Green new deal NOT about climate? Chakrabarti indicates about economy

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
Washington works for we the people. We have a voice there. We have no ability to vote out or “defy” corporations. Boycotts have never been effective this way. Look at Amazon - the only entity that has the power to reign them in is our elected government officials.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,772
17,074
✟1,389,243.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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 it that every time you enter a conversation, you pretend to know the motives of the other side?
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,772
17,074
✟1,389,243.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?

On that excerpt alone, I think he is referring to a US economy that is no longer carbon based...

After reading the article, I note context of his remarks:

Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), was there to meet Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is running for president almost exclusively on a platform of combating global warming.

....and Rickett's response to quote you cited:

“Yeah,” said Ricketts. Then he said: “No.” Then he said: “I think it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.”

The article itself is a profile of AOC's chief of staff..
 
Upvote 0

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
OF COURSE this is about the economy. Everyone thinks that climate change is going to do all these horrible things, but the most startling thing is that it will likely collapse our economy. If we DON'T deal with climate change our economic system WILL collapse.

Millions of refugees of sea level rise will move inland and stress the infrastructure in places that cannot handle a massive influx of people. The associated industries and corporations in those affected cities that are being flooded will put a further strain on our economy.

Multiyear droughts in the West will collapse our agricultural system (we get so much of our food from the Central Valley right now and it is water constrained to begin with).

Agricultural zones are already moving northward (have been for years now) meaning our agricultural infrastructure in the rest of the country will be negatively impacted. How long before we are dependent on Canada for stuff we grow ourselves?

Then if the Gulf Stream shuts down or reorganizes it will crash the climate of Western Europe cratering their economies and destroying one of our largest trading partners.

So, yeah, it's an ECONOMIC plan.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
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

This is a real problem. People are A-OK with these initiatives until it impacts their home value. BUT, that being said, there isn't really an option. We could scale nuclear which is about the greenest scalable energy system we have but that's not attractive. Or we can scale green which is more palatable to a lot of folks, but can result in some different forms of nimby-ism.

But, again, there literally is NO ALTERNATIVE. We have to get off carbon as a fuel source and we have to do it ASAP.

The longer we waste time trying to explain simple science to people who have a vested interest in their own ignorance the more draconian the change requirements will become. This is a one-way trip and we are running headlong down the path.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The scientists (the ones allowed to speak) and academicians predicted that all of that would already have happened thanks to the same factors. And then they predicted it again and it didn't happen. And then they predicted it with even more gravity in their voices, and it didn't happen. The ”boy who cried wolf” was at least right about there BEING a wolf.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,165.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The scientists (the ones allowed to speak) and academicians predicted that all of that would already have happened thanks to the same factors. And then they predicted it again and it didn't happen. And then they predicted it with even more gravity in their voices, and it didn't happen. The ”boy who cried wolf” was at least right about there BEING a wolf.
Except that reality is demonstrating climate science to be broadly correct. Anthropogenic climate change is happening. Indeed the predictions from climate science are proving to be horribly optimistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carlv_52
Upvote 0

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
The scientists (the ones allowed to speak) and academicians predicted that all of that would already have happened thanks to the same factors. And then they predicted it again and it didn't happen. And then they predicted it with even more gravity in their voices, and it didn't happen. The ”boy who cried wolf” was at least right about there BEING a wolf.

But yet we DO see the actual physical effects happening. Maybe not at the rate that was originally hypothesized, but they ARE happening. We are seeing increases in catastrophic storms, we ARE seeing agricultural zones moving northward. We ARE seeing more wildfires in the West (and we ARE paying for them as we speak). We ARE seeing more flooding in Miami and on the coasts.

And we KNOW EXACTLY what is behind it and how it plays out.

If it helps you feel comfortable to think that predictions made at the birth of a science haven't happened at the exact rate initially predicted, fine. Take comfort. But do realize that the physical science is working exactly as expected. This is pretty well-settled science.

Or do you take the occasional wrong stock forecast for a company as an indicator that money isn't real?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
The scientists (the ones allowed to speak)

Oh, yeah, as for the "ones allowed to speak"...well, there are indeed a tiny minority who are skeptical of the science. We should always listen to them...and indeed, if you read what the actual scientists say you'll see the back-and-forth. YOU TOO can see the conversation between Michael Mann and the critics of the Hockey Stick (like McIntyre and McKitrick) and YOU TOO can figure out if you agree with M&M's treatment of principal component analysis. How do YOU do your PCA? Do you drop PC's? Which convention do YOU use? (Also note, again, if you are familiar with this topic, that M&M did make a valid criticism which was actually accepted by Mann, but strangely enough it didn't change the entire conclusion of Mann.)

The reality of the situation on the ground is far more subtle than simply "ignoring" or "not allowing to speak". But it DOES require an actual understanding of the technical details of the topic before one can willy-nilly decide to ignore 97% of scientists and go with the 3%.
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Read up the President's infrastructure plan.

But, again, there literally is NO ALTERNATIVE. We have to get off carbon as a fuel source and we have to do it ASAP.

We can't. Not any time soon. The economy is going to be dependent on fossil fuels as its main energy source for at least another thirty years. The issue with the Green New Deal is not about whether it should be implemented. It cannot be implemented. Wind and solar can only serve as supplemental sources of power. Economically, they can't meet the bulk of the demand for energy, and all the subsidies in the world won't change that.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But yet we DO see the actual physical effects happening. Maybe not at the rate that was originally hypothesized, but they ARE happening.
Still, you must admit that the dire prophesies have been consistently wrong, so what makes the current furor any more credible? Especially when most of the pollution comes from countries that have no intention of harming their industrial growth by instituting similar restrictions. Also there are examples of the trends going in the opposite direction, so we know for a fact that the picture is not as was presented to us.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Oh, yeah, as for the "ones allowed to speak"...well, there are indeed a tiny minority who are skeptical of the science.
that's what you are expected to say, I know, but there are a lot more than that.

And if they were only a "tiny" minority, there would not be the extreme measures taken to keep them quiet.
 
Upvote 0

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
We can't. Not any time soon. The economy is going to be dependent on fossil fuels as its main energy source for at least another thirty years.

Well, then I guess we think those 30 years will be worth our entire civilization. Got it.

The issue with the Green New Deal is not about whether it should be implemented. It cannot be implemented.

In industry we have things called "stretch goals". If anything they alert us to a need and start our efforts. Remember, we as a nation essentially invented nuclear power and an entire class of megaweapons in a couple of short years. We put a man on the moon. We have within our grasp real tools to address the situation. Unless we simply are too lazy now.

Wind and solar can only serve as supplemental sources of power. Economically, they can't meet the bulk of the demand for energy, and all the subsidies in the world won't change that.

We can scale nuclear. That's our best short-term bet.

Oh yeah, and the longer we debate if we should put the brakes on to avoid a crash, the harder we'll have to hit those brakes. Maybe, just maybe we'll have to give up some of our energy-wasteful ways.

The decision is being made for us by physics and chemistry. The best we can do is to understand the science and make the best possible decision. Debating whether physics and chemistry are real with people who want to remain ignorant of the topics isn't going to make them any less real.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Still, you must admit that the dire prophesies have been consistently wrong, so what makes the current furor any more credible?

Oh, I see the problem. For some of us we understand that the REAL dire information is the basic stuff. The fear-inducing stuff about worst-case scenarios is usually just that. Some of us have read a lot about the proposed scenarios. And some of us understand the nature of "probability" and "prediction" so the fact that something some politico put in a documentary doesn't scare us as much as what the underlying science is saying.

If I were put on blinders and jump in my car and just drive forward at top speed into downtown there's a likelihood that I WILL hit someone and WILL DO SOME DAMAGE. It might be very quickly or I might be able to drive a few blocks. But it WILL NOT wind up good.

So do I drive blindly into downtown?

Especially when most of the pollution comes from countries that have no intention of harming their industrial growth by instituting similar restrictions

I don't base my ethics on "what is the worst that someone else is doing and I will do exactly that and no more". Also, these countries may be responsible for a lot of the stuff now...but WE are responsible for the biggest part of it that has accumulated in the atmosphere. It's kinda our mess.

. Also there are examples of the trends going in the opposite direction, so we know for a fact that the picture is not as was presented to us.

I know of none of those. Make sure you aren't dealing with anecdotal or localized data.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Well, then I guess we think those 30 years will be worth our entire civilization. Got it.



In industry we have things called "stretch goals". If anything they alert us to a need and start our efforts. Remember, we as a nation essentially invented nuclear power and an entire class of megaweapons in a couple of short years. We put a man on the moon. We have within our grasp real tools to address the situation. Unless we simply are too lazy now.



We can scale nuclear. That's our best short-term bet.

Oh yeah, and the longer we debate if we should put the brakes on to avoid a crash, the harder we'll have to hit those brakes. Maybe, just maybe we'll have to give up some of our energy-wasteful ways.

The decision is being made for us by physics and chemistry. The best we can do is to understand the science and make the best possible decision. Debating whether physics and chemistry are real with people who want to remain ignorant of the topics isn't going to make them any less real.
But it isn't real. It's an atheistic socialist plot to...er... hmm. Help me out here, Albion.
 
Upvote 0

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
that's what you are expected to say, I know, but there are a lot more than that.

Not really. I mean I've worked around a lot of scientists for a long time, a lot of earth scientists, and I don't hear many who are skeptics.

And if they were only a "tiny" minority, there would not be the extreme measures taken to keep them quiet.

There aren't really 'extreme' measures.

But I note that you didn't address the point I made: the disagreements are usually quite technical in nature. So if YOU want to side with a smaller group of experts over a larger group of experts, exactly what reasoning do you have TECHNICALLY to do so?

The example I gave of the Mann Hockey Stick and the McKitrick and McIntyre critique is a good one. How do YOU do your principal component analyses? You see, in order to come down on M&M's side against the hockey stick...you have to understand principal component analysis and that treatment of the data.

Personally I don't understand PCA sufficiently to go with the view that doesn't comport with what the vast majority of experts think.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Debating whether physics and chemistry are real with people who want to remain ignorant of the topics isn't going to make them any less real.
Nobody is arguing that physics and chemistry are not real.

And skeptics of the Chicken Little stories certainly are not ignorant. These are the ones who are willing to look at ALL the evidence and reach a conclusion after that.

However, many of the true believers who are caught up in the climate change, end-times, saga of the passing of the late great planet Earth are strictly unwilling to hear of any possible chinks in their storylines, let alone give them any consideration.

I call that unfortunate at the least, given that a lot of mistakes have been made and are being made in the name of stopping climate change.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

carlv_52

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2019
487
458
56
Washington
✟17,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nobody is arguing that physics and chemistry are not real.

And skeptics of the Chicken Little stories certainly are not ignorant. These are the ones who are willing to look at ALL the evidence and reach a conclusion after that.

In the next 6 months where I live it WILL rain. I know with 100% certainty that in the next 6 months it WILL rain here. I probably won't rain tomorrow, but it might.

Are you familiar with Flood Maps? There are floods that are called "100 year Floods" because they are very large but low probability. About 1 per 100years. If we have a 100 year flood next week on the river that I live next to it does NOT mean that it will be 100 years before such a flood happens again. It will be on average.

This is the nature of probability and prediction. In the case of anthropogenic global climate change we KNOW exactly where it will lead. It's just a matter of timing.

However, many of the true believers who are caught up in the climate change, end-times, saga of the passing of the late great planet Earth are strictly unwilling to hear of any possible chinks in their storylines, let alone give them any consideration.

Most of us who understand the science a bit better know that the earth will be just fine in the long run, minus a big swath of the biosphere. But indeed the REAL danger to us as humans is that we will destroy our way of life. That is a guarantee. Our economy is far more tenuous than life itself. We can easily destroy our civilization without killing off all living things. And that is 100% guaranteed if we ignore the physics and chemistry you claim no one is debating against.

I call that unfortunate at the least, given that a lot of mistakes have been made and are being made in the name of stopping climate change.

Such as? You DO realize that many of the concepts that have been floated for climate change fixes were already done to take care of a lot of things previously right? Acid rain was greatly dealt with using a cap and trade kind of approach. But back in the early 80's the exact same complaints were there that these fixes would destroy the economy. They didn't. And we are better for it now. Same thing with CFC's.

So what we are seeing now with climate change skepticism is the EXACT SAME GAME that was played out many times before with regards to acid rain, CFC's, even cigarette-cancer linkage! And in all those case the "skeptics" were wrong.

Now the stakes are a lot higher. You wanna bet against the house?
 
Upvote 0