It's written by idiots for idiots. The GND has very little to do with actually protecting or benefitting the environment and everything to do with empowering the government to forcibly move people (except for presumably a protected elite class) into high density housing while also controlling movement of people both directly and indirectly. Huge chunks of it are far beyond the powers afforded to the government by the constitution. Keep in mind it is also devised by people who know absolutely nothing about economics, infrastructure, engineering, or environmental science too, so it's basically the equivalent of a taxi driver writing a manual for an F-16.
Serious, functional eco-friendly overhauls of national infrastructure would be a much larger, more detailed bill authored by people who actually know what they're doing and then sponsored by a group of politicians. It would also be impossible to do anything close to what they want to do with the energy grid without heavily investing into nuclear power. That alone is a pretty solid lithmus test for figuring out whether or not the intent is legitimate.
I think at this point in time its simply not realistic.
too expensive to change
and also a lot of forces (like private industry) that will prevent its change
not to mention its political adversaries
at this point the administration can barely handle the most basic issues
I doubt some major change will be handled very well
and changing the entire structure of the economy and of energy production would be too much of an undertaking
would you mind answering some of the questions I posted?
or at least chatting? im looking for friends and support :)
I think the climate will change no matter what we do. If you've ever been to a museum and they have a big globe showing the earth how it's changed over several decades. It changed before we were even here. It changed before cars and gas. It doesn't mean we can't do our best to recycle, use more biodegradable items, etc...
I think it would be great if solar panels were less expensive so more people can have them. Or even electric cars. But some will never be able to afford those cars. So taking away the ones we have now is wrong. Biden wants people dependent on the government.
And AOC is a total actress. She goes to the border and pretends to cry over the kids in cages during the Trump administration. But now that the border is in crisis with many more kids and migrants yet she is nowhere to be seen. She's an Instagram attention wh○re.
Opinion
27Opinion
First off. The infrastructure isn’t in place to handle the Green new deal.
The manufacturing jobs to make all of these wonderful things will be in a lower taxing country. (China). NAFTA has already driven most companies out of the country. Taxing the ones that are left will send them on their way!
I believe in cleaner energy. But not over night!
Electric cars are not eco friendly!!
1, The lithium mines cause way more destruction to the earth than oil wells do.
2, You have to charge your batteries by plugging into the grid that mainly uses coal and natural gas to produce the electricity.
The green new deal just makes people rich. It does very little for the earth, planting forests that have been destroyed by large construction projects would be more eco-friendly.
Absolute cancer. As far as I understand it's trying to push products on people who have no clue how well it works compared to the technology we have now.
Most electric cars are more expensive than gas cars, car chargers are very uncommon and if they break only the dealership can fix it and they tend to price gouge.
If we fixed these issues you wouldn't have to force people to use them, they'd be happy using them on their own volition.
That shit doesn't produce many new jobs and sure not enough to replace all the ones lost. You will have 75% unemployment even though they will give stats saying it is 4%. A lot like now. Businesses can't function now because they have no workers , yet gov't says only 7% unemployment. If we really had 7% , stores wouldn't be hiring anyone. Some day Americans will figure out that they are being lied to, by gov't, media, and social sites.
It would be an unmitigated shit show, the economy is already crashing. It will never be reality.
I am glad I live on a sailboat where I can simply sail away if shit gets too bad, and it is going to get bad.
That's so cool. I've always dreamt of living on a sailboat someday.😎
You should do it. Best decision I have ever made!
1. biden doesn't have the votes for this
2. we can't afford this. the treasury said we will be out of money in like a month
3. it will cost far more than they say. it always does
4. the plan contains some extremely radical things like banning meat eating (they removed this and said it was "just a draft" but... it was in the draft? oh and banning air travel
5. if they pass this they will move for more radical stuff later
Its hard too judge by the vague infos in your question, "green" house and eco friendly vehicles can be everything and nothing.
But generally its a good thing and its great after the Trump bullshit (like quitting the paris climate change agreement), there are at least some politicians who at least try to look like they care.
It's as idiotic as every other idea that comes from the squad or from Bernie. They should pack up and move to Venezuela where so many of their moronic ideas have already been put into practice instead of trying to force them on Americans.
I'd be fine with it, if it actually improved our infrastructure. Instead it's just an expensive, impractical smattering of woke agenda stuff, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with the environment.
It is a big money grab that will bankrupt the middle class and have no effect whatsoever on the climate. President Trump had a bigger impact by encouraging the use of natural gas instead of coal.
I think it's great because i am not a idiot who thinks Eco-friendly stuff is pointless and that pollution don't exist.
But if we don't have money then how are we to exist in this life?
And I do believe that pollution exists and that eco-friendly stuff isn't exactly "pointless."
We won't exist that's the point therefore money wouldn't be needed. The fact of you not having money in the future and still living at that point shows progress in the right direction at the moment you won't even get to worry about that.
If you did then you be for this plan. Because it's pretty obvious to anyone that we've got pretty much to the tipping point and it needs to change now.
I would argue that if we were at the tipping point, there would be no more green grass, fresh water, blue sky, yellow sun, white, voluminous clouds, fresh air, etc. I won't deny that the air here in California is ass, but it's not too too urgent. All we really need is to recycle more, start funding forest management again, and maybe cut back on some of our gas usage.
"you don't actually understand how bad pollution is and how bad of place we actually are would suggest actually doing more research into it. "
I second this please do more research on this before you speak some more @asker
Show me the evidence, then, if you're such an expert, and I will tell you what I think
like it just sounds like you truly don't understand the stakes here @asker they are quite dire
@Still-alive You're not exactly specifying what "stakes"
i already did under my answer...
but if you simply did more research from unbiased sources you'd also get it...
"90 climate scientists from 40 countries conclude that if humans don’t take immediate, collective action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040, the consequences will effectively be baked into the natural systems of the planet. With so much heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere, there will be, in effect, no turning back. The extreme droughts, devastating wildfires, massive floods, deadly hurricanes, and widespread famines that we’re seeing more and more of these days will cease to be statistical anomalies and instead be more like seasonal markers, as regular as the changing of the leaves." This is just one extract from a easy to find website on pollution.
Then this link just has some overall statistics on lots of things to do with it.
https://petpedia.co/pollution-statistics/
The point is tho if you want to find out all the way's we are basically screwed if we don't try to change everything quickly just look it up. There is many places to find info on it.
I've researched stuff about climate change from unbiased sources. It hasn't changed my perspective...
sure you have... wanna post your sources here?
@Still-alive I get most of my news from Reuters
Maybe I just interpret the facts differently. Is that not okay?
the ipccc is pretty clear as to what the stakes are. i suggest you read that. https://www.ipcc.ch/
Thanks for showing me how "tolerant" the left is.
lol wow... be more "tolerable" of facts...
@Still-alive I saw your post, you should be more tolerant of white people. They've done quite a lot for us.
Because you said my interpretation is not okay
lol pivot...
So do you not have an opinion? Sad.
as your conservative darling Ben shabibo said: 
A lot of it is already being initiated by govt agencies and corporations. Something about mad max dystopia that ruins business.
The green new deal is just as stupid as aoc, it is totally unsustainable.
Dont be silly. The Green Deal is mostly about cleaning up the air so people like you dont die of lung cancer, as much. As well as getting better and sustainable housing and products do you dont live like the pig in wood housing as you do.
Yet another one? I'm not up to date on it. I only recall that the first one was a catastrophe.
It’s no rumor. I disagree with EVERYTHING the left stands for
pointless, bullshit, money grab and further attempt to push global socialism. The End.
She's right. Ultimately, that MUST happen... it's not a question of IF but of WHEN and, frankly, the sooner the better.
Yes, lets tax everybody back into the stone age. Let's see how happy everyone is driving around in this
www.google.com/url
@exitseven Taxes aren't the issue. Indeed, you don't have to tax at all; instead, you give tax incentives to get people to do it.
But you need to think in the real long term:
1. Global warming is definitely real. It was first predicted 125 years ago.
2. Regardless of global warming, fossil fuels are going to run out. You are too young to remember the origin of the Energy Crisis (which never went away). You MAY remember the gas lines of 1979... But, regardless, fossil fuels and other finite resources (like radioactive materials for nuclear reactors) cannot last forever so you need something else. That is, collectively, the "green" sources of energy.
It is this last reason why it is a matter of IF and not WHEN.
But, I also want you to think of something else. Energy production and distribution is a national security issue. This would be obvious to you if you remembered when the Energy Crisis began in October 1973 with the Arab Oil Embargo. If you want America to be safe from foreign powers, then, besides weapons, it needs to not be able to be grabbed by the balls by foreign powers. That's exactly what happened in 1973.
I was just a lad in 73 during the energy crisis but I have read about it. Up until a few months ago we were energy EXPORTERS. Now we are at the mercy of OPEC again.
Giving tax incentives to say, buy an electric car just benefits a small group and the rest of us have to pay higher taxes to fund the incentives. There is no such thing as "free". Somebody (you and me) ultimately pay for it either through higher taxes or higher prices because of added inflation.
@exitseven Tax incentives are for all including businesses and people. Indeed, it will be necessary because the coming electric car future will require speedy infrastructure development including home charging where possible and solar where possible. Tax incentives like this have been critical to fostering industry throughout the history of the US. So has national investment. For instance, the very Internet and IT devices you are using were due primarily to the space program but also AT&T as a regulated monopoly.
You should be concerned about inflation, of course. Unfortunately, way too many people are too young to remember the cancer on the economy that inflation was. So, when I hear economists suggest a little inflation, those of us who are older think "You fool!".
As for energy export, not really, but we were generating enough oil. This began in the Reagan years when the oil industry got scared because they saw the considerable investment in green tech in response to the Energy Crisis. Thus, they supported Reagan who promptly cut Energy Department research and other incentives in the private sector for green R&D. (He also tried to end the Department of Energy, but he failed.) Had Reagan continued to support green R&D, we'd have been 20 years further along than we are, but that's another story.
As for ultimately paying, we won't be ultimately paying. We will be ultimately receiving because we don't have to pay for the sun.
FYI, you might be interested in this...
The Wall Street Journal (certainly no "liberal media") did an excellent comparative analysis showing the net positive impact of electric car ownership over gas car ownership on the environment.
www.wsj.com/.../?mod=hp_lead_pos5
===========
@exitseven So are cancer treatments and mortgages. The reality is that Nature dictates. Nature speaks in bottom lines. And Nature is speaking very loudly about the environment and that will affect every aspect of our lives. So, like every species in the history of this planet, we have a choice: adapt or die. To live, we will need to adapt. Even the companies that were reticent to do so now realize what must be done and they are doing it. We as consumers will have to adapt to.
I need to mute this question because I have some other things that I need to do.
It's absolutely necessary and it's also a day late and a dollar short. Republicans who hate her are in a death cult. Dems who love her, love her because she is cute controlled opposition. "Present"
There's also a price to destroying the environment.
Wait for the government mandated genocides to start
Moronic, like herself.
Its unrealistic and a total joke.
A'oc is an educated moron.
why are you against this plan?
A number of reasons. They want to take away our right to choose what job we want, what car we drive, the type of gas we use, what type of energy we invest in. Not to mention, it is expensive and the plan is to make this our new lifestyle in only a decade.
but if we don't do something about climate change we won't have much of a planet anymore in the future. you aren't ok losing a few luxuries of today so we still have a decent planet in the future?
I'm choosing to do away with a few luxuries of my own, but it is by choice. Is it really ethical to start taking things away from innocent individuals, especially because we're so lucky to have such privileges such as A/C and warm water? Besides, the only real way to end climate change caused by humans is to exterminate them...
". Is it really ethical to start taking things away from innocent individuals, especially because we're so lucky to have such privileges such as A/C and warm water?"
yes it is. but more than that its not about ethics its about survival. so we should take away these luxuries so we still have a functional planet to live on later in our future. I'm sure our kids and grandkids when climate change really gets intense won't be thinking about how ethical or unethical it was to take away these things for the future, they'll be worrying about where to get water and their next meals. they will also blame lawmakers for not listening to scientists and DO something to help.
I'm not a denier, but I will deny the fact that humans won't survive. Al Gore was warning us that life in the Poles would cease to exist and yet it still does, even if such species are going extinct. The blue mecaw just went extinct but we don't talk about it. There are also a number of [new] species that we, as humans, have yet to encounter. Water filters can be found at REI, so I would argue that fresh water isn't exactly a problem. You just gotta pump water from a large body of water to purify it, real easy. Not to mention, climate change has always existed. There are graphs that show that global temperatures always have a pattern of rising, peaking, decreasing, toughing, then repeating this pattern. I would also argue that is it not ethical to take away privileges we have been blessed with that make living life worthwhile.
yeah thats denial lol...
this is literally an apocolyptic scenario that can happen if we don't DO SOMETHING. and just leaving it at "let people make this decision themselves" is sadly not enough. we have to do more than that.
We are already doing more. We incentivize solar panels and eco-friendly vehicles. I don't see what is apocalyptic about the scenario I described. Pumping fresh water isn't difficult, it takes like five minutes to pump a water bottle full. How do we stop species from going extinct? We didn't save the blue macaw, woolly mammoth, sabertooth, dinosaurs, etc. Also, I don't see how I'm denying climate change if I'm telling you that I agree with you that climate change exists. What are you doing to help resolve climate change?
its not us who needs to do something. its the fossil fuel industires that need to change. they amount for something like 90% or something of the worlds CO2 emissions. tell people to just 'take responsibility for themselves' ignore thats huge fact about climate change.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that emissions from fossil fuels are the dominant cause of global warming. In 2018, 89% of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry."
www.clientearth.org/.../
China is already doing stuff to reduce emissions. I think Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement and he is supposed to be cutting back on our fracking. Newsom has yet to reinstate forest management so that we can stop the forest fires. Big question is where would the workers for gas companies go? That's 152,000 in California alone. And overseas petroleum trade with the Middle East?
we will have to come up with jobs for renewable energy plants of course.
also despite the negative attention its gotten, nuclear power is also very clean and safe.
I'm stunned to hear that an environmentalist thinks that nuclear energy is safe
lol im not an environmentalist but here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC7YD98HixM
this video understands that the negativity nuclear energy has received is part of a scheme
Don't support it.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
