Slashdot Mirror
Green New Deal Bill Aims To Move US To 100 Percent Renewable Energy, Net-Zero Emissions (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Thursday morning, NPR posted a bill drafted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) advocating for a Green New Deal -- that is, a public works bill aimed at employing Americans and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the face of climate change. A similar version of the bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The House bill opens by citing two recent climate change reports: an October 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a heavily peer-reviewed report released in November 2018 by a group of U.S. scientists from federal energy and environment departments. Both reports were unequivocal about the role that humans play in climate change and the dire consequences humans stand to face if climate change continues unchecked.
The bill lists some of these consequences: $500 billion in lost annual economic output for the U.S. by 2100, mass migration, bigger and more ferocious wildfires, and risk of more than $1 trillion in damage to U.S. infrastructure and coastal property. To stop this, the bill says, the global greenhouse gas emissions from human sources must be reduced by 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050. [...] The Green New Deal specifically calls for a 10-year mobilization plan that would "achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers" by creating "millions" of high-paying jobs through investment in U.S. infrastructure. Specific kinds of infrastructure aren't listed, but general categories or works projects are outlined. Adaptive infrastructure tailored to communities, like higher sea walls and new drainage systems, would be included. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
Surprisingly, the bill doesn't mention fossil fuels at all. "In a draft version of the Green New Deal that had been circulated in December, a Frequently Asked Questions section did not preclude eventually calling for a tax or a ban on fossil fuels, but it noted that this was not what the bill was about," notes Ars Technica. "Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs)," the FAQ notes under the Green New Deal draft language. "We also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment."
The bill lists some of these consequences: $500 billion in lost annual economic output for the U.S. by 2100, mass migration, bigger and more ferocious wildfires, and risk of more than $1 trillion in damage to U.S. infrastructure and coastal property. To stop this, the bill says, the global greenhouse gas emissions from human sources must be reduced by 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050. [...] The Green New Deal specifically calls for a 10-year mobilization plan that would "achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers" by creating "millions" of high-paying jobs through investment in U.S. infrastructure. Specific kinds of infrastructure aren't listed, but general categories or works projects are outlined. Adaptive infrastructure tailored to communities, like higher sea walls and new drainage systems, would be included. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
Surprisingly, the bill doesn't mention fossil fuels at all. "In a draft version of the Green New Deal that had been circulated in December, a Frequently Asked Questions section did not preclude eventually calling for a tax or a ban on fossil fuels, but it noted that this was not what the bill was about," notes Ars Technica. "Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs)," the FAQ notes under the Green New Deal draft language. "We also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment."
1. Expire all tax exemptions, tax exclusions, tax incentives, and tax depreciation for all fossil fuel infrastructure of any type.
2. Use funds from 1 and any tarrifs on China to fund US built solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and tidal energy capital investment (not operations, only construction) nationwide, including territories.
Problem solved.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This could be a revolutionary leap forward in several technologies, job creation and American infrastructure. Shave off a fraction of that bloated military budget to pay for it. It'll be worth it
Wind turbines and solar panels have to be manufactured, and that takes emissions.
The funding would come from taxes, especially on the very wealthy who benefit from being able to do business in a climate that isn't being destroyed by mankind.
Matt Walsh's comments on this:
If I may, I would like to suggest a few additions. This is my New Green New Deal or Green New New Deal:
1. A free ice cream machine for every American (vegan ice cream, of course, because Cortez is killing all the milk cows).
2. Every sidewalk in America converted to a moving walkway.
3. Every staircase converted to an escalator.
4. Every escalator converted to an elevator.
5. A big bridge connecting North Carolina to Morocco, with, like, refreshment stands and stuff along the way. Also, like, there should be probably little cabins or something for people to sleep in.
6. A free blimp for every man, woman, and child.
7. A dog for every person.
8. A foot bath for every dog.
9. Essential oils for every foot bath.
10. No diseases (will cutdown on healthcare costs).
11. Universal joy.
12. A constantly refreshed selection of cereal in every pantry.
13. A lion that can tell me stories and grant wishes.
14. Immortality.
15. A computer type thing like from The Matrix where you plug in and learn how to do karate in five minutes.
16. Bananas that never rot.
17. No more loneliness.
18. Free consensual pony rides.
19. A kind of like robot thing that, like, lifts you out of the bed in the morning and puts on your pants for you and brushes your teeth.
20. All remaining student debt converted into tacos (one dollar of debt equals one taco).
According to my estimates, this plan is extremely affordable so long as we tax everyone at a moderate rate of 6,000 percent. We'd also need to consult with a team of highly-trained genies. I assume Cortez has already assembled that team if she's planning to provide a livable income and paid vacations to every single person in the country.
And here's the good news: most Americans will die anyway after Cortez tears down all of our homes and kills our livestock. This will thin the herd (pardon the pun) and make it much easier to provide for the small band of survivors who remain.
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
We're going for a record 100 repeals that do nothing.
For one year, cut the military budget in half.
Spend that on renewables.
But originate from technological progress and not by the will of politicians.
The problem with GND is that there are a lot of tankies and brogressives trying to make it a vehicle for an anti-capitalist manifesto. Which is dumb and will ensure it goes nowhere.
This version is a silly, short, vague kitchen sink plan without any substantive policy or realistic projections. They also throw in a bunch of unrelated wishlist stuff about a jobs-for-all plan and universal healthcare.
We could use real market based energy policy reform. Carbon tax- (Which correctly prices carbon emissions better than any other plan and works inside our existing infrastructure). Power grid improvements to pave the way for decentralized power grids with local power storage and electric vehicles. Solar, wind, nuclear.
The people pushing this GND are nuclearphobes and don't want to acknowledge that any real energy form will be market driven. Transition away from coal and to natural gas have seen massive reductions in non-carbon pollution and that's been entirely market driven.
So congress is now passing bills that literally do nothing but allow them to grandstand.
Well, this suggestion comes from someone who actually wants the taxes to reflect the expenses instead of another unnamed party that has the habit of removing taxes for the richest while increasing the spending and thereby the deficit to an extent that just paying interest now exceeds what "free" healthcare would cost.
You want to know what could fund this completely? Not allowing fossil fuel to externalize the cost of cleaning the mess up.
Another thing that could fund this would be to remove subsidies for businesses that runs the environment.
The tax cuts added a trillion dollars to the debt and nobody blinked.
Dubya's foray into the middle east cost us $7 trillion
I think we can manage this small outlay
All those people/companies that earn trillions by harvesting and selling carbon based products (oil, coal, natural gas, etc:) will by definition lose their fortune as the Country shifts energy paradigms. . Since these people quite literally decide who's in office via donations - none of this can happen without campaign finance reform.
If this Renewable Energy thing is to succeed, it will have to be within the financial capabilities of the general public. It it requires huge sacrifices of the people with the most to lose, it won't go anywhere. It will cause resentment and anger that will defeat any gains that would otherwise be achieved. I hope the high rollers in both camps are aware of these limitations and work for an affordable solution to these problems. Otherwise, it is a show stopper.
This is keynesian economical stmimulus, smarter version. Spending money on changing processes to reduce greenhouse gas will create jobs and yield economical growth. And it will help making the planet a reasonable place for humans to live in the next century.
Don't forget ground unicorn horns.... oh wait, that's magic also.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Me thinks the point of the 100 Percent Renewable Energy, Net-Zero Emissions bill is not to be realistic, but to just introduce legislation that is written in the permanent record and officially begin to turn the tide against what has become a very environmentally destructive administration and party, and towards the future.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
The only current human technology that has any hope of putting a dent in global climate change is nuclear weapons.
First, the resulting fatalities from a global thermonuclear war will significantly reduce the human population and as a consequence reduce the need for all the polluting technologies that are required to sustain Earth's current human population.
Second, the resulting nuclear winter brought on by a global thermonuclear war will greatly reduce the solar insolation that would heat up the planet thus reducing global temperatures.
No other human technologies have any chance at all as the Earth's human population continues to grow exponentially and hence the energy needs to operate the technology required to support the ever-growing population continues to grow.
Vote Global Thermonuclear War 2020!
"Surprisingly, the bill doesn't mention fossil fuels at all."
Carbon taxes are hardly an equitable way to address global warming and Ocasio-Cortez is primarily a social justice advocate. The idea of a carbon tax is to drive prices up so that those who are price sensitive will cut back on their use of carbon fuels. To deal with global warming that way you are going to have to economically crush the middle class and poor before the wealthy and upper middle class are forced to change their behavior. How high does the price of flying have to be to get Bill Gates to cut back his flights because its too expensive.
And it would also be a revolutionary leap forward in laziness, as it promises economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.
https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-green-deal-promises-economic-172719411.html
Since the bill contains no appropriations and changes no existing laws and is non-binding it really can't be a revolutionary leap forward in anything nor will anything be required to pay for it. Nothing is risked and there will be no benefit other than political grandstanding.
What is the USA going to do at night, every night?
Stop all its export industry for the night?
Turn off a power plant and tell an industry that needs low cost power 24/7 to "move" to a state with hydro, nuclear?
Give US industry what it wants, 24/7, low cost power that stay on at a much lower price.
Not the solar cycle of light and dark to factor in as a price to pass onto people paying for the product/service.
Mass migration is easy to not worry about. Build a wall and count every approved person with a real passport in and pout out the USA.
No cost to the USA of supporting generations of illegal migrants.
Who is going to pay for a "just transition" so all the workers can learn to code?
Infrastructure spending needs engineers and skilled workers. Most of that would need merit and skill.
Thats not new jobs for people expecting a "just transition" to a profession that needs a lot of university education.
The US tax payer is expected to cover energy? Illegal migrants needs in the USA and chain migration.
Have US tax payers support learn to code projects for many people with few and no skills?
Then pay for education, health care for US citizens too?
Not much of a wage to use after the gov has taken it all.
Welcome to full US Communism.
Tailored to making US communities pay tax.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Grandstanding? It's not news that Republicans don't give a shit about the environment, so what's the goal here?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, converting military bases to renewable energy is a great way to build resiliency from attack, as you don't have to defend supply lines as much, and this reduces the actual operating cost of the military at the same time. There are a number of mil programs in action doing just this. Just accelerate it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There is a risk though... greater schisms within the Democrats. Hard left vs the moderate left. This is a problem if you are a Democrat.
The Republicans & Trump on the other hand are simply laughing.
My business is selling water filters and air purifiers you insensitive clod!
You do realize we spend over one trillion dollars a year of the federal budget on healthcare while we spend only eight hundred billion on defense?
Maybe we should balance the budget first and fix the wasteful spending first
We're already transitioning beyond fossil fuels just fine. It can't be stopped by Trump and it doesn't need the help of the Dems. Fossil fuels are used largely where they're still economical. They'll change over when it makes sense from a holistic perspective not because of fearmongering and excessive legislative bullying. Whatever globull warming happens is going to happen. Most likely life will go on pretty much as badly or as well as it would anyway. If you want to 'help', concentrate on effective positive approaches like contributing either directly through being a scientists/entrepeneaur etc or indirectly by doing things such as being a good citizen generating economic activity rather than approaches that have repeatedly proven to be ineffective such as supporting oppressive regulations, or centralizing government power in the hands of globalists, or spewing more carbon screaming impotently at 'denialists' in pointless thousand page internet threads.
The right has moved significantly to the left.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
They've left out any help for the people that simply can't retrain, and can't move. There are generations of people living off of the dividends of the oil and gas economy that will be harmed by this.
If you make it such that people can not drill oil and/or extract the minerals that have supported communities for entire generations, you have to help those people out. It will take generations to help these oil extraction refugees. It is is disingenuous at best to encourage these folks to move to remote areas, build economies and cities, and then pull the rug out from under them.
Part of this will need to address the true plight of the aging oil field workers and their families in the United States. You can not expect them to pick up and relocate into the closest large city.
--
People don't notice whether it's winter or summer when they're happy. - Anton Chekhov
If we could convince billionaires that there is a way they can live forever.
Then the funding will magically appear.
Total batshit insanity prevails once again on the radical left. We don't even need to comment, just let them unveil their tissue of magical fantasy. I shake my head in disbelief at the depths our educational system has sunk to, and wonder who to blame for the impending death of reason, logic and Western Civilization.
and the Democrats have controlled this state for over 40 years. People are leaving...even without the full on effect of Global Warning.
Be careful of what a socialist promises you - follow the money!
This could be a revolutionary leap forward in several technologies, job creation and American infrastructure.
It is important to get the ordering correct. It is better to develop the needed technology, and then build the infrastructure based on it.
It would be better to spend $50B on R&D rather than $500B on deployment. Once the tech is good enough, no government deployment spending is needed, because profit-seeking capitalists will do it for us.
Like my grandpa used to say: If you have two hours to chop down a tree*, spend the first hour sharpening your ax.
Disclaimer: *I am not advocating the destruction of trees.
So far as I'm concerned, we clearly and objectively need to stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible, and try our damnedest to halt and reverse the progress of global climate change that our species' civilization is responsible for.
However: The rank-and-file citizen of this or pretty much any other country is not far-seeing enough, either geographically or chronologically, to grasp how important all of this is, and how what we do about all this today, while inconvenient and even painful, is necessary to ensure that not only future generations of our own species have a planet to live on that's hospitable to them, but that all life on our world has a hospitable environment to live in. This is not even counting the Dominionist types, who see no need or reason to try to preserve the Earth, or the greedy types who just plain don't give a damn about anything other than lining their own pockets and living large while they can, and screw 'future generations'. The above are, and always have been, the majority of the roadblock on the path to cleaning up the mess our species has made. What's worse, those who, for whatever reasons, speak against any sort of changes intended to help stop global climate change, politicize the issue to people who might listen to reason ('fake news' and 'alternative facts') causing them to turn away from the science and logic and reason. What has to happen is hearts and minds have to be changed where possible, and the greedy and the religious zealots have to be silenced, or at least discredited, at the same time. Otherwise nothing is going to happen, and Grand Plans like this one will go nowhere. Even if Democrats gain control of the Senate as well as the House, and we have a Democrat in the Whitehouse again, the GOP and all who support them will do everything they can to stop and dismantle it. Sooner or later Republicans get control again, and as we see in the last two years of the current Administration, they'll systematically dismantle and destroy anything that might get done. Bottom line: We need to get our collective heads out of our collective asses, stop politicizing everything, and agree that this is the only logical, rational way forward, and get it done, once and for all. We have little time left to do anything; it has to start now.
Actually, converting military bases to renewable energy is a great way to build resiliency from attack
Cool. I can't wait to see what VT mortars can do to the solar panels at an Afghan FOB.
Can we stop giving this dingbat another 15 minutes? I mean her and her ideals read like they where penned by a 12 year old.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
d. NPR notes that the language is classified as a non-binding resolution, "meaning that even if it were to pass... it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years."
So we need to pass meaningless 'state of the House' bills to save the planet?
No, I get it, they can't actually do anything, like pass a bill, raise taxes, etc because Democrats only control the House, but for goodness sake, at least try and pass a bill that could do something, rather than these purely symbolic bills.
When asked how we would fund this, AOC suggested we do it the same way we paid for World War 2... Brilliant!
Ken
When a barista tries to be a lawmaker, this is what you get. Every single bullshit talking point crammed into one idiotic bill. There's no "wage gap". There's no such thing as "healthy food". There is "healthful food", but not "healthy". Trump is already creating "millions of jobs" and "stopping the transfer of jobs overseas", and "enacting border protections", and there is no way to "provide all people of the United States with [...] housing".
bills like this are specifically to soak up (there's a pun there somewhere) folks put out of work in coal and oil.
Natural gas is pretty much eating those sectors alive. Yeah, we need oil to move cars & planes, but we're not using it for electricity anymore. Same for coal. And electric cars are getting damn good. They're still expensive, but cars are rapidly getting too expensive anyway...
The green new deal is how the Democrats plan to respond to the GOP's "Clean Coal" nonsense where they promise the coal minors their jobs back. The GOP is lying, but the minors will vote GOP because a promise is still better than Hilary's policy of "Fuck you, go back to college, and no, I won't pay for your tuition".
TL;DR; put out of work folks to work building wind and solar plants. Kill two birds with one stone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it's been around for ages. It's also, if the 97% of climate scientists are to be believed, necessary if we're not going to have mass disasters, drought and food shortages in the next 20 years. The oil companies knew about this since the 70s. Seriously, google it. Instead of fixing it so we had renewables (which would devalue the resource they own) they spent billions burying it.
AOC isn't a dingbat. She's young, and occasionally makes mistakes, but at her core she knows what's going on and what we need to do about it. And as for ideas penned by a 12 year old, dude, look at Bush Jr. Two fucking terms. Look at how Clinton addressed towns. Look at what happened to Obama every time he talked to the electorate like an adult. Remember "You didn't build it?". That was a)not exactly what he said and b) true. Almost cost him the election as folks went nuts because they didn't understand the difference between "You didn't build the roads you use to get to your little business" and "You never did anything worthwhile in your whole live you god damned loser"...
You can't talk to the electorate as a whole as if they're intelligent. What's the old line? A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky animals.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Did it actually say no more cows and no more airplanes?
Oh, wait. You folks are fiscal conservatives again? When did that happen?
Gosh, seems like the only time you guys are deficit hawks is when the other party proposes something
Maybe we should balance the budget first and fix the wasteful spending first
Speaking of wasteful spending: America spends $200B annually on oil imports, mostly from countries that are hostile to our interests. Europe (which would also benefit from any tech developed) spends even more on oil, and buys a lot of gas from Russia. America spends about $80B keeping Middle East shipping lanes open and secure.
Overall, Americans spend about $1.5T on energy, about 7% of our economy. If we could produce that energy more efficiently, that money could be spent on other things ... such as balancing the budget.
I don't agree with AOC on much, but investing in developing better green tech is a no-brainer. We need better panels, smarter grids, and (most importantly) better/cheaper batteries (storage is key).
What outlay? There's no appropriations in this bill.
Dubya never had an annual deficit over a half-trillion dollars, Obama rarely had an annual deficit less than one trillion dollars.
So the ten-year 'cost' of Trump's tax cuts is $1TN, so what? That's $100BN/yr, and it stimulated the economy. Obama pushed through a one year, one trillion dollar stimulus package of 'shovel-ready' and 'green energy' jobs that barely moved the economic needle.
Ken
Employ out of work Coal Minors making parts for wind and solar plants (lord knows they've got the skills), prevent Trump & the GOP from using them as a prop in elections, boost the economy when we're going into a recession and clean the air. Four birds, one stone.
Seriously folks, we're all huddling down bracing for a recession like a bunch of cats in a thunderstorm. Why the hell don't we actually do something about it for a change? This isn't hard. We know exactly what to do. Regulate Wall Street to prevent them from gambling with our cash, do a big stimulus with a big payoff (like when we built the highways) and maybe throw in Medicare for All and the $5 trilling in savings every 10 years that comes from that. It's not Rocket Surgery.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think she's actually got a degree in Economics, but for what planet, I haven't the foggiest.
Yeah, it's fun that the Right like to complain about Virtue Signalling on the Left.
What were all those doomed ACA repeal bills about? Virtue Signalling.
Also, what caused Mitch McConnell to block any funding bills that might end the gov't. shutdown and might be vetoed by the Prez? Suddenly Mitch is all concerned about 'wasting everyone's time'? That's quite the Road to Damascus Conversion there, Mitch! You didn't have any trouble wasting people's time supporting doomed ACA repeal bills.
Also in New York, revenues are down as the wealthy are taking their ball and going elsewhere.
At any rate, this - like Ocrazio herself - is a fucking joke, and Lich Queen Pelosi is going to end her.
Obama cost us over 10 trillion.
The supply lines you're thinking of run from those bases, not to.
Yeah, and obongo was a "constitutional scholar," whatever that means.
One problem with this bill is that it wants the government to run the transition. This is a non-starter for those on the right who will note how often the government has failed to add value. As just one example, note the debt problems in Greece basically because a too-large percentage of workers were employed by the government and the government took on too much debt. Government, by definition, does not contribute to GNP. It's administrative overhead. Yet this bill is supposedly promising a large number of jobs being created. A government bill can really only create government jobs
The transition to vastly reduced emissions should instead be made by industry, with government incentives. The government should make it financially beneficial for energy companies to figure out how to supply green energy, even at night. Energy companies will make it happen if it helps them survive. Something like a tax credit for a megaton or gigaton of CO2 emissions removed. And government should not specify things like it can't be nuclear. Nuclear should definitely be an option if the energy producers can make it economically viable.
A combination of carrot (tax credits for CO2 not generated) and stick (fines for generating CO2) may be necessary to goad private industry into making the necessary changes.
Green tech tends to use vast amounts of toxic and/or comparatively scarce materials and isnâ(TM)t cheap.
See, here's the problem: The purpose of legislation is to make change. If that change is to happen, the legislation must pass votes. To get enough votes, you need to either dominate the House, Senate, and have the presidency in lock-down, OR you have to make friends with your political opponents.
The Democrats control one of the two legislative houses. They do not control the White House. If they want to pass anything, they need to speak the language of the conservatives.
But instead, they let Ocasio-Cortez (who is already a well-known and tainted name on the right) put forth this bill. There is SO MUCH concentrated liberalism in this bill, that I have zero expectation of it making any significant change.
Just look at what the preamble references (because this is what the right will fixate on):
- the cause of climate change (a vast portion of the right disagrees with human-caused climate change)
- wage stagnation (the right is full of corporatists and "temporarily embarrassed millionaires")
- bargaining power of workers (the right hates unions!)
- resources for public sector workers (the right believes there should be fewer public sector workers!)
- 1%ers (who do you think donate the most to the Republican party...)
- the racial wealth divide (they prejudice the right as being racist and assume that bringing up the racial wealth divide will get them to side with the plan?)
- the gender earnings gap (the right wants to control female bodies!! Why do you think they care about a gender earnings gap!?)
- And here's the doozy: "Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’)"
Everyone associated with this bill could have saved themselves A LOT of time by just writing "Allhu akbar, let's stop using oil tomorrow," because it would have gotten the exact same response on the right.
And then we don't win. Nobody wins. Nobody gains anything. Nothing changes.
Unless that was the goal. Maybe the Democrats don't actually want the goals of this bill to come to fruition. Maybe they just want to use Ocasio-Cortez as a token idealist that young liberals can look up to as a revolutionary. "If the Democrats have Ocasio-Cortez, then I want to support the Democrats!" And Ocasio-Cortez can take the heat. And all the more moderate Democrats can say, "Look, we're not nutso like crazy-eyes over there. Here's the more reasonable proposal."
But but...but Obama!!1!
The GOP fiscal "conservatives" never fail to provide a laugh
Dubya never had an annual deficit over a half-trillion dollars, Obama rarely had an annual deficit less than one trillion dollars.
Well, Obama had to bail out the banks that Dubya let dump on the economy.
So the ten-year 'cost' of Trump's tax cuts is $1TN, so what? That's $100BN/yr, and it stimulated the economy.
Did it? Corporations are back to laying of workers again and any "stimulation" of the economy is over. Tax cuts, however, are still in effect, just snowballing the debt.
Thank you for demonstrating the worthlessness of an economics degree from Boston University.
I'm a libertarian (small "l") and you sound like you haven't received your U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance of a fucking ass-kicking.
What do you do when you've eliminated the wealthy by taking all of their money? Who pays for you then?
The logical conclusion to your plan is that everyone ends up destitute except for the new "elite", of which I'm sure you think you'll be one of. History has shown us this outcome every single time.
There's no point in crippling the United States' economy when India and Asia are going to make CC happen anyway (seriously, go read BP's energy outlook 2018 for different scenarios of various levels of CO2 reduction). If going from 50% renewable to 100% renewable costs an extra $10 trillion (made that number up), maybe that money is better spent getting other parts of the world off of coal.
I don't want to hate on the GND but this is really poorly thought out, and reads like it was written by people that have no serious understanding of the actual issues.
She gave her instructors head with that horse mouth of hers.
Wrong. There aren't processed jet fuel supplies being made at every base, nor bunker fuel, etc.
Bases were not originally built to export energy, but to store it for redistribution. One of the reasons the military is going to renewables is modern combat is becoming fairly electric-based, and it's hard enough getting supplies in for the fossil fuel based stuff, but many drones and most infantry and other units draw a lot of power.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Panels move. Supply dumps also blow up, panels tend not to explode as much. You're better off with a frag round on panels.
(caveat: I used to work as combat field engineer support for infantry mortar and machine gun/LAR squads)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The parent said military bases, not FOB's.
It stimulated the economy? Care to back that up with proof? And who says the economy needed stimulus? It had been growing steadily since Obama's second year in office. If anything, the current trade policies is putting the economy at risk and there's worry that a recession may be coming. If the economy starts shrinking, I assume you'll at least be honest enough to blame Trump, since you seem so eager to attribute recent growth to him?
Again, it's a lot easier to use explosive rounds of any type on a fuel storage than it is on either solar or wind infrastructure.
Please come back when you actually know something.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Even if the numbers support your claims (which I personally doubt) there are considerably more costs and problems that would need solving. For example, you need to move over a huge workforce from fossil fuel industries to renewable and this retraining is not going to be free and is going to cause social problems all over the place as workers relocate and need new houses, roads etc to support them. Then you have to figure out how you are going to produce plastics and all the other non-fuel uses we have for fossil fuels which currently piggy-back off the large fuel-based infrastructure.
All of these problems are solvable but they are by no means easy. While it is often tempting to think that there are easy solutions to society's problems that is rarely the case and trying to implement simplistic solutions to complex problems never works well: sadly today you only have to look at the UK or US to see excellent examples of that.
Its easy to say "we want everyone to have their personal star-ship by 2030", but if you don't have a plan to get there you just look foolish when you fail.
If there is a general plan, then they should show it. At what rate does solar and wind production need to be ramped up. That tells you about how many factories to build, how many workers etc. Large projects know how to do this.
If it needs new technology then say that: "we've calculated that we can ramp up solar and wind quickly enough but will need *new technology* for energy storage". That tells people what is missing and where to put R&D.
Otherwise, why 10 years? Why not 5, or 1, or tomorrow? What is the argument that 10 years is the right time scale. To me it seems absurdly short - they sent 10 years building a single railway overpass near my house, and 30 rebuilding a single damaged bridge. How can anyone imagine a huge change in US infrastructure in 10 years?
If there is a plan, then lets see it. If not, they are just discrediting legitimate programs to reduce CO2 emissions .
Those are the key words here. This is not a bill as such, it is a collection of ideas. Personally I would be highly skeptical of these kinds of grandiose plans. Here are a few choice quotes:
“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” - Every building. In the entire United States. All of them. The quote mentions "replace" so I presume they are willing to demolish buildings that don't meet the standard.
“Build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” - Maybe we should check in with our friends in California and see how the rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles is coming along: https://www.latimes.com/local/...
At last count the cost has ballooned from the original $6B to $10.6B - almost double.
Keep in mind this is 119 miles of train line, not the 10's of thousands of miles of train line we would need to make air travel "unnecessary". How are you going to get to Hawaii? Or New York to London? Build a train line across the ocean?
Don't trains also pollute? Or maybe Elon Musk going to build solar trains and solve all of that for us.
Look, I'm all for a cleaner environment but this woman is a complete wingnut.
The real question, of course, is how much will this boondoggle actually cost to which Ocasio-Cortez admits, “even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.”. In other words, astronomical not to mention completely impractical.
All is not lost though. I hear that Venezuela is having some trouble and could use a helping hand.
Like my grandpa used to say: If you have two hours to chop down a tree*, spend the first hour sharpening your ax.
Why? Your falling axe should always be sharp and if a tree takes 2 hours to fall, this'll mean spending 3 hours at the job.
Perhaps your grandfather didn't know enough to use the right tool for the job and used a splitting axe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Corporations are back to laying of workers again
Talk about a workplace benefit! I gotta move to the US ...
Actually, converting military bases to renewable energy is a great way to build resiliency from attack
No, it doesn't. I heard such from an Army general.
The Army wants diesel generators for power because those they can put in an underground bunker to protect from attack. They might use solar panels on some tents or something but that's a last ditch, all else lost, kind of power. The US Navy is working on making jet fuel from nuclear power, using seawater as the raw material. Sounds like they've been quite successful too. Get that working on a ship at sea and it can work along any coast, or river bank, as well. Nuclear power is nice too because we've proven it can work without being out in the open, in fact they work quite well under several hundred feet of water and sealed inside a steel armored vessel.
The military might be playing around a bit with solar power but wind power is not even on the table. They tried wind power and they found the spinning blades messed with the radar they need to track threats. Solar power needs to be out in the open and takes a lot of man power to protect and maintain for the little energy they produce. This brings me back to this...
and this reduces the actual operating cost of the military at the same time.
Nope. Solar panels took so much man power that existing projects were abandoned. Oh, and the panels reflected sunlight into the eyes of aircraft pilots, can't have that near any base.
While in the Army I recall the trucks on base ran some mix of petro-diesel and bio-diesel. That's fine when there is a supply line but no base is going to be growing their own soybeans to make that fuel.
There are a number of mil programs in action doing just this. Just accelerate it.
With the exception of the Navy program to make jet fuel from nuclear power these programs were imposed on the DoD from above. The military isn't all that interested in bio-diesel or windmills. They might have some interest in small scale solar but that's again a last ditch kind of power for being small and quiet for long periods, not to power a base.
The military is quite vocal on what they want but few seem to listen. They want nuclear powered ships, such as icebreakers and cruisers, but Congress won't fund them. They want nuclear power on bases, but again Congress is not listening. What Congress wants is, apparently, a navy that is powered by sails and an army on horseback.
The US Navy used to have nuclear powered cruisers before but they were retired in the 1990s. This is not something new the Navy is asking for, just restoring capability that was lost decades ago. Nuclear powered icebreakers aren't a new idea either, the Russians have been building them since 1975.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The top 1% have 50% of the wealth. Why would you think they should pay less than 50% of the taxes? To ever get us back to even a remotely reasonable wealth distribution, the 1% have to own far less than 50% of the wealth. We don't have many ways to remove a disgusting excess of money from a tiny percent of the population other than taxes.
What is your solution to fix this community and culture-destroying wealth inequality that doesn't involve taxing the hell out of the 1%?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I disagree.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Navy operates the world's largest solar farm just for this purpose.
I disagree.
That's fine if you disagree with generals and admirals but I'm going to agree with the men and women with stars on their shoulders. I'm guessing that they know better than you or I.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
...then Obama nearly doubled the debt, and Trump is doing his best to beat that record. The two parties are just divorced parents competing to spoil their children during visitation rights.
You would not be correct, but that's your opinion.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I started as one.
But do go on and tell me how the world works.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Navy operates the world's largest solar farm just for this purpose.
Don't confuse them with facts. They might realize most naval bases use solar and wind for desal ops, and to run the bases, and the world has changed since the 1990s their simulation games are based on.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sounds like you may have done too many lines of Obama kool aid in powered form. Getting a politician on the record saying no is just as important as getting them to vote yes. So you can take that stance and end their political careers in the next election. And you only know how many votes you have when you actually hold the vote - which is why Obama worked so hard to kill the public option before it ever came up for a vote.
Besides, how do you think any change or policy that required a mass movement happened? Do you think suffragists or civil rights activists just held their powder dry until they came up with 60 votes, or whatever the excuse was of the day?
The country already supports lefty ideas, conservatives included. A majority of Republicans are onboard Medicare for All, just as a majority of Republicans were for DADT repeal before the previous homophobe-in-chief "evolved" on the subject. Republicans don't want coal, they want jobs. Which is why this is the easiest sell in the world:
"We're going to bring you a motherfucking fuckton of jobs. Well-paying jobs manufacturing wind and solar. Jobs to every county, hamlet, parish, town and city to install them. Jobs for decades to replace coal and nuclear. Jobs that won't require a degree and ten years experience. So many jobs it will make the post-WWII economic boom look like a recession. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs, motherfucker, do you want them?"
And then you use that club and end the career of anyone who doesn't support it 110%.
> mostly from countries that are hostile to our interests
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
1/2 of the US imports in November 2018 came from Canada (Nov 2018 288k bbl total imports and 142k bbl from Canada)
then 18020 bbl from Mexico.
Capitalism and private industry will never work to replace coal and nuclear with wind and solar en mass. It's a non-starter. The only entity that can and will do such a thing is government. And those on the right will take government-funded jobs manufacturing and installing renewables faster than Ayn Rand started using Medicare as soon as she was eligible.
That's the right wing propaganda. The reality is that Greece was sold a bill of goods by Goldman Sachs, it's rich citizens don't like paying taxes, and the country has no control over its currency.
Which will never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen. Hippies, NIMBY's and regulations aren't why nuclear power plants aren't being built. It's because that method of heating water is obscenely costly, risky, and thus impossible to justify.
Arguing with the Tautology Kid is like mud-wrestling with a pig: You just get muddy, and the pig just enjoys it.
The only people that would "lose" in a green new deal would be shareholders in fossil fuel companies. Working people would get a fucking fuckton of jobs across the country.
So, you're going to throw stones at public spending, while in the same breath push for nuclear power? Wouldn't exist without hundreds of billions in taxpayer support?
The US imperial budget is twice the official number. Lots of items that are purely military in nature aren't counted as part of the military budget, like the Department of Energy maintaining America's arsenal of nuclear weapons.
$750 billion a year buys a lot of wind and solar. And as the jobs created would result in an economic boom (and thus more and higher tax receipts) a GND would eventually pay for much of itself.
It's billion year old dead dinosaurs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yeah, that's why you don't want right-wing presidents like Obama, who made the Bush Tax cuts permanent while bailing out the banks. That's what you were going for, right?
No income tax cut as ever created a single job. Ever. If a company thinks they will make more money by hiring more workers, they will do so. If they don't, they don't. Income taxes after the fact are irrelevant to that equation.
First roads suck in New England. I drive a solid axle Jeep Wrangler not only to go on trails, but also my former cars have had front end damage due to the poor road conditions in my region. Bad roads are not an issue in a Wrangler. It's built for it. I will not trade it for an EV ever. I plan on keeping it 4 ever. Second this woman has no clue how goods are shipped by ship, rail and truck . WOW. I'm all for a cleaner environment, but 100% renewable energy is not going to happen in our lifetime. My second car .. which my wife drives will be upgraded to an EV next year. I'm planning on installing 10 200W flexible solar panels on my roof (I am doing it myself)
I plan on building my own power wall with off the shelf components and a surplus EV battery, I won't disconnect from the grid. I plan on connecting my panels and a grid tie in to my power wall. When the panels are charging the batteries I will disconnect from the grid.. if the batteries need charging and the panels are producing energy I will charge via street power. The house power wall will generate electricity for the house 24x7.
This isn't a replacement for fossil fuels. It's used to reduce to consumption of fossil fuels.
It's dangerous to elect people who have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about.
Why. Wind and solar are already more cost effective than coal, and have been for years.
Profit-seeking capitalists would happily see the world burn and everyone die for the sake of quarterly dividends. It's one of the many reasons humanity would have been better off under centuries of communism than ever experimenting with capitalism. No, that is not sarcasm, though the expected capitalist butthurt response will be met with it.
Fixed. The real reason the US has been supporting a coup in Venezuela is the government trading oil in Euros rather than in dollars. It's also the reason Qaddafi was overthrown, as well as Saddam. Overthrowing Iran and Russia are works in progress.
The right has moved significantly to the left.
The left has moved significantly to the left. FTFY.
What blindseer is saying is that solar, wind and geothermal are appropriate in civilian areas that aren't going to come under attack and they are an appropriate replacement for nuclear and coal. Blindseer is saying that "we don't need nuclear for civilian applications."
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
besides a few gaffs of the sort politicians, especially new ones, are wont to do? Or do you just not like her for some reason, because that's the vibe I get from unsubstantiated insults.
I mean, you could at least go google some of the right wing talking points already prepared for you and copypasta them here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I asked this elsewhere in the thread, but like I said, gaffs are gaffs. People make them. Hers are magnified by a powerful right wing press desperate to shut down talks of higher taxes on the wealthy (their bosses) and higher wages for workers (their bosses employees).
You should be more suspicious of the constant bad press. I watched a CNN anchor spend 15 minutes with her fishing for negative soundbites. You shoulda seen the look of frustration on his face when she was too smart to give him one. She knows what she's doing and she knows how the game is played. She's not 100%, but unless the right wing can find something that sticks hard she's going to usher in the next New Deal.
And we _need_ a New New Deal. I don't know about you but inflation is higher than any pay raise I've seen in my lifetime. I've got a few promotions that just barely kept my head above water but I'm honest enough to admit I'm probably at the apex of my career. And those promotions mighta brought a bit of cash for me but they brought a _ton_ of cash for my company. Meanwhile I've got unreliable access to healthcare for my family and I'm paying $16k/yr in tuition for a bloody public University for my kid. That's because we cut funding to schools to cut taxes, btw. Google "538 tuition" and read their (well researched) article on the subject.
The rich are fighting a class war and the working class isn't just losing, they're not even bothering to fight. AOC is fighting, so you've had a multi-billion dollar engine dog pile not just on her but on _you_ to get you to turn against her. You're being manipulated by propaganda my friend. Ask yourself, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? 8? 10? Statistically the answer is no. Even if you are, the other's reading this are not.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'll wait. Let's hear it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You would not be correct, but that's your opinion.
I think this paper supports your argument however it appears that some government web sites ( energy.gov) are still shutdown. You may find this article interesting.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Gee, I dunno... Maybe because someone whose annual income is 50 million can much better afford to pay 50% in taxes than someone who makes 50 thousand?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The top 1% earn 20% of the wealth and pay 40% of the taxes.
Cite:
https://taxfoundation.org/summ...
They already pay double their "fair share". The people in the top 5% to 10% pay their "fair share" being about 10% of the wages earned and taxes paid, these are people that earn between about $130,000 to $190,000 per year.
The bottom 90% are enjoying the returns on other people's money in government services.
Based on the whole of the world anyone in the USA is likely in the top 1% of wage earners. If any American wants to complain about the top 1% of the wealthy then look in a mirror while you scream. If you have a computer to see this internet forum then you are most very likely in the global 1%.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The Constitution allows for funding the Army or the Navy - but says nothing about an Air Force, the FBI, or the ATF. But no Randian or "strict constitutionalist" ever complains about that. Ever. It's almost like you're partisan hacks looking for excuses to rag on things you don't like, and aren't arguing on any kind of principle.
How do you hold those massively contradictory positions without snapping your spine in six different places? Nuclear energy wouldn't even exist as a concept without massive government investment. It would never have existed in practice without hundreds of billions in taxpayer backing. Backing that extends to dealing with the waste for millennia.
Capitalists would happily see the whole world burn and every last human die if it meant continued quarterly profits. You talk about defense but don't think the government should do anything to defend people from catastrophic climate change.
I'm getting real tired of having to say this on a bloody science forum, but here we go again:
Mao and Stalin are not, were not and never were socialists. They were fascists who used socialist rhetoric to confuse and control a financially desperate working class.
Fascism is the combination of State, Private Industry and Military under one roof. This is what Mao and Stalin did.
Socialism is an economic philosophy that states all people are owed a decent quality of life. It does not involve the military, that is kept apart and most variants leave non essential services and the "last mile" delivery of goods and services to private industry. This is what AOC & Bernie are: Democratic Socialists.
They're not the same thing, not even remotely.
When did I say I was smart? I'm as dumb as a blade of grass. I just happen to have people smarter than me open my eyes. Youtube helps a lot with that. Go look up Robert Reich, Secular Talk, Professor Stick, Genetic Skeptic and Beau of the Fifth Column for a start. Cult of Dusty too. Get some media in your head besides the right wing crap like CNN, MSNBC and Fox News (yes, MSNBC is right wing, pay attention to their economic ideas and coverage, not just their social issue stances).
32,000+ people will die of completely treatable diseases this year. That's actually _down_ from 45k. We're gonna spend an extra $5 trillion on healthcare over the next 10 years vs single payer that every civilized nation in the world has. And don't get me started on Medical Bankruptcies. A recession is coming and we're all deer in the headlights over it instead of talking about how to prevent it. Crap like this, and the people on Youtube and the Internet that made me aware of it, is what changed me. I didn't figure this crap out on my own, and neither will you. Get out there and look.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Profit-seeking capitalists would happily see the world burn and everyone die for the sake of quarterly dividends.
Agreed.
It's one of the many reasons humanity would have been better off under centuries of communism than ever experimenting with capitalism.
I'm not so sure. Purely from a climate perspective, perhaps, since it would've greatly limited the scale of ecologically rapacious behavior, but by any other measure communism could be just as bad or even worse. Communism is no better at long-term or environmentalist thinking - the USSR was the original coal-roller, praising factory pollution as a sign of industrial might. Have you seen the level of inequality *in* North Korea? It's just as horrific as what capitalism has produced, with 0.01%er teenagers regularly buying cups of coffee that cost more than an average worker could make in a month. Most communist economies never produced such incredible levels of inequality but NK has shown that it's possible.
In short, I think the only guaranteed benefit of mankind being communist rather than capitalist would be reducing damage to the Earth...although at the cost of widely increased human suffering. Strictly speaking the choice of economic system isn't the problem so much as a reluctance to direct those economic systems toward pro-average-human long-term goals. Instead communism was allowed to settle into a passive income source for the politburo's cushy lifestyle without much regard for the common worker, and capitalism has been allowed to run free, which is basically as close as you can get to opening a portal to hell.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The proposal doesn't call for either a total ban on fossil fuels nor a ban on air travel. But even if fossil fuel planes were banned, all those out of work mechanics etc could walk right over to the job fair for a high speed rail network. If they couldn't find jobs installing or maintaining wind and solar. Which of course they could.
But on the whole, it's a bunch of pie-in-the-sky shit with no ACTUAL plans for how to implement it or where the money for all this is coming from (hint: That means the taxpayer is going to likely be DIRECTLY boned for it, as opposed to rape-via-taxes).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If the goal is to reduce CO2 then we need nuclear power, as it has a lower carbon footprint than wind, solar, or geothermal.
Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
What you will also find there is that nuclear costs less in materials consumed, and lives lost, than anything else available to us.
Nuclear is the best choice we have for the future. Maybe some new technology will come along to change that but until then this "green new deal" is a bunch of nonsense from an ignorant bartender that happened to get elected to office. People tell me that "the science is settled". I agree, science tells us that without nuclear power we can look forward to poverty.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
https://medium.com/jvnto/why-d...
Can someone explain that to me? **unwilling** to work -- did I read that correctly?
Eh? When the USSR was industrializing, it's not as if everyone knew of the dangers of climate change and CO2 at the time. It's not like the apologia for American slave owners in the 19th century "it was just a sign of the times" when the rest of the western world had already banned the practice. Coal and hydro were the only games in town until nuclear came around. As for NK keep in mind that 99% of what is heard about the country is western propaganda, or the result of western actions - like sanctions, which strengthen regimes while impoverishing people.
In any case, if the USSR hadn't fallen, it's doubtful that its resource consumption would be 30 times that of developing countries the way it is for the United States. Modern communist countries like Vietnam and Cuba would seem to testify to that.
If the goal is to reduce CO2 then we need nuclear power, as it has a lower carbon footprint than wind, solar, or geothermal.
Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
You've rolled this out again. First the "blog" misrepresents the paper it is based on which is originally about human health and not a comparison of carbon sources from energy systems.
Also the paper *itself* neglects to take into account the human health implications from mine tailings and radon released from mining that finds its way into the water table.
The only way the carbon claim for nuclear can be made is when uranium mining is done with in-situ acid leach mining, which happens to be illegal in teh US and Russia.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Taxes keep you from being raped for real. Not all medicine tastes good and yes some of it barely works if at all. That does not make it all bad.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So you guys will have to bitch about something else instead of "You had the House and you DIDN'T DO SHIT". Dems did shit, and it was Repugs that blocked it. Puts the blame on them WHERE IT BELONGS!
What you will also find there is that nuclear costs less in materials consumed,
Well it would seem that investors disagree. The AP1000 total concrete usage was lowered to make the reactor more affordable. The EPR reactor is a much better designed reactor in terms of safety and longevity, including being resistance to missile attacks. Your assertion is false.
and lives lost, than anything else available to us.
Less than coal, probably. Not less than solar or wind when people use the correct safety equipment so they don't fall off roofs.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nuclear is the best choice we have for the future.
Well it's the future now and in 60 or so years Nuclear power has been one failure after another.
Maybe some new technology will come along to change that
Yes, Solar PV, Solar thermal, wind, geothermal, wave power have all come along in the meantime and changed that. All without the gererous subsidies that nuclear power gets in SEC 600 of the 2005 US energy policy act.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
blindseer -- what a perfect name for somebody who does not belong on a science forum. I could see it ironically but with mindless posts like this it's a blind poster who thinks he can see. I should create a Dunning-Kruger account and friend him...
Public library: socialism.
Social Security: socialism. written by an actual communist! well, guess then it has to be evil to take care of old people and cripples.
Free Fire Dept: socialism. They are still not free in some backward places in the USA. don't pay your bill and they will just watch your house burn. seriously. At least they don't rob you and get into fights with other Fire Companies like they actually did before being socialized.
John Smith the big man himself behind capitalism used major socialist arguments in justifying capitalism. It's why most people supported and continue to blindly support capitalism --- the belief it does the most good for the most people begins to prove wrong when it goes too far out of control; it's not only when it gets over regulated which is just 1 way it can fail to serve it's whole purpose for being allowed.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
but until then this "green new deal" is a bunch of nonsense from an ignorant bartender that happened to get elected to office.
They must be getting to you if you need to ad hom like that.
People tell me that "the science is settled". I agree, science tells us that without nuclear power we can look forward to poverty.
OK, where is it then? Show me the science that makes that ridiculous assertion.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The question that comes up is if they supply of rare earths that are used to make the solar panels its sufficient to support this massive use expansion. And if those materials can be acquired in a busy neutral way. So far I have not seen a sufficient answer.
Because China's resource consumption is so small. And it isn't increasing at all.
maybe you are. Congrats. Wages are down 1.3%. That's a fact, google it.
And "Stop fighting and shit down and shut up" is easy for you to say if you're one of the very few Americans in good shape. The rest of us who never recovered after 2008 and are bracing for the next (utterly pointless) recession would like very much for somebody to fight for us instead of rolling over at the first sign of adversity.
I couldn't care less if Trump loses to another right wing, Clinton Style Democrat. What the actual fuck is the point of electing a Democrat who's going to do the exact same things Trump is going to do but say nice things while he/she does them? I want positive change (note: _positive_ change, not just change for it's own sake, which usually translates into more wars and tax cuts for billionaires).
If the Dems want to win _meaningful_ victories she's the future of the party. But hey, you got yours, fuck me, right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here's a couple more.
https://www.withouthotair.com/
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
They use the numbers given by the wind and solar advocates. The wind and solar industries are using numbers that don't add up to sell themselves. It only takes a bit of math to see this. It's science. If you deny the science, from the wind and solar industries themselves, then I'd like to see your "science" explain a future without nuclear power and without poverty.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Remember acid rain? Regan and Thatcher defeated it with an international "cap and trade" treaty on sulphur emissions. Thatcher was also the first world leader to treat climate change as a serious problem, probably because she read chemistry at Oxford and knew what she was talking about. Cap and trade is the only approach that has been proven to work, ideologues on both sides should stfu and look at the evidence.
c6gunner tag-teaming with an Ivan troll to abuse a knowledgeable and polite former serviceman. What a strange strange place /. has become.
Obama was a lecturer. Since he had no practical background in law, they assigned him to lecture on 'constitutional law.'
Wish I had mod points. Economics is a captured degree; they largely just protect the status quo. Really, it's a good sounding degree for somebody who can't get a Statistics degree... like an Engineer who falls back to being an Architect.
Some actually are good at it and can stand out more in the fall back career path; most are there for a reason. Economics as far as my understanding of the degree is half statistics, is it not? That is what I was told.
If that is the case, her statistics training should be quite useful in policy making since all those lawyers seem to have zero grasp of numbers. We should get some accountants elected too... Hell, we need STEM! not law degrees!
People involved in reality and truth as a background instead of people trained to LIE for their client's benefit... and their client is rarely the voters.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You want to know what could fund this completely? Not allowing fossil fuel to externalize the cost of cleaning the mess up.
Do you know who benefits from 'externalized cost' with fossil fuel? We all do. In other words, none of us do. In other words, it would just fucking disrupt the economy so bad that the thug leftists with placards could probably take over the country during the turmoil.
In other words, it's not gonna happen that way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you message is that even when somebody pulls Bush out of mothballs for an argument, Obama shall never be mentioned.
Probably a wise tactic on your part, because your side really shouldn't bring Obama up when it comes to economic matters.
Less than coal, probably. Not less than solar or wind when people use the correct safety equipment so they don't fall off roofs.
Then you have a citation for this? Sure, anything can be safer if people use correct safety equipment. I could also say that Chernobyl would not have been more than a short lived power outage if people used the correct safety equipment.
Here's the deal though, nuclear fission has a far higher safety record than any other energy source we have today. That includes the time vodka addled soviet bureaucrats decided it would be a good idea to bypass the safety systems to burn off some xenon that was poisoning the reactor core.
Again, prove solar and wind are safer than nuclear. I tried to find a better source for the numbers but they all point back to the same studies where nuclear beats them all. Everything else was speculation on what MIGHT happen. Well, lots of things might happen. A nuclear reactor might melt down. It might experience an earthquake. There might be a terrorist attack. Monkeys might fly out of my ass. Deaths from nuclear power don't happen all that often though, and when the safety systems are in place then it happens far less often.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So your assertion is that mortars could damage solar panels, so we should keep hundred or thousand of barrels of gasoline there instead? Really?
Aside from the obvious stupidity of your argument, at least the panel would provide another ablative layer of protection for the military troops actually INSIDE the building being shelled while they fight to defend your nationalistic but unpatriotic ass.
Devil is in the details..
No income tax cut as ever created a single job. Ever.
Are you a complete idiot, or do 'high taxes' give you a boner or something?
When income taxes are cut, people have more to spend, so they spend it on things that grow the economy, which creates more jobs.
It's okay. Give them a few years to grow up.
Are you? Income taxes come after the fact. If you are a business owner and think you will make more money by hiring more workers, you will go ahead and do so, regardless of if the income tax rate is 0% or 91%. Because you'll be making more money than you are now. Idiot.
You'll find plenty of other right-wingers on this site. You'll be right at home.
It most definitely is in comparison to the United States. And much of the Chinese pollution western exceptionalists like to whine about is used to produce consumer products for your dumb asses.
Too late. Poverty is already widespread in the "flyover", thanks to the 40 year economic depression. But hey, the engineered economic collapse has had bipartisan support for decades...
Anyways, the issue is not whether new technology (and blithely ignoring insurance costs) can finally make atomic power economical. The issue is risk from _worst case_ failure. There is a very good reason that private insurance (without government backstop or special limitation on liability) won't touch nuclear power with a twenty foot pole.
The maximum failure mode from nuclear power is godawful horrible. Millions poisoned by airborne radiation. Vast areas of land rendered forsaken, unsuitable for human life for a hundred generations. The decedents of our descendants will curse our hubris for a thousand years.
"But that can _never_ happen! Accidents are very unlikely - they occur only once in a million years" you shout, hoping no one notices the obvious and brazen falsehood. Atomic power advocates have been claiming their mad science is safe for decades - undeterred by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. None of which was a properly _worst case_ scenario. For the worst case think terrorism or warfare, not accidents.
The minimax principle is key here. Minimize the maximum failure mode. The statistical sophistry that says wet can safely ignore "black swan" events is contradicted by experience across many domains. "Once in a thousand years" events are observed to occur rather more often than predicted.
Any sort of Green, and any sort of _real_ conservative, is hard against nuclear power. I suppose it's reasonable for Corporate Progressives to support it, since they are a death cult anyways.
I'm pretty sure YOU have no background to understand anything like that
Any sort of Green, and any sort of _real_ conservative, is hard against nuclear power.
No true Scotsman would make such a claim.
How about some data instead of grade school debate tactics?
Congress needs to stay in their lane. They can't even be bothered to fund the Coast Guard, what makes you think they can fund any kind of energy policy? They might as well legislate the color of the sky, they can't tell people how they get their energy. Not in a nation where people can still vote. This plan will fail one way or another. The only way to make it work is to make wind and solar as cheap, reliable, plentiful, and convenient as natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear power. They can't legislate that into being, it will take more than 50% + 1 votes to change the laws of physics and economics.
Scaremonger all you want on nuclear power, it's still far safer than anything we have. If you deny that then you deny science. You are debating with emotion, not logic. How unscientific of you. Go outside and play, let the adults talk.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Here's a couple more.
I asked you to show me the science. What you have shown me is numbers from a expert in information theory, not energy systems, everything I read within it are extreme cases of consumption.
The most glaring factor is that you are talking about an industry that has had no support and less than ten years to develop technology. Whereas Nuclear has had all the support it needs and more that it doesn't use and in 60 years the technology has barely made any progress.
I look forward to seeing how many more misrepresentations I can find in this.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
We literally don't need nuclear. Nuclear is singularly unsuited for non-bomb applications.
It is very expensive, very complex, very complicated, and the only way to justify it is as an offset to a nuclear weapons development program. This is why you have a lot of nuclear power only in places that develop nuclear weapons (US, Russia, France, China, India, etc.) or countries that are/were so dependent on these, that they were force-fed "atoms for peace". Places like Eastern Europe or Japan, where the worst accidents happen (Ukraine, Fukushima). And it doesn't even end here. Once you're done with nuclear, you still need to care for its leftovers for a long time, and there is no viable technology in sight that can help with it.
Nuclear in its current form is worthless even to the military. Nuclear was only useful as the cornerstone of the MAD doctrine, and today proliferation has effectively put an end to it. Having a stock pile just increases the risk of accidental destruction of humanity.
So, yeah, we really don't need it.
Except maybe eventually in deep space, but then there we don't need it in its current form.
Yeah, and obongo was a "constitutional scholar," whatever that means.
These days "constitutional scholar" means someone that read it once. Sure would be nice if we had some "constitutional scholars" in Congress.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Nuclear in its current form is worthless even to the military.
Then why does the US Navy operate 100 nuclear reactors to power it's carriers and submarines?
Why is the US Navy funding continued research in nuclear power and still building more nuclear powered vessels?
Go read a book.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
None of these assholes actually want to enact legislation ... they just want to launch bills they can show to their contributors and say "see! We're moving forward on your request. It may not pass because of the intransigent 'other guys', but we're doing our part. Now about your contribution for the next election cycle ...."
I'm not picking on any particular party. There's enough greed, duplicity, deceit and divisiveness to go around.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Population control may solve the problem.. Of consumption at all levels... World wide one child policy would help...
All true Scotsmen agree there is no true Scotsman.
"nuclear power, it's still far safer than anything we have. If you deny that then you deny science."
Mad science advocates typically claim nuclear accidents are _proven_ to be very unlikely. I often see quotes like once in a thousand years. Yet the actual historical record has two full meltdowns and numerous lesser accidents in sixty years. But hey - when did "muh SCIENCE (tm)!!1!!!" bros ever care about empirical evidence, skepticism, minimax, or humility?
Tesla shills are like that.
Ironic. She claims to be for poor people, but this bill will murder thousands of people who will no longer be able to heat or cool their homes.
Repeat after me: "we are all individuals"
Personally, I'm no longer represented by either "side". The "progressive left" looks like a bizzaro Nazi party in terms of racism -- blaming the jews^H^H^H^Hwhites for all the problems of the world, and the right never saw a balanced budget in their lives.
Boston University is a complete joke.
This little jackass, when asked where the money will come from to pay for her ideas says "you just pay for it".
So... let's see.... we ban all air travel, ban nuclear power (so much for fighing climate change), ban the internal combustion engine (so much for moving 90% of the goods and services in the country), ban coal (I guess we no longer need steel and therefore will have no rails for all those new trains she wants...)
And here's the REAL zinger: she want to guarantee "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work". Wow..... just....wow.....
as soon as EVERYBODY realizes that they can stop going to work and somehow the government will provide for all their needs anyway, NOBODY is going to be going to work and paying for all the "free" stuff. Sure, the occasional musician will still play music along with a relative handful of other non-essential creative sorts, but NOBODY is going to do any of the nation's dirty or unpleasant jobs (which tend to be the most-needed).
On a certain level I actually find this little dingbat adorable - she's boldly exposing the insanity of progressivism, which has more in common with "progressive cancer" and "progressive rot" and "progressive collapse" than with "economic progress", but on all other levels she's clearly a completely vacuous leftist who lives in a bubble of total ignorance about how ANYTHING works and is completely clueless about the one thing she has a college degree in: economics.
[facepalm]
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing. I at least gave something to work with, statistics that compare energy and deaths from nuclear fission power, wind, solar, and other energy sources. Deaths divided by energy produced shows nuclear power to have a long history of safety.
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no? If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
Can we make wind and solar safer? If yes then we can make nuclear safer. Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison. Nuclear power has a very high safety record and you cannot show otherwise. If you could then you would not be discussing the equivalent of Unsafe at Any Speed when talking about automobile safety in 2019. No one is going to build another RBMK. No one will build another GE BWR-3, or another B&W LLP either.
Bring me data, not speculation.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Remove airplanes and provide money to those "unwilling to work".
This entire thing is a combination of virtue signalling and old fashioned insane.
People who work don't want to subsidize people who don't - and no-matter who is paying for it, lazy lay-abouts shouldn't be rewarded. Why work when magically marxism will give you 'some-one elses money from somewhere' for free?
It doesn't work, never has, it's INSANE.
"And it would also be a revolutionary leap forward in laziness, as it promises economic security for those unable or unwilling to work."
Military suppliers?
People said the same thing about Paris, and Kyoto, and many other efforts. Yet here we are, countries making major, sustained efforts to do something about climate change.
This is how politics work. You build up support, get people discussing the issue and making proposals, pushing from different angles. A non-binding agreement acts as a foundation for binding ones, justification for changes to rules and future policies.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"That Dubya let". Yup, which is why the White House didn't to rein in subprime mortgages in 2004 and the Democrats didn't state that home ownership was to important to let that happen. Oh wait...
We are talking Afghanistan. The Panels will be fine. Just the metal in the mounting frames and all the wiring will disappear overnight to reappear a few weeks later as metallic artwork for sale at the base bazaar.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Take a look at their comment history. Not a complete idiot, just a pro-Russian cock guzzler and conspiracy nut.
How then did Obama take the national debt from 9 trillion to 19 trillion in 8 years? Your math is off on the size of his deficits. His deficit growth only slowed when the GOP took both houses of congress. (Bush's accelerated when the dems took both.)
But really we need to stop crediting Presidents for what the congress chooses to spend. The president just signs the bills. It's Congress who decides what goes in them.
Umm, did you see the January work figures? Record job creation. Yes some corps are laying off workers. Others are growing like crazy. The net rate is job growth not losses.
until these two monsters of CO2 pollution do anything it wont make any sense to even try to decrease first world pollution.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Holy shit, dude! You had to post four replies? If I'm catching this kind of flak then I must be close to the target.
You're significantly overestimating your relevance.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I could also say that Chernobyl would not have been more than a short lived power outage if people used the correct safety equipment.
Or if they wern't trying to be good communists.
That includes the time vodka addled soviet bureaucrats decided it would be a good idea to bypass the safety systems to burn off some xenon that was poisoning the reactor core.
Do you taint everything with BS? Isn't the truth about the matter bad enough? They were running tests, they poisoned the reaction, changed shifts in the middle of the test to a crew with less experience. Same as the TEPCO board not bothering with safety upgrades. Both accidents prove nuclear can't be done safely because of human flaws from the control room all the way to the board.
Fortunately there are enough reasonable and sane people that can see what you are willfully ignorant to.
Again, prove solar and wind are safer than nuclear. I tried to find a better source for the numbers but they all point back to the same studies where nuclear beats them all.
No. There are politics to nuclear power structured into the law so you can have this argument. I get it, you see no place for solar, wind or geothermal so you believe we shouldn't even try and just do nuclear everything if everyone else wasn't so stupid. Even if we doubled current nuclear worldwide it would be 12% global electricity consumption, maybe, and impossible to fuel long term. Nuclear is simply a waste of resources. Awesome technology, ultimately pointless.
Every nuclear promise has come to naught, nuclear has already failed so instead of wasting our resources on something that provides no energy return it's time to try something different. You don't care what anyone else thinks when it comes to nuclear and I don't care what you think about renewable energy sources.
Everything else was speculation on what MIGHT happen. Well, lots of things might happen. A nuclear reactor might melt down.
Nuclear already has melted down.
Deaths from nuclear power don't happen all that often though, and when the safety systems are in place then it happens far less often.
IAEA has interdiction orders over all WHO publications about how many people actually died. That's why you get to say that. It doesn;t mean it's true, it doesn;t mean you are right all it means is you haven't read the IAEA charter to see how the propaganda is constructed.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You are dreaming. The reason the U.S. (read Trump) is supporting a coup in Venezuela is because of fears of hordes of more Latin Americans deciding they'd like a piece of the American Dream. Venezuela is destabilizing its neighborhood with refugees. That causes more refugees and the Administration to cower in their boots...the refugees aren't white, you see.
The reason for Iraq was merely because Bush had already done Afghanistan and they (dimly) thought Iraq would be just like Afghanistan...well it is if you ignore the oil, the tribes, the geo-position, that Arabs are not Afghanis, that Saddam's government was already being infiltrated by Islamists who really, really wanted to have a go at the U.S. to burnish their nutjob credentials, and a host of other things.
Qaddafi had to go because he was causing problems for Europe with refugees. Also, the promise of the West would have rang hollow if it allowed Qaddafi to slaughter his own people, which he had promised to do and was well on the way towards accomplishing. The problem was kicking that can over and no ability to replace it with anything reasonable. No sizable Arab country is governable except by a dictatorship because as soon as freedom raises its head, the religious nutjobs see their opportunity to grab control and praise Allah...a bit weird since by their own theology Allah is so other that he does not communicate directly. So they have a god who doesn't speak, does apparently nothing, yet they feel worshiping him is a good idea.
Your wet dreams about Iran and Russia I'll leave you to.
How about some data instead of grade school debate tactics?
You would do the Politburo proud.
Scaremonger all you want on nuclear power, it's still far safer than anything we have. If you deny that then you deny science. You are debating with emotion, not logic. How unscientific of you. Go outside and play, let the adults talk.
Looks like you're projecting again. You are the perfect Soviet blindseer.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And you know nothing, but hey you aren't letting that stop you!
Until there's a job shortage, your point has no point.
And you can see how well that's working out for the French.
Lol none of this is remotely true.
Any sort of Green, and any sort of _real_ conservative, is hard against nuclear power.
Nuke done right is society's only long-term hope. Is there such a thing?? Don't know... and from the kneejerk conclusion above, neither do you.
Yet another repressed right-winger projecting his lurid fantasy of something he secretly craves. She is pretty hot, isn't she?
Pretty well thank you for asking.
We have problems but those are not related to our support for climate change.
And in a way Macron whatever shit he is in..... is not half as bad as the shit that Trump is in.
Trump makes all shit look trivial with his shit. Definitely winning in that front!
I guess the whole thing didn't start after a punitive fuel tax huh Ivan?
Or Russia in 1917. Good luck guys.
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing.
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no?
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Nuclear industry *itself* produced over thirty recommendations to make nuclear safer, they weren't adopted because it is too expensive.
If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
You argue like a child.
Can we make wind and solar safer?
Yes, with roofing harnesses and standard safety improvement processes used by industry.
If yes then we can make nuclear safer.
Yes, however it's so expensive that no one can afford to build them. Only the Europeans were smart enough to pick up the four trains feature and incorporate it into the EPR design but even that leaves another 26 improvements out. Just as an exercise go figure out where the only EPR in the US is being built if you want to see where political and economic power rests in the US.
Do you see nuclear reactors being built underground, where they should be? So yes, nuclear can be made safer however it is very very very expensive.
Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Fallacious logic designed to lambast and exhaust opponents into submitting.
If nuclear was safe the Price Anderson act would not exist however, since it does exist it proves that nuclear is still considered unsafe by professional risk assessors. So basically you're saying that solar and wind are much safer than nuclear and we should deploy large scale solar and wind installations and decentralize our grid.
Prove nuclear is safe and lobby to have the P.A act repealed. Does solar and wind need special corporate welfare to be successful, no. All of the success of solar and wind deployment are because they are commercially viable without all of the billions of dollars thrown at the nuclear industry. Citation: 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
Oh and by the way the Energy Act does not define Nuclear power as "renewable".
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison.
Oh please do. AP1000 is so much worse than SNUPPS and much much worse design than Three Mile Island so compare away and I hope the monkeys don;t hurt too much.
However how can I pass up you comparing wind and solar to an INES level 7 nuclear accident that required an international effort to build "New Safe Containment" so they could start to demolish the building as an example of how safe nuclear power is.
You demonstrate that you are completely divorced from reality, however your antics are completely hilarious so at least you haven't declined in how entertaining your mental gymnastics are. That really made me laugh.
Nuclear power has a very high safety record and you cannot show otherwise.
Of course not, otherwise the IAEA's useful idiots would not be able to make this argument.
If you could then you would not be discussing the equivalent of Unsafe at Any Speed when talking about automobile safety in 2019.
A car analogy, in 2019.
No one is going to build another RBMK. No one will bui
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I shake my head in disbelief at the depths our educational system has sunk to, and wonder who to blame for the impending death of reason, logic and Western Civilization.
That would fall squarely in the lap of the Radical Right, so you've no-one to congratulate but yourselves.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The military would love a miniature nuclear reactor you could fit in a shipping container. It would help tremendously with supply lines. Would also be useful for a decentralized power grid. Win-Win
Every nuclear promise has come to naught, nuclear has already failed so instead of wasting our resources on something that provides no energy return it's time to try something different.
Seriously? Nuclear power in France has been going strong for decades without issue.
Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in the country, with a generation of 379.1 TWh, or 71.6% of the country's total production of 519.4 TWh, the highest percentage in the world.
What you will also find there is that nuclear costs less in materials consumed
That must be why the EPR in UK will cost less than half as much as recent German solar... Oh, wait, it's the other way round? Never mind...
Ezekiel 23:20
This new New Deal would cost trillions every year, not one trillion over 81 years. It will almost certainly reduce GDP by more than .02%.
Cost/Benefit analysis => Bad idea, not worth doing by a long shot.
Either it's trying to avoid the problem, or hideously expensive mitigations.
Since there wasn't a punitive fuel tax, just a small increase, no.
Once more this is messed up crap...
It is not economically feasible to retrofit all buildings to be energy efficient. Just think of the cost to do Lead and Asbestos abatement....
How do we handle backup storage?
Will Al Gore give up his private jet and limos?
before we all are forced to walk this path, let the leaders lead by example, not by decree. Congress, president and all gov workers get the same health plan as us stupid people, they must take the same public transportation. Lets see AOC take a bus from washington to her home..
I can add 5 kw of solar to my house for less than 3k and my labor, okay cool, I can run my AC when it is sunny, what happens when the sun is not out, oh yeah I need backup. To connect to the "Grid" I must get permission by local power monopoly to be a supplier, this cost money. My system must be installed by a licensed contractor, I can see having the interface inverter blessed, but why should the panels be part of this. So the system now cost 20k, still cheaper to pay for the normal bill and consume dead dinosaurs.
I have thought about having limited battery storage and have a AC to DC inverter plugged into the grid and live with the inverter loses when I need to take power from the grid. You could have a relay such the inverter is off until you need it. No grid power used.
Explosive rounds can be fired from further away. Let me know when kids can fling rocks 600 yards. Fence technology is already available to stop small stones.
Whoa, Will Affleck (UW) has spoken! The military experts, the people who have spent decades running the military and managing logistics for bases in foreign countries, must be cowering in shame.
Will Affleck (UW) has I disagreed, and he knows more than the tens of thousands of people that spend their entire careers on this stuff.
Beg forgiveness now, Blindseer, and the Great Will Affleck (UW) might forgive you.
it's not just taxes though.
This bill also gets into how houses are built, how you get your electricity, etc.
There are major infrastructure changes that would be needed to see this through. In the end no only would you see higher taxes, housing, food, electric, and many other costs would go up substantially as well. For the people that are barley scraping by, something like this could be the final nail in the coffin for them.
50% of the wealth, huh?
Tell, what do you think that "wealth" is? Do you think it's a pile of gold coins in a vault, and the rich spend all their time swimming through it?
That "wealth" is the business that employs you. The "wealth" is the factories that make your stuff. That "wealth" is the companies that make your food, your clothing, your computer...
But yeah, go ahead and talk about taking it from them. Make sure they don't have any "disgusting excess of money". But what do you think is going to happen to those companies?
All is not lost though. I hear that Venezuela is having some trouble and could use a helping hand.
That's right, you smug asshole. The options are either the unfettered, heavily subsidized coal and oil energy production we have now or Venezuela. You're so smart.
I don't respond to AC's.
You can disagree all you like, but like climate change itself, it's all about the evidence and the math.
Try to work out how big a solar PV array is needed to meet the military needs in a modest size base. Try it. See how many kWh you need and how big a storage system you need to keep it all running day and night, rain or shine, regardless of mobilization demands. Work out the extra manpower required to secure a facility that much bigger. Try the same with wind power. Try it with biofuels, and work out how much potential food production farming area has to instead be turned over to producing fuel for machines to burn. Try working out the logistics of more exotic solutions such as generating hydrogen or some other chemical fuel from hydroelectric power and then shipping it safely to bases for use in fuel cells.
Try all of it. All you're going to discover is what people already know: shifting from fossil fuels to alternatives is a *tough* equation for energy-intensive industries or operations, and all of those issues are magnified by several times if they happen to be in a military context where safety of personnel and equipment is in question due to enemy activity.
This is not to say experimentation and heavy investment in alternatives is futile, but it needs to be thoroughly worked out in a less demanding situation before you can expect the military to adopt it wholesale for actual deployment where reliability is paramount. "It was a cloudy day today, so we don't have the kWh to deploy all our electric vehicles today" doesn't cut it. It is possible to consider exotic solutions such as portable nuclear power systems in a military context, but they're going to be really, really expensive and carry their own special risks.
If all you can say is "I disagree", then you're no better than the people who deny climate change by saying the same thing and think their opinion should be considered with the same merit as people who are better informed. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but without some explanation of the foundation for it, it isn't worth much when it comes to working out a path forward for the change that must eventually occur.
Replace all the airplanes, with high speed rail. Yeah, and I guess they will be solar, wind powered? Not to mention those new high speed UNDERWATER trains as you travel back & forth between the USA and Europe or other places. This lady is one WACK-A-DOODLE lDIOT! But, most SOCIALIST are!
Folks keep forgetting that when left unaddressed long enough, inequality is cured via guillotine.
Perhaps Ocasio-Cortez could hold her breath indefinitely to demonstrate how net-zero emissions would work.
I don't agree or disagree with taxing individual wealth, I mean it makes some sense from a societal perspective to prevent accumulation of wealth and power... on the other hand we encourage the accumulation of wealth and power in corporations and governments which are controlled in a hierarchical fashion by individuals. If you don't allow people to accumulate as much wealth and you don't also prevent people from accumulating power through corporations and institutions then you are just shifting the problem and giving it another name.
Also, some things simply require large amounts of capital and sometimes committees of people don't have the vision to take good risks and make good investments on disruptively good innovations.
Imagine a world without the kind of innovation that Elon Musk has enabled because he actually reinvested his Ebay windfall into technology startups. No reusable rockets lowering the cost of space exploration, no electric cars that are forcing the market to compete, no national model for solar leasing with tesla battery walls... that is just one man using capital towards solving problems instead of simply buying more houses and luxury goods and calling it a day.
Big established companies and governments are often too risk averse to spend capital on those sorts of projects and it does take individuals willing to take big risks on big bets.
Like my grandpa used to say: If you have two hours to chop down a tree*, spend the first hour sharpening your ax.
Disclaimer: *I am not advocating the destruction of trees.
Trees are green energy. Chop one down, plant four. All the carbon you release via burning is recently captured, and will be captured again eventually by new trees.
I should add... wealthy people's ongoing income once they are already wealthy is rarely a result of the value created by their own labor or contributions. If you are taxing the wealthy then more often than not they have the ability to pass through taxing the people that work to create value as their employees, tenants of their real estate or otherwise creating value from the capital and property they control.
How exactly is banning all air travel in 10 years and stopping cows from expelling gas a "leap forward in several technologies"?
Too funny. Mistaking the media's love of a new young politician for actual news is a huge fail.
It's a pump and dump media operation done many times to fill TV time, newsprint space and provide jobs for editorial writers.
The media darling is being pumped up now and at some time in the next few months or years will be found to have media inspired 'serious problems needing investigation'.
Try looking at bills introduced and which percent of meaningful bills get signed into law - excludes 'National Twice Cooked Potato Day' bills.
Imagine a world without the kind of innovation that Elon Musk has enabled because he actually reinvested his Ebay windfall into technology startups....Big established companies and governments are often too risk averse to spend capital on those sorts of projects and it does take individuals willing to take big risks on big bets.
Bullshit.
Take a look at the historical marginal tax rates during the 20th century. Take a look at those rates between the 30s and 60s. That's a point in time when we were really risk averse, and nothing was accomplished, right? I mean besides a few things like a world war won, social security nets built, an interstate highway system built, nuclear power invented and implemented, electrification of the rural US, a space race won...
The fact that we've gone away from that and you've been convinced that it's impossible is a real success on the part of the 1%. They got you good.
Massive wealth accumulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is the extraction of wealth from the many into the pockets of the few. If you're not considering the well-being of the many, sure, you can point to a few of the 1% who are really doing great things and say that that wealth accumulation is a good thing. But that ignores everyone in the 1% just taking their yacht to their private island and partying, and it ignores the real harm done to millions and millions by continuing to live in poverty.
Governments can do amazing things, if they have the funding to do it, and the drive and vision. Part of that requires an educated and frankly comfortable populace, and you don't get that by keeping most of them poor. You do that by making sure that excessive wealth gets reinvested into the rest of the populace. And you do that with taxes of some sort.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Yeah, half of France is now a post-nuclear wasteland, and the other half can't get power.
Oh, wait...
that's the point. This is how politicians get things done when it's not just something you do for wealthy donors. You have to go to the public and get them onboard. That means you have to get a discussion started. Either that or you have to find a source of bribes bigger than the opposition (oil companies in this case).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Have you seen what it takes to make a PV solar panel? Sorry folks, not renewable.
Why the insistence that increasing taxes actually raises government revenue when that is demonstrably false (see Hauser's Law)? Also, while extreme wealth inequality is not desirable, why punish the wealthy and destroy incentives to invent, implement, succeed, and employ people (the proven sustainable method of wealth distribution)? Or, is your vision to just knock us all down to the same level of poverty, in which case poverty would disappear because-- well, equality? It seems so virtuous to spew this drivel, but it is ultimately a horrible and cruel vision for society where only the political class wins.
"That's fine if you disagree with generals and admirals"
Maybe he is smarter than the generals. There are a few people like that nowadays.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
More speculation and no data. Try again. With data this time.
Nuclear power is safer than anything else. We have the data. Show me otherwise.
The existence of the Price Anderson Act "proves" nothing. If it's there then nuclear power is "proven" unsafe. If we make attempts to repeal it then the nuclear industry is "proving" it does not care for the public and would leave people homeless and penniless in the case of an accident. The only thing the existence of Price Anderson proves is that federal programs are the closest things we have to immortality, once created they never die, even if their need has long since passed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That 7 trillion number is false, it's more like 1.5 trillion spent.
> stopping cows from expelling gas
It's AOC's coded language to get vegan support by making them think supporting GND will give them a legal excuse to restrict meat-eating in the name of climate change.
The actual legislation is relatively tame. AOC's interpretation of it (her FAQ) is a hot mess. Pelosi was 100% right to put AOC on a short leash when assigning committee memberships.
Slashdot articles used to have thousands of replies?
Then stop calling it green tech and call it modern tech!
There is a war going on for your mind.
Do they make bags for Gigantic teeth? If so, then perhaps.
And you brought no data.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You can try to steal my truck and stop my wood stove.
According to Credit Suisse you need to make US $32,400 to be in the 1%. The average US college 2018 college graduate got a starting salary of $50,390.
If you are an average Europian college graduate, provided you did not get a degree and work in Portugal, Greece or Slovenia, you are in the 1%.
She might have some experience with butt plugs. Do you think she really took the train from NYC to Washington DC? That is a nice easy train trip.
I know. The 30s through the 60s were a terrible time to be an American. The country suffered economically and had its morale and innovation crushed. Why would we ever want to go back to a time like that?
(If you're confused, see my other post in this thread.)
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
AOC knew this bill wasn't going to pass. She can't even get her own party on board with it. She just wanted to act smug and self-righteous and have something to tweet to all her cultists. It's what she does best. She's literally the left's version of Trump. A crazy, unhinged grandstanding narcissistic individual who cares more about ratings than sensible policy.
Powered by pixy dust, opium, and transcendental meditation.
Mockery is well and good (and well-deserved) but the fact is that people voted to give her power. Until we make communism unfashionable again, this trend will only continue.
Your increasingly violent Yello Jacket protests are directly and explicitly related to your idiotic climate change social engineering taxes.
You are cutting off your balls because the doctor told you to lose a little weight.
You are cherry picking. The marginal tax rates were high, but nobody paid them because of all the deductions allowed. Those deductions are gone, so if you put back the same rates the tax burden will be a few times greater than it was back then.
And the data you brung has nothing to do with this discussion. You posted a "source" he disputed everything in that source. And now you are butt hurt cuz everyone keeps nodding you down. Keep losing loser.
The navy operates the largest solar farm as well. Your point ?
Maybe because in the 30s thru 60s women and ninorities were openly discriminated against. Cops were openly corrupt. Yea let's go back to a time when the white man ran the world. All was good then. Well except for the non white men.
Obama was handed a shitstorm. While trump was handed a pot of gold and went bankrupt 6 fucking times.
Then kindly prove what he said was false. You can't?
None of what you said is remotely true.
Congress*
Also Obama inherited a shit economy and years of war.
Meanwhile bush took us from a surplus for the second time in history, to a huge fucking deficit looking for WMDs in Iraq. But that's ok because he has an r next to his name.
Citation needed.
I did a search on the largest solar farms and none were in the USA, and certainly not operated by the US Navy. If solar power is so great then why is the Navy building nuclear powered ships and not solar powered ships?
My point is that nuclear power is obviously not "worthless" to the military since the US Navy relies on it so heavily for powering it's capital ships. The assertion was nuclear power was "worthless". I can concede that current economics of energy today makes civil nuclear power difficult to compete with cheap and abundant natural gas. The subsidies on wind power is driving the early retirement of some nuclear power plants in "tornado alley"... oops, I mean "wind corridor". As these existing nuclear power plants retire the economics will shift. Demand for more natural gas will drive up prices. The subsidies on wind can only prop up that industry for so long. There will be a time very soon that we will have to build new civil nuclear power or prices will climb quickly.
Until then the US Navy will continue to be the owner/operator of the most nuclear power plants in the world. Even if they own the largest solar power farm in the world they cannot steam their ships with that energy, and they cannot fly their aircraft with it either. Nuclear power will be not "worthless" but "priceless" for the US Navy.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You do realize that "growth" ... especially the exponential one, that shareholders demand, is literally guaranteed death for humanity and destruction for the planet, by its very definition, right?
Or do you think with limited resources we can literally explode forever?
Also, stop acting like jobs are a good thing. Go find me a single person who doesn’t hate his job. And I go find you a black swan. Exceptions prove the rule.
What we want, is wealth and a fulfilling occupation. Not a job!
So we should obviously want more automation of jobs, to create wealth for us, so we can focus on occupations that actually improve the world!
The only problem are the fatcats, who want to keep leeching off our necks, and want to use our lifeblood to automate things, so they can keep all the wealth for themselves!
The same fatcats that keep telling everyone that "OMGJERBS" are a good thing that we should crave for, and everyone else is a moocher and a leech. So we don't start having free time and start thinking and notice who's the leeches that need to be smashed.
Because that's the key concept behind being a fatcat. You ONLY work to avoid working. E.g. by ordering others to do it. While you grab most of the money they make, and throw them a few peanuts because the lazy fucks won't slave away on pure propaganda of how "shameful" it is for a slave to want to do the same.
And of course you always repeat how "hard" you worked to get where you are. Don't tell anyone that that work was only work-avoidance behavior if at all possible.
That way you could disguise stealing as the "noble" pursuit of profit. As opposed to only actual earnings that you actually earned with actual work.
Except now that most things can be automated away, and you became so greedy that you threw away the slaves to buy machines with the money you stole from them, they suddenly got enough spare time to start thinking again! Ewww! Slaves that think!!
Now they demand to have the automation serve everyone and give everyone wealth! Especially those who actually financed it! Instead of the fatcat leeches.
Which must really disgust the Uncle Toms of this world and their owners. How dare they demand not to be slaves!!
100% of the people have 100% of the wealth, so taxes should be 100%
Those are merely paper rates, not effective rates. Before the 80s tax reform efforts, there were so many loopholes, tax shelters, and exemptions that the EFFECTIVE tax rate was about 20%.
In 1965, when marginal rates were 70%, the effective rate was 24%. In 2000, when marginal rates topped at 35%, effective rates were 29.5%. Even today, after all the 'tax cut' bills, the effective rate is still 25% - higher than it was in 1965.
The Navy generates over 35,000x more energy from nuclear than all other sources combined... You blithering fucking moron.
Relatively tame?
It literally calls for the implementation of Maoist Communism, the destruction of the American economy, abolishing all combustion engines, paying people not to work, rebuilding all homes and buildings, and ending democracy by handing management of government to "underrepresented and marginalized people".
You are an absolute fucking moron if you think this isn't batshit insane, far-left extremism.
"Gibs me your money or I kill you."
- The American Left, circa 2019
You already taxed that money once, dipshit. You don't get to keep taxing it over and over. You might as well just roll in with jackboots and guns, kill their family, and steal it... Because it's obvious this is your actual end game desire.
We already beat communists once. We'll do it again, starting with you.
Says person taking full advantage of the things white men made for them.
More speculation and no data. Try again. With data this time.
No, there are enough key words to overcome your alloplastic reasoning.
You don't care about data, all you care about is being as frustrating and annoying as possible so that people express that and you claim some moral superiority that somehow makes you "right".
It is clear you don't even care about nuclear power, it's just what you use to get whatever emotional reactions you seek from people because people have very polarized opinions on the subject. You project your troll mannerisms onto others with your techniques so you can claim they are trolls. You're skilled at it and I suggest that anyone who reads this is going to recognize what you do instantly.
Nuclear power is safer than anything else. We have the data. Show me otherwise.
Sure.
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Chernobyl nuclear disaster
Windscale nuclear fire
Three_Mile_Island_accident
All INES 5 or greater nuclear disasters. If you claim they did no harm, prove it and go to Fukushima and help with the cleanup. I hear properties in the area are being given away. Prove that nuclear is safe by going to Fukushima reactor sites otherwise you are saying that nuclear has no place in our energy supply.
The existence of the Price Anderson Act "proves" nothing. If it's there then nuclear power is "proven" unsafe.
Yes, it is there and yes it proves that nuclear power is unsafe.
If we make attempts to repeal it then the nuclear industry is "proving" it does not care for the public and would leave people homeless and penniless in the case of an accident.
You are so manipulative with your appeal to authority designed to produce an emotional reaction. Anyone who reacts to your subtle troll is called a troll and anyone who argues your point you continue to play your will full ignorance until they give up.
Repealing the P.A act simply means the most dangerous NPPs, like Indian Point and Palo Verde shut down immediately. Then the rest of them progressively close down because their insurance regimen is bought into line with the conditions the rest of industry.
After that there is a massive jobs boom as existing NPPs turbines are converted to natural gas and all of the energy subsidies previously required to keep the nuclear industry afloat are diverted into advancing massive wind, solar and geothermal energy projects.
Nuclear power is keeping America, and many other countries, in poverty because the nuclear industry cares more about existing than whether it is contributing to the public good. Shutting down Nuclear would create the largest economic boom we have seen in our lifetimes.
The only thing the existence of Price Anderson proves is that federal programs are the closest things we have to immortality, once created they never die, even if their need has long since passed.
Then lobby to have it removed. You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it. Your own reasoning suggests the PA act is not necessary, so commit to your own argument and lobby to repeal the Price Anderson Act because if you don't it just proves that *everything* you say is a complete fabrication designed to frustrate people who simply cannot fathom how deliberately and willfully ignorant you are determined to be.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The official document can be viewed here: https://apps.npr.org/documents...
I challenge you to cite 4 consecutive sentences from it (NOT from AOC's silly, stupid FAQ or sensationalist social-media headlines) that you specifically believe best exemplify its alleged call for maoism and the destruction of the American way of life.
Note that I'm not claiming GND is good, desirable, or has any chance of passage. I'm simply challenging you to provide proof that you actually *read* the source document, and aren't just regurgitating breathless hype and buzzwords you read somewhere.
Yet here we are, countries making major, sustained efforts to do something about climate change.
I agree, but that's other countries... It helps immensely if you have incentives from the federal government. Sunset the subsidies given to Big Oil and give them to solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Maybe set up a department of Energy Transition (or sub department of the DOE) to help streamline the switchover that's staffed by professionals and academics (mainly the latter, please) deep in said tech.
It's one thing for states, counties, and their respective cities to take the onus upon themselves to reduce emissions, and it's much slower than a federally-mandated and incentivized roadmap.
Sadly, under Trump, all we've done is go in the other direction... allow more oil exploration/extraction on pristine lands, end tax credits for electric vehicles, etc.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
You are only repeating yourself, nothing you said refutes what I said. Prove to me that wind and solar are safer, with science, or you've lost this argument. You proved nothing.
Thank you for the troll mod on this post, it demonstrates that I am human. More importantly it demonstrates blindseers technique to lambast and frustrate people into this situation to discredit any arguments made on this important issue.
Essentially bs's manipulative techniques have nothing to do with support for nuclear power and more to do with his need to create this consternation within people. Simply put, if you are wondering why bs does this I suggest it is because he needs to to feel relevant.
In examining bs's arguments about nuclear power he cares less about that than the emotional reactions that he is provoking, you may recognize this when engaging in a conversation with him.
You claim we can make wind and solar safer with better safety practices. I agree. Then you must also agree that we can make nuclear safety with better safety practices, no?
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. The Nuclear industry *itself* produced over thirty recommendations to make nuclear safer, they weren't adopted because it is too expensive.
If you refute this then I refute your claims of wind and solar being able to be made safer and we are back where we started.
You make childlike arguments.
Can we make wind and solar safer?
Yes, with roofing harnesses and standard safety improvement processes used by industry.
If yes then we can make nuclear safer.
Yes, however it's so expensive that no one can afford to build them. Only the Europeans were smart enough to pick up the four trains feature and incorporate it into the EPR design but even that leaves another 26 improvements out. Just as an exercise go figure out where the only EPR in the US is being built if you want to see where political and economic power rests in the US.
Do you see nuclear reactors being built underground, where they should be? So yes, nuclear can be made safer however it is very very very expensive.
Since nuclear is already safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude or more then wind and solar have a far higher hurdle than nuclear power.
Fallacious logic designed to lambast and exhaust opponents into submitting.
If nuclear was safe the Price Anderson act would not exist however, since it does exist it proves that nuclear is still considered unsafe by professional risk assessors. So basically you're saying that solar and wind are much safer than nuclear and we should deploy large scale solar and wind installations and decentralize our grid.
Prove nuclear is safe and lobby to have the P.A act repealed. Does solar and wind need special corporate welfare to be successful, no. All of the success of solar and wind deployment are because they are commercially viable without all of the billions of dollars thrown at the nuclear industry. Citation: 2005 US Energy Policy Act.
Oh and by the way the Energy Act does not define Nuclear power as "renewable".
Oh, and you want to bring up deaths from Chernobyl? That was 30+ years ago. How about we compare modern nuclear power to modern wind and solar power? Then let's compare safety. You won't though. You can't. There is no comparison.
Oh please do. AP1000 is so much worse than SNUPPS and much much worse design than Three Mile Island so compare away.
However how can I pass up you comparing wind and solar to an INES level 7 nuclear accident that required an international effort to build "New Safe Containment" so they could start to demolish the building as an example of how safe nuclear power is.
You demonstrate that you are completely divorced from reality, however your antics ar
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You argue with great insincerity and rudeness. Almost like you know you are lying to yourself, but are shocked by the magnitude and boldness of your own lies.
You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it.
I did. I'm defining "safety" as deaths per energy produced. Based on that metric nuclear power is the safest energy source we have.
That safety record includes the deaths at the second generation reactor accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Those kind of reactors are not built any more, now we have far safer third and fourth generation reactors. There are still some second generation reactors in existence and are operating with improvements to their safety systems since, bringing them to be as safe as anything newly built today. I do not claim that the accidents you pointed out to me did not happen. I fully admit that they happened, and many people died from Chernobyl. I merely assert that given the deaths from the nuclear power industry, compared to the useful energy produced, that nuclear power is far safer than the others based on that same calculation.
Everything else you gave is speculation and strawmen.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
Your assertion that the Price Anderson Act "proves" anything does not follow. It proves nothing except that in 1957 the government wanted to see the nuclear power industry grow among public fears of an accident and since then few congresscritters had the guts to not vote for it's extension. That's politics for you. It only proves that they'd be pilloried by one side, the other, or both, if they allowed it to expire. Status quo rules.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
40% of TVAs generation is nuclear. I wish it was 80%. https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Nuclear. Itâ(TM)s cleaner and cheaper.
Whatâ(TM)s wrong with falling a tree? Is there something wrong with mowing your lawn, pulling up weeds, or eating wheat? Trees are plants, not mythical stores of ancient wisdoms. We grow more of them.
"One percenters" are the only ones who can make large donations to either party. You imply that it just goes to Republicans, but the Democrats have a generous share. Soros. Buffet. Gates. Many others.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You say Nuclear is the safest thing ever, prove it.
I did. I'm defining "safety" as deaths per energy produced.
Your criteria is too narrow.
Based on that metric nuclear power is the safest energy source we have.
Of course it does, it's the "useful idiot" metric established so you can make that claim.
That safety record includes
but mainly excludes.
I merely assert that given the deaths from the nuclear power industry, compared to the useful energy produced, that nuclear power is far safer than the others based on that same calculation.
Not when measured in "Communities destroyed per hundred years" or numerous other metrics like tons of radio-isotope laden effluent per day.
The question of net energy return of Nuclear power is also in doubt.
Everything else you gave is speculation and strawmen.
You're projecting again.
If you don't argue for removal of the unnecessary Price Anderson Act then it proves all of your posts are a construct to annoy and frustrate people.
Your assertion that the Price Anderson Act "proves" anything does not follow. It proves nothing except that in 1957 the government wanted to see the nuclear power industry grow among public fears of an accident and since then few congresscritters had the guts to not vote for it's extension. That's politics for you. It only proves that they'd be pilloried by one side, the other, or both, if they allowed it to expire.
It proves that your argument has no credibility.
Status quo rules.
And so much of it supports the nuclear industry. It would appear you are unable to fulfill your convictions.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Your perception of reality is completely and utterly inverted. That it is all.
you can keep your energy supplier." - Barack H. Obama, 2019.
ROFL...
Furthermore, at the time did you realize Sara Palin was a Dingbat? (I'm assuming at this point you'll admit she is.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news