Pirate's Cove

This is all about pushing the Green New Deal (something AOC refuses to demand a vote on) to control your life

A new generation of leaders understands that individual actions won’t fix our environmental problems

The media coverage of the Green New Deal, a plan unveiled by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of Congress to overhaul the U.S. economy by investing in renewable energy and green jobs, focused as much on its reception as on its substance. Republicans panned it as socialism. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mocked it. Many columnists, such as the New York Times’ David Brooks, criticized its heavy reliance on public spending and government-provided jobs. Other critics questioned the plan’s broad focus. What, they asked, did provision of medical care have to do with overhauling America’s energy network?

The casual observer could be forgiven for dismissing the plan and the response to it, especially because it has no chance of passing in the current Congress. But the plan is a sign of a larger shift in environmental thinking. There is a growing recognition of the need for structural changes to address the climate crisis and other serious environmental problems. An increasing number of influential office holders and thinkers are calling for policies that go far beyond mere tinkering. To overhaul our energy system and preserve threatened ecosystems, they recognize that we must aggressively disrupt the status quo.

It’s not a shift, the Cult of Climastrology has long been advocates of massive Big Government control. It’s just that, now, the big wigs and lawmakers and such are willing to admit it and push it.

The best part of the Green New Deal is its insistence on bold steps to slow climate change and develop an economy based on renewable energy. As its name suggests, the plan is predicated on the idea that individual behavioral change will not lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse emissions or deliver meaningful environmental progress in other areas. We must, its authors insist, overhaul our economy to meet our environmental responsibilities. Even those who question this premise should celebrate the plan’s audacious goals.

Strange that the word “Fascism” never appears in this piece. Or anything about this being the system authoritarian government use.

Other environmental thinkers echo this skepticism about behavioral change. David Wallace-Wells, author of a recent bookon climate change, concludes, “The effects of individual lifestyle choices are ultimately trivial compared with what politics can achieve.” While Wallace-Wells may find fault with some aspects of the Green New Deal, including its silence regarding nuclear power, he enthusiastically endorses the need to think big.

Which is an excuse for Warmists to never practice what they preach. And, because almost none practice what they preach, Government must force people to live a certain lifestyle, take their money, and take their liberty.

The emphasis on the need to overhaul our economic, technological and social systems is a welcome departure from the fixation with individual behavior that often dominates popular environmental discourse. The furor over use of plastic straws, which became a litmus test of environmental responsibility in some circles over the past couple of years, suggests the limitations of this preoccupation with individual action. Americans concerned about excessive use of plastic should worry much more about laws recently passed by several states that ban municipalities from imposing bans on plastic bag distribution in retail stores than about whether the diner at the next table is using a plastic straw. To make substantial environmental progress we must get beyond environmental narcissism — excessive concern about the consumption habits of ourselves and our family and friends. We must focus our efforts not on changing our individual behavior but on far-reaching communal changes.

Nothing spine-chilling about that, eh, unless you aren’t a fan of freedom, liberty, choice.

This continues on for a bit, ending on

Ultimately, the most important thing that we can do as citizens is to change the systems that pollute the Earth. Those in the vanguard of the environmental revolution that we so desperately need will not spend their waking hours discussing the finer points of eschewing plastic straws. They will be pounding on the doors of their congressional representatives to demand the wide-ranging changes that only government, directly or indirectly, can deliver.

“Please, Government Person, take my money and control my life.” These people are nuts.

Read: Newest Cult Of Climastrology Leaders Understand Individual Actions Won’t Solve Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

It’s a shell game, and it’s still your money being used for their Modern Socialist ideas

Public banking can fund green investment

To ensure the long-term environmental health of the planet, we will have to spend. This spending cannot be wasteful, but must embody a pragmatic investment in our future. Estimates predict that we will have to invest $5.7 trillion worldwide annually to fund green infrastructure and conservation efforts. As a Center for Strategic and International Studies brief notes, this investment gap is concentrated in developed countries.

In recognition of America’s responsibility for swift and consequential action, legislators have introduced the Green New Deal—a policy proposal for addressing climate change and environmental deterioration. Yet, even the lower end of estimates put the plan’s sticker price in the multi-trillions of dollars.

Investments in infrastructure, or other massive policy initiatives of the kind that environmental crises require, have historically been shared between the federal government and the states. While the national body would provide some funding and expertise through grants and federal agencies, states would identify the most profitable investment opportunities and the areas of the most need. But, with a decade sincethe last major federal infrastructure bill, the federal government has become an unreliable source of green investment funding. And it’s no surprise why. The federal debt is above $22 trillion, the annual deficit projected near $1 trillion and politicians have prioritized other issues.

Also, if you’ll remember, most of the “green” money from the Stimulus was used to hook up Obama donors, and, what have we gotten from it? Almost nothing. A majority of those loans have resulted in nothing, as well as lots of defaults/un-repaid. Solyndra was the poster child of irresponsible loans.

This has put states in a compromising position. On the one hand, they need to invest in sustainability and conservation to protect their citizens, their environments and their economies from ecological disaster. On the other hand, they face their own pressing budget issues and an increasingly reluctant partner in the federal government. Through the establishment of state public banks, state governments can escape this dilemma and deliver affordable, green investment to their communities.

This is how it works: A state grants a charter to a bank of its own creation. The conditions of the charter give the bank a “public purpose” that ensures that the bank and its officials maximize community benefits and not profit. The state, once the bank has been established, moves most of its existing funds into the bank as deposits. These deposits allow the bank to create loans and other financial instruments with the goal of reinvesting state money back into the state economy.

There are two ways in which a state bank can fund state investment for a greener future. First, the bank can provide loans, bonds and other forms of financing for investments to the state government and private organizations on better terms than those available in regular markets.

As a part of the bank’s orders to serve the public interest, it can prioritize societally-beneficial investments over profit-making. As a result, it can afford to provide credit at lower interest rates or with lower fees, or both, than most profit-seeking banks can afford.

Where are they getting the backing money? Your pocket, of course. For social justice stuff. There’s no possible way this could be abused, right, especially with below market rates, right?

Second, a public bank will improve a state’s fiscal health. By holding state deposits as assets, the bank’s profits can be returned to state coffers to fund direct state investment. Additionally, the activity of the state bank – which will prioritize investing state assets and extending credit within the state for the benefit of the state – will improve the state economy. Exploratory analyses in New Jersey, Washington and Maryland have all estimated the creation of thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars in economic growth from the establishment of a public bank. These economic gains will flow back to the state through increased revenues, which can then be reinvested into essential environmental projects.

And will mostly increase the size of government. The article mentions that the state of North Dakota has done this, but, then, ND isn’t big into the Social Justice Warrior scene, nor in pissing their citizen’s money on Hotcoldwetdry stuff. It’s a state that relies on its fossil fuels industry. How well will this work in places like NJ, Washington, and Maryland, among other left leaning states? What happens when the loans default? Will the state come after the money, or, will they just write it off as serving the public interest?

It comes down to the notion that private banks won’t piss away the money deposited for projects bound to fail, so, let’s create something run by government. And you know it would work quite differently than in North Dakota. And when that doesn’t work, will they come after the private banks, much like they did with private student loans? Remember, the use of, cost of, and default of those student loans has skyrocketed since Obamacare created a virtual takeover of the student loans business.

Further, if this is so darned important, why are True Believers funding this? Why do Warmists always want to use Someone Else’s money?

Read: Good News: We Can Create Public Banks To Fund The Green New Deal »