Ah yes, carbon taxes and nuclear power - very uncontroversial and bipartisan
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"