green new deal is fantastic. However, I think that it is unlikely to be passed exactly as it is. For one thing, there might be some changes that make it better or as good (or even close to as good) but able to get the votes where this might not. It is also very likely that this bill is somewhat aspirational because it will not become law this Congress as it would need 2/3 rds of the legislators in both houses to override Trump's veto.
This is not a condemnation of the bill. Senator Markey is someone who has been on this issue since at least 1992 when he attended the Rio Conference. He was the sponsor of the bill the House passed in 2010. The Senate came closer than predicted, but with many Democrats from coal states against it, even though it gained some Republican support, the highest number of votes it would have received was 50 and 60 was needed. However, any big important bill should go through the committee process. That process will (in 2021 with a Democratic President) work to get the strongest, most effective bill that can pass both Houses. At that point, the energy and commitment of these kids ... and hopefully older allies will be extremely important to getting this passed.
Because it is not remotely likely that Senator Feinstein, who HAS worked on past bills and never been a vote against any climate change bill, will be the vote that kills this why on earth are they making her the enemy? The same goes for the treatment of Senator Durbin. It makes no sense to make enemies of future likely allies. It also makes sense to caution that getting a bill that will pass may mean that some elements of the bill will be changed or even eliminated. (Here is an article speaking of the 2010 Senate situation where through great effort at one point about 50 senators supported a bill. This was when there were 59 Democrats. )
It seems a no brainer that any Democratic President will rejoin (if Trump leaves in late 2020) the Paris Agreement. It is also a no brainer that she/he will reinstitute all the Obama regulations and executive orders. (I suspect that many power plants have NOT changed plans created for power plants from the Obama years. It would not make sense in most cases to build something that could require major changes in a short number of years. It might have led to keeping some plants operating a few years longer. There have been articles of coal power plants being closed or converted even in the Trump years.) I assume they will also all back legislation to restore incentives (and create new ones) to push clean energy. (They are now at a far better point than 2009 to do so as wind and solar are actually cheaper than coal. )
Other things I hope they will do is restore government funding for research on future technologies. I watched this Yale discussion with Secretaries Kerry and Moniz where Moniz spoke of Trump ending research on sequestration that the government was funding that no company could afford to do given the uncertainty of success and no other country was doing. (
) That type of research MUST be refunded.
I would bet that each of the potential nominees will have relatively similar positions on climate change .. and I would bet ALL of them will speak more about that and treat it as more important than anyone in the 2008, 2012, or 2016 primaries. This reflects the likelihood that the Paris Agreement and Trump's rejection of it and the advocacy of people like Gore, Kerry, and Moniz in addition to the young people so active now. When we have a Democratic president, I would assume that they will have people (secretary of energy, head of the EPA, the chief scientist - consider Moniz, McCarthy and Holden in the second Obama term in addition to Kerry at State) who will work WITH the House and Senate to get the best bill passable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
