Democrats weren’t really serious about Green, Sustainable Reform in 2020 Election

One might wonder if the Democrat party and presidential candidates used global warming and the green reform agenda as a lever to get elected with a plank many independents care about, and nothing more. The infrastructure bills put forward by Nancy Pelosi do not remotely approach green economic reform. Instead they disingenuously invented human infrastructure worth 3.5 trillion dollars with green concerns getting short shrift.

If the democrats did not believe that global warming, mass species extinction and the degradation of the planetary ecosphere were serious enough to develop a new green economic infrastructure with a basket of economic reform and infrastructure measures worth 3.5 trillion dollars why did they pretend it was during the election cycle? If Democrats do not presently use their majority power in Congress and with a party leader as President, when might they go about getting that done if they eventually decide that returning the planet’s ecosphere to a healthy and sustainable footing is necessary? If they don’t get something done now that meets the challenges faced by the nation, and lose the Congress next year or the Presidency in 2024 would they expect Republicans to get their work of green reform done for them?

The failure of Von Pelosi leadership to adequately address the national need for green infrastructure reform might just doom the next ten years politically to failure to halt the decay of the nation’s ecosphere. Sure Democrats will have added several trillion dollars of public debt and brought day care in a decaying world along with dental care for the elderly able to afford Medicare payments each month. There are numerous social challenges including health and basic income, secure borders and foreign economic reform toward sustainability that should be dealt with in separate bills. Conflating them with the national green infrastructure reform agenda is simply very bad sense. The cupboard may be bare to pay for the extrinsically necessary green reform when the vital bill is due (it seems presently overdue).

It may be good to have good teeth in a dying world; yet dental and medical care for the very poor should be handled in a medical and dental bill, as should day care, rather than in an infrastructure bill. The very rich own most of the businesses that produce global warming in the U.S.A. It is the rich that lead the way on indifference to ecosphere decline, so it would be quite reasonable to tax the rich and Wall Street to pay for ecospheric and atmospheric recovery; creating a sustainable approach to human interaction with the ecosphere cannot well be put off until the dawn of some future hypothetical utopian age of congressional intelligence and wisdom.

Not only does a falsely named infrastructure bill fail to meet the challenge of ecosphere and atmosphere decline with a vigorous reform response of economic infrastructure, it creates a bias against talking about infrastructure bills in the future since the name is a rubric for splurging upon omnibus packages for Democrats that don’t remotely address the serious existential threats to human and other mammalian biological life on Earth. Democrats with the baloney infrastructure bill will make Republicans unlikely to be interest much in future ‘infrastructure’ discussions that lead to shopping sprees without adding working, innovative infrastructure even legislatively without much spending. There may be many here among us who feel that the Democrats’ plans for infrastructure to meet ecospheric challenges are but a joke of election time deceit.