Politicians who oppose the Green Deal, better do so quietly

It's not a wise political move to produce 30 second clips ranting about how much the Green Deal costs. The problem is that the effects of climate change will only escalate year after year. At least during the next few years. More uncontrollable wild fires. Stronger hurricanes. More flooding. .... In short, more loss of life and of infrastructure. There will be more and more direct victims of Global Warming as time goes on.. And when you are a direct victim, you don't want to hear how much it would have cost to save your loved ones, or your home from disaster. So more and more people will have their own personal experience with climate change.

And yes.... Democrats will use these clips in political ads. And if the right wants to say that they are exploiting tragedy for political gain, so be it. Because it's not necessarily untrue. But they will also be using it to minimize more future tragedy.

It won't take long before more and more people realize how ridiculous the right wing message "we can't afford to save the life of Americans" is.

How are we going to pay for it? We are already paying for it. We pay every time we have a devastating hurricane, or flood, or any disaster beyond the statistical norm... Billions in relief are spent. So instead of paying to deal with it, why not spend that same money beforehand and try to avoid it? And maybe save some lives in the process.

 

I haven't heard anyone on the right complaining about costs.

I haven't heard a solution from the left involving costs.

What costs are you talking about?

All I hear from us is that it isn't the problem you guys think it is and whatever problem there is cannot be attributed to man completely.

So if you are going to be running ads on this I think people will look at you and wonder what you are talking about.

 

The green new deal is dead. The unions hate it. The establishment hates it. Not a single Democrat will even vote for it lol.

Please do keeo pushing it though, Donald needs his 2020 reelection, and I'm sure some other Republican wouldnt mind 2024.

The original new deal was the most disastrous string of legislation and executive fiat in the history of the country. The green new deal would be just as bad.

Which is why it's such a great marketting tool for the GOP.

AOC is working at singlehandedly keeping the GOP ij power well into the next decade. And shes doing a top notch job.

 

Do they still want to ban airplanes?

 

False premise fail

 

Munich re is one of the largest global re insurers

 

Never did

 

Just as folks running around claiming the Earth was created out of thin air 6000 years ago is irrational nonsense.

Just as those claiming the earth is flat is irrational nonsense, just as right wing environmental/Climate deniers are purveyors of irrational nonsense in many respects..

.....many aspects of the Green New Deal is irrational nonsense coming from a person who does not know what she is talking about.

 

But does that then translate into throwing away the whole package?

 

Yes they most certainly did.

It was in the bill they just voted down in congress.

But way to keep up on current events lol.

 

Yeah. There is Pence here

https://www.cnsnews.com/video/pence...-deal-how-much-green-its-going-cost-taxpayers

But, to be fair. Not just Republicans. Dianne Feinsteine also had a pretty bad showing.

How we are going to pay for it should not even be a question. We pay for it the way we pay for everything else. Congress allocates the money. This is not optional. We have to deal with it. There are many ways in which we can benefit from becoming world leaders in world technology, of course. In the end, it's likely that we could even benefit financially from green technology. But raising cost as an "issue" would be like if a foreign country invaded us, and we started debating if we could afford allocating money to the military to defend us.

Costs are mainly in research. And developing new technologies. Apparently, about 90% of the technology described in the Green Deal has already been developed, and just has to be made more cost-effective. So it's more an investment than a cost. We are about as close as we were to going to the Moon when Kennedy gave his famous speech

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Many people ask that right now because they haven't "felt" the problem affecting them directly. But more and more people will be seeing it first hand as years go by. So it will be an increasingly losing argument for the right.

 

Please quote your numbers and references.

 

This is a tough one. Perhaps this is throwing out the baby with the bath water - and I do want to keep the baby. That said - I do not want someone who has absolutely no clue what they are talking about - in charge of the program.

This is a very complex issue - by complex I mean politically complex - so complex that even those that do have the credentials to speak on the topic - are making big errors.

We have serious environmental issues that are happening. Climate Change is #4 on the list - at least my list - perhaps even #5.

We hear a whole lot of noise in relation to Climate change - not that this is a bad thing but, we hear nothing about the 3 more important and pressing environmental issues - some of which are related to Climate change.

 

Many "if's" and "just wait's" in your reply.

Gonna be hard to sell people on that especially when there are so many failed predictions on this issue already.

I think people are actually going to need to experience it before they react.

 

Green New Deal fails to get a single vote, fails 0-57

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/powerpost/green-new-deal-on-track-to-senate-defeat-as-democrats-call-vote-a-sham/2019/03/26/834f3e5e-4fdd-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

Largest US union opposes GND:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-latest-opponent-of-the-green-new-deal-the-afl-cio

 

Such as...?

 

What nonsense! That wasn't a vote for or against the Green New Deal. That was a procedural vote. There is no bill yet.

 

What if's. Au contraire. My post is quite definitive. There are no if's. Not sure where you saw an if on anything significant. I mean.... maybe we make money off the technology. But if we don't.. we don't. Makes no difference. I guess that's the only if.

Only failed predictions I know of is that they were too optimistic.

Most people are already experiencing it. Just that more and more people will experience the toughest parts.

 

You are assuming we develop the technology to make it cost effective, that is a big "if".

Al Gore said all the ice would be gone by this point, backed up by hundreds of scientists, didn't happen. That is just one of many examples. You can only cry wolf so many times.

And yes, they need to experience the toughest parts. Seeing a hurricane hit Puerto Rico isn't going to do it for the guy sitting in Wyoming.

 

Such as - The Deal does not address the top 3 Environmental issues plaguing the planet. - two of which are related to Climate Change - Pollution of the Oceans - Industrialization of Earths Population - Population increase.

Even if we were to implement the full Green Deal - which is not going to happen but hypothetically - this would only put a small dent in the Global Carbon equation. (not that this is a reason not to reduce - we should - but, this must be considered in relation to the Global conversation)

Then there is the problem that we are not currently technologically capable of implementing the deal - at least not in 10 years - not without major innovation in battery technology. This is all supposed to happen without nuclear (hydro is not mentioned but I would assume it would have to include hydro - I did not see anything about hydro in the summary)

The ZERO target is not realistic.

The above is just a few of the main general issues not covered in "the deal"... I didn't get into much detail on these issues for brevity but if you have questions on any of them - do not hesitate to ask.

 

S.Res.59 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Green New Deal Cosponsors

Date Cosponsored

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Harris, Kamala D. [D-CA]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]* 02/07/2019
Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD][/b]

Too late.

 

They put AOC and Markey's resolution up for a vote. No Democrat voted in favor. Ill concede anything else you like, my point remains.

 

Meh. I know global warming is a serious problem. I also know the Green Deal is not a serious solution. AOC cares less about meaningful change and more about her perception as a radical. This is how she plans to stay in office. And it's working. She's somehow very popular among liberals. Makes he want to switch sides. But then I remember the reason I'm not a republican is I don't have a burning desire to kill all blacks and gays.

 

Neither do Republicans.

 

Thought there was talks of trains over oceans in gnd?