Regarding AOC, and the importance of selling green politics

[Dillon]

For most of my Adult life I have been frustrated with both major political parties, neither party seemed to represent my views or voice my concerns. As a lifelong, proud resident of some of the most vulnerable land on earth to the threat of rising sea levels and superstorms cause by Climate Change, the issue is immensely important to me.

I was very excited, and still am, for the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party. The progressive wing now largely controls the narrative, which I believe is healthy for a democracy which has swung so far to the right. I was even more excited for a congresswomen from New York who put a "Green New Deal" at the forefront of her agenda.

However, I am somewhat disappointed in the way the "Green New Deal" has been presented thus far. AOC argued in an interview "That the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't do something about climate change". This is false. 12 years is the tipping point in which the most disastrous effects of Climate Change cannot be reversed. I know this was a gaffe, but in a world of sound bites and talking points, pitching the reasoning behind both your signature policy, and some of the most radical and sweeping reforms of the 21st century is of utmost importance.

I don't want to comment too much on the substance of the proposal, as nothing has been officially proposed. But I DO support a 100% transition to clean energy in a short period of time. It is my issue to end all issues. But I have yet to see the issue be pitched as articulately and thoughtfully as it needs to be. Do you agree with my assessment? Do you agree with such a drastic measure to be taken at this critical time? Let's talk about it.

[darklordoftech]

I wonder how the "Green New Deal" would be perceived if Ocasio-Cortez's name wasn't attached to it.

[dead0man]

I wonder how the "Green New Deal" would be perceived if Ocasio-Cortez's name wasn't attached to it.

the exact same?  The kind of people who knee jerk hate AOC would never be open to a "Green New Deal".

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I wonder how the "Green New Deal" would be perceived if Ocasio-Cortez's name wasn't attached to it.

the exact same?  The kind of people who knee jerk hate AOC would never be open to a "Green New Deal".

This, and neither would the people who are still har-harring about the "twelve years" gaffe.

[T'Chenka]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

That's a fair point, to which I would say, let's start giving bigger tax breaks to tech comanies developing green technologies and researching new options, and let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that affect our planet negatively. Let's start giving citizens tax breaks for driving hybrid cars. Abd so on. Money makes the world go around, so let's incentivize people and businesses financially to be environmentally and green energy friendly.

[Dillon]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

That's a fair point, to which I would say, let's start giving bigger tax breaks to tech comanies developing green technologies and researching new options, and let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that affect our planet negatively. Let's start giving citizens tax breaks for driving hybrid cars. Abd so on. Money makes the world go around, so let's incentivize people and businesses financially to be environmentally and green energy friendly.

This should be a bipartisan deal. The times ahead will be hard for all Americans, and we cannot wait until the waves start crashing against mar-a-Lago until we come to a unanamous conclusion that something needs to be done. I would take a watered down agreement over no agreement, but the evidence clearly points to radical action being the only viable solution. So the democrats MUST negotiate starting with the most drastic measures, and hopefully the negotiated terms are still sufficient. If we settle with -80% emissions by 2040, so be it. Anything is better than nothing.

[Badger]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

But as I understand it, and I'll be the first to note that this plan is by their authors own admission still very much a work-in-progress, at the very least it seeks to phase out fossil fuels over a considerable period of time, not eliminate them entirely. Part of it includes tax breaks for electric cars Etc as having been discussed herein.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

But as I understand it, and I'll be the first to note that this plan is by their authors own admission still very much a work-in-progress, at the very least it seeks to phase out fossil fuels over a considerable period of time, not eliminate them entirely. Part of it includes tax breaks for electric cars Etc as having been discussed herein.

     Electric cars are not as good of a solution as many people imagine (at least in the short-term), since it puts them on a grid that is still 63% generated by fossil fuels, and that number will be difficult to bring down. Hoping that true substitutes exist for fossil fuels long-term and planning as if they will be there is risky. Besides, the larger work vehicles like trucks and vans that consume more gasoline would also be trickier to develop in electric models, because of the considerable energy that they need to run.

     I would like to see more emphasis placed on nuclear power, but 1) the environmentalists would not accept that deal and 2) it has a limited lifespan as a power source given that uranium, much like coal, oil, and gas, is limited in the Earth's crust.

[PSOL]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

That's a fair point, to which I would say, let's start giving bigger tax breaks to tech comanies developing green technologies and researching new options, and let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that affect our planet negatively. Let's start giving citizens tax breaks for driving hybrid cars. Abd so on. Money makes the world go around, so let's incentivize people and businesses financially to be environmentally and green energy friendly.

Tax breaks on non-renewables won’t result in any worthy results. The failure of bringing about 5G and the recent tax breaks indicate that corporations would just engage in stock buyback when give the opportunity to improve infrastructure.

[GP270watch]

 AOC is great. She's taking the offensive. For years we have been sold awful Republican policy because they make big declarations, dare to ask, convince the public to accept untenable positions and then finally get the other side to compromise their beliefs. Republicans have had the audacity to ask working people for tax cuts for the rich and wealthy corporations. They've made legislation that enriches drug companies and not patients. They achieved these things because they aim big, past what even seems acceptable and then work their way back.

 Democrats finally have somebody who is doing the same on climate change, tax policy, universal healthcare and who is moving the public discourse to our side. I hope she keeps up the good work.

[Sirius_]

I'm not sure if anybody actually read the document that was posted for a little while, but there's an obvious reason why it was bad. It's not because people don't want a solution, it's because there was no solution in the whole thing. If they want to present a "Green New Deal', it better have outlines for how to achieve the goals listed, which were quite big things may I add. You can't just throw words out there and blame people for being wary of it.

[Dillon]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

That's a fair point, to which I would say, let's start giving bigger tax breaks to tech comanies developing green technologies and researching new options, and let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that affect our planet negatively. Let's start giving citizens tax breaks for driving hybrid cars. Abd so on. Money makes the world go around, so let's incentivize people and businesses financially to be environmentally and green energy friendly.

Tax breaks on non-renewables won’t result in any worthy results. The failure of bringing about 5G and the recent tax breaks indicate that corporations would just engage in stock buyback when give the opportunity to improve infrastructure.

[Dillon]

I'm not sure if anybody actually read the document that was posted for a little while, but there's an obvious reason why it was bad. It's not because people don't want a solution, it's because there was no solution in the whole thing. If they want to present a "Green New Deal', it better have outlines for how to achieve the goals listed, which were quite big things may I add. You can't just throw words out there and blame people for being wary of it.

I agree, the final plan must be comprehensive, compelling, and effective enough to make it political suicide to oppose.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm not sure if anybody actually read the document that was posted for a little while, but there's an obvious reason why it was bad. It's not because people don't want a solution, it's because there was no solution in the whole thing. If they want to present a "Green New Deal', it better have outlines for how to achieve the goals listed, which were quite big things may I add. You can't just throw words out there and blame people for being wary of it.

I agree, the final plan must be comprehensive, compelling, and effective enough to make it political suicide to oppose.

Most people will not support a phaseout on cars, air travel and cows.

[Frodo]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.  


Just ask former PM Julia Gillard of Australia how her carbon tax ultimately fared.   

[136or142]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.   

But, I guess you have no problem paying more for all the things that are already negatively impacted by climate change.  "Pay me now or pay me later."

[PSOL]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.   

The true culprit really isn’t personal consumption, but the work of about 200 or so multinational firms unwilling to invest the capital to make the pollution byproduct lessen during commercial activity. One of the reasons why environmentalists need to move toward structural change of our economic reality to achieve tangible results.

Even so, if you are unwilling to take some small hit for such an issue, humanity risks dying a slow and painful extinction.

[Frodo]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.    

The true culprit really isn’t personal consumption, but the work of about 200 or so multinational firms unwilling to invest the capital to make the pollution byproduct lessen during commercial activity. One of the reasons why environmentalists need to move toward structural change of our economic reality to achieve tangible results.

Even so, if you are unwilling to take some small hit for such an issue, humanity risks dying a slow and painful extinction.

I am generally skeptical of apocalyptic 'the end is nigh!' rhetoric.  Moreover, until I see people like Al Gore actually walk the talk, why should I do the same?     

[PSOL]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.    

The true culprit really isn’t personal consumption, but the work of about 200 or so multinational firms unwilling to invest the capital to make the pollution byproduct lessen during commercial activity. One of the reasons why environmentalists need to move toward structural change of our economic reality to achieve tangible results.

Even so, if you are unwilling to take some small hit for such an issue, humanity risks dying a slow and painful extinction.

I am generally skeptical of apocalyptic 'the end is nigh!' rhetoric.  Moreover, until I see people like Al Gore actually walk the talk, why should I do the same?    

Because, in a world already stacked with humanitarian disasters such as human displacement on the scale of WWII, numerous credible scientific estimates prove that any more of a rise in average temperature by 1/2 of a degree points to the following; increased encroachment of Tropical crop eating bugs, accelerating the current desertification, and the inability to properly harvest the staple crops needed to preserve our global food system.

The reality is that we have an encroaching disaster that could plunge the world into enough chaos as to bleed into the barricaded “First” world, but the elite of that same world is too selfish to institute structural nor encourage personal change in that peripheral area. That area, of which I may add, has the largest ecological footprint per capita and thus the more responsible actor for the fault here.

Unlike previous apocalyptic scenarios, the science backs up that the end is nigh here.

Also, a lot of people won’t change without some sort if pressure behind it, one of the reasons why there should be taxes on those homes spilling out ungodly amounts of emissions.

[136or142]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

We actually have common ground for once!  And greens are misreading the public mood by calling for phasing out meat-eating, planes, and cars.  Most people (myself included) have absolutely no intention of changing our lifestyles, nor do we wish to pay higher prices for electricity due to a carbon tax.  Anyone calling for these changes will risk political suicide at the ballot box, if not during the primary, then most definitely in November.  


Just ask former PM Julia Gillard of Australia how her carbon tax ultimately fared.  

The six days from January 12 to 17 are all within Australia's ten hottest days on record, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said. Marble Bar in northwestern Australia hit the highest temperature during the heatwave at a sweltering 49.1 C (120 F) on Sunday -- a January record for the area.Jan 18, 2019

Global warming deniers should be referred to as 'pro death.'

Australia heatwave: Mass animal deaths and roads melting as temperatures reach record high

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-heatwave-latest-temperature-heat-records-stress-new-south-wales-bushfires-a8735541.html

Don't pay the carbon tax, pay more for more frequent road repairs.  The idea that there is a 'free lunch' on not addressing global warming is yet another right wing lie.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Global warming deniers should be referred to as 'pro death.'

Climatologist Bjorn Lomborg found that more people will not die from cold exposure due to warming than will die from heat exposure due to warming. So if we are going to play the hyperbole game, its arguably pro death to be opposed to global warming too.

[136or142]

Global warming deniers should be referred to as 'pro death.'

Climatologist Bjorn Lomborg found that more people will not die from cold exposure due to warming than will die from heat exposure due to warming. So if we are going to play the hyperbole game, its arguably pro death to be opposed to global warming too.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist as I suspect you well know. 

Lomborg is a statistician, which would potentially make him qualified to comment on this, but he is a paid-off mouthpicece, as I suspect you also well know.

From RationalWiki: Lomborg set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Project (a misnomer, to be sure), which generally pushes wishful thinking about geo-engineering. Geo-engineering is largely seen as a last-ditch solution due to the fact that pumping the atmosphere full of massive amounts of sulfur as Lomborg favors may have loads of unintended consequences and doesn't deal with a number of problems created by increased carbon dioxide levels such as ocean acidification (the project tends to omit these considerations in its reports).

The think tank was set to close in July of 2012 after the newly elected Thorning-Schmidt administration cut its government funding.[15] However, luckily for Lomborg he had quietly set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center in America that was doing well enough to pay himself $775,000 yearly[16] and that since it began, the CCC had attracted $4.3 million from "anonymous" donors with climate denier links.[17] (If you can't guess who and what these groups are at this point, you're not paying attention.)

He is to the debate what Dr. Oz is to medicine, a rodeo clown who frames his information to give audiences what they want (a quick- fix miracle cure) and cries censorship when confronted by actual scientists.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

In regards to the absurd specific claim:

Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
Increased heat stress in humans and other mammals (Sherwood 2010)
Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998)
Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006)

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

So:
1.Not even close
2.Referring to global warming deniers as pro-death is not hyperbole at all, but is a statement of fact.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Global warming deniers should be referred to as 'pro death.'

Climatologist Bjorn Lomborg found that more people will not die from cold exposure due to warming than will die from heat exposure due to warming. So if we are going to play the hyperbole game, its arguably pro death to be opposed to global warming too.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist as I suspect you well know. 

Lomborg is a statistician, which would potentially make him qualified to comment on this, but he is a paid-off mouthpicece, as I suspect you also well know.

From RationalWiki: Lomborg set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Project (a misnomer, to be sure), which generally pushes wishful thinking about geo-engineering. Geo-engineering is largely seen as a last-ditch solution due to the fact that pumping the atmosphere full of massive amounts of sulfur as Lomborg favors may have loads of unintended consequences and doesn't deal with a number of problems created by increased carbon dioxide levels such as ocean acidification (the project tends to omit these considerations in its reports).

The think tank was set to close in July of 2012 after the newly elected Thorning-Schmidt administration cut its government funding.[15] However, luckily for Lomborg he had quietly set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center in America that was doing well enough to pay himself $775,000 yearly[16] and that since it began, the CCC had attracted $4.3 million from "anonymous" donors with climate denier links.[17] (If you can't guess who and what these groups are at this point, you're not paying attention.)

He is to the debate what Dr. Oz is to medicine, a rodeo clown who frames his information to give audiences what they want (a quick- fix miracle cure) and cries censorship when confronted by actual scientists.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

In regards to the absurd specific claim:

Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
Increased heat stress in humans and other mammals (Sherwood 2010)
Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998)
Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006)

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

So:
1.Not even close
2.Referring to global warming deniers as pro-death is not hyperbole at all, but is a statement of fact.

It's nice to know you think Atlas Climate Change Champion Harry is an idiot like Bjorn Lomborg.

Keep it up with your lightweight "in the ears out the mouth" cognitive style.

[136or142]

Global warming deniers should be referred to as 'pro death.'

Climatologist Bjorn Lomborg found that more people will not die from cold exposure due to warming than will die from heat exposure due to warming. So if we are going to play the hyperbole game, its arguably pro death to be opposed to global warming too.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist as I suspect you well know.  

Lomborg is a statistician, which would potentially make him qualified to comment on this, but he is a paid-off mouthpicece, as I suspect you also well know.

From RationalWiki: Lomborg set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Project (a misnomer, to be sure), which generally pushes wishful thinking about geo-engineering. Geo-engineering is largely seen as a last-ditch solution due to the fact that pumping the atmosphere full of massive amounts of sulfur as Lomborg favors may have loads of unintended consequences and doesn't deal with a number of problems created by increased carbon dioxide levels such as ocean acidification (the project tends to omit these considerations in its reports).

The think tank was set to close in July of 2012 after the newly elected Thorning-Schmidt administration cut its government funding.[15] However, luckily for Lomborg he had quietly set up a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center in America that was doing well enough to pay himself $775,000 yearly[16] and that since it began, the CCC had attracted $4.3 million from "anonymous" donors with climate denier links.[17] (If you can't guess who and what these groups are at this point, you're not paying attention.)

He is to the debate what Dr. Oz is to medicine, a rodeo clown who frames his information to give audiences what they want (a quick- fix miracle cure) and cries censorship when confronted by actual scientists.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

In regards to the absurd specific claim:

Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007)
Increased heat stress in humans and other mammals (Sherwood 2010)
Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998)
Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006)

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

So:
1.Not even close
2.Referring to global warming deniers as pro-death is not hyperbole at all, but is a statement of fact.

It's nice to know you think Atlas Climate Change Champion Harry is an idiot like Bjorn Lomborg.

Keep it up with your lightweight "in the ears out the mouth" cognitive style.

I don't know who you are referring to.  

You can be sensitive for me referring to you and your cult of global warming denialist types as 'pro death' but that doesn't change the reality.

I and RationalWiki did not refer to Bjorn Lomborg as an idiot.  They referred to him as an unserious 'rodeo clown' and I and they referred to him as 'paid-off.'  On these, the evidence speaks for itself.