Green New Deal

[francoHFW]

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

Of course you are misinformed. ocasio Cortez knows nothing about paying people who are not willing to work or trains across oceans etcetera etc, you know the usual garbage you people believe.

The paying people unwilling to work was on the original screen shot and was later changed, the internet never forgets. Although I've said nothing about either point. She has however spoken of carbon free by 2030 which is what I have spoken of.

I can't figure out why the dems are so taken with her. I have yet to here anything particularly cogent out of her. The interview where she attempts to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was simply painful to watch. As a friend said "if she tried to find the middle east on a map she'd come in somewhere between Philly and Richmond". Her "we're all going to die in 12 yrs" was downright laugh out loud funny. To me she's been an endless source of amusement and I would suspect the repubs see her as a gift from God. If this is the bright shining star of the dems, the dems are in worse shape than I thought.

Everything you know about her is wrong, just like with Hillary Obama Lerner the FBI. So misinformed and dangerous 2.

 

[francoHFW]

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;
and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

I must say I do not understand why there has to be zero emissions by 2050. 0 seems to be a little extreme. LOL

ZERO EMISSIONS BY TWENTY FIFTY. DEAL WITH IT, BITCH

I doubt your science oh, sounds like GOP garbage science. At least the zero. Try and remain calm LOL

 

[Obejoekenobe]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU fucking don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Would it be socialism if we taxed millionaires and billionaires at 70%?

 

[Markle]

ask them these simple questions: What are your goals, and how much will it cost us?

methinks Flopper nailed it>

Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez | CleanTechnica

what should be asked (and is somewhat addressed in the resolution) is what we have to LOOSE if we don't meet these goals

~S~

The better question is, what will we have to lose if we do meet them?

I find it truly odd that Progressives tell us exactly what they want to do and then their "supporters" set about telling us what they really meant.

The problem is even if we did all those things on that list, they would still be complaining and wanting more.

Years ago the feds told us that our state is too dirty, so they forced us into having our vehicles tested in the areas where the meter hit the red line. E-Check has cost Ohioans tens of millions of dollars. After ten years or so, they measured the air quality again and found no change. So what did they do? Insist we continue the failed program.

Since scientist can't tell us exactly what will occur or when it will occur and there is no way of knowing that the proposed changes will be enough to alter climate change, rest easy because little or nothing is going to be done, at least not in our lifetime.

Developing nations will continue to develop which will create huge amounts of greenhouse gases. They have seen the wealth and prosperity that has grown out of the industrial revolutions of more advanced countries and they will not be persuaded to alter their course. China, arguable the highest producer of greenhouse gases is making positive steps but there is no way they are going to make sacrifices in economic growth to do what is needed. The United States is not likely to do much of anything for fear of loss of economic growth and dramatic changes needed. Americans are far too fat, dumb, and happy to make any real sacrifices and the huge multinational corporations are laying their plans now for how they will profit from climate change.

Call me when the rest of the world catches up with us.

 

[Ame®icano]

• It does not specify a date for elimination of fossil fuel. Therefore it is simply long term goal.
• There is no mention of nuclear energy
• There is no mention of eliminating cars or motor vehicles at all
• Gut and rebuild every building in America. - No such requirement
• Air travel is not addressed
• A government-guaranteed job. No, it only mentions high quality good paying jobs, not government
• Free education for life -No mention of free education but provide training, and high-quality education
• Free money - providing economic security does not mean free money
• Ban Meat - your assumption, not in the bill

It appears you have not even bothered to read the bill introduce in congress this year or wouldn't be making such asinine comments.
Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez | CleanTechnica

Bill itself doesn't specify details. Bill is just foot in the door. Just like, for example, Obamacare did initially.

Listen what she's saying, and every time she open's her mouth she confirms one, or several points you listed above. For instance, she run her mouth again about price tag.

Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals

And just when her supporters defended her by saying it's not government takeover, she actually confirmed that she supports it, and have no problem with that.

 

[Flopper]

Nationalizing institutions does not meant the countries economic system is socialism. The US has nationalized private posts, railroads, telephone companies, and electric power companies and has instituted price controls. That does make the US a socialist country.

The German Workers Party was renamed to the National Socialist German Workers' Party in order to gain support of the trade unions which Hitler hated and later destroyed.

Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist”, which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum has long been a source of confusion. The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then they must have been actual socialists is naive and does not match the facts.

This is very good post.

Socialism inevitably leads to taking control of means of production by nationalization, because that is purpose of socialism. Although it's true that US throughout the history used nationalization of properties and businesses, it did it with different reasons.

During WWI, all US railroads were operated (not owned) by Railroad Administration as a wartime measure and were return to private control after war. The same happened with telephone systems that were under control of US government for about a year. Amtrak was created for the purpose of relieving privately own railroads of legal obligation to provide passenger service that was not profitable.

You said that German Worker Party changed name to gain support of trade unions. If that is only reason, and if they were not socialists, there wouldn't be a reason to keep "socialist" in their name after they had full control of the government beyond 1933.

Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal level, Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. In order to prepare the country for the struggle he saw to coming, he nationalized much of the country's institutions but also leaving much of industry in private hands. He left in place capitalism when it served his needs. Hitler upheld ownership of private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. Hitler was certainly no socialist; a fascist, a right wing nationalist, and a dictator, yes.

You claim that Hitler kept ownership of private properties and companies in private hands. It sure appeared that way, but the German government, not the owners, exercised powers of ownership by deciding what is to be produced, in what quantities, how, and what were the prices of the products, and wages of the workers producing it. Most of the owners of those properties and companies were part of the German government, not by choice, but by necessity of their own survival.

You're overlooking another aspect of socialism, where common good comes before private good, and that individual exists as the means required by the state, in other words, individual is own by the state, and therefore individual's property as well. Just as it happened in Germany, it happened in every socialist country, since October revolution is Russia, until Venezuela, with the exactly the same outcome.

Germany rode to power under the guise of socialism but in truth it was fascism. The key tenants of socialism never really existed. There certainly was no classless society. Private ownership was never abolished. Entrepreneurship was encouraged. State owned industries were privatized after Hitler took power and trade unions were smashed. As the country moved closer to war, the Nazi government developed a partnerships with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement. Cartels and monopolies were encourage by the government in exchange for millions of marks transferred to the Reich by major industrialists in 1933. Hitler promised huge profits to the cartels in exchange for their support. Had the Nazis won the war, the group of 30 industrialist that had pledged their support would have been fabulously wealthy instead of being persecuted as war criminals.

Nazism like fascism were both far-right forms of government which was characterized by extreme nationalism, racial discrimination, promotion of violence and war, and an unapologetic hatred for socialism. The major commonality between Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism is government control. Government control is not the defining factor in any of the above eco-political systems.

Had Hitler understood anything about economic theory and that communism was just a subset of socialism, he would have thought twice about renaming of the party. However, once the party was renamed and he came to power, there was far too much invested in the Nazi trademark to rename the party again.

And that is where you're wrong. National socialism is still a socialism. What takes it apart from communism is "national" part. Yes, Hitler hated communists, but not because he was far right, but because they were "globalists" of that time.

National socialism, vs. international socialism/communism.

Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia/USSR/eastern block? In either case, the government economic plan was supreme law of the land, and like in every socialist state it ends up with enormous inflation, black market, shortages of essential products, long waiting lines, etc. Read NSDAP party program, than read the Communist manifesto. I also recommend to read the Constitution of USSR or any other former eastern block country. The end goal of every socialist is to achieve full socialism. All he needed is war victory, and that's the only thing that stop him from getting it. On the other hand, Russians won, you know where they ended.

Black markets, hyperinflation, and shortages existed in Weimar Republic of the 20's. Under Hitler, Germany experience full employment without the inflation and shortages of the 20's. In fact, the economic success of Germany, primarily due to huge deficits was the envy of all Europe which still languished in the depression.

The only characteristic that Nazism shared with socialism is government control but that is far from being unique to socialism. Private ownership, private industry, entrepreneurship, and a strong class structure all existed in Nazi Germany. Capitalism certain existed in Nazi Germany under the watchful eye of Reich. In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector controlled by the cartels.

Karl Marx, recognized as the father of socialism would have turned over in his grave at hearing Nazism called socialism. In fact, in the 1930's teaching of classic socialism would likely have got you fired if not worse.

 

[Obejoekenobe]

We know fission reactors work. The only problem is making them sustainable which is an engineering problem. Got to find a material that can withstand the high temperatures that is produced by fission.

This should be our moon shot right here. Getting these reactors to work would solve 3/4 of our global warming problem. I’ve no doubt the rest of the world would follow suit and produce these reactors once the heat problem is solved.... we give them the plans and help those poorer nations build theirs.

 

[Obejoekenobe]

• It does not specify a date for elimination of fossil fuel. Therefore it is simply long term goal.
• There is no mention of nuclear energy
• There is no mention of eliminating cars or motor vehicles at all
• Gut and rebuild every building in America. - No such requirement
• Air travel is not addressed
• A government-guaranteed job. No, it only mentions high quality good paying jobs, not government
• Free education for life -No mention of free education but provide training, and high-quality education
• Free money - providing economic security does not mean free money
• Ban Meat - your assumption, not in the bill

It appears you have not even bothered to read the bill introduce in congress this year or wouldn't be making such asinine comments.
Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez | CleanTechnica

Bill itself doesn't specify details. Bill is just foot in the door. Just like, for example, Obamacare did initially.

Listen what she's saying, and every time she open's her mouth she confirms one, or several points you listed above. For instance, she run her mouth again about price tag.

Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals

And just when her supporters defended her by saying it's not government takeover, she actually confirmed that she supports it, and have no problem with that.

How much the cost, and how many lives lost, if we don’t do nothing? I don’t think those wild fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods are going to come cheap.

 

[Ame®icano]

• It does not specify a date for elimination of fossil fuel. Therefore it is simply long term goal.
• There is no mention of nuclear energy
• There is no mention of eliminating cars or motor vehicles at all
• Gut and rebuild every building in America. - No such requirement
• Air travel is not addressed
• A government-guaranteed job. No, it only mentions high quality good paying jobs, not government
• Free education for life -No mention of free education but provide training, and high-quality education
• Free money - providing economic security does not mean free money
• Ban Meat - your assumption, not in the bill

It appears you have not even bothered to read the bill introduce in congress this year or wouldn't be making such asinine comments.
Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez | CleanTechnica

Bill itself doesn't specify details. Bill is just foot in the door. Just like, for example, Obamacare did initially.

Listen what she's saying, and every time she open's her mouth she confirms one, or several points you listed above. For instance, she run her mouth again about price tag.

Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals

And just when her supporters defended her by saying it's not government takeover, she actually confirmed that she supports it, and have no problem with that.

How much the cost, and how many lives lost, if we don’t do nothing? I don’t think those wild fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods are going to come cheap.

And "Green New Deal" will stop all that, right?

 

[francoHFW]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU fucking don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Would it be socialism if we taxed millionaires and billionaires at 70%?

With Healthcare everywhere Medicaid expansion everywhere yes. It is also a disgrace that we are the only developed country without a living wage Healthcare daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training good vacations good infrastructure ID card to end illegal immigration....

 

[Markle]

Humor is a great tool for GOP propagandists--goes great with the fact that it's all garbage. She never said she was for paying people who were unwilling to work or all that ridiculous train stuff... The dupes will never know hahaha of course. Who cares about truth evidence courtrooms or journalism anyway....

Ocasio-Cortez adviser admits he falsely claimed Green New Deal didn't promise security for those 'unwilling' to work'

 

[francoHFW]

• It does not specify a date for elimination of fossil fuel. Therefore it is simply long term goal.
• There is no mention of nuclear energy
• There is no mention of eliminating cars or motor vehicles at all
• Gut and rebuild every building in America. - No such requirement
• Air travel is not addressed
• A government-guaranteed job. No, it only mentions high quality good paying jobs, not government
• Free education for life -No mention of free education but provide training, and high-quality education
• Free money - providing economic security does not mean free money
• Ban Meat - your assumption, not in the bill

It appears you have not even bothered to read the bill introduce in congress this year or wouldn't be making such asinine comments.
Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez | CleanTechnica

Bill itself doesn't specify details. Bill is just foot in the door. Just like, for example, Obamacare did initially.

Listen what she's saying, and every time she open's her mouth she confirms one, or several points you listed above. For instance, she run her mouth again about price tag.

Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals

And just when her supporters defended her by saying it's not government takeover, she actually confirmed that she supports it, and have no problem with that.

How much the cost, and how many lives lost, if we don’t do nothing? I don’t think those wild fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods are going to come cheap.

And "Green New Deal" will stop all that, right?

Cuts down on it...

 

[francoHFW]

Humor is a great tool for GOP propagandists--goes great with the fact that it's all garbage. She never said she was for paying people who were unwilling to work or all that ridiculous train stuff... The dupes will never know hahaha of course. Who cares about truth evidence courtrooms or journalism anyway....

Ocasio-Cortez adviser admits he falsely claimed Green New Deal didn't promise security for those 'unwilling' to work'

Ocasio Cortez and others say it was a draft that should not have been put out. But carry on you don't care about the truth and policy anyway.

 

[Flopper]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

There is no requirement for subsidies in bill, although there probably will be.
There is no requirement for carbon free by 2030

Global temperature (increase) must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—

• 
  (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and

(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050​

In many ways this bill lays out lofty goals but like the Paris Accord is short on details as to what is to be done and how it is to be done.

Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

 

[Flopper]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU fucking don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Would it be socialism if we taxed millionaires and billionaires at 70%?

In 1940's tax rates topped at 90% but because the wealthiest Americans were making money hand over fist, it was largely ignored.

 

[basquebromance]

We socialists are trying to save capitalism, and the damned capitalists won’t let us

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

• It does not specify a date for elimination of fossil fuel. Therefore it is simply long term goal.
• There is no mention of nuclear energy
• There is no mention of eliminating cars or motor vehicles at all
• Gut and rebuild every building in America. - No such requirement
• Air travel is not addressed
• A government-guaranteed job. No, it only mentions high quality good paying jobs, not government
• Free education for life -No mention of free education but provide training, and high-quality education
• Free money - providing economic security does not mean free money
• Ban Meat - your assumption, not in the bill

It appears you have not even bothered to read the bill introduce in congress this year or wouldn't be making such asinine comments.
Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez | CleanTechnica

Bill itself doesn't specify details. Bill is just foot in the door. Just like, for example, Obamacare did initially.

Listen what she's saying, and every time she open's her mouth she confirms one, or several points you listed above. For instance, she run her mouth again about price tag.

Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals

And just when her supporters defended her by saying it's not government takeover, she actually confirmed that she supports it, and have no problem with that.

How much the cost, and how many lives lost, if we don’t do nothing? I don’t think those wild fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods are going to come cheap.

Right, because we never had those things before the first factory opened up in this country.

 

[francoHFW]

Humor is a great tool for GOP propagandists--goes great with them fact that it's all garbage. She never said she was for paying people who were unwilling to work or all that ridiculous train stuff... The dupes will never know hahaha of course. Who cares about truth evidence courtrooms or journalism anyway....

Ocasio-Cortez adviser admits he falsely claimed Green New Deal didn't promise security for those 'unwilling' to work'

The policy is not ocasio Cortez. There are many who believe in the era of automation that people should get like $700 a month if they don't want to work. Gives them a lot of freedom to choose their own careers or small business. So an earlier draft might include it...

 

[Markle]

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;
and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

I looked but I did not see your reliable source and working link. Please provide this for us. Thank you!

 

[basquebromance]

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;
and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

I looked but I did not see your reliable source and working link. Please provide this for us. Thank you!

this is the official text of the green big deal. print it and read it. have a look:
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf