# AOC's "Green New Deal" pipe dream **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2019, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160 "2019-02-08T08:48:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/61 "2019-02-09T01:31:59Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I’m an American (although an expatriate) and had no idea what the fuck the OP was talking about either until I figured it out. > > Apparently the OP thinks that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already has the status of FDR, JFK, or LBJ to be immediately recognizable by initials. (This is a knock against the OP, not Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.) As a liberal woman, I’m sorry to say that there are a LOT of people who feel that way. That’s all I’m going to say about it; whether they’re right remains to be seen. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/62 "2019-02-09T01:34:23Z")
Good thread so far about dealing with podcasts. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/63 "2019-02-09T02:14:17Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > All that said, here’s Pesca, painstakingly transcribed by me, the slacker in residence. You’re welcome :P. Fuck that’s long. You think I have time to sit around this message board, reading all day long? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/64 "2019-02-09T02:15:53Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Mike Pesca delivers a nice takedown of AOC’s truthiness schtick in the latest episode of his daily Slate podcast The Gist, starting at 19:30: > > [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal.html) You know how journalism was going to “pivot to video” except that nobody wanted to watch the videos? Let’s just say a “pivot to audio” is even less of a draw. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/65 "2019-02-09T02:35:33Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Do you also refuse to listen to NPR, I don’t ‘refuse’ to listen to NPR, I just don’t listen to it. > [@](#): > > to watch PBS Newshour segments, We’ve never watched enough TV to justify the $$ to pay for cable. All we really do with our TV is watch the occasional movie. > [@](#): > > or YouTube videos? Only to listen to music that I don’t own. > [@](#): > > How is this attitude any different from some old git 20 years ago sitting in his armchair, newspaper in hand, muttering “I’m not going to look at a fucking Internet message board”? :dubious: Maybe because I was always the fastest reader I knew until I met my wife, but taking in information via the **spoken word** is just _too damn slow_. This was not a problem with blogs or message boards. > [@](#): > > Seriously, it’s 2019: get with the times. It’s not a problem with Twitter, either. Is Twitter sufficiently ‘with the times’ for you? I follow a bunch of people on Twitter. Yeah, it’s not Instagram or Snapchat in terms of being ‘with the times,’ but then podcasts have been around awhile too. They’re not exactly cutting-edge these days. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/66 "2019-02-09T02:50:58Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > All that said, here’s Pesca, painstakingly transcribed by me, the slacker in residence. You’re welcome 😛 What the fuck does he even _mean_, do we know if a 70% tax rate would _work?_ Why, does he think the 70% tax rate won’t work because it’s lazy and wants to hang out with its friends all day? Seriously, I can’t even rebut him because I have no idea what he’s even _talking_ about. And AOC’s critique of fact-checking? Not ready to argue it here, but if you’re a newspaper fact-checker, it would be plenty easy to put a thumb on the scales by the relative frequency with which you fact-check different public figures, and whether you’re checking their statements about core policies or the latest random story that’s hot for a day or two but doesn’t mean anything. My recollection is that her argument was similar to that. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/67 "2019-02-09T04:51:35Z")
Thanks for the transcript. I agree with most of what Pesca said in that excerpt. It’s good to “dream big,” but to do so by ignoring reality really is dumb (I’d call it “Trumpesque,” but the overall goals aren’t selfish and wrongheaded, as they always are for Trump). The comparison (contrast) to the moon race sounds valid to me — JFK’s “…in this decade” was based on difficult but achievable science, not naive platitudes. I am a liberal, progressive Democrat, and I appreciate some of the energy AOC represents to many well-intentioned folks, but she needs to take a deep breath. Her moment may come yet, but it shouldn’t be now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/68 "2019-02-09T06:20:27Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > The comparison (contrast) to the moon race sounds valid to me — JFK’s “…in this decade” was based on difficult but achievable science, not naive platitudes. > I am a liberal, progressive Democrat, and I appreciate some of the energy AOC represents to many well-intentioned folks, but she needs to take a deep breath. Her moment may come yet, but it shouldn’t be now. Well, this was noticed years ago, past research points to this issue to be very similar to the moon race, difficult but achievable. Studies from serious sources show that it is more likely that 1% of the world’s GDP what is needed to deal with the issue. [http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/pdfs/John\_Holdren.pdf](http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/pdfs/John_Holdren.pdf) (PDF file) > [@](#): > > Economics of climate policy > > •The costs of prudent mitigation will not be small, but neither will they be catastrophic. > > •Current global CO2emission rate from fossil fuels + deforestation is 9-11 billion tonnes of C per year. > > Paying $100/tC to avoid half of it would be $0.5 trillion/year, about 1% of the Global World Product (much of it a transfer, not moneydown a black hole) > > •More sophisticated analyses of mitigation costs for stabilizing at 550 ppmv CO2e come out ~1% of GWP (range 0.5-2%) in 2100 (Stern review); mid-range IPCC 2007 estimates are ~0.5% of GWP in 2030. > > •Money saved by averting damages is almost certainly far larger than the costs. -John P. Holdren, Harvard University, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center for the UN 60thAnnual DPI/NGO Meeting, “Climate Change: How It Impacts Us All” Richard Alley, (Republican scientist BTW) who was cited by that report, used the example of humans deploying water and sewer systems in developed nations to show that the worst costs to control an issue that affects most humans did not materialize, as contrarians of the past and the present assume. [del]Prince John : And why should the people listen to you? Robin Hood : Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent. [/del] Because unlike some other OPs I see the need to do transcripts of the important points from a video or podcast: 🙂 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20) (4 minute video) > [@](#): > > It took a considerable investment for all those pipes bringing water to wash with and to take the waste away, the revolution and hygiene involved an extensive infrastructure of toilets and homes sewers underneath our city’s water treatment plants today we might call it the Sanitation smart grid. > > So how much did all this cost? Not that much if you consider the millions of lives saved with clean water, prevention of diseases like cholera and typhoid; something like 1% of the economy in very round numbers. And that’s more or less the estimated cost of switching the world to a sustainable energy system that doesn’t dump fossil fuel co2 into the public space. > > Cleaning up the cities took decades and even centuries and we’re trying to do things a little faster but the revolution in waste management shows that we can do big things to get benefits that none of us would ever walk away from. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/69 "2019-02-09T06:40:37Z")
“Listen to this podcast/watch this youtube video/etcetera” You’re showing that you have an insufficient grasp of the issue (ie, you can’t actually argue it) and you want everyone else to do the work to get up to speed on something you found interesting and then create and carry the discussion for you. So you don’t have to. Ain’t nobody got time for that shit. I don’t need to listen to a podcast to discuss or argue a point on this board if the relevant details are sufficiently offered. In fact, that’s how discussion works. When I discuss politics with people, I discuss actual issues, my opinion on them and so forth. I don’t say “well, listen to this guy’s podcast, then watch this youtube video and we can talk about those”. When I discuss anything else with people, I do the same. I don’t point people at podcasts or videos (or even articles) to explain how I allegedly think or believe. Frankly, I don’t know ANYONE in real life who does this. (If I did, I’d think “Oh holy shit is this guy a dumbfuck”.) If you want to talk about the Green New Deal and how YOU think it is a pipe dream, then for fuck’s sake, talk about what specifically YOU think is a pipe dream and why. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/70 "2019-02-09T07:14:06Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Thanks for the transcript. I agree with most of what Pesca said in that excerpt. It’s good to “dream big,” but to do so by ignoring reality really is dumb (I’d call it “Trumpesque,” but the overall goals aren’t selfish and wrongheaded, as they always are for Trump). You’re welcome; and yeah, that’s a good point, that it’s unfair to call it “Trumpesque” when it doesn’t come from that kind of twisted, malignant place. But I think the part of it that does relate to Trump is that some Democrats are starting to say “if he doesn’t bother to be truthful or follow established norms of behavior, why should we toe the line?” And I think that’s a big mistake. Even if we do it with “good intentions”, we can’t afford to fritter away a crucial distinction. We need to be better, lead by example. If we point at Trump’s lies and the right can just fire back “well, what about all the truth YOU stretch?” it’s not going to fly to say “well, yeah, but the difference is that we’re good and you’re bad.” We need to be the evidence-based party. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/71 "2019-02-09T07:22:50Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You’re welcome; and yeah, that’s a good point, that it’s unfair to call it “Trumpesque” when it doesn’t come from that kind of twisted, malignant place. > > But I think the part of it that does relate to Trump is that some Democrats are starting to say “if he doesn’t bother to be truthful or follow established norms of behavior, why should we toe the line?” And I think that’s a big mistake. Even if we do it with “good intentions”, we can’t afford to fritter away a crucial distinction. We need to be better, lead by example. If we point at Trump’s lies and the right can just fire back “well, what about all the truth YOU stretch?” it’s not going to fly to say “well, yeah, but the difference is that we’re good and you’re bad.” We need to be the evidence-based party. Too bad that you ignore evidence to also claim that. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/72 "2019-02-09T07:40:26Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > This Green New Deal is pretty much exactly what we would have to do to prevent the damage that’s coming due to global warming – according to the latest studies we need to cut emissions to half of 2010 levels in the next 10 years to stop it. > > That’s definitely possible. In fact, it’s EASY - invest heavily in nuclear energy in the short term while transitioning to renewable power. It’s also very expensive and politically unfeasible, so the ecology of Earth is beyond screwed. > > It’s not all doom and gloom though. Global warming won’t kill us, or the planet. It WILL cause trillions of dollars in damage over the next century, take many human lives, and destroy the ecosystems we know and love. Apparently, none of that is worth a damn to the people who make decisions in this country, but it is what it is. AFAIK this “Green Deal” wants to get rid of nuclear power, so it’s exactly what shouldn’t be done to mitigate global warming. From what I’ve seen it’s a complete shambles… which may be the reason why the topic has been hijacked into discussing other things. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/73 "2019-02-09T07:48:15Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > AFAIK this “Green Deal” wants to get rid of nuclear power, so it’s exactly what shouldn’t be done to mitigate global warming. > > From what I’ve seen it’s a complete shambles… which may be the reason why the topic has been hijacked into discussing other things. Thing is that even the ones that worked in the nuclear industry have noticed the problems they have when they see what is going on regarding solar power advances. > **[We Could Power The Entire World By Harnessing Solar Energy From 1% Of The Sahara](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/#65146a9bd440)** > > Could the world feasibly switch to all-nuclear power generation? If so, would that be a good counter to global warming? This question was originally answered on Quora by Mehran Moalem. > [@](#): > > Answer by Mehran Moalem, PhD, UC Berkeley, Professor, Expert on Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, on Quora: > > I have taught courses in Nuclear Engineering and a few seminar courses in alternative energies. I also worked for two years starting up six solar factories around the globe. In spite of my personal like for nuclear engineering, I have to admit it is hard to argue for it. Here is the simplified math behind it. > > The total world energy usage (coal+oil+hydroelectric+nuclear+renewable) in 2015 was 13,000 Million Ton Oil Equivalent (13,000 MTOE) - see World Energy Consumption & Stats. This translates to 17.3 Terawatts continuous power during the year. > > Now, if we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. > > There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today’s prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession. Easier to imagine the cost is 1/4 of US national debt, and equal to 10% of world one year GDP. So this cost is rather small compared to other spending in the world. There is no future in other energy forms. > > In twenty to thirty years solar will replace everything. There will still be need for liquid fuels but likely it will be hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water and that powered by solar. Then tankers and pipelines will haul that hydrogen around the world. One can also envision zirconium or titanium batteries that store large quantities of hydrogen. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/74 "2019-02-09T08:42:25Z")
Uhhh…the “bail out cost of banks” was zero. Less than zero, in fact. And it was not “by Obama”, but by Bush. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/75 "2019-02-09T08:59:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Would you settle for, “She’s called AOC everywhere on this very message board?” To be fair, and since the first post you referenced was mine, all of those threads mentioned her by name before tossing out the initials. This is also true of the articles referenced earlier. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/76 "2019-02-09T09:33:19Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Uhhh…the “bail out cost of banks” was zero. Less than zero, in fact. And it was not “by Obama”, but by Bush. :smack: Sounds a lot like complaining about the asides but not the substance. If that was important to notice, then one needs to point out that Mike Pesca is more experienced in sports, not science. (Seems that you forgot about that bit about what sources to take more seriously). But at least Mike does acknowledge that the issue is a serious one. > **[Al Gore on How to Persuade Republicans on Climate Change](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/07/al-gore-says-climate-action-is-still-possible.html)** > > Listen to Episode 790 of Slate’s The Gist: > [@](#): > > If things had gone well, America would still be in the Paris Agreement on climate change, green energy would be spreading across the country and Al Gore wouldn’t have needed to make a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth. But it didn’t work out that way. With his new movie hitting theaters next week, Gore remains hopeful during these depressing times. “If somebody told me five years ago, marriage equality would be the law in all 50 states, I would have asked what they were smoking,” says the former vice president. “But it did happen, because it became a choice between right and wrong. That’s where the climate movement is now.” Now, I have noticed other podcasts where Mike interviews scientists like Andrea Schumacher, that do worry about the increase in extreme weather events that we are likely to get in a warming world. So the only issue I can have with him is that his blind spot is to ignore the costs that we are likely to get by not dealing with the issue in a more serious way, he thinks that on this issue Ocasio Cortez is exaggerating or being ignorant like Trump and the Republicans. Not even close. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/77 "2019-02-09T10:28:08Z")
You are getting more than just Mike Pesca there. He has a staff, and they seem like highly competent radio people. It is slickly produced without seeming self consciously so. Plus of course he has the backing of Slate more broadly. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/78 "2019-02-09T10:47:17Z")
I’m going to assume for the sake of argument assume this is a plan that can’t happen, and is destined to fail. She’s doing exactly what she needs to do to pull in the base of disaffected voters. You have to understand that a lot of the reason that I find that young people won’t vote is because they say no one is actually pushing for the things they believe in. Everyone is just the same. The Dems have a huge messaging problem in this area. Even though we are actually working to improve in these areas, we don’t make a big flashy thing about it that people can see, and we do it so incrementally you can’t see the big picture. AOC\* is a Dem who gets that passing bills isn’t all you do. You have to try and motivate people. That’s what Obama was good at, too. There’s a reason why the GOP will occasionally try to push a bill that has no chance of passing. It at least tells people “Yes, we still care about this, but they won’t let it happen.” It’s also a rather useful technique to make the big ask and then compromise to the smaller ask. Another problem Dems often have is that they start from the compromise position. No, in a negotiation, you start from a position far higher than what you want. That said, there is the risk of being seen as ridiculous. The question is, does her constituency see it as ridiculous? Or only her opponents? There’s a difference between ridiculous and not possible. It could be impossible but an ideal. \*She’s called that, I believe, because the typical shortening to a last name would be Ocasio-Cortez, which isn’t much more convenient than many politicians’ full names. Normally I balk at the nicknames (like I say “Sanders,” not “Bernie,” as much as possible), but this one is just too convenient. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/79 "2019-02-09T11:31:03Z")
I agree with your overall point, Big T, but I still think one can be accurate AND inspirational. Like Obama often was. That little (but important) misrepresentation of the science report bothers me. She could stick to “80% by 2030, 100% by 2050” and still be totally inspirational, (as long as she presented with a few more specifics about how to achieve it.) No need to change the facts. Doing so undermines your argument, period. IMHO, Ocasio-Cortez needs to spend at least a few months (!) absorbing the climate science, AND the culture and workings of Congress. Then she’ll have a better grasp of how to inspire people. Reach for the stars, sure, but only after you’re more fluent in the art of the possible. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/80 "2019-02-09T14:22:04Z")
I’ll agree with the science part. I’m not so sure about the culture of Congress. I mean, she seems more there to upset that than to maintain it. Though, still, it would be useful to understand that which you wish to upend. I just don’t want her becoming like the others–at least, the others who keep on telling her she’s messing everything up. I do expect her to figure out what does and doesn’t work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160.md?page=5)