What Dr. Malhotra wrote sums up actions needed on the clean energy front -- present hydro; greatly expanded geothermal/nuclear.
JFK took the time to establish similar even before knowing how bad our unnatural emissions have affected global warming, ocean acidification, extinctions... http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
The Editorial Board seems unstudied in the range of emissions threats, including those from natural gas use and leakage?
http://tinyurl.com/zprh78l
http://tinyurl.com/hhlrd4o
https://tinyurl.com/yafgmlmd
The EB says: "...Green New Deal, an ambitious plan to tackle climate change" illustrating the lack of EB & GND study.
It isn't as if scientists & engineers haven't long publicly documented the problems we're leaving our descendants. We have the Trump administration's foolishness to rightly critique, but the media have earned criticism for an "if it bleeds it leads" publication filter. Well, we're 'bleeding' from lack of media study & attention.
The GND is new, partly informed, and dangerous if not carefully vetted, much as we should have vetted those in our present branches of government.
7
Perhaps the public would become more energized if the benefits of new industries, technologies and careers/jobs that would result from pursuit of a green new deal were stressed.
The US has a proud history of innovation. Do we want to relinquish this leadership to China and Europe?
17
The money saved from not funding Dump's weekend jaunts with his entourage to Mar-Lago should cover the cost of conversion to a fossil fuel-free economy.
9
Mitch McConnell is bring this to a vote in the Senate. Will it be well received?
2
Retired physicist and political liberal here. First off, someone should put a gag on Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez before she ruins the Democrats' chances to take back the White House and Senate in 2020. Then the Democrats in Congress should decouple all the social issues - income inequality, universal health care, good jobs, etc - from the purely technical problem of bringing climate change under some sort of control. The latter goal is something that a majority of the population supports although the means are in dispute. If we can save the planet, then we can deal with making people's lives better. I note that, at 88 years of age, I have no stake in all this except it is the right thing to do.
25
"Which raises this question: Is the Green New Deal aimed at addressing the climate crisis? Or is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left?"
Of course it is the latter--a cover for quasi-socialist policies intended to terminate with full-blown socialism.
"Read literally, the resolution wants not only to achieve a carbon-neutral energy system but also to transform the economy itself."
That's it! Transform the economy from free-market oriented to centrally planned by the elected socialist rulers--until they run out of OPM (Other Peoples' Money), at which time when the socialist can no longer provide the freebies that got them elected and kept them in office for several years they wiil perforce turn to tyranny, as has been the case in every single socialist regime throughout history. The funny thing is that this transition from freebies to tyranny has been prominentl on display in Venezuela for everyone with eyes to see.
Given the violent, deadly trajectory socialism has always taken, how could anyone, let alone a majority of good people fall for it repeatedly? The answer is good people don't all have good sense. It seems to evaporate from the minds of folks when they think they can get something for nothing. It explains why every con man will assure you a sucker is born every minute; why Ponzi schemes pop up every year somewhere in America to clip the gullible.
18
The mainstream corporate media must take some responsibility for not pushing the issues of Anthropogenic Global Warming & Climate Change through our political discourse over the last few decades. Thanks to the New York Times for doing it now. I hope it’s not too late.
8
The green new deal is an old minty wine in a new bottle. It is not new nor will it have a bite. As long as we the people keep thinking that someone else is the polluter while we continue to drive gas guzzlers and keep flying around. Everyone needs to start cleaning the environment by beginning with themselves. No accord or deal with do it for us as long as we do not reduce our own carbon foot print and boycott industries that pollute our air. The climate nightmare is the result of a reckless disregard to climate change for decades long before DJT took the white house.
9
Al Gore, 2000 presidential race. Nuf said.
GND is DOA and should be.
See Diane Feinstein's bill, it's an actual plan, not a farce.
Stop this kissing up to this group of fools. Thank you!
15
Sen. Feinstein’s unnecessarily harsh words to high schoolers and other naysayers of the Green New Deal brings to mind the words of JFK:
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
Let’s chose to save our planet for future generations.
16
I found it...curious Mitch McConnell is seeming almost giddy at getting members on record by allowing a vote. What is he giddy about? Reckless members of the senate willing to attached their names on legislation recognizing a threat to the world, much less the country, that's a bit more pressing than the border wall? This is the epitome of responsible Democratic governance compared to the thoughtless variant exercised by the Republicans.
7
I looked into putting solar panels on my roof, it would cost at least $30,000 or more, also I would need a battery to store the power for nighttime use which would cost about $7,000. I would also need someone to install the system, it would end up costing over $50,000. Electric cars also cost over $50,000. I am perfectly happy with my Honda Accord and Toyota vehicles which are older cars and get great gas mileage, are fully paid for and have low mileage on them because we drive them to the park and ride and take a bus into the city. We drive these cars less then 5,000 miles a year and they could probably last for another 10 - 15 years. Are we supposed to junk them? Are we supposed to junk millions and millions of cars, trucks, buses, construction equipment, etc. Also, electric cars lose range when the temperature drops, we live in the northeast, it gets cold, it snows, we have ice storms, etc. These electric cars don't perform all that well in snowy conditions.
18
@Sam C. You’ll do what AOC tells you to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
13
When writing about legislative measures to address Climate Change, please, please at least mention the "Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act" now proposed in both the House and Senate. Charging a gradually increasing fee on sources of energy when they are extracted or imported, and returning the funds collected directly to the American people as a monthly dividend would have a huge and immediate effect on the uses and conservation of fossil-fuel derived energy - a predicted 40-50% reduction in greenhouse gas production by 2040. The measure has bipartisan support and is endorsed by 24 Nobel Laureates in economics, every former Chair of the Fed and of the Council of Economic Advisers, not to mention two Republican icons, James Baker and George Shultz. Here's a tangible, sensible, politically feasible measure to do something meaningful about Climate Change, even as we debate the other provisions of the non-binding resolutions proposed in the Green New Deal. Worth a mention by the NYTimes editorial board!
10
Ellen from San Diego is one of the few who has identified the problem. It's not more technology or more electric cars. It's less. Any green new deal must acknowledge the laws of thermodynamics and tame consumption. It will be hard
9
Feinstein's response to those children illustrates why establishment Dems will never address the problem with any level of appropriate urgency.
They're too concerned with what will "pass", meaning they are looking for sufficiently watered-down legislation that won't upset their corporate sponsors, despite the 12 year urgency that climate scientists are declaring.
Feinstein's reprehensible response to the children expressing existential anxieties indicates an amazing loyalty to corporate interests that overrules common decency to children - and really, overrules concerns for the type of world we leave to future generations.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that stalwart supporters of the corporate agenda would have as little concern for the future of the planet as the corporations they so studiously represent.
Sorry centrists, but there's really not much difference between climate denial and half-measure climate policy. If you share the children's concern and you're well-off, you may have to elect someone who will tax you at a higher rate, and someone who shows concern for those who are less fortunate.
Think about the trade-offs and make the right decision.
10
How about a really easy piece from this board in the right direction. Write a piece to reopen the process for the nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. It was stopped for totally political reasons as a present to Harry Reid from Present Obama, truly our political system at its worst. If we closed every nuclear plant tomorrow we would still need a place to storage the more than 80 thousand tons of spend fuel. This should be an easy priority.
12
Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein: History will recall your dismissive attitude toward the most urgent issue of our era long after you are gone.
I hope that Democratic voters will wake up stop these corporatist politicians continuing to stymie the effort to address climate change.
AOC: Hang in there. Confronting climate change is the issue of our day. The Green New Deal could be a win-win proposition, which is good for the environment and for our economy. Voters will see this soon, if they don't already.
9
@Chris Rasmussen yes, Big Government has an unbroken record of success; delivering one project after another ahead of schedule, under budget, and better than promised! The American people can’t wait for Big Government to gut or tear down their houses so Big Government can remake it according to AOC’s plan.
11
One conundrum barely addressed is that capitalism is based on growth. Yet the Earth's resources are pretty finite, and growth tends to mean more "stuff" . Back in the 1970s, "reduce, re-use, recycle" was in vogue - at least in Vermont, where I lived. But reduce and re-use disappeared from the mantra. I liked the sayings of my grandparents from the Great Depression - "Use it up, make do, wear it out" and "When in doubt, do without". Both have helped me over the years.
11
Hi Ellen. I live in VT and while we do an OK job here it’s not nearly what it was and the disposable society has made it’s way here too.
4
Sorry, but the "Green New Deal" is an ugly albatross that will be hung on every democrat who ventures to say they support it, even with the caveat that it is only aspirational. Lipstick on a pig doesn't change that it is still a pig.
21
The irony that while reading this article on the NYTimes app an advertisement for “Seniors want cheap SUVs” and a picture of a giant Cadillac Escalade left me feeling a bit hopeless that capitalism and materialism won’t be our demise.
12
Two thoughts on this. One, there are lots of reasons to oust Trump, but this one should be #1. Second, if our gd government would work to solve problems like this, they might actually find a balanced solution. Like something in the middle between far fetched dreams of an economically impossible plan and a tough business focused approach. Then maybe we’d get an economically feasible solution that might actually work. Of course oil and coal companies may take a hit. But so what.
3
Between nuclear advances and ignoring climate change it will be miraculous if mankind reaches the next century. Our future generations may not exist---at least not in a world that does not torment them with famines, loss of population, shrinkage of habitable space, and intolerable weather. It is unfortunate that in this time of such pressing need the free world's leader --our deviously elected president--is such a blowhard, arrogant, and ignorant man. That he coldheartedly denies the warnings of minds much more mature than his, that he can point to a snowball and gloat that its existence proves we have no global warming, is frightening beyond worlds. If God exists and wanted once gain to destroy mankind as before with the Noachide flood--He certainly picked the right leader for America. Trump not only denies science, ridicules all those who earnestly attempt to speak truth--as with the honest press and honest channels--but he also puts forth as the only believable ideas or news to be that of the most dishonest political leaders---such as Kim, Putin, Erdogan, Crown Prince Salman, Duterte--all liars and ruthless murderous, and his personal Cabinet on Fox News mired in its world of alternate facts and rigid right-wing extremism. This disastrous leader has his loyal unthinking lemmings who will follow him over the cliff. If we do not change quickly , get rid of Trump and his spineless Republican followers and sponsors, it will be near impossble to stop the looming calamity.
8
Sorry NYT, using a plan to fix global as a way to implement socialism is the the US is a sure path to failure. All that will happen will be that otherwise good ideas will be ignored.
17
@James
How does changing energy sources from finite fossil fuels to alternatives--which is necessary anyhow--implement socialism? No one ever seems to know that posts such.
14
@glennmr you really don’t see how total government control over every aspect of the economy along with total control over all human and animal activity is socialism?
7
Climate change requires real solutions, not politics or new kinds of taxes. Here's a climate change solution everyone should support:
https://www.voanews.com/a/can-better-electric-motor-save-planet/4235140.html
I think Pelosi and Feinstein belittle the GND partly because they are envious of AOC’s youth and beauty.
AOC is a disaster and must be primaried out in 2020.
15
One large systemic way of tackling the looming climate catastrophe consists of transforming the international monetary system by basing it on a monetary carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" with background information since 2009 at www.timun.net.
The GND is an important aspirational resolution that moves the national and somewhat the international public debate in the right direction. However, the recent UN and other national assessments point to the urgency of a global systemic solution. I would like to see that the democrats and their presidential candidates would include funding for research in the strengths and weaknesses of this proposed Tierra global governance system.
Declared an outstanding economist and climate advocate: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
The talking points did not promise "jobs" to those unwilling to work; that makes no sense even in the context of this silly, duplicitous proposal the true aim of which is government control of everything. In fact, it promised "economic security", clearly a euphemism for government free money to those to lazy to work.
8
@skeptic The FAQs most certainly DID promise money for everyone unwilling to work.
3
Glad to see NY times supporting the Climate Resolution, but disappointed to see you misrepresent the environmental justice aspects of the bill.
1
I trust Senator Markley,
AOC, not much. Or at all, actually.
I’m glad the actual package doesn’t preclude ideas from other sources. We’ve got to do something, and fast, but wholesale adoption of the results of a weekend bull session by a group of nonscientists isn’t going to serve us well.
1
Sorry but AOC has just come out to proclaim 'they are in charge' and anybody who doesn't like the GND is just shouting from the 'cheap seats'. That should chill everyone right down to their spine. Peons stay quiet while your overlords dictate what you need to do, and do know your place please. Green New Deal is a joke and DOA. It hasn't changed the conversation in any useful way. Just normalized a radical and ill thought out position.,
14
Anti AOC LOBBYISTS will lose big.
the ny times editorial board is at it again - supporting the lack of substance and frivolous, instead of advocating something measured and with substance. This editorial has the same level of content as the "talking point" - "including jobs even for Americans “unwilling” to work", which says it all. I just wasted another 3 min reading the editorial - I need to break the habit of reading them.
13
“Starting a conversation” is useless—if that conversation is about ideas that make no sense—and can’t possibly work.
And when will Liberals know when The Green New Deal doesn’t make sense???...when the citizens grab their pitchforks, as their quality of life goes down the tubes.
8
We have know the changes we are currently seeing were coming. We know what is coming. But there are still people putting corporate profits over the short term and long term needs of Homo sapiens and friends. It is kind of amazing we have made it this far.
1
She may not be the doctor, but she is, like the rest of us , one of the patients who will suffer fool's judgement :that occasional blood letting will somehow remedy a fatal man made catastrophe that wise men say and religious numbskulls pray will soon happen. This tiny speck of blue green dust is the Garden. Shall we save it? Can we save it? Will we try?
Doubters and gutless wonders will not save the world. Only the ones like AOC will even try!
1
This is nothing more than a money and power grab by the left. Unless and until nuclear power is embraced in a big way this pipe dream will never fly.
9
Any rational analysis of the joke called the GND can only conclude that the GND will plunge America into a depression of unimaginable depth and duration, plus visit a new Dark Age upon the world
9
Changed the national conversation? Right. Now the conversation is just how insane the Far Left has become, and how fast the Democrat Party is being dragged into the abyss. That the NYT is joining in the Green New Deal, Far Left rhetoric isn't a surprise.
And BTW: what "Climate Nightmare"? There's no nightmare. There's only fear mongering because our planet's temperature doesn't stay laboratory stable like some think it should. And behind it all is a desire to take all freedom away from people and put it in the hands of an all powerful government supposedly in order to save us from ourselves. That's the real nightmare.
12
The solution is simple: to promote this agenda (which I whole heartedly support) we must obliterate Reublicans in 2020 along with trump (sorry, the scoundrel does not deserve a capital T and certainly not even “Mr.”). So for now, getting out the vote is
agenda item #1. The 65 million who voted for Mrs. Clinton and a few more in those swing states.....should do it.
4
Without a shadow of doubt, President Trump's paleolithic stonewalling of any constructive move to combat climate change is bone-headed. But the bone in his head must have been grafted directly into Senator Diane Feinstein's skull.
Here's what she said in response to a delegation of children who took the initiative of petitioning the Senator on this increasingly critical issue: "I've been doing this for 30 years. I know what I'm doing ... You come in here and you say, 'It has to be my way or the highway.' I don't respond to that. I've gotten elected. I just ran."
Feinstein responded this way to 10 and 11-year-olds. This is how the Democratic Party mines the electorate for the youth vote. Smart!
2
Green New Fantasy .. about utopia.
Think something practical and doable .. then we can talk.
5
The Green New Deal is nothing more than the Old Red Steal.
A old socialist strategy to impoverishment by robbing the middle class with false promise of utopia.
13
For of you who are so adamantly supporting this NGD, I have just one thing to say - I would believe you if you would stop flying. No flights ever again. Then I would start listening.
11
Poor liberals. If it's not one misery it's another. Never happy, the sum total of all their fears. The sky is always falling in, hostages in their own country, dreaming of a Danish utopia. Instead of finding meaning and fulfillment in meaningful work-like the climate denying Yellow Vests--they waste their idle lives chasing one empty fiction after another. If they could only drop the saintly EU where Middle America (the never ending liberal nightmare) now is, all would be well. But the end is nighish--who has the heart to go on? And the sixth extinction is upon us. Be afraid, be very afraid.
7
The Green New Deal has started a conversation, but its not what the NYT Editorial Board envisions. Most of the intelligent people are wondering why there are so many liberals and progressives that are so bad at math. Inquiring minds want to know.
15
"...during the presidential debates in 2016, not a single question about climate change was put to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump."
I couldn't get past the first sentence of this article without screaming. To this day, I remain angered by the media's determination that Hillary's emails were more important than the impending environmental destruction of our planet. I hope that the NYT has learned its lesson and will keep climate change as a major issue of the 2020 campaign.
3
Please educate yourselves, NYT: solar and wind are THE CHEAPEST option, not merely "increasingly competitive" and that is according to the LCOE (levelized Cost of Energy) experts: Lazard - Sensitivity to Fuel Costs chart shows this:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
4
I'm afraid you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. Building a working grid is not as simple as looking up Lazard’s LCOE and declaring wind and solar are cheap.
The levelized cost of energy is a specific metric used by policy professionals. In Lazard's 2018 report wind and natural gas CC are both around the same cost. This does not imply that if you built two grids, one with wind and one with natural gas, that the price of energy you pay would be the same.
Why? Different types of electricity generation provide different value to the grid. Solar and wind are variable resources- their output varies and we cannot choose how sunny or windy it's going to be on a given day. Nuclear power in the U.S. is baseload power- it rarely changes output. Natural gas CC and peaker plants are both dispatchable to different degrees, meaning they can be brought online to balance a drop in solar power.
It's both logical and supported by academic research that as variable renewables make up a higher percentage of the grid their value decreases. This is because at a high percentage of variable renewables you’ll need a ton of storage and you’ll have to overbuild to cover the lean times of the year.
Storage is not cheap- you might look at Lazard's levelized cost of storage.
The short answer is IF we could build out enough solar and wind to retire our fossil fuel plants electricity would not be cheaper. It would be a lot more expensive. Around 5-10 times as expensive.
5
So tired of hearing about moving left. Progressive income tax rates over 90% -- we had em -- under Ike, a federal luxury tax on the non-necessities --or super priced necessities -- we had em until that great liberal WJC friend of Wall Street got rid of them. Free college -- we had it in NYC -- called City University.
Before Medicaid we had charity medicine -- no one really likes to watch people bleed to death in the street. Oh , by the way, many things used to come in glass bottles which were washed and reused; we used to go to Europe by boat... as did our packages!
I applaud fuel efficient cars. We thought about not only solar energy but how many humans the planet could support in the 60 and 70s.
Would I take a train to CA -- maybe, but I would probably fly to Chicago first. ;-/
Ridiculous to discuss carbon without discussing humans, numbers and our habits (plastic everything and disposable diapers) which have created the current "crisis?" (the term economic growth -- seems linked to consumption and population growth.)
If everyone is supposed to eat more veggies can someone explain to me why they cost more per pound than meat at the grocery store -- and why so much gets thrown out every single week? (I compost veggie waste-- but where are the articles about WASTE -- which we are exceptionally good at producing and which either goes into ground fill or is burned creating CO2 in the atmosphere. (And everyone seems to NEED a fireplace!!)
1
We will be taking the train to California. Trip starts tomorrow. It is a really nice way to travel.
The Green New Deal cannot avoid the costs of climate change. Climate change is a global phenomenon and it requires solutions that can scale to the global level. Wind and solar are not environmentally benign. They have a huge environmental footprint. As intermittent sources, they will also require a commensurate investment in storage systems. Those costs are not included in the current price of wind and solar.
The global demand for clean electricity is increasing, and it could be met with nuclear power. It is most environmentally benign technology. It produces carbon-free electricity with smallest demand for land and materials compared to all other energy sources. We should (i) stop closing functioning nuclear plants, (ii) include them in RPS, and (iii) support R&D in advanced walk-away-safe designs.
Despite Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, nuclear power remains the safest source of energy with the least number of fatalities per unit of electricity produced. Whereas 18,000 lost their lives from the earthquake and tsunami near Fukushima, and over a thousand died from mental stress resulting from evacuation, nobody died from radiation exposure—OK, perhaps one worker—nor is any significant increase in cancer rates expected among the exposed population. Read more at cmo-ripu.blogspot.com and watch https://youtu.be/rnI5_ZADCsU and https://youtu.be/0Ov87BdJEy8.
It’s time we get over our fear of nuclear power and embrace this clean and safe technology.
2
Women and children can be careless. men cannot. Entertain the proposals and then make a reasonable decision
In my own experience, since the first Earth Day in 1970, scientists have been sounding the alarm.
The adding of greenhouse gasses, to our very thin atmosphere, will be the same as rolling up the windows on your car during a very sunny day. There are laws to punish folk who leave a baby or pet locked in a vehicle, windows rolled up tight, while the sun heats it up till they die.
We are all the baby and the pet. We must stop the ignorant and greedy who are continuing to slowly close the windows on our planet. After which , there will be no escape.
"Thermal Runaway".
Take a look at our neighbor planet, Venus, for a preview of the fate that people like Trump will bring to our world, if they can get away with it.
Time to tell the vulture capitalists "Enough is Enough". We love our planet. It is our mother. Stop molesting Her.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726
3
Do not despair. We already have the technology to save ourselves, and it is not just possible, not just practical, but is now profitable. Bids to supply a Colorado utility with power last year had median prices of 2.1 cents/kWh for wind plus battery storage. In contrast, the estimates for power from the new Vogtle nuclear plants was 15 cents/kWh, before the last set of overruns.
As an eco-freak, three years ago I installed a PV solar system, with a payback estimated by me to be over 15 years, but the right thing to do. Buying an electric car took the payback down to 3 1/2 years in gasoline savings alone. The addition of a second electric car was still covered by the annual production of power from the PV system. Our power system is now paid off, and we get essentially free house and horsepower.
Tell your Congressperson!! We are fools to not do this!!
3
GND is DOA with the American public. When politicians put together a thoughtful, carefully reasoned plan for combatting climate change it will deserve suitable consideration. GND is not that plan. It's nothing but an invitation to our own yellow vest movement in the US. The Markey/AOC plan is scientifically and economically illiterate, but hey, its got a catchy name, so NYT supports it?
Meanwhile, the legislative proposal for a carbon tax and rebate is neglected in the media. That is a great plan to place a price on CO2 and get some real traction on a real problem, and yet we hear crickets from the media.
5
Agree with the headline, the GND is a dream. We all love dreams
4
please, please, please change the words "climate change" to "pollution"... EVERYBODY - even modest, humble, self-effacing, ultra-diplomatic Presidents - agrees that pollution needs to be reduced... but not everyone agrees that hurricanes, droughts and forest fires (which have been features of our planet for hundreds of millions of years) are the result of
governmental and societal behavior... you give a wonderful excuse for inaction on pollution issues when you ascribe them to something as nebulous as climate change, an activity that pre-dates humans by hundreds of millions of years
2
It is encouraging to see that nuclear (finally) is being openly discussed as a means to Combat Climate change!
Fourth generation advanced reactors, like the GE-Hitachi PRISM reactor, can consume and destroy spent nuclear fuel that exists (awaiting disposal) at nuclear power plants around the country.
PRISM, in the process of destroying stored nuclear wastes (including surplus weapons grade plutonium) can convert it into a nearly inexhaustible 500+ year supply of clean, safe and affordable electricity.
Fleets of PRISM reactors are capable of combating Climate Change pretty much single-handedly. Check out the 10 minute YouTube video by renown Climate Scientist, Dr. James Hansen. You can watch it by Googling "James Hansen on nuclear power".
3
I’ve heard countless doomsday predictions about globull warming since we were assured that’s we’d freeze to death by 1985. Still waiting for even one of the doomsday predictions to come true
8
Once the Green New Deal is uncoupled from the socialist agenda, it can be a blueprint for a technologically savvy intervention that will slow down climate change. I am an optimist by nature and believe that a carbon-free economy is not only possible but in fact might be more productive than our current dependence on oil. In addition, climate change is not the “end” of the planet as ignorant alarmists love to say. In the history of the Earth there have been at least 12 great extinctions, most brought about by natural climate change, that killed up to 90 percent of all living species. Biosphere always recovers and evolution kicks in high gear. We can help this process along with genetic engineering. But any attempt to use climate change as a pretext to radically remake the social structure in the direction of enforced equality will backfire. Mitigating the social disruption of the shift to a carbon-free economy is one thing. The government seizing control of the economy is something else. Most Americans won’t go along with it and rightly so.
1
As long as US Rep. AOC is involved, the media is enthralled. Yet, any relationship to the facts will be purely coincidental. With all due respect to US Rep. AOC, she is at the forefront of what our public school systems are now producing; scientifically illiterate young people who challenge the wisdom of veteran US Sens. such as Sen. Feinstein.
When one plugs in an electric car for recharging, the likelihood is that the source of energy is a fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, or petroleum). I honestly don't know whether the zealots will treat this as carbon neutral, but here's a reality that cannot be ignored.
Having worked in the nuclear industry for much of my life, I recognize that nuclear power HAS TO BE IN THE MIX as a transitional fuel, especially for electricity generation and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) applications.
US Sen. Markey has (in my estimation) not been a friend to the nuclear industry since his tenure in the House. My suspicion is that (excepting for some of the foolish provisions noted in this editorial) much of this list was "in the can" just waiting for a young, attractive spokesperson (i.e., US Rep. AOC) to join the Massachusetts Senator at the microphone.
The "good" that will ultimately come out of this is that people like me (who have publications in the energy space that pre-date US Rep. AOC's birth) will be able to use our connections in the key laboratories to realistically inform her about how we get to energy Nirvana.
3
Short-sighted Democrats are too busy praising Nancy Pelosi for schooling Trump to see that when it comes to the most important aspect of our future, her derisive comments about the "green dream whatever" she should get out of the way.
1
Climate change is the fig leaf. That's how to reel in the young and naive. The real goal is to dismantle American capitalism little by little and substitute it with something "superior" and more centrally orchestrated by those who really care rather than by greedy businessmen.
7
Gentle readers of the NYT, may I recommend a book?
Yuval Noah Harari has written an eminently readable and fascinating book titled Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind.
Among many insights: Did you know that there have been at least six species of the genus Homo during earth's history? Homo Sapiens (us) are just the last ones standing; not because we're necessarily the smartest of the hatch.
I live in a part of the world where we generate almost all of our energy from renewables. We're blessed by Columbia River Hydrology. On both sides of the Columbia Gorge (where the river cut through the Cascade Range even as plate tectonics raised them up) stand a virtual phalanx of majestic wind turbines. There is a constant differential between air pressure west of the mountains and east of the mountains, so the wind is always blowing one way or the other.
Has it been ecologically sound? No, some physical and cultural damages done are irremediable; but we keep pitching to undo what we can and do better in the future.
I believe an energy Manhattan Project or Apollo Program is possible and a worthy aspiration if we have the will to control our venality.
If not, our species will probably join the others of our genus in a welter of suffering and useless regret; if there is a successor species in our genus, we can only hope that it will be homo sapiens sapiens ethicus. Because we will have flunked our test...not on IQ but on wisdom.
2
Living Europe, climate priority took precedence, 2000, when it was decided Germany would become 1/3 renewable energy, by 2010. When goal was achieved. early 2013, German energy minister, questioned by media, was asked how such progress was possible? His answer, "Germany has publicly funded elections; no corporate influence-corruption of "the people's" representative process."
Solar, wind power, including provided from excesses, Denmark, and coatings on windows keeping heat inside, winters, and reflecting outside, summers, applied all surfaces, were "new tech" involved.
U.S. finds libertarian think tank, tax write-off phony "philanthropy" spending as much to elect representation as each of two prominent political parties; this since "Citizens United" Roberts Supreme Court decision, which was not defined by 1880's legislative language-rather by preamble to legislation. Roberts court chose. America suffers. If $$$$=$peech, speech isn't free.
2
"The immediate result of this amateurish mess was to hand Mr. Trump and other climate deniers irresistible political talking points." AOC needs a senior, moderating advisor on her staff. That someone who says, "Draft it and then think about it for two days before releasing." Which applies to everything! Including FB and IG posts.
1
At some stage - maybe after the Times stops accepting car ads in the middle of its editorial on climate change, cough, cough....
…...the public will wake up and realize that the new green deal, in its eventual form, will progress society and save it money. If the internal combustion engine were cheap, why don't they put one in your house to run your appliances and utilities?
Green energy is cheap energy.
2
I looked over AOC's suggestion with the Green New Deal (before she deleted it) it is ridiculous, and would do nothing but drive up the debt ceiling, especially the part where she said that the govt would pay people unwilling to work. Question, how in the world are we going to pay for this exactly?
8
@Matt M there is no way to pay for this unserious proposal. Are we to believe that Big Government will replace or refit every single building in America in any time frame, let alone the 10 years AOC has promised? The GND is a collection of undoable socialist fantasies
8
@Matt M Same way we 'paid for' the second world war, & all the other wars after that one. The economy of the US is strong, & government issued bonds are still cheap & reliable. No inflation in sight. Besides easily absorbing such a project on the extended payment plan, (AND keeping in mind that the debt owed will largely be to ourselves, to investment or retirement plans, ...) the income from scads of new green jobs (energy & infrastructure) will generate a fair amount of new revenue (taxes). Unlike the recent tax cuts for Big Business & the Very Rich, this is basically a jobs bill that actually *will* grow the economy. The real question is how will we pay for NOT doing it!
2
"It’s hard to believe, but worth recalling, that during the presidential debates in 2016, not a single question about climate change was put to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump."
What you write is true but during the primary, Bernie Sanders responded to a question put to all the Democratic candidates, "What was the #1 security threat?"
He responded, “The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable,”
It produced a headline in the Huffington Post but I don't recall reading a headline in the NYTimes and I read the paper daily.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-climate-change_us_561db3bbe4b0c5a1ce610f4c
My question is why this crisis and alternative solutions to the climate change crisis that can provide the U.S. and the World with sufficient energy at a competitive price is not a weekly front page feature?
This is a very tough problem and it seems reasonable that electricity will be the energy form for continued economic progress and it would be interesting to read more about what is going on in labs all over the World to develop non-fossil technologies that will prevent further emissions of global warming gasses. Eventually, the Arctic permafrost will thaw and trigger a self-reinforcing release of methane. We are in a race with Nature
4
Before we turn our economy on its head we need to comb thoroughly through the climate data. To spend trillions & change our life style requires absolute certainty that the globe is warming at an unprecedented rate, that the outcomes will be overwhelmingly negative & that the solutions offered will work.
The alarmists screamed when Trump established a committee to review the science. But massive change like that proposed by the GND requires complete confidence in the data and the projections. So far, I don't have that. And that is for a number of reasons:
-- the global data set is a mess. Most of the global land masses had few if any stations until the 1950's (or later) which means that the temps & trends are based on estimates. Then the data has been adjusted. So -- that data must be thoroughly investigated and vetted.
-- Alarmists are like over emotional religious zealots. You don't change how we live in response to zealotry. You don't call those who disagree with you denialists. The "97%" is sophistry and intellectually soft. Proponents have to be conversant with the science.
- Alarmists attempt to link every negative weather event to warming. That's simply wrong and erodes credibility.
- The dire outcomes are based on computer projections & a lot of ifs.
- Many alarmists won't accept nukes as a solution.
- Too much of the alarmist agenda is political.
To implement the GND, you have to convince people like me. So far - you haven't.
5
@Ralphie
Oil reserves according to BP have about 53 years left....have to change out fuels sources anyhow. And 53 years would not be nearly enough time to replace the petroleum infrastructure.
What is an "alarmist?" please add a definition next time so we can all make the associated determination.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/oil.html#oil-reserves
3
@glennmr yes, whatever the number is, fossil fuels are finite, so alternative forms of energy -- starting with nukes -- is a must do. But there is a difference between upending things in a 10 year time frame v moving with reasonable pace to change our power infrastructure. And ultimately we will likely need every drop of oil, all the natural gas and coal we can find. Changing our power grid to nuclear would be a great start, electric cars are a good idea, as are other ideas designed to conserve fossil fuels -- saving them for the things (like airplanes) that would be the most difficult to convert.
But I've been saying this for some time. It's a rational argument that would convince more to move to other energy sources than the global is warming and we are all going to die.
An alarmist is generally one who doesn't know the science very well, if at all, but has become convinced that the globe is warming, and shrieks and shouts at anyone who disagrees -- someone who raises apocalyptic visions of horrific outcomes due to warming and refuses to listen to any discussion of the topic.
But the real potential apocalypse is if we don't ensure a smooth transition to other energy sources from fossil fuels.
@Ralphie Sadly, folks seem to think they are capable of understanding a very complex science and they feel they don't need to accept the word of experts in that field. Hence we have ordinary, "ignorant" (in the best, most non-judgmental sense of the word), uneducated (in the relevant fields) people thinking they "know" something. Do you tell your doctor how to practice medicine? Are you qualified to pronounce on the efficacy of vaccines? Do you question the validity of particle physics? Do you question genetic engineering? Do you tell your mechanic how to fix your vehicle? Do you think you know more about oil exploration and extraction than the oil geologists.
It is truly sad that so many Americans think their opinions on subjects they know virtually nothing about are worthy of discussion. It is sad that the word "expert" is too often a term used with derision by people who couldn't pass an college level entry course in the science subjects they so blithely profess to pass judgment on.
BTW, the "97%" is fact if the opinions of experts are the only ones considered. Meantime, I can find you several books written by MDs and "scientists" who "know" that vaccines are evil and that evolution is a lie promulgated by atheists. Are you gonna believe them?
2
A non binding resolution. What does that mean? it means that politicians can support the resolution and get on the "Green New Deal" train, deliver mountains of rhetoric about climate change to impress their constituency and in 10 years we and the rest world will be only slightly ahead of where we are right now. We will continue to build wind mills and solar panels. We may even start to harness the tides or rivers to produce electricity as we plod forward with renewable energy.
We will convene blue ribbon expert panels to impress everyone that we are taking climate change seriously while the "Green new Dealers" pound the pavement telling us that the world as we know it will end at any moment.
Yes we should do everything that is financially and reasonably practical to supplement our energy sources.
To think ,though, that we will eliminate the use of fossil fuels is unrealistic. Just stop for a moment and think about it. Air travel and cargo planes, cruise and cargo ships, and the military. War ships, bombers, fighter planes, military vehicles,
1
Economics cannot save us from destruction.
Our faith in money created the current devastation.
We are whistling past the graveyard and begging the devil to save us from sin.
I turned 50 last week. I spent part of the day sitting on the porch watching snow fall and wondering if I have another 50 trips around the sun.
I don't think I do.
The infrastructure we all rely on to provide nutrition, shelter, and water will be overwhelmed by fire, flood, and wind in the next 10 years.
Most of us will be dead in 20 years, myself included.
Dead from malnutrition and disease and whatever else kills refugees crowded together in camps.
If the survivors manage to rebuild it won't be because of money. They will remember us as a psychotic age and a suicidally deluded population. They won't be able to understand our motives and beliefs. They will not understand our deranged faith in capitalism. They will not understand our inaction in the teeth of calamity.
We have to accept that disaster is approaching. Our future is struggle and suffering and deprivation and most of us will die needlessly.
We should be sheltering in place right now.
Our government should be stockpiling rations and practicing disaster preparedness drills.
It's not too late to prepare for what's to come but all our talk about money and how to pay for mitigation is empty noise.
Any population that puts a monetary value on children's lives is doomed.
2
If US emissions are rising because of an increase in manufacturing, that is less of a concern than it might seem. The reason is that if the factory wasn't domestic, it would likely be in Asia, whose manufacturing carbon efficiency (goods output/ton of carbon) is far lower than ours, because much more of their power comes from coal.
The right way to measure "emissions" is by looking at the carbon emitted where the stuff we consume is actually made. Onshoring likely reduces that.
The Dems should stay focused on the causes behind the blue wave last November - healthcare, infrastructure, education, immigration - and in that order. That’s not to say we don’t need to address climate change - we do. But for all those middle and lower income people needing a break, they’ll be more receptive to specific policies that directly impact them.
A lot of those folks are doing their 2018 taxes now, and realizing Trump’s big tax cut did little to nothing for them (or in some cases, made it worse). Stick to specifics Dems, ignore Trump, and talk to us as if we really matter to you.
2
@HeyJoe
Would that be the blue wave that saw the Republicans increase their majority in the Senate? The primary 'cause' of that ripple was the large number of vacating Republican House seats. You may be making some reference to the 'popular vote' totals? The primary 'cause' of that is Trump Derangement Syndrome and nothing will diminish that between now and 2020. Keep proposing plans like GND and Open Borders and you will never win another election again. But go ahead and call it a 'wave' so you won't understand the peril your party is in and can blame Russia all over again when you see Trump Re-elected with a Filibuster Proof Republican Majority in the Senate, and a new Majority in the House.
3
@HeyJoe Read the Green New Deal for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text . Healthcare, infrastructure, & education are all right in there, specifically. Specifically as expansions, which means putting more people to work, making life better for everyone.
I applauded the GND when it was announced — it’s essential and would pull other developed countries along in its wake. But it’s still not enough on its own. We’ve lost too much time. The global community *must* pursue geoengineering — releasing particulate into the stratosphere(?) to emulate the effects of volcanic eruptions, which throughout the Earth’s life have periodically released enough particulate themselves to cool the planet. Solar radiation management. Otherwise, the vast permafrost across Canada and Russia melts, releasing its methane, and we’re cooked. By the time some advanced countries do achieve carbon neutrality, the world will be a true basket case of pandemonium. Mitigation and adaptation, however essential, are just part of the equation at this late stage. We need both GND and geoengineering, which also includes carbon sinking in the oceans by generating plankton. Solar radiation management can be trialed and ramped up gradually (beyond computer modeling and lab tests, in the real world) if pursued in the very near term. Otherwise, too late. The problem, as ever, is political, i.e., achieving global consensus, but in this case such niceties may be impractical. I wish the NYT would do a feature on geoengineering and give it the exposure it deserves at this point. This is not tinfoil-hat stuff. The GND should include large-scale research and trials of geoengineering (e.g., multinationally), because they need to go hand in hand. Let’s buy the GND some time.
3
The various elements of the Green New Deal represent urgent, worthy goals. But the way it was announced was a catastrophe, because it gave every climate change denier, from the Oval Office on down to the guy at the last bar stool, more than enough ammunition to sink the entire idea.
In this media age, presentation is everything. If the GOP can sell a tax cut that only benefits its rich benefactors, then surely the Democratic Party can package the GND in a way that all of the Presidential candidates can sign on to it with enthusiasm and forcefulness. Wouldn't that be good; a badly needed restart?
3
@Paul Bernish
"surely the Democratic Party can package the GND in a way that all of the Presidential candidates can sign on to"
Guess I'll say it again. IMO, there can be no 'rising above politics' to an acceptable, compromise position on a Green New Deal; there can only be contrasting visions of this major government task that are then hammered out in Congress.
The first step is for Republicans to admit global warming is a big problem that requires a big intervention now.
The second step is for Republicans to come up with a plan of their own and submit it for consideration alongside the GND.
But simply refusing to engage with the only proposal on the table because of its nonbinding calls to make it help everyone - vs centralizing business/government power and enriching business under cover of 'dealing with the problem' - is a non-starter.
The right wing refusal to engage by presenting a plan of their own is simply another form of protecting the fossil fuel industry and persisting in climate change denial.
3
In spite of all the problems and fears we have got to get started on this problem because it's not going away. The problem is going to get worse as time goes on.
I am old enough to remember that in World War II we produced what we had to produce: thousands of aircraft, thousands of tanks, hundreds of ships etc.
This crisis will build until it cannot be solved less we start now to deal with it.
At the present time it is still possible for the insurance industry to spread the losses of the few among the many. But when the problem grows to the point where the losses of the few become the losses of the many insurance will become unaffordable for the average person and that is just one of the many consequences of failing to deal with the problem now.
When coastal cities start to flood as they are already doing and massive populations start moving, when food production starts to fail and when major portions of the planet become unlivable it will be too late.
6
Pelosi dissed a climate change program, in the same way she dissed Trump over the Wall?!
That is really a shame, because many Dems follow her lead. We already know, from our Intelligence and Security agencies' 2019 "Worldwide Threat Assessment", that they consider Climate Change a real threat to national security (along with Russia, China and Trump's administrative policies).
I hope the independent thinkers, in both parties, do not listen to their leaders and pursue climate change measures.
This is not the time for incrementalism, not when we are on the verge of running out of clean drinking water (due to Big Oil and Big Chemical toxic dumping--Trump approved).
Not when the oxygen desperately needed from forests in the U.S., and worldwide is diminishing due to timber clear-cutting (Trump approved).
Not when our coasts will literally be under water (like Miami now) because of melting ice caps.
If legislators think going green will be costly, think of the cost to move people and buildings away from the coasts.
Pelosi, I am guessing, does not want to alarm voters with a call for higher taxes to fight climate change (maybe she doesn't like A O-C's free-spirited optimism).
But these policies need to have been enacted yesterday.
Pelosi (and Klobuchar) need to get on board with the new Democratic program. Real progressives need to run for office, ones with a bite, who can stand up to Trump. No incrementalists, or we'll have a 2016 redux.
5
I am a conservation believer in man-made global warming. I don't, however, buy that the only solution is a shift of massive money into 'energy austerity'.
Maybe the solution is an all-out nuclear power conversion. Maybe its waiting for better technology (coming fast if we invest instead of massing spending today). Maybe its something we don't know about yet.
Do we know the solution? Is it wind and solar? Is it a massive carbon tax? Elimination of animal farming? Releasing all the untapped growth by progressive social policies from the GND? I don't think we really know. And I'm suspicious of those who are sure they know.
What I do know is that demonizing 'deniers' is simplistic and counterproductive. Yes, we need to work together. No, we don't need to play the blame game.
2
@Signal
"demonizing 'deniers' is simplistic and counterproductive."
Right wing apologetics for climate change denial are weaseling and destructive.
The touted urgency of climate change will not be beaten by this vague omnibus of sky castles. It's own over reach will doom it to fail at great cost, precluding other things that could have been done, but even if it succeeded the "thresholds" that have been defined will not be met because America is not the world. We need to pass a carbon tax and let price incentives do the work, with in flight adjustment for side effects. The rest of the world can benefit from the tech resulting from the incentives. Aside from that we need to focus first on securing our democracy. Failing to do so is like eating our seed corn.
3
@Robert David South
"The touted urgency of climate change-"
Notice that the author tees off by pooh-poohing the idea that climate change is urgent, before ridiculing a major government intervention and calling instead for financial "incentives" to fix the problem.
Yet again, - minimal, 'reasonable' solutions is the fallback position of right wing climate change denial.
3
The 30's New Deal, from which the GND's name is an extension, had some critical aspects that are not actually present. The FDR-led Democratic victory in 1932 was so enormous that it created a new decades-long political order. During the first 100 days, Congress approved every single one of his ideas. The reason for the huge landslide was that the public hated Hoover for the Great Depression and Republicans generally for Prohibition. FDR mentioned a new deal (lowercase) during the campaign, but no real specifics: he just promised to do things to reduce the pain the people were feeling. If FDR's political capital hadn't been so vast in 1933, it is very unlikely that his New Deal would have gotten off the ground.
Many Democrats hate Trump as much or more than the typical 1932 voter hated Hoover, but what's important is the numbers. No matter who wins in 2020, it's not going to be a landslide anything like 1932. Also, people aren't feeling anything like the pain today that people were feeling in 1932, so while people are “concerned” about the environment today, it's nothing like the intense pain of being unemployed when you must support a family.
In other words, part of the struggle for the GND is to convince people that solving environmental problems is so vital that it is rational to devote a sizable portion of our GDP to it; in the 30's, there was no doubt in anyone's mind about the stark necessity of dealing with the Great Depression. This is a big problem for the GND.
2
The US is pretty arrogant if it thinks it can stop climate change, or reverse it. The board forgets about China, India; over populations in countries around the world that cannot sustain what they have now? In 2017 the US cut more emissions than anywhere on the planet. They are also on target to meet the committed reductions promised in the Paris Accord; only 4 other countries are on target to hit 50% of their promise.
Not saying that we don't need sustainable solutions. For me, the Green 'deal' discussion or whatever it is, is actually a negative when it comes to those that claim climate change a hoax. The absolute, far left 'paper' includes extensive social programs that have nothing to do with climate change. This makes many suspect to start. Then it maintains that all buildings need to be re-built or modified, mass transit across the country to eliminate cars and planes, etc. etc. We can all sit down and write what we think the US should look like, or the globe, but that assignment is for children. I wonder if Ms Cortez has ever driven across the country. I wonder if anyone on the board has. Mass transit for the country would require everyone to live in new cities along it's path. Maybe that's the plan; eliminate rural areas?
2
@Ma it’s AOC, not the US that’s arrogant. AOC thinks that putting the entire economy along with every human and animal activity under her control is the only thing that can save the planet
4
"...the talking points dismissed as unacceptable three strategies that many experts say are necessary to any solution: nuclear power, technology that allows fossil fuel plants to capture and store their own emissions, and market-based solutions like a carbon tax". Stop repeating the oft-repeated and oft-debunked insistence of nuclear power and carbon capture and storage. Experts DO NOT agree they are necessary. Of the three you listed, ONLY a carbon tax is something most experts agree upon.
1
Thank you for this editorial, which generated many interesting comments. Broad discussion on this topic is so vital!
1
"The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter its conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials (WaPo, 2/24/19).
Of course, this makes perfect sense for this White House.
After all, trump already receives his Border Policy from his unelected Cabinet: Coulter, Hannity, Ingraham, and Limbaugh; and his US Intelligence and Nuclear Briefings from Putin.
4
From the editorial: "The idea of decarbonizing the economy is ambitious, commendable and urgent."
As it also would have been (should have been) in 1995, when the U.N. process of addressing climate change through international cooperation began. The world knew then what was coming, and there was essentially no excuse for anyone's not knowing it, if we didn't do anything.
Fast forward the nearly quarter-century later: a very, VERY short path to complete, net decarbonization is essential. Starting NOW. Not next year, not when Trump is gone -- NOW.
Baby steps like a slowly building carbon fee, by itself, won't cut it anymore. The absurdly slow penetration of the hardly radical idea of a carbon fee/dividend shows how poorly this country's leadership has reacted to a true, mega-emergency.
2
The children and grandchildren of millennials will face a very bleak future of massive species extinction, killer storms, loss of huge tracts of coastal lands, drought, fires and of course water shortage if we don't do something big now. The science suggests these effects are happening already and things are accelerating far faster than expected. No matter how quickly we work today to reduce GHGs we are too late to prevent a lot of the negative consequences of our fossil fuel lifestyle. But if we don't manage to reduce carbon drastically it is hard to see how the social order will be able to hold in most countries. We may well revert to a Hobbsian world that is nasty, brutish and short.
At least AOC is proposing something . But it has to get buy-in from the public before people with real power will make the necessary steps. I am not optimistic. The retrograde dinosaurs in the White House and Senate fiddle around and even work against any concrete action to deal with this unprecedented crisis for humanity. But then most of them will be dead in 20 years so what do they care?
3
". . .whatever becomes of the plan, it will have moved climate change . . . to a commanding position in the national conversation." I surely hope so, and not a moment too soon.
The fact that young people are awakening to the appalling reality that their elected representatives are sacrificing their generation in pursuit of short-term economic and political gains and are mobilizing as if their lives depend upon opposing the fossil-fueled future championed by the current administration is a hopeful sign.
Today's student strikes and demonstrations are reminiscent of student-led mobilization against the Vietnam War in the 60's which brought down a president, and while fossil fuel interests have spent a fortune over decades to obscure the link between the use of their products and the carnage already being wrought by climate change--deadlier hurricanes, floods, wildfires, drought, heatwaves, etc.--the evidence of causation (and their culpability in slowing the public's awareness of the scale of the problem) is now incontrovertible, and demands a response commensurate with the risk.
We can no longer waste time "debating" the settled science or pretending that "economic growth" or some technical breakthrough will make solving the problem easier in the future. We are passengers on a fossil-fueled "doomsday machine" speeding toward a cliff of climate catastrophe: the closer we get, the harder we'll have to slam on the brakes, and the greater the social and economic disruption.
4
We need a crash program to build out systems to replace fossil fuels, but just as much, to improve on the energy storage of current batteries. But none of this will stop global warming in time. Billions of people in Asia and Africa will modernize and we won't keep up with their fuel needs. We should admit that the earth is going to warm and prepare to adapt. The Anthropocene will result in changes to the ecology and climate of this planet that we will not be able to stop. And despite the fervent prayers of the many misanthropes among the Time's commenters, humanity will survive. Change is coming. Stop pretending you're going to prevent it. Adapt.
4
After a war, there is no question that a country repairs and rebuilds what has been destroyed by man. It doesn't matter who started the war or whose bombs wreaked the destruction. It doesn't matter how expensive reconstruction will be. From the highest and richest to the lowest and poorest, a war-torn nation's people go straight to work with single purpose clearing the rubble and building. Everybody pitches in and everybody benefits. In the process, something better than was lost can be built. We are not literally at war on own soil now but many regions are suffering destruction from weather events made worse, we are told, by climate change. Our rebuilding now should have a dual purpose: Repair and replace but also reduce the likelihood of more destruction by reducing carbon output by any and all ways.
2
@abigail49. “but many regions are suffering destruction from weather events made worse, we are told, by climate change”
Fact: there’s zero scientific evidence to support this claim. Zero
2
About 100 years ago "Progressives" advocated for the end of child labor and for improved working conditions for all workers, to be achieved by government intervention in the labor market. Business interests said these ideas would cost too much, would bankrupt the nation's businesses and the nation, and would violate the constitutional right of freedom of contract between parties. It was argued that Government intervention was unconstitutional, and at the time court's agreed. What has happened?
More recently Progressives said that pollution by automobiles must be controlled. Business again said the old refrain; costs too much, would bankrupt auto companies, cause massive unemployment, and ruin the economy. What has happened?
We know that history, and the future, will vindicate Progressive ideas. Change takes time, we must be patient and tolerate the misguided policies.
9
When a US Senatorial candidate cannot write an intelligent description of the Green New Deal, of which she is introducing to Congress, then she has proven that she is not qualified. Qualification is not a measure of worthiness for holding Office. Politics today is: ride the topic of the moment with rallies, screeching, finger pointing. Climate change is such a topic and she is riding the wave. The long list of Democratic women, especially those with no government background,who believe that they can win enough male votes, are ensuring that 2020 will be a win-win for Trump. I am not a Republican but I believe the Democrats must realize that changing what has been status quo for decades will take as many decades to change.
7
@Pauline Hartwig
The Green New Deal is a resolution, or goal, it isn’t a complete plan. Resolutions do not need detailed measurable policies in them, because they start conversations that make policy.
4
@SDemocrat Big Government is going to ban cars and planes, and tear down every building in America, and there doesn’t need to be a plan???
3
@Pauline,
Not everyone is a policy wonk. Many are the bright and charismatic dreamers. Both serve a purpose. The quarterback doesn't have to know how to block. The rudimentary is helpful, but that is not his specialty. The quarterback doesn't have to be able to punt, much less kick field goals. Etc. etc...
That's why we have specialist and team mates.
But wonkiness isn't going to get people to listen.
That is an innate quality. Be it looks, voice, character etc. etc...
You are really selling an awful lot of people short if you expect them all to know the in's 'n outs of an all encompassing task of changing the world and its global economy.
That's why the company CEO has a board and underlings.
By the by...the world doesn't have decades.
We've already missed the deadline. We are now in scramble mode. The feedback loop has started and accelerated. We didn't even last as long as the giant lizards. Pathetic.
2
Is the Green New Deal going to become law? Of course not. So stop obsessing about it, and start focusing on steps to help heal the planet so that our kid's kids, and their kids, have a world that's survivable.
That means embracing things that we know will reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power, solar power, and wind power can all incrementally reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Can it be done quickly? Of course not, but if leadership and Congress continue to delay addressing the issue in a meaningful fashion, it'll take even more time for the necessary changes to occur. Yes, some industries wll be hurt and workers displaced. But other industries and jobs will open in ther places.
It will take time, effort, money, job training and conviction. But the cost of not beginning that process as soon as possible will be much greater once the planet reaches the point of not being able to heal itself. Then, apologies for not acting sooner will be useless.
3
@Steven...this type of moderation is not in style. you better get with the plan.
2
school districts here have been closed for flood days. climate change is real.
5
@true patriot floods have been going on for billions of years. To claim that floods are proof of globull warming has no basis in science. None.
2
This is first order thinking. Do you understand that if the US was wiped from the face of the earth today, that in 200 years the climate might change a tenth of a degree?
If we can't create a comprehensive plan with europe and asia, we shouldn't wreck our economy.
Let's talk facts not feelings.
8
No, AOCs summary of the Green New Deal was not a botched PR effort by her subordinates. It was a clear window into the left's climate change strategy - carbon emissions are the excuse for a wholesale expansion of government power and control over our lives. Even if GND were purely about climate, it is still bunk. If the U.S. were to reduce carbon emissions today to zero, the reduction in global temperature by 2100 would be immeasurable according to IPCC models. This inconvenient truth dare not be mentioned by climate alarmists seeking not to waste a good crisis. https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/07/25/reduce-u-s-carbon-emissions-to-zero-and-the-temperature-decrease-by-2100-will-be-undetectable/#4870f64b3909
11
Climate changes is a monumentally huge problem. If we want to solve it we need to go big, or go home. Going home in this case could mean the difference between mankind thriving or facing a large die back. Now is not a good time to listen to those tired, timid voices who say "we can't do anything about this problem anyway". Those people are willing to let mankind die quietly as long as they are not personally inconvenienced. Don't listen to them.
5
Wind and solar are great when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining! Have you tried running a train, airplane, 18 wheeler, or even a car with wind and/or solar?
The most reliable source of carbon free energy is nuclear.
See: “3 Advanced Reactor Systems to Watch by 2030”
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030
BTW, clean coal technology exists (and has existed for years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
2
The so called Green New Deal is nothing more than "liberalology" pandering to the center-left just the same as conservatives pander to the center-right.
A national conversation by people who are too busy to do the hard work of understanding such a complex issue is worthless it is not alone a reason to applaud anything.
What we need are leaders who have spent person-years of their and their staff's time working through the issues and coming up with solutions at the nut and bolt level.
Let me ask a provocative question. What is worse for the planet as a whole? One Chernobyl or Fukushima every 25 years or global warming?
On a planet wide benefit cost analysis, I suspect that a Chernobyl or Fukushima every 25 years does a fraction of the damage to the world that our continued global warming is doing.
If that is the case then we should be building Nuclear Power plants to quickly replace all carbon used in energy production. Will the Green New Deal liberalologists push that? No, because they have their heads buried in the sand just as deep as the right wing MAGA types.
Both of these groups live in the New Dark Age where logic, science and reason have no place. Opinions like this from the NY Times shows that they are jumping on the New Dark Age bandwagon with them.
2
The closest analogy to the “Green New Deal” is the Khmer Rouge simultaneous imposition of socialism and a war on modernity resulting in the death of a quarter of the population.
This is not hyperbole. Rather, this is what you can look forward to under the GND without oil, gas and coal.
Our mechanized agirculture allowing 2% of our population to feed the US and much of the world would largely cease without the fuel to run the machinery.
Mining would largely cease because of lack of fuel to run the extraction machinery.
Energy intensive industries like metal refining would cease. Only manufacturing which can sustain itself on electricity alone would survive.
The electricity grid would fall to third world standards with frequent blackouts when solar panels lacked sun or windmills a steady breeze. This would require either massive overbuilding panels/windmills and/or massive battery arrays to store the power, which would require massive supplies of rare earths which do not exist.
After the famine and economic collapse back to 18th cehtury levels, there woud be little weath to redistribute by force as envisioned by the GND.
Of course, this is not Cambodia. The people would rise up in an armed revolution long before a fraction of this insanity could be imposed.
If proponents are claiming they can accomplish a fraction of what is in the GND without trashing the economy and plunging you into poverty, they are either willfully ignorant or are lying.
9
@Bart DePalma enacting the GND would plunge America and the world into a new Dark Ages. 1500 years of progress would be wiped out
3
Stop personalizing environmental policy. It is not Obama's policy that is being overturned, it's the laws and regulations enacted to protect our public health and environment that are being raped and pillaged in the name of short-term profits for the already rich.
It's our clean air and water. It's not Obama anything. Stop personalizing these important issues. It's not Trump vs. Obama. Once those labels are attached to anything, it leads to partisanship, not to meaningful discussion or action on these most urgent issues. It's life or death for the future of human civilization as we know it on our planet. Period.
6
Let me comment on the line in your article, "“The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Let me translate it with a common sense approach. All great achievement come first with a dream. it is up to us trickle down that dream into reality. There are many realities achievable now if we look back the scientific and economic evolution of our society. nobody knew 10 years back that everybody will own at least two or three mobile devices and their 60 t0 70% percent time will be spent looking at the screen. Not only that it will transfor the whole economy (traditioanl phone service) upside down. similarly, airline industry allowed its passengers to share traditional work load with them (check-in, printing boarding pass, etc.). yes, it disrupts some jobs but creates new ones. our initiatives on green new deals can immediately do the following: renewable energy (soalr and wind alone) can replace all our power grid requirement right now (1000GW). Yes, it will disrupt Duke Power like company's bread and butter. but will create millions of jobs and open new industries. It will also address the soring points of rural and urban economic gap. Open parking lots alone in North Carolina can replace its electricity requirement in less than 5 years with aggressive plan of solar and wind. For CO2, if trucks are not allowed to enter city and autonomous vehicles are introduced for transports of goods and people, it will be reduce congestion/time
2
It’s called weather folks.
Even if we bankrupt ourselves making this country “green” do you really think Asia & India, essentially everywhere else, is going to adhere? Nonsense. Waste of money and all this when we finally have the natural resources to be energy independent? Sad.
4
Reality check: California has not been able to build a high speed rail line from SF to LA in 10 years, but the GND promises that by 2030 we’ll build enough high speed rail across America to make cars and planes obsolete. Right.
12
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The good is removing Donald Trump from office. The perfect is proposing and being identified with what is widely seen to be far-left, big government central planning. Above al,l don't vote if Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar get nominated by the Democratic party. Keep it up, New York Times readers, and enjoy another term of Donald Trump as President.
3
Picture talking to your grandchildren as adults in the future living in a desperate and diminished world. When you tell them it was simply too expensive, too much sacrifice to act in our time - we didn't want you to have a large federal debt. Think about that.
3
Yes. It's a classic 'logical asymmetry'. In 'The GND is Better Than Our Climate Nightmare': The problem, at its most basic is, If the GND, or GCC mitigation, is wrong, we're just out some wasted money. But if the Denialists are wrong, it's a potential DEATH sentence for human civilization to not do anything that has an impact.
The reality, of course, the money wouldn't be 'wasted' no matter what happens to the climate. It will be spent on everything from biomedical research to materials science and, as always with human beings on a mission, things and techniques will be found that we had no idea we were looking for, but will be pivotal for our future--even if we can't change Earth's carbon footprint significantly.
And most people don't understand, most of the world's population is easily within 15 meters of today's sea level. That includes cities and some entire nations in low lying areas. If you think there's an immigration/refugee crisis today, you have no idea what's coming when the oceans rise in a world with nuclear weapons. That's why doing nothing is tantamount to a DEATH SENTENCE.
Or, as the old saying goes, "Pennywise and pound-foolish". Spend money on a GND. No matter what happens, it's better than doing nothing!
5
TURNING GREEN From the Green New Deal. Well, not quite. But the obstructionist attitude of his administration is nothing short of sickening. And lethal. Trump's denial of science such as global climate change are but one indicator of his thinking like a member of the KKK. His comments after the Charlottesville violent demonstration, placing the violent white supremacists on the same level as those who protested against them, shows a powerful link to KKK thinking. Trump's railroading Kavanaugh's appointment as a member of the Supreme Court, ignoring the claims of women that he had behaved as a sexual predator, accompanied by heavy drinking. Another symptom of thinking like the KKK, where women are oppressed and kept at home. What we need in the discussion are statistics from countries that have made a major commitment and have transitioned to sustainable energy. Germany, for example, has more of it energy generated by sustainables than any other country, at 40% as of 1/2019, with a goal of 65% of its energy generated by sustainable sources. The 10 countries that lead the world in sustainable energy production are: Iceland, Sweden, Costa Rica.
Nicaragua., United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay and Denmark. The US Makes a poor showing, deriving only 18% of its energy from sustainables. In large part because of the GOPper obstructionism to derailing efforts to increase sustainable energy in the US. The GOP position is unpatriotic; look at the hurricanes and flooding!!
2
It is utterly irresponsible that we have done essentially nothing to address anthropogenic global warming (aka climate change).
The entire resistance to meaningful action can be placed squarely on vested economic interests and their captured economists and politicians.
Theophrastus first theorized humans could alter weather in the time of Aristotle. Joseph Fourier tied human activities to possible change in our atmosphere in 1827. John Tyndall addressed the basic issue in a lecture to the Royal Society of London in 1861. Svante Arrhenius first tied surface temperature rise to carbon dioxide in 1896. Other scientific work has followed and is replete, is legion, and is a matter of real, fully accessible, history.
The New York Times posted that a warmer climate may be due to more carbon dioxide in a October 1956 article by Waldemar Kaempffert.
President Lyndon B. Johnson put the issue squarely in the realm of public policy with his “Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty” on February 8, 1965; some 54 years ago.
And here we are tearing into an HONEST effort to do something positive and meaningful about the issue. Given what we know to be the weight of the HONEST scientific evidence, a responsible society would be working to advance the best parts of the New Green Deal, not presenting adolescent ad hominem attacks against the deal’s supporters.
But then we are anything but a responsible society at the moment.
MB
3
As a main-stream-media organization, as usual, you miss the point. And your logic is primitive, your conservatism scary and your vision is far too narrow for our existential problems.
Why shouldn't the Democratic Party move left? It is now pretty much moderate Republican. Regarding the problems of the United States (and the world), the grand experiments called the United States and Homo Sapiens, are both in danger. I don't need to go into the list which I sometimes do here, to remind us of the existential problems seen all around us. All coming at us and growing daily. We know what "is on the list."
The evidence for the failing grand experiments has been growing for decades and can no longer be solved in your absurd incremental fashion; in fact that is what has caused us to be in the failure state. One cannot treat the problems of mankind and our country in isolation from each other. And the smart lady representative from NY, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can see that as can others.
You are out of touch on the problems of the two grand experiments and do not appear to understand they are fused and complexly interrelated.
1
@Frank
You know this piece is FAVORABLE to mitigating climate change, and the GND, right?
1
Not a single question was asked because it ranks at the bottom of voter issues.
5
@Jackson
Lol...sure, ignore your eyes and ears and stick with the polling. You might as well shoot the messenger while you're at it.
The polling often just reflects what messages most voters are exposed to. And the media message most voters are exposed to in the USA is either 'Hoax!' or "More study needed". Meanwhile, 95% of the worlds scientists involved in climate research are screaming 'EMERGENCY!'
You feel comfortable ignoring that on the basis of 'polling'? If so, you're not dealing in a world of facts, and the internet your reading this on is just a bunch of imaginary 'tubes' connected to some display thing-y that mysteriously generates lights without a bulb.
2
Very soon Senator Feinstein's legacy will be thrown in the dustbin of history. Her immediate dismissal of the Green Plan shows that she is ignorant of the climate urgency we face and out-of-date on the policies we need. I might say the same thing about Speaker Pelosi. She had better get on board, or she will be looking like a stubborn old codger refusing new urgent ideas.
1
What Ms. Ocasio-Cortez needs to learn and Ed Markey should already know, is you can't get ahead of the party Leadership especially when you've just taken control of the House in such a volatile electorate, you don't want to hand the Republican's and Trump an issue they can grandstand on to change the conversation from the corruption and misdeeds of Trump.
Smarten Up or you can kiss 2020 goodbye.
4
Getting ahead of the party’s leadership is exactly what’s required. It was the DNC, not Bernie Sanders, who handed Donald Trump the presidency, don’t forget.
The leadership is to the right not only of Democrats but of the country as a whole. Popular according to polls: taxes on the rich and corporations, guaranteed healthcare to all, environmental protection, action on climate change, universal daycare, and publicly funded elections.
The illusion of a conservative America is the product of how our politicians are selected — the preelection funding selection by the donorship — reinforced by the media, which echoes the Overton window discussion and is owned by capitalists. The includes our very own NYT, which when it finally ran an editorial on universal healthcare boldly concluded that ... Americans will choose!
Progressives are championing policies Americans want enacted. The Democratic leadership knows that, and also knows where it’s bread is buttered, and so urges caution and whispers “Republicans”. The more of us who recognize that, the sooner their House of Oz will be exposed, and we can all go home.
1
@James K. Lowden
Typical Bernie Sanders supporters, refusing to accept what they wrought.
Bernie Sanders is as responsible for Trump, Nader was for Bush.
Instead of standing beside Hillary Clinton when she was the clear nominee, just as she did with Barrack Obama in 2008, Bernie hung on acting like a spoiler and a spoiled child, damaging her and giving fodder to Trump's campaign.
When Bernie finally came around grudgingly like whiny baby, and made some campaign appearances for Hillary, it was more about Bernie and his ego, rather than promoting her.
Bernie isn't a Democrat and his ego has already got a head of him, I've been a Democrat for over 50 years and a lot of the ideas he's claiming as his own, have been one's Democrats, Liberal Democrats have behind for a very long time.
Bernie is all about Bernie and NOT the greater good of the Democratic Party, Bernie is only concerned with him being the one to beat Trump, and not "A" Democrat beating Trump.
Bernie won't be the Nominee, if he is, we lose Bigtime.
3
"dismissed as unacceptable three strategies that many experts say are necessary to any solution: nuclear power"
Nuclear power is not green. We simply trade polluted air for polluted land and soil.
When we mine uranium we pollute the landscape for generations to come and doom the residents of mining communities to ill health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222290/
We have *no idea* of what to do with the waste -- other than the non-solution of "force Nevada to take it".
No New Yorker who had other options available to them would rent an apartment in building without bathrooms or trash disposal. But that's what the U.S. is being asked to do -- to generate even more waste that needs to be stored for 10,000 years even though we have *no idea* of what do with the waste.
And we don't know what to do with the waste because an answer doesn't exist -- safely storing waste for 10,000 years is the stuff of science fiction, not fact.
4
How about prior to wasting tens of trillion of $ we establish the accuracy of our "progressive's" prophesies? At this point I have zero confidence in the climate Apocalypse prophesies.
5
You may have no confidence, but climate change is real. Insects and birds and fish are moving north. Glaciers are melting. Carbon levels are rising. Of that there can be no doubt.
Income inequality is just as measurable and just as obvious. The progressivity of the tax code, ditto. Cost of education, ditto. While we don’t know exactly why productivity gains became delinked from wage growth, we have a pretty good idea, and the policies to ameliorate and perhaps reverse that trend are well understood. No need for faith.
No country spends more on healthcare than we do, and none gets less for its trouble. Every study of our system and model of alternatives reaches the same conclusion: a single-payer system would save money and lives. All the discussion is over how much and how many, and how to overcome the entrenched interests ripping us off.
Adopting green energy isn’t a waste. At one turbine per 5000 households (conservatively) at $1 million each, I estimate 16,000 turbines or $16 billion could supply the entire nation, before efficiency gains. That’s not a lot of money. One Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier — just one! — costs $13 billion. And those turbines cost virtually nothing to run!
You don’t have to believe climate prediction models, although there’s no reason not to. You can just look at what’s present and obvious, and look to see what can be done.
It would have been nice to see the NYT avoid myth building in it's intro here, there is no basis on which to claim storms or wildfires have anything to do with climate change as we understand the process today. It is predicted that certain things may occur, in the future, according to lab science. Just as we cannot say climate change is currently negatively affecting us, we cannot name what good it might do, even though scientists predict it will be beneficial for forests over 3000 feet elevation.
That stated any policy that broadens the energy cycle is smart and good. But there of course always exists unknowns and the need to be careful what you wish for is an unalterable truth of life.
4
We need action on climate change NOW! The Green New Deal is a framework to get busy! But the GND will not happen until Democrats control Congress and the White House, period. So, all of you readers in RED states, let's go! Vote out your climate denying representatives and send in the Democratic choice with a mandate to ACT on climate change. Here in Oregon we are working extremely hard to pass the Oregon Cap & Invest bill this session. All states need to be pushing their own Cap & Invest bill as a means of showing the US Congress how much support is out there now to do the GND. This country and this planet have no more time to debate this.
2
"The immediate result of this amateurish mess was to hand Mr. Trump and other climate deniers irresistible political talking points."
You bet they did! And do you think for a minute that a revised document will undo the damage?
They've given every shrill climate-change denier the chance to cry "it's proven - climate change is a hoax, a trojan horse to deliver socialism to America" and evidence to support that. "Unwilling to work" - good grief! In Trump's America of all places!
Climate Change is too huge, too serious, too deadly, to be left to a group of over-excited political juveniles who are carried away with ideas of remaking America's society and economy. They have to be told to pipe-down and sit quietly.
The political adults should have launched a Green New Deal before now - one properly conceived and drafted, and limited to carbon emissions instead of the "cheaper beer and bigger glasses" bucket list we got this week. The failure on that front is terrible too.
Our politics just seems to get more wretched and incompetent by the day.
2
Problem is, the political adults didn’t. What’s so grown-up about proposing little and doing less?
Martin Luther King was unpopular in his day. He was regularly criticized, including in this newspaper, for demanding too much too soon. He too was often told to pipe down.
He lamented those many Americans who valued order before justice, who mistook for peace the absence of violence, rather than the presence of justice.
There is no health insurance company that will support any partial expansion of Medicare. There is no fossil fuel company that will support moving any fraction of electrical generation to wind, or transportation to electricity. There is no middle ground possible, no compromise to seek. Not because I say so. Not because progressives are radical juveniles. But by their very own words and deeds.
Find me one reasonable voice in industry that accepts any curtailment of its profits for the public good. Words they may have, but workable proposals they have none. Not now, nor for the last 4 decades. They readily admit: their sole duty is to the shareholders. The rest of us must look after ourselves.
Ok. That’s what we’re doing. There’s more of us than them. Time to start.
Why is it that loners create and groupies destroy? Why does socialism lead to serfdom?
3
I understand the Green New Deal resolution to be a vision for solving a wide range of major problems facing the United States, all centered around solving the biggest problem of all, climate change.
It's important to recognize that the GND takes a systems approach that sees all parts of our economic system as interrelated; it's not just a grab bag of programs. Its premised on the belief that global warming is real, extremely dangerous, and needs to be confronted now, and that incremental fixes are no longer adequate because the reality of the problem has been denied and evaded by so many for so long.
A lot of the criticisms found online have nothing to do with
H.Res.109 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
It helps to read the resolution itself, rather than commenting on what third parties claim that it says. That's where the focus should be. Not on AOC's staff's rollout mistakes, or speculations about secret conspiracies, or personal attacks.
Personally, I'm tired of rants about Freedom!, and Communism! and Tyranny! and Stupid AOC! Mother nature doesn't do politics and couldn't care less about Ayn Rand or Karl Marx. She sets the rules. It's her way or no way. We can deny the science if we want. We'll still get the hurricanes and firestorms.
"For now, the nation must endure Mr. Trump’s boneheaded policies."
Not to mention the bone-headed policies of individual state legislatures. The State of Kentucky is currently trying to pass legislation that favors utility companies, props up coal mining and severely restricts both solar power and consumer rights to choose where they get their energy from.
It's eminently clear that the power industry is running scarred. It would be so simple for them to jump on the bandwagon and be part of the change instead of being the roadblock.
Either we are going to change where and how we get our power - or we are going to die.
The investment better be front loaded and not dribbled out why? Because our election cycle will surely bring us another conservative administration who will kick the chair out from under even the best congressional mandates to move on the GND. Somehow we need to make laws that will make it criminal to reverse environmental protection polcy in Congress. Constitutional amendment time.
"Step-by-step measures like these will suit the political temperature of most House Democrats...including the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who gave even the toned-down resolution the back of her hand — “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
No, what it's going to need are more people like #AOC, more young people like the kids in Senator Feinstein's office, growing up and wresting power from the oldsters. The world now belongs to the young people, not the 70+ / 80+ year old people who are still pulling the levers. The oldsters have no vested interest because they won't be here when things go down the tubes.
(Full disclosure: I'm 60, fast approaching oldster age. But still young enough to be here when things start going down the tubes. And young enough to know that our future lies in the hands of the young people.)
I would like to use this space to apologize to the nation for the behavior of our senior senator Diane Feinstein in her interaction with the Sunrise Movement. "I know what I am doing" said the doddering 85YO. I think not. She forgets her performance during the Kavanaugh hearings when it appeared she had no idea what was going on as Grassley call the roll. She will be gone soon leaving the climate mess to the rest of us to endure.
2
Still waiting for any data at all that supports AOC’s science-free prediction that the Earth will end in 12 years
4
Thanks for this editorial. It is about time after 50 years of "legal" climate change. See
https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
Man made global warming can easily be resolved for a few billion dollars by releasing particulate matter into the atmosphere. All this talk of CO2 bla bla bla is foolishness on a grand scale. For those that do not like the idea of particulate matter would you rather die instead? The actual science and data do not support the alarmism being created about this issue.
2
It's President Trump....not Mr. Trump. He is your president, it doesn't matter if you didn't choose him to be your President...he is. His name is President Trump.
4
Folks...it's a RESOLUTION.
It is a starting place as the "ideal".
It is a starting place for negotiations.
Seems the other sides ideal/starting place, is to pump more death into our air, water 'n soil. To let chaos and decimation continue. And the costs to do so are...?!
Multi trillions also. But the world dies and becomes inhospitable to most of man/woman kind.
Bring forth the plan from the opposition and lets hash out from there. We already agree that the current trajectory is putting the globe over the proverbial cliff. Can we at least agree to steer away from the chasm?!
By the by...lots of focus on the "Green" part of the Deal". All good 'n fine. However the "New Deal" is a huge goal line start also.
Profit Über Alles as practiced here and around the globe is also part of the problem for the vast majority of the global population.
Once again, what is the answer from the opposition to a problem affecting the globe?!
64% of 'Merica can't afford a $1000. emergency.
Profit Über Alles, is failing most Americans.
Time for a New Deal, or...?!
Begin negotiations.
1
Flashback to the 1970s......factories belched out carbon laced smoke so thick we could look directly at the orange ball called the Sun, high in the sky above the haze. Automobiles spewed out leaded gas fumes, Los Angeles had actual purple air, yellow air, pink air, and only rarely ... blue.
Winters were cold.....lasting cold.......from Oct-Nov thru to March....sometimes even April......with blizzards as the NORM.
Well....we cleaned up the air....its never been healthier....and now what? It got warmer. Along the way we determined that CFCs were creating a giant hole in the upper atmosphere Ozone Layer( even as LA basin was filling up with Ozone from auto pollution)....so we banned CFCs.....Ozone Layer healed itself(or so we are told).
Three Mile Island proved that US safety proceedures WORK....it wasnt a failure....Three Mile Island proved that the concept WORKED....but instead we stopped all design and construction on Nuclear Power.....setting USA on a path of slow de-evolution.
Now we have this revival of the UnaBomber Manifesto.
Thanks Sandy.
2
"the climate nightmare"
stop the agitprop, or suffer the consequences, which you will also inflict on the rest of us. Is Trump not enough for you?
3
I turned in a 10-page term paper in 1983 on global warming.
Got an A.
And, have had to listen to climate deniers for almost 40 years.
40 years.
Now you can understand why Republicans, evangelicals, Libertarians and corporate vultures have earned my undying scorn.
"...not a single question about climate change was asked of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump."
Yes, I'm sure that some wit will place that on our global gravestone.......
1
I’m just saying, look at my congressional district CA 01. Our rep firmly denies climate change, gets contributions from fossil fuel, and claims that environmental regulations harm economic interests. He stands firm that climate has not led to these awful wildfire conditions. And he absorbs the horrible tragedies and losses of his constituents in Redding and Paradise, never budging on his climate position. He cannot, will not question his position because of his interests. I don’t know how he does this. I have heard it’s a religious ability.
So isn’t that a huge story? Did the Times cover it?
Or what about the over 1000 “scientists “ whom skeptics claim legitimately undermine anthropogenic climate change theories? People really believe these “facts” and use them in social media, letters to the editor, on-line blogs, and their opinions really are formed stronger by it. People get angry, passionate, ready to fight. But Take a close look at those references. Wow! It’s incredibly bogus! What a story!! Did The Times cover it?
So write profound editorials, yes. But let’s get going on exposing this Climate Denial Lobby for what it is. It’s not about someone’s opinion. It’s a willful and effective campaign to preserve fossil fuel interests. At the expense of every human beings’ health and safety. Duh! But let’s have the details. Please.
1
Putting the government in charge of anything is a waste, period. America cannot afford a "Green New Deal" from the government. America spent $500 million on Solyndra and the only thing "green" about that deal was all the money given to Solyndra, Thanks to Obama.
3
Agreed
Thanks for writing this editorial
1
The equation is simple. Short term profits for a handful of industries, or saving the planet from an unenviable fate. Sometimes I wonder how many alien words out there were maybe lost long ago due to the foolish decisions of their leaders. There is no second Earth, no backup plan, no reserve. We fix the problems we have here today with a concerted, decisive effort, spending as much money as necessary to do so and save the planet for all the people who will come after us, or we bury our heads in the sand until we can't breathe any more.
151
@Ryan Butler Short term profits for a few industries at the risk of the longer term well being of humanity sums up why capitalism is increasingly maligned. The change in our conscientiousness in the field of macroeconomics, which in large part is not management(socialism) but mere observance of economic events-capitalism.
8
AGW is still an unproven theory that relies on computer models that have either been dead wrong or way over-estimating in the amount of warming that has happened already which has been small to the point of negligible. The oceans have been rising at the same rate ever since measurements have been taken. The oceans have not been warming at 40 or 50% faster than predicted. Try studying the findings of real climatologists that are not paid by the government or other left wing groups that require a certain conclusion that satisfies the elite ruling class that seeks to control the masses. Climatology is a complicated science and there are many variables that make up changes in temperature, not just CO2 which is a trace gas that amounts to .04% of the atmosphere. The earth has been warming ever since the last ice age and that is what we're seeing now.
The Green New Deal is a laughable disaster in the making.
The oceans
2
@George Fisher - you don't present any of the "real climatologists" you claim are smarter than the rest. You are probably referring to the very few who are paid to produce cover for the fossil industry - like Willie Soon with his "deliverables".
Reality is that greenhouse gases work the way they have long before humans started digging up coal and oil and producing the latest burst of greenhouse gas. Nature will respond the same way - warming the planet and also chemically altering the oceans.
Lying about a problem isn't how problems get solved.
1
I applaud the NYT editorial board for not issuing a blanket endorsement of the new green deal. Converting our power grid to 100% solar and wind and then adding enough additional capacity for all of our transportation, heating and industrial needs isn’t even remotely possible.
The cost may run as high as $50 to $75 trillion dollars. Why? Battery storage costs and the insane amounts of land the government would have to purchase to install large scale solar and wind farms.
There is a solution. I would encourage everyone to read the recently published A Bright Future by Goldstein and Qvist. Sweden rapidly decarbonized their economy in about 15 years through a combination of solar, wind and nuclear. It plainly shows the issues with a grid made up of 100% solar and wind, speaks to the safety and waste issues with next gen nuclear and considers the cost of this strategy.
It completely changed my thinking on this issue and if nothing else is a coherent explanation of why 100% wind and solar will never be possible.
2
The 'green new deal' is a self-aggrandizing rhetorical bludgeon by believers meant to end pragmatic discussion. It makes one wonder whether its proponents want action or press attention.
7
Dianne Feinstein Lectures Children Who Want Green New Deal, Portraying It as Untenable
4
We know what petroleum, meat consumption and overpopulation are doing to the ecosphere of Earth.
Despair is never the answer- real, structural changes are in order that are fully compatible with a comfortable (and sustainable) lifestyle.
Solutions? That's what we're all looking for. Thankfully they are easily within reach:
* Seriously consider having children. The planet has already surpassed its limit in terms of human population. Shun efforts to attack entities like Planned Parenthood and policies that seek to erode reproductive rights.
* Adopt a plant-based diet as soon as is practically possible.
* Forgive yourself if you voted for Donald, then only vote for environmentally responsible politicians.
And Have A Nice Day
4
Great callout! What is at stake here is whether the Democrats are a party with leadership or a bunch of reactionaries zigzagging all over the place. The election will hinge on which GND version, the Ocasio-Cortez (Trump wins) or the Friedman version (the country wins), moves to center stage. I have personally lost respect for any of the presidential candidates who have endorsed the former without the kind of more diligent analysis that the Times Editorial Board has described in this article.
3
If Democrats in Congress want to be taken seriously, they should put together a package of serious, well-thought-out proposals, not a slap-dash product like the Green New Deal. The GND is a fantasy, a wish list compiled by those who believe the federal government is the solution to all problems. Of course it is not, and the idea that we all pool our money and let politicians decide how to spend it--the central financing mechanism of our Progressive brothers and sisters--is a recipe for authoritarianism and economic collapse. Anyway, America is not close to buying in to the "new" socialism of young Progressives, so enjoy the fantasy but don't expect anything real to come of it.
4
The Green New Deal is a wish list, not a blueprint or even a plan. It is a list of good things, so ambitious that accomplishing half of them, in the next ten or twenty or thirty years, would take something close to a miracle.
If the Democrats come back into power in a few years, it will make sense for them to see how much of this wish list can actually be implemented. Some things, especially some hinging on new technologies, may turn out to be more practical than could have been predicted. But a lot of the goals will remain out of reach.
What the Democrats must not do is pretend that the Green New Deal is a plan that they can reasonably hope to implement as a whole. If in power they would fall so far short of delivering on any such promise that the backlash, especially from their base but also from voters not in their base, could be pretty bad.
2
The Green New Deal has done more to harm the planet than it has done to put forth any productive idea about improving it. And the Democrats intended this because they it was put forth by AOC. The purpose of this was to alienate as many conservatives as possible not to further the plan. The typical and well-worn approach of "Us vs Them" was used once again. The NYTs is one of the main heralds of this approach.
3
Yeah, because if you’re careful enough and polite enough, Trumpists will just swoon.
@Dixon Duval - the Republicans have been presenting exactly what as an alternative? I wish the climate plan had been a climate/energy plan rather than the grandiose picture marred by what her staff briefly posted, but when we compare Democrat and Republican climate action plans at the national level, what we see are
(D) working to deal with the issue
(R) running backwards and making things worse
@b fagan I don’t disagree; however tit for tat is no strategy either. AOC is the worst possible messenger.
2
Just a side note: “Carbon capture” is a phony technology cooked up by fossil fuel companies to create the fiction that we can keep burning fossil fuels without any consequences. It’s too expensive to be practical, has never worked at scale and is subject to leakage (depending on the scheme).
It’s primary use by politicians is to tip the hat to oil and coal interests and to look more reasonable and centrist. Even Obama talked about “clean coal,” which was then and now a fantasy.
3
Yes, we need to applaud the success of the Green New Deal advocates in bringing our battle against climate change back onto center stage. But as this editorial points out, saving the planet is a worthy-enough cause, and it’s a bad idea to complicate things by marrying this cause with additional issues.
Bundling the fight against climate change with a call for socialism is a particular problem. The inclusion of the socialism issue renders the GND a very tough sell politically.
But there’s even a bigger problem. What made the U.S. such a great country is our mastering of commerce and technology. The GND people say the way to save the planet is partly to deny ourselves – e.g., nothing but electric cars in ten years. But they seem clueless as to how to get those electric cars.
The way forward is not through socialism but by turning lose the forces of capitalism and developing innovative new technologies for energy, transportation, and agriculture. We need to put the unique abilities of the U.S. to work to advance new technology that not only will work much better but will also generate wonderful new jobs for our distressed American workers. We've done this kind of thing throughout our history. And that’s the power we need to turn lose once again if we really do want to save the planet.
So yes, we need to fight climate change and save the planet. But if we want the U.S. to lead the way on this we have to divorce this epic fight from a call for socialism.
4
If you made every vehicle in the United States presently running on a combustible fuel, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, convert to electricity, you wouldn’t reduce the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, unless every single electric generating facility was converted to either, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, or sun. All you would do is move the carbon dioxide from the vehicles exhaust to the stacks of the power plant. Conservation of energy. The energy required to charge your vehicle’s batteries would be transferred to your nearest electric generating facilities, which run on a carbon based fuel, i.e. natural gas, or coal or perhaps diesel. I’m sure all the electric utilities would be happy to accommodate the conversion to all electric vehicles.
6
@jwgibbs - that's not correct, for a few reasons, but first take a look at the emissions calculator from the Department of Energy - in no state, even those still addicted to coal power, is a gas car lower emissions than an electric or a hybrid. In most states today, electrics are the lowest-emissions way to get around.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
First is that generating electricity on the grid is a more efficient use of fossil fuel than burning gas or diesel in a car or truck
Second is that many states are far along with moving off of fossil for electricity - only a few states still cling to coal.
True, generating electricity is slightly more efficient use of combustible fuels than a gas or Diesel engine but not enough to make a big difference in CO2 emissions.
I would like to hear more from the engineers. I took a course on energy and the instructor said that it is pretty doable to get the grid 35% renewable, then, it from an engineering perspective becomes much more difficult and expensive. In addition, the most beneficial place for wind energy is off the coasts near the big population centers due to steadier ocean breezes and limited line loss due to the proximity to these centers. I make these observations from the perspective of a person who wants to use resources where the biggest impact can be achieved fairly quickly. So, more technical information in the NYT would be appreciated.
5
@Robert -- indeed getting the physics and engineering right is good, and one might hope that the NYT would do that. So far they have not; I suspect because they think (perhaps correctly?) that most readers don't care and don't have the patience or background needed to learn.
That course you took must have been a while ago, and some of what you were taught was wrong then.
Today many large areas get much more than 35% of their electric power from renewables: Denmark often goes over 100% (exporting the excess), California frequently goes over 50%.
In the USA the lowest-cost wind energy is on land, in the "wind stripe" that goes roughly from North Dakota down to West Texas, and a few other vert windy areas (parts of Wyoming, etc) Offshore wind is not yet fully cost-competitive due to much higher capital costs. Progress on those costs has been good enough that it's starting to be viable.
Long-distance transmission va HVDC is effective and economic -- major problem(s) are NIMBY, and the fact that there is not free interstate commerce -- electric power has been a regulated utility in every state of the union and this regulation plus taxation considerations has made many states into legal power oligopolies.
1
@Robert
General Engineer, federal agency, 30 years of which 10 exclusively in energy programming and implementation. Admittedly, I do not maintain a custom, real-time matrix of generic opportunities. But, from my experience:
Investor-owned public utilities are rooted and predatory. They will recover their investments and will fight for new generation. They are motivated to be vertically integrated: own the fuel, own the carbon collection (if it comes to that). Utility commissioners are appointed by politicians and are generally not unified to push back on utility's urgent claims for more generation capacity to augment existing spinning reserves. It's a race to own the future and the future is losing.
Some large customers face Exit Fees to escape their utility. Pricing structures typically undercut every customer's incentive to augment with on-site photovoltaic panels or even to invest in energy-saving upgrades.
Job 1 is to contain these utilities to their role: public necessity at public's discretion. My assumption is that each interconnected grid needs more capacity for distributed generation. The power, prowess, and progress of the independent system operators FOR THE PUBLIC "GREEN" GOOD would seem to be paramount. Tax-free status for renewable generation and liberating demand reduction programs from the utilities' clutches would decouple fossil fuel with the utilities' reduced entrenchment.
2
Major problems that nobody on these pages discusses are grid instability in more heavily industrialized economies. Cali imports a lot of power and Denmark is not a manufacturing titan. Germany has experienced difficulties with balancing power across their grid. Large rotating machines do not respond well to spikes / drops in voltage & current.
Do trust corporate interests to provide a stable consistent benefits package?
Exactly! Exactly what Ive been telling my Republican Henny Penny friends. The GND is not a hard and fast, set in stone legislation. Its a proposal, and solely a means to get the nation talking about what various parties don't want us talking about! Even our dopey POTUS doesn't want us talking about this,because it will only confuse and distract from what he wants us talking about - him!
Not only do we need this conversation started and followed thru on, but we need New Deals for racism, sexism, education, workers protections, consumer protections, systemic poverty, health care, public safety, infrastructure and personal privacy issues...to name a few.
The reality is; "We the people" need NEW DEALS across the board of issues in the US. We need newer, fresher, more modern and innovative plans on most everything IF we desire to move into the next phases of modernity.
Many bemoan and rant against AOC, and any like her, yet the reality is she's absolutely spot-on when it comes to the reality that the US has to stop listening to the old nay-saying voices in Govt now, and start looking to the future.
McConnell, Graham, et al, do not care about solving anything. Trump absolutely wont solve anything. Most of the Repubs are now afraid of their own shadows.
2020 should be all about NEW DEALS for the issues facing the US. 2020 should be the turning point, not simply away from the deplorable ideas of the Trumpists, but towards the new age facing not only the US, but the world.
1
I vote exclusively for the Green Party, not the neo-liberal Democrats or the neo-conservative Republicans. I think climate change is the only issue of importance.
However, the Green New Deal tries to transform American society without even motivating why that is necessary for climate change. As such, it is not politically possible for it to succeed.
Politics is the art of the possible. Unfortunately, it seems that the author of the Green New Deal has not learned that.
3
@No green checkmark: We have Ralph Nader and the Grren Party to thank for the electoral loss of Al Gore, who was very much in favor of measures to combat global warming. The perfect is the enemy of the good. We could have been so much further in combating climate change if not for the "Prinzipienreiters" Green Party... Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
@Anna
No. We have Bill Clinton to thank for Al Gore's loss. If Bill had done the right thing and resigned, instead of getting off on dragging us all through his messes, Al would have been a shoe-in in 2000.
1
The debate around the Green New Deal, aspirational or otherwise, is exclusively US-centric, thereby ignoring the responsibility of the rest of the world. At present the US contributes 15% of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2. A powerful counterpoint can be made to towards achieving our GND: can we expect the rest of the world (predominantly China, EU, India, Russia and Japan who combined emit 55%) to make similar sacrifices, as well as assist the remaining nations (30% of global emission) in achieving their goal through aid from us and a few other wealthy economies?
Global warming is by far our and the world's greatest existential threat and where most of our resources should be focused, even at the expense of other social and military options. Will the world's nations scale back their military ambitions to achieve the emission goals? Are we wiling to undertake wealth redistribution, not only as a nation, but among the poorer nations as well? From what I sense as a prevailing political attitude, I doubt it very much. Nevertheless an all out press on the domestic front and on an international scale is required if we hope to at least prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Unfortunately even the average American voter doesn't comprehend the full calamity and the enormous sacrifice we would have to make.
3
@Rudy Ludeke
Your comments fall flat in saying "all out press on the domestic front and on an international scale is required if we hope to at least prevent the worst consequences of global warming." You say this after admitting a skepticism about "our willingness to undertake wealth redistribution, not only as a nation, but among the poorer nations."
Any honest assessment of the GND knows that it would wreak havoc with the US economy. But it is said that it would be worth it if it saves mankind. However, unless the rest of the world joined the US in the GND, the US's heroic efforts would hardly make a difference, making the US economic martyrs, crippling us to the advantage of other countries.
The developing world making the sacrifices imbedded in the GND that are necessary to head off global warming are not going to happen.
Does this mean we must despair of a solution? No, but it is certain that if one exists it will not be anything like a global GND. It is a long shot, but a globally acceptable solution may, for example, come, in-part, from research being actively pursued by institutions around the world to greatly increase through genetic engineering the atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake of algae that would wind up as large deposits of carbon deposited on the oceans floor .
If a solution will be found it will come out of geo-engineering research that navigates not only the technological, but also economic and sociological constraints of the problem.
Environmentalists are going to have to get over their opposition to safe nuclear power plants. It has to be a part of the Green Deal mix, unfortunately. Global ecological collapse is a greater emergency than the storage of nuclear waster. It is just is.
1
No US Corp has been able to build a nuclear plant on budget, even if the budget is Billions, or within a decade, so new nuclear is a moot issue/non issue. Existing nuclear plants are failing economically because they cannot match current grid demands and cost a LOT to operate. What “environmentalists” want is irrelevant relative to nuclear because it is failing due to inherent limitations, but thanks for the red herring anyway. New Yorkers can’t effectively evacuate four counties or afford to replace NYC if Indian Point has an “accident” or is attacked, that is only the fault of ConEd who put the region at risk with the original siting of the facility.
2
@Cherry picker
The fact that new nuclear power plants are not even considered at present is not environmentally based, but economic. Electricity generated by nuclear reactors is presently not competitive, nor will it in the future as natural gas prices and solar/wind generated costs keep declining. Russia is now the biggest builder of nuclear generating stations and the biggest installer both domestically and abroad. The US cannot match Russia's lower labor costs.
3
@Rudy Ludeke - no western nation wants to match Russian safety-design standards.
People need to understand that 1) nuclear energy is a necessary component of any attempt to significantly reduce carbon output, and 2) nuclear energy is extremely safe and will only improve in that regard.
Until nuclear energy is understood by "ordinary folks" and until it is widely employed, the rest amounts to little more than flapping of gums.
4
@Bill -- I am a PhD engineer/scientist who worked for a decade at the DOE Hanford lab. I am not "anti-nuclear." Your simplistic claims betray the obvious: you don't know what you are talking about.
30 years ago I would have agreed that there was no proven technology capable of powering the economy without CO2 other than nuclear fission. Today the reality is that wind and solar are both cheaper than nuclear power, and both are getting cheaper very quickly. Both have far less societal risks than fission.
It's true that these resources are intermittent. Long-distance transmission, storage, and backup are the solution in some combination.
The capital costs of nuclear power are so high that it cannot compete in the backup/peaking role. In the near term that will be natural-gas-fired combined cycle (as it is today), in the longer term it is likely to be biomass-fired ditto.
3
@Bill
Sounds logical Bill and I agree. But the left tossed out nuclear power permanently after Three Mile Island.
The only thing they fear more than fossil fuels is atomic reactors.
They think energy is some form of magic that they can invent along the way.
We have an on demand electrical grid system in the United States which both solar and wind cannot fill.
Without some massive leap in battery technology wind and solar are unicorn dreams.
If the left really desires to cease using fossil fuels then the only immediate solution is nuclear; but they truly fear that Genie.
1
@Bill
Nuclear energy is uneconomical in the US. Presently 20% of our electric energy is nuclear generated, but most plants are reaching their design life expectancy within the next 5-10 years. A half dozen or so will opt for decommissioning, the rest may consider re-licensing. Furthermore, no new plants are being proposed. Even if some were, the planning, licensing and building process would last nearly a decade. And this assumes no legal delaying actions by people opposing having them in their neighborhood. Without heavy government subsidies there is no incentive to go the nuclear route.
2
A green new deal is a good direction for the country but only after its separation from AOC and her crowd. How can you take anyone seriously who advocates economic security for those unwilling to work? She only takes away from the seriousness of a global threat.
4
Look at economic growth and rates of pollution. To defend our kids, we have to be able to put food on the table without poisoning them in ten years' time. Else a green grid will power more pollution.
Clinging to jobs got us here. If families have security in basic food and water and health and education. How many would be terrified to give up their fuel job that's poisoning their kids? How many would fight for their poisoned paycheck rather than risk building windmills for a living?
In a century of automation, how many 'jobs' do we need?
Jobs are killing us. Work is something else. We each need to find good work to do all day shrinking our footprint, but fewer jobs.
@Mike the appropriate term for those unwilling to work is parasite. Our nation was built by those willing to work. To encourage an increase in parasites is beyond belief.
2
It’s fine to have lofty aspirational goals such as those of the GND. The devil will be in the details of how real policy is enacted. In the end there will be practical limitations as well as the necessary compromises to pass any legislation.
But it’s Imperative we act. States like California have demonstrated robust energy efficiency programs can work without stifling economic growth. Our state economy recently moved up to the equivalent of the fifth spot among world economies. Energy efficiency also makes our economy more competitive and saves money. Those saved resources can be spent on other priorities both directly by consumers as well as state and local governments.
Given the gravity of the looming catastrophe and the decades already wasted, the equivalent of a moon shot or Manhattan project will still be needed. All options need to be on the table along with a robust research and development program. A price on carbon is essential for the market to feel an incentive and to sort efforts among emerging options. Higher energy efficiency standards are often listed as low hanging fruit. I’m also not opposed to nuclear as a bridge strategy if the economics and safety allow. And it’s also essential we recognize overpopulation is a major contributor to environmental degradation. Adding 80 million yearly to our numbers is not sustainable.
Where will we get the money? Oil companies, the undertaxed wealthy, and paybacks from efficiency and a sustainable economy.
3
The Green New Deal is not anywhere near enough required.
The Paris Agreement is not anywhere near enough, nor cap and trade, nor a whole host of other nibble around the edges plans.
''...a serious issue that has had serious trouble gaining traction — to a commanding position in the national conversation. That alone is reason to applaud it.'' - THIS is how the republican party has pulled the political spectrum, country and essentially world so radically to the right over a couple of decades now.
They push and pull (no matter who says what or what the political dynamic may be) and have gotten almost everything they have wanted. Taxes are ridiculously low on the rich, and infrastructure of the nation is crumbling or wiped out. They are extreme again and again, and then when pausing for just a moment, are declared by the press as ''moderate''.
We need to do the same.
It's going to take an all of the above strategy, and for the press to do their job. This is NOT an equivalent argument, because 97 out of a 100 scientists declare it to be a crisis, while 3 are naysayers.
Just the term '' crisis'' needs to be repeated over and over and over, just as much as the press (and President) like to use the term for what is happening at the southern border. (it is NOT a crisis)
The press (and we) need to use the terms ''civilization'' and ''extinguished'' in the same sentence too. Scientists say as much if we do nothing.
We are campaigning or telling the truth.
Our choice.
3
Sadly, there never would have been New Deal 1.0 if there had not first been the calamity of the Great Depression. I'm afraid things will have to get a whole lot worse before anyone is going to be willing to take the leap that is the Green New Deal.
And I question why a "green" deal of any kind needs to be loaded up with other platform planks, like guaranteed annual income and free education.
1
@Juvenal451 Good question that has a good answer. The massive technological transformation called for will displace lots of people even as it creates lots of new jobs, opportunity and innovation. We need a plan for helping people through the economic and technological transformation. This is on par with a war time effort. You don't leave your wounded on the battlefield. A great shared effort calls for great shared support.
3
@Russ Payne Point taken. But there are as many jobs available recovering from climate change as there are preventing climate change.
"..an ambitious plan to tackle climate change (and a lot else, too)"
A big problem with the proposal is within the parenthesis.
4
The basis of the GND is that the entire economy and all human and animal activity are to be totally controlled by one person-AOC. What are her qualifications for this task? Has this approach ever worked before in human history?
4
I think Americans will come around to more investment, solar panels, etc - things that don't affect them very much.
Where the fight against climate change will fall apart is when Americans are required to:
1. Stop driving pickup trucks (or any vehicle that gets less than 50 mpg).
1A. Make do with 14 second 0-60 times.
2. Stop eating so much meat.
3. Get rid of all their gas powered weekend toys.
4. Need to live in smaller, more energy efficient houses.
5. With those houses located so that people don't need to drive 20,000 miles a year to live.
6. Where goods come from nearby, dramatically reducing what is for sale at Walmart.
7. Where one travels on an airplane once every few years.
And on and on and on. As another commenter wrote, it's a 2/3rds existence. I'm fine with it and our household is well down the path, but I'm guessing upwards of 85% of Americans would simply not consent to these personal restraints.
3
@djt
The trick is to price carbon appropriately and offer more efficient alternatives. Electric cars are cheaper to maintain and can be just as peppy. Battery technology steadily improves. Houses that are more efficient can be just as comfortable while cheaper to heat and cool. Simple economics will drive even red staters towards more sustainable lifestyles.
@Djt
Do whatever you want, but don't presume that you can dictate to me what I do.
@jaco
Exactly. You are going to ride the ship down. Totally normal, average human response. At any time, there is only a small percentage of a society that is able to make a personal change to save the commons. I’m one. You aren’t.
Back in the late 60s and early 70s, when I was just a tyke, I recall hearing all about the danger to the Ozone. The political system passed some laws, created the EPA and the problem was solved.
Today? That doesn’t happen.
Why? Because our political system is broken.
Why? Because wealth has been concentrating for the last 47+ years (the number of years the median was has remained flat).
The wealthy buy the elites and the legislators, enough anyway, to keep anything from happening.
So the political system needs to be fixed. The Green New Deal creates pressure to do that.
For starters I would make all campaign financing publicly financed, to mute the power of special interests over the public interest. (The needs of the many out weigh the few). I would limit lobbying to nothing more than passing information/discussion. Public officials, elected or not elected, should not be allowed to be given gifts by private interests.
Then I would make all publically traded limited liability corporations (and the like) - which are a form of collective ownership, have to have at least a company union for ALL employees, and that union should have two seats on the board of directors - they have a stronger interest in a corporation succeeding than shareholders and other board members, who flip their stocks with a flick of their cell phones.
Let’s see what that does to the distribution of bargaining power, and with it, what would happen to the median wage.
2
@Tim Kane
A big difference from replacing Freon...it was limited in scope and replaced by a different refrigerant that was just as easy to manufacture and apply.
Energy is needed as it pervades everything we do and much more difficult to replace since other sources of energy are just not as energy dense and easy to distribute as fossil fuels....that is just physics.
2
“The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
Speaker Pelosi did mock H.R. 109's strong suit, wildly emotional support. But, at the time, she was beating back wildly emotional support for spendthrift legislation on a symbolic wall. So, personally, I wouldn't chuck the talents of her or Senator Feinstein just because a contingent of rising activists received a measured response to the "And The Kitchen Sink" war plan.
I've read H.R. 109. It's wildly ambitious because many citizens respond to a mighty, indestructible tree growing-up through the tracks of laissez-fair growth.
The appeal to stop Trump Train is an undeniable force for MANY reasons. Should an opposition force be harnessed to mitigate cataclysms of global warming? Yes, but..
Trump failed because he put no effort into unified effort. Trump failed because he could not share power within his own party (to begin with). Trump failed because a radical Hard Right, the spawn of Super Donors, Super PAC's, and Super Attacks, was embraced to the point that Trump had to prove his fealty to Rush and Coulter.
We need Democratic leaders, not subcontractors to an emerging Hard Left. The passion and advocacy in the H.R. 109 war plan is fantastic because people committing to uncomfortable change is necessary. But keep the Kitchen Sink lashed to a Deck of Logic for heaven's sake. We can't have it tumbling about, just because opportunists thrive on in-fighting.
2
@Able Nommer: thank you for this. Very well and reasonably stated.
@Able Nommer You appear to know little about this topic. Trump had few powerful donors. He spent far less than Hillary did. Basically Trump is his own man and the left cannot handle that fact. He is everything the leftists wish they could be but are not. In the end Trump's ideas are working because these are the things that have been proven to work. In 6 more years we can read how horrible Pence is next.
1
Physic still bats last. Any future power source will be more expensive and more difficult to distribute because of lower energy density. The Green deal is naïve. Turning over 80 quads of energy in the US and 450 quads worldwide will take about 50 to 100 years and that is with a massive effort.
Renewables are not really “renewable” since they require massive amounts of mined material—which do not magically appear out of nowhere. The infrastructure changes for renewables is greatly increased as the sources must be spread over large areas and that is not needed for conventional plants. Their energy density is low and capacity factor is poor overall. This means more materials---about 50 to 100 times more—plus more cables more entry points to the ring busses. This make it all more expensive along with a much higher replacement cycle of about 20 to 30 years compared to conventional plants which last 40 to 50 years or so. This is not accounted for in “levelized” costs very well or at all.
Germany and Denmark generate electricity that is the most expensive in Europe. Germany’s carbon footprint per capita is about twice that of France. Two decades of zero progress on CO2.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/renewable-limits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/
6
@glennmr The base load problem is also something that would multiply the cost of renewable energy. Right now solar and stuff piggy backs off coal and nuke that provide the 24 hour baseline of power. For solar and such to do this there would have to be massive costly battery or energy storage facilities created. This would cause the costs to sky rocket. Waiting appears to be the best path forward at the moment.
As an admirer of Feinstein and Pelosi, I am very disappointed by their dismissal of the Green New Deal. This is a failure of vision among our most senior (no offense!) leadership. They claim to understand the stakes, citing concern for their grandchildren, but clearly the stakes are not high enough for them to correct the bad Boomer policies they enacted.
I have not thought this before, but when we have dealt with Trump, it will be high time to replace every politician who fails to recognize our one true national and global emergency with those who have more skin in the game.
3
A revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best way to begin lowering CO2 emissions. Unrealistic, grandiose plans like the GND actually set the nation back, just as do all the exaggerations about climate change. We need to think about climate change as a policy problem not as an opportunity for replacing capitalism with socialism and certainly not as an opportunity for grandstanding politicians to rally their extremist base.
2
The data on Hurricanes shows no trend at all, with the possible exception of higher rates of intensification in some regions. The worst California drought of the past millennium occurred in the 12th century, and an order of magnitude more land area burned there each year prior to European settlement.
The climate is getting warmer and there will be a variety of consequences, but the doomsday hysteria we see today is a great match for the Green New Deal hype when what we actually need are rational, specific policies to move the country's environmental and economic policies in a positive direction and to help other nations do the same. Pelosi and Klobuchar may be boring old liberals without the glamour appeal of AOC, but political, technological and economic realism will get more done than the sort of hyperventilating on display of late.
5
The immediate task before us is to greatly increase R&D in photovoltaics (electricity from sunlight). As pointed out by Bruce Rozenblit in his post, we face a massive, lengthy, expensive undertaking to replace fossil fuels.
Here’s a short physics lesson. Most of our electricity is produced by electromagnetic induction which was discovered by Michael Faraday in the early 1800s. We boil water, mostly using heat from burning fossil fuels or from nuclear reactions (ugh), to create pressurized steam that is directed against the angled blades of a giant metal fan to turn a giant magnet surrounded by coiled copper wire. Voila, electric current flows in the copper! Water pressure, wind, and natural geothermal water can replace fossil fuels and nuclear in the fan-turning step, but a breakthrough in efficient photovoltaic generation will be the game changer wrt to lowering CO2 emissions.
I completely agree with this. I don't sign on with everything in the Green New Deal, but so far it offers us an unequivocal, uncompromised political platform for addressing climate change. We need that, and we need it loud and big.
But for heaven's sake, less finger-wagging and scolding and more "moon shot" please. We can achieve massive changes but we have to tout the benefits to ordinary people. Lots of jobs, for instance. Energy independence for thousands of years.
The urgency of working toward tackling climate change is so obvious the US must move forward.
They should also move forward with term limits for Senators, Congressional representatives and Supreme Court members. Two terms would work. It definitely looks as though 30, 40 years and longer do not. For some it is past time to retire.
1
B = PL
This is judge Learned Hand’ formula for determining liability (for recklessness - taught in 1st year Tort law classes).
liability turns on the relation between investment in precaution (B) & the product of the probability (P) & magnitude (L) of harm resulting from the accident.
If PL exceeds B then the defendant should be liable.
What this means is, if probability is low (as Climate change deniers would say) but the magnitude of the harm resulting from the incident is extremely high, then a liability for taking precautions emerges, provided the precautions are not greater than harm x probability.
The harm in this case is catastrophic. Hundreds of millions of people live within a few meters of sea level in the Ganges river delta alone. The cost of bringing New Orleans back from the dead was billions. The California wild fires cost is estimated at $400 billion.
So lets say, to the deniers, put your money where your mouth is. If you believe that climate change is nothing to worry about then you have to sign up for liability for its effects.
How much liability should the Koch brothers be assessed for their efforts to stymie our efforts to remedy Global Climate Change. What portion of the $400 billion in California fires should they liable for?
Maybe the State of California should bring a Tort action against the Koch brothers and their fellow travellor billionaires in court. If they can prove a material link, California can receive a partial remedy from them.
6
These are not out-of-the-box, radical ideas. They used to seem novel some 4 decades ago, when the new energy paradigm--focusing on energy services rather barrels of oil or megawatts of installed capacity--tried to change the energy policy discourse. Of course, those who produced barrels and megawatts were not willing to go away.
Today, with revolutions in rooftop solar, lighting devices that use one tenth the energy as before to produce the same illumination, and many, many successful decentralized, community-scale food-energy-water models around the world, those who are well-informed are raring to go and innovate further. And then, of course, there are shifts in attitudes, values, and behavior concerning consumption and lifestyles.
In this context, and especially when one recalls how truly stark and 'radical' the original goals of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts of the 1970s were, the AOC-Markey proposal seems not just doable, but necessary. This tepid endorsement of the NGD by the NYT Editorial team may someday belong in a museum of half-hearted climate policy recommendations, to paraphrase the great Greta Thunberg.
4
Both Representative Pelosi and Senator Feinstein have an opportunity to embrace a wonderful idea, idealistic as it is. For some reason they can’t see that what lies before them is a magnet having the potential of uniting the Democratic Party. Pelosi called it “a green dream or whatever they call it” and Feinstein, when asked by passionate youngsters to support the Green New Deal, in a telling moment, told them it won’t work and you can tell that to whomever sent you.
I’m grateful to the Times for stressing the role of Senator Markey, a seasoned warrior in the battle for sensible climate control, since the Republicans see our own local Representative Ocasio-Cortez as an easy target to heckle. She is an idealist but conservatives call her a socialist. If idealists are to be labeled socialist then the Democratic Party will find that many of us who have Social Security and Medicare are socialist. It was social policies welded to regulated capitalism that helped us through the Great Depression.
The Republican Party calls Climate Change a hoax! It’s time for the Democratic Party’s senior politicians to find ways to bridge the generational gap to help guide the new generation in forging something solid and real to confront the greatest threat to our global civilization. If Senator Markey and Senator Sanders can do it, why can Senator Feinstein and House Chair Pelosi?
1
As an ideology the Green New Deal is the cumulation of what many have wanted politically to express. The concern is answering lack of fact on the right with lack of fact....and leaving no side based in realism. Math is lacking in the GND and that doesn’t mean to not try and pursue its desires.
Barbara Feinstein is far more correct than people want to believe. But hard truths are necessary. Ask Puerto Rico about its economy before the storm. Unachievable promises, and then they met with a natural disaster and a racist administration. We need achievability with our ideologies, not hype.
1
Attaching a long list of seemingly unrelated progressive items to inspirational net greenhouse gas reduction can make the Green New Deal look like a ploy to shift policies to the left.
However, integrating a social impact discussion to a proposed major technological and economic shift away from fossil carbon is critical to get popular support behind a government led sharp turn.
So bravo for the attempt to have inspirational view of GHG technical and economic solutions specifying whose to benefit from the economic "dislocation".
By the same token, we should have a serious political discussion about other technology disruptions like robotics and AI and how their benefits get shared in such a way to not further increase social and economical inequality or better yet decrease those.
1
The Democratic party has failed to properly frame and advocate on this issue for at least twenty years. The idea that the bought and paid for republicans will use climate change as anything more than a club to beat on their opponents is wildly optimistic. Veteran democrats who control the political levers must help the less politically experienced new members instead of hindering them. It is their future that is being destroyed.
1
So if we destroy our economy redesigning our energy grid, what of China, India, Africa, South America, etc. None of these places have governments who care about climate change. It will be a Pyrrhic victory. Climate change will continue. We will be in total decline.
4
@C As a South African, I can tell you you're dead wrong on that point. Climate change is affecting our country as profoundly as it is affecting yours. We too see droughts and wildfires. This is a global issue and China and India (to name two on your list) are in fact making very profound changes to the way they harvest energy, and are in many ways ahead of the US on this issue.
I'm keeping a copy of this editorial for when I start my "Kayak Tours of Manhattan and Miami" business in about 10 or 15 years -- the soon-to-be new Venices of North America. I would include Sanibel and Captiva, but they won't be there any longer. Ditto for Cape Hatteras and Galveston. I guess one way or another we'll be past the "national conversation" stage by then.
4
@sgoodwin
With global mean sea level rising at 3mm/yr, you'll need to invent flying kayaks.
1
The Times and many of its readers should be careful what they wish for.
NYC is heavily dependent on electric power. The Indian Point nuclear power plant provides 25% of the ciy’s power. The decision, probably now irreversible, has been made to shut down one of Indian Point’s two remaining reactors a year from now, and the other two years from now.
The goal is to replace the carbon-free nuclear power with fossil fuel power from natural gas. Nuclear power has real and serious risks, as the Fukushima catastrophe illustrates; so shutting down Indian Point may be the right choice near NYC. But the power NYC needs must come from somewhere, and the environmental movement and nimbyism appear to have blocked the construction of gas pipelines. As a result, ConEd is putting a moratorium on new natural gas hookups in much of Westchester.
Solar and wind power are the major eco-friendly sources of power, but they are intermittent, providing electricity only when the sun shines or the wind blows. It’s hard to store large amounts of power. The only practical method today is probably pumped storage. The last major attempt to implement pumped storage in the NYC area, at Storm King Mountain, was blocked by environmentalists during the 1970’s. This decision may well come back to haunt the city.
Hopefully, the folks in charge have done the math right, and the lights will not go out when Indian Point shuts down. Keep your fingers crossed, NYC.
3
@Alex
Shutting down Indian Point is not the right choice. Nuclear power is the largest carbon free source of electricity in the United States and generates 20% our electricity, far more than wind (6.3%) or solar (1.3%):
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
We have the same problem in California. When Jerry Brown closed the San Onofre nuclear power plant it wasn’t replaced with “renewables and efficiency” - it was replaced with natural gas.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=8770
Closing nuclear power plants in antithetical to the goal of decarbonizing the grid. The more you know about energy policy the more you realize how wrong the Democratic governors Andrew Cuomo and (former gov) Jerry Brown are about nuclear. Even if the electricity could be replaced with “renewables and efficiency” as they say, at best we’d be maintaining the same level of carbon emissions.
It’s as if you stood at the start of a track and looked at a distant goal. In this case the goal is decarbonization. The distant goal is difficult but you are resolved to achieve it. But just before the start is signaled someone turns on a treadmill. As hard as you run you are staying in the same place. You might even be moving backwards.
This is not an exaggeration. To see how Germany has faired with their nuclear phase out compare the carbon intensities of Germany’s grid to nuclear powered France or hydro powered Norway:
electricitymap.org
1
I'm concerned and certainly do acknowledge the reality of global as this is undeniable, it's not a theory. The data is there for everybody to see and examine, but please don't go with the rhetorical overkill as it undermines your cred.
Let's take hurricane Harvey which occurred here in the Houston area recently. It was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the US in over 10 years and it wasn't wind or the eyewall or even a storm surge which was the biggest reason for the record property damage economically speaking in metro Houston which was because of massive real estate development in the Houston area in recent decades just as the storm Sandy that hit the Atlantic coast in the NJ & NY area in 2012 was a record because of real estate development on the Atlantic coast.
In meteorlogical terms we've not had anything in this region
since Hurricane Camille made landfall on the Louisiana coast with sustained winds of 175 MPH, and that was in 1069, practically 50 years ago. Tell me how you see a trend there in the growth of hurricane potency because I can't see it ?
3
We should pension off all of the coal miners in America till they are 65 so they’re guaranteed an income, and then shut down all the coal mines.
The shutdowns don’t have to happen instantly but there should be a 5 to 10 year plan to shut all the coal mines and guarantee an income for the coal mine workers.
With a guaranteed income coal miners are much more likely to stop fighting for their jobs.
While I support the concept of a Green New Deal, the devil is in the details. What of all the carbon intensive concrete required for these infrastructure projects, for example?And how can we ignore China, the world’s largest emitter, which manufactures so much of the stuff we buy? We cannot afford to shoot from the hip when it comes to climate change.
1
By its purely US-centric prescriptions, the Editorial Board shamefully avoids what they surely know is the most fanciful, even dangerous flaw of the Green New Deal.
The US produces just a mid-teen percentage of world carbon emissions, a proportion that is in secular decline as China and the rest of the developing world prioritizes catching up economically with the developed world. They will not sacrifice their imperative to catch up to the developed world by adopting the GND.
Any honest assessment of the GND knows that it would wreak havoc with the US economy. But it is said that it would be worth it if it saves mankind. However, unless the rest of the world joined the US in the GND, the US's heroic efforts would hardly make a difference, making the US economic martyrs, crippling us to the advantage of other countries.
Solving the climate change problem must start with a sober, holistic understanding of the technological, economic and sociological constraints that must be navigated to reach a solution. Any solution will involve global sacrifices. People will refuse those sacrifices if a distant payoff is uncertain and, especially, if they do not seem fairly distributed. This will lead to recrimination between political and economic classes of people within countries and between countries resulting in rebellion, even violence. We are seeing early hints of it. The end result of naiveté as in the GND: demagoguery, political upheaval, all without saving the planet.
6
And I dont see the America giving up Fossil Fuels or Hamburgers to save the planet. AOC recently said we shouldnt eat Hamburgers. Ask Macron about ideas to make people pay for Climate change. Ask Amazon about the millenial who doesnt know what a tax break is. This whole article is based on assumptions that have no base in facts. The world is changing,climate is changing but we cant stop it. We can possibly mitigate it but mostly we adapt and continue to evolve without destroying society by letting clueless people make decisions that affect us all.
4
The argument advanced by far left is not about policy, but about ideology. This was made clear by the "talking points" which aimed at resurrecting ghosts of socialism rather than actually doing something about climate change. As is typical of ideologues on the left and right, they are always willing to sacrifice actual achievement and truths at the altar of what they perceive to be the "greater good". Tumper support of Trump's lies in the name of Making America Great Again is not that different from ignoring actual science and historical outcomes to claim that Socialism will cure the environment and make is happy.
In fact, Socialism historically visited the greatest environmental catastrophes on people - China, Soviet Union, and Africa are prime examples.
And as our founding fathers realized it is the right to PURSUE happiness that makes people happy rather than simply having the state attempt to provide happiness for them.
When we can make environmental change fit into the PURSUIT of human happiness, we will finally have a shot of making the difference.
6
Meghan Markle's trip to New York, on a private jet, pretty much exemplifies how seriously I take the Green New Deal. A complete government takeover of our lives simply will wreck regular working Americans wanting to put gas in their car, heat their homes and see the doctors of their choice. Nuclear fusion energy would solve the problem. So why are we going to Mars?
8
In 1800 the earth reached 1 billion in population. In 1940 earth's population reached 2 billion. Today it is 7.6 billion projected to each 10 billion by 2050.
Without a response to climate change will the planet be able to sustain 10 billion human beings? Even with it will the earth support that ever increasing world population?
Like Sen. Feinstein, Like Trump I am well past age 70. None of us will be here when the young people the senator put down this week reach the ages we are at now some 60 and 70 years from now.
They are right. The Times is right. Climate change, incorporating the attendant issue of world population explosion, is the issue of a lifetime for every young man and woman, for every child today.
Pay heed Sen. Feinstein, you are as wrong as Trump on this. Pay heed Speaker Pelosi, you miss the point. Pay heed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, you cannot afford to make mistakes like the ones you made and make every day by pot-shooting everything.
No, the issue not just now but of this century is climate change or the end of this century and surely the one to follow will be catastrophic for today's children, their children and their children to follow.
4
@Carl Zeitz: Diane Feinstein did not "put down" anyone. You need to watch the entire video, which is about 15 minutes long. That sunrise movement lost cred when they decided to blast out the edited 2 minute piece which left out Senator Feinstein's reasonable and patient responses to kids talking all at once and their mothers butting in when she tried to respond and explain.
Climate change is THE issue of our times - not some future threat, but a massive force drastically reshaping our world right now, with much worse effects soon to follow. It is literally an existential threat to our civilization.
Politicians of the generation of Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Feinstein, whose world views were formed in the 1950’s and 60’s, are proving themselves incapable of taking this new reality seriously or leading on these issues. That’s why similar-age politicians like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who also rarely to never mention environmental devastation, are untenable as Presidential candidates.
Of course the details of the Green New Deal aren’t yet fleshed out. That’s because our country and political system, led by the GOP and Trump who seem bent on driving our species over a cliff, have been dangerously and dishonestly pretending the issue doesn’t exist at all. This discussion, while inadequate in itself and maddeningly slow, is progress.
4
@David You are precisely on point. Just as the prevailing issue of the 60s was the civil rights movement and then the Vietnam war, this is OUR issue. Except in this instance the entire planet is in peril. The world needs the USA to stand up and LEAD on this issue. Under Trump precisely the opposite is happening. Trump and the GOP have sold us all down the river for the financial support of the oil and gas industry. They are the ultimate special interests lobby and they have captured the Republican Party, that much is clear.
The Green New Deal has most certainly changed the national conversation. It’s stimulated talk about Trump’s increased odds of winning re-election.
8
@John D
"Green New Deal Has Overwhelming Bipartisan Support, Poll Finds"
"https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/green-new-deal-poll_us_5c169f2ae4b05d7e5d8332a5
What we cannot afford is to dare Donald Trump to act on climate change. He will only retrench. Neither can we afford to wait for the 2020 election for a fix.
We must engage the Republican Party with incentives that exceed the industry pressure they get from coal and oil, or... we must get the money out of politics so our elected representatives will work for us, the people.
1
Unless China, India and others commit to doing approximately the same thing, what on earth is the point of the United States' investment in such a scheme?
3
imagine of we applied that same philosophy towards other areas of innovation. what's the point in taking the lead if others aren't.
2
While our senior senator from California lectures our children about so-called political reality, their future grows more grim each day. We need leaders not poll watchers.
5
So as AOC finally admitted, trying is what is most important even if accomplishments are not happening. Trying means almost nothing without results, and these fantasy alternative reality proposals are just that. We could have proposals that are possible, would improve our emissions and most importantly adapt to changing conditions that we can't or won't control. Results matter, trying not so much. In fact working on impossible things takes up resources that could be applied to reality.
3
In 2015, Bret Stephens was writing at the Wall Street Journal. He characterized climate change as "hysteria" and listed it among other American "imaginary enemies," like "hunger." He concluded: "Here's a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental crisis. Temperatures will be about the same."
A week ago, in his Times piece "Is Nancy Pelosi a Climate Skeptic?" Stephens advocated for solving global warming via incremental change and more "wealth" through "market economies." It was a month after a new analysis in the journal Science found the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago.
I thought the Green New Deal badly executed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As the GND buries good ideas in what sounds like a right-wing caricature of left-wing identity politics, interests like big oil are, through the likes of Mitch McConnell, trying to discredit everything about it. However, politicians forcefully making the right argument, even badly, finally advanced a serious discussion on the enormity of the problem and solutions.
If even climate deniers like Stephens have shifted towards embracing incrementalism, it means they're scared that radical change is now seen by most as the only way to address global warming. I've been afraid for a long time. It is good some climate deniers are so afraid they no longer deny, only backpedal and bargain.
1
@Robert B
"If even climate deniers like Stephens have shifted towards embracing incrementalism, it means they're scared that radical change is now seen by most as the only way to address global warming."
As opposed to be scared of global warming - whose solution is down-the-road, when/if things worsen, incrementalism - as though global warming is just one more problem to with some policy tinkering.
Yea, "bargain" is the right word - there should be seven stages of climate change denial, with "bargaining" the stage where you say, 'well, yes, it's a problem, but nothing to take too seriously - 'reasonable solutions' will manage it.
Climate change is real, while the causes are currently disputed. Suffice it to say that the problem, if caused by or accelerated by humans, is a world wide problem. The US alone cannot change the course or outcome if other nations, especially large polluting nations such as China and India do not assist. Further it also takes compliance from developing nations as they add to the cumulative affect. I suggest we start by working with the nations of the world to reduce human based pollution world wide, as well as to help developing countries make use of more environmentally friendly technologies. This is a long term effort, quick fixes will not work, and one country alone will not effect the change needed to have a global impact.
2
@G G. The cause of climate change is not disputed. There are people who dispute that the world is round.
4
@G G
"The US alone cannot change the course or outcome if other nations, especially large polluting nations such as China and India do not assist. Further it also takes compliance from developing nations -"
And that's why you were against the Republican withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2018/06/01/one-year-since-trumps-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement/
1
@Jackson The Paris Climate Accord did not hold other nations accountable, rather let them attempt to meet some future guidelines. It did hold the USA accountable and put a large financial burden on this country. That is not going to get the job done.
It is incredible that just when Republicans are at the most vulnerable they have been for years, the Left offers them this political gift from heaven, which basically calls for the dismantling of the American economy. Bravo!
6
@Asher. There used to be a commercial for car repairs with the line:"you can pay me now or you can pay me later." The economic costs and impacts of addressing climate change will only increase exponentially the longer we wait.
2
@David...let’s wait until China does it too.
“the bungling of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s staff, which posted on her website a set of pugnacious and poorly written talking points (later disavowed) ”
The right is run by professionals from the business community and the left is run by amateurs.
2
@walkman AOC doesn't run the left. Trump runs the right, but amateur would be a complement in his case.
We, as a country, are capable of much more than we typically achieve, and I think that’s because of limitations that we all accept while waiting for leadership. An example that comes to mind is the energy that was tapped into when we needed battleships, airplanes and support during WW2, aka “the war effort”. So many people took the initiative to change their roles in life, turning it into opportunity and a highlight in their own personal histories, and the memories of those achievements are relived over and over again as a time of accomplishment for women and minorities that somehow lost its momentum. It’s time to change from “wait and see”, to this has to be done, so let’s do it now and do it in a forward thinking way.
The multi-faceted nature of the Green New Deal is not unrealistic- each change that we make will impact things outside the direct sector it is designed for. For example, clean energy creates jobs in aspects other than clean energy. It improves the health conditions via air quality if a traditional utility closes, helps the areas where mining takes place if those mines close by stopping strip mining, or in cases like fracking, preventing problems like highly polluting sludge pools.
Let’s stop thinking in terms of why something can’t be done and just do it!
1
Why can’t liberals get it through their heads? All their brave talk about climate change will mean nothing if the Democrats don’t win the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2020. That is the exigent priority.
Do they really believe the GND will attract the broad cross-section of voters needed to win the Electoral College? If they do, then we're truly doomed. Not by climate change, but by virtue-signaling.
3
@Ron Cohen If you're just complaining about the gratuitous PC shoutouts, I'm with you. But a politically viable green new deal does need to include a strong social safety net, jobs programs, education, etc. Avoiding global catastrophe will require a mobilization that will be pretty disruptive even as it creates more jobs than it destroys. You This is the equivalent of a wartime effort and you don't leave wounded on the battle field. This isn't socialism as a matter of principle or ideology. This is going to require cooperation that includes as much mutual support as shared effort.
3
@Ron Cohen. Do you think if we keep waiting for the right moment anything will get better?
The editors argue the Green New Deal should restrict its proposals to reducing carbon emissions, but to take out its liberal/progressive political elements. In their view, this will make the proposal acceptable to the US right.
That is neither a good political strategy, nor politically realistic.
Any vast, government-led mobilization of resources and monies will be political in character. The only question is whether that mobilization will be liberal-progressive, right liberal or right wing.
By laying out a vision focused on economic justice and job creation, the GND authors can appeal to a widely shared view that the economy presently enriches billionaires, and that government serves those monied, entrenched interests.
Right liberal Democrats and Republicans are welcome to present their proposals to manage the threat of climate change. When they get around to that, it is predictable that those proposals will be equally political, divorcing carbon reduction from greater human needs, giving power to large private business practices that will continue to increase income inequality.
3
@Jackson The right's solutions won't work at this late date because the kind of mobilization now required calls for as much mutual support as it does shared effort. The right had its chance 20 years ago and choose denial and obfuscation instead. Time for the right to get out of the way. They can try market based everything again after we've deployed a few thousand gigawatts of wind and solar.
@Russ Payne
"The right's solutions won't work at this late date because the kind of mobilization now required-"
Hey, wait a minute, Russ...
...we're pretty much on the same page, but what "solutions"? No alternative right wing proposal of their own; no message to base saying, 'Oops - incoming! Turns out it's happening and serious, so we've gotta' act fast.'
"The right had its chance 20 years ago and choose denial and obfuscation instead."
Yes, two decades ago fossil fuel and Republicans shut down a window to tackle climate change - and a lot of readers don't know that background:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change-losing-earth.html
While the Times editorial should be welcomed, some of its pronouncements need to be questioned. The October IPCC report, the gold standard for climate change evaluation, noted that carbon capture and sequestration and bioenergy (BECCS) at large scale would lead to what most of us should find to be unacceptable trade-offs with social goals like food security and biodiversity loss. Both are already unacceptable problems with around 800 million food insecure and mass extinction. And the IPCC notes that BECCS technologies themselves are unproven and risky.
The Times failed to note that the IPCC's SSP1 or low energy demand scenarios, which depend on net zero carbon emissions by mid-century, could get us to 1.5 C, the needed target, with only low levels of BECCS. Importantly, these could be achieved by agriculture that sequesters instead of looses carbon, as current industrial ag does, and modest reforestation. Avoiding the Times call for an emphasis on carbon capture technologies.
As for the social goals in the GND, these are not fundamentally different than the original green new deal, which was also derided at the time of its proposal. The sponsors of the GND recognize that we must not advance climate change on the backs of those who can least afford it. The current inequalities of wealth, power, opportunity and justice are also compelling issues whose time has come.
3
The NY Times editorial board apparently confuses length of editorial with depth of thought.
The old saw it discusses about "starting a national conversation" is also apparently a one-way adage. We saw no such hailing of Trump's proposals (particularly the immigration proposals) as valuable because they were -- as they actually did -- starting a national conversation.
It is interesting that it took the NY Times editorial board almost two weeks to come up with this mealy-mouthed support for the Green New Deal (usually, the board can tell us the Progressive orthodox position overnight). That is because the editorial board knows that the GND (I doubt that acronym will ever catch on) is DOA but they were afraid to incur the wrath of the Progressives if they came out against it too soon.
Unfortunately for the two or three dozen Dem presidential candidates, the GND as a political albatross will not go away. I predict that it will be worth 2% more in support by the independent voters for Trump in 2020. How's that for starting a national conversation?
4
@Uysses
Oops, didn't mean to recommend. . . I'm one of those Progressives" you deride. I thought the op/ed was mealy-mouthed because it want to have it both ways. The elites shall inherit the earth if the Times gets its way.
Curious what you DO think we should do about the climate crisis.
But there is no climate nightmare from global warming....except one we foolishly choose to inflict upon ourselves.
The globe is warming. Mankind's activities are contributing to that warming. But the predictions of catastrophe are simply scaremongering. The earth is much warmer now than it was 14000 years ago. That warming brought melting glaciers and rising sea level. Has man suffered from that warming? No, he has thrived. As glaciers melted, new land was exposed. Much of it now grows food. Rising temperatures cause more rainfall, more fresh water, and longer growing seasons, sometimes 2 crops per year instead of 1.
We benefited from past warming, why should that suddenly reverse now? There must be some point of optimum global temperature, But what evidence is there that the current global temperature just happens to be that optimum? Why couldn't the optimum be 2 or 5 degrees warmer?
Changes will certainly occur, just as they have in the past. Some change will be beneficial, some detrimental. But man has always adapted to the new conditions. The real potential catastrophe would be if politics results in man wasting enormous resources trying to fight every change rather than adapt to it. It will be a catastrophe if we repeat the mistakes of New Orleans. It was stupidly built in a man made hole in the water. Then we stupidly wasted enormous resources to rebuilt it when the ocean reclaimed it. We should have adapted and rebuilt elsewhere.
4
@Errol
Right now we have mankind, animals and plant life flourishing in the equatorial zone which is many degrees warmer than at higher latitudes. That difference in temperature now between the equatorial region and higher latitudes is much, much greater than the rise in global temperature than scaremongers fear. Yet we thrive at equator AND at colder latitudes.
2
@Errol. This is science fiction. Most of what you say simply isn't true.
@Errol
Excellent comment
To Republicans the Green New Deal is not a blueprint to our future, it's the blueprint to destroy Democrats. Take note of McConnell's statement; "I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. Give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.” So, good. Let's see how everyone "feels" about McConnell's non-binding resolution, but ultimately Democrats need to turn the tables and expose this vote for the sham it is.
One by one, they should pass popular items of the Green Deal, and anything else they can think of. Throw the kitchen sink at Republicans. Force them to go on record for or against real legislation. The American people will take note who wants healthcare, environment, safety nets, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
The rest will take care of itself.
4
A big first step would be to relocate people who live in places, such as New York City, that require lots of energy to heat in winter and cool in summer, to places that have mild climate. Yes, it would be difficult and expensive, but it’s what we have to do to save the planet.
Americans traditionally oppose socialism. I know Millennials are more open to it. That said Social Security was enacted in 1935, Medicare in 1966 and the ACA in 2010. There has never been a rush for anything that could help the middle and working classes and be denounced as socialism. Democrats should focus in the Green New Deal on making the world use less carbon not reform the economy.
1
Thank you for this helpful editorial! I wish it had mentioned the need to promote technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere rather than just the sequestration of carbon in "forests, farms, and public lands." According to a 2018 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, direct air capture is necessary to close the gap since we've waited too long with other methods. This technology currently exists; the main impediment is cost: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/17/carbon-capture-technology-climate-change-solutions
3
The northeastern receives the emissions from the mid-west smokestacks and tailpipes. Our problem with acid rain and rising ocean temperatures are long known. Lobsters are moving to Canada’s cooler seas; my son-in-law works with one of the largest shell-fish ‘hatcheries' in developing a new breed of oysters that can withstand our warming ocean temperatures.
More importantly, more than 80% of Americans support the concepts addressed by the 'Green New Deal’ (The Hill, 12.17.18).
States take leadership on the issue, from Maine to Calif.
4
"The president has rejected the Paris agreement on climate change"
Please, Editorial Board of the New York Times, put on the front page a chart of all the countries who signed the Paris agreement on climate change and the percentage in the reduction of greenhouse gases for each of these countries since the signing of this accord. Let everyone see how much the rest of the world has reduced its carbon footprint compared to the United States.
6
The Ed Board does us all a solid by speaking up about climate change. Thank you. Readers are getting more than they did just a few months ago. Bravo!
Why doesn’t The Times analyze climate policy ideas the same way they analyze the Russian plots to undermine the US? Climate change is certainly a more serious threat to our safety.
Why doesn’t The Times’ “Climate Report” email seek to educate readers about action they can take? It seems kind of like a club newsletter rather than a serious resource for readers. What is going on in the background legislatively.?
When will The Times endorse a policy suite to address climate change? All this circumspection is passé. We now need assertiveness!
4
Peace is as costly as war, and if America were faced with a war, there would be no problems economically or timewise in mobilizing. Its really just a matter of will. If the American government and people haven't the will to end climate change and the economic and social problems the Green New Deal aims to address, then they haven't the will for peace, justice and brotherhood for all, or to even save the planet. That's pretty shocking but sadly not surprising in our age of viligent ignorance and antisocial ill will.
3
I agree it is great to discuss the aspirational Green Deal but tangible solutions healthcare is within reach now. Where is the republican healthcare plan? Repeal and replace? Where is the replacement? No to Medicare for all— ok where is the republican plan. Letting this discussion of the Green Deal dominate the news is silly and helpful distraction for the republicans. McConnell who said he did not believe in show votes when it came to the Trump Shutdown but wants to vote on the New Green Deal now. Really! Don’t fall for this trap. Make them fix ACA flaws and expand Medicaid and fully fund the ACA and guarantee universal coverage for preexisting conditions. There is also the urgent issue of the crook in the WH.
1
While the idea of a Green New Deal is obviously one that must be taken seriously, what has been presented so far is worse than nothing. Why? Because of the amateurish roll-out and the entirely predictable GOP response. This has allowed the Repubs to caricaturise and mock it, calling the validity of the whole concept into question.
Given the resistance to the idea from the GOP and its voters (who have no factual basis for denying climate-change), it would have behooved Cortez to make sure the resolution was as air-tight and coherent as possible. Instead, because of the arrogance of Cortez and her staff, they made a hash of it, and now it's even more an uphill battle. It's past time for her to stop grandstanding, shut up, do the hard work of researching and writing a bill, and only then unveil it. Her "efforts" to date have done more to discredit the assertion we need to act now than helped; well done, Ms Cortez, well done.
3
The last graph in this piece is telling, as well as the piece emphasizing Senator Markey's role in the Green New Deal rather than the role of AOC. The Times knows that AOC is going to be toxic in 2020. But hitching the Democratic wagon to Markey is unwise too. Although AOC is a flashy light, Markey is not a bright bulb, and the whole climate change thing still doesn't register on the issues of keen importance to the American people. It is way down there near the bottom, according to the most recent polling.
1
CO2 is good for the environment until it is more than the environment can digest. We are destroy trees by the billions each year that converts CO2 to O2. In many congested cities CO2 can be hazardous to humans. Why? There is not enough trees in the environment to digest the gas.
Think of being in a car will all the windows up except one and pump exhaust in the open one. That is an example of an over-saturated CO2 environment. It could kill you.
Of course one must realize that if the Democrats take the WH and Congress in 2020 this will quickly become a non issue. As it stands, it is, due to Republican control of the WH and the Senate, it is an existential crisis. That climate was a non issue in the 2016 campaign, as referenced in this op-ed, is testimony to that assertion. Meanwhile, it's the height of folly and arrogance to think that the weather can be controlled by the visions of the utopians.
I'm the voice inside your head telling you what you already know.
3
Supporters of the NGD show just how far left and how far out of touch the Democratic Party has become. The real backbone of America has families to take care of and jobs to go to. Listening to some useless blather on how planes will no longer fly in the sky and beef will driven from our diets due to their high methane produciton is nonsensical. To even hint that the government will support those who choose not to work is offensive to anyone who works for a living.
NGD is a flash in the pan, a polemicist's fancy a gift to Donald Trump in 2020.
3
Climate nightmare we are living? The quality of life is better now for more people then it was ten year ago, much less 50 or 100 years ago. The book Factfullness documents the myriad of indicators that shows how life is improving. Will climate change end it all,? maybe. But the histeria that climate change vs cheap energy is making things worse for people today is ridiculous.
4
The fact that the Green New Deal was dismissed as being nothing more than "bold and unattainable goals" was not based on or a result of "poorly written talking points" as this editorial claims. It is because the actual Green New Deal is so overreaching in that achieving zero carbon emissions in 10 years is barely its starting point.
It goes on and on about how we will be living in the ultimate utopia, with every person having a job that can fully support a family with generous vacations and benefits, where everyone will have high quality health care, affordable housing, economic security. And even that is not even half of what it dreams of. It reads as somebody writing what they would do if they were given magical powers to make anything they dream of turn into reality.
This is the actual Green New Deal;
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
So to say it served to start a conversation about doing something about climate change is selling it very short as it speaks of solving every problem that exists in America, both those affecting the public and also those affecting individuals.
In fact the only reason people are under the impression that the "resolution" was mainly about addressing climate change even though it goes on to address every last problem, is because after reading the first couple of lines, which is where it proposes having the whole of the US being carbon free within 10 years, it becomes clear that is a childish wish list.
4
The Green New Deal, however flawed it may appear, is the answer to the current deadly status quo, where Trumpian selfishness and greed tries to drown out a new way of imagining what's possible, and necessary, for ours and for Earth's survival, especially as the revolutionary technology and the Internet show the way in a pragmatic, and hopefully ethical, manner. And politics, the art of the possible, is what requires our wholehearted participation and contribution to root out the current demagogues and charlatans holding us hostage. There is just one question remaining: do we have the will to tackle the necessary changes to make this a self-sustaining world, and make the joy of life worth it? If so, do know it will take courage and hard work, and perseverance, to see things through...especially when we have the stupidity of Trump and his republican minions to contend with.
1
trump and the republicans don't care if we destroy our society. They've proved it over and over. As long as they can enrich themselves, nothing else matters.
1
“For now, the nation must endure Mr. Trump’s boneheaded policies. The president has rejected the Paris agreement on climate change and rolled back Obama-era limits on carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and methane emissions from oil and gas facilities, while doing all he can to open more lands and waters to oil and gas exploration”.
We also have to endure the “boneheaded” OpEds of your own David Brooks and Bret Stephens, whose notion that climate change is an ancillary topic is maddening. They are at best skeptics, and in Stephen’s case, until recently deniers. Listening to Brooks on NPR as he spouted his Capitlist, Market philosophy was disheartening. One sometimes has to wonder whether these guys and their ilk actually live in the real world.
So, before the NYTs editorial board chastises the Dems and their failure to role out the initiative more effectively, perhaps they should clean their own house first.
2
Whatever political fate the Green New Deal will be dealt, at least it's getting us talking about environmental policy. What conversations have Republicans initiated on the subject? That climate change is a hoax from China? That environmental regulations will kill businesses? Those are lies and deadends, not starting points.
I'm glad the NYT have used all that somewhat harsh language, describing the "bungling" of the rollout of the Green New Deal by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s talking points - "pugnacious and poorly written" - as an "amateurish mess". The authors of the editorial still did not quite dare to criticize Ms. Ocasio-Cortez personally, choosing instead to blame the whole disaster on her staff.
Come on, she is the politician in question. She is ultimately responsible for the whole mess! Let's be honest with ourselves - the rising young superstar of the Democratic Party has very seriously messed up, and made it *less* likely for any progress on the environmental issues to be achieved any time soon. "Amateur" or not, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a very young and utterly inexperienced politician. It is time for the Democrats to stop worshiping her like a rock star - unless we want to live through 6 more years of Trump. Or worse.
2
@Leonid Andreev
I agree that she needs to settle down. Ocasio-Cortez would do herself a lot of good if rather than just jumping out there with a plan or a large initiative, if she sat down with Nancy Pelosi and discussed it with her to get her take on the timeliness of putting this out there.
Timing in everything, and working in conjunction with your party is important as to not undercut larger initiatives or give Numbskulls like Donald Trump a target to lie about; going about it as a lone wolf is not smart or mature.
2
It is not only President Trumps boneheaded policy but republicans who had been in complete control of congress for ten full years before the 2018 elections ignored climate change with the same steadfast stupid neglect. Power and money have have taken over the brains of a collection of supposedly smart educated men who call themselves leaders. Nothing else can explain the willingness to ignore knowledge derived by people who are just as smart as they think they are. Money, too many citizens do not have enough and too few have many times more than enough, the economics of which can be the signature death knoll for the human species can also be the beginning of new thought processes that lead to a better planet for all humans. But the protection of individual wealth at all costs will solve no problems.
1
Nancy Pelosi's off-hand attitude to this enormously significant issue is extremely disappointing. She's what, 70-something, so I suppose she's not going to be around to see the worst of it. But what about her children and grand-children? If she doesn't grasp the seriousness of this situation she has no business being Speaker and the main opposition to Donald Trump, who is undoubtedly in the pocket of big oil and never stops undermining efforts to move away from fossil fuels. It's time to choose sides. You're either for the planet and your children's future well-being, or you're for the oil companies. There is no possible future where both can co-exist side by side.
@Mark Crozier
You are dead wrong, Nancy Pelosi is smart and knows what she is doing, yes this is important, but you need to do things methodically and when the time is right.
You don't jump in head over heels, and get ahead of yourself and let Trump and the Republican's misrepresent this to use it to avoid more important, pressing issues at the moment; patience is a virtue the new members need to learn.
Nancy Pelosi knows what she is doing, and being 70 something has nothing to do with it, that comment alone tells me that you need to grow up, and learn a little maturity.
1
One needs to be living on Mars not to notice what is happening with planet Earth. One needs to be on Venus to think that any piece of legislation gets passed without working with experts,and committees with public input . The Green deal is a start of a serious conversation that Trump has refused to have. Why is everyone acting as of this is the be all and end all, let’s all begin to think for the future and learn .
Yes we are in the Trump no nothing universe but progressives welcome the input and direction of experts,
Only a fool would allow themselves to drown when there is a chance to save the planet for our children .
We are facing two crises. One is increasing temperatures, and the other is increasing economic inequality. The editorial board is talking about only one, but the Green New Deal is about both. The New Deal part of the name is not an accident.
3
First the premise of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her group is correct: Environmental Justice is also Social Justice. We have great inequality in the United States encouraged by law without climate change that needs to be addressed, and this inequality makes it very tough on poor people. Almost every initiative by Republicans in recent years has had at its core the aim to punish people of color, and they use racist dog whistles to punish poor whites as well. Attacking everything Obama is one way they have done this: By cancelling the individual mandate; attacks on planned parenthood; and doing everything they can to bring back preexisting conditions. We are at near full employment and they are even willing to put the future economy at risk by greatly altering the tax base and running up huge deficits.
Who will most be affected by Climate Change? The poor who will not be able to move out of the way and who will suffer from lost jobs, price fluctuations, and lawlessness from social breakdown. The latter we are now seeing in developing countries from drought, storms and lack of the political institutions to take action.
The major polluter of GHGs is the U.S. We do this 2-3 times more per capita than anybody else, and people outside the U.S. have no rights under U.S. law. Environmental Justice is Social Justice, and within 10 years is a reasonable expectation just to correct the harm we are doing to others.
We need to lead, so that others will follow--especially on coal.
1
That all depends upon what kind of green new deal? Who wins? Who loses? Who decides? Who follows? Who makes the rules and who rules? How green is green? What are the costs and benefits?
Capitalism is not a humble humane empathetic enterprise by nature nor nurture. I fear that a green new deal is as likely to be a new steal as ever. Science has no gender, color aka race, socioeconomic, political, faith, ethnic, national origin nor historic agenda or bias. Americans are scientifically illiterate.
By nature we are the one and only human race species that began in Africa 300,000+ years ago. By our biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit nature we are programmed to crave fat, salt, sugar, habitat, water, kin and sex by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
1
Your editorial looks back to 2007, to 2016. But I have a longer memory which includes the first earth day, Jimmy Carter's installation of solar panels on the White House roof, and much more.
Again and again we have been faced with a choice to act to curb carbon (and methane) emissions or to do nothing, indeed to speed the day of doom.
But it is foolish at this time to think about what could have been. The answers are before us, many of them within reach. I don't want to look back again in ten years, or even one, and see us hurtling toward an unrecognizable future.
Repeal the Trump tax cuts and invest in a massive R and D program to save the planet for future generations.
267
@dmdaisy
The Green New Deal will bankrupt America. But the Times is right that it's started a discussion on climate change and Trump has just announced a panel to study it and make recommendations to him. This is progress.
4
@OldTimer
"The Green New Deal will bankrupt America"? Where's your evidence? Here's mine that it won't:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/opinions/green-new-deal-sachs/index.html
The GND has "started a discussion on climate change and Trump has just announced a panel to study it and make recommendations to him. This is progress."
Didn't you read the editorial - Trump was responding to DoD reports warning global warming would compromise national security - and Trump's panel includes climate change deniers. That's "progress"?
31
@Jackson
The professor and CNN are flat out wrong. Free education is an enormous cost. Closing all coal fired energy a major set-back to current economic growth.
Yes, but DOD results will be credible even with deniers on panel. You folks seem to fear others with a different view point. Why? Can't effectively handle their perspectives?
5
I want clean air and water as much as anyone, I also believe that nuclear should be banned until humans evolve into what make take thousands of years to achieve... That said, I was forced to give up my filament type light bulbs (that I really like btw, especially the 100w) because changing to the irritating, mercury leaking when broken florescent bulbs were going to solve global warming... Now I'll say something controversial, I think there is a good reason we have more than one political party out there tugging at each other. The far left if unchecked will drain us dry of money, forcing us to live a minimalist life, the far right will have us living in filth, drain us of money and replace government with some weird religious , fascist dictator. In the middle we will see common sense solutions that all can agree on, lets start there.
The whole point of a non-binding resolution is to stake out a starting point for discussion and spark Congressional conversation. So why are we still so obsessed with that FAQ?? Consider the conversation started. Your move, Congress!
The Green New Deal provided Trump with just the talking points he needs to win a second term. From now until 2020 all we will hear from him is the evils immigration and socialism. Thanks for nothing AOC
3
If the framers of the GND were really serious about climate change they wouldn't have put it into the framework of a change to a socialist society. That guarantees nothing will be done, and they knew those ideas would lead to massive resistance.
Don't praise them. They have set improvements in our climate back. Way back. Immorally back.
In the last election, the socialists were responsible for getting us Trump, just as Nader was responsible for getting us Bush and the Iraq War. Now, their GND, with its socialist underpinnings will get us another 4 years of Trump.
There are two nightmares here. One is the climate. The other is that we live in a time where neither the socialists or the Republicans will take it seriously enough to give up their pet political theories in order to get something done about it.
1
@Dan
You are perhaps confusing socialism with communism? Ask Trump about communism. He can talk with his father-in-law who was a communism until chain-migration made him a US citizen. His immigrant wife who overstayed her visa translates for him when he talks to Putin.
Bernie Sanders did address this clearly in Aug 2015 in the debate against Hillary:
Bernie said "climate change is the biggest national security threat facing the United States."
“If we are going to see an increase in drought, flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that people all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources. If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrations of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflicts.”
“When you have drought, when people can’t grow their crops, they’re going to migrate into cities, and when people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al-Qaeda and ISIS are using right now. So where you have discontent, where you have instability, that’s where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that.”
Costs aren’t discussed?
Nuclear energy not endorsed as part of the GND?
We will know climate activists are serious when they discuss costs and endorse nuclear energy. Until then they are just poseurs. Celebrated poseurs but poseurs nonetheless.
4
"It's an emergency as long as we get paid to fix it" does not fly. Giant, hurried public projects meant to pay off in "greenness" invite criminals to swoop in - and will make everyone think twice before being fooled a second time when the climate will be even more fragile.
So much of fixing the problem is up to individuals - eating vegan or close to it, driving and flying less and shopping responsibly can go a long way. We have not reached the point where too many people want to upend their lifestyles, so our government policy should match - measured progress is on the menu, and should be pursued as aggressively as possible while laying the groundwork (R & D, education, adding relevant industrial capacity) for faster change when the opportunity is real.
Claiming that the Green New Deal can be rammed through a Republican Senate by intimidation or by persistent children is willful ignorance. Claiming that Nancy Pelosi is too old to care is perhaps the worst form of age-ism.
1
I’m all about protecting the environment. I don’t like mercury in my tuna, micro-plastics in my bloodstream, or storm systems reminiscent of the end of days. But I won’t vote for anyone who proposes a carbon tax because it overburdens individuals while allowing big corporations to continue defiling the planet. To them, the tax would just be the cost of doing business.
Carbon taxes are a scam, just like Congestion Pricing here in NYC. It won’t ease congestion at all, it’s just a way to make New York's already beleaguered taxpayers foot the bill for fixing the subways. None of which would be necessary if our past two mayors hadn't spent so much money congesting our streets with bike lanes for a tiny minority of privileged, lawless cyclists who bribed politicians to turn the city into their own personal racetrack.
Offering tax breaks to responsible individuals and corporations is a better way to go. Banning straws and styrofoam was a good idea as well. We don’t really need plastic bags either, and city dwellers don’t all need to carry their own personal water supply in disposable bottles, this isn’t the Sahara.
Also, the NY Times could do their part in saving the planet by not sending me subscription offers via snail mail 3 times a week. You have my email address, and how ya gonna charge a guy extra money for the crossword puzzle anyway?
1
Climate change is the great challenge of our generation. So far, we have failed to address it because the consequences are building up slowly and the fossil fuel industry has waged a terrible disinformation campaign for its short-term gain. People must understand that there is no quick fix and that there is an enormous inertia in the warming trend because the added carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere for a long time and all the heat accumulated in the oceans will take a long time to dissipate.
For the climate deniers: while we cannot stop climate change on short notice, our inaction will make the consequences ever more dire - not for older Americans like Trump (or myself), but for our children and especially for grand children and their off-spring. For the sake of humanity, we do have to wake up and make a concerted effort that addresses climate change with top priority and without worrying much about cost, because the cost of inaction will be even higher in the not so far future. Instead of spending trillions on stupid wars, we should spend trillions on addressing climate change. The Green New Deal sets the right tone.
People seem to forget that the Pentagon issued a report in 2004–suppressed by the GWB administration—about the serious implications of climate change to national security. I bring this up again because in order to get political traction from the Right, this is perhaps the best way to start.
Think of climate change *just* as a national-security imperative. Here’s a little background on the issue:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/064002007
One of the most distressing absences from the GND “plan” is that it doesn’t say a thing about electric-grid security. Say what? In a nutshell, if North Korea (e.g.) really wants to take out the US, by far the easiest way is to detonate a high-altitude nuke over Kansas and destroy our grid. Look up "Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse" on Wikipedia.
Do this is mid-January and just wait for half the country to freeze to death: Advantage, Kim Jong-Un.
The solution? A high-voltage DC transmission network criss-crossing the US. We need it desperately for national security, but what’s the GND connection? HVDC is an enabling technology to transmit power—"green" or otherwise—from where it’s generated to where it’s needed. Solar and wind power are the big benefactors. It’s all spelled out in Dr. Alexander “Sandy” McDonald’s proposal:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/Macdonald_space%...
Oh, and it would also put millions to work. Let’s get started.
Everyone keeps talking about how we can't afford these things!
Who came up with this dumb idea? Why?
Somehow America went from the middle of a deep depression - due in large part to a lack of money - to financing the biggest war effort the world has ever seen, followed by the biggest economic and infrastructural growth the world has ever seen.
Where did that money come from?
Seems to me we found the money and rather than bankrupt us, it made us the wealthiest nation ever.
Maybe what we need is exactly this: Another multi trillion dollar effort to save the world from environmental disaster.
And, of course, multi trillions are cheaper than dealing with losing most of out cities due to rising sea level, just like bucking up and fighting WW2 was cheaper in the end than letting them take over the world.
Me thinks the myth that we can't afford this has come from those who want to keep all those marbles they've collected and not let the rest of us have any...
Glad to hear nuclear is not off the table. Molten salt nuclear reactors, the prototype of which was designed by Alvin Weinberg and his team at Oak Ridge and functioned without incident for over six years, are now being developed by the Canadians, the Chinese, and the EU. The US version, partly funded by Gates Foundation, gets no government support, unlike foreign models. For a country that developed the A-bomb in four years and put a man on the moon in less than 10, this is a failure of national will. It is also disheartening that the NYT has given almost no coverage to molten salt nuclear reactors or the projects underway.
2
The "Green New Deal" is nails in the coffin of our human civilization and species.
While our ship of conditions of human life on Earth has an expanding hole in the hull, it spreads the crew to burnish the ship's brass, refurbish the guest rooms, and rearrange the deck chairs as the ship goes down.
NO! Focus on fixing the hole in the hull. Step 1, a CARBON TAX. High and rising. All proceeds to all the people, to maximize and hold public support.
1
The NYTs would have done better to simply applaud the discussion of the environment on the national level. To call the Green New Deal "ambitious" is disingenuous. The plan conflates social and environmental agendas, purposefully speaking to a rowdy populous, without any chance of being economically successful. It shows the absolute immaturity of Representative Ocasio-Cortez's intellect and political experience. Ask Nancy Pelosi. She gets the non-reality of this proposal. The NYTs editorial board should not be a mouthpiece of progressive politics. Rather, it should provide a rational description of the challenges faced by this country, within a complex economic and political world where foolish solutions could lead to even greater devastation than very real climate change.
3
The thing is, we already have most of the solution.
Here are some steps that can be taken with existing technology:
.
1. Raise the average combined mode share of walking, cycling, and public transit of the largest 20 US cities in stages to match:
(a) Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa or San Francisco; (25-30%)
(b) New York, Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne (45%)
(c) Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Zurich, Vienna, Stockholm, (70-75%).
.
2. Have Republican states match the % renewable energy generation of Democratic states. Why can Democrats generate from renewables, but Republicans can't?
3. Work from home one day per week.
.
4. Eat one less steak and one less hamburger per week.
.
5. Raise the price of gas 1 cent/month, every month.
.
6. Insulate the house better, and wear a sweater more often. Take a shower instead of a bath. Stop watering your lawn. Bring groceries home in re-usable bags.
.
7. Require new-build housing to have geothermal heat exchange.
.
8. Build as many windmills in each of Florida, Virginia and N.C. as there are in Holland, Belgium, and Denmark.
.
9. Stop using gasoline-powered leaf blowers, lawn movers, edge trimmers, etc., etc.
.
10. Stop subsidizing oil and gas exploration and extraction through the tax code.
.
None of these things are technologically difficult, or require more public spending.
.
Political will is the issue.
@Richard Blaine
Political will depends on whomever donates to the politician. It's a big problem. We'd not be in this mess if there were term limits.
The Green New Deal doesn’t need to choose between planes or trains. Here’s why.
Electric planes will revolutionize air travel. Ask Joe Romm to be a regular columnist for the NYT Please.The future is looking more dire for a Green Peace every Day Poor Venezuela w all that oil Trump is giving to EXXON
It's not about socialism, right or left, it's clearly about survival!
@William
Socialism always is.
Perhaps more politicians should take a class with Ed Bastian. Leadership is not popularity contest. Future generations won’t be interested in what polls said, they will be dumb-founded by the lack of leadership our political leaders showed in this era.
The biggest problem with the national conversation on the Green New Deal is it's about 30 years late
2
@r mackinnon
One might say, "Better late than never." But that optimism may be misplaced. "A day late and a dollar short" could be better. Nevertheless, it 's better to die trying.
Has anyone seen the video circulating of the kids who went to ask Dianne Feinstein to support the New Green Deal? Her nasty, condescending treatment of those kids is just heartbreaking. I supported Feinstein when I was her California constituent for years, but it's time for her to move over. Corporate Democrats get lots of money from the fossil industry lobby. It's time to stop.
Green deal is too ambitious to pass in America. Most of the governors and state congress are under GOP control. Our country run by the rich, specially fuel business people. The senate , executive branch and the judiciary are under GOP control. Most of the citizens are politically ignorant, lazy and naive. I am in favor of Green Deal but can not be optimistic that this will go anywhere. But we should try incremental change rather than a bold plan . Most Americans are at center right politically and that is the reality.
Oh the folly of man! We are not going to stop global warming at this point. At least not given current technologies. Let’s invest in science to fix this instead of trying to stop it. Green deal be fine!
Let's execute the Green New Deal and follow Venezuela into a full economic collapse. The politicians who support this plan are irresponsible and dangerously misinformed. Climate change may be real but this plan is not.
1
On this issue alone, Donald is a betrayal to creative leaders of his personality type.
first abolish private property so we can properly utilize resources. then we might have a chance of fighting climate change.
1
@Frish
Dems will keep saying stuff like this and then act baffled when they lose to Trump in 2020.
1
For branding purposes, New Green Deal is more effective IMO.
Less talk, more rock.
Moderates who pushback against the Green New Deal do so at their own peril. In these difficult times, moderates are really those who want to maintain status quo. To be a moderate is to be willfully ignorant of problems and, therefore, unable to commit to solutions. To be a moderate is to be a radical, because to not see problems in our world one must be radically ignorant or else so self-absorbed as to dismiss people everywhere’s plights.
These radical moderates have never served their constituents and it has come time to kick them out of government. Now is not the time for a moderate. Now is the time for bold action. That is the only way we will survive.
Claiming to be a moderate, nowadays, is simply another way of saying that you lack ideas and imagination, and are unable, unwilling and unfit to be involved in running our country. Our country needs bold ideas to combat big problems, and the only radical option available would be to select moderates who by definition are unwilling to contend with the problems that we face as a planet and a species. The moderates in the Democratic Party need to be deposed, before they lead to our extinction.
One reason climate change as such will never be addressed is that only concrete disasters (Hurricane Katrina, the flooding of Miami) have a sufficient jolt to inspire collective action; and climate-change activists, with all their jet travel, will have done as much to contribute to the problem as to solve it. Another reason is that climate-related disasters are engines of economic growth: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/business/worldbusiness/08iht-disasters.4.14335899.html
Things will get worse, and they will get better, and the angels will always be there goading the great lump of the rest of us, without much effect. Though at least the choir is listening.
It’s interesting that after the Global temps stopped rising, the Greenies turned to violent weather as their trigger point.
Cause and effect? Not exactly.
1
@hawk
No, the temps have not stopped rising....the last four years have been the warmest on record...plus sea levels and temperatures accelerated their respective increase in the last 20 years.
A total transformation to all renewable energy in ten years is not possible, and only a numerically challenged bartender turned socialist congresswomen would propose it.
3
The NYT has a mistake I'd like to correct: Solar and wind are not "becoming competitive" with fossil energy.
At utility-scale, (ie not rooftop solar) solar and wind farms are the CHEAPEST.
See Lazard on LCOE:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
@Susan Kraemer
"solar and wind farms are the CHEAPEST"
I'm afraid you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. It's not that simple.
The levelized cost of energy is a specific metric used by policy professionals. In Lazard's 2018 report wind and natural gas CC are both around the same cost. This is not meant to imply that if you built two grids, one with wind and one with natural gas, that the price of energy you pay would be the same.
Different types of electricity provide different value to the grid. Solar and wind are variable resources- their output varies and we cannot choose how sunny or windy it's going to be on a given day. Nuclear power in the U.S. is baseload power- it rarely changes output. Natural gas CC and peaker plants are both dispatchable to different degrees, meaning they can be brought online to balance a drop in solar power.
It's both logical and supported by academic research that as variable renewables make up a higher percentage of the grid their value decreases. This is because you will need more storage and/or overbuild factor.
Storage is not cheap- you might look at Lazard's levelized cost of storage.
The short answer is that if we were to retire our fossil fuel plants and replace them with variable renewables electricity would not be cheaper. It would be a lot more expensive. Probably around 5-10 times as expensive.
1
the military is a jobs program and a keynesian economic program. repurpose it. let the contractors have their graft and their profit but give us and the world something we need and stop killing people and making new generations of the injured the maimed the disabled and the martyred. turn bomb factories into solar panel factories. turn soldiers into bridge builders and road pavers. stop the death factories. prepare for the future.
1
Waiting two years for the electorate to correct their mistake caused by that vestigial organ known as the Electoral College is two years too many. Trump's idiotic policies will magnify the Climate Change crisis meaning reversal will be all the more difficult.
I submit that America needs to demand Trump & Pence resignation NOW thru massive work stoppages and pickets. VietNam would never have ended nor would women have the vote w/o the massive outpouring of people demanding change.
In 30 days the weather will warm. Hopefully, millions of us will march on Washington and demand an end to the Trump madness long before the next election.
'The term Green New Deal appeared in a column in The Times by Thomas Friedman in January 2007' - 12 years ago. And now we supposedly have 12 years to decide our fate.
1
Sequestration is utter nonsense...
Makes about as much sense as driving your car backward part of the time, to put less miles on the vehicle...
There's going to be an increasingly simple tell, going forward these days....
If the Chinese are ramping up – or already have – significant investment in an area, try to catch up…
Or – at least not lag too far behind…
If they’re shutting things down – or appear to not even be paying attention – persistently ask why…
Not of them, asking why they’re not investing…
Of us, asking why we are…
They build and run trains where lots of people will use them – because it makes economic sense to them…
We build and run them were almost nobody will use them – because it makes political sense to our politicians…
There is no doubt that we could fix this – we have the technical talent and will…
But, increasingly, we seem to have some kind of political death wish…
We burned down the poor parts of our cities a half-century ago…
Today, we seem intent on immolating our middle-class neighborhoods…
We apparently think endless debate or some dumb choices are the fire that forges America, or – even worse – a luxury to indulge our governing elite…
Like a bunch of rich folks owning a bunch of major league teams, with each thinking theirs’s the best…
Though the rich are beginning to realize that – unlike their teams – US governance not a spectator sport…
Unless they want to start getting pulled over for exceeding some limit, like the rest of us…
2
"There you go again." Ronald Reagan
"The idea of decarbonizing the economy is ambitious, commendable and urgent. "
The problem there is the word "the". You refer to the US economy. That's just plain silly. Ours does not really matter.
What matters is China and India. Where are the pleas to green-ize Ghina from inside the Communist Party? That's
not the "most important thing, its the only thing".
As usual, the NYTimes is being silly about this subject.
"Which raises this question: Is the Green New Deal aimed at addressing the climate crisis? Or is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left? At least some candidates — Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota among them — seem to think so. "
You got it! FINALLY!
3
@ Doug: the crucial number is not the national but the per capita carbon emission. The US tops this chart and has so for 60 years or more. What brings me to the second important number: the past carbon emission. The Western industrialized countries have spewed carbon into the atmosphere for 200 years. This small group of nations is responsible for more than 40% of excess carbon already in the atmosphere.
Before we ask emergent nations to contribute, we have to clean up our act and take care of our carbon debt.
The Green Dream is a dream come true for Republicans.
3
I think the NYT should actually publish the New Green Deal in the paper.
It is brutally apparent that very few people have read the "deal". The Climate aspect of the "deal" is one part of the overall deal. This article and most responses are grossly misrepresenting what is actually in the New Green Deal.
Another reason why Climate Change doesn't get addressed. The new Green Deal is an economic approach to every aspect of life in the United States and resends to nothing about global Climate Change.
2
It would be the final insanity to build more nuclear power plants.
In the lifetime of most of those now living, the climate catastrophe, which we are not going to stop no matter what we do, will have destroyed our civilization. Among the many consequences, it will be impossible to prevent nuclear power plants from failing completely.
There are many reasons for this, such as the failure of the electrical grid, but one is sufficient: the plant operators, just like the rest of us, those who have survived anyway, will be out scrabbling for their next meal and fighting off the desperate hordes, which means all of us. They will certainly abandon those nuke plants. Nothing will stop them from spewing deadly radiation far and wide, putting an end to life on earth long before the climate catastrophe can do it.
You want to turn the earth in a hellish black dead radioactive wasteland in one generation? Build more nuke plants now. Although nuclear war will probably do the job first.
Green New Deal Yes. Sometimes just starting the necessary actions to create positive change becomes a magnet attracting the solution. Look at this description of experiments that could lead to carbonless nuclear fusion as a power source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/09/nuclear-fusion-on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists
No mention of federally supported child care?
I am an older millenial (33) who, infuriated by inaction in response to the crisis I will surely feel the effects of in my lifetime, decided to learn solar panel installation. Spending four years in the solar industry led me to see some of the micro-level barriers that I believe are a mirror for the macro-level barriers.
1) "The technology just isn't there yet" - this is a false and lazy claim, solar photovoltaics are a simple, elegant, effective and flexible means of generating electricity.
2) "Solar panels are ugly" - solar panels are beautiful, they represent the best of our values, and what's more they are a life raft on a rising ocean. Let's start "seeing" more solar panels in the culture - on the homes featured in tv shows and movies, for example.
3) "Transition is too expensive" - Really? More expensive than the coming global catastrophe? It's a question of priorities, not resources.
We must ensure that the transition to renewable energy is rights-respecting, that it supports greater equity and justice, that the materials mined to support renewable energy technologies are ethically sourced and that some people are not displaced from their lands to provide energy for other people.
Because solar is modular there is a great potential to transform economic systems towards inclusion and accessibility. In fact, this potential may explain some of the fear of transition coming from the powers-that-be.
It's also not about going backward. We need to protect and build on our current national passenger rail system, Amtrak, but there are serious threats. The administration has had it in the cross hairs, and the current management at Amtrak want to discontinue service to a large part of the country. High speed rail is a great dream, but we need to keep our energy efficient rail system we have and build on it, and not lose it. My point is that expanding current technologies that have a proven impact and energy efficiency gains are things we can keep doing and must do. It's not all about trillions of dollars. It's about the millions we're now spending on worthwhile things.
The Green New Deal is worse than nothing if it continues to rely on "solutions" with zero possibility of effectively improving the situation.
Take renewables, the poster child of wasted time/money: despite half a century and $60 billion in government incentives, solar panels have yet to generate 2% of U.S. electricity. Wind turbines, 7%. Decarbonizing U.S. energy must happen now - and setting targets for decades into the future, while betting progress on overcoming implacable physical limits, will only seal our fate.
The good news (yes, there is good news) is that it's possible. In the 1980s Sweden, France, and Belgium became virtually carbon-free economies in under 20 years by the rapid buildout of nuclear energy.
"Nuclear energy paves the only viable path forward on climate change," warned acclaimed climatologists in 2015. We continue to disregard their warning at our peril.
3
If those who believe in CC really want to see action, they need to do several things. FIrst, they need to depoliticize it. Stop throwing social and other programs into the mix. Stop using emotional appeals, use facts. Quit pretending that anecdotes are evidence. Call those who disagree with your positions skeptics rather than deniers -- it makes the whole enterprise seem like a religion. To convince people refrain from hysteria, focus on facts, not hyperbole, and make sure your leaders don't fly on jets and live in huge houses. Be prepared to debate -- welcome it. And embrace nuclear as a potential energy source.
I
3
@Ralphie
Yes, nuclear must be in the mix or we will not succeed in this great, giant challenge. Technological changes that have occurred in the nuke energy field will allow us to bring that on-line. Your suggestions for how we should communicate the solutions are also excellent. Leaders must speak that way; logically an calmly. The evidence is monumental so there are no problems there. The problems are people like Nancy Pelosi and others (Dianne Feinstein) who cannot get into an intelligent discussion because they are corrupt and their donors will have none of it. On that, they must be called out and removed. They are blocking serious discussion, so for them, they must shown to be the weak corrupt people they are.
What "climate nightmare?"
Where's the proof of AGW? No theory can be accepted as demonstrated unless and until it makes a testable, falsifiable, prediction that's subsequently observed to be true. Einstein's Theory of Relativity wasn't widely accepted until its prediction was demonstrated that the gravitational field of a massive object--a star--could affect light. (That happened in 1919 during a solar eclipse; I'll omit the details here but they're easy to find. (The centenary of that event will occur on 29 May of this year.))
For a quarter of a century or more, "they've" been making apocalyptic climate predictions--and "they've" been universally wrong. Further, by a big factor, they've almost universally been over-predicting temperatures--if "they" were just wrong, if "they" just didn't yet understand climate well enough to make accurate models, you'd expect about equal under-predictions as over-predictions.
That's not what's happened. Near-universal over-prediction leads to one of two possible conclusions: either "they" don't know what "they're" talking about--in which case where's the nightmare?--or "they" are biasing the results--in which case where's the nightmare?
AGW is a dandy excuse for Bigger Government. That's why the Left has latched onto it with such enthusiasm. But basing insanely expensive national policy on bad--or at least not-yet-demonstrated--science is an insanely bad idea.
1
The editorial wonders and worries that the Green New Deal may be "merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left?" Well, answer me this: when did the private sector actually do anything intentionally for the common good? If there's no profit in it, and it has to be a big profit, they won't do it. The editorial board should be considering what legal, regulatory and ownership actions should be taken against Big Oil, which knew the global climate crisis was coming 50 years ago. The board needs put away the smelling salts, and get a little more real. All hands on deck.
1
The recognition of the significance of Ocasio and Markey's Green New Deal resolution by the Editorial Board is to be welcomed. The suggestion that it can be disentangled from the ambition to radically redesign the economy is not.
There are two aspects to this. The first is technical. Our whole economic infrastructure is built on the harnessing of energy from the burning of fossil fuels. The extraction, refinement, delivery, and burning of fossil fuels constitute not only a massive sector of the economy in their own right, but also a critical component of every single other sector from manufacturing to housing to transportation and communications to agriculture. The idea that we can transform the one without having to significantly transform all of the others is simply mistaken.
The second aspect is political and economic. We got into this mess because the logic of capitalism, in which individual privately owned enterprises compete to maximize profits or die, relentlessly compels them both to externalize costs like damage to people and the environment and to secure and maintain political power to resist the inevitable demands to restrict these tendencies.
We simply can not achieve the necessary transformations envisioned in the Green New Deal without breaking the death grip on our politics by the capitalist class which is so literally deeply invested in, and profits so massively from, the externalization of the social and environmental costs of fossil fuels.
2
Devising a budget for what this is going to cost and spending the money is the easy part. Convincing about 40% of the population of this country, the climate naysayers that this much money needs to be spent is a completely different game. Good luck with that.
The problem is there are the “climate literate” folks who understand how dire this problem has become. Then there are the “illiterates” and they have their sources. Those that actually read throw words out like “climate cooling “ as phenomena that is taking place all over the world.
It’s not just about switching from coal and oil It’s about adopting a more green lifestyle. What does that mean? For starters it means having lots less kids, lots less. Good luck with that. Yes there will be many 3 and 4 person families but the “illiterates” will have larger ones, much larger because their church preaches that God said we are entitled to anything this planet offers. Goodbye whales and salmon and bees and fruit.
But lastly there is the severe drop in class that we will have to make to adjust to this lifestyle. I’m just guessing but it’s my feeling that we will all loose about 1/3 of our wealth to help pay for this. Not just lose 1/3 but maintain that 2/3rds lifestyle from that point on. So long full life. We are all 2/3rders from now on. I hope “illiterates” get a memo that they can understand. This is an monstrous sacrifice we all will have to make.
72
Ted, the reactionary right in America does not "understand" - they believe, which is much more powerful and much harder to confront. no amount of explanation nor assembly of facts is persuasive to those with powerful, unsubstantiated faith in what they believe. ignorance is part of their protective overcoat. just ask Sec. de Vos.
27
@Ted Siebert Great points, but no matter how much money you have you can't replace cars and generation in 10 years, it is impossible. There is not the raw materials nor manufacturing capabilities to do that.
7
@vulcanalex It's not reason they're looking for, vucanalex. It's power.
5
Some people like facts & details. Being a retired scientist I'm one of them.
Here's a link to a paper from 2015 by Stanford eng's that laid out a science based roadmap for providing Wind, Hydro & Solar power to all 50 states.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
This initial attempt at integrating science based data & resources, & existing eng capabilities into a potentially real world plan has to make lots of assumptions (hopefully reasonably realistic)...& recognizes that the biggest obstacle of all is political will & funding to make it happen.
Each state has a unique individual roadmap based on renewable resources in that state.
The Plan assumes that ~ 40% of our current energy needs will have been eliminated by increased efficiencies in power usage in all sectors.
The group's conclusion was that ~ 80-85% of the plan could be implemented by 2030 (15 yrs from 2015, so by 2035 from today).
The group also projected that 100% renewable power could not be achieved before 2050.
Jacobson has published articles since which have reconfirmed the basic conclusions of the 2015 paper (some criticize his approach as not including some nuclear & natural gas).
If you take the time to read it, you begin to get a sense of the scale & massive challenge of the task.
I agree with the goals, but like many scientists & eng's believe it can't happen in less than 30 yrs min.
The GND is a starting pt, but people need a true sense of the challenge too.
3
No significant, new initiatives will be possible on climate or any other emerging policy area unless/until the Democrats win both houses of Congress and the White House. That has to be our exigent priority for 2020. Anything that detracts from that goal should be considered nothing more than virtue-signaling.
Nancy Pelosi and many other centrist Democrats worry that the so-called GND and other far-left proposals will scare off the broad cross-section of voters the Democrats need to win both the Electoral College and the Congress in 2020.
Launched under the false flag of climate change, they fear, the GND is nothing more than a premature attempt to push the Party leftwards. If the Party moves too quickly to the left, they worry, it could find itself once again consigned to the political wilderness in 2020. A middle ground is needed if the Dems are to win in 2020.
If already forgotten after the 2016 debacle, here’s a reminder: we Americans are not all East Coast liberals.
4
@Ron Cohen
Comments like these are simply frustrating. When you hear calls for centrism in today’s US politics you are really asking for Republican light policies. Yes, the country has moved that far to the right since Reagan, that new deal policies, which were once main stream Democratic policies, are considered extreme left. Just let that sink in
@Bret
Frustrating it may be, but it is reality. You must win elections, first, if you want to fight the good fight.
1
Last Frifday Ira Plato the other science guy had a "climate scientist" describing a flood that took place in 1861 in California's central Valley. It covered an area 100 x 50 miles and was the CS emphasized As high as 20 feet deep. As bad as the bomb he said. A harrowing picture nearly from 160 years ago before Climate Change. The CS was asked where was it flooded 20 feet deep. He didn't know. Note California's Central a Valley is not flat as glass. The CS said we were due for another one because of climate change not only that it would happen but more frequently. There were no histrionics given for the areas flooding or weather cycles in the area. The CS nor Plato understood what a thousand year flood meant. The CS also said dams would fail and that future projects would not be able to protect the valley.
As a former Engineer we learned early not to speak outside of field but my none expert opinion is that this is not only shoddy journalism but lazy science. No experts in meteorology or civil engineering were consulted. Once again I'm not denying humanity's involvement in climate change but confirming journalism here and npr is lacking.
2
The Green New Deal is correct that in order to save humanity and civilization we will need to re-order society in dramatic ways. We gave up hunter/gathering for agriculture, we transformed from majority agricultural to industrial and now we must change yet again. But, we have wasted much time and now we must change quickly. Count me in as it will be an exciting time!
3
The Green New Deal is a blueprint, not a bill.
That is not hard to figure out, nor is it hard to explain, nor is it hard to defend.
The Green New Deal will not outlaw cows, nor will we all be walking or riding bikes to our jobs 30 miles away, nor will we be putting up our own windmills, or doing without heat and AC.
Democrats need to put together a careful, centrist explanation of why that blueprint is a good blueprint, and how they plan to carve away at the goals for the future of the planet. They can start with a jobs program tied to technology investments - technology that very well may be best suited for less populated - red- areas of the country and provide economic as well and environmental relief.
The GOP is masterful at using marketing strategies and techniques, and propaganda to get the populace to support them. The Democrats had better get on the bandwagon with their own master class in marketing if they want to survive - and if they want the planet to survive.
They have a really good product to sell, and good selling points. Why are they so inept?
269
@Cathy - I've wondered that many times myself. The only answer I can think of is that Dem leadership is too invested in the status quo to imagine, much less implement, the kind of paradigm shift it will take to salvage this biologically dying world. Like the GOP, their reference points are capitalist economics based on the foundational impossibility of unlimited growth on a limited planet. Politicians don't talk with biologists. I can't even imagine Nancy Pelosi uttering the words "a living planet."
I don't want to complain without offering hope, so please everybody - talk up these issues. Get on the email subscription lists of orgs like Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, etc. Forward their action alerts and post them on Facebook. And keep writing and calling your representatives on your own. We can make a difference if we are focused and undistracted by lesser issues. And let's face it, everything else is a lesser issue given this is our sole habitable planet.
15
@Cathy
Just take out the word “centrist” and what you said is fine. It’s time Democrat’s embrace being left, being liberal (which is not extreme), instead of running away from for fear of a right of center backlash. Got news for you—the country has been either far right or right of center since Reagan, and that is a fact.
16
@Cathy -- the GND is not a "blueprint." That describes, in complete detail, what one can build.
The fact that you call it a "blueprint" shows the complete disconnect between reality and fantasy here.
2
I do not care if the Green New Deal is 'unrealistic'. This is a true emergency with everything at stake. Think Britain in WWII. We do not know what we can accomplish until we try.
4
Let's talk a bit of engineering from a an engineer. Our electric generating capacity is around 1000 gigawatts. Now power isn't energy, but we can make some reasonable assumptions from that number. If we were to replace all of the coal, oil and natural gas consumed by our society with electricity, we are probably in the range of about 5000 gigawatts. This would be used for additional loads of transportation, and heating of our structures. If that generation capacity goes in at $1 per watt, we are talking about an investment of 5 trillion dollars. Now we also must add in the costs of the massive energy storage and distribution infrastructure. Let's assume that's another $1 per watt of generation. We are now up to 10 trillion dollars.
If we spend 100 billion a year, that's a build out of 100 years. And that sounds about right. I say that because we have spent over two hundred years installing a gigantic fossil fuel delivery system. When you consider all of the pipelines, trucks and trains constantly moving that fuel around, the refineries and mining operations, the capital investment must go well into the trillions. It's everywhere.
So that means we have to stop talking and start doing. There is no more time. Even if my rough calculations are off by a factor of two, we still have 50 years of huge investments to make. Going green will be the greatest challenge humanity has ever undertaken.
576
@Bruce Rozenblit
And it helps that solar and wind are actually cheaper now than nuclear and coal and gas peaker plants. Only Gas CC is even close. If we were to instead keep building fossil energy - we'd actually pay MORE than if we add ONLY renewables now.
See LAZARD on LCOE:https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
58
@Bruce Rozenblit But if they fail, there's a non-trivial chance it's the last challenge we'll ever have.
There was an article published in Scientific American a decade ago outlining a potential 100% renewable strategy by 2030. We're starting a bit late, but even a decade ago it was thought feasible. Not sure if NYT delays comments with a URL so please search for "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" for details.
140
@Susan Kraemer
"If we were to instead keep building fossil energy - we'd actually pay MORE than if we add ONLY renewables now."
I'm afraid you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. It's not that simple.
The levelized cost of energy is a specific metric used by policy professionals. In Lazard's 2018 report wind and natural gas CC are both around the same cost. This is not meant to imply that if you built two grids, one with wind and one with natural gas, that the price of energy you pay would be the same.
Different types of electricity provide different value to the grid. Solar and wind are variable resources- their output varies and we cannot choose how sunny or windy it's going to be on a given day. Nuclear power in the U.S. is baseload power- it rarely changes output. Natural gas CC and peaker plants are both dispatchable to different degrees, meaning they can be brought online to balance a drop in solar power.
It's both logical and supported by academic research that as variable renewables make up a higher percentage of the grid their value decreases. This is because you will need more storage and/or overbuild factor.
Storage is not cheap- you might look at Lazard's levelized cost of storage.
The short answer is that if we were to retire our fossil fuel plants and replace them with variable renewables electricity would not be cheaper. It would be a lot more expensive. Probably around 5-10 times as expensive.
10
We’re not going to do anything until the temperature hits 146 degrees in Phoenix, Florida is underwater, and half of California is on fire. Only when millions of people are forced to flee their homes and we have a domestic refugee situation will it sink in that we need to do something. And not until then.
It’s unfortunate that we’ll not only miss the opportunity to be the world leaders in advancing green solutions, we’ll also be dependent on the countries that do take the lead and create the solutions we’ll need to survive.
1
don't worry: our puny problems on the Earth will magically go away if we just pray hard enough and prevent abortions. and the best part is, praying is free after you throw some money in the basket and grant tax exemptions to religious organizations. don't be concerned that you cannot see a path from here to there, as the Lord works in mysterious ways we cannot understand. and if it doesn't all work out, there's always the Rapture for the deserving and the rest are going to be subject to massive warming anyway once they die.
I'm old enough to remember smog. You can still see it in some of the older TV shows like CHiPS. Watch the background in outdoor scenes.
At the time it was argued the issue was too large to be fixed by automotive emission controls. The first cars with catalytic convertors in 1975 cost more and ran poorly compared to the same pre-smog models. The image of tree-hugging nerds was born and a few years later a president described energy conservation as 'shivering in the dark'... Then removed the solar panels from the White House roof.
Now you don't see smog in LA as often as you used to. And it's hard to determine how many jobs were lost from the ban on tetraethyl lead in gasoline. But the longevity and quality of life among Los Angelinos has improved and 80's cars onward run way better than anything pre-'75.
Maybe that's the real conspiracy...?
Democrats want a cleaner environment so their voters live longer and vote longer. What a devious pack of monsters!
If human activity has no effect on climate change, but we operate on the premise it does, good environmental stewardship still gives us a cleaner environment and new business opportunities.
Compare that to what happens if we do nothing.
3
There's nothing wrong with the progressive wish list. Better education, more opportunity for higher education along with a country of healthy citizens go hand and hand with the innovation we need to reach zero emissions.
The challenge for the Democratic party is how to turn the aspirational goals of the left into public policy that doesn't over-reach our personal freedom. That includes tax policy and spending priorities along with regulation.
One thing is clear. The far right is achieving its aspirational goals because the left helped them sabotage Mrs. Clinton. The Democrats with the help of Trump are already eating their own before the debate has even begun.
I'm looking forward to a serious, intelligent debate by the Democratic candidates that is both aspirational and practical.
3
Thanks for the article...and support. One note: environmental action IS economic action - and vice versa. So, if we continue to devastate our environment, we will continue to see our standard of living decline and run a greater risk of war (among other ills). Or, if we improve our environment and thereby our economy, we will continue to experience vitality (economically, environmentally and socially). Kennedy wanted a man on the moon and back within a decade (we did it in eight). We had no idea how to do that, but figured it out. Big. Bold. Ideas. Dreams. Results. That’s what America does best. If Democratic leadership and all Republican’ts weren’t such whimpy scaredy-cats,we could do the same with our enviro-conomy.
1
The mantra that we cannot afford to tackle climate change is absurd in the face of finding ourselves quite capable of adding trillions to the national debt for the benefit of tax breaks for the already obscenely wealthy or for the equally obscene Pentagon budget.
As anyone living near water and/or areas prone to high winds can tell you, property insurance is reaching its own unsustainable level. Each disaster increases the cost of doing nothing.
However, consider the price of doing nothing or, as the present Administration would have it, quickening the pace of destruction. We are rapidly approaching the time when all the money in the world will not suffice to stop the runaway train of climate change. As we hurry on to meet that disaster as quickly as possible, we will find ourselves unable to drink the water or breathe the air. Forget about food because we won't be able to grow it without the rest of nature aiding the effort. Is that scenario expensive?
In a few years, as we drown in our own waste, we will wish we had paid the cost while we still could. Life itself is more precious than money.
130
@nora m Feinstein told the children "we can't afford the GND" but when Trump asked for $717 billion for "defense", she voted "yes".
3
Since I get my pension from a coal-powered electric utility, I have a dog in this fight. I also have no descendants to worry about. But I sure as heck don't want to see other people's descendants suffering episodes like the deadly London fog of 1952, or watch oceans continue to rise and swallow up the coastlines, or temperatures rise and create the havoc we've begun to see. The first thing we need to do is get the man out of the WH who doesn't want his good fossil fuel buddies to be inconvenienced in any way, so he happily reverses fuel standards and opens up more and more lands to fossil fuel exploration. He has already said he doesn't care since he won't be here. Fine - we'll be happy to see you're not "here" in office in 2020. Your reversals will be reversed.
527
@Brookhawk
Speaking of appeasing Trump's 'buddies' no one really talks about Putin's existential need to resist sources of energy other than fossil fuels. Russia collapses economically as demand for petroleum diminishes.
I'm really surprised than nothing I read mentions this incentive on Trump's part to oppose advocating a turn away from fossil fuels.
While proving another's motives is virtually impossible, we should at least incorporate that in our discussions.
74
@Brookhawk
I think you may be mixing up Trump with Cheny and Bush, a little. Villains vary, afterall.
1
If we look at the Green New Deal solely as energy policy, the idea is perfectly sensible. We can't accomplish a carbon neutral energy grid in ten years. Even with massive investment, energy infrastructure rotates on about a 30-year timeline. However, we can accomplish about 80 percent of what the Green New Deal suggests in ten years. The rest will just take a little longer to phase out.
I don't see what Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi have such a grudge about. The term "possible" only ever applies to their neoliberal agenda. Thank goodness Pelosi is getting forced out on her leadership agreement. I can't wait till she's gone. You should really watch the Feinstein video too. If that's not an argument for forced retirement, I don't what qualifies. Someone buy her a plaque and send her on her way. Feinstein has been at this game for far too long.
Democrats better start singing a different tune fast. Tax incentives for electric cars aren't convincing anyone under 35. That's 30 percent of the electorate and an even wider margin of Democratic voters. Amy Klobuchar is barking up the wrong tree. If you want to propose an alternative Green New Deal, fine. However, the old-school Democratic playbook is insufficient. I'm happy to vote anyone who talks down the immediacy of climate change right out of office.
108
@Andy Good for you Andy. But I'm not convinced in the slightest. They are intentionally magnifying the "problem" to the point of immediate crises because they do not want you to pause and actually think.
Their models have proven highly faulty.
The science is dubious.
They have a political axe to grind.
Have you wondered why the leftists that couldn't get the country to go socialist in the 1960's are all over this "climate change" idea?
It's not scientific. But it is political. Try thinking about the whole idea without blinders on.
5
@Andy
The time frame to change over infrastructure from fossil fuels to anything else will be much longer than 30 years. Heavy infrastructure that took 100 years to build when the population was low will take as long to turn over. Need to get started, but it will take a bit.
3
@Andy Your estimate of 80% is off by a lot, and that makes the proposals not sensible. It might be 10% in reality. And for the US there is no immediacy of climate change, not to indicate that improvements are not required, in fact they are already underway.
2
Democrats are going about this the completely wrong way.
They should start in their voting-wise relatively safe cities, with low emission zones, with transforming car lanes into walking and biking space, with more green, real recycling etc.
Unlike European cities which keep evolving, we’ve done nothing. It’s not even a topic of discussion in the Chicago mayoral race.
Yet this is how support can be built for green policy and laws on a national/state level. If we can’t even do it in “our” cities, the Green New Deal isn’t going anywhere.
3
Nuclear power? After Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island? They may not happen frequently, but when they do it is devastating.
And what about nuclear waste? Here in Portland we still have it leaking from the Hanford site into the Columbia River. Perhaps members of the Editorial Board are willing to store some of it in a vault under the NY Times building. Or in their back yards. Not me. I want solar panels on every roof top in America. And a better design for wind turbines that doesn't massacre all the birds in the vicinity.
3
We need an agressive and immediate plan to address climate change but it should not include nuclear power. Opposition to nuclear is anything but irrational: 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the Hanford, WA nuclear site are just some of the more dramatic examples of the destruction this toxic and expensive industry has wrought. The latter makes up several US Superfund sites, has cost billions of dollars to "clean up" thus far, and remains this country's most toxic dump as its vast stores of radioactive waste continue to leak into the surrounding environment which includes the Columbia River. Sites like Hanford with their radioactive and other toxic wastes will likely plague us to literally the end of time. As the Germans, who are phasing out nuclear power and have already shut down many of of their nuclear plants, wisely decided years ago, the last thing we need is more of them.
The Horrors, our CO2 emissions went up by 3.4% due to a more robust economy. Our emissions are at a 20 year low due to fracking and the resulting natural gas supply that is supplanting coal for electricity generation. Not by subsidized wind and solar. Germany tried this Green New Deal approach and it has resulted in the highest energy costs in the EU and increased emissions. Then there is the practical side. There are currently 268 million vehicles registered in the US. If it cost, a modest $20,000 to replace or refit existing vehicles, it would cost $3.2 trillion. There are 5.6 million commercial buildings and 133 million residential homes. Not sure how to calculate the cost to retrofit to the “new standards”, but it would be astronomical. These costs are more regulatory burden then they are value creation and likely to have the same efficacy as Germany has experienced. And how dire is the climate crisis that confronts us? Global temperatures have flattened considerably over the last 20 years as CO2 has increased. The climate models appear to be overstating the temperature increase. For the last several decades, climate hysterics have claimed all sorts of dire outcomes that have not occurred. If you want to retool our economy, I would suggest more realistic assessments of the situation. Climate has been warming for 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. There is an anthropomorphic acceleration. Let’s look for reasonable ways to address, not hysterics.
2
@Mark V I can see you are highly educated in the field of climate science!
In the world of reality the past scientific projections of ice melt, ocean temperature and acidification, along with average temperature have all be overly optimistic. The changes have all happened faster and are more alarming then predicted.
1
@Mark V See graph below. In each of the ice ages, the temperatures usually peak around the time the ice age starts to shrink and then slowly go down for tens of thousands of years. Our temperatures peaked 8000 years ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.pnggo and were going downward until recently.
@Mark V
Do you realize that if you are wrong - even a little bit - that we all die? Have you ever been wrong?
If we are truly facing an environmental crisis of the scale many believe, we must take dramatic action which will necessarily require a restructuring of our economy. Because of this, the economic provisions of the GND are just as essential as the environmental.
The question is whether we are willing (and even able) to disrupt our entire way of life to attempt to fend off a disaster that (1) we are not sure will occur or be as bad as the worst predictions suggest and (2) may at this point be unavoidable no matter what we do as the environmental damage has already advanced too far. Personally, I am in favour of moving forward aggressively and embracing a strategy of radically transforming our economy even if it means painful disruption. I believe that a severe environmental catastrophe is on the horizon and that without a massive restructuring of our economy we have no hope of avoiding it. I don't believe, however, that humanity will ever be able to embrace the changes needed. I suspect we are going to have to experience the catastrophe. Only time will tell if we can survive it.
4
Changing our conversation to climate change, as in the Democrats' New Green Deal, is better than hearing more about Trump's calling climate-warming "a hoax" and pulling us out of the Paris Accords, and hustling fossil fuels, oil, coal, and selling federal lands to fracking capitalists to drill, baby, drill. As the world has already passed the tipping point from mankind's depredations, we are asking what we Americans and other citizens of Earth can do do solve the conundrum of climate change? Can technology save the planet?
Should anyone still doubt the reality of global warming, all one needs do is review the multitude of accounts of melting Arctic ice, the glaciers of Greenland, the Alps and even the Himalayas, and even ice shelves in Antarctica.
Prompt action is needed to arrest the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. The technology already exists: electric vehicles, solar cells, wind turbines. The US needs to replace its vehicle fleets with electric vehicles, energy generation needs to shift dramatically to solar and wind (with fossil fuel backup) so that the electric vehicles will, in fact, be carbon free, and, in the US, a smart grid is needed to transport electricity generated by solar and wind to the Midwest.
Accomplishing this transformation in10 years may be overly optimistic but 20 years (before 2040) is not, and the consequences become more dire if we delay further. Some parts of Europe are much farther along in this process. We in the US need to come to terms with the fact that the entrenched corporate investments in fossil fuel need to give way to the best future attainable.
2
Whoa! Not enough action and not scary enough. We needed to start many yesterdays ago. Everyone including the NY Times is painting a 'rosy' picture of climate change.
First of all we must avoid hitting the predicted population of 10 billion people. If this happens all efforts to reduce global warming will be lost. Tax breaks world wide for no child families and one child families. Tax penalties for more than one child.
All new structures need to use environmental friendly construction.
Aid to third world countries by industrialized countries for population reduction, grasslands, stopping deforestation, etc.
Reduce travel and invest in mass transit.
We are not in for a 10 year Green New Deal or even a hundred year program. We are in an existential crisis that will probably be with us for a millennium unless we do ourselves in.
I've only listed a few things but there are thousands of things we can do. We need to realize we have to do them or we can kiss our great great grandchildren goodbye.
5
@hd great great grandchildren from no child and one child families?
Exploitation of the natural world is inherent to capitalism.
A sustainable economic system and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Nobody invented capitalism and nobody will invent a sustainable economic model.
Economic models evolved along the needs of a given civilization.
Capitalism can’t survive a finite world but it gave us the technology to find new solutions that sustain the natural world and our civilization.
It’s an endeavor into the unknown but we have the means to reduce the risks.
As longer we hold off or stall as more likely will be a catastrophic collapse of civilization.
The Green New Deal is a vague roadmap for the journey.
It’s the best we will ever have.
4
@Oliver Herfort Thank you, 100% agree.
This is a generational problem, and I'm sorry to say it. This is antithetical to Baby Boomer Democrats, but the truth is they still don't get the urgency of the problem in the way that younger people do, such as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm a Baby Boomer, and like many of my liberal cohorts, was defensive about this allegation. Not any more. Our generation doesn't understand the urgency in the way the younger generation does.
The House Democrats, in my opinion, have not been much better on climate change than the Republicans. They say the right things, are rich in their criticisms of Republicans, but yet end up spinning their wheels when it comes time to take real action. Speaker Pelosi's dismissal of the Green New Deal is just more of the same.
We're in a lot of trouble. And I'm not sure what will move the Democrats from their climate change-light position to full-scale action. Maybe it will take a few more years of mega environmental disasters, or maybe it will take awareness by Baby Boomers that the clock is ticking and your last chance to have an impact that actually helps future generations is now. Right now.
6
I don’t see the American teenagers protesting in the streets like in Europe. The Democratic cities, with their young population, are still completely car centric.
I’m amazed at how pedestrians have to wait minutes at traffic lights light on Chicago’s main shopping street (Michigan Ave) and find this completely normal. A shopping street with tiny sidewalks at that. Or how US41 completely ruins Chicago’s lakefront.
Or how painted biking lanes are called progress, with buses and cars weaving in and out of them often without looking. Or how a realtor told me houses in Chicago built before 2005 generally don’t have wall insulation. How the feel good recycling container compared to the big dumpsters do next to nothing for our environment. Etc.
It’s an American thing. We just don’t see it.
1
@Patrick I'm a boomer, born in 1951 and I "get" the problem. I've spent most of my adult life working on the problem.
I also "get" why those whose vested interests are opposed have stymied doing much about it.
Yes, we are in trouble, yes, the "clock is ticking."
Juvenile pronunciamentos like AOC's "GND" just set us all backward, as does the idea that you're going to wait until all the boomers die off before you have a chance to create the big rock candy mountain she fantasizes.
1
There are other reasons to appaud it. So, what you should have written is "that alone is reason ENOUGH to applaud it. " What you wrote --"that alone is reason to applaud it"-- falsely denotes that that is the ONLY reason to applaud it. If "that alone is reason" then there is no other reason; if there were another reason, then that would not be alone.
That alone is reason to take issue with your editorial. In all other respects, I agree with it.
As a set of goals, why wouldn’t we want to live in a society as the GND describes? What part of this isn’t something we should aspire to? Maybe ten years isn’t enough time to get there but let’s get started.
Also you can’t separate the climate part of the GND from the question of what our economy should look like. It is economic and industrial policy and this shouldn’t be an issue that it is. Many time over this country’s history we have reinvented our economy using the power of the federal government to nudge it in a different direction. And each time we as a county have been better off for it. This is no different.
2
We invented the "steam engine" in the 1800's and in one form or another it has been the basis for converting carbon fuels to usable power since. Even today, we boil water to make steam to power a turbine that makes electricity which we use, in some situations, to boil more water to cook or heat homes. Now we have photo voltaic panels that convert sunlight to electricity and cost less than any other source of power. It's a disruptive technology, true enough, kinda like "smart phones". In about 10 years we have converted the whole planet to cell phone technology and the era of pay phones on the corner or land lines on the wall is almost over. Very few gripe about this disruptive change, in fact we embrace it. Electricity production has the same opportunity. And, btw, every 100MW solar or wind facility avoids the dumping of 150,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere if we keep burning coal, to boil water, to produce steam, to turn a turbine, to make electricity that we transmit hundreds of miles to power a TV with an overall efficiency of less than 25%, not to mention all the water used and the other chemicals dumped into our atmosphere. Please, take a deep breath, look in the mirror, let's get going, Now.
7
@Taoshum I will just comment on one issue. A super critical [thermodynamic term] coal plant with CO2 capture and better than 40% efficiency can be built today.
@h dierkes and @Taoshum
First, electric transmission is routinely more than 90% efficient for distances over 2,000 km, if done competently.
Quite beyond that, GE or Siemans will take your order TODAY for a plant that "gasifies" coal to CO + H2O, scrubs out the ash and sulfur, and then burns that gas in combined-cycle plant capable of efficiency > 60%. This still emits a LOT of CO2.
The up-front gasification and scrubbing is necessary because otherwise the sulfuric acid and ash eat the first-stage gas turbine, but also are an efficient means of meeting US emissions standards for coal-fired power plants -- more efficient than post-combustion scrubbing.
There are no takers for this: too expensive compared to natural gas, and the CO2 per MWH is much higher than natural gas.
Several proposed demonstration plants intended to use the water gas shift reaction
CO + H2O -> H2 + CO2
to convert the CO in the process gas to CO2,then scrub CO2 (that would be sent to sequestration), sending the resulting H2 to either a combined-cycle turbine or possibly advanced fuel cells.
Read about "FutureGen" and "Vattenfall Demonstration Plant."
While "technologically feasible" these plants were canceled when it became apparent they were economic disasters.
1
Not surprising at all that the 2016 “debates” didn’t touch this topic, as they are not debates, they are reality TV shows. Real debates would cover one (maybe two) important topics and drill down each candidate’s deep knowledge of, stance, and proposals to deal with that issue. The American people are actually smart enough to grasp detailed information. If journalists had followed the standards of their admirable profession (important enough to warrant inclusion in our Constitution) rather than the companies they work for whose interests lie in ratings, perhaps we would have had a knowledgeable, experienced, and capable president rather than the self-intentionally- ignorant and incompetent one we have who would not have last the first 10 minutes of a real debate. And we would have covered climate change.
Journalists, for the 2020 debates - stand up and fight for your profession.
8
There is no "climate nightmare".
Food production is at record levels. Hurricanes hitting the US is down. Tornadoes are down. Deaths due to weather is down. The Northwest Passage may soon be open regularly. Polar bear populations are up.
The problems we have encountered are due to poor management. New Orleans was built on a sinking river delta. People are building like mad on unstable soil and sand bars along the coasts. Water flow is restricted throughout the US by building into valleys and building levees and channels. Governor Jerry Brown and his greenies stopped new dam construction in California, in spite of nearly doubling in population since his first term. Water is turned off to agriculture because of some unremarkable minnow.
Our problem is too much regulation in some areas and too little in others.
3
@Son of the American Revolution
Couldn't agree more. Also it is insane for the US to destroy our great economy in the name of global warming when China and India are polluting the atmosphere with far more CO2 that we could produce even if we burned nothing but coal for energy. We need some common sense among our elite leaders.
@Son of the American Revolution OMG! Where are you getting your information?
Wish the editors had included David Wallace-Wells recent NYT opinion piece, "Time to Panic."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/fear-panic-climate-change-warming.html
Even as US comprehension that climate change is happening has risen across the political spectrum, only Democrats increasingly view it as "serious" - on the right, the number has not budged, the % of Republicans that rate it as "serious" has not budged from 15% for 20 years.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/consensus-emerges-climate-change-debate-n950646
And this is not just a mass base phenomenon - in the NYT's linked commentary below, right wing 'public intellectual' Douthat complacently offers 'reasonable solutions' - a few carbon initiatives and maybe some sea walls if it proves necessary.
Considering what we're facing, 'reasonable solutions' is just another form of denial.
Will the right even react to the military's 'national security'-based reports?
As accustomed as we are to right wing obstructionism in Congress, where the planet is concerned, right wing obstruction may be the death of us all.
12
I think the Green New Deal is brilliant and I'm so happy to see the NYT support it at least in principle. The response that it is not realistic and a non-starter is frustrating. What is not realistic is global agreements to meet distant targets that the signers themselves know their own national economic strategies prohibit.
Canada is the worst for that. It bills itself as so eco-conscious, but refuses to hear that the country's economic plan for intensive resource extraction makes meeting the Paris Accord targets impossible. At least Trump is honest in his refusal to pretend he cares.
What is brilliant about the Green New Deal is that it recognizes that no climate strategy will work if it isn't integrated with a large-scale economic plan. I disagree with this article's final conclusion - that the climate strategies could be just a Trojan horse for social justice reforms. We have two pressing but related problems: our current form of capitalism is forcing too many people into poverty AND it is destroying the earth. The Green New Deal is one solution that can address both problems at the same time.
18
You are defending the blunder by AOC. We don't need this social justice warrior garbage mixed in with environmental policy.
1
@Valerie -- God save us from "brilliant" like this. If you have a toothache and you are concerned about tomorrow's rent check the solution is not to propose a revolution to solve all your problems.
1
Hopefully climate will take center stage where it belongs in the coming election. So far as I can see, Republicans will not be part of the conversation. The stranded assets of fossil fuel is the baggage that belongs to republicans and guides their policy. The youth of the world are beginning to understand their future in a rapidly changing world brought about by older generations. Republicans will continue to use all the power of fossil fuel money to keep climate change a hoax. Expect a barrage of hysteria to the Green New Deal or anything similar to it from the old guard who will be dying off leaving the next generation to pick up the pieces.
8
@Bella Your entire world revolves around fossil fuels.
You are posting on a computer that is largely made of plastic; a petroleum by product. Look around you.
How many things are made of plastic?
Fossil fuels are organic. You do understand that correct?
The energy in oil and gas are the remains of millions of years of plant and animal life being forced by pressure in the earth to form hydrocarbons. In actuality we are returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that was once in the atmosphere.
Look long and hard at the New Green Deal and do not be fooled by pie in the sky baloney. It would set the nation back decades.
1
The issue with nuclear is that their plants are so complicated to plan and build that it often makes no economic sense as the return on the investment will take decades to recoup. Nuclear projects are getting cancelled. Wind and solar can be rapidly deployed however and their ever dropping price point (thanks to innovation and economies of scale) mean that cost benefit is only going to improve. The combination with energy storage, such as batteries and pumped hydro, mean that power is available 24/7.
4
@Robert Grant
In another brilliant move by the GOP - the alleged party of business - we ceded leadership on the production of green energy to China and other nations (as we earlier ceded leadership on stem cell research) to coddle the tender feelings of the fossil fuel industry and the evangelical vote. Will those entities rescue the planet when it becomes unable to sustain human life?
A focus on this as a jobs creator will be key.
One thing that all parties seem to agree on (that even DJT will find hard to counter) is that this can contribute to more economic growth and more jobs.
The historical numbers show the same and will force DJT to reverse his climate change positions or simply walk away from a known jobs creator.
Regardless, if it looks like it will work, DJT will never go for it any way!
5
@Is_the_audit_over_yet
You are joshing correct? Otherwise you have been thoroughly fooled. This plan will wreck the entire economy.
That's the real problem with the left. They don't like the market economy so they never learn about how it functions. This "plan" would place the United States in third world status within a decade.
1
The Green New Deal would cripple the economy and plunge the nation into a depression that would last decades.
China and India are the main polluters go after them.
But no the left has found a new tool to destroy the Republic and cannot wait to implement it.
The nation is not going to go for this in the slightest.
The Warmists tales of gloom and doom have proven false.
Their computer models spit out the information they send to it, whether accurate or not.
When the weatherman cannot tell me exactly what will happen on the morrow, how can the climatologists tell me exactly what will occur in ten or twenty years.
The Warmists have played the role of Henny Penny a bit too convincingly.
The Green New Deal is dead on arrival.
Try again to frighten us.
8
@J. Scott I remember my parents driving the car up to the gas station the night before it was their day to get gas. Does anybody not remember that? This would make that 100 times worse!
@J. Scott
You have already been frightened, sir. You are terrified of change, so you deny that it is happening. You conflate, knowingly or otherwise, weather - which is what you see outside your window - with climate - which is the long-term aggregate of effects. Science cannot predict individual weather events of a daily nature any more than it can predict which gun-toting individual is going to be a mass murderer tomorrow.
I am glad you are on earth, but I do wonder where since you have avoided seeing the wildfires, mudslides, hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, extreme cold, extreme heat, and other "once a century" weather events that are happening every year - at great cost, may I add.
Maybe Henny Penny is right. Maybe being RIP van Winkle or the fiddling grasshopper will not save you.
1
@J. Scott Apparently the simple difference between short-term variability and long-term certainty eludes you. Let me illustrate: I can't say with any exactitude when you'll die but can say with absolute certainty that in 100 years you'll be dead.
Don't confuse the noisy variabilty of weather with the now well-established trend of the climate. The latter is rapidly warming and we are the cause.
1
It is a question, often asked, about where the other advanced civilizations are in the universe. A popular hypothesis is that there is a “great filter” through which few civilizations pass and that filter might often be of their own making: in form of civilization destroying weapons (nuclear in our case) or devastating environmental degradation (climate change). While we have a tenuous grip on the nuclear threat, we are at the edge of this great environmental filter, what we do in the next few years will determine whether we can pass through it. The odds, given the fecklessness of our leaders, are stacked against us.
6
It is of course an emergency and has been one for decades. But now that we rode the train for years to get here we are going to enjoy the result.
At issue is the notion that it is possible to have the world of nations adhere to any plan with any semblance of order. That is impossible and has never happened in the history of mankind.
I certainly think what was proposed is real and needed but the a young freshman congresswoman from NYC who, ast least so far, is far less than credible and, is already being dismissed by many as such is NOT the right person to deliver the talking points.
There is an old adage she has not yet grasped. Don’t make the opportunity about you such that you drown our your message.
2
As with the failed Amazon deal, The NY Times is playing both sides of this disastrous strategy, while continuing to promote their rising star, AOC. Any thinking progressive supports the ultimate goals of addressing our need to reduce and ultimately eliminate the causes of climate change, fossil fuels.
Attaching those strategies to an unattainable laundry list of far left social goals smacks of immaturity. Litmus tests for vulnerable senators helps Republicans.
Democrats must focus on strategies that will enable them to retake the Senate and White House in 2020, and then legislation can follow. Senator Feinstein is correct in her assertions of how to get things done.
Cheap political theater only stokes the egos of idealistic and naive legislators while playing into the hands of regressives.
4
my dismal estimate is there are only 2 processes which will reverse carbonization:
1] generational massive global population decline
2] generational massive global economic decline
and they are really both sides of the same fair-odds coin
1
@Marc, in the 1970s-1980s France decarbonized almost entirely by building out nuclear energy. It remains, quite literally, our only hope.
1
@Marc
Both of those horsemen of the Apocalypse are underway. We are being killed by unbridled human greed and willful ignorance. The earth, itself, will start to recover once it has rid itself of human life.
Anyone looking at the weather changes across this planet and who has an iota of common sense and a minimal scientific ability to read between the lines, knows that something is terribly wrong and it can only get worse.
Anyone that is, besides this president who not only withdrew this country out of the Paris Climate Accord, but who has stacked his Cabinet with every fossil fuel lobbyist known to man and single-handedly sought to undo every environmental protection policy put into place by the Obama administration.
And while the New Green Deal may not be all things to all people, it certainly is right in acknowledging it's high time to do something to alter the course we're currently on.
Especially if we want to have a future and a planet capable of sustaining life.
9
The green deal and all the worried commentators are missing (or in denial about) the lowest hanging fruit to address climate change: animal agriculture.
If you are serious about addressing climate change, go vegan. It is impossible to address climate change until we abandon animal agriculture and adopt plant-based diets (although perhaps some items, like almonds, may be lost or modified). If you really want change, start with yourself and walk the walk - give up meat, fish, dairy, eggs, etc. You will improve your health and the health of the planet (not to mention spread some compassion).
3
@BMD
Sweet and has its merits, however it will never be enough to make a dent. I live with awareness of the fragility of life on earth in its present manifestation. We have one car, not an SUV. We own no "toys" in terms of snowmobile, off road anything, or motorized boat. I hang out the laundry or dry it on racks when the weather is wet. I have been recycling since the 70's. I avoid plastic as much as possible. I use cloth bags for shopping and eat mindfully. We watch our use of electricity and heat. We produce one bag of trash weekly. I figure all that effort is cancelled out completely every time Air Force One takes off to allow Trump to golf at one of his homes.
Yes, we should curb our use of resources. I frankly cannot stop because I cannot pretend not to know what is happening, but individual effort will never be enough to offset the effects of industry. This is a systemic, global problem on a scale never before encountered. In my heart of hearts I think we are toast as a species. If we cannot address this, we will drown in our own waste.
Very soon, as the disaster of climate change impacts us on a daily basis, and, in the lifetime of the people who devised the dismantling of regulations curbing emissions and passed laws increasing the use of fossil fuels, young people and children soon to become voters will want justice. They will ask who and why? Who is responsible and why did they do it?
The guilty will become a particular class off criminal, in the same league as war criminals but unique in their actions against the health of our planet and the survival of our species.
5
The "Green New Deal" isn't exactly a plan. It's more of a framework from which more details and methods will emerge.
But in that sense it is very good because it recognizes the interrelated nature of the problems we face and the need for a similar approach to a solution. What critics fail to see are the truly dire consequences of doing nothing.
We don't really have a 'solution' because we've already driven the global warming bus over the cliff. The only question is how hard the crash will be.
Right now we have the technological capacity to end coal use and we're close to knowing exactly how to end oil dependency. But the effort will require tens of billions of dollars and coordination on an unprecedented scale. But it can be done.
The critics of the Green New Deal offer no alternative. And if that doesn't portend tragedy they should read the CIA and DIA reports on climate disruption as a national security issue.
Despite the lies emanating from the GOP about climate disruption there are some elements of government that are telling the truth and raising a very big red flag warning.
10
My many conservative friends are universally dismissive of the Green New Deal and being a Republican myself I do sympathize. Change is scary for those who exalt the status quo and radical change, doubly so. But when I ask, okay, what's your plan to deal with this crisis; I get this amazing response. Do nothing. I am assured the crisis is fake and nothing but a liberal media plot to upend Capitalism. And anyway, if there is a real problem then the Free Market will
correct it on its' own and without prompting.
The scary part is, they are completely sincere. This faith-based wishful thinking is a viable solution, for them. However I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Not what I would call realistic, hard-eyed Conservatism.
22
@Drew
It is faith-based delusion. Their faith in the human construct of free market economic theory is dogma that provides a fig leaf for their rock-bottom desire to continue on as it nothing is happening. I have news for them. Their McMansions on Cape Cod and in Florida will be the first to succumb to the rising tides.
1
@Drew
Such people are fools. They do not factor in the cost of being wrong. They are emotional "thinkers" that will kill us all.
One might ask them if they'd invest in a fund that returned 3% (the percent of climate change scientists that deny the problem) or would they prefer a 97% return.
Then add that the 3% fund has so much more risk that they could easily lose their lives.
2
Sorry, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, isn't really new after all.
It's actually an "Old Green Deal", a rehash of the environmental platform called Energiewende, or energy transition, adopted in Germany in 2010.
According to The Hill, similarities abound between the German program and the resolution proposed by the House freshman and Senator Ed Markey. It also called for a shift to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.
While the Energiewende has resulted in some minor advancements in renewable energy, it has fallen woefully short of it's lofty goals.
The demands placed on industry and residential housing were too restrictive and unrealistic - coal still produces 37% of the Germany's energy - it hasn't changed in 10 years.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal aims to employ massive production of solar, wind, and battery technologies -
..what the New Green Deal does not do is explain how to pay for the plan - it simply links to two op-eds explaining so-called modern monetary theory, or MMT, which posits that deficits don't matter all that much in the absence of inflation.
It's suggests the New Green Deal will be paid for with soaring deficits.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez took office in Jan. - 30 days later she unveils her New Green Deal-it's a travesty.
She's clueless as to the dire financial state of a Country that's currently mired in $21 trillion of debt - $965 billion deficit this year- and monumental costs to service the debt - $340 billion in interest in 2019.
3
@JMS
Agreed that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is naive and ill-equipped, but the reason we have a soaring deficit is because of Trump and the GOP's policies, including the massive give away to the richest Americans. Let's reverse that! Moreover, when debt rises due to investment, it is usually a good thing. So, if you care about it, advocate for increased taxes and more investment.
4
While the German energy system is run on 35% coal, that number is expected to drop significantly as the rise of renewables and natural gas become more prominent. 36% of their grid is powered by renewables, which I believe you will find makes up a larger share of their grid than 10 years ago. As this technology becomes available and economies of scale kick in, the German system will be on track to implement a fully renewable energy grid at a cost that is less than their coal powered system.
Not only that, but under the Green new deal, the US would be a leading exporter of renewable energy, with an abundance of natural gas and battery storage solutions. This would create a huge influx of jobs and increased revenue through trade. So to simply state that, how are we going to pay for it, is quite a misguided and frivolous comment. How did we pay for the tax cut? How did we pay for the agricultural industry to receive $7b of aid? How do we pay for the Pentagon to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without an audit? It seems republicans only care about spending when it doesn't benefit those that line their pockets.
5
The Green New Deal is a welcome start. However we are currently in the earlier phases of a true Climate Crisis that will require emergency action on the parts of nations all around the world.
Emergency action means a WWII-style national mobilization effort where we are taking an "all of the above" approach to seriously cut our CO2 emissions and continue along with emergency action spanning multiple generations, probably along the lines of a 75+ year effort, not 10 years.
So the emergency action approach would include measures such as:
Building light rail service in metro areas where it doesn't exist
Expanding light rail in metro areas where it does exist
Mandating car-pooling for office workers living in areas where light rail commuting service doesn't make economic sense
Providing free shuttle bus service all over the place to take people to train stations, shopping malls, nearby downtown areas and so on
Reforestation along with restoring natural habitats like natural grasslands
Deliberately reducing the sheer amount of cattle being raised for meat since cattle raising is by far the most resource-intensive method of producing meat. This would also free up millions of acres of farmland and grazing land that could then be utilized to grow healthier types of food such as fruits and vegetables for human consumption versus crops like alfalfa and soybeans to be used for animal feed.
Ceding political power to a scientific panel on a nation-by-nation basis.
2
@Tom
We could replace cows with bison. They are perfectly adapted to their environment. They do not calve during winter storms and can withstand them. They are higher in protein and leaner in fat. There are thousands of acres of national land for them to roam. They are also very delicious.
@Tom - Thanks for the chuckles, especially the very last line. I know I shouldn’t laugh at the mentally deranged but you’re special.
The earth is either getting warmer or colder - I am voting for warmer. In fact, I’m pretty annoyed at the body of scientists who insist that the current solar minimum is going to usher in another “Little Ice Age”. You being a resident of Chicago I would think you would be pulling for global warming.
10 years!
How will you reeducate a workforce in that time? You are talking about displacing millions of people who, at an advancing age, will not be able to easily transition to a Green New Deal Economy. Younger generations will have the distinct advantage of starting at an early age.
Although their hearts are in the right place, this whole thing sounds like some white college students got high in their dorm room and figured it was their duty to change the world.
14 pages to change an entire economy is crude, rudimentary and frankly should insult the intelligence of any person who considers themselves a progressive. And lets face it, its not the planet that needs saving, its humanity.
If the Green New Deal folks care about anyone but themselves, they should have launched this in front of a coal mine in West Virginia with coal miners in the background. (Coal miners are the people who sacrificed their lives for generations to ensure that America could become the dominant world power and ensure peace in the 20th century, and are now blamed for the ills befallen our nation).
This was a publicity stunt, nothing more. Anything this major cannot be done on a partisan basis.
2
@Chris
Anyone want to take a guess whether this crop of new leftwing politicians is willing to work across the aisle to promote realistic climate change proposals? First, they have to step back from fighting...the wall.
1
Republicans have used the tactic of using extreme proposals to advance their agendas. It has been very effective and moved the center farther and farther to the right.
Democrats seem to have awakened finally and are pushing back. We are not likely to get the Green New Deal or Medicare for All in the next few years, but the groundwork will be laid for constructive action. I'm happy to see that happening.
16
Did Steve Bannon invent this pie-in-the-sky pork barrel, to get Donald Trump re-elected?
If Democrats can't talk about infrastructure and education in a direct, results-measurable way, then the middle section of the country will understand this plan as code for putting people out of work, and thereafter they will once again vote for Trump. I can't think of any better way to get him re-elected.
I also can't think of a better way to keep Democrats joined at the hip with Wall Street.
3
It is act now on a Green New Deal plan (or similar) or face wars fought over arable land.
When even the Pentagon puts climate change in the forefront of future threats it is past time to act.
Here's a real national emergency for a president to act upon.
I can't help but see this as humankind's Darwin moment, we adopt or perish.
12
The line is drawn: sand on one side and a solid surface on the opposite side. The sand is us with our heads buried in it as we live our comfortable lives burning petroleum-based fuel, as the earth dramatically changes and swallows us up, while the solid side is our green future, where we’ve said “no thanks” to fossil fuel’s destructive forces and embraced healthier options. We don’t have a choice. But the dinosaurs in industry and politics who would paint us as extremists have to be defeated first. Save the planet? Save the children? Vote.
4
One would think natural disasters never occurred before Donald J. Trump. Yet the facts refute the political hand wringing. Hurricane activity is still well below that of the early-mid 2000's and certainly no different from the very intense hurricanes of the 1930's. 2018 was a year with one of the lowest levels of tornado activity ever. Climate change, aka global warming, is also a suspect hypothesis given how much of the US is once again covered in snow.
Climate change is great political theater. Another hobgoblin that political elites get to chirp about and that academics can leverage for grant funding. But it is not a 'nightmare'. The Editorial Board does the nation a disservice with such turbocharged sensationalism.
4
@Alan Like me, I assume you are older and will be exiting the scene before the worst effects of climate change arrive. Climate science is difficult to understand, but with technology we are able to examine the big planetary picture, not just your backyard. Every year we are witnessing a warmer planet. God gave humans the ability to scientifically understand how we got into this situation as well as how to resolve it.
It’s well understood that there has been no rise in average global temperatures in at least two decades. Moreover it’s also well understood that raw temperature data was often manipulated by ‘researchers’ to make the graphs match the hypothesis. As a professional engineer with plenty of science experience, I can only be at least a bit skeptical. I hear so often about how climate theory is ‘settled science’ but rarely is any science ‘settled’.
@Alan And you base this on your scientific analysis or just your hunch? Real Science disagrees with you. Where I live water levels have risen steadily over the past few years even nay sayers such as yourself are beginning to see the reality.
Green New Deal? Really how about a fair deal all income taxed the same would be a start.
AS as far as for green the US and Europe can only slow down India and China.
We could though work on making much bigger trees and make some money off this CO2 surplus.
The thought of a Green New Deal to help our country move toward a less polluting environment where carbon emissions can be reduced is a good one. But it's been muddied up with all the progressive ideas that have nothing to do with climate change. Take those ideas out and put them into their own progressive manifesto, and leave the environmental ideas alone, and this NGD will have more success. Call it the New New Deal. But it needs to be separated out.
6
@Max Dither
It's a "good" idea, just take out any liberal elements?
Suppose you tell Republicans to face up to global warming and present a serious proposal themselves - otherwise, such comments look like an excuse for them to continue doing nothing.
@Jackson That's not what I said. This isn't a big omnibus bill. If they want to get focus on climate change, they need to have one thing in the resolution - climate change. All the other things in the GND are a distraction to that, and open the entire thing up to potshots from the right.
The only way to get the Republicans to pay any attention to climate change is to stop the money flowing into their campaigns from their oil donors. Which would be a "good" thing, too. Boiling the ocean by including the entire progressive platform will just get the climate change points marginalized. Narrow the scope, increase the focus.
1
It's a further dillussion to say that the investment in climate change prevention will save us at least an equivalent amount as the damages that will be suffered in the future. We will literally change the chemistry of our planet, millions of species of animals, plants and insects will not survive, including our own. It's wrong to frame this only as a matter of money. What price do we put on a blue ocean (they'll mostly turn green in the status quo scenario), or summer temperatures that can be survivable outside? This is about more than just money to fix houses, buildings or roads. Some actions are irrevocable. It's time to act, as a sentient species, rather than a bunch of squabbling,myopic, greedy children.
3
The Green New Deal as proposed by AOC and her staff is a disastrous pie in the sky legislative proposal that the Republicans probably consider a gift from heaven. Calling for an emergency mass mobilization of national resources to make the United States carbon neutral by 2030 was an absurd premise that no serious public policy analyst would entertain as a goal. How does one convert 250 million gas and diesel powered vehicles to a national fleet of electric vehicles in ten years? How does one prevent our vast herds of beef and diary cows from producing methane, a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2? How does one reduce to zero carbon emissions that are an inevitable by product of industrial production?
These contingencies are so profound, it is a royal embarrassment and a political liability for a couple of politicians, including the 29 year old neophyte to circulate a plan that has the depth of a college sophomores term paper. The U.S. Congress is a high level deliberative body that develops complex legislative proposals that meet the needs of diverse constituencies. Does the Green New Deal fit the profile of such legislation? It can't because its bold proposals are divorced from real world political considerations.
Amy Klochubar and other Democrats have described the plan as "aspirational." Fair enough. But public officials should not be promoting aspirational public policy. This isn't high school.
8
@Yankelnevich
Yet another post unable to face that global warming is an existential crisis happening now, fast.
No proposal - constructive or otherwise - for dealing with it.
Next...
Um, I think you’ll find the US Congress is a high level body that rubber stamps complex tax legislation to meet the needs of, oh, let’s say at least 0.1% of the diverse community.
@Jackson So what is your game plan for shutting down hundreds of fossil fuel plants by 2030? Have any betting odds on feasibility?
Earlier this year the Trump administration took the position that nothing can be done about anthropogenic climate change and so we might as well have a good time and not worry (I paraphrase here but that was the gist). In comparison to that philosophy which is another way of saying let's deregulate everything and let our greed flags fly the Green New Deal is a modest proposal to try to leave a habitable planed behind for future generations.
2
I've sais it before and I'll say it again. The Democratic freshmen in Congress may be inexperienced, even naive, and prone to shoot from the hip, but at least they have ideas, as opposed to the tired old science deniers of the GOP. The Green New Deal may be too aspirational, or too expensive, to take on all at once, but it contains many good ideas that should at least give us a start in tackling climate change and other problems that our broken government has long ignored.
16
Reading Pelosi's response and watching Dianne Feinstein respond haughtily to children asking her to vote for the measure as a sign of support of them and of the planet, makes me realize how far we still have to go.
And how desperately we need new leadership in the Democratic party.
Congress has known about this danger for at least 30 years when James Hansen warned the nation (in 1988!) about global warming and, as if to place an exclamation on his words, Yellowstone National Park burst into flames. While Congress fiddles and calls it a dream or a hoax, the planet we all rely on -- Democrats and Republicans -- is at risk.
I give great credit to Markey and Ocasio-Cortez. It's time to act America.
26
It is hard for me to believe that the Green New Deal ignores the root cause of global warming. There are too many people on the planet! With the world population doubling at a frightening rate, our poor planet is becoming saturated with homo sapiens, each contributing its own malignant carbon footprint. Major efforts toward birth control will in the long run do more than all the carbon taxes and other stop gap measures to thwart climate change.
12
@Rufus Henry Temple -- in order to control ocean acidification and continued global warming we need to cut mankind's CO2 production to considerably less than 1/3 of today's in ≈ 25 years.
Explain to me your plan to "reduce" the world population by 5.2 billion in that time.
There is no choice but to radically reduce CO2 per human; get on with it.
1
The same narrow minded political element that denies climate change is also the one that opposes access to birth control.
1
I agree with the NYT Editorial Board on their point that the climate change concepts of the new "Green New Deal" need to be decoupled from the broader social initiatives that have been appended to Mr. Friedman's 2007 concept that focused solely on addressing the climate change threat. Gaining national consensus on the critical steps going forward to drastically reduce CO2 emissions by the US is much too critical to run the risk of getting bogged down in ancillary debates on various social engineering objectives. Not that the debate cannot happen on such social issues, but that debate needs to be kept separate from achieving a laser-sharp focus on quickly developing a path forward to a carbon-free future. Otherwise, the future will not offer any prospect for the social objectives proposed by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and others.
7
I don’t know all the details of the GND, but I hope it makes clear and specific mention of the costs, indisputable costs, of climate change that we are paying now, due to the steady occurrence of once-a-century climate events.
2
What a wonderful editorial to wake up to this Sunday.
"The Green New Deal" is a sound new plan of action.
It is an answer to the “war” that this planet has been inflicted with and affected by over the past 300 years…
It is a start to a recovery plan that is needed now…
It is 21st Century thinking...
It is an economic, social, and political change in approach and thinking...
It is as American as any American enterprise has ever been.
In the 1950’s President Eisenhower realized that the infrastructure of our country had to be built to keep pace with the demands of a recovering and growing and expanding complex domestic society. To this end the interstate highway system was built in record pace time to meet the needs of a post war booming economy.
In the 1960's our country met an exploration, and engineering goal of landing on the moon...it was accomplished in record time...
This is a start to a plan to build a better, and bolder place to live and prosper.
It is bold. It is radical. It is needed now.
21
@Josh Shafran
Based on your comments, its very clear you haven't read the Green New Deal.
Climate change is a global problem, not just an American problem. The global community needs to address this. This problem makes building roads and bridges look like child's play.
This will take an entire planet to address and an entire planet to resolve. Make some steps to achieve that goal first. Currently the science doesn't exist to do this. Maybe a suggestion to find or discover the science may be the first step. Please remember, the entire north east coast was to be under three feet of water (yes NYC) by 2015 when this discussion began. Hyperbole will not solve this. Science can, but we need to discover the science. Remember the rest of the world is still trying to figure out how we sent someone to the moon and returned them safely.
3
@Matt
...Of course it is a global community issue...no question...but as a resolution to be voted upon our Representatives and Senators have to start here at home to garner the support for what will be a healthier planet...
1
Rolling out something as 'progressive' (extreme?) as the Green New Deal needs to be presented in 'baby-steps'. It's simply something just too big to expect anyone to wrap their brains around logically. Our brains don 't work like a computer programmed to break things down in seconds.
We evolved using 'deductive reasoning', approaching what we encounter logically, that is, going from the general and working back to the specific, not how we're approaching the undewrstanding of the Green New Deal, tackling it by grabbing the whole thing and trying to come with a clear understanding immediately.
1
@merc Was the moon shot too big? As Kennedy said, "We do not do this because it is easy, we do it because it is hard." The Green New Deal is an opening salvo that actually got the entire country talking about Climate Change. If you have read it, it offers ideas to work on, but no real policy. The policy needs to be driven by debate, by honest debate about the effects of climate change and the costs we already are incurring. Yes, the GND is pie in the sky, but so was the moon shot and we got it done.
1
@merc. There is no time for baby steps. We should have started baby steps 10 years ago.
We need climate control policuest. We need jobs policies. We need housing policies. We need urban development policies. We need farm sustainability policies. Why on earth wouldn't we tie them together when possible?
5
Climate change can occur much more rapidly than most of us realize. Great shifts in global temperature have occurred in as short as ten years in past epochs of climate history.
The great threat is that if we are caught in such an extreme episode while we are still predominantly dependent on fossil energy is that our means of adaptation will be to burn even more fossil, quicker. And that our means of making the turn to green energy will be greatly diminished in the synergy tsunami of climate, energy, economic and political crises.
We delude ourselves that we can get this done any more effectively or rapidly in the chaos that will come tomorrow by not acting yesterday.
4
Idealism must intersect economic reality if this is to be our agenda - before the tipping point..
Polar vortex breakdowns just the beginning of even worse weather and hydrologic extremes, unbearable, and deadly.
Reaching the tipping point,needed changes will occur but unevenly.
1
I believe that the theory of man made global warming or climate change originated from the observation that there was a correlation between rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures. This then lead some scientists to postulate that this correlation meant causation which may be true, may not be true or may be partially true. To date, we don’t know enough about natural climate variability to say with any certainty what if any effect CO2 has on global climate. However, in the absence of real data and evidence, climate models were programmed and used as surrogates for real data. These climate models showed ever rising temperatures as CO2 levels were increased. However, this is where science stopped being science and many forgot that climate models aren’t real data and real evidence. Climate models only tell us what we want them to tell us and while they can help in our understanding of climate, they have been pretty poor predictors of future climate. So why has this unproven theory gained such traction? I really don’t know but those who have chosen to be “believers” seem to have an almost religious zeal.
There is plenty of scientific articles that should be read before claiming the end is nigh. How AOC has gained so much traction is puzzling. Her commitment to curing cancer, feeding Africa would be better use of her energy.
3
You are missing that fact that now we have real data to plug into the models and the result are more dire than earlier predictions.
Also, climate attribution studies can determine the probability that an event was triggered or exacerbated by climate change.
With that in mind, and with your current level of skepticism in mind: What is the better choice? To do nothing and hope for the best? Or to make radical changes in our energy infrastructure, which will create new jobs, clean our air and rid us of the need for oil extraction (and the wars that it creates), even if our climate reality doesn’t turn out to be so dire?
10
Scientists can’t predict the precise temperature at every point in a pot of soup on the stove either. It doesn’t mean the soup isn’t going to get hot. The ‘unproven’ (it’s completely and utterly proven) science (3- or more-atom molecules absorb heat by vibrating) has been known since the late 1800s. Yes, it’s true that figuring out precisely how something as complex as a planet will respond to being heated isn’t easy. But that’s not the same thing as saying you can’t tell if it’s going to get hot. You can. And it will.
5
@N Williams My children and grandchildren have much to lose if we wait Carbon fuels are dirty and there has been a significant increase in deaths. I believe a report by this administration estimated an increase of 1400 American deaths per year due to relaxed environmental regulations.
Now imagine if we are proactive. It will cost on the front end but would be very lucrative. The innovation and new technologies discovered would have a great environmental and economic impact. The US should lead the world into a new boom and it is green.
2
My advice to you is buy a rain coat and an umbrella to wear when it rains. Same advice for snow, cold and hot weather, etc. Buy appropriate clothes to wear for weather conditions and install air conditioning and heat to control you living space climate year round. Everyone is doing it. I think it has caught on. There isn't any climate change that I can see. I live in New York and have been living here for over 75 years. I really don't see that much has changed in the way of weather or climate. The four seasons seem to change on schedule and if they don't I adapt. try it some time.
3
I have lived in NY metro area almost. my entire life. i’m almost 60. for the last 20 at least i’ve noticed how profoundly different each season is from what they were like when I was a kid. weather and wildlife. when was the last time you saw a baltimore oriole around here? i used to seem them all the time as a kid. it was never 56 degrees in late february.
2
@NYChap
I suppose that they can buy snow shovels and winter coats in Hawaii. That's what you are suggesting, yes? Yet, perhaps you'll agree that this it NOT the normal order of things. No? You won't agree to that?
Hundreds - nay thousands - of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS - are telling us that what we are experiencing is not "natural". The rough estimate is that 95% of the globe's climate scientist are in agreement that it is a result of humanity's impact on the planet. What? You don't agree with this, even though you have no qualifications at all to disagree? Okay....
Senility is a sad and troubling thing.
@Joshua Freeman
Thanks for your comment Joshua. I'm 53. I live in Montreal. I've noticed the same thing. I've never seen weather like we've had in the past 10 years now. In fact, it's my personal observations that have lead me to start following this climate thing more closely. I despair at what I've since found.
Your comment is appreciated because I've become ever more infuriated at the comments of the deniers. It angers me so much because I keep thinking, 'being skeptical is one thing - but have they no windows? Don't they step outside once in a while?!' Don't they see that everything is so extreme and topsy turvy now?
In the course of one week, I've seen a 45°F temperature fluctuation. I've seen heavy snow, freezing rain / rain. This wacky week...has happened regularly now all winter. Last winter too. Never seen this in my life. Never heard of it either.
And they'll say, 'it's natural'. As if humans, numbering in the billions could have no impact on the globe. Ridiculous.
The sequence of events should be as follows:
1) Evidence is produced that is irrefutable that global climate (not just some parts) is rising at an alarming rate. That calls for a thorough review of the data -- and that will be a tough one if honest brokers are involved as the global temp record is a mess.
2) Then it must be shown that man is mostly responsible for rising temps and that the primary culprit is fossil fuel use (not deforestation, more people exhaling, etc)
3) The likely outcomes must be thoroughly vetted -- not just the bad ones, but any potential positive ones. And examples like one year with a lot of hurricanes (which wasn't worse than some years early in the prior century) after years with no major hurricanes hitting the contiguous US is an anecdote, not proof of dire outcomes).
4) Once all that is decided then policies must be decided for the US on how to address. Preemptively do things now by fiat, create voluntary programs for reduction of CO2 (consumption), or address negative impacts as they occur. Costs of all approaches must be analyzed.
5) Assuming we are willing to take a given approach, we must convince the RofW to play. Our actions will mean little if RofW keeps emitting CO2. It's one thing to sign a meaningless agreement while on a photo op trip to Paris, it's quite another to actually do something that works.
I'd say the odds of anything meaningful being done -- except virtue signalling -- are next to nothing.
4
@Ralphie
Most climate change alarmists cannot get past (1). If anything, "deniers" who have any questions should unite and get it done.
1
I'd like to pose two questions to those who support nuclear power as a solution to the rapidly evolving climate "crisis".
If it takes upwards to 20 years and massive government subsidies, including underwriting the insurance, to produce a nuclear power plant, how will they contribute to mitigating the problem, which appears to be on a much faster time scale?
Without the subsidies, which should go to other solutions, would a nuclear power plant be cost effective? (see my comment on risk below).
2
Thank you. The simple fact is nuclear power is not and never was economically viable. It exists only due to government subsidies. A darker interpretation is that it exists only as cover for nuclear weapons research and development. Recent evidence: Saudi Arabia wants nuclear power, despite having ideal conditions for solar power, which would be cheaper.
@RLG Your concept of Nuclear Power is based on your understanding of a very primitive nuclear reactor design created during WW2......seventy years ago.
It is a horrible shame that we allowed ourselves to Stop all development on nuclear power in 1979......when Three Mile Island actually proved that our safety systems work. No one was killed. No massive radiation field was created. Nobody got cancer. IT WORKED. But instead based on panic and fear mongering we Abandonned the Future.
Well maybe nobody knows what the Green New Deal is, but at least it's a declaration that there is a problem. I hope the eventual solution details include the need to address the Earth's over-population.
7
Once installed, renewable energy is nearly free!
Even if you assume that global warming is a hoax, moving toward renewable energy as quickly as possible is good economics.
As the easy to get to fossil fuel reserves dry up, extracting fossil fuels is getting more expensive. Technology that replaces jobs is keeping prices down, but extracting fuel from shale, tar sands, the Arctic, etc., is inherently more expensive than sticking a pipe in the ground and capping the gusher, and these techniques are really bad for the local environment,
On the other side, the price of renewables is dropping quickly. The long term price of renewables is already competitive with fossil fuels, which alone creates more jobs than all fossil fuels combined.
It is getting more and more difficult for oil companies to convince us that we should pay for energy that could be nearly free. For example, what if every parking lot had a solar roof that charged the cars parked in it? Isn't it better to power your car from your own roof than to buy gas?
Countries that are preparing for the future, like Germany, China, and even Portugal, are moving to renewables as quickly as possible, because renewables will decrease the cost of production and transportation, and also decrease the costs off pollution related health problems like asthma,
Protecting 19th century technology instead of investing in future technologies will com the USA to being a second rate power.
Now add global warming to the equation.
23
@McGloin
There is nothing ‘free’ about so-called ‘renewable’ energy.
Here in California, vast areas of desert, grasslands, and foothills have been industrialized for wind and solar farms, and related powerlines, substations, etc.
The fact is that so-called ‘green’ energy is wasteful of land and negatively impacts wildlife.
Pardon me if I object to the ruination of the desert in my area so virtue-signaling ‘progressives’ in LA can plug in their overpriced Teslas.
4
The Green New Deal comes from the viewpoint that with fighting climate change, we can have our cake and eat it too. Unify, work hard, convert to renewable energy and live happily ever after. And yes, this is preferable to our current path. Perhaps that optimism is needed to sell a program, but there are some serious hard truths being avoided.
No, we cannot reduce the progression of climate change without reducing worldwide population and economic activity. Our only hope is to consume less energy, with less people consuming. Under the laws of physics, all work requires energy and creates waste. An incredible amount of fossil fuel will be required to mine all the rare elements needed for wind and solar energy, convert factories to produce billions of electric cars, and produce trucks that delivery our goods while also having to carry tons of electric storage batteries. Changing oil and gas heated homes to renewable electric requires an incredible increase in electric capacity.
The real New Green Deal should be a project to determine how to eliminate the need for perpetual growth and consumption without crashing the economy. The first question would be how do we change the nature of mankind from always wanting more?
4
@John Dyer
Five percent fo the world’s population (the US) creates appx. 25% of the world’s carbon and other pollution.
We MUST focus on our use of carbon based chemicals (incl. a vast array of chemicals and pesticides)
Nonsense. There is no fixed relationship between a person and how much carbon he puts in the air. There is no requirement that the economy grow lest it crash. That’s fatalism passed off as wisdom.
Population is not predestination. Californians use half the electricity as the average American. Americans use twice the energy of Europeans, and 10x the energy of Indians. Americans use half the water per person they did in 1950. Yet no one dies of thirst or forfeits a shower.
We waste what is cheaper to throw away than not, whether it’s heat from electrical generation or gas to move a car or bottles for beverages. Rearranging our economy to waste less is a matter of recognizing the harm that waste creates, and imposing costs on them.
The energy costs to convert the economy to green energy are ancillary. It can be shown that the lifetime carbon emission of a wind turbine — from ore to wind to rust to turbine again — is zero. Again, just a question of how the process is organized and where the incentives lie.
Any plan to address climate change, GH emissions or anything else that doesn't address population growth, in this country or the planet is doomed to failure and a waste of time. Co2 emmisions, for example, are calculated by the amount per capita x the number of people. It's not PC to talk about population but in my lifetime the population of this country has doubled, virtually wiping out most of the gains in efficiency and emission reductions. The left is as blind to the numbers when they don't fit their agenda as the right.
8
It is astonishing that Republicans reject all carbon reduction proposals as "too expensive" when the alternatives: drought, starvation, coastal flooding, mass extinctions and human migrations will impose catastrophic expenses within the foreseeable future.
Whistling past the graveyard may console older Americans, but the millennials should be marching in the streets for their own and their childrens' futures. Life on a dying planet will be no picnic.
10
It’s because drought, starvation, mass migrations, etc don’t contribute to Republicans re-election campaigns: oil, gas and coal companies do.
12
@Reed Erskine I think that there was plenty of climate and it was always changing long before the Republican party was formed. Look it up.
1
@NYChap Yes, and previous climate changes, sometimes triggered by volcanism or meteor impact, have effected human and pre-human history. This is the first human-caused climate change, and humans have the ability to reverse or slow it down. To do nothing is criminal negligence.
This can't just be about reducing industry emissions. Throughout much of America, most people drive mammoth SUVs and trucks. Come rush hour, you see them inching along, one person per super sized, gas-guzzling vehicle. They get home and turn their thermostat to 78F in winter and 65F in summer, without doing anything to curb the air leaks in their homes. Americans need to start being more responsible in their lifestyle choices. We can all be more thoughtful about our energy usage. and this alone will do a lot to lowering our collective carbon footprint.
10
@Mary M. What you say is true, but nobody will get elected in this country pushing expensive gas or a tax on big SUVs. Americans like to talk about climate change but aren't going to vote for anyone who says it's going to cost more or they're going to have give anything up to fix it.
It’s the system, not personal virtue, that has to change.
Something like 3000 plants in the country are responsible for 85% of the carbon emissions.
If your house was heated and cooled by electricity, and that electricity were 100% wind-generated, it wouldn’t matter, climate-wise, how efficient it was or what temperature you set the thermostat to. You might prefer a more efficient house, to save money, but the environmental consequences would be nil.
Same with cars. People will switch to electric cars when they’re as convenient and fun to drive, and as cheap, as gasoline. The government can make that true. It can underwrite research in carbon fiber materials, battery technology, and fuel cells. It can encourage a network of charging stations and a hydrogen distribution system. It can induce municipalities to install wind turbines and benefit from them (thereby neutralizing nimby resistance). It can build high-speed rail. It can require greater efficiency and tax emissions.
We’re past the point of PSAs teaching us not to litter or start forest fires. Awareness is not the problem and individual choices are not the solution. It’s all about the system.
I've read several of these comments. They all dance around the obvious: Risk Analysis.
I'm a retired atmospheric scientist well aware of the physics behind our current climate crisis, from the radiation balance to the perturbation of the upper tropospheric flow patterns, including jet streams, due to the changing equator to pole temperature gradient, something first year grad students in the dynamics of the general circulation learn. The physics is solid and even demonstrable in the lab with simple experiments with a spinning dishpan (first done in the 50's by Dave Fultz). A practiced synoptic eye connected to an old brain (history) like mine can see it daily in the 300 mb charts. In the mid-latitudes, the upper air patterns control surface weather systems.
Risk analysis is somewhat like cost-benefit analysis. Risk is a metric that can help with the discussion. It is the multiplication of the probability of an extreme event(s) and the cost of the negative consequences of that event. The unit is monetary. If the cost of mitigation or adaptation to that kind of event is less than risk, no brainer, do it. The debate comes when the cost is either equal to or above the risk. Then other factors, which can be monetized for the debate, come into play. Like human suffering.
Climate science, which has produced models that predict the probability of extreme outcomes, is doing its job. Now it is up to the economists to do theirs so risk can be evaluated and we can debate outcomes.
14
@RLG
So, then, as a retired climate scientist, make a few remarks on the fact that we are near the peak of the most recent long period warming cycle and based on the ice core record - in the absence of some artificial warming method - should begin to descend into the next long period cooling cycle which will - in the absence of some artificial warming method - plunge us into another ice age.
Also remark on how it is that you can be - certain - that the majority of the warming effects we are seeing are not the result of the natural cycle and that man's activity - while extant and quantifiable - is something mor e than a barely-above-the-noise-level blip on top of the historical cycle.
Also remark on why warming is worse than cooling.
Because those are the only two options.
A scientist understands that this is a dynamic system and that homeostasis is unachievable.
1
@Objectivist
It is not only dynamic but non-linear. Chaotic systems often vary around an "attractor", that while unpredictable has bounds that can be estimated. Any prediction must be probabilistic, an attempt to provide those bounds. Thus my comment on risk.
The paleoclimate record does show periods of extreme warming and cooling. Our ancient ancestors survived both or we wouldn't be here! But their life style was relatively simple, their numbers were few, so adaptation could be swift.
That does not describe current global civilization. Since we, as a modern species, have been arrogant enough to think we can dominate Nature, Nature may cause us, as a species to return to that simple, few in number, life style or become extinct.
It's Kali Yuga time.
3
@RLG
Probabilistic = probability distribution functions, which in this case cannot be derived from data other than that collected over the past 200 years so the full distributions are populated using models and random number generators, and then sampled stochastically.
In other words, the models are largely made up of statistics with a huge sample bias, using data that has been edited with a huge temporal bias.
You didn't actually ANSWER any of my questions, BTW.
"Or is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left?"
Correct. That is exactly what it is.
Tyranny disguised as concern.
5
@Objectivist I get the concern but I'm not sure its correct. Climate change demands a massive change in how we generate and use energy and the mobilization this will require is going to displace lots of people. Many jobs will be lost, many more created. You can't reasonably ask people to take on this shared challenge without accompanying shared support. This is the moral equivalent of war. You don't leave your wounded on the battlefield.
15-20 years down the road, renewables will return us to abundant energy (turbines and solar panels produce for a long time and increased production capacity will bring a return to cheap easy power). Then we can dump the war time socialism, just as we did in the decades following WWII. In the mean time, we have to make a heavy short to medium term lift. Or, the short to medium term is all we will have and our children and grandchildren will shake their heads at our smallness for the rest of human history.
2
@Objectivist Universal health care, justice for all, a living wage, vacation, family leave , and retirement are tyranny? These things may be too much to lump together in a green new deal but they are worthy objectives and definitely not tyrannical.
2
No, the concern is real and warranted. The rest is just liberal over-reach that will ambush the real debate on climate change.
The Green New Dealers were right to include remedies for "systemic injustices" in their plan.
One of the main barriers to climate progress is that most Americans are too financially stressed to care about the issue. People working three part-time jobs, struggling to pay for substandard health insurance, unable to afford child care or save for retirement --- consumed by the immediate problems of survival --- tend to be less interested in solving long-term problems.
This is one reason why many European countries, with their strong social safety nets and more equitable distribution of wealth, are also more progressive on climate.
27
@Steve Siegel and most Americans would be even more financially stressed if they realized how unprepared they are for retirement. The median savings for those 55-64 is less than $40k. Of course for many it is zero. The avg SS annual benefit is $15k. Less than 35% of retirees today have a corp or public sector pension, and that number is trending down fast. Getting on board with any new "deal" that does not produce immediate results won't get vast interest, much less vast support.
2
@Steve Siegel
Yes, many European countries are more progressive on climate issues, but working people do have a breaking point on further taxation - witness France, the Yellow Vests, and Macron's "carbon tax" on gasoline.
1
@Steve Siegel It appears that the Unabomber was correct in his Manifesto.
1
Thank you, NYT Editorial Board. Over the past two to three decades, the US has spent trillions of dollars on wars and military operations fought with the goal of protecting our oil interests. If instead those trillions had been dedicated to transitioning the US (and the world) from a 20th century carbon dependent energy economy to a sustainable, clean energy model, the future would be much brighter for all of us right now.
61
@CC
It is our very vast, bloated military/"defense" budget that, coupled with foolish deregulation and taxation policies, that have stymied us on many fronts. The countries with universal healthcare, for one example, don't have giant war budgets to support.
4
Leaving the public with the impression that this is achievable in the near future is irresponsible.
The New Green Deal is much more than climate change, also an extremely deceptive description.
Climate change is real, so is the United States of America. The climate problem is global, not just the responsibility of US citizens. Unless the world signs on, its not even close to being resolved. The US has done more to address carbon footprints than the rest of the world combined.
If a global resolution is to take place, the first thing that needs to take place is an honest assessment of cause and effect of all nations. Pledges by all nations that begin now, not 10-15 years from now. All nations need to partake.
The concept of eliminating all fossil fuels in 10 years is not exactly a good start on truth.
Be careful on this. Remember the Unit4ed States ids the only country in the world that has successfully sent a man to the moon and brought them back. The only one. We did that just over 50 years ago. It begs the question, are the balance of nations 50 years behind us in technology. Think about that for a few minutes when telling the world climate change needs to take place over the next 10.
Be truthful and everyone needs to be part of the solution. How many nations will agree to completely eliminate their military? How many people around the world are willing to give up all electricity, heating and air conditioning. It's all about truth.
3
@Matt You know, if you put enough impossible hurdles in the way and demand that they be accomplished before you can get started- you'll never have to do anything!
If you want to move a mountain you start with a single grain of sand- you don't try and move the whole mountain. If we just start with ourselves and do what we can do now, and keep hauling water and chopping wood- we'll accomplish something. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
17
@Matt
Progressives don't want to deal with reality; however, if ever there was a problem that called out for a realistic solution, this is it. It's too important for solutions that have zero chance of implementation.
4
@Matt The whole world did come to an agreement to address climate change resulting from carbon emissions. The U.S. was a leader in achieving that but has since dropped out. This is not an all or nothing situation. The more every individual and nation does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the less disastrous will be the result.
A question needs to be answered regarding these plans -- if humanity as a whole ceased to emit greenhouse gasses, how long would it take for the impact to be seen -- and affect weather patterns and sea level rise? And if the answer is not something equivalent to 'overnight' then perhaps attention needs to be focused elsewhere? (I have seen studies suggesting its centuries.) Perhaps instead of a Manhatten-style project to decarbonize the world some attention could be paid to the places being harmed now? And by extension how our entire society needs to change to adapt to this new reality? Personally, when I see the list of 'acceptable' energy sources and they are all weather-driven I do get concerned. Here in southeastern Ontario, across the road from a wind plant, the weather has been relentlessly cloudy so the solar output is minimal, and wind is rarely good when temperatures are very high or low. If it were not for the nukes Ontario would be in big trouble. But these nuclear 'Ford Tri-motors' will not last forever and a lot of engineering time has been wasted.
Problem with climate change, which I submit we still only poorly understand, is that it touches everything. So perhaps the first problem of addressing it is to prioritize how to deploy our resources for the most immediate benefit. Instead of making the product sales folk happy and accomplishing little?
4
I'd like to see the NY Times write some articles on companies and technologies tackling climate change that are promising and in the works. Maybe some positive publicity will encourage others to follow suit. Also, take a look at local and regional volunteer and political efforts such as Clean Energy Task Forces around the country. There are ways to get involved and make progress on a non-federal level too.
10
Most people are walking around acting as if the climate emergency isn’t occurring right now. It’s insanity. I hope people wake up and become used to the idea of changing our energy usage and curbing emissions drastically for the energy we do use before we reach a tipping point in the next decade. It’s about future societies ability to survive It breaks my heart to look at all the damage we have done in my lifetime to the biosphere and basiclynall other life on Earth. We are all guilty of wrecking this beautiful world, especially those of us living now who don’t do all they can to conserve and drive less when we’ve been warned since the 70’s of what we are doing.
7
It is puzzling that nobody remembers than Van Jones and Nancy Pelosi were working on the equivalent of a green new deal back in the mid aughts. A scandal was cooked up and Van Jones had to go.
Of course, scandals on the side of bought and paid for Republicans doesn't seem to touch them.
Earth's apex predator is about to discover there are limits to growth, and we've reached them.
Meanwhile, all of us should focus on waste and pollution, and notice that the patchwork of systems in place make us a wholly owned subsidiary of marketing. Marketing is not god,
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.
More fools we, willing to trash our home for cheap eats and the like. Unfortunately, life's treasures are work, and twinkling around in fancy makeup is not how it's done.
Working together to solve problems is the only way. Finding victims to blame and fostering division is not patriotic.
17
@Susan Anderson
“Working Together” begins when demonizing and name calling end! There is absolutely no indication that those here are ready to do that! There is in fact every indication of the exact opposite!
Forced Socialism and austerity also do not count as “Working Together”! Especially when those doing the “Forcing” don’t practice it themselves!
@Richard
Richard, give it up! You just did what you are complaining about.
The fact is there will not be a consensus on the issue of dealing with global warming , climate change.
Climate deniers and "free market" magical thinkers (mainly in the GOP) will be dragged along kicking and screaming (litigating to stop the Green New Deal).
I just hope the Dems can hold the House, take the Senate and the Presidency in 2020 because if they don't it will be entirely up to the individual states to advance The Green New Deal.
The stakes couldn't be higher.
1
Somehow, I think, rakes and paper towels will not be enough to solve this looming problem.
5
@RNS I agree- we've always recycled. Milk bottles, soda bottles, everything was wrapped in string and brown paper. It's just that in recent decades we've allowed the producers to absolve themselves of recycling and managing the waste of their product and we've allowed them to shove the burden of recycling an waste management onto the consumer instead and made it a municipality issue! They make all the profit and we are forced to pay for all their waste!
Clamshell packaging and styrofoam containers and contains of amazon boxes and packing peanuts should be taxed at the source. They should be motivated to find better ways to ship and distribute their goods and they'll only do that if it hits THEM in the wallet!
Give subsidies and tax credits to put solar panels on every rooftop or in every back yard. Then, each building will generate the electricity to power our electric cars.
High-speed rail between cities is still a good idea. And, yes, we can still fly perhaps with jet fuel made from organic waste. We need bold ideas and political courage to save our planet and thereby to save humanity.
7
Far too optimistic analysis of the problem.
The World Bank back in 2012 warned that resultant high temperatures from CO2 could trigger a Methane Hydrate Feedback Loop in the Arctic. Scientists are now telling us that this has already begun. Recent temperatures there have been the highest in recorded history.
If methane release in the Arctic occurs, extremely high global temperatures could become a reality. As a result, there is a probability temperatures will reach 150 degrees Fahrenheit (65.57 Celsius) on certain areas of the planet within this century or by the next. These temperatures could bring on our species extinction.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
8
A well-written summary of the lack of progress in addressing climate change, but it fails to note the urgency of the problem. Unless the United States reduces fossil fuel emissions, mankind will become extinct within a few generations.
5
It is obvious that a serious conversation about the steady deterioration of the environment and the steps necessary to counter the situation is no longer an option but a necessity. Anyone who wants to constructively contribute to that is worthy of a hearing. Seen in this light, missteps such as AOC’s “talking points” etc. are of lesser importance than is bringing the discussion out into the open. The “progressive” wing of the Democrats brings us some hope in urging politicians to do more than just take notice of the environmentally dark times ahead. But it doesn’t have to be just a small group of people involved in doing the right thing. As custodians of our planet we would be failing in our duty if, after knowing the dire situation ahead, we failed to take serious steps to stop further deterioration. Lowering the global temperature by at least a degree and a half is a vital task and worthy of all the efforts that we can bring to bear on it. The alternative is a steady march to nothing less than extinction.
7
This is all possible just by being more efficient and doing more with less.
To do this requires public and private will and intention. I do not see any of that not really.
Talk is cheap.
2
@Mike R
Thirty years ago that might have been a good start.
Since inaction is built in to the system, and people don't want to change, we've got real trouble.
Our planet is finite, and our arrogance and predation too great.
3
Forgotten is Jimmy Carter's "sweater speech" of February, 1977, when he called for a national effort the was "the moral equivalent of war" to deal with climate change.
To set an example Carter installed solar collectors on the roof of the White House. Ronald Reagan had them removed as his first act as president.
Democrats would do well to re-visit Carter's prescient speech.
72
@Ralph Averill. Jimmy carter paid the price for telling the voters the truth. I remember it well. Reagan said conservation means you're too warm in the summer and too cold in the winter and well drill our way out of this. Interestingly, during the "green" presidency of Obama we did just that. Drilled our way to the highest oil production since the 70s. Politicians know that nobody gets reelected with expensive gas.
4
@Ralph Averill
Reagan was another example of how Republicanism is an ideological dead weight tethered to and holding back meaningful progress.
It's long past time for voters to cut the tether and let that Republican dead weight sink into political oblivion.
6
When we have political representatives who equate a proposed reduction in factory farming, with an outright ban on cattle, it’s probably safe to assume that our national ambivalence regarding climate change will result in highly predictable death and disaster.
Oh, how I love America.
5
"...is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies...?"
This is the sort of question that puts reason on hold very much like the questions that suggested
that climate change itself was a cover for economic conspiracies.
At least this phony question suggests "the climate crisis" is a fact, but the question mostly
helps those interested in doing nothing. Those most interested in doing nothing are those who benefit the most from the status quo, aren't they? Unfortunately, they are also the people in power ...without the slightest sense or concern for the common good.
6
@HSM the question poised by the Times was hardly phony. Countries have always have had poverty,inequality, inadequate wages and educartion. What is new is flood, fire, and drought, with a 10 or 12 year window to dramatically change how we obtain energy,and possibly how we eat and package things. To muddy the waters with idealistic social engineering proposals is to risk the apocalypse. A republican congressman can walk past the homeless, take money from the Koch's and Big Oil, and scoff at "handouts". But when his well runs dry or his beach house is flattened or flooded, we have his (limited, self-involved) attention...
2
Check out “The Age of Sustainability” a book about how to implement all this. There are credible and proven solutions to multiple parts of climate change including abating carbon and converting the energy paradigm from fossils to renewables. But make no mistake, the solution involves powerful financial interests with literally trillions invested in the status quo. Any plan to fix climate change will be more like solving a Rubik’s Cube than a moon mission. We need a serious discussion about writing down the sunk costs of the fossil fuel system but not all of it, we still need petrochemicals.
4
I think, yes. Decarbonization is technologically achievable, although it will take longer than ten years. Decarbonization is politically achievable because most Americans find the science of human-caused global climate change to be plausible. That’s really all we need. By larding the Green New Deal with a progressive wish list of social and economic justice programs that have nothing at all to do with climate change, progressives played right into the hands of opponents by confirming the long-held suspicion that climate action is a cover for the left’s “socialist agenda.” Strip the proposed bill of the social engineering provisions and show that the progressives are serious about addressing climate change. Until that happens, it’ll be politics as usual.
10
@MWR. Spot on.
1
Changed our national conversation? This thinking is a perfect example of progressive denial. It's precisely these extreme policy proposals that has set back the climate change discussion a decade.
Bring some sensible grown ups to the table. Don't discard capitalism. Then we'll have that conversation -- a real one, not one based on wild-eyed proposals.
9
@AACNY
Grownups to the table? The entire republican caucus denies that the science proving global warming, which has piled up more and more evidence since the 1930s, evens exists.
15
@AACNY:
"Bring some sensible grown ups to the table."
We're here. Net-zero building, for example. That approach could've been less than 25 years away with 20 percent reliable reductions in green house gasses but the clubby repubs have pushed that one further out of reach too.
7
@Jason Joyner
The climate has been warming since the end of the last ice age about 12 thousand years ago. The seas have risen over 300 feet over the same period!
The question is what can we do about it and will putting Liberal Socialists in charge actually improve things? The results from other countries aren’t encouraging! (Think Venezuela here!)
I am a venture capital investor, and now working with one of the largest companies in the world seeking to reduce climate change via better mobility options - carpooling, autonomous valet parking, smart parking ID, and other mobility as a service options that reduce congestion and CO2 emissions.
The rationale for adoption is simple - limit driving by reducing parking allocations during building permitting. Create a culture with the employers of reducing driving; for the landlords, avoid the dreaded stranded asset, that is defunct 5 years out due to changing driving patterns. We can see a 10% reduction in traffic, have better employer morale (24% of people believe transit is the best employer option other than salary and insurance), and create a better platform for landlords and the community.
None of this takes massive investment, just aligning incentives (for example, provide greater office density for a project that has transit options).
Aligning public/private incentives is far better than a cudgel that is inefficient, costs trillions of dollars, and may not be implemented.
8
@Mark Arizmendi
While climate change alarmists are running around claiming "The sky is falling!", others are working gradually to bring real change. The best thing is to let the real problem solvers in the US do what they do.
2
@AACNY
The "alarmists" are only that way because the United States has been denying the problem exists for the past 3 decades, and is only now finally starting to listen. They are "alarmist" because we've wasted so much time, that there's not much time left before the results are catastrophic and permanent.
8
@Jason Joyner if one is serious about climate change, and I am, then I think we must implementable policies that create long-term, sustainable results that can be implemented outside the morass of Washington. Changing zoning to reduce traffic can be done at the local level. There is a role for government, at the local and Federal level, but mostly to create a platform from which private enterprise can derive profits from something that benefits the common good. It will be quicker than seeing things bogged down in Washington.
1
Urgent and transformative action on climate change isn’t a choice. It’s the only thing that has a chance of salvaging some portion of the earth as habitable, some percentage of the species now being extinguished at the rate of 100 per day (!), some chance of functioning human societies worldwide. We will limit global warming or be overwhelmed by droughts, floods, storms, disease, war, famine, and huge populations of refugees. And these catastrophes will overtake us with terrifying speed.
I’m not a scientist. But I’ve spent years in cIimate activism. I listened to McKibben when he wrote “The End of Nature” in 1989. James Hansen, Michael Mann, Elizabeth Kolbert, Naomi Klein, Michael Mann, Dahl Jamail are some of the writers who’ve educated me. I’ve been terrified for a long time. It’s good a majority is now also terrified.
We have to do absolutely everything we can to mitigate this. The world we knew is already gone. The immense apocalypse is unfolding all around us. This is what moderate, “reasonable” people like Feinstein don’t seem to grasp.
But Ocasio-Cortez is dead right that nuclear power can’t be part of the solution. Nuclear power requires cooling. Sited near rivers, it’s a source of thermal pollution. Increasingly rivers are too warm to cool the reactors anyway. Sited by the ocean, reactors will be swamped. Think Fukushima, with its melted reactor caores and unstoppable radiologic contamination of the Pacific. And the spent fuel is impossible to store safely.
37
The significance of the non binding Congressional resolution, Green New Deal, lies in its renewed resolve to place climate change high on the US national agenda and turn it central to the political discourse once it was mischievously derailed and pushed to sidelines by Trump and his Republican minions. It is instructive to remember that any effective political action to translate the vision of the clean energy future can only follow a sustained collective campaign to persuade all the stakeholders-- government, industry and business, technology providers, and public-to shift to the renewables that also makes economic and environmental sense, and secures clean and green future for the next generations. Thus the Green Deal contains a promise of sustainable development with carbon free economy and the environment friendly planet.
8
The comical Green New Deal has accomplished nothing except to make its proponents look like political infants burdened with serious mathematical deficiencies. Climate change is real but proposals that promote a government takeover of everything under the guise of addressing climate change represent liberal duplicity. It is feared that although the tide was turning in favor of addressing climate change, the Green New Deal has undercut that movement. The Green New Deal only reinforces the conservative view that climate change is just a vehicle for government control of everything.
10
@dudley thompson
I’m sympathetic with some of what you say, but multinational control of everything under the guise of a rising tide lifting all boats is instead delivering a rising tide that’s drowning all coasts. A public-private partnership might eventually get us on a trend to reduce CO2 emissions, but it’s already too late to prevent devastating effects that will be increasingly felt by future generations.
3
@dudley thompson The Green New Deal is not comical if you live near an ocean coastline. Particularly if your fresh potable water is destroyed by sea intrusion. The loss of fresh potable water is one factor under estimated in reports on climate change.
@dudley thompson So true.
Just look at Miami's frantic efforts to hold back the Atlantic: sea walls, huge pumping stations, etc. The real estate value that will be lost in Miami's submersion would go a long way as startup capital for the Green New Deal.
7
@Texas Trader There's nothing new with that. The Dutch have been dealing with this for decades, and Venice has been dealing with water intrusion as well. Sea levels change with time. Those that choose to live at sea level on a coastal area can predictably eventually suffer water intrusion. It's a cycle that happens over and over again throughout history. Only the Left uses it to scare the wits out of people thinking it portends the end of the world. Nonsense.
5
@Rocky The Dutch have been dealing with this for ten (10) centuries. Nevertheless we had a catastrophe in 1951 (and quite a few longer ago). We are trying to deal with it now and into the future, but the sea levels now scheduled for 2100 are impossible to deal with. Amsterdam, Rotterdam and many other cities will have to be abandoned. Venice will go sooner. New York will not escape.
2
@Doetze -- you're right, New York "will not escape," but I am writing this from Kew Gardens (in Queens, part of New York City) from a building with a ground-level elevation of 74 meters.
Most of New York City is high enough that sea-level rise is not an issue. The city will surrender its barrier islands and low-lying periphery (much of it fill) in time.
As I'm sure you know there's nowhere on today's coast of the Netherlands more than a few meters above sea level.
The same applies to all of southern Florida, and its porous limestone makes it impossible to dike.
Rocky is from somewhere around Cocoa Beach FL.
Just go take a look at the geography there, and laugh.
1
Reducing our carbon footprint makes more sense as part of a crash effort to prepare America for the effects of the climate change that now appears inevitable. We need a determined and organized effort to adapt. Adaptation not mitigation should be the emphasis of federal, state, local and private sector investment now. Legislation and investment that reduces our carbon footprint but fails to harden our coastal regions, our cities, our crops and our animal life against the effects of climate change are missing an opportunity to prepare us for what is surely on the way.
One of the first things the government can do is pull information about what is going to happen over the next ten years together in one place: sort of a climate effects "genome project" that can be used by scientists, engineers and designers to define the problem we need to solve. Once we agree on what is going to happen, America has the resources to prepare for it.
And one other thing. Politically, we should consider the fact that 30 states, many of them "red" states, have coastlines and vulnerable coastal cities. For Democrats, as a plank in our platform, adaptation to climate change along with efforts to reduce our carbon footprint makes more sense than trying to stop climate change alone.
8
One reason that Ms Pelosi and scores of voters are unable to enumerate the contents of the Green New Deal is that the media use their limited space to chastise progressive and inexperienced legislators like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for their errors in framing the debate over climate change instead of emphasizing the actual contents of the Green New Deal. This editorial, for example, uses 150 words to elaborate on the "poorly written talking points" developed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's staff and 72 words to describe "the actual resolution" which "seems more measured".... and the details on the ACTUAL resolution appear AFTER the details on the gaffes by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez' staff.
The Times and most media outlets have not provided readers and voters with a concise explanation of the elements of a Green New Deal. Instead, coverage has focussed on the wholly predictable political dynamics and the "impossibility" of accomplishing the ambitious goals in the plan.
I am old enough to remember when a President put forth a plan to put a man on the moon within a decade--- a goal that seemed technologically daunting at the time. Thankfully, the press didn't waste ink space telling readers about the political implications or the "impossibility" of such a task.
259
@WFGersen, Great comment. I've grown rather tired of the media's tendency to emphasize how "nothing is possible." Reform banking, not possible. Reform the health care system. Not possible. Spend on infrastructure. Not possible. The list goes on and on. In the meantime, the U.S. is seems determined to fall apart socially and physically. Perhaps we are our own worst enemies.
30
@mrfreeze6
Unfortunately, the media are corporations and most represent the "established order", such as it is.
8
@WFGersen -- I've read the GND, and there are NO DETAILS AT ALL, about dealing with CO2. There's a set of grand wave-the-magic-wand claims, followed by demands for "after the revolution comrade" appeals to socialism.
"Putting a man on the moon" was backed by engineers who had a plan to do that, and it didn't require a political and economic revolution. AOC has bupkis, and has no interest at all in actually talking about what it would take.
2
This editorial sounds to me like a reasoned yet sufficiently aggressive approach to a massive problem facing humankind.
To the objection that such technological changes being considered are too radical, I would suggest that we have forgotten history. Humankind has already passed through a series of profoundly transformative technological changes, from the Neolithic Revolution, the first Industrial Revolution, the second IR involving electricity, mechanization on a wide scale, modern transportation and communication, etc etc.
In the last decades alone mass communication has been transformed by the Internet and related technologies.
We take all these for granted, but these are steps taken by technological planning and progress over time. Why not, for goodness sakes, use the same techniques, to build a carbon free grid by 2050? Of course it can be done. If we will do it.
WHY we should do it, to my mind, is the real question. For myself, the answer lies in human humility. We do not own nature. We are a part of it, in many ways a very small part of it. It is time to remember our place, and let nature flourish again.
17
As usual, conservation is nowhere to be found here. Replace "nuclear" with conservation and we will have a chance. We need a moonshot mentality. Let's get every grade school kid to help reduce their families energy use by 25 percent. Bring in your monthly electric bills, brainstorm solutions at the family level etc. Ms. Feinstein can attest to the interest level of kids, I believe.
7
I've heard that Florida is making it difficult for home owners to put up a few solar panels! Florida for heaven's sake! We want bang for the buck!
Prepare to move much of the defence budget to weather catastrophes. Be on the lookout for record straight line winds. Record breaking tornados, snowfall, rain, lightning,ice, drought humidity,pollen, and some insect infestations while they exist. The future will be horribly exciting, yes?
10
@mike r Florida doesn't need solar panels. We have several Nuclear Power plants that produce clean, cheap and plentiful electricity.
1
@mike r: the City of Tallahassee utilities has for the past year given citizens the option of 25%, 50%, or 100% solar. With one large solar farm near the airport in operation, and another on the way, ready within 6 months, the city joins others such as Orlando and Gainesville with fairly ambitious plans to reduce carbon output.
3
I wondered what FL planned to do with the billions from the BP oil spill. I was hoping they would restore the mangroves, grow more coral and have fisheries but most of all dont build in low levels like Miami. The state should offer money to homeowners in flooded areas and encourage people to move inland. Politicians at least have a plan for FL.
"Is the Green New Deal aimed at addressing the climate crisis? Or is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left?"
I think the Times - and many others - is not correctly parsing the name "Green New Deal". Those trashing it as a cover for a progressive policy wish-list start by acknowledging the connection of the name to FDR's "New Deal", but then blow right past the true connection. The GND is a New Deal that is green. The original ND addressed the economic horrors of the Great Depression. Now, not only do we have our own version of economic horrors (massive income inequality, lack of affordable health care, lack of educational opportunity), we also have an existential climate crisis that is quickly overtaking us. The GND is attempting to address all of that, not just the climate part. No matter how you feel about it as policy, let's please at least be honest and insightful about its reason for being and its goals.
17
@Rob This. And this is what we need.
1
While we are at it, let's invest in strengthening the security of the nation's electrical grid. Although coverage is surprisingly scant, key elements of our grid have been hacked multiple times. This should not be overlooked in any Green New Deal.
18
Your suggestions for carbon capture and nuclear are counting on a technology that doesn't work and and one that is almost worse than climate warming. The only reason to recommend these "solutions" is to enable exporters of fossil fuel to continue their race to get it out of the ground fast before clean energy takes over.
A real solution is investing heavily in clean energy (tax the tax avoiders, borrow at low interest, or heck take it from the military budget as Trump does.) But don't continue the charade of pumping oil and gas way beyond our needs and at the same time pretending to address climate change.
9
@betty durso
Carbon capture is a technology that works, but is not economical. More research is needed. Even if we go 100% green energy tomorrow, carbon capture will still be needed. We've already pumped so much carbon into the air, that the world will continue to warm for many years until it naturally falls back out of the atmosphere. Carbon capture is needed to return us back to where we were, not to enable more fossil fuel burning.
@Jason Joyner
What exactly is 'not economical' about photosynthesis ? Nature had all this figured
out many eons ago. Economical and Efficient !
The climate problem can only be solved by the adoption of carbon eliminating technologies on a global basis. The US is a major energy producer and consumer but that will be dwarfed by the energy production needed for Asia and Africa in the decades to come. In reality, from a global perspective what the US does is only tangentially significant.
Does that mean that the US should not make changes? Yes it should and these need to be carefully targeted.
1. Methane capture (oil/gas plants) or elimination (cows!).
2. Only build nuclear power stations, massive solar and wind farms as coal fired plants are de commissioned.
3. Bring auto production into line with RoW policies and goals
4. Make the grid an efficient two way system to encourage solar power for domestic use.
5. Have a Manhattan style program to develop battery technology.
The GND wandered into industrial policy because one of the attacks is that it will destroy jobs. It will and it is by no means certain with automation and a global open economy that new jobs will be developed to take their place. This needs attention on many grounds.
Politically this needs to be shaped to appeal and appeal especially to younger voters who are notoriously absent at the poles. Only with their participation will any of this become effective policy.
5
The legislators and public are so reluctant to accept that their environment is changing that they take refuge in semantics-some do not like the word “green”, others do not like the “new deal” reference and others will not accept “climate change”.All the while we wrangle about words not enough is being done to plan for the future.We have to work on climate science just as hard as we work on health science which searches for a cure for cancer.The climate cannot be fixed, but the effects of change can be part of our planning.We owe it to our children and grandchildren to work much harder to make their world more safe from the changes which are now here and will become more dire.I just cannot believe that we don’t care about the world we leave our families.
7
@Janet Michael Your on to something. Maybe we need new words. We lose Republicans when we talk with words like green and climate change. What about saying we are reducing pollution, eliminating cancer causing chemicals. Naming unsave practices by businesses and let the public know who is the biggest pollutors. Shutting down industries when they dont comply with the rules.
We do need to shame them into doing the right thing.
IMO, a better approach, to sway opinion on the other side and present less room for argument about global warming, is to emphasize that the world has less than 200 years left of practical/mass fossil fuels usage and that we have an obligation to future generations to not put them back in the stone ages.
Couple that with the emphasis on long term economic and technology advantages of a heightened emphasis on energy conservation and alt energy development (and not losing competitive ground to other countries that are moving forward in ways that we not, now) and you have a hard to refute position that will gather more votes.
5
The Green Deal, in whatever guise it ultimately takes, should be embraced as this generations moon-shot program. Now, as then, the threat it is going up against is, and the one it is to address, is real. Arguments to the contrary are too weak to consider valid at this point.
The threat, as then, is caused by humanity. So only humanity can address it. But unlike with the moon-shot program, where the consequences of missing targets and time-frames were not so dire, this time the stakes have been raised. Delay in action, from this point onward and forever, carries with it an unacceptable "prize" in its impact to us all.
So let's stop dithering, shall we? Let's get to the hard work such a deal as this demands. Besides, we really have no choice.
John~
American Net'Zen
22
"After all, her talking points, as well as the resolution itself, speak also of providing higher education for all Americans; universal health care; affordable housing; remedies for “systemic injustices” among the poor, the elderly and people of color; and a federal job guarantee insuring “a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security."
God (and the trembling NYT editorial board) forbid that such things could happen. And yes that includes economic security for safety for someone unwilling to work.
9
Without vision there is no change. AOC has staked her career on presenting a vision. Vision is how innovation is born. There was no great innovation or change without derision from smaller minds.
120
@Jason Sypher. There is a difference between vision and delusion.
@Jason Sypher
Bernie, too.
1
From your pen to the votes of Congress persons and Senators. Carbon trapping support is key to attracting support from constituencies that depend on carbon extraction for their economies. Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Dakotas. Add in infrastructure spending to complement and electrically powered transportation system. US would have not only helped the world via effective solutions to global warming but provided a lasting basis for our future economic prosperity.
3
We have a huge advantage of having unused real estate prime for capturing solar energy. Every time I fly coast to coast and see vast areas of land such as most of the state of Nevada that are uninhabited, sunny, and owned by the Feds, I imagine what they would look like covered with solar panels capturing all that free energy.
Implementing that solar development would provide tons of jobs in those rural areas.
Can we do it?
You bet!
9
The Green New Deal is a fantastic idea. The problem, as you underscore in this editorial, is with newly elected officials (A O-C) who don't think they need to learn the ropes.
Dirty Don has proven that running a business is not proof that you can run a government (you can't declare bankruptcy, you can say "you're fired" to elected officials, you just "grease the wheels" and obstruct justice).
Obama never learned to communicate to those who are not as well versed as he (how much teaching did he do at the University of Chicago? and for how long?) and how much time did he spend learning the art of negotiation with fellow politicians.
Enough! There is no substitute for seniority. And there is no substitute for dealing with constituents on a day-to-day basis.
3
@Joe yet she seems to understand some basic things about the world that weak sauce democrats never understand, even if you give them 35 years to learn. Life 101 is learning to take risks. People timid about that will always be losers. First you must condition people to accept risks. If you try to play the perfect game, set yourself up as perfect, you will eventually blow up (fail).
Not embracing a market based carbon tax is the only mistake they are making. Essentially a tax on carbon with all the proceeds going into buyer incentives to install green energy at the lowest price (called feed in tariff) plus pay for infrastructure (like trains, buses) will benefit everyone. The oil oligarchs have so controlled the fight to switch to renewables, that Ms. Acasio-Cortez and others are assuming all capitalism is bad. This is not necessarily the case; even banks weren't so bad before Republicans and Clinton cancelled the banking laws. the reform that is most needed is to reverse FEC vs United that gives monopolistic corporations (who are Not citizens under the Constitution) so much control over politicians. This should be replaced with matching small donations (up to $250) at the Federal level. That's what they should be working on.
New policy "benefiting everyone" is also the key. Lower cost of energy, clean air and water, better health/peace of mind, but the same fast cars/suvs; just with zero emissions. Look around; almost everything we have that is low priced is market based, and where it's not, the market is often rigged, or it is a government boondoggle.
6
I am in favor of much of the extraneous agenda grafted on to the proposals to fight climate change (although jobs for the unwilling is pretty bizarre). But this is not the time. 30 years ago perhaps, but we've already whizzed past 400 p.p.m--the point of no return. Urgency is an understatement. Climate change must be addressed head-on, with laser focus and a global mobilization. Sadly, this is unlikely, but there is no plan B.
It was encouraging to read:
"major efforts to promote the sequestration of carbon in forests, farms and public lands ...in an effort to pull carbon from the atmosphere."
This is where hope lies. Most talk about climate change focuses on either carbon taxes or alternative energy. Not bad, but while reducing future CO2 emissions, carbon taxes and solar/wind will NOT remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Our only hope is to capture C by building soil:
preserving forests...planting trees
recharging vast tracts of degraded land (former grasslands)
STOP industrial agriculture--it degrades soil, releases carbon, relies on fossil fuel inputs. causes runoff of soil and chemicals and reduces capacity to retain water
Carbon sequestration through soil building is the ONLY means we have to reduce atmospheric carbon. We have the technology. It is already being done world-wide and it does not cost gazillions of dollars. It only needs to be scaled up.
Add'l benefits include, better quality, food, meaningful employment for many and community building.
12
Unfortunately those retracted talking points revealed the true colors of the plan's creators. They are the same ilk as the Green Party here in Germany: Dogmatic zealots who fancy themselves purist environmentalists but actually enact policies that harm the environment.
Because of their irrational opposition to nuclear energy, they fought to decommission all nuclear power plants first, shutting down a green technology while letting the coal-fired plants run because that actually harmful technology was lower on their list.
So many years have elapsed where we could have prevented vast emissions by shutting down coal-fired plants while preserving or expanding green nuclear capacity, just because of irrational ideologic sentiments of a left wing that is just as resistant to science and facts as the right wing, only on different matters.
It's the same thing with carbon-capture, which is ultimately our only hope because it is very clear that only limiting emissions will not happen fast enough, and anyway it might already be too late. But if carbon capture works large-scale, it would mean that in the future, carbon-emitting industry may no longer be ethically problematic, and this is heresy to dogmatic fake environmentalists. For them, this fight needs to be about ethical purity, not just what works to solve a problem.
12
Feinstein's little debate with school children yesterday shows that she thinks climate change isn't a dire catastrophe just starting to bite. The idea that addressing climate change is a noble goal as Pelosi stammered out shows that many prominent Dems want to play this hugely important danger as a routine type of an issue. While the country blithely spends trillions of dollars on defense and nuclear weapons the country heads for a future that no defense budget can defend against. Trump is a fool and a clown. Trump and McConnell say bring the issue on they are ready to lie and demagogue about climate change and win elections. This is sad indeed.
37
Unless recognized as a Global Task the Green New Deal will be exploded by the pressures of its antagonists already claiming that America will suffer the economic and geopolitical disadvantages this form of exceptionalism entails.
As an unabashed Universalist, I defined, in 1989, a task as global when it fulfils four (and a half) necessary conditions:
1. Performing the task is necessary to confront and solve a problem which is recognized by a substantial majority of the main actors in world politics as posing a global (common and relatively equal) existential danger.
2. The task cannot be performed and the problem solved by the actions of some actors against other.
3. The completion of the task will not result in a radically more privileged relative position for some of the global actors.
4. In the context of world order, the danger confronted must be recognized by all the relevant (necessary for the solution) actors as surpassing the Survival Predicament (as defined by the Realist World View).
5. Accommodating but not necessary: the completion of the task necessitates the (relative) participation of all major actors. It cannot be solved by the actions and contribution of few of the actors (“free rider” problem).
Up to now, there is nothing confronting humankind more justifiable to be termed as a Global Task than the (practical) abolition of nuclear weapons. By now, fighting Climate change must be also recognized, and dealt with, as a clear and present Global Task.
5
I remember the questions asked during the debates being like softballs lobbed underhanded at best.
3
A Green New Deal should include: (1) A strong manufacturing component; (2) Industrial Policy; (3) Decentralization, accountability and oversight systems to Avoid Waste.
2
First of all, nobody cares what the Queen of Mean - Ms Klobuchar- thinks about this policy. She can vote with the Republicans or introduce a constructive alternative. She will be out of the Presidential race before Iowa.
Second, nobody on the so called “center” or right whined when we bailed out the Banksters, Chrysler, Government Motors, General Electric and AIG to the tune of Trillions of Dollars. The debt scolds were nowhere to be seen. The “money honey” María Bartiromo (then of CNBC, now of Fox) was saying “we are all Keynesians now” when Wall Street was melting down.
We need to remake our economy and energy system to deal with the changes brought by climate change and resource scarcity. We also need to remake job training and the job market for an economy profoundly changed by technology. These things must be addressed regardless who gets elected and the only question is who will set the priorities. The alternative is to go into the future blindly and ill prepared like the UK into a hard Brexit.
If we do not address income inequality, climate change and job displacement there will be no gated communities safe from the pitchforks of the masses thrown to the curb by the wealthy and well connected.
52
@David Gregory. The Queen of Mean? Seriously? Bill Clinton was also allegedly difficult to work for; does that change your opinion of him?
Though I would not argue with your assertions that income inequality, climate change and the effects of automation must be addressed, they will not be unless Dems control the presidency and Congress; and we will not do that if we run leftists. Need you be reminded that it was moderate Dems, like Abby Spanberger and Max Rose, who defeated incumbent Republicans? It wasn't AOC or Ayanna Pressley in Boston; they won in safe liberal districts. So if you want any chance at implementing those policies, you'll vote on the basis of electability, not ideological purity.
As for the bailouts, given that the entire economy is dependent on a healthy banking system, it's unclear why that issue was raised. The fact that none of the malefactors went to prison is the scandal, not that the banks were bailed out.
12
@David Gregory
Thank you NYT for attaching such a memorable nickname to a Candidate who had the potential to work across parties and (also, too) appeal to Independents and fence-sitting voters outside of the (il)liberal Beltway Cities. Great hit job there !
All it took was one expose' article featuring anonymous complaints and a rather entertaining episode about eating salad with a comb (quite innovative, and for those worried about 'hygiene', please consider that the lettuce itself was probably more of a 'sanitation danger'). Those of us who actually live outside of hyper-urban environments may have a more realistic concept of what climate change means and how to adapt to it. Amy Klobuchar gets that and as a result I am inclined to support her.
2
Climate change is an existential threat. The Merchants of Doubt lost the argument. Climate change is in our face now. Warming of the ocean, more violent and destructive storms, rising water level and loss of the arctic and antarctic ice. Rising average temperature, spectacular fires and pollution have put us in the middle of The Sixth Extinction. Remember the joke that after WWIII roaches would replace us because they are more tolerant of radiation? We are in the Insect Apocalypse, we've lost 30% of the insects, and are losing about 2% of them a year. Who on earth imagined the insects would go first? They are the bottom of the food chain and as they vanish the animals that eat them go, then the animals that eat those animals go.
We passed the easy test: we didn't use nuclear weapons after WWII. We passed the second test: we dealt with the Silent Spring. Now that victory is being lost and no country can save the planet, we have to work together and share technical innovations. We are brothers and sisters in this struggle. It seems impossible but we must collaborate to live on.
The New Deal was FDR's economic policies to recover from the Great Depression. He saved capitalism by empowering Labor (making Unions legal and requiring bargaining and reducing economic inequality with progressive taxation).The
Green New Deal tries to unite the economic and ecological battles. We have to win both.
62
@Saint999
We dealt with Silent Spring? By substituting Roundup and a host of increasingly toxic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides for DDT?
Back in 1960 you could still fish in many bodies of fresh water. That is no longer true in almost all of Europe, and most of the US.
9
@Saint999 Amen!
We are too awash still in plastic and pesticides in our environment, poisoning our waters and injuring life on land as well.
We need the Green New Deal to save ourselves and minimize the loss of biodiversity. It will take an all-hands-on-deck approach of government, industry, and social coordination in order to pull this off. We must do it or perish.
4
It is very discouraging to me that, whatever the wisdom of intertwining a mobilization against climate change with more expansive social equity goals, the actual climate action objectives have been muddled. It has taken weeks for a reputable publication to point out, as the Times just has, that the actual resolution "speaks only of a 10-year mobilization effort to reduce carbon emissions, without giving an explicit deadline" to achieve net-zero emissions. The misconception that the GND resolution would target 2030 to reach that difficult goal, which has been created by its supporters as well as its critics, risks alienating sympathetic voters who can clearly see that would be impossible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that the world needs to get to net-zero by 2050 if we are to keep temperatures from rising more that 1.5 degrees Celsius. It will be difficult but it is possible. We have 31 years to get there; let's get to work with a clear and unambiguous goal in mind.
3
I'll be watching the House of Representatives to see if they'll do anything to buck the fossil fuel industry in the next two years. Many Americans are eager to do what they can about climate change. Imagine, for example, if tax credits would make it affordable to put solar panels on enough rooftops to generate all the electricity we need.
There's no time to lose. Democrats must set the tone now and get started on making things happen instead of bemoaning the Republican majority in the Senate and, of course, Mr. Trump.
Where CAN we break through now? How many more people will turn out to vote if they have evidence that members of Congress won't let special interests stand in the way of what must be done? How many more young people will vote if they see that change through politics is possible?
8
I just can’t understand how you write perfectly rational opinions about the need to consider the long-term costs of carbon emissions on the one hand, but then go on to propose that nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution. First, explain to me which long-term storage solution you support in order to deal with the additional nuclear waste you consider acceptable to reduce the long-term costs of carbon emissions, and Second, show me the cost calculations for that long-term, safe storage solution (1000 to >100,000 years, depending on the isotope). If you can do that in a similarly rational way and prove that the costs are realistic and the method is safe, then by all means lets consider nuclear. But don’t forget to include the costs of storing our "current nuclear waste" laying around in "temporary" storage facilities, and also a few inevitable future nuclear disasters in your calculations! And just so you know, an answer that includes something like "...we will develop the technology to deal with that in the future..." is not acceptable. I say we focus on safe, renewable energy only. The Green New Deal goals can be achieved if we accept Climate Change as the crisis it is.
7
@Mico Milanovic
Are you aware of the potential for next-generation nuclear reactors to run off the "waste" of our current reactors?
Storing the waste in pools then dry casks is acceptable to me. Do you feel like this short term solution is not safe? It is possible, however unlikely, that there could be an accident with a pools, but I'm not sure what people find disagreeable about dry casks. The waste just kind of sits there. It is well contained and at least we can keep an eye on it.
4
Maybe you should alert Hanford to those dry casks.
If the reigns of power were handed to Ms. Ocassio-Cortez she'd spend trillions on a scatter-shot of policies and we'd end up with a small reduction in carbon emissions. How do I know? Two reasons:
(1) Germany tried it - the Green Dream (or whatever). They call it Energiewende, German for energy transformation. They closed their nuclear power plants and went full in on the variable renewables wind and solar. Their electricity grid still emits many times the CO2 per KWh of either hydro powered Norway or nuclear powered France.
electricitymap.org
(2) Numbers. I've studied the numbers, and when renewable advocates like Mark Jacobson present their 100% renewables plans I see more holes than swiss cheese. These plans are not reasonable for both technical and political reasons.
I hope we don't have to wait for the effects of climate change to worsen before the first elected Democrat stands up and says "Let's do something about climate change, but let's recognize that we can't get there without nuclear power".
The Republicans are not quite the yahoos they appear to be from the shiny towers of NY City. If a reasonable decarbonization plan was presented - one that would work (and that means nuclear), one that didn't require draconian measures, one that employs the most efficient tool of societal change we have (namely the free market) - I'll bet the moderate Republicans would be for it.
We can't one party something this big. The only solution is bipartisan.
8
@Stephen
Your information under point 1) is misleading and not technically correct. Germany did not abandon nuclear energy yet. The last reactors will be taken off line in 2022. You also don’t consider that Germany still gets 22% of it’s electricity from burning the very dirty “Braunkohle” (lignite), which raises the average CO2 emissions. And then there is also regular coal, another 14%. Germany has a low use of natural gas for electricity production.
I checked the website you mentioned. Interesting information. Thanks for sharing.
3
@Mico Milanovic
Thank you Mico. I could have been more specific about Germany's nuclear phase out plans. Unfortunately the fact that the phase out is only about half complete means that their emissions will probably be higher in 2022.
I understand the issue with German coal interests. Natural gas would indeed lower emissions and might get Germany down to around the carbon intensity of California's grid, which is typically 200 - 300 gCO2/kWh. That would be good but it's still several times higher than Norway and France.
3
@Stephen: although the worst thing Mekel did for Gemany and Europe and THE WORLD was to throw open the borders to massive illegal migrations….the SECOND WORST was to run like a scared rabbit from the Japanese nuclear power accident and decide to ban and shut down all Germany's nuclear plants.
Now instead of clean safe nuclear power, Germany relies on …. coal.
Energy costs in Germany are 400% higher than before, and people probably angry, but we don't read about that like we did about the Yellow Jackets of France.
2
Americans are the energy gluttons of the world, consuming far more per capita than any other country on earth. As our carbon emissions continue to climb, abetted by a President who denies the existence of global warming, we are simply accelerating the permanent demise of humans on this planet.
I find this editorial far too tepid in its lack of urgency to do what the Green New Deal calls for in transitioning immediately to clean energy. The entire food chain is already under peilous assault. Humans have killed 50% of the animals on earth in the past 50 years. Insects are in catastrophic decline. Massive coral reefs are dying permanently. Crop failures are much more frequent all over the world. Large cities are running out of water. Human life expectancy is declining in America.
When the situation worsens and it begins to affect everyone in very real ways every day, it will become impossible to marshall the masses to make the investments to transition to clean energy. What will happen is the wealthy will buy up the last productive land and areas where the climate has been impacted the least to maintain the quality of life to which they are accustomed and fend off the rest of us who are trying to survive. That is already happening, although it does not recieve enough attention. Governments will completely collapse. Eventually carbon output will decline as the direct result of the mass extinction of human beings. We should do more than "get on with it."
7
I try and read everything I can find (and understand) on both sides of this issue, have done so since the concept emerged some 30 or 40 years ago, and remain firmly in the camp of the much-maligned skeptics. And every time we experience a hurricane, flood, fire, heatwave, polar vortex, blizzard, or other environmental calamity we read about climate, climate, climate from liberal sources, while the more conservative one’s calmly point to the fact that these events have all occurred, often with greater frequency and ferocity, long before, and that there’s nothing particularly new except for the growth of the human population, which makes it more likely that properties will be damaged and lives lost. We also learn about the complexity of the earth’s climate, the fallibility of the models upon which scientists rely, the billions of dollars invested in research funding thousands of scientific careers, and the ferocious peer pressure among academics to maintain the sense of crisis and impending doom. And all the proposed solutions to what may or may not be a problem all point to greater government control and a concomitant diminution in human freedom, which explains the political divisions over the issue. And I know I speak for many in stating that if the GND or something similar is the only solution to our survival, I’m with Patrick Henry.
8
@Haenabill The pretense that you have made an honest study of climate science for the last 30-40 years is nonsense. There is no way that you can come to your conclusions based on the science. And notion that we have a natural history of catastrophic events "often with greater frequency and ferocity, long before," --when has it happened with this frequency and ferocity everywhere in the world virtually at once. When have CO2s grown at the current rate and when has the planet ever warmed as fast as it is today. The science simply does not support what you have written, which is nothing more than warmed over denial. It is not “liberal sources” that bring the Conservative position into question but simply the science. The Conservative position is profit now at any cost to the nation and our planet-- paid for by those who will profit. The liberal position is to create national policy based on the science.
It is irony that you lean on Patrick Henry-- no doubt, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Patrick Henry had a large stable of slaves making him wealthy so you have chosen well because the reality in your case and his are similar.
1
@Haenabill Ummm, when was the last time that it was above 70 degrees Fahrenheit on Christmas Day in New York City, as it was on Christmas Day in 2015? And when was the last time that it rained 50, yes FIFTY inches in Houston in a week? OK, scientists, I know that I really should be talking about steadily rising global average temperatures (which are obtained by measurements, not models), measurements of the startling, systematic shrinking of the polar ice caps, and other climate, as opposed to weather events. But this guy doesn't "do" science, so I gotta startle him with examples that we know are not your grandma's weather.
2
The GND should be concerning to anyone who actually cares about climate change and supports a serious and urgent solution to the problem. This resolution is simply using climate change as leverage to push a social welfare agenda. The result is an overly expensive and massively incomplete climate change solution.
This article acknowledges these possibilities but hangs its hat on the false premise that any climate change solution is good for the cause. It's also troubling to me that this piece invokes Thomas Friedman, the author of many thoughtful and serious pieces on this issue that actually do move the ball forward. Luckily, Friedman can speak for himself. In his NYT editorial last week he called-out GND supporters for their broader political agenda.
Let's stick to celebrating serious climate change proposals that focus on real progress and unifying the country around workable solutions.
7
What would the effect on the climate of the earth be if the US totally eliminated our use of fossil fuels? By how many months would climate disaster be postponed?
What we do in the US is irrelevant unless China and India actually do something rather than just make vague promises.
7
@mikeinfl
China and India are both aggressively planting trees. Does that count as doing something?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/world/china-india-greener-planet-scli-intl/index.html
The US is also adding to our forests, but Tump & co. seem to be trying to put a stop to that.
"It’s hard to believe, but worth recalling, that during the presidential debates in 2016, not a single question about climate change was put to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump."
It was even worse than that. There were also no climate change questions in the approximately gazillion Republican primary debates either, plus only a few brief references in the fewer televised Democratic primary shows.
Call me a cynic, but I would argue that was no mere oversight. Climate change denial was a central premise of the Republican 2016 game plan and an absence of climate questions surely a quid pro quo for networks to secure lucrative rights to televise GOP debates. One can also safely surmise that at least some powerful corporate sponsors had no serious objection to censoring climate questions.
The message of the editorial is spot on -- it is well past time for climate questions to take center stage in our national discourse, and the broadly conceptual Green New Deal is a good place to start. The scope of the debate should be broad; given the vastness of the problem, it is naive to imagine that something this profound can be addressed in a vacuum. The basic structure of our society will inevitably be impacted by the climate choices made.
But simple, effective initial options exist as well, notably the carbon tax plan espoused by James Baker and other conservatives. If modified to devote significant tax proceeds to remedying transitional impacts, it would offer a good start.
14
@woofer
Actually, one democratic candidate did bring up climate change. In one of the debates, each was asked, "What do you fear most." Clinton replied, "Iran," and Sanders answered, "Climate change." He got it. We can continue our national quarrels until there is no earth. In fact, the cost of military initiatives is vast, in fuel and weaponry, of course, but also in pollution, destroyed agricultural land, and the inability of battle-scarred land to recover for generations.
15
@FSB You took the words right out of my fingers. Bernie was the only candidate who understood the climate issue and this is one reason why young people want progressives in power.
6
I think the data is just not good. Too much reliance on biased computer modeling. Too many alternative hypotheses have been ignored without further investigation. (In "The Sea Around Us" R. Carson comes up with a number of explanations for sea level rise that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.) The whole premise of the Coming Climate Catastrophe is suspect. Climate has always changed; there's plenty of historical and archaeological evidence.
At the same time the Earth, our precious Earth, could always use some attention.
If you really were interested you would plant trees. Teach your children. Two this year. Four, next... Just find a place, buy a sapling and plant it. Go back and water them for the first three or four years. Instant carbon sink for 50-75 years while they grow into a gift for the Earth, a gift for all of us.
Or you could go on for another twenty years about a carbon tax.
6
From day one I have believed that the core climate change challenge is raising the money needed to clean up developing countries. There has been no concerted effort to do this and there is no chance of success if we don’t. The Green Solution does not seriously address this and the many angry people who insist on solutions seldom address the politics of subsidizing dozens of foreign countries with billions of dollars. We need an environmental Marshall Plan but nobody gets down to brass tacks on that.
5
Setting aside the parts of the Green New Deal that would expand the social welfare state, it appears the climate goal is in line with the "aspirational goal" of the Paris climate agreement to stay under 1.5C by the end of this century. One obvious problem with the Green New Deal is the US accounts for only about 14% of carbon dioxide emissions and it says nothing about the other 86% from other nations. Are Americans supposed to go it alone to stay under 1.5C? Of course we can't do it alone and international cooperation to reach this goal would be essential for any chance of success. Even if the US reduced its emissions to zero tomorrow it would have little effect on global warming. It would slow it down somewhat and give the rest of the world a little more time to act but the path would still be headed toward around catastrophic 4C by the end of the this century. So essentially Ed Markey and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez need to get not only Americans to buy into this plan but most of the resit of the world. Obama did get essentially all nations to agree to reduce emissions but we don't have Obama anymore, we have Trump. The only hope is at the meeting on the Paris climate agreement at the end of 2020 that most nations of the world will make voluntary pledges to reduce emissions in line with emissions reductions called for in the Green New Deal. Given what has transpired at these international climate meetings over the years I would not get my hopes up.
3
@Bob
But, because climate change is caused by CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS, not instantaneous ones, the United States owns at least 40% of the problem. The argument for the United States leading the pack to zero emissions is due to our collective responsibility for that, and upon that fact that it is what our wealth and success was built upon.
Cumulative emissions matter because CO2 doesn't get scrubbed out of the climate system (atmosphere + oceans) for over 1000 years.
14
@Jan Galkowski
Historical emissions have to be dealt with at international climate meetings and they have been one of the issues discussed. They are one reason the US and other developed countries have volunteered to make deeper cuts in emissions than developing countries including China which is now by far the biggest contributor to emissions. Far more important than the Green New Deal is getting the nations of the world to agree to much more rapid cuts in emissions. Presidents Clinton and Obama both made efforts to get international agreements to fight climate change. Right now we need a president to do that but instead we have a president who is promoting fossil fuels including coal. If Americans are going to support the Green New Deal they have to know that other developed countries are making a similar commitment to reducing emissions and developing countries are increasing their commitment and right now that is not the case.
1
Well, good luck.
The hard truth is, wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels to generate electricity because they can't be relied on to produce power on demand. OK, what about nuclear? That comes with its own issues. What about electric cars? Well, they don't produce emissions directly, but they certainly do indirectly, give the electricity they use was generated by coal or natural gas.
The Green New Deal is nothing short of modern day alchemy. We can get some of the way, but not nearly to the extent GND'ers think/promise/insist. The only thing, really, that will work is to reduce consumption. Of everything. And right now. If you're getting a new cell phone every other year, you're part of the problem. If you get a new car every five years because you're tired of your old one, you're part of the problem. If your closet is full of clothes you no longer wear and you keep buying clothes, you're part of the problem. If you drink bottled water, assuming you don't live in Flint or somewhere similar, you're part of the problem. If you subscribe to a print newspaper, you're part of the problem.
Really and honestly, the GND'ers can get out of my face with their holier-than-thou we need to save the planet schtick. It's our lifestyles that are the real problem, not vehicles that are more fuel efficient than ever or power plants.
9
@August West,
Well, yes, they can, if the rules upon which they are deployed are changed. And nuclear might, if modular nuclear is developed and deployed with success, although, like you, I'll reserve judgement on that.
"Power on demand" is a fiction of the present day utilities junta. No power supply is 100% reliable, and utilities, RTCs, and ISOs need to plan around that. There are three ways zero Carbon energy can be made to match needs: (1) energy storage, via but not only via batteries, (2) intelligent computer-controlled forecasting and dispatch, along with overbuilding wind and solar energy supplies, and revamping the grid so power can be drawn upon from sources more than 1000 km away, and (3) demand reduction measures, where the utility can command on demand businesses and homes to toggle down their energy consumption.
The critique of electric cars is a red herring. No system was compliant and successful overnight. If the power was zero Carbon, the electric cars would be, too. Electric cars are very attractive, not only because they do not emit, but because they are vastly more reliable than ICE cars, and have longer lifetimes. They also do away with much of the inefficiency of auto repair shops.
I agree our lifestyles are the real problem. Of course, if we don't voluntarily fix them, Nature will fix them and our economy for us.
40
@August West
"The hard truth is, wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels to generate electricity because they can't be relied on to produce power on demand." - No, but they can be relied upon to produce electricity very reliably.
The problem is storing and transmitting that energy - a lot of people fail to emphasize that the OTHER major environmental problem with fossil fuels is one of storing and moving the oil and gas around. Even without the climate change issue, the massive, catastrophic pollution caused by the oil business should be enough reason to want to eliminate it.
The simplest solution is to use solar electricity to pump water uphill, and then let it run back downhill when needed. It's not super efficient, but solar energy is extremely abundant, and once that water is uphill, it can also be used to irrigate crops and restore watersheds. And a water pipeline is a lot safer than an oil/gas pipeline.
Alternately, that not-on-demand solar electricity could be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which can then be recombined to produce power that IS on-demand.
And then of course there's battery technology, which is getting better all the time and may eventually be environmentally friendly.
I agree wholeheartedly with your points about reducing consumption, but viable, large-scale use of solar and wind power is a lot closer and simpler than many people make it out to be.
Of course the bottom line still has to be fewer humans using far fewer resources.
9
@Jan Galkowski
"If the power was zero carbon..." That's a big "if." The bigger "if" is, if solar and wind actually worked, we, or some other nation, would be using them already. We don't have batteries that can store enough energy to supply the needs of a city, let alone the nation, and there's no reason to believe we will within our lifetimes, if ever. Good luck putting wind turbines and solar panels on every available piece of ground from coast-to-coast, as you suggest: "I can't believe we lost the war." "We were becalmed, Mr. President."
Electric cars more reliable than ICE's? One unintended consequence of higher mileage standards is increased durability and reliability. 30 or 40 years ago, a car that went 100,000 without major issues was rare; now, 200,000 miles or more is routine, and you can drive from from NY to LA without stopping every 300 miles for several hours to recharge. There's no reason I can see, save for irrational exuberance, to believe that any of this is going to change any time soon, if ever.
If we're truly serious about this, we'd put massive taxes on consumption of all kinds. The Sunday NYT is $5, but tax on the newsprint is $7.50. The candy in that plastic container cost $3, but the container tax is $6. The jeans are $50, but the tax is $75. Same thing with electricity and gas.
Such taxes would, instantly, accomplish GND goals. And it's as likely as these ideas that belong more in freshman dorm discussions than in national discourse.
How about starting with a price on carbon? The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR 763) has already been introduced in congress and would give a big jump start to many of the changes we need to make.
6
Some Democrats do not like that AOC is so public on this issue. Many conservative Democrats do not like strong progressives like her out front, but the centrist Democrats and conservatives have not lead and are not solving the problem of climate change. AOC and Ed Markey realize that time is running out. It is sad to see that Diane Fienstein refused to support the Green New Deal. Those kids were exactly right. Yes the plan is ambitious. Yes it is still unformed, but there isn’t much time left to thread the needle politically in such a way as to bring all interested parties on board.
By the way the trillion dollar price tag shouldn't phase us.
We give away trillions to the rich every time a republican president is elected.
328
@Mark
Tax cuts are not giving money away. They are letting people keep the money they earn.
1
@QED And in the case of many of the ultra rich, money they didn't earn.
17
@QED
Sophistry.
The premise that all taxed income is "earned" by its original recipients or that the market fairly allocates wealth on the basis of effort is childish.
Taxes return back to society, represented by the state, a portion of the returns on social spending that make individual prosperity possible. Individual income and wealth accumulation rely on a massive infrastructure of roads, bridges, water and sewage systems, power and communications grids all supported by tax revenue. They also depend on a labor force educated from kindergarten to graduate school largely at public expense. Likewise courts, police and military expenditures that enforce contracts and secure a measure of social peace. Also some crumbs to the very poor who are otherwise excluded from the fruits of this system to discourage them from burning it all down.
The idea that the well to do "earned" everything in their paycheck, much less their stock dividends and hedge fund returns, is delusional narcissism.
Tax cuts, especially for the rich, force others to pay all of the costs listed above in one way or another, whether that takes the form of fees and tolls or sending your kid to school with a mountain of school supplies or having to spend more of ones day commuting to work because of underinvestment in public transportation.
Tax cuts and the corresponding regimes of austerity transfer wealth from working class people, whose labor already produces all of the wealth the rich enjoy, to the rich.
32
Policies that project emissions by mid-century are ludicrous. We have no idea what the world would look like by then, given the parabolic accelerated pace we're going at now. We originally thought that global temperature rise and atmospheric composition changes were linear, but now see there are second and even third order effects in play here. I think we've already crossed that "tipping point" and the question is not if, but when the environmental effects goes catastrophic. Human existence by mid-century, as we know it and would like to believe, seems to me as very optimistic.
That child’s lament to Senator Feinstein, “We’re the ones who are going to be impacted,” was spot on.
34
@biglatka
Yes. Oldsters on their last legs should not be making policy for youngsters. They always think they know best but they do not, simply because they don't know what they don't know.
Youngsters also have that but they're open to change and can adjust far faster than ossified oldsters.
2
@Fourteen
Fourteen - please speak for yourself about how "oldsters" think and behave. At age 77, I don't feel all that ossified and am fully open to change on most every front. As a matter of fact, I am thrilled with Markey's and AOC's Green New Deal, and just sent another $27 to Bernie yesterday.
1
Ever since "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, I've been watching what is happening to our planet: oceans acidifying; loss of marine life, melting polar caps, insect extinction, record heats and storms (yes, despite enjoying the polar vortex two weeks ago) and thought, my God, Gore is a Cassandra--foretelling the future but not believed.
We have dithered and prevaricated way beyond any reasonable period. We are slipping into crisis and need a huge effort comparable to the Manhattan Project--now--to stave off the worst of the coming ecological collapse. Obama began to turn things in the right direction but all is being undone by the worst group of corrupt grifters in the White House and agencies across the government. We are also held captive, or at least our elected representatives are, by money in politics. Trump gives coal company that supported him a sweetheart deal to supply a TVA coal plant that had been slated for closure. Is there anyone or anything not for sale? We must get off coal, period. Retrain coal workers in wind turbines, aquaculture, anything that can support the planet.
We must realize we are in extremis now, not in 50 years. I was incensed that there were no climate change questions in the 2016 debates. If I am ever a one-topic voter, it is climate. Anyone under 50 or with children had better wake up and act.
108
@mother of two Gore would have greater credibility if he and his friends didn’t live in giant houses and travel in private jets. Lead by example.
1
@mother of two
Or grandchildren!
1
What is expensive is subsidizing the gas and oil industry. We are giving them huge tax breaks and subsidies to create a monumental environmental hazard for the whole planet.
Now that is a lofty and insane policy. And who is going to pay for that? We are. We do already, and have paying for it, in the trillions, for a long time.
Maybe oil and gas companies should get their subsidies in the form of rewards for dropping green house gases down to acceptable levels. Then you would see some action and fast.
104
@Willow -- Very well-framed and well said.
2
Key to the Green New Deal is the idea of new jobs doing new things with new technology. It is investment in entirely new industries, not just a negative. There is too much focus on what it is not, what it would end. Much more important is all that it would be and all that is new and better. And jobs, lots and lots of jobs.
That trillions of expense would all be spent on new American jobs in new industries. For that we'd get a thriving economy, self sustaining.
20
The "Green New Deal" is neither green, nor new, nor it is a deal. This bill pays no attention to the most important issue, which is the problem of growth. It also shows no awareness of other approaches in dealing with the environmental degradation, such as steady-state economics and de-growth. One does not have to agree with them. But they make important points that should at least be taken into consideration. Finally, there is an important law operating in our universe. It is the law of entropy that says that the rate of entropy production can never be less than zero. One must be aware of the implications of this law. It is not human made. One cannot ignore it. One cannot legislate it out. One must have a realistic response to it. The bill has nothing--nothing at all. Its authors are either ignorant or political adventurists; and I do not know which is worse.
2
@Gennady Well why don't you enlighten them if you think they are so off base. And really you think the New Green Deal would possibly be something that a political adventurist would create to further their political aims. Ha! I would say that would really be very risky.
But please save the world with your great knowledge and please add more details how to do this for us ignorant people to understand.
1
The time must be nigh.
I've coincidentally written all of my representatives, state and federal, with scathing assessments of their actions to date on climate change.
I hope this is a pattern.
11
Green Manhattan Project would be more appropriate, as the timeframe is similar. By the time the Congress, the media and the public stop their dithering, it will be too late.
7
You can't find a solution until you know the real problem. What if the real problem is man's perspective on the problem. What if instead of stubbornly clinging to the past environment, we start embracing the environment to come. Since the changes are now unstoppable, put the genius behind adapting to the changes, not baying at the moon. Like the Swiss building bridges over what is now empty space, start embracing the changes to come.
1
Adapting to the problem would entail switching to renewable energy. We have no choice but to deal with the changing environment, and the only way to do that is to stop polluting it. How would you suggest dealing with potential mass migration from sea level rise?
9
"A dream? Maybe. But it’s better than the climate nightmare we’re living."
As usual, the EB is somewhere out in la-la land. They would rather pretend in a dream than to deal with reality.
First, the Green New Deal is about much more than being green. It is an exceptionally radical document.
Second, who is actually living in a "climate nightmare". There may be some nightmare future out there, but we are not now living it.
Third, almost nothing that Obama did would have any real impact of CO2 emissions. At the least, we need to move to large scale use of nuclear power and implement bio-capture of CO2.
11
@Amy,
> Second, who is actually living in a "climate nightmare".
> There may be some nightmare future out there, but we
> are not now living it.
Stay tuned, soon.
Do you not want to do something in advance if experts tell you your house price is going to plummet? Or you won't be able to get to work? Or there won't be food in the grocery store?
The tricky thing with climate change is that if we wait until these things happen, there'll be no turning them around. If we zero emissions then, it won't matter, because the CO2 will already be in the atmosphere. And it doesn't get scrubbed out for centuries.
5
@Amy - there's not enough uranium in the world to support large scale use of nuclear. It's a strictly non-renewable energy source.
To respond to your second point, while the USA may be avoiding the worst effects of climate change now (though I'm sure survivors of the more intense hurricanes in wildfires may disagree), many equatorial countries are not. There are some cities in the world with temperatures (at certain times of the year) above what humans beings can physically tolerate. Please see this study: https://eos.org/scientific-press/study-global-warming-hits-poorest-nations-hardest
The Green New Deal is a divisive bill from a divisive politician, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They both promote extreme positions with no middle ground and no desire for bipartisan resolution. Diane Feinstein was right to reject the Green New Deal.
5
The problem with the Green New Deal, and other attempts to reduce CO2 production, is that the American people don't want to pay what it would cost to achieve the proposed goals. If green energy were cheaper (as some claim) it would already have been adopted.
Get the citizens of the US onboard with action to address climate change and the rest is easy. But the first part isn't easy because it will cost a lot of money.
3
@J. Waddell,
Oh, they will pay sooner or later. Either they'll pay to mitigate, or they'll pay to adapt, or their economy will crash because of the consequences and, when it does, they will stop emitting.
8
"If green energy were cheaper (as some claim) it would already have been adopted."
Problem is, unlike actual ecosystems with their natural whims, the energy-industry "ecosystem" has people who control its sources and prices—vile, self-interested people who are more than happy to dump fossil fuel on the "market", buy and hoard non-lethal energy[1] patents, and use SLAPPs and other legal mistools to inflate non-lethal energy's price, hush its marketers and supporters, and keep their own coal sales going.
In keeping citizens-turned-ISIS soldiers out of their countries, Individual-1 and the Maybot are unintentionally on to something: oil barons ought to be banished from their country, and any other, and made stateless. At this point, they try to kill our species with malice aforethought from not keeping it in the ground. Sounds like genocide to me.
[1] Yes, we must emphasize that these other energy sources won't just look better or make less of a mess in our bedrooms, but that they probably won't murder us or cause extreme weather and a "500-year" flood every 500 minutes in our respective hometowns.
@J. Waddell "it will cost a lot of money."
How much? I posted how much, below.
While global warming is a dire threat, most people don't- and will not - see it as something they should, or can. do anything about. That may horrify those who do believe it's a rapidly oncoming catastrophe, but it's the truth. But does this mean nothing can be done to advance solutions to combat and forestall this crisis? Of course not. But rather than making "green" the focus, we need to make jobs and economic well-being the focus.
The fact is that to combat global warming we need to transition to non-carbon based energy sources. And the good news is that doing so will require a huge amount of new businesses, expansion of nascent businesses, and making modifications to current fossil-driven businesses, all of these creating lots of new, good paying jobs. THAT is the message that needs to be highlighted.
It's almost a certainty that no Republican will advance this agenda, therefore it will require Democrats recapturing the WH, Congress, and hopefully the SCOTUS. To do that will require winning back lots of voters who depend upon carbon-based industries for their livelihood. Telling them you're going to get rid of their jobs is going to ignite a backlash. But provide incentives and subsidies for green companies to build plants and operations in coal. oil, and gas country, and provide better paying, and safer jobs to these people will get them to work towards the ultimate goal of fighting global warming.
People need tangible incentives to change, and good jobs are tangible
7
@Kingfish52,
While the goals are laudable, there is no coherent economic analysis at present which says that, at this late date, that is, trying to hit the GND's emissions targets of 2030 and 2050, we can provide sufficient jobs to offset those lost because fossil fuel emitting industries will be shut down, and producers of consumer goods will be shut down.
If the GND originators had more experience, they would understand the need to produce such an assessment and plan. They don't, and didn't. It may not be possible.
Still, given the risks that climate change poses, moving towards these goals is essential, even if it doesn't unemploy people. Unfortunately, this is the kind of problem which needs a solution which representative democracy does not seem to know how to reproduce and seems beyond the capability of the U.S. Constitution to address.
That's too bad.
1
It isn't that difficult.
It doesn't take any advance in technology.
.
Learn to use walking, cycling, and public transit.
If the 20 largest US cities had the transit mode shares even of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa and San Francisco (30%) (i.e., cities with similar or worse climate than most of the US, and comparable culture an car ownership) it would make a huge difference. Or go further - New York / Berlin / Cologne - 50%; or further still - Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Vienna, Zurich - 70%.
.
Or, consider that Americans currently average 260 Lb of meat per year. Germans, Austrians eat about 190 Lb. The difference is about one steak + one hamburger per week.
... and you'll be healthier.
.
Or how about Republican states matching Democrat states' existing level of renewable electrical generation?
.
All of these things can be done with existing technology.
7
Detractors should be forced to declare themselves in one of two camps.
Those who assert that the climate problem is false or grossly overstated would be disputed in terms of science and data - and any comments on the practicality of solutions would be mute as they deny the problem.
Those who acknowledge the problem but criticize the proposed solution would be challenged to provide alternatives to be evaluated in terms of effectiveness and cost.
The debate has to move from simple denial or negation to a measured discussion of what is to be done. Absent a better idea, an existing idea must be followed or else nothing will change, except the climate.
8
@Gerard
I support a carbon tax, combined with the elimination of all subsidies for all forms of energy. Get the Democrats on board with that and you are home free. But Democrats won't support that because it reduces the influence of government on the economy.
3
@Gerard
Your premise that there’re only two choices is false! The climate has always “changed” with and without Humans present!
The only long term “solution” to the “Human component” of this natural occurring change is not more Socialist Government but way fewer Humans! That said more Socialist Government May be a way to accomplish fewer Humans! Look at Venezuela today!
It's incredibly frustrating that we're not acting on climate change with the aggressiveness and urgency it requires. It's equally maddening that we're not having a serious discussion about the role of animal agriculture in all this.
In a country with a meat-centric diet, no one wants to talk about our need to dramatically cut down on meat and dairy, so it's completely left out of the conversation. But Oxford researchers, who conducted the most comprehensive study to date on what animal agriculture is doing to our planet, concluded that the single biggest thing we can do to protect our environment is to go vegan. There was also an article in The Atlantic in 2017, stating how the US could nearly meet its greenhouse gas emission goals if we just replaced beef with beans.
Animal agriculture is the number one cause of deforestation, and is a leading cause of climate change, water and air pollution, soil degradation, ocean dead zones, drought, and a whole host of other serious environmental issues. We’ve lost half the world’s wildlife in the past 50 years, and many scientists believe Earth's sixth mass extinction is underway, largely due to cattle ranching. Here in the US, our government slaughters millions of wild animals each year (wolves, coyotes, bison, wild horses, etc.) to accommodate cattle and sheep. And that doesn't even touch on the horrific cruelty inflicted on the farmed animals themselves.
We must talk about all of this if we are to maintain a habitable planet.
84
You are right about all of this. We have been trying to eliminate meat from our diet, to do our small bit for the planet. (Dairy allergy has already provided the impetus for eliminating dairy.) The weak link is me: I crave the stuff. I have decided that I will try to make no more than one meat based dinner a week, as an interim goal. I only eat free range but this is not so hard in NZ. On the plus side, we are getting a lot more fibre and vitamins in our diet, so really it's a win all round.
10
@Rebecca
.
What you say may be true. But asking people to go vegan, "cold turkey", so to speak might not be the best way to make progress.
.
If the average American ate one less steak, and one less hamburger per week, it would cut meat consumption by more than 1/4.
.
That would be a pretty good start.
From there, another step could be taken, and so on.
.
I don't plan to stop eating meat. However, 150 years ago having a roast of beef was a relatively rare event. People didn't eat meat every day.
.
We have cut our meat consumption by about half since last year, and we really haven't noticed it. Getting it down below 75 lbs/person/year shouldn't be that difficult.
14
@Rebecca
Almost. According to Project Drawdown, plant-rich diet (not vegan) is #4. Reducing food waste is #3. Check out
www.drawdown.org
"the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming"
For something quite different and very counter-intuitive, check out the work of Allan Savory (TED talk on youtube, i.e.). He is a conservationist and born (in Africa) lover of wildlife. After many failures at reversing desertification, he hit upon "holistic grazing"; managing large herds of cattle to mimic the now-lost effects of migrating animals. His strategy has successfully regenerated the most hopelessly degraded landscapes in a very short time.
7
We can achieve a green new deal, but we must do so intelligently. For me, a green new deal reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creates good paying jobs and strengthens the economy. There are intelligent technical and financial people already working toward this goal. We have the technology to reduce consumption through efficiency while improving our lives at the same time. There is profit to be made for businesses and investors. The trick is to re-arrange incentives productively so that we incentivize improving our environment, not polluting it.
We do not want a political football. As is pointed out, the term has been around for years. It is not the sole property of a political faction that wants to tie its entire agenda to it. Let us shape a green new deal around what we agree on, not around the issues most likely to create conflict. Focus on the vast majority who will be winners, not enable fear mongers to convince winners they will lose. We can have greater efficiency, cleaner energy and a stronger economy for all. Let elected officials and candidates explain how they will get us there, and let us pay attention to their answers.
5
We're in a life-or-death situation. The Green New Deal his our only hope for life in curtailing greenhouse gases and combating climate change. Donald Trump has put us on the path of death by fire and excessive heat and water from hurricanes, floods and mudslides. The environmental apocalypse is upon us and we have little time left to save humanity from the devastation that has so far been accurately predicted by the United Nations climate reports. Denial and ridicule are a death sentence for millions of not for humanity itself. This is the most important battle for survival since World War II; it is the real "national emergency" we must confront not the game one on our southern border.
15
Edward Markey was kicked upstairs to replace John Kerry, after Kerry became Secretary of State. Before that he was my congressman. Kerry knew what he was doing. Markey jumps on anything that sounds good. The lady from New York should have selected a knowledgeable partner. As it is, neither one really knows the material. It sounds nice. But nobody can rely on anything they say.
4
@Walter
Actually, Sen. Markey was co-author with Henry Waxman of THE only climate bill the House has ever passed, Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill, in 2010.
8
The money is sitting with the wealthy top tier of citizens and large corporations. Neglect for the real problems facing us paid for tax breaks and special treatment given to them for decades. The US can spend on infrastructure and energy research again. This is a WW II moment where we can all learn how to work together for the common good and our shared survival. With good leadership and vision it can be done, that's what governments are for. Read some history.
31
The democrats can count themselves as partly to blame for the climate crisis. In 2000, we could have united better and elected Al Gore. We did not. That eight years of Bush's disastrous energy policies. Then 2016 came along. We faced handing over three branches of the government to the GOP. Trump laid out his climate denying energy plan on his website. And still, we could not unite to defeat him. The Green New Deal IS a disguise for Democratic Socialism and it's a real shame that it is. We need BI-PARTISAN legislation to combat climate change. The more partisan it becomes, the more useless it becomes. Democrats are treating what is going to be a life or death situation by focusing on Ocasio-Cortez' self esteem. No one wants to "hurt her feelings" because she has such ambitious goals. Some of us DO see through the legislation and see it as a botched opportunity to address the problem.
12
You are right on most of this, and the Times has been excellent on climate change and now on the New Green Deal (in contrast to sustainability, which you have largely missed). A few quibbles and missed points, though. It shouldn't have taken the "plagues" and "reports" of recent years to get serious about climate change. We simply must get better at recognizing and addressing big threats even back when the evidence was more speculative. We do it for national security. Why not threats to our only home--the Earth? The NGD can be seen as the basis for negotiation. Besides peeling off some nervous climate-denying Republicans, it's going to need centrist Democrats to get off their "it's too radical" and "not the way things are done" positions and get in there and negotiate. Make it better. This is the issue! Baby steps aren't sufficient. Transformation means that. Which brings up the other areas in the NGD like health care. As once you get deeper into problem analysis and solutions, you may find that things are more linked than they initially appear, there is an argument that these other areas really are necessary. So bring on that debate--but not the phony one about "socialism" and "there they go again. Big government." These do nothing constructive. Finally, even the good guys on climate change are missing things. See http://greeneconomynj.org/2019/01/03/new-jersey-now-gets-climate-change-what-we-are-still-missing-why-were-not-talking-about-what-were-not-talking-about-part-4/.
5
I agree with the idea of getting on with green energy. But how do you get people to spend the money necessary to make the changes we need to make? Research and development take time and money. Time we are running out of. Money? where are we going to get it?
2
@John
We can make a lot of progress with the technology we already have.
.
In Indianapolis, the total mode share of walking, cycling, and public transit is less than 5%.
Portland is 25%.
Toronto 35%.
New York 45%.
Stockholm 65%.
Zurich, Vienna, Amsterdam 75%.
.
The technology to walk, ride a bike, or take transit already exists.
.
In December, the NY Times listed the share of electricity produced by renewables and other sources, by state.
.
Why is it that Republican states can't produce electricity by renewables as well as Democrat states?
That isn't a problem with technology.
.
Florida is a great big sand spit sticking out in the windy Atlantic ocean, just like Holland. It's bigger than Holland, Belgium, and Denmark put together. It is going to pump water, just like Holland. So why can't Florida generate as much wind energy as all three of them put together?
.
That isn't a problem with technology.
7
Maybe not spend billions on a wall? In any case, I agree that the NGD could energise the economy.
The worst thing about the influence of money in politics is the adherence of the republicans and some democrats to the lie that we cannot go green. That renewable energy is not possible.
Germany has done it, and others are following.
I'm not opposed to a mix of energies and I'm not opposed to transition to renewable energies but I am opposed to the lies that keep getting repeated.
I lived on wind power in the early 90s and the system that we used had been engineered at least fifteen years before. It took being interested in the system but anybody could have done it, plus inverters (DC to AC power) are so commonplace and cheap that battery storage is simple. It helped that there's a near constant 30 kt wind every night beginning in the afternoon but there's transmission lines and we could have sold power if there had been lines where I was living at the time.
Politicians need to stop telling lies. If the US can't do it it's because we've regressed beyond redemption.
282
@lightscientist66
But Germany's Energiewende has been a failure. Despite hundreds of billions spent on wind and solar the carbon intensity of their grid is still many times that of nuclear powered France or hydro powered Norway.
electricitymap.org
"I lived on wind power"
Ok- Did you own a gas car? Did you use natural gas or propane for heating and cooking? Did you grow all of your own food without fertilizer? If not, do you know how the farm machinery was powered and how was the food transported to you? Did you ride on airplanes? Did you buy things you didn't make yourself? Was your shelter constructed of raw materials you sourced yourself using your wind power?
I've also lived off the grid at times while staying with friends. It can be a beautiful and simple way to live. My experience is that the electrical system is used only for low wattage lighting (LEDs), entertainment (music, TV, etc.), and perhaps to pump water. We have to recognize that the off the grid system usually displaces just the proverbial tip of the iceberg of our total carbon emissions.
Decarbonization with 100% variable renewables isn't possible. That's no lie. We need hydro and especially nuclear to get to anywhere near total decarbonization. That's not a political opinion. It's a technical opinion.
Perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong: Yes, we can "do it" - we can install solar and wind. But it won't get us to decarbonization.
10
@Stephen Forgive me but any one who says "it isn't possible" is either intentionally being uninformed or is lying.
We don't have to decarbonize certain forms of transportation, and the source of that carbon can be atmospheric capture. So we can get to net zero while still utilizing fuels. And there are other technologies still to be developed such as hot rock geothermal, and potentially fusion a few decades down the road ( this time, for real).
As to energy storage sources, batteries, fkywheels, and gravity storage solutions will continue to grow.
The technological barriers are easy, the political one is much harder, especially when many refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of success.
19
@Stephen We need less population, One child only, would decrease the population slowly to match our resources.
8
Climate change mitigation and adaptation costs have variously been pegged at between 1% and 2% of GDP for decades now. Over a decade, that cost (at 2%) is $4 trillion. So the GND is extreme, but due to previous inaction, 'extreme' is now needed. The costs of AGW will grow exponentially, year by year: Earth is not going to wait another decade before making that very, very clear. Also, that $4 trillion is costs: real economic analysis must include benefits. Markey proposed a carbon mitigation effort a decade ago (Waxman-Markey) upon which various cost-benefit analysis were run. These found that at a 'social cost of carbon' (SCC) of just $9 per ton of CO2, their proposal broke even (the cost of the program equaled the economic benefits). Estimates of SCC generally run between $19/ton and $70/ton: hence, the Waxman-Markey proposal would make between 2 to 8 times more money in direct benefits than the program would cost. Of course, that was a decade ago. Earth will not wait, costs are mounting. If your finger gets infected, sometimes, to save the arm, you must cut the finger off. I'm afraid we are now going to find out what happens to the arm when you don't cut off the finger in time. We will be forced into drastic, expensive action, and the voices of climate denial will then smugly note its high cost, which they themselves are responsible for.
31
Estimates at the cost of environmental disasters in California, from mud slides to wildfires, will cost the state on all fronts about $400 billion. A major utility company, PG&E, has recently declare bankruptcy due to the cost of loss of its infrastructure due to the wild fires.
The FIRST question centrist Democrats and conservatives ask is "how do we pay for it?"
Well, where will that $400 billion come from?
152
The $400 billion are costs to the state itself, which are inarguably astounding.
But PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection not because of loss of its infrastructure, but rather because of the massive liabilities it was facing from thousands of lawsuits.
Fire investigators quickly came to believe that PG&E's own transmission towers were the initial cause of the Camp Fire blaze.
12
@Paul
It SHOULD be paid by the fossil energy firms that lied. Not in a carbon tax that allows them to keep killing us, but as restitution in one of the 7 climate lawsuits being fought against them.
5
@Paul
And the hurricane in Houston. $125B loss from that one event.
5
It makes sense that Thomas Friedman came up with the name "Green New Deal". Because it's sure to go NOWHERE. How can you have a New Deal without the working class? Only the educated class would foolishly think that the working poor will start getting all 'environmental' suddenly.
The good news is, what the working poor DO want, namely a rejection of globalization and a degree of protectionism that comes with it, WILL have a positive effect on the environment, probably more than the GND would have. A "Local New Deal" would probably have better results than any Green New Deal could have.
The destruction of the planet and the expansion of global/corporate capitalism are one and the same process. Just because the Cuyahoga River doesn't still burn does not mean that we have a smaller environmental footprint than we did in the 70's. It's much worse, in fact. It just mostly occurs elsewhere.
7
Thank you indeed for this. I'm sorry for the GND for the staff clumsiness in handling important points, forgetting that the Right and Center are ready to pounce on every misstep and unsupported policy direction. There is so much work to be done along the lines of the Resolutions that anyone who wants to work should have a decent job, many of them green. Those who don't want to work and who are able, well, this is the wrong society for you for now.
What the editorial gets wrong though is to miss the marriage of two broad reform currents, the ecological, which it gets right, and the economic, which it gets wrong. We are at the peek of the business cycle, and they don't historically go on much more than 8-10 years, so the the run is nearly finished.
Yet the voters in the de-industrialized rural districts of America were in so much pain - surely the Board reads its own articles by Nobel Prize winners Angus Deaton and Anne Case about the Deaths of Despair...well, we don't heal this nation without recognizing that Trump and the reaction in Western Europe stem from those left out of the globalization picture and the Clinton take on it. They must be included and the Green New Deal does that.
The Times missed the clear language of goals drawn from FDR's Second Bill of Rights: we can't do them all at once, and he knew that in 1944, but the housing goal and refitting structures in America for energy go hand in hand.
"The Inspector Will Call" when the downturn starts.
9
"Some experts believe that fully remaking the energy delivery system could run into the trillions of dollars; proponents argue that spending trillions now could save much more in damages later."
This seems, to me, the heart of the matter. When calculating costs of anything to address something as dire as climate change, it's essential to compare the upfront costs with the later costs for not doing anything.
Yes, AOC is young, idealistic and overreaching. But as the Board suggests, focusing on the "green" vs the "new deal" may be the way to go.
After all, just that part will be a hard enough sell for the GOP.
To think otherwise, is an open invitation to Democrats to commit suicide, handing 2020 to Donald Trump, a known expert in shredding the best ideas that don't fit his preconceived prejudices.
18
@ChristineMcM No AOC is not overreaching. We are just so used to the propaganda from the elite about we can not have health care for all it costs too much and blah blah blah, that proposing a humane and healthy society where everyone thrives has been made to sound extreme and radical. And why are we caving in to worry about malignant and stupid Trump and what he thinks or what nasty things he might say. His base is a third of this country and only cling to him because they were abandoned by the Democrats years ago and no one will listen to them. If they actually had someone one addressing their survival concerns, like Bernie does, and they could trust politicians again at least some of them would go along with The New Green deal. The corrupt Republicans and the corporate Democrats caused Trump and his base. AOC just is asking for a fair shake for all people, and for the planet. I love her long arms.
1
@ChristineMcM
The President isn’t the only one who has preconceived ideas. Take a look at the comments posted here, including your own! For example, “AOC is the wave of the future”! While we watch Venezuela burn as a result of the same “New” policies she is pushing.
“Socialism” is the answer what is your question has been a staple of those commenting here for decades. Perceive a problem? Government Control is the solution. How’s that working in China, Russia, Cuba or now Venezuela?
Putting AOC’s version of Socialism on the 2020 ballot is a great idea. Let’s vote on it! That said Democrats might want to find someone other than a bunch of Old Rich White Politicians to carry their “New” message!
"Tackling climate change in a big way" . . . is, in fact, impossible, because it requires international cooperation and enforcement, which is impossible. The only sure outcome of U.S. adoption of the Green New Deal is to cede world economic hegemony to the Chinese; military hegemony to follow--in a hundred years the U.S. will be ruled from Beijing. In the event, if American schools want to give their students useful skills, they might start teaching them Chinese. Real national energy transformation will happen when the market, not Ms. AOC, gives the signal; that will be when business see that it's profitable--stand by.
7
@Ronald B. Duke
We're ceding world economic hegemony to the Chinese by waiting for the market to "give the signal". China is already working on energy transformation, partly because they have have their own problems to solve. By the time the equipment needed for an energy transformation is cheap enough to make it profitable it will all be made in China. Better to put money into jobs in the US now.
96
@PJ
You're right about China. On the nuclear side or their decarbonization push:
China has hundreds of nuclear engineer PHDs busily designing reactors. They are pioneering the mass production of their own version of the American designed AP1000 and forging ahead with pioneering work done in the American federal energy labs in the 1970s.
The Chinese are turning nuclear reactors out and planning on selling them abroad. The United States doesn't even have a foundry left capable of forging a nuclear reactor core.
My favorite quote from this NY Times piece:
"In effect, our national policy now is to sit on our hands hoping for energy miracles, without doing much to call them forth. While we dawdle, maybe the Chinese will develop a nice business selling us thorium reactors based on our old designs. For communists, they do have an entrepreneurial bent. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/science/in-search-of-energy-miracles.html
5
"Tackling climate change in a big way is in itself likely to be transformative. We should get on with it."
Get Al Gore to run for President. Then climate change will get the attention it deserves.
63
@cherrylog754
Gore? It's too late.He sold out a long time ago.
The more recent scientific reports describing earlier onset of severe effect from climate change actually should change the calculations people make in determining future political support. I think it is clear we can't wait. We need action now. I will not support any politician who doesn't get the message and get on board for real action now.
A good stop gap is to elect Trump again and let him tank the economy. Best that we go through the great 40 year depression than allow all the old politicians who don't care about the future of their children and grandchildren destroy the planet.
The technology is there. Unfortunately too many of our leaders are clueless, greedy and power hungry. They must go. All of them.
I'll also be expecting anyone I could support be for medicare for all. Again, it's most the really old greedy ones who still can't get with it.
94
@Chris
I don't know any greedy old ones, except those in the White House and the Senate, and their corporate donors. I'm 75. Most of my friends are of the same generation--and we support Medicare for all.
21
@Martha Shelley
Bernie Sanders the “Socialist”! Who has three or is it four homes? Al Gore the “environmentalist” who has the carbon footprint of a coal fired power plant? But only Conservatives are “greedy”!
2
@Chris
"A good stop gap is to elect Trump again and let him tank the economy."
"A good stop gap is to encourage the radical politicians and let them destroy the country so we can return as saviors." - Marie-Antoinette, paraphrased.
1