AOC and the GND

[Frelga]

I don't think the socialist label is important here, not really. What is important is the underlying policies being proposed. I don't think any amount of calling a 70% tax on income above 10 million "socialist" would make people who already favored it suddenly turn against it, for example. And in the case of the GND even if it was never called "socialist" it still wouldn't stop parts of it from being unpopular once people found out what was really in it.

Fairy Nuff.

Moving forward -

Clearly there is room for a lot of opinions on what the solution should be. Do we also need to debate whether the problem is stated accurately?

Whereas the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—

(1) human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;

(2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;

(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—

(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;

(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;

(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;

(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;

(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and

(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and

(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate

[Dave_LF]

Even if all this really is "socialism," and even if socialism is every bit as bad as the hard right thinks it is, I can't express how unconcerned I am about it in an environment where we're already something like 75% of the way to a Russian-style klepto-oligarchy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mitch McConnell certainly thinks the Green New Deal is a winner - for the GOP.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote

This probably doesn't even need to be said, but as the article points out:

McConnell's goal is not to help the bill pass. Putting it to a vote will force Democrats in the Senate to take a stand on the controversial framework.

[Faramond]

I think it is worthwhile to pull out and look at the really big picture here.

What is the goal?

To severely reduce or eliminate global carbon emissions over some period of time on the order of 15 to 30 years.

Can the United States do this by itself?

No. The US is responsible for about a sixth of global carbon emissions. China is responsible for about twice that. India and China are both rapidly expanding their carbon emissions. Even if the US became net neutral in carbon emissions over the next ten years global carbon emissions might still be higher in ten years than they are now.

Does this mean the US shouldn't reduce carbon emissions?

No, but ...

Obviously US reduction is a necessary condition for meeting the goal, but it also clearly isn't a sufficient condition of meeting the goal. Other countries need to follow as well. All of them, really. But how many countries will follow if the US wrecks its economy in the process? The method matters a great deal.

What would it take to persuade or force Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries to stop producing and selling oil?

The most obvious way would be to eliminated the global market for oil. But even if the US stops buying, and Europe, and even in the unlikely event one could persuade China and India to stop buying, all it takes is a few countries who see suddenly cheaper oil as a route to quick development. And certainly Saudi Arabia will have no incentive to stop producing oil -- without it they have zero power and wealth.

[yovargas]

One thought - maybe if the rich countries like ours invest heavily on new "green" technologies, competitively priced non-oil options will develop enough to make developing nations start to choose them over oil for simple market reasons? A big maybe but....maybe.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, that is part of the strategy of the Paris Agreement, which Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from (joining Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries in the world not to be signatories to the agreement, although a number of other signatories have not ratified it).

[Primula Baggins]

One thought - maybe if the rich countries like ours invest heavily on new "green" technologies, competitively priced non-oil options will develop enough to make developing nations start to choose them over oil for simple market reasons? A big maybe but....maybe.

That's one of the "minor, fairly easy changes" we could have made a few decades ago and that might have resulted in our situation now being a bit less dire: if we'd invested in oil and coal technologies only to increase safety and minimize emissions at existing plants, and invested more in R&D on hydro, solar, wind, and yes, inevitably nuclear energy (it will come to that), as well as developing more efficient and high-capacity energy storage systems. We could also have invested more in transportation solutions that reduce overall pollution (such as intercity high-speed rail—and yes, I know California just messed that one up big time), in planning city growth to include affordable housing that reduces the need for commuting, etc., etc.—I am probably reproducing the Green New Deal here. But none of those changes would have done much harm to anyone but coal and oil companies and their lobbyists.

(Sorry I didn't follow up on your question sooner, Faramond—went to the beach last weekend, got shellfish poisoning for the first time in my life, am up but tottering around and running out of energy fast.)

[Frelga]

Yes, that is part of the strategy of the Paris Agreement, which Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from (joining Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries in the world not to be signatories to the agreement, although a number of other signatories have not ratified it).

Nicaragua didn't join at first because they felt the Paris Agreement was weaksauce and they were way ahead of it. However, both Syria and Nicaragua have joined the accords by November 2017, so it's just the US now.

Paris climate accord: Syria to sign up, isolating US

[Túrin Turambar]

It is a bit of a mystery to me why Ocasio-Cortez has developed so much influence so quickly. I admire her gumption and energy and agree with many of her ideas (actually the real idea person is her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, the founder of Justice Democrats, the organization that recruited her to oppose Joe Crowley in the primary), but I find it frustrating that she is so loose with the truth. I agree that seems strange that the supposed hard-hitters like Warren, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, etc. have piggybacked on her plan rather than presenting their own plans. I do see the Green New Deal as the first outrageous offer in a negotiation, with the goal to settle for a much more realistic plan. I'm just not sure that it is the right strategy to get there. We'll see.

I read an article this morning on the (Australian) ABC which argued that AOC's growing influence has been through a social media and publicity strategy almost identical to Donald Trump's. Obviously her unexpected primary victory gave her initial airtime, but she seized the opportunity and has kept her name in the media ever since.

[Frelga]

If the Green New Deal proposals are being labeled as socialist, then what is this exactly?

U.S. farmers receive $7.7 billion in trade aid to date: USDA

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Department of Agriculture has paid out $7.7 billion so far to farmers, William Northey, Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, said on Friday, in aid designed to offset the negative impact of tariff imposition.

[Griffon64]

I don't know - the label makers would have to say.

Near as I can tell, for the label makers it is only socialism if it helps an individual person. Aid for farmers and corporations - that's just capitalism. For some reason. Transferring individual wealth ( via tax money ) to corporations is a-OK, transferring it to another individual is socialist. I guess that makes sense if you view it as "capitalism == benefits corporations and businesses" and "socialist == benefits people"?

There's a poll on MSN.com right now ( and the poll answers tend to lean the way a Trump supporter would answer them, from past observations ) asking if Social Security is more socialist or capitalist. Breakdown:

Socialist: 39%
Capitalist: 40%
Don't have an opinion: 21%.

Interesting how many people claim that a popular socialist program is capitalist.

[Frelga]

What this is is socializing losses to the detriment of the individual and privatizing gains, to the detriment of the individual.

[Griffon64]

Oh yeah, but, privatizing profit and socializing loss is a tried-and-true modus operandi for some American corporations. Stuff like spinning off a debt-laden business to slide out from under things like pension liability, stuff like tax payer bailouts during the Great Recession, stuff like strategically declaring bankruptcy to avoid fiscal penalties for predatory business practices, stuff like underpaying workers because welfare ( tax payers ) will pick up the tab for their living costs, etc.

As long as enough people eat that kind of stuff up and praise it as good business sense to privatize profit and socialize loss, it will continue.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know - the label makers would have to say.

This.

[yovargas]

There's a poll on MSN.com right now ( and the poll answers tend to lean the way a Trump supporter would answer them, from past observations ) asking if Social Security is more socialist or capitalist. Breakdown:

Socialist: 39%
Capitalist: 40%
Don't have an opinion: 21%.

Interesting how many people claim that a popular socialist program is capitalist.

This is an amazingly perfect example of how meaningless these words have become. It's just empty propaganda jargon at this point.

[Griffon64]

yov - yup, both make great propaganda labels. Label something "socialist" and you can get swaths of people to uncritically decide that thing is [characteristic], depending on their political leaning. Same goes for for labeling something "capitalist". Bonus points if you instead use "late-stage capitalism", same as there's bonus points for "commie socialist" and its variants.

[yovargas]

The phrase late-stage capitalism has become particularly irritating of late.

[Griffon64]

The phrase late-stage capitalism has become particularly irritating of late.

You don't say.

It does serve as a signal of sorts, same as the other phrases do, allowing some background into the likely views of whoever is using them.

But still, irritating.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just as an aside, I was very impressed by AOC in her questioning of Michael Cohen. As a new congressperson, she was late in the questioning, but she still was able to get to pertinent information in a very concise and direct manner. ETA: And unlike most of the other members of both sides, she did not waste any of her five minutes of time on speech-making.

[Frelga]

She's sharp. She could shape into a real powerhouse with experience.

That said, I would have already forgotten that she exists if the right wasn't so obsessed with her.

The Democrat appearing in CPAC videos and speeches the most, by far: @AOC. More than any 2020 Dem. An Oliver North-narrated NRA video just ended with the footage of her dancing outside her office, with the color drained to make it look more ominous.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1 ... 8808806401