MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Green New Deal—Same Old Progressive Policies

Using climate change to justify government-guaranteed jobs, health care, and housing.

MakeClimateGreatAgainJoeSohmDreamstimeJoe Sohm/DreamstimeThe Green New Deal resolution unveiled by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), a self-described socialist, ostensibly addresses the looming problem of man-made climate change. Remarkably, the solutions to the global warming crisis somehow coincide with a wish list of previously proposed progressive policies.

Apparently, for example, tackling climate change will require "guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States." Fortunately, progressives in Congress have already been offering legislation that would fortuitously meet the employment challenges posed by global warming.

The Job Opportunities for All Act, introduced last July by Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), would provide federally subsidized employment for any individuals who happens to be unemployed or underemployed. In May 2017, Democrats in both the House and the Senate introduced the Raise the Wage Act, which increases the federal minimum wage over time to $15 an hour; that bill was reintroduced in January. In February 2017, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which aimed to provide workers with a "reasonable level of wage replacement" when they take time off work to care for a family member who is ill.

Another goal of the Green New Deal is "strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment." Last year Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) reintroduced the Workplace Democracy Act, which would sanction "card check," a process that allows employees at a company to bypass secret-ballot elections and declare their intent to unionize by simply signing cards. (By undermining worker solidarity, secret ballots apparently contribute to climate change.) Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) introduced in September 2017 the Protecting Workers and Improving Labor Standards Act, which would have repealed all right-to-work laws. And in the wake of the Supreme Court's Janus decision last year, which held that a public sector union cannot force workers to pay dues if those same workers decline to join the union, congressional Democrats rolled out the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act to overturn the decision.

By another happy coincidence, beating climate change requires that the federal government be put in charge of "providing all people of the United States with high-quality health care."

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced in January 2017 by Rep. John Conyers (D–Mich.), would "provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with...all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care." Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–Wash.) is expected to introduce an even more comprehensive version of Medicare for All later this year. Maybe it could tackle climate change.

Since no American should be left out in the heat, the Green New Deal calls for the federal government to provide all people of the United States with affordable, safe, and adequate housing. Again a number of progressive legislators have, for other no doubt good reasons, been making a variety of Housing for All proposals. Most recently, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) introduced in July 2018 the Rent Relief Act, which would provide refundable tax credits for tenants who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

In order to make sure that Americans know enough to combat climate change, the Green New Deal asks the federal government to "provide resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States." Providentially, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) introduced in 2017 the College for All Act, which would eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities for families making up to $125,000.

The GND would also "ensure a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies." By chance, progressive legislators on Capitol Hill have been advancing the fight against global warming by proposing antitrust legislation. For instance, in September 2017 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) introduced the Consolidation Prevention and Competition Promotion Act, which prohibits mergers that materially lessen competition. Last August, Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would require large corporations to set aside the mere pursuit of profit and instead focus on creating a "general public benefit," defined as "a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole." Material positive impacts like...combating climate change!

In her 2014 book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Naomi Klein declared that progressive values and policies are "currently being vindicated, rather than refuted, by the laws of nature." Who knew just how right she was?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Nothing neutralizes greenhouse gasses like state coercion.

  • Nardz||

    Terrible Gaia can only be sated by the blood of kulaks and wreckers

  • mtrueman||

    If only the Free Market offered a better alternative. I weep myself to sleep each night.

  • Sevo||

    "If only the Free Market offered a better alternative. I weep myself to sleep each night."

    If only you weren't such a fucking ignoramus.

  • mtrueman||

    And you are so clever. You managed to copy exactly what I wrote without a single mistake.

  • Sevo||

    "And you are so clever. You managed to copy exactly what I wrote without a single mistake."

    If only you weren't such a fucking ignoramus.

  • mtrueman||

    Good come back.

  • MJBinAL||

    That's not fair .... to ignoramus'.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I think Sevo was going to go with 'imbecile', but that group already protested.

  • damikesc||

    Out of curiosity, can you explain why Socialist/Communist countries tend to be ecological shitholes? The difference between East and West Germany was stark. China is the filthiest place. In the US, the most left-wing cities tend to be the filthiest as well.

  • mtrueman||

    "Out of curiosity, can you explain why Socialist/Communist countries tend to be ecological shitholes? "

    No mystery, they engaged in consecutive central plans devoted to break neck industrialization. Also, left wingers are filthier than right wingers. Any hockey player will tell you that.

  • MJBinAL||

    For that matter, the worst polluter in the US is the US government. It is not a close call. From the TVA to the US Army, the EPA to the DOE, nobody pollutes like the US government.

  • mtrueman||

    Like the communists, they too pray at the altar of economic growth.

  • plusafdotcom||

    So let us all pray at your altar of economic stagnation and economic decay...?

    Ok... but you first. I'll be out of town for those centuries.

  • mtrueman||

    "So let us all pray at your altar of economic stagnation and economic decay...?"

    Pray at any altar you like, but don't seek my approval. I've always favoured action over words..

  • Sevo||

    "Pray at any altar you like, but don't seek my approval. I've always favoured action over words."

    We note you also favor spreading huge piles of bullshit.

  • mtrueman||

    Where's the bullshit? Damikesc asked me how communist countries became such environmental hellholes? I answered as best and briefly as I could, pointing out their fevered attempts to industrialize. Then MJBinAL pointed out that the US government was an even bigger offender, which may be true. I pointed out that the desire for economic growth motivated both the communists and the bourgeoisie. Where is the huge pile of bullshit?

    FIst of Etiquette had it right. There is no free market alternative to state coercion on this matter. I remember Ron Bailey tried to offer up a vision of us all getting rich trading sequestered carbon with each other, but I'm sure a little reflection will be show you this 'solution' to be illusory.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|2.9.19 @ 11:52AM|#
    "Where's the bullshit?"
    It fills nearly 100% of your posts, but you are entirely too fucking ignorant to realize it. Damikesc asked me how communist countries became such environmental hellholes? I

    "FIst of Etiquette had it right. There is no free market alternative to state coercion on this matter." There's a pile right there.

  • mtrueman||

    One example of a free market alternative to state coercion would suffice to prove Fist of Etiquette wrong, but nobody has a thing to offer except insults and other foolishness.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Yes, they are!....Remember when the Tea Party (before they were co-opted gathered by the powers that be) gathered in Wash DC & pretty much cleaned up everything around them? Contrast that with Lefty things like Occupy Wall St., Antifa & BLM, Women's march which never clean up after themsleves!

  • mtrueman||

    The filthy tea partiers threw perfectly good tea into a harbour. And disguised as Indians before doing it. Leonardo Di Caprio is less filthy, richer, and more famous than any of your tea partiers. He dons an Indian costume only rarely, for professional purposes.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    State planning precludes individualism, which includes individual responsibility and accountability. It's very hard to give a shit about anything which can be taken and given away at a moment's notice.

  • mtrueman||

    "State planning precludes individualism, which includes individual responsibility and accountability."

    State intervention, in the form of public service announcements begging Americans not to litter, played its part in conscientizing people about the environment and their role in it. Let's not fall prey to the kind of facile simplification which a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf has parroted.

  • JesseAz||

    Well that's a load of ignorant horseshit. Lol. Wow. You will fall for any marketing scam.

  • mtrueman||

    "You will fall for any marketing scam"

    I'm not alone. I tell you there's a whole industry out there.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm not alone."

    You are alone in a certain way; you take imbecility to levels rarely seen.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm happy you keep reading and feel the urge to respond.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm happy you keep reading and feel the urge to respond."

    It's best to keep stomping on vermin.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's best to keep stomping on vermin."

    Really? I set a trap for mine and take them out to the woods nearby to free them. (One of the little ingrates bit my finger as it tenaciously clung to the mesh instead of skipping off into the bush like what you'd expect.) If all that's too much for you it's probably better just to kill them. This stomping business you like to indulge in serves little purpose.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    And right there you have the core reason for the ecological rape occurring in places like Madagascar and Brazil. You may have the recognized right to mine or log a location....this week. God alone knows who the Junta (or strongman, or whatever) will give it to next week. So you have to get whatever profit you can, today. Screw what it does to the environment; the odds that you will be around to have to deal with it are tiny.

  • mtrueman||

    "And right there you have the core reason for the ecological rape occurring in places like Madagascar and Brazil."

    If you want to get in on some ecological rape, head for Venezuela. Bring your own security.

  • plusafdotcom||

    But, mt... isn't Venezuela a great example of a country achieving your stated goals?

    Limited economic growth (in spades).?

    Lower hydrocarbon pollution, actually on a world-wide basis, as their petroleum exports have plummeted to near zero, lowering CO2 emissions for Everyone?

    Lower waste and consumption by all citizens? After all, if there's no gasoline, toilet paper, milk or GOOD, there's NO possibility of excess wastage of un-needed resources like those?

    Right?
    Yes, unless you're a troll, paid to spout ridiculous shit here, you Really Are Fucking Stupid!
    ... But amusing in a sick kind of way. Thanks for your consistent counterpoint to Critical Thinking.

  • mtrueman||

    "But, mt... isn't Venezuela a great example of a country achieving your stated goals?"

    No, it's a place where you can now harvest rare tropical timber and mine in previously restricted areas. Ecological rape, as another commenter put it.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Only because the central government destroyed a prosperous economya ND bankrupted the whole country. Jesus you are fucking tiresome. Have you ever made a logical argument in your life? What you consider clever the rest of us see as sophomoric recitation of tired progressive tropes. No originality, no ability for self reflection. And generally a good dose of logical fallacies. Mtrueman, it must suck to be you, as you are so disillusioned that you actually consider yourself intellectually advanced. However, to the rest of us you are simply the poster boy for the dangers of unearned grades and participation trophy mentality.

  • mtrueman||

    Enough about this environmental stuff. Time to discuss me!

    I agree. I am so bad that you can't help but read me and respond. For that I thank you.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    State planning precludes individualism, which includes individual responsibility and accountability. It's very hard to give a shit about anything which can be taken and given away at a moment's notice.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And broad acceptance of individual responsibility and accountability precludes state planning.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Stop saying things like this immediately. "Reality" must never intrude on progressive dreams because "reality" is a social construct.

    China is only dirty because people say that it is. Dirt, like gender, is fluid and is totally a social construct. Socialism didn't "kill" 100 million people, they were only thought to be dead because death, too, is a social construct.

    Ocasio-Cortez is the real social construct. Carefully assembled by the state in public schools and public colleges, AOC is now running loose through the countryside like Frankenstein's monster except that the villagers aren't chasing her with pitchforks and torches. They're cheering her as she goes on a rampage against reality.

  • thorsmjollnir||

    Because the daily concern of whether or not one is going to live of die supersedes any care for the environment.

  • JesseAz||

    Capitalism is a better alternative. It has done more to lift global poverty than sociosm could dream of. I'm sorry you're too ignorant to see this.

  • mtrueman||

    Nothing neutralizes greenhouse gasses like state coercion.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Really, can you explain why the USA has surpassed every European country in reduction of CO2 despite the fact we have very little centrally mandated policies to reduce CO3 and most European countries have plethoras of them?

  • mtrueman||

    It's Fist of Etiquette's assertion. If you disagree, take it up with him or her. Perhaps now is the time to trot out your 'Free Market Solution' if you have one.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|2.9.19 @ 5:30PM|#
    "It's Fist of Etiquette's assertion."

    No, it isn't; you're too fucking ignorant to understand sarcasm.

  • mtrueman||

    Well what is this mysterious free market alternative? Is it a market in sequestered carbon? If so I'm not buying.

  • Jerry B.||

    You left out the /s

  • Robert Crim||

    True, but the flip side is that such fills the atmosphere with hot air, and that causes global warming!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Who knew a principle of pure science would line up so perfectly with politicians' long-held fever dreams of a massive, super-state managed economy.

  • Robert Crim||

    Joe Stalin. Adolf Hitler. They had the luxury (for awhile) of condemning "Jewish" physics.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Except the science is still unproven & just a theory....I mean just ask the 3% who are skeptics!!!....LOL!!!

  • Greg F||

    Except the science is still unproven & just a theory....I mean just ask the 3% who are skeptics!!!....LOL!!!


    Okay Einstein. What science are you talking about? That the earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age? Sure it has. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No question it is. That a doubling from pre-industrial, everything else held constant, would result in an increase of 1 degree C? No question. That positive feedbacks amplify CO2's effect. Zero evidence for that.

    PS: The reference to the 97% tells me you don't have a clue as to how the hacks arrived at that number.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Come on, Greg, you must accept the progessive "logic":

    Something, something, climate, something, something, capitalists.

    Therefore, socialism!

  • mtrueman||

    "everything else held constant,"

    How do you manage to hold everything else constant?

  • Greg F||

    How do you manage to hold everything else constant?


    It's called a controlled experiment.

  • mtrueman||

    Which is conducted in a laboratory, not the earth's atmosphere. To hold everything constant, two identical atmospheres would be necessary, not to mention a shit ton of tax payer's $$$, which you're too much of a cheap charlie to cough up.

  • Greg F||

    Which is conducted in a laboratory, not the earth's atmosphere.


    Exactly. It is how we determine the fundamental properties of something. For example, if you drop a feather and a steel ball from the same height at the same time the steel ball will hit the floor first. The reason for this is the viscosity of the air exerts an upward force that is greater on the feather then the steel ball. By eliminating the air by dropping them in a vacuum we find they both hit the ground at the same time. We also find that the steel ball hits the floor in less time in a vacuum then it does in the air. Without knowing the gravitational constant from dropping the objects in a vacuum we would have 2 unknowns (the gravitational constant and the force exerted by the viscosity of the air). By determining one of the unknowns (dropping the objects in a vacuum) we can now solve for the second unknown.

    To hold everything constant, two identical atmospheres would be necessary ...


    You don't understand how science works. Holding everything constant is how we determine the fundamental properties of an object. The fundamental property of IR absorption by CO2 is that it absorbs energy as a logarithmic function of concentration. This is basic physics which no one is questioning. The fundamental properties are essential to understand how it interacts in a more complex environment.

  • mtrueman||

    "Holding everything constant is how we determine the fundamental properties of an object. "

    Ideally yes, but it's simply not possible to hold everything constant in something like the earth's atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is complex. That means very tiny changes in initial conditions can easily lead to enormous consequences. This is something anyone posing as a scientist or engineer should be aware of.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Your explanations are clear, concise and accurate but you might as well be trying to explain relativity to a rabbit.

    Hopefully, there are some people who will go to the trouble of actually looking into the subject as a result of what you're writing.

    Thanks for spending the time to write this.

  • mtrueman||

    "Hopefully, there are some people who will go to the trouble of actually looking into the subject as a result of what you're writing."

    'High voltage direct current' should set you on the right path. (Or left path, perhaps. Folks at Reason are intent on ignoring this communistic technology.)

  • Greg F||

    Thank you Bob. The reason I bother is there are people that will read it and as you say "will go to the trouble of actually looking into the subject".

  • mtrueman||

    He's referring to my comment, you fool. I was the one who raised the topic of this kind of long distance power transmission. And I should add that I agree that more people should 'look into the subject.' That's why I introduced it.

  • ValVerde1867||

    Unfortunately, the climate follows no political agenda. The earth and nature will always dance to its own tune, not what the idiot liberals desire. Because of the world wide crisis emerging as funds are not available to pay for promised government pensions, the need of governments to find new things to tax will grow exponentially in the coming decades. That includes taxing the environment. That will also include taxing business and individuals to the point of pure confiscation in which you have the burden of proof that theses taxes are illegal within a court system the will be geared to rule against you.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Chief Justice Roberts is gearing up to declare the Green New Deal a tax and a desert topping.

  • Dillinger||

    43 got exactly who he wanted with Roberts, no?

  • Fats of Fury||

    There's no constitutional guarantee of a Chief Justice for life. Trump should nominate the next SCJ as the Chief and make heads explode again.

  • Dillinger||

    sweet. in.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Bush wanted a justice that would allow legislatures to have their way because he thought that courts had been too willing to strike down "democratically" passed laws. He got what he wanted. Roberts struck down a clearly unconstitutional law but found a way to keep it anyway. The mandate was unconstitutional but changing a fee to a tax let the effects of the mandate remain. A non-mandate mandate! I wish that Ayn Rand had been around to see that. Her comments would have worth their weight in gold.

  • Jerry B.||

    Dessert?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Nah, leave it as a desert topping.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I think it makes a better floor wax.

  • ||

    The Green New Deal is just progressive pron. It's what progressives would do if other people, economics, and the very laws of nature didn't stand in their way.

  • ATXChappy||

    I don't think they are at all concerned with that last two things on your list. The only thing at this point stopping them is 'other people', economics and laws of nature be damned. I'm amazed they didn't start the Green New Deal resolution off with repealing the 2nd amendment. That would be the only way to get it done. Some people might buy into this lunacy at first. But, once they realized they would have to sacrifice like they did during WWII (or likely more so), a revolution would quickly follow.

  • plusafdotcom||

    And, as usual, AOC's incredibly stupid bill, as is tradition, has NO comments or estimates as to costs or guesses as how to implement anything to achieve those lofty 'goals,' nor any 'sunset clauses' to rescind the Plan if it achieves None of its goals within a specified time period.

    So, I guess that's the HOR's job... suggest anything they want, whether plausible or Unicorn-Worthy, Let the Senate rubber stamp it and then let the Executive Branch (and the GAO?) make the first guesses as to implementation costs and costs of Unintended Consequences?

    Maybe we need to have a modification to that kind of stupid legislative 'architecture'?

  • NashTiger||

    I'd say this goes right past Progressivism to full on Communism

    Funny how much of it has zero to do with the environment whatsoever (or could be proven delitirious)

  • mtrueman||

    "I'd say this goes right past Progressivism to full on Communism"

    No. The fault with the proposal is that it is not communist enough. I think that 100% renewable is only feasible if the energy from the sun and the wind (which is really from the sun anyway) is to be held communally worldwide. As I understand, the global grid required is technically doable though very expensive. That would be full on communism.

  • Greg F||

    As I understand, the global grid required is technically doable though very expensive.


    Since your understanding of science and engineering is essentially zero I can see how you would believe such nonsense.

  • mtrueman||

    You mean it's not technically doable? Or it's not very expensive? Feel free to include gratuitous insults in any response you care to make.

  • Sevo||

    He means you're too fucking stupid to understand, as you just demonstrated.

  • mtrueman||

    "He means you're too fucking stupid to understand"

    And who invited you to include gratuitous insults? Otherwise, congrats on the less boring response.

  • Greg F||

    You mean it's not technically doable?


    It is theoretically possible but it's not technically doable.

    Feel free to include gratuitous insults in any response you care to make.


    The fact that you have demonstrated over and over again that you know essentially nothing about science and engineering is a fact. What is insulting is when a science ignoramus like you attempts to lecture people with science backgrounds.

  • mtrueman||

    I really didn't mean to insult you.

    " it's not technically doable."

    Based on what? It's never been tried. You're not an engineer, are you?

  • Greg F||

    Based on what? It's never been tried.


    Base on the fact that "renewables" can't blackstart the grid.

  • mtrueman||

    That doesn't make such a grid technically not doable. You should have more faith in the ingenuity and diligence of our engineers. I'm sure they are up to the challenge. High voltage DC lines are or have been constructed in many parts of the world, even in the USA. Rather than celebrating these exciting developments, you seen intent on denying even the possibility of their existence, hiding behind insults and your obvious pose as an engineer.

  • Greg F||

    That doesn't make such a grid technically not doable.


    Really? It you can't start it then there is no electricity. The grid is dead.

    You should have more faith in the ingenuity and diligence of our engineers.


    Faith? It is religion to you. The engineers have done a wonderful job building the grid. It isn't the engineers that want to add intermittent power sources to the grid, it's a bunch of no nothings like you. Maybe it is you that should have "more faith" in the engineers that tell you it's a stupid idea.

    High voltage DC lines are or have been constructed in many parts of the world, even in the USA. Rather than celebrating these exciting developments, you seen intent on denying even the possibility of their existence ...


    What does this have to do with black starting the grid. Well nothing. You are just trying to distract from the issue raised.

    Where do you get that I seem intent denying the existence of DC transmission lines when we were not even discussing transmission lines? It so you can get back to making insults by throwing in some false accusations because your too stupid to shut up about something you know nothing about.

  • mtrueman||

    "Where do you get that I seem intent denying the existence of DC transmission lines when we were not even discussing transmission lines?"

    Such transmission lines would be an integral part of the grid I referred to earlier. If you agree that it is possible to transfer power over very long distances with HVDC, I can't understand your poo poohing the idea as technically undoable. There are already examples extant of such a system of over 2000 kms., as I gather from wikipedia pages.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I would disagree. This isn't even theoretically doable. Something for which there is no means is not doable in any sense.

    GND would destroy wealth faster than new wealth could be created meaning that the laws of economics must also be considered. Sound economic theory states that anything where the total wealth destruction exceeds wealth production is not doable. Everyone in the country would have starved to death before the GND goals could be accomplished.

    Even if you deny economics you can't deny physics. The energy required to implement GND cannot be created by GND. Each windmill requires a natural gas backup to produce energy when the wind stops blowing. With no new natural gas generators the entire project collapses as each windmill is built.

  • mtrueman||

    "Everyone in the country would have starved to death before the GND goals could be accomplished."

    You say that as if it were something negative.

    " Each windmill requires a natural gas backup to produce energy when the wind stops blowing."

    What about the sun? Where does it go at night?

  • Greg F||

    I would disagree. This isn't even theoretically doable.


    In theory as in you could sketch it out without needing pixy dust or unicorn technology.

  • mtrueman||

    "In theory as in you could sketch it out "

    It's been sketched out and realized for a long time now. HVDC is a real thing. And it's the best way to transmit power of long distances. Your black starting problem is easily solved, as any engineer would tell you. Go DC from the get go. I said it would be expensive, and you actually seem to agree with me, though you haven't deigned to admit as much. Don't let yourself get tied to old familiar AC ways. That's horse and buggy thinking. Embrace disruption.

  • Nardz||

    Communism is just a type of progressivism

  • mtrueman||

    We're talking full on commie here. Workers' paradise, you know.

  • MJBinAL||

    Didn't pay attention in school did you? You have to "mold the communist man" first, THEN you can have true communism. China is working on molding though... the social credit system will be molding people big time.

  • mtrueman||

    I'll take molding over moulding.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Fixing the environment, brought to you by the system that gave you Chernobyl.

  • MJBinAL||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Longtobefree||

    So after we do all this, and the earth still gets warmer or colder, can we call a mulligan, shoot the progressives, and start over? Maybe with that newfangled idea called individual freedom?

  • mtrueman||

    " Maybe with that newfangled idea called individual freedom?"

    You've had it all along and all you've done is wasted it, you soft twat.

  • nutso fasst||

    Is there such a thing as a hard twat? Sounds like reverse ageism.

  • MJBinAL||

    Why not skip a step and whack all the progressives now.

  • MJBinAL||

    Wait, there a lot of progressives in the world. If they were all gone, that would reduce the burdens we place on the environment! Maybe those selfless, enlightened progressives will go voluntarily!

    In consideration of progressive/socialist/communist values and history we should probably bury the bodies efficiently in one huge deep hole like Stalin did. Besides, it will keep all those greenhouse gasses from the rotting flesh from getting into the atmosphere!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Genius! Most progs have a strong sense of self-hate. But they hate non-progs more, so we have to redirect their attention.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    ensure a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies.

    Is not government a monopoly?

    Libertarian moment my ass. Libertarian CENTURY more like!

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Each government is just a national monopoly, so it's exempt of course.

    /proglogic

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The only surprise in all this is that none of the bills propose to outlaw summer

  • damikesc||

    ...YET!

  • Trifrozion||

    Winter is coming

  • JesseAz||

    And the nights are slightly warmer stopping the cold from killing people. Cold is still far deadlier than warm. If you look at the global trends the highs have stayed flat, it is the morning lows that have risen. Of course rational people can attribute most of this affect to urban heat capture (since stations not around cities have a warming rate half of that in cities even after UHI adjustments).

  • plusafdotcom||

    Want lower urban average temperature levels? One of the most logical solutions is to make air conditioners illegal within city limits... think about it... all they do is consume electric power, converting it into heat in order to move heat OUT of buildings INTO the 'great outdoors,' making it hotter Outside!

    Batshit Bernie.... what do you say to that?

  • plusafdotcom||

    Maybe just make uncomfortable high or low humidity illegal?

  • Nuwanda||

    ...ostensibly addresses the looming problem of man-made climate change. Remarkably, the solutions to the global warming crisis somehow coincide with a wish list of previously proposed progressive policies.

    See, Ronald Bailey seems to admit there's a looming climate crisis. Yet he proposes no solution.

    If he's a sceptic, he should say so.You don't get to have a dollar each way. Now maybe Bailey's an anarchist, in which case the whole discussion is moot from his perspective. But if he's not, he has to admit the state has a role--a strong role--in curbing threats to the environment we all share, in the same way as the courts may prevent your neighbor from burning tires in his backyard, harming your health, reducing the value of your property, etc.

    This is where the Left, quite frankly, is winning the argument. Either the state has no role to play in curbing such behavior, or it does.

  • Sevo||

    "But if he's not, he has to admit the state has a role--a strong role--in curbing threats to the environment we all share, in the same way as the courts may prevent your neighbor from burning tires in his backyard, harming your health, reducing the value of your property, etc."

    Self-justifying lefty twaddle.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • mtrueman||

    "But if he's not,"

    I assure you he's not. The first obligation of the Anarchist unfortunate to live in an oligarchic state is to go full parasite and squeeze everything you can from it.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asshole.

  • mtrueman||

    Less boring responses, if you please.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asshole

  • mtrueman||

    Still too boring. Keep trying.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asshole.
    I'm keeping it simple enough that someone of your 'limited' abilities can understand.

  • mtrueman||

    Fuck off, asshole.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asshole.
    I'm keeping it simple enough that someone of your 'limited' abilities can understand. Seems there's too many syllables there.

  • nutso fasst||

    "Either the state has no role to play in curbing such behavior, or it does."

    Burning tires by an upwind next door neighbor constitutes physical assault. Self-defense is justified.

  • Robert Crim||

    Climate crisis for WHOM?

    The entire climate alarmism breaks down when those advocating it are asked to prove that, OVERALL, global warming will harm us. Yes, portions of Florida will slide beneath the waves. But, if that also means Antarctica would be opened for human habitation, who can say global warming OVERALL is bad?

    Furthermore, the solution to any problem that does exist clearly is not to ban air travel and automobiles and require all to go back to covered wagons and donkeys (which fart less than oxen or cows).

    So, no, the Left is NOT winning the argument. It's just making an ass of itself.

  • Nuwanda||

    Good luck with that line of argument. It hasn't worked so far and it's not likely to.

    If you can't see how all political factions have signed onto the climate change program then you're not paying attention. If you can't see the tens of millions of school graduates who take this all as read, and who bow unthinkingly before the climate change altar, then likewise, you're not paying attention.

    The argument is political and it's philosophical, and they've got it cornered. Who are you relying upon to reverse the process that's long been in train?

  • Nuwanda||

    ...ostensibly addresses the looming problem of man-made climate change. Remarkably, the solutions to the global warming crisis somehow coincide with a wish list of previously proposed progressive policies.

    See, Ronald Bailey seems to admit there's a looming climate crisis. Yet he proposes no solution.

    If he's a sceptic, he should say so.You don't get to have a dollar each way. Now maybe Bailey's an anarchist, in which case the whole discussion is moot from his perspective. But if he's not, he has to admit the state has a role--a strong role--in curbing threats to the environment we all share, in the same way as the courts may prevent your neighbor from burning tires in his backyard, harming your health, reducing the value of your property, etc.

    This is where the Left, quite frankly, is winning the argument. Either the state has no role to play in curbing such behavior, or it does.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This is where the Left, quite frankly, is winning the argument. Either the state has no role to play in curbing such behavior, or it does.

    Magnificent circular reasoning, there.

  • mtrueman||

    Tremendous.

  • JesseAz||

    It's more of a tautology than it is circular reasoning. If p or not p.

  • Robert Crim||

    The last time I saw a program so comprehensive as this, it was called the "Goals of the Symbionese Liberation Army."

    Amazing what one can accomplish with kidnapping, armed robbery, treason, and murder -- provided we just have ENOUGH of it!

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm not familiar with the "Goals of the Symbionese Liberation Army.", but I'm familiar with the Book of Genesis. If only God had had the wisdom to consult AOS before going off and creating this half-assed Universe thing, she could have fixed a lot of the problems He created.

  • Old Smokin' Egg||

    Total environmental degradation is the product of per-capita degradation and population size. If we're serious about limiting it, we need to address both factors.

    Yet much of the platform put forth by soi-disant greens would tend to promote population growth. Admittedly, they favor unhindered access to abortion and subsidized birth control. However, they more than offset these by incentivizing reproduction, through subsidized pre-natal, obstetric, and child care, mandated parental leave, refundable tax credits for the perpetrators of minor children, etc., etc. Moreover, they also favor continuing and even expanding the Social Security and Medicare systems, both of which require an ever-growing population in order to maintain a pretense of financial sustainability.

    When I see a purported green agitating for measures to disincentivize procreation, I'll consider believing that they're in earnest about protecting the ecosystem. Unless and until that happens, I'll regard Green New Deals and their ilk as cynical attempts to bring bird-watchers and hikers into the progressive fold.

  • Tony||

    You well know that it's white urban liberals who limit their offspring while it's rural religious nuts and, let's face it, Catholic brown people who are keeping the species afloat. Family planning is not an unimportant factor if overpopulation is your big issue.

  • Ride 'Em||

    They have Catholic brown people in Saudi Arabia? I didn't know that.

  • Sevo||

    "Total environmental degradation is the product of per-capita degradation and population size. If we're serious about limiting it, we need to address both factors."

    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Wil you PLEASE stop calling this shit "progressive"? Concentration of power has nothing at all to do with progress.

    -jcr

  • vek||

    Hell, I can think of a lot cheaper way to solve climate change... If all the shit libs just offed themselves, the world would be doing just fine! Since they don't own guns because they're pussies, I'm sure people like myself would be MORE than happy to help them achieve this noble goal by letting them borrow ours :)

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And now we know why its called Soylent GREEN.

  • Sevo||

    Related:
    You find this out along about Auburn while driving your Tesla from Palo Alto to Tahoe.

    "AAA: Cold weather can cut electric vehicle range by nearly half"
    [...]
    "Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Electric vehicles and cold weather don't mix. That's the finding of new research by AAA Thursday, which said low temperatures can cut EV ranges by more than 40 percent."
    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/02/07/
    AAA-Cold-weather-can-cut-electric-vehicle-
    range-by-nearly-half/5351549556107/

  • flyfishnevada||

    Scary stuff. Some of this clap trap will pass. Not that I'd be pleased by Republican control of government but the Dems have shown they're willing to ram legislation down our throats. We could very well be looking at Dem control in 2020. Imagine, even a fraction of this stuff passing Congress and being signed into law. It would be devastating. I hate to say it but best case is Trump be re-elected and we get another four years of his ass-hattery. I weep for our Republic...

  • mtrueman||

    " I weep for our Republic..."

    Weep away monkey boy. As long as you keep paying your taxes.

  • ||

    Start working at home with Google. It's the most-financially rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here.......2citypays.com

  • kc75081||

    our green, their deal

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online