but 200+ years ago when the population of the earth was what and there was little ecological collapse is really where we should be getting our ideas, not modern science. A new dark ages, well you tell me.It's going to be difficult to have life or pursue happiness if the planet becomes uninhabitable. But, hey, at least we'll have the liberty to all be dead.
I don't believe it. However there is HR 763 which is a carbon tax with dividend program one could push for if their real problem was the GND social programs. HR 763 does actually seem to be serious legislation in some ways MORE serious in addressing climate change than the GND, it doesn't appear to be industry nonsense crafted by polluting industries (anything of course could be corrupted). If almost anyone opposed to the GND starts really fighting for this I will take them seriously, but I really doubt many will, and until then I won't because I don't think they really care about addressing these issues. Of course the two (HR 763 and GND) probably should both be passed and even linked (there's no reason not to run on and support both. GND is less fleshed out at this point though.).I would be much less skeptical with a climate crusade that wasn’t larded with a social agenda.
About HR 763:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ene...-dividend-act/
Trees don't grow on money
they were in the room negotiating it. Yes, they like the ACA especially as originally passed, Trump changes have not helped any (nor have the helped people needing healthcare needless to say).They should like Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their insurance and didn't do anything to contain their costs.
Trees don't grow on money
that for sure, but more importantly it's trying to address climate change while giving the bottom 70-80% of the population what they actually want, which isn't more of the current economics (which is killing the planet to be sure, but is often killing them in the meantime or life expectancy wouldn't be falling). So there is that. It's a selling point.I assume this is in there because they realize that a change in policy on this magnitude will result in some people having difficulty transitioning to the new economic reality.
but from a more elitist perspective (which that surely isn't), there is no reason addressing climate change should leave the poor suffering more. I mean, I'd be happy with almost any seroius attempt to address climate change but both the GND and HR 763 seriously address the impact on the poor, as they should, as is sane and right.
Trees don't grow on money
I'm not as familiar with California's laws as I probably should be. but I'm encouraged that their elected officials are at least trying to effect changes that are good for the planet and its inhabitants.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)