timschochet
Footballguy
That’s true and we will get it. I want to start with a general outline and then separately discuss the other issues that you have raised.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
timschochet’s Political Thread: Are terms like “socialist” and “capitalist” still relevant in the 21st Century? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
baloney. There is almost nothing of substance.
This is about the only thing that actually lays out any kind of actual step congress would be taking.
The Commish
Footballguy
I thought I understood the point of this thread, but maybe I don't. Why exactly is a wikipage's order of information relevant to anything? Who cares how the wiki page is laid out. Reading the proposal (as I linked above) makes clear the focus of the bill. Doesn't really matter what wikipedia says does it?
timschochet
Footballguy
No I misunderstood his post. What I meant to write is that it’s true that there are parts of the GND, as presented in the document, that have nothing to do with the issue of climate change. And it’s worth discussing that they’re in there.
The Commish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Bump. Here is the Green New Deal as presented:
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf
Before a full breakdown, does anyone have a comment on the 5 questions I’ve raised?
timschochet
Footballguy
Quite a bit of it IMO. But we’ll get to each point, then let me know if you agree or not.
msommer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I did. I’ve reconsidered. Far too much attention is being paid to it by all sorts of people; it can’t be ignored. I may yet reach that conclusion again though.
But much to my astonishment, within less than 3 months the debate has changed from “what should we do about climate change?” to “do you support the Green New Deal”, with the apparent caveat that if you do not support it, you’re opposed to doing anything about climate change.
timschochet
Footballguy
So to begin: in the very first sentence of the resolution it states that it is the duty of the federal government to create the Green New Deal.
This is already an important point, one which many conservatives will likely oppose simply based on the question of political philosophy. It’s declaring that the USA will handle the issue of climate change as a federal matter with a top down approach, rather than leave it to the states or municipalities to reduce their own carbon usage.
Now, given the severity and urgency of climate change, since it truly is a matter of national security, this only makes common sense. Still, conservatives tend to be highly wary of large new bureacracies created by the federal government, and they have some justification for this. Thus far most Republicans in office have been silent about what steps to take about climate change, mostly because among their base there are still many doubters. But I suspect that when and if they do get around to making proposals to reduce carbon usage, it will be along the lines of trying to encourage states, local municipalities, and private companies to do so, rather than the federal government trying to force it to happen. That has historically been their method of operation, they believe it is more efficient, and again they have some justification. The liberal response of course is that the crisis of climate change is too serious and too urgent to attempt such methods, only a top down approach, no matter how wasteful and authoritarian it becomes, has a chance of working.
This is already an important point, one which many conservatives will likely oppose simply based on the question of political philosophy. It’s declaring that the USA will handle the issue of climate change as a federal matter with a top down approach, rather than leave it to the states or municipalities to reduce their own carbon usage.
Now, given the severity and urgency of climate change, since it truly is a matter of national security, this only makes common sense. Still, conservatives tend to be highly wary of large new bureacracies created by the federal government, and they have some justification for this. Thus far most Republicans in office have been silent about what steps to take about climate change, mostly because among their base there are still many doubters. But I suspect that when and if they do get around to making proposals to reduce carbon usage, it will be along the lines of trying to encourage states, local municipalities, and private companies to do so, rather than the federal government trying to force it to happen. That has historically been their method of operation, they believe it is more efficient, and again they have some justification. The liberal response of course is that the crisis of climate change is too serious and too urgent to attempt such methods, only a top down approach, no matter how wasteful and authoritarian it becomes, has a chance of working.
Clearly we see this differently.
It is the duty of the federal government to address climate change. It is not the duty of the federal government to create the Green New Deal.
You want to parse the GND and talk specifically about climate change. Fair enough. But then you go on to say "conservatives" tend to be highly wary of large bureaucracies created by the federal government. Why? For exactly this reason.
I mean, of the five "goals," the very first resolution 1A combines two huge and separate issues: to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers. Is the Clean Power Plan "fair and just for utilities?" No. But it needs to be done.
Not to mention that resolution C) about infrastructure could easily have nothing to do at all with climate change (roads, bridges, internet access, etc.) and then there's section E)...reparations and the unhoused?
The key to addressing climate change is focus and narrowing the discussion and politics. Not broadening it. That is why there has been so much progress at the state and local level and so little at the federal level.
The Commish
Footballguy
Can we agree to what words mean in this thread because it's going to drive me crazy conflating "conservative" with trump supporter and/or today's GOP. In the bold which group are you talking about? Because if it's the latter, I disagree 100% with your assertion. They are "highly wary" only when it's not them taking the action or overreaching. Actions don't lie.
As Exhibit A in my assertion that broadening the scope of the Green New Deal beyond just climate change and clean energy would only cause more counterproductive political morass, I present the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act ("MLPPA").
Wtf is that?
Since 2012 there has been a bipartisan bill s.2005 that has been languishing in Congress. It's too small a bill to get airtime on its own, but also can't get folded into a larger tax reform bill because of political gridlock due to partisan politics (there's a theme here).
The MLPPA would change the tax code to allow renewable energy projects to benefit from the same corporate tax advantages that are currently used by oil and gas ventures (e.g. a natural gas fracking project). Real estate and oil & gas projects can currently form MLP's and REIT's as a corporate structure. Solar and wind projects cannot.
This is a total no-brainer bill sponsored by both parities that would result in much cheaper private capital flowing into clean energy projects. Which is exactly what is needed at this point in the industry's life cycle. The only reason clean energy projects aren't currently eligible is because they weren't even conceived when MLP's were created from the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This bill is simply an update.
Wtf is that?
Since 2012 there has been a bipartisan bill s.2005 that has been languishing in Congress. It's too small a bill to get airtime on its own, but also can't get folded into a larger tax reform bill because of political gridlock due to partisan politics (there's a theme here).
The MLPPA would change the tax code to allow renewable energy projects to benefit from the same corporate tax advantages that are currently used by oil and gas ventures (e.g. a natural gas fracking project). Real estate and oil & gas projects can currently form MLP's and REIT's as a corporate structure. Solar and wind projects cannot.
This is a total no-brainer bill sponsored by both parities that would result in much cheaper private capital flowing into clean energy projects. Which is exactly what is needed at this point in the industry's life cycle. The only reason clean energy projects aren't currently eligible is because they weren't even conceived when MLP's were created from the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This bill is simply an update.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes I agree it’s confusing. But Trump supporters will not really acknowledge their differences from traditional conservative philosophy. On this issue they very much revert to it.The Commish said:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t necessarily see things differently from you. In my post that you responded to, I was presenting a series of political arguments as best as I understand them, but it doesn’t mean I agree with them.PhantomJB said:
I think your last point is very valid, and I hope to get into it more. It may be that for the writers of the Green New Deal there is really no space between a society that deals with climate change and a society that adopts Democratic socialism. To them it may be the same thing. I’m not sure about this, but if it’s true it’s problematic since it would tend to alienate anyone who does not believe in Democratic socialism.
The Commish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Van Dyman
Footballguy
Just noticed your new thread like the idea. Regarding the two bolded bits above...fivethirtyeight published an article on this today.timschochet said:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/good-climate-science-is-all-about-nuance-good-politics-is-not/
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
There's plenty of difference. Starting with the fact that trump supporters are good with bureaucracy when it suits them. See "the wall" and "separation of families at the border"
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK I still think you’re missing my point. In terms of the Green New Deal, and in terms of how we as as society should combat climate change, there really is not difference between Trump supporters and conservatives.
The Commish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
OK. I’m willing to listen. What are your views on the Green New Deal, and do you think most conservatives share them?
The Commish
Footballguy
Which part? I thought you were going point by point or some such? Tim, this isn't starting well...I have to say. We can't even seem to get an established set of definitions for words here. How are we supposed to discuss these things in any manner of detail if we can't even agree on definitions? In this question I still don't know if you're talking about trump supporters or conservatives.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK let’s not worry about it. Honestly it’s giving me a headache and I acquiesce. If you take issue with me using the word “conservatives” I won’t any more. I will simply refer to Republicans. Since over 80% of Republicans are Trump supporters it’s pretty synonymous, and for the time being we won’t worry about how conservative they truly are.
timschochet
Footballguy
The resolution goes on to accept the findings of the October 2018 report on Climate Change, which states that:
1. Climate change is the result of man made action ( use of fossil fuels)
2. Unless drastic action is taken immediately, climate change will result in a 2% increase in Celsius degrees (immediately means prior to 2030)
3. This will cause mass migration from affected areas (mostly coastal)
4. 500 trillion in lost economy of the USA alone by 2100
5. Elimination of 99% of coral reefs
etc. Obviously this report is the impetus of the Green New Deal. And if we accept the science and the predictions involved, they justify any draconian measure we might want to come up with, as human survival itself is at stake.
Naturally the opponents don’t accept this, and in fact are using it to paint the supporters of the GND as alarmists. And again we see how almost suddenly the debate over climate change has transformed itself: only a few months ago it was “we’d better do something pretty soon here or things will be bad for our country at some point in the future, we don’t know when”; now its “we’ve got 12 years to solve this”
Unfortunately the information about this one aspect “we’ve got 12 years” has been simplified to the point where many people are under the impression that the promoters of GND believe that the world will end in 12 years”- an impression helped by a recent misstatement to this effect by AOC- and this will also likely be used by opponents to paint this whole thing as alarmist.
1. Climate change is the result of man made action ( use of fossil fuels)
2. Unless drastic action is taken immediately, climate change will result in a 2% increase in Celsius degrees (immediately means prior to 2030)
3. This will cause mass migration from affected areas (mostly coastal)
4. 500 trillion in lost economy of the USA alone by 2100
5. Elimination of 99% of coral reefs
etc. Obviously this report is the impetus of the Green New Deal. And if we accept the science and the predictions involved, they justify any draconian measure we might want to come up with, as human survival itself is at stake.
Naturally the opponents don’t accept this, and in fact are using it to paint the supporters of the GND as alarmists. And again we see how almost suddenly the debate over climate change has transformed itself: only a few months ago it was “we’d better do something pretty soon here or things will be bad for our country at some point in the future, we don’t know when”; now its “we’ve got 12 years to solve this”
Unfortunately the information about this one aspect “we’ve got 12 years” has been simplified to the point where many people are under the impression that the promoters of GND believe that the world will end in 12 years”- an impression helped by a recent misstatement to this effect by AOC- and this will also likely be used by opponents to paint this whole thing as alarmist.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Let's assume that for the purposes of discussion all of this is true. Beyond changing our country to begin counteracting this immediately aren't we then also morally required to force any and every other country on the planet to do the same, and use military force if necessary?
timschochet
Footballguy
Damn. Kudos to you for always bringing up fascinating points that I’m not sure anyone has already considered.
My answer is yes. And, if our government stalls, we would have to same duty, theoretically, to overthrow it by any means possible.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
This is the problem with doomsday scenarios that affect the whole world. Because from a mental exercise, I agree with you and my hypothetical point. If we have conclusive scientific evidence that we need to alter the course of humanity as soon as possible, then the United States doing it alone will not work. It will be a band-aid. And in the process of putting that band-aid on, we will significantly reduce our standing in the world to the point of almost full destruction of our country in terms of economic power. And while we can all argue until the cows come home whether we are the shining beacon on the hill right now, the truth is that a strong America makes for a better world than almost any other country right now.
The alternative is worse though. Because to use force against the world we would doom the world to catastrophic results. The use of nuclear weapons would be a moral imperative, which is a grossly inhuman thing to say. Beyond that, no one in this country is overthrowing our government. In 1812, maybe. Not now. And as a result we are truly stuck in a moment in time where the true necessary act is impossible but to not act is worse. Acting will drop the world into a depression worse than anything ever seen. War will be a common state of man for decades if not longer. And in the effort to save humanity from itself we would likely doom it to suffer an equally problematic fate.
The fundamental problem with the Green New Deal and smaller governmental actions to alter the course of this country lies in the fact that we have never had the human ability to conquer the world. Many empires have tried. Some succeeded to a certain extent in terms of their own continent and small empires, but never full and total control of the entire planet. And that is what would be needed to truly forestall the environmental impacts of what the report says is an inevitability.
The complete banning of the use of all fossil fuels. The immediate and total act of banning anything that pollutes the worlds fresh waterways and oceans. The immediate ceasing of using anything that requires the mining of minerals to build batteries. And on and on and on. We would be forcing ourselves into a technological dark age. It would save the environment. But probably not humanity.
I could write pages of the concomitant problems associated with environmental policy taken to its logical conclusion. I've hinted at it through the years on this board and we've never had this specific discussion. What are we truly willing to do if that report is truly the picture into the future? We need to stop every developing country now don't we? We need to basically cease the production of automobiles except for the specific purpose of transporting goods and large groups of people instead of moving one person to their vacation house in the mountains. We need to topple any government that would stand in the way and the people that would support that government. We would doom the middle east to economic ruin almost instantaneously which will probably result in a rise of terrorism the world isn't prepared for.
If we consider our pollution in its myriad forms as a cancer to the body of the planet, we need to kill it now. And keep treating the body until there is no evidence of it remaining. And in doing that we will kill living cells. It's the necessary collateral damage for the greater good. So really, how far are we willing to go?
For me, when I think through this, I don't like the endgame. It's not going to go well. It's going to get worse before it gets better. And ultimately, I don't think we truly solve the problem this way, we just trade one horrible for another. What we probably need to focus on is true international cooperation in developing truly useful and cheap alternative energy that can not just result in Americans being able to keep watching their football on Sunday's through all manner of environmentally destructive means, but can result in developing nations having an alternative to industrial progress. We need to protect the oceans and freshwater above all else, now, and that would result in a massive reduction in international shipping, not to mention a reduction of use of all things disposable. Towns setting up stupid little rules that their stores can't give you disposable plastic bags for your groceries is a cover over the problem to make people feel better about themselves. It doesn't solve a problem. It just kicks the can.
And the can is going to kill us if that report is true.
timschochet
Footballguy
Way to cheer up my morning Yankee!
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't care what you use. You aren't going to get anywhere meaningful using the word "rock" to describe both an actual rock and an airplane
If you think that's productive go for it. I'll sit back and watch the ####show.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Is this the point where you want me to tell you that the GND isn't even an environmental bill/policy/goal/resolution? Because it's not.
I would agree that the Climate Change Report is based solidly in science and provides a great impetus for a comprehensive federal climate change policy.
However, the GND (as it is currently written) does not take the Climate Change Report and logically extend it into rational and responsible policy making. It is sloppy and unfocused and many of its stated goals are not based in reality. The writers and promoters of the GND are the ones that bear primary responsibility for how it's been received, not the readers.
Good science and healthy debate has gotten us to the point where IMO most Americans accept without blinking the threats and reality of climate change. But many are also beginning to fundamentally believe the challenge can be simultaneously converted into a huge opportunity. There have also been reams of publications (DOE SunShot, Rocky Mountain Institute, etc.) that lay out sensible federal regulatory and market-based pathways to take advantage of this opportunity by setting ambitious yet achievable milestones.
Climate change deniers and opponents to progressive legislation will always exist. They just will. But that's not the group to win over and after a certain point its a waste of time and resources to try. The group to win over is the one in the middle, but the GND as proposed has no hope of even achieving that.
Not to ignore the rest of your post but just to focus in on this point for a moment.
I couldn't disagree more with the bolded statement. Many of America's best corporations have already moved, or are in the process of moving, to 100% renewable energy to power their operations (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, etc.). Their standing and economic power in the world has only been enhanced without missing a beat.
Creative destruction is the foundation of America's entrepreneurial and innovative spirit. Our federal government has a role. Many others are already playing theirs.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
To be clear you mean they have moved to start using renewable energy, not that they get 100% of their power from renewable energy right?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
There’s a difference though. The companies you mentioned have done this all of their own accord, and their impact on our overall use of carbon fuels has been minimal.
Yankee’s point is that if we are to reach the level that the report says we must, that will be such a drastic change as to reduce our economic power. Now I’m not necessarily convinced that’s true but it’s worth talking about.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t disagree with this but I’m glad you added the caveat “as it is currently written.” I noted before that the debate has changed. The Green New Deal, in a very short amount of time, has become a litmus test for people who want to combat climate change. That is both illogical and unfair, but it’s also the reality.
Therefore, since the GND is vague anyhow, it seems to me that the goal should be to flesh it out and change it rather than to reject it. I want to support the Green New Deal and turn it into what I want it to be (what that is, I’m not sure at this moment, except that my goal is to combat climate change without creating too much misery. I don’t know how possible that goal is.)
It's a mixture. Of the ones I quoted, Google, Apple and Whole Foods are all 100%. Microsoft, Wal-Mart and Amazon are at 50%+ and counting.
Yes. But these companies can only impact our overall carbon fuel use by the size of their individual footprint. That's all any of us can do. These companies answering to investors on a quarterly basis are serving as role models is my central point.
timschochet
Footballguy
Moving on, the next paragraph states that since the United States is disproportionately responsible for man made climate change (we use over 20% of the world carbon fuels) we have the responsibility to the world to take the lead in fighting climate change.
This is the sort of language that is almost designed to piss off the average American. It seems pointless to me and the same goal could have been reached by pointing out that America should take the lead because that is what we do, that is what we’re the best at doing. It’s always better to appeal to our potential for greatness rather than apologize for our faults.
To digress a moment- this is the typical left wing crap that alienated so many people in this country. Leftists seem intent on constantly villainizing American achievement. And the fact is, we don’t need to apologize to anyone for our society. We didn’t know climate change was going to happen. We used technology ingeniously to better human life, and climate change has been a negative result, but there have been a whole hell of a lot of positive results. Oil and coal have made us live longer and more prosperously with easier lives; oil and coal have protected our freedoms. Now we need to move on from them, but there’s no shame in having used them up to this point.
This is the sort of language that is almost designed to piss off the average American. It seems pointless to me and the same goal could have been reached by pointing out that America should take the lead because that is what we do, that is what we’re the best at doing. It’s always better to appeal to our potential for greatness rather than apologize for our faults.
To digress a moment- this is the typical left wing crap that alienated so many people in this country. Leftists seem intent on constantly villainizing American achievement. And the fact is, we don’t need to apologize to anyone for our society. We didn’t know climate change was going to happen. We used technology ingeniously to better human life, and climate change has been a negative result, but there have been a whole hell of a lot of positive results. Oil and coal have made us live longer and more prosperously with easier lives; oil and coal have protected our freedoms. Now we need to move on from them, but there’s no shame in having used them up to this point.
Do you think the change in GND language will occur anytime before the election?
If not, we're kind of just talking theoreticals here. That's all well and good to a point but I'd rather react to what's real than discuss what should be.
timschochet
Footballguy
Honestly I don’t think the GND will ever be voted on as it now stands (except as a means of political gamesmanship by the right.)
If it is to come to pass, it will be in the form of individual bills, much the way the original New Deal legislation was passed.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I meant more along the lines of the extreme of banning the use of fossil fuels.
But your point isn't a bad one.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Good post. Although, the inability to take criticism like a grown up is a whole other problem.
But this goes into the problem with the GND at the moment. It's not an environmental bill. It's a left wing diatribe wrapped around a tax bill. They used the environment as cover. It's a mantra, not a bill.
We are still increasing our per capita emissions while other countries are and have taken steps to curb their emissions. Even China. We absolutely should be villanized for that.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Herb
Footballguy
Fantastic post. I've never thought about this to that extent before. Scary.
Not to derail the thread, although the thread is sort of spinning its wheels anyway, but it occurs to me that saving humanity at this point may not be conducive to the continuation of our Republic. A brutal authoritarian regime acting in the best interests of the planet would be necessary in my mind in the doomsday scenario. And the best interest of the planet, long term, is antithetical to- at the very least- the short term interests of most of humanity.
I'm not advocating for this and I'm honestly not an environmental alarmist. Yankee's post just got me thinking in a direction I've never thought before. Which is why I spend time in this forum. Carry on.
Renewable Energy Credits. It's basically an indirect way of purchasing renewable energy.
A wind farm in Wyoming puts 1MW of electricity into the grid. In exchange they get the current spot rate of 5 cents / kWh (made up number) for the electricity, plus 10 REC's. Those REC's certify that 1MW of wind has been put into the grid and are subsequently bought at a negotiated rate by a wholesale REC broker.
That broker then marks them up and sells them retail to various individuals and business who can't afford/don't want/not ready yet to generate their own renewable energy on-site. It's what Whole Foods, Vail Resorts, Celestial Seasonings and others did prior to their own on-site generation. Even though their on-site energy may come from a fossil fuel source they can (truthfully) claim they use renewable energy. Just not directly.
