Jump to content

Talk:Green New Deal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

generic

should be more generic. Chendy (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it needs to be specific to this actual tabled proposal. Now it is.

If anything it needs more on the implementation and some comment on the practicality and fate of some of these proposals that have been around for decades.

Implementation concerns

For instance: "changes to the... financial system, including the reduction of the ...interest rate, once again to support green investment" has been proposed many times since at least the 2005 World Mayors' agreement on climate change agreed at COP11 in Montreal. But a general reduction of interest rate doesn't do this, unless there are higher rates for all non-green investment, which means there must be a way to tell one kind of investment from another, and that's where all such proposals tend to fall down and never get implemented.

Arguing for "large financial institutions - 'mega banks' - to be broken up into smaller units" makes the "green banking" problem in some ways more difficult as these small units must be watched and regulated without the advantages of leveraging political power on a bigger enterprise. So such proposals must be accompanied by a streamlined financial risk and regret regulation system (read "Seeing tomorrow, Dembo and Freeman, 1998, on what that must look like) and there must be a way of sharing the scenarios, projections, and so on so that fundamental risks can be assessed. The reasons banks got big in the first place was because there was no way to insulate them from major price shocks of various kinds. If they are to stay small, they must be able to measure and anticipate risk far better than any previous financial institutions.

Arguing for "the re-regulation of international finance: ensuring that the financial sector does not dominate the rest of the economy" and especially for "re-introduction of capital controls" is going to fall on deaf ears without clear proposals on how that re-regulation is to be implemented. Tobin tax, carbon tax directly on the commodity market pricing itself, and on all transactions between currencies, etc., are viable, but they must be spelled out in great detail if something as onerous as capital-control is to come back.

As for "increased official scrutiny of exotic financial products such as derivatives" this is of no value whatsoever as the "officials" do not have the skills to supervise or scrutinize. it's impossible, without the above-mentioned shared financial risk assessment structure and some agreement on a capital asset model, to agree on what constitutes an unacceptable regret or over-exposure to a given risk. Without the software and systems in place, there's no "scrutiny" possible except after the fact.

Some of the proponents of the GND have argued for a specific way to proceed like implementing the new global structure for online transactions, exempting online-only transactions from all national regulation as a carrot to users of online-only currency, then offering to implement it for the legacy national fiat currencies. [It's not like there's any practical way for countries to regulate currencies that exist only in game worlds, or bitcoin, so might as well regulate them some other ways].

As for "the prevention of corporate tax evasion by demanding financial reporting and by clamping down on tax havens", this can never be achieved without a clear definition of profit and loss, and *this* can never be achieved without a more uniform capital asset model worldwide. This is more or less what the IMF, World Bank and BIS are working on with the TEEB and associated UN System of National Accounts reforms.

Some good quotes from credible sources on all of the above would be helpful in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.9.221 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Should Justice Democrats Be Listed Under Notable Proponents?

Should Justice Democrats (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Justice_Democrats) be listed under Notable Proponents? Disaster Area (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard should be listed as a proponent

I think Tulsi Gabbard should be listed as a proponent of the Green New Deal.

According to https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/02/04/democrat-presidential-hopefuls-dont-say-green-new-deal/ she is "one of the most aggressive Democrats when it comes to climate policy. Introduced in January 2017, her bill Off Fuels for a Better Future Act has been cited as one of the pieces of legislation that could feature in a Green New Deal."

That's not the only reference of course, as she has been pushing for a Green New Deal throughout her campaign.

Son of eugene (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Why is a proposed bill, that hasn't even been fully written, have a Wikipedia page? This should be added to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and this page deleted. It's not important enough to have a page. Ergzay (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki does not wait to see if a law passes. Wiki covers the debates on major proposed legislation that has not been enacted because the debate on it is real and includes many prominent leaders. for example see Wilmot Proviso Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ergzay, this is a notable proposal independent of AOC. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Feinstein

A video of Diane Feinstein arguing with grade school kids and their teacher, 1 high schooler, about why this can't happen went viral and should be added to the Criticism section. "I have 30 years experience and just got reelected by a million vote plurality" and "I'm sponsoring responsible legislation" are apparently the counterarguments. 98.4.103.187 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The confrontation with Feinstein is in the article under Criticism. The "million votes" is relevant because the demands being presented to her by grade school kids were on the ballot when California voters chose Feinstein over her opponent by more than a million votes. Her opponent Kevin de Leon was supported by California Democratic leaders and by the Sunrise Movement, the same political action group who organized grade school kids for a staged confrontation against an 85 year-old woman. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism double-dipping

The article has a criticism section. But people have also been interspersing long criticisms elsewhere in the article, where we are supposed to be describing and explaining what the GND is, who supports it, etc. We need to collect good criticisms in the criticism section and remove some of the cruft currently in there. Well-thought out criticisms belong there. Joking remarks by President Trump or Nancy Pelosi saying she hasn't read the GND are not "criticisms" of the GND and provide no information about it to readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the scope of the proponent section?

Looking at the names right now, about half of them are endorsing the American plan put forward by House Democrats. The other half are speaking about the need for overhauling the adoption of clean energy without saying the phrase "green new deal" or referring to specific legislation at all. So do we need to narrow the criteria? If not, we can essentially add every public figure who has ever spoken up about the environment. E.g. Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Glenn Greenwald, Stephen Lewis, Bill Maher, Bill Nye, David Suzuki, Naomi Wolf and so on. Also, Tulsi Gabbard would qualify as mentioned above despite saying that the wording in the current iteration is too vague. Connor Behan (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I created a matching "opponent section" that includes quotes from people expressing their opposition. Perhaps something similar for proponents would be helpful. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"Notable" critics and supporters

This article should not become a spam-magnet for mentions of barely-notable people who said something about the GND but nobody cared. I propose instead that we edit each of these sections down to the top-ten MOST notable people. Perhaps an exception to that would be putting candidates for 2020 President together rather than counting them one by one. Our goal here is to inform our readers and give them RS links they can follow to find more information, pro or con the GND. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Representing different significant viewpoints

It would be good to group together different categories of viewpoints, with a few clear statements (cited to RS) of each viewpoint. Here is an example of categories I have noticed:

  • Supporting viewpoint: Move forward with these great ideas, make them into clear policy proposals, and get them implemented asap.
  • Conflicted viewpoint: These are great ideas but they won't get through this Congress. Focus on shorter-term environmental goals until 2020.
  • Criticism based on technological opinions: We can't do it that fast. We can't do it without nuclear. We can't do it without carbon credits.... etc.
  • Criticism based on financial opinions: GND will cost xx (an opinion based on yy) and this is a problem because zz.
  • Criticism based on political opinions: GND will reduce individual freedom xyz and this is a problem because zyx.

What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The actual change that the Green New Deal wants to implement with regard to present usage of Electricity

It is important to state the current usage of sources of energy for electricity, and what the, "Green New Deal," would mean for implementation. It is important to understand that the, "Green New Deal," is NOT talking about tax incentives for people to go to renewable energy, rather a change of the entire power grid in the United States. The current sources of energy in the United States comes from 38.8% Natural Gas, an un-renewable energy source, 34% Coal, an un-renewable energy source, 19.7% Nuclear Power, an un-renewable energy source, 6.5% Hydro-Electric, a renewable energy source, 5.5% Wind, a renewable energy source, 1.5% Biomass, a renewable energy source, and 2.6% Other. This comes from the Wiki Article Coal Power in the United States, and is representative of the year 2016. This means that currently 92.5% of the electricity of the United States comes from CHEAP, AFFORDABLE, un-renewable energy sources. It is important to understand how dramatic a change we are talking about in only a 10 year time frame, (AOC says we die in 12 years if we don't). This should be included as part of the criticism of the, "Green New Deal," for this understanding is the cause of concern with regards to affordability of it's implementation.Easeltine (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Science Anyone?

This article makes no mention of the fact that the Green New Deal is in conflict with pretty much every scientific assessment of realistic decarbonization pathways. I know of no legitimate science organization that believes "100% renewable energy" is attainable for the US (never mind the rest of the globe), and the general consensus currently calls for a mixed approach, which would involve a role (and likely a substantial one) for nuclear power, fossil fuel plants with carbon capture technologies, and of course renewables. Most organizations are also calling for a carbon tax and other market mechanisms, which the GND again failed to include.

A number of top climatologists in recent years have been speaking out in favor of safe nuclear energy and warning of the dangers of the renewable lobby's anti-nuclear activism. Here's one such letter addressed to policymakers and published on CNN's site.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

A scathing critique of the GND was published in MIT Technology Review.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612780/lets-keep-the-green-new-deal-grounded-in-science/

"Specifically, the early language sets the goal of meeting “100% of national power demand through renewable sources,” which in general usage excludes carbon-free sources like nuclear power and fossil-fuel plants equipped with systems to capture climate-affecting emissions.

It’s an absurd strategy for rapidly and affordably reaching the low-to-no-carbon energy system required to limit the threat of climate change. Everything we know from recent research indicates that nuclear, carbon capture, and hydropower are essential, and that carbon pricing could be among the most powerful tools for driving the transformation.

The group’s letter cites the UN climate panel’s latest report in calling for rapid and aggressive action to prevent 1.5 ˚C of warming, but then it ignores the body’s finding on how that can be done. The report, released in October, says most models that keep the world below that threshold depend on significant increases in nuclear power, hydroelectric, and fossil-fuel plants that capture emissions. And all of the analyses now require removing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere this century, using biomass and carbon capture technologies."

This article gives the impression that criticism of the GND is largely a political affair, and this is highly misleading. The authors of this legislation either received zero scientific instruction or they made a deliberate decision to ignore it.

If anyone wants to add a 'science' section to this article I'm all for it.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to title the section "Lack of Science". -BattleshipGray (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Cost estimate removed from the lede

I have removed a section from the lede which included a claimed cost estimate, because that claimed estimate comes from a partisan conservative interest group. We already include that study, appropriately, in the article's "Criticism" section - it doesn't belong in the lede without significant NPOV balancing. Appropriately, I believe, the lede right now avoids back-and-forth argumentation and sticks to the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The cost estimate is buried in the "criticism" part of the article. The huge cost of this program is a very important consideration, and should be mentioned in the lede. -BattleshipGray (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Then we would need to include multiple attributed viewpoints on the costs and benefits, not just a single viewpoint from a right-wing source. If you wish to propose a broader, NPOV version, you're welcome to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Hi, I just read that Bernie Sanders has published words titled "The Green New Deal". I think that fits the criterion for inclusion in this article. 170.54.58.11 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2019

To give southern hemisphere residents a handle on the coarse time references used in some places, and to remind northern hemisphere residents that they live on the other half of the globe. <sweet smile>

Suggested change: "In the spring of 2008, author”

To: "In the northern spring of 2008, author” (Not certain of the capitalisation of ‘northern’ in this context.) JenSee (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

The movement about New Green Deal in Uk started with Giada Di Trinca's researches, an Italian student at Westminster University of London, during her MA in Art and Visual Culture with the professor David Cunningham.

reference https://uniroma.academia.edu/GiadaTrinca In the linked page there are only a little part of my researches. My university spread my researches at UCL and in Italy for this reason I ask you to emendate this page and add the name of my university and mine as promoter of it. Thanks. Giada Di Trinca (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In my essays you can find the information about Modernism which until now was always opposed in England, however, Modernism is strictly related to ecological problems. I cannot spread the other essay about the change of methodology paradigm in US and UK education in the last 50 years(it is not available for the public and I would prefer not diffuse it). If you need more reliable sources you can contact David Cunningham.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

Barbara Lee is listed twice under the representative supporters section. Browk2512 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


Hey! Julian Peter has tabled a motion!

I want to add some improvements about the Green New Deal in Canada because the NDP with Julian Peter MP has tabled a motion about the Green New Deal ! Thanks for your help !

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2019

I would request a change to the opening line of this article, that says the "Green New Deal is legislation that aims to..." - a non-binding resolution that lays out very broad goals and desires and no actual policy is not legislation with any kind of concrete intent. In its current form it is a broad statement of intent, but with no meat on the bones. When I told someone there wasn't any actual policy details, they pointed to this wikipedia page as proof otherwise, so that suggests to me the language is not accurate.

No, the Green New Deal Doesn’t Ban Meat or Planes. Here’s What It Does. AndyMatts (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done The first line is actually: ... is a proposed United States legislation... You may have seen a different version that omitted that but the status substantially matches the requested edit. Regarding the presence or absence of policy details, well, the remainder of the article addresses that at length. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


This reference is available online but is not linked. It is available openly online and it seems a denial of freedom of information to not have it available here.

Bryan Dyne and Barry Grey, 'The fallacies and evasions of the Green New Deal' in World Socialist Website (online journal), March 5, 2019 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/05/deal-m05.html

Bthomson100 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

In the European Union

Hello. I suggest to rename the section "In Europe" with the more accurate "In the European Union".

Thanks in advance for your help! 144.85.184.123 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

Done

The article has the wrong Adam Smith linked in it.

In the Representatives section (2.7.4) of the article, the Scottish philosopher "Adam Smith" [1] is linked when it should link to the American politician "Adam Smith" [2]. FireSparkling (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC) FireSparkling

Done Thanks for pointing this out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adam_Smith
  2. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adam_Smith_(politician)

Make this Green New Deal page exclusively about USA effort?

Should we spin this out as a separate article for the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez effort? The lorax (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The "AOC GND" should indeed have its own article or at least a separate section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The "AOC GND" should indeed have its own article or at least a separate section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I seen the point of a separate page since AOC has taken down ALL reference to the Green New Deal from her website. Manawyddan (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It needs to spin the US efforts out as a separate article or better represent the global efforts in the introduction. At the moment it's conflating the two to the point that it reads like US legislation has originated in the UK and has the support of European political parties. Monospaced (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
....or alternatively, could this article just be rejigged to be less US-centric? It currently reads as unbelievably biased and US-centric to UK eyes. As I understand it the Green New Deal Group in the UK had a much larger role in the development of the idea than this article gives them credit for (they don't even get a mention until the final section). e.g. see https://greennewdealgroup.org/history-of-the-green-new-deal/ C denyer (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2020

  • Capitalize 'Green New Deal' in "Proposition to include the green new deal into recovery program from coronavirus"
  • Add an 's' to "There are proposition"
  • Capitalize 'Green New Deal' in "to include the Green new deal or parts of it" QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Done Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

Change Joe Biden to be the presumptive democrat nominee for President and for all other candidates to be named in past tense in terms of the democratic primaries Bananmn100 (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

It speaks of a group elected "December 2020" when it should be December 2019 I suspect (December 2020 hasn't happened yet) 2001:818:E245:3C00:3D6E:775E:7621:87B9 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Done , thanks for spotting that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Please change Republicans, in particular Fox News viewers, oppose the Green New Deal' to just 'most Republicans' 68.198.127.10 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Include that Bernie Sanders was Presidential candidate in 2020. Zomgrose (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

Recommended new references for both the 1st and 2nd line. This peer reviewed paper summarizes the whole green new deal and is open access. Galvin, R., & Healy, N. (2020). The Green New Deal in the United States: What it is and how to pay for it. Energy Research & Social Science, 67, 101529. Prof.Climate (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The lead is already sourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please... there's been a wikiquotes page on the GND for many moons. Thanks
Wikiquote has quotations related to Green New Deal/Archive 1.

GaneshaSis (talk)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetization Needed on List of Supporters of US Green New Deal Section

Both for each of reference and to achieve a more neutral positioning, this page could benefit from alphabetization. Will help those conducting research and does not put readers attention at first on well known political supporters (Alexandrea Ocasio-Cortez, etc). If it is not alphabetized, the list of supporters should at least start in chronological order - with the first supporters/proponents of a US Green New Deal being listed first (i.e. : Howie Hawkins).

Still new to wikipedia so if I can make this change and am simply unaware of it please let me know - any guidance is appreciated.

(MarcusLeland (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_New_Deal/Archive_1&oldid=1005940703"