Green New Deal Discussion

[Justin Adams]

4 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

The harm comes from the unrealistic expectations of it. It will cost people too much. It will destroy economies. It will cost lives. 

And then there is that social justice part of it. Please explain how that fits in with the green deal. It is right there as a stated goal in the bill. That is redistribution of wealth.

 

Yes. Green this and green that. just look at the local laws of your state and how they have cleverly hamstrung any semblance of living off that land. So many laws and by laws. That's why there is a heavy rural barter trade. Underneath it all is a Gnostic trait heavily obscured.

[Justin Adams]

14 hours ago, ayin jade said:

You keep using the word 'worry' with me. I do not worry. I do not think it is a hypothetical either. I am certain it is a scam based on rhetoric that has been around for over a decade regarding this topic. I also do not believe it would accomplish its stated green goal but instead only accomplish harm to the us. 

 

An excuse to 'save us all' again. It has happened before and will continue. They try to worry us all, then for a 'small fee' will save us again.

I have had gas wells on my farm. They renew themselves after a while. Yes, methane continues to bubble away. There is so much of it, it will be hundreds if not thousands of years before we run out of decaying dino stuff.

[ChessPlayer]

18 hours ago, ayin jade said:

The harm comes from the unrealistic expectations of it. It will cost people too much. It will destroy economies. It will cost lives. 

And then there is that social justice part of it. Please explain how that fits in with the green deal. It is right there as a stated goal in the bill. That is redistribution of wealth.

 

Okay. We are getting at something. Cost and economic damage are serious concerns. As I think I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that this will cost a ton of money nor do I doubt that it will be disruptive. The point of the plan is to provide governmental assistance during that transition period to more renewable sources. Whenever we face a crisis as a country we tend to rely on government spending as one way of helping us through it (think both World Wars, the Great Depression, etc.). The goal of this is to push the private sector in a certain direction. In this case, the crisis is anthropogenic climate change. One proposal made in H.R. 109 is to provide assistance to those currently working in fast disappearing sectors of the fossil fuel industry (such as coal) while we transition our economy to a more sustainable framework. In essence, it aims to take into account the disruption caused by such a transition both for workers and the economy as a whole.

As to the social justice aspect, the Green New Deal does discuss certain aspects of social justice. Namely that certain communities are more impacted by climate change, pollution, etc. than others. I don't see the redistribution of wealth angle unless we consider every plan which would involve taxes and benefits to be redistribution of wealth. In that case, you would have to argue that Social Security, public education and many other programs would have to go as well. If you believe that, we could have that discussion but I think it may be outside the scope of the topic presented.     

18 hours ago, ayin jade said:

The data is repeatedly falsified. Emails from the ipcc have stated so. 

It is hard to respond to your claims without having a source. I am assuming you are referring to the debunked conspiracy theory from the 2009 illegally hacked emails of researchers from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) which were taken out of context and distorted in order to attempt to show that data had been manipulated. This was shown to be a false conspiracy theory after several governmental and independent watchdog groups reviewed the emails in full. See the House of Commons (UK) 2010 Committee on Science and Technology's report on the subject in addition to the EPA's 2010 report, Penn State's 2010 Report, NSF's 2011 report, the independent international panel set up by the Royal Society's 2010 report, and the US Chamber of Commerce's 2011 Report. Once again, I have provided sources. 

18 hours ago, ayin jade said:

Every year around election time, various forums get folks signing up whose sole goal is to campaign for a candidate or issue. Nothing more than that. And it is their job to do so (volunteer and paid). It isnt an election year but it smells the same.

I have stated numerous times during this discussion that I am not going to advocate for a particular political group or politician. As I've mentioned before, I do not care who promoted or cosponsored a bill as long as the text of the bill is sound and it leads the country in a good direction. In this case, I will promote the idea of good stewardship for God's creation which I feel has been lacking in certain members of the Christian community who continue to ignore the science behind climate change. To me, this is an environmental, economic and most importantly moral issue. Insinuating that anyone who presents a different opinion is a partisan hack is simply disparaging and adds no value to the conversation.  

[George]

What I find interesting about all of this is how the big companies shut down "opposing viewpoints".  For example, if you go to Google.com -- and start typing -- you usually get a message to indicate what you are searching for.    Type in nobel laureate global warming ... it doesn't fill it in.   Nobel Peace Prize winner Ivar Giaever is one the outspoken opponents to Global warming.   

I'm well read on both sides of the debate ... it just seems that the powers that be ... want to shut down even discussing the debate. 

As a believer, I see that the Bible prophetically discusses astronomical, atmospherics, and geological events taking place ... and the world who continues to refuse to believe in Jesus ... are setting up ... the blame for these things ... instead of realizing the significance of that the Day of the Lord is at hand.