# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/101 "2019-02-10T21:31:18Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > I just don’t like the word ‘podcast’. Very tinny. > > And my internet is shit. I don’t like the word “webinar”. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2019, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/102 "2019-02-10T23:35:00Z")
So, **Slacker** , what’s your proposal to fix this problem? We don’t have a whole lot of time, and nobody else is even coming close to proposing a solution that respects the scope of the problem. This seems unrealistic? Well, shit, we’d better _make_ it realistic, because we ain’t got shit for time to fix this. “LOL look at this radical bill there’s no way that’s going to happen” is like… the opposite of helpful. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/103 "2019-02-11T02:24:10Z")
I was thinking about it today while driving on the interstate. It could be that the green revolution begins locally, and then over time, gains federal support. But the way I see it, I think what would be a game changer is that if you had a major city, like Rome or Amsterdam or Tokyo - whoever - that demonstrates what kinds of things can be done by making a city green, and then somehow that gets copied and applied here. Let’s say a city not like New York, but a more ‘average’ city like Pittsburgh or Columbus or St. Louis innovates and becomes super green and ends up saving the city money and also creates jobs. An added benefit could be that the environment is so clean and enviable that it attracts people and companies. I think it’s going to take cities and states competing with each other, with a handful of communities basically kicking its neighbors’ asses economically and otherwise with green energy that the citizens in other places demand to get in on the game. ---
**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 11, 2019, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/104 "2019-02-11T03:56:24Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > So, **Slacker** , what’s your proposal to fix this problem? We don’t have a whole lot of time, and nobody else is even coming close to proposing a solution that respects the scope of the problem. This seems unrealistic? Well, shit, we’d better _make_ it realistic, because we ain’t got shit for time to fix this. “LOL look at this radical bill there’s no way that’s going to happen” is like… the opposite of helpful. My proposal is to increase renewables in a realistic and reasonable way. We took decades (centuries) to get to 20%. Getting to 50% by 2030 would be impressive. I’d also be in favor of a large gasoline tax (around here, gas is $1.99 a gallon, which is crazy low), but only if the money collected is rebated to every citizen equally. This is a Tom Friedman proposal that I really like. Just send every household a monthly or yearly rebate check, in the amount of 1/300,000,000th of the total tax money collected, times the number of people in the household. But I don’t accept all this millennialist Chicken Little talk about how we’re DOOMED if we don’t dramatically reverse global warming in the next 12 years or whatever. :rolleyes: I think we can adapt to it just fine. But this point never even gets debated, because it’s all a silly argument over whether global warming is actually happening (obviously it is). ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/105 "2019-02-11T05:17:50Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I was thinking about it today while driving on the interstate. > > It could be that the green revolution begins locally, and then over time, gains federal support. But the way I see it, I think what would be a game changer is that if you had a major city, like Rome or Amsterdam or Tokyo - whoever - that demonstrates what kinds of things can be done by making a city green, and then somehow that gets copied and applied here. Let’s say a city not like New York, but a more ‘average’ city like Pittsburgh or Columbus or St. Louis innovates and becomes super green and ends up saving the city money and also creates jobs. An added benefit could be that the environment is so clean and enviable that it attracts people and companies. I think it’s going to take cities and states competing with each other, with a handful of communities basically kicking its neighbors’ asses economically and otherwise with green energy that the citizens in other places demand to get in on the game. [Georgetown, Texas, population 70,000.](https://georgetown.org/2018/06/29/georgetowns-energy-100-percent-renewable-with-solar-plant/) Certainly not a major or even average city, but it’s a start. It’s too early to tell if the solar move will attract people and companies like you say, but it helps that it’s already a nice little spot and very convenient to Austin. ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/106 "2019-02-11T05:35:01Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > But I don’t accept all this millennialist Chicken Little talk about how we’re DOOMED if we don’t dramatically reverse global warming in the next 12 years or whatever. :rolleyes: Here is where you show the ignorance, that time is essentially what other researchers calculated for us humans to avoid going over 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The issue is that not doing much when it was seen as a big growing problem by science about 40 years ago has get us to this state. > **[Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left/)** > > It’s already bad. But when will things get so bad that it is obviously — obviously — the worst problem in the world? How long until we go over the cliff? That depends on how much … > [@](#): > > The fastest rate is still from the data of Cowtan & Way, at 1.84 ± 0.14 °C per century. That’s somewhere between 1.70 and 1.98 °C per century, so we hit extremely bad between 2038 and 2041. The lowest rate is again from NOAA data at 1.67 ± 0.1 °C per century, somewhere in the range 1.57 and 1.77 °C per century. We hit extremely bad between 2040 and 2044. > > Bottom line: at the rate we’re going, we’ll hit extremely bad, possibly intolerable, probably between 2040 and 2045. Maybe a couple years later, maybe a couple years earlier, but it’s not far away. Most of you reading this will still be around when it happens. Your kids will be. We’re headed for a cliff and it’s not far away. > [@](#): > > That’s at the rate we’re going. So what do we do? Hit the brakes. > > That means reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2). We can’t stop immediately, that would bring such economic chaos it would also be extremely bad. If we stop immediately it’s like hitting a tree; we avoid going over the cliff only to die in the crash. > > But if we make a giant effort to increase renewable energy while decreasing fossil-fuel energy (oil, coal, and gas), we can do it. We have to hit the brakes hard because there’s barely enough time to stop. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I think we can adapt to it just fine. But this point never even gets debated, because it’s all a silly argument over whether global warming is actually happening (obviously it is). Well more ignorance, \*\*it has been debated many times before. \*\* > **[Skeptical Science: Climate Myths](https://skepticalscience.com/mitigation-cheaper-than-adaptation-intermediate.htm)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > Another problem in this argument is that as shown in the second quote above, the IPCC estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are “not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation.” For example, the cleaner air and water, and associated health benefits that come with transitioning away from dirty high-carbon energy sources save money that the IPCC doesn’t take into account. So the costs of avoiding global warming would in reality likely be even less than the estimated 0.06% per year slowing in the rate at which the global economy continues to grow. > > Meanwhile, the IPCC noted that the costs of climate damages for just another 2°C warming “are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller” than its estimates. And if we don’t take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll blow past 2°C warming into uncharted economic damage territory. > > Avoiding Global Warming is Cheaper than Adapting > > The bottom line is that economists can’t even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming. On the other hand, taking those steps can have a negligible impact on global economic growth. The IPCC report also makes the point that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. In determining that mitigating global warming is affordable, the IPCC used the following scenarios. > > ``` > "Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs" > > ``` > > It’s important to understand that our choices aren’t to either reduce carbon emissions or to do nothing. Our options are to either reduce carbon emissions or to continue with business-as-usual emissions that will cause accelerating climate change and damage costs beyond what we can accurately estimate. From an economic perspective, and from a risk management perspective, this should be a no-brainer. As economist Paul Krugman put it, > > “So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?” ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/107 "2019-02-11T05:42:56Z")
GIGO, I’m not denying that prevention would be cheaper over the long term than adaptation. Are you under the illusion that this is how public policy is set in the U.S.? There are a billion things (at least) that would benefit from the “ounce of prevention” approach, from infrastructure to nutrition to economic policies. But that’s just not how politics works in the U.S. You can bemoan that, but ultimately doing so means you are on the political sidelines rather than engaging the political system in the ways that do sometimes work. ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/108 "2019-02-11T05:49:49Z")
Missed the edit window, but wanted to add: Jimmy Carter proved this in the late 1970s. He installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, and went on TV in a cardigan and nagged Americans to turn down their thermostats. Ronald Reagan defeated him in a landslide, came in and tore down the solar panels and told Americans they could just go whole hog and not worry about it, and went on to win an even bigger landslide (49 states) four years later. We’ve got to take baby steps, or the same thing will happen again. ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/109 "2019-02-11T05:56:38Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > GIGO, I’m not denying that prevention would be cheaper over the long term than adaptation. Are you under the illusion that this is how public policy is set in the U.S.? There are a billion things (at least) that would benefit from the “ounce of prevention” approach, from infrastructure to nutrition to economic policies. But that’s just not how politics works in the U.S. You can bemoan that, but ultimately doing so means you are on the political sidelines rather than engaging the political system in the ways that do sometimes work. I’m not under the illusion of fighting your straw man, **I was not talking about the politics there** , but your ignorance about calling the time we have left a “chicken little” point, and then we got that even more ignorant bit from you about thinking that experts or people in the SDMB never discussed that bit about the adaptation before. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/110 "2019-02-11T06:02:11Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Missed the edit window, but wanted to add: > > Jimmy Carter proved this in the late 1970s. He installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, and went on TV in a cardigan and nagged Americans to turn down their thermostats. Ronald Reagan defeated him in a landslide, came in and tore down the solar panels and told Americans they could just go whole hog and not worry about it, and went on to win an even bigger landslide (49 states) four years later. We’ve got to take baby steps, or the same thing will happen again. Regarding the politics, I already did mention this before, the history of prohibition shows that baby steps is not how big issues are dealt with in the USA. Only If you lived under a rock it is that you will not realize that currently the pieces are getting into place, and the coming political disaster will befall the Republicans once again for not listening to the evidence. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/111 "2019-02-11T06:34:51Z")
Absolutely baby steps are how big issues are dealt with in the U.S. There aren’t many issues bigger than health care, for instance. First we provided government-funded health care for veterans through the VA. Then seniors got health coverage via Medicare, and the poor were provided Medicaid. Decades later, children who otherwise would not be eligible for Medicaid were the beneficiaries of the CHiP program. Dubya added a prescription drug benefit for seniors; and then Obama expanded Medicaid and provided subsidies for the uninsured. It hasn’t gotten us to 100%, but we are a lot closer than if we had not taken any of those baby steps. OTOH, both presidents Truman and Clinton attempted a more sweeping move to national health insurance, and those efforts failed and got us bupkis. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/112 "2019-02-11T06:54:53Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Absolutely baby steps are how big issues are dealt with in the U.S. There aren’t many issues bigger than health care, for instance. First we provided government-funded health care for veterans through the VA. Then seniors got health coverage via Medicare, and the poor were provided Medicaid. Decades later, children who otherwise would not be eligible for Medicaid were the beneficiaries of the CHiP program. Dubya added a prescription drug benefit for seniors; and then Obama expanded Medicaid and provided subsidies for the uninsured. It hasn’t gotten us to 100%, but we are a lot closer than if we had not taken any of those baby steps. OTOH, both presidents Truman and Clinton attempted a more sweeping move to national health insurance, and those efforts failed and got us bupkis. Of course ignoring again what the Republicans got with prohibition does not lead others to take seriously your absolutist point here, (There are indeed things were baby steps were not taken and now a big move was needed) I should had added that the big things in America do happen because a big disaster takes place, sure they are times when baby steps occur, but you do really live under a rock when you missed what the Republicans tried to get rid of CHip and still think that getting rid of other health steps is a good idea. So baby steps are not a guarantee that we will not get bupkis, we need to get rid of the weakest link. ---
**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 11, 2019, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/113 "2019-02-11T07:22:15Z")
GIGO, your comments are frequently hard to parse, but it sure looks like you are imputing to me some kind of support for Republicans. There is none! Or maybe you just can’t help yourself, because your script doesn’t have any contingency for debating these points with a Democrat, which is what I am. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/114 "2019-02-11T07:56:06Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > My proposal is to increase renewables in a realistic and reasonable way. We took decades (centuries) to get to 20%. Getting to 50% by 2030 would be impressive. And not doing so would be a fucking disaster. We do not have a choice in the matter here; it is do or die. You think the GND isn’t politically viable? Well come up with an alternative, because we need one. > [@](#): > > But I don’t accept all this millennialist Chicken Little talk about how we’re DOOMED if we don’t dramatically reverse global warming in the next 12 years or whatever. Oh right, you’re one of those stupid denialist fuckwits who insists that if we bury our heads in the sand everything will be fine despite all available evidence. Fuck you. Fuck you and everything you stand for. Your kids will curse your name. ---
**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 11, 2019, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/115 "2019-02-11T11:46:59Z")
No, I am not a denialist. I don’t dispute that the earth is warming, nor do I dispute that the cause is greenhouse gases that are a byproduct of industrial civilization, magnified by other gases that are released from the oceans and elsewhere as an effect of that warming. I just think we have more than enough ingenuity and adaptability in the 21st century to weather it (so to speak), just fine. The world is getting to be a better and better place to live, and I expect that to continue unless a superintelligent AI enslaves/kills us, or someone unleashes nanotech that turns us all into grey goo. Nuclear terrorism could make the world worse too, not so much from the direct effects but from the curtailing of civil liberties in response. So those are legit things to worry about. But if we dodge those, it’s going to be a golden age. ETA: Let’s note that BPC just said to someone who has said he is all for substantially increasing renewable energy and imposing a big additional gas tax, “Fuck you and everything you stand for”. Now \*that’s \*how you build a sufficiently large political coalition to get major things accomplished! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/116 "2019-02-11T12:13:36Z")
Well fuck mate, the whole “look at the best evidence available, we need to do something now” route didn’t get you on board, so fuck if I know what will. ---
**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 11, 2019, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/117 "2019-02-11T12:52:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well fuck mate, the whole “look at the best evidence available, we need to do something now” route didn’t get you on board, so fuck if I know what will. :smack: You’re not getting it. Someone who supports going to 50% renewables in ten years and jacking up the tax on gasoline IS “on board”, or at least enough so that I’m not your opponent, not the linchpin or stumbling block. Do you really think you can assemble a majority coalition that is entirely to the \*left \*of my position? Dream on. :dubious: ---
**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 11, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/118 "2019-02-11T14:22:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > :smack: You’re not getting it. Someone who supports going to 50% renewables in ten years and jacking up the tax on gasoline IS “on board”, or at least enough so that I’m not your opponent, not the linchpin or stumbling block. Do you really think you can assemble a majority coalition that is entirely to the \*left \*of my position? Dream on. :dubious: Thing is that you clearly continue to drink from unsavory sources. Otherwise there is very little explanation of why you come with the intention of ignoring cites that already pointed at how reckless is to continue to assume that adaptation will be easier, cheaper or even politically viable. This is actually just like the final stages of denial that the Republicans and conservatives are falling for. That we will need to do adaptation is not an excuse to dismiss stronger efforts to mitigate the issue. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/119 "2019-02-11T14:40:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Your kids will curse your name. “Will?” ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/120 "2019-02-11T16:54:23Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > My proposal is to increase renewables in a realistic and reasonable way. We took decades (centuries) to get to 20%. What do you mean “centuries”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160.md?page=7)