Sixteen Youths Tell Us What They Think Of The Green New Deal

I wonder how all the young people would feel if anyone explained to them that if the GND was implemented they’d have to take a train if they wanted to take a selfie in a special place, but, unfortunately, an unintended consequence would be wiping out the manufacture of smartphones, which use massive amounts of electricity and require lots of rare earth minerals and such, shipped all around the world with a massive carbon footprint

What 16 Young People Think About the Green New Deal

The policy proposals that will undergird the Green New Deal are still to come; for now, the GND represents a moral and political imagining that politicians have consistently failed to offer. It’s a vision to champion; a charge to lead; and a new, youth-led expectation for the people elected into power.

The Green New Deal can only exist with the force and imaginations of the young people whose world it will shape. So Student Nation asked young people across the country: As the generation poised to inherit a world directly threatened by the impacts of climate change, how could the Green New Deal affect your future, or the future of disaffected communities coast to coast?

Yes, let’s ask the world-wise kids. What follows are the quick stories from the 16, let’s take a look at them, shall we (each excerpt is a different student)?

As a millennial college student entering the workforce in a time of economic uncertainty and environmental crisis, I am constantly inundated with the word “burnout.” With a growing mental-health crisis across college campuses, the looming burden of astronomical student debt, and the daunting prospect of inheriting a planet on the brink of catastrophe, it is no surprise that we are frequently called the “burnout generation.” Among a seemingly endless succession of burgeoning crises, the Green New Deal offers a glimmer of hope. Emma Fiona Jones is a senior at Vassar College studying art history and women’s studies.

So, pretty much someone wasting all those loans on a worthless degree. Let’s listen to her about “brink of catastrophe.”

With healthier foods, organic options and other “green” efforts to cleanse the earth on our side, we’ll restore the landscapes and places as we once knew them. Trees will grow to help purify our air. Animals will return to their natural habitats. Green jobs will help sprout economic prosperity. We can strip away America as we’ve known it—the America that, for many Americans, spoon-feeds them their own suffering.

Um, trees love carbon dioxide. More under the fold

Let’s see what Mollie Davis, a freshman at Hollins University studying communications, has to say

Obviously, I am not the only person impacted by the possibility of climate change destroying the world as we know it. But, selfishly, I tend to view it through thoughts like: “I will never be able to write a Broadway show, or run for Congress, if the planet becomes unlivable.”

See? Without the GND she might never be able to write that Broadway show! This is your fault for having that steak the other night.

I’m a man of few wants. After graduating college, I want a job with good pay in a nice city, preferably somewhere near the coast, like many young people. I want to ditch my car, because driving is way worse than taking the bus. And I want to enjoy my good-paying job, my nice city, and its reliable public transportation for the rest of my natural life.

Oh, Jake Gold, you can ditch your car right now. Kinda hard to have a good job when the GND destroys the economy.

To me, the Green New Deal is our last hope. Implementing it would show that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be resolved immediately. As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, the Green New Deal would finally treat climate change “like the serious, existential threat it is.” —Emily Sabens is a senior at Ball State University studying journalism and graphic design.

Will Emily demand that the House vote on the GND? AOC is certainly not agitating for a vote on it. She became livid that they voted on it in the Senate.

So, it isn’t surprising that the students I’ve spoken to overwhelmingly support the Green New Deal, which addresses climate change as a scientific, social-justice, and economic issue. The primary critique of the GND students have expressed is the logistics of funding GND initiatives. Some of my peers have stated they support the GND in principle but need to know exactly how policy-makers will obtain GND funding (and how it will impact low- and middle-income individuals), before they back it as policy. Others have minimized funding, stressing that money cannot buy a new planet.

It’ll destroy the low and middle income individuals, while the rich people who push this tripe will be just fine.

This legislation is not only about saving the planet. It is about reimagining the way that we live. Considering the magnitude of the crisis awaiting us, and considering the populations that crisis will devastate first and foremost, it is the necessary approach. —Abe Asher is a junior at Macalester College studying political science and religious studies.

The way we live, huh? Funny that the supporters do not change their own lives voluntarily.

As a young, black woman who lives on the intersection of multiple identities, it is important for policies to be intersectional and take into account that many people also live on the intersection of multiple identities and are impacted by issues like climate change in distinct ways.

Huh what?

While the thought of extensive green measures like those mentioned in the Green New Deal sound great, I believe that we need to take small steps before we do it all at once. That being said, the implementation of the Green New Deal would be beneficial to everyone. Something needs to be done about the impending dangers of climate change, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey clearly helped put together a well thought-out plan.

Markey voted “present” during the Senate vote.

The Green New Deal is extreme and expensive. If implemented, it will likely affect nearly every industry in the nation and will certainly have an immediate impact on the US economy. But extreme circumstances necessitate extreme responses—and the state of our planet far exceeds this qualification.

So, screw the economy.

The truth of the matter is, if we don’t get serious about change, my generation won’t see our children walk across the stage at high-school graduation. Serious change won’t be easy, and the upfront monetary cost is massive. But nothing worthwhile ever is easy, and the cost of not changing our ways is the very future of mankind.

So to this I say, take your pick: money or lives.

Yes, young people, pick. Give up your fossil fueled trips to spring break and taking selfies in special places. Give up your smartphones. Make your own clothes rather than ordering them on-line and having them shipped from far away. Grow your own food. Show us your commitment.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

42 Responses to “Sixteen Youths Tell Us What They Think Of The Green New Deal”

  1. Bill Bear says:

    Porter Good’s entire first paragraph is a lie. Nothing in the GND resolution would require any of the hilariously overblown consequences he lists.

    The rest of the post is equally unrelated to reality.

    As I said in an earlier comment, it’s a sign of extreme laziness not to put in the effort to make one’s lies seem at least marginally believable.

    • formwiz says:

      No, Teach is being quite perspicacious. And the unreal part is 20 year olds buying the nonsense we have a dozen years to “save” the planet. This is what happens when you teach the Leftist version of history, or don’t teach history.

      it’s a sign of extreme laziness not to put in the effort to make one’s lies seem at least marginally believable.

      Epson, please pick up the white courtesy telephone. You have a call.

      Jeffery in a bear suit is lying.

      That’s what liars do.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    “…Emma Fiona Jones is a senior at Vassar College studying art history and women’s studies.”

    HAHAHA. Who does she think she is kidding? She is never going to enter the workforce. She has done nothing in college to actually prepare her for a career.

    • dachs_dude says:

      But she thinks she’ll get a lucrative job teaching art history and women’s studies somewhere. So there’s that.
      She’s planning on Voting for Bernie in 2020 so everyone will be as dirt broke as she is.

    • Jl says:

      “Studying art history and woman’s studies..” And shel’ll be working at Starbucks the next 20 years paying off her student loans for her worthless degree.

      • Professor Hale says:

        That’s what makes socialism so appealing. She spent herself into indentured servitude and someone offers to pay off her debts. She doesn’t care where the free money comes from.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    Since it worked so well the first time, I am recommending we take it down a second notch.

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Lil and Prof,

    Do you think it’s improper to question TEACH’s “reasoning”? Isn’t that the reason to have comments?

    In his first paragraph, TEACH stated that the GND would allow only rail travel and would eliminate smart phones. Those claims are unsupported by evidence.

    Do you object to untruths being called “lies”? Is “lie” too harsh?

  5. Professor Hale says:

    I don’t find two people calling each other “liars” to be entertaining or enlightening. When I hear someone deliberately lying to me, I stop caring what they have to say about anything. Once I no longer care, there is no further point of engaging with them on any subject. And, no, I don’t need to prove to the lair that he was lying or be fair to him.

    I am 58 years old. There is literally no point on any topic you can make that I haven’t heard before and people here keep linking to stuff as if it is something new that will convince. Even when it isn’t a deliberate lie, and is just wrong or an honest difference of opinion, it’s just boring.

    I’m just hanging out here to see how long it takes for the rest of you to catch on. I am concluding that you all, on both sides, enjoy the squabbling. So, good for you. You have found a place that has a low enough comment bandwidth so that you can all hear yourselves squabble. It’s not my place to tell you that your free entertainment choices are wrong or inappropriate. I can be happy for you all without feeling i need to participate in what you do. (that’s what tolerance looks like).

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Agreed. It does get rather tiresome.

      • Professor Hale says:

        And attractive younger women in inappropriate clothing is a bonus.

      • Kye says:

        Yes, it is tedious but several months back I decided I was no longer going to tolerate being called a liar or racist every time I posted. However, now I think it is better to abide by Teach’s request out of respect if for no other reason.

        Since Bill Bear’s very first comment here is void of respect and also fires off his first “Liar” salvo of the day I can only conclude he cannot operate under civilized conditions and therefore will not be participating in the detente of politeness Teach requested.

        BTW Bill Bear, since the New Green Deal has not been implemented Teach’s comments about what would happen in regard to the goofy kids are either speculation or opinion neither of which constitutes “a lie” in his first paragraph. Do you understand the difference between opinion and lie?

        • Bill Bear says:

          “Since Bill Bear’s very first comment here is void of respect”

          Respect is earned.

          And it is lost by repeatedly making demonstrably false statements.

          Kye might want to reflect on that for a little while.

          • formwiz says:

            Well, we all have and just because you’re the (more) ill-mannered side of Jeffery (the bunny suit is the Alan Colmes side) cuts you no slack.

      • formwiz says:

        It is a chore to knock down stuff that’s been thoroughly rebutted, although It is fun putting up something that kills one of his “troofs” and watch him drop the subject like a hot potato, but lunatics like Occasional Cortex (and, let’s not kid ourselves, the rest of the Demos) would love to ram this nonsense down our throats like they did IdiotCare and the GM bailout.

        The problem is, if you open the door, every village has its idiot and Jeffery is ours. Over at Surber, it’s a guy who calls himself Anonymous. At Althouse, there used to be a guy called Montana Urban Legend. Jeffery isn’t really all that entertaining.

        I bumped into a kid a couple of days ago talking to some friends about the Conquest of Mexico and how the Conquistadores wiped out the Mayas. He was so wrong on so many levels I had to try to set him straight. He wasn’t the sharpest crayon in the box, but it was clear he had been well-indoctrinated and, just like Jeffery, facts were immaterial.

        This is the issue. If somebody doesn’t say something, this stuff goes unchallenged.

    • formwiz says:

      Jeffery, in all his incarnations, is the bearer of every Leftist meme out there.

      I think it’s important to know what the bad guys are putting out and to be able to knock it down. This may be just one little corner of the Interwebz, but it’s a microcosm of what’s going on all over. One thing I learned over the years is never let a lie go unchallenged or they turn it into “consensus”.

      Teach is trying to have a free discussion, but Jeffery wants to abuse it to spread his propaganda. Some websites ban people like him outright. What Teach does is his business.

      • Professor Hale says:

        I understand your reasoning. But if that is your goal, then I would suggest you learn some new tricks. As I mentioned, I have heard all these arguments before. So has everyone else. Even Jeff doesn’t need you to refute his arguments because he has also heard all the rebuttals. When you argue with someone who doesn’t care, neither one of you learn anything. Each prospective audience needs a response that is tail crafted to address their own concerns. The title women in this main story cares about her student loans. She puts child-like faith in all the adults who advised her to go get that degree and borrow huge money to do it. Then she feels enslaved by the debts. She wants to be free, but won’t make any choices that let anyone else also be free. So, without intending it, she has become a thief and is OK with it. Telling her she is a thief doesn’t get her what she wants. So why do it? Far better is to plan ahead and abolish the federal student loan program so that no one else is faced with this same problem. Then let banks make loans, at risk, with rational basis to an eye for repayment. Result: No more loans pay for Women’s studies. Result: No more Socialists.

        There is a cartoon I once saw that describes this perfectly. A conservative meets a new immigrant. He says, welcome to America. Here’s a book on economics written by some Austrian guy 100 years ago. Let’s chat about hard work and opportunity. Then a socialist says, vote for me and I’ll give you his stuff. Which argument wins? The Socialist wins every time. It’s not because our arguments are ineffective, or because their arguments are ineffective. It’s because the socialists want a fundamentally different America, one where someone else pays the bills, but we all keep pretending that there is someone out there who has enough money to do that. Right now, they all pretend that “Billionaires” have enough money to pay for everything. But it’s really all about the socialist bosses milking the system for their own political benefit. In every Socialist/Communist country, the ruling class does pretty well for themselves. Maduro is a Billionaire. Castro was a Billionaire. All the Soviet premiers were Billionaires.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Reminds me of a discussion last night where Austan Goolsbee (liberal economist at Chicago University) was arguing for government backed student loans. When asked why couldn’t his college with its $9.2 billion endowment issue the loans themselves for their students his response was maybe they wouldn’t be repaid.

          Fell on the floor laughing.

        • formwiz says:

          Then a socialist says, vote for me and I’ll give you his stuff. Which argument wins? The Socialist wins every time. It’s not because our arguments are ineffective, or because their arguments are ineffective. It’s because the socialists want a fundamentally different America, one where someone else pays the bills, but we all keep pretending that there is someone out there who has enough money to do that.

          Disagree on 2 points.

          First, somebody who comes here legally is usually looking for a better opportunity. In many cases, they’re getting away from a free stuff country. They don’t fall for the socialist rap.

          And they make the best Americans on Earth.

          Second, “we” don’t pretend anything of the sort. Usually, you get some Alan Colmes type saying, “You don’t want people to go hungry, do you?”, putting nice guy into going along with the idea.

          “We” know there’s no free lunch. It’s the difference between Whigs and republicans.

  6. Bill Bear says:

    “Teach’s comments about what would happen… are either speculation or opinion”

    False. Porter Good made a statement of (alleged) fact.

    Pretending that a statement made in contradiction of fact is merely an “opinion” is a popular tactic among the far right to avoid responsibility for having made said false statements. Alas, that rhetorical voodoo does not magically relieve those who make false claims of responsibility for their mendacity.

    • formwiz says:

      No, what he said was true.

      And the tactic of making false or offensive statements and then calling them a joke or opinion is a Lefty tactic.

      Anybody who’s been around long enough has seen it.

      You want to lie, you’re going to get called on it.

  7. Bill Bear says:

    “No, what he said was true.”

    Then why is it that nothing that Porter Good claimed can be found in the actual Green New Deal resolution?

    The liars of the far right support one another in their habitual mendacity.

    No surprise there.

    • Kye says:

      Ya know what, Bill Bear? Everyone here has been bending over backward to kiss your ass since Teach requested we apply civility but seem determined to continue to be an ass. You have to be one of the most ignorant and belligerent people I’ve ever run across. Can’t you make your case and be pleasant? Or must you constantly call everyone you disagree with a liar?

      “Then why is it that nothing that Porter Good claimed can be found in the actual Green New Deal resolution?”

      Because genius, if they actually put it in and told the truth nobody would be dumb enough to buy into it. You know, like man made global warming, or “trans-sexuality” or how great single payer health care is. If they tell the facts the entire myth crumbles. Talk about mendacity!

      • Bill Bear says:

        In other words, nothing Porter Good claimed is actually in the GND, but it must be in there because…



        Well, just because.

        Yes — that is actually the best that Kye and his kind can do.

        • formwiz says:

          No, he nailed it.

          Get past the platitudes and see what Occasional Cortex wants. Zippy tried it and it failed miserably.

          So Kye and the rest of us do pretty well. That’s why you have to get nasty.

          All you have is hate.

          • Bill Bear says:

            Too late. formwiz already confirmed (below) that nothing in the GND resolution bans either air travel or smartphone manufacture.

            Porter Good’s entire first paragraph is still a lie.

      • formwiz says:

        Think about what’s in the GND once you get past the platitudes – and a lot of places where you don’t even have to do that.

        Jeffery thinks he can demand we take the thing and not think about what it takes to accomplish this. Kind of like Willie when he wanted to have town halls as a conversation on race and wouldn’t let anybody say anything but Yes or No to his questions (sound familiar?)

        As I said, Jeffery in psychotic mode is the bear suit; Jeffery in Alan Colmes mode is the bunny suit; Jeffery in Jeremiah Wright mode is who he is.

        Accept that and you have it. You don’t have to accommodate him and you can nail his ass to the wall without stooping to his level. People are trying to do what Teach asked while Jeffery thinks this is his chance to browbeat everybody.

        And yes, it does get tiring. That’s part of how they work. Beat on you, call you names, misrepresent what you say, tell all manner of lies about what they want until you just get tired and walk away so they have the floor to themselves.

        This is why they have to be fought. Uncle Saul counted on the opposition to remain nice guys, to be ladies and gentlemen. When Rush started on the radio, he made the point you can’t do that. These people have no morality. You have to go at the tooth and nail; a little like Yul Brynner’s line in The Magnificent Seven, “You have to be prepared for killing and more killing and more killing after that until the reason for the killing is gone”; that’s the way they see it (remember William Ayers? that’s what they really are after).

        The reason the people like Trump so much and why they support him is he fights back. He is not a gentleman. He fights as dirty as they do. And that’s why he always wins.

        And that’s why people like Jeffery hate him so much. Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to black America since the Civil Rights Act of ’64, but Jeffery hates him because Trump is doing it the American Way, not the Commie way, not the race hustler way.

        Like Zippy Ozero. he hates his own race.

    • formwiz says:

      From the bill, which is more platitude than substance BTW

      (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

      (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

      (iii) high-speed rail;

      removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems

      adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing)*

      making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries*

      guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage*

      providing all people of the United States with—

      (i) high-quality health care;

      (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

      (iii) economic security; and

      (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature*

      Ah, yes, the socialists’ wet dream, most of which was tried by the last Administration and failed wondrously.

      Jeffery, of course, will tell us they didn’t do it right, but that’s what Zippy’s boosters said about the New Deal. Not enough money, so Zippy spent us 10T in debt.

      here come the taxes.

      • Bill Bear says:

        I thank formwiz for confirming that nothing in the GND resolution bans either air travel or smartphone manufacture.

        Porter Good’s entire first paragraph is still a lie.

        • Kye says:

          Teach’s first paragraph is an exaggerated conclusion of what would be necessary tio achieve the stated goals of the GND. Nothing more and nothing less. You should be ashamed calling a fine person who allows you your trashy disrespectful comments on his forum a liar. And constantly using “Porter Good” is just being an ass.

          • Bill Bear says:

            “Teach’s first paragraph is an exaggerated conclusion”

            In other words, nothing that Porter Good listed in his claim is actually a part of the Green New Deal.

            Nor is it implied in the Green New Deal.

            I thanks Kye for confirmation of my assessment of Good’s mendacious claims.

        • formwiz says:

          The Hell I did and no, it isn’t.

          Any reasonable person asks, “How do we pay for this? What effects will this have on how we live?”.

          It’s pretty obvious, as I noted.

  8. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Excellent bit of comedy, Teach.
    I almost pity the little dumbasses especially the chick at the intersection…

  9. formwiz says:

    Too late. formwiz already confirmed (below) that nothing in the GND resolution bans either air travel or smartphone manufacture.

    Porter Good’s entire first paragraph is still a lie.

    zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing

    There it is right there. And Teach told the truth.

  10. Bill Bear says:

    There it is, right there.

    formwiz references a goal of the GND, and falsely claims that it is instead a prescription of specific means.

    There it is, right there: lies instead of rational, adult, honest discussion.

Pirate's Cove