Slashdot Mirror
Green New Deal Bill Aims To Move US To 100 Percent Renewable Energy, Net-Zero Emissions (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Thursday morning, NPR posted a bill drafted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) advocating for a Green New Deal -- that is, a public works bill aimed at employing Americans and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the face of climate change. A similar version of the bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The House bill opens by citing two recent climate change reports: an October 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a heavily peer-reviewed report released in November 2018 by a group of U.S. scientists from federal energy and environment departments. Both reports were unequivocal about the role that humans play in climate change and the dire consequences humans stand to face if climate change continues unchecked.
The bill lists some of these consequences: $500 billion in lost annual economic output for the U.S. by 2100, mass migration, bigger and more ferocious wildfires, and risk of more than $1 trillion in damage to U.S. infrastructure and coastal property. To stop this, the bill says, the global greenhouse gas emissions from human sources must be reduced by 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050. [...] The Green New Deal specifically calls for a 10-year mobilization plan that would "achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers" by creating "millions" of high-paying jobs through investment in U.S. infrastructure. Specific kinds of infrastructure aren't listed, but general categories or works projects are outlined. Adaptive infrastructure tailored to communities, like higher sea walls and new drainage systems, would be included. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
Surprisingly, the bill doesn't mention fossil fuels at all. "In a draft version of the Green New Deal that had been circulated in December, a Frequently Asked Questions section did not preclude eventually calling for a tax or a ban on fossil fuels, but it noted that this was not what the bill was about," notes Ars Technica. "Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs)," the FAQ notes under the Green New Deal draft language. "We also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment."
The bill lists some of these consequences: $500 billion in lost annual economic output for the U.S. by 2100, mass migration, bigger and more ferocious wildfires, and risk of more than $1 trillion in damage to U.S. infrastructure and coastal property. To stop this, the bill says, the global greenhouse gas emissions from human sources must be reduced by 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050. [...] The Green New Deal specifically calls for a 10-year mobilization plan that would "achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers" by creating "millions" of high-paying jobs through investment in U.S. infrastructure. Specific kinds of infrastructure aren't listed, but general categories or works projects are outlined. Adaptive infrastructure tailored to communities, like higher sea walls and new drainage systems, would be included. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
Surprisingly, the bill doesn't mention fossil fuels at all. "In a draft version of the Green New Deal that had been circulated in December, a Frequently Asked Questions section did not preclude eventually calling for a tax or a ban on fossil fuels, but it noted that this was not what the bill was about," notes Ars Technica. "Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs)," the FAQ notes under the Green New Deal draft language. "We also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment."
Well, this suggestion comes from someone who actually wants the taxes to reflect the expenses instead of another unnamed party that has the habit of removing taxes for the richest while increasing the spending and thereby the deficit to an extent that just paying interest now exceeds what "free" healthcare would cost.
You want to know what could fund this completely? Not allowing fossil fuel to externalize the cost of cleaning the mess up.
Another thing that could fund this would be to remove subsidies for businesses that runs the environment.
The tax cuts added a trillion dollars to the debt and nobody blinked.
Dubya's foray into the middle east cost us $7 trillion
I think we can manage this small outlay
This is keynesian economical stmimulus, smarter version. Spending money on changing processes to reduce greenhouse gas will create jobs and yield economical growth. And it will help making the planet a reasonable place for humans to live in the next century.
Since the bill contains no appropriations and changes no existing laws and is non-binding it really can't be a revolutionary leap forward in anything nor will anything be required to pay for it. Nothing is risked and there will be no benefit other than political grandstanding.
Panels move. Supply dumps also blow up, panels tend not to explode as much. You're better off with a frag round on panels.
(caveat: I used to work as combat field engineer support for infantry mortar and machine gun/LAR squads)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Because the companies paying the carbon tax would just swallow the cost and not pass on the cost to the consumer.
Ah. I find this an excellent opportunity to let you know about those fancy new ideas named "market economy" and "competition".
The way it works is: say company X, paying the carbon tax, decides to pass the extra cost to the customer. But another company, Y, who has better technology or better process, generates less or no carbon emissions, so it will not pay the same tax, and won't have any extra cost to pass to customers! And, here's the trick, customers will say "why should we pay the bigger price for company X, when we can get a similar product more cheaply from company Y?".
What do you think will happen next? Why, company X will have lower sales! So they'll cut their production, and therefore reduce their carbon emissions - which is what you wanted to begin with! It's like magic, isn't it?
I'm glad I was able to inform you about those bleeding edge concepts; I think they have a lot of potential - maybe we can even create a whole economic system based on some of that!