the country, etc.Our latest technology makes it even easier for people to disconnect from people, even (especially?) those sitting right next to them! I don't think the problem is a lack of a lofty platform or outlandish ambitions, it's not going to do the trick. The problem is that we expect that to bring people together. No big ideas are going to do the trick - particularly if they are launched in Washington, DC. To overcome the individualistic ethos we need to build community at the community level and let it ripple outward to other parts of the country. Stop with the big ideas. Start by introducing yourself to your neighbor, try to empathize and connect with his or her experience. Start there, America, and stop looking for some sill big "brand" ideas to pull us out of this funk.
3
If a politician doesn't have vision then they're really just babysitters of the status quo. Is that really what we want? How can you head into the future when you're running backward as fast as you can? The Supreme Court as it currently sits is prepared to turn the clock back to a time where some people's voting rights are limited, women are subject to male intervention in their medical care and where our current JP Morgans and Vanderbilts are consulted before any political decision affecting them is made.
We are at the apogee. We've been told that the GOP will throw American Democracy in the dust bin before they will give up power. This is what that looks like. It's happening right now.
5
The Green New Deal may be poorly written & may offer RW extremists a convenient target. The fact remains, however, that we are running out of time to prevent climate change catastrophe & radical action is needed now.
7
As the DNC Political machine whips up hysteria amoung the masses about Global Warming and Imminent Disaster when the Ice Caps melt and flood the NYC Subway System...causing an epidemic of zombies........the only solution is to "Vote Democrat...and vote Democrat often."
Reminder: There once was a theory posited by a scientist named James Lovelock.........the Gaia Theory............in which Mr. Lovelock claims that our planet, Earth, has the feedback systems to counteract every deviation from the "norm" temps, winds, insolation, etc.........basicly life on the planet acts as a governing mechanism on the unpredictable changes in boundary conditions.
Take a Chill Pill. The water, air, environment in the USA has never been better.............now, China and India on the other hand........
The Green Deal must be sound because of the obvious
GOP lies about it. it ahs nothing to do with cars
or hamburgers
word
5
It appears to me; we as humans who wish to continue to exist, must a choice to make. With diminishing human habitat and resources certain because of changing climatory conditions, all life on the planet seems destined to live a future of extreme stress and political strife.
Either we fight and kill each other over diminishing resources and livable terrain or we recognize the situation and attempt to engineer and facilitate mass migrations of indigenous and assimilated peoples to regions of the world where they can acclimate and can be resettled.
For the survival of the species, we will need to practice worldwide birth control irrespective of what the Pope or the Republicans think.
So much of this sounds like science fiction it is ridiculous, but we are here now and we can all fight each other while trying to learn to survive, or we can fight together learning how to survive.
This is not new. Science knew 100 years ago we would eventually kill life as its known now on the planet.
Here we are.
I used to think America would be an example for the world.
I'm losing hope for my grandchildren and trump offers me nothing.
Who are the leaders with the vision and the hearts to believe the future belongs to people all over the world?
Everyone is circling their wagons, using monies for weapons that could be used for advancing technologies useful for the survival of the species.
Wake up America, wake up world. Pull together or perish.
"I'm only here for the show" George Carlin RIP
7
It would be nice if the new progressives would show more maturity, but no doubt, a workable GND can be fashioned from this starting point. We need new ideas, problem-solving, and a set of goals that saves our planet and kick-starts our economy into the next era.
2
The Green New Deal is a blueprint for losing the 2020 election.
3
That the people and institutions of the US are paralyzed into allowing this charlatan to dismantle the Constitution and make the Declaration of Independence meaningless is saddening, bewildering and tragic beyond words. There's no way of knowing what will rise from the ashes of this dumpster fire but the one certainty is that it will not be what the world has come to know as the United States of America.
6
This article says that anything is possible with Trump as president.
There is one sure thing by Trump that is not possible and that is for him to say something truthful.
He will be recorded in history as the biggest liar to have ever been president and he will probably be proud of that.
4
Ms. Goldberg writes: "The electorate certainly is; within the next decade, millennials, the most diverse and perhaps most progressive generation in history, will be the single largest voting bloc."
Many people think that their generation is/was the most progressive in history. Although baby boomers are now widely blamed for all that ails us today, it was they who enunciated the connection between corporate profits and a nation's will to war--Vietnam. With that knowledge, boomers took to the streets and stopped the war in Vietnam. Pretty progressive, I'd say.
8
So after the 10's of millions killed by central planning, social engineering Marxists in the last century (that our democratic party and Left are still in Holocaust denial mode about) ... what we now need is a "green" washing Utopian fantasy? A virtue signaling "dreaming" about how throwing up a few wind mills and solar panels is going to stop the majority of environmental deterioration that is actually caused by our species adding another 1 billion resource consumer-polluters to the earth's already over-exploited biosphere every dozen years? All so our Left progressive green pretending 1% can gain more trillions before the biosphere collapses occur due to the much more foundational cause of environmental decline - our elites greedy mania for perpetual population driven economic growth on a finite planet. But then this definitely makes sense from a Marxist revolutionary's standpoint. For the longer we take to bring the human population down to a sustainable level the more misery, death, pandemics and species extinctions will occur, and so hopefully for our wanna be Stalins, make it more likely they can gain complete dictatorial power over a humanity that is desperate for some kind of salvation from the apocalypse that these elites have more or less intentionally created.
2
We may have to face the fact that the anthropocene is going to end in the not too distant future.May I recommend Mad Max: Fury Road" as a blueprint. We have been warned, by so many means and methods. I tend to believe the cynicism of Mitch McCon(nell) and the Koch brothers resides particularly in the fact that they know how toxic we have made the planet. So they are just gathering hay while the sun shines, and building possible compounds in places like New Zealand, in the hopes of outliving the rest of us.
3
There will only and always be two Senators per State, no more no less It was in the House of Representatives where our Founders conceived the legislative processes being 'OF, BY and FOR the People'.
However the Apportionment Act of 1911 locked the number of Reps at 435, based on the census of 1910, and there it has remained. In 1910 the US population was 91 million; it has grown north of 321 million since.
By our Founders' standards then, 230 million Americans are either UNDER represented or not represented AT ALL. Simple math says there should something OVER 1530 Representatives in the House now, today, enough that control can't be 'purchased' by Big Money, gerrymandered by political parties or manipulated by the various 'News' Teams.
Vote out the money-mongers, yes. Vote in the creative and open-minded personnel, absolutely. Consider a new Constitutional Convention to bring Puerto Rico and Washington DC on board as States, yes. But first consider voting OUT the Apportionment Act of 1911. Our legislative process was NOT designed to foster oligarchy or national feudalism, but that's the direction 'special interests' would prefer it go. Let's expand the House of Representatives and move back toward our traditional constitutional democracy, not further toward the Middle Ages.
7
We are facing an existential crisis as a civilization, maybe as a species. A vision for survival has been laid out. It may not be feasible in its current form. It is certainly not complete.
But our 'leaders' are not entitled to dismiss it unless they can offer a more viable path.
4
If "dreaming big" causes the nightmare to continue, then it will have been a tragic mistake. As Dirty Harry once asked: "are you feeling lucky?
South America, Africa, Southeast Asia - They are the lungs of our planet and need to be saved.
-South American deforestation is due to cattle farming and mining.
- Africa deforestation is die to cattle farming, mining and lumber
- Southeast Asia deforestation is due to agriculture- PALM KERNEL oil and lumber.
The U.S. is small potatoes ..
1
What is a wild fantasy is what OAC's Green New Deal will cost along with free college, single payer and whatever else the Democrats have in the closet that they won't even talk about.
Dems think they have a clear path to this nonsense, only because it's Donald Trump they're running against.
One would think they learned some lessons from the last presidential election...
4
I've long thought that a president should propose a national moonshot to make the US the leader in renewable energy use and technology export. The broad themes of the New Green Deal are long overdue.
So why do I find the NGD so alarming? The people proposing it. I do not trust Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I do not trust her or her army of wild-eyed, left wing social justice warriors. I wouldn't trust them to design a city park, let alone remake the US economy.
Their brand of socialism differs from the happy, Swedish kind in its zealotry and comprehensiveness, its naivete of the profound level of government coercion they are proposing.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
And of course, their manifesto must - must - include grad school rhetoric about justice for "...indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities,.." etc.
4
Yes, I think it is high time for a major reset (another reason I don't want a 75-year-old presidential candidate, no matter how great they are). I view the Green New Deal proposal as a necessary foot in the door; A Dream that we need to get started on, sketched out in broad strokes. Of course, they don't have all the answers yet. But we need to start turning the ship around now. We desperately need young people like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez with the vision to lead the next generation to a better world.
I'd like to think Nancy Pelosi is just waiting for political momentum to build for the Green New Deal. She is clearly giving Ocasio-Cortez and her followers the space to make progress if they can pull it off (I hope).
212
Good article.The alliance talked about matches well with the Mitch Machiavelli McConnell syndrome. Combined they are the genesis of the ultimate decline of the right wing Republican Party/Tea Party types and Club for Growth/Freedom Caucus alliances . Time to move out of their cycle. Precursor was the 2018 election. Younger generations marching now to a different drummer. I think a good thing. In 2020 we will see a massive shift in the American political scene - to a moderate but progressive slant. Vote, donate, no apathy.
1
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Americans are way over weight, eat too much meat, have cholesterol/heart health issues, and like to drive gas guzzling trucks and cars. Perhaps eating less beef and other meats while driving fuel efficient cars as well as walking or biking more rather than taking the car for shorter trips is a viable idea to help mitigate some of these problems.
As many have said, the GND is a plan - an idea to improve the environment which serves as a base for other ideas. Are Americans reluctant to change, problem solving, and big picture thinking? I certainly hope not or we're cooked.
I prefer to believe the consensus in scientific community rather than the politicians. Adapt or go extinct. I hope it is not too late.
2
The Green New Deal is not perfect; it's a start, and more than most anyone has put forward in the 21st century.
The future of the American political and environmental climate will not, cannot, be a win-win solution. There will be pain, and hopefully it will be shared equitably by the upper echelons of society as it is with the rest of us.
Let's hope it will lead to lasting acknowledgement by powers that be that as the earth and the world change, stubborn and dangerous ideological denial and inaction are immoral.
4
Epochs are always coming and going but just like waves when one is out on the ocean, they are difficult or impossible to discern.
The Republicans have run out of gas. All they can do is promise tax cuts and lower regulations in the hope that the billionaire class will continue to fund them. They have nothing, nada, to offer to the long standing problems of our society but evasion, as with climate change.
The Democrats have spent the last several decades frozen in the headlights. When Obama came to power with both the House and Senate under their wing, they delivered a confusing mess of a solution to health care insurance with all the boldness of someone running from danger. They sabotaged themselves but not doing and insisting on more in response to the Great Depression and millions of people felt abandoned, bereft. Obama, a smart man, did not fully understand the dynamics of the nation he was charged with leading, having spent critical years of his childhood in Indonesia and then growing up in the isolation of Hawaii, followed by the forced isolation of elite education.
Democrats are now finding their voice. Whatever they propose to do, it must be with the sure knowledge that a tsunami of criticism and propaganda is, at this very moment, prepared and ready for the counterattack. They must learn how to operate in this not so brave new world without fear and with, yes, an overriding sense of purpose and values. They can only win by standing up, standing firm. There is hope.
6
I like to think I think like Ms. Goldberg but she is so very well-informed which is why I try to read her writing whenever I can. The Green New Deal is a great idea but, in my opinion, in order to accomplish even the preliminary goals, we all would have to get behind it like we did for the WPA, the CCC, even the Marshall Plan. I don't think there are enough of us ready to go this route even though it may be the single most important consideration about the future of mankind.
2
Ms. Goldberg: "it would probably have to use economic incentives to convince other countries to change their behavior."
This language wins the prize for Green euphemisms. Other countries have already insisted on countless billions of dollars to fund environmental reform. "Economic incentives" sounds better than hundreds of billions of dollars. But it's just an evasive term that distorts the truth.
I would be delighted if everyone had health care. It would be wonderful if hi speed rail would supplement most air travel in the USA like it has in France. I would be perfectly happy if all the families of the super rich are taxed down to where the rest of us live. Then the super rich wouldn't think all these things were silly. And regular people could start businesses again. And the corporations could start going back to obeying the law, paying their share and becoming less powerful. How about we make a beautiful world for all of us to live in, but first we need to take the money from the rich, they have behaved unresponsively. The best punishment for that misbehavior is to remove the means for them to cause mischief.
3
Trump appointed a coal lobbyist to head the EPA ,another agency head determined to end the mission of the agency they head. Denying climate change got Trump millions from coal lobbyist and other fossil fuel lobbyist ,lobbyist hang out at his hotel near the White House to bribe Trump on the down low yet media catches them walking around with AT&T tee shirts. Trump has been corrupt all his life and lies frequently and now we have a president who makes false claims to support those who feed at his trough. Having a liar as president will become a disaster as Iraq was and Bolton will give us war with Iran leading a ignorant weak minded president into a fiasco costing many innocent lives as much as climate change denied is.
2
Trump’s presidency, wrote Balkin, could be what Skowronek called “disjunctive,” meaning one “in which a president allied with an aging political regime promises to restore its dominance and former greatness, is unable to keep all of the elements of his coalition together, and as a result presides over the regime’s dissolution.”
But in this case, Trump is not an ally of the regime. The regime wants him gone as much as Democrats but they'll (McConnell et al) use him as long as they can until he's gone, dissolved; the regime will still be there.
1
It's too soon to say what could happen next. At this point, we need to worry about Trump calling another national Emergency just before the next Elections and trying to postpone them.
\]After all, his Evangelical Supporters think that God's Plan is to make Trump King of America. He might prefer "....President for Life..."
1
Donald Trump is not our president. He was never elected. He was placed in office by a right wing Republican coup through corrupt election processes aided and abetted by the Russians. Trump is a corporate fascist dictator owned and operated by Putin and a clique of super-rich right wing extremists including the Kochs, Mercers and Adelsons- the same people that own and operate the Republican Party..
5
I keep reading about this Green New Deal when we should be fighting for the old FDR one. EQUALITY!
3
Verrry interesting. I don't know what happened to the idea that presidents should have visionary ideals they introduce to the country. I seem to remember going to the moon being a pretty big deal. It was a non-starter until it was discussed, refined, and then put down on paper as a plan with milestones and tasks.
So I don't buy the whole Green thing at face value. But you have to have something on the whiteboard to begin the discussion. You have to believe saving the planet is a decent goal. You can work to figure out what is achievable. But nothing will be achieved if nothing is tried.
5
“nightmare of Trump” gee what a wonderful objective way of viewing the world? I don’t like the way Mr. Trump comports himself, but he is not a nightmare. It would be good to see more objectivity in these op eds.
3
A nightmare is exactly what a wannabe fascist dictators like Trump is.
1
The good news: Trump may have invigorated our democracy by exposing our problems and pulling young people and other diverse citizens into activism.
The bad news: Yet another egomaniacal billionaire, who could not even get himself to the polls, may ruin it all. (Mr. Schultz, you've never heard of absentee ballots?)
Newsflash: Saying I'm not a spoiler does not make it so.
I don’t believe the Green New Deal is Kryptonite for the Democrats. It’s botulinum toxin laced with Plutonium and wrapped in Kryptonite. Any program labeled “utopian,” as the GND is by Ms. Goldberg, will be as helpful to Democrats retaking the White House as a new trove of Hillary’s emails.
The Democrats (including me) have the idealistic part of tectonic culture change down pat. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could couple idealism with economic and political reality, as FDR did? Asking people to accept a new economic paradigm based on what many will see as a more intrusive federal government is the mother of all non-starters . . . another Jill Stein moment in which Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Here’s an idea: columnists who advocate for the GND should take an oath never to write a single negative word about Trump after the November 2020 election under penalty of hearing “we told you so.”
1
Judging by many of the comments in the thread, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is to inadequate white men what illegal immigrants are to inadequate Trump supporters. A target, an object of ridicule, scorn & hatred, and the awful bump in the night that goads them to wet their beds.
Well, most of us don't the haters of immigrants seriously, and we don't take haters of Ocasio-Cortez seriously, either.
If you want to know more about the haters, ask them what they've done lately for anything, or anybody. All you'll hear in reply is coughing, or silence.
4
Not that I'm calling anyone stupid but can the nytimes perform a public service and explained to their many readers the usual European suspects are not socialist but very capitalist. Maybe even explain the difference between socialism and a welfare state.
Remember Democratic Socialism is neither Democratic or socialist.
Good show on the article on the shrinking European middle class. Think about it.
2
All the problems we face are due to overpopulation. If we bring the world's population of people under control that will solve all our problems....
4
@Lucifer Global warming is about to take care of that problem.
1
I have lived though only two Presidential eras so far: The FDR era and the Reagan era. The party affiliation of a given President mattered little. For example, Nixon gave us the EPA; Clinton dismantled welfare. I was hoping Obama would be transformative and usher in a new era. Turns out he could not escape Reagan's penumbra. The Green New Deal may be the first draft of a new movement, because it dares to tackle our two greatest problems: severely shifting climate, and massive concentration of wealth and power. Great ideas start with great ideals. Now we need leaders to transform the dreams into reality.
5
Yeah, the high speed rail thing really seems practical given the fact California’s governor announced this week the project is be curtailed (read pretty much dead). If it can’t Be done in La La Land it sure will be interesting to see how it fares elsewhere. I am not that old, but I suspect I will not live to see it.
3
Skowronek’s thesis seems to be a reiteration and possibly an extension of Arthur Schlessinger Jr,’ “the Cycles of American History” . In his republication of his father’s thesis first published a century ago ,Schlessinger saw the pendulum of Left-Right politics oscillating from conservative to liberal to conservative as the previous dominant “party of ideas” became sclerotic, and unable to think of new ideas to deal with new crisis that confounded their traditional theories.
Goldberg channels Skowronek who also channels Malcom Gadwell’s idea of “tipping points”. A time comes when the small change of a new idea creates a large change in what is considered possible.
The very cascade of these complimentary theses suggest that the crisis in the Republican Party which Trump catalyzed but did not cause may reverse , once again, the polarity in american politics.
2
We don't know what we are on the cusp of - the Green New Deal being the most appealing of the possibilities. The reelection of Trump being the worst.
3
I'm just thrilled we finally have Democrats talking about finding ways to reduce our National Debt.
Hallelujah!!
1
The US was in such a strong posistion in 1945, the sole untouched imperial power on Earth. Trump is the nasty hangover that says, that is over. Trump didn't deserve what he has, and, in many ways, neither did the US, but they ran with it until things changed. American "exceptionalism" was based on America's luck of being geographically isolated from the terrors of WW1 and 2. Climate change , globalization, immigration, and failed (American client) states south of the border push us to find a better future. The Republicans bring no real ideas, only a sentimental kleptocracy for a clique.
1
Is the GND any more bizarre than Trump or the invasion of Iraq?
The US has spent $6 trillion all borrowed on foreign wars that is has lost - at least not won? The neoliberals and the neocons have ravaged the planet for the last 40 years. Look where it has gotten us.
Time for a change of direction.
This is a chance for a country headed for oblivion to change direction and save itself. The alternative is national suicide, taking much of the planet with it.
2
I was intrigued by part of this article, but found that it lacked any sense of "punch" in positing any concrete predictions for how the next several years in American politics might play out. No one can predict the future with certainty, but what exactly does Ms Goldberg actually expect our political environment to look like in 5 or 10 years? I didn't reap one iota of comfort or insight after having spent the 3 minutes it took to read this ~ in other words, I wasted my time.
I couldn't disagree more with your comparison of Roosevelt and Reagan. Notwithstanding their polar opposite political casts, the "corresponding set of legitimating ideas" behind Roosevelt was social justice and the upsetting of a gilded class that had destroyed the economy with their greed and short sightednes; Reagan's idea was simple racism in reaction to the civil rights struggle, and yes, greed.
1
"Dreaming" (+) "Scheming" = Results
For too long, Democrats seem to have felt their brilliant ideas were sufficiently self evident, that every American would clearly see them for their fairness, compassion and support of economic growth.
Republicans realized long ago that the most blatant lies wrapped in "scheming" without end, fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.
"Dreaming" is not enough. Democrats need to be better "Schemers."
1
High-speed rails’ time has cone and and gone. Electric autonomous car service will be here shortly. It will be cheaper, more convenient, and better for the environment than even rail systems. Also, it will happen mostly because of market forces and thus won’t require the political arm-twisting of troglodyte conservatives who despise anything “collective”.
I’m all for a green new deal. Just be smart about it. Leave out the old stereotypical hippie crunchy tree-hugger language that so enrages conservatives, and concentrated on what can practically and significantly reduce our carbon output as quickly as possible.
1
If anything is possible, I surely hope that President Trump will be put out of office soon.
Less people = Less consumption = Less pollution
1
Mrs. Goldberg,
I love the way you write!
1
I completely agree that Trump represents a "fin de siecla" moment for conservatism. And I am surprised that Dems don't say, "Sure. I'll vote for that!" when the GND comes up. Because it is directional. Sure, the elements can be debated. But that is the direction we will have to go in. Newscasters constantly say, "But how much will it cost?" A good question. Here's a better question: How much will it cost if we don't do something like this?
3
I may be an old lady, but I am ready to go for this Green New Deal!
It’s a program whose time has come!
5
How about this
Let’s let AOC take control of the countries finances.
She can’t even run her own and with all that bartender experience why should we doubt her ability.....
Go AOC!
1
@There'r Yeah well, at least she didn't have to declare bankruptcy 6 times, so it would probably be an improvement.
3
I do not doubt for a minute that it is at least likely that the "dream" will prevail.
What I have always admired about America is its capacity to accomplish the impossible in the pursuit of a dream.
Progress is no linear. It follows an action-reaction cycle.
"Green" is a matter of life and death for the human race. That is already obvious to the younger generation which has the most to loose.
2
Well, I hope that this 'political time' refers to the Green New Deal. But what if rather than being the end of the last revolution, Trump is the start of the new 'political time'? Not because there is a groundswell of support for Trump and his policies -- especially among those under 35 -- but in spite of them, because of an extralegal, authoritarian Putsch, aided and abetted by cynical Republicans in Congress and a newly constituted judiciary? We just saw the declaration of a 'national emergency' spun out of thin air, to do something that the legally constituted legislative body expressly prohibited. That on top of the flagrant disregard for election and international law. Skowronek and Goldberg assume transitions between political times under the conventional political rules. But if we continue down this path, the rules that prevailed under FDR and Reagan may be irrelevant.
The main objection to any big bold plan has always been that all the ramifications ,details and unseen consequence have not been all worked out to start with. The answer from the timid and those enamored with the status quo has been NO. Of course those folks have never gotten anything done. That approach will not win WW II or end the Great Depression, or get you to the Moon, or end poverty. We as a country are at our best when we don't know what the out come will be but go with the goodness of our hearts and do the best we can every time we are tasked with another problem. For another child of the 60's it can be a little scary when the young, beautiful and energetic what to turn things around in a big bold way. Still I know that you must strike when the iron is hot, and after these last 40 years of being ground down by our Billionaire class I think we may very well be hot enough to actually do something to make our lives better.
3
I am all for the GND. I think it will be pivotal and shine a glaring light on Republicans, most specifically McConnell. We are at a crossroads, environmentally, economically, politically, socially. We are deciding if we will not recognize global warming or try to fight it, if we can work through inequality issues - which include voter access, healthcare, education and a myriad of other inequalities. GND does need to address these inequalities. If people do not think they have value, have skin in the game, they will not take the necessary steps to fight global warming.
3
The Green New Deal also may represent the end of a cycle many of us hoped ended with the catastrophic presidential candidacy of George McGovern in 1972. His platform, just like the Green New Deal, called for an expansion of the social safety net with a vastly expanded federal role in the economy. He lost every state but Massachusetts and we all got four more years or Richard Nixon. Thank you, progressives, then and now.
1
Maybe I’m reading this all wrong. I’m not focusing on the “Green New Deal” which is just an example of how part of a new order might play out. Instead I’m thinking about the concept in this article of how significant social adjustments will be needed to adjust to the changes that have occurred over the last 100 (30) years. Call that a paradigm-shift if you wish.
An alternative perspective would be that Republics generally have a shelf life of 200 years. Consequently the conservative movement of the 80’s was the beginning of the end of our democracy. …That people are looking for a king and that Donald Trump the “King without Clothing’ represents the end of our democracy.
I’m hoping that this perspective is wrong, for my children and all of ‘our children’. But there are signs that we are about to enter a violently oscillating period in our country’s history.
2
You have hit the nail on the head. The Republicans are relying almost entirely on demagoguery now to cover for their failed policies, and their policies will not get any better. The middle class, e.p. the blue collar part of it, has been withering for a long time. The demagoguery will only run thinner and thinner as time goes on, and with each election cycle more and more people will start looking for something new, and because of this, because of the continuing failure of neoliberal policies, the progressives will keep gaining. Their ideas are going to get tried.
3
I read the GND Resolution. I don't think the authors understand even the rudiments of how power is actually generated for human use. (Hint: start by googling "electromagnetic induction.") We can't reach zero carbon emissions by political hectoring or aspirational rhetoric. We need massive investment in scientific research into photovoltaics. That point needs to be stated explicitly in any GND.
1
The Green New deal is not the apocalypse, it is a loose hypothetical proposal. Here is how you make policy: First ask for pie in the sky. Then after some intense negotiations, you get pie on your plate. Without bold initial proposals, you get only a small piece of pie, or none at all.
3
I will leave it to experts to work out the details, but from what I've observed of the world's climate in the last ten years, if a Green New Deal is super-expensive, the absence of a Green New Deal will be more so.
7
The GND has already been a great success. Even a year ago any and all proposals to do something about climate change were dismissed and unworkable and unrealistic. Now the GND is described in the same way, but it has opened up a space where people can say, "Yes, those are radical proposals, but here are some things we can do."
5
I prefer a Green Manhattan Project to a Green New Deal. The original New Deal was a motley collection of small scale, ad hoc programs that didn't really achieve its goal, namely ending the Great Depression. On the other hand, the Manhattan Project was a concerted, large scale and ultimately successful effort to address an existential threat to our nation and our planet.
My only real problems with AOC's GND: that it included a grabbag of social democratic goals unrelated (or only tangentially related) to climate change, however worthy they might be; and that it didn't include carbon taxes or measures to address VMT-generating sprawl.
1
Again an article based uniquely on ideology Left and Right. But absolutely no causality . Not a single argument about ecology and political programs.
Americans are completely enslaved to opinions.
Without any logical thinking.
1
The issues of climate change as of today have been solved permanently.
In two years a President Harris or President Booker can declare a national emergency and proceed as necessary to do what is necessary to solve the problem.
And they would be on firmer footing than Trump is today because part of a national emergency declaration passing legal muster is that use of the Defense Department for emergency purposes requires the use of and support for the armed forces.
A border wall will not protect the border from a military foe, rendering this tactic by Trump legally suspect.
BUT the Pentagon has declared recently that climate change is an immediate threat to our armed forces and so declaring a national emergency for this issue would allow President Harris or Booker to move money around to protect against a climate change emergency declaration in a way that could pass legal muster since it is considered a threat to our troops and our national security.
2
The Green New Deal seems to be more New Deal than Green. My concern is that this grand scheme may sink from its own weight. I also fear it may inadvertently undermine any public support for climate change legislation.
We need a laser-like focus to reduce carbon emissions worldwide to avoid calamitous climate change. Politically, we also need a plan that will limit the disproportionate impacts of a carbon tax on certain communities and working class people. Green jobs and tax rebates should be part of any carbon tax program. The Green New Deal seems to be designed to raise the Democratic Socialist agenda over proven policy choices - such as broad-based carbon taxes - needed to limit the worst impacts of global warming.
But what do I, an aging baby boomer, know?
1
This article talks about a "debate... to completely reorient the economy around environmental sustainability". But I don't really see the issue as that extreme. With the aid of a few tax credits, I now power my house with solar-generated electricity and own an electric car powered from the same source. The fact is that power form sustainable sources is not that much more expensive than fossil-derived and it's getting cheaper all the time. You can easily imagine my own economics generalizing on a national level. Changing to sustainable energy requires re-gearing one US industry, and in fact in a way that is not particularly painful. It does not require wholesale reorientation of our economy, as far as I can tell.
2
“Democrats who are dismissive of the Green New Deal, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi...have written it off as a ‘dream.’”
As a big fan of the Speaker, I’m deeply disappointed in her responses thus far regarding the Green New Deal. To be blasé, much less dismissive, about it is not only arrogant but is terribly myopic of her. Yes, the Deal is idealistic and flawed, but it represents a huge, proactive step in the right direction, and is filled with the one value most Americans desperately long for: Hope.
4
I'm liking it. " Unwilling to work," rebuilding every home. No planes, Just dumped my boeing stock. This reminds me of the idealists in high school and college who idealized communism. forget the 50 million dead. Hey, the Nazis had cool uniforms and cars. So darn cute. Now grow up Cortez. I want a unicorn in glittery colors. Don't admire these people, fear them, not all dreamers, Mao, Hitler, are good. Cortez is worse, as she is not that bright, but a homework assignment for the fifth grade. Now about my unicorn. Oh, Venezuela can help and Cuba with your assignment. Forget the millions of wasted lives of every Cuban who dreamt the socialist dream. Really, it works.
2
@one percenter - I'm sorry to tell you, but no life form can sustain unlimited growth within a limited system. Sooner or later space and resources are used up and the species is consumed by it's own waste. Unlimited growth is capitalism's foundational flaw. Arguments, excuses, rationalizations and jokes cannot overcome inevitable physical realities. So you have a choice to make. You can have capitalism as it has been practiced. Or you can have a living breathing planet. Choose wisely.
3
Thanks!
For readers interested in legal landmarks over the past 50 years on how we failed to control air pollution see
https://new.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
Google "farting cows and airplanes" and you come up with a page if not pages of right wing media's repetition of this phrase, dissing it, joking, and making the connection of the "Green New Deal" to socialism. Talk about infantilism! That is where the real work must start with facts and a broad relentless conversation, even arguments, counteracting this blatant ignorance and maliciousness. We as a country have been so sandbagged by Trump taking up most of the oxygen of public discourse. Now it's about declaring a "national emergency" and all that will flow from that. We must ignore this and let the "machinery" of government do it's work. We must push him and his chaos to a side, and talk about other things serious: a greener lifestyle that must come for ourselves and our children.
1
Oh sure, replace one delusion for another. Why not?!
1
Pelosi's comments turned my stomach. She seems to be just a little too full of her 78 year old self. Let her duel with the malevolent ignorant one, showing him how politics and the Constitution works, but bad mouthing the young, energetic, forward looking AOC's of her new majority are the future, not her, Biden, and other borderline octogenerians. Chewing out Green New Deal aspirants in front of the nation is a violation of rule # !, i.e., don't bring people down on your team in public. Never works, never will. I'm 70 years young, thank goodness for the new force. Things have gone downhill since Raygun, time's up.
5
The "Green New Deal" is nothing than the far-left's attempt at a "New Great Leap Forward." Mao killed 20,000,000 people in his pursuit of reshaping society. How many will have to be killed to get the American people on board with the abrogation of their freedom and their complete and utter subjugation to their government?
Not to mention, as far as I can see, there's only one way to eliminate cow flatulence: You have to kill all the cows. Can you say "bovine genocide"? Because, that's what's being proposed here.
Finally, how do we get the rest of the world to sign onto this? Can we force them? Because, if every single country on Earth doesn't agree to this, then the Green New Deal is nothing less than a suicide pact for the United States and the American people.
Defending this insanity doesn't make you look thoughtful, Ms. Goldberg. It makes you and all the rest of the pandering Democrats and left-wing wing nuts look like pie-eyed idealists, who don't understand what American freedom means or the way the world works. It makes you look naive and silly.
Unless that's what you're going for? But, I doubt it. Think about the Green New Deal again and get back to us. While the goals may be laudable, the way it's presented is untenable (not to mention, nuts!).
Those who support this inane proposal really need to ask themselves, "What would the practical outcome be, if this were actually implemented?" The answer is clear. Understanding it, that requires foresight and thought.
2
@Elfego
This is definitely over the top.
2
Actually, I think Megan McArdle's last two columns on this topic were at once more apposite and percipient.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-nuts-isnt-a-great-pitch-for-a-green-new-deal/2019/02/07/f605b220-2b2f-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.502d46e09184
"Wild demands, unmoored from reality, don’t increase what you ultimately take away from a negotiation; they are much more likely to end the negotiation abruptly when the other party concludes that you’re crazy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/13/myopic-green-new-dealers-need-look-beyond-america-climate-cure/?utm_term=.2ce07eefda59
"No doubt when skeptics raised questions about the efficacy of bleeding patients to cure their cholera or of burning witches to halt crop failures, someone was standing there with their head cocked at a righteous angle, saying, 'Oh no? Well, what’s your plan, then?' Unfortunately, there is no law of universal symmetry by which the recognition of a problem automatically creates a feasible solution."
1
The subtitle of the linked article - on a "realistic" Green New Deal is, "The emphasis should be on climate change while limiting costly new entitlements."
Well, then, it is not a "New Deal." That is, farting cows aside, the main point made by the radicals is about the necessary reconfiguration of American politics, that we need a return to, and deepening, of New Deal re-distributionist politics.
2
Ms Cortez cum Warren by killing 25000 jobs in nyc have lost any claim to concern for the poor a d u employed. Just more hooey from comfortable fat cats. They won't be getting my vote.
The "farting cows" comment reveals how little GND's authors understand about climate change.
Cows, and the methane they fart, are part of the above-ground carbon cycle present since the dawn of human existence. Cows eat grass, the grass is digested, they fart methane, the methane breaks down into CO2, the CO2 is used by grass to photosynthesize food. And the cycle repeats. No net increase in molar carbon in the biosphere.
Fossil fuels change the dynamic dramatically. When we extract oil, coal, or fossil methane ("natural gas"), we're adding to the biosphere carbon which has been sequestered for millions of years, increasing its atmospheric concentration and gradually returning Earth's climate to a time when temperatures were 18°F hotter than they are now. Over hundreds of millions of years, we would likely see the return of species which had adapted to that climate - thunder lizards, etc.
What the Green New Deal fails to include is nuclear power, a glaring omission immediately recognized by climatologists. With foresight equal to his predictions about global warming, James Hansen has predicted "nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change." This time we don't have the luxury of thirty years to find out he was right.
1
@BobMeinetz
You sound educated and scientific and all that ..
However, methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than C02 and the half-life of methane in the atmosphere is at least 10 years, so methane has 28-38 times the impact of C02.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
So keeping cow farts to a minimum as well as fracking leaks, refrigerants, and the like is very important.
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
has a detailed description
Nuclear is only #20 on that list. The cost, including disposal and risk of accidents or theft of nuclear material for dirty bombs or other weapons, of nuclear energy is still not really competitive.
Using wind and solar energy, conservation can also contribute extensively to solutions. Carbon capture can likely be done. We can all also limit our use of fossil fuels.
I believe you are correct. The trump presidency represents the death knell of the extreme, conservative, out of touch, old, white fearful republicans.
The young, educated, people of today are not buying the old tired policies that ignore science (climate change), or right wing politicians who are so desperate to cling to power they will support someone like trump who is clearly unhinged and probably mentally ill and does damage not only to the US but on the World stage.
Nor will they support trump's attack on the environment. The young and educated are our hope.
4
In California, liberals passed a law requiring corporations to have a certain number of women on their boards. But, if a man feels like a woman, does that count? Like, for instance, if he identifies with the female gender such that he might use a women’s bathroom, then would he count as a female member of the board?
1
@Mark
What about if they identify as a giraff or an iguana?
Pardons Anyone?
Can’t say enough, chock full of surprises,
Der Trumpeter Mann, he has his surmises
Sufficient for Dems getting knocked off their pins
But count ‘em, my boyos, how many wins;
And here is best, brings a smile to us all
How many loyals are taking the fall;
Going to prison, the big house, away
From the chips the high rollers all used to play;
“Woes and alack,” all bemoan their cruel fate,
No Trumpeter pardons, it’s not on his plate.
Loyal to no one, it his profession
To do unto others at his discretion.
1
the very title of the manifesto.....Green NEW DEAL....lets us all know how nostalgic and retrograde this truly is.
The Green New Deal reads like something from a time capsule, stored away in 1968, fifty years ago.
And New DEal? A program developed over 80 years ago......which morphed into the military-industrial-welfare complex that is currently stutter stepping into the grave.
Why on earth would anybody want to cling to the past(as this Green "not a new" Deal proposed to do)??
I'm sorry, but AOC's comments on the loss of Amazon ("we'll spend that money elsewhere!") was an embarrassing display of economic ignorance. She needs to be reeled in by Nancy Pelosi, and the sooner the better.
4
If your contention is that millennials know nothing about history and, therefore, seem bound and determined to repeat its errors, you might be right.
The kind of command and control tyranny which attends the “aspirational” Green New Deal has been tried lots of times before. And, usually, tens of millions pay for it with their lives.
There is no way to meet human needs with wind and solar power. IT CANNOT BE DONE. Absent a handy volcano, the only way to meet human needs, while reducing fossil fuel consumption, is with nukes and dams. And the eco extremists want to get rid of both.
You know the thing about “utopian” plans? They work great in novels or in heaven; they don’t work on Earth when you have to deal with real people.
You dislike DT? Fine. Now, you create a huge, all encompassing government, controlling literally every aspect of life. And you’re confident that only people you like will run it?
You’re a fool.
2
Trump is a buffoon but he at least he believes in capitalism, the greatest driver of wealth and advancement the world has ever known. AOC's Green New Deal is truly scary. Further, the naive assumptions of it - that a group of bureaucrats know best how to engineer every part of society (AOC and her friends are going to determine the best way for people to travel, for example) - have been shown over and over again by history to be flawed.
2
The sweeping vision should start with impeachment proceedings
1
The Democrats have an unerring ability to snatch defeat out of the mouth of victory. The Occupy WallStreet and #BlackLivesMatters movements became an ugly slurry of hard left, socialist, identity politics, government uber alles political and social engineering ideas. The current litany of candidates lillypadding from medicare for all to gleeful denunciation of entrepreneurs and employers to income for people "unwilling to work" promises to systematically alienate voters in favor of the mythical youth vote.
If the Democrats want to win, they need an adult in the room (Nancy Pelosi?) who realizes that creating opportunity for all is fundamentally different than identity politics+government the solution for everything+ we hate the rich
2
I'd wager that the GOP gives thanks and praise every day for the gift of AOC. I'm waiting for a poster of her bright-eyed smiling face in Daffy Duck "Looney Tunes" logo mode. I suggest that the artist use "Looney Dems" in order to avoid trademark issues.
2
I believe the Green New Deal is an idea whose time has come, however I think that it's name is misleading, and might prevent some people from even trying to understand it.
Yes,it calls for a new focus to be directed to the environment, and environmentally sustainable practices, but it's not an enviro-nazi manifesto either. It seeks to combine the cause of addressing the environment with creating new, sustainable jobs. And under the latter it has pragmatic goals for phasing out carbon energy development and the jobs that go with that, and replacing that with renewable energy and jobs that go with that. In fact, much of the GND is focused on enabling Americans to be self-sustaining, but this aspect is easily overlooked or dismissed entirely by those who oppose it.
And there will be large and powerful forces against it, from Big Oil and Big Agra, to those who are heavily invested in the status quo, including all those politicians - mostly Republican, but also some Democrats - who feed at the hand of these powerful interests. They will certainly use the "socialist" boogeyman to scare people who would actually gain significantly under a GND, but who have been programmed to be terrified of "librul" policies, even if they don't understand what that means. How many of them would say SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are bad?
So it will take great effort and courage to sell this idea, but that's what the New Deal required. We must not shrink from what is right.
2
Yep, that's a sweeping vision alright:
State control of all aspects of our lives.
The last of the real Democrats have either died of old age or been chased screaming from the Democratic party, which is now entirely controlled by radical left wing statist socialists.
The trends are already clear, and rates are increasing: People are fleeing to places where the socialists are not in control.
Texas is growing, New York is shrinking.
It will only become stronger as the socialists run out of other people's money to seize.
Michelle Goldberg once again proves herself deeply confused. FDR was a waanbe Benito and the New Deal was a bust, but by all means , let that be your exemplar oh knights of the windmills
I reread the GND several times. The problem isn't radicalism, or just "farting cows and airplanes." It lacks simplicity, coherence, and is not strategic.
The original New Deal focused on 3 easy to understand principles known as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.
In sharp contrast, the GND takes good arguments and buries them in an avalanche of social issues with a primary purpose of proving left-wing moral superiority.
It allows Republicans to easily define and discredit the GND as it reads like a right-wing caricature of the left.
The opening recitation on global warming was excellent, but it then falls apart. It argues "climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices," and then lists 12 groups most impacted, including "indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities." As repair and redress must necessarily make whole all disproportionately impacted by global warming, including what reads like a parody of left-wing identity politics is a mistake.
Finally, the economics of this are bad. It's just more Republican right-wing scam economics advocating massively increasing debt and ignoring revenue entirely. It pretends that since the GND guarantees massive job growth, there's no reason to even consider revenue or economic viability.
1
The green new deal is like,man, the dumbest collection of you know, ideas. Sophomores have, you know, have more perspective, like a whole lot more, and know how to you know, think it through dude way better than AOC and her travelling band of dimwits.
If this unthought through piece of idiocy becomes the key plank in the dem platform, say hello to Trump and all the repubs who will follow him. The green new deal is nothing more than a socialist manifesto. It may pretend to be climate friendly, but it's objectives are more serious.
So I'm glad to see all the dem presidential candidates endorsing it. Has Al Gore? Does AOC or any of her merry band know anything about science, about CC, about winning hearts and minds, about economics? Call me when they do.
Nice display of fence straddling, Michelle!
Let me get this right...Democrats, Liberals, Socialists and Progressives need to be seen fighting for an ideal which is economically ruinous and financially impossible?
That makes no sense--or at least makes as much sense as the Left chasing Amazon out of NYC.
Liberals and the economy--they mix as well as barbiturates and alcohol. While it may see like fun at first--someone's always gonna wake up with a huge hangover.
1
Big dreams can result in big actions, you know, kinda like putting a man on the moon? We need huge dreams - something to salvage this country that is now in a downward spiral.
5
I want to love AOC.
I want to believe in, and vote for, a Green New Deal.
But AOC fumbled the football when she crafted the GND to avoid any attack from the left's firing circle.
The PR draft is pure fantasy world claptrap, with allusions to banning cows, airplanes, cars, nuclear power and even a call for paying people that choose not to work.
It played right into the Republicans hands! Now with the Amazon debacle, AOC is on her heels and the GND is a joke even among Democrats.
More than that, the GND revealed just how unqualified (inexperienced?) AOC and her cohort really are.
2
With apologies for being a wet blanket, not only will getting passage of anything resembling the GND policies be a cartoonish wrestling match of posturing and bluster resulting in woefully anemic laws - but even if the GND could be implemented as conceived, it would also fall way short.
The reason for this is can be (over-simplistically) summed up with this thought experiment:
You're in a grocery store and you're picking up fruits and vegetables for dinner. You're already leaving out meat because that's generally good for you and the planet. You're feeling pretty good.
But then somebody comes up and tells you to put it ALL down, because all of it is flown in from a distance great enough that the caloric value of the jet fuel required to get it to you outweighs the caloric value of the food itself.
Your only choice is what is immediately available locally - which at this moments is Turnips and Kale.
Are you going to do the environmentally right thing? Americans, and westerners more broadly, who have been sold the nonsensical idea of consumer sovereignty, will not.
This is why we are toast.
2
I read through H. Res. 109 aka the Green New Deal and noticed all of the benefits that would accrue to “frontline and vulnerable communities” that include:
Women - this typically means white women who are the second wealthiest group in this country, white men are first. Can someone explain how white women as a group are vulnerable?;
Migrants - aka illegal aliens. Really?
Communities of color- What does that even mean? I gather it means the Hispanics to whom reparations are owed according to AOC because they did not benefit from the original New Deal. Apparently she forgot or does not know that Puerto Rican WW II veterans (approx 65,000 according to DoD) received the benefits of the GI Bill.
No wonder Pelosi put the kibosh on this nonsense.
1
The dream-casting shouldn't be left to wing-nuts. They put flesh and bones to the caricature the right has used for decades. Alas, reasonable adults in the Democrat party have had those same decades to present a coherent vision based on reality and competence. They've failed. The U.S. now has two competing juvenile fantasies to choose from: regressive populism financed by plutocrats and fact-free leftist utopianism.
1
The new green deal is just lunacy!
1
The GND is going to be the Democratic version of Republican's voting to replace Obamacare dozens of times.
It's all show and no go.
I'm going to ignore the GND.
I would like to comment, though Prof. Balkin's comment based on Stephen Skowronek. Ms. Goldberg writes:
"Trump’s presidency, wrote Balkin, could be what Skowronek called “disjunctive,” meaning one “in which a president allied with an aging political regime promises to restore its dominance and former greatness, is unable to keep all of the elements of his coalition together, and as a result presides over the regime’s dissolution.”
Disjunctive? What a bunch of gobbledegook.
In simple English: Mr. Trump's presidency could be defined as a "mistake", as a "fluke" in the system. The system (usually) has built-in correctives. I doubt that one needs to be a professor of constitutional law to understand that.
1
WOW the pendulum keeps doing its think......I'm so enlightened.
Progress can emerge from the goals of the Green New Deal.
Consider ending poverty! The late Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP - used by 11,000 companies, recognized the threat of automation and outlined an approach to economics that can sharply reduce inequality, and provide every individual with the income and 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 to the Treasury, as taxes from rising incomes would repay loans that launch The Second Income Plan.
End worry about the stock market with Nassim 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, as well as engines needing no fuel; self-powered air conditioners requiring no refrigerants and room temperature superconductors.
Revolutionary science is attacked as impossible with, in one case, rants filled with falsehoods .
See more about hard to believe breakthrough technologies and SECOND INCOMES at aesopinstitute.org
Useful idealism? Let me rewrite that for you.... The Sensible Pragmitism of the Green New Deal.
1
I am waiting to hear how the GND folks will employ all those people who they want to displace with this program. And this will displacement will be HUUUUUGE.
1
Hmmmm.....Looks like my kids might be right about Nancy Pelosi: She's part of the problem, not part of the solution.
2
Sorry, but the GND is not sufficiently credible even to be worthy of discussion, let alone taken seriously. See this derisive analysis (among many): https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/02/13/the-gnd-glitter-nonsense-and-devitalization/.
By taking the GND seriously, Ms. Goldberg compromises her own credibility.
1
it isn't the idealism of one plan or another that's at issue - it's whether Americans are enlightened and educated and look to the future, or whether we choose to remain ignorant, stupid and proud of it. that's what worries the world.
4
I'm not sure how one can characterize Trump as "'a president allied with an aging political regime." With whom/what is he allied beyond his base, which clearly does not claim allegiance with the existing power structure? Is it not more likely that Trump is the disruptive, "reconstructivist" president creating "the political framework that their successors in both parties must operate within"? After today's emergency declaration, it's hard to see Trump as leading the calcification of an enervated establishment.
Let's not confuse the idea of reconstructivism with positivism, in which the acts of reconstruction necessarily produce a more perfect union. That Trump is reconstructing the nation's political framework is undebatable; that this reconstruction represents a profound threat to our democracy is hardly less so.
The challenge for Progressives will be to enact changes that result in obvious and measurable improvements of the lives of people who don't normally vote for them.
Blue states are more likely to sign on - and faster - but if all the benefits accrue there, the minds in Purple states will remain unchanged. Working in Purple and Red states will take a policy ground game, which is a daily, more expensive, longer term, more involved pursuit than a campaign ground game.
GND = Goofy New Deal
2
What's so flip about "farting cows"? I suppose they could have written "bovine flatulence" but then how many people would know what that is. Whatever you call it, it is one of the main sources of a gas that leads to global warming.
126
@bjmoose1 Then that is an argument for not ingesting beef as a food. We're probably stuck with dairy cattle, but they don't destroy as much range pasture, and fewer in number. So, I agree, for once, with Trump. Get rid of cows.
4
@bjmoose1
Your bovine flatulence (essentially methane) is NOT one of the main sources of gas that leads to global warming! Compared to the methane released from an anthropogenically warmed tundra (from Alaska through Canada, and Siberia), farting cows are an insignificant toot in the wind.
15
@bjmoose1 - it's actually burping cows. They burp the gas out.
5
According to Wikipedia the U.S. ranks 2nd as the biggest emitter of CO2 after China. Next are India and Russia. We were all signed onto the Paris Climate accord until Trump. In his frenzy to help the polluters sell their wares he has said to hell with clean air, water, food and and environmental chemicals.
He frames it as "us against them." We need to sell more than China. But who are "we?' Exxon, Amazon, Facebook, Wall St., the military/industrial complex? No, they are in it for themselves, not us.
Maybe the young progressives behind this Green New Deal can finally wake us up to what has really been going on in our democracy.
3
I for one am excited about the possibility of a re-imagined nation that can provide better for its citizens and again become a beacon of light to the rest of the world. The very word "sustainable" means a system that can be maintained well into the future. I choose this instead of the rape and pillage system we have now where it is winner take all and the rest be damned. Unfortunately, I am not encourage by the comments here. It will be a difficult task indeed. At 62 I would wish that my generation would just shut up and let the younger folks create the world they would wish for themselves and their children.
3
Useful idealism is great. Until it stops being useful, and starts becoming a destructive act of self indulgence, ie: “we want everything we believe in, right now, or we’ll take our bats and balls and go home”. In 2016, many progressives “felt the Bern”. When the Bern didn’t get nominated, they had tantrums and didn’t vote (after all, the election was all about their feelings). That, among other things, ended up costing the Dems the election. How’d that work out?? Perhaps if you’re an AOC fan, it’s 100% of what I believe in, or it’s nothing. Personally, I prefer a bit of compromise, and getting 90% of what I believe in.
1
“In the next few election cycles, a new regime will begin, offering the possibility of a new beginning in American politics”
I can’t wait to see which reality television star runs America into the ground for good. Oh, who am I kidding? It’ll be Donald Trump.
All this goes to show one thing -- the left is, fundamentally, authoritarian. They know what's best and want to use government to force everyone to do it. This column admits they even want to bully other countries into doing what they want. They pretend to want freedom, but they always end up as dictators.
1
I just watched your President. I am no longer an optimist or a pessimist I am a stoic.
I remember the words of the early 19th century statesman and best selling writer and humourist Thomas Chandler Haliburton who said, "When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry."
We are living at a time that calls for great German Opera and I can only think The Ring Cycle. We will not however go down in flames we will just disappear.
The human experiment is coming to an end and perchance the next experiment will see our inheritors discover fire in hundreds of thousands instead of millions of years. We are one of Darwin's dead ends. I had a long and interesting life that shows every indication of becoming more interesting. It is too bad there may not be anybody left to write the final chapter. Many may think your king is too ignorant to be a Shakespearean hero but idiocy is certainly a fatal flaw and the Don promises much comedy during our death rattle.
4
We've run out of room on the right. Race-baiting and fear-mongering, gay bashing, tax-cutting anti-abortionists that hope to gut entitlement programs were common in the Reagan Administration.
By George W Bush, we gave up on fiscal responsibility, doubled the deficit and crashed the global economy.
We called them reactionaries.
But now with Trump, white supremacy, religious persecution, loyalty oaths, sidling up to demagogues and dictators and nationalism, we have hallmarks of fascism.
So, when Donald subverts the constitution for political self-preservation, usurping the authority of Congress to spend money, what do we call the autocracy?
We have moved so far right, a little leftist plan can hardly be out of place. It's like a spring shower.
9
Humans are going to have to do SOMETHING no matter what we call global warming. The north pole is melting and something is going to happen because of it. We can argue all we want but it
wouyld be smart to take some swimming lessons while we argue.
3
Hey, Michelle, when writing about the idealism of the Green New Deal, please mention the sensibly grounded, realistic, politically feasible Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act now proposed in the House (HR 763) and Senate. The Bill has the support of the nearly 100 members of the bipartisan Climate Caucus, of 27 former Nobel Laureates in Economics, of every former chair of the Fed and of the Council of Economic Advisers, not to mention of James Baker and George Shultz (WSJ Jan 17, 2019). I can't understand why the knowledgeable, authoritative columnists of the NYTimes so consistently note the problems of the naive idealism of the Green New Deal as a measure to forestall Climate Change while so rarely mentioning the sensible complementary solution now before the Ways and Means Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Homer Boushey, MD
Professor of Medicine, Emeritus
University of California San Francisco
2
Well, there certainly is a lot of disinformation swirling around the air-e-waves in a massive choking gyre. How about some calm discussion of sustainability, the carbon cycle, and how we live on one huge terrarium called earth that needs adjusting before we wipe out every non-human thing we know and love.
Yes cows emit methane...when the buffalo were roaming the plains in the 10s of millions, they too emitted methane. We can handle methane, and the CO2 released from burning it by growing and maintaining forests, grasslands and other biota, and the health of the ocean. Airplanes are polluting, and also uncomfortable, prone to noise pollution, etc., and bullet trains are a great alternative. Let's just calm down and talk about the alternatives, and then execute on the best ideas. Folks need to read, observe, listen, think and discuss--and forget about 45 and the Koch Brothers.
3
Until a decade ago, each American economic boom was ended by OPEC, making oil expensive, which plunged the US into a recession. Now, due to President Trump policies, the US is the greatest energy producer in the world, and a net energy exporter. An envy for the rest of the world, in a time when production can be automated, but the energy needed cannot be avoided.
We are no longer at the whims of the Middle East, Venezuela or Iran on energy. After a decade of stagnation and decay, according to the OMB, the real wages of the middle class are finally rising. Unemployment in every gender or ethnic group is at an all time low.
So who can now create the recession, with millions unemployed, shelters and soup kitchens, so as to do the needed change of course?
It can only come from the inside, and it is the Green New Deal. This is, after all, a planetary emergency, since sea levels are rising now at an alarming, emissions caused 1ft/century. While, as the NYC gauge at The Battery shows, 150 years ago sea levels were rising at a natural, reassuring 1ft/century. Sea gauges all around the world show, with the official NOAA data, just the same.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
By the time all the airplanes will be grounded, all fossil fuel cars shred, all flatulent cows buried and all heating natural gas and oil stopped during the winter,
by that time people will wish the Democrats had built a wall instead.
The most transformative step we can take is to enact a revenue neutral fee and 100% dividend program on CO2 emission fossil fuels. Citizens Climate Lobby is working on just that with numerous bi-partisan sponsors: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
2
I am encouraged and supportive of the Green New Deal (GND). One reason why is that it is a comprehensive view. It recognizes that if the USA makes a serious effort to reduce carbon emissions this will have impacts in many areas of our lives, some negative, including labor relations, environment conditions, and very simply, how we get around and where our food comes from.
If we don't recognize that then any attempts to deal with the problem will be like putting band-aids on cancerous tumors.
We aren't going to solve our carbon problem by a few tech tweaks. It's going to take vastly more planning than that and the GND puts that on the table. It forces people to face that reality.
I'm finding many people have not actually read the GND. It has been misrepresented in the media as well. So I'm including a link to the document itself. I encourage people to read it. It's always best to go to first sources, when possible.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
2
Here's the bottom line. Deal with worldwide environmental degradation, of which climate change is one of the outcomes, or die. It's that simple. A failure to institute adequate measures will lead to disaster. Rising sea levels will displace tens of millions of people, and shifting weather patterns and extreme weather events leading to droughts, floods, and then famines will send tens of millions more on the move. If you think the world's current refugee and immigration difficulties are problems, imagine the impact of forced human migrations 100X greater in magnitude. Some nations will disintegrate from internal social unrest while other nations will come into conflict with one another. Extremist political movements will arise in response, and the situation will spiral downward until...(fill in the blank).
Yes, the Green New Deal is idealistic and devoid of the gritty details that make the reality of making it happen so daunting. Yes, AOC and some of her other new progressives do seem arrogant and condescending at times. However, we need to move past the petty sniping and get it done. The crisis is real, imminent, and has the potential to devastate human civilization and all life on earth.
3
Michelle...serious problem here. FDR and Reagan...both great reconstructive presidents? Mainstream-shifting perhaps. FDR was the most proactive, reconstructive, and daring president we've ever had. Reagan, while daring and amiable, was the exact opposite; he said us in so many words He was a Deconstructionist of the first order. He, Norquist, and their spawn would have us believe that government is inherently evil; should be starved, it's functions reduced or privatized. Bill Clinton was elected twice because he eagerly took up the call: "Big government is over". They told us, and to a large degree it has become accepted wisdom.
The GND, has unsurprisingly resulted in cries of utopian!...radical, unrealistic, etc. But how "radical" is it?
One hears much talk these days of "soaking the rich". But if the top rate were restored to say, 45%, that would be just half the Eisenhower rate. Yet the FOX-aided rightward shift has become so pervasive that 1/2 and "soaking the rich" have become the same thing. If we really want to MAGA, why shouldn't we return to the glory of 1955? That's conservative.
(clean air, water, soil...preserve public land...that's Conservative)
In 1919, a NY-Chicago train trip took 8 hours less than it does today. The NY subway's peak ridership was in the early 50's-- as cities were ripping up trolley systems. Addressing 70 years of neglect and deterioration of public transit; returning to 1950's standards...this is radical?
3
There have been major environmental pushes before, and they only went so far. But this time we're talking about much better technology. Coal's going down, and natural gas is giving us a bridge to what comes after. But we can't stop there.
1
The Green New Deal avoids the problem that many Democratic initiatives have had in recent years: It doesn't scale things back in the name of "political reality". Too many times the Dem's negotiate with themselves, paring back their ambitions in the hopes of getting the Republicans on board only to see them oppose it regardless. It's time to start with the maximal position and force the Republicans to move to the center rather than the other way around.
9
"Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, Lady, were no crime"
So wrote Andrew Marvel to his coy mistress.
The only two Presidents in the 20th century who brought significant positive change in the 20th century, Roosevelt and Johnson, were aided by two of the major cataclysms of the 20th century: the great depression and the civil rights movement. The collapse of the soviet union under Regan would have occurred regardless of who was President. Gorbachev was not coy.
We live in a conservative country, in an increasingly conservative world. Even a casual perusal of the subject of climate change indicates the world and US in particular face a horrific future possibly before this century ends. But climate change like obesity in individuals is not perceived as an immediate threat. Hence the coyness even though we may be running out of time.
1
The first step towards bringing a plan to fruition is to articulate it. Why not swing for the fences?
The challenge posed by climate change, and the social/economic ills it spawns, is the moon shot of this century.
Have Americans become so accustomed to a crabbed, fearful existence that we don't even dare to think big anymore?
4
“I’m not bringing any vote to the floor that the President won’t endorse,” said Mitch McConnell. He neglected to add, “unless it’s a bill that will embarrass and make the Dems look bad.” My, my, how our gov’t continues to devolve into a state of political checkers. It used to be political chess, but everything today is too plainly obvious for that characterization.
3
It seems important to recognize the bill as this moment's skirmish in a long war to create a livable world for future generations. To counter the lies by climate deniers, the rest of us need to make an honest effort to fully understand how the complex parts of the Green New Deal work together to reach an exceedingly difficult goal. Our grandchildren are watching how we respond.
1
The article references the “social contract” that has been ripped apart for the last 50 years and blithely assumes that epoch in history is over and something like the GND will arise to take its place.
Not so fast. Does the author really believe the Republican right will go softly into that good night? Won’t happen. Their wealth, their lust for power, their righteous sense of entitlement will be employed to the fullest extent to preserve their ill gotten gains.
Before rhapsodizing about a GND, the Democrats need to worry about electoral fraud and worse by the GOP to try and maintain their position. Defeating the current presidential office holder in 2020 needs to be the primary focus.
2
Oh how the right-wingers hate policy and plans and marching forward to improve and advance the lot of human beings, especially struggling human beings, and sharing? No sharing! This is MY property, I can do what I want, and no government or legal system can ever tell me what to do. Trump's my man 110%! Love the guy. Listens to no one, does what he likes, no matter whom it hurts.
Call these do-good liberals "socialists" and "communists," with their pie-in-the-sky plans for the environment, education, universal health care. Way to expensive; means taxes on the rich. NO way. We need to boost our military spending to protect American wealth and property around the world. Get some of that foreign oil too.
Pick apart their "plan," hold their feet to the fire over every word. None of this idealism or goals for the future.
The future is more of the same, the status quo, which is working out so well for the 1%, the too big to fail or to be held accountable banks and corporations, the really Big polluters. There are profits to be made and investors to please. You're in the way AOC, you your greenie pals.
We don't plan for the future; we buy our politicians wholesale in political parties, especially the Republicans, who, thank goodness, have no plans to do anything but make the rich richer and help the military. No helping struggling people, holding corporations accountable, and no taking care of the planet for future generations. The future is now for me and the 1%.
5
The Green New Deal is a wish list, not a proposal. If and when it becomes a concrete proposal, then it's worth talking about. For now it does far more to empower Republicans than Democrats, because it so easily allows Republicans to characterize their opponents as a lunatic fringe. That's why McConnell is smart to call for a vote on it now. Democratic Senators will be embarrassed no matter how they vote.
2
I'm a life long liberal who has always gone along with the Democratic Party and the wisdom that says we can't have it yet - not in America - maybe over time.
I'm an old man now. The U.S. of A , one of the most unequal countries on earth, is awash in guns, involved in unending bad-idea wars. Our jails are stuffed like no other and our world freedom ranking is way down.
No. Now is the time or else. Or else I don't vote Democratic anymore. I give up.
------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, speaking of cycles. We may be near the end of cycles. We may be near the end of human history as we have known it for various technological reasons. The world is not the same and never will be again.
4
“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and our grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.”
Daniel Burnh, Architect
5
Will somebody tell AOC to make it clear that Capitalism is what will fund anything?
1
Yes, Ms. Goldberg, "The Useful Idealism" and nothing more so far. When the issues of global climate change, as caused by human activities, become the domain of political propaganda, on may be ceratin that all will be hot air.
The New York hard-core, Judaeo-WASPish, worshiping the Golden Calf Democrats, disguised in liberal do-gooders, and joined by the newly elected crypto-socialist militant US Representatives, debate the global warming, nothing can be done.
The root of evil is the incomprehensible inability of the modern humans to have not been able to harness solar energy.
AOC and company are working hard to reelect the orange blob. The Green New Deal is what every high school idealist knows we have to do. It is all eager intention and no canny execution. That sort of politics will increase Democratic turnout in places where they are already strong thus changing nothing. What is needed is a liberalism that will increase Democratic turnout in the places that slipped from their grasp. To see our supposed leadership spending their time on things of no substance or like the fellows who drove out Amazon things that are certifiably destructive is not gratifying.
2
@Bill H: A huge part of the Green New Deal is job creation. Inescapably necessary job creation. Everywhere in the country. Not jobs for computer-savy marketeers, which increase the amount of Chinese-made goods being shipped all over the place for no good reason. But jobs restoring wetlands, re-wilding pasture, erecting solar and wind installations, constructing new nuclear plants, re-purposing fossil-fuel infrastructure.
1
With the specter of global warming threatening life on earth, "dreaming big" is not and option, but a necessity.
4
Thank you for this hopeful and thoughtful article. Without ideals and idealistic thinking the future is a grim dystopian trumpscape that I refuse to embrace.
3
She's proud of her part in losing 25,000+ jobs in Queens. There could be no doubt among the "believers" but is the left using climate change for a power grab. Maybe creating hysteria over it? "Like the world is going to end in twelve years, man." Of course not they're virtuous. It seems so 1960's when the oil companies and GM once again the man. They conspired against battery powered cars in 1908 you know before 3/4 of the country had electricity. The problem with "believers" they are going by Green Peace rules. Need water? They won't all dams and reservoirs built. Smelt lives matter. In fact they want to tear it down.
You see what our Democratic Socilalist leader thinks about jobs. She has higher principles. What happens when people like her are in charge of public works, agriculture and energy? Less people.
@JoeG: I live in New York City and no jobs were "lost." They were promised, and usually the estimates of these companies don't pan out. See: Carrier in Indiana; Foxconn in Wisconsin. Jobs are very much a part of the Green New Deal. Millions of jobs.
And you know what? Smelt do matter. And moths. And manatees. And ash trees. Humans are not alone on this planet, and our ability to survive is predicated on the rest of the biosphere being healthy. We have sci-fi ideas of living in starships or in underground bunkers complete with gardens and swimming pools, but those ideas are science fiction. We can no more live for long unsupported by the rest of the biosphere than a human cheek cell could survive for a week in a petri dish.
And we're *not* saying the world is going to end in twelve years. We're saying that if we keep the accelerator to the floor for the next twelve years, we won't have time for the brakes to keep us from going over the approaching cliff.
2
@JoeG
I'll be interested to see what you have to say in 12 years, Joe.
Anyone who thinks the Green New Deal is a final policy document - as do apparently some of the readers of the NYT - they are missing the point.
Imagine how we as a country would react if we saw another country presided over by someone who did not get the majority vote, who placed their family members in power as close advisors, who spent their campaign putting journalists in cages and stirring up enmity toward them in angry Tale of Two City-like crowds. Imagine if that country were seeing its life expectancy shrink for the first time in the history of the country. Imagine if that president put together a cabinet of dishonest fear-mongering corrupt opportunists.
We would be collectively outraged as the beacon on the hill Republic that we are.
Of course we all know that this is precisely what we're seeing today.
In the midst of all that a young, feisty POC woman from NYC who masters the communication tools of the soon-to-be biggest voting bloc comes along and starts naming the dysfunctions without hyperbole and then offers a vision for something different.
I personally breathed easily for just a few minutes. An idea, a vision, a goal worthy of a democratic republic emerged in the middle of heinous, callous, disingenuous fear-mongering.
But I never imagined stakeholders would be talking about it for more than 24 hours - whether it's the insanely cynical Mr McConnell or the confused, outgoing Claire "I don't understand what all the fuss is about" McCaskill.
U go girl!
5
Since global warming is a real emergency, all it takes now is a president willing to declare it as such and take swift and appropriate measures.
3
Politicians like McConnell live inside of their own rapidly shrinking political bubble. They only read their own GOP propaganda, talk to their own coterie of like-minded politicians and associates, and interact only with the aging segment of their own stalwart constituents who are dying off.
The young, the educated and the urban dwellers within their own districts are all growing (though traditionally non-voting) parts of their constituencies. Heck, even many evangelicals under age 30 are starting to peel away from the GOP.
Sometime soon a real tipping point will happen (if it hasn't already), and all the voter suppression and gerrymandering in the world won't help.
3
“Surveying the American presidency, Skowronek sees politics unfolding in cycles.”
I wouldn’t put too much stock in Skowronek’s scheme. Such schemes are easy to conjure up. They’re a dime a dozen.
As for the subtitle of this piece, “Democrats need a sweeping vision for a post-Trump world”, it reminds me of socialists’ term “late capitalism” which they have been using for an awful long time now and has always been more a matter of wishful thinking then hard headed realism.
1
Idealism should connect with reality, which the “Green Deal” does not. It is a laundry list of adolescent fantasies absent a strategy, let alone tactics. Just a call for class warfare. And we’ve already witnessed what the ”leaders” who proposed this don’t know- how jobs are counted in the unemployment figures, what tax rebates actually mean, etc. If anyone wants to see how jobs are “created” by the adolescent left, the Amazon fiasco is a case in point. Perhaps in NYC, MA, and amongst inveterate progressives this will excite the base, but for the adults in America who have actually had to use a check book and balance it, it is monumentally childish and as “visonary” as a fairy tale.
1
@LTJ: Whenever a conservative calls something "class warfare," then I know that it is a worthy attempt to fight back against the top-down class warfare that the 0.01% have been waging against the rest of us for the past 40 years.
3
@Pdxtran. Whenever a liberal responds with an ad hominem attack absent data, I know it’s a futile attempt to avoid the facts.
1
MG,
"Cycles" in evidence involve survival of humanity, in fact all life, on earth. "Pendulum perambulum" doesn't here and now, conceive or construe, function. "Imagine" if such context suits you, this is larger than life, than you, than all of us. That truth is upon our world, unleashed by human species, and not in irrelevant "afterlife" rationalization.
The Republicans have never hesitated to make bold statements or propose programs that no one asked for (cf. The Contract with America).
Yet when left-leaning Democrats propose something that is merely common sense, people *in their own party* scold them for "overreach." They use the epithet "too far left" and cite the failed runs of weak and inept candidates like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis as evidence that "America is a conservative country." (By the way, neither Mondale nor Dukakis was particularly left of center.)
These smug "moderates" forget the first principle of negotiating: Always start by asking for more than what you think you can get. If you do that, you may end up at least with something you can leave with, and maybe even some of the things you want. But if you compromise with yourself by asking only for what you think will be acceptable to the other party (cf. Obama's tactics during the lead-up to the ACA), the other party will sense weakness in your position and refuse to budge.
I am sick of namby-pamby Democrats who think their first job is to avoid offending the Republicans and the Big Money Crowd. Their timidity and craven caving in to bad policies have led to massive losses in both houses of Congress and in state houses across the country.
They need to move over and let politicians with convictions and guts do what needs to be done.
5
Having seen how Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the most prominent architect of the GND, responds to the prospect of 25,000 high tech jobs paying an average wage of $150,000, what makes you believe the jobs guarantees baked into the GND are for real?
If they just turned down 25,000 jobs who thinks they could create the millions of jobs envisioned in the GND?
If they just walked away from $28B in tax revenues from Amazon, why should anyone believe they can even fund a GND?
GND has colossal money pit written all over it... Until AOC shows she's serious about creating jobs no one should take the GND seriously.
@Nirrin: The objection from New Yorkers was that a multibillion-dollar company was asking for a taxpayer *subsidy* to condescend to locate its second headquarters in Queens.
And 25,000 jobs? That's what Amazon SAID, but Foxconn also promised Wisconsin huge numbers of jobs. Guess how that turned out.
Furthermore, the area doesn't have the housing or the infrastructure or the public services to accommodate a sudden influx of 25,000 people and their families (assuming that Amazon actually would have fulfilled that promise).
Have you been to New York lately? Its infrastructure is a mess. If it has piles of money for bribes for billionaires, it should divert those funds to fixing New York's antiquated subway system.
3
@Nirrin: if the Green New Deal results in a set of federal programs, then that putative $38 billion in revenue (which no doubt Amazon's lawyers would have whittled down to $38.99) will be collected somewhere in the country, and will fund the programs anyway.
No more legal escapes and financial hidey-holes for the greedy who hide their greed behind the curtain of shareholder profits and efficiency and an increasing GDP.
1
Capitalism as an economic model has thrived successfully for a long time, but capitalism's foundational flaw is the myth and fallacy of unlimited resources. Inevitably practices of extraction, waste and pollution hit the reality of a limited planet. We are killing the only living planet in the known universe, with nowhere else to go. Continuing capitalism as it has been is suicide. A new economic model is needed if we and the living world are to survive into the future. Whether or not the Green New Deal is that model, it forces a discussion delayed far too long. We need conservatives to bring their best instincts of "conserve" to the table. Old-school greed and waste are over.
3
ARRRRGH! Michelle ... "Green New Deal" is sloganeering on par with "Build the wall" particularly as AOC/Markley proclaim it.
And I'm a PhD atmospheric scientist desperately concerned that we control CO2, and I am also pretty darned leftie. This is DUMB, and worse yet it is dumb pandering to bad emotions, not any sort of rational "plan."
There are only weak linkages at best between "green" and "new new deal" ... the fantasy right off the bat in GND is that somehow solving two very hard problems will be easy-peesy if you combine them together.
Like Trump and "his wall" this AOC/Markley proposal is nothing more than a big demonstration of Dunning-Kruger, and an appeal to Dunning-Kruger lefties. And it is obviously not true politically -- you just multiply your opposition.
Before any leftie goes an inch farther, EXPLAIN WHAT'S WRONG with a broad based (all fossil carbon sources) carbon tax, 100% rebated per-capita to all adult citizens residing in the USA?
WHY DO YOU NOT SUPPORT THIS IDEA, and instead support an inchoate severe command+control strategy?
Now I am sympathetic to some of the new-new-deal goals, but AOC is also copying another of Trumps yuuuge mistakes: surrounding herself with just-like-me thinking that doing so is the only way to "get change." Granted her staff is less corrupt, but not a one of them has a clue about climate issues or technology or economics. It shows ... her GND is just greenwashed gaga.
2
If there is such a thing, pragmatic dreaming is in order, not fantasizing about a future with no cows (however facetiously that was put). The danger is that Trump will have a field day with some of the GND'S more outlandish goals. Simple-mindedness and mockery are Trump's bread and butter and the GND manifesto is a juicy target for a rhetorical thug like him. He's a master at bringing out the worst in people and having such material to work with just makes it that much easier for otherwise sensible people to fall for his hucksterism. I yearn for some sober middle ground and I don't think the GND's noble but impractical, inedible recipe will rid us of our number one problem: Trump. After he's gone, we can attack all of our many other problems in a measured, achievable way without elevating our collective blood-pressure at every turn.
"Sweeping New Vision" says it all--orchestral crescendo, 3D panorama of Oz! Saving the planet from climate change wasn't big enough, now they want to upend the entire world economy, well, you know, to make it better, and probably free. Free seems always part of the picture for them, it gives an idea of who their constituents really are. Is there anything wrong with their "almost Utopian" view? Yes! It's divorced from reality. Everything about the Democrat Party today is unconnected with the real world of work and self-responsibility; we live in a competitive world, they live in fantasy-land; their "sweeping new vision" would take us over the cliff!
@Ronald B. Duke; And, on the way down heading toward the jagged rocks, if asked how they could have been so wrong, Democrats will say it wasn't their fault, that the vision was mismanaged by those who didn't want it to succeed. Hurtling downward nearby we might see Ms. AOC on her cellphone talking to her publisher negotiating a book deal to monetize the dream for herself--oh, wait, that would be self-interested, self-responsibility, wouldn't it? Not all leftists are equally unrealistic, the closer reality gets to 'self' the more realistic they get.
A huge hat tip to Bernie Sanders for inspiring AOC and others to get active. The times they are a changing...
3
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Attributed to Gandhi. Useful regardless.
5
Maybe Trump is the Republican Party's Hoover.
1
Well, the lemons are there but the author still has a lot of work to do to get to the lemonade.
Pie in the sky is not the way to go here.
Yes Climate change is real and must be addressed.
But this more than about Climate Change...
The so called Green revolution is about Socialism, and just like the Socialism of the past, it is a recipe for disaster...
While many of the issues brought up are real, - Slogans and Simplistic Solutions will not solve the problems —they have to be dealt with in a realistic manner. -
A good example is the botched Amazon deal - Now that the so-called “Progressives” have vetoed the Deal, what do they have to show about it ?
Will the implied savings of $ 3 Billion Dollars really go into the repair of the NYC infrastructure... or make the lives of the poor better ?
The Deal, with all its flaws, would have definitely provided for the betterment of NYC for decades to come ... and would have even provided ancillary jobs for the poor-
Every “new” and “young” generation exhibits “idealism” ... but as they age, the “realities of life” become more paramount.
Every family needs jobs in order to put “food on the table” ... and many of these companies - no matter what one may think about them- supply the jobs and “put food on the table.”
The overly right wing conservative reign of the Republicans is in a death spiral sitting atop an orange combover of fluffed up hair trying desperately to break its fall but instead increasing its acceleration into the abyss. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is bold and far reaching but we once followed a president who asked us to reach for the moon.
2
Thought provoking article. I also think that these political readjustments have to be looked at in a historical context: FDR’s New Deal in the context of the Great Depression and Reagan’s policies in the context of the Great Inflation. I think we may be facing a similar historical inflection point with climate change which is rapidly transforming from the hypothetical to reality. The need to act decisively will be apparent. As for the political force of so-called 21st century conservatism, what do they now stand for? Small government, balanced federal budgets, property rights, original intent? These so called conservative principles are being washed away in waves of red ink, presidential overreach and the fact that the government must seize private land to build its southern border wall. All that they are left with is plutocracy, guns , misogyny and racism - hardly a durable coalition.
Visions such as this strike at the heart of what we believe the role of government should be. For instance, solar panels work, as do windmills, but the challenge is to store and distribute the energy across the country. That requires rethinking the energy distribution infrastructure, which to me will require bold government action. For those that believe in minimalist government, it will always be a non-starter. I like this document, not because it is a blueprint, but because it thinks large, and that is something we rarely seem to do.
The New Green Deal's only remaining concern about emissions was cows and airplanes. And this was within 10 years. It clearly did not occur to the 'experts" who worked on this plan that trucks use diesel engines and that there is no such thing as a battery or electric motor that can power a heavy duty truck. For that matter the "experts' who worked on the "plan" are also obviously not aware that in the US trains are powered by diesel locomotives and not electricity as they are in other parts of the world.
The point is that the document reads as not a plan, but as something written from the point of view of somebody who is so ignorant on the issue that they don't even understand what they are actually proposing to do, and certainly could not explain it if they were asked.
How then can normal people who do understand the reality of things such as power production, how it is produced today and what it would entail to have the whole of the US to be 100% carbon free, view the authors of the Green New Deal as fools who are oblivious of their ignorance and how utterly silly they make themselves out to be.
Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the fools have taken control of the ship that is the Democratic party and will be they alone who will decide on its agenda.
There is one high speed rail project in the US, Gov Brown’s Crazy Train to Nowhere.
New Gov Newsom, a Progressive, just killed it for all intents and purposes. Something about it being 15 years behind schedule and $33 billion - that’s 33 thousand million - over budget.
The project assumed that trains would leave SF and LA, each way, every five minutes, 18 hours a day, with 80% of the seats taken. Right.
The current modern day ruins haven’t even come within 150 miles of LA or SF, despite tens of billions being spent.
Intelligent Green means following the lead established by Socialist countries Sweden and France: nuclear power.
And embracing as efficient as possible air travel. If AOC thinks air travel is obsolete, she should ask Apple’s Tim Cook if the company buys 50 business class tickets from SF to Shanghai every single day just for fun. And she should lead by refusing to travel by plane.
I’m pro Green, but anti ignorance and stupidity.
51
@RLS
Texas, thru private funding, may build a bullet train. It's with the EPA for approval. It will be between Dallas and Houston with a stop at College Station. It should cost 10 billion and take 10 years. Texans usually build their transportation infrastructure on budget and on time. The biggest hurdle is polls state people think a ticket is goi g to be cheap. When I worked in Japan the price was maybe five times a regular rail so who knows. That was 30 years ago.
Some people think the East and West coasts are at the height of our civization. It's cheaper to build in less developed areas so we might start thinking outside the coast. To an engineer There's nothing better than working on a clean sheet of paper.
10
@RLS
You write: "Intelligent Green means following the lead established by Socialist countries Sweden and France: nuclear power."
The other socialist country, Germany, is trying to wean itself off of nuclear.
But, not trying to plead ignorance, I fail to understand how "nuclear" equates with "green?"
First off, nuclear energy is a "market" fallacy, in that no private corporation can fund, finance, and operate a nuclear power plant without the aid of the federal government (socialism if you will) in the form of the Price Andersen Act; it provides liability insurance and protection from litigation to the nuclear power company in event a nuclear mishap occurs. So, without Federal aid, nuclear power cannot be operated.
Factor in the issue of storing and transporting waste 60 years later, and factor in the huge capital and carbon cost of building a plant in the first place, and it is unclear how much carbon offset nuclear really achieves.
Really think about it; how stupid was it to build multiple nuclear power plants on the edge of a the ocean above a massive subduction zone?
Keep green technology simple, and human kind and the planet will be served well by it.
23
@RLS
Yeah, that "train to nowhere" is right up there with that silly "Transcontinental Railroad," that those pie-in-the sky" dreamers proposed.
31
It’s sad that nothing constructive (I consider the last 50 years as “destructive”) can be accomplished without a dire emergency. The Great Depression and WW2 met this threshold, apparently the Great Recession did not. I believe climate change will rise to that level. It’s a shame it must reach such a dire and probably irremediable emergency before adequate measures can be enacted; it’s all happening in broad daylight after all.
Wouldn't it be great if there were some sort of a requirement that candidates for political office have at least a C grade in a freshman level economics course?
Oops, that would unfortunately eliminate a few very telegenic individuals such as Rep Ocasio-Cortez. But she could take a correspondence course to make it up.
2
As a life long democrat and one extremely hopeful of a removal of Trump in 2020, this type of front and center approach of leftist extremism is one of the few hopes the Republicans have for gaining the Presidency again for another four years. How a 29 year old former bartender has become a major center piece of democratic party policy within a month of being elected to Congress is unfortunate.
There is a difference between attempting to do what is best and fair for all versus fantasy land.
2
You have no idea what your talking about. We are in a pendulum swing for politics. That's how we got Obama, Bush was awful, and how we got Trump who isn't as bad as you all think... Of course I'm sure your penthouses and cocktail parties haven't changed much, but the rest if us are seeing jobs, wage growth for the first time in a decade. We may end up with a Democrat but it will be the polar opposite of Trump which should scare us all. For the record, FDR was not a good president. Anyone thinking he was doesn't know history or ignore the facts because of implicit political bias. The man built upon Hoover's plans to curb the depression, it's true. Hoover started the FDIC, tried to, FDR built on that. Hoover tried to help home owners but the federal reserve refused to help. Act, it was the federal reserve that caused and deepend the depression, Ben bernanke admitted it in 2010, look it up. In fact, how is the GOP considered the war party? Dems led the way to every conflict until 1990 Iraq war. Civil war, Democrats wanted to keep their slaves. WW1 Woodrow Wilson because he got tricked into it, also a huge racist by the way. WWII, FDR pushed Japan to attack, read up on it. Korean war, Truman. Vietnam, LBJ. Yet the GOP are the war mongers. Anyhow, you all off your rockers. Trump isn't as bad as you think. Visit normal folk and you'll see, we are ok with him even though we cringe at what he says. Hey, he's better than a socialist... To normal folks at least
24
@Scott
What's "normal" folk? Is that a circular idea of people who agree with you? You have a somewhat wacky, somewhat accurate idea of history. It would be fun to talk with a history buff like you, I think, though we would disagree. I think you're wrong on FDR & the Depression. I think you're right on Dems & war. Why do you insist that anti-Trump folks are "off their rockers"? Not helpful. I object to the discourse toilet that is widening in this country. What does "socialist" mean to you? Stalin or Sweden? There's a difference. My main appreciation of Trump is that he throws into visible relief the hateful us-v.-them nature of the Republicans since 1980, because that's the last time Trump read the news. He is making it clear what a backward set of ideologues his party now is, and how dead-ended their policies have become. I have a lot of hope for the future because of this colossal error by Republicans of voting for him and continuing to support him despite the merits.
93
@Scott
Some interesting history re-write there....
40
@Scott
You would be more convincing if your facts were not started off with a flat-out falsehood, "for the first time in a decade." That's the Obama job growth, and wages are not growing much even yet.
68
The Green New Deal is many things. As a critique of the current state of affairs and a broad statement of goals, it does very well. Some of those goals are foolish (guaranteed good jobs for all -- what does that even mean, and what sort of society could make that promise?), but most of them are what we need to be striving for.
The actual plans to pursue those goals are poorly thought out, showing little understanding of how economies work. They suggest a transformation of the American economy to one run by central planners and uber-strict regulators looking over everyone's shoulders. Frankly, the plan is best described as Stalinist, which is bad for most of the reasons Stalin was bad. It will be criticized on that basis, rightfully. There are far more decentralized ways of achieving the same goals; the best thing about the GND may be if it can scare centrists into doing the right things that we've known about for 20 years, like a carbon tax.
The plan also avoids things that the left wouldn't like, which makes it too partisan. Subsidies and aggressive development for next gen nuclear should be in it, as should enormous dams for storing intermittent renewable power. And paying for everything with debt just makes the plan look naive; read Krugman's columns from this week.
Yes, it moves the argument forward. But yes, when McConnell puts it up for a vote,expect 90-10 against, because it is not a good plan, just a good set of goals.
1
The document lacks a view of what is technologically feasible in a decade. We certainly need a big push on conservation, solar power and wind power. Solar heating and/or earth sourced heat pumps should also be encouraged. Electric automobiles should also become much more the norm. But we will need to increase nuclear power a lot to get to a low carbon world. This is because nuclear provides base load and because solar and wind are intermittent sources requiring spacial diversity, storage (still too expensive) and a good deal of excess capacity (3 to 8 times it is believed) to be a reliable power source in the absence of no base load sources. (It can be cloudy and windless almost everywhere for a few days say. The remaining areas plus storage would then need to produce all power needs..) Also just intermittent sources require a reimagining of the power grid to deal with a rapidly changing supply from many, mostly small, sources. Again storage helps this, but isn't yet cheap enough to deal with days worth of power storage...
I agree. The Green New Deal has been Green Party policy for over ten years. Now, catching the zeitgeist, it's idea cloud is pushing out that of the neo-conservative movement. Skowronek is right, and this is a sea change. The President may love Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity, but the consciousness of the human race is riding a bigger wave: reality, and it is sweeping all forward.
1
Such proposals are "unrealistic," until they are worked on and negotiated, as was the case with social security. Its customary.
4
Well of course Joe Manchin is against anything Green. He is the bought and paid-for senator from the coal industry. West Virginia, not so much.
5
Why do we repeat the false notion that sustainable energy is impossible? We have the technology and the energy is beyond abundant. in 1991 cell phones first became available to the public. By 2001 AT&T left the pay phone business. Let's do this!
3
A “sweeping vision” is not a substitute for solid, sensible policies to solve clearly defined problems (of which there are plenty). What is needed is a sober solid program which the Republicans oppose only by labeling themselves as evil dunderheads.
What is not needed is a program easily distorted to make Dems look like Don Quixote tilting at (yes) windmills.
4
The Green New Deal is an absolute must, anything less than full throated support for something that actually attempts to meet the challenges we face from the looming climate catastrophe should be labeled as Climate Change Denial.
The democratic leadership cannot say that they are in any way better then the GOP by saying that they believe in the climate science (unlike those hillbillies) and immediately turn around and say that they don't believe in the science when it demands bold leadership and immediate action.
The time timetable for sweeping changes to be implemented has last been said to be about 12 years. The effects are already here and getting worse all the time. My former home state is constantly on fire and i see several other states constantly underwater for parts of the year. The time for some vague "tax credits for pollution" nonsense passed a good 20 some years ago. We waited too long, and by not treating this as urgent have showed the public that maybe it not an emergency. We need leadership on this issue, where they lead we will follow.
5
So here's what we're down to: possible electoral kryptonite or more certain environmental kryptonite. You have to pick one. The hour is getting late.
4
I would regard Reagan as more an administration of a deconstruction as we became a debtor nation from a creditor nation, dismantling the New Deal, as well as, an attempt of privatizing Social Security.
1
If you really look into the progressive agenda it polls wildly popular across the political landscape. What are those priorities?
Raise the minimum wage
Medicare for all
Tax payer funded higher education
Background checks
Green New Deal
High marginal tax rates on high incomes
This is a future for everyday Americans and the Republicans can't endorse that, they work for their campaign cash donors. The internet is alive and well and being put to use by progressives. Let the dinosaurs of the GOP waste their time and money on the establishment press and media. The boomers, the people easily scared by the threat of communism/socialism are dying off. And there'll be even more gone in the next two years. The future is the next generation that hasn't been ruined by bogus propaganda.
4
All the Democrats had to do get rid of Trump was ride the anti-Trump Fury to the White house. Instead we get this so-called "Green New Deal" which might be better called "Red New Deal" as it offers to counteract the evils of capitalism with huge government. Team Trump couldn't have hoped for a greater gift than this politically sophomoric move. I wish this and other authors would stop encouraging this foolhardiness. Yes the GND sounds great. Perhaps many progressives feel good about it, but it is far more likely to drive away votes than to win any new ones.
1
What exactly are you opposed to?
@Zejee I'm opposed to this move that is undermining the prospects of a realistic Democratic alternative to Trump. It has energized his base and really Republicans across the board while scaring off independents/moderates. The latter would include me -- while I may agree with many of the principles in GND, as a policy subscription it says little more than that big government is the solution. It's kind of like the logic that says we're losing money on each sale but we'll make it up on volume.
The Green New Deal, if ever implemented, would make Mao's sweeping vision of a "Great Leap Forward" look like a picnic.
5
I understood the Green New Deal as a resolution, not really a law. Which would make it more a wish list, or a target to aim for, than something to enact presently. The people promoting this ideal know that republicans in the Senate are not going to pass it.
Democrats need to inspire voters next year with big ideas instead of repackaging worn out republican ones.
The vision this package lays out is a good place to begin.
4
I'm a baby boomer, and yet I think, the sooner we leave the stage and the millenial take over, all the better. We have been the most selfish generation ever, throwing a never ending party at the expense of the future and calling it growth. We have done nothing but milk the cow bought and paid for by the previous generation and borrowed against the next without bothering to replace the cow. We are at undeclared war all over the world. What we call the private sector is largely contractors feeding off the government or industries build on government investment in universities, aerospace, computers, medicine, etc, and that function using government provide infrastructure. We ignore externalities, allowing corporations to make profits and consumers to consume at the public expense and the expense of the future.
I don't completely agree with everything about the green deal and the devil will be in the details. But, I'm glad to see it on the table. What I love about the younger group is that they are civic minded and willing to throw out big ideas and debate and discuss ideas and seem willing to wade into the details and nuances of actual policy debate.
McConnel is at the top of the list of those that need to go and he can take Pelosi with him.
5
Not mentioned in the article is the fact that millennials don’t vote in big numbers.
The Green New Deal is a great way NOT to change our seriously flawed system. Youthful idealism is very marketable, politically and commercially. But it's not going to bring together those oppressed by corporate/globalized capitalism - nor even help the envirornment much. The whole concept of it is flawed - and both Republicans AND establishment Democrats probably know this. Single parents with two minimum wage jobs and underemployed union laborers are NOT going to be scrutinizing numbers on their HDPE plastic waste.
The good news is that the more traditional and pragmatic values of the working class actually SUPPORT long-term (i.e. multi-generational) economic AND environmental sustainability. The working class is critical of globalization!!! This is a huge opportunity for progressive reform that only the establishment seems to recognize, fearfully. So do liberals want a better environment - or do they want to be "environmentalists"? Division is a bad thing, isn't it? All we have to do is STOP importing mass amounts of disposable consumer goods (almost all plastic) and STOP exporting our trash... and the planet and it's people will breath a sigh of relief. There's already a flotsam mat (largely ours) the size of France in the Pacific. Our fisheries are collapsing. We need to support our own commerce and labor market - first and foremost... for the sake of the planet.
1
The far left always confusing good intentions with actual policy. I think I can produce even a better green-deal just email me whatever you feel you need and I'll ad it to the 'plan'.
2
I hope that America has become despairing enough about "realistic" legislation that funds the government for only weeks at a time, produces bills with so many add-ons that every time they seem to win on one worthwhile issue, they undermine another, etc. Everyone talks about affordability, while the debt expands with little to show for it. Meanwhile, we march inexorably toward climate-caused disaster. Frankly, in terms of long-term zero-emission goals, the U.S. lags behind most of Europe and even China, although those countries' goals are either too drawn out or too low to avert the global warming disasters we expect. The Green New Deal is aspirational, not binding, but it takes global warming and climate change seriously, particularly with regard to the need for massive action almost immediately. And it rightly ties carbon emission reduction and the disruption it will cause to the need to attend to the needs of those who will be most affected by economic changes and who are, in many cases, suffering now. It addresses economic policy at the same time it addresses climate change since the two are inevitably tied together, especially since so many of the objections to policies to reduce our carbon output are made in terms of the high cost and disruption of the present economy. It's a broad basis for the development of real legislation to try to move us forward in an area where delaying necessary change is guaranteed to be more costly than its worth.
2
There are no inexorable laws of political development, or change or advancement, or retreat. There may be trends, but they are dependent on current circumstances including current power relationships. The lesson that Republicans seem to have learned is that the future comes one election at a time. Just win the next election, and in case you don't, seize control of the choke points (Judges and election procedures) to hold off the other side until you get another chance. The Green New Deal is a logical and necessary vision, but it won't magically happen in 10 - 50 years. It will require (mostly ) Democrats to fight in the trenches for electoral wins at all levels every year, and wresting and maintaining control of the judiciary and electoral machinery.
2
As Amazon shows, it's a job-destroying nightmare.
A dream in the eyes of Martin Luther King or FDR or Ghandi can change the hearts of the nation.
A dream in the eyes of today's Democrats: delusion.
For a dream to work, the dreamer needs to have deep integrity.
There is no "Maybe this is the time" or "Gee, it might work, if we're at the right point in the (Marxist?) historical cycle." These are the words of opportunists.
Someone with integrity, witnessing the suffering of the nation and the world, can dream of the end of that suffering -- and more importantly, have the integrity and commitment to see how to do it. How.
How to change hearts and minds.
The Democrats cannot make up with numbers what they lack in leadership and integrity.
As a lifelong Democrat, I am disappointed.
I recently watched the building of a home which has zero energy costs on This Old House. It encompassed materials available today to reach its goal. It was expensive, but overtime, the increase in building costs will be offset by the energy savings.
California is now requiring solar panels on new homes.
Rather than criticize the forward thinkers about their plan, we need to endorse the concept and move forward while we still can.
Anyone with a pulse, with the exception of Donald Trump and Joe Manchin, understand the perils of climate change. We cannot allow their ignorance to dominate the conversation.
3
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. It is more like eminent domain, the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
Oil and coal workers continue through the transition. They either age out and retire or retrain for green energy jobs. Fossil fuel companies have no incentive to retrain workers. They have always expected the government to fund any retraining. So why allow them billions in profits and then tax them a pittance that doesn't cover anything?
Thanks to Trump and the Republicans, we can declare a National Emergency.
7
Doing nothing to address cilmate change -- or denying it even exists, as seems to be the GOP's approach -- will cost us far, far more than the Green New Deal. Doing nothing now, given decades of Republican-led inaction accompanied by nonsense about "clean coal" may cost us all we've got.
By all means, let's decide to do something without further thumb-twiddling. As Macron said, "There is no Planet B."
2
The US is responsible for 14% of greenhouse emissions and its percentage is forecasted to decline even further as China and the rest of the developing world prioritize their economic catch-up with the developed world over them making the sacrifices needed to control climate change.
And yet Gail Collins says this: "The United States, after all, is responsible for only about 14 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions; in a hypothetical future where America became a leader on climate, it would probably have to use economic incentives to convince other countries to change their behavior."
Collins is saying is that, in additions to the trillions the US would have to add its already huge public debt to achieve its domestic Green New Deal goals, the US will also have to offer many more trillions to China and the rest of the developing world to incent them to follow our environmental lead.
It is this type of adolescent thinking which is blind to the technological, social and, especially, economic implications of the GND that is so distressing to witness among politicians and columnists.
Honest proponents of the GND admit that it would wreak havoc on the US economy but they say we need to do it to save mankind. But the US does not have the capacity to pay for a worldwide GND. With the certainty that the rest of the world would not move with US, the GND would make the US martyrs, crippling it to the advantage of countries that that wish see the decline of the US.
3
Here's the problem with the GND: its goals don't posit any kind of sacrifice. Everything is going to be the same, except the wealth will be evenly distributed, the infrastructure will be fixed and energy sources will be clean.
It's not going to happen that way.
Any green policy that will work will require ENORMOUS sacrifice from everyone, including: having fewer children; consuming less, flying less, driving less, eating less or even no meat; recycling EVERYTHING, meaning using things and parts of things until they are completely useless; and on and on. Rich and poor alike will need to sacrifice something, the rich obviously (a lot) more.
The other thing wrong is that every solution is posited as something the government will somehow do. There's no mention of the private sector and its role. Problem is, the government doesn't have the resources, and never will, to accomplish even a tenth of the goals stated.
To accomplish anything, the GND needs to be more focussed, more specific and more realistic about the need for public/private cooperation. Otherwise its a pretty useless publicity stunt.
1
In response to Pelosi dismissing the Green New Deal as a dream Goldberg writes that "if America is going to start again after the nightmare of Trump, maybe dreaming big is what’s needed". However Pelosi was far from the only one to dismiss it and she was being charitable towards the young author of the plan by calling it a dream. Bloomberg called it pie in the sky, and that too was being kind.
The impression that any person who is at all knowledgeable about the reality pertaining to the "Deal" is that it comes across as outright childish in that wishes are made without regard to whether they are at all possible in reality. And the fact is that this Deal does not qualify as a proposal, because a proposal includes details of what is to be done, which in turn requires an understanding of what is required to occur so that what is proposed will be achieved.
If the Green New Deal was presented at the Paris Climate Accord as the US plan by Ocasio-Cortez she would have been expected to explain how much power how much power the US requires and how she plans on producing it through renewables. And because she has no idea she would have made a complete mockery of herself.
The reason every Democratic contender supports the "Deal' despite the fact every mature and experienced Democrat feels its ignorant and childish, is because the party if being controlled by hardcore tribalists. And by ignoring the mainstream and showing no regard for reality they are handing Trump a 2nd term.
6
AOC has already done the Democrats and America a world of good. This, the future, should be our top priority. I'm all for continuing investigations into Trump's shenanigans. But the Democrats need to be exhibiting leadership, a push for all Americans, a movement into the future. Until now it's all been reactions to his latest tweet. AOC clearly has long term vision and a long term plan. Maybe it's her youth. It's certainly what we need.
4
And just what is the "conceptual power" of the Green New Deal? It's not articulated in this piece, at least. Just to say it's a device to club the political opposition is not conceptually powerful, unless your concept is to make up any silly excuse for a raw political battle. Raw political battles, incidentally, don't tend to end well, especially for those picking the battles without good reason. Reps. AOC and Omar will figure that out soon enough. Even Sen. Markey is backing off of his own proposal, because, although he is not the brightest bulb in the Senate, he can at least sense grave danger in the Green New Deal. A little late, though.
1
Hope Michelle is right about this Theory of Change--as long as non-reversible damage is not done during the next two years. To add to that "sweeping vision," how about one that aims to encompass almost all sectors, other than the dinosaurs, most companies within those sectors, and includes but goes beyond climate change (as many other areas are also in trouble). It would do this by taking advantage of little noticed developments in the field of sustainable business, where some leading companies are showing new ways to "do business," with increasing levels of built-in environmental and societal measures (which exist among the better known anti-social companies); and a host of largely ignored, creative pro-environment/economy concepts, like design-for-environment, the circular economy, voluntary company-imposed carbon taxes (which doesn't mean we don't need an external one), companies' embrace of The Paris Agreement and matching their performance against the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, adjusting their financials to how they're reducing their impacts on critical ecosystem services, fighting for pro-sustainability public policies. And since it's largely voluntary (although incentives would be welcome), it gives you a defense again the "socialism" charge of The New Green Deal. If interested, see this by my class and me, https://www.ramapo.edu/mass/files/2018/06/PolskyA_Green_Economy_for_NJ.pdf. A needed mindset shift would be getting used to the new role for business.
2
Reading many of the comments--quibblers, right-wing gloaters, nit-pickers, etc--is a depressing--and revealing--exercise. One can only ask them: Do you think the 1300+ scientists, the best in the world, who are the IPCC are wrong about the consequences of business as usual? If so, on what basis do you dispute them? Why should anyone believe YOU rather than THEM? And, if you agree but dislike the GND, then: What is YOUR plan? Please note that, of course, the GOP has NO PLAN. Unsurprising, since they deny that the problem even exists, which is a manifestly delusional view. The author is right: the Green New Deal is an attempt at a vision statement to what an alternative to "business as usual" might look like. It is a noble effort. But the comments show how stuck in denialism so many people are. American culture, rooted as it is in unbridled, selfish individualism, racist & xenophobic hatreds, and anti-scientific delusion is a major barrier to humanity's survival. The Green New Deal is the last exit before the cliff, my friends. We need to take that exit.
33
@Alan Richards -- I'm one of those scientists and "business as usual" is not acceptable. Purple fairies riding pink unicorns is not either.
If you think the GND is "their plan" you are nuts, or lying.
Scientists support a range of plans, but so far as I know not a one supports the AOC/Markley version of the GND. And you should note that neither Markley or AOC has anyone on their staff with the slightest competence in these matters.
I support a broad (no exceptions or grandfathering) "Carbon tax" on all emitted fossil carbon, that is promptly 100% rebated per capita to all adult citizens residing in the USA. All other subsides of fuel/energy are repealed (repealing the Price Andersen act may not be realistic). The carbon tax needs to start at about $40 to $50 MTCO2, for reasons too complicated to explain here.
Unwillingness to support this GND is the unwillingness to support sophomoric sloganeering, and what appears to be about as stupid as "build the wall." Dunning-Kruger bait is never a solution.
72
@Lee Harrison
What's your plan?
10 years is all we have before the climate catastrophe takes hold of the planet and is irreversible.
I don't think you have one. Carbon tax is a single drop in the bucket and would be stuck in the courts for a long time.
9
@Lee Harrison A Carbon Tax and GND are not incompatible. Ask the folks over at Citizen's Climate Lobby (CCL). (I'm a member.)
GND is obviously aspirational and don't you think that with a carbon tax many of us will choose to raise solar panels, insulate our homes, drive more efficient cars and yes, maybe eat less steak. That's not a purple fairytale.
10
The Arab oil embargo of 1973 generated dozens of ideas on reducing our national dependence on oil, mostly by physicists. It is worth looking up some of these ideas. Times have grown and we are now facing a far more serious threat, a global threat, not just how much we pay for oil.
The Green New Deal is brilliant, and not just politically. Most of this was proposed under Obama, and Scientific American magazine published an article outlining a national strategy for a continental HV DC superconducting energy grid powered by solar and wind farms. These are good ideas and "only" need engineering. Maybe 10-20 years of engineering, like the Moon landing. It is time to start. If it takes AOC to drive it home, then good for her and good for the USA.
7
The Green New Deal is not about fighting climate change. It is about getting rid of capitalism. At least this article is honest about it as it does not contain any discussion of the science of climate change at all but a lot about “progressive goals”, which unfortunately has become a doublespeak for socialism. The only solution to climate change is technological: carbon capture, electric vehicles, nuclear energy, renewables, and so on. Some social changes will follow, of course: American reliance on cars instead of trains or other forms of public transportation will have to be broken if this country is to have a truly modern infrastructure. But this is not the subtext of the proponents of the Green New Deal. What they want is to live in a utopia of equality, sharing, “and closeness to nature”. But what will they do when confronted with those like myself who do not believe in utopias and refuse to subscribe to the ideology which they consider pernicious and unworkable? Utopia, whether red or green, is incompatible with democracy.
@Mor - Have you read the actual document? I strongly encourage you to read it. It's not difficult reading and not too long.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
Technological solutions to climate change exist right now. But many are not implemented BECAUSE of the social changes they will unleash, some undoubtedly negative UNLESS prepared for. So, your recommendation to pursue the tech changes while putting off the social issues is not viable. The 2 are intertwined. The GND acknowledges this reality and forces us to find solutions BOTH to climate change AND to the disruptions in our society those solutions are bound to cause.
Example: the huge resistance on the part of the fossil fuel industry. Naturally, climate change solutions will very likely lower the profits of this industry as well as render many within it unemployed. If we hope to reduce our fossil fuel use we really need to plan for a way to help those who become unemployed because of it into another livelihood.
1
@Mor -- it's going to take either regulatory or tax pressure get change to happen as fast as we need it to. There's no way around that.
But I agree with you that this AOC/Markley "vision thing" is not about climate; indeed it is about holding solutions to climate change hostage to their views of socialist change.
1
@J Jencks yes, I have read this document and I stand by my assertion that it is a utopian socialist manifesto rather than a workable solution to climate change. What does “justice to indigenous communities” have to do with climate change? Who decides what this “justice” is? How is fight against racism or inequality connected to carbon tax? The document is about power to implement social engineering rather than to fight CO2 emissions. Of course, technological innovations will cause social disruptions and some of these disruptions will need to me mitigated. But the ultimate goal of the “Green New Deal” is to create a society based on a utopian belief that we can live in harmony with nature - as long as we get rid of all those evil Pluto rats. We know where such thinking leads.
1
America first ? We used to call this leadership, now it seems to be an excuse to do nothing since we assume that no one will follow.
The cost of doing nothing is catastrophic. So when the cost of a particular plan is questioned, ask in return how can we afford to do nothing, what other plan do you suggest. Like healthcare, their only plan is to prevent action but they are bereft of ideas themselves. Use that as the bludgeon.
This time let us not be cowed by the easy, reflexive derision of the GOP; double down with the reality of a true, international emergency and ask: how will they save America, what is its defense worth?
3
What an astounding, painfully obvious difference between Republicans and Democrats has been shown in light of the Green New Deal. To Republicans green means money, raked in from us, returned to billionaires. No concern for air, water, sustainability, employment for all that can be employed, no concern for global warming, no concern for our future on this planet. Democrats, on the other hand, recognize the dangers facing not just our nation but the world. Green energy, green initiatives, full employment, and healthcare for all, is a way forward. Is it idealistic? Yes. Will it all work? Maybe not, but it's a step in the right direction.
4
America and the world need a new vision for the future. One vision is to make American great again, largely looking backward. Another is to expand the reach of globalization, which has foundered on recent political and economic developments.
The Green New Deal is a vision for the future that genuinely imagines a future with great hopes, compassion, and justice. It's neither policy nor politics, thought it will need both. It's a manifesto for a humane and livable country and world. Of course it will struggle, old obstacles will persist, new ones will arise. But it offers a creative and imaginative response to huge problems and polarizations that produce stalemates and inaction.
How can we imagine a future without such a vision that inspires us to do something instead of waiting for everything to get worse? There's no reason to accept every one of its suggestions. There's every reason to begin with them and work to make them better.
4
@Stephen I agree that it is a vision for the future - and I find it abhorrent. I don’t want a future in which freedom is curtailed, innovation stifled, science muzzled by political correctness, and social equality is imposed from above. I don’t believe in compassion as a political goal: historically, such slogans have been nothing but doublespeak for persecution of social and ethnic minorities. I want neither politics of nostalgia nor politics of hope - only politics of reason. So what will you do with people like me?
1
@Stephen -- you know that bumper sticker that goes
VISUALIZE
using your turn signals
I use turn signals. Do you?
1
Amen. Of course every detail of the Green New Deal as originally presented won’t be adopted. It requires a ton of debate and refinement.
But we desperately, desperately need to be seriously addressing these issues - climate change, which has the power to literally destroy our society over the next century, and the obscene flow of wealth to the top in this country, which is destroying our democracy.
The fact that AOC has actually managed to make this the center of political conversation - in the Trump age of open racism, nihilism, dishonesty and distraction - is a tremendous initial accomplishment.
I love Ms. Pelosi, but on this one she’d better start listening to her children and grandchildren. She grew up in the 1950’s, when climate change was not on the agenda. Now it is the most vital problem we face. Newer and younger perspectives are needed.
5
The very strong reaction to AOC and the Green New Deal from both the left and the right (in addition to the media of all stripes) informs us that something is not right about the way thing are now and the people who are in power (politicians, billionaire, media outlets, monopolies of all kinds) are threaten by it. She is portrayed as both a no nothing or so powerful that she will destroy the 2020 Democratic election and or the country. But nobody talks about the fact that the way things are now, they can not stay and new ideas need to be discussed, otherwise not only is the planet doomed but the human race is also doomed.
1
"The Useful Idealism of the Green New Deal"
Considering Global Warming is a life or death situation, this isn't idealism, but pragmatism.
5
I'm an outdoor scientist, a Democrat, and realize we're in an ever increasingly warming globe. Having said that, the "Green New Deal" which has some great ideas, is a gift to the next GOP President. This will be a bludgeon that will be used in 2020 to clobber whomever rises to the top in the current Democratic presidential clown car. Since, I'm old, and have voted since 1970, I've seen over and over again how the Democratic Party undermines itself. This is the most recent example. Do we need environmental policy that helps us mitigate the coming environmental disaster of global warming - yes. Is the Green New Deal it - no. I realize that you often have to ask for more than you'll ever get, but this is another tool for the GOP to use against us, and the next election is extremely important for the survival of democracy, and independents and the former Democrats that voted for Trump won't go for it. So is it better to promulgate this monstrosity, or win the Presidency? That is the question beyond progressive Democrats ability to comprehend. I know. I worked in Berkeley for 23 years.
1
@M.S. Shackley
I've never heard of an "outdoor scientist", but I suppose in Berkeley anything is possible.
The enemy of science is "almost science", and both parties rejoice in it.
@Juan Outdoor scientists like geologists, wildlife biologists, archaeologists... We do most of our work outdoors. Same term at all universities. Almost science is a term most commonly heard from non-scientists I suppose.
The US could reduce emissions to zero, but if India, China, and Russia do nothing, CO2 will continue to increase.
3
"The young progressives pushing the Green New Deal have a similar sense of historic opportunity."
You know what else is a far greater historic opportunity, not letting Trump anywhere near having another chance at a second term.
He will use this green plan to rally his base and maybe swing enough Independents over to accomplish just that.
Ms. Cortez although well meaning will play right into his hands.
Priorities, Ms. Cortez, priorities.
5
The Green New Deal is a vision for the future, like Manifest Destiny and the Emancipation Proclamation of the 19th century, FDR's New Deal to reconfigure the federal government and overcome the Depression in the 1930s, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to honor the promissory note of our founding documents claimed by Martin Luther King Jr.
The Green New Deal is global in scope and design, intended to inspire a sense of urgency and purposeful action not just for the US and its citizens but for the health and survival of the planet.
2
Besides the fact that there has yet to be a workable technological discovery that could possibly replace an ever growing-global-capitalist-urban-industrial infrastructure based on carbon based energy sources; the truth of the matter is also economic limitations. Our current planetary economic system is already over two hundred trillion dollars in debt. It is on the very cusp of collapse and has very little room to maneuver, i.e., either from a fiscal standpoint or a monetary one. The sad truth is that humanity is currently trapped by both ecology and economics. What is needed is an extremely cheap replacement for our current fossil fuel infrastructure. I truly feel sorry for all the young people grasping at any straw in the wind. But scientific truth, and economic realism are hard taskmasters indeed. Yes, we are living in the Anthropocene, but until we can develop an ubiquitous energy source (like water (H2O), that is readily available, cheap and easy to disconnect -- all other current technological solutions will prove to be mere pipe dreams. Furthermore, what happened on Wall St. in 2008 has not been solved through QE (quantitative easing), in fact, it has been exacerbated through the intellectual bankruptcy of both our political parties. Hydrogen is our only hope to fairly smoothly transform civilization away from carbon without the unsustainable economic price tag that is currently being espoused by many of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
1
Our species just has too brief a window of spatio-temporal concerns. We care for ourselves, our children for a few years into the future -- the entire planet and all its people forever or the next several decades. Care is just not there.
The only avenue for success is a green new old deal: everybody (or the middle class) gets more by putting up solar panels and reducing their carbon footprint. The catch is the only thing that really registers as success is economic success -- which perfectly correlates with the size of your carbon footprint: square footage of home/car, vacations, etc.
Maybe a solution is to have a new religion calculated by cognitive scientists that installs species wide success as a pleasure center and material possessions (un-necessary) as pain. Is that possible given our legacy as animals fighting over turf, in effect possessions? Such a shift would have to be as tricky as the move from subsidence level existence to the invention of reading and writing: a new deal in progression of thought via biological intelligence taught with cartoons, real science, whips, and clever taxation packages.
Let's see. The consensus after the 2016 Democrat debacle was that the Democrats must find a way to reclaim those voters in the rust belt who voted for President Obama but then voted for Trump. And what's the Democrats apparent plan for doing that? By proposing the laughably impossible goals of the Green New Deal. Abolish air travel in ten years? Have all energy produced by renewable sources in ten years? I'm sure these ideas might have great appeal to earnest and idealistic college freshman with no idea what things are like in the real world but I guarantee you those voters in the rust belt would rightly find those ideas a joke. And if ACO becomes the new darling and face of the Democrat Party the Democrats have only themselves to blame for the disaster of a second Trump term.
5
@John J.
"The consensus after the 2016 Democrat debacle was that the Democrats must find a way to reclaim those voters in the rust belt who voted for President Obama but then voted for Trump."
Oh, gosh, John! Those rust belt Dems are really hungering for right liberal Democratic nominees to the left of Trump but to the right of Obama...NOT:
Look closer at that rust belt Obama-to-Trump switch: many were culturally conservative Democrats and independents who voted for Sanders in the primaries and Trump in the general - who voted for a right wing only when there was no progressive populist:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
In a country finally realizing the reality of human caused global warming, an FDR-type Green New Deal fits into the emerging consensus that we must act:
"[There is big agreement that climate change is a real thing and is happening before our eyes, according to a massive survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication.
"That data showed 70 percent of Americans believe 'global warming is happening' and 57 percent believe 'global warming is being caused mostly by human activities.' In a nation as divided as the United States is right now, those are remarkable numbers."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/consensus-emerges-climat...
1
The recently released UN-Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change and our own National Climate Assessment give us a short time-11 years-to make drastic reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. I believe the scientists and just open your eyes as empirical evidence (116 degrees in Australia, warming ,acidic oceans with dying coral reefs, rapid ice melting in Greenland, Arctic, Antarctica etc) abounds. Climate breakdown is happening now and we need a Green New Deal and the resolution is only the first step in the process. There seems to be very little questioning on bloated military budgets and the trillions of dollars spent on permanent wars (not to mention the human suffering caused) yet the GND is pie in the sky?
2
@Wilco -- we need action on CO2. We don't need AOC's socialist agenda to do it.
What do you want? In particular are you holding CO2 action hostage to this giant socialist agenda ?
1
The critical issue a green new deal must address is the inherent flaw of capitalism; the failure to price goods and services with the true cost of doing business. Cost in the sense of what is the environmental/health impact of each and every product? The free market had never been able to address these costs, whether it be pollution from carbon, trash from plastics or the health impacts of chemicals. It’s essentially a free ride that publicizes the costs while privatizing the benefits. The only way to address this is with a regulatory system that takes into account the true impacts and apportions costs appropriately.
@Dave
In other words, to have the government set prices. That is called a command economy. Many of the NY Times readers would welcome this, presumably because they will be the commanders.
1
@Dave and @Rob -- read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
All economists, including every previous economic advisor to a Republican president, understands taxation of negative externalities and supports a carbon tax.
1
Who needs Republicans with liberal attitudes like this?
It’s not hard to see why our blue cities are 30 years behind Europe in infrastructure, recycling and citizens vs. car visitors (low emission zones, separate bike lanes, wide sidewalks without traffic lights on every block etc.).
The time to water things down is over, we need to leapfrog and catch up with Northern Europe.
1
Saving the planet is not a radical concept, but we'll need to take our medicine. Neither is single payer health care or billionaires paying their fair share of taxes. Getting big money out of politics would be a good start. People are starting to wake up to what makes sense but as long as the hype machine keeps dividing us we're going to struggle.
I’m fine with having a vision. But if Trump isn’t defeated in 2020, the Green New Deal will be doomed as simply a progressive pipe dream. The streets of Paris are burning with fires fueled by idealism. We need smart politics.
@Mark Randolph
That's not an accurate description of what's happening in France at all.
Its an uprising caused by a cut to social services combined with a gas tax, all of which combined has made life nearly unbearable for lower income people, especially those in rural areas.
This isn't idealism as you incorrectly state, its a fight for survival.
But perhaps all rioters everywhere are simply unwashed hippies in your eyes.
1
The green new deal has some excellent ideas. But it does overreach. This is how we lose.
7
I actually bothered to take the time to read the draft. It is not a blueprint, not a plan, not a series of initiatives and certainly not a course of action. It is however a vector that aspires to point us in the right direction.
What will the actual works be, how will they be structured, how will they be paid for and what benefits will come from them is the hard work. But by pointing an arrow in this direction and suggesting it might be worth further investigation, isn't exactly a bad thing.
Consider for a moment if the arrow were pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Would that really be the best path to take. That would lead us down the path of unbridled use of all of our natural resources, the burning of every type of fossil fuel, deforestation and abandonment of environmental sanctuaries, a disregard to food safety, the willingness to let agriculture use pesticides as they like and not care about water run off, permitting China like air quality problems, not caring about education and the future of our children, etc. etc.
The Green New Deal (if the name sticks around that long) isn't a map. It does however hope to inspire us to walk in the right direction.
4
@It's Time
You say: "The Green New Deal (if the name sticks around that long) isn't a map. It does however hope to inspire us to walk in the right direction."
Who is "us" in your statement? With the United States accounting now for just 14% of global greenhouse emissions and declining as China and the rest of the world prioritize their economic growth over controlling climate change, "us" must include the entire world, especially China and the developing world.
Gail Collins acknowledges this and argues that not only paying trillions for our domestic GND, the US will undoubtedly have to help finance the adoption by the rest of the world of the GND. This is preposterous. Financing our own GND would by, itself, wreak economic havoc on the US. Collins' necessary condition for the GND to solve global warming means that the GND would have to be adopted globally, significantly financed by the US. In short, taking her advice would be economic martyrdom by the US, crippling us to the advantage of other countries, and with the likelihood that our efforts would not make a discernable difference as to global warming.
1
@It's Time
Exactly. Political party hacks and the MSM (as usual) are misrepresenting it as something that it is not. These people might need to go look up the word 'resolution' as it applies to legislation. And in this case the resolution holds less authority than one that renames a Post office or declares a random date to be 'national popsicle day'.
Climate change is real - pollution is threatening the globe.
The U.S. and the U.K. have been global leaders in reducing carbon emissions for the last decade. We've also reduced the majority of the plastic pollutants, which is becoming a crisis similar to emissions.
The Green Deal espouses some lofty expectations - however, the costs incurred to achieve those goals are truly unknown - it's a very radical approach - somewhat extreme - we need to have a more moderate and rational process which will be achievable in terms of industrial change, and the costs and timelines involved.
It's great to talk about how wonderful attaining a green environment can be by tying it to employment and infrastructure rebuild - it took a few months to put together the agenda for public disclosure.
It will take years of careful planning and legislation to begin reaching any of those milestones.
We'll see if the backers of the Green Deal have the knowledge, partisanship and dedication to see it through.
I have a feeling though, it will become back page news in 6 months or less.
@JMS
Here's how this works - Congress, presumably controlled by progressives will pass a series of very vague, overarching laws to enact these goals and then will turn over to the administrative state the reins to develop, administer, and enforce these polices. The solution will then be out of the hands of politicians and the public for our own good.
With these decrees covering every aspect of our lives, we will be living in a totalitarian state, but it will be for our own good.
1
We're Democrats! We're supposed to think like this.
2
Back here on Earth, two things make me doubt that the green new deal will arrive anytime soon. Universal health care and gun control. Before the United States can commence to save the world it must first begin to save itself.
3
Let me say it simply:
AOC is pushing me to be reactionary.
The condescending self-righteousness of The Green New Deal and the left in general simply pushes me further to the right. It makes me fear that our already ample army of passive-aggressive bureaucrats telling me to live my life according to their diktats will swell yet again to invade my life to the smallest detail.
Make no mistake! AOC and her supporters are about power and who has it. They are no less interested in controlling the lives of others than the rapacious capitalists they deplore.
The climate is changing, probably not for the better, and humans are certainly part if not most of that. So let us deal directly with the matter of converting fossil fuels to carbon dioxide. Some things will work (solar panels and windmills) and some will not (ethanol and bio-diesel). There is much to be done.
But when, even in jest, AOC and her minions seek to ban beef and air travel, they reveal their true intentions. It is a variation on the old Calvinist precept that if it feels good it must be bad. Many on the left have replaced traditional faith with their own religion: vegan, PETA, grievance based on identity, etc. etc. Anyone not agreeing with them is shouted down (on campus) and vilified as irredeemably evil. In this, they are hardly different than religious fundamentalists to which they object so strenuously. At heart, their motives are similar, which is to say, the will to power.
No thank you!
100
Did you actually read the text of the Green New Deal? This isn’t about banning air travel but building high speed rails so people have a choice. This is about building a green infrastructure so people have a choice about how they heat their homes. If you could afford to heat your home with clean energy would you still choose oil? How many choices do underpaid, un-unionized and uninsured Americans really have now? The GND is about the values we want to strive for not banning meat. No one is banning meat.
445
@D I Shaw I've never seen so much projection stuffed into one statement. Interestingly revealing.
96
@D I Shaw
The Green New Deal is a policy plan – a call to action. Whether it passes or not, the Green New Deal resolution is nonbinding and unenforceable. But it contains aspirational goals, much like Roosevelt's New Deal or Kennedy's Moon Shot.
Social Security? Put a man on the moon & bring him back? What unrealistic goals!
Please read the Green New Deal. The plan calls for “meeting 100 percent of the power demand” with clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources. Many countries have already signed on for these goals: Britain, France, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, India, Japan, Korea & China. Key provisions in the Green New Deal call only for “technologically feasible” changes. Nothing in it would outlaw plane travel or beef cattle.
385
New Deals are popular because they offer something attractive to the masses. Republicans are against them because the rich have to pay for them. As the Republicans have worked piecemeal and behind the scenes to dismantle the New Deal, what have they offered in it's place? The idea is "If you work hard, you can still get everything the New Deal provided, And then some" is theory and has been for decades. The masses have come to realize that it is simply not true. Healthcare is unaffordable, college is out of reach, the planet , they worked hard to save, is falling apart. And very soon, a whole generation will face poverty in retirement. They have not saved, primarily because their earnings don't allow them to. So the concept that the GND is some crazy, radical, socialist NEW idea is simply not true. It simply acknowledges Republicans tooketh and didn't replaceth. And the #1 Republican doctrine that wealth will flow down hill is 100% false. So is it any surprise that many people don't see the GND as radical? The most important argument Democrats MUST use if they want to win is "What is the Republican alternative to widening income disparity, costly healthcare, working until you are 90, and costly college education?" and keep pounding that message home. Why does it surprise people the Democrats offer a New Green Deal. When Republicans offer NND: No New Deal or more accurately NDW: No Deal Whatsoever?
198
@walking man
Yep, anything is possible since Donald Trump is president.
The Green New Deal is coming whether naysayers like it or not. Republican scoff. Donald Trump says NYET. But it's the future.
Republicans are in bed with oil companies and oil money. Of course they are going to reject anything that replace oil and end their flow of money.
But anything IS possible. GNP is probable and likely, again, notwithstanding the money-grubbing Republicans.
Hey, even the Mets finally have a new GM and even Fred Wilpon has unglued his wallet to OK a few new players. OK, Robinson Cano, a 36 year old that the NYY would have kept if of value, but the new YOUNG pitcher looks promising.
So anything IS possible.
Even Trump weighing in at AHEM 243 pounds is possible. Yeah, if Don jr. snuck in before the weigh in and moved the scale needle back 30 pounds. LOL
7
Paragraphs are possible, too. I don't intend that in a mean-spirited way. Just a reader's plea.
6
This excellent article notwithstanding, AOC, in ranting against the “greedy capitalism”, sounds too much like Maduro, Castro, et al to be really credible and to command a sizable following in the US.
1
Great Job, self-trolling the Democratic party with this silly but well-meaning proposal where the unintended consequences were ignored. Thanks Twitter for giving a massive voice to someone unqualified on the Left side so they can self-torpedo the 2020 election. I only hope Amy Klobuchar can navigate this wave of Greenland-claved icebergs and show that some Democrats exhibit common sense.
1
I agree. The only thing standing in the way of this green initiative are old codger Republicans who don't want to deal with the realities looming with climate change. I hope these young people press on and keep up the political energy to make these changes occur. Eventually these old politicians setting up road blocks to progress will all die. At that time, the country can truly move forward.
4
Big dreams are great. When they unite a nation, not divide it. Which is exactly what this is. Divisive. Grandiose plans put together by a bunch of Socialists who excoriate anyone who even gives the slightest hint at conservative values or support for those that have them.
If they want an example of a grandiose plan that united the nation they don't have to go back that far. NASA and the moon landing.
1
Of the 64 new Democrats elected to Congress in '18, 38 were women. Of the 36 new Republicans, 2 (2!) were women.
Roughly 36 % of the entire population of the US are are white males.White males make up roughly 38% of all Democrats in Congress.
While males make up roughly 90% (90!) of all Republicans in Congress.
The Republican party is wildly out of step with the American people. Republicans mocking the Green New Deal is a manifestation of that.
1
manikin poses as a Democrat. pelosi better not get the big head because she beat trump. The Green New Deal has wonderful ideas that will eventually become reality.
1
The Green New Deal is being spearheaded by the new members of the US House because they are young enough to worry about the world they will live in—while they still have the chance to change things.
For all those who dismiss them as utopian (Yes, Speaker Pelosi, we mean you) or seek to embarrass them through Congressional chicanery (That’s you, Senator McConnell), you may be powerful at the moment, but you are dinosaurs watching the sky darken from the asteroid strike.
We will have a Green New Deal, the only question is will it be soon enough to avert worst of the disaster.
2
Radical change will only come when the wealthy and powerful Republican's own money and lives are at stake. This is what spurred the Revolutionary War, the divestiture of South African investments and women's work rights. When their own mansions are destroyed by what will surely become undeniable climate fueled rising oceans, tornadoes, hurricanes and drought, even to the most dense minded Republicans elites, they will accept and possibly even support a Green Deal. Sadly, it will probably be too late.
1
Anyone who is opposed to the premise of a Green New Deal should write a letter to the future occupants of this planet so that they can better try to make sense of the mindset that allowed what's happening to happen.
3
Good observations and general thesis. We are in dire need of big-picture, long-term thinking in the 21st century.
Along those lines, we need more focus on the macroeconomics of the Green New Deal. See “The Green New Deal: What’s Really Green, And What’s Really New” at the Steady State Herald:
https://steadystate.org/the-green-new-deal-whats-really-green-and-whats-really-new/
1
Young "progressives" have just cost us 25k-45k jobs in NYC, but go on and tell me why I should listen to them. Sorry, but the mask is off. Their naivety is our loss.
3
Everything old is new again. Not a new idea in business. The cycle: creators, bureaucrats, (creative) disruptors. The disruption plows the useless stubble from the field preparing it for the new creators. MAGA aside (a useful campaign slogan) President Trump is not a reactionary he is a disruptor. No 2016 candidate of either party except President Trump could have paved the way for the Green New Deal.
Have the Democrats gone completely insane. They should only be talking about making healthcare better and cheaper, lowering prescription drug prices, protecting the borders, and how they will increase subsidies to farmers. They will never get elected otherwise.
Such cyclical theories of emerging and disappearing engrained ways of thinking have come to be called 'paradigms'. Though clearly a paradigm shift is needed, both wrt decarbonization and equality. But doubt that the electrarate will be convienced of the merits of a NGD. Some argue that in light of current tparadiam in the US, the NGD will more likely work as suicide note :(
Ms Goldberg is sadly off the mark. There are no actually new proposals, and combining disparate issues like environmental policy and reducing income inequality makes it easier to both mock and defeat the plan. Both of those issues, along with others like infrastructure, and America's place in the world, are important and must be addressed; just not as an omnibus package.
As for Cortez, David Brooks put it well when he wrote that she couldn't even properly organise the release of documents. How is anyone supposed to take her seriously? She's a godsend to the GOP, and Mitch "Mr Loathsome" McConnell is going to school her in the art of politics. She thought she was cool running around asking "Where's Mitch?" during the shutdown; she knows now, and is pitifully whingeing about unfair and dishonest McConnell is. He is both, but he's making her and Ed Markey look foolish. Hopefully Pelosi will rein her in before she does irreparable damage to our chances in 2020. Remember, moderate Dems beat incumbent Republicans, not the "progressives".
Wall Street Democrats like Pelosi, Schumer and Booker lack the vision and strength of Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy.
Lacking strength and vision, Democrats turn to Wall Street to save the world. Even with the current border wall crisis, Democrats capitulated and gave Trump 1.3 billion for a "smart wall" which will only serve to enrich Wall Street defense firms. And of course, Trump is simply going to grab billions more for his version of a stupid wall.
With our aging, wrong-headed Democratic leadership we get a guarantee that the same version of Neo-liberalism that relies on corporations like Facebook and Goldman Sachs to save the world will stay in place.
Facebook got its start ranking "hot college girls". Are we going to rely on Tech Bros to solve the moral crisis at the center of our world's problem's? Can you imagine?
Here's what is needed:
- tax the rich
- tax the corporations hiding money in Asia
- punish crimes by rich white men like Trump
- stop sending good jobs to India and China (engineering, architecture, IT, legal, medical, etc etc)
- China is taking over South Asia, Russia is taking over the West (Putin already owns the Republican Party). This needs to be counter balanced by thread of force.
Identity politics won't fix what's broken. We need real leadership, Unfortunately our Wall Street Democrats don't have a spine.
3
It ain't idealism when the alternative is the death of your civilization.
3
Get ready for the media circus. If the Senate votes on the GND, it will only be about giving political ammunition to Faux News, Hannity, et al., so they can distort, delude, and outright lie about the treasonous socialist implications of these ideas, and thus poison the well for anyone considering affinity with Democratic thought/leadership in any form.
McConnell is not as myopic as some suggest. Trump's primary 2020 re-election theme is going to be about demonizing socialism, and lumping all Democrats into the socialist "anti-American" camp to reinforce the us vs. them narrative. This vote is about getting Trump re-elected in 2020, and holding on to and even increasing their grip on power -- the only thing the banana Republican party cares about.
1
Liberalism is actually a lot worse than Socialism. It consists in "selling" to a gullible crowd loads of sweet dreams that nobody can reject, without (of course) mentioning that the same gullible middle class will have to foot the immense bill. Liberalism is the consecration of dependency: counting on others rather than on oneself. Liberalism fosters laxisme in everything from moral to self discipline, from intelligence to comprehension. All in the name of hearsay dreams. In the meantime, the elite (communist, capitalist, socialist, liberal whatever) keeps living like royalties, totally unaffected by their policies. E.g. Clinton, Obama, Soros, Hollywood ...
How do I know? I used to live in Europe (42 years) and left after I was paying 65% taxes.
2
Democrats need common sense.
After two years of railing against Trump, the Amazon thing and the rise of AOC have really rocked me on my heels.
Where is the center party where I belong???
46
@Gwe I am a bit confused. What precisely has Ms Ocasio-Cortez proposed that you object to? A return to the marginal tax rates which gave us the most prosperous middle class in the history of the planet? A plan to stave off the global warming which threatens civilization and possibly humanity itself?
40
@Gwe What is your version of common sense?
Propose an alternative, instead of moaning about people working to actually address the problems we face. It's easy to say the words "center" and "moderate" but what does that mean? Do you want the Democratic party to be socially liberal and economically conservative?
The only way you can sell moderation at this point is by downplaying the severity of those problems. I'm particularly pleased that for once the proposed vision actually matches the scale of the problem.
We've been told that climate change will make the planet unlivable, yet only propose incremental, non-disruptive "fixes". The time for procrastinating and incrementalism has passed. Blame the previous leaders whose inaction brought us to this point, not the people fighting to fix the problem.
42
@Gwe: Sorry you don't believe the Democratic Party is for you. Sounds like you want it to be Republican Lite. The Democratic Party has already tried that, though, and here we are.
Don't expect centrism -- whatever that is -- when the GOP has been working for years to wrench political discourse to the extreme right. Democrats have to move left if there is to be any hope of balance.
33
Yes, dreaming is important - but many other countries are making significant progress, and we must learn from them. The best article I've read on climate change was in this week's Times - and it focuses on how other countries are cutting emissions. Please read and pass it on - so that we can do more than dream, we can plan, and vote and act:
How to Cut U.S. Emissions Faster? Do What These Countries Are Doing. https://nyti.ms/2E7x2cV
3
"Cows and planes," i.e. current energy production and consumption trends, lead to death of the planet and humanity as we've come to know it. It's just a question of when. Laugh it up.
2
The young visionaries have put themselves in the same position as millions of visionaries who came before them:
How do they change 100% of nothing into a few percent of something?
That they are already being ridiculed here suggests they are not yet wise enough to present their ideas properly. They clearly need political guidance before they blow up this opportunity.
What do you mean: "the United States, after all, is responsible for only about 14 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions"? I thought profligate American consumers were the sole cause of global warming and therefore it was our moral imperative to sacrifice our standard of living so that third world countries can increase their populations by another order of magnitude (as they already have since the end of WWII). The truth is that the U.S. has steadily reduced the amount of its carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, so why should we do more so other countries can do less? Once lower and middle class voters realize the actual costs they will be asked to bear and how they will shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden (e.g., the personal jets of the 1% will somehow be exempted but working class people will pay another $2 per gallon of gas), expect Yellow Jacket-style protests here in America. Nancy Pelosi is very politically astute and she knows that the Green New Deal, aka "the Green Dream or whatever they call it", is a surefire way for Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2020 elections.
2
The problem with the Green New Deal is that Americans don't want to pay for it and there aren't enough billionaires to fund the astronomical costs of a GND. If the folks in Socialist France will riot over an increase in fuel taxes, just think of the reaction here when the costs of a carbon-free environment become apparent.
1
great article! You are absolutely right. Trump is an end-of-cycle president. The point at which cynicism reaches its apex. The point where people vote in someone they dislike, just to stick it to the political elites who they see as abandoning them. Trump has mobilized a base that he will never be able to hold, and long term, will be part of the Green New Deal base. As soon as we get the right presidential candidate in, there will be transformation.
Trouble is, it might not be this election cycle, because although a lot of the Democrats running pretend to be progressive, I am not sure any of them are the transformative president that starts the new cycle that you are referring to. Maybe Bernie Sanders, but he is a bit old. I think in the election after that or the one after that, there is a good chance that that transformative president will be there.
Unfortunately, if we do not have a sufficiently progressive president, then we will likely have one more iteration of a Trump-like caricature clown-show backlash president, before we get a transformative one. A progressive president cannot betray the middle class and use false rhetoric that they have no intention of actualizing. That is why a lot of these candidates scare me, because most of them in winning- guarantee us one more Trump-like president, because we will have to accept them as our nominees for at least 2-3 election cycles.
But you are right, a transformation is coming, and it is exciting.
1
Here's what I care about...that Trump is out of office in 2020. That the Democrats take back the Senate and win the presidency. That's all that matters to me right now. Democrats have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Sure, I want some progressive policies, but I do not want to scare off those Republican voters who dislike Trump and maybe voted Democrat in 2018. Nothing can be accomplished with Trump at the helm. He has an ability to connect with his base, and if Democrats are seen as too liberal, he will collect enough other votes to squeak in again. Every time I see a football stadium full of people, I think "that's the number who got Trump elected". I beg the Democrats to keep their eyes on the prize and do what it takes to defeat him.
The effects of climate change will become more and more "real" in the next few years. Republican climate deniers are truly on a "slippery slope." Way to GO, Mitch!
3
Environmental policy is economic policy. The structure of production, consumption and trade is heavily reliant on the real and implicit subsidies provided to all.
Any approach to attenuating GhG emissions and mitigating their effects on the environment, and ensuring clean air and water, will require economic restructuring. The beneficiaries of the present economic structure can be expected to strongly oppose any reduction in the value of their current assets. No surprise here.
What is surprising is the hostility of the Democratic Party leadership to the CONCEPT of a "Green New Deal", one that combines the need for economic restructuring to stop global warming and climate change, but also accepts the desirability of addressing the large and growing structural disparities in income and wealth.
Obama provided the slogan "yes, we can", which sounded good until he indicated that he wouldn't provide the effort for a follow through, possibly because he had none. The current House leadership on the other hand, offers only a condescending dismissal of the CONCEPT. They do not encourage further thinking on it and possible specific integrated implementation proposals for what is currently an aspiration.
As the Democratic Party has become the home of what half century ago was the "moderate (Rockefeller) Republicans", and the current Republican Party represents the Taft-Goldwater wing, apparently there is no place for innovative economic policies that deal with critical issues. SAD.
2
@San Ta -- I am not part of the "Democratic leadership." I am a really leftie Phd scientist/engineer who has spent his life on climate issues.
The problem here is that the AOC/Markley "GND" is worse than Obama's "Yes we can," worse in fact that than Trump's "Build the wall!"
AOC's "GND" is being dismissed BECAUSE it is bad sloganeering. You are absolutely encouraged to think, and to support better.
For starters ... what's wrong with a Carbon tax, 100% rebated uniformly per capita? Seriously, do you understand it? What's wrong with that? It is far more achievable, and real economists accept it.
You appear to think that everything hinges on "combining." There is very little or no intrinsic coupling here.
Your "...and possible specific integrated implementation proposals for what is currently an aspiration" ... let me know when you have one that isn't Dunning-Kruger bait. Then tell me how you will get it legislated.
The only way giant integrated programmatic change even begins to get legislated is that the synergies within the plan are so obvious and unavoidable that it must be legislated as a whole. Otherwise it is far easier to legislate piece-by-pierce -- much easier to assemble votes that way.
I don't see the synergies that make this necessary. Worse, I think AOC is trying to hold progress on climate hostage to her views of advancing socialism.
There are parts of new deal I like. But I won't hold the climate hostage to her views.
1
@Lee Harrison: You reply "what's wrong with a Carbon tax, 100% rebated uniformly per capita? Seriously, do you understand it?" Yes I do.
Read William Nordhaus, "The Climate Casino" Start on page 6: ... the incentive must be for everyone - millions of firms and billions of people spending trillions of dollars." A great idea if, as Nordhous indicates, it must be levied at a uniform rate on all countries, with NO exceptions for industries and regions. Therefore, "Governments must ensure that people do pay the full costs of their emissions. Everyone, everywhere, and for the indefinite future must face prices that reflect the social costs of their activities (ibid, p. 222). In other words, the carbon price, in this case a Carbon Tax, must be universally applied: universal participation and efficient implementation.
Consequently, there must be harmonized policies, i.e., a global Carbon Tax at a uniform rate, universal participation, and sanctions applied to countries that don't participate or which grant exemptions leading to inefficient application of the tax.
Any exceptions, e.g., different rates of taxation levied in different countries, exemptions for industrial and regional development, or the refusal of some countries to participate in an international scheme, will lead to inefficiencies - the need for higher rates of taxation in participating countries and to higher overall costs of mitigating the rise in GhG emissions and global temperatures.
Good Luck.
Sorry. This GND proposal is not ready for prime time. It’s focused upon an impossible and delusional idea, that the nation can approach zero emissions, with only wind and solar, and more, must soon drop nuclear power. James Hansen has warned that if you truly believe this, you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
Am I being too harsh? I think not, for the nature and consequences of climate change are so very harsh beyond conventional description. The GND is not the real deal. The real deal would include much greater funding and urgent commitment for the soon arriving, advanced nuclear power, as in the bi-partisan bill passed by Congress, and already signed, (believe it or not), by Trump.
It’s one thing to have good intentions on climate response. It’s quite another to back a resolution that really takes a hard nosed, realistic look at the energy metrics which must make sense, and must be commensurate to the massive challenge we face. The GND fails badly in this key requirement. As if stands it is a diversion, and a dangerous delusion. Humanity do not have an unlimited amount of time to get it right.
3
If a progressive dream for our future is political kryptonite, it is only gerrymandering and cynicism that makes it so. Allowing for a bit of naivete and overstep in the "Green New Deal" proposal, I suspect that a majority of the US population as a whole finds nothing threatening or un-American about the ideas being proposed.
514
@Chris Clark
Agreed. Progress means moving ahead, not behind, and climate change is necessary. Health care for all seems within reach as well. College tuition not necessarily as there are plenty community colleges which are great places to train for a future, with a full degree or a future in a field that certainly guarantees, at least equal to that of a history or creative writing major. Surely what pushed many to the left was Trump's tax cut to the 1%. All stats show that CEOs are engorging themselves, as are the uber-wealthy. And yes, after the "nightmare of Trump, maybe dreaming big is what's needed."
30
Certainly the devil is in the details, and there are definitely aspects of the original Green New Deal documents that are either pie in the sky or too inspecific.
But the documents are an excellent starting point for the discussion we need to have, a roadmap to a road we need to build, and of course we will make adaptations to the road as we go.
And as to the petty ad-hominem attacks that have issued from the Republigarchs, I submit that in the great traditions of George Bush the second, you're having a problem with the vision thing again.
116
Finally, we elect some progressives who challenge us to get real about climate, about wealth inequality, about health care, and...their entire agenda is viewed as "radical." While, at the same time, we have billionaires, yes, B as in billionaires, telling us that wealth inequality we are seeing is normal, that corporations should not be taxed, and the climate problem, well, they are willing to donate some monies to address the problem---this is "normal." Yes, it is my hope that the vocabularies now controlling the definition of normality are in the early stages of redefining what this country means by equality, by freedom, by fairness.
265
@Amanda Jones nailed it!
11
Ocasio-Cortez just lost 20,000 - 25,000 jobs in NYC by scaring off Amazon. There is no way she knows what she is doing. The New Green Deal is a bunch of nonsense. No one should take Andrea Ocasio-Cortez seriously. She is a job killer. Her ideas would have us living in a socialist nightmare.
38
Ever hear of climate change. Are you aware of the possible consequences. Or do you not believe. Do you really ignore science and I mean scientific agreement by the worlds scientists. Think about it. The Green Deal is a goal an aspiration. That we agree to do something as opposed to smoking the oil company thinking. Think .
37
@Sam C.
First, her name is Alexandra, not Andrea..
Secondly - many of here and NYC, especially in LIC and nearby neighborhoods, are deeply relieved that the bad deal dropped on us with no community input has been scuttled. We have been down similar roads before and enough is enough. If they want to do business in NY, if they want to clear a neighborhood for a giant campus with a helipad, they need to pay taxes to ameliorate the pressure they will place on already overburdened transit and other public services...like the little people do.
If there is 3 billion dollars available for business promotion, it can go to helping support the small businesses that companies like Amazon are crushing. Or - maybe..fix the subway already.
99
@Sam C.
"Ocasio-Cortez just lost 20,000 - 25,000 jobs in NYC by scaring off Amazon."
You cannot support that claim. Today's paper shows a range of forces opposed the deal, and that Amazon plans "to keep adding to its New York work force."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/15/business/economy/nyc-tech-startups-amazon.html."
35
There’s one big problem as casting this solely as a Democratic priority. Climate Change is non-partisan. It affects everyone regardless of political persuasion.
Think of Climate Change as a kind of phase change that will shape everything in the future, a global paradigm shift that is putting all of our institutions, doctrines, and fundamental assumptions through a stress test - a test to destruction in some cases.
It’s not going away, it can’t be avoided, and it’s happening now. As that realization sinks in, it is going to change everything. The GND is the first proposal that begins to acknowledge that in the mainstream US political environment. The Republican flight from reality will draw many who can’t face it. Denialism is the road to irrelevance and eventual extinction.
This the great test of our time - perhaps the last test if we fail it.
“I've always thought tests are a gift. And great tests are a great gift. To fail the test is a misfortune. But to refuse the test is to refuse the gift, and something worse, more irrevocable, than misfortune.”
Lois McMaster Bujold, Shards of Honour
3
The New Green Deal is an aspiration, not a realistic plan. It states what one wishes should be achieved in the next ten years but I am sure the authors themselves know it will not happen. What is important though is to raise the same alarm in the general public as it exists among scientists. The time has come to talk about the real emergency facing the world, namely reaching a tipping point on climate change. The next couple of decades are critical and if the world continues on its present course catastrophic economic disruptions are inevitable. The US as a major emitter of greenhouse gasses must be in the lead and so should China and India. The time to dawdle is long past and the more we wait the worse it will be for future generations.
3
Hopefully the "Deal" is a starter to a vital dialogue and a transformative agenda. No surprise that Mitch McConnell wants to stifle the dialogue from the get-go. He's a shill for the Koch brothers, and obstructor now, hopefully will be seen by history as drowning in the surging sea of change.
2
The scope of a "Green New Deal" is set too small. What is needed is a "Green Marshall Plan" of global scope -- and with the United States leading from the front and not falling back in the lame excuse that, China and India aren't doing enough so we shouldn't do anything. Correlative to this is to get over the outdated notion that "The business of America is business," The business of America is the spread of democratic ideals throughout the world by being a steadfast example of those ideals in action.
2
Most people have no idea of the potential power that theoretically can be derived from renewables.
For perspective the US today uses power at the rate of approx 450 GW (the avg rate, which can be nearly 3x this rate during summer months -- that's why the system has to have a lot of reserve capacity & flexibility built into it).
A few years ago the APS published a paper that stated:
The US has a total of over 8000 GW of potential land-based wind capacity. (The DOE estimates offshore wind adds another 2000 GW ).
The capacity of concentrating solar power is nearly 7,000 GW in seven southwestern states alone.
A DOE funded study found rooftop solar alone has the potential to provide about 1000 GW of solar capacity by 2050.
Anyway one gets the idea that there is a lot of potential out there (& this doesn't include geothermal, tidal, waves, etc.)
But how to actually redesign the grid (Ex: superconducting DC transmission lines can potentially connect the SW sunbelt solar farms to much of the rest of the country, but a lot of engineering & construction would be required).
We also have to design & build massive electrical storage capacity (the sun doesn't always shine), and build a lot of new pieces into the system. And what might be a realistic time frame for all of this.
Most experts I've read say this will take at least 30 years, and that is highly optimistic.
So yes, the GND is a starting pt for discussion, but people need to better understand what is likely and doable.
15
@dre
I believe that if the subsidies given to Oil and Gas were diverted to the electricity infrastructure, for storage, and for research, the country would be better served. Oil and gas prices probably would go up, maybe even electricity prices for a short time before people started conservative measures like taking mass transit, turning down the thermostat and wearing sweaters (Like Pres. Carter did), putting solar on their roofs, buying more fuel efficient cars or electric cars, etc.
We need to also stop giving government subsidies to big agriculture. The small farmers can still get some subsidies We could still advise them, but stop throwing tax $$$ at them. If our goal is better soil quality then we would see a big change in how food is grown, distributed and the costs. Some may be for the better some for the worse. But all could potentially help the soil and the people's health and decrease health care costs.
This new direction statement is just that; it needs shaping and details but is a great way to put forth a vision.
This also show the generational gap and why the younger Democrats wanted new ideas at leadership. Pelosi thinks transactional, the new congressional members think vision and long term.
As for McConnell who cares. He is one of worst of the conservative lot that gives not a care about America; only his party and election and those that can enable him. McConnell probably has done more to ruin America's political system then even Trump. The faster that Trump and McConnell leave office the better for America.
11
Well said Michelle, when did Americans forget to dream? We have been living in the cave of a Republican, fear induced fever dream for a few decades now. Republicans have no vision of the future except to retain their death grip on the Democratic process. Like the Paris Climate Accords the Green New Deal is a statement of intent, not the entire road. The road to that future will be laid one step at a time. There will be things to work out and arguments along the way. It is a vision. The only argument conservatives bring to the table is "No". In order to protect their dying order they have turned us into naysayers and do nothings. When glimmers of light penetrate their dark space they decry it as illusion. Hopefully, enough of us will find the motivation to follow these glimmers of hope out this torpor inducing darkness. With trumps attempt to declare a national emergency on the border, clearly overreaching his authority and Republicans more than likely going along for the ride, he may just be sowing that seed of destruction that will allow us on day one after the 2020 election to begin building a new world by declaring climate change and gun control national emergencies. The difference being we will be doing so under the auspices of the majority of citizens.
5
The question for Democrats is what will replace Clinton era globalization and neo-liberalism? This ideology was more than Reagan and Thatcher. It was a hegemonic project that dominated in the US and Europe on both sides of the political aisle. Today we're faced with three choices, a stagnating neo-liberalism, authoritarian capitalism with tinges of neo-fascism, or a Green New Deal. As with the New Deal of the 1930s it will be a coalition, pushed into its most progressive form by the left. It's not a dream, it's a necessity.
11
GND aside, Democrats have the looming problem of picking a candidate to take on the "Toxic Avenger" currently festering in the White House. The emerging field of Democratic hopefuls seem to be either too young or too old.
Ms. Warren, who began as a passionate and articulate warrior, has gotten mired in a Hillaryesque quest for "likeability". Women, more than men, are handicapped by "image" issues, perhaps due to an electorate who find it difficult to imagine a female in the Oval Office.
In any case the Democrats can't go wrong if they focus on policies that promise to do the most good for the most people. Health care, jobs, education and the environment. A credible commitment to justice, equity and accountability might help as well.
2
I disagree that Ronald Reagan reshaped anything. He rode on the back of a determined sea change of wealth transfer that was started by Nixon and the cancellation of Bretton Woods in 1971. After that wages were no longer tightly correlated with productivity and the rich began their voracious program.
Reagan was simply the spokesman for what continues today, not the originator of anything.
5
It’s very difficult to see any link between the demise of Breton Woods and wage stagnation. There’s no theoretical foundation, which other proximate causes do have.
Wage stagnation coincides with the decline of unions. Arguably the demise of Jim Crow made the south, with its right-to-work laws and lightly enforced regulation, an attractive alternative (for businesses) to the unionized liberal north.
Wage stagnation coincides with globalization, specifically trade with China. That put (formerly unionized) workers in direct competition with low-wage foreign workers. There’s even a name for it: offshoring.
Wage stagnation coincides with changes in executive compensation — the way, not just the amount — and repeated reductions of the top marginal rate.
Reagan had a hand in all of these. Without Reagan and his defeat of Mondale, would we have seen the rise of Republican-lite neoliberalism and Bill Clinton?
I wish the Green New Deal focused more on alleviating global warming because we really need to transition to clean energy ASAP, and that is the most important issue facing the world.
I fear that adding in social justice concerns (as important as they are) will alienate some republicans who might otherwise be on board. I think that's why McConnell is so eager to have a vote on this - so the republicans can use their tried and true misleading, alarmist rhetoric to pretend the democrats want to turn us into a socialist country.
I think it is a great thing these ideas are being publicly acknowledged and debated but it would be best to keep these issues separate in any proposed legislation.
Please, let's pass more legislation to aid the transition to green energy NOW.
3
Maybe we can call it the the Windshield New Deal -- moving some of the excess 18-wheeler freight off the highways onto rail lines will make highways safer and get the vote of every rock-smashed windshield in northern states.
2
Perfect is the enemy of the good, and the Green New Deal strives for too much perfect.
It makes all of climate change too easy to dismiss.
Talking about cows or eliminating an entire industry make everyday voters dismissive of the whole idea, and those voters will not take these politicians seriously on any topic anymore.
Also this week, Amazon stepping away from New York City, which many middle class Democrats see as disastrous and largely blame on idealism run amok. Progressives want to guarantee a job to anyone who wants one, and want taxpayers to pick up the tab, even though no one knows what those jobs are, what skills are needed, or what benefit they will bring. But jobs brought to you by Amazon ? No, we don't want those .....
Oh, and let us not forget this is also the week that the liberal governor of California had to admit they wasted billions of dollars on a high speed train that will never move anyone anywhere, and again, the middle class taxpayer will have the honor of paying down the debt associated with that boondoggle.
This counts as a very contended week for Republicans.
All in all, I cannot find anything that progressives should be happy about this week.
3
@G This plain ridiculous and shows a disturbing eagerness to swallow right wing popaganda instead of actually reading the Green Plan manifesto. There was not one word about eliminating cows or air travel, rather an admission that doing that is impossible.
2
@serban
THen why did they bring it up ?
@G Simply to point out that cows and air travel do contribute to greenhouse gases so whatever is done will have to take that into account when estimating how much reduction is needed.
Two data points don't make a pattern. Maybe Skowronek is wrong. Maybe the cycle doesn't repeat in quite the way we think. Maybe the cycle is the anomaly. However, Skowronek's theory at least feels plausible.
One thing we definitely can agree on though: Millennials are poised to reshape the political landscape for a very long time. Millennials already represent over 27% of eligible voters. They also vote overwhelmingly Democratic even though most aren't actually Democrats. The Party is simply a platform for political agency. The Party is a tool, not a policy endorsement.
Millennials are going to transform the Democratic Party to suit their own values. Whatever the outcome, the result will look a lot more like the GND than Reagan conservatism. Old Guard Democrats are living on borrowed time.
The question is: Are we going to do this the easy way or the hard way? The needle Democrats are trying to thread is how to embrace millennial values without pushing Reagan/Clinton Democrats out of the Party. 2016 was an unmitigated disaster.
However, we're already seeing a bolder embrace of Sanders-esque ideas even if Democrats stop short of the GND. That's a good sign. Maybe Democrats have learned a lesson. They can't take the millennial vote for granted. Democrats need millennials more than millennials need Democrats.
Now we just need to see if millennials and Gen-Z can form a working coalition to finally end the Reagan era and save the planet. We don't have all century.
14
The goals of the Green New Deal would be extremely stretching even if they were set for the Year 2100. To set them for 10 years out is simply ignorant
There was an old consultant model that said to create change you needed a compelling vision as well as a full understanding of current reality. The tension between the vision and what you wanted provided the energy, the tension, that propelled change
In a detailed study of results in one of the dow jones 20 companies we proved that the model most frequently failed not because the vision was flawed but rather because of the extreme difficulty for organizations to be Brutally honest about current reality. It was most typically only when external forces made accepting the truth about current reality inescapable that businesses made the urgent moves to the vision that were required
The GND may have the vision right, but it so ignores current technical reality that it will only disappoint and ultimately hurt the cause of the entire Democratic Party. It will be simple for republicans to use good scientific data to disparage the whole idea
The whole “vision thing” is a distraction. Get some humility and work to sell baby step actions towards the goal. In fact America is being very successful with such actions. It’s just that the visionaries fail to see and celebrate the wins, and thus fail to build momentum for their cause
Send the children home. Bring in some adults
3
@John Morton You clearly don't understand the scope of the problem. Baby step time was over twenty years ago. I am all for bringing in the adults but they are not the same ones you might envision.
1
Ahem, what is the current reality so obvious to you that the kids are missing? And, by the way, I know quite a few kids who favor the GND with all the visionary enthusiasm of their gray heads.
There are always naysayers. There are always people counseling patience who “explain” why it can’t be done now, or so soon, or so fast. Usually their pessimism is justified, but their reasoning never is. Too many impossible things have been accomplished to think otherwise.
2100 you say. Ten years ago, Denmark was already generating 25% of its electricity from cooperatively owned windmills. In ten more, they’re on track to make it 100%. In 20 years, using yesterday’s technology, they will have accomplished what you say will take 80.
It took about 10 years to build the interstate highway system. It too about 10 years to land on the moon. It took about 10 years to establish the EPA.
I estimate we need 16,000 windmills at $1 million each, or $16 billion, to replace every megawatt of fossil-fueled electricity in the country. Are you telling me the United States of America can’t install 1600 windmills a year for 10 years?
Empty hope is not a strategy, but the seed of disillusionment
Cool heads produce better results than a rapid-fire brain in all directions.
Trump has two more years, and there is serious danger that actions like these, rushed in a rapid-fire manner with glaring errors may give him enough ammunition for another term.
Catering to Twitter followers to build a personal brand created the current president. Some of the actions by the exciting newcomers to the House seems dangerously close to that.
And, we also see how much some of the "followers" control him now.
Beware! As a Democrat, I am worried, very worried.
5
The green new deal is fantastic! Finally it proves the fears that everyone skeptical of the climate fanatics always believed - that the progressives want to use climate change as the basis of imposing their radical social experiments through government coercion. Now there is a manifesto to prove it. Anyone like Michelle Goldberg who jumps on the band wagon can be called crazy and I can now be happy to forever ignore any argument they ever make about climate change knowing they really, really just want to use it to impose their political beliefs.
Thank you AOC !
7
Everyone should understand that the GND resolution is a strategic vision and an invitation to join in the discussion. Because this resolution is holistic in its attempt to address climate change, but also many other problems in America, it will need legislative contributions from many independent, "stovepipe" House and Senate committees that have been assigned responsibilities (as if they had no impact on each other!). Most people who work in the corporate world should see this integration as important and necessary. We need to work together on this existential set of problems.
9
I've been a liberal Democrat for my entire political life. Lately, I am re-thinking that alliance. The party has suddenly been commandeered by inexperienced newcomers who are great at garnering attention but whose policy proposals read like vague fantasies in a college sophomore's last minute term paper. Have others read the "Green New Deal"? It's nothing more than a Utopian wish list. There's no strategic problem solving, no logistics, no strategy. Just a statement of wants. Granted, those wants are good things, and far better than the current fake president's priorities, but proclamations of wish lists is not what we most need now. It's fine to have idealistic young people moving into politics....but everyone knows they don't know what they are doing yet. Remember Obama's idealistic assumption that he could move into the White House and bring about collaboration and bipartisanship? Such naivete is not benign. It results in lost opportunities for real change. We need pragmatic fighters now, not fantasies based on inexperience.
13
@Tintin It's a complex question, and I'm not sure of the answer. Obamacare was the quintessential pragmatic healthcare plan. It built on Republican principles so it was crafted to earn bipartisan support. So, too, it offered enough to the hospital and pharmaceutical industries that they didn't demolish it as they had Clintoncare. And, once enacted, it provided healthcare to many millions of people who desperately needed it.
All good. A win for pragmatism -- except that it generated such a huge political backlash that it created the Tea Party and led to Trump, and for several years most Americans couldn't tell you anything it did for them, because it was just so subtle and complicated. It took the Republicans trying to destroy pre-existing coverage guarantees until that finally turned around, and the GOP moved to destroy Obamacare incrementally. But the overall political result suggests that pragmatic, technocratic incrementalism won't get us where we need to go.
As for aspirational, somewhat utopian alternatives? I share your skepticism, but clearly, under our feet, the ground is shifting.
5
You’re confusing a plank in a platform with a bill. The GND isn’t intended as legislation. It’s not about mechanism. It’s an attempt to itemize and codify a set of goals, to move from “we should do something” to “we should do something toward these interrelated goals”.
It seems silly only because it’s been decades since we’ve seen anything like an “aspirational caucus” in congress. We haven’t had progressive legislation since Medicare, unless you count the EPA. ( I don’t count Obamacare.)
It’s not, as too many dreary comments suggest, a takeover by the children. These children, not for nothing, were elected to congress. Rather, it’s the product of a new passion and determination to finally do some good for the voters who’ve been ignored for the last 4 decades. It’s the product of a widespread dawning realization that no partnership with the Revanchist Republicans is possible anymore, given their obstinance on climate change, their deceit on Obamacare, and their cravenness on taxes and regulation.
You see holes in their plan? Fill in the blanks. That’s what it’s there for.
5
@James K. Lowden
Disagree. It seems silly because they could have had a wildly popular GND focusing on Environmentalism and jobs.
Instead, they alienate 95% of the electorate with radical platitudes from true believers.
They threw a bone to every identity politics church out their instead of focusing on something most Americans can agree on.
What we need is a total paradigm shift in all our thinking.
The New Deal dealt with problems of the mid-20th century, and the industrial world. We are now in the 21st century and the post-industrial world.
The GND is an idea whose time has come, albeit a bit late.
22
As inspiringly ambitious as the Green New Deal is, I think it fails to sufficiently recognize the terrifying urgency of one aspect of climate change and our role in it: the catastrophic collapse of insect populations around the world. Not enough has been said or done to bring it to the attention of the general public. Insects are dying off at a rate that would, if unchecked, lead to their extinction by the end of the century; and without their service as pollinators and food for higher animals, the entire food chain collapses -- and our civilization, our existence, with it.
We have stripped much of the earth of its biodiversity with our pesticides and crop monocultures and barren lawns, and the consequences are coming at us alarming fast: with our deteriorating soil quality, scientists estimate we only have sixty years, SIXTY YEARS, of harvests left. Helping insect populations recover will require a radical disruption of our present agricultural arrangements, and a complete overhaul of our relationship to the land and how we use it to sustain us. It will be a heavy social and political lift, but what choice do we have? At this point we HAVE to dream big, and act to make the dream real. Because the only alternative left is death.
18
@Jason Insects don't have a problem with warmth. Jump in your car and drive around 150 miles south of where you now live. The climate of the place you arrive will probably be 1 degree warmer. You will notice that insects (and all other species) thrive there as well as they do where you live. You could also jump on a plane and fly south to a tropical climate to check the same thing. But bring your bug spray! There will be more insects there, not fewer.
Insects evolved long ago and have survived both ice ages and climate optimums- that is, they have survived climates that were far colder and far warmer than those today. If there is a decline in insects today, the cause may be many things, but "climate change," with near certainty, isn't one of them.
@Jason
Well said! I agree with your points regarding the decline of insect populations and bee / bat colony collapses around the world. We need our insects, our pollinators, our millions of species to survive but our greed is driving them towards extinction. Sixty years of harvests left are downright scary. The time to have worked on this issue should have been years ago.
4
@Bob
Do me a favor: do a Google search for "insect apocalypse" and read any of the results that come up. Here's one:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-shows-global-insect-populations-have-crashed-last-decade-180971474/
Despite your anecdotal experience, there are decades of compelling scientific evidence pointing to a rapid overall decline in insect biodiversity and populations. Human activity that happens to cause climate change -- including deforestation, human sprawl, and agricultural practices -- is also a significant driver in this case.
4
Moon shot. NASA figured out how to get to the moon and back using known physics and inventing what was then unknown technologies. Imagine a power grid comprised solely of currently known technologies with great incentives to invent the future. Doesn’t our National Security depend upon it?: e.g. technological supremacy, clean environment, oil-NON-dependency, jobs for middle class folks, civil and social calm.
2
@Outer Borough
Thanks for this, OB. That was my first thought when I read the Green New Deal. Unlike the folks who are decrying it as childish fantasy, I believe that it is a challenge to rethink our ways of looking a the problem and the currently available solutions. We probably won't achieve total carbon neutrality in 11 or 12 years, but think of what we can achieve if we start working toward that goal! I am all for letting the Millennials go to town on trying to solve these problems. And ensuring that the needs of the people whose lives will be disrupted by the paradigm shift are supported and compensated is a brilliant and unprecedentedly compassionate addition to the vision.
2
I sure hope Michelle is right, but the evidence here in Michigan is far from certain. After years of attacks on the Environment by Rick Snyder and his Republicans, the state swept Gretchen Whitmer into office along with a Democratic AG and Secretary of State, all women. Whitmer’s first act was to demolish the environmental panels established by Snyder to oversee regulation. Typically, Snyder and his Republicans loaded these panels with industrial agents whose aim was deregulation and a reversal of environmental law. You know what happened; Flint and a degradation of our environment generally.
True to form, the Republican led legislature, still in power due to gerrymandering, overturned the executive order along party lines. This order was about providing clean drinking water to the public and these hacks sided with their corporate overlords rather than the public. Even more disturbing was some of the reaction from the public. Many saw this as an over reach by Whitmer and posed the question who is going to pay for these improvements.Republicans sold Michiganders on the notion that you can have great service on the cheap, and the public continues to buy it even in the face of a deteriorating infrastrucure, a destroyed public school system, and the worst roads in the country. Hard to be optimistic!
2
The Democrats may need sweeping vision in the post-Trump world, but the world needs a sweeping vision now. With a renewal of the nuclear arms race, it is likely that we won't live long enough to worry about the eventual drastic effects of climate change. If we are to survive as a species there must come a paradigm shift in human thought, and it must come soon.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
The Green New Deal needs also to be compared with the Republican plan for dealing with global warming -- i.e., make it worse, as rapidly as can be devised.
24
Let's remember two things. First, we've not yet survived the Trump presidency with our Constitution intact. The battle rages on with the autocrat-in-chief ready this very day to attempt an end run around the Constitution's "separation of powers" by declaring a "national emergency" to legitimize the $5.7 billion purse-snatching he failed to get by blackmailing them with the government shutdown. This will produce a Constitutional crisis that will test democracy vs. autocracy. Second, the Green New Deal is not legislation, but a set of principles. Nancy Pelosi has already decided not to take it up in the House so it's extremely unlikely the Mitch McConnell can or will be able to do so in the Senate. It would be good if a series of smaller legislative steps were taken like proposing a green infrastructure proposal that would fund a national high-speed rail system that runs on green energy where possible, retrofitting buildings including new green-energy low-income housing, and additional tax incentives for the production and purchase of electric vehicles.
2
One reason we as a country don't make progress on ambitious programs is that opponents with large audiences engage in fear mongering, and many people respond. In the vocal opposition to the Green New Deal are echoes of Obamacare death panels. If the proponents want to move forward with real action, they will have to work hard and persistently, with an effective use of words, to prevail over the naysayers with a vested interest in the status quo. Overcoming the resistance, and the fact that it is so much easier to kick the can down the road than change entrenched behavior will be a challenge. Hopefully our leaders will meet this challenge. I will be watching to see how the presidential candidates handle it.
4
@CH What an insight! It is all about messaging.
Learn from the great leaders in the past Michelle, re progress go slow.
If you go full speed ahead with a progress idea like a green economy, not only will it stand a small chance of failure because it won't work, even if it does America is not ready for it.
Examples of great leadership were Lincoln, save the union before ending slavery. The abolitionists did not get this. LBJ gets Civil Rights before Voting Rights etc. etc.
Also "progress" doesn't always turn out to be right, ie prohibition in the 1920s, the free drug culture in the 60s, putting NYC on welfare in the 1970s etc. etc.
3
The beauty of the Green New Deal is in how it can activate and hold a new generation of voters - especially those young people who are also members of groups that have been historically disenfranchised by apathy, cynicism, and despair - as well as by more overtly designed oppressive measures of voter suppression.
No doubt the forces of “conservatism” which are now being “reduced” (as in “boiled down”) to fearful, hateful racist disruption will do everything possible to reinstill apathy, cynicism, and despair because apathy, cynicism, and despair will always be the most effective measures of vote suppression.
But when everything seems bleak and futile, maybe today’s new voters (and their children) will remember one gritty reason to brave the ballot line is that “they” don’t want you too. Hopefully, they will also remember that rights are NEVER won without a fight, and that the United States of America is still a long way from recognizing the human RIGHTS to food, shelter, right livelihood in meaningful occupations, dignified leisure, healthcare, and education.
3
There's political time and there's geological time, and the latter is completely unforgiving. The earth doesn't care about it us. If we want to perish as a species, this planet will accommodate it and cycle on to something new until the sun burns out.
3
The Green New Deal should’ve been focused solely on environmental changes. Instead it got larded up with a progressive potpourri of social engineering programs that have nothing to do with carbon emissions, but everything to do with politics and the proponents’ self-promotion. That’s a failure of vision that could kill the whole thing.
11
Science is neither cynical nor idealistic nor benign.
Science has no socioeconomic nor political nor educational nor historic nor gender nor color aka race nor ethnic nor national origin nor faith agenda or bias or preference.
Science is the currently best natural explanation for observed natural phenomena based upon the best currently available natural data. Science operates via double- blind controlled experimental tests that provide predictable and repeatable results.
Science is always provisional and refutable by better theories, observations and data. Curiosity drives science. And the ability to think critically, independently and originally advances science. A "wrong" answer is as scientifically valuable as the " right" answer.
Being able to answer " I don't know" to a question is the beginning of wisdom.
1
We, too, are concerned that "utopian" aspects of the GND may render it politically unfeasible. But this is just the opening sortie in a hugely complex negotiation. Go big to have something to give when the haggling begins.
Think of it as embodying The Art of the Green New Deal.
20
The essentials of the Green New Deal are necessary. Pragmatism is necessary. The original New Deal succeeded because it was practical. Pelosi embodies practical.
3
@br- You hit it right on the head. See my post.
Learn from the great leaders in the past Michelle, re progress go slow.
If you go full speed ahead with a progress idea like a green economy, not only will it stand a small chance of failure because it won't work, even if it does America is not ready for it.
Examples of great leadership were Lincoln, save the union before ending slavery. The abolitionists did not get this. LBJ gets Civil Rights before Voting Rights etc. etc.
Also "progress" doesn't always turn out to be right, ie prohibition in the 1920s, the free drug culture in the 60s, putting NYC on welfare in the 1970s etc. etc.
1
@br Pragmatic, Ask Mao, Lenin, about their great ideas. My fourth grader is smarter. First, you go in the fields and collect hay. Now, and thanks for your house for the political commissar.
"Dissolution of the regime". That's music to my ears, and can't come soon enough. DJT is a dangerous aberration, the result of divisive Republicanism over the last 50 years, and the failure of the Democrats to field someone other than Clinton. But Republicans hitched their wagon to a con man in DJT, who has a host of problems swirling around in a black cloud surrounding his every action. Not the least of which is his election, aided by the Russians. His sins are their sins and Republicans will pay a heavy price for their complicity - it will be a very, very, long time before the American public will trust anything they say or do, as they have been shown for what they are.
6
We are like the horses chained to a capstan continuing to walk in a circle to turn the wheel and power the machine. When we dream, we can envision other choices and other outcomes than just getting by for a few handfuls of oats in our feed bags.
The Green New Deal offers a new vision for an outcome other than our current path of cooking the planet and its inhabitants. Change is hard but not changing is harder still. We need the courage to unfasten the harness holding us to fossil fuels and the vision which the GND can provide.
14
"I’ve lived through enough right-wing backlashes to worry about left-wing overreach."
Indeed, the pundit class is forever telling Democrats to be timid, to wait. "Now is not the time" has been said so often that it is clear that there will never be a time that they gauge to be the "right" one. Democrats are so afraid of "overreaching" that they fail to "reach" at all. Ever since Clinton's administration, the left has been tame, modest in its goals, timid in its proposals. Even the ACA was a half-way measure that has satisfied very few people. Yes, it is better than nothing, but in the way a half a sandwich is better than nothing to a person who is literally starving to death. Half-way measures do not ignite passion in anyone, which I suppose is exactly the point of the pundits' conventional wisdom. "Don't rock the boat; we are comfortable."
The right has nothing to offer but tax cuts for the wealthy and acquiescence to whatever that class wants. To move the needle, we need to make that very clear by offering people a better chance in a country that works for them first.
Will the Green New Deal take fire? Let's see what natural disasters await us this summer. The more there are, the better people will be able to see the extraordinary cost of doing nothing while our funding for fighting wildfires, tornadoes, and hurricanes is spent on a useless wall.
4
What is the Green New Deal besides a catch phrase? Thomas Friedman first used the phrase. It has been used by the Green Party for years. Now AOC and Markey have borrowed it. I urge you to read their resolution yourself. It is vague wish list of social democratic ideas.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL
If the point is to slow down climate change, international cooperation is vital. The U.S. produces only 14% of world carbon emissions, a proportion that falls every year. To put it another way, if the U.S. ceased to exist tomorrow climate change would still march along inexorably. Governments need to focus like a laser beam on carbon and methane emissions. The Green New Deal is not the solution. It is an example of image over substance, something we cannot afford if we wish to slow down climate change.
5
@tanstaafl
Soverign currency issuers like the USA can "afford" to purchase whatever is offered for sale in that currency.
The budget deficit is merely a residual number without import of its own. The inflation rate *is* the critical limitation on spending, whether public or private.
See economists Stephanie Kelton, Warren Mosler, Randall Wray and Bill Mitchell to understand the logical, real-world underpinnings of these axioms.
@tanstaafl
"Governments need to focus like a laser beam on carbon and methane emissions."
Many governments are already doing this. In Wuhan, China there are solar panels & wind vanes on top of street lights on major roads. China and Norway have plug-in stations for electric vehicles everywhere. Germany has vast areas of solar arrays & wind farms. Norway has a goal of eliminating fossil fuel-based cars by 2025. Britain, France, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, India & China have set official targets for electric car sales & the banning of fossil fuel-based vehicles.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/11/autos/countries-banning-diesel-gas-cars/index.html
Unfortunately, many of our citizens have no idea how other countries are already dealing with climate change & are way ahead of the U.S.. We no longer think big, but for some reason we still consider ourselves "exceptional". The Green New Deal may sound too ambitious, but at least it's a start.
2
Let's pretend that our species does the right thing and pushes through a GND after achieving a super-majority in 2020. As envisioned now, this GND would need some help if we don't deny the science of our changing climate. A large carbon tax could significantly help keep fossil fuel in the ground almost immediately. The revenue could be used to give rebates to low income and provide free, clean mass-trans to much of the nation.
8
@Newell McCarty
Unfortunately Americans hate mass-trans unless they live in dense urban areas where cars are a hassle.
I think it is vital that the Democrats define what they stand for beyond being "not Trump." Dems should carefully think through any plans they are working on, be careful not to denigrate each other's ideas, come up with viable solutions wherever possible, and learn to communicate their message clearly, which they have often struggled with in the past. Of course, the first question everyone will ask is "how are you going to pay for it," so if the solution to the problem is to increases taxes on the rich then, by all means, they should state that clearly as well. If anyone raises concerns about the "green dream" being "pie in the sky," we should remind them that our president is prepared to destroy the separation of powers that our government was built on and undermine our democracy to continue perpetrating lies about a non-existent crisis at our southern border that is completely a figment of his imagination.
In bringing this up for a vote, McConnel hopes to humiliate the Democrats, but he may find that his strategy is flawed. Though the Green New Deal may not pass with the current administration in power, bringing it up for a vote in the Senate may give it legitimacy. Then, when we hold the Senate in 2020, a new and improved version may pass.
5
I agree. I think Hillary primarily defined herself by saying she was not Trump. (And was breaking history.). It didn’t work.
2
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that climate scientists have been very quiet of late. I've read numerous articles that essentially say that many have given up at this point. As I commented earlier this week, my generation took to the streets to protest the obscenity of Vietnam, which actions ultimately changed the course. But, as another commenter reminded me, in our day we had the "benefit" of horrifying television footage each night. Climate effects aren't yet that obvious, that personal. And when they are it will be far too late. And, anyway, unless we find some way under our constitution to muzzle the extremists' propaganda machine, too many citizens will continue to be easy prey to cynical interests. Just watch McConnell - he knows Fox has his back. Trump is but the visible symptom of a much, much deeper problem.
2
But Michael, we do have horrifying TV footage of climate change each night, as we view the impact of the extreme weather events caused by climate change. So last night it was floods and mudslides in California, with homes sliding down hills. This was caused by unprecedented rainfalls and the aftermath of the fall’s wildfires.
2
@Michael
A cruel irony is that, in order for those who know that we must reverse and bury the climate-destroying past, we must fly or drive to Washington to join the protests at the capitol. It's difficult for me to get on the national news as a protester while sitting at my keyboard, but somehow it must be don.
1
Wanting change and having a plan are two different things. The country is built on compromise and reaching the goals of tha “Green New Deal” will take planning and compromise.
3
The Green New Deal will prove to be a defining moment in American politics. It draws a clear line between the two parties. No longer will we have to wonder if the majority of Democrats are indeed socialists who want to tear down the free market capitalism based freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and the place where people from failed socialist states now want to be. Thank you AOC. Now, despite my dislike for Donald Trump, I understand that the alternative is indeed even worse.
1
Dear Southern Man and all the naysayers,
Do you really want to just give up? Market capitalism got us here. What’s your plan?
I’m an American but I’ve lived in Europe and no one there considers their freedom restricted by free healthcare, affordable preschool and wind farms. Free to change jobs without losing your insurance, and free to take a vacation for more than a week without losing a paycheck. How many Americans can say that? There are a million miles of difference between socialist democracy and socialist dictatorship. The key words being democracy and dictatorship. We need to stop being afraid of words or we’ll be enjoying our ‘freedom’ in the middle of an uninhabitable desert. The billionaires won’t take either of us to Mars with them.
Besides, the socialist bloc fell apart 30 years ago. They are moving here to escape the effects of world bank reforms and thugocracy. Both products of unchecked capitalism. The great patron saint of capitalism Adam Smith even argued it was a government’s job to regulate the market.
The Green New Deal may not be perfect - its a vision that will change through the democratic process, but if we don’t try something our children will inherit a uninhabitable nightmare and our species will go extinct. Can’t we at least try? Can you look your kids and grandkids in the eyes and say you did nothing while the planet burned? I can’t.
1
@Southern Man
Sorry, guy, people from democratic socialist countries are not trying to get in. There is no wave of immigrants from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, New Zealand, Australia or the Netherlands banging on our doors. They are quite happy to be where they are.
Oh, wait, you are referring to the Fox News message (brought to you by the long arms of the Koch network) that people from the formerly socialist country of Venezuela are leaving their military dictatorship to move to neighboring countries. What do you think will happen here when our own would-be dictator blows past the Constitution to use the army as his private contracting business? Sure looks like the same thing to me.
@J Q: The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Humans have adjusted and thrived. Stop using this end of the world hysteria to push the socialist/communist agenda. If that's what you want, move to a country already offers your socialist Utopia.
When the political zeitgeist changes from progressive to conservative the change has never been incremental. The change in 1932 was dramatic and a direct response to a conservative government and economy that only served the rich.
The change in 1980 form progressive to conservative was also dramatic and a direct response to progressive social and economic policies such as Social Security and Medicare and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
The next change that will happen is the change from our current conservative government that has created the greatest economic inequality since the Great Depression, to a progressive form of government, once again championing equality through worker and civil rights.
Those changes will not be driven by the moderates, they will be the result of progressive activists and supporters promoting an alternative to the current corruption, racism, bigotry and most importantly the current level of economic inequality in America today.
Progressives need to go big or go home. The Green New Deal is a bold plan, just what we need to inspire a nation.
50
When JFK said we would go to the Moon, the important thing was not getting to the Moon. The important thing was trying greatly. It was inspiration, leadership, direction. It would have done the best of what it did even if we had not gotten there.
The Green New Deal has goals we really need to reach. But the more important thing about it is that inspiration, leadership, direction.
It imagines greatly, which is what we need most.
212
The point is to slow down climate change in the most cost effective way possible. This takes hard work--effective government and international diplomacy and technological advances. It is a huge project. The important thing is to SUCCEED, which will take tremendous skill and effort. Unlike the moon shot, failure is not an option.
12
@Mark Thomason
You gotta wonder, if McConnell had been the leader of the Senate back in JFK's day, if he would he have reacted the same way.
12
@Mark Thomason
One of the great things was, when at age 14 I watched the sky from Kansas when the culmination of 9 years (9 years!) of dedication came to fruition, the whole world was watching with me in awe of that achievement. Now, we're building fences and if this was paper, it would be tear-stained. The GND is an attempt to redirect our attention to the sky and dream of similar achievements. I'm all in. The rest is details.
40
"Useful Idealism?" Wow. Michelle Goldberg can't even endorse the GND with a straight face.
Moreover, despite desperatly clinging to Stephen Skowronek's self-important gobbeldeygook for signs that the End of Trump is near, Michelle seems to recognize the basic problem. People like cars, airplanes, cell phones, heating their homes and eating cows. And they are not about to pay *more* for the priviledge.
Components of the GND may come to fruition on their own. It will be interesting to see if we actually move to fully carbon-free energy before the oil is gone. You probably need to see oil get below $4/barrel for that to happen so I'm not optomistic. In any case, what a bunch of 20-something progressives think or don't think about the solution set is cute...but ultimatley irrelevant.
3
@Mike A.
Do you think the collapse of the Arctic ice sheets will wait until we have extracted every last bit of oil from the earth to cause unbelievable damage? Climate change is not about "if" and it increasingly isn't about "when"; it is about now. It is happening. Every year we blow past weather records for heat, cold, drought, hurricanes, mudslides, cyclones, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, plant and animal extinctions, and the wars and migrations they cause. The upper crust is dancing and drinking champagne on the top deck while the cabins in steerage are taking on water.
1
No, you’re not getting the point. If we invest in a green infrastructure we can have fast travel and electric cars and a quality of life as good if not better than we do now for everyone (not just the rich) AND our kids can have a planet, if we are smart about how we organize everything. We have the technology to do most of what we need to do. What we don’t have is the will to change
1
@Mike A.
The loss of 25,000 good jobs that Amazon wanted to bring to NYC due to the action of the "progressive lefties" like OA-C will help scare voters and drive them to the Trumpsters. It is the economy stupid. Look what happened to Bush senior, Bush Jr and Jimmy Carter. All were voted out during difficult economic times. People will ultimately vote with their pocketbooks instead of what they perceive as green fairytales.
A "sweeping vision?"
People don't like change. They are creates of habit. Change requires expending effort that people find uncomfortable.
Look at the failures of New Year's resolutions. Why do they so frequently fail? People don't like change.
People also want to feel a part of a tribe, and that's what the Green New Deal gives people who are insecure about their place in the world. Secure people can exist more independently. It is why Trump supporters like him so much.
So right now, peoples' tribal feelings are giving them a grand old good time, yelling about how they are going to remake the world, and telling each other how smart and enlightened they are.
But when it settles in, people will vote for the status quo. They will vote to give themselves money, of course, because that requires less change/effort than actually earning it.
But people who are actually reasonably comfortable with their lives won't want the upheaval. And independents will vote for Trump again because he promises they won't have to change.
Few people actually want "bold new initiatives." Mostly they want to get by on the least effort they can. If the "bold new initiative" means that only other people need to change, and not them, then they will be all for it.
5
@Dan I'm going to challenge your cynical assessment, one I've shared for too long. In the end, change is coming. It may be change that will terrify millions who have to move from inland from drowning cities, waterless regions, and burning forests. Desperate folk who had lost everything as insurance collapses and so, maybe, do governments.
So I support this plan, idealistic or not, because I am greedy. I'm greedy to save what is best about our species and my little life in that bigger story.
We can shape change or have it shape us. I'd like to get ahead of the coming changes, before self-preservation kicks in and those desperate and displaced by climate change start kicking down doors.
Maybe mine. Maybe...yours?
53
@Peak Oiler Too late. It is already happening.
1
@Peak Oiler
The Green New Deal is a gift from heaven for Trump. He is going to have a ball with it. And as David Brooks pointed out, if the quality of the plan is anything like the quality of the roll out of the plan, we are doomed.
It isn't how people make changes. Read the psychological literature. They make changes by setting goals that are slightly difficult to reach but are possible to reach. Set them too low and they make no changes. Set them too high and they won't make changes.
Same here. The goals are too high to result in people going through the efforts to actually deal with the massive societal changes that will be required. And Trump will know this, he is instinctual about human beings.
Are bad things on the horizon? Definitely. But to forestall those bad things requires a smarter approach than the Green New Deal, which is an absolutely idiotic approach. The first approach is to beat Donald Trump.
The Green New Deal will not convince any Trump voters to switch, but will convince a lot of people in the middle that the left has lost its mind---which it has.
Then where are you? I"ll answer that: worse off.
The earth is melting and fixing it is going to be the toughest things humans have ever accomplished.
Although the issue is related to much of what is contained in the GND, fixing social-democracy is not the existential issue that is global warming.
The GND threatens to delay the bipartisan declaration of war against global warming that should have been declared 20 years ago.
7
Ms. Goldberg correctly characterized the Green New Deal as "utopian ambition." It is a huge gift to Trump's reelection. McConnell has called a vote to get Democrats running in 2020 on the record. Five already have taken the bait. AOC and MSM hiding the help for those who don't want to work and eliminating airplane travel in ten years are utopian and a major mistake that will haunt Dems. in 2020.
4
@OldTimer I disagree. Do you see what is happening to our world because of climate change? Do you have children or grandchildren? Do you go to a doctor who has studied science and medicine? If so, don't ignore the need to protect our world.
3
@OldTimer - That you use the trope of "eliminating airplane travel" suggests to me that you have not actually read the Green New Deal. Since it is readily available I will provide a link below. Please do not assume that it actually says what is reported about it by the media.
Regarding air travel, it proposes to promote high speed rail that is so convenient that it will be a competitive alternative to air travel.
I'm all for that. I spend about half my time in Europe and travel between Paris and London a few times a year. I always do it by Eurostar. It is fast, comfortable and convenient. The trip is 2.5 hours from station to station. Conveniently, the stations are in the centers of the cities rather than like airports, out on the edges. There's no hours of dealing with airport security. The whole travel experience is much more comfortable.
The distance is roughly similar to trips between:
NY=>Charleston
San Francisco => San Diego
San Francisco=>Portland
Houston=>Kansas City
Kansas City=>Chicago.
I think rail travel, 2.5-3.5 hour trips between those cities would be a fantastic convenience to Americans.
Here's the actual document
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
1
Until the GND came up, I never realised how people who are seemingly liberal are actually quite fiscally conservative, including the readership of the Times. Sure, we have a lot of people who are generous and giving and supportive of the GND but I see a lot of people worry about money and taxes, more than I'd expect. This is the US after all but I'm surprised to see it in a forum like this which consistently has the most liberal voices I've seen among major outlets (the WaPo is a bigger mix, Fox News little - yes, I do read it sometimes and I think the D voices there are just trolls like some R voices here), and the HuffPo is not something I consider a major outlet though it is more liberal).
3
There is nothing "useful" about twitter politics of our times, whether the so-called ideas are coming from the right or the left. Twitter politics is not about idealism -- it is about self promotion. The outcome is the extreme polarization and a lot of hot air. Yet, nothing actually gets done.
19
Ms. Goldberg correctly characterized the Green New Deal as "utopian ambition." It is a huge gift to Trump's reelection. McConnell has called a vote to get Democrats running in 2020 on the record. Five already have taken the bait. AOC and MSM hiding the help for those who don't want to work and eliminating airplane travel in ten years are utopian and a major mistake that will be remembered in 2020.
5
At least the Green New Deal is making people talk about our climate crisis. Congress has never addressed the issue as if it doesn't exist. We can't do anything about global warming and its consequences if we don't talk about it.
30
The "reconstructive President" voters will want in the next election will bring stability instead of chaos, will end corruption rather than engage in it, will act in the national interest instead of personal interest, will support economic justice instead of further enriching themself and the already wealthy, will uphold the rule of law rather than violating the legal rights of many Americans and of asylum seekers, will cooperate with our allies instead of our enemies and will promote an economy and promote trade based upon current economic practices instead of failed "hard money" theories.
Presidential candidates like Biden, Pelosi, Brown, etc. may appeal more than fresh faces and new deals. Their time will come, but probably not in 2020.
This is indeed a welcome commentary among the many doomsayers. But (here I'm being a doomsayer myself) what if the change in the basis of our society is the Trumpian view of the President as emperor? Trump's willingness to subvert the checks on the presidency built into the Constitution could be a model for future would-be dictators.
I hope I'm wrong, and that Michelle Goldberg's vision will prevail, but as I watch Congressional Republicans roll over and support Trump's outlandish promise to build the wall without Congressional approval, I have to wonder.
3
Thank you for this piece. We are excited because it is the Democrats who care about the present and the future. A plan that can be refined enhanced that the public understands and can get behind. We are the can do nation . thinking people are behind these concepts and for once we are not talking about wars.
5
The New Deal succeeded only because it was accompanied by economic growth.
If progressives focus primarily on dividing a same size pie into more equitable slices, they will fail. But if they focus on growing the pie too, there are many paths toward a healthier and fairer society.
The algorithm of profit is powerful because organisms are naturally prone to self interest - Darwin wrote a book about it - so it makes no sense to fight it. Create progressive guide rails, create progressive channels, offer healthy and equitable solutions that promise more for all stakeholders and let it flow.
Capitalism with rails is the best way to achieve progressive goals. Incentivize rails that head in a better direction and businesses will build them (even oil and mining companies will fall in line when they see profit in carbon sequestration).
As for redistributing wealth, feel free to take up to 49%. So long as individuals get to keep 51% they are incentivized to create wealth. And while it is fun to hate on business owners and rich investors, the things they create provide income and tax revenue for everyone.
8
@Mike Marks Organisms are not naturally prone to self-interest (bees/ants are the easy counterexamples, but even some humans) and Darwin wrote no such book, and Darwin's original theories have been significantly updated. Have you considered that the reason life exists in all its interconnected beauty not just because of competition but that it was selectively advantageous to have this harmony?
6
@RamS
Actually, one can think of bees/ants as individual cells in your body. Each cell contributes to the whole, but sometimes it can grow out of control (cancer). There are all kinds of control mechanisms to keep the cells from doing so. One could say that in this context unregulated capitalism is akin to cancer.
However, there is no potential for innovation in this analogy. The cells in your body are not "innovating". They are doing what they are programmed to do. That isn't the way things work in macro- or micro-ecology. There is real competition for resources and predator-prey relationships, which actually keep the systems diverse, stable, and adaptable (even though the mechanisms appear to be brutal).
Obviously, human societies cannot be built by either framework alone. The "everyone is hardwired to do something" does not allow for innovation and adaptability. Survival of the fittest keeps the majority of people down and could end up killing us all. Unfortunately, our twitter politics pits one extreme and ridiculous position against the other. We are doomed with either.
3
@Mike Marks
In the 1930s the Republicans and the rich (but I repeat myself) did everything it could to defeat the New Deal, just as they will do now. The economy did not take off, as you imply, during that period. It took WWII to accomplish that feat.
1
Thank you, Michelle! A bold vision from the left is indeed what this country needs - even if it winds up just redefining the center.
The days of Democratic incrementalism (Democrats kowtowing to and sometimes looking like Republicans) are over. No more income inequality, tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating the social safety net, and destroying the environment.
4
“But if America is going to start again after the nightmare of Trump, maybe dreaming big is what’s needed.”
Plus there is the minor little matter that we are playing Russian roulette with the planet ( and no, I am not making some tiresome reference to Putin). There is a significant chance we are causing a sixth mass extinction, we don’t have much time to stop it, and people are still arguing about this like we are talking about marginal tax rates. Yes, tax rates ar important. No, they are not the same level of importance as a mass extinction would be.
9
''A rapidly congealing conventional wisdom holds that the Green New Deal is likely to be electoral kryptonite for Democrats...'' -Uh, NO.
Let's put this into context for a moment. The President's poll numbers are 37% approval, and 59% disapproval. (historic) The President lost by more than 3 million votes in 2016. The President's party lost 40 seats in the midterms. (again historic) Progressive candidates won everywhere (and came so close everywhere else - even in red districts) by being fearless and promoting policies for all - including saving ourselves and our environment.
Now, having said all that, there are STILL 100,000,000 potential voters out there (on top of the base) that sit out any given election. Do you not think they would wake up, become activated, and actually vote for someone they believed wanted to represent them and try to save the planet at the same time ?
The short answer is we need but a fraction of them for massive victories in 2020, so AYE !
All of the talking heads and pundits in the echo chamber that is the corporate press, along with republicans in general are going to tell you that none of that is possible. Disregard them and their negativity and focus on what we need to do.
The Green New Deal is only a start. If we are going to reverse decades of inequality and centuries of destroying our planet, then MUCH more is going to be required.
It is going to require all of us getting up off our duffs and voting for people that actually care.
33
I am a long-time socialist,
The Green New Deal is rather typical reformist socialism. That is, it grabs the good causes, making the collection of them society's target. It says little about paying for them, beyond demanding that the government finance them.
That is, "Green" is a fragment of a program. On the happy side, there are lots of improvements; on the painful side, finance: we'll get to it.
Meaningful socialism stands on a program that covers both good causes and a balanced program of finance.
Socialists should take a note out of the hiding place each morning to read: "amount of expenditure equals amount of financing".
And then read a second note: "financing means soaking the better-off."
I.e, not just the billionaires: we must start, progressively, at, say, a million bucks of wealth.
Anyone who tells you that progressives can deliver the goodies without ripping into better-off wealth is a fraud or fool who will print money, financing the new stuff via inflation.
The better-off spend most of their income on ownership of means of production; the lower class, on consumption.
Transfer of much of better-off income to the lower class will require forced saving, deferred workers' spending, to tailor consumption to production.
If we are going to confiscate, let's do it openly.
Tax the better-off, a lot. Put it into means of production, Green ones. Accept small. but aim for growing, satisfaction of needs.
Sadly, that's the best we can do.
1
It seems to me the most important, and unexplored part of this essay is the statement that "...intrepid activists have a chance to decide what comes next." The implications of the argument here is that fluff, so long as it is visionary, is a necessary precursor for advancement beyond the status quo. But this is as childish a reading of the nature of system change work as is the fluff from the sponsors - and one in particular - of the so called GND. In my decades of work with cities drafting and then trying to adopting comprehensive plans, not a day has gone by when the city that is aspirational without grounding their hopes in budget reality winds up passing just a collection of platitudes. By contrast, the city that starts with what things cost - actual and opportunity - and then gets busy making tradeoff decisions - is the one that eventually actually implements. The country needs fewer intrepid activists in the 20s screaming for a trophy for their 9th place finish than practical people of any age willing to say yes (which means pay for) some things, on the basis of saying no to other things. The real work begins when aspirational citizens discover others disagree with their priorities. Then the work consists of mobilizing others to change their views. Screaming for a GND that's sophomorically speckling (and rolled) out, while ranting against Amazon - as an example - is not to be confused with exercising leadership.
9
@czb
While many accuse the authors of the GND of ignoring cost in their plan, the critics themselves ignore the astronomical cost of doing nothing. Just for starters, are you aware that the cost of property insurance for buildings near water or areas prone to mudslides or high winds are rising fast and in some cases unavailable. Period. Insurance is one area where corporations see and act clearly on the dangers of climate change. They drop your policy. You are on your own. That is the small change cost of climate change.
The bigger cost for all of us will be felt at the grocery store as arable land turns to another dust bowl through drought and extreme weather. The ice melts in Alaska while the oranges freeze in Florida.
Your concern about flying and eating steaks will seem so very quaint and cute in a dozen years or more when humans are killing each other for water.
Somehow, we hear that there will be no large mammals by the end of this century and fail to remember that we, too, are large mammals. We are doing what species do with faced with extinction: nothing.
2
Wtih all due respect, there is a difference between idealism and infantilism.
21
@Christoph von Teichman Yes, we know, we have infantilism in the White House.
1
Taking over half the private economy - healthcare, farming, transportation, energy, utilities, building construction is not an ideal.
An ideal is making what we have work better in education or in helping for those less fortunate to be lifted up. Use the market to lower the costs of healthcare and education rather than taking over entire industries or bloating them with subsidy.
What's the ideal in having people like AOC, basically a know-it-all egomaniac cut from the same mold as Trump, deciding what we eat, how we live, our healthcare options, how warm the house can be in the winter.
Dystopia.
8
@Rfam - we've let the 'invisible hand' of the market rule for quite a while now, and now it's been fully demonstrated that belief in 'invisible' things - like hands - is untenable in action and infantile in belief. It's failed. The market has failed to control itself. Like children left to their own devices, when they get out of control, they demonstrate that they need rules. So let there be real rules, not 'invisible hands'. Incentivising production in the direction of the betterment of society as a whole was where America was best, and that seems to be what the GND is about. You seem to need rules, because you sure seem to hate the teacher.
2
@Rfam
Consider please how much choice you have now in what you eat (and what you actually know about how that food is produced and at what costs), how you live, how you obtain healthcare and your sources of how you heat your house. And tell me there is not, now, a lot a lot of coercion and dictation built into your highly unsustainable way of living.
1
@Rfam
And remember the AOC has really never even had a job, or supported a family, or owned a home or actually done much of anything.
1
"In time, however, insurgencies calcify into enervated establishments."
While two years of Trump increases the desire for reconstruction on many fronts, the reaction to the New Green Deal exposes a seeming truth about America. It appears as if there is less interest in insurgency and more in returning to a status quo marked by less disruption.
Insurgency suggests uncertainty. This is both an opportunity and a risk. But the wrath and resistance by both conservatives and parts of the Democratic party indicate, to me, a retreat to "stability" instead of change, despite the underlying good intentions of the GND.
AOC bears the brunt of the attack but she's just an easy target. While the proposal has flaws and the goals are aspirational, the intentional misrepresentation of doing away with "cows and airplanes" shows there are many who don't or won't look more deeply into the deal because of the messenger, not the message. And that's because the message implies massive change about things that are poorly understood by most people.
Set aside a "reconstructive" president. Faced with opportunity and potentially reconstructive agents who represent everything Trump doesn't, we're recoiling from change, not embracing it. That seems like a very dangerous risk.
3
The problem with the New Green Deal is that not many people have much of an idea as to what it's all about.
The set of aspirations have been around for a while. Jill Stein actually ran for president waving its banner. But that should indicate just how marginal the "deal" has been to mainstream politics and candidates. Ok, Bernie is on board, but Bernie is many respects is the Eugene Debs of our times; eg, as righteous as he may be, he won't get elected.
The Green New Deal must be positioned to the American people as our next "moon shot." A goal that can be achieved by earth people in earth time with present day money. How much money and how much effort? They told us ~10 years to make it "moon shot" like, but ten years is an absurdly short amount of time to go from ground zero to make some of the shifts called for.
Or not. We don't know.
Neither sponsor of the resolution, Ms Ocasio-Cortez and Mr Markey appear to have scoped the effort required. That's too bad. Some cost / effort context would be useful.
For example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost us ~$2.4 Trillion dollars, with a "T." Through in an annual military budget which, at ~$.75T and growing once again is larger than the combined spending of the ROW, and over ten years you've got, well the math is simple.
The point is, the "Deal's" aspirations need to be scoped in operational terms. To bring a resolution before the Congress of the US without any real work is obviously political theater.
7
The New Green Deal must be presented as a vision statement. The longterm steps and goals to preserve the American dream and save the planet.
The most immediate and politically motivating call to action is the removal of Trump, removal of Republicans in Congress, and investigating, indicting and imprisoning all who helped inflict Trump on our nation.
Only after we have held McConnell et al accountable should we move forward. The Obama Administration failed to hold W. Bush et al accountable, failed to hold Wall Street accountable. That helped produce the environment where the man-child got traction. We must not repeat that mistake.
6
This moment's "political time" is not just another shift in our values paradigm. It is more importantly a shift energized by women. After 170 years of unremitting struggle toward the vote and political and social activism, women have finally reached a tipping point in shaping social policy. And of course it's toward the left. The rise of women's voices is the most important aspect of our times and promises an enduring movement toward greater human and environmental progress.
3
It's too early to know if Trump marks the end of one cycle or the start of the next. Regardless, the cycle we are in must end, which is why moderates (R or D) are increasingly rare. Moderates believe incremental change is enough. It's not. We need radical transformation.
Here's why: our economic system is built on two pillars—technological innovation and mass production. Together, these have given us the highest standard of living ever. But with them come three problems now at crisis levels:
Financial insecurity. With mass production no one makes more than a fraction of the goods necessary for survival, and thus everyone is dependent on a steady income to purchase those goods. But with with automation, globalization, and rapid economic change, the jobs that provide steady incomes are no longer reliable. For all but the very wealthy, financial ruin is always a step away.
Loss of community. The way we work means people and jobs are always on the move. Connections with family and communities are broken. People are isolated, and if a financial problem occurs, there is no community to fall back on.
Environmental degradation. Finally, our economic system is destroying our life-giving ecosystem. Climate change, toxic chemicals, waste, mass extinction—all threaten catastrophe.
Our choice is to radically transform our economy to eliminate these problems or to retrench behind walls in Putin-style authoritarianism. The current cycle is ending, but what follows is still our choice.
84
excellent writing....so was green eggs and ham!
If I know anything, I know that there is no such thing as a good Republican in the time of Trump, and I know that global warming awareness is the insanity test of our lifetime.
Not many emergencies this country faces are as important as global warming, so for me, this next election is going to be simple.
The candidate must take global warming seriously, take firearm violence seriously, take homelessness seriously, and like FDR, not be afraid to take on the big banks.They must declare the national insolvency as too dangerous to ignore and so make higher taxes for the rich a mandate.
No more Goldman Sachs Democrats. No more Clintons talking a good fight, but who balance the budget on the lifeline funding for poor people.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
79
"The United States, after all, is responsible for only about 14 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions;"
True, but the U.S. has only 4.27% of the world's population. Per capita we are among the worst contributors of GHG. What is truly idiotic is that we have missed the boat in terms of profiting from the development of the new sustainable technology. Thanks to the corrupt efforts of the Koch brothers and others, we have spent our time, effort and money on protecting the fossil fuel industry instead of helping create the industries of the future. Now we follow China and Denmark, and they are reaping the benefits of their foresight and vision.
118
AOC is out of her mind. Everybody gets a paycheck even if they don't want to work, eliminate cows, eliminate the entire airline industry, and let's not forget, everybody gets a trophy. Yeah this is great, I can't wait until the big vote. Should be fun.
6
The US certainly needs something different than what it has as the gap between rich and poor grows leading to housing crises and insane healthcare costs. The fearmongering Right will attack almost anything but as long as Dems introduce evidence-based ideas and do not go after the nature of the Trump voter than the Dems will stand a chance. But, I agree that Dems cannot release information that seems dumb on the surface because the Right will take it out of context and use it to rally the crazies.
4
While the lily-livered, complacent and bought off "centrist" politicians of the Democratic Party do their utmost to persuade the rest of us that the Green New Deal is unreasonable and unrealistic, I hear the words of Daniel Burnham:
Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency.
For myself, I know where wisdom and good government reside.
127
The Green New Deal would mean the immediate and total end of the US Air Forces; jet warplanes cannot fly without petroleum-based jet fuel.
There would still be jet warplanes over the US, but they would be Chinese and/or Russian warplanes.
The US will have lost World War III, and our freedom, without a single shot having to be fired.
China will have achieved what the Chinese people have been laughing about for the last generation: The USA as their colony and the people of what had been the USA as their slaves - permanently.
All hail, Karl Marx.
3
yes to this yes -- the vision thing matters. also, the planet matters.
14
Economic stability for people who are unwilling to work.
2
"Democrats who are dismissive of the Green New Deal, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, have written it off as a 'dream.'”
Well. I guess that's fair. After all, I've written off the Democratic leadership as a geriatric bunch clinging onto power and seeing anything new as a threat.
2
Michelle, after having just written a gloom and doom response to David Brooks' column, I appreciate your relatively optimistic outlook for our political future. I was a John F. Kennedy era Peace Corps Volunteer. There was optimism and a sense of purpose for us in those days. There was a glimmer of return of that positivism when Obama was elected. And now, within a short span of years of determined, often unscrupulous opposition we find ourselves searching, hoping for an uplifting, unifying challenge once again. Maybe the "green new deal" in whichever form it takes will be that.
8
If anyone is truly interested in environmental issues, they should investigate the proposals of Sean Casten, a newly elected Democratic Rep. from Illinois. Mr Casten is/was a scientist and has given much thought to these issues. His views are informed and reflect the realities of today’s crisis and the business climate that shapes our policies.
4
We can cast any set of principles that oppose Trump’s as “revolutionary” and whip up the fervent support that goes with it, but if those principles aren’t realistic they will fail to get enough votes to pass. And would never work anyway. Greener jobs, better wages, better infrastructure, universal health insurance are all possible with smart thinking. But Medicare for all and over-taxing capitalist incentives for innovation just won’t work either. Our strength as a world economy and incubator of societal change has always been the ability of smart people to profit from hard, honest work and innovation. That doesn’t mean I’m against the wealthy paying their fair share back. But let’s be smart about how we propose to do it lest we lose the opportunity for change that we sorely need.
6
@No labels
Nonsense. Corporations and the rich have never enjoyed a lower effective tax rate in history. Off shore profits are helping China's military threaten South Asia and Taiwan is more at risk for take over than any time previous.
As a life long high tech worker, I've seen the abuse of the middle class and exploitation of labor in communist China, corrupt Mexico and India. Jobs like engineering, architecture, medical, IT, etc are hemorrhaging to Asia like never before.
Tax the rich.
Funny how conservatives rush to defend capitalism by way of their love of communism's unregulated and abused labor pool.
1
@Wall Street Crime: So I’m not sure if your disagreement is with my statement or something else. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a higher marginal tax rate (you know what “marginal” means, right?), but any corrections to socioeconomic imbalances in our country need to preserve the innovation and competition that has made the US so successful and given our people the best standard of living historically.
Being useful without being practical is, well, useless. The Green New Deal is a swing and a miss by Democrats. It will cause further division in the party and could contribute to a second term for Donald Trump. If that is "useful idealism" God help us.
1
The parts that kill me about all of this discussion, especially that coming from the new Democrats is that this is not new. Just two points:
1) policy of this sort has been advocated for decades by labor-environmental coalitions such as the Blue-Green Alliance and others. The environmental case is obvious; the move to more jobs has been seized on by the labor contingent as a way to rebuild not only jobs but the strength lost when deindustrialization diminished labor strength across the US, but especially in the industrial North and Midwest. Ed Rendell supported such movement to a green economy when he was governor of PA, and it was not a new policy then.
2) Examples abound where such efforts have been at least partially successful. Portland, Little Rock, Austin, Chicago have all seen economic and environmental success moving to a local green economy model with coherent policy efforts. Not to mention Europe, and not just the Socialist dreams of Scandinavia, but Germany which is almost free from fossil fuels.
What needs doing is federal legislation stripping big fossil fuel subsidies, focusing federal $$ on infrastructure, and new legislation protection labor rights including raising the minimum wage. This really is no bigger an effort than Eisenhower's highway efforts, and can have much better impact. LOTS of work has been done on this topic. To say it is a dream capitulates to the power of big energy in DC. Yes, that power is formidable, but it is being confronted.
6
I agree with Michelle Goldberg that "a sweeping, idealistic plan for social transformation is not a wild fantasy but a practical necessity." Serious consequences of most things we debate do not mean the end of the world. However, 2 things (nuclear war risk and the climate change issue addressed with the Green New Deal) do and should inspire people to care enough to work toward realistic solutions.
6
It's not very difficult. In the UK in 1945, Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to call a general election. It was the end of the war in Europe and Churchill's popularity was at its zenith. Churchill assumed, as did everyone else, including the opposition Labour Party, that Churchill would win.
When the Labour Party convened to discuss their manifesto, they all assumed they would be out of power until at least 1950, so their manifesto became what they really wanted, instead of tacking to the right as they usually did before an election.
What they came up with was basically universal healthcare and universal education (so that a child could still go to college even if his parents could not afford it).
The Labour party won in a landslide.
What does this platform remind us of? Bernie Sanders. Polls taken in 2016, long before Trump was elected, and before Sanders was sandbagged by the DNC, showed Sanders beating Trump 70/30 with practically no-one undecided. On the other hand, for months before the election, Clinton was 35/35 with Trump, with 30% undecided.
A lesson from a small democratic island 73 years ago can still guide us in 2020.
3
@Michael Hutchinson
Democratic Party is beholden to Wall Street. They are depending on Trump's chaos in order to stay in power. It's easier than actually having a vision that involves change. Pelosi and Schumer won't change. They love their world as it is - filled with perks and power. The rest of us can clearly see they are contributing to a stagnant conservative vision instead of fighting it.
Roosevelt was able to transform our nation into the social democracy it is today because capitalism had committed suicide by way of its excesses. Unemployment was soaring and thousands of families were homeless with tent cities springing up in places like NYC's Central Park. There was desperation and fear in the air and the threat of communism or fascism overcoming our nation was eminent.
Why would anyone believe that the current conditions in this country could create the wave required to fulfill the wish-list of the New Green Deal- at least in one great rush.
The NGD is a dangerous and foolish tactic because it contains no ordered list of priorities and welds the emergency of climate change with a wish list designed to transform the U.S. into Denmark.
I've never been to Denmark, but I'm open to considering gradually changing America into something more like that small country- BUT FIRST THINGS FIRST.
Our planet is dying, or at least heating up to the point that it likely will not be capable of supporting billions of human beings and other complex species.
This is a separate issue that requires non-partisan focus and direct, immediate action.
When a cancer patient is in need immediate, life saving treatment you don't lecture the person about the benefits of exercise and a healthy diet.
3
The uproar over the thought of a Green New Deal is misplaced.The young should rightfully be worried about the future they will live in,The thirty year olds have fifty years to have to live in a world disrupted by climate change.There will be great expenses involved in mitigating the damage of floods and fires-parts of the country may not even be safe for living.Good for the young people who realize that this is their future.Nancy Pelosi, Joe Manchin and Mitch McConnell will not be around in this future -they will not be here to face the damage these climate changes will bring.
13
I'd more count on the inexorable hammer of climate change to reshape American politics than any cheering cyclical theory of so-called political scientists. Now there's a "science" in which it is safe not to believe. Of course, by then, we will be in deep hot water. We are not that bright a species.
3
"In the resulting atmosphere of crisis and upheaval, a new coalition can bring a new reconstructive president to power. When that happens.... governing priorities are “durably recast,” and a “corresponding set of legitimating ideas becomes the new common sense.”"
I have very mixed views on all this, Michelle Goldberg. Yes, it's admirable to package a set of popular ideas wrapped up in a bow, but the very freshness of the Cortez-Markey vision is what makes it such a target for Republicans.
Can a charismatic young politician replace the divisive bleakness of Trumpism? Given the stakes, I'm not sure.
Because the Green New Deal can be so easily parodied, nicknamed, and weaponized (per, Tim Egan's great column today), it might be the match that sparks the re-election of Trump.
I just don't think this is a time for radicalism, not when our current president is so radical in his emboldened abuses of power.
And certainly not when this congenital liar has so many under his sway, believing every fantasy he presents them.
Yes, we sorely need a Green New Deal. But not if it leads to a second term for Donald Trump.
6
@ChristineMcM Afraid of rocking the boat? You must be a Democrat. In case you didn't notice, that boat pretty much sank in 2016 with the nomination and defeat of Hillary Clinton, and swamping losses in states across the country. More bailing and steady as she goes is not going to help.
The way it is written, it is a dream. It includes so much more than climate change, stuff that will not pass.
The bill needs to be written as a clean climate change bill.
And Ocasio-Cortez needs to understand that when writing a bill it is not helpful to add the kitchen sink.
Climate change is too important to add other things.
In fact, climate change is the most important issue of our time. If we don't do something about it nothing else will matter because we will not be around.
She has set the bill up to fail. Thanks Ocasio-Cortez.
22
@esp - We are not going to successfully address climate change if we don't address, AT THE SAME TIME, the economic disruptions such as job losses, that real, effective climate change solutions are going to cause.
The Green New Deal acknowledges that reality.
13
@J Jencks
Well, then I guess we can kiss this planet gone and the people with it.
I,m not ready to march behind AOC and the new green deal. I want an aggressive environmental policy and social justice. I want all citizens treated like citizens. I don,t need grandstanding and more progressive celebrities and their social media enablers.
11
The reason, of course, that Speaker Pelosi dismisses the 'Green New Deal' as a dream is because it would be a nightmare trying to get it through Congress. Even, as we saw with 'Obamacare', a Democratically controlled Congress. And of course in the meantime, they would also have to take the Senate and the White House.
4
Unfortunately, since Reagan, every 'reconstruction' is tasked with largely sweeping up the mess Republican administrations left behind. Once they drain their political capital repairing the damage - turning a deficit into a surplus, reverse-engineering inequalities to something that half-way looks like democracy again - they're incapable of going further and addressing the agenda they were voted in for. The 'cycle' referred to becomes Democratic administrations, no matter how ambitious at the start, have no choice but to become constitutional janitors after the party.
131
@Cameron Skene
It is a sad reality that our political leadership cycles between corporate conservatives, who sell out every human value in the pursuit of profit, and progressives hoping to advance civilization, but who must first spend vast amounts of time and energy working to undo the damage caused by the former. Will our electorate ever cease to be manipulated by those who's sole interest is clinging to personal power or will The United States be forever doomed to take two steps back for every one step forward?
22
@Bill I think the electorate has, largely, ceased to be manipulated. Unfortunately, the Russo-Republicans are adept at manipulating the election process.
It's time for Americans to grow up and truly "transform" America across and and all political parties and divisions. Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing both parties and all Americans to get involved and take back their countries from the corporations and big money that bought and control not only America at an economic level but at the political power level.
If not, your just going to get more of the same old, same old and the middle class will continue to be downgraded deep into the obsolete and disposable lower class as we all have become.
Lets keep talking but at a new level and both from within some elements of the new progressive movement as well as outside of government as there are no longer any firm political parties anymore, just people, and we need to create a new 'present' for America, as well as a new course for it's future residents, families and children.
25
The hour is late. Climate change is the existential dilemma of our time. If we do not act, we may not have a civilization for our descendants to enjoy. We should spend whatever it takes, because the house is on fire. I love the Progressive energy of Millennials and Generation Z, and their idealism should get us older folk to act.
The baby boomers and many and Generation X will be gone in 30 years, so what sort of world do we want to leave for those who survive us?
378
@Peak Oiler. You are exactly right, the “dinosaurs” and their anachronistic, myopic views and selfish outlook will go extinct, and the new generations are looking forward to solving or ameliorating a predictable environmental crisis. That’s actually the mature stance to take, so kudos to them. Exactly the right thing to do. Let’s get a massive action started now to ameliorate climate change!
Think about it, we look to the elders to by the mature ones. When they’re dead and gone, we’ll look at each other dumbfounded that they didn’t take action. We will grow to really be unforgiving of their inaction. Everything will be up to the new generations to deal with.
Why don’t we have more scientific people in congress. They are so limited in their knowledge. Many of them grew up in very different times, long ago, and ceased to incorporate new information. Get them out!!!
37
@Peak Oiler I have come to believe that my fellow Gen Xers are about as useless as the baby boomers in regard to addressing climate concern. I agree that we need to be aggressive if this planet will be inhabitable. Thanks to extremist right-wingers of the GOP, we have managed to kick the can down the road for 40 plus years and now we will likely suffer because of it.
24
@Scientist
All of us old timers are not against science. Many of us are too old to take part in demonstrations etc, but are willing to help with the fund raising to get rid of the old people in government with their old views and their old thinking.
McConnell, Pelosi, Graham, and many others have to go.
10
The ideas in the GND need discussion. It is at least an effort to have that discussion, something which we need. The fact that McConnell wants to have a vote is an opportunity to bring senators' views out into the light. McConnell, in his inimitable myopic manner, sees a vote only as a chance to score political points. Since a majority of Americans are truly concerned about environmental policy and climate change, he and the rest of the Republicans may well be surprised at the public response.
260
@Larry Bennett
Surprised? Possibly. Not that they'd care, because their "salaries" depend on not caring. Bigly.
6
Mitch McConnell wants to have the Senate vote on it, knowing full well that the Republican majority will not only vote against but will be joined by Democrats. There has never been a more cynical politician in McConnell's position. And, yes, perhaps we are not quite ready for the sweeping vision of the Green New Deal but that is no reason to be frightened of it. It has enough in it that we want and need and that looks to the future. The demonization of AOC is the kind of awful spectacle that might just alter the way we see how truly obstructionist the party of Trump is. So, yes, Mitch, bring it to a vote. The attention it gets will be more than worth its potential failure on the Senate floor. And it will be a kind of history lesson as well; we will be reminded of how FDR's New Deal appalled the Republicans. And Michelle Goldberg is right: it is what the Democrats need.
176
@harvey perr The GND is something different - it’s letting the Democrats have a shot at setting the agenda, and putting the Republicans in the position of having to respond to it. It is moving the Overton Window in the right direction for a change.
20
@harvey perr Let them vote against the GND. Then watch them try to explain their votes as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, drought, and the environmental refugee crisis intensify.
7
This political moment is written and driven by an economic K-wave, a 50-60 year economic cycle that reshapes almost everything. Arthur Schlessinger Sr. Wrote in the 1930’s about a 60 year political cycle that is a pendulum swing from liberal to conservative and then back and the two go together. Things that will drive this cycle that are not discussed include the reality that Earth is running out of Petroleum. BP estimates that there’s a 50 year supply left. There will be no electric aircraft and if we want to keep flying we need to conserve what petroleum is left. Also, fossil fuels are raw materials for all kinds of advanced materials. We only burn about 60% of the oil we use. I document this in “The Age of Sustainability”.
2
@Denis BP estimated there was 20 years supply left in 1985.
Fact is that we haven't even scratched the surface of fossil fuels left. But hey go ahead and ban all aircraft and make all cars electric in 10 years. Let's see how AOC is going to find all that power to recharge all those electric vehicles. Let's not forget the huge amount on non recycled waste in batteries that will produce.
1
@Mr Chang Shih An I don't think this is a 10 year thing and I would not like to see air travel go away. BTW aircraft are a big part of defense and the DoD already has a program underway to reduce its dependency on jet fuel in fighting. Also did you know that we haven't found ANY new oil on this planet since 2003? We're burning through our last reserves. I wish you were right and I wish fossil fuels didn't pollute but they do AND we're running out.
The problem with the GND, as I see it, is not that it's too radical but that it's not very specific. Meaningful change in democracies tends to come from incremental adjustments, like Obamacare, rather than sweeping but vague commitments. As for the Balkin theory, it strikes me as rationalization: I think Trump in his way is quite reconstructive, albeit not in the way Balkin would favor.
4
@Mike Livingston: Well, it's not very specific because it's a set of proposed goals intended to start a discussion where we decide just where we need to go and what we need to do to get there.
10
@Mike Livingston
No, the biggest problem is that the GND resolution's climate action targets have been misinterpreted and misrepresented by both its enemies, and unfortunately, its supporters. Achieving net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2030 is patently impossible, as any well-informed person should realize with a moment of reflection. It is not akin to winning WWII or landing men on the moon--both objectives were achievable as Roosevelt and Kennedy knew.
The text of the GND resolution does not actually fix 2030 as a target date for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, its preamble refers to the target suggested by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change last year, which is net-zero by 2050. That is the highly ambitious target already adopted by the EU and toward which other industrialized democracies are moving.
It is well past time we get serious about preventing catastrophic climate change. To do so we need to fix a clear and feasible goal and to mobilize our economic and social resources around it. It is unfortunate that the GND resolution is ambiguous about its emissions target and that so many of its supporters have added to the confusion.
3