 Okay, we're back. We're live. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech Hawaii. And today, of course, is the cutting edge. Hawaii 808, the cutting, energy 808, the cutting edge. And of course, Marco Mangostoff from Provision Solar in Hilo joins us. And we have a very interesting and timely discussion that we are going to tell you about in a minute. Welcome, Marco. Welcome back to your show. Well, wonderful to be back with you on our show, Jay, and the challenge of staying on the cutting edge, but not get cut up ourselves. That is the eternal challenge. Okay, so today, and we've had discussions about this, which I found very stimulating. We're going to talk about the Green New Deal. Because that, of course, includes energy, but much more. And the title of our discussion today is what is the deal with the Green New Deal? So this all came up since the, I guess, since the midterm elections. And the leader of it is one of the leaders, anyway, is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We know her better and better every day. She's very popular, articulate, forceful, and out there. And this is what she's been designing. So in a summary way, can you describe what is the Green New Deal? I'd be happy to. And this comes right from the so-called draft text for a proposed addendum to House Rules for the 160th Congress, which is what we have right now in the United States. And it would be establishing a so-called Select Committee, Select Committee for a Green New Deal. And quite simply put, this Select Committee, which would be made up of proposed 15 members, 15 House members, nine of which would be Democrats, six would come from the recommendation of the minority leader in this case. What's the guy's name? Kevin McCarthy, I believe, on the Republican side. So it would be a Select Committee of 15 members, nine Dems, and six Republicans. And they would have the, quote, authority to develop a detailed national industrial economic mobilization plan for the transition of the United States economy to become greenhouse gas emissions neutral and to significantly draw down greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans and to promote economic and environmental justice and equality. So quite the bold ambition there, not to make just tinker at the margins, incremental change, but very deep substantive change akin to what Franklin D. Roosevelt started in 33 that lasted roughly six years until 1930 on and what Lyndon Baines Johnson started in May 64 when he first coined the phrase, The Great Society. And that went for approximately four years until sometime in 1968. And then he of course stepped down for reelection. So, you know, this follows in the footsteps in my view, Jay, the historical philosophical footsteps of what Roosevelt did in the 1930s and what Lyndon Johnson attempted to do in the 1960s to not just tinker but dramatically change, change kind of the direction of the country in a, in a, in an effort to have a national mobilization. When I read economic mobilization plan, that's, that's more than just much more than just a program change here there or a dinky law change here or there. So, and it gives me personally cause for hope that the Democrats are swinging for the fences rather than trying to get a single or a double. And the plan would be to have this plan nailed down in early 2020 and to go through the other committees that would have jurisdiction in the house. And then ideally, and this comes through very loud and clear to me reading this draft text by the end of 2020. And once say a Democratic president is inaugurated on the 20th of January 2021, the Democrats will have a plan ready for he or she, the new occupant of the White House, to execute and move forward with this. Well, 1933 was a time when we were recognizing the problems in the, in the depression. 1933 was a time when the country was in a very dangerous economic situation, bread lines and the like. No jobs, nothing going on. And FDR, to his, you know, eternal credit decided he was going to take some bold steps. And although it didn't, it didn't work, it didn't work perfectly until the war. The war was what really kicked the economy into high gear. But it did, it did save a lot of people and it saved a lot of jobs and it, it built infrastructure, which is a magic word here around the country. And so we have to give them credit for that. And I guess the question is, well, are we in the same kind of transitional experience right now, where we require this kind of dramatic bold statement, this revision of, you know, a lot of the fundamentals of our lives together in the country. Are we, are we, do you think we are? I do, Jay, I do. I think that the demands, the imperative of doing something significantly different than the status quo in terms of continuing to put the amounts of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that our species has since worked quite a while, but really ramped up in the mid-1800s with the beginning of the industrial revolution and coal and other fossil fuels really being used at a vastly, exponentially greater rate. So I think there's quite a consensus, a very high level of consensus that we are continuing to move as a species on a planetary basis and into uncharted waters, dangerous uncharted waters, and that it requires bold, aggressive thinking, which the Paris Climate Accords were able to, you know, it was far from a perfect document, but had a tremendous amount of support amongst the vast majority of nations in the world until Mr. Trump decided to get out to announce his withdrawal. So yes, I do happen to believe that similar to the chaos and ruin and suffering that took place after the Great Depression and in the 1930s and similar to the situation in the 1960s, that there was tremendous inequality lack of healthcare guaranteed for seniors that both FDR and Johnson saw felt need. And I think people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey, Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who were both kind of co-teaming this announcement several weeks ago, I think the time is right. I think the imperative is here. I think the need to act is indisputable. So I'm encouraged that there are two vectors going on. You know, one is that climate change is getting worse and we're going to see that in the weather and in so many ways. The other thing is, and this was in the morning paper, the New York Times, in fact, Trump is now assembling a group of scientists for the purpose of questioning climate change. I wonder who's going to be on that panel. And the panel is supposed to find that climate change is not serious, that it's not man-made, that it's just fine, it'll reverse itself, and we should not be alarmed about it. He's actually doing that now. And so what you have is this government is not only not taking steps to deal with climate change, it's trying to undermine, you know, the basic concept of climate change in the eyes of the people. And I tell you, if I was a scientist, I would never join a panel like that. Those guys will rue the day they joined that panel. Anyway, but going on to more of what you said. So okay, we need to do something. It's a crisis in climate change. That's the driver here. But you know, the Green New Deal includes so much more than that. It includes jobs for everybody. It includes transitional training for everybody. It includes a guaranteed income. And it's a social revolution, this Green New Deal. And my question to you is, do we need to do all those things? We haven't, you and I have not discussed all the elements of what Ocasio has in mind. Do we need to do all those things to deal with climate change? Why don't we just incrementally do what we said we were going to do before Trump, what the Democrats would like to do in order to, you know, combat climate change, you know, get back in the Paris Accord and focus on green energy and limit carbon emissions. Why do we have to do all the other social revolutionary changes that these people are contemplating? Well, excellent question. I mean, it's truly a massive set of goals here. And I'm looking at some of the bullet points in the draft. And I'd fall back first of imperative to do bigger, bolder, faster, deeper, more dramatic change in terms of the way in terms of energy sources and putting stuff into the atmosphere. And if you look at the first bullet points in terms of the plan for a Green New Deal, it talks about renewable energy, energy efficiency, upgrading buildings for state-of-the-art, energy efficiency, comfort and safety. And then in part B, the second set of priorities that talks about poverty in the U.S. and to make prosperity, wealth and economic security available to everyone participating in the transformation. And that is a much bigger set of tasks. And there's going to be no shortage, assuming that Speaker Pelosi, because she has the power to establish such a select committee, and she has the power to, for whatever reason she so chooses, to not. So assuming she does establish such a select committee, it's only the beginning in terms of multiple stakeholders, multiple individuals, multiple parties contributing to the discussion of what the end result will be sometime in 2020 with the second year of the 160th Congress in terms of what they would have ready for, again, thinking optimistically, showing political colors what they'd have ready for a Democratic president who would be elected in November of next year. So, yes, it's boldest, ambitious, it's fairy-fairy, it's a lot, it's too much. I mean, I agree you're honored all of the above charges, but you've got to start somewhere and you've got to do it boldly and go beyond the incrementalism, which I think has kind of been the case regarding these issues in years gone by. Well, yeah, and I'd like to answer my own question, if you don't mind. Please do. My answer is that all this is connected in the sense of developing political will. We can't deal with climate change unless we develop political will. And the Democrats' initiative for incremental change, to deal with climate change when they have had the opportunity to do it, has not been successful. And Congress is locked. And the government is, you know, Trump is sucking all the oxygen out of political will, except his own. And Congress hasn't been able to do anything. And so, you know, what we have is, one, a proven failure of the government to deal with climate change over not just Trump administration, but others. And then two, we have a deterioration of our democracy, which Trump has exacerbated. And people have no confidence in the government. It didn't start with Trump, but certainly it's been exacerbated. So over time, our government has been undermined. And the confidence of the people, which is primary, a primary element in maintaining a democracy, the confidence of the people in government has eroded. Without going into details, I think we would all agree on that. And so what we have is a crisis in our democracy in constitutional government, in the branches of government, and the checks and balances and all that stuff that we read about all the time. And so this initiative, it seems to me, sees two crises. One is climate change. And two, in dealing with climate change, we have to fix ourselves. And so that's another crisis altogether. Both of them should be addressed at the same time. And I guess that's behind, you know, this initiative. And after this break, Marco, I'd like to talk to you about its chances of success. I'd like to talk to you about what would happen, what will happen in the next Congress, and what will happen under the next president, and whether there's any chance, any, you know, realistic chance, that we'll be able to get where Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez would like to go. We'll be right back after this short break. Hey, Aloha. My name is Andrew Lanning. I'm the host of Security Matters Hawaii, airing every Wednesday here on Think Tech Hawaii, live from the studios. I'll bring you guests. I'll bring you information about the things in security that matter to keeping you safe, your co-workers safe, your family safe, to keep our community safe. We want to teach you about those things in our industry that, you know, may be a little outside of your experience. So please join me because security matters. Aloha. Aloha. I'm Wendy Lo, and I'm coming to you every other Tuesday at two o'clock live from Think Tech Hawaii. And on our show, we talk about taking your health back. And what does that mean? It means mind, body, and soul. Anything you can do that makes your body healthier and happier is what we're going to be talking about, whether it's spiritual health, mental health, fascia health, beautiful smile health, whatever it means, let's take healthy back. Aloha. Okay, we're back. We're live with Energy 808, The Cutting Edge. Marco Mangelsdorf joins us by phone from Provision Solar and Hilo, and we're talking about the title of the show is What's the Deal with the Green New Deal? And the subtitle, the tagline is, so where is it going? So what are the obstacles? What are the challenges? What are the things that would stand in the way of the Green New Deal aspirations, as now expressed? Well, the same thinking that pushed back against Roosevelt in the 1930s that believed, people who believed that the guy was a socialist, if not something worse, and that it was going to be this horrific downfall of the United States in our very system of government, similar to the pushback, especially in conservative parts of the country, like the South, that pushback against Johnson's efforts with the Great Society program, civil rights, Medicaid, and so forth. I mean, it's inevitable that there's going to be substantial pushback. That's the nature of our system. It goes back to the days of George Washington, and the Great Nests, you know, which took place even back then, amongst different political actors. So, I mean, conflict and competition and trashing your opponents goes back to the founding of the Republic. So, of course, it's going to happen now. But I happen to believe that, given a couple of really key and important voting trends, Jay, this past election, as we know, the Democrats picked up more seats in the House than they ever had since the 1974 post-Watergate election. So, that's a big deal. And I see that trend continuing. There are now more women in the House and the Senate than there have ever been since women had the right to vote and be elected to office. I see that as also huge. So, to me, the macro political trends are moving in the good and the right direction to make something as big and bold and challenging as this, more possible now than two, four, or six years ago. And it's all going to be a matter of numbers. I mean, if you have a simple majority in the House, you can, and you keep your troops in line, you can get stuff out of that body, right? And I think Pelosi, who is only what the second leader of the House to be re-elected after Sam Rayburn after she was defeated the first time, there's no doubting her political skills. So, then it becomes what's possible in the Senate. And there are going to be substantially more Republicans up for re-election next year than Democrats and even stalwarts like maybe Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. Majority leader Mitch McConnell, these individuals are up for re-election. So, I think another Democratic wave, a blue wave led by women and younger voters, it's entirely possible that there could be a substantial majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate. And given the fact that there's an erosion of the use of the filibuster or the acceptable use of the filibuster, then I think it's, you don't necessarily need 60 to end debate anymore like you did five or 10 years ago. So, I'm trying to paint an optimistic picture of the dynamics possible in the months to come, the years to come to make something like this more doable than we would have thought possible. An optimistic view of this, Marco, an optimistic view assumes that Trump won't win in 2020. It also assumes that in 2019, I guess, no, the first part of 2020, that his base and in any event his followers, his blind followers in the Republican Party will abandon ship with some of them. I'll tell you what I mean. So, that committee has also led committees last one year. And it has one year to produce proposed legislation with a consideration of various other committees in Congress. And let's assume it does that, because, you know, it has its members, what did you say? Nine... Nine Dems and Six Republicans. Okay, listen, and that's close enough for a bipartisan kind of discussion. And so it comes up with stuff, revolutionary stuff, stuff that's faithful to what, you know, the founders of this movement, the, that is the Green New Deal, have conceived. And so by the time in one year, hence, there's a valuable document, a spate of bills that have been written by this committee and that are referrated out to other committees. Well, we're still in between elections. And the Republicans are still running the Senate. And it's not clear to me how far these bills will go. And this is not something Republicans would, you know, would support, even in a moderate analysis, but under the, under the Trump administration and the Trump way of doing things, it's less likely that the Republicans will buy into any of this. Climate change, the social change and economic change, for that matter. And so in the period from, say, January, February of 2020, till the elections and the swearing end of a new president in January of 2021, we're not going to have a lot of support in Congress, outside the Democrats, I think. And it's not clear that all the Democrats will support this. There are some more conservative Democrats out that might not support it. So I see that as a kind of obstacle. And, you know, the question is whether Nancy Pelosi will, you know, go more activist on this, whether the Democrats who might not otherwise support it begin to, you know, get, you know, go along on it. And of course, whether there are defectors among the Republicans in general, and I'm hoping there will be, you and me both. But that's a long shot. It depends on what Trump does and what the base does and how the country is going. If, you know, if it's going the way it's been going, you know, you're not likely to see a lot of defectors. If he does some more really bizarre things, or if the Mueller report pulls the reg out from under him, then we may see a lot of defectors all of a sudden. So it's very iffy as to whether he will have the base in Congress, whether that is the Green New Deal, have the base in Congress, you know, to move this ahead by the time of the election and the new president in 2021. Well, you said quite a bit there, Jay. And let me respond in this way. In part of the draft document, in terms of establishing the site committee, there are a number of FAQs, which I think they did a really good job posing and addressing. And I'm going to read something to you from the FAQs. Regulation and taxes can indeed change some behavior. It's certainly possible to argue that if we had put in place target regulations and progressively increasing carbon and similar taxes several decades ago, the economy could have transformed itself by now. But whether or not that is true, we did not do that. And here's the punchline. And now time has run out. Time has run out. And that's what I keep on going back to in terms of the imperative of now, the imperative of starting something now. 2020 is going to be engulfed in election politics. So we have from now until early 2020, again, assuming the Pelosi moves forward with establishing the select committee, there's a substantial amount of months that they have to be able to put something together so that it will be ready to go someone off the shelf, make some progress in 2020, but go a ways in establishing this new green new deal that will, again, through 2020, be tweaked and refined as all the hoopla, so much oxygen gets taken up by the presidential election and national elections, but will be something that will be refined, developed, and improved by the end of next year. There will be something substantive for, again, a new president to be able to take off the shelf and say, I fill in the blank. I'm ready to move in this direction. And this is the basis on which we're going to do it. Okay. I think that's the Q and A that followed the article. Who was the writer of the article, by the way, just for the record? Well, I mean, the supporters like Ocasio-Cortez and her staff and Ed Markey, who were the ones that kind of went live with this. So I don't know who exactly came up with the draft text, but it establishes the proposed mechanics of what this select committee would do, what the timing would be, and so forth. And I want to mention one other thing before we run out of time here, Jay, which is, I mean, the obvious slam on the part of so many. And in fact, this has already been vocalized by many people. Oh, well, this would bankrupt us. We can't possibly pay for this. It would cost ungodly trillions of dollars, and it would did, you know, it'll be the ruin of us. And they actually, and the FAQ addressed this question. They posed, how will the government pay for these investments? A very legitimate question, of course. Many will say, quote, massive government investment explanation point. How in the world can we pay for this? The answer is the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout, which was quite a sum, right? And extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars. So if the will is there, the money will. Yeah, it's a myth. According to, you know, the Q&A and the article that surrounded it, it's a myth that we have to balance the budget. When we're in crisis, we can't be all that concerned about it. And the examples you gave are good. And of course, climate change is the biggest crisis of all. I mean, we can pay now to prepare for climate change, to address climate change, to deal with climate change, to reorganize our society, to deal with climate change. Or we can pay later. And if we pay later, it's going to, the bill is going to be much, much, much higher. It's going to be total. And there will be not only loss of economic benefits, there will be loss of life, lots of loss of life. So, I mean, our world's deteriorating under us. And I think, you know, that the press recognizes intellectually that the biggest issue of our time is climate change, because it threatens everybody everywhere in a, you know, in a permanent and awful result for the planet and the species. And, you know, do we cover that enough? You mentioned before that ramping up to the 2020 elections, Trump and his machinations and distractions will suck all the oxygen out. And I think the press has got to be very careful about that. The real issue that is above and beyond anything that Trump does is climate change, because it threatens the planet and the species, everything. And so whatever the price is, we should pay it now, not later. It'll be too tough on us. The other thing I think it's worth mentioning is the optimistic side. We've been talking about pessimistic problems and challenges and all that. But if it works, if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can make this happen, can make this select committee come up with meaningful legislation to address at least a number of the issues that have been raised. And if Congress in the 2020 session takes this to heart and has the political will to actually make bills and pass bills, you know, that will solve these or address these problems, what is the best case analysis that we can have, Marco? That in early 2021 with a Democratic Congress, both the majorities and House of the Senate and with a Democrat taking the oath of office on the 20th of January 2021, that the country will be poised, our government or federal government will be poised to do something big and bold, similar to the Affordable Care Act under Obama, which was a big, big deal in my opinion. And this is even a bigger, it would be a bigger deal. But the way you do things like this is through majorities and the appropriate legislative bodies on the executive branch, number one and number two, you are able to pitch it to the public and voters writ large that this is something that's got more upside to downside. So so much of it is packaging, branding and coming up with easily digestible bullet points for people who most people don't give a damn about politics, but to give them a reason to be excited and to hope that this isn't just more politicians gap-gabbing in Washington, hot air balloons galore, but something that is truly would be something beneficial, not only to the macro, the macro United States, but also to them individually and give them hope for their kids, their grandkids and for the future, because I don't know about you, Jay, but to me, over the past couple of years, there ain't a lot of hope that I've been able to kind of latch onto. Well, that goes to leadership and leadership can be expressed in the campaign itself. And hopefully this will be a big campaign issue. And the people who run hopefully the Democratic side will see that. And so although Trump will try to suck the oxygen out, the Democratic candidates or the ones we like, will see this as an issue. And hopefully they'll be elected. And hopefully in January of 2021, they will run with this ball. They will lead the country out of the morass it's in right now and to deal with climate change. Marco, we're out of time. I want to thank you so much for raising the subject and having this discussion with me. I look forward to more of the same at this level of discussion. Marco Mandelstow, Provision Soldier in Hilo. Thank you, Marco. Thanks very much. Bye-bye.