Options

Climate Change or: Is it hot in here? And cold? And on fire? And Underwater?!

1246

Posts

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I think the idea that Feinstein's carbon tax whatever bill is passable now is pretty 2008 thinking

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    For reference, the only official document I'm aware of on the Green New Deal proposal can be found here.
    The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:
    • Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;
    • building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;
    • upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;
    • eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;
    • eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;
    • funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;
    • making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think what bill we push depends on what our immediate goal is. Do we want something we can symbolically endorse, understanding that it won't pass congress for at least two years, if then, but which can shift the conversation on climate change? Then the GND is a decent bill.

    Do we want something we actually want to get passed and signed now? Then we can assemble something exceptionally modest that we can use as a first step towards more useful solutions.

    Now, I don't mind the first option. That's legit. And the second option is defensible, and that's what it seems like Feinstein is pushing.

    But the GND is a nonstarter, and acting like we can pull enough votes to even get it through the Senate much less override the inevitable veto is patently ridiculous. Neither the GND, nor anything resembling it, is getting past both congress and Trump, and pretending that it can happen is just wishful thinking.

    Feinstein was kind of dismissive, and the optics of talking down to a bunch of kids are shitty, but the substance of what she was saying - that there's no way the GND is a viable bill to get passed in this political environment - is hard to argue with.

    I am not convinced this is a reasonable position when you are under a literal ticking clock. Very Serious People think GND is too ambitious but I think a 10% chance of avoiding Armageddon is better than a 0% chance.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    Carbon neutrality before 2050 will require major technological breakthroughs and massive use of nuclear power, like, we break ground on a 100 new plants next year and some invents solar panels which are 5x better than the amazing ones we already invented. The green new deal opposes nuclear power, so it’s actualy worse than pelosis plan.

    The GND doesn't mention nuclear power at all; there are only 2 nuclear plants in the US that have undergone construction in recent years and they've been expensive boondoggles.

    I'm not aware Pelosi having released a plan, though has expressed support for Cap & Trade which is barely a first step.
    The U.S. House will take up climate legislation, including a measure based on a bill the body approved last time Democrats were in the majority, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    “We couldn’t pass in the Senate our climate bill, and we’ll be returning to that,” Pelosi said on Friday at a Trinity Washington University event for MSNBC’s “The Speaker” town hall broadcast.

    While Pelosi didn’t elaborate, the measure that fits this description is the 2009 cap-and-trade legislation that narrowly passed by the House but died in the Senate, and would have imposed the nation’s first limits on greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming.

    It also would have created a market for trading pollution permits to curb emissions, with the goal of reducing global warming greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. It was panned at the time by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as an unrealistic approach that would harm the economy and kill jobs.

    In her remarks on Friday, Pelosi didn’t specify the approach the House would take this time around, and her office didn’t immediately respond to a request for more information -- including whether she intended to resurrect the cap-and-trade provision.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/pelosi-says-house-to-revisit-climate-plan-based-on-2009-bill-jqiapimq

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    "If we maintain the status quo and military force projection representing more spending than the next 8-highest spending countries combined, we can't do much very quickly" is not the compelling argument you think it is.

    That some conservative voters also recognize the crisis doesn't mean that we've had decades of bipartisan agreement on kicking the can down the road until we're irreversably fucked.

    My position is that carbon neutrality by 2050 is a reasonable goal and that Democrats/the left should try for good faith compromise with Republicans/the right in order to get good legislation passed that will mitigate the harm caused by climate change. My position is that a carbon tax + massive investment in renewables, storage, nuclear, and CCS is the way to do it and that as long as people agree on the outcome then reasonable people can disagree on the path forward.

    I don't think going and using kids as a prop to yell at a senator over their symbolic vote on a mostly meaningless resolution is a reasonable way to have that discussion on the path forward.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    "If we maintain the status quo and military force projection representing more spending than the next 8-highest spending countries combined, we can't do much very quickly" is not the compelling argument you think it is.

    That some conservative voters also recognize the crisis doesn't mean that we've had decades of bipartisan agreement on kicking the can down the road until we're irreversably fucked.

    My position is that carbon neutrality by 2050 is a reasonable goal and that Democrats/the left should try for good faith compromise with Republicans/the right in order to get good legislation passed that will mitigate the harm caused by climate change. My position is that a carbon tax + massive investment in renewables, storage, nuclear, and CCS is the way to do it and that as long as people agree on the outcome then reasonable people can disagree on the path forward.

    I don't think going and using kids as a prop to yell at a senator over their symbolic vote on a mostly meaningless resolution is a reasonable way to have that discussion on the path forward.

    I'm sure they won't pull the ball this time.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    "If we maintain the status quo and military force projection representing more spending than the next 8-highest spending countries combined, we can't do much very quickly" is not the compelling argument you think it is.

    That some conservative voters also recognize the crisis doesn't mean that we've had decades of bipartisan agreement on kicking the can down the road until we're irreversably fucked.

    My position is that carbon neutrality by 2050 is a reasonable goal and that Democrats/the left should try for good faith compromise with Republicans/the right in order to get good legislation passed that will mitigate the harm caused by climate change. My position is that a carbon tax + massive investment in renewables, storage, nuclear, and CCS is the way to do it and that as long as people agree on the outcome then reasonable people can disagree on the path forward.

    I don't think going and using kids as a prop to yell at a senator over their symbolic vote on a mostly meaningless resolution is a reasonable way to have that discussion on the path forward.

    I'm sure they won't pull the ball this time.

    Get back to me when McConnel isn't involved at all, maybe.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    There's a difference between trying to find compromise in good faith and excluding them from the get go.

  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    It’s no good if *some* Republican voters are OK with some minor environmental controls that don’t cost them anything, but don’t vote on green issues so their representatives don’t care.

    Republican voters: Don’t care, or care very casually.
    Republican donors: REALLY, REALLY care about green issues (in a negative way.)

    Result: Republican politicians are against environmental controls.

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited February 2019
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think what bill we push depends on what our immediate goal is. Do we want something we can symbolically endorse, understanding that it won't pass congress for at least two years, if then, but which can shift the conversation on climate change? Then the GND is a decent bill.

    Do we want something we actually want to get passed and signed now? Then we can assemble something exceptionally modest that we can use as a first step towards more useful solutions.

    Now, I don't mind the first option. That's legit. And the second option is defensible, and that's what it seems like Feinstein is pushing.

    But the GND is a nonstarter, and acting like we can pull enough votes to even get it through the Senate much less override the inevitable veto is patently ridiculous. Neither the GND, nor anything resembling it, is getting past both congress and Trump, and pretending that it can happen is just wishful thinking.

    Feinstein was kind of dismissive, and the optics of talking down to a bunch of kids are shitty, but the substance of what she was saying - that there's no way the GND is a viable bill to get passed in this political environment - is hard to argue with.

    I am not convinced this is a reasonable position when you are under a literal ticking clock. Very Serious People think GND is too ambitious but I think a 10% chance of avoiding Armageddon is better than a 0% chance.

    There's not a 10% chance of getting something akin to the GND through congress now, though. There is a 0% chance.

    Hyping the GND and symbolically voting it through the House is possible (though even that isn't a given), in much the way the GOP House kept voting through Obamacare repeals that would never actually become law. But we need to understand that absolutely will not become a law until at least 2020.

    I'm not saying something like that isn't a great idea, or even unnecessary. I'm saying that even if we concede that anything short of the GND being passed by next week is insufficient to save the world from climate change, that doesn't mean we're going to be able to get it passed.

    If any hope of saving the world means passing the GND right now, that just means the world is fucked. So hopefully it can wait a couple years.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    It’s no good if *some* Republican voters are OK with some minor environmental controls that don’t cost them anything, but don’t vote on green issues so their representatives don’t care.

    Republican voters: Don’t care, or care very casually.
    Republican donors: REALLY, REALLY care about green issues (in a negative way.)

    Result: Republican politicians are against environmental controls.

    I think a lot of this boils down to how politics works and how human nature works. Climate science is extremely complex. There are some simple aspects like the greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas etc. but the real scary stuff involves climate models, measurement issues, feedback loops etc. which are well beyond the average persons ability to understand. This means for the vast majority of the electorate it comes down to trust and distrust. The vast majority of non elite climate change denialists simply don't trust the messenger because the messengers are part of a distrusted outgroup. This is why the Bill McKibben et al. approach has failed. Division will not solve the problem. At best, winning in 2020 and declaring a national emergency will have a minor impact and could very well lead to a reversal in 2024. What we really need is the kind of consensus that can have a major impact--green new deal times 100. This is a WW2 or a great depression kind of consensus and it will require a radical shift in the current political environment.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think what bill we push depends on what our immediate goal is. Do we want something we can symbolically endorse, understanding that it won't pass congress for at least two years, if then, but which can shift the conversation on climate change? Then the GND is a decent bill.

    Do we want something we actually want to get passed and signed now? Then we can assemble something exceptionally modest that we can use as a first step towards more useful solutions.

    Now, I don't mind the first option. That's legit. And the second option is defensible, and that's what it seems like Feinstein is pushing.

    But the GND is a nonstarter, and acting like we can pull enough votes to even get it through the Senate much less override the inevitable veto is patently ridiculous. Neither the GND, nor anything resembling it, is getting past both congress and Trump, and pretending that it can happen is just wishful thinking.

    Feinstein was kind of dismissive, and the optics of talking down to a bunch of kids are shitty, but the substance of what she was saying - that there's no way the GND is a viable bill to get passed in this political environment - is hard to argue with.

    I am not convinced this is a reasonable position when you are under a literal ticking clock. Very Serious People think GND is too ambitious but I think a 10% chance of avoiding Armageddon is better than a 0% chance.

    There's not a 10% chance of getting something akin to the GND through congress now, though. There is a 0% chance.

    Hyping the GND and symbolically voting it through the House is possible (though even that isn't a given), in much the way the GOP House kept voting through Obamacare repeals that would never actually become law. But we need to understand that absolutely will not become a law until at least 2020.

    I'm not saying something like that isn't a great idea, or even unnecessary. I'm saying that even if we concede that anything short of the GND being passed by next week is insufficient to save the world from climate change, that doesn't mean we're going to be able to get it passed.

    If any hope of saving the world means passing the GND right now, that just means the world is fucked. So hopefully it can wait a couple years.

    And those constant repeal attempts got their base fired up and got them the House then the Senate. So.

    The chance of the GND or Pelosi's theoretical deal passing is about the same. So might as well go with the one that's a better PR move.

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    I'm totally fine with that.

    Though I am curious to see what Pelosi might come up with.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    I think the best proposals are gonna need some combination of $40+ carbon taxes (fuck even $100 would be great) to be effective.

  • Options
    ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    I think the best proposals are gonna need some combination of $40+ carbon taxes (fuck even $100 would be great) to be effective.

    Is that per atom, or...?

  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    There's a difference between trying to find compromise in good faith and excluding them from the get go.

    I mean, ok.

    So what's the plan to get McConnel to hold a vote on these much more 'serious' proposals

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Clipse wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    I think the best proposals are gonna need some combination of $40+ carbon taxes (fuck even $100 would be great) to be effective.

    Is that per atom, or...?

    Per metric ton. Usual standard is to divide by 100 to get the per gallon tax on say gasoline.
    KetBra wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    There's a difference between trying to find compromise in good faith and excluding them from the get go.

    I mean, ok.

    So what's the plan to get McConnel to hold a vote on these much more 'serious' proposals

    I've seen more Republicans like the idea of carbon taxes as the idea of hard regulations become more plausible. Luckily most forecasts have carbon taxes as doing the most work in combating emissions.

    Dunno what would work to get enough Republicans on board in 2020 to pass it. Maybe using revenues from the tax to offset the negative effects in coal country as one possibility.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    If your plan is to get work with Republicans to get a carbon tax scheme you haven't actually saved anyone. Its not nearly enough.

    This isn't an issue for minor technocratic tweaks.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    If your plan is to get work with Republicans to get a carbon tax scheme you haven't actually saved anyone. Its not nearly enough.

    This isn't an issue for minor technocratic tweaks.

    Most forecasts have a $50/ton carbon tax as having the US exceed it's 2025 Paris climate marks.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    If your plan is to get work with Republicans to get a carbon tax scheme you haven't actually saved anyone. Its not nearly enough.

    This isn't an issue for minor technocratic tweaks.

    Most forecasts have a $50/ton carbon tax as having the US exceed it's 2025 Paris climate marks.

    The Paris Agreement wasn't enough, so I'm not sure why holding to it is the goal.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    If your plan is to get work with Republicans to get a carbon tax scheme you haven't actually saved anyone. Its not nearly enough.

    This isn't an issue for minor technocratic tweaks.

    Most forecasts have a $50/ton carbon tax as having the US exceed it's 2025 Paris climate marks.

    And while meeting Paris is still kinda crappy for the earth, it's a likely tolerable level of crappy from which we will recover in like 50 years.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    We're at the point that we'd need the equivalent of the Race to the Moon to make a sizable dent in climate change, and we'd have to be willing to share any technologies we develop globally or anything the US does won't matter anyway. In the near future countries like India or China will have a much greater global impact.

    I don't think given either our capitalistic society nor our political climate will remotely let us lead the effort as needed. Leaving me to feel entirely unsure what can be done to address the issue.

  • Options
    JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    You might get a carbon tax past the Dems and the GOP but it won't be this one.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Which is the whole idea of having a carbon tax effectively become revenue neutral by using it to offset negative labor market effects and the like.
    Oghulk wrote: »
    If your plan is to get work with Republicans to get a carbon tax scheme you haven't actually saved anyone. Its not nearly enough.

    This isn't an issue for minor technocratic tweaks.

    Most forecasts have a $50/ton carbon tax as having the US exceed it's 2025 Paris climate marks.

    The Paris Agreement wasn't enough, so I'm not sure why holding to it is the goal.

    It's a start, and most proposals have carbon taxes increasing in real price as years pass, basically for this reason.

    If y'all want I recommend playing around on this site with the different policy possibilities. https://us.energypolicy.solutions

    The one thing that's probably noticeable is how effective the carbon tax because of it's multiplying effect and it's placement upstream of nearly all production.

  • Options
    JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Which is the whole idea of having a carbon tax effectively become revenue neutral by using it to offset negative labor market effects and the like.

    Sure, but it will still up end the lives of a lot of people. Its taking decades for the rust belt to sort itself out economically for example.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Which is the whole idea of having a carbon tax effectively become revenue neutral by using it to offset negative labor market effects and the like.

    Sure, but it will still up end the lives of a lot of people. Its taking decades for the rust belt to sort itself out economically for example.

    Right, but how does this different from any regulations and investment effects of a GND without the revenue for redistribution?

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    You say "its a start" but we're looking at like 12 years before irreversible harm occurs. Arguments for incrementalism don't work when Feinstein and Co spent 30 years getting nothing done on this.

    We don't have any choice now but to push for drastic and immediate action and its unlikely we'll success there either.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Considering they're talking about an ice shelf twice the size of NYC breaking off Antarctica in the near future, I'm not exactly sure that a "carbon tax" is actually enough to keep us from a climate that will begin to actively kill off life

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Which is the whole idea of having a carbon tax effectively become revenue neutral by using it to offset negative labor market effects and the like.

    Sure, but it will still up end the lives of a lot of people. Its taking decades for the rust belt to sort itself out economically for example.

    Right, but how does this different from any regulations and investment effects of a GND without the revenue for redistribution?

    We have to do both really. The first New Deal was funded by a revamp of income taxation that shifted the burden to higher incomes.

    I do wonder if the effort needed is more on the scale of "mobilization for World War 2" than "New Deal."

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Which is the whole idea of having a carbon tax effectively become revenue neutral by using it to offset negative labor market effects and the like.

    Sure, but it will still up end the lives of a lot of people. Its taking decades for the rust belt to sort itself out economically for example.

    Right, but how does this different from any regulations and investment effects of a GND without the revenue for redistribution?

    We have to do both really. The first New Deal was funded by a revamp of income taxation that shifted the burden to higher incomes.

    I do wonder if the effort needed is more on the scale of "mobilization for World War 2" than "New Deal."

    I mean that's what I'm saying is probably needed. I don't think stopping at carbon taxes is the way to go.

  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    A carbon tax is light wording for what should be a tax heavy enough to force our society to completely reengineer itself over a decade. I think that just levying such a tax without concrete government action on the scale of the new deal will cause massive backlash from the economic upheaval it will cause.

    Which is the whole idea of having a carbon tax effectively become revenue neutral by using it to offset negative labor market effects and the like.

    Sure, but it will still up end the lives of a lot of people. Its taking decades for the rust belt to sort itself out economically for example.

    Right, but how does this different from any regulations and investment effects of a GND without the revenue for redistribution?

    We have to do both really. The first New Deal was funded by a revamp of income taxation that shifted the burden to higher incomes.

    I do wonder if the effort needed is more on the scale of "mobilization for World War 2" than "New Deal."

    Yeah that's not gonna happen. The very opposite just happened a year ago.

  • Options
    JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    We need an idea to rally a super majority of the country behind. If no such idea exists, then we just remain in limbo.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Options
    38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    We need an idea to rally a super majority of the country behind. If no such idea exists, then we just remain in limbo.

    We have the people but we don’t have the donors.


    https://e360.yale.edu/digest/americans-who-accept-climate-change-outnumber-those-who-dont-5-to-1

    38thDoE on steam
    🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀
    
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    38thDoe wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    We need an idea to rally a super majority of the country behind. If no such idea exists, then we just remain in limbo.

    We have the people but we don’t have the donors.


    https://e360.yale.edu/digest/americans-who-accept-climate-change-outnumber-those-who-dont-5-to-1

    There's a difference also between accepting climate change as a scientific fact and accepting the economic consequences of it

    Carbon taxes are nice because there's evidence that price elasticities put more of the burden on producers than consumers

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    You say "its a start" but we're looking at like 12 years before irreversible harm occurs. Arguments for incrementalism don't work when Feinstein and Co spent 30 years getting nothing done on this.

    We don't have any choice now but to push for drastic and immediate action and its unlikely we'll success there either.

    Any plan we come up with for implementation right now has two components: the "what are we going to do" part and the "how are we going to sell this politically" part.

    Anything that McConnell will refuse to bring to a vote is a nonstarter. And he will not bring anything to a vote unless a majority of the Senate Republicans support it, and Trump agrees in advance to sign it.

    So the question, if we want something passed now, is how do we get enough republican voters to clamor for climate change legislation that those two criteria are met?

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    You say "its a start" but we're looking at like 12 years before irreversible harm occurs. Arguments for incrementalism don't work when Feinstein and Co spent 30 years getting nothing done on this.

    We don't have any choice now but to push for drastic and immediate action and its unlikely we'll success there either.

    Any plan we come up with for implementation right now has two components: the "what are we going to do" part and the "how are we going to sell this politically" part.

    Anything that McConnell will refuse to bring to a vote is a nonstarter. And he will not bring anything to a vote unless a majority of the Senate Republicans support it, and Trump agrees in advance to sign it.

    So the question, if we want something passed now, is how do we get enough republican voters to clamor for climate change legislation that those two criteria are met?

    I don't think its a stretch to say no climate change legislation will pass through this Congress. We're just going to have to eat the next two years at the federal level. So the next question is "what will be more likely to get people to turn out for Democrats", and I think going big with the GND is the obvious answer as this centrist incrementalist message hasn't exactly been a winner.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    The GND is polling really well so far, so that's promising. 80% support is kind of unreal.

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-majorities-of-both-parties-support-green-new-deal

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    NEO|PhyteNEO|Phyte They follow the stars, bound together. Strands in a braid till the end.Registered User regular
    Those do seem like some nutty numbers, did the poll not specify which side came up with the deal?

    It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
    Warframe/Steam: NFyt
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    Yeah, they deliberately withheld whose plan it was. It would obviously have less republican support if they knew it came from dirty liberals, but those are still good numbers to work with.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This discussion has been closed.