|
|
|
|
|
|
by pdonis
2077 days ago
|
|
|
> oil, gas, and nuclear to no longer get tax subsidies, government insured loans, preferential treatment with land use, or be able to freely externalize on to the community the damage and debris their products leave behind I'm find with that, as long as it also includes no more government subsidies, etc. to renewables. Which have been given out for decades to renewables projects that, unlike oil and gas, do not even produce any actual energy, but are just "research" that promises to produce something Real Soon Now and has been for decades. > let the market decide I'm fine with that too, as long as it really is a free market. I do not think an actual free market is what the GND is proposing. |
|
|
Then it just becomes the DSA agenda under a cape labeled "renewable energy" and it's a political non-starter. There's no way.
The advocates show that each of the issues separately have broad support so they think that by putting it all together you'll get the union as a coalition.
I think they'll more likely get somewhere from the intersection to practically nobody.
It'd be as if Republicans were trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, end obamacare, and ban gay marriage as a single package. Good luck!
I'd almost cynically claim it's only political theater to be leveraged in their reelection campaign. The DSA has a pretty solid ground game but you need to toss them red meat to get them to come out for you.
People like say, hamburgers and ice cream, but not on the same plate. I don't think the AOC GND is good politics. And as we've seen, the support seems to be leveling out.
That's why I side on the mostly-libertarian GND camp which was closer to what Jill Stein was advocating for 8 years ago. Remove all protections, remove all subsidies, open up a market, give consumers choice.
Then they can fight for a living wage if they please, but separately, not together.
I think it's far more politically feasible and achievable.