Nuts and Bolts of a Green New Deal

[Nouveau Yathrib]

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.”

[Doing it Rightland]

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.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

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.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

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.

[Thermodolia]

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

[Page]

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.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

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.

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.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

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.

[-Ocelot-]

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.

[Doing it Rightland]

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.

[-Ocelot-]

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.

[Doing it Rightland]

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!

[Nouveau Yathrib]

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"?

[Mushet]

I like the way he presents it.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

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.

[Pagan Trapistan]

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)

[-Ocelot-]

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.

[Pagan Trapistan]

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.

[UniversalCommons]

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.

[Diopolis]

A green new deal will win if it brings jobs and lose if it doesn't. End of story.

[Sovaal]

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.

[Genivaria]

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.

[Liriena]

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.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

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.

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.

[Pagan Trapistan]

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!