Regarding AOC, and the importance of selling green politics

[Dillon]

For most of my Adult life I have been frustrated with both major political parties, neither party seemed to represent my views or voice my concerns. As a lifelong, proud resident of some of the most vulnerable land on earth to the threat of rising sea levels and superstorms cause by Climate Change, the issue is immensely important to me.

I was very excited, and still am, for the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party. The progressive wing now largely controls the narrative, which I believe is healthy for a democracy which has swung so far to the right. I was even more excited for a congresswomen from New York who put a "Green New Deal" at the forefront of her agenda.

However, I am somewhat disappointed in the way the "Green New Deal" has been presented thus far. AOC argued in an interview "That the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't do something about climate change". This is false. 12 years is the tipping point in which the most disastrous effects of Climate Change cannot be reversed. I know this was a gaffe, but in a world of sound bites and talking points, pitching the reasoning behind both your signature policy, and some of the most radical and sweeping reforms of the 21st century is of utmost importance.

I don't want to comment too much on the substance of the proposal, as nothing has been officially proposed. But I DO support a 100% transition to clean energy in a short period of time. It is my issue to end all issues. But I have yet to see the issue be pitched as articulately and thoughtfully as it needs to be. Do you agree with my assessment? Do you agree with such a drastic measure to be taken at this critical time? Let's talk about it.

[Dillon]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

That's a fair point, to which I would say, let's start giving bigger tax breaks to tech comanies developing green technologies and researching new options, and let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that affect our planet negatively. Let's start giving citizens tax breaks for driving hybrid cars. Abd so on. Money makes the world go around, so let's incentivize people and businesses financially to be environmentally and green energy friendly.

This should be a bipartisan deal. The times ahead will be hard for all Americans, and we cannot wait until the waves start crashing against mar-a-Lago until we come to a unanamous conclusion that something needs to be done. I would take a watered down agreement over no agreement, but the evidence clearly points to radical action being the only viable solution. So the democrats MUST negotiate starting with the most drastic measures, and hopefully the negotiated terms are still sufficient. If we settle with -80% emissions by 2040, so be it. Anything is better than nothing.

[Dillon]

I'm not a Climate Denier, and I believe that Global Warming is due, at least in part, to human behavior.  But I'd also point out that while we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, we do not have a SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, at least not as of now.  And we're not on the brink of having a substitute, either.  Green New Deals need to go forward with that reality.

That's a fair point, to which I would say, let's start giving bigger tax breaks to tech comanies developing green technologies and researching new options, and let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that affect our planet negatively. Let's start giving citizens tax breaks for driving hybrid cars. Abd so on. Money makes the world go around, so let's incentivize people and businesses financially to be environmentally and green energy friendly.

Tax breaks on non-renewables won’t result in any worthy results. The failure of bringing about 5G and the recent tax breaks indicate that corporations would just engage in stock buyback when give the opportunity to improve infrastructure.

[Dillon]

I'm not sure if anybody actually read the document that was posted for a little while, but there's an obvious reason why it was bad. It's not because people don't want a solution, it's because there was no solution in the whole thing. If they want to present a "Green New Deal', it better have outlines for how to achieve the goals listed, which were quite big things may I add. You can't just throw words out there and blame people for being wary of it.

I agree, the final plan must be comprehensive, compelling, and effective enough to make it political suicide to oppose.