Jewels Vern wrote:
I don't get yoour point. Are you for government enforced central planning or against it?
It sounds like you are both but you want a different plan. Or something. Figure out what agenda you are pushing and get back to us.
My agenda isn't something that is likely to happen. It involves people voluntarily limiting their business and personal activities to what fits within a sustainability paradigm.
Part of that involves spending and making less money by using modern technologies and resources judiciously, and thus spending less. There has always been a glitch in modern-industrial-consumerism that prevents technological efficiency from being used to reduce the burden on humans, resources, and the environment; which is that machine power/efficiency allows you to produce or otherwise accomplish more in less time, so you can utilize that efficiency in one of two ways: 1) you can produce the same amount (or less) in less time; OR 2) you can produce more in the same amount of time.
The competitive nature of business generally prompts people to utilize efficiency to produce more instead of producing the same or less in less time. That promotes waste instead of liberating human time/labor to put more effort into conserving/reducing, reusing, and recycling in the most efficient manner possible.
Even the concept of efficiency gets perverted by using it to talk about 'time efficiency.' Yes, it is nice to save time; but is it worth wasting precious resources and throwing away future sustainability?
If you check out the NBC article linked in the OP, you will see that economic growth causes waste and CO2 emissions to rise, even when the growth is stimulated by expansion of renewables and other green technologies. Recession is better for the environment, but the problem is so many people rely on growth to redistribute money in various ways so they don't have to put effort into living more austerely.
So if Democrats want to help the poor while solving environmental/sustainability problems, they should work on more direct solutions instead of growth-stimulus packages and redistribution/equalization of wealth.
For the good of environmental sustainability, widespread reforms in energy use, transportation, infrastructure, land-use patterns, and development are needed. What's more, these reforms can't be pursued in an economically aggressive (bullish) way that generates more spending and growth. They have to occur as part of adaptation to long-term recession and deflation.
People and businesses/government have to learn to work more diligently with less resources, thus spending less and saving more. Money saved represents money not used to stimulate wasteful economic activity.
Still, we have to provide means for people to survive in a long-term recession, e.g. by creating more jobs with less hours where people can only make a little bit of money, but they can use that money efficiently by buying/repairing bicycles and using transit instead of personal automobiles. Municipalities and transportation authorities should widdle down roads to single lanes and allow wild green space to regenerate on the de-paved land, e.g. by planting trees on islands and medians in roadways. Such reforestation of developed land is the reverse of the deforestation that has occurred due to industrial development and adaptation to the automobile as mass-transportation.
Such reforms sound crazy and unrealistic, which should be your clue that no Green New Deal will work. All it would do is result in invigorated economic activity as projects are launched to produce more renewable energy generators and pedestrian/transit infrastructure that don't get used when the economy gets stimulated to grow and people all go buy new cars with the money.