The Green New Deal

[Berzerker]

I think an important spin to remember that it's not the Greens fault that any Green Deal is expensive. 25 years of denial and making things worse is what makes the transition more expensive.

It's not the dentist's fault that a root canal is expensive if you intentionally ignored the growing cavity

tell me about it, I just shelled out a wad of money for 2 root canals and crowns

 

[Hygro]

I remember Al Gore stumping on this plan in 2006.

 

[Estebonrober]

Everyone is ignoring the costs. That is one of the major problems in the discussion. As you say, they are dealing with generalities but there are reasons no one is getting specific. The numbers go out of bounds quickly.

J

I've given early estimates every time someone asks, all of it including healthcare and housing for everyone is around 3-6 trillion per year depending on how much you actually do such as jobs for everyone. It effectively doubles the output of the fed. Yes its a big deal but its not as insane as people make it sound. Since up to half of that is healthcare, housing, and jobs guarantee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/milton...new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/#5dce00a03dec

• The proposed expansion of renewables to provide 100% of the nation’s power needs would, according to respected physicist Christopher Clark, cost about $2.0 trillion or approximately $200 billion a year for ten years.
• The Deal’s desire to build a “smart power grid” for the entire country, would, according to the Electric Power Institute, cost some $400 billion or $40 billion a year for ten years.
• According to a McKinsey study, AOC’s aspiration to “draw down greenhouse gases” would cost $11 trillion or about $110 billion a year for ten years.
• The Deal’s goal to upgrade every home and industrial building in the country to state-of-the-art safety and energy efficiency would run some $2.5 trillion over ten years or about $250 billion a year. This figure may well understate. Consider that there are 136 million dwellings in the United States. An upgrade of each would conservatively cost $10,000 a unit on average or near $1.4 trillion, and this does not even include the industrial and commercial structures. Nor does it include upkeep.
• The Green New Deal also aspires to provide jobs guarantees at a “living wage.” A government assessment of a similar proposal by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) puts the cost of such a program at $543 billion in its first year. Though the costs thereafter would fall, the cumulative expense over ten years would come to some $2.5 trillion.
• The goal of developing a universal, single payer health-care system would, according to an MIT-Amherst study of a similar plan put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), come to about $1.4 trillion a year.

Let me add here that I am willing to personally double my own tax contribution if everyone else does and I live basically paycheck to paycheck for my family of five, but I view this as critical to my children's and more importantly their children's potential to live a sustainable life without massive violence and death from climate change caused migrations and loss of productivity.

 

[Hygro]

It's about money but it's not about money. The United States could easily print one third of its GDP in order to pay WW2, or the Green New Deal. Money is simply a tool used to assign resources. The problem is, that as you do that, a bunch of industries that were producing other (most likely useful) things stop producing those things, and start producing whatever you coaxed them into producing. For example, if I were Trumpstalin, leader of the USASSR, I could command a police officer to abandon his duties as a policeman, and order him to build a giant heap of sand in a desert. As long as he gets paid what he used to, technically the fiscal impact is the same. It's just that now, useful work (policing) isn't being produced, while useless work (sand heap) is. It works in a bit of similar way with entire industries. If I order one sector of the economy to produce something else, whatever they used to produce suffers for it. WW2 is a great example, as a bunch of manpower and resources were directed into a war. Did that translate into prosperity for the average American? No, not at all. In fact it was more like the opposite (just to clarify, I'm talking about the economy during the war, not the post-war growth). With this green new deal, you might be imposing WW2-levels of economic deprivation on the civilian population, for a gain that is debatable at best. A sense of patriotism carried the US through WW2, I'm not sure it would carry US through this new deal.

If it's paid with money, the negatives would be felt evenly throughout the economy. The US economy would be producing less traditionally useful resources (cars, electronics, services etc.) in favor of producing whatever the new deal requires. The inflation-adjusted cost of those things would go up, as there is less supply. Perhaps this need not be the case if there were huge chunks of people unemployed, but even then there are costs associated with such a project. With financial policy, you could further try to manage the costs (or more like who pays for it). You could levy much larger taxes on the rich, for example, to try and ensure that they end up paying the costs, rather than costs being evenly distributed among everyone. But even that comes with downsides (it wouldn't be enough to cover the project, and it might have negative externalities). If the taxes are set too high, the rich might end up fleeing the United States for example.

Basically yes, middling profiteers would switch to government contracts from selling people cosmetics and nootropics on the internet. Some bigger companies would retask to government projects as well. And yes, a hundred thousand uber drivers might switch to solar installation. And yeah, a bunch of un(der)employed CFC/reddit/whatever posters would stop making these places as fun as they finally leave the U6 unemployment ranks (still 12 million people deep). App developers might get hired on as smart grid consultants.

The crowding out of existing industry could happen to some degree. The innovation/human capital gains/"crowding in" effect will happen to another degree. At the end of the day, more employed people with more experience will result in more long term gains.

 

[Broken_Erika]

....... Trumpstalin, leader of the USASSR,.......

Best line in the thread so far.

 

[Phrossack]

Ok, apologies for the double post, but reflecting back, I think the first post is a bit dry, and still rather abstract, but as I was walking, home I thought of an analogy that actually fits quite well. So let me know if this helps you imagine what socialism is and how private vs personal property works better.

So when I lived in California, I worked as a maintenance worker for a county parks system. As part of my job, I had a uniform, which was mine (paid for via voucher), work boots (paid for via voucher), a key holder (I bought), and a car (I bought), which I used to commute to work every day. In the park, I had a set of keys, which were mine, but which I signed for and which I had to return when I quit. The park had 3 vehicles for maintenance workers, and four maintenance workers (a senior, two permanents, and a seasonal). The senior and each permanent had a specific maintenance vehicle which they used every day, and in that sense it was "their truck," but really it was the park's trucks, and the seasonal would either tag along with one of the permanents for the day or use the unused truck if one of the permanents was off for the weekend. The third truck (the "senior's truck") was a dump truck, so we typically didn't use it for day-to-day operations. Each vehicle had various things in it: sets of tools, trash bags, cleaning implements, etc. These things stayed with the truck, and each maintenance worker was responsible with keeping their truck stocked and all the tools in good working order, so, again, they were seen by the staff as "theirs" in a sense, but the stuff went with the truck, so it really belonged to the truck and therefore the park. If the seasonal needed the truck to go do weed abatement, he was free to take it to get the job done. The park also had a maintenance shop, which was stocked with all kinds of various tools: weed whackers, leaf blowers, table/miter/skill saws, chainsaws, DR trimmers, a tractor with a flail attachment, etc. These were shop tools, and were free for all (maintenance and rangers alike) to use as needed (provided you had certification/training when necessary), with the expectation to return when finished and perform any maintenance/upkeep as needed (blowing/washing off trimmers/chainsaws, refueling, etc.). Finally, above the park there was other equipment that we the park could access when needed. For example, if we needed a woodchipper, or a slope mower, we could put in with Central Yard and borrow them to get our work done. We couldn't hold them forever - they were for the good of the whole parks system, not just one park - but we were welcome to use them as needed until the job was done. Moreover, if there was a job that required the use of heavy equipment - an air brake-powered vehicle, or a backhoe or an excavator, the park had a staff of specialists which were trained and certified to operate heavy equipment, which we could put a work order in for and they could come help us with the project. Finally, the park system had a fleet management, with a couple of garages dotted throughout the country. The garage had gas pumps for us to fill our trucks up as needed, and a staff of mechanics who would inspect the vehicles every time a mileage or yearly threshold was met, and would perform repairs on the vehicles in the event of a breakdown.

This is all, generally speaking, the way things work in socialism. The uniform is mine, the car is mine, the home I live in is mine. The truck - the thing necessary for the good of all (i.e. the maintenance of the park) is held communally, and is free for everybody working in the park (all of the maintenance workers) to use as needs be. As are the tools. If you have weed whacking that you need to do, you're welcome to take it and do your thing, just don't treat it like crap, return it when you're done, and make sure it's in good working order for the next time when somebody needs it. In my experience in the parks, this system worked perfectly great. The necessary work got done when it needed to, the tools were used as needed and kept in good working order and stayed in a central location for all to use as needed. Also? It just felt great, super fulfilling to be in an environment with minimal oversight and projects and workflow which could be tailored to mental/physical state, and built around mutual aid, cooperation/collaboration, and making other people happy.

This is a fine analogy, and one you could use in discussions with others on socialism.

But there's no need to convince me! I was talking about how the phrase "private property" means something different to most people than it does to leftists, and if they're going to start talking to non-leftists and spread their views, they'll have to speak in the language of their audience. Conservatives and other opponents will be quick to attack them any way they can and if leftists say, "We want to end private property," they're going to make a lot of people think they're coming for their house, car, and dog.

 

[Hygro]

Best line in the thread so far.

The US Ass Republic.

 

[El_Machinae]

Basically yes, middling profiteers would switch to government contracts from selling people cosmetics and nootropics on the internet. Some bigger companies would retask to government projects as well. And yes, a hundred thousand uber drivers might switch to solar installation. And yeah, a bunch of un(der)employed CFC/reddit/whatever posters would stop making these places as fun as they finally leave the U6 unemployment ranks (still 12 million people deep). App developers might get hired on as smart grid consultants.

The crowding out of existing industry could happen to some degree. The innovation/human capital gains/"crowding in" effect will happen to another degree. At the end of the day, more employed people with more experience will result in more long term gains.

I think that with a proper Green Deal, the long-term benefits pay for themselves. But it also has to be discussed in terms of real short-term costs. I don't see a mechanism by which my hotwings won't become more expensive.

 

[Hehehe]

I've given early estimates every time someone asks, all of it including healthcare and housing for everyone is around 3-6 trillion per year depending on how much you actually do such as jobs for everyone. It effectively doubles the output of the fed. Yes its a big deal but its not as insane as people make it sound. Since up to half of that is healthcare, housing, and jobs guarantee.

Now that we get into the specifics, it's even more insane than people make it sound. There are a lot of problems with trying to build a functioning electric grid with 100% renewables (is a functioning electric grid still our goal?). It's a complicated topic, but as Germany has invested in renewables, arguably their green house emissions have also increased due to them needing more coal as a buffer. Also, the other side of that coin is progressive policies. Even if you're willing to take the hit for those policies, your countrymen might not be. I'm not at all sure that the Nordic social democratic welfare state model can be copied to the US as is.

Let me add here that I am willing to personally double my own tax contribution if everyone else does and I live basically paycheck to paycheck for my family of five, but I view this as critical to my children's and more importantly their children's potential to live a sustainable life without massive violence and death from climate change caused migrations and loss of productivity.

You do realize that given the way things are going, massive violence, death and migrations are inevitable? This is true even if this GND would totally fix all greenhouse gas emissions globally and completely stop global warming?

 

[Ironsided]

I'm not at all sure that the Nordic social democratic welfare state model can be copied to the US as is.

They would have to revive it first. It's been dead for over 20 years.

 

[Hrothbern]

They would have to revive it first. It's been dead for over 20 years.

A slow decrease of that level is not the same as dead.

In perception: yes,
but by international indicators: not at all

 

[Hehehe]

They would have to revive it first. It's been dead for over 20 years.

By "they", you mean the Nordic countries? I wouldn't put it quite as dramatically as you did, but I would agree that the welfare state has been slowly unraveling for various reasons (financial issues and and decreasing national solidarity)

 

[Zkribbler]

Is "the green new deal" something that actually warrants serious discussion? If so, let's start with the obvious: what's the estimated cost for this plan?

I'm sure you meant to ask: What are the estimated benefits of this plan?

 

[Hehehe]

I'm sure you meant to ask: What are the estimated benefits of this plan?

That is also a very good question. Right now, they seem a little ambiguous to me

 

[Zkribbler]

That is also a very good question. Right now, they seem a little ambiguous to me

True dat. It's a direction, not On-Star instructions.

 

[Estebonrober]

but as Germany has invested in renewables, arguably their green house emissions have also increased due to them needing more coal as a buffer.

This is about base load power, we have natural gas for that until we can get battery stations up. Also nuclear could still be on the table for us. I guess since the situation is so bleak we should all just drink wine and fornicate until the planet rightly kills us then?

Honestly the amount of people who'd rather put their head in the sand about this and whole range of other things shocks me.

 

[Hehehe]

This is about base load power, we have natural gas for that until we can get battery stations up. Also nuclear could still be on the table for us. I guess since the situation is so bleak we should all just drink wine and fornicate until the planet rightly kills us then?

Honestly the amount of people who'd rather put their head in the sand about this and whole range of other things shocks me.

I'm not saying we do nothing. NG and nuclear are indeed excellent options for carrying us until we get fusion reactors running. My point was that renewables are overhyped. Trying to run a grid with 100% renewables is very costly, and unnecessary for fighting global warming. I get the feeling that people who push for renewables downplay their costs and drawbacks. Maybe one day our energy storage facilities will be so advanced that 100% renewables is a realistic option, but right now it isn't.

I guess this is kind of beside the point, but we sometimes get people pushing for renewables even here in Finland. Aside from hydro, this is absolutely insane. The seasonal changes in energy generation and consumption make this completely non-viable. I get that the are some serious plans for renewables out there made by serious people, but I get the feeling that a lot of the people who push for renewables have no idea what it would take to run a functional electric grid with 100% renewables (or even a high % of renewables in the energy mix).

 

[Estebonrober]

Idk, I think we are closer than you think, but I understand it hasn't been scaled up yet and that would be an expensive part of this.

https://www.energy-storage.news/new...ck-provides-baseload-power-for-the-grid-off-s

 

[Hrothbern]

Idk, I think we are closer than you think, but I understand it hasn't been scaled up yet and that would be an expensive part of this.

https://www.energy-storage.news/new...ck-provides-baseload-power-for-the-grid-off-s

Batteries are too expensive for handling the full baseload power needed.

Do consider as well that the total renewable energy supply needed is much bigger than the current electricity production of power plants
(cars, airplanes, ships, direct house heating from oil/gas, cement industry, chemical industry, all gas heated equipment and lines in industry, etc, etc).

But there is CO2 underground storage as well, there is hydrogen as well (stripped from fossil oil and gas or stripped from water)

 

[Farm Boy]

I think that with a proper Green Deal, the long-term benefits pay for themselves. But it also has to be discussed in terms of real short-term costs. I don't see a mechanism by which my hotwings won't become more expensive.

If people want petroleum out of ag and probably 10 times the amount of people back into production to do it, then yar. I suppose it's depopulate and automate for your dinosaurs and self devouring clones, create a sharecropping wage underclass, let food costs rise by 5 to 10 times, or subsidize it to mask and share the increased inputs. And that'll go for more things than just food.

It'll still get expressed in pedestrian budget processes. If buildings are condemned some people are going to die when the state pitches them out directly or indirextly. We know these things. We've done it before. We do it now, just not on that scale .