2020 Democratic presidential primary

xpost Sanders explains he is going to pay for the GND with, in part, the net addition of 20 millions jobs (when currently there is only 6 millions unemployed) + all the while phasing out entire industries. It’s one those many lies I just can’t stand. Sure, republicans are worse, climate denial is a pretty low bar to clear but clearing it doesn’t justify undermining the crucial undertaking of saving the climate with desperate electorate claims and marketing fantasies.

As I have said earlier, it’s been a political battle to implement carbon pricing in some nations that historically see all of climate, taxes, and government regulations more positively than US citizens have had. But that guy, polling 18 % in the losing party, that guy is sure to convince the nation that tens of millions will lose their jobs and that it will be alright because ‘it pays for itself’ ? * All I see is that Sanders took a legit set of actions, something like the GND, and applied his ego on it to the point of distorting any sense of credibility to it.

* Yes I understand, they won’t lose their jobs, I did not forget the 20 millions magical jobs created that pay for themselves, those oil workers will be relocated in a field in which they have no prior experience. It will all be so smooth. Haha eat the rich **rose emoji**

Was there some previous version of the GND with specific proposals and a realistic fully-costed budget?

for argument's sake VHS, how would you like a politician to sell a climate action plan that is commensurate with the scale of the problem

the net addition of 20 millions jobs
that's not what the plan says. it says "20 million new jobs". not net.

also, his plan doesn't talk about carbon pricing

i'm typing out a longer post that criticizes your perspective on this (it's a must read!!), but i just want to start with that. it's a good thing to want your political leaders to use facts they can stand behind. we need to do that, too

Higher taxes on "the wealthy and corporations" are part of the proposal. Maybe the middle class would need to pay more as well. I do agree that any serious climate action will require a lot of upheaval and expense and quite possibly a reduction in standard of living and politicians who want to tackle the issue are probably not going to stress those aspects in their platform; let's see how he responds when these issues come up in debates. I don't really believe that he will end unemployment. Providing five years' full compensation for all resource workers who lose their jobs seems pretty ambitious too but it would be p sweet if it could be done. Idk the political realism of anything anymore tbh. If the Amazon keeps burning, maybe none of it will matter anyway.

xps

and while i shit out that post, here's the conceding part of it:

on the whole, i think some of your criticisms are valid. some of the information in the plan doesn't exactly hold up to scrutiny. here are the first and last posts in a thread from someone who knows what they're talking about.

The Sanders campaign has just released their climate policy proposal. Its.... ambitious. https://t.co/HO3D9ODunv

It aims to reach 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030, including almost $900 billion in energy storage build out.

This is *not* possible

— (((Alex Gilbert))) (@gilbeaq) August 22, 2019

Thats about it. The plan is worth reading, it has a lot of good ideas, and only a handful of really kooky ones. I will say all of the money spending and economics seem questionable, especially as they are not consequential economic analyses but just costs (end)

— (((Alex Gilbert))) (@gilbeaq) August 22, 2019

actually, no one wants to read my bullshit. this is essentially what i'm getting at:

for argument's sake VHS, how would you like a politician to sell a climate action plan that is commensurate with the scale of the problem

― Simon H., Friday, August 23, 2019

and remember - offering up a $16 trillion plan that leads to tons of positive outcomes that have nothing to do with the environment will be viciously smeared by big oil and every single Republican in the country. that is also true of every other realistic climate plan from any Democrat, regardless of what's in the plan or how expensive it is. full stop.

candidate plans (regardless of subject) are generally not worth arguing over in terms of actionable legislation. but carry on!

howbout taking the plan and doing all the possible things

assuming a continued GOP Senate, i'm hearing lots of things from all the Dems that are not possible

the general trend that candidates even feel compelled to offer detailed climate plans is a good sign/positive outcome. It indicates that the majority of the Dem candidates will respond to public pressure on this issue in some way once/if they are in office. But what actually gets hammered out in Congress as passable legislation will bear p much zero resemblance to anything proposed on the campaign trail.

xp

candidate plans (regardless of subject) are generally not worth arguing over in terms of actionable legislation. but carry on!

i think it's worth carrying on about what is the appropriate way to introduce climate legislation that is actually good. i disagree with VHS but they probably represent the majority viewpoint

xp

eg Obama and healthcare

xp

fwiw, I think VHS's feelings of concern are entirely sincere, but I cannot see them as constructive. Of all the things to wring his hands about, this seems very remote from my main political concerns atm. Politics are very messy and embodies all the vices in addition to all the virtues, and no matter how pristine he keeps himself they will remain forever messy. His criticism is both right and utterly useless.

by oil workers, do you mean like 'roughnecks'? because the majority of people employed by the oil and gas sector (electrical contractors, engineers, admin assistants, whatever) utilize skills that can be employed just as well in other fields. they didn't get their jobs out of the largesse of the fossil fuel industry, after all.

whoops, major xpost by now!

a conundrum of the climate crisis is that every year we choose not to dramatically change our approach to energy, the costs of the delay go up. this has been and will continue to be a political nightmare.

the ONLY way it will happen is if a candidate speaks for it powerfully and persuasively, and leaves the bullshit preemptive compromises with republicans and the fossil fuel industry out of it. they're going to fight it tooth and nail, whatever the legislation is. and they will win (again), unless there we are bold. sanders' plan is bold. i don't know if he's the right guy to argue for it, but who else is? Inslee? Would Harris support a plan of this ambition? Would Biden (pffffft)? Warren might.

generally agree that big bold plans are good, yes.

I think Harris generally would, she endorsed the "Green New Deal" such as it was, but she's more cautious than Sanders is. I can't remember if she's endorsed one of the carbon dividend bills or not.

warren would probably endorse the good stuff in the proposal (of which there are many) but she wouldn't support things that ppl could easily take apart as impossible

it's speculation, but i don't think harris would endorse a plan on the scale of Sanders'. she endorsed the AOC GND, but that wasn't binding and was more like a roadmap/set of goals. she is much, much more cautious than Sanders. which is a good thing in most situations in life, and expected and reasonable for a politician. but it isn't compatible with sparking immediate, appropriate action. but hey, maybe she'll surprise me.

I expect a lot of the candidates would start 'negotiations' by surrendering some stuff unilaterally, as with Bam and the public option.

that is not what happened with Obama's plan (public option couldn't get the votes in the House) but what do you care about facts or logic or history

i don't think proposing a plan you think is realistic (not realistically having a chance of passing but realistically having a chance of working well as presented) is negotiating. maybe tho -- isn't that trump's supposed style? pick aggressively unrealistic positions and then compromise on the reasonable thing you wanted all along? but this seems like to me more of a stylistic preference. the problem with ACA is obama really did compromise on what most of his base thought was the best plan upfront - not that he didn't stake out an unreasonable enough position to get started but that he never even pitched the best possible real world proposal.

how soon we forget etc.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/65231-negotiated-rate-healthcare-bill-to-be-presented-to-house-dems-thursday

he never even pitched the best possible real world proposal.

^this is what i meant

Shakey, if anyone gets me to quit ILX, it will be you, you endlessly charming Pelosian.

she is much, much more cautious than Sanders.

She was my distant third as a pick, but she's disappointed me such that I would cringe if she got the nomination, almost as much as Biden. As much as I detest dollar book psychology, I wonder if her record as a prosecutor blinds her to the shallowness of consistently shifting your battle lines: she wants to win, I get it, but I have no idea what her priorities are other than that she wants to win.

also a goddamn boring speaker

for argument's sake VHS, how would you like a politician to sell a climate action plan that is commensurate with the scale of the problem

― Simon H., Friday, August 23, 2019

If I knew I'd be rich, I suppose. I will start with this, there is a lot of talk about the Pelosi generation of Dems candidate has been traumatized by Reagan, the one way in which this is the most pervasive (and destructive of course) is how the Dems seems unable to just admit that in order to build the society they desire, the majority of the middle class will have to pool money into governments plans like other nations do. What Sanders got right, I admit, is that it won't happen for as long as people see that Amazon and Apple don't pay a penny. What he gets wrong, is to think Amazon and Apple can pay all the pennies for not only this one large project, but for all large projects. In parallel, in the wake of 2008, there is a large need to communicate how capitalism is not the same as neo-liberalism and there are free markets economic tools that can help prevent climate change catastrophe. The New Deal wasn't just about spending a shit load of money, it was also creating market tools that make sure that money would flow from waste to usefulness. Investment in R&D, such a small part of Sanders plan, and yet such a crucial component of fighting climate change could be one of them. New funds in which private pensions can invest in green tech at a extremely favorable rate would be great too. The New Deal was also about restoring the govt's sovereignty vis-a-vis the private sector but all of us, including Sanders, seems to agree on this. However, the way Sanders is going on about it is very antagonistic (because that is what fires up his base) and unfortunately, climate action is going to need full cooperation from corporations.

i disagree with VHS but they probably represent the majority viewpoint
xp

― Karl Malone, Friday, August 23, 2019 1:30 PM (twenty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I disagree with the majority viewpoint, I'm just arguing that this viewpoint exists and because of its existence Sanders is bound to fail both his elections and the GND itself at the expense of firing up his base.

Investment in R&D, such a small part of Sanders plan

ctrl+f "research and development" in his plan (https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/)

However, the way Sanders is going on about it is very antagonistic (because that is what fires up his base) and unfortunately, climate action is going to need full cooperation from corporations.

there are plenty of companies who (say they will) voluntarily commit to various climate legislation and pacts, they're not all bad. but we're not dealing with "corporations" writ large. we are dealing with fossil fuel companies. i suggest reading Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes and Conway). they are motherFUCKERS. the sanders plan treats fossil fuels like white collar criminals, which they are.

maybe we could think about punishing the most successful white collar criminals of the century. then perhaps their successors won't be as eager fund disinformation campaigns for decades

I checked the R&D part and back of the napkin calculations it's like about 5% of the total plan.

I think Harris generally would, she endorsed the "Green New Deal" such as it was, but she's more cautious than Sanders is. I can't remember if she's endorsed one of the carbon dividend bills or not.

"cautious" is one way to put it. She co-sponsored his M4A bill but now says she wouldn't back it.

yeah that is dumb

I checked the R&D part and back of the napkin calculations it's like about 5% of the total plan.

5% of 16 trillion is $800 billion - does anyone else's plan allocate more money to R&D than that?

also, yes, R&D is important. especially with battery storage (to complement wind/solar). however, we have the tech and policy to address climate change NOW. more R&D is good, and since clean energy is already on its way to becoming the plurality of energy industry resources, i'm guessing there will be a lot more of it to come. but i have no problem with allocating a mere 800 billion to R&D and dedicating the lion's share of it to actions that can implemented asap

What’s in there for infrastructure? In a big country like America you can save a lot of money on storage by interconnecting the various electricity grids and using the Geographic spread of renewables. Storage is great but it should be only the last resort, do almost anything else first.

my entire green new deal is just replacing every interstate with high speed rail

sounds great, let's do it

but mah backyard

The importance of interstates is more about heavy trucks moving merchandise than about personal mobility over long distances, but if high speed rail got more people out of airplanes, that would be very good.

hm well what if we leave some of the interstates but ban personal autos from them, then the trucks will be more fuel-efficient and we can use the center lanes for the train

none of these candidates is running on exclusively train-based messaging and I'm disappointed YET AGAIN

wonder who did what to Joe Biden to get him to not run in 16 when his stock was higher and he wasn't as old

his son died

he should have run anyway; I mean I get why he didn't, but that would have been the right time.

the Dems seems unable to just admit that in order to build the society they desire, the majority of the middle class will have to pool money into governments plans like other nations do. What Sanders got right, I admit, is that it won't happen for as long as people see that Amazon and Apple don't pay a penny. What he gets wrong, is to think Amazon and Apple can pay all the pennies for not only this one large project, but for all large projects.

He has been completely upfront that he would raise middle class taxes to pay for M4A:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+sanders+middle+class+taxes&oq=bernie+sanders+middle+class+taxes&aqs=chrome..69i57.517j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

His explanation was that his family wasn't prepared for the stress so soon after his son's death. But HRC moved fast and hard to tie up the establishment and big donors that Joe would have needed. Her efficiency in that regard may be measured by the fact that only Bernie chose to challenge her juggernaut - in a year without an incumbent.

What’s in there for infrastructure?

there's a lot of stuff about infrastructure, but only some of it is regarding electric grid infrastructure. quite a bit of it has to do with adaptation and resilience. however, it does say

"Build a modern smart grid. A smart grid means a resilient, secure, and intelligent electric grid system that is capable of managing high amounts of renewable energy, charging electric vehicles quickly, and maximizing efficiency. We will spend $526 billion on a modern, high-volt, underground, renewable, direct current, smart, electric transmission and distribution grid will ensure our transition to 100 percent sustainable energy is safe and smooth."

later on it, also says: "We will provide $130 billion for counties impacted by climate change with funding for water, broadband, and electric grid infrastructure investments." so apparently the $526 billion on the smart grid is not part of the $130 billion for "water, broadband, and electric infrastructure investments"

https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/

none of these candidates is running on exclusively train-based messaging and I'm disappointed YET AGAIN

Ol' 45 got yr back

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0824/6367/products/T_SHIRT_FRONT_5970a05c-60ab-4b9a-b729-f8fb3ee26e0a_grande.png?v=1561544808

fascists used to be obsessed with the train running on time but now? pfft