,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The problem is that because the U.S. only produces 14% of global carbon emissions (and falling every day), the Green New Deal won't actually reduce climate change.
Thus, we'll be paying for both the Green New Deal AND the hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, etc.
Thus, we'll be paying for both the Green New Deal AND the hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, etc.
This is why we need a different Green New Deal that will A) actually have a hope of making a dent in global warming, and B) have less of a risk of ruining our economy.
Here are a few things we really can do:
I also forgot:
E) ban fossil fuel exports
E) ban fossil fuel exports
We can do all these things, but the current Green New Deal only briefly mentions a couple of these things, and doesn't focus on the international aspect at all.
In other words, the current GND just doesn't look like it'll do much to actually save the planet.
We can do better.
In other words, the current GND just doesn't look like it'll do much to actually save the planet.
We can do better.
In the meantime, anyone telling you that the alternative to the Green New Deal is climate catastrophe is either uninformed or willfully feeding you a line.
A different Green New Deal would reduce the chance of climate catastrophe. This one probably won't. I'm sorry.
(end)
A different Green New Deal would reduce the chance of climate catastrophe. This one probably won't. I'm sorry.
(end)
