NATION

PASSWORD

Nuts and Bolts of a Green New Deal

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Thoughts on a free-market oriented Green New Deal?

US citizen: support
18
32%
US citizen: oppose
11
19%
US citizen: mixed
8
14%
Non-US: support
14
25%
Non-US: oppose
5
9%
Non-US: mixed
1
2%
 
Total votes : 57

User avatar
Nouveau Yathrib
Diplomat
 
Posts: 704
Founded: Jul 27, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Nuts and Bolts of a Green New Deal

Postby Nouveau Yathrib » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:28 pm

Columnist Thomas L. Friedman on why he supports New Green Deal legislation. Notice how he frames the issue in terms of free markets, national security, and pragmatism- ideas that arguably appeal more to the neoliberal/neoconservative right. This is to Syfenq what Ecovillages: Lessons for Sustainable Community and mainstream green politics are to Jamilkhuze.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opin ... -deal.html?

For too long “green” was viewed as a synonym for a project that was boutique, uneconomical, liberal, sissy and vaguely French. I wanted to recast green as geostrategic, capitalistic, economical, innovative and patriotic. My motto was, “Green is the new red, white and blue.” I did not believe in being a “nice” green. I believed in being a mean green. I believed greens should be as brassy, bold, big sky and in-your-face as any oil and gas executive.

I liked the way environmental writer David Roberts put it in 2008: “Like so much of the American left, the environmental movement has become acclimated to the notion that it is operating outside the mainstream, knocking sheepishly on the door. Its rallying cry might as well be, ‘If it’s not too much trouble. …’” Forget that, Roberts argued, it is time for the green movement to think big and make big demands — something oil and gas executives do every day.


Who believes that America can remain a great country and not lead the next great global industry? Not me. A Green New Deal, in other words, is a strategy for American national security, national resilience, natural security and economic leadership in the 21st century. Surely some conservatives can support that.

And to make sure that they have an incentive to, I would also guarantee that a portion of every dollar raised by a carbon tax in a Green New Deal would be invested in two new community colleges and high-speed broadband in rural areas of every state. Each state could decide where. Every American needs to feel a chance to gain from a Green New Deal.

But which Green New Deal? Mine is focused on innovation. I believe there is only one thing as big as Mother Nature, and that is Father Greed — a.k.a., the market. I am a green capitalist. I think we will only get the scale we need by shaping the market. If I were drafting a Green New Deal platform today, it would put in place steadily rising mileage, manufacturing and emissions standards; stronger building codes; and carbon market prices that would say to our industries and innovators: Here are the goals, here is the level of clean power or efficiency that you have to hit every year — and may the best company win.


I've said this before, and I'll say it again:for the US to make real progress on combating climate change and becoming more ecologically sustainable, it's crucial to get the right on board with accepting climate change as a serious issue. Like it or not, the Democrats can't consistently win elections and implement a Green New Deal just by being right on social justice and not being the party of Trump. As the environmentalist Dana Meadows once put it, “We have exactly enough time — starting now.”
Last edited by Nouveau Yathrib on Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I still can't believe that Brazil lost to Germany 1:7. Copy and paste onto your sig if you were alive when this happened.

This account is the predecessor state of Jamilkhuze and Syfenq. This is how they're different, and this is why they exist.

We are currently in the year 2181. About Us | Factbooks | Past and Future History | OOC Info | Public Relations | iiWiki | Q&A

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."

-Edward Everett Hale

User avatar
Doing it Rightland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Dec 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Doing it Rightland » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:00 pm

I'm certainly in support for environmental protections. After all, I'm gonna be stuck on this rock for a long time, and I'd like to still be able to live on it. That being said, I'm a bit surprised regarding Ocasio Cortez's proposal. Frankly I think 100% renewable in 12 years is a serious longshot.

I'd personally like to see a surge in nuclear power. We already have technologies and methods safer than the traditional stuff, and even with traditional power plants, safety has improved so much that, per unit of energy produced, nuclear power is one of the least dangerous. It would be able to take advantage of the vast river network, and using hydrogen cells to store the energy could further reduce waste. A good goal would be the phasing out a lot of current batteries for hydrogen cells, and drastically increasing nuclear output.

I would still like to see more concrete Green Deals, but I definitely think we have to get moving on the environment sooner or later.
Just a nation trying to right the wrongs it can.

"Two roads diverged by a wood, and I — I took neither."
-Rightlandian Proverb

User avatar
Western Vale Confederacy
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6270
Founded: Nov 09, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Western Vale Confederacy » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:10 pm

I am very much supportive of environmentalist policies, but literally the only way AOC would ever go 100% green in 12 years (let's exclude its impossibility due to smaller factors for a minute here) would be to invade Canada for its hydroelectric dams and build a fuck ton more (which would cause major unrest among the northern Natives).

So yeah, a reneweable energy initiative is great, but AOC's interpretation of it is highly unfeasible.

User avatar
Nouveau Yathrib
Diplomat
 
Posts: 704
Founded: Jul 27, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Nouveau Yathrib » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:30 pm

Added a poll on whether you support/oppose a free-market oriented Green New Deal. I wonder what the reasoning behind the "Oppose" votes is.
I still can't believe that Brazil lost to Germany 1:7. Copy and paste onto your sig if you were alive when this happened.

This account is the predecessor state of Jamilkhuze and Syfenq. This is how they're different, and this is why they exist.

We are currently in the year 2181. About Us | Factbooks | Past and Future History | OOC Info | Public Relations | iiWiki | Q&A

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."

-Edward Everett Hale

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 47558
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:00 am

Nouveau Yathrib wrote:Added a poll on whether you support/oppose a free-market oriented Green New Deal. I wonder what the reasoning behind the "Oppose" votes is.

Probably the free market.

I support environmental protections but letting the “free market” handle it is like letting the prisoners be in charge of the prison
Male, centrist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, loves dogs particularly German Shepherds, give me any good Irish or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
Page
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8729
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:16 am

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
So yeah, a reneweable energy initiative is great, but AOC's interpretation of it is highly unfeasible.


I think AOC made a deliberately too ambitious plan. Propose a moderate, doable reform in Congress and the final bill ends up being watered down until it's basically nothing. Propose a radical reform and the final bill ends up being a small step in the right direction.
I am an autonomous, sovereign being. I am ungovernable.

No one owns the land, no one owns the water, no one owns the air we breathe, no one owns our lives.

End all wars, end state terror.

User avatar
Western Vale Confederacy
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6270
Founded: Nov 09, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Western Vale Confederacy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:24 am

Thermodolia wrote:
Nouveau Yathrib wrote:Added a poll on whether you support/oppose a free-market oriented Green New Deal. I wonder what the reasoning behind the "Oppose" votes is.

Probably the free market.

I support environmental protections but letting the “free market” handle it is like letting the prisoners be in charge of the prison


An environmental policy should be strictly a state affair.

Page wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
So yeah, a reneweable energy initiative is great, but AOC's interpretation of it is highly unfeasible.


I think AOC made a deliberately too ambitious plan. Propose a moderate, doable reform in Congress and the final bill ends up being watered down until it's basically nothing. Propose a radical reform and the final bill ends up being a small step in the right direction.


Eeh, no.

Her plan would instantly get laughed off the floor.

Besides, there is something at the back of my head that tells me that AOC wouldn't be very keen on nuclear energy, and that is an instant bullet to the face of any doable environmental plan.

It's nuclear/hydroelectric or bust.

User avatar
Nouveau Yathrib
Diplomat
 
Posts: 704
Founded: Jul 27, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Nouveau Yathrib » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:43 am

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Page wrote:I think AOC made a deliberately too ambitious plan. Propose a moderate, doable reform in Congress and the final bill ends up being watered down until it's basically nothing. Propose a radical reform and the final bill ends up being a small step in the right direction.


Eeh, no.

Her plan would instantly get laughed off the floor.

Besides, there is something at the back of my head that tells me that AOC wouldn't be very keen on nuclear energy, and that is an instant bullet to the face of any doable environmental plan.

It's nuclear/hydroelectric or bust.


Not entirely disagreeing with you here but there are problems with going all in on nuclear and hydroelectric only.

With nuclear the main logistical issue seems to be how fast we can build new power plants and upgrade existing ones, not to mention the medium/long-term issue of finding enough uranium ore or radioactive ore to make it a viable, long-term primary energy source. I do think we should already be building new nuclear plans, not shutting them down to make way for coal and natural gas (*ahem* looking at you Germany).

The main issue with hydroelectric is there aren’t a lot of places left to build new dams. Ecological impacts aside, what do we do if widespread climate-change-induced drought reduces water flow and reservoir levels below the point of viability for large-scale hydroelectric reliance? Any realistic green energy infrastructure plan is going to have to include large-scale solar and wind, even if they won’t be the primary energy sources.
Last edited by Nouveau Yathrib on Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
I still can't believe that Brazil lost to Germany 1:7. Copy and paste onto your sig if you were alive when this happened.

This account is the predecessor state of Jamilkhuze and Syfenq. This is how they're different, and this is why they exist.

We are currently in the year 2181. About Us | Factbooks | Past and Future History | OOC Info | Public Relations | iiWiki | Q&A

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."

-Edward Everett Hale

User avatar
-Ocelot-
Diplomat
 
Posts: 903
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby -Ocelot- » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:31 am

People forget that a worsening environment equates to gargantuan money loss for every single country simply because we are destroying a form of wealth that's all around us.

Regardless of how you portray it, it's a fact that a carbon tax or regulations will cost a lot less to the average person than environmental destruction and extreme weather fueled by accelerating climate change. A collapsing ecosystem can cause a destructive domino that will make a LOT of things more expensive.

With that being said, I don't believe something as myopic as the free market can do anything about it. We need government regulations. But then again some countries (most notably the USA) don't even have a real government.
Last edited by -Ocelot- on Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post tenebras lux


⭐No such thing as too much yellow⭐

User avatar
Doing it Rightland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Dec 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Doing it Rightland » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:29 am

-Ocelot- wrote:People forget that a worsening environment equates to gargantuan money loss for every single country simply because we are destroying a form of wealth that's all around us.

Regardless of how you portray it, it's a fact that a carbon tax or regulations will cost a lot less to the average person than environmental destruction and extreme weather fueled by accelerating climate change. A collapsing ecosystem can cause a destructive domino that will make a LOT of things more expensive.

With that being said, I don't believe something as myopic as the free market can do anything about it. We need government regulations. But then again some countries (most notably the USA) don't even have a real government.

Agreed. Nations who abuse their environment are really screwing themselves, and the rest of us over. I think implementing a gradually rising carbon tax which is used to subsidize alternative energy is the way to go. I disagree that the free market can't do anything. The free market has been a driving force in the past for innovation, and subsidies can help promote this. As long as it's more profitable to use alternative energy, they'll use alternative energy.

Also, what do you mean the USA doesn't even have a real government? They very clearly do.
Just a nation trying to right the wrongs it can.

"Two roads diverged by a wood, and I — I took neither."
-Rightlandian Proverb

User avatar
-Ocelot-
Diplomat
 
Posts: 903
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby -Ocelot- » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:09 am

Doing it Rightland wrote:
-Ocelot- wrote:People forget that a worsening environment equates to gargantuan money loss for every single country simply because we are destroying a form of wealth that's all around us.

Regardless of how you portray it, it's a fact that a carbon tax or regulations will cost a lot less to the average person than environmental destruction and extreme weather fueled by accelerating climate change. A collapsing ecosystem can cause a destructive domino that will make a LOT of things more expensive.

With that being said, I don't believe something as myopic as the free market can do anything about it. We need government regulations. But then again some countries (most notably the USA) don't even have a real government.

Agreed. Nations who abuse their environment are really screwing themselves, and the rest of us over. I think implementing a gradually rising carbon tax which is used to subsidize alternative energy is the way to go. I disagree that the free market can't do anything. The free market has been a driving force in the past for innovation, and subsidies can help promote this. As long as it's more profitable to use alternative energy, they'll use alternative energy.

Also, what do you mean the USA doesn't even have a real government? They very clearly do.


Regulatory capture.
Post tenebras lux


⭐No such thing as too much yellow⭐

User avatar
Doing it Rightland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Dec 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Doing it Rightland » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:36 am

-Ocelot- wrote:Regulatory capture.

Yeah, that's a problem. The US government isn't very good at not being bought by interest groups. But hey, at least that means we have a government, however ineffective it may be!
Just a nation trying to right the wrongs it can.

"Two roads diverged by a wood, and I — I took neither."
-Rightlandian Proverb

User avatar
Nouveau Yathrib
Diplomat
 
Posts: 704
Founded: Jul 27, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Nouveau Yathrib » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:25 am

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Probably the free market.

I support environmental protections but letting the “free market” handle it is like letting the prisoners be in charge of the prison


An environmental policy should be strictly a state affair.


Aren't energy efficiency regulations and carbon tax credits a "state affair"?
I still can't believe that Brazil lost to Germany 1:7. Copy and paste onto your sig if you were alive when this happened.

This account is the predecessor state of Jamilkhuze and Syfenq. This is how they're different, and this is why they exist.

We are currently in the year 2181. About Us | Factbooks | Past and Future History | OOC Info | Public Relations | iiWiki | Q&A

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."

-Edward Everett Hale

User avatar
Mushet
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16886
Founded: Apr 29, 2008
Anarchy

Postby Mushet » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:37 am

I like the way he presents it.
"what I believe is like a box, and we’re taking the energy of our thinking and putting into a box of beliefs, pretending that we’re thinking...I’ve gone through most of my life not believing anything. Either I know or I don’t know, or I think." - John Trudell

C4SS Unsettling America

Puppet: E-City ranked #1 in the world for Highest Drug Use on 5/25/2015
Puppet Sacred Heart Church ranked #2 in the world for Nudest 2/25/2010
OP of a 5 page archived thread The Forum Seven Tit Museum
Previous Official King of Forum 7 (2010-2012/13), relinquished own title
First person to get AQ'd Quote was funnier in 2011, you had to have been there
Celebrating over a decade on Nationstates!

User avatar
Wunderstrafanstalt
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 146
Founded: Feb 19, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wunderstrafanstalt » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:40 am

Full support, but for now I doubt its likelihood of passing. I'm waiting for the day when green-focused companies like SolarWorld or Tesla to become incredibly big and politically powerful, form Super-PACs bigger than oil's or defense's, donate 20 millions to AOC while people start demanding regulation against the "Big Green". Progress efficiently follows the money, including protecting mother earth, which is sad but if it is what it is then it is what it is.

CFR WUNDERSTRAFANSTALT - LAIRAN UNION
"Ad astra et ultra" - "To the stars and beyond"

14.0 | MT | F17 | $LFD | Kurzgesagt | Leaders

CommonerThink - Helisday, 2019-1-12-14: Blind of left and right, doctor removed the wrong kidney
Disaster relief donation | Acknowledge IRL me as emperor of the world; this nation in general and this in particular will be the result

User avatar
Pagan Trapistan
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Pagan Trapistan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:13 am

Carbon tax is pointless. If they're doing something economically productive, and you want to go green, tax them normally and put it toward solar panels (or other technology). Don't punish productivity (carbon), just use said productivity to fuel progress and less-polluting technology (instead of badly made jets).

China was massively subsidizing solar panels long before talking about a minor carbon tax late 2017, and thats the sensible way to do it. They might have a ways to go environmentally, but they've been putting more into it than the U.S..

Shaping the market is nonsense. The market just goes to Indian telemarketets. You only want the market at all to ramp up development before going technosocialism.

Thats what China does. (Okay maybe not but I can dream)
Last edited by Pagan Trapistan on Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:54 am, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
-Ocelot-
Diplomat
 
Posts: 903
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby -Ocelot- » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:55 am

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Carbon tax is pointless. If they're doing something economically productive, and you want to go green, tax them normally and put it toward solar panels (or other technology). Don't punish productivity (carbon), just use said productivity to fuel progress and less-polluting technology (instead of badly made jets).

China was massively subsidizing solar panels long before talking about a minor carbon tax late 2017, and thats the sensible way to do it. They might have a ways to go environmentally, but they've been putting more into it than the U.S..

Shaping the market is nonsense. The market just goes to Indian telemarketets. You only want the market at all to ramp up development before going technosocialism.

Thats what China does. (Okay maybe not but I can dream)


Taxing the shit out of something is a good way to change things. Merely making something harmful more expensive, even by a little, can have massive effects on it's consumption.
Post tenebras lux


⭐No such thing as too much yellow⭐

User avatar
Pagan Trapistan
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Pagan Trapistan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:17 am

-Ocelot- wrote:Taxing the shit out of something is a good way to change things. Merely making something harmful more expensive, even by a little, can have massive effects on it's consumption.

Or we can implement renewable energy and make it a moot point, at least in part. Its a better place to start from.

User avatar
UniversalCommons
Minister
 
Posts: 2037
Founded: Jan 24, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby UniversalCommons » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:47 am

We can start by putting research funding towards clean technology in effect. A lot of the "Green New Deal" is hype. Wind has grid parity in many cases wih coal and hydroelectric can be restarted in quite a few places. Hydroelectric can be designed on a smaller scale called run of the river or microhydro so dams are not needed.

Part of the problem is the desire to build giant projects, massive solar fields, huge dams, and similar things which are destructive. Renewable energy moves energy from being centrally produced to being distributed which requires a different kind of power grid. This challenges existing energy infrastructure. It also changes the type of engines to being battery based.

The ideal situation for a homeowner is to have long term amortization for solar, wind, and geothermal with very low down payments. This allows the homeowner or owner of a building to put in the system and pay less than their current electric bill each month for solar, wind, or geothermal energy. Also, when building large tracts of homes, the homes have built in energy systems which cost a little more up front, but end up saving money in the long term because they are built into the mortgage structure.
Last edited by UniversalCommons on Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11002
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:56 am

A green new deal will win if it brings jobs and lose if it doesn't. End of story.
Non-ultramontane Lefebvrist Catholic, counterrevolutionary, hispanophile, tradesman, outdoorsman, Texian.
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
Thank you St. Jude!

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13091
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sovaal » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:45 am

Doing it Rightland wrote:
-Ocelot- wrote:People forget that a worsening environment equates to gargantuan money loss for every single country simply because we are destroying a form of wealth that's all around us.

Regardless of how you portray it, it's a fact that a carbon tax or regulations will cost a lot less to the average person than environmental destruction and extreme weather fueled by accelerating climate change. A collapsing ecosystem can cause a destructive domino that will make a LOT of things more expensive.

With that being said, I don't believe something as myopic as the free market can do anything about it. We need government regulations. But then again some countries (most notably the USA) don't even have a real government.

Agreed. Nations who abuse their environment are really screwing themselves, and the rest of us over. I think implementing a gradually rising carbon tax which is used to subsidize alternative energy is the way to go. I disagree that the free market can't do anything. The free market has been a driving force in the past for innovation, and subsidies can help promote this. As long as it's more profitable to use alternative energy, they'll use alternative energy.

Also, what do you mean the USA doesn't even have a real government? They very clearly do.

They consider eating dog to be the equivalent of human canibalism. I wouldn’t say their world view is all to realistic.

Dirty centrist
Unapologetic Jon Snow supporter
"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61515
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:22 am

What's that Chinese saying? It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice? That's my general feel on a green capitalism.
General Sherman did nothing wrong, fact.
Liberal Social Democrat.

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52245
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:30 am

Make ecosocialism cool again!

I like the idea of a demsucc Green New Deal in theory. Emphasis on the demsucc part. No offense to neolibs and neocons, but every green policy that they touch always turns to shit.
The Fabulous Pope of NS


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Nouveau Yathrib
Diplomat
 
Posts: 704
Founded: Jul 27, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Nouveau Yathrib » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:07 pm

Genivaria wrote:What's that Chinese saying? It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice? That's my general feel on a green capitalism.

Yup that’s by Deng Xiaoping. Which also sums up my thoughts on AOC.

Liriena wrote:Make ecosocialism cool again!

I like the idea of a demsucc Green New Deal in theory. Emphasis on the demsucc part. No offense to neolibs and neocons, but every green policy that they touch always turns to shit.

The important part is just to get neolibs/neocons to see that a Green New Deal would be to their benefit.
Last edited by Nouveau Yathrib on Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I still can't believe that Brazil lost to Germany 1:7. Copy and paste onto your sig if you were alive when this happened.

This account is the predecessor state of Jamilkhuze and Syfenq. This is how they're different, and this is why they exist.

We are currently in the year 2181. About Us | Factbooks | Past and Future History | OOC Info | Public Relations | iiWiki | Q&A

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."

-Edward Everett Hale

User avatar
Pagan Trapistan
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Pagan Trapistan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:11 pm

How the hell are they going to go green, theyre going to go to India is where theyre going to go. You need market socialism with American characteristics!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alvecia, Dumb Ideologies, Grouu, Imperializt Russia, Souseiseki, Ueuecoyotl, Unstoppable Empire of Doom, Vassenor, Woodfiredpizzas

Advertisement

Remove ads