![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- nyt_gift_articles
I love this line, talking about the Green New Deal:
It called for converting the electric grid to 100 percent clean energy this decade, declared clean air, clean water and healthy food to be basic human rights. But it also endorsed free health care and affordable housing for all Americans.
The use of “but” suggests that either the first part of that statement, or the last part, is a big negative, e.g. “She wants to fund animal shelters, but she also wants to kill dolphins”, or “She wants to kill puppies, but she also wants to clean up the oceans.”
So… which half is supposed to be the bad one? They both seem great to me. I’m so confused by these discussions.
Yeah so many of the Republican scare articles have “don’t threaten me with a good time” energy.
Green new deal has been super popular in Europe.
But still, all she has to do is adapt her climate policy and call it something else. Even just banning new oil development and single family zoning would be a huge step up from Biden. She could also ban new fossil fuel cars by 2030, subsidize local public transport projects, and subsidize grid connections for wind and solar. None of those things are significantly propagandizable.
Zoning has been a state policy thing in the US, not a federal one, so not likely to be a Presidential campaign issue
That’s fair. They could probably do something to adapt funding to encourage mixed-use neighborhoods.