About That “Green New Deal”

I’m reading a lot both pro and con on the so-called “Green New Deal”. I am reserving judgment.

All I can say at this point is that I can support no plan that

  1. does not include regular empirical measurement based on outputs rather than inputs of its results and
  2. has annual goals based on those measurements and
  3. is not self-repealing if the plan fails to meet its goals in any year during which it is effective
15 comments… add one
  • Andy Link
  • Andy Link

    And the VOX explainer:

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/7/18211709/green-new-deal-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey

    I’m not nearly as charitable as Vox is, and I think these goals will be difficult to translate to actual legislation that would even get majority Democratic support, to say nothing of national support

  • AFAICT that’s a non-binding resolution without metrics.

    The real question is whether even that will ever get to the floor. Keep in mind that nothing gets to the floor unless the leadership wants it to and knows exactly what will happen when it does.

  • steve Link

    “is not self-repealing if the plan fails to meet its goals in any year during which it is effective”

    First two are fine. Metrics are important and you need to measure what you do. The last is just poor management as a general rule, unless you can cite something magical about one year. If the plan far, far exceeded its goals for, say, five years, then had one year where it fell short by 0.01% I would keep it running unless there were truly extenuating circumstances. I would set up a much more nuanced plan to deal with failure.

    Steve

  • The reason it is not bad management is easy to explain. Either the plan can meet its goals or it can’t. If it does not meet all of its goals something is confounding it and the entire concept is invalid. You cannot achieve the goals they’re claiming without carbon capture (which is not part of the plan) if you miss your goals. It just doesn’t work like that.

    Let me put it this way. Rather than your example consider this one. It misses its goal by .1% the first year, .1%, the second year, .1% the third, and so on. This is used to claim that if we just stay the course, ultimately we’ll realize the objectives. The claim is that immediate action is necessary due to time constraints. They’re missing their goals. The demand for persistence in the face of non-performance refutes their own premises. There are opportunity costs in continuing to pursue a plan that cannot meet its goals.

  • walt moffett Link

    Suspect it will meet the same fate as Jesse Jackson Jr’s proposed amendments granting a right to housing, food and income, buried in the House Adminstration committee.

    Would like to see a revenue and cost estimate but most likely never will.

  • Andy Link

    “Would like to see a revenue and cost estimate but most likely never will.”

    That’s the thing that will always kill these proposals, just like single-payer. People won’t willingly swallow that pill unless they have no other choice.

  • Let me try again. I’m not pumping on all cylinders.

    You either accept their stated premises or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s no need for a crash program.

    If you do, we’ve got 12 years. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for course corrections. If the plan fails, we’ve got to try something else quick. That makes it imperative that we identify failure quickly and be able to try something else without a lot of sturm und drang. Otherwise we’re continuing to spend money, time, and energy we don’t have on something that’s not working.

    I’ll concede enough to say that it would be acceptable if a margin of failure were decided on in advance. I don’t know whether it would be missing by .1%, 1%, or 10% but whatever it’s got to be a plan-killer. There must be some basis on which the plan is self-repealing.

  • Guarneri Link

    This has to be the most laughable thread I’ve seen at this site ever. I opened Andy’s link just to make sure this thing wasn’t written with crayons.

    It is the very embodiment of the old Monty Python skit “How to do It”.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    I’m not nearly as charitable as Vox is, and I think these goals will be difficult to translate to actual legislation that would even get majority Democratic support, to say nothing of national support.

    It won’t be. Hence a system that can’t save itself, which is why I expect it to be replaced by a hell-blasted planet rathet than a more organized society.

  • Ben Wolf Link
  • Gray Shambler Link

    Hopefully, the dream dies. Nancy said she would support “The new green dream, or whatever they call it.” Meaning she won’t. It’s not her plan, It’s that of another, younger woman. Bigger than that? Watch.
    Although I do support elements. Millions of high paying green jobs for everyone who wants them and free living for those of us who don’t.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    And after now reading the proposed “green deal”, they should go ahead and add a clause that guarantees happiness.

    AOC get more attention than she deserves at this point. Take away the lipstick and what do you have left?

  • steve Link

    “Take away the lipstick and what do you have left?”

    Take away the hair and what do you have left? It worked for Trump, looks like to is working for AOC.

    Steve

  • TastyBits Link

    I was amused by the item about “removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere”.

Leave a Comment