If the phrase “Green New Deal” brings to mind Roosevelt’s New Deal then you have indeed instantly jumped to the correct image, because this is exactly what the term is designed to do. The idea is to take Roosevelt’s economic stimulus and blend in Green ideas such as renewable energy and resource efficiency
The term was first coined by journalist Thomas L. Friedman back in Jan 2007 when he wrote an article titled “A Warning from the Garden” …
…The right rallying call is for a “Green New Deal.” The New Deal was not built on a magic bullet, but on a broad range of programs and industrial projects to revitalize America. Ditto for an energy New Deal. If we are to turn the tide on climate change and end our oil addiction, we need more of everything: solar, wind, hydro, ethanol, biodiesel, clean coal and nuclear power — and conservation.
It takes a Green New Deal because to nurture all of these technologies to a point that they really scale would be a huge industrial project. If you have put a windmill in your yard or some solar panels on your roof, bless your heart. But we will only green the world when we change the very nature of the electricity grid — moving it away from dirty coal or oil to clean coal and renewables. And that is a huge industrial project — much bigger than anyone has told you. Finally, like the New Deal, if we undertake the green version, it has the potential to create a whole new clean power industry to spur our economy into the 21st century.
The idea was inspirational and led to the creation of the Green New Deal Group who published a report on it all in 2008. From there, later that same year, it then gained even further traction when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) began to promote the concept.
Well Yes, but that was 10 years ago, why is this a thing now?
Basically, after the Nov 2018 elections a “Green New Deal” faction has begun to emerge amongst the newly elected representatives. These are the people who have the potential to make this actually happen on a larger scale.
Talk Specifics: What exactly does it entail?
These are all things that only elected representatives can enable, hence the importance of this being a political movement …
- Government-led investment in energy and resource efficiency, as well as reusable energies and microgeneration;
- Low-carbon infrastructure redevelopment in order to create jobs;
- A directed tax on the profits of oil and gas companies with proceeds being invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency;
- Financial incentives for green investment and reduced energy usage, including low interest rates for green investment;
- Re-regulation of international finance, including capital controls, and increased scrutiny of financial derivatives – likely along the lines of Basel II;
- Curbing corporate tax evasion through compulsory financial reporting and by clamping down on tax havens;
- A Global Marshall Plan Initiative using “green quantitative easing” to create money to fund the “great transition” to a society free of fossil fuels and other measures that aim to preserve the biosphere.
Is all this a popular Idea?
Yes it is …
What poll was that, and is it a reliable one?
It was the following and yes the source is reliable, it was a real poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication …
The Green New Deal has Strong Bipartisan Support
In a highly polarised political arena, this thankfully bridges the divide like nothing else currently does. Below is a chart that illustrates this …
There is clearly some hard-core Trump-base fossil-fuel sponsored opposition, but they are not classical conservatives, just Trump cult fanatics. Beyond that fringe there truly is Bipartisan support for this.
Does it have political support?
As previously mentioned, yes it does. After Nov 2018 it has become clear that at least 40 members of Congress (to date) endorsed the idea.
Should you Jump in and Support This?
I’m really not sure opting out of this is a rational choice. One newly elected house representative who takes up her seat in Jan spelled it out like this …
Incidentally, her vision is not to simply have a committee to talk about it, but instead is to actually take meaningful action …
Will anything get done?
In a world where polls highlight that 81% of the public support this, those elected representatives that push against this are pushing against the vast majority of those that voted for them. If they persist then the people will remember that in 2020.
We might be tempted to despair when faced with the lack of progress in addressing Climate change, but there is also vision and hope for something far better than the current utterly repugnant slop that is being served up by the current administration who insist it is all yummy, but in reality leaves most gagging. Be encouraged by the vision and the potential steps towards something far better.
19 thoughts on “What is the Green New Deal?”
Yes it was a cut and paste and yes it actually was from someone other your boogyman paid by exxon, I was curios how you would regect it as though you are a scientist as I expected you have no scientific training at all just a blogger that that takes the words of paid scientists from the UN , Soros, NWO and the like so I would have to say please tell everyone here how you plan to control the weather patterns on earth ?
Well now, let’s see where things stand.
Now within this latest comment, we have this …
– A claim that … ” it actually was from someone other your boogyman paid by exxon” … nope, written by Singer (see link above), and he is most definitely paid by Exxon (see here, and here, and here, and here where he himself admits getting a cheque from Exxon, etc…).
However, the real cherry on the cake here to top it all of is that you go full conspiracy mode with this…
– “paid scientists from the UN” …
– “Soros” …
– “New World Order” …
… and finish with this “please tell everyone here how you plan to control the weather patterns on earth ?“, in order to demonstrate that you have no grasp of the basics (Hint: Weather and Climate are not the same thing).
I’d be tempted to consider our conversation done, but to be honest, I don’t think it ever started.
But she is the chosen one , you know the speaker of the herd….any way how are you going to control the weather, and why did your all omniscient one by a house on the beach?
This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows. https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1127600111952044032 …
What a hypocrite saying with a straight face to a cheering crowd of believers….
You know what … if you don’t like her then, if you happen to be in her district in NY, don’t vote for her. (You will be in a minority).
What is truly fascinating about her is the manner in which her words are quote-mined and redeployed as political fodder. To be honest, I don’t think she is too bothered because she knows it comes with the territory and will simply continue to speak truth to power.
For those prepared to listen it will gain traction and inspire action. For others interested in cheap shots, well that perhaps illustrates the lack of any actual arguments or credible rebuttals.
By and large, General Circulation Models (GCMs) have not yet considered these factors, which may explain why computer models cannot account for observed temperatures. Many models indicate that global warming has arrived and will intensify unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. However, weather satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde data indicate that global temperatures have fallen slightly since 1980. (But neither the weather satellite data nor the discrepancy between them and the GCMs are mentioned in the IPCC Policymakers’ Summary.)
While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe.
The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.
Now some random cut-and-paste from the internet. To other bemused readers, simply pop the 1st line into google with quotes and you will then be able to see the source that our dear commenter plagiarised this from so that he could then claim it as his own.
For those curious and unfamiliar, it is classic Fred Singer and comes directly from his book. That’s this guy, he is quite literally being paid by Exxon to churn this fiction out.
I guess you didnt see her latest gaff….lol Its several years. Several means few which in turns means three for those educated in a non public school system. How about her claim that rising sea levels are invading peoples living rooms , where is this happening? Very typical when you are confronted with viable peer review scientist you resort to name calling….I guess next you will call Dr Spencer a racist. You have the same credentials as Dr.Spencer, yeah I thought so …not. Here is a whole host of actual data (https://realclimatescience.com/)used to completely destroy all this chicken little sky is falling nonsense. You still have yet to explain how man is going to control the weather ? Why would BHO your lord and savoir buy beach front property?
“realclimatescience” … (insert facepalm here). The only tiny flaw is that it is not “real”, has absolutely nothing to do with “climate”, and most certainly does not involve any “science”.
This is Tony Heller’s blog. He is they guy who claims that it is all one big conspiracy.
If you seriously think all this incandescent vapours and translucent surfaces is credible then you have indeed been well and truly conned.
Here is another great reason this is all a scam because when called out this is the reaction…..Ocasio-Cortez recants with insult: I Was Joking About World Ending In 12 Years, and you’re an idiot if you believed me….Really? does she not realize there is a tape of this? So the great applause and adoration she received was from idiots? Wow.
The prevailing view of the scientific community is that we have a 12 year window in which we can take meaningful action. That was what she referred to, and most sensible folks interpreted it that way.
For political reasons, some spun it as a literal end to the world.
OK, so let’s see where we are now.
– Number of points you have raised = lots
– Number that are sensible, and good arguments = none.
Seriously, this is highly embarrassing for you. Just hit pause and stop with the replay of fox news talking points.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ This might help you understand more that we are not nor can we control the weather on earth. Oh yeah Im sure we will see your rebuttal he is in the pockets of big oil…..keep in mind your scientists can just as easily be traced to Soros, or UN or any other inconvenient truth.
Spencer is a crank … a well-known crank … who not only denies climate change on the basis of no credible data at all, but also denies evolutionary biology as well and prefers “magic” as the more viable answer.
Citing him is not going to persuade folks familiar with the topic.
You can read lot’s more about his various antics here, and also see here how other in the community find him to be grossly dishonest.
applied proprietary Bias Correct approach to solicitations in order to yield a mostly representative sample.Really thats like saying I only used real people , Thats not gonna fly. I talk with hundreds of people every week with my work and I have yet to meet one person yet who thinks Miami is going to be under water in three years, And the science is not settled there are hundreds of scientists who have peer review research that definitively shown man does not cause climate change. Let me leave you with this to answer if man can control weather how is he going to do it? And with all our efforts how do we control India or China and if this is such a dire circumstance we are in , why then would we not declare war on China and India I mean its our WW2 ?
// there are hundreds of scientists who have peer review research that definitively shown man does not cause climate change //
If you are correct then it should be easy to simply cite a link to just 1 current paper in a credible scientific journal that does this, and has not been met with robust fact-based criticism.
You can do that … right?
No sorry but the majority does not buy this BS
Public polls disagree with you … https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EZVcFhUBfZU6i6VoGJYwH9BRJ6bSSjCL2v6B8-pR8Sw/edit#slide=id.g568bd88eea_0_0
You forgot the part about it’s actually not about the environment but to bait-and-switch people into an agenda of imposing socialist and identity politics agendas.
You also forgot the part that it would collapse the economy and destroy society.
You also forgot the part that it wouldn’t do jack in terms of any measurable effect given how minuscule the contribution is compared two what the rest of the world is generating.
You also forgotten the part about there are better more effective things that can be done that don’t collapse the economy and society and don’t impose socialist and identity politics agendas that have…nothing…to…do…with the environment.
// You forgot the part about it’s actually not about the environment but to bait-and-switch people into an agenda of imposing socialist and identity politics agendas.//
There is no deep secret or trickery here … the goal is 100% clear, and the scope is also wholly transparent. Net-zero carbon by 2050
// You also forgot the part that it would collapse the economy and destroy society.//
There is no merit to that claim. There is evidence that doing nothing will collapse the economy and destroy society.
// You also forgot the part that it wouldn’t do jack in terms of any measurable effect given how minuscule the contribution is compared two what the rest of the world is generating.//
US is No.2 on the list of CO2 emitters … that’s not minuscule.
I’d recommend that you hit pause and seriously review your “alternative facts”. If you wish to maintain the stance then you really do need to deploy credible fact-based arguments.
If you are opposed to the economic boost it would give and opposed to all the new jobs it would create, then opposition to it is indeed your best stance.