The Big Problem

The big problem with Ryan Cooper’s ardent defense of the Green New Deal, expressed at The Week:

If we consider climate policy realistically, then that would clearly involve considering how big the problem is, reasoning from there how fast emissions need to come down, and then what policies could get us there. If the scientists are overstating their case, then why, and by how much? If the greens are wrong about policies, which ones are better? But Stephens does not discuss details in the slightest, only gesturing vaguely towards “large-scale investments in climate resilience, such as better coastal defenses.” How about it, Bret: Would it be cheaper to decarbonize the economy, or abandon the whole of the Miami metro area to the rising seas?

But conversely, this is why the Green New Deal framework makes so much sense. It starts with the problem — greenhouse gas emissions — and sets up a goal to get them down in time, while making society more egalitarian in the process. The policy space, therefore, is ecumenical. Nothing that cuts emissions is ruled out — leaving space for a carbon tax, subsidies for zero-carbon transportation, enormous investment in zero-carbon energy (including nuclear), and moon-shot research investments to develop zero-carbon industry and agriculture that could then be adopted worldwide.

I daresay it’s a fairly pragmatic approach. If you study the conclusions of climate science even cursorily, the truth is that we have procrastinated so long that we pretty much have to go full-tilt at everything with a decent chance of getting emissions down. Penny-ante political moderation can not possibly get the job done.

is that no amount of ideological purity is a viable substitute for what works. It’s hard to make a confident statement about the GND, pro or con, in the absence of specifics but here’s a specific: we can’t maintain a global economy or modern agriculture on the basis of 100% renewables. Said another way 100% renewables means hundreds of millions of dead and dying people. Germany’s all-renewables policy thrust is resulting in its producing more carbon emissions rather than fewer. Here’s another: unless China and India stop emitting carbon nothing we do will make a damned bit of difference.

17 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    We know exactly what an economy based on renewables looks like. It is all of human history up the the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th Century. And, as any competent Marxist will tell you, such an economy is necessarily an autocratic, top-down, immiserated, slave economy.

    We are a Lysenkoist age of hoaxes, frauds, anti-science, and anti-reason. Our totally commercialized universities and their virulent anti-intellectualism are the main source of this infestation.

  • Guarneri Link

    I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony and buy them a coke as well, but it ain’t gonna happen. The GND publicity has had some value, like showing everyone that AOC is a clown, but it seems time to move on.

  • The difference between the federal government and the Coca Cola company is that the federal government has the power to induce you to do things under threat of imprisonment. The Coca Cola company can get the federal government to compel you to stop doing things, e.g. infringing their copyrights, by getting a court order but it’s not quite the same.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    Corporations getting on board the warming train means nothing more than that they see a marketing opportunity. Good example:
    https://youtu.be/YdjSnvQp-3g
    A good business has to watch trends but I don’t think this one is real. Polls may show people ranking climate change as high on their list of concerns, but ask them how much they’d like to pay to address it. I’ll bet for most, lip service is about all they’d pay.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    Oh, and fossil free only if you walk to the ATM. And hold your breath.

  • TastyBits Link

    fossil free … the ATM

    A plastic debit card is a fossil product. Fossil-free means no plastic including the plastic used to create “plastic-free” products.

    @Drew was right about the GND being written in crayon. As an aspirational goal, it is the same as setting a goal to travel ten times the speed of light. Scientifically, it is not possible no matter how many science-fiction writers think it is.

  • Andy Link

    It’s like the GND Ryan Cooper read is completely different from the GND I read. He claims nuclear is on the table, the GND itself specifically says it isnt:

    “Building on the concept of FDR’s New Deal, we call for a massive mobilization of our communities, government and the people on the scale of World War II – to transition our energy system and economy to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030, including a complete phase out of fossil fuels, fracked gas and nuclear power. ”

    The claim of pragmatism when it comes to the GND is sophistry.

  • Without specifics it’s anything you want it to be. And not anything you don’t want it to be.

    As I’ve said before there are presently no green cargo ships and no green semis. Electric choo-choos can be pretty green depending on how the electricity to power them is generated but producing the choo-choos themselves isn’t green and, without green cargo ships, if they’re produced somewhere else there’s no way to get them here.

    We should start building a lot more solar panels here, too. Most are produced in China and getting them here isn’t green.

    John Deere notwithstanding most farm equipment is not very green and the prospects for green farm equipment are few. The greatest likelihood is biodiesel. Are there any tractors that run on 100% biodiesel? I don’t know of any. 2% is more common.

  • Guarneri Link

    Uhhhh…

    The Coke reference was just a reference to their iconic kumbaya commercial.

  • steve Link

    Here is the link to the resolution. Not seeing the part where it says phasing out nuclear and the other stuff.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

    The resolution is doing what it was intended to do, get people talking about it. Will have to wait to see what bills, if any, come out of it. And, Bob is exactly correct. Whatever renewables we use will be exactly what was used in the early 19th century. Just like our transportation now is jut like what we had in the 19th century. Our food and clothing are the same. Medicine is exactly the same. Nothing ever changes.

    Steve

  • Guarneri Link

    “The resolution is doing what it was intended to do, get people talking about it.”

    And today I’d like to welcome our special guest, Jesus, to start a dialogue about walking on water and what it means for you…..”

  • Andy Link

    “Here is the link to the resolution. Not seeing the part where it says phasing out nuclear and the other stuff.”

    You’re right, the nuclear stuff with the FAQ that AOC’s office released and then later pulled.

  • steve Link

    Totally forgot that the other big reason for the GND is to get people to talk about AOC, especially conservatives. Now her supporters can say that she is good at pissing off conservatives. This is very Trumpian. “I will build a 30 foot wall and Mexico will pay for it.” Got lots of derision from the left (and they were right) but it got Trump tons of votes cease he irritated the left. As I said before, this stuff worries me and I hope that the left doesn’t decide to follow the GOP lead and choose the person who will most piss off conservatives.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    Yeah, AOC definitely does trigger conservatives. I think she’s mostly harmless given her inability to construct proposals that might work in the real world and her general ignorance.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    I expect Nancy to quietly neuter her.

  • steve Link

    ” I think she’s mostly harmless given her inability to construct proposals that might work in the real world and her general ignorance.”

    You just described Trump, and he got elected.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    “You just described Trump, and he got elected.”

    Trump has street smarts and instincts that she lacks. Probably due to her youth. She could be a real force to be reckoned with in a decade.

Leave a Comment