- Carbon taxes and carbon capture incentives
- Nuclear power
That's not what it looks like, though.
They who?
> they wouldn't pass highly controversial legislation with all sorts of policies with zero bipartisan support
The lack of bipartisan support has nothing to do with the emergency, aforementioned. The issue is that the US consumer doesn't believe it's an emergency. That's the THEY everyone addresses, even if someone believes their "they" means someone else.
Once the US consumer (70% or so) is afraid of something, political clout follows. See the slow adoption of Marijuana Decriminalization and Bike Helmet Law adoption across states.
The Green New Deal literally has a stipulation within that guarantees "economic security to those unable or unwilling to work." If you thought climate change was an emergency, would you slip in a stipulation like this?
In regards to carbon taxes, there are many Republicans who are fully on board with this. Mitigating negative third party externalities is a role for the state, even within libertarian think tanks.
Point me to that phrase in the text of the bill? Not to campaign slogans or Fox news hit pieces or whatever.
The gap between "libertarian think tank" and Republican electorate is larger than it has been the last 60 years. There are many people in the world, so I don't doubt that there are "many" Republicans fully on board.
Any significant chunk of the electorate though? No, polling doesn't indicate that.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio...
I've included highlights of the sort below.
> providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
> (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
> (F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
> (G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
> (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
> (I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
> (J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
> (M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
> E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);
> (3) to counteract systemic injustices...
> (B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
> (C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;
Is this the sort of legislation that you are going to try to get through Congress in an emergency? Not to mention the things directly related to climate, are carried out via overnight bans on certain technologies, and a commitment to rebuild 100% of all buildings in the United States to meet new compliance standards.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26679988
Don't you understand? The savings glut is actively causing unemployment. Investments of any kind will bring unemployment down, but people have this weird misconception that green investments will increase unemployment because of lack of competitiveness or whatever weird pet theory they come up. The entire reasoning behind any government investment program is to bring down unemployment. The fact that this lines up with the ability to fight climate change is absolutely fantastic but Trump and other republicans create the exact opposite perception and I honestly don't understand why. There is no logical or economic reason for that stance. It's purely perception/tribal thinking driven. There is no money to be earned by denying climate change. It's just reducing the number of options available.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-co...
The exact text within the final resolution is: "providing all people of the United States with economic security"
That...makes no sense. If you think its an emergency, and a faction which includes all of the members in office in the opposing political party thinks it is not an emergency, pretty much any policy aimed at dealing with the emergency is going to be both “controversial” and “have zero bipartisan support”.
But the Green New Deal isn’t intended to address one such controversial emergency, but two current ones (plus a third, less controversial, one):
(1) A climate emergency (hence, the “Green”),
(2) An economic emergency not in aggregate output but distribution (hence, the “New Deal”),
and:
(3) The potential economic emergency, both aggregate and distributional, that would be produced by a narrow, naive approach to the first emergency.
So, yes, it has lots in it that isn’t germane to the first emergency, especially viewed narrowly.
This was the prologue so you understand that the US government absolutely must invest. So, what is the US government going to invest the money into? The goal is to produce a reasonable return (1% above inflation). The first obvious choice is education because it ensures that the USA will have a highly qualified workforce in the future. USA is the tech center of the world so anything that strengthens it will ensure a bright future for the US. The second obvious investment choice are green investments. It really doesn't matter what you invest here because fighting climate change is like defending your nation against a foreign army. If the nation is destroyed, there are no returns to be had. If nuclear power is effective then that's how it is but renewables look like a much faster way to deploy the savings. One should question why these obvious investments aren't being made if there is a savings glut. It's because they aren't considered investments. Fossil fuels are still too competitive even though it is obvious that they will fade away over the next 20 years.
Of course you can also do generic infrastructure investments. They'll probably net a reasonable return as well. I feel like stimulus checks do help with unemployment because they boost consumption but they aren't sustainable in the long term. It's possible that the savings glut goes away and then the debt becomes unsustainable, which is why the money should be deployed with an intention to net a return.
My thoughts exactly, and given the horrid post covid economy (specifically for younger millennials and Gen Z) and the need for a mass upgrade to the US' infrastructure this makes the most sense as it could solve both problems instead of giving trillions to bail out mega corps.
Honestly, I cannot fathom the notion where people see th massive amount of homelessness in the US, but specifically in the Bay Area, and think this model was sustainable or even desirable. At least this could put many people who have been displaced from the work force into a skills training program and a trade that could alleviate some of the needless amount of Human misery that has been normalized.
In the spirit of "never let a good crisis go to waste," one might argue that emergencies are typically EXACTLY when politicians are most likely to pass highly controversial and unilateral legislation.