1. Addressing of gge and pollution is too simplistic, and does not provide an adequate framework to address the realized important issues
1.1. A more honest preamble that underscores the importance of pollution and environmental protection should include the following:
1.1.1. "Whereas the technologies, regulations, techniques, and best practices developed and employed by the U.S. over the past generation have dramatically improved the quality of air and water in this country...
1.1.2. "Whereas 30 years of technological innovation and regulatory transparency encouraged new industries and new sectors of commerce to flourish that safeguard our natural ecosystems, as well as proving that financial viability and environmental sustainability can exist and thrive in our economic system
1.1.3. "Whereas the United States' success with Clean Air and Water Acts have created a cleaner national environment in a single generation than had been seen the previous hundred and fifty years
1.1.4. "Whereas the lessons learned from the successes in the U.S. within the past generation can be used to help our fellow humans and the global environment outside of our own borders
1.2. Leadership role globally on environmental action can only be attained by using and proving our successes that can be replicated anywhere in the world.
1.2.1. Focus on the lowest hanging fruit in China, India, Brazil, SA, etc to bring them all up to current U.S. standards
1.2.2. Tech transfer and trade negotiations demanding equal regulatory and emissions control as U.S. gives all actors an objective look at which regulations and technologies do work
2. Implementation
2.1. 2: What to implement
2.1.1. A) Funding Climate Change Resiliency Projects
2.1.1.1. Undefined, unsure what this means
2.1.1.2. Localized projects - defined locally
2.1.1.3. Strong disagreement, as there seems to be no overarching understanding of what resiliency would mean
2.1.1.3.1. Alternate Proposal: Engage FEMA to organize projects to proactively guard communities against: flooding, forest fires, drought, hurricanes. Coordinate projects through Interior and Transportation - building levies/dykes, clearing deadwood brush and undergrowth from forests, build reservoirs, build multiple protected community shelters for hurricane-prone communities
2.1.2. B) Repair and upgrade all current infrastructure
2.1.2.1. (i) Eliminate gge from all infrastructure
2.1.2.2. (ii) Guarantee universal clean water access
2.1.2.3. (iii) Reduce risks posed by climate change
2.1.2.3.1. Unsure what (iii) and (i) do differently
2.1.2.4. (iv) All infrastructure bills in Congress address climate change
2.1.2.5. FULL agreement... overhauling of current infrastructure to meet 21st century needs and clean tech is top priority of government
2.1.2.5.1. Should include 2(D) and 2(H)
2.1.2.5.2. Would argue that this is the most important priority in the plan
2.1.3. C) 100% clean/renewable/zero-emission energy in USA
2.1.3.1. Clean, renewable, and zero-emission are not the same,
2.1.3.1.1. The moniker of zero-emission or renewable is a red herring, as it clings to even now old tech of current state of "renewables" which may not even be enviro-safe
2.1.3.1.2. No such thing ever as a zero-emission system, as there is always a byproduct somewhere
2.1.3.2. Say what you really want
2.1.3.2.1. Dissolution of the traditional patriarchical fossil fuel industries (coal, oil and gas)
2.1.3.2.2. Or you are wanting to support the current crop of renewable energy industries that have a decided political backing
2.1.3.2.3. If it is a true clean energy-generation environment, then the ONLY term necessary is a clean energy generation system
2.1.3.3. In theory, want to support this... but with the caveat of acknowledging the reality of having to build/create heretofore unknown tech to achieve.
2.1.3.3.1. We have a strong take on how to spur innovation for the industry
2.1.4. D) Smart Grid transmission development
2.1.4.1. 100% agree!
2.1.4.2. See: SRP infrastructure development policies
2.1.5. E) Upgrade all existing buildings and any new buildings must have max efficiency standards
2.1.5.1. In theory, that may be ideal
2.1.5.1.1. Problem is that max efficiency would either mean a continuous cycle of constantly refurbishing all buildings any time a new efficient tech is developed
2.1.5.1.2. Would agree to say that all buildings MUST undergo refurbishment for clear pollutants (asbestos, lead, toxins, etc)
2.1.5.1.3. Energy efficiency is such an ill-defined metric that I find it to be another red herring. Make the static move to remove the tangibles.
2.1.6. F) Encourage growth in clean manufacturing and remove all gge from existing mfg
2.1.6.1. Easily concur and agree. Current code compliance for mfg sites can be strengthened to address emissions
2.1.7. G) Remove all gge from agricultural sector
2.1.7.1. (i) support Family Farming
2.1.7.1.1. unsure why, other than the "social good" this encourages non-gge in agriculture, as the small family farms intended by this must use time and energy-saving technologies... the result may be lower yields (and lower incomes) without pollutants
2.1.7.2. (ii) invest in soil health techniques
2.1.7.3. (iii) ensure a sustainable food system
2.1.7.4. Strongly agree that this could be a doable and interesting priority
2.1.8. H) Overhaul the transportation system to remove all gge
2.1.8.1. Zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and mfg
2.1.8.1.1. SRP Support
2.1.8.1.2. Would include a specific provision for all industrial and commercial vehicles to be done ASAP
2.1.8.1.3. Upgrade entire interstate system in the country to provide
2.1.8.2. Clean-affordable public transit
2.1.8.2.1. Full support
2.1.8.3. High speed rail
2.1.8.4. MISSING: road and airport infrastructure
2.2. 4: How to implement
2.2.1. A) Public receives ownership stake and RoI on all projects funded by public moneys
2.2.1.1. This is strongly objectionable to me
2.2.1.1.1. antithetical to nature of a free market economy
2.2.1.1.2. Actually removes opportunity for wealth creation/generation for real people
2.2.1.1.3. The government is not a business - should not act like one
2.2.2. B) Environmental and social costs must be aknowledged in all laws and new policies
2.2.2.1. Unsure if this means a full analysis of all existing laws?
2.2.2.2. What are social costs?
2.2.2.2.1. The existence of current laws to address anti-discrimination should address this
2.2.2.2.2. The existence of 4(J), 4(L-N) also adequately address this
2.2.2.3. I naturally object to adding bureaucratic pro-forma studies to any legislation passed, as the reality of such demands does little to nothing to affect the outcome of the legislation
2.2.2.3.1. A proven resource-sink for Congress should be removed, not enhanced.
2.2.3. C) Provide resources, training, and education (including higher-ed) to all people of the U.S.
2.2.3.1. We already do through mandatory education
2.2.3.1.1. Beef up the education system in the country (see: SRP education reform policies)
2.2.4. D) Public investment in R&D of new clean & renewable energy technologies
2.2.4.1. Best use of government investment seen in the GND.
2.2.4.2. Would again remove "renewable" from the terminology, as it wags the dog. New clean energy tech should be truly innovative (in the honest meaning of the word)
2.2.4.3. Would choose to pause all other direct investments in 2(A, E, F, G) and use in this for the largest R&D investment in modern history!
2.2.5. E) "directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;"
2.2.5.1. Lots of verbiage to make the obligatory political "create jobs" mantra
2.2.5.1.1. While politically necessary, just ignore as a throw-away stump speech line
2.2.5.2. Still no evidence that government can actually create jobs, even in specific targeted areas.
2.2.5.2.1. Outside of providing temporary contracting to the government, which make them government employees rather than contributing to a robust free market and wealth generating economic system.
2.2.6. F) Ensure democratic and participatory process led by VFC for implementation of all plans
2.2.6.1. Interesting to insert a mandate that all plans must go to the VFC population
2.2.6.2. Forced removal of existing economic beneficiaries from all policies
2.2.7. G) Ensuring creation of union jobs and guarantees payment of wages to workers "affected by the transition."
2.2.7.1. Sounds like a move to remove all Right to Work laws
2.2.7.2. Payment of wages to workers put out of work due to forced obsolescence
2.2.7.2.1. Potentially not dissimilar to proposed state-wide legislation that the government pays individuals for a reduction in property value occurring by the impacts of government actions
2.2.7.2.2. Full wages, would be a non-starter
2.2.8. H) Guaranteeing a job with full benefits to alll people of the U.S.
2.2.8.1. Sounds like a hollow government promise
2.2.8.2. Potentially dangerous if implemented through a forced-hire/illegal-to-fire set of policies
2.2.8.2.1. Stagnating robust growth in highly innovative economies
2.2.8.2.2. Who must employ- the government or private companies?
2.2.8.3. Could potentially be government control of private companies
2.2.8.3.1. Already door opened by the historic and yet-unheralded Obama confiscation of private company bankruptcy proceeding of GM
2.2.9. I) Strengthen the ability to unionize "free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment"
2.2.9.1. Currently fully able to do just that
2.2.9.2. The "free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment" must also be applied to those who choose to NOT unionize...
2.2.9.2.1. Plenty of examples of non-union worker harassment goes un-heralded by the Left.
2.2.10. J) Strengthen and enforce labor rights, workplace health and safety, and anti-discrimination policies
2.2.10.1. They already exist, and could be strengthened...
2.2.11. K) All trade agreements must
2.2.11.1. (i) stop transfer of jobs and pollution "overseas"
2.2.11.1.1. Cheeky response - what about to Canada, Mexico, Central America, or South America?
2.2.11.1.2. In terms of jobs, the clear and open transfer of labor and job opportunities should not be impeded
2.2.11.1.3. If you are already attempting to make a 4(H) and 4(G) job creation and guarantee statement, then trade agreement and offshoring shouldn't be an issue
2.2.11.1.4. In terms of pollution - this is new and interesting to me...
2.2.11.2. (ii) grow domestic manufacturing
2.2.11.2.1. Mandating the U.S. as a manufacturing labor hub seems so 19th and 20th century, that it seems incongruous with the ostensible progressive nature of the GND
2.2.12. L) Public lands protection, and ensure the disabuse of eminent domain
2.2.13. M) Honoring all indigenous peoples' sovereignty and lands, garnering consent before projects affect their land
2.2.13.1. This SHOULD spur a full examination and reform of BIA and how the U.S. government interacts with native territories.
2.2.14. N) Ensuring commercial environments free from unfair competition and domination from monopolies (national or international)
2.2.14.1. I would love to see the language changed to protection from all monopolies, foreign or domestic
2.2.14.2. 100% support and agree
2.2.14.3. We need a new examination and implementation of antitrust legislation
2.2.15. O) Provide all peoples of the United States
2.2.15.1. (i) high quality healthcare
2.2.15.1.1. Insurance is NOT care
2.2.15.1.2. Spurs an SRP policy idea on healthcare
2.2.15.2. (ii) affordable housing
2.2.15.3. (iii) economic security
2.2.15.3.1. What does this even mean?
2.2.15.4. (iv) clean environment
2.2.15.5. (v) access to nature
3. Takeaways
3.1. The terminology of "people of the United States" should be changed to "Americans" - this is a subtle dog whistle to the illegal residency issue in this country, and that citizenship is somehow a non-issue.
3.2. I take issue with the America-as-enemy nature of the preamble
3.2.1. The implication that other countries' failings may be because of American policies and actions is tiring and does nothing to build a better future for anyone
3.2.1.1. This quickly devolves into a zero-sum mentality for prosperity, quality of life, and human rights around the world
3.2.1.2. Being able to address these issues openly and honestly is important, and we have always been able to do so. The time has passed to claim "I must be heard," and to actually say something!
3.2.1.2.1. The GND is actually something being said, and should have significant applause for the fact of actually saying something of material heft.
3.2.1.2.2. If the work is always done under the prevailing umbrella of past victimhood, there is a natural ceiling for success - either to gain the position of the original "oppressors" or to take away from them to provide a new parity at a lower rate for all.
3.2.1.3. Nowhere else in the world has been able to identify and begin correcting its own sins as quickly and effectively
3.2.2. The trade agreement/negotiation angle in 4(K) actually would become an inevitable co-opting of American-pride metrics as well as providing leadership
3.2.2.1. Require any trade partner to be held to the same Clean Air/Clean Water Act(s) regulations and controls as in the U.S.
3.2.2.2. Open-sourcing of extant adopted technologies for all polluting countries
3.2.2.3. Requires an honest acknowledgment of true gge emissions globally
3.3. Lack of Prioritization
3.3.1. Somewhat problematic to request to do all of it in 10 years
3.3.2. Applaud a number of the programs and the 10-year goal
3.3.2.1. It does evoke the idea of a huge "Man on the Moon" push
3.3.2.2. Achievable goals in 10-year cycle
3.3.2.2.1. Upgrade our entire infrastructure to net power-generative in 10 years.
3.3.2.2.2. 100% power generation may need to be the next 10 year goal (set the groundwork for it now, but focus the time and resources for the achievable fruit NOW)
3.3.2.3. Achievable vs Idealogical
3.4. Significant addressing of VFC as the prime beneficiaries of all policies
3.4.1. The fully overt move away from "white male privilege" or "patriarchy" businesses.
3.4.2. I do worry about a government-led program to "empower" VFCs as the history of such activities led by a government tend towards patronizing and condescension at best, co-opted resources, or outright oligarchical "we know best for you" tyranny at worst.
3.4.3. A full throated policy on how to address VFC would be incredibly welcome!
3.5. The Whereas preambles seem to imply that these are the 2 pressing/catastrophic issues facing American society
3.5.1. The financing of such programs must be addressed
3.5.1.1. Not in the "we can't pay for it" way
3.5.1.2. What would the reparations be for 2(G)(i), or 4(G), or whatever 4(O)(iii) means
3.5.1.3. The financing proposals from 4(A) have an air of a state-controlled economy.
3.5.1.3.1. Ironically, this is a defining characteristic of fascism - where the state forceably directs/controls/mandates private sector actions to further its state-owned goals
3.5.1.3.2. Ownership by the government is the antithesis to a democratic free system.
3.5.2. Can agree/disagree on the nature of the degree of importance amicably, but not disagree on the existence of the importance.
4. Whereas and Stated Goals
4.1. "because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global green-house gas emissions through 2014,"
4.1.1. The disingenuous blaming nature of the preamble on climate does everyone a significant disservice.
4.1.1.1. That can only possibly be true if you take into account CO2
4.1.1.2. Energy intensity must be a viable and meaningful metric: energy usage/gge per GDP.
4.1.2. Taking responsibility for leadership is important, but not couched in context that allows for a pass-the-blame status for any other developing nation or action
4.2. "and has a high tech-nological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation;
4.2.1. The last phrase of "through economic transformation" is unnecessary
4.2.1.1. Why would an economic transformation be needed to continue (and enhance, speed, build upon) the existing amazing work the United States does to combat pollution in a global context.
4.2.1.2. Our current economic system is the only one that has created the opportunities, technologies, and practices that have proven to be successful in reducing pollutants and gge at an impactful rate
4.2.2. Acknowledgement of the United States' historic approach to fixing pollution problems is a necessary part of any honest Whereas preamble. which should include something akin to the following:
4.3. Social/Jobs Programs
4.3.1. B: Create millions of good, high-wage jobs
4.3.2. C: Infrastructure Investment
4.3.3. E: promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression.
4.4. Climate Change
4.4.1. A: Net-Zero Emissions
4.4.1.1. When we look at the global issue of gge, we must address the largest impact contributors in order.
4.4.1.1.1. Focus on CO2 can easily detract from real pollution needs
4.4.1.1.2. Acknowledgement in the GND that the USA has the best technology to reduce/remove particles like NOx and SO2, and that our air quality and water quality standards have continued to increase in dramatic fashion since the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts would go a long way
4.4.1.1.3. International spewing of toxic gge in the most populous nations in the world (affecting the largest population numbers as well!)
4.4.1.1.4. There is an implication that the U.S. curtailment of CO2 would be the single largest contributor to combating acc.
4.4.1.2. As we go through the GND, we realize that greenhouse gas emissions highly means CO2.
4.4.1.2.1. The hyper focus on CO2 is the single biggest concern I have with the entire movement against fighting anthropogenic climate change in the current political climate
4.4.1.2.2. The CO2 conundrum is the single biggest hurdle to climate change action
4.4.2. D: Secure clean environment