-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Bernie Sanders unveils $16 trillion ‘Green New Deal’ plan
- Thread starter Exellus
- Start date
Washington tried to add a Carbon Tax, It was one of Jay Inslee big Initiatives that he tried to pass in 2018. It failed miserably.
We needed it in 2008...a lot of us unfortunately projected the most optimistic scenario onto Obama as a progressive fighter, despite the reality that such hollow schemes are now common place...it made sense coming off of a Bush administration to want an inspirational figurehead like Obama to actually be the exact opposite of the right wing, but things have only gotten worse from there with how his administation adherence to the status quo of the bush admin turned out.
awful plan, hopefully when Biden wins the thinktanks he cribs policy from will come up with something better
They can just not exist, ever consider that?
Then their emissions would be 0.
Big oil spent millions rallying against it, its also more of an argument to do a Carbon tax nationally then by state
A Carbon Tax is needed but its not enough alone, to quote Jesse jenkins: "use all the tools in tool box"
Yes, we could get rid of the internet and get rid of a couple percentage points of emissions. And lose so much productivity that we wouldn't be able to manage a transition anyway.
Awful plan. Lack of stuff like a carbon tax and trying to wind down nuclear instead of promoting it makes it impossible to take seriously, nevermind the impossible ridiculousness of reaching 100% renewable by 2030 which would be impossible even with nuclear, never mind without it.
To be clear, climate change is an extremely, extremely serious problem, likely one if the most serious we've ever faced. It's something I'm extremely terrified of, to the point of the idea of having children at one point in my life being one of the things I'd like to happen more than anything to being extremely hesitant, in large part because if I were to have then I'd just be scared if the world I'd be bringing them into (there are other reasons I've shifted to be clear but that's definitely a large part of it).
But it's precisely BECAUSE climate change is such a serious fuckin' issue that it deserves policy proposals that are just as serious as the threat of clinate change itself is, not this pathetic dick-waving joke of a proposal that's simultaneously somehow completely pie-in-the-sky (100% renewable by 2030) AND hyper-conservative (not only not bother increasing nuclear power/providing incentives to do so, but wittling down the plants we do have, and also not bothering with anything like a carbon tax or sequestering or anytgy like that). How he managed to do both of those things in the same plan, I have no clue, but he found a way.
And what makes stuff like this doubly bad is now because this is what Sanders is nonetheless proposing, regardless of those flaws, it becomes the gold standard anyway among a portion of the electorate and just drowns out discussion of actual serious proposals. Don't support 100% renewable by 2030? It must just be that you don't care enough, not that you actually do take it fucking seriously and don't want a plan that's note interested in generating soundbites and sounding good than actually doing good. And from the complete opposite direction, because of parts like that and how crazy it is, not only is this not the best path forward (again, the anti-nuclear bebt to the plan if nothing else should make that clear), but it also makes it that much easier for people like Trump to attack as well based on factors like the extreme cost, unrealistic, etc.
Like, I can't emphasize this enough. Climate change is really serious. Incredibly so, and it's definitely frustrating how many don't take it seriously enough. And it's for those same reasons that I can't possibly be in favor of a terrible plan like this, which treats it as a dick-waving contest and an opportunity to generate soundbites and treat it as pure politics and attempting to make his opponents sound crazy for not supporting his craziness, versus actually just treating clinate change with the seriousness it deserves from the word go precisely because we don't have the time to mess around with nonsense like this and have it poison the well, but alas, Sanders gonna Sanders I guess and prioritize his particular brand of politics over just treating this seriously.
To be clear, climate change is an extremely, extremely serious problem, likely one if the most serious we've ever faced. It's something I'm extremely terrified of, to the point of the idea of having children at one point in my life being one of the things I'd like to happen more than anything to being extremely hesitant, in large part because if I were to have then I'd just be scared if the world I'd be bringing them into (there are other reasons I've shifted to be clear but that's definitely a large part of it).
But it's precisely BECAUSE climate change is such a serious fuckin' issue that it deserves policy proposals that are just as serious as the threat of clinate change itself is, not this pathetic dick-waving joke of a proposal that's simultaneously somehow completely pie-in-the-sky (100% renewable by 2030) AND hyper-conservative (not only not bother increasing nuclear power/providing incentives to do so, but wittling down the plants we do have, and also not bothering with anything like a carbon tax or sequestering or anytgy like that). How he managed to do both of those things in the same plan, I have no clue, but he found a way.
And what makes stuff like this doubly bad is now because this is what Sanders is nonetheless proposing, regardless of those flaws, it becomes the gold standard anyway among a portion of the electorate and just drowns out discussion of actual serious proposals. Don't support 100% renewable by 2030? It must just be that you don't care enough, not that you actually do take it fucking seriously and don't want a plan that's note interested in generating soundbites and sounding good than actually doing good. And from the complete opposite direction, because of parts like that and how crazy it is, not only is this not the best path forward (again, the anti-nuclear bebt to the plan if nothing else should make that clear), but it also makes it that much easier for people like Trump to attack as well based on factors like the extreme cost, unrealistic, etc.
Like, I can't emphasize this enough. Climate change is really serious. Incredibly so, and it's definitely frustrating how many don't take it seriously enough. And it's for those same reasons that I can't possibly be in favor of a terrible plan like this, which treats it as a dick-waving contest and an opportunity to generate soundbites and treat it as pure politics and attempting to make his opponents sound crazy for not supporting his craziness, versus actually just treating clinate change with the seriousness it deserves from the word go precisely because we don't have the time to mess around with nonsense like this and have it poison the well, but alas, Sanders gonna Sanders I guess and prioritize his particular brand of politics over just treating this seriously.
This piece-of-shit government can't even get a useless carbon tax past lobbying power. If you guys have found a strategy to get past lobbying power short of dismantling their entire funding structure (which Bernie is willing to do, and to a lesser extent, Warren) I'd really like to know what it is.
Otherwise we can just go to church and pray for a new technology that will reconcile the needs of corporate America for profit and the needs of humans to, you know, breath.
And eat food.
Otherwise we can just go to church and pray for a new technology that will reconcile the needs of corporate America for profit and the needs of humans to, you know, breath.
And eat food.
As opposed to having the digital media infrastructure to disseminate climate change denial to voters en masse, to the point where we can't get enough votes for even a modest climate change initiative? Where voters are brainwashed into actively voting for politicians who openly plan to exacerbate climate change? Good trade off for all that "productivity", I guess.
Let me know when you want to ban all climate change denial in media, and we can get this Constituional crisis started.
what the fuck, how does that even make sense?
debating the issues is dangerous territory during a presidential primary??
I'd love to hear the reasoning. They probably fear it'd be too contentious an issue (because it is), but I'm not sure why they would want to quash it unless they think it rocks the boat too much (because it will).
Anyway the DNC is G A R B A G E.
Perhaps because those experts didn't have pro-Bernie supporters denying that the bad elements of the platform exist, when they clearly do?
This isn't a new fight. Nuclear isn't new.
Bernie's got some good ideas, but he also has some incomplete ones. And some conservative ones (ban nuclear, liability exemptions for gun manufacturers, etc.).
Progressives want someone with ideas, but also someone who can take criticism and improve. That's why you're seeing strong support for Warren and other candidates.
Bernie and his followers seem to have a "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" attitude which is more "old man yells at clouds" than the leader of a progressive wing of the party.
Nobody's asking you to fall in love with Bernie or his policies. Just try not to perpetuate middle school quality discourse on a topic as serious as climate change. Somehow, climate scientists and experts are able evaluate the pros and the cons without being disingenuous, though it doesn't take an expert to be able to do that.
Anyway I don't think this plan is beyond criticism. It needs nuclear, and it needs to basically destroy the American automotive industry (which I'm all in favor for).
"How are we going to pay for it?" is not a valid criticism when we can't actually afford not to pay for it. "How about this alternative plan that costs less?" Sure, great, but "how do we pay for it" is a potential criticism of that alternative as well. If we want to spend in such a way as to not threaten to overturn the US/global economy, we have enough flex for a couple of trillion over 10 years.
If you think we can solve climate change on a bill of a couple of trillion, more power to you, but I'm not that optimistic. We need to spend "whatever it takes", be it $2 trillion or $20, or maybe even $1 quadrillion. $1 trillion was unthinkable 70 years ago, don't let the status quo dictate the bounds of the future.
This more or less implies "GM Motors will cease to exist in any recognizable form under this plan", but Bernie doesn't go as far as spelling that out. Either he genuinely feels we don't need to trash all of our cars and replace them with electrics/bikes or he's just not willing to say that part out loud.
"How are we going to pay for it?" is not a valid criticism when we can't actually afford not to pay for it. "How about this alternative plan that costs less?" Sure, great, but "how do we pay for it" is a potential criticism of that alternative as well. If we want to spend in such a way as to not threaten to overturn the US/global economy, we have enough flex for a couple of trillion over 10 years.
If you think we can solve climate change on a bill of a couple of trillion, more power to you, but I'm not that optimistic. We need to spend "whatever it takes", be it $2 trillion or $20, or maybe even $1 quadrillion. $1 trillion was unthinkable 70 years ago, don't let the status quo dictate the bounds of the future.
Last edited:
they're probably afraid of having a debate about a single issue because it would mean talking about it for longer than 30 second increments per candidate
Pointing out that Bernie wants to ban nuclear power as a key part of his energy platform is not disingenuous.
Pointing out that fighting climate change is much more difficult when you want to ban one of the key tools in the fight is not disingenuous.
Claiming that Bernie's platform does not say what it clearly says and anyone pointing it out and calling it a con must be wrong IS disingenuous.
You're seeing pushback from people who care about climate change and are pointing out valid shortcomings in Bernie's approach. That's far from middle school level discourse.
Next time address the points, rather than trying to argue that the words in the plan and on the campaign site don't really exist. Then you'll see the higher level of discourse that you claim to want.
These things aren't what I'm referring to as being disingenuous, but ok.
I never made this argument.
look man, I already admitted I was incorrect here and thanked the people who told me I was wrong for giving me a better sense of things. This is already over and done.
The lack of using nuclear energy to help transition from fossil fuel to renewables is... an oversight at best. But I guess we've reached a stage where public perception is nuclear=bad, on a global scale. It should definitely be reconsidered.
Overall, however, this is a more robust framework that'll actually do good than any other plan anyone else running for President has put out, especially now that Inslee has turned tail. The things Bernie can do alone as president are perfectly feasible, such as declaring a national emergency. For the things he can't, these are real, tangible goals we can work towards. Even if it's only possible to meet them halfway, at least we can say we tried.
I'm also skeptical about the utility of a carbon tax when compared to the other ideas offered here. We shouldn't be considering cost when combating climate change, and the only thing carbon taxes have over the goals provided is that they cost the least and cause the least instability to the economy. It'd be nice, but I don't think it's necessary with such transformative goals in mind, and may even somewhat hinder them. No nuclear is far more glaring, to me. But, it's the best we got, again, especially now that Inslee is out.
At the same time, it makes sense because the DNC clearly has its own set of goals separate from the goals of progressivism and as an organization wants to maintain a pre-Trump status quo, not bend the knee to the likes of AOC and "the gang", Bernie, or Warren. Remember, it's not a leftist party, it's a centrist party that leans ever so slightly left on social issues and leans right on economic ones (yes I know social issues and economic issues intersect, but you know what I mean.)
Overall, however, this is a more robust framework that'll actually do good than any other plan anyone else running for President has put out, especially now that Inslee has turned tail. The things Bernie can do alone as president are perfectly feasible, such as declaring a national emergency. For the things he can't, these are real, tangible goals we can work towards. Even if it's only possible to meet them halfway, at least we can say we tried.
I'm also skeptical about the utility of a carbon tax when compared to the other ideas offered here. We shouldn't be considering cost when combating climate change, and the only thing carbon taxes have over the goals provided is that they cost the least and cause the least instability to the economy. It'd be nice, but I don't think it's necessary with such transformative goals in mind, and may even somewhat hinder them. No nuclear is far more glaring, to me. But, it's the best we got, again, especially now that Inslee is out.
DNC still seems to want to push "defeating Trump" is the most important thing right now, which while half-true is, well, mind-boggling given A) polls currently say basically any of the frontrunners (some even saying ANY democrat) would soundly beat Tump and B) anything a candidate not going all-in on turning America and the world green does would be rendered null and void when we face a refugee crisis so great that fascist ideology will in turn reach a humongous peak that will plunge the world into darkness.
At the same time, it makes sense because the DNC clearly has its own set of goals separate from the goals of progressivism and as an organization wants to maintain a pre-Trump status quo, not bend the knee to the likes of AOC and "the gang", Bernie, or Warren. Remember, it's not a leftist party, it's a centrist party that leans ever so slightly left on social issues and leans right on economic ones (yes I know social issues and economic issues intersect, but you know what I mean.)
That too, honestly. I think it'd benefit a lot of candidates, not just Bernie or Warren, to have focused debates and allow them time to get their points across (so long as they don't gish-gallop). But nah, mass media demands we have cute little burns or owns for soundbites. Fuuuuuck....
Only possible with nuclear as the primary source for baseload power.
As other members have already pointed out, not factoring nuclear as a primary source of energy will make any variant of a New Green Deal a nonstarter in terms of the literal constraints of physics.
100% for it.
It is criminal that we dont have MASSIVE wind farms along the great lakes, geologically stable, and no bad weather really.
Hell, Lake erie is the shallowest lake, no reason why we cant have square miles of wind farms.
Lets do it.
Thorium reactors in old abandoned mines!
It is criminal that we dont have MASSIVE wind farms along the great lakes, geologically stable, and no bad weather really.
Hell, Lake erie is the shallowest lake, no reason why we cant have square miles of wind farms.
Lets do it.
Thorium reactors in old abandoned mines!
There some victory in it:
Still shitty that they should do a debate
Originally the DNC would ban anyone participating in events such as the Gizmondo event and ban the people from future debates if they ever tried participating in events outside
and again people read Leah Stokes thread on the proposal (wish jesse did one too), she praises the deal while having criticism of it
Still shitty that they should do a debate
Originally the DNC would ban anyone participating in events such as the Gizmondo event and ban the people from future debates if they ever tried participating in events outside
and again people read Leah Stokes thread on the proposal (wish jesse did one too), she praises the deal while having criticism of it
Last edited:
This person gets it.
Gen IV+ Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) are where it's at. Whether they are burners (IMSRs) or breeders (LFTRs), they are the only immediate future that will be able to deal with the current level of power consumption PLUS actually mitigate global warming.
My comments in this thread have focused on the fact that wanting to ban nuclear energy is not consistent with trying to address climate change.
I pointed out that Bernie wanted to ban nuclear energy.
You quoted me to tell me I was wrong. I linked an image from his website.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to debate with me if you agree that nuclear energy is a key component of fighting climate change and that Bernie is wrong to want to ban it.
its dangerous to question our oil and gas overlords. america is a dystopia already
i am 100% for thorium, most efficient reactors for 80+% baseload.
I also understand the need for the Weapons grade reactors, which we use for military purposes.
100%
. If you want the deal to be even stronger than it is, good. Add some constructive crit. But dont hide your real feelings on the matter just because of partisan or team sports which has you hating Sanders irrationally enough to want to attack this pla by default. especially when we're at the cusp of a climate apocalypse
The fact that we understand and have the technology to actually mitigate this problem but that the vast majority of people on earth do not understand this is almost as scary as the problem itself. I just hope that people accept that MSRs (especially LFTR) will play THE KEY PART in solving global warming. This technology is literally our only hope at the moment.
agreed, to help deter Global warming faster we might also need to re-create the FDR Tree Army. Except, on a global level.
I.E. PLant a METRIC FUCK TON OF TREES EVERYFUCKING WHERE
I really like Bernie a lot. Him and Warren speak to me the most out of all of the potential candidates, and they both have the most solid platforms. The only weakness I see in those platforms is where green sustainable energy is to be sourced from. While I agree that inevitably (in the long term) it should come from renewables and/or fusion reactor power (when it exists), Gen IV+ fission reactors (i.e., MSRs like LFTR and IMSR) are currently our only hope to actually fix global warming / climate change in the immediate term. The left / democrats need to get on board where science leads them.
the bigger stigma is public perception.
We need to basically mass produce, while maintaining the up most standards and integrity in the builds of everything. FAA but stricter.
Alright, fair enough. Just seemed like maybe some sort of weird stealth attempt at forming a "Sexist Bernie taking advantage of women" narrative.
I mean, I think that that's an area he could do better on, but considering his main competition in this area is Biden...
I just looked at Yang's website. I didn't see any comprehensive plan on climate change.
Here is a very good and very relevant video about climate change from Philosophy Tube
Fighting climate change isn't just one thing, it's multiple issues that we must address
Fighting climate change isn't just one thing, it's multiple issues that we must address
To be clear, I think nuclear energy is an incredibly valuable resource, and if I were devising a plan to address climate change, I would make certain that nuclear energy played a significant part in it. HOWEVER, nuclear energy is not sustainable in the long-term (no energy that relies on finite resources is), nor is it necessary as a long-term solution in dealing with climate change.
The pedantry about the whole "banning nuclear energy" conversation is to point out that this plan is a tiered transition, even if the stated goal is to ban nuclear energy [eventually]. In other words, I'm not saying "Bernie doesn't want to ban nuclear energy", I'm saying, "Bernie's plan wouldn't prevent the use of currently existing nuclear energy starting the first day that he's inaugurated, and there's a transitional period where nuclear energy will still be allowed, even if the plan does not rely on it, and banning new plants from opening up is not the same as banning current plants from being used on day one". Those are two very different statements, and to assert that I'm arguing the former when I'm arguing the latter is the definition of a strawman argument, which is inherently disingenuous argumentation.
Furthermore, pointing out flaws in a plan does not necessarily mean that the plan wasn't devised in a way that treats climate change as a serious threat, especially when so many details in said plan actually do address climate change, and to argue otherwise would be a non-sequitur; this plan is the result of years of consultation from experts in a variety of fields that intersect with climate change solutions, and was spurred by the urgency of the global crisis that we're facing, and many of the plan's solutions would not exist without the help of leading experts in their respective fields (Bernie certainly didn't come up with the details of this plan by himself). In very much the same way that "lazy dev rhetoric" (a bannable offense on era) doesn't comport with reality, "not a serious plan" or "dick measuring contest" doesn't either.
And finally, my comments about the sentiment of the thread were not just about you, but the discourse in the thread in general. There's a reason that you won't hear climate scientists outright dismiss Bernie's plan, even if they might have some problems with it, and the difference has a lot to do with perspective, which I think is seriously lacking in this thread and the discussion has hardly touched on most of the details in the plan, which is pretty telling.
Last edited:
His heart's in the right place and I'm sure that this is what needs to be done in order to meet climate goals, however it's completely unfeasible both politically, economically, and fiscally, and his lack of specifications and utilization of nuclear power don't convince me otherwise. The horrible truth of the matter is we've fucked ourselves beyond complete repair and the constrains of our government, time, and other responsibilities will prevent us from accomplishing a total 180. We still need to fight for ever degree and address the issue to the best of our abilities - which includes adopting the smart ideas from this plan but dropping the parts that look like what you'd find on a leftist's Christmas list. Keep in mind, we're not pushing from a stronger approach to climate change, we're pushing for any approach at all; if we look past the arguments between ourselves, we are faced with an opposition that denies the existence of the climate change in the first place. We cannot afford to go for broke on this because there is no safety net to catch and no time to spare.
Last edited:
Please America, please vote this man in. This is basically the last chance for human civilisation. If trump gets back or the Democrats pull the same bullshit as they did with Hillary to get a corporate shill in we are done.
Currently Bernie is my leading candidate. I think he has the public political capital to do a lot of progressive work and the ambition to lead the way; however, maaaaybe its because I've been chest deep in corporate strategy books as of late, but this plan seems to lack some serious actionable items at first glance. Ambition is very important, but ambition is not a strategy.
Last edited: