MovieChat Forums > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Discussion > All you ridiculing the Green New Deal, w...

All you ridiculing the Green New Deal, when did America shy from tackling the 'impossible'?

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
33 replies | jump to latest

All you ridiculing the Green New Deal, when did America shy from tackling the 'impossible'?

https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/2019/02/23/new-green-deal-ridicule-shows-america-has-lost-swagger-leonard-pitts-jr-column/2953986002/

___________________________

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” — John F. Kennedy, 1962

This is a requiem for American vision.

That that quality has been lost is the unavoidable takeaway from three weeks of debate over the Green New Deal introduced in Congress by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Edward J. Markey. The GND is not a proposed law, but a non-binding resolution calling for a top-to-bottom restructuring of U.S. social, economic and environmental policy. It is, in other words, a list of goals.

Granted, they are very big goals, including: supplying all of America’s power needs through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources and retrofitting every building in the country for maximum energy efficiency within 10 years; providing universal access to higher education and health care; ending the oppression of people of color, the poor and other marginalized populations; guaranteeing a job with paid vacation and a livable wage to every American.
___________________________

But the idea that those goals are too big to be achieved is what rankles. That was, you may recall, the same sentiment that pervaded the fight over the Affordable Care Act a decade ago.

Then, as now, the argument suggested that something vital has seeped out of us. Three generations ago, when President Kennedy committed America to reaching another planet within eight years, did Americans think we couldn’t do it? Indeed, was anyone surprised when we got there with five months to spare?

No. Because big things were what America did. From carving highways out of corn fields and cyberspace, to airlifting hope to a starving city, to rebuilding a ravaged continent, to helping save the world from tyranny, to digging a 40-mile trench that united two oceans, to binding East and West with railroad tracks, to defeating the most powerful military on Earth with an army of farmers, when did “big” ever scare America? When did “impossible” ever stop us?

To the contrary, it has always been in the country’s DNA to believe it had the power to transform destiny. Given the frightening state of our affairs and the planet’s imminent meltdown, we could do a lot worse than to reclaim that conviction. Instead, we get dour pragmatism and lectures on limitations. Goldberg even chided Ocasio-Cortez and Markey’s plan as “wildly ambitious.” Like that’s a bad thing.

You think the Green New Deal won’t work? Fine. Then what’s your idea? Whatever it is, make sure it takes into account the urgency of the moment, the fracturing of our social covenant, the peril of the planet.

Meantime, credit Ocasio-Cortez and Markey for at least having the audacity and faith to believe America can be America again. This, after all, was a country that never feared “big,” never ran from “impossible.”

This would be a really bad time to start.
___________________________

[–] strntz (11275) 5 years ago

There was a time when all of those ideals were part of my personal solution to what's wrong with America. Then I moved on to third grade.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

Still in the third grade huh?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'd say no.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Noted as non-responsive bullshit. Typical.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

Good points ... but AOC should take some time to think more about what she says sometimes.
Pragmatically the whole thing with Amazon was not a good outcome for her or NYC.
The Green New Deal is a good idea, but it is not a thing yet, it is an aspiration.
Progressives need to overcome the "deep state's" programming against socialism and for
these fake free market solutions.

AOC is very inspirational, but there has to something more behind that or when the people
who follow her look for more substance and find it lacking it will hurt more than it helps.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I do agree 100%. But I am growing concerned that fellow Democrats want their own fellow Democrats (leaders and non-leaders alike) to let's just say curb their enthusiastic jargon/rhetoric.

While I am also extremely concerned about the impact of the trigger language being used (I'm not fond of it either, at all), which I agree can be alienating, I'm also concerned that not using it will be perceived as giving in, giving up, falling back on the status quo, not fighting, being "cowed", going higher (which is viewed as "elitist"), selling out, being spineless, refusing to fight back, etc. Democrats really really really need their leaders, old and new, status quo and establishment and left and middle and right, to fight back.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

Yes, Dems need to fight.

[–] Bubbathegut (17285) 5 years ago

The Green Deal is very ambitious but she is forgetting that there are 7.5 billion people in the World. And only a fraction of those people actually care and want to do something.

[–] sslssg (30416) 5 years ago

Your comment is one my biggest complaints about going green. So we do nothing because no one else is going to? How about leading by example. From what I've read China is certainly trying to clean up. To quote the movie The Power of One 'A waterfall starts with one drop of water and look what becomes of that.'

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"So we do nothing because no one else is going to"

The entire globe is already doing it, billions of people on the planet are already light years ahead of the naysayers, there is already a solar plane by Boeing that travelled the globe, there has already been massive private and public and government investment in clean green energy+technology messaging/research/development/implementation, the problem are the American naysayers who keep handing the control of the government to the party that refuses to invest the same amount of money into clean green energy/tech that they invest in the Department of Defense. The spending power of the rest of the planet, the spending power of Silicon Valley, the spending power of China and Russia and Saudi Arabia and Brazil (they've invested big in clean green energy), the spending power of the individual private person and individual private investor, is nothing compared to that of the USA's spending power. Most of the globe is already doing something, it's the US Republican party that is refusing to allow such spending. Tesla is global, electric vehicles are global, the vegan food industry is global, solar panels have always been global, "green construction" is global, transforming waste into "green energy" is global, it's the US Republican party that balk at the government spending a dime on it (even though Trump himself funded "green construction" on many of his projects and took advantage of clean green technology tax incentives.....).

It's. Already. Being. Done. Globally. The problem is people like "Bubbathegut" who shake their head "No. And Nobody Else Is Doing It So Screw It" (which isn't true) and continue to vote for the party that continues to obstruct real big government investment into that sector.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Have you been to south east asia?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

they need help.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

She's not forgetting anything. Your comment IS WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Percentages add up, too.

[–] liscarkat (17125) 5 years ago

Going to the moon and other challenges the U.S. took on in the past did not destroy the economy, overtax us, or ruin the quality of our lives through ridiculous, crushing regulations. Those historical challenges were not impossible. They were not dreamed up by lunatics with the mentality of six-year-olds. Those are the main differences between this imbecilic fantasy and what was accomplished in the past. And you say "You think it won't work? Fine. Then what's your idea?" So, I don't have a competing idea, therefore this idea is a good one? That's a logical fallacy. Actually, I do have a better idea: leave us the hell alone so we can live our lives without having your moronic ideological wet dreams inflicted on us.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Fearmongering with 100% lack of substance. Typical.

[–] liscarkat (17125) 5 years ago

Frogman or whatever your name is--a 100 percent moron such as yourself is incapable of recognizing substance. Leave thinking to your betters.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 5 years ago

When you live on a space station (which we all do, it's just very big) and one group of people is intent on tampering with the life support system, what do you do? They have to be stopped. You can't just let them be. Look what's happening right now in Mozambique. People who contribute almost nothing to climate change are suffering the brunt of its consequences. The idea that your actions affect no one else, and are therefore no one else's business ... talk about a six year old mentality!

The original New Deal left us with an infrastructure that was the envy of the world, including the Interstate Highway System, ports and bridges, all the stuff that's crumbling now and no one's bothering to spend much money fixing that problem either. The Green New Deal will fund the development of the infrastructure that replaces the dirty fossil fuel industry. It will provide literally millions of good paying construction jobs, and retrain fossil fuel workers for careers in the new energy sector - a key part of the plan, making sure no one's left behind. Except of course the oil company executives. And cry me a river there.

This is the kind of economic plan that revitalizes the economy. Not deregulating all those huge corporations we can't trust to regulate themselves, and cutting taxes for the wealthy so that filthy rich billionaires can make even more money. That's all Republicans have done for the past forty years. They have only two ideas: deregulation and trickle down economics. It's hard to find a single initiative that doesn't boil down to those two things. And when we haven't had the GOP in charge, it's been corporate Democrats who are almost as bad with the bribe taking. The rich have been getting richer and everyone else has gotten screwed. Maybe it's time to try something else, eh?

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

If we're all going to be dead in 12 years, and China and the developing countries aren't going to take part in the GND, whatever we do will be a fart in a whirlwind. Are you prepared to force China and the developing countries to adhere to the Green New Deal by military force? Do you seriously think talks or sanctions would do it? They have no reason to go along with it short of military force. Is that what you're suggesting? If not, why should we take you seriously, since you and AOC claim to think this is a matter of survival? Unless you can find a way to compel China to get on board -- and trust me, we aren't going to war with them -- "impossible" doesn't just mean "difficult," as in your examples, but truly impossible.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"and China and the developing countries aren't going to take part in the GND"

They already are, as well as countries that are not first world, rendering the rest of the message moot. The US should already be the world leader on this issue. The global plan is there. China and India in particular have already been singled out and signed the Paris Agreement. The framework is there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Spending a decade pivoting to "what about Countries X, Y, Z" means the US dies while all those very countries lead. The US is/was considered the global leader, those countries need the US to take the lead. The US is the country considered the best positioned financially, technologically, logistically, to be the leader. The US is/was where the greatest clean green energy and technology innovation was birthed. Why do you want the US to follow the lead of China or Saudi Arabia or Nicaragua or Germany or Costa Rica or Sweden or Denmark or Israel (some of the countries leading the way on this issue)? Why do you want the US to finish last?

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

According to the NYT, "China consumes almost as much coal annually as all other countries combined, and coal burning in the country is the biggest source of both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, the leading cause of climate change." When Trump promises to do something, do you automatically believe him? I have the same problem with China.

I think the US "taking the lead" sort of died with Obama and his consensus and leading from behind approach. What we hear over and over is that countries don't want the US to tell them what to do. And what's wrong with letting others show us how since they're already, by your admission, "leading the way on this issue." We can obsess about plastic drinking straws with the best of them.

No, I don't take it seriously. Yes, I have lived through other Henny Penny prognostications -- as have you. Gore said we'd be tying our boats to the Washington monument by now. So why should we believe the Sky Is Falling crowd when they come up with another pronouncement? The science was supposed to be irrefutable the last time. *Yawn*

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 5 years ago

Al Gore is not a scientist. And I don't recall him saying anything like that, perhaps you could find that quote for us?

I'm sorry, but all you have to do is watch time lapse satellite imagery captured by NASA over the past few decades and see those oranges and reds spreading like an infection, in lockstep with increasing CO₂ levels. We know how much CO₂ has been added to the atmosphere. We know where it's coming from too, that same satellite data shows it's emanating from urban and industrial areas of the planet - it's humans not Mother Nature. I understand the inclination to want to believe everything will be fine, that this warning is like all the other apocalyptic craziness you've heard from various crackpots, but that's just not the case. And it's hard for me to take anyone seriously who thinks their acknowledgment is required in order for reality to be what it is. The universe doesn't need your OK. Get over it.

Climate change will not really be the end of the world. But are you honestly going to say that just because it'll only be massively horrible, the worst disaster humanity has experienced in its entire time on Earth, but not actually The Apocalypse, that we should sit on our asses lest we disrupt the profits of the oil billionaires? Seriously? Nice to see we all have our priorities straight.

[–] liscarkat (17125) 5 years ago

Al Gore said that in five years, the entire polar ice cap would be gone. That was in 2008. You're right--he's not a scientist. In fact, if you do some research, you will find that he actually flunked his science classes in college. And you look to him as some sort of science guru. That's just pitiful.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 5 years ago

I don't look to him as any sort of science guru. I know more science than he does. Al Gore is an activist; in that capacity he's doing a valuable service, but I wouldn't take his crystal balling too seriously. This is one of those silly arguments the deniers use. Gore knows his stuff about as well as any layperson. You can find some seriously nutty people who talk about climate change if you look around though. Do Jim Jones and David Koresh represent Christianity? Of course not. No one would suggest that. It's the same thing with environmentalism. Just because nuts exist, along with people who don't really know what they're talking about, that doesn't invalidate the cause itself or the science behind it.

Are you the sort of person who looks for a way to believe what they want to believe, or do you actually want to know the truth? What happens when those two things are incompatible? Which do you choose? I think it's important to ask this question of people - and important for people to ask themselves. Not everyone falls into the same camp in that regard.

[–] Woman (16) 5 years ago

But Al Gore is a mainstream politician. His movie won awards and he made a sequel. Media doesn't denounce him, and all he does is say what scientists tell him to say anyway. The former head of NASA predicted that New York City would be underwater by now. That's even more dire.

Schools have always been trying to threaten children that if you litter or leave the water running while you brush your teeth, then rainforests would disappear, snow wouldn't exist, acid rain would eat your skin, killer bees would take over the world, etc... Pushing these outlandish disaster scenarios is characteristic of Leftism. It's something you have to deal with when arguing about global warming. You can't ignore the fact that the number one most common argument is far and away that 97% of scientists have a consensus and you have to trust them because they've looked at the science, and/or we aren't qualified. They're the ones trying to make this into a credibility issue, peer review versus random internet blogs. Don't blame the other side if they focus on that. Even if global warming is true, it's presented as a lie and people are right to doubt it.

I don't believe that you know more science than Al Gore. Science has a terrible problem with reproducibility. Something like 90% of studies fail when tested twice. If you look at public health, it's just absurd what they do to push the Food Pyramid. Clearly the agricultural industry is running the show. What makes you think Big Oil is not doing the same with environmental science? You think they're just funding a few random shills here and there? I don't. Look at the wiki for the Climate Research Unit, the premier research institution for the UN IPCC and the subject of Climategate. It says right in the intro that it was founded by BP, Shell, and Rockefeller. Remember, they were behind the Peak Oil theory too. They run the scientific authorities and the universities from the top down.

When global warming was still global cooling, the solution was to spray toxic waste on glaciers to help melt them. Now that it's global warming, the solution is to spray toxic waste in the atmosphere to reflect the sun. Sounds to me like someone just has a big supply of toxic waste and needs an excuse to get rid of it. Wouldn't be the first time. There are an awful lot of bad actors and I don't see any pushback. That's a big clue even without knowing any science.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 5 years ago

I'm a physicist. Although climate research is not my specialty, I understand both the science - better than Al Gore - and the type of computer modeling used to analyze data. You simply cannot look at the last forty years of NASA satellite telemetry and not be alarmed.

What we are seeing right now strongly resembles the beginning of an ancient geological period called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). The hottest time since the last mass extinction. We are reproducing artificially the conditions that set off that warming 55 million years ago (about 10 million years after the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs). Whether or not it gets quite as bad, I couldn't tell you. Complex systems like the Earth's climate behave in a nondeterministic manner.

The mathematics of nonlinear systems is popularly called chaos theory, what it boils down to is that you can get an approximate range of outcomes but not exact predictions - this ice sheet will start breaking up on this date, global temperature will hit such-and-such a level on that date, it doesn't work that way. But even the most optimistic outcomes given what we've seen so far are not good. Spectacularly not good. Read about the PETM. Here's an article from back in 2015 that explains without too much technical jargon.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150914-when-global-warming-made-our-world-super-hot

What we're talking about is not doomsday. The human race will not go extinct. Well, not all of us. There will probably be billions of lives lost over a period of decades from a whole variety of causes. Starvation, disease, and war will claim most of them. A hothouse climate simply wouldn't be able to support more than 3-4 billion people. At most. The Pentagon has gamed out a number of scenarios and the worldwide instability caused by a lack of resources and climate change induced migration on a massive scale will be VERY ugly no matter how it all goes down.

This will not be the apocalypse but it will be a world you wouldn't want your children and grandchildren to have to grow up in. And we risk this for what? Oil billionaires and their profits? We're running out of time. In another ten to fifteen years, if we haven't taken significant steps away from fossil fuels, we'll hit a tipping point where natural feedback cycles will begin to reinforce the warming. At that point it'll be out of our hands. The warming will continue until it reaches an equilibrium state, whatever that turns out to be. We won't like it. But even drastic action on our part won't stop it. We will have waited too long.

[–] Gd5150 (11317) 5 years ago

Equating this garbage with going to the moon is like saying we went to the moon because it was made of cheese.

Tick tick. What will they say when 2029 comes and goes and Earth is exactly the same. What will they change the title to then? But consensus!

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

Exactly! Al Gore’s deadline came and went, and they still want us to take them seriously. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[–] liscarkat (17125) 5 years ago

If you could come back in a thousand years, you would find the Earth teeming with animal and plant life. It's not dying, it's not going anywhere. But if these green new deal morons are allowed to prevail, the economy and civilization will be destroyed.

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

☝🏻THIS!

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 5 years ago

Ten million years from now the environment will have long since recovered from anything we do. A thousand years though? That's no time at all. Earth will still be a sewer pit then, if that's what we turn it into. So clearly we should sit on our hands and take no action lest we cut into the profits of filthy rich oil billionaires by trying to stop this. I mean, things will EVENTUALLY be okay again. Right?

Nothing worse than industry shills on discussion boards. You're losing the PR war. And the fact that your employers tried to fight it in the first place, knowing the truth, will have personal and legal consequences down the road - as it should!

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

I am reasonably good at math and therefore know the Green New Deal is for morons.

It isn't complicated at all. Blah blah blah.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16670) 5 years ago

It lost its way around the same time reality television and Fox News hit the scene.