Green New Deal

[chanson78]

You never said bill. However I stand by my statement that your wording is a mischaracterization of what happened in this case.

I said bill. You are correct, she did put it up as a Simple Resolution.

If I change the wording from Bill to Simple Resolution, I am not sure that there is any marked difference.

From the Bills & Resolutions page on house.gov:

Simple ResolutionsA matter concerning the operation of either the House of Representatives or Senate alone is initiated by a simple resolution. A resolution affecting the House of Representatives is designated “H.Res.” followed by its number. They are not presented to the President for action.

What McConnell did was to present that same resolution as a Joint Resolution in the Senate.

From Bills & Resolutions on senate.gov:

Joint Resolution: Designated "S. J. Res." and numbered consecutively upon introduction, with one exception it requires the approval of both chambers and is submitted (just as a bill) to the president for possible signature into law. The one exception is that joint resolutions are used to propose constitutional amendments. These resolutions require a two-thirds affirmative vote in each house but are not submitted to the president; they become effective when ratified by three-quarters of the States.

I get it, the simple resolution doesn't have nearly the weight of the joint resolution, which can be placed on the presidents desk for signature. I understand that what McConnell did was political theater. I am just not sure that it is any more political theater than what AOC and the Democrats did with putting up a simple resolution, realizing that those same people who are having problems parsing the difference between a bill and a resolution (myself included) are probably the same types of people who have trouble parsing the difference between a simple resolution in the house and a joint resolution in the Senate.

At the end of the day, two people put up two different types of resolutions in two different bodies of Congress knowing that neither would get a vote.

I absolutely loathe McConnell, and what he does and represents is abhorrent to me. But I just don't think saying that "THOSE GUYS ARE SO DIRTY" in this case just seems like a failure to recognize that politics is all about appearances. McConnell just intercepted the Hail Mary, ran it back, and planted the flag in the other teams logo at center field. They got outplayed.

Edit: For the record I don't think that the GND is bad. I also do think that it should be of utmost priority. But to be willfully ignorant of the situation in Washington just because McConnell is a big meanie isn't going to do me or the left any good. They need to get just as savvy at managing public perception. The GOP is a master of messaging. The Democrats have sucked at it and continually get wrecked.

 

[MattinBama]

Not sure this is factually correct?

In the 116th Congress, it is a pair of resolutions, H. Res. 109 and S. Res. 59, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). Markey's resolution was voted on March 25, 2019 with a result of a 57-0 loss as many Democrats voted "present."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59

Cosponsored by 12 dems who wouldn't even vote for it? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59/cosponsors

It looks as if the initial article that you posted was worded in a way that sounded as if McConnell did this unilaterally. Which he sort of did but not in the manner that I thought.

Looking a little deeper it appears that Markey & she did put this forward with the intention that it would receive a hearing or be placed in committee to work on details. Not be rushed directly to the floor in an attempt to embarrass the Dems - which is why even Markey did not vote in favor for it.

My apologies for getting that part incorrect & apologies to chanson/NT17 on that front as well even though this is still Republican gamesmanship rather than taking a serious issue seriously.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1110666127644991493[/tweet]

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1110666127644991493 <---working link

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1110632516619247616[/tweet]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1110632516619247616 <---working link

Direct link to the Vox article shown in the tweet above going into more detail about what happened and why- https://www.vox.com/2019/3/26/18281323/green-new-deal-democrats-vote

 

[crimsonaudio]

And here's what they actually voted on - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/8

"S.J.Res.8 - A joint resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."

So not one repub or dem thinks that there should be a recognition of the duty of the FedGov to create a GND? It didn't even have specifics that had to be met, it was merely showing the intention of doing something, and not one senator voted for it - even the 12 who cosponsored it.

They're all up there playing games, that's all.

 

[MattinBama]

And here's what they actually voted on - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/8

"S.J.Res.8 - A joint resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."

So not one repub or dem thinks that there should be a recognition of the duty of the FedGov to create a GND? It didn't even have specifics that had to be met, it was merely showing the intention of doing something, and not one senator voted for it - even the 12 who cosponsored it.

They're all up there playing games, that's all.

The Vox article I edited in above explains some of the reasoning behind why McConnell did it and why the Democrats didn't entertain it.

 

[IMALOYAL1]

The "GREEN" part of the deal is ambitious but necessary to consider for the health of the earths climate.

• building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
• upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
• removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
• cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
• ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition

The part that tries to correct economic inequality should be removed. They are two separate issues. mho

• establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
• promoting justice and equality.
• providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

 

[rgw]

The "GREEN" part of the deal is ambitious but necessary to consider for the health of the earths climate.

The part that tries to correct economic inequality should be removed. They are two separate issues. mho

I kinda pointed out this earlier, I think the work needed is big enough that it can be used to that end in part due to the huge TVA type projects needed across the country.

 

[rgw]

Furthermore, I think the very necessity of modern capital is destructive and exploitative of the environment without much respect or consideration given to the human environmental impact. In a world where quarter to quarter growth is prioritized over sustainability, you undoubtedly get the geo-hellworld we've been creating.

 

[NationalTitles18]

You never said bill. However I stand by my statement that your wording is a mischaracterization of what happened in this case.

I'm not sure with whom you have me mixed up but I never mischaracterized AOC's proposal. You may disagree with the way I see it but your "if you disagree with me you're wrong" position is getting old.

 

[MattinBama]

I'm not sure with whom you have me mixed up but I never mischaracterized AOC's proposal. You may disagree with the way I see it but your "if you disagree with me you're wrong" position is getting old.

I apologized to you on the last page for the misunderstanding.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I apologized to you on the last page for the misunderstanding.

I haven't been able to go back and I won't, but I will take your word that I missed it and apologize for doing so. I've been on the road for most of today and last night.

 

[MattinBama]

I haven't been able to go back and I won't

 

[Tidewater]

Well, here is a German lad's view of the impact of Germany's energy policy:

Germany closed its nuclear power plants (Green Party policy).
Switched to renewables, which weren't ready.
Germany plans to use Russian gas as a "bridge."
Everyone pays the kw hour rate of the most expensive energy source at that moment during peak demand. (EU policy)
Russian invades Ukraine.
Germany pivots to LNG (much more expensive).
Germany buys electricity (often generated by nuclear plants in France & Switzerland; Germany shares the danger of a nuclear mishap, but gets none of the benefits of having its own nuclear power plants.
Germany now pays €820/megawatt hour, compared to €125 in France.
Germany economy shrinks while other in Europe grow.
A high voltage line from the north (where wind is plentiful) to the south (where energy is needed) is delayed because Bavaria demands the lines be buried, so Germany has to pay windmills to shut down because it has nowhere to put the electricity.

Be careful what you ask for. Ask penetrating questions before adopting a policy.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

You moronic climate-change denier!

Ask good questions indeed! Don’t you know to listen and submit to your intellectual superiors?!?!

You and all your fellow knuckle-dragging MAGA-loving anti-vaxxer homeschoolers are going to burn the planet up!

 

[mdb-tpet]

I kinda pointed out this earlier, I think the work needed is big enough that it can be used to that end in part due to the huge TVA type projects needed across the country.

Since this thread has been reopened, it's clear to me we truly need to divorce ourselves from the Oil Industry. There have been 2 wars in the last few months over oil, oil is funding Russia's attacks on Ukraine, and now the world's economy is in being shocked from oil being stuck in the Strait of Hormuz. We'll never fully move away from oil and gas, but clearly we need to be less dependent on it for common transportation etc.

We have solar panels that charge our cars, and power our house, and the panels will fully pay for themselves over 9 years and then we will be in the black for another 15 years or so while power costs shoot through the roof. That's the green new deal we all need.

 

[AWRTR]

Since this thread has been reopened, it's clear to me we truly need to divorce ourselves from the Oil Industry. There have been 2 wars in the last few months over oil, oil is funding Russia's attacks on Ukraine, and now the world's economy is in being shocked from oil being stuck in the Strait of Hormuz. We'll never fully move away from oil and gas, but clearly we need to be less dependent on it for common transportation etc.

We have solar panels that charge our cars, and power our house, and the panels will fully pay for themselves over 9 years and then we will be in the black for another 15 years or so while power costs shoot through the roof. That's the green new deal we all need.

I had a house with solar panels. I really liked them. I can't do them at my new house. I would have to cut down multiple beautiful oak trees and my wife won't have it. The problem is the sun goes down, and then I need battery back up to store the electricity I need at 10 pm. What do I do when the sun isn't out for several days and my batteries run dry? What does someone in Maine or Washington state do in January? Solar works well in certain areas for certain things, but it can not replace fossil fuels. You don't have the battery capacity to store the power for the down times. You want alternative energy that can actually give on demand power when we need it you have to go nuclear. It's the only viable solution that will work everywhere.

 

[UAH]

I had a house with solar panels. I really liked them. I can't do them at my new house. I would have to cut down multiple beautiful oak trees and my wife won't have it. The problem is the sun goes down, and then I need battery back up to store the electricity I need at 10 pm. What do I do when the sun isn't out for several days and my batteries run dry? What does someone in Maine or Washington state do in January? Solar works well in certain areas for certain things, but it can not replace fossil fuels. You don't have the battery capacity to store the power for the down times. You want alternative energy that can actually give on demand power when we need it you have to go nuclear. It's the only viable solution that will work everywhere.

We have to have an updated and capable grid of distributing power regardless of how it is being generated. China doesn't have adequate oil and has driven toward wind, solar, hydro,coal and development of packaged nuclear power units. The US has a tremendous challenge to develop a workable national energy policy and making the huge investments required.

Scalable battery storage is dropping rapidly in price and I believe, has a role in any comprehensive plan.

I worked at TVA during the height of their nuclear power expansion that cratered with three mile Island. You can appreciate how much frustration I have felt seeing the the cooling towers at the three unit Hartsville, Tennessee Plant (just outside Nashville) imploded in the last year. We have challenges ahead.