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."
No Cortez is a dingbat. I was curious about her when she won the primary so I watched some of her interviews. The gaffs were amazing. She has no understanding of economics and this is despite having a degree in it. She screws up things that are just common sense.
Her own party hates her and I won’t be surprised if they try to run someone against her in the next election. Maybe you mistake the media coverage she gets for something it isn’t. Of course Fox is going to pillory her, but the rest of the coverage of her idiocy is to get people to toss her out. Of course the media made the same mistake with Trump, so I’m sure the Democrats will have this blow up in their face again.
Cortez is still an idiot though.
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.