By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

jason1637 said:
I think if Biden becomes President he'll tackle climate change. I hope none goes with the current green new deal and Biden and other Democrats go with their own plans cause AOCs green new deal sucks.

Like the original New Deal, the Green New Deal is a general description of a broad array of policy ideas, not a single, specific policy. Of course individual policies can be voted on separately. AOC herself has said that. But serious action of a kind Biden hasn't committed to needs to be taken.



Around the Network

Mr. Andrew Young for President!
The Freedom Dividend will be a REvolution, first for the U.S. but next for the entire world.



tsogud said:
jason1637 said:

Well it does too much that need to be adressed in different bills. Like one of the things it include is a guranteed job in a bill about climate change which just comes off as AOC trying to fit a few random policies in her bill so they can get passed. Its alsi impractical in some parts. I support the idea of the bill just don't like how she handled it.

It's my understanding that the details of the Green New Deal resolution haven't been ironed out yet. Isn't it basically just a list of goals at this point, not an actual bill ready to be voted on and enacted into law?

The resolution was introduced in the Senate so it was ready for vote.



Jaicee said:
jason1637 said:
I think if Biden becomes President he'll tackle climate change. I hope none goes with the current green new deal and Biden and other Democrats go with their own plans cause AOCs green new deal sucks.

Like the original New Deal, the Green New Deal is a general description of a broad array of policy ideas, not a single, specific policy. Of course individual policies can be voted on separately. AOC herself has said that. But serious action of a kind Biden hasn't committed to needs to be taken.

Well Biden's plan on climate change honestly is pretty solid. https://joebiden.com/climate/ 

I get that people keep saying we have 10-12 years until things get worse but the study that came up with that tiem frame have said similar things in the 2000s and realistically if the US were to go full green energy by 2030 the world as a whole would still be fucked unless we but economic pressure on poorer countries and ban companies from operating in countries that don't follow certain standards. But the issue with that is that we would make the quality of life for people living in poverty worse and the Supreme Court would rule things like this unconstituioonal.

It's a pessimistic view but it's where we're at tbh.



jason1637 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Care to explain why you think so?

Well it does too much that need to be adressed in different bills. Like one of the things it include is a guranteed job in a bill about climate change which just comes off as AOC trying to fit a few random policies in her bill so they can get passed. Its alsi impractical in some parts. I support the idea of the bill just don't like how she handled it.

This is where you got it wrong.

While the green New Deal is also about climate change, it's mostly meant as a tool to boost the economy and help the needy, just like the New Deal did, hence the name. It's a legislation that is supposed to not just tackle the climate change, but also the rising inequality in the US. AOC didn't choose the New Deal moniker just for show, it's meant to do the same thing as the original did for the american population at large who were hot by the great recession of the 1930's, and combine it with legislation for massively extended usage of renewable energy and strongly increased ressource efficiency. In short, clean power, less waste, and more (purchasing) power to the people.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
jason1637 said:

Well it does too much that need to be adressed in different bills. Like one of the things it include is a guranteed job in a bill about climate change which just comes off as AOC trying to fit a few random policies in her bill so they can get passed. Its alsi impractical in some parts. I support the idea of the bill just don't like how she handled it.

This is where you got it wrong.

While the green New Deal is also about climate change, it's mostly meant as a tool to boost the economy and help the needy, just like the New Deal did, hence the name. It's a legislation that is supposed to not just tackle the climate change, but also the rising inequality in the US. AOC didn't choose the New Deal moniker just for show, it's meant to do the same thing as the original did for the american population at large who were hot by the great recession of the 1930's, and combine it with legislation for massively extended usage of renewable energy and strongly increased ressource efficiency. In short, clean power, less waste, and more (purchasing) power to the people.

The new deal was a series of bill, amendments, and government agencies it wasn't just one document. I don't think a buncresolh of policies should be tackled all onto one. There should be seperate bills that address them specifically.



jason1637 said:
Jaicee said:

Like the original New Deal, the Green New Deal is a general description of a broad array of policy ideas, not a single, specific policy. Of course individual policies can be voted on separately. AOC herself has said that. But serious action of a kind Biden hasn't committed to needs to be taken.

Well Biden's plan on climate change honestly is pretty solid. https://joebiden.com/climate/ 

I get that people keep saying we have 10-12 years until things get worse but the study that came up with that tiem frame have said similar things in the 2000s and realistically if the US were to go full green energy by 2030 the world as a whole would still be fucked unless we but economic pressure on poorer countries and ban companies from operating in countries that don't follow certain standards. But the issue with that is that we would make the quality of life for people living in poverty worse and the Supreme Court would rule things like this unconstituioonal.

It's a pessimistic view but it's where we're at tbh.

Having watched through the video, I must say that he stays very vague. Net zero emissions at 2050? Great. Getting back into the Paris agreement? Yay. Leading the world on clean energy? Ehm... what? Pushing other nations to ramp up their plans? Good luck with that when every other nation plans to do so in the same timeframe at least, and some are planning to go emission free by 2030 already.

Seriously, what he does is the minimum that needs to be done, and doesn't go into any details as to how he wants to get there.

But what kills your argument is what is written below the video:

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected

In other words, he copied and uses the Green New Deal - he just left out the specifics.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
jason1637 said:

Well Biden's plan on climate change honestly is pretty solid. https://joebiden.com/climate/ 

I get that people keep saying we have 10-12 years until things get worse but the study that came up with that tiem frame have said similar things in the 2000s and realistically if the US were to go full green energy by 2030 the world as a whole would still be fucked unless we but economic pressure on poorer countries and ban companies from operating in countries that don't follow certain standards. But the issue with that is that we would make the quality of life for people living in poverty worse and the Supreme Court would rule things like this unconstituioonal.

It's a pessimistic view but it's where we're at tbh.

Having watched through the video, I must say that he stays very vague. Net zero emissions at 2050? Great. Getting back into the Paris agreement? Yay. Leading the world on clean energy? Ehm... what? Pushing other nations to ramp up their plans? Good luck with that when every other nation plans to do so in the same timeframe at least, and some are planning to go emission free by 2030 already.

Seriously, what he does is the minimum that needs to be done, and doesn't go into any details as to how he wants to get there.

But what kills your argument is what is written below the video:

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected

In other words, he copied and uses the Green New Deal - he just left out the specifics.

It's a policy proposal not a bill. Yeah more details would be great but it does a good job at outlining his plans and if he's elected he his admin can polish out their plans more.

He says the green new deal is a crucial framework because I think we can all agree that it's intention is good and what it wants ot accomplish is good. But if you look at his plan and the green new deal they dont match up. For example he wants to get to 100% clean energy by 2050 while the green new deal wants ot get that done by in 10 years. He's not proposing the same thing he's just acknowledging it while putting forward his own plans.'



jason1637 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Having watched through the video, I must say that he stays very vague. Net zero emissions at 2050? Great. Getting back into the Paris agreement? Yay. Leading the world on clean energy? Ehm... what? Pushing other nations to ramp up their plans? Good luck with that when every other nation plans to do so in the same timeframe at least, and some are planning to go emission free by 2030 already.

Seriously, what he does is the minimum that needs to be done, and doesn't go into any details as to how he wants to get there.

But what kills your argument is what is written below the video:

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected

In other words, he copied and uses the Green New Deal - he just left out the specifics.

It's a policy proposal not a bill. Yeah more details would be great but it does a good job at outlining his plans and if he's elected he his admin can polish out their plans more.

He says the green new deal is a crucial framework because I think we can all agree that it's intention is good and what it wants ot accomplish is good. But if you look at his plan and the green new deal they dont match up. For example he wants to get to 100% clean energy by 2050 while the green new deal wants ot get that done by in 10 years. He's not proposing the same thing he's just acknowledging it while putting forward his own plans.'

No, the green new deal wants to remove the carbon footprint of the US by 2030

100% clean energy by 2030 was part of the original green new deal by Jill Stein in 2006 - just like the job guarantee btw. Much of the Green New Deal is just a rehash of her proposal.

What the Green New Deal is, is mostly a way forward on the principles of green growth and a green economy with some labor rights mixed into it (which is also normal, since most green parties are left-leaning), and includes also much of environmental economics.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 17 August 2019

Bofferbrauer2 said:
jason1637 said:

It's a policy proposal not a bill. Yeah more details would be great but it does a good job at outlining his plans and if he's elected he his admin can polish out their plans more.

He says the green new deal is a crucial framework because I think we can all agree that it's intention is good and what it wants ot accomplish is good. But if you look at his plan and the green new deal they dont match up. For example he wants to get to 100% clean energy by 2050 while the green new deal wants ot get that done by in 10 years. He's not proposing the same thing he's just acknowledging it while putting forward his own plans.'

No, the green new deal wants to remove the carbon footprint of the US by 2030

100% clean energy by 2030 was part of the original green new deal by Jill Stein in 2006 - just like the job guarantee btw. Much of the Green New Deal is just a rehash of her proposal.

What the Green New Deal is, is mostly a way forward on the principles of green growth and a green economy with some labor rights mixed into it (which is also normal, since most green parties are left-leaning), and includes also much of environmental economics.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/textThe 100% clean energy is part of the 10 year goal in AOC's resolution.

Its not only labor rights mixed in. It has healthcare, housing etc. It's not like I disagree with these things I just think they should be tackled separately overall.