Green new deal NOT about climate? Chakrabarti indicates about economy

[tall73]

AOC's chief of staff was quoted by the Washington Post as saying the following:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.d4556ceb9215

What do you think he means?

 

[Sparagmos]

AOC's chief of staff was quoted by the Washington Post as saying the following:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

What do you think he means?

Think of it as a modern, green version of the new deal. It’s about stimulating the economy with infrastructure funding. But a lot of the infrastructure is “green.”

 

[civilwarbuff]

AOC's chief of staff was quoted by the Washington Post as saying the following:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

What do you think he means?

Do you have a link to this discussion?....I would be interested in reading it.....

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Think of it as a modern, green version of the new deal. It’s about stimulating the economy with infrastructure funding. But a lot of the infrastructure is “green.”

If the idea is to stimulate the economy, you want to invest in something that’s economically feasible.

 

[Pommer]

“Coming out of a petroleum based economy doesn’t have to be painful”?

 

[tall73]

Do you have a link to this discussion?....I would be interested in reading it.....

Oops, forgot the link! Sure, here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.d4556ceb9215

 

[iluvatar5150]

If the idea is to stimulate the economy, you want to invest in something that’s economically feasible.

Technically speaking, that’s not necessarily true. Military spending is about the most economically useless thing we spend money on (as in, military hardware and military services do virtually nothing to advance the rest of the economy) and yet, it’s still a net boost to the economy. You can spend money in stupid stuff and still have it boost the economy.

 

[Sparagmos]

If the idea is to stimulate the economy, you want to invest in something that’s economically feasible.

Well if the republicans want to counter AIC’s proposal with something they think is more feasible, we’re all ears! But I don’t know that they are proposing anything at all in regards to infrastructure investments.

 

[Sparagmos]

Technically speaking, that’s not necessarily true. Military spending is about the most economically useless thing we spend money on (as in, military hardware and military services do virtually nothing to advance the rest of the economy) and yet, it’s still a net boost to the economy. You can spend money in stupid stuff and still have it boost the economy.

Good point!

 

[civilwarbuff]

(as in, military hardware and military services do virtually nothing to advance the rest of the economy)

You are very wrong there....ever fly on a passenger jet? Who do you think pushed the development of jet engines? Where do you think night vision equipment was first used?.....High resolution cameras, drones that are now used commercially?.....the list goes on and on. Are there more efficient ways than depending on military development? Sure, but the needs of the military certainly drive and push industry to develop things that become commercially useful years later.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You are very wrong there....ever fly on a passenger jet? Who do you think pushed the development of jet engines? Where do you think night vision equipment was first used?.....High resolution cameras, drones that are now used commercially?.....the list goes on and on. Are there more efficient ways than depending on military development? Sure, but the needs of the military certainly drive and push industry to develop things that become commercially useful years later.

Fair. I was exaggerating a bit. The R&D can be helpful but the actual hardware - things like tanks, missiles, aircraft, aircraft carriers - does nothing.

And before anybody points out the contradiction between this and my other statements that the security provided by the military has value - it does have value, but we could get that same value with a lot less than what we have. The marginal value of, say, the 11th carrier battle group is almost zero.

 

[civilwarbuff]

These guys still have not figured one basic thing out: Just because they want something doesn't mean everyone is going to line up in support. Try to sell putting a wind or solar 'farm' next to some nice subdivision or any place where it is in sight of people and see what kind of response you will get from them: NIMBY

 

[Albion]

It isn't about saving the planet. And it isn't even about stimulating the economy. It is completely about giving power over all of society to the bureaucrats who can make almost every dictate relating to our daily lives seem related to climate.

 

[rambot]

It isn't about saving the planet. And it isn't even about stimulating the economy. It is completely about giving power over all of society to the bureaucrats who can make almost every dictate relating to our daily lives seem related to climate.

You wouldn't lose power to make choices. Some options are just going to look much better than others and some may be gone completely...

 

[Albion]

You wouldn't lose power to make choices.

What makes you think so? That's underway even as we speak.

 

[Acts2:38]

I was exaggerating a bit. The R&D can be helpful but the actual hardware - things like tanks, missiles, aircraft, aircraft carriers - does nothing.

It keeps us ahead of our enemies. Keeps them in check. Keeps you safer from attack. I'd say its very useful.

 

[Speedwell]

It isn't about saving the planet. And it isn't even about stimulating the economy. It is completely about giving power over all of society to the bureaucrats who can make almost every dictate relating to our daily lives seem related to climate.

Why is that worse than having corporate CEOs do it?

 

[Albion]

Why is that worse than having corporate CEOs do it?

Because you can defy corporate CEOs. Also because there are competing CEOs and different corporations. That's not the case when power is ceded to Washington.

 

[Speedwell]

Because you can defy corporate CEOs. Also because there are competing CEOs and different corporations. That's not the case when power is ceded to Washington.

I sure wish I lived on the same planet a you. I might even be a conservative there.

 

[Sparagmos]

These guys still have not figured one basic thing out: Just because they want something doesn't mean everyone is going to line up in support. Try to sell putting a wind or solar 'farm' next to some nice subdivision or any place where it is in sight of people and see what kind of response you will get from them: NIMBY

That doesn’t stop the fossil fuel industry with its unattractive infrastructure and environmental hazards. I don’t think people in my state will mind wind and solar farms at all.