Originally Posted by
Aexodus
I agree with the environmental policies, we need to be nearly or totally running off renewable energy by 2050. I’m just concerned how America is going to do this since at first glance there’s no mention of nuclear energy which in my opinion is crucial to a carbon free economy due to long term running costs and efficiency.
and
You can’t end unemployment, there will always be some unemployment. I do agree with the initiative, since the secondary sector is soon going to be replaced by automation and new jobs such as these will be required in all industrialised countries.
I am also very annoyed with the constant blind eye that the nuclear industry gets. That industry has issues, sure, but it doesn't deserve to be completely ignored. Also, I believe he is talking about structural unemployment.
As for Bernie's plan.
100% renewable energy is a pipe dream. I doubt that even 75% is feasible by 2050.
2. High skilled, high paying jobs typically don't need unionization. Where we actually need unionization is in low-skill, low-wage industries. The bulk of the 20 million jobs created by the energy industry are probably going to require a college or technical degree. Current demographics who are under threat of unemployment or being "replaced" by the changes in the global economy are not prepared or in the mindset of getting ready for a major career shift. It'll take an enormous effort to mobilize these workers.
3. Investing massive amounts of money into infrastructure and energy production is a good idea. About time honestly.
4. No. I'm against wage guarantees, I'm all for helping them transition, but a free checkbook is pissing into the wind. A massive effort to create a retraining pipeline that achieves Scandinavian (or something resembling that) results is what we want. Not a blank paper for negotiating with displaced workers.
5. Yes. By tackling climate change we can put ourselves into an advantageous position for the global economy.
6. Homes and old infrastructure are the barriers to home efficiency. That's not something government can help with in a significant way. That's the homeowner's responsibility, the technology is already out there. There is no point in subsidizing electric vehicles. In order for us to meaningfully move the technology forward, mandate harsher CAFE standards (like we already are), and allow the market to develop the vehicles. Subsidizing vehicles adds more distortions to a, quite frankly, underwhelming market. Electric vehicles, with the exception of a couple cars like Tesla, are terrible. We can connect every family to the Internet by changing the current regulatory structure of ground fiber, and subsidizing cities to encourage them to build it. Municipal Fiber>Cable Companies.
7. There is no point in supporting small family farms. I don't mind small commercial operations being viable, but they already are. For example, Wagyu beef ranchers in the Pacific North West that focus on specialty, expensive cuts of beef. The majority of the food supply is heavily commercialized because it's simply more efficient. I don't mind regulations to improve quality or prevent contractor abuse, but I'm not interested in subsidizing small farmers. Get them doing something else, they're struggling to make ends meet anyway.
I'd actually want to know Conon's take on this, he mentioned WSU's agriculture program, I was pleasantly surprised when he mentioned it.
8. Minorities, especially African Americans, need serious investment into their communities to reduce violence, reduce poverty, and get them educated.
9.Yes please. This can be an extension of future, positive American foreign policy. The new Marshall Plan.
10. Yeah, I don't think that's possible. It's fine to have an unrealistic goal, but I think the method should focus on incremental steps. The recent reductions in CO2 around the world have been achieved largely due to a massive switch to gas power, which is much cleaner than coal, but still a fossil fuel. We should continue that policy while working on expanding the base of renewable energy.
11. Yep, common sense really.
12. Bizarre.
13. Yeah, that's actually really important and something people don't talk about. But the current masses of "untouched land" currently forms the bulk of our raw resources.
14. You'll never get carbon taxes passed, so no. This bill will not pay for itself over 15 years, more like 50. The other stuff sound feasible, but difficult to pull through.