Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 12 2020 09:11am)

In reality that's not what's being asked for because green subsidies are already here and higher taxes on gas/diesel are a fairly small detail in the grand scheme of the plans. You want to look at what a realistic ask is in the short term? Look at California's ban on sale of gasoline vehicles by 2035. These are some of the minimal asks in the short-medium term and this is only the start.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 11 2020 10:57pm)

Republicans have added more to the debt than Democrats by a substantial margin. They are criminally negligent with our future.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 12 Oct 2020 15:58)

Not really, because steps taken under the GND would actually be effective.

Quote (thesnipa @ 12 Oct 2020 15:48)

Ahhh yes the entirely unconstitutional requirement for all americans to buy electric cars, cities and states they dont control to buy electric buses, airline companies they dont control to stop offering flights, etc.

fear of the green new deal is about as low information as you can get when it comes to governance. it was just scare tactic bait, you're taking it.

at worst we'd be looking at some kind of increased legislation on emissions limits, probably some kind of tax for certain industries. and an increased clean air and water bill. gasp, the horror.

also Biden is a fairly centrist moderate corporatist. so the idea that he'd enact a massive overreaching package of bills is silly.



u seem lost as well, no laws that would make the goals happen would be constitutional OR pass. it was pandering from the fringe left as bait and the center left allowed it because of how much it made right wingers mad.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 12 2020 10:03am)

That's not a proven fact, that's speculation.

I find it quite amusing how you consider the price tag people calculated for the GND to be pure speculation and dishonest because, in your own words, the GND is just a set of goals and not a set of tangible policy proposals - yet at the same time, you consider it a fact that whichever policies would be implemented under the label "Green New Deal" to achieve those goals would end up being effective. For someone who loves to harp on my supposed blindness to my biases, you're surprisingly blind to your own bias here.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 12 2020 10:03am)

That's not a proven fact, that's speculation.

I find it quite amusing how you consider the price tag people calculated for the GND to be pure speculation and dishonest because, in your own words, the GND is just a set of goals and not a set of tangible policy proposals - yet at the same time, you consider it a fact that whichever policies would be implemented under the label "Green New Deal" to achieve those goals would end up being effective. For someone who loves to harp on my supposed blindness to my biases, you're surprisingly blind to your own bias here.




Several states in the US (and also the EU btw) have already passed legislation which is putting a concrete end date for fossil cars. Strange how that works if such bans are unconstitutional. :rolleyes:

Also keep in mind that Biden might be a fairly center-left corporatist, but a lot of the people riding his coattails are not. Biden and his alleged or real moderation are just the door opener for a Democratic party which has moved sharply to the left on nearly every issue over the past 4-8 years. Biden is just the figurehead they put out in front to make themselves palatable to Rust Belt voters.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 12 Oct 2020 17:08)

Yes, it relies on some assumptions, like that technological investment would yield returns, however this is well substantiated so it's not much of a leap.

It takes far less of a bias or assumption to say "Policies proposed to fight climate change would be somewhat effective" than "the GND would literally cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars".

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 12 2020 10:13am)

Saying "the GND would literally cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars" is stupid anyway. The underlying argument that the GND would come with gigantic costs still holds up, however, if the statement is instead weakened to something more reasonable, like e.g. "the GND would cost us trillions of dollars, most definitely over $10 trillion, potentially much more than that".

Quote (thesnipa @ 12 Oct 2020 17:12)

are you talking about the Cali ban on selling gas powered cars? that's not a ban on owning/operating them, and its likely it wont actually be rolled out in it's pure form. plenty of time for them to back track once they realize it wont stand up to legal challenge. cars dont fit the criteria for banning, and it would be struck down.

yes, it is unconstitutional. no, getting past into law isn't a sign it's constitutional. ALL unconstitutional laws that the SCOTUS strikes down start off as local or state laws, until they're challenged, and struck down, for being unconstitutional. with a sector as large as cars, and as much money as the car lobbies have, it would get to the scotus in record time.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 12 Oct 2020 17:17)

So we can agree on a few things

The wall and the GND aren't comparable because the wall would not be effective for it's stated goal, but specific policies proposed under the banner of "the GND" would.
The GND doesn't have specific costs associated with it, but is in principle a large project that would be expensive to implement.

Now we just need to get to agreement that because we made the choice not to invest ~50 years ago, it requires a greater short term investment now to achieve the same effect.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 12 2020 10:29am)

What's really missing is a large, bipartisan, society-wide agreement and understanding that there is indeed no alternative to hitting the goals outlined in the GND, to eating those huge costs and putting up with the loss of wealth and quality of life that woudl inevitably come with it. I dont see that happening anytime soon. Once people realize the impact "decarbonization" would really have on their own everyday life, there will be a huge backlash against these policies.