in their head goes like this..
*Sean Hannity
" the the left wing, socialist, anti american, freedom hating, anti american, hate filled, anti Trump--- (You can fill in the blank here_________________________)
Their is no alternative to capitalism because they have been taught that if it's not american it is "bad"

That's a really short-sighted viewpoint.


Even if it's not a concrete set of binding legislation, it does set an agenda and does influence the public discourse. Propagating a goal like "end fossil fuels tomorrow" is problematic because the stated goal is clearly unattainable without causing gigantic upheaval and direct costs as well as opportunity costs. Propagating such a goal without discussing practical ways of getting there sets the public discourse on the wrong track and ultimately does a disservice to the justified cause (protecting the climate) behind it all.

Since the country is not a fascist eco-dictatorship, all approaches of protecting the climate must be politically, technologically and economically feasible. Putting unrealistic maximum demands at the center of the debate leads to an unproductive discourse and also increases polarization and partisahship on the issue. "I want everything, and I want it now" is a highly immature attitude. Furthermore, it is highly harmful for the debate to mix the goals of climate protection with the long-standing lefty goal of expanding the role of the government in the economy and the private life of its citizens.




Anyway. While a less carbon-dependent society and economy are desirable, necessary and attainable, a (net-)carbon-free society is a complete pipedream and will not become a reality during our lifetime, or that of our children and grandchildren, no matter what this means for the climate. Deal with it.

the biggest problem with "its just a set of goals" is that's equivalent to "I have the goals of learning to fly this year, dividing by zero, and converting lesbians with just a sexy look". goals that aren't attainable aren't goals, they're silly. it wasn't sold as a set of stuff we could do in 30 years, it was a short term pie in the sky lie to people to frame the right as not willing to try. well im not willing to try dividing by zero or flying, and try as I might ive only converted one lesbian with a sexy look and im pretty sure she was bi.

Problem is it isn't bounded by time and its all things we could enact with the political will (but thats not there).

Issue I have is eith people saying "it would cost XXX tens of trillions and destroy the economy". It wouldnt do anything because its not binding and not detailed so saying "AOC TRIED TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY" the way it was being said earlier is nonsense.

A country with a government run healthcare system.
Typically a hampered market economy.

That doesn't make the country 'socialist' overall.

Lol wat? That's exactly what fff, Greta, XR and most environmentalists are stressing all the time: that time is quickly running up and swift action is needed. One of the core arguments of climate movement is that time is a critical factor and that we dont have another 40 years to take the necessary steps; that they have to be taken NOW, no matter how radical they may be and what kind of upheaval they may cause.




Is there really a meaningful difference between "AOC tries to destroy the economy" and "AOC supports policy goals which, if enacted, would destroy the economy*"?
That's just good old pointed emphasis, a staple of political discussions. Sorry, but imho, you're hiding between semantics here.




*because there is not a single way of reaching these goals which doesnt leave the economy in shambles

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 30 2020 08:48pm

it literally had goals of eliminating things in X years. wat.

AOC wasn't trying to destroy the economy, I get that it wasn't a bill, it was about trying to show the voters the right doesn't want to do anything because they wouldn't sign on to impossible goals. her voters are too dumb to get it was impossible in a notable percent, just as the right has people who think global warming isn't real in a notable percent.

Oh yeah, it has "by 2050", you're right.

However, it's very possible to transition our country to fully renewable power in 30 years.



"it" being the GND. Our environmental issues are bound by time.

Yes, there is a meainingful difference between "AOC tries to destroy the economy" and "AOC wants to implement strong environmental reform that she doesn't think will destroy the economy and is targeted to get done over the course of decades, and will happen eventually no matter what because fossil fuels aren't going to stay economical, and the cost of not doing it will also be significant".

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 30 2020 08:51pm

No, barring an unforseen technological breakthrough, it's not. How do you intend to provide baseload energy supply based on fully renewables?





What she thinks wont destroy the economy is irrelevant. She's a bartender with a BA, she's in no way qualified to assess astronomically complex plans like this.
Even if we looked at the greatest experts on this planet, no single one would be qualified sufficiently across the range of all involved fields to make such a call.


Other than that, it should be obvious that "politician X wants to implement strong Y" is a completely worthless exercise as long as there is no proposal for the "how".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 30 2020 09:10pm

But you are not only arguing against full socialist systems are you?

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 30 2020 09:09pm