NY Times: The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like Or Something

Basically, op-ed writer Jedediah Britton-Purdy, professor of law at Columbia and is the author, most recently, of “After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene” exposes that ‘climate change’ is all about politics, and the Green New Deal is the ultimate extension

The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like

Everyone is lining up to endorse the Green New Deal — or to mock it. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have all endorsed the resolution sponsored by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts.

Conservative critics predictably call it “a shocking document” and “a call for enviro-socialism in America,” but liberal condescension has cut deeper. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, essentially dismissed it as branding, saying, “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Others have criticized it for leaving out any mention of a carbon tax, a cornerstone of mainstream climate-policy proposals, while embracing a left-populist agenda that includes universal health care, stronger labor rights and a jobs guarantee.

What do these goals have to do with stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels before climate change makes large parts of the world uninhabitable? What has taken liberal critics aback is that the Green New Deal strays so far from the traditional environmental emphasis on controlling pollution, which the carbon tax aims to do, and tries to solve the problems of economic inequality, poverty and even corporate concentration (there’s an antimonopoly clause).

But this everything-and-the-carbon-sink strategy is actually a feature of the approach, not a bug, and not only for reasons of ideological branding. In the 21st century, environmental policy is economic policy. Keeping the two separate isn’t a feat of intellectual discipline. It’s an anachronism.

Every once in a while, a Warmist will let the cat out of the bag as to what they really want to do. The Green New Deal itself was a big reveal as to what they really want, and Britton-Purdy continues that. Basically, it involves everything. Implementing controls and changes in terms of fossil fuels and EVERYTHING that is touched by it (which is a goodly chunk of our lives), refitting buildings, retooling transportation (meaning you may not have your own private vehicle), the entire jobs policy of Government, farming, ranching, and energy, among others, are linked to the economy, which, in Warmist World, is controlled by the Central Government.

The Green New Deal isn’t the only approach, of course, but its broad ambitions mark out the ground where future climate fights will happen. Because reshaping our environmental impact means reworking our economy, there will inevitably be competing visions about who deserves to benefit and what kind of economy we should build. Centrist proposals will concentrate on promoting investment in new technologies, with profits going, pharma-style, to private researchers and manufacturers.

And this means Government dictating what it looks like. Funny how it always comes down to institution greater and greater government power.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “NY Times: The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like Or Something”

  1. StillAlive says:

    Moore later responded to McCarthy, referring to what she called the “GOP tax scam.”
    “Any benefit of the #goptaxscam is put on the national credit card,” Moore wrote on Twitter. “The middle class knows they’re going to be the ones who are forced to pay it back.
    “Meanwhile,” she added, “Democrats grew the economy, shrunk the deficit, & gave everyone healthcare. Thanks, Obama!”

    1. Now that the GOP is in control suddenly the left is all about the national debt.
    2. The Democrats shrunk the national debt under Obama. What Huh? Shrunk it from triple George W. Bush to only half of George W. Bush. I guess in the Communists peoples party that makes economic sense.
    3. The middle class is going to be forced to pay back the debt. I suppose that might be true but the Peoples Communist party does not believe in the Middle class. RED CORTEZ as she is now being hailed is all about the government controlling everything including jobs. The Red new deal will cost trillions and trillions and trillions and after all the Rich have moved out of the country paying for communism is always all about a giant ponzi scheme within your borders until there is no more money left to steal from the next generation.

    4. Notice how this BLACK LEADER IS BLAH< BLAH< BLAH about BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT. She should be rejoicing instead she is finding ways to discredit and debunk facts with distorted reality.

    the communist peoples party formally known as the Democratic party is in full glory everytime they open their mouths now.

  2. MrDeLaGarzenzo says:

    One of the things I find fascinating about the AGW people and the left in general is their total distortion of facts by using graphs which are deceptively misleading.

    The following is a fact check by the Washington Post which is trying to claim that Obama was the great creator of a robust economy. Okay lets look at their claims.

    The numbers are nearly all in now. What they show about what really happened during the eight years that Barack Obama was president is sometimes different from what politicians claimed.

    The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to below the historical norm.
    Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 4.0 percent after inflation. The gain was 3.7 percent for just production and nonsupervisory employees.
    After-tax corporate profits also set records, as did stock prices. The S&P 500 index rose 166 percent.
    The number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before.
    The federal debt owed to the public rose 128 percent. Deficits were rising as Obama departed.
    Home prices rose 20 percent. But the home ownership rate hit the lowest point in half a century.
    Illegal immigration declined: The Border Patrol caught 35 percent fewer people trying to get into the U.S. from Mexico.
    Wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent.
    Production of handguns rose 192 percent, to a record level.
    The murder rate dropped to the lowest on record in 2014, then rose and finished at the same rate as when Obama took office.

    Pretty impressive if you look at it on the face value. I mean who could possibly argue with these facts if in reality they were true.

    The facts are simple. The above is true. The above is factually correct while being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous with the facts are presented by history.

    This will not be a long post. I will simply point out a couple of key ingredients which both the AGW scientists use as do the left when it comes to the economy.

    The AGW scientists change the graphs to reflect a cooler past which then shows a much warmer present. This is a fact. It was established in a court of Law when Professor Mann Sued Professor Ball for defamation.

    Secondly and again most importantly is how the left uses fake data to reach a conclusion.

    When Obama makes his claims he begins his calculation in February of 2010, nearly a year after he took office. If Obama would begin his count in January 2009 — which is how job growth is normally measured — the number of private-sector jobs has increased just 5.6 million.

    The most telling of all is that During Obama’s administration the population increased by 20 million resulting in the net loss of 14 million jobs during his 8 years in office. Not to mention most of the jobs which were counted as created jobs were if you remember Part time jobs created by Obama care which almost mandated employers hire part time labor in order to avoid paying for Obamacare for all because of how the regulations were written.

    In short. Be careful when you read a chart or graph put out by any government agency or investment firm. Do your due diligence and look at the total picture. I do not profess to be a political expert but I do profess to understand graphs and charts as I use them all the time in my classes.

    Buyer beware when you see a chart trotted out by a politician is my biggest advice to anyone.

Pirate's Cove