The Green New Deal and the Elephant in the Room

[fncceo]

If 'doing something about it' means giving over more power to politicians and more of our wealth to the government, I'll choose to go out.

'Live free or die'.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

reminds ya of the new green deal And a college students list of demands ....at least they got meat ......

this has everything to do with saving the environment ...with free shit


The Bolivarian missions are a series of over thirty social programs implemented under the administration of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez[1][2] and continued by Chávez's successor, Nicolás Maduro. The programs focus on social justice, social welfare, anti-poverty, educational, and military recruiting. They draw their name from the historical South American hero, Simón Bolívar.

Education
Mission Robinson (launched July 2003) – uses volunteers to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic to Venezuelan adults.
Mission Ribas (launched November 2003) – provides remedial high school level classes to Venezuelan high school dropouts; named after independence hero José Félix Ribas. In 2004, about 600,000 students were enrolled in this night school programme, and paid a small stipend. They were taught grammar, geography and a second language.

Mission Sucre (launched in late 2003) – provides free and ongoing higher education courses to adult Venezuelans.

Electoral

Mission Florentino – was organized by Hugo Chávez to promote the option "No" in the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004. The organizational centers of the Mission were named "Comando Maisanta" and were the ideological central headquarters for those who wished to keep Chávez as the President of Venezuela for the remainder of his presidential period.

Environmental
Ambox current red.svg
This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (February 2015)
Mission Revolución Energética (Mission Energy Revolution) – a campaign launched November 2006 to replace incandescent lightbulbs with more energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs.[4]

Food and nutrition
Mission Mercal – seeks to provide access to high-quality produce, grains, dairy, and meat at discounted prices. Seeks to provide Venezuela's poor increased access to nutritious, safe, and organic locally- and nationally-grown foodstuffs. It also seeks to increase Venezuela's food sovereignty. Its concrete results, however, are highly debatable, as in 2007 the country is heavily more dependent on imported foodstuffs than it was in 1997[citation needed], and has been facing chronic shortages in several basic supplies: milk, edible oils, sugar, cereals, eggs, and others.

Healthcare
Mission Barrio Adentro ("Mission Inside the Neighborhood") – a series of initiatives (deployed in three distinct stages) to provide comprehensive and community health care (at both the primary (Consultorios y Clínicas Populares or popular clinics) and secondary (hospital) levels, in addition to preventative medical counsel to Venezuela's medically under-served and impoverished barrios.

Mission Nevado - Named after the dog of the Liberator Simon Bolivar, this program provides free medical services to pets (such as dogs) and their owners and handlers, most especially animals that have been rescued from torture and suffering from mistreatment from owners.

Housing
Mission Hábitat – has as its goal the construction of new housing units for the poor. The program also seeks to develop agreeable and integrated housing zones that make available a full range of social services – from education to healthcare – which likens its vision to that of new urbanism. However, this program had failed to meet its initial targets.

Mission Viviendas – is an updated and expanded version of the "Mission Habitat." This program aims to provide housing to the poor, while relying on annual benchmark objectives to facilitate timely construction.[5]

Identification
Mission Identidad – provides Venezuelan national identity cards to facilitate access to the social services provided by other Missions.

Indigenous rights
Mission Guaicaipuro (launched October 2003) – carried out by the Venezuelan Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, this program seeks to restore communal land titles and human rights to Venezuela's numerous indigenous communities, in addition to defending their rights against resource and financial speculation.

Land reform
Mission Zamora – an integrated land reform and land redistribution program in Venezuela. Several large landed estates and factories have been, or are in the process of being expropriated to stimulate the agricultural sector, create more economic activity and to redistribute wealth to the poor.

Rural development
Mission Vuelta al Campo ("Return to the Countryside"; announced mid– 2005) – seeks to encourage impoverished and unemployed urban Venezuelans to willingly return to the countryside.

Mission Árbol (Mission Tree, announced June 2006) – seeks to recover Venezuelan forests and to involve the rural population to stop harm to forests through from slash/burn practices by promoting more sustainable agriculture, such as growing coffee or cocoa. The projects aim to achieve this through self-organization of the local populations.[6]


in 2010 the Venezuelan government stopped reporting on heath care

 

[Lesh]

Except no warming has been measured for 20 years. Ooops!

Nope. Not true

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov

According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.

Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

oh yeah when they confiscated the guns murders sky rocketed from an already insanely high number
and they were so close to marxs "benign government" vision to

i blame the gringos

 

[danielpalos]

Even if you buy into the claim that unless we stop burning fossil fuels we're all going to die in 12 years, the so-called "Green New Deal" is still nothing but a fast-track to the destruction of the USA.

Most sources agree that the USA accounts for 15% of fossil fuels burned worldwide. So even if the USA eliminates their use completely, 85% of the alleged pollution production will remain.

No one claims a 15% reduction will be enough to stop the "catastrophe", yet most Democrats now support this clearly worthless "Green New Deal".

Why?

So you can insist on upgrading infrastructure which will help green our environment.

 

[Hale]

If the "settled science" guys take nothing else from this thread, consider these two points:

1. Science is almost NEVER "settled". The very essence of science is to learn more, not to reach iron-clad conclusions. Research "scientific method" if you doubt this claim.

2. Science and politics are absolutely inseparable. Scientists are not altruistic gurus on a mountain top, they are looking for the same pay raise as you. Dollars drive science, and fields that generate dollars pay the best. Twenty years ago there was no such thing as a "climate scientist" and now they not only exist, it's become a very lucrative field. If you think scientists only provide the absolute truth, you're either incredibly naive or science is actually your religion.

 

[Lesh]

If the "settled science" guys take nothing else from this thread, consider these two points:

1. Science is almost NEVER "settled". The very essence of science is to learn more, not to reach iron-clad conclusions. Research "scientific method" if you doubt this claim.

2. Science and politics are absolutely inseparable. Scientists are not altruistic gurus on a mountain top, they are looking for the same pay raise as you. Dollars drive science, and fields that generate dollars pay the best. Twenty years ago there was no such thing as a "climate scientist" and now they not only exist, it's become a very lucrative field. If you think scientists only provide the absolute truth, you're either incredibly naive or science is actually your religion.

Sayin it don't make it true. Sayin it twice doesn't even make it truer the first time

 

[Lesh]

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

 

[forkup]

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.

Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?

Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.

Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.

However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.

Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?

Since we are discussing a proposal set forth by an elected official I would say it's already happening.

 

[forkup]

Because government has a different purpose than a business.

I tend to believe what Calvin said ...

By that logic you'd have no problem with businesses dropping toxic waste in your back yard? Nice to know.

 

[The Original Tree]

Being pushed by The UN, just like The Meat Tax and Mass Migration of Islamic Refigees to Western Nations.

 

[forkup]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.

The Science is long settled.

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Also, a debate that we should be having is whether our time and resources are better spent trying to stop what is likely too late to stop or do we mitigate the effect it has on we humans in general, and Americans specifically.

Wouldn't trying to stop it and trying to mitigate the damage not be the same thing? After all mitigating the damage still would entail cutting down on the emissions.

 

[fncceo]

Because government has a different purpose than a business.

I tend to believe what Calvin said ...

By that logic you'd have no problem with businesses dropping toxic waste in your back yard? Nice to know.

So, you don't understand how business works then?

 

[forkup]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

Since the US already has more ICBM's than they need to destroy the world nothing would change. And there are alternatives to the internal combustion engine even now. So how do you mean. America would surely fall?

 

[fncceo]

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.

Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?

Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.

Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.

However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.

Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?

Since we are discussing a proposal set forth by an elected official I would say it's already happening.

Great ... let's see how popular it will be with the voters.

I have to notice, however, that she didn't actually come out with her Green Manifesto until AFTER she was elected. Can you think of any reason why that is?

 

[forkup]

Because government has a different purpose than a business.

I tend to believe what Calvin said ...

By that logic you'd have no problem with businesses dropping toxic waste in your back yard? Nice to know.

So, you don't understand how business works then?

Disposing toxic waste in your back yard is cheaper to business than disposing it properly. You said the government should not constrain business. So I understand perfectly fine what the implications would be.

 

[forkup]

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.

Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?

Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.

Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.

However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.

Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?

Since we are discussing a proposal set forth by an elected official I would say it's already happening.

Great ... let's see how popular it will be with the voters.

I have to notice, however, that she didn't actually come out with her Green Manifesto until AFTER she was elected. Can you think of any reason why that is?

Maybe because she felt the issue is now popular enough to get her votes?

 

[NoVote]

Quit buying into this bullshit artists rubbish. I flew into LA in 1963, returning from Illinois, You could not even see LA from a thousand feet for the brown blanket of SMOG. A few years later, it was gone. America can't change the worlds pollution alone when 3 billion chins and hindoos upwind are still cooking their rice over cowshit smudgepots.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.

The Science is long settled.

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Also, a debate that we should be having is whether our time and resources are better spent trying to stop what is likely too late to stop or do we mitigate the effect it has on we humans in general, and Americans specifically.

Wouldn't trying to stop it and trying to mitigate the damage not be the same thing? After all mitigating the damage still would entail cutting down on the emissions.

Perhaps I used the wrong phrase, what I mean is to adjust to the changes, to prepare for life in a changed climate, thus mitigating the damage done by the changes.

An example I like to use is the farmers I work with have been adding irrigation and drainage to their land at ever increasing rates. The rain patterns have changed and even though some areas are getting the same amount of annual rainfall, they get it in far fewer days with longer intervals between the rains.

 

[Hale]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

Since the US already has more ICBM's than they need to destroy the world nothing would change. And there are alternatives to the internal combustion engine even now. So how do you mean. America would surely fall?

Converting to "100% renewable energy sources" in 12 years is patently impossible, and it would also be impossible to maintain our current military force without fossil fuels. But oddly the Dems make no mention of this whatsoever... National Defense is not even in their agenda, and it should be rather obvious why.

There are only two alternatives. One, they could exempt the military from the "no fossil fuels" edict in hopes of using it to subdue us. But they know this would likely backfire; most of the troops are conservatives. Or two, they could decimate our defenses, and partner with Russia or China to keep us in line. This is more likely.

I admit a third alternative is possible, and perhaps even more likely. Civil war.