| Revision as of 04:46, 18 April 2019 editMJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,356 edits →How important was the Green Party, compared to other influences, on GND?: wow I actually found more← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:38, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,022 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (132 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=start|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{Environment|climate change=yes|sustainability=yes|class=start|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Finance|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Low|sustainability=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=start|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|brief}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 33K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Green New Deal/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
== generic == |
|
|
|
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-26">26 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-24">24 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. |
|
should be more generic. ] (]) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, it needs to be specific to this actual tabled proposal. Now it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
If anything it needs more on the implementation and some comment on the practicality and fate of some of these proposals that have been around for decades. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Implementation concerns == |
|
|
For instance: "changes to the... financial system, including the reduction of the ...interest rate, once again to support green investment" has been proposed many times since at least the 2005 World Mayors' agreement on climate change agreed at COP11 in Montreal. But a general reduction of interest rate doesn't do this, unless there are higher rates for all non-green investment, which means there must be a way to tell one kind of investment from another, and that's where all such proposals tend to fall down and never get implemented. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arguing for "large financial institutions - 'mega banks' - to be broken up into smaller units" makes the "green banking" problem in some ways more difficult as these small units must be watched and regulated without the advantages of leveraging political power on a bigger enterprise. So such proposals must be accompanied by a streamlined financial risk and regret regulation system (read "Seeing tomorrow, Dembo and Freeman, 1998, on what that must look like) and there must be a way of sharing the scenarios, projections, and so on so that fundamental risks can be assessed. The reasons banks got big in the first place was because there was no way to insulate them from major price shocks of various kinds. If they are to stay small, they must be able to measure and anticipate risk far better than any previous financial institutions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arguing for "the re-regulation of international finance: ensuring that the financial sector does not dominate the rest of the economy" and especially for "re-introduction of capital controls" is going to fall on deaf ears without clear proposals on how that re-regulation is to be implemented. Tobin tax, carbon tax directly on the commodity market pricing itself, and on all transactions between currencies, etc., are viable, but they must be spelled out in great detail if something as onerous as capital-control is to come back. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for "increased official scrutiny of exotic financial products such as derivatives" this is of no value whatsoever as the "officials" do not have the skills to supervise or scrutinize. it's impossible, without the above-mentioned shared financial risk assessment structure and some agreement on a capital asset model, to agree on what constitutes an unacceptable regret or over-exposure to a given risk. Without the software and systems in place, there's no "scrutiny" possible except after the fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the proponents of the GND have argued for a specific way to proceed like implementing the new global structure for online transactions, exempting online-only transactions from all national regulation as a carrot to users of online-only currency, then offering to implement it for the legacy national fiat currencies. ], so might as well regulate them some other ways]. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for "the prevention of corporate tax evasion by demanding financial reporting and by clamping down on tax havens", this can never be achieved without a clear definition of profit and loss, and *this* can never be achieved without a more uniform ] worldwide. This is more or less what the IMF, World Bank and BIS are working on with the ] and associated ] reforms. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some good quotes from credible sources on all of the above would be helpful in this article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430042505/http://blog.nibrinternational.no/ to http://blog.nibrinternational.no/ |
|
|
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081112102213/http%3A//www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID%3D548%26ArticleID%3D5955%26l%3Den to http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5955&l=en |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should Justice Democrats Be Listed Under Notable Proponents? == |
|
|
Should Justice Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/Justice_Democrats) be listed under Notable Proponents? ] (]) 08:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Make this Green New Deal page exclusively about USA effort? == |
|
|
Should we spin this out as a separate article for the ] effort? ] (]) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:The "AOC GND" should indeed have its own article or at least a separate section.] (]) 09:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The "AOC GND" should indeed have its own article or at least a separate section.] (]) 09:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure I seen the point of a separate page since AOC has taken down ALL reference to the Green New Deal from her website. ] (]) 10:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It needs to spin the US efforts out as a separate article or better represent the global efforts in the introduction. At the moment it's conflating the two to the point that it reads like US legislation has originated in the UK and has the support of European political parties. ] (]) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tulsi Gabbard should be listed as a proponent == |
|
|
I think Tulsi Gabbard should be listed as a proponent of the Green New Deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
According to https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/02/04/democrat-presidential-hopefuls-dont-say-green-new-deal/ she is "one of the most aggressive Democrats when it comes to climate policy. Introduced in January 2017, her bill Off Fuels for a Better Future Act has been cited as one of the pieces of legislation that could feature in a Green New Deal." |
|
|
|
|
|
That's not the only reference of course, as she has been pushing for a Green New Deal throughout her campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This article should be deleted == |
|
|
Why is a proposed bill, that hasn't even been fully written, have a Misplaced Pages page? This should be added to ] and this page deleted. It's not important enough to have a page. ] (]) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Wiki does not wait to see if a law passes. Wiki covers the debates on major proposed legislation that has not been enacted because the debate on it is real and includes many prominent leaders. for example see ] ] (]) 19:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|Ergzay}}, this is a notable proposal independent of AOC. – ] (]) 19:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What is the scope of the proponent section? == |
|
|
Looking at the names right now, about half of them are endorsing the American plan put forward by House Democrats. The other half are speaking about the need for overhauling the adoption of clean energy without saying the phrase "green new deal" or referring to specific legislation at all. So do we need to narrow the criteria? If not, we can essentially add every public figure who has ever spoken up about the environment. ''E.g.'' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and so on. Also, ] would qualify as mentioned above despite saying that the wording in the current iteration is . ] (]) 00:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: I created a matching "opponent section" that includes quotes from people expressing their opposition. Perhaps something similar for proponents would be helpful. ] (]) 22:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Feinstein == |
|
|
A video of Diane Feinstein arguing with grade school kids and their teacher, 1 high schooler, about why this can't happen went viral and should be added to the Criticism section. "I have 30 years experience and just got reelected by a million vote plurality" and "I'm sponsoring responsible legislation" are apparently the counterarguments. ] (]) 11:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: The confrontation with Feinstein is in the article under Criticism. The "million votes" is relevant because the demands being presented to her by grade school kids were on the ballot when California voters chose Feinstein over her opponent by more than a million votes. Her opponent Kevin de Leon was supported by California Democratic leaders and by the Sunrise Movement, the same political action group who organized grade school kids for a staged confrontation against an 85 year-old woman. ] (]) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism double-dipping == |
|
|
The article has a criticism section. But people have also been interspersing long criticisms elsewhere in the article, where we are supposed to be describing and explaining what the GND is, who supports it, etc. We need to collect good criticisms in the criticism section and remove some of the cruft currently in there. Well-thought out criticisms belong there. Joking remarks by President Trump or Nancy Pelosi saying she hasn't read the GND are not "criticisms" of the GND and provide no information about it to readers. ] (]) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Notable" critics and supporters == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article should not become a spam-magnet for mentions of barely-notable people who said something about the GND but nobody cared. I propose instead that we edit each of these sections down to the top-ten MOST notable people. Perhaps an exception to that would be putting candidates for 2020 President together rather than counting them one by one. Our goal here is to inform our readers and give them RS links they can follow to find more information, pro or con the GND. ] (]) 20:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Representing different significant viewpoints == |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be good to group together different categories of viewpoints, with a few clear statements (cited to RS) of each viewpoint. Here is an example of categories I have noticed: |
|
|
* Supporting viewpoint: Move forward with these great ideas, make them into clear policy proposals, and get them implemented asap. |
|
|
* Conflicted viewpoint: These are great ideas but they won't get through this Congress. Focus on shorter-term environmental goals until 2020. |
|
|
* Criticism based on technological opinions: We can't do it that fast. We can't do it without nuclear. We can't do it without carbon credits.... etc. |
|
|
* Criticism based on financial opinions: GND will cost xx (an opinion based on yy) and this is a problem because zz. |
|
|
* Criticism based on political opinions: GND will reduce individual freedom xyz and this is a problem because zyx. |
|
|
|
|
|
What do others think? ] (]) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 21:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
== The actual change that the Green New Deal wants to implement with regard to present usage of Electricity == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|
It is important to state the current usage of sources of energy for electricity, and what the, "Green New Deal," would mean for implementation. It is important to understand that the, "Green New Deal," is NOT talking about tax incentives for people to go to renewable energy, rather a change of the entire power grid in the United States. The current sources of energy in the United States comes from 38.8% Natural Gas, an un-renewable energy source, 34% Coal, an un-renewable energy source, 19.7% Nuclear Power, an un-renewable energy source, 6.5% Hydro-Electric, a renewable energy source, 5.5% Wind, a renewable energy source, 1.5% Biomass, a renewable energy source, and 2.6% Other. This comes from the Wiki Article Coal Power in the United States, and is representative of the year 2016. This means that currently 92.5% of the electricity of the United States comes from CHEAP, AFFORDABLE, un-renewable energy sources. It is important to understand how dramatic a change we are talking about in only a 10 year time frame, (AOC says we die in 12 years if we don't). This should be included as part of the criticism of the, "Green New Deal," for this understanding is the cause of concern with regards to affordability of it's implementation.] (]) 16:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-06-28">28 June 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-07-31">31 July 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ], ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
== How important was the Green Party, compared to other influences, on GND? == |
|
|
|
== Michelle Wu == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If ] is elected mayor of Boston in November, she can be added as a supporter of the AOC-Markey Green New Deal. https://www.boston.com/news/policy/2020/08/24/michelle-wu-green-new-deal-boston/ ] (]) 00:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
The Green New Deal proposal in front of Congress was inspired by many examples. UNEP, the Green Party, and many other groups have talked about something called a "Green New Deal." |
|
|
|
* DONE! ] (]) 05:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== reversals == |
|
Someone has changed the lead to claim that the Green New Deal was originated by Green Party and then adopted by Democrats. Of the 3 references cited for this claim in the lead, 2 do not even mention the Green Party and the third is an opinion piece from ''Counterpunch'' claiming credit based on citations from Green Party websites, hardly RS for such claims. A ''New Republic'' article later cited for the claim merely quotes Green Party members as making it. The ''New Republic'' does not endorse those claims in its own editorial voice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a little concerned about the reversions you did to an edit by me about the University of Florida Green New Deal and to another contributors' part about a GND at American University. They were removed under the justification they were too local, which I agree in terms of Misplaced Pages's structuring rules, but in that case couldn't a new section be created for university and local efforts? Additionally, the Boston GND (which has its own separate article) was left on the Green New Deal article but is also local. I do not personally agree with the removal of either the AU one or UF one if it remains notable enough to not be removed. In the case of the UF one, it had coverage by the Guardian US and the Hill, both well-recognized sources. I respect your contributions to the Misplaced Pages community but as a younger Wikipedian, more explanations or details on how I could write about what happened at AU and UF would be appreciated. ] (]) 13:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
The role of the Green Party in inspiring the current Green New Deal is worth exploring, but we should look for RS that are not published by the Green Party itself or by its strong supporters. To quote :<blockquote>Jill Stein's "Green New Deal" .. consists largely of assertions of the utopian ends it'll achieve, rather than realistic means for getting there.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::this article deals with the whole world. What we have here are two small, new local efforts. U of Florida took no action--it was only a resolution passed by its student government. Worldwide there are hundreds of such events and that would overwhelm the already too long article. I suggest you start a new separate article on Green efforts on college campuses. As for Boston, a link to a long article for a major city (which has lots of colleges and universities) is ok but I think a separate section for Boston duplicates the listing under mayors, so I deleted the separate section. ] (]) 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
Another reason to look for sources that are not devoted to boosting the Green Party: per ], "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." ] (]) 02:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::this is reasonable, thank you ] (]) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{re|HouseOfChange}} May I recommend renaming this section of the talk page? <small>Also, a wall of sources incoming from me btw.</small> –<span style="font-family:CG Times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Changed title of section as requested. ] (]) 04:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I appreciate that; thank you! Here are nine sources to support the position that the Green Party should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Of these, '']'' is the only one I do not find to be a ], but they seemed to have done a decent job here in terms of neutrality. As for the ''New Republic'' article, it was written by who is a ] for outlet. According to her , she is an environmental culture and politics reporter. She's seems pretty legit to me, but that is up to interpretation I suppose. Anyway, here are the sources: |
|
|
::: Jill Stein in 2016.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Henry |first1=Devin |title=Jill Stein calls for ‘green New Deal’ to address climate change |url=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/292326-stein-green-new-deal-needed-to-address-climate-change |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=TheHill |date=23 August 2016 |language=en}}</ref> Reports that the Green New Deal isn't that new.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Schroeder |first1=Robert |title=The ‘Green New Deal’ isn’t really that new |url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-green-new-deal-isnt-really-that-new-2019-02-11 |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=MarketWatch |date=12 February 2019}}</ref><ref name="Seeking_Alpha">{{cite news |last1=Rogers |first1=Austin |title=Who Would Benefit From A 'Green New Deal'? |url=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4236062-benefit-green-new-deal |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=Seeking Alpha |date=28 January 2019 |language=en |quote=The idea of a "Green New Deal" (or GND) is not new. Jill Stein of the Green Party promoted it in her 2016 presidential campaign.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Joselow |first1=Maxine |title=‘Green New Deal’ is actually an old idea |url=https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/green-new-deal-is-actually-an-old-idea/ |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=Governors' Wind Energy Coalition |date=5 December 2018|agency=E&E News}}</ref> Gives credit to Green politicians for idea.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Janes |first1=Chelsea |title=The Green New Deal? A Green New Deal? Whatever it is, 2020 Democrats support it. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-green-new-deal-a-green-new-deal-whatever-it-is-2020-democrats-support-it/2019/01/30/a75166d4-2340-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.f5920d138733 |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=Washington Post |date=31 January 2019 |language=en |quote=Green Party candidate Jill Stein used the Green New Deal as part of her presidential platforms in 2012 and 2016.}}</ref><ref name="Seeking_Alpha" /><ref>{{cite news |last1=Roberts |first1=David |title=The Green New Deal, explained |url=https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=Vox |date=21 December 2018 |language=en |quote=In 2016, a GND became the centerpiece of the Green Party presidential campaign of Jill Stein; indeed, a GND has been part of the US Green Party’s platform for over a decade. (It is also central to the platform of the European Greens — see this study from the Wuppertal Institute.)}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Leetaru |first1=Kalev |title=How the Green New Deal Has Played Out Online |url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/21/how_the_green_new_deal_has_played_out_online_139532.html |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=RealClearPolitics |date=21 February 2019 |language=en |quote=Ocasio-Cortez has become the de facto face of the proposed policy, but she is not the first to generate Twitter buzz for a “#GreenNewDeal.” That honor goes to 2012 and 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.}}</ref> Two more references for good measure.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Chávez |first1=Aída |title=How the Green New Deal Became the Green New Deal |url=https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/green-new-deal-aoc/ |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=The Intercept |date=2 February 2019 |language=En |quote=A Green New Deal has been part of the Green Party’s platform for more than a decade, and Jill Stein had been campaigning on it since 2012.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Atkin |first1=Emily |title=The Democrats Stole the Green Party’s Best Idea |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/153127/democrats-stole-green-partys-best-idea |accessdate=18 April 2019 |work=The New Republic |date=22 February 2019}}</ref> I hope that helps! <small>I am not even a member of the Green Party...</small> –<span style="font-family:CG Times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 04:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
:::Upon a secondary review, I actually have more... but I think this will be good for now. –<span style="font-family:CG Times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 04:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
I am a little concerned about the reversions you did to an edit by me about the University of Florida Green New Deal and to another contributors' part about a GND at American University. They were removed under the justification they were too local, which I agree in terms of Misplaced Pages's structuring rules, but in that case couldn't a new section be created for university and local efforts? Additionally, the Boston GND (which has its own separate article) was left on the Green New Deal article but is also local. I do not personally agree with the removal of either the AU one or UF one if it remains notable enough to not be removed. In the case of the UF one, it had coverage by the Guardian US and the Hill, both well-recognized sources. I respect your contributions to the Misplaced Pages community but as a younger Wikipedian, more explanations or details on how I could write about what happened at AU and UF would be appreciated. RALupien (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2021 and 24 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eaw259.