The green New deal

[lenny flank]

From the little I heard about it is you get paid whether you work or not.

Nope--that would be Richard Nixon's proposed "Guaranteed Minimum Income" idea from the 70s.

The Green New Deal is utterly different and has nothing to do with either pay or employment.

 

[owl]

Currently there is no electric vehicle large enough to dwell in for most folks. Electric vehicles are more expensive than gas powered. Batteries last around 6 to 8 years and cost $5500 to replace. As time goes by it is not realistic to think that costs will come down, current models are heavily subsidized, so you are already paying for electric cars through your taxes. As it is many in the vandweller community cannot participate because of the high initial cost of a van and it's conversion. For electric vehicles to become affordable for the average vandweller will take years if ever. So of course it will negatively affect this community. Something I think about is what is the ultimate purpose of these kinds of plans? They are cloaked in how much easier they will make your life. How is that possible when they ultimately restrict your life and your choices. We worry daily about restrictions on this lifestyle. Most of us are here because we have rejected the one size fits all structure of society. Confucius said " Study the past if you would divine the future."

 

[B and C]

Nope--that would be Richard Nixon's proposed "Guaranteed Minimum Income" idea from the 70s.

The Green New Deal is utterly different and has nothing to do with either pay or employment.

Excerpt from PDF link provided:

(O) providing all people of the United 22 States with— 23 (i) high-quality health care; 24 (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate 25 housing; VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:55 Feb 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\WPBURKE\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\OCASNY~1. February 7, 2019 (9:55 a.m.) G:\M\16\OCASNY\OCASNY_005.XML g:\VHLC\020719\020719.032.xml (717120|3) 14 1 (iii) economic security; and 2 (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and 3 affordable food, and access to nature. 

I don't know what that means to you though.

 

[Dingfelder]

I can go through 100 pages of this thread potentially and still not come across a solid refutation of the fact that its provisions will never happen, so ... no.

In fact, now that its premises have been repudiated as an "accidental release of a previous draft," we don't even know what the "real" provisions are. And that they have to be at least remotely real at all is itself being repudiated, with some demos saying, in response to the fact that these policies could never be carried out, "Isn't that the point?"

It's just nonsense for now.

Sadly, I'm saying all this regardless of its merits or anyone's position on anything, including mine.

 

[Dingfelder]

Nope--that would be Richard Nixon's proposed "Guaranteed Minimum Income" idea from the 70s.

The Green New Deal is utterly different and has nothing to do with either pay or employment.

Actually it's a quote.

 

[lenny flank]

^^ If so then great, I'm all for it.

As "jobs" are automated and disappear and as "wages" continue to shrink, we will be forced to restructure our entire economic system to insure that people can continue to receive their necessities of life even if they don't have a job and will likely never get one in their lifetime.

The folks who are wedded to the old ways of doing things, are in for some unpleasant surprises.

 

[JohnnyM]

Well, this has turned into a lively and interesting discussion. Thanks, Kygreg, for posting it and thanks to RVWandering for providing the actual text of the proposal. Now that I understand the OP's question better, I'd say I don't see any threat here to boondockers or vehicle dwellers at all.

Politics (the least interesting part of the discussion) aside, electric vehicles appear to be the future. We're working on them now, the Green proposal encourages more investment in them, and the increasing scarcity and price of fossil fuels pretty much guarantees that we'll all be driving them sometime in the not-too-distant future.

A lot of people on this forum can remember the early days of electronic ignition and fuel injection, back in the good ol' days when we thought they'll never get the bugs out of such contraptions and we would all regain our senses and go back to carburetors, generators, distributors and coils. Didn't happen. And what about the idea that you could bolt a piece of black plastic to your roof and it would supply all your electricity for free? What a joke!

Bring it on, sez me.

Johnny

 

[flying kurbmaster]

^^^^ and this will happen very quickly and I also say the sooner the better...if you are not progressive in this day and age you will be left behind, the times are changing too fast to be conservative, either you swim with the current or you drown. I know some will go kicking and screaming as we are seeing in todays societies but they will eventually stop fighting the current, we are in for a wonderful new world, the futur is looking bright. Bring it on ,,, I am looking forward to my new electric vehicle, getting paid to tend my garden, playing music in my spare time, life I love you all is groovy...

 

[Lj Unlimited]

Van dwellers, off-grid homesteaders, and those who have already distanced themselves from the system are generally more resilient (there are a few I would even call anti-fragile). Change will easier for them to adapt to than it will be for the fragile masses.

I agree that a good many of these proposals will eventually happen. However, it won't happen anytime soon. The political divide in this country is far too great at this time. Sadly I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

 

[Wabbit]

...if you are not progressive in this day and age you will be left behind, the times are changing too fast to be conservative, either you swim with the current or you drown...

Completely disagree with you FK. There is a place for everyone. Conservatives are important to a true democracy. Their POV(Point of View)(learned that acronym on po*nhub...) is important. Same as hippie dippie hug everyone POV is important. There is a middle ground. Let me repeat, THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND. If there isn't any compromise in a person's POV(lol Po*nhub), maybe they're not of a democratic mind, and maybe they'd be happier in a different setting. Either way, progressivism is not the end all and be all of anything. Neither is conservatism.

 

[owl]

Regardless of where you come down on this discussion the likely result is certainly out of our individual control. We all have an idea of how we would like to see our world and its future. One thing I believe is the type of person who lives this lifestyle, or aspires to live it, won't be deterred in their desire for freedom.

 

[Doubleone]

Wow! this thread could get out of hand quickly.  Discussing this resolution is a highly contentious issue and most definitely a political thread about environmental ideology and politics.  Simply injecting 'how will this affect van dwellers or boondockers' to the topic doesn't alter the fact it's a politically volatile and emotionally charged issue.  That said, I intend the following as a minimally-political response to the OP's question asking for opinions, and to explain reasoning behind my opinion that I do not think the resolution will affect vandwellers or boondockers...  

For the record, I'm very much in favor of responsible consumerism and sustainable environmental practices.  In example, I believe repairing things to extend useful life rather than discarding and buying new is a sound practice.  I bought and fixed up my older Class C with intention to keep it for a very long time, extending it's useful life and reducing my footprint.  All things considered equal, I will typically choose to buy sustainable products and patronize establishments with with socially positive practices.  However, after reading this proposed resolution, it all starts sounding like religion, radical environmentalism, and politics of socialism (all politically charged and highly contentious ideologies).  I really don't see this resolution amounting to much of an issue for boondockers or vandwellers.  It seems more of an environmental ideological statement, a quick grab for headlines and publicity, and as such a media flash in the pan.  I'm thinking the resolution will likely die a rapid and ignoble death because industry funds politicians, and industry is highly dependent on resources and energy.  What's that old adage about the hand that feeds you... 

One thing we can't easily overlook is that civilization revolves around use of energy and resources.  ...And keep in mind, I don't disagree that when civilizations outstrip their resources they perish.  History has demonstrated this over and over, and there are many good books about that phenomena.  I respect the fact that people are inherently rational and fundamentally make decisions in their own best interests.  And as such, people just aren't ready to suddenly go backward and start living the lifestyle of the 1800's again.  There would be huge voter push-back, swinging the political pendulum the other way, until some eventual equilibrium is reached.  My opinion is that positive change needs to evolve more organically and gradually,  in a form more palatable to the ordinary person for it to truly be effective.  I believe in working with human nature, rather than against it.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

Completely disagree with you FK. There is a place for everyone. Conservatives are important to a true democracy. Their POV(Point of View)(learned that acronym on po*nhub...) is important. Same as hippie dippie hug everyone POV is important. There is a middle ground. Let me repeat, THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND. If there isn't any compromise in a person's POV(lol Po*nhub), maybe they're not of a democratic mind, and maybe they'd be happier in a different setting. Either way, progressivism is not the end all and be all of anything. Neither is conservatism.

A good example of where conservatism is going to end up, are the mennonites, they are charming, harmless and irrelevant.

 

[lenny flank]

A good example of where conservatism is going to end up, are the mennonites, they are charming, harmless and irrelevant.

They are also trying to still live in the 18th century. Much as a certain group of religious kooks are trying to bomb us back to the 15th century.

The 21st century will be completely different from the 20th century--economically, politically, ethnically and technologically. 

That will be very frightening and threatening for some people. But, alas, "reality" simply doesn't care what anyone thinks of it.

 

[ckelly78z]

It truly takes a dreamer to come up with some of the initiatives included in this bill, and a fools game to persue them, which the progressive left has proven that they are.

A time limit of 10 years is absolutely impossible, and would cripple this country to closure if implemented. Think of the jobs lost just in the oil/auto industry, and all the suppliers that rely on them...absolutely mind boggling that Cortez got this far with this childish endeavor.

I won't say that none of this will ever happen, but technology has to advance greatly, and attitudes (like mine) have to be changed.

 

[lenny flank]

Completely disagree with you FK. There is a place for everyone. Conservatives are important to a true democracy. 

I quite agree. I am adamantly opposed to ANY single-party state--even if it is my own party. That road always leads to the same place, and it is not a pleasant destination.

That is what concerns me the most about current American politics--not the policies themselves (most of those have been failures anyway as the US continues its inevitable decline on the world stage) but the deliberate attempt to alter the political structures to the advantage of one party over the other. That is an enormously dangerous thing to do. It puts "democracy" itself at risk. I do not want to live in a place like Russia, which has the external trappings of "democracy" but none of the workings of it.

We MUST have two sane and functional political parties with two different POVs. "Democracy" itself depends on it.

 

[lenny flank]

 Think of the jobs lost just in the oil/auto industry

Those jobs were lost long ago. And they won't come back. Ever.

All the old industries we once relied on -- steel, autos, coal, oil -- are already dead or are fast dying.

We can't live in a 21st century world with a 19th century economy.

 

[lenny flank]

and attitudes (like mine) have to be changed.

Attitudes have already changed. There is a reason why conservative parties like the American Republicans and the British Tories are almost entirely made up of old white people. The views (and the ethnic and social make-up) of the younger generation are completely different from those of our generation. The world has simply passed us by. Soon this will be their world, not ours. It doesn't matter any more if we old farts change our views or not--we'll soon be dead and out of the way.

 

[lenny flank]

 technology has to advance greatly

It already is. We ourselves are a good example of that.

Back when I started dwelling, four years ago, most everyone I saw had 100w panels, and they paid through the nose for them. If we were wealthy we could put three of them on the roof and have an incredible 300w of solar power.

Today, just a few years later, 300w panels are standard and don't cost much more than my 100w did back then. It's now not at all unusual to see vans with 1000w systems on the roof (which back then we would not have even been able to physically fit up there).

Lithium batteries have made things smaller, lighter and more efficient.

The pace of technological change is remarkable.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Will the green New deal end the boondockers way of life?

It won't end it but it will make it much more expensive in the short term:

• Your current vehicle's value will go to almost $0.  You will either have to buy a new van or a used one in a very competitive market (lots of buyers, few sellers).  Or pay a lot of $$$ to convert your current ride.
• A large chunk of federal land out west good for solar will be taken up by solar farms, pushing us onto land with less desirable solar potential.
• We will need more solar as we won't be able to use a generator or drive to charge the batteries during bad weather, while camping in areas of less solar potential.  And the cost of panels will go up in the short term as there will be more competition for them (demand outstripping supply).