
Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Is a Winning Climate Strategy - indigodaddy
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/12/ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-winning-climate-strategy/576514/
======
snackematician
To avoid a climate disaster we need to make major changes to our economic
system, and soon. Passing this ambitious political program will also require
populist support, and needs to reverse the rise of inequality rather than
exacerbate it (see gilets jaunes). The Green New Deal is the only mainstream
political proposal out there close to achieving this.

Those who say we cannot achieve this due to deficits, are making a bad analogy
between household spending and the spending of the most powerful government on
earth that controls its own fiat currency. We've fought world wars, had the
New Deal, and continue to spend exorbitant amounts of money on our military.
It won't be easy, but we can do this.

------
wyck
Any system that ignore's incentives with regards to human behaviour will turn
into a formula for tyranny and misery.

~~~
jadell
Climate change will do that anyway. The first thing to go when resources get
scarce (I mean truly, decades-long-famine-level scarce) is individual liberty.
We're talking back to a worldwide feudal warlord society within 100ish years.

~~~
Aunche
Humans are surprisingly adaptable. We're a species of Saharan apes that
somehow managed to find a way to thrive in the Arctic before the miracles of
modern technology. Currently, we "waste" a lot of economic productivity on
things like advertising and entertainment. In the time calls for it, we'll
turn Siberia into a breadbasket before we let society collapse.

~~~
jadell
Life was brutal and short for the vast majority of humans for hundreds of
thousands of years. The last 1-2 hundred are a complete anomaly, brought on by
exactly the types of practices that are currently destroying our environment.
Sure, we won't probably won't wipe ourselves out completely. But I do not look
forward to 99.99% of the remaining population going back to a pre-industrial
level of civilization.

The type of technological save you're talking about is already possible. The
problem is we have no political or societal will to get it done. Turning
Siberia into a breadbasket to feed the world (among many other needed
solution) most likely requires exactly the type of tyranny the OP is talking
about.

~~~
Aunche
Currently, we're investing a lot of money into things like social media
because the world has more than enough food and water (it just isn't
distributed efficiently). If demand of food outpaces supply, we'll start
pumping trillions of dollars into efforts into desalination, lab grown meat,
terraforming, and better GM crops. It doesn't require any tyranny.

Inevitably, climate change will directly or indirectly kill millions of
people, as well as destroy many biomes. That should be enough to motivate
people to want to change. In my opinion, doom and gloom scenarios encourage
people to be more skeptical.

~~~
jadell
You misspelled "billions".

------
assblaster
Is Solyndra a good example of why government intervention to spur solar
deployment has unintentional downsides that cost far more than the benefit
provided?

I think that as the cost of solar and wind come down, then markets will
purchase more of it. Heavy handed government mandate just doesn't work due to
inefficiency and bureaucratic mismanagement.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> Heavy handed government mandate just doesn't work due to inefficiency and
> bureaucratic mismanagement.

And the free market has shown that it is not capable of dealing with certain
types of externalities. Consider the following example: suppose that it were
_guaranteed_ to be true that burning fossil fuels now at our current rate
would cause a 5 degree C rise in temperature in 200 years. Now, of course I
understand this may not be the actual case, and there is some actual amount of
uncertainty, but my point is that even if it were guaranteed to be true, would
free market forces cause a change in behavior? I certainly don't see how they
would: there is money to be made now, while global devastation is someone
else's problem.

I wish folks would get away from the "government vs free market" tribalism and
come to the more rational conclusion that there are some things the free
market is excellent at, but dealing with far off consequences in the face of
short term gain is definitely not one of them.

~~~
burfog
Free market forces cause a change in behavior, though not the one you think is
ideal. We would most likely install more air conditioning. Property values
would change, with both winners and losers. Canada would benefit greatly.

No, we wouldn't stop the temperature rise, but that wouldn't be the end of the
world. Alternatives are not viable because even the most brutally abusive
whole-world government wouldn't be able to stop cheaters, and anyway in that
case the cure is worse than the disease.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Severe climate change of that which is estimated if we don't change course
would cause the deaths of hundreds of millions if not billions of people.
Talking about installing more AC and changing property values seems to be
missing the point.

~~~
burfog
If we do change course, that would cause the deaths of hundreds of millions if
not billions of people. This is what it would take to change course. You'd
have to send the dissenters off to prison camps, which would realistically
become death camps. The required level of control was tried in the 20th
century, for just a moderate portion of the world, and that is exactly what
happened.

You simply can't make the entire world change course, not without killings
done on a scale never seen before.

------
koywae
I am just curious if people from the fossil fuel industry hang around here and
how they feel about this stuff...

~~~
spunker540
I am just curious if people who buy fossil fuels via gasoline or plane tickets
or products distributed via fossil fuels hang around here and how they feel...

------
durakot
It's great that people are talking about the Green New Deal in a broader
context, and that Ocasio-Cortez is pushing it into the US mainstream, but it's
worth remembering that the idea (and policy targets) of a "Green New Deal"
have been around for at least 10 years:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal)

------
dev_dull
At this point I’m reserving all judgement until I can closely examine the
financials.

Often these types of extravagant projects involve the same type of “forward
looking” growth estimates that almost never pan out after every middle man
takes their slice off the top.

I really hope we don’t become too enamored with new political alternatives
that our critical eye gets lazy.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
"new political alternatives"

New political alternatives to the status quo of a 1.5º celsius temperature
increase by 2030 and an overall increase of 3º celsius, resulting in
catastrophic climate change? Or am I misunderstanding you?

~~~
dev_dull
Look here: catastrophic global warming predictions.

Don’t look here: junior incoming legislature proposes laws that mandate the
government employ everyone at taxpayer expense.

Don’t look here: middlemen are historically extremely good at extracting money
from every government dollar.

Don’t look here: there’s zero proof or evidence that any of this legislation
will make any material impact on global warming.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

~~~
Latteland
I think you are arguing that reducing carbon fuels usage, reducing carbon
added to the atmosphere won't make any impact on slowing climate change. That
is wrong I believe. Or are you arguing something different, that we can't
correlate laws to reduce carbon use with actual carbon usage. Both ideas seem
wrong to me.

------
jeffdavis
Everyone wants to protect the environment. But I watch out for two important
costs: economic, and centralization of power. Unfortunately, this seems likely
to have high costs in both areas.

I prefer a decentralized approach. People nearly always underestimate the rate
of technological change. Solar panels, battery tech, and electric cars are a
winning combination. Some investments/incentives for public charging
infrastructure and maybe some gas taxes will go a long way.

Once electric car total ownership costs get low enough, then gasoline cars
will be worthless scrap heaps over night. Once solar power and battery tech
improves enough, it will take over very quickly.

I don't see a case for radicalism here. It feels like a fight and will disrupt
many lives, and it doesn't need to be that way. Resistance to clean tech
disappears quickly when you show people that it works. Maybe just some minor
policy tweaks to push it along.

~~~
gaius
_I prefer a decentralized approach. ... Once electric car total ownership
costs get low enough, then gasoline cars will be worthless scrap heaps over
night. Once solar power and battery tech improves enough, it will take over
very quickly._

Let's see. Capacity of a Tesla battery: 85kWh. Let's say 1m^2 of solar panel
can produce 200W in good sunlight, and we'll handwave away all other
conversion inefficiencies. Let's say we get 8 hours of good sunlight a day, so
in a day 1m^2 of solar panel will give 1.6kWh. So with 54m^2 of solar panel,
we can get 1 Tesla charge in a day. Maybe that could work outside of a city
where everyone has a big backyard, or can cover the roof in solar panels, or
both (I don't think my roof is anywhere near that big at least on its south-
facing side, and the back is in shade). Maybe you can buffer it in a vanadium-
redox battery so you can actually charge the car overnight. But with the cost
and the amount of solar you need if you can only get 100W/m^2 for 4 hours a
day, that's going to get real big and hence expensive. And that's when you
will really need the vehicle because maybe the weather is too bad for
alternatives.

Electric cars in cities are going to go on being powered by a central grid
forever, basically, because physics.

~~~
sxates
Few people are putting 85kwh into their car everyday. Their daily driving
requires just a fraction of that, more like 10-15kwh. In the summer my solar
panels generate 2-3x that amount easily.

You are correct that there's still a need for a grid. But that grid can be
cleaner and more efficient with renewables and energy storage that gives
everyone similar benefits to solar panels on their roof.

------
jorblumesea
The Dems can talk as much as they want, but to achieve any meaningful lasting
changes they will need consensus across the aisle. Making these policies
palatable to the American people instead of mandating from on high will be the
key. Otherwise, once the political winds shift, everything will be rolled back
again.

------
yongjik
Why is this story being flagged?

Auto-flagging due to "controversy"? Or have climate deniers finally realized
that grandiose talks of government overreach don't sell any more, and started
to adopt "suppressing dissenting opinions"?

~~~
nostrademons
Politics.

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's
probably off-topic."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
rayiner
If you want to stop climate change, stop lashing it to unpopular and divisive
ideas like conservation or socialism. Efforts to avoid climate change would
have been a lot more succeasful if environmentalists hadn’t hijacked it to
push anti-consumption (and anti-capitalist) ideas. Universal nuclear power
would have slashed CO2 emissions while allowing unabated growth.[1] Instead
they told everone to put on a sweater.

[1] People talk about costs for wind and solar “coming down” but it’s been too
late for awhile now. We could have addressed this in the 1960s with nuclear.
Now we’re pissing into the wind.

~~~
prklmn
How do you know conservation is unpopular?

~~~
rayiner
Because nobody does it, at least not at any scale sufficient to matter. SUVs
are the most popular type of new passanger vehicle in the US! The same is true
in China and Indian where per-capita energy use is exploding.

~~~
knewter
Hunters are intense conservationists. We should encourage more people to hunt
and we'll get lots of conservation.

------
Aunche
> But voters—who have more quotidian concerns than optimally elegant economic
> policy—don’t always feel the same way. They don’t want gas prices to go up.

The US is never going to take a substantial action against climate change
until there's a huge change in attitude. On one side, conservatives are in
denial. On the other side, liberals want companies or the government to pay
for change and magically shield the cost away from the people. A carbon tax
would be much more straightforward and effective than a "Green New Deal," but
you don't get elected for promising to raise taxes. Instead, we get feel good
programs like Cash for Clunkers and solar panel rebates that mostly just help
the wealthy.

~~~
elicash
> On one side, ... On the other side, ...

Your brilliant solution is carbon tax, which is exactly what liberals ALREADY
tried to do and couldn't get through because of Republican opposition. It's
fine to fault both sides, but lazy to do so when it makes no sense just
because you want to elevate yourself as some kind of free-thinker. And as far
as popular support, I'll note that it just failed as a ballot initiative in
the liberal state of Washington -- and while that proposal was a stronger one
than other efforts, good luck trying to do carbon tax nationally given the
track record there. I think we still try, but the arrogance with which people
treat environmentalists bothers me -- get off the sidelines and join the
efforts if you want to push for something else.

An effort that focuses on green jobs, like the Green New Deal plan, is
actually quite creative. I don't know if it's the best thing to push, but I'll
support any effort that's gaining momentum that I think will be a good thing.
You have to work as a coalition among people who are willing to put in the
work.

~~~
Aunche
> I'll note that it just failed as a ballot initiative in the liberal state of
> Washington -- and while that proposal was a stronger one than other efforts,
> good luck trying to do carbon tax nationally given the track record there.

Also, I just looked up this ballot measure and it looks pretty solid. The fact
that it failed proves my point. It's easy to see how a tax would negatively
affect their livelihoods, so people oppose it. The costs of building new wind
turbines and tax rebates for electric cars are obscured, so they're popular
even though they have questionable efficacy.

~~~
elicash
So what you're saying is that we should push policies we think will not
generate popular support that can't pass, regardless of the consequences? I
genuinely don't understand the point you're making, not trying to be
difficult.

~~~
Aunche
Legislatures have a much better chance of voting for a carbon tax than the
people, and they should prioritize this over other green initiatives.

The more fundamental issue is how the climate issue is framed in the US. The
narrative is that we can drastically cut emissions without affecting the
average family's livelihoods, but the greedy Republicans just won't let that
happen. In reality, everyone needs to make a sacrifice, and we can do a better
job of acknowledging these sacrifices. As coal becomes becomes less popular,
thousands of people will lose their jobs. It's disrespectful to suggest that
this isn't a problem because we can just retrain them to build windmills. I
don't have a good solution either, but much more effective legislation would
be passed if Democrats and Republicans worked together rather than spend time
fighting.

I'm sure you'll point that Republicans are less willing to compromise than
Democrats, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

~~~
elicash
> Legislatures have a much better chance of voting for a carbon tax than the
> people, and they should prioritize this over other green initiatives.

Without public support I just have trouble seeing that happen. I don't think
we disagree that much though.

> It's disrespectful to suggest that this isn't a problem because we can just
> retrain them to build windmills.

I certainly would agree that the people who lose jobs would mostly not be the
same people who would be trained to take the new jobs that would be created. I
remember reading Janesville and being pretty clearly convinced that skills
training programs to people who lose their jobs are often counter-productive.
That said, I do still think overall for the economy it'd be a positive.

------
thrill
Meanwhile, headlines are remarkable in the emphasis of their own agenda,
whichever way the banana peels:

[https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-
gr...](https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-
deal-pretty-much-fantasy-land/)

'What is more, such programs would entail a massive expansion of government
spending and power. Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, told
the Free Beacon by email that in his view, "the plan seems more about [Ocasio-
Cortez's] socialist leveling philosophy than reducing pollution."'

------
Clanan
> The single most crucial aspect of the Green New Deal is its proposed job
> guarantee, a controversial policy that says that every American can have a
> job with the government if they want one. Data for Progress, a leftist
> advocacy group, claims that the Green New Deal could generate 10 million new
> jobs across the country over 10 years.

Let's deal with Climate Change by implementing socialism. Yes, I'm sure that
will work. Reminds me of the regexp joke. Have a problem? Use a regexp! Now
two problems.

~~~
elicash
The "capitalism" approach - cap-and-trade - didn't work because Republicans on
Congress successfully opposed it and some people were concerned about economic
impact. So the end result is that now people are pushing for something that
prioritizes "jobs."

And now people like you are opposed because it's socialism. The truth is that
some people will ALWAYS oppose anything that hurts the fossil fuel industry
and will find excuses to oppose it no matter what.

~~~
Clanan
U.S. emissions have declined three years in a row. (Sounds like the capitalist
approach might be working?) But by all means, instead of going after countries
whose emissions are actually increasing, let's instead implement one of the
most murderous political philosophies of all time. If these politicians were
serious about addressing the issue, they wouldn't tie it to such a
controversial measure.

~~~
elicash
This issue is urgent and no, we aren't doing enough here to avert disaster.
And we need to do more at home WHILE we do more abroad -- we cannot use that
as an excuse for inaction.

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-
report-...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-
bn/index.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-
repo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-
report-2040.html)

------
everdev
> The single most crucial aspect of the Green New Deal is its proposed job
> guarantee, a controversial policy that says that every American can have a
> job with the government if they want one.

One of the pros/cons of capitalism is that companies and workers will fight
policies that make them less money. The Holy Grail for any capitalist policy
is something that does the right thing and makes money.

Doing the right thing is unfortunately optional. Making money is not.
Idealists want big government policy to just do the right thing. Capitalists
want businesses to have unrestricted access to making money. If we can align
policy with both interests I think we can make serious progress.

In my opinion, I think we have a better chance at fighting climate change with
a bill that fits in s piece of paper rather than thousands of pages of
regulations and loopholes.

~~~
dj_gitmo
I guess I agree that the legislation should be simple. For example legislation
that ban carbon pollution within certain industries by a certain date. Say, by
2035 for electricity, 2045 for agriculture. That would really set things in
motion wouldn't it.

It would make a lot of old folks mad, but the younger generation would know
which skills to build for the new economy.

~~~
gaius
_the younger generation would know which skills to build for the new economy_

Homesteading, hunting, fishing, foraging...

~~~
dj_gitmo
I'm not a primitivist. A sustainable economy will require more people, to work
in agriculture and energy to reduce carbon intensity. It will require more of
our best minds working on these problems instead of using their talents to get
more clicks using machine learning.

Our economies are more planned than we like to admit. It's just that right now
we don't exercise any control over the direction or goals of our economic
production.

