1. It apparently states the US GNP would contract by 500 billion by 2100 if there is climate inaction? Is that stating that there will be a drop in the bucket 500 billion per year difference 81 years out in adjusted dollars? Is that stating that the US economy will not grow (remember the kind of growth is everything with regard to growth) but will stay same minus the drop in the bucket 500B 81 years hence forth. Let us be realistic: there will very likely be no United States if its not addressed as hot wars will give way to nuclear war- there is no more pressing national security issue than getting rid of fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible and getting rid of the carbon rent seeking while we're at it. 2. They make a qualification about "to the extent it is technologically feasible," let not the fossil fuel industry lie to people, in every area including aviation and aerospace it is completely possible and radically cheaper and massively better for the economy, a fossil fuel based economy simply cannot compete with a full green economy where the thermodynamic efficiencies and aggregate economic efficiencies are better than perfected hot fusion. Also can't fortify against coming climate issues without going green because fossil fuel is anything if not brittle. You don't leave vestiges or even a percentage point of fossil fuel in tact, its like part of a cancerous tumor in the body or leaving part think its to leave some of the fire that was burning a house down to continue to burn. You cut it out and you extinguish it. 3. Nancy Pelosi is as clueless on green as she is on single payer. Can't have a capitulator as the face of real change. When she makes stupid remarks about the "green dream" or "whatever it is," its a sign she needs to go as fast as humanly possible. Can't have politicians that talk out of both sides of their mouths any more- the sponsored type, can't have that. 4. High indexed UBI must be put back in the GND because its is the best and perhaps only way to prevent displacement from devolving into civil war. Again Keynes told them want to expect in 1928 or was 32 and by 70 they saw all the signs he predicted and told us how to avoid the civil wars then and its been denial ever since but self driving cars and tech in general (no putting the AI genie back in the bottle) is driving this inevitably. Takes more skill to drive to work than to do 90% of jobs and auto pilot is already at last reporting 6.67x better at avoiding crashes than a human driver, soon the requisite 10x that Musk talked about. It time to talk about how much radically better the US economy (as if that were all that matters- its economy for whom and by what means) if we terminated all fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible and hit the fossil fuel industry with reparational damages for externalities costs going back to when we should have cease in fossil fuel production in 1950 or at least by 1970. Maybe I am wrong about some of this? Seems unlikely.
I don't know. Agree with the initiative.But as to your added specifics, governments role is to provide direction perameters of legal action and reasonable course of action. Government cannot by itself solve the problem. Discussing this on another thread but to repeat it here..... my neighbors very climate conscious people, initiated a thing to be added to the state party platform. A space like moon landing initiative to directly focus us on climate change. A very good thing. Think again if you think they do not drive a F350 despite never hauling a single thing nor do they disavow their clothes dryer, despite us living in a dry climate, nor are they vegan. Their initiative as opposed to what they could personally do if they simply did a thing as opposed to talked about others doing things.....I know where the greater effect is found and it is in personal action. Government helps but really like my neighbors it allows them to think they need to personally not do a thing. This is all for naught unless each of us does what we can. We do not have to live like monks but really...a clothes dryer all the time? In earlier days all they had were clothes lines and they were everywhere..when was the last time you saw one behind a house? Zero use energy homes on you tube there are hundreds of videos ...ever see one with a clothes line out back? Do we need to outlaw clothes dryers sue the fossil fuel industry for energy use running dryers, or do we need to simply dry clothes as we did for probably a thousand years, nine days out of ten? Sure this is important but really...are you vegan? Simple that and simply done only one thing I could name a hundred. We do not have to live like monks but really is it all them not us? Or is it mainly us how we behave causing this?
Your neighbors will buy a electric replacement for that F350 and power it off their roof and save tons of money.
Bit of a rant related to GND OP. Its no carbon not 'low carbon.' There is no accepting that fossil fuel profit is not legitimate or that carbon rent seeking can't continue- there is even claw back in order. Low carbon doesn't get us where we need and really want to go. The cost of the GND is less than nothing. What did Iraq, Afghanistan and TARP cost to bailout once again the ever failing austerity inducing fossil fuel industry? Fossil fuels are the definition of economic failure. It is fossil fuels that cannot be afforded. And as for natural gas- those people made stupid investments and they have to eat it, cannot be allowed to pass those costs on with austerity. Its going to be a war on fossil fuels but it will be easier to criminalize fossil fuel profit than drugs. It is the realization that fossil fuel economies cannot survive against the much lower cost of good that a green economy ensures that drives this. Its time added back to people's lives because fossil fuels are scarcity inducers, that has been their point for 50 years to keep a phony economy going after the point Keynes predicted (point realized in 1970) where labor died and by extension capital- since then fossil fuels have been about taking us back to the plantation instead of forward to where the deal the rich had is extended to all. When they say as Andrew Wheeler did "social engineering" what they are really talking about is consideration of social utility or contribution which they hate because it begins to address their fraud or their defacto right to exploit and convert people into property or push slavery while having the law look the other way. Its why petrol is Civil Rights II and why its total defeat is needed for the average American to become and remain free and keep from going backwards into the full plantation. Oil-NG-Coal are the new cotton and cubicles the new cotton gin There whole game has been about not addressing social utility. If you bring up UBI they start with the projective- oh these people want a hand out---- but oh, no, no, its YOU! that wants a hand out because your unearned income living was based on net contribution that was statistically nill or net negative all these years and on the backs of the very people you are claiming want a hand out when they made and built everything you have and you want to project your blame and your guilt. So its like no, its about what you've done and what you've taken inappropriately in ill-gotten gain and the disgorgement so its like no, you're not doing that and its why the UBI belongs with the GND.
