Green Party Platform
Although the Green Party website hasn't been updated for the new platform yet, https://anais-pf.livejournal.com/ provided me with a link to the approved updates, and I reviewed them for material updates to their climage change policies. The only one I spotted was the Green Party adding their support for the No Fly movement, which I approve, except for when I fly to visit K. Love wins that exception. Sigh.
But voluntary personal actions like deciding to fly less won't fix our triad of ecological disasters. We need internationally binding treaties with effective enforcement. Bug can dream ;-)
Part three of their four-part platform is titled: Ecological Sustainability.
From my point of view, the most important items for true ecological sustainability have to be (1) capping and then reducing carbon fuel consumption, and (2) capping and then reducing human population. Everything else is just well-meaning window dressing at best, or cynical fraud at worst.
The Green Party calls for an Ecosocialist Green New Deal to achieve 100% clean energy, zero greenhouse gas emissions, and economic security for all within a decade.
100% clean energy implies a ban on carbon fuels, but I'm not seeing the words "ban all carbon/fossil fuels", instead I see support for a carbon tax. I'm in favor of a carbon tax! but I'd rather go the route of capping and then reducing carbon fuels, it's more direct and ACTUALLY REDUCES CARBON EMISSONS. A cap-and-trade system plus a tax would be even better. But the Green Party opposes cap-and-trade, sigh.
The Greens do support banning fracking, which I would support. I wonder why they don't go all the way and ban carbon fuels entirely, instead relying on a carbon tax that ramps up over time.
The carbon fee will initially be small, a dime per kilogram of carbon, to avoid creating a shock to the economy. The fee will be increased by 10% each year that global atmospheric carbon dioxide content is greater than 350 ppm, decreased 10% each year it's less than 300 ppm, and repealed entirely when it falls below 250 ppm.
This would be a 23.6-cent tax per gallon of gasoline. The current federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, so the Green Party would increase the gasoline tax to 42 cents per gallon, and then increase the tax by 2.4 cents after one year. This feels completely inadequate to me in moving toward a 100% cleaner energy economy within a decade. But, it's a start. Yes, a carbon tax!
There's a lot lot lot of other stuff in their Ecological Sustainability platform, and there should be, but I'd add a formal ban on carbon fuels via a cap that is reduced by 5%/year over 20 years. Each citizen of the US would be issued a personal coupon for their share of carbon fuels that year, and people/organizations could trade these coupons on an open market.
-----
There's no mention of population controls in their Ecological Sustainability platform. But in the Reproductive Rights subsection, the Green Party supports access to abortion and contraception free of charge. That's a basic first step, allowing families to plan whether to have a(nother) child or not. But, I would go further and issue adults a lottery ticket for the right to bear a child, and the winning tickets could be traded on an open market. Cap and trade babies just like carbon emissions! I don't expect this policy to be popular anytime soon, even among Greens. But, I'll advocate for it anyway, because we need to reduce our human population to the point where we're not a world-dominating species.
I'd start by limiting global births to 10 million/year (from the current 140 million/year) and gradually move it down to 1 million/year over the next 90 years.
-----
You'd think that taking a train cross country (to PDX) would cause fewer emissions than taking an airplane, but the train would cost me $402, while the airplane would cost me $159 (both one-way tickets).
When the green option costs more than twice the not-green option, I feel like it's not actually the green option. Something that puts less stress on the planet should cost less. I don't mean in terms of the government forcing green options to cost less than not-green options (which I would approve), I mean in terms of green options should not use as much stuff and so should be less expensive. If Amtrak were truly the green option, why does it cost so much more than flying?
There's more to counting emissions than the emissions emitted by your transportation equipment while on your trip. This is an important point about electric vehicles (EVs). While driving your EV to work you may not be emitting carbon from your vehicle, but carbon was emitted in building your vehicle, it was emitted in building the roads you drive on and the parking lots you park in, it was emitted in building the power infrastructure that moves electricity into your car's battery, and it was emitted in creating the electricity (even if that electricity is from a renewable resource, because building that renewable resource involved some carbon emissions).
Every amount you pay to use a transportation service goes in part to salaries, and the people paid these salaries then spend their money on stuff that required carbon emissions to make. The amount you pay also goes in part to the organization buying stuff that required carbon emissions to make and transport. It's never just the emissions the equipment emits while you're riding it. So when a train ticket costs more than 2x an airplane ticket, I suspect that all the stuff that train ticket pays for is just as "dirty" as the airplane ticket.
Plus, riding the train will take three nights one way! If I want a private room, that's $1,515! Almost 10x the cost of the airplane. Am I really going to sleep in a coach seat? I think dragging that private room across the country for three nights is probably dirtier than taking an airplane for five hours.
-----
But, I more than offset my own annual carbon emissions by paying for abortions/contraception for those who cannot afford them. My charitable contributions to the national abortion network and the UN family planning organization probably fund multiple abortions and not-conceived babies per year, and avoiding just one more human's lifetime of carbon emissions definitely offsets my own. That's my Bang for the Buck.
We mainly power our house using solar power, the extra is bought using wind power credits, and the natural gas we buy is offset somehow according the utility (we pay about 20% more for our offset natural gas than the not-offset alternative).
I do have a car, but I use public transit when available (as it should be again next weekend!). And, yes, I fly to PDX so I can visit K. I used to say so I can visit K and MAB, but MAB ghosted me two visits ago, haven't heard from him since :-(
Anyway. I support the No Fly movement, except for visiting K.
But voluntary personal actions like deciding to fly less won't fix our triad of ecological disasters. We need internationally binding treaties with effective enforcement. Bug can dream ;-)
Part three of their four-part platform is titled: Ecological Sustainability.
From my point of view, the most important items for true ecological sustainability have to be (1) capping and then reducing carbon fuel consumption, and (2) capping and then reducing human population. Everything else is just well-meaning window dressing at best, or cynical fraud at worst.
The Green Party calls for an Ecosocialist Green New Deal to achieve 100% clean energy, zero greenhouse gas emissions, and economic security for all within a decade.
100% clean energy implies a ban on carbon fuels, but I'm not seeing the words "ban all carbon/fossil fuels", instead I see support for a carbon tax. I'm in favor of a carbon tax! but I'd rather go the route of capping and then reducing carbon fuels, it's more direct and ACTUALLY REDUCES CARBON EMISSONS. A cap-and-trade system plus a tax would be even better. But the Green Party opposes cap-and-trade, sigh.
The Greens do support banning fracking, which I would support. I wonder why they don't go all the way and ban carbon fuels entirely, instead relying on a carbon tax that ramps up over time.
The carbon fee will initially be small, a dime per kilogram of carbon, to avoid creating a shock to the economy. The fee will be increased by 10% each year that global atmospheric carbon dioxide content is greater than 350 ppm, decreased 10% each year it's less than 300 ppm, and repealed entirely when it falls below 250 ppm.
This would be a 23.6-cent tax per gallon of gasoline. The current federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, so the Green Party would increase the gasoline tax to 42 cents per gallon, and then increase the tax by 2.4 cents after one year. This feels completely inadequate to me in moving toward a 100% cleaner energy economy within a decade. But, it's a start. Yes, a carbon tax!
There's a lot lot lot of other stuff in their Ecological Sustainability platform, and there should be, but I'd add a formal ban on carbon fuels via a cap that is reduced by 5%/year over 20 years. Each citizen of the US would be issued a personal coupon for their share of carbon fuels that year, and people/organizations could trade these coupons on an open market.
-----
There's no mention of population controls in their Ecological Sustainability platform. But in the Reproductive Rights subsection, the Green Party supports access to abortion and contraception free of charge. That's a basic first step, allowing families to plan whether to have a(nother) child or not. But, I would go further and issue adults a lottery ticket for the right to bear a child, and the winning tickets could be traded on an open market. Cap and trade babies just like carbon emissions! I don't expect this policy to be popular anytime soon, even among Greens. But, I'll advocate for it anyway, because we need to reduce our human population to the point where we're not a world-dominating species.
I'd start by limiting global births to 10 million/year (from the current 140 million/year) and gradually move it down to 1 million/year over the next 90 years.
-----
You'd think that taking a train cross country (to PDX) would cause fewer emissions than taking an airplane, but the train would cost me $402, while the airplane would cost me $159 (both one-way tickets).
When the green option costs more than twice the not-green option, I feel like it's not actually the green option. Something that puts less stress on the planet should cost less. I don't mean in terms of the government forcing green options to cost less than not-green options (which I would approve), I mean in terms of green options should not use as much stuff and so should be less expensive. If Amtrak were truly the green option, why does it cost so much more than flying?
There's more to counting emissions than the emissions emitted by your transportation equipment while on your trip. This is an important point about electric vehicles (EVs). While driving your EV to work you may not be emitting carbon from your vehicle, but carbon was emitted in building your vehicle, it was emitted in building the roads you drive on and the parking lots you park in, it was emitted in building the power infrastructure that moves electricity into your car's battery, and it was emitted in creating the electricity (even if that electricity is from a renewable resource, because building that renewable resource involved some carbon emissions).
Every amount you pay to use a transportation service goes in part to salaries, and the people paid these salaries then spend their money on stuff that required carbon emissions to make. The amount you pay also goes in part to the organization buying stuff that required carbon emissions to make and transport. It's never just the emissions the equipment emits while you're riding it. So when a train ticket costs more than 2x an airplane ticket, I suspect that all the stuff that train ticket pays for is just as "dirty" as the airplane ticket.
Plus, riding the train will take three nights one way! If I want a private room, that's $1,515! Almost 10x the cost of the airplane. Am I really going to sleep in a coach seat? I think dragging that private room across the country for three nights is probably dirtier than taking an airplane for five hours.
-----
But, I more than offset my own annual carbon emissions by paying for abortions/contraception for those who cannot afford them. My charitable contributions to the national abortion network and the UN family planning organization probably fund multiple abortions and not-conceived babies per year, and avoiding just one more human's lifetime of carbon emissions definitely offsets my own. That's my Bang for the Buck.
We mainly power our house using solar power, the extra is bought using wind power credits, and the natural gas we buy is offset somehow according the utility (we pay about 20% more for our offset natural gas than the not-offset alternative).
I do have a car, but I use public transit when available (as it should be again next weekend!). And, yes, I fly to PDX so I can visit K. I used to say so I can visit K and MAB, but MAB ghosted me two visits ago, haven't heard from him since :-(
Anyway. I support the No Fly movement, except for visiting K.