 So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as we all know, has been pushing for the Green New Deal and it is incredibly popular. When you look at public opinion polls, it's supported not just by a majority of Democrats, but by a majority of Republicans as well surprisingly. With that being said though, there's been, you know, a couple of months of media just harping away at it, saying how stupid it is, how it's not feasible, and now presidential candidates have joined in. You have people like John Delaney talking about how this is not practical, you have Howard Schultz explaining how this is something that can never ever come to pass. You know, so it's frustrating because this is something that is clearly the right course of action, but yet you see mainstream media completely taking a dump on it. When we need something this ambitious if we actually want to meet the IPCC's 12-year deadline and save the planet, but nonetheless, you know, it's now become something that is a target of conservatives and mainstream media. And part of the problem is the rollout of this was a little bit sloppy, admittedly, right? AOC loved her death, but they initially released a fact sheet where they talked about, you know, farting cows and getting rid of airplanes. And what she said was incredibly cheeky, but you've got to understand that, and I think she's probably learned this by now, when you're dealing with Republicans, they will take anything that you give them and they will run with it. There's no such thing as context. There's no such thing as being cheeky. If you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile. So with that being said, the Green New Deal is popular. I don't know if it's still popular after months of it being attacked, but somebody who I respect very much spoke about the Green New Deal, and I assume, you know, you respect as well. His name is Noam Chomsky. I think we've all heard of him. So if you had a couple of doubts about the Green New Deal since it has been a target, he's going to assure you that this really is, as he puts it, exactly the right idea. Here's what he has to say. First of all, I think the Green New Deal is exactly the right idea. You can raise questions about the specific form in which Ocasio-Cortez and Markey introduced it. Maybe it shouldn't be exactly this way. It should be a little bit differently. But the general idea is quite right. And there's very solid work explaining, developing in detail exactly how it could work. So a very fine economist that UMass Amherst, Robert Pollan, has written extensively on an extensive detail with close analysis of how you could implement policies of this kind in a very effective way, which would actually make a better society. It wouldn't be that you'd lose from it. You'd gain from it. The costs of renewable energy are declining very sharply. If you eliminate the massive subsidies that are given to fossil fuels, they probably already surpass them. There are many means that can be implemented and carried out to overcome, certainly to mitigate, maybe to overcome this serious crisis. So the basic idea is, I think, completely defensible. In fact, essential. A lot of the media commentary ridiculing this and that aspect of it are essentially beside the point. You can change the dates from 2030 to 2040. You can do a couple of other manipulations. But the basic idea is correct. I love Noam Chomsky. He is someone who, even if I disagree with him, and there's been few times where I disagree with him, I still respect what he has to say because no matter the position he takes, you can guarantee it's going to be well-reasoned. He's going to reach his conclusion with logic, with rationale, and you could disagree with it, but nonetheless, you know that his intentions are pure. So I'm glad that he defended the Green New Deal because the Green New Deal, there's so much misinformation out there. What is the Green New Deal? This is a non-binding resolution. It's a non-binding resolution that just commits to action that matches the scale of the crisis. So the IPCC says we need to take action within 12 years. The Green New Deal reflects that urgency and says we will try to meet that demand. It's incredibly important. And another aspect that the Green New Deal covers, and which is why I think AOC is brilliant here, is before I've talked about climate change mitigation as well as adaptation. Adaptation is never talked about. We always talk about solving the climate change crisis, right? But some studies show that it's irreversible. Even if we take action, there still is this runaway greenhouse gas effect where we might not be able to stop a climate catastrophe. So we genuinely need to grapple with that and try to figure out what to do. And that means we also build in adaptation, meaning we not just try to stop climate change, but we adapt, we prepare ourselves economically and through infrastructure to adapt to a climate catastrophe. That's really important. And what AOC did in this non-binding resolution is just that. She thought outside of the box, unlike every other lawmaker, and she included in basically a wish list of things that would meet that criteria. So for example, she was criticized because she included Medicare for All in the Green New Deal. Now I get it. That doesn't seem germane to something like climate change. And you want to make sure that you are including things in this non-binding resolution that are relevant so you get as much support from lawmakers as possible, right? However, if you do that, you're being disingenuous and you're not admitting the truth and that Medicare for All is going to be even more of a necessity when or if, hopefully if, and not when, climate change becomes a catastrophe. You're going to see the thong of the ice which will expose us to ancient diseases that we may not necessarily know how to deal with. What's the implication of that? We will have an increased need for healthcare. Medicare for All is the only thing that's going to do that. Now, is it a priority if you're talking specifically about climate change? Ostensibly, no, but in actuality it really is. It's part of adaptation because if you want to prepare ourselves and arm ourselves with the tools we need to adapt and not be crushed by climate catastrophe, you've got to prepare for things like this and you need healthcare for every single American. During a climate catastrophe, people can't be worrying about whether or not the doctor that they need to see is in their network or whether or not they're going to be able to afford a particular deductible. They should just have healthcare full stop. That's specifically why Medicare for All is included in the Green New Deal. AOC is taking a two-pronged approach to climate change. Climate change mitigation as well as adaptation. I can't emphasize how important adaptation is because we can try to do whatever we can to stop further catastrophe. I guess lessen the blow if you will when it comes to climate change, but regardless, if you like it or not, if you want to admit this or not, climate change is still coming. Regardless, it's still happening. So we're dumb if we think we shouldn't need to adapt. So by including Medicare for All, AOC has foresight unlike any other lawmaker because she's trying to embed adaptation into her climate change policy. Another thing that I have seen that has bothered me is there's kind of these, I don't know what the right word is for it, I guess divisions within the progressive community between like people who support AOC and people who support Tulsi Gabbard. Like somebody tweeted me, the off act from Tulsi Gabbard and said, Mike, why don't you support this instead of the Green New Deal? But that's a false dichotomy and I've seen this so much. You don't have to choose between the off act and the Green New Deal because the Green New Deal is not a replacement for the off act. The off act can be implemented within as part of the Green New Deal. So the Green New Deal ultimately can become the amalgamation of the off act and the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal can consume the off act. You don't have to choose between one or the other. And in fact, I think it makes sense for Tulsi Gabbard's off act to become part of the Green New Deal one day because it's already a fantastic piece of legislation. I do think you need to adjust it to meet the IPCC's 12 year deadline because it was written in 2017 before we got that new study out but nonetheless it's still really solid mitigation legislation. So I need people to understand that the Green New Deal is basically a non-binding resolution that says we need to commit to meeting the urgency. Legislation that reflects the scale of the catastrophe. That's all that the Green New Deal is about. There's going to be misinformation, there's going to be Fox News and even other supposedly left wing outlets that will tell you, you know, the Green New Deal is just unfeasible and if you add all of the stuff that it has in its wish list up it's like 90 trillion dollars. Listen, as AOC said, we're going to be paying for climate change one way or another. It's just a matter of whether or not we choose to prepare for this catastrophe because it's coming. But again, if we can adapt, we lessen the blow. If we mitigate climate change, stop it from getting worse, we lessen the blow. So I'm glad that Noam Chomsky spoke out and defended the Green New Deal because he has credibility, he has sway and what little factionalization I've seen among progressives even. I think by him saying this, it sends a message. Look, you don't have to choose between your favorite politician's plan of action for climate change. The Green New Deal is a non-binding resolution. That's all it is. Don't think it's something that is more than it actually is.