Democrats are wrong to assume energy legislation requires a carbon tax. Actually, a carbon tax won't have much impact because the cost of carbon isn't why producers prefer carbon. An energy company with a diversified grid is always going to choose renewable energy first. You've already built the wind farm. If the windmills are spinning, why not sell the energy? The marginal cost is zero.
The problem is the windmills aren't always spinning. People need power all the time though. Their peak periods don't necessarily align with renewable power generation. This is known as intermittency. Renewables generally have higher intermittency rates. That's why energy producers prefer carbon. They can ramp up energy on demand. All they have to do is fire up an extra turbine. Voila. No more blackouts.
With our current energy infrastructure, all renewable energy essentially needs a non-renewable backup. Otherwise, you're going to have supply and demand mismatches. A carbon tax isn't going to fix that problem. You either need renewable storage, which Tesla was working on, and/or you way to efficiently move renewable energy across the grid. It's always sunny somewhere, right?
We don't need to assume a carbon tax to achieve these solutions. We can talk about direct government investment or maybe feed-in tariffs like Europe. Anyway, there are alternatives. If a carbon tax is all that is holding up legislation, Democrats are making excuses.
2
Climate Change must rise to the top issue in the election, time to make a difference is quickly disappearing.
Continuing to live our lives in denial, fuels the climate time-bomb.
Its’ clock is ticking, set for some time, sooner than we think.
We must believe it is not too late to act decisively.
We cannot believe it is too soon to act decisively.
We can ignore this lesson, and go on as before, at our own peril.
Or: We can act decisively now, and pray we are in time!
1
The caution of those democratic veterans has everything to do with it clashing with their donors and nothing else.
3
"So far, moderation has done nothing to override denialism. ... Ocasio-Cortez ... [by] Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s “Why We Can’t Wait,” which includes his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” There King wrote, “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.”"
"Moderation, to say nothing of science denial on the right, has certainly done far too little to head off the catastrophic effects promised by climate change in our time. .... if carbon emissions continue to rise as they are, the world will soon experience immense destabilization, with cities and regions with intolerable temperatures creating tens of millions of “climate refugees” forced to escape spreading deserts. Unique ecosystems and entire species will vanish. The Great Barrier Reef, already in dire condition, will die. Whole industries, like fishing, will diminish enormously. We have already seen the rise of extreme storms, floods, heat waves, wildfires. The window for meaningful change is closing."
"There is no question that the Green New Deal is more substantial in its sense of urgency and ambition than it is in its fine-grained detail. But what has the Republican Party offered, other than a phony restitution of a coal economy and a withdrawal from the Paris climate accord?"
5
Ask those radicals the insurance industry and the military.
"Has the government disputed that government officials have known about this for more than 50 years ...
"[no] They admit that the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those facts of the case.
"The legal proceedings have required the government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s… That global carbon dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6 million years… That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels. And the government acknowledges that climate change's effects on agriculture will have consequences for food scarcity."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juliana-versus-united-states-the-climate-change-lawsuit-that-could-stop-the-u-s-government-from-supporting-fossil-fuels-60-minutes/
That's only part of it.
2
Have you ever wondered why Republicans aren't doing anything to stop or even slow down global warming? It's because their most trusted "news" source is Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which has given nearly 70% of its airtime on climate change to fringe science deniers. While all the rest of the world's scientists are practically boxing our ears and their dire predictions have been exceeded by reality Republicans say there's nothing to worry about. A whole generation of Republicans have been raised on Fox News leaving them ignorant, reckless, and irresponsible. Whether Congress calls it a Green New Deal or whatever, we need responsible leaders now.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
4
AOC's included comments were unfortunate. I don't think the world is ready for a Star Trek style "work if you want" scenario, and I don't imagine we'll get there if we fail to address climate change.
2
I find it hard to extend any credulity to any environmental article that uses two thoroughly discredited sources like Edward Maibach, U of Virginia scandal, and Al Gore who has essentially wrong about the future for at least 20 years, but figured out to make much money for being wrong. Then, there is the over-quoting of Sen. Schumer.
5
@Stephen Heins
Baloney!
Your sayso, and that of people you believe, is worth nothing if you can make that assertion. Shame on you!
6
“Climate change, to our frustration, was never an issue that rung a bell with voters, particularly in the throes of coming out of an economic crisis,” said David Axelrod.
That says it all. Dems had a once-in-three generations 60-vote majority and they squandered it because they weren't equal to the moment. Ring a bell with voters? Voters don't vote for issues one at a time; they vote for candidates and parties, and Dems had the votes. The same way they did nothing about immigration reform. And how did that work out for you brilliant strategists?
We kill ourselves to get Dems into office and then you sit on your hands and are still giving us excuses 10 years later!
4
@Robert
Climate change is simply not at the top of Americans' list of priorities. You can blame everyone but maybe it's time to take a good look in the mirror and consider how the cause has failed to convince.
2
@Robert -- the terrible fact of the matter is that 60-vote margin in the Senate depended on Lieberman, so he called the shots.
The Democrats fell on their swords to get the ACA, and what they got was what Lieberman was willing to give them.
To Obama and the Democrats at the time healthcare was the big priority and everything else was subordinated to it.
The house did pass the HR2454, the Omnibus Energy Bill, it did try to restrain CO2, but it was one of the ugliest legislative messes in history with enormous "grandfathering" to every pro-fossil "stakeholder."
It died in the Senate and the 2010 election wiped out the Democrats in Congress ... and that's where we've been since.
Joe Liberman was an remains "pro-climate action" ... but he is sharply pro-Crowley and anti-AOC ... if that matters to anybody now.
1
The Electoral College system has helped both parties:
"The article ... didn't remind us that [Al Gore] won the popular vote [in 2000], as did Hillary in 2016."
Both elections were good examples of when the EC system hurt Democrats and helped Republicans. Sometimes, though, it's been just the opposite, as when Hubert Humphrey "won" several states in the 1968 election (including TX, MI and PA) with a minority of the votes. That has happened more recently, of course, and even the popular vote has eluded certain Presidential candidates (Bill Clinton was elected twice, for example, even though he never won the majority of votes).
The EC system has many faults, but it's hurt and helped both of the major parties over the years.
1
@MyThreeCents
The difference is that when it hurts progressives, they simply create a mythical world in which they really won. What kind of people create their own reality like that?
1
Like FDR? Like Obama? Like Jerry Brown? Like Senator Sherrod Brown? Senator Elizabeth Warren? The Democrats have had more success, more productive legislation with their politicians than all the Republicans. I'll stand with the progressives AND the moderate Democrats any day over these present day Republicans who have thrown in with trump.
"... which almost certainly would have to include a carbon tax or some way to raise the price of carbon dioxide emissions. "
DUH! This is reality folks, specifically it must raise the price of FOSSIL carbon emissions, because these are the ones that mankind is directly adding to the earth's biosphere.
With some concerns I support HR 763
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text
I would urge you to read and understand this bill,and to ask why Ms. AOC and her "Green New Deal" crowd do not even acknowledge it?
My concerns:
1. this bill exempts fossil fuels used for farming. It is obvious that this will become a massive loophole for diversion and fraud. Less obviously it will distort carbon economics for agriculture.
I would support a transition measure that provided a tax-free fuel allowance per acre planted (depending on crop), this allowance to slowly go away.
2. This bill does not address the repeal of all the other energy/fuel subsidies, and that is in fact critical, once the carbon tax becomes significant. These all need to be ramped down as the carbon tax ramps up.
2
Senator McConnell asks whether Democrats really want to upend people's lives by making the shift to clean energy when the real question is, whether Republicans really want to upend people's lives by burning fossil fuels, raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and smothering our once mild climate.
5
The article notes that Al Gore didn't become President in 2000. It didn't remind us that he won the popular vote, as did Hillary in 2016. So what should the Democrats do, since the Republican Party is still essentially in full ostrich mode at the national level?
Fighting to decarbonize our energy systems means that more and more non-polluting energy generation is needed. Farmers and ranchers are benefiting from letting investors use a fraction of their land to put turbines up. Rural counties are benefiting, too, from money and jobs.
So don't make it a climate plan. Make it a jobs and energy plan that will accomplish the same goal, without AOC's disastrous wish list attached.
All the young people - are you actually voting? Getting your picture taken isn't enough. Voter turnout here in Chicago was lowest for the youngest age group.
While turning the plan into something more nationally palatable, send mailings to every voter living near or downstream a coal ash disposal site, and ask them to read this:
"Of 265 coal plants that report groundwater tests, 243 disclosed unsafe levels of at least one coal ash pollutant, including arsenic, lithium and other contaminants [...]
The data, representing about three-quarters of U.S. coal plants, come from utility filings mandated by federal coal ash rules that the Trump administration is attempting to roll back."
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/virtually-all-coal-plants-monitoring-groundwater-show-ash-pollution-repo/549648/
3
Love to see all the New Taxes the Democrat Party will give to us and the Industries they want to destroy.
3
@didyouconsider
Have you considered how much FEMA will have to pay out in disaster relief if we do nothing? How about the cost of rebuilding highways and bridges from unprecedented floods? How about the collapse of the insurance industry if a hurricane buzzsawed the west coast of Florida? How about the amount we already pay to subsidize the fossil fuel industry -- at least $26, 000,000,000 (billion) per year?
We don't have to pay any more taxes, we just have to shift our priorities, stop subsidizing the industry that's killing us, and account for the cost of doing nothing; then we will realize we can't afford NOT to deal with CO2 pollution out of control.
5
@didyouconsider - last time there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere, there was also less Florida. Just think about that when you imagine the two parties and things at risk of damage.
Miami's Republican mayor raised $500,000,000 in taxes to pay for adapting infrastructure to a few inches of sea-level rise that now causes floods in particularly high tides, even in good weather. That's a small down-payment. Doesn't address sewage/septic systems, either, and is just one city.
Here's what NASA says about what our CO2 is doing. I wonder where the replacement Cape Canaveral will be in 2200?
"Imagine a planet where the sea level is about five to 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than normal. Imagine a planet that is hotter and wetter. Imagine, worldwide, it’s roughly 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. And the North and South poles are even warmer still – as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than today.
Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were as high as they are today."
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/graphic-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high/
4
This seems like a winning issue for the Democratic party. The party should be aggressive in castigating/mocking Republicans for denying the science and not proposing solutions. There is a real chance to put Republicans on the defensive. The science is over-whelming, millennials are united (on the issue), and most Americans believe the science even if they're torn on finding the best solution. AOC did screw up the roll-out of the Green New Deal. That's okay, she's inexperienced and has hopefully learned a lesson. At the same time, it's unquestionable that she has hit a cord with the American people. Now is the time to strike.
3
Schumer says, “This is the first time Democrats have decided to go on offense on climate change,” and that is exactly the problem. Of our two major political parties, one denies climate change, one waffles. I guess I'm happy that the leaders of the waffling party have decided to "go on the offensive," but what took them so long?
4
@Anne Macquarie
The Democrats nominated Al Gore to run for President in 2000 whose main issue was global warming. Ralph Nader was the spoiler that year, just like Bernie was in 2018. Democrats have been trying very hard to deal with this for a generation but they keep getting shot in the foot by people who claim Democrats are doing nothing.
1
My part for the Green New Deal is a Solar System installed in 1999 and another 11.655kW solar system installed in 2018 and an EV. You can too
1
The climate change lawsuit that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels: A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juliana-versus-united-states-the-climate-change-lawsuit-that-could-stop-the-u-s-government-from-supporting-fossil-fuels-60-minutes/
This is important. We all will suffer (and many have already suffered). It's time to stop havering. 40 years is enough!
https://www.nytimes.com/section/climate
To contribute to Juliana v. US, here:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us
It's way past time!
4
First bit is the title of the 60 minutes interview about "No Ordinary Lawsuit". There is nothing in life more urgent than getting to work to solve this problem, together.
Now *that's* socialism! Don't let stupid mess with intelligent solutions ...
4
I wish they had branded this effort to combat climate change in a more clever way.Why didn’t they just call it the Green Deal or the New Green Deal-they opened themselves up to criticism simply because people have a prejudice about the New Deal.The need for legislation is critical and people should take it seriously.Weather events are killing more people, displacing them and costing governments millions in repair.The young are right to be concerned-their world thirty years from now will be very different from our world.They have a cause which demands urgency and intelligent solutions.
2
It is long overdue. The political debate in the US must now turn to real issues. Climate change is the most urgent one, then gun control, then stopping the decline of everybody's situation except the wealthy.
Apart from gun control, those should be the same priorities in my country, France.
1
Those Republicans in the Senate who are global warming deniers will have to declare their head-in-the-sand belief that they can burn fossil fuels and have no impact on our world. Sunrise Movement protesters should be outside all their offices, loudly ticking off the impacts of climate change that have impacted their state.
2
I completely agree that climate change must be addressed, now, and I maintain a level of optimism that science and ingenuity can find ways to lessen the pain. However, my optimism wanes when I read that leading Democrats frame the challenge of global climate change as a way to add voters to their team, and the NYT lines up to call the sporting event. A pox on all your houses.
5
@Martha R - if the Republicans are not going to take actions at the national level, is it realistic to NOT try winning voters over to the party that acknowledges the issue is real and urgent?
Go read the comment section on any Wall Street Journal article that mentions climate. Those are the Republican voters the GOP panders to on this issue, no matter the harm to society.
@b fagan
The issue the Democrats here are acknowledging as real and urgent is a new plan to get more voters. And that's about the end of it. I'll believe people like Chuck Schumer are committed to addressing climate change when people like Chuck Schumer address climate change.
3
It sounds like the Dems are going all in on the Green New Deal prospect. I think they are reading the writing on the wall, and moving appropriately. Any future plan that didn't include a Green New Deal would be foolish given what science is happening around global warming.
Interestingly, and significantly, "a 2018 poll by the Pew Research Center found that Millennials are the only generation in which a strong majority — 65 percent — says both that there is solid evidence of global warming and that this is attributable primarily to human activity."
Maybe the Millenial generation voter will be the group that makes all the difference in 2020; however, all age groups and demographics will have to be mobilized in a get out the vote project because the stakes are too high, constitutionally and ecologically, to not seek a full mandate from the populace to address global warming and the human causes of it.
Our country needs leadership that will be willing to cooperate in the international arena to advance agreements that start a serious draw-down of carbon and methane and HFC's et al, and manages the fallout from global disasters, as well as work in the domestic arena to ensure full deployment of resources to rebuild industrial and domestic infrastructure with machines that don't harm the earth's biosphere.
This is what I'm hoping for.
33
@Chuck WELL, the problem isn't going anywhere, so if 2020's a fail for Dems, the thumbscrews will only get tighter. I'm guessing at some point, a major coastal city will just get wiped off the map.
4
Watched interviews with Jay Insley and was struck with the sense of optimism. I also read pundits saying his optimism was a negative in this campaign, not a realist they said.
The USA has the ability and economic capacity to help turn the corner on climate change. What's missing is real leadership and commitment.
Without optimism, all that left is despair, for the planet and our decedents..
Count me as an optimist.
3
'When the people lead, the leaders will follow.'
1
We need to evolve as a country and start working on environmental solutions, green energy and the jobs needed to make it happen. Why do we keep saying that we can't do this? This country can do anything that we set our minds to. Middle America could benefit from this new dynamic, replacing obsolete and dangerous fuel sources, why don't we focus there? Hiring and training for sustainable green power sources? Is it the lobbying groups? Is it old school money buying influence to support their self interests?
Time we stop kicking the can down the road, we are looking at the end of the road if we don't change our ways and future generations don't have the luxury of inaction and excuses from the past. To not acknowledge that we can and should be moving forward is to give up hope that we can make things better, even incremental change is a start.
Deregulation is short sighted and not in the best interest of the people or our one and only planet, only profits and those that stand to make the most from them, not the workers.
To ignore our future because the past can't step aside and take a stand is just foolish. I am so very grateful for the next generation, their wisdom is beyond their years, they see the mess that we have and are leaving for them and are not being complicit, they will vote and they will vote for progress, get on board or step out of the way.
14
This is not the time to be polite. This is the time to be true activists for our planet.
3
America is no longer the "leader of the free world," it's a pariah.
We created climate change with our profligate misuse, and we're the ones responsible for to pushing it to this point, after 40 years of lying denials. Per capita, we create more greenhouse gases than any other country. Other countries are have electric cars and high-speed, low-carbon rail. We have nothing but excuses.
What's our part? We wrecked the Paris Accords with our foot-dragging.
Sen. Feinstein, we need bold leadership, not acquiescence. You and I'll be dead, but our children and those in that video will be forced to live through it.
You can ridicule them but they were right! You should be ashamed for pushing your weight around with them.
If you're worried about your grandchildren, why don't you act like it's the emergency it is? Drag the reactionaries after you instead of waiting for them to change.
People no longer look to America for leadership. They look to China, a totalitarian government that's locked up at least a million Uyghurs in blatant cultural genocide. They’re far more realistic and active and progressive on this life-and-death issue.
1
“It’s not time to make change. Just relax, take it easy. I know that it’s not easy to be calm when you’ve found something going on. But take your time, think a lot, think of everything you’ve got. For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.”
How many times have we heard this on so many issues.
“All the times that I’ve cried, keeping all the things I knew inside. It’s hard, but it’s harder to ignore it.”
We have to act now, before it’s to late. Think of the children and their children.
ps: thank you Cat Stevens.
2
We need to consider the practical consequences of any policy for both environmental consequences and its affect on different companies. From a system perspective, it may be best for urban areas should switch from private cars to public transportation, and rural areas should switch to electric cars. However, the market has largely produced electric cars for rich, urban consumers, who could probably meet most of their transportation needs through public transit. Policies which sufficiently address climate change will change the structure of the economy. When faces conservative forces opposing all change, we need ensure these policies address the needs of sufficient communities to garner the necessary political support for it to succeed. The existing Democratic party policies have failed to build a sufficient coalition to succeed. If the Democratic party wishes to offer up alternatives, they should explain why the same old policies will gain support from a sufficient coalition.
After scolding young students and climate activists in her office last week, Senator Feinstein told them that the Democratic Party has their own green new deal. You can bet that the indentured corporatists of the Democratic Party like Diane Feinstein will continue to coddle the fossil fuel industry....that will be the party's new green deal.
2
I am an "Xennial" with two small children and I will be voting with climate change as my number one concern - it is my moral obligation to fight to ensure a livable future for these two innocent lives I have brought into the world.
3
The tee shirt slogan shown seems to say it all" give me something rather than I'll earn it. Great optics.
2
Making the main platform about the environment was a big political mistake.
Democrats should be running primarily on an infrastructure plan. It'd be more readily connected with good jobs and the economy. It'd be much easier to frame as bi-partisan, especially by tying it into national security concerns. With gleaming bridges, fresh highways, and faster trains, it'd be just as visionary. And it'd also be a better weapon against Trump, who ran on infrastructure because he's a construction guy and failed miserably to accomplish anything on that front.
The benefits would still very much be "green," particularly by including a long-term focus on renewable energy, but that shouldn't be the focus.
It's far easier to convince Americans of all stripes to vote Democrat because we're going to fix your roads than it is because we're going to save the planet.
Nice to hear but we've hear nice before. A candidates record speaks louder than all the promises in the world.
McConnell: "Do they really want to completely upend Americans’ lives to enact some grand socialist vision?”
Do we really want to completely upend all the lives on earth to continue to use the atmosphere as our carbon dump, socializing the costs of our living large on carbon?
I mean, which of the parties is the party of open borders when it comes to our collective open border into the sky? Is this not social capitalism run amoke? Our collective exemption from accountability. Who are the real socialists in this fantasy tale?
What we have here is simple absconding of the meaning of words by the masters of propaganda.
2
@vole -- this is not an either-or proposition ... only the hysteria of the "GND" makes it so.
It is a reality that there is a real cost of carbon emissions, and rational economics must make those who emit it pay the externalized cost.
Whether you call that "socialism" or "reality" depends on one's perspective ... I guess nutball right-wingers can call the laws of physics "socialist" if they want to.
But AOC's "Green New Deal" is not anything legislatable -- indeed it is a hysterical laundry-list of everything that ignores the rational economic idea of Pigouvian taxation (with 100% rebate, per capita) to instead run around in circles screaming for maximal Bolshevik centralized command and control ... so that she can have the other parts of her "new deal" ... that looked at in isolation look mostly like FDR's new deal.
2
A good talking point might be an analogy to someone getting a devastating life-threatening cancer where major amputations or surgical evisceration and gruesome chemotherapy still cannot guarantee survival. Ask any of those patients if they wish they'd not smoked cigarettes, worked with solvents, drank lots of alcohol, eaten smoked meats or other co-factors in their disease.
Climate change is like a deadly preventable disease. It is never too expensive to address it before it's too late!
2
The times they are a’changin’. At last. I’m 72 and have been waiting for this for some time. The Dems better get with program and move into the realities of climate change.
1
It is past time for Democrats to show leadership on this issue. A Green New Deal is not rocket science, how to create renewable energy from sun, wind, water and tide are all well known. Investing in renewing our power supply is an economic home run, creating good jobs for everyone, laborers, the trades, professionals such as architects and engineers and designers. It seems Congress is the last bastion of archaic energy policy (Sen. Feinstein, for example, comes across like a dinosaur, no pun intended).
We didn't have all the answers when we set out for the moon, nor when we laid out the original New Deal, but we began to work at it, and created solutions along the way. That is what we need to do now, climate change is accelerating to climate chaos, and so we must move past Congressional cowardice.
6
Bipartisan climate legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives. In the first twelve years the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR 763) would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 40% and it would create more than 2.1 million new jobs.
This national revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend plan is based on the policy recommendations of a bipartisan coalition of our leading economists including Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen.
HR 763 will accelerate the transition to clean energy, strengthen our economy, and provide monthly dividends for our families. I hope Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will seize the opportunity to lead our nation toward climate solutions by supporting HR 763.
6
@John K. -- indeed. I too support HR 763 (with some reservations, see below) and I find it unbelievably discouraging that the "Green New Deal" people refuse to even admit that this is a real bill, and answer the obvious question: "What's wrong with doing this first, and see how it goes?" ... given that this is actually legislation in the pipeline with real sponsors?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/text
My concerns:
1. this bill exempts fossil fuels used for farming. It is obvious that this will become a massive loophole for diversion and fraud. Less obviously it will distort carbon economics for agriculture.
I would support a transition measure that provided a tax-free fuel allowance per acre planted (depending on crop), this allowance to slowly go away.
2. This bill does not address the repeal of all the other energy/fuel subsidies, and that is in fact critical, once the carbon tax becomes significant. These all need to be ramped down as the carbon tax ramps up.
3
Sadly, the Green New Deal reminds me of King County, Washington's pledge to end homelessness in 10 years. It was a grand pronouncement and the people involved were very pleased with themselves, but 10 years came and went and homelessness in King County is worse than ever. Less grandstanding, more policy, please.
2
It’s very good news that Senator Schumer wants to take a leadership role in combatting climate change.
Although this is a generally accurate article, one part is strikingly wrong:
“Policy experts say the solution to climate change is still to put a price — ideally, a tax — on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, essentially creating an energy tax that would raise the price of gasoline and electricity generated from fossil fuels.“
There is no such thing as “the” solution to climate change. There are multiple ways the issue can and should be addressed. One only has to take a few minutes with the internationally best-selling book “Drawdown” to understand that.
If the authors of this piece are talking to “policy experts” who say there’s just one solution and it’s putting a price on carbon dioxide, they should be talking to Gov Tim Walz of Minnesota who just this morning announced a plan to move his state to 100% clean energy by 2050. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/03/04/walz-carbon-free-electricity-2050
Or experts at places like Sierra Club and 350.org who are advancing other proposals.
Or to NY Renews (nyrenews.org), a statewide coalition that has proposed a whole set of solutions that would transition NY state off of fossil fuels while assuring that workers and communities benefit from the transition (rather than being hurt by just putting a price on carbon).
The "solution" to climate change is to get China to stop increasing its emissions year after year. What we do here in the US essentially doesn't matter compared to that.
1
@Mondoman
Incorrect, the US is responsible for 15% of global emissions, china 30%.
Per capita emissions in the US are far higher than in China.
It's time for all countries to reduce emissions, especially those countries with high per capita use.
3
@Rod Sheridan Ron, get all the facts. Our emissions, both on a total and per capita basis, have been declining since 2005. At this point our emissions are flat with 1990 (although our population has increased) -- which means that all the additional emissions since 1990 have come from other countries, primarily China, India and other emerging nations. And annual emissions have increased by about 50% -- 1990-present -- virtually all of that from ROW.
1
@Ralphie it's true that US emissions have been approximately flat, but flat won't cut it. The world needs major decreases.
China does produce about 2 times our CO2, but supports 4 times our population, and in addition to that China produces much of the goods we buy, meaning that CO2 is "produced for us."
We need to cut, and we need to get China, and the EU, and Russia, and India and Japan and S. Korea to cut. Mostly all the rest of the planet doesn't matter too much.
China is in fact making progress, arguably making better progress than the USA.
Time is running out.
1
The Green New Deal calls for "electrification," which I think is a point of compromise. According to the EIA, in the South (e.g. Georgia) the majority of homes are built all-electric, which I saw saves money when I had my retirement home built. I have a fantastic convection double oven and induction range, reversible air conditioner (a.k.a. a "heat pump") for my space heating and cooling and water heating--even if my electrical grid was all-coal, it would produce less air pollution than burning the best natural gas appliances--those are dirtier. Everything in this all-electric home is better than any of the previous nice homes I've had before, and it cost less to build(!), and it pollutes less because my heat pumps are more than 300% efficient, even when operating in the winter. I have a modest solar array, but it's the all-electric home that makes the big air pollution difference, both inside my kitchen and in my local "air basin", and it's simply a warmer, safer, less expensive home.
1
I would suggest voters and legislators read the book, "The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming" by David Wallace-Wells. The climate crisis is already here, and the powers that be must act now. If every constituent wrote his/her senator, congressman, and state legislators demanding action, that would turn the tide. We have to at least accept that something has to be done, and it has to be bold action. Perhaps if Democrats used scare tactics to generate support the way Republicans have used scare tactics (terrorism, socialism, immigration, etc.), they could gain some real traction on solutions to this very real crisis.
2
Why have they had to be pressured to act? It has been nearly 30 years since the first report by the IPCC. Nearly 30 years during which we could not plead ignorance and since then global emissions have increased 60 percent.
The action taken so far is to throw gasoline on our burning planet.
1
it numbs the mind to try to understand the republican stand on climate change. ignoring true scientific studies for decades, they imperil not only our country, but the world. and while i think about, my precious grandchildren. if i could wiggle my nose and do away w/ all the republicans who deny the evidence, i would. each and every one of them. they are a disgrace to our country, and to me.
2
OK...someone is beginning to listen to science...this should just push us to push harder, speak up louder.
Science is clear - we have 12 years to take drastic actions.
1
I wonder if people in their twenties realize that they will help get the "Green New Deal" enacted or they will face a hellscape when they reach the age I am now? We have ten, maybe twenty years until there will be no going back, when feedback mechanisms overwhelm any emissions reductions we could reasonably implement.
On a side note. It is an interesting time to be alive. We may be seeing the beginning of the end of mankind. We have the technology to alter the likely negative outcome, but we may not have the intelligence. We likely do not have the capability to override our natural urges, our animal instincts to prevent ourselves from destroying our planet. We need to significantly alter our technology, reduce our population and change what we perceive as an economic system. If I look at all the people I know who believe in magical beings in the sky I cannot fathom us ever being ruled by facts. I suspect the cults will become stronger and they will develop final solutions based on hatred of the "others". Which is pretty standard operating procedure for the cults.
In my opinion there is only about a 10% chance that humans will survive another 150 years.
2
Yes climate change is #1. Now or never.
Bu NO "Green New Deal." That hijacks climate concern to try to do everything else. It is nails in the coffin for climate survival of human civilization.
Instead, focus on just climate change. Step #1 is carbon tax. High and rising. All $$ go to all the people to win and hold max public support.
1
I hope the conversation in Washington will move from “is climate change real?” to “what do we do about it?”
Saying you want to do something about climate change without understanding energy policy is a disaster. We still have Democratic lawmakers pushing 100% renewables “moon-shots” based on the discredited and wildly unrealistic models of Mark Jacobson at Stanford. We still have Democratic governors shutting down nuclear power plants.
Modeling shows a carbon tax can only do so much toward decarbonization. We need our leaders to put their money where their mouth is and acknowledge nuclear power has to be a big part of the solution.
Build the nuclear power plants and both sides get something. The left will get action on climate change, and the right will get a solution that works and doesn't waste resources.
2
The National Association of State Energy Officials just published a report that jobs related to renewable energy and energy efficiency outnumber fossil fuel jobs by 3 to 1. That's with only ~12% of the US energy grid powered by renewable energy. The Democrats need to run on these facts, and stop being scared of being labeled radical environmental activists. WE NEED CHANGE NOW. Imagine the job creation if we committed to renewable energy, which not only saves our planet and improves air quality, but distributes jobs and wealth from the energy industry more evenly and democratically across the US.
1
So long as this is led by an idiot like Ocasio-Cortez, the climate change accolites will have a hard time getting anything passed.
Why not, she wants an income for all those who refuse to work.
Oh wait, that was her aide who said that. So she does not even read her own proposals, she has aides put together the policy she wants done. And when busted, an aide took the fall.
Then NYC lost the deal of the decade, 27B and 44k jobs out the window. And this idiot celebrated the big victory over Amazon. Funny how now the governor, major and others are begging Amazon to reconsider, and her allies were removed from the committee that would have approval or veto over this deal.
The NYT’s nobel prize winer on economy calls her a tax genius too.
And every one points and laughs and the GOP only has to quote her to gain an advantage and to discredit her and whatever she believes on.
Want something done? Remove her from these and any other committees.
As long as she is linked to the motion, it will be the laughing stock of the country and it won’t pass.
4
This commenter is correct, but:
"The West created the problem. he West should not balk at fessing-up to solve it."
This is the standard argument in favor of "developed countries" financing the environmental improvements of "less developed countries" (which committed to nothing at all under the Paris Agreement, if it's not paid for entirely by funds "mobilized" by the "developed countries."
I don't deny the argument's validity. I seriously doubt, however, that Americans "get it." When taxes increase significantly on an Iowa worker to pay for a green power plant in Mumbai that the Iowa worker will never see, will that Iowa worker really support the US' commitment to the Paris Agreement?
Fools.
The general public doesn't care about climate change. It is a remote problem, if it is a problem at all (after this winter, most Americans will regard warming as a good thing). They worry about their jobs, their children's difficulty in finding good jobs, and Social Security (most don't believe it will keep its promises). Read the polls.
This just makes Democrats look like out-of-touch elitists, which cost them the last Presidential election.
2
Dems should focus on eliminating the tax breaks for oil and gas, rather than proposing an outright tax on carbon.
No accelerated deprecation and depletion, no passthrough deductions.
Start there. People can live with elimination of the Fat Cats tax boondoggles, but when you start taxing the entire industry, you lose key electoral votes in swing states that GOP depends on. Don't be stupid!
I guess they have to pass it before we know what's in it, LOL.
1
“Politics is a moral multiplier.” David Wallace-Wells, from “The Uninhabitable Earth.”
This comment illustrates an important political truth:
"There are proven ways of combating climate change that have nothing to do with this silly Green New Deal. The first would be adopting the safest, most technologically advanced forms of nuclear power. The second would be lowering or eliminating taxes for the production of all zero carbon automobiles. The list goes on."
Most Americans share the environmental goals of AOC. They just want to change more slowly. Rather than ban airplanes, for example, they'd OK higher prices on jet fuel, which would raise fares and cut down on flying. Rather than try to keep cows from farting, they'd OK higher prices on beef, which eventually would result in fewer cows.
In other words, act but act more gradually. That's what most Americans want.
Hurry up!
2
I can almost hear the wry chuckles of humans in 2050 as they read the archives; carbon taxes, advanced nuclear power... we are way past that point. Very soon we are going to be reacting to massive ecological disruptions, the planning should have happened 30 years ago. The rich northern nations may adapt and do alright, but the poorer countries are facing hell.
1
President Trump welcomes the green new deal. Of course he does. While the left bloviates on the science of cow farts he can mock the hypocrites on the left who will continue to fly across the country weekly and take gas guzzling SUVs from the airport to home. I have always respected the actor Ed Begley Jr. He is a Hollywood type who I have nothing at all in common with, but he at least walks the walk. He does not fly all over the world on junkets for projects to promote. He does not own a motor vehicle, he rides his bicycle wherever he goes. He owns a modest green home with a negative carbon footprint. He is the exception to the rule. When AOC is asked why she takes an Uber instead of the Subway, when Chuck-you has no response to why he flies between New York and Washington instead of taking the train. The change you want to make should begin with you or you simply look like the liberal hypocrite of the week. Mr. Gore's home is still a far worse polluter than mine regardless of how much money he spends on "offsets". Walk the walk and the orange man cannot mock you as hypocrites.
3
It seems that the United States is finally waking up to the real (inter)national emergency. Hopefully discussions about this issue will not be hamstrung by a refusal to acknowledge the deep roots of climate change and related issues like the present mass extinction: population, affluence, and technology.
Historically, we refuse to even mention the elephant in the room that is human overpopulation, much less discuss ways to correct it. Nor do we discuss how environmentally burdensome standards of living will require reigning in. Technology is spoken of as a savior, rather than a suspect or with caution and restraint.
We need to become comfortable with the concept of giving something up for the sake of this beautiful planet and all who live here.
3
As others here have said, irreversible climate disruption is the most critical issue we face. Since we are already well clear of 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere - no humans have ever lived with this much atmospheric CO2 and the last time CO2 was this high the seas, e.g., were 25 meters higher - we already have irreversible climate disruption for the foreseeable future. The question now is how disruptive do we want it to become? If we can stay below a 2 degrees C rise in global temperature, we might be able to manage. Much beyond that, we won’t be around. Thus, drastic measures and sacrifices will be required. This should not mean higher fuel taxes in the immediate future that will mostly penalize the middle and lower classes. Let the fossil fuel companies who knew the true science before the 1990s and continued to invest in fossil fuels, while waging a disinformation campaign and perverting our democracy in every way possible, directly pay for the massive changeover to renewables.
2
Climate change/crisis is THE most important issue and a massive effort to find and put into effect solutions to the problem of our impending doom is drastically needed NOW. It may even be too late. There's no time now to play it safe, and politicians who FINALLY understand this will be rewarded in future elections. Most people who are at all aware of this situation and its tragic implications, those of us who are not in denial or in fear of shaking up the status quo, are desperate for leaders who will give us some hope that we can turn this around and save our shining but imperilled Earth.
2
I'm not a millennial, not even close, but I and many other older Americans with grandchildren consider climate change the most critical issue our country and the world face. We will actively support and vote for candidates who propose to make it a top priority issue in the 2020 campaign
5
I am 55. For me, climate change is the number one issue. If a politician refuses to acknowledge that it is now happening quickly, that humans are the cause, and that a transformation of our economy away from fossil fuels and toward nuclear and renewable energy is essential, then that politician is not qualified for public service.
My children and their children are going to face a world of utter horror if we don't get serious. Now.
5
A centrist, effective, option for climate action is already on the table for the Senate to pick up - 'Carbon dividends,' in which the monies collected via a carbon tax are distributed on a per-capita basis. The tax, as proposed in HR 763, would reduce GHG emissions by 40% in 12 years. That's nine times what Obama's Clean Power Plan would have achieved. The dividend would mean that everyone whose consumption creates less than the average person's GHG emissions would come out ahead financially. Most of the poor and working class would actually make money. And we would all come out ahead in the long run.
1
Reasonable Democrats should not cave to the progressives on this issue. There are proven ways of combating climate change that have nothing to do with this silly Green New Deal. The first would be adopting the safest, most technologically advanced forms of nuclear power. The second would be lowering or eliminating taxes for the production of all zero carbon automobiles. The list goes on.
This is not a zero sum game. It is possible to maintain a booming economy with technological advancement on steroids while still making us carbon free within the next 50 years.
We need more Steven Pinker and Bjorn Lomborg and less Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
23
@Cass
We have not yet proven that a booming economy can be decoupled from carbon emissions. In fact, making the transition will very likely be accompanied by even greater carbon emissions as we invest carbon toward building the "sustainable" while being forced to maintain the existing carbon infrastructure supporting the booming economy.
We really need to think about greatly downsizing the total footprint of mankind. To consider what we have built on carbon to be a model for the future is to be greatly deluded with what will be possible post carbon.
18
@Cass
Quite the reverse. Pinker and Lomborg make a good living telling us we don't need to act, and ensuring that we will continue - after decades of should have known better - to pursue profits at the expense of humanity and a habitable climate.
Lomborg in particular is a bad actor. I'm willing to cut Pinker some slack as he appears not to have troubled himself to become better informed, and seems to mean well.
But well meaning is nowhere nearly good enough.
13
@vole It is pointless trying to logic with people whose thinking and livelihood are stuck in loving money over life.
14
It may be too little.
It may be too late.
But it gives me hope.
41
I’d love it if the Dems just got Republicans talking about it. Force them to all get their beliefs about anthropogenic climate change on record. I think everyone should know who believes in it and who doesn’t, and what, if anything, the believers think we should do about it. I suspect a lot of them don’t want to talk about it because they know their free market mantra is ridiculous here and there are enough conservative skeptics to create serious intra-party fighting. It’s just like healthcare.
29
@Mssr. Pleure
People aren't talking. They are ridiculing. For good reason. Obamacare didn't advance the health care cause. It set it back. People are going to be much more cautious now about handing their health care over to the federal government.
Zealots always fail to see the consequences of their actions, and climate change is worst than most in this regard.
1
@AACNY
People can see climate change happening all around them. Yes, of course, there are better and worse ways to deal with an issue. It is not a matter of zealotry, it is a matter of survival.
On health care, you are also wrong. Many people would be in big trouble without "Obamacare". After all, Obama Cares. The Koch Brothers and their creature the Tea Party, not so much.
I believe this is a universal issue. Young voters across the political spectrum realize that climate change is a significant issue that will affect our future. The Republican party will not strengthen their standing with young voters if they scoff at the idea of addressing climate change.
71
We have spent over 10T dollars fighting wars and keeping the military in hostile areas just to keep oil flowing. And polluted the environment by even more.
American innovation can find alternatives to fossil fuels. Fusion, solar, batteries, algae, etc. And whoever discovers this will become the leader of the next era. An increasing carbon tax will ensure that the right signals and incentives are in place.
3
Their tee shirts say it all: "We have a right to good jobs and a livable future". It seems to me that the moderates in the Democratic Party fail to fully understand this message. Saving the environment and creating jobs are one and the same. The massive outlays in money to create a carbon neutral world will create countless jobs nationally. Saving the environment is not an elitist position and there is no middle ground. We must move forward boldly to the environmental and economic benefit of all.
113
@kevin cummins The economy is booming. There are 7 million vacancies right now. There is no pressing need at this time for a government jobs program. Your take no prisoners attitude will drive centrist Democrats away. We'll register as independents and vote accordingly.
1
@kevin cummins but must address human over population as well as our overall human footprint on Earth. To address these issues is sacrilegious in our current capitalistic, Wall Street loving mindset. We have to change and make people and life more important than money. The love of money truly is the root of all our evils.
2
@kevin cummins You can move forward, however you will never bring the moderate believers if you create havoc. All our livelihoods depend on energy and the economy can only absorb so much shock. Remember the Great Recession. Be practical.
1
America needs a 21st century power plant, not a 16th century one with a coat of paint. The benefits from going to that far outweigh the costs, and people would have to adjust. But think of the opportunities which would occur, as the world leader in making that happen. As Satchel Paige said, “Don’t look back, they may be gaining on you.”
2
"Ban coal as an energy source..."
Sounds good, but:
1. That would mean shutting down power plants in many third world countries, since most are coal plants.
2. Prominent anti-coal environmentalists have made vast sums of money by financing those coal-fired power plants in third-world countries.
The green movement has lofty goals -- which I personally share and seek to achieve in my personal life. But the green movement is being dragged down by at least two facts:
1. Environmental steps forward hurt poor people more than rich people, because rich people can nearly always find a way around them; poor people can't. For example, if the price of gasoline triples, many poor people will stop driving; some rich people will too, but most of them will just grumble, pay the higher prices, and keep on driving.
2. Many environmental leaders have behaved hypocritically -- talking the talk but not walking the walk. This undercuts the efforts of environmental leaders who do both.
"The young" will detect Schumer's cynical political opportunism and manipulation. Bad move, Chuck.
Al Gore still doesn't get it - why is he undermining the Green New Deal?
The policy options are far broader than relying on markets by putting a price on carbon.
Good old fashioned command and control regulation and government investment and public ownership (energy, transportation, housing) provide alternatives to market based solutions, which are ineffective and compound inequality.
1
@Bill Wolfe You're much too cynical. And too much of an old fashioned leftist. A properly designed market based approach could reduce inequality.
The devil's in the details. Lots of rich, powerful folks would design one that would be harmful. The rest of us need to pay close attention. But you'll be too busy spinning silly dreams of command and control. That's really too bad.
Command and control was a propaganda phrase to attack the regulatory state, as if industry wasn't in the White House with Cass Sunstein even before the regs appear in the EPA's register, then they get another shot.
In real life, command and control comes from the oligarchies which control so many portions of US industry...in a rerun of the Gilded Age. Now that was real command and control
@Jack Toner Jack - now that is rich - defending Wall Street's Schumer by smearing a commenter as "cynical".
I should have put "command and control" in "quotes". But you obviously missed the allusion.
This is an issue about children, grandchildren, nieces and grandnephews. It requires an ad campaign similar to what was done to Hillary's universal healthcare proposal. In this case children confronting parents at the dinner table. Child to parent, "This my future. How will my children, your grandchildren live. Migrations in the billions, storms, fires, floods. Something has to be done now." You mean "scare people"? Darn right!!
3
I wonder how many supporters -- how many of these kids or child like democratic office holders -- really know anything about science, political reality, or that the issue (if there is an issue) is global and national political action here won't mean much re cutting emissions if China, India and the rest of the developing world on't play along.
While it's cute to see college kids skipping class to support something their lefty faculty has told them is important, I'd be more impressed if:
- the left presented strong evidence that the globe is warming and all the consequences will be deleterious
- the left agrees to invest in nuclear immediately
- the left presents a sound plan to make more of our energy sources renewable, not radical plans to rework the economy
- the left has thoroughly analyzed various alternatives for dealing with climate change and their plan is the most practical they can develop
- other countries can be convinced to go along as if they don't, whatever we do is pretty much meaningless.
I could go on. But the key is, for the left which says they believe in science, they should provide solid logical arguments, not emotional appeals. Or misrepresentations of reality by trying to link every weather event to climate change.
2
@Ralphie, The left doesn't need to provide evidence of climate change. Ninety-seven percent of world scientists have done so and continue to present overwhelming evidence to support the idea. These kids see the evidence. Your arguments are hollow and baseless; and your words reveal a condescending attitude. The young people and "lefties" understand that policies must be based on science not politics and I suggest that you do the same.
1
@David David -- chanting that 97% of scientists agree is intellectually vapid. Anyone -- including you -- who advocates for extreme policies better have a firm grasp on the science. It is one thing to say -- yeah man, climate's changing dude -- must be that new refinery they put up a few years ago. Wow.... when there are no policy implications. But the policy implications are huge.
And what I hear and read from the alarmists sounds like a religion, not science. And guess what -- I'm a scientist and i've analyzed a lot of the temp data -- and it's not very convincing to say the least. So maybe you should do some research?
@Ralphie It's not just temperature data that gives convincing evidence. Melting glaciers, warming oceans, more frequent storms and wildfires. The list is endless. Do you deny that glaciers are melting and the consequences. What's your explanation? I'd be happy for your to make reference to any credible set of evidence or studies that support your supposition.
We will know that the Democrats are really serious about climate change, and not political posturing, when they start to acknowledge the need to include massive nuclear-powered electrical energy into the renewable energy mix.
Everyone knows intuitively that a triple A battery cannot power a large refrigerator. If you have seriously worked in the energy production business for any length of time, it is likewise intuitively obvious that solar and wind are weak power sources that will never produce (optimistically) more than 20% of the world's power needs. Every other large source of power produces green house gases - except nuclear. And, no, there are no magic discoveries on the horizon.
When Democrats engage in wishful thinking regarding energy production that is coincident with their social policies, they are doing the same thing as the climate-changing denying Republicans - sticking their heads in the ground.
5
@Jack Ludwig "intuitively obvious that solar and wind are weak power sources".
Looks to me like your intuitions are totally off.
@Jack Toner
Jack Ludwig's intuition is correct- solar and wind are weak power sources.
Despite massive subsidies, incentives, and political support, solar and wind installations they only make up a small percentage of our energy. In the U.S. solar provide 0.66% of our energy and wind provides 2.31%. Despite the fact that the nuclear power buildout was stopped cold by the environmentalists in the 70s these plants continue to provide 9% of our energy decades later.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home
Solar and wind are "weak" in two ways:
1) Solar and wind are DIFFUSE resources. Although it's true if you add up all the energy from sunlight hitting the earth at any one time it's a huge amount, but that energy is spread over the ENTIRE sunlight portion of the earth. To collect a significant amount of energy you need to spread your solar panels or windmills over very large areas.
2) Solar and wind are VARIABLE resources. Currently we use natural gas as a backup for when the sun goes down or the wind stops. Wonder why the oil companies love solar and wind? It's because solar and wind lock in dependance on dispatchable natural gas plants. Storage is still way too expensive and can't be scaled up to the scale necessary to integrate solar and wind without fossil fuel backup.
Solar and wind are "weak power sources" for BOTH of these reasons- DIFFUSE and VARIABLE.
2
Too bad the NYT raises the specter of failure even before Democrats elevate the issue of climate change to its appropriate place as an existential threat, or struggle to find remedies. It may be too little, too late and raise opposition—not a surprise or reason to give up—but the fact the Democrats are heeding clear evidence, and the desires of emerging millennial and other voters should be applauded, not dismissed, or lost in the tiresome coverage that often characterizes stories about Washington, DC. Enough of us outside the usual news narratives support our political leaders tackling climate change that we all may make a difference. Give us a chance.
8
@Janet Coffman
"..chance" is for Las Vegas; opportunity to survive..
Like, who’ed ‘a thunk-it?
From just a few minutes of suffering the net: "Peer-reviewed study reveals a majority of scientists are skeptical of ‘global warming crisis’."
And writing in Forbes, James Taylor shows that the supposed 97% “scientific consensus” on global warming is false.
1
Democrats also need to voice as many examples as possible of Trump's outrageous actions--one recent one is to create a committee that will try to refute the findings of the 4th National Assessment on the Effects of Climate Change. Its chair is James Happer who said in 2014 that limiting CO2 emissions was tantamount to Hitler's persecution of Jews. This is insane.
Democrats spin wheels when they keep defending the reality of climate change. Gravity is real. So is human accelerated climate change (and climate change is pollution, period.) Everyone in Trump's cabinet appointees must pledge allegiance to destroying environmental regulations and not just on climate change. GOP needs to be called out to the extent that people all over the country start to get it, even in states like Oklahoma.
And avoid labelling. The Green New Deal should not be termed either liberal or leftist; help people form opinions based on the facts, not on the labels. And finally, the word pollution must frequently be used when saying climate change. If GOP oppose doing anything about climate change, they are in favor of unmitigated pollution. Period.
2
First they ignore us.
Then they laugh at us.
Then they fight us.
Then we win.
4
This is the defining issue of our time.
If we get it wrong, we will leave a brutal dystopia to our children.
If we get it right, we will save a beautiful planet.
3
There are two parties. One is a party of science - of climate change. The other is a party of science deniers - of the claim of only two sexes in human species.
1
If the Democrats make climate change a platform, then I will support Trump. Better to back a conman than an entire party of people falling for a scam.
3
@Carol Gebert you, ms. gebert, are a dangerous person. true scientific study tells us of the outcome of doing nothing. you, and your kind, scare me.
I'll bet a dollar that the Green New Deal, in the hands of Democrats, will be stymied by a demand to link it to boycotting Israel.
1
This is really good news and I wish the Democrats all the success in the world. Reduction of GHGs and adaptation to climate change are by far and away the most important challenges ever to face humanity. Words matter: don't call it a carbon tax but an "innovation incentive" and target it carefully. Focus on the soccer moms' concerns about the future of their children and grandchildren because many of them do worry. Handled well, this can be a winning issue. As a headline a few weeks ago in this paper said, it is time to panic.
The Trump world of quick and greedy profits for the already wealthy is literally destroying the ability of life to flourish on this planet. Action will be political heavy lifting but it is essential. How is it fair to bequeath such a mess to our children and grandchildren? Ideas like generational fairness, opportunities for vision and leadership in the business world, and incentivizing American innovation are all things that can resonate with voters.
27
What an important subject, the need to gain control of a runaway human-caused climate warming, whose footprint is already biting our behind. Just witness the obvious increase in frequency and severity of natural disasters, i.e. droughts, fires, floods, etc. As to why the republicans, along with pseudorepublican, and opportunist, Trump, insist in denying the evidence, is beyond me...other than being in bed with the carbon polluters and the immediate benefit to enhance their selfishness and greed. Ironic is the fact that these United States, one of the largest polluters on Earth (along with China and India) is in denial, however unjust with poorer countries unable to defend themselves from the ravages of our plunder. What about discussing this issue on the basis of the facts, reality, the truth? It's about time.
23
Editorials and general news inking persons in states who have/are undergoing climate change would raise the awareness of such even in the Republication partiy's population. In addition printing the words uttered by significant Republications would be advisable. I recall when George W Bush was asked about climate change at the time of attaining his presidential status, his reply was " It,s bad for business".
2
I'm 70 years old and my fellow boomers should support climate change proposals for the sake of their children and grandchildren. Let's make this a "family" issue that crosses party and ideological lines. A Green New Deal = Family Values.
59
"Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s website mistakenly published a draft summary of the document that included contentious provisions not endorsed by those candidates"
The draft was not only "mistakenly" published on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s website - it was also "mistakenly" sent to NPR, where it was also published. And the candidates endorsed the document before they even knew what was in it, before they knew what they endorse, i.e. before they've even read it.
5
The most dangerous fantasy, Mr. McConnell, is that we can continue to deny the evidence of climate change. This issue will divide us, and our politicians, between those who stride boldly into a future that will look very different than our past, and those who embrace a nostalgic fantasy. The latter group will never get my vote.
10
The proposition that Democrats did not run on climate change in the past because it didn't resonate with the electorate is nonsense.
They didn't do it for the same reasons they didn't run on Medicare for All -- because they were in the pockets of the big corporate and financial interests, in this case coal and oil companies, that stood to lose from an serious attempts to address the issue.
There is no reason to think this has changed appreciably. What has changed is that the populace has grown angrier at their inaction and elected a few individuals like Ocasio-Cortez who are not in the pockets of the 1% who are forcing the issue.
We should not expect much from the proposals of Senate Democrats. In view of where almost all of them get their funding their proposals will tinker around the edges of the problem. This initiative likely has more to do with them putting themselves in front of a movement in order to slow it down than any real change in their basic commitments.
We need a Green New Deal now. Much is made here of mistakes made by Ocasio-Cortez's staff in the initial roll out of this proposal, but we should all know that no matter how smoothly it had been done, the corporate media would have grossly mischaracterized it anyway. I fly and eat meat, but am also grateful that there are congressional staffers that understand that jet travel and factory farmed meat are actually significant parts of the climate crisis and will need to be addressed.
24
Save the planet "Eat More Chicken"
Save the planet, eat more beans.
"Follow the $$$$". This is not a left - right issue, as presented by fossil fuel industry libertarian bought and $old repubLIEcons and DNC bought and $old dem$. The entirety of American people, left and right are in majorities with action upon climate change. Here is TRUTH:
Jane Mayer / "The Koch Brothers and the Weaponizing of Philanthropy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaSCOqumpM
7
@nonclassical
hilarious
Not sure this commenter is correct:
"First up ... should be rejoining the Paris Agreement ... This would have the overwhelming support of ALL Americans ..."
Maybe the PA SHOULD have "the overwhelming support of ALL Americans," but we don't know. I suspect most Americans don't know that "less developed countries" (India, for example) made "commitments" in the PA only if "developed countries" (the US, for example) "mobilize" the financial resources necessary to achieve them. If the DCs don't, the LDCs have no commitment at all.
I doubt most Americans understand this. My hunch is that they'd balk if they knew. If, for example, taxes are raised significantly on a worker in California to finance a green power plant in Mumbai, and India refuses (as it did) to take any action at all unless other countries pay for it, will the PA really have "the overwhelming support of ALL Americans?" Or was the PA simply not explained to them?
The PA includes noble goals -- worthwhile goals, in my view. But it will "work" only if people who live in "developed countries" pay for it to work in their own countries AND in "less developed countries." I don't think people living in DCs understand this, and so I'm not sure their "support" is really there.
If I'm correct, that doesn't prevent anyone from cutting back on (for example) the use of fossil fuel. I've done that, for example, and the US as a whole has done that when compared to other "developed countries" (France, for example).
3
@MyThreeCents The West created the problem. he West should not balk at fessing-up to solve it.
2
First up on the Democrat's Green Agenda should be rejoining the Paris Agreement and recommitting to reaching its targets. This would have the overwhelming support of ALL Americans, except, of course, the radicals in the Republican Party. Forcing Republicans to run on a platform opposed to rejoining the Agreement in 2020 is a winning strategy.
34
@WmC
Please point out the countries in the Paris agreement that have reduced carbon emissions more than the U.S. did over the same period
2
Science-We can make O3 (Ozone) and we can remove CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)-I can't figure out why we aren't trying to directly solve the problem. If the Dems are using the green argument to win an election instead of leaning into true solutions then they are part of the problem too-and they will lose another election.
4
@Mike
Mike, the "true solution" is to stop emitting the carbon dioxide.
5
@Rod Sheridan
We can't get NK or Iran to stop making nuclear weapons or treat their citizens better but we are going to get them to change freons-it has to be global or its just another tax on Americans with no hope of solving the problem
@Mike
We certainly are trying to solve the problem. Here's a very good summary put out in November by the Earth Institute at Columbia University on where the science is at concerning CO2 removal:
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/
Please read it.
What we need at this stage is something that I fear is unattainable: acceptance that we have a problem, willingness to spend money on the problem, and global cooperation on solving the problem.
Frankly, it's becoming pretty clear that America is the biggest problem.
4
It's much easier to predict what will happen in the NBA in 50 years than what will happen in 3-4 years. Because, as everybody understands, that long prediction means nothing and there's no reason to take it seriously.
3
Can we pay for the new energy tax by a new tax on the top 0.01%, a Billionaire tax?
8
"Climate change has FOR THE FIRST TIME emerged as a front-and-center issue in national political campaigns." [emphasis added]
By far the salient issue of our times in terms of potential consequences, and we've known about these consequences for decades and have already been suffering . Yet politically the issue generally ignored. So only now for the first time. Sad.
16
And the press also is complicit: You folks in the press know the reality, you know better. So why isn't climate the lead (or near lead) story every day?
2
Climate change will be 2020's critical issue and there should be topical Democratic debates with the candidates, one of which should deal with nothing but climate change. We need a candidate with ideas about alternative energy and a track record of innovation. The GOP will get left behind by their enduring loyalty to big oil and their perpetual nostalgia for rear view mirror driving. They are in a big hurry to go back to where they came from, and I think we should get out of their way and watch them implode in reverse.
30
Too little too late, Mr Schumer.
Because of the apathy of the Democratic establishment vis-à-vis the climate issue for the past 20 years, you are falling further behind both science and history: The point is no longer to address climate change in order to save capitalism.
We now have reached the point where the choice is between saving the planet and saving capitalism.
Not a millenial, I am older than you and my choice is made.
32
Call it a "carbon dividend" like the Shultz-Baker proposal suggests and the realization of carbon cost has a chance. Good communication on the issue should also include the indirect price we all pay now for increased emissions... the billions that are going into disaster relief, rebuilding storm- and fire- torn regions, planning for sea level rise like they are in Florida and Seattle... these actions aren't free, and will cost us more than prevention in the long run. This needs to be made clear in every story. We should know how much the response to climate change is likely to cost every single taxpayer. We also need to separate out the other social fixes included in the Green New Deal to get the discussion rolling. The fear mongers have so much to attack there. When it's fake fear versus real science, fake fear seems to win every time. That's a tough battle that needs a lot of education to fight. We don't have the time right now.
13
The ultimate irony is we owe this all to Trump getting elected and the Republicans going crazy. Just think about it, if Hillary was elected very little would have changed and we would have just continued bouncing along destroying the planet and making war. Instead, Trump and the moronic Republicans are really striking fear in the vast majority of us and real change may actually happen, although it is a long shot. Remember, the oligarchy will only let this go so far. The question is will the Democrats have the guts and cleverness to stick to their guns and develop smart proposals. That is a long shot too, but hey, at least things are getting excited. We all know where the Republicans stand. They have no ideas, lived in a scared and violent world and wish for a yesterday that never existed. They are a small minority and are really not the issue. No, the only real issue is can the vast majority of us rise to the occasion and be bigger than just ourselves. I wish I had the answer to that question.
24
Finally, some sanity!
10
A carbon tax is not enough. Polluters would pay when the tax is enacted, which will easy given their enormous profits, and just wait for Republicans to repeal the tax down the road. We need to change how America produces energy from the resource-end, not the tax-end, to make permanent change. Ban coal as an energy source the same way we ban a toxin from baby bottles.
6
Gore’s loss was attributed to Nader’s run as a Green Party candidate, splitting the Democratic Party on this very issue. If environmental voters, much larger 20 years on, split off as Independents (as Oprah enthusiastically promotes), Republicans will win on the solidarity of ignoring the obvious calamity before us. In her speech to the adults of the world, heroic 11-year-old Greta Thunberg suggests we do our homework and save the planet. It’s embarrassing this issue isn’t a slam dunk, mortifying, in fact.
9
@Diana Jean
She looks 11 but she is a brilliant and brave 16. Go Greta!!
@Helen Lockwood
Oops! Thanks for the correction. Go Greta*2!!
To call me a liberal leftist because I support science and the reality that we are changing the earth in a manner that will prove incompatible with most life forms is why humanity is on the path to destruction. This is a clearcut debate between knowledge and ignorance and ignorance has been winning for too long. With the vitriol around the issues of race, immigration, and guns I am not sure the human race deserves to hang around much longer, but I am saddened at the marvelous ecology we will take down with us.
66
@Albert Petersen Well said, Albert. I, too, am sad about what we have wrought, and how much of the earth’s majesty we have destroyed. I hope it will make a healthy comeback once our species is gone.
2
Until the Democrats can come up with a smartphone app to stop climate change, I don't see this going anywhere with young voters.
2
Thank God. It is about time.
7
"...and Republicans ridiculing the idea as socialism..."
Here is American Socialism:
teachers
police
firefighters
army
schools
roads
sewers
water
parks
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
ACA
food stamps
low-income housing
high-income tax cuts
Dept. of Ag checks to wealthy farmers to NOT grow crops
the military
all funds that go to the Rand corp
Wall-Street bailouts
ALL government agencies
FBI
CIA
the Secret Service
that missing Pentagon retirement fund
etc.....
So, I think the Republicans look a little silly when they curl their lip about "American socialism". They seem to be enjoying it quite nicely for themselves, don't they?
And, believe me, when the ocean waters start lapping at their toes and millions of Americans are going to have to be moved to higher ground or moved away from the water systems that the Republican lawmakers poisoned with fracking, then you will see these very "anti-socialism"sissies jump on the band-wagon to get all the billions and trillions that they will allot to their own districts.
Trust me: As soon as they can figure out how to siphon off those bucks into their own pockets, then they will become the biggest "socialists" of all time!
Think big, Democrats!
50
@rosa
Superb list. Thank you!
4
At least 23 people dead in Alabama after tornadoes strike, a Times headline reads this very day.
Any chance the Times might bring even a little optimism to a project that counters the often self-fulfilling prophecy of inevitability (such a bill will Never pass: what naifs to assume it,
and our planet, even has a chance) for a shot at saving this
planet? Maybe the Times could begin by stopping its own pat fixation, no better than that of the right, on Ocasio-Cortez.
4
Climate change is a existential threat to us all, but especially the younger generation. It will require institutional changes and dramatic reform. Democrats and Republicans who think they "Obamacare" this are gravely mistaken.
4
It's not enough, you see, to propose "free" education, "free" healthcare, a guaranteed job with a guaranteed wage, "free" retirement -- and all at the expense of people who are actually working. No, that's not enough. Now we have a 90 Trillion dollar proposal from the likes of the Green New Deal people. Or even if it's pared down a lot, more money spent on a proposal that will (you'll see about this one, folks) not have any tangible effects to prove that the money is well spent and working. What it all spells out loud and clear is this: Central Governmental Control from cradle to grave. To my mind the thieves in D.C. don't deserve any slack here. They stole our Social Security money and neglected serious problems for so long that it takes a builder of massive projects to clear the field and actually accomplish something for real. I mean, is it only me or do many of the new democrats sound and look and feel like Soviet era bureaucrats? Their tactics are the same. They speak in the same type of creepy absolutes. My friend from the former Soviet Union confirmed this: "Oh, yes! They are from the same stinking cesspool."
4
No exaggeration here: millennials should vote as if their lives depend on it.
55
@Ziggy No exaggeration indeed !
We need psa's. We need a media campaign.
3
I wonder if H.R. 763, (Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act) or a similar bill that put a price on carbon and returned the money back to citizens could be the first part of the Green New Deal thats voted on.
In the 2010 bill, it seems a moderate cap and trade proposal was put forth but there was less energy behind it, so it wasn't even voted on. Now, it seems like we have the energy, but the proposal is far left, and it can't pass in a Republican majority Senate. But if McConnell calls a vote, does that open the door to a bipartisan bill? If so, perhaps we should be asking how to get both bases behind something moderate that can actually pass and make a change now before something else happens that takes away the political energy.
1
Please see H.R. 763 - the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. at a high level it puts a rising price on carbon, (starts low but rises every year), gives all of the revenue back to the people in equal shares, and protects US manufacturing with a border adjustment. The end result is a 40% reduction in carbon emissions in 12 years, over 2 million net new jobs created and a healthier environment with about 300k lives saved through cleaner air.
17
Arizona had a ballot issue calling for a substantial increases in solar power. Fossil fuel companies spent millions characterizing the proposition as California type big spending. The proponents of the bill did not address costs, and the bill was crushed at the ballot.
What I took from this is that you have to address the costs of environmental legislation. The people will pay for reforms that are worth it. But if cost-benefit is not addressed the benefit of the doubt will go against environmental spending
24
@michjas If we view global warming as a pending crisis not unlike the threat of Hitler, then gearing up to address the problem, won't be stopped by our concerns over how to pay for it. We have no alternative, but to expend massive amounts of money to address the problem of global warming. Timidity and inaction are the worst sins in addressing this crisis.
6
@michjas Agreed. How much does a planet with a functioning ecology go for these days, anyway?
2
Abort Scientific Ignorance and Denialism
or
Abort The Earth
I'll take D for green technology, green energy, green jobs and survival instead of R for dirty, filthy, disgusting, 'beautiful' polluting coal and fossil fuels and climate hell on Earth.
Nationally-assisted Grand Old Polluting suicide is no way to run an ecosystem or a country, except into the dystopian ground.
41
The democrats need to revise the definition of the Green New Deal. The Markey/Ocasio-Cortez version added too many unrelated points that made it easy to demonize. Here's a one-sentence statement that is achievable and hard to oppose: It shall be a major priority for Congress to enact legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions while creating jobs and strengthening the economy. It is doable. Studies show that energy efficiency and renewable energy create jobs, they do not destroy them. Incentives for investment can be profitable. Stop incentivizing fossil fuels. I happen to support full employment, universal healthcare, and reducing inequality, but these issues should stand on their own and not be add-ons to a green new deal. Maintaining a planet that is conducive to human habitation is too important a goal to get side-tracked with other objectives.
87
@EdBx
Well said. It is becoming increasingly clear that acting on climate change is needed right now. The longer the world goes with increasing the annual emissions of CO2 the harder it will be to keep global warming at an acceptable level. The economic costs of not acting far outweigh the costs of making the economy environmentally sustainable. Many good jobs will be created along the way. Climate change needs to be front and center in the 2020 election. Global warming deniers can't have a place in Washington, obstructing what needs to be done.
A carbon tax with rebates for the working class is the straight forward way to make the cost of burning fossil fuels an economic decision that will drive change. The market will help drive the needed changes and innovations that can best solve the problem. We can't wait for timid politicians, who worry about the impact of proposing climate legislation on their next election, to do the right thing. It needs to become clear that not meeting this challenge means you need to step aside and let others lead the way.
12
@EdBx My concern is that we could get more out of the energy and momentum of this climate movement if we proposed concrete actions like a price on carbon. Politically, I don't know if it's smarter to wait before proposing this, but I worry we don't have time to wait, and that we need to try to mobilize around specific actions now.
2
@EdBx, what on earth was Carl Marx thinking back in that jail cell?