A Climate Sociologist Explains the Green New Deal (Pt 1/2)

1. What's not exciting is telling the masses the amount of material sacrifices desperately needed. Use bait and switch like the Republicans.

2. A "climate sociologist"?
   Is that a thing?

3. This was great- I was a sociology major with a minor in geography, geology. All true

4. I dont think these people have any clue about how an economy works and what freedom that our Constitution has afforded us.

5. I don't see this going anywhere, basically the rank and file of this country doesn't want to change. That has been consistent with every poll has been done were the climate change is always never or at the bottom. The poor doesn't want this nor do the rich. So we much all adapt….

6. eewww! Scary hair – not what I want to see first thing in the morning with my coffee!

7. Where is the carbon footprint of the military complex challenged????

8. Deal…no deal, won't matter children. After all, this IS one of the worlds big governments that brought you 15X overkill HYDROGEN Bombs and hot potato nuke waste that stays hot for 100's of years. They reign by terror and give you lip service. And you want THEM to do something? FUGETABOUTIT.

9. Ask an actual scientist what would happen to our planet if we enacted each point in the GND in the time frame being demanded. It’s time for rabid socialist and left leaning folk to wake up and stop demanding the moon and instead compromise and start making real changes incrementally. If we all did this, no matter what political party you identify with, we could actually make real change happen. But that’s not what’s wanted here. Our system of government revolves around election cycles and sound bites and until we the people start sending REAL representatives to DC, there is little to no chance of any change being made. The other key issue at hand is lobbying. Lobbying needs to be forbidden and THAT is something that could be done OVERNIGHT and would benefit EVERYONE except the 99.99999% of today’s local, state and federal politicians. Want to see something change for the betterment of we the people? Remove the ability to become stinkin rich as an elected government official. Period.

10. I don't believe a word he says.

11. A "climaate socioligist" huh? People need to read this proposal for a "green new deal" or at least watch Naomi Klein's breakdown of it. Its basically a proposal to establish a commitee of 15 people like a soviet polit bureau with zero accountability who will oversee a massive mobilization in a way that is completely undemocratic and totally centralized. It leaves the door wide open for handing over the economic boon of this "new deal" to a bunch of giant tech companies and while it may seem to uplift some marginalized groups it will come at the cost of basically everyone's sovereignty. Its not the grass roots movement we need and it makes me angry that the "green new deal" phrase has been stolen from the Green party who originated it and appropriated by would be technocrats. Meanwhile what happened to the green party? Seems it has been all but crushed along with most of its best ideas. THIS green new deal IS nothing more than a trojan horse for a massive power grab with some candy sprinkled in to make it seem nice and of course AOC puts a nice face on it that everyone can trust because she says all the right thing is ethnic and is social media savvy, but why isn't the machine destroying her like they have done to the GREEN party but instead seeming to widely embrace her? People need to be highly skeptical about optics when it comes to legislation and proposals to create new rules in congress which is what this is. Its NOT legistlation its a proposal for a new process that pretty much just circumvents the entire government and places the fate of ev eryone in the hands of 15 people.

12. I think this should be talked more in main stream, so people can understand what the GND means to everyone, its seems like none of these talking points are being debated or talked about, people instead knit pick and talk badly about GND because majority of them don't understand and jump to conclusions like they are going to loose their hamburgers, cars and planes etc … Great discussion guys!

13. Excellent interview. Looking forward to part 2.

14. It did not pass in Washington because of the blasted propaganda confusing people.

15. We all need to get in the streets and push this bill hard! It needs to be a campaign issue in 2020!

16. No, this has some problems (i.e., not based on actual physics, and physics always wins). Net Zero Carbon as a term is an equivocation and a complex statement, based on false physical premises. Just by saying the term "Net Zero Carbon," without challenging its unstated underlying assumptions, one tacitly is assuming that it's physically possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at least on the order of 40 gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year (human's current emissions rate). This is physically impossible (thermodynamically).

    So this appears to be a terminology scam (is that a definition of politics? Perhaps the authors feel it's the only chance to save the future given our failing political system?). The IPCC have already pointed out that the only known science shows that, sans BECCS (which cannot be implemented), we must rapidly reduce our CO2 emissions (by 60% in 10 years). (IPCC SR15 [2018], US 4thCAR [2018], Chancel/Piketty [2015] and references therein, Anderson et al., Rahmsdorf et al., etc.) That last bit is the important part – it's the only known way to avoid catastrophic global warming.
      It is agreed that we are facing the end of civilization and/or life on earth (thermal mass extinction; i.e., Ward, P., et al.) and therefore massive changes are needed – but to pursue "Zero Net Carbon," as stated, is itself a fantasy. More importantly, it's an opportunity for more "techno scams" allowing people to get wealthy with fantasy technologies of negative emissions, and delaying the needed action. What physical law requires is Zero Carbon (not Net Zero Carbon) – with a 60% reduction, or more, in 10 years, and wealthy individuals reducing much more than the poor. Thus, the question is ONLY one of equity: will the rich continue to be allowed to spend the poor's carbon or will the poor be given their fair share? Only the latter can guarantee continued human survival.

    He states the problem in a nutshell, avoiding the "well intentioned effort(s)" by the original New Deal. How will a new "Green New Deal" be accomplished without such obvious failings? Remember, we're staring into the Abyss now, not just a depression or market collapse or dust bowl. Two obvious problems are associated with (1) equivocation with the term Net and (2) the failure to take on the fossil fuel industry: more than 90% of all fossil fuels must remain in the ground (Anderson, Rahmsdorf, Wadhams, etc.). Thus, by construction, the GND appears to be a compromise with the fossil fuel industry, and is therefore not going to deliver the scientific facts stated in the IPCC SR15 and US 4thCAR.

17. Fund MSR

18. What about Nuclear power

19. Very good interview. Fantastic guest.

20. Please tell us what issue of Jacobin, where to get it, show us the actual magazine in which we can find the information. Thanks for explaining this. I have not found any other news outlet that explains the GND – So important for us to know~! Please also ad links to articles that will expand our understanding.

21. It is important thst it was European/white imperislism and destruction that brought the world to this condition. And until that is acknowledge nothing will change.
    Diversity and equality in opportunity will surely lead to solutions.

22. The Green New Deal doesn't once mention the word tree. Trees are literally solar powered, open source, carbon sequestering technology, 100% natural and beautiful. If you're going to listen to scientists, listen more closely. Scientists have said repeatedly that planting trees is one of the best ways to fight climate change.

23. The original New Deal succeeded because it put together a winning coalition. Has the distribution of power changed since then?

24. Thank you for asking the question about consumption.

25. Real News, do some basic research. The most important practice to move toward a sustainable planet is to go vegan and eliminate animal agriculture. Another Real News fail when it comes to a legitimate climate change discussion. Chris Hedges' program On Contact does a better job on this topic.

26. These concepts are as insane as concepts from the far right. Whatever happened to common sense and moderation?

27. This is the psy-op friendly face put on the UN's Agenda 21. There is nothing good or realistic about this propaganda campaign. Research Agenda 21. This is the "New World Order" zeroing in on finalizing their elimination of national sovereignty, religion, racial diversity and the family unit, and a One World Totalitarian Government with ultimate consolidated power over all. The elimination of private property is a priority with the stated reason being that the public are not qualified to live in an "energy responsible" way, and thus the government must "manage" all environmental resources and the populace must be moved from outlying areas into "smart cities" where they can be tightly managed and controlled. The REAL cause of "climate change" – Global Aerosol Geoengineering – that is admitted, documented and has been ongoing with disastrous consequences for decades, is NOT MENTIONED ONCE.
    Http://geoengineeringwatch.org

28. That we need to address anthropogenic caused biosphere destruction and disruption, poverty, the lack of affordable housing issue, unemployment, etc. is obvious. But, attempting to explain these urgent social issues through the prism of racialist conceptions is not helpful 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 maybe one's intent is to create confusion around these very issues.

    Jacobin magazine that this bourgeois sociologist Daniel Aldana Cohen writes for is a publication associated with the DSA and thus Democrats. Socialists don't use identity politics/racial analysis but class politics/class analysis. Host nor guest want to transfer society's productive forces into producer's hands but to let them stay in the hands of their current owners/controllers i.e. capitalists, land owners, bankers, etc. Host and guest want the ruling class to throw some money and resources to their particular constituencies; 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 want privilege, authority, luxury too. Identity politics doesn't address the crucial question of who controls social production, appropriation and distribution. 𝘊𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 organises these necessary aspects of society today in the USA 𝘯𝘰𝘵 the actual producers. You all ignore class politics and utilise identity politics exactly like Democrats/the ruling class to confuse the central issue of who should control society's productive forces the producers, or the present owners who are the exact group of owners responsible for pushing us to the brink of ecological suicide. This analysis and prescriptions are bourgeois reformist subterfuge.

    2:05…most specifically you can redress the sort of savage economic and racial inequalities in this country…"

    Capitalists and capitalist relations of production, appropriation and distribution, commodity production by wage labour for surplus value/profit created today's social reality here in the USA.

    2:16…"prioritizes communities that have suffered disinvestment and pollution in the past that combines a really significant increase in social services"…

    "disinvestment and pollution" = capitalist activity and the result of capitalist relations

    3:40…"the fossil fuel industry is the number one barrier to climate change politically"…

    Yeah, and social analysis (identity politics/racialism) such as this is a barrier to revolutionary class consciousness that's really needed here in the USA within the working class.

    5:01…"take advantage of this opportunity to start to redress some of the massive inequalities of race and social class and gender and nationhood and on"…

    "massive inequalities" created by capitalist social relations

    5:25…"nothing has polled in climate policy as well as the Green New Deal historically"…

    Historically? AOC only introduced it a month or two ago. Oh, that's right, the Green Party, Jill Stein has run on a Green New Deal (not AOC and the Dem's GND) since 2008. It does have a history but host and professor conveniently leave that fact out.

    13:18…"the New Deal in many ways preserved patriarchal social relations"…

    The New Deal "preserved" capitalist social relations. Is this the kind "analysis" you teach your students?

    16:48…"housing guarantee"…

    There's no mention of a "housing guarantee" in AOC's Resolution. It states:

    providing all people of the United States with—
    (i) high-quality health care;
    (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate
    housing;

29. You vote for the system you want with your consumption $.
    This is lost on many who like to blame capitalism or free markets for the problem we have today. Be accountable and responsible for your own choices and the system will change… keep buying new cell phones every year and think spending money and not saving is good, and nothing will get fixed.

    Millennial's are removed from being savers, they are the most irresponsible consumers we've had in generations, since the roaring 20's.

30. A good concept, good policy, but how do we get there?

Comments are closed.