The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

Post by Red » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:10 pm

It's been a while since I wrote a full out post, so here goes nothing.

I'm pretty sure most of you are familiar with the new Congresswoman who has recently been elected to the House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is representing my State, New York (so obviously liberal, Democrat), and, as per usual whenever I hear of a new Politician who is seeking office (especially at the federal level, and if they're a Democrat), I Google their energy policies (To be honest I was surprised when Al Gore wasn't pro-nuclear. I don't think he's against nuclear, but he's not exactly pro either), to of course see their stance on nuclear energy, because if you're against nuclear energy, you can basically wave goodbye to my vote (I didn't really bother searching any of her other policies, I just know she's for universal healthcare and free education (though I have some qualms with that, that's not important at the moment)).

The Economic Point
While I was searching around, I came across her idea of a 'Green New Deal,' and I instantly thought "What nebulous bullshit, but let us be open-minded here." To be honest, I would just call it the 'Green Deal,' since I'm pretty sure most people don't even know what the New Deal even was, and in tradition of other American Domestic Policies (Square Deal, Fair Deal, etc.).

The effectiveness of the New Deal is debatable. I mean, I like it, it definitely did a lot of good (gave us things like SS and the TVA, and led to things such as Medicare), but the nature of it is largely questionable when referring to it ending the Great Depression. A big part of the New Deal was the WPA, the Works Progress Administration, which helped build tons of roads, bridges, buildings, parks, etc. This sounds like a great thing (and it definitely helped), but the issue is that there are only so many buildings and bridges you can make (especially in some areas you can't build at all, due to the environment, private property, and even wilderness preservation laws), so eventually, the steam in that engine will run out once all of the infrastructure is built (not to mention is kinda screws over posterity who won't be able to build many new things. Well, I guess restoration is enough). But any honest historian will tell you that it's very hard to dictate the effectiveness of the New Deal, especially since there was a Recession that happened in '37, the first year of Roosevelt's new term, and things really didn't start picking up until the U.S. entered World War II.

Why I bring this up, you may ask? Well, this 'Green New Deal' (I refuse to colorize the term 'Green' any further) is trying to solve a similar problem (even though unemployment is very low) with similar solutions but suffers similar flaws. There are only so many solar panels and windmills that can be built (not to mention how dangerous they are not only to install, but also to maintain, and also being pretty dangerous in general). Even if our unemployment is like 15%, this won't end unemployment for these people.

I always hear this rhetoric from the liberal media. 'Oh! This shit's fantastic! Think of all those jobs that'll be created!' Oh, like those SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS?
https://youtu.be/H901KdXgHs4?t=956

I was never really swayed by the 'It'll create jobs!' argument, since, not only is it meaningless rhetoric, but that doesn't mean that the job is useful (and can even be harmful). I'm pretty sure McDonald's has created millions of jobs too, and those jobs have helped give us an obese and very unhealthy population, a suffering environment, and billions of murdered animals. I'll only be convinced if the job is generally long lasting and serves a useful purpose (like an electrician or a plumber).

Also, America is not the only country worth giving a damn about (despite what Trump and even some Democrats might think). Other countries have basically no strong, working economies, with unemployment rates much higher than ours, and they don't even have a welfare option. Why not tell us your policy about free trade, which would go a long way in helping with that. It doesn't really seem as though you have a stance on it (I couldn't find any). You are aware that other countries exist, correct? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be worried about our issues over here, just that we shouldn't be so nationalistic. But I'm getting ahead of myself, and this section is much longer than I intended, though I still have a few other things to say.

The Political Enforcement
I've calmed down a bit on my politics (I still am a liberal and have progressive beliefs, but I've focused my attention less on political issues and more on issues abroad), but for a person who has been elected to Congress, their politics actually matter a great deal.

Going back to FDR's New Deal, you'll notice that FDR was, not only a skilled politician, but also a great party leader who helped secure large majorities in both houses on Congress, which in turn helped him pass a lot of his New Deal agenda. Not to mention, FDR was also the President, not a mere member of Congress. I'm not saying Ms. Cortez's office is worthless, and I'm not trying to belittle her, but she has almost no influence outside of her supporters.

As a single member of the House of Representatives with no political experience, it's not going to be easy (if even possible) getting this 'Green New Deal' legislation passed. I highly doubt the committee will consider it, and even if they do, it has to go through both chambers of Congress (435 House Members + 100 Senators = 535 People who look it over, so minimum 218 + 50 = 268), one of which is still controlled by Republicans (and even some Democrats might not get on board with it, especially sensible ones that are Pro-Nuclear, but I'll get to that, believe you me).

Not to mention, by the insane chance that one bill is even passed, it has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court (which is controlled by Republicans; I'm sure they won't overrule it, but it's a possibility) and it also has to go to the President, Mr. Donald Trump, whose environmental policy is basically the opposite of the 'Green New Deal' in just about every way, for approval. Trump is understandably against things such as Solar and Wind as energy sources (though I have no love for his support of fossil fuels), and is actually pro-nuclear (which again, I will get to). There is no chance in hell Trump would sign a piece of legislation like this, so the paper that bill is printed on would probably be put to better use if you were to wipe your ass with it. Unless, of course, you think you can override that, which is even less likely, actually, borderline impossible.

The Environmental Impact
Okay, I'm not going to go into too much detail about the effectiveness of Solar and Wind, because not only is it redundant, but most of you who've been here for a while now already know that Solar and Wind are impractical solutions to our energy problem. I'm also not going to talk about the details of nuclear energy, because we all know it's clean and our best solution, and I assume most of you here already know that. I'm working on a Wiki Page which I haven't updated for a while and I feel bad about that (among other things but anyway), so read that when it's done.

OKAY, I'll try to make this quick since I probably lost the attention of most of you guys already.

Guess what this deal calls for? No nuclear energy! Yay!
My honest reaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC3wXwaGYlA

Don't believe me? It says it right here: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... n-new-deal

That's right folks, our most realistic solution to combating climate change is being completely discarded in favor of shit like Solar and Wind (situational) and Geothermal and Hydro Energy (not bad energy sources, but can only be utilized in so many places).

You know, for someone who apparently won second place in a science contest about Microbiology, she doesn't seem to be that scientifically literate. I know they're unrelated fields, but I figure a general rule of thumb is, if you're a connoisseur of the sciences, you're likely to be more open-minded to those who are experts in the sciences you are unfamiliar with. Isn't that how the Dunning Kruger Effect works?

But sadly, rather not. She seems to have bought into the liberal bullshit of being anti-nuclear (and I'm assuming subscribing to a lot of liberal pseudoscience), and will help bring on the deaths of like a few billion people or so if she manages to become super powerful.

She's young, and hopefully intelligent. She still has a lot to learn, and may likely be more willing to change her mind. I would love to get into contact with her (and again she represents my State; I live near two Assemblymen, a former State Senator, a few Councilmen, etc, so maybe this is something I can do? Maybe?), but you know whatever.

So those are basically my qualms with this 'Green New Deal' bullshit. As mentioned before, she's definitely gonna have a hard time getting much support from either Party in Congress. Now, someone like Bernie Sanders might like this agenda, but not me, I have standards.

So that's what we're dealing with here, any thoughts?
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm

There's some good stuff in there, but ultimately excluding nuclear makes it unrealistic goal-wise, which just makes the whole thing look like a joke.

There's some low hanging fruit where we can add in more solar and geothermal (particularly on homes, not so much for industry), and absolutely improvements to energy efficiency make sense, but those won't get us all the way there.

To that end, I tend to prefer more limited programs which encourage building out solar and creating jobs where it's practical, and don't talk about shutting down other power sources. It's OK to spend some money on solar because it's better than coal and it's easier (in terms of politics), but it's only a very small part of the solution and must not get in the way of other things.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:41 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm
There's some good stuff in there, but ultimately excluding nuclear makes it unrealistic goal-wise, which just makes the whole thing look like a joke.
To be honest, if it were in favor of nuclear, then I'd forgive all the flaws and be in full support of it (though just nuclear would be preferable).
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm
There's some low hanging fruit where we can add in more solar and geothermal (particularly on homes, not so much for industry), and absolutely improvements to energy efficiency make sense, but those won't get us all the way there.
I hear some states like California passed a new law that requires by 2020 (I think it's 2020, might be later) for all homes to have solar panels. I think that's a great idea, but personally, we should wait a few more years for the solar technology to be more efficient and powerful since it won't be of much use for the more northern states, so it'd be possible for more people to have constant energy regardless of the time. For a sunny state like California it might do a lot of good (I doubt it'd solve the problem entirely since it's a very large state and the most populous), but for other states not so much.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm
To that end, I tend to prefer more limited programs which encourage building out solar and creating jobs where it's practical, and don't talk about shutting down other power sources. It's OK to spend some money on solar because it's better than coal and it's easier (in terms of politics), but it's only a very small part of the solution and must not get in the way of other things.
but what about clean coal m8?

I hope Cortez isn't calling for a moratorium on nuclear...
VOTE

Red For President
--------------------------
Blue For Vice President

2056
My Democratic Republic: https://discord.gg/ejHz43n

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest