• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Bernie Sanders unveils comprehensive $16.3 trillion Green New Deal plan

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,092
4,861
1,400

Omaha, Nebraska (CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday added progressive meat to the bones of the Green New Deal with the release of his comprehensive $16.3 trillion climate change program ahead of a campaign stop in Paradise, California, the city leveled by a devastating 2018 wildfire.
Sanders' prime targets include meeting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's goal of 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030; cutting domestic emissions by 71% over that period; creating a $526 billion electric "smart grid;" investing $200 billion in the Green Climate Fund; and prioritizing what activists call a "just transition" for fossil fuel workers who would be dislocated during the transition.

The Vermont independent would also cut off billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and impose bans on extractive practices, including fracking and mountaintop coal mining, while halting the import and export of coal, oil and natural gas. Additionally, he would use his Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to pursue criminal and civil cases against energy companies that hid or withheld information -- over decades -- about the damage their businesses were doing to the environment.
The proposal is the most in-depth to date from Sanders, who says it will "pay for itself over 15 years" and includes new details on the potential funding sources.

The most significant, at an estimated $6.4 trillion, would come from revenue generated by the sale of clean energy -- which will be administered by publicly owned utilities -- between 2023 and 2035. Before that, Sanders would cut military spending used to protect global energy interests by more than $1.2 trillion while hitting up fossil fuel companies for more than $3 trillion in "litigation (against polluters), fees, and taxes." An additional $2.3 trillion, the campaign says, would be raised from the taxes paid on the 20 million new jobs it promises to create.
Additional detail from Trojita Trojita
@JORMBO You missed quoting the part where in this deal he plans on giving poorer countries 200 billion dollars for their green initiatives.

Edit: Oh CNN didn't even expressly mention that point instead calling it investing in the Green Climate Fund. That's 200 billion for other countries.
 
Last edited:

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,028
2,619
1,275
47
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
And people shit on Joe Biden for losing his marbles. Heh. Old Man Sanders isn’t attracting any new voter with pie-in-the-sky policy like that, and there aren’t enough far-left “progressives” in the country to get him the Democratic nomination— let alone a serious shot at the POTUS office.

A minuscule amount of credit for actually drafting something, as opposed to “all fluff no substance” AOC.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,970
15,584
1,395
The Pentagon
the amount of citations needed for that deal would make the monopoly guy shit his pants

bernie what are you doing

'just transition' sounds like something out of solzhenitsyn's works
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: God Enel

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,157
2,965
1,600
I read all of this earlier and it seems ridiculous. How are taxes on carbon producing fossil fuel companies supposed to pay for a large chunk of these trillions if the whole point is that we will be going for all renewables?

Also not using Nuclear energy.

JORMBO JORMBO You missed quoting the part where in this deal he plans on giving poorer countries 200 billion dollars for their green initiatives.

Edit: Oh CNN didn't even expressly mention that point instead calling it investing in the Green Climate Fund. That's 200 billion for other countries.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady and JORMBO

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,385
976
890
Our transition into 'renewables' is already pretty robust as the economy allows for this idea we have to be 100% green by 2030 or we die so lets spend burn trillions is nuts.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,297
2,558
935
Ah,, enough to get the debt high enough to get at least a 5th of the country to the "lining up for bread" just like Bernie wanted!
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
That's how I like Bernie, dream big.

How are taxes on carbon producing fossil fuel companies supposed to pay for a large chunk of these trillions if the whole point is that we will be going for all renewables?
It says so there in the quote. Since the transition can't be done immediately oil companies will be taxed before the transition and sale of renewable energy is possible between 2023 and 2035.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,157
2,965
1,600
That's how I like Bernie, dream big.


It says so there in the quote. Since the transition can't be done immediately oil companies will be taxed before the transition and sale of renewable energy is possible between 2023 and 2035.
How are you going to make back 16 trillion in spending then? I'll be charitable and say a good chunk of money needs to be spent on our aging infrastructure, but the rest?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,070
8,223
880
So basically he wants to seize money from the energey companies now, and has a pie in the sky notion that the US will become a world leader in selling renewable non fossil fuel energies.

Litigation, with courts stacked with his judges, and since he already plans on spending that money I guess these companies are already proven guilty and have to pay up.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
How are you going to make back 16 trillion in spending then? I'll be charitable and say a good chunk of money needs to be spent on our aging infrastructure, but the rest?
It also says on the quotes

6.4 tr (clean energy sale until 2035) + 1.2 (cut military spending to protect foreign energy sources) + 3 (litigation, taxes, fees to oil companies) + 2.3 (taxes on created jobs) = 13.9 trillion

Granted there are 2.4 trillion unaccounted at least in the article.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,157
2,965
1,600
It also says on the quotes

6.4 tr (clean energy sale until 2035) + 1.2 (cut military spending to protect foreign energy sources) + 3 (litigation, taxes, fees to oil companies) + 2.3 (taxes on created jobs) = 13.9 trillion

Granted there are 2.4 trillion unaccounted at least in the article.
We spend $598.5 billion on the military each year and a lot of that comes from pet projects in the Airforce and Navy. Where is the 1.2 trillion for stopping the protection of foreign energy sources coming from?
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
We spend $598.5 billion on the military each year and a lot of that comes from pet projects in the Airforce and Navy. Where is the 1.2 trillion for stopping the protection of foreign energy sources coming from?
I guess dismantling military bases in foreign countries that are used solely to keep energy sources secured? He says this payback plan is for 15 years not just one year so it is 1.2 trillion saved in 15 years.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,534
5,750
420
the funniest thing about this is all these Democrats who praise Obama for the economy ignore the fact that fracking is the reason why the economy turned around.

now the first chance they get they want to eliminate the practice. These people are just so incredibly stupid
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
2,279
1,773
540
Yea this guy honestly needs to start rethinking what he says.

Overthrowing your entire energy grid will not only be a massive cost picture for the government. It will add massive debt and it will cost everybody as citizens tons and tons of money.

The netherlands is trying to do this atm and frankly everybody has to spend like 30k on loans to get renewable energy consumption going in any meaningful way. Energy prices are rising up massively while we are at it and we didn't even start. hell even the company that transfered money from banks to banks went bankrupt because fuel is just to expensive. But hey lets just tax that even more right?.

Every transport company is going complete bankrupt or simple have to jack up prices to insane levels and with that comes a ton of things u do in your daily life will get effected. Get used towards u now having to rebuy a new car again etc.

This guy thinking he's going to sell off 6,4 trillion of renewable energy while also funding this entire thing and for some reason also thinks about adding 20 million jobs towards the mix out of the blue is honestly special in the head.

He will glide the country into a deep resession for absolute no reason at all.

Basically what he says.

1) I will make massive debt
2) I will kill of militairy because reasons
3) i will make u need to spend tons of money for renewable energy consumptions ( yes anything but a electric car is not trash )
4) i will make oil massively expensive
5) i will tax u to shit because reason
6) i will reduce our world position on militairy level and economic level over night.

Or u know, start some renewable energy projects + sell fuel = profit?

Good job dude.
 
Last edited:

GameChanger

Member
Jun 9, 2019
121
99
210
Stuff like this makes me understand why they are talking about Trump serving a 3rd term it's because they already know he is going to be serving a 2nd term for sure.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
"pay for itself over 15 years"

The idea that we can plan/predict the economy/market is naivety at it's worst.

It's not even funny TBH.
Any investment on anything from any government relies on predicting the market. That's why there is debt in the first place. So why is this any different from any other longterm investment plan?
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,534
5,750
420
Any investment on anything from any government relies on predicting the market. That's why there is debt in the first place. So why is this any different from any other longterm investment plan?
16 trillion

It makes all the bitching about Trumps tax cut look even more ridiculous
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
16 trillion

It makes all the bitching about Trumps tax cut look even more ridiculous
If it's a good investment it doesn't matter how much you spend because it will pay off in the end. Analysts are predicting a recession coming soon and spending is a good way to deal with a recession.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,176
5,673
1,560
I read all of this earlier and it seems ridiculous. How are taxes on carbon producing fossil fuel companies supposed to pay for a large chunk of these trillions if the whole point is that we will be going for all renewables?

Also not using Nuclear energy.

JORMBO JORMBO You missed quoting the part where in this deal he plans on giving poorer countries 200 billion dollars for their green initiatives.

Edit: Oh CNN didn't even expressly mention that point instead calling it investing in the Green Climate Fund. That's 200 billion for other countries.
I was going to say something about "ctrl+F nuclear" not having any results.

Imagine where the country could be in 10-20 years if even 1/100 of that got poured into fusion research.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,534
5,750
420
If it's a good investment it doesn't matter how much you spend because it will pay off in the end. Analysts are predicting a recession coming soon and spending is a good way to deal with a recession.
Causing a deep recession because maybe it will work out. Work out for who? Not the people who lost their jobs or are paying higher taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenpachii

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
Causing a deep recession because maybe it will work out. Work out for who? Not the people who lost their jobs or are paying higher taxes.
Lol the recession is not going to be caused by this plan. The recession will come either way. But economists and history shows that spending is a good way to diminish the damage done by a recession so a spending plan such as this could be exactly what the US would need.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,176
5,673
1,560
Any investment on anything from any government relies on predicting the market. That's why there is debt in the first place. So why is this any different from any other longterm investment plan?
By that rationale, why are tax cuts not an investment by the government?
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
By that rationale, why are tax cuts not an investment by the government?
They could be but there are good and bad investments. Have tax cuts shown that companies invest more money to activate the economy or do they show that only the pockets of their CEOs get fuller? If it is the former then it is a good investment but if it is the latter then it is a shitty investment. I remember during Bush Jr. numbers showed the latter was happening... "job creators" were not really creating jobs but actually making their pockets bigger.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,534
5,750
420
Lol the recession is not going to be caused by this plan. The recession will come either way. But economists and history shows that spending is a good way to diminish the damage done by a recession so a spending plan such as this could be exactly what the US would need.
Eliminating thousands of jobs in the energy sector while simultaneously raising energy costs and taxes will cause a recession. To say otherwise is just lying to yourself

Who exactly is this supposed to work for? You didn’t answer that
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
Eliminating thousands of jobs in the energy sector while simultaneously raising energy costs and taxes will cause a recession. To say otherwise is just lying to yourself

Who exactly is this supposed to work for? You didn’t answer that
The plan involves "prioritizing what activists call a "just transition" for fossil fuel workers who would be dislocated during the transition." And also postulates the creation of 20 million jobs.

And, again, recession is coming with or without this plan anyways. So spending must not be such a bad idea.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
2,279
1,773
540
The plan involves "prioritizing what activists call a "just transition" for fossil fuel workers who would be dislocated during the transition." And also postulates the creation of 20 million jobs.

And, again, recession is coming with or without this plan anyways. So spending must not be such a bad idea.
Why stop at 16 trillion? why not straight go for 16 quadrillion.

Fix all roads and replace all public systems. make everybody's houses shiny and great. Give everybody enough for endless food and free rent, while free healthcare comes in and everybody is welcome now that can join the US and get everything for free with it.

Also free car with free fuel, free house and atleast 100k a year free income. Endless energy anyway so no problem there.

Why even have a recession, just print even more money.

How did not anybody ever thought about that before.

 
Last edited:

V4skunk

Member
Nov 20, 2018
809
642
315
Current US debt is $13 trillion. That comes from 100+ years of revenue and spending.

Bernie wants to $16.3 trillion to it in one big swoop of green deals.

Great job Bernie.
And the "green deals" will destroy ALL industry in the US including farming for livestock, all while electricity bills go through the roof! Because renewable energy like wind and solar is a joke at the best of times, because sun and wind cannot be guaranteed.
There won't even be any powered cars on the road by 2050, not even electric.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenpachii
Oct 26, 2018
5,327
4,570
460
And the "green deals" will destroy ALL industry in the US including farming for livestock, all while electricity bills go through the roof! Because renewable energy like wind and solar is a joke at the best of times, because sun and wind cannot be guaranteed.
There won't even be any powered cars on the road by 2050, not even electric.
LOL.

I forget who it was (again), but one GAF poster has mentioned a few times California energy service sometimes hits the shitter because they shut down traditional energy plants for new wave green plants and these plants can't keep up.

What ever happened from all that "solar panels are the wave of the future for roofing" BS from 2007? What a crock. Half the solar energy stocks went belly up.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,804
2,223
550
Why stop at 16 trillion? why not straight go for 16 quadrillion.

Fix all roads and replace all public systems. make everybody's houses shiny and great. Give everybody enough for endless food and free rent, while free healthcare comes in and everybody is welcome now that can join the US and get everything for free with it.

Also free car with free fuel, free house and atleast 100k a year free income. Endless energy anyway so no problem there.

Why even have a recession, just print even more money.

How did not anybody ever thought about that before.

:pie_eyeroll: Because the plan is for 16 trillion and it actually involves a way to pay for it. If you want to come up with one for 16 quadrillion and tell us how it is going to pay for itself then be my guest.
 

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
1,075
599
360
We.
Are.
$22.
Trillion.
In.
Debt.

Not a single left-wing affiliate recognizes this, because they don't care, all they care about is getting votes.

:pie_eyeroll: Because the plan is for 16 trillion and it actually involves a way to pay for it. If you want to come up with one for 16 quadrillion and tell us how it is going to pay for itself then be my guest.
Enlighten me how it's going to work, because it's really not. What you're talking about is extorting even more of our hard-earned money, so forget about it. Hypothetically if our planet really does have irreversible damage, then this wouldn't put even a dent in the issue of climate change.

And, again, recession is coming with or without this plan anyways. So spending must not be such a bad idea.
What you're essentially saying is "hell has already frozen over so screw it". That means $38 trillion in debt, our country wouldn't be able to come back from so much Democrat/Republican spending.
 
Last edited: