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."
How will this be achieved and where is the funding? Oh, fucking magic. Got it.
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! --
Wind turbines and solar panels have to be manufactured, and that takes emissions.
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.
Someone needs to duct tape Occasional-Cortex's mouth shut.
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.
this all is great, but can we focus on the 7 step makup process first, reducing it down to 2 would probably avert climate change by itself.
So congress is now passing bills that literally do nothing but allow them to grandstand.
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.
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.
They're talking about potential damage the boogie monster will do in the future, but I don't even believe in the boogie monster.
Plus, none of the issues they mention sound like dangers greatly above and beyond the norm. They don't have a crystal ball.. they have no idea if "climate change" will impact the daily lives of people in 100 years or not. Just like one day day people say the planet is going to be overpopulated.. the next there won't be enough people. How can they tell what capacity future generations will be able to manage issues (if any actual) arising from "climate change"? This is all speculative FUD. About the boogie monster never-the-less.
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"
Given that the IPCC has just quietly slashed its predictions, saying that over this century global warming might be as low 0.7 degrees C, or as high as 1.3 degrees C, while other climatologists think there's even a possibility of global cooling, then why are the Democrats not paying attention ? Apparently they want to continue GW hysteria as a political issue, with themselves as the beneficiaries following in the footsteps of Algae. I'd like to see both the House and the Senate required to learn about science before being elected - and yes, I know about the proverbial sphere of frozen water in Hades ...
You have to be under thirty, and I will be spanking the crap out of your shitty parents later tonight. Hopefully they can then transfer it to you. Give me a break.
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.'"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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/
We should also use all the carrion generated by late-term retroactive abortion-on-demand to feed the homeless and the poor. It's morally indefensible to waste precious resources with such profligacy.
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?
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/
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.
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."
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.
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.
Yet another reason to get rid of democrats!
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%.
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.
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/
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.
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/
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/
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!!!
https://medium.com/jvnto/why-d...
Can someone explain that to me? **unwilling** to work -- did I read that correctly?
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!
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
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/
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Devil is in the details..
You'll find plenty of other right-wingers on this site. You'll be right at home.
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...
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]
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.
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.
Or Russia in 1917. Good luck guys.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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!
Perhaps Ocasio-Cortez could hold her breath indefinitely to demonstrate how net-zero emissions would work.
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.
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.
Slashdot articles used to have thousands of replies?
You can try to steal my truck and stop my wood stove.
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.
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!!
"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 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