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."

Comments

Fairly easy to do this

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

I'm assuming you've run the numbers on this, since you state that the solution is really simple.

So, just out of curiousity, how much money does the Federal govt make every year due to tax exemptions, tax incentives, and tax depreciation on all fossil fuel infrastructure every year?

Oh, and how much money does the Federal government lose due to the loss of taxes from the fossil fuel industries, since it'll pretty much evaporate if this does what you expect it to do?

Alas, this "bill" is no such thing, really. It doesn't include spending, or any details on how it's to be spent. It's just a feel-good-about-ourselves post-it note, really....

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[rtb61]

Actually the green new deal should not be just about renewable energy but zero waste cities. So fully sealed sewerage, where the gases are pumped out of the system and the methane extracted and burnt to generate energy, the carbon being the lessor evil versus methane and energy provided. The sewerage should then be properly processed, digested slowly over a thousands years, 'er', days to break it down and release more methane to be collected and burnt as energy. The final waste, steam sterilised (waste heat from the gas turbines) and packaged as sterile fertilizer. It is more than just renewables.

That is one waste stream, now the hard wastes, they should be processed as well, right back down to the natural resource, ready to be sold back to manufacturers and that will take a lot of energy, which renewables can not supply, so they have to be nuclear. Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events, being earth quakes, hail storms (solar panels) and other extreme weather. So a major hail storm could take out the majority of a cities solar panels and that would take months to repair, no alternate energy, then those cities are dying, literally, the economy and the people, so you absolutely need back up energy, nuclear, for renewable energy sources.

So the Green New Deal should have zero waste cities as it's aim, not just renewables.

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[WillAffleckUW]

Well, if 90 percent of the Department of Energy budget is for fossil fuel incentives, and their budget is x amount, the math is fairly simple.

Based on the SEC filings of the energy firms I've owned thousands of shares in over the years, the exemptions and exclusions for tax "reasons" are way more than we're talking about. Depreciation itself is a massive amount of tax.

It's like asking "can we afford to have an acre for a garden" when you own a 4000 acre farm. The answer is, yes.

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[ChatHuant]

Because the companies paying the carbon tax would just swallow the cost and not pass on the cost to the consumer.

Ah. I find this an excellent opportunity to let you know about those fancy new ideas named "market economy" and "competition".
The way it works is: say company X, paying the carbon tax, decides to pass the extra cost to the customer. But another company, Y, who has better technology or better process, generates less or no carbon emissions, so it will not pay the same tax, and won't have any extra cost to pass to customers! And, here's the trick, customers will say "why should we pay the bigger price for company X, when we can get a similar product more cheaply from company Y?".

What do you think will happen next? Why, company X will have lower sales! So they'll cut their production, and therefore reduce their carbon emissions - which is what you wanted to begin with! It's like magic, isn't it?

I'm glad I was able to inform you about those bleeding edge concepts; I think they have a lot of potential - maybe we can even create a whole economic system based on some of that!

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[Zontar The Mindless]

No dome required.

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[necro81]

Well, if 90 percent of the Department of Energy budget is for fossil fuel incentives, and their budget is x amount, the math is fairly simple

It's not that simple, because despite it's name, the Department of Energy is not primarily about the production and consumption of energy. Rather, it's primary mission is managing the U.S. nuclear weapons program: the design and manufacture of the weapons, making sure they still work, fundamental nuclear research, etc.

Here is the DoE FY2019 budget request fact sheet. It's a $30.6B department - tiny in the scope of the U.S. federal government. The top line item, fully one half of that budget, is "National Nuclear Security Administration".

Surprised? You're not alone. The present Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, also apparently didn't know that the DoE, ya know, doesn't do much with energy. That is, of course, when he wasn't forgetting about it entirely. Ooops.

And it's here, at the end of what I hope was an informative post, that I'll point out Obama's first DoE secretary was a Nobel laureate in physics.

Re:Fairly easy to do this

[ChrisMaple]

Murder, Inc. was market-based. That did not make it conservative or moral any more than a carbon tax is either conservative or moral.

A carbon tax actually isn't market based because it is founded on government rigging of the free market to accomplish a political goal, and because it's based on the scientific fantasy that carbon dioxide as produced by machines is harmful.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

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

No no, we need 79 ACA repeals

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going for a record 100 repeals that do nothing.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

For one year, cut the military budget in half.
Spend that on renewables.

Re:Simple solution

[Goldsmith]

More than that is already spent on renewable energy investment. It's not as big a number as you think.

It's great that the link to the actual GND document is posted here, people should read it.

There are a few things the GND gets right. We do need physical infrastructure upgrades, power infrastructure upgrades, manufacturing modernization, agricultural modernization, improved public transportation, and better application of science to ecology.

There are also a few things that GND gets wrong. There is very little focus, and no actual goals. Mostly, there is a depressing willingness to abandon green principles (science based ecology) for modern socialist principles. Reading the text throws into sharp relief where these philosophies clash. For example, there are many socially driven conditions and exceptions put on how and where changes can be made. If the goal is truly green, there should be no exceptions or special groups to consider. The GND follows the same philosophy as what the right has put forth in the past: ecology is great as long as it doesn't disrupt the other desires of my political base.

The most useful thing here is that we have some written policies from the left presented in an authoritative way. Perhaps the moderates can eventually piece together some reasonable set of policies from the GND and the clean coal plan so we can finish up with the politics (after 20 years...) and move on to actually doing something.

Some good ideas, lots of bad policy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Smart economical stimulus

[manu0601]

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.

Re:Smart economical stimulus

[manu0601]

Yes, just like Obama's economic stimulus package did..

What was the project behind Obama's stimulus? I mean, we all heard about the stimulus, but I cannot tell where the money went.

Missing the point

[al0ha]

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.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Net zero emissions?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I mean, for now. But eventually solar energy should be used to make solar panels. And eventually, to mine the materials. There may be by-products of creation (e.g. slag from ore refinement), but there's no logical reason we cannot get to 100% renewable energy. With enough energy we can recycle materials from older panels too, so we can start limiting those by products.

Re:Net zero emissions?

[AvitarX]

Net negative will require zero greenhouse use energy production, low greenhouse produced making of that equipment, and some type of capture to offset it.

It's not a hard concept we don't get, it's basically common sense.

I don't think a ten year plan to hit net zero is practical, honestly, 40-60% doesn't seem likely without some type of effort to capture them. There was an interesting idea of bubbling CO2 from a power plant through algea pits to make bio fuel for example, but that was ages ago and it's not happening, so I doubt it meets expectations.

Any common sense reading of net zero greenhouse gasses includes manufacturing though, why would you assume it doesn't?

What's a non-binding resolution good for?

[drinkypoo]

Grandstanding? It's not news that Republicans don't give a shit about the environment, so what's the goal here?

Re:What's a non-binding resolution good for?

[jeff4747]

The goal is to hold a vote that can be used as a point of debate in future elections.

AKA, moving the Overton Window.

Re:Cool

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

No Need

[Jarwulf]

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.

Re:Cool

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Cool

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

It's the exact opposite

[rsilvergun]

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.

This isn't her idea

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:This isn't her idea

[jwhyche]

She is a dingbat, and Bush Jr was a dumbass.

Re:This isn't her idea

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:This isn't her idea

[iwbcman]

In contrast to most other fields of study, economics stands out, for producing legions of educated idiots, who, on average, have less understanding of economics than those with no formal training. The number of actual economists who truly grasp how economies in reality, vs. theory, actually work, is so small that they should be on the endangered species list.
For most of the 20th century a degree in economics signified literally nothing more than ideological indoctrination in dogma, that had no social scientific basis whatsoever, which proved wonderfully immune to any actual empirical research, which understood itself completely a-historically and which proffered self-justifying theories with a level of theoretical sophistication appropriate to third graders. As a field of study, economics, as taught in most universities in the west throughout most of the 20th century was simply put the absolute least critical field of study in existence, critical thought being somewhat incompatible with mere regurgitation of ideological dogma and the mental mastubatory mantras of free markets.

Your average economist has zero understanding of how money is created. Zero understanding of how banks work. Zero understanding of the relationship of credit and debt. No comprehension whatsoever of the most basic elements of anything which could be considered an economy. As the most intellectually bankrupt field of study in existence, economics, truly does stand out.

Most economists believe everything is a market. They believe Markets are nature(al). They believe Markets naturally tend towards perfect competition, in which information and knowledge is equally present for all actors, at all times, and thus natural markets are by their nature, perfect. They believe any failure of markets is due to intervention, usually attributed to government regulation. They believe Markets always seek equilibrium and that equilibrium is qua definition just distribution. You might be inclined to call economics a bad religion, but Bad Religion, at least produced some really good music, in contrast to economists, who missed every significant ongoing in the actual economy, until after the fact, and then misdiagnosed what had happened.

If you think that Alexandria Occassio-Cortez doesn't understand economics and that she's a dingbat, chances are your understanding of economics is based on mere regurgitation of ideological dogma, void of any critical thought. But hey, don't take this as a personal attack, the real goal of most economists has been to indoctrinate the entire population with their braindead propaganda. As with any generalization, there are exceptions, and perhaps your critique of her understanding of economics is founded in something, if that's the case please excuse my little rant here, but go ahead and explicate exactly what her economics misunderstanding supposedly is.

As a non-economist I would eat most economists for breakfast if it wasn't for the bad digestion which follows.

Re:This isn't her idea

[jwhyche]

As a non-economist I would eat most economists for breakfast if it wasn't for the bad digestion which follows.

I usually find that most self appointed "experts" are pretty much not. . At least I have a much better understanding than the dingbat.

Re:This isn't her idea

[jwhyche]

You don't have to be a expert in anything to recognize her dingbattery. As more of her foolish ideal gets out the more of a fool she is. Here are things that the dingbat wants that will not happen.

She isn't going to get rid of fossil fuels in 10 years.

She isn't going to do away with any kind of air travel and replace it with high speed trains. As much as I would like to see this. I like trains.

She isn't going rebuild every building in the US to make it more energy efficient.

She isn't going to make the cows stop farting.

None of this is going to happen. Her new "green" deal will never make it to the Congress floor. This bullshit will never make it out of committee. An if for some reason both the house and senate both lose their collective mind and pass this bill, then Trump will never sign it.

Lets just go one step further and say Trump, for some reason I can't comprehend, was to sign it into law. Then the courts will strike it down before the ink is even dry.

But wait! Lets just say the courts go "okay dokey" to this bullshit. It is physically impossible to carry out her plan in the time frame her digbatness sets for it.

I cannot be done and it will not be done. An the fact that she or anyone that supports her can't see that makes them fools and her a dingbat.

Re:This isn't her idea

[iwbcman]

Look, I can totally understand your scepticism, and will freely admit that at first glance her proposition seems rather pie-in-the-sky. Now people can and do have totally different understandings of what politics is about or about the best way to go about achieving something.

I honestly do not care about the supposed time-frame that is being talked about. Rather the questions for me are a) is this the right direction b) is it a direction people could rally behind c) is it significant enough for politicians to use as a policy platform around which to elect candidates. Our current representatives will not do anything of significance, but that does not mean that we could not elect politicians that someday will.

Right now the biggest problem is we the people. We, as a society, are incapable of articulating anything that we commonly want. So first up there needs to be a building of the "we": what speaks to the values that most Americans would like to hold, not what we already do hold, but that we could aspire to. The only majority that counts in a democracy is a majority that is built around consensus, but for their to be a majority one must first build such a consensus, one does this proposing ideas around which people can rally.

Trump is attempting to do this with the wall right now, luckily he cannot possibly achieve this because the vast majority of Americans do not aspire to being chickenshits who are terrified of immigrants. But a lot of people could aspire to to a vision of Americas future where instead of being impotent and doomed we could see ourselves as agents of positive change, effecting a future which we want to have- a future where we adequately address climate change fears, where we make profound investments in our own infrastructure and technologically lead the world in addressing a whole host of issues, while pursuing a goal that we agree is a good goal.

If a "we" can be constituted around positive goals and politicians are then elected who represent that "we", damn near anything is possible, not necessarily in 10 years but over the course of a generation profound changes can and do happen. Right now "we" want to argue, fight, bicker and complain, right now "we" can't agree as to whether or not the sky is blue, when it is. This has been true for a friggin generation, at least since Bill Clinton became president.

One of the primary reasons our political system is so completely broken is that our politicians have fundamentally failed to do their most basic job which is to build consensi around issues about which people care and to do so in such a fashion that people feel empowered to participate/be part of. Most people feel impotent to do much of anything about much of anything, most people feel that politics is nothing more than a spectator sport or really bad entertainment. In the absence of things, which we can aspire to achieve, around which we can build consensi, we devolve into fearmongering, othering and cowardice-we become our own worst enemies.

I understand scepticism, I get it, it's healthy in certain doses, but the question really is not whether this New Green Deal is something that can be passed as a bill, which it is not, currently by this house and this senate with this president, but rather is it a direction we could and more importantly should be headed in? Do you actually oppose what is contained in the New Green Deal?, do you feel that these lofty goals are going in the wrong direction? Or simply that such is not simply possible right now?

Everyone has a right to be completely jaded right now in regards to our politics, completely justified, in fact optimism at this point in time would appear to be completely delusional, but can you really say no to a prospect where we might be able to actually say yes to the goals of our politicians and feel part of some positive grand ambition which we can aspire to achieve? And just remember this the scale of problems we are confronting require nothing less than a g

Re:This isn't her idea

[jwhyche]

I'm skeptical of bigfoot and maybe aliens. I'm not skeptical of anything this dingbat sponsors. I KNOW that nothing she sponsors will reach the House floor. This deal is dead before it had a chance.

Dingbat 0, Common sense 1

Re:This isn't her idea

[jwhyche]

Agreed. Something we both can agree on. There is a reason a group of baboons is called a congress.

Re:Cool

[ShanghaiBill]

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).

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for demonstrating the worthlessness of an economics degree from Boston University.

Climate change is a worldwide issue

[vipvop]

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.

Re:Climate change is a worldwide issue

[jeff4747]

There's no point in crippling the United States' economy when India and Asia are going to make CC happen anyway

First, it's not clear that it would actually cripple the economy. The price of renewables is already low enough that private industry is installing it without incentives. The problem is they're not moving fast enough to avert the worst problems.

Second, the best way to get "Asia" on board is to have the technology to sell to them. How else do you plan to "get them off coal"?

Sitting on our hands while pointing fingers at other countries accomplishes nothing in the short run, and in the long run it means those other countries get to develop the technology and get most of the jobs.

Re: Cool

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Cool

[WillAffleckUW]

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)

Selling fantasies can backfire

[joe_frisch]

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 .

Non binding resolution

[erp_consultant]

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.

Re:Non binding resolution

[jeff4747]

The point of this bill is not to actually implement something RIGHT NOW. The point is to hold a vote which can then be used to shape future elections.

Because there is no possible way to get any sort of "green" program past McConnell. But voting "no" on this can make it more difficult for members of his caucus, especially the ones who have been lying to coal country for decades about "bringing coal jobs back".

Re:Non binding resolution

[DerekLyons]

The point of this bill is not to actually implement something RIGHT NOW. The point is to hold a vote which can then be used to shape future elections.

The point of the bill is allowing AOC to demonstrate to her base that she is Doing Something. It's not a plan. It's not a policy. It's not a position paper that can be used to shape planning or policy. It reads like a random collection of Facebook posts and poorly thought out comments on the same because that's largely what it is. It's vague manifesto for the Progressive Left to rally around. For all the logic and sense in it, she might as well have printed out a copy of the most popular image memes on the various topics.

The frightening part is that so many on the Left are hailing it exactly as you are - as though it were something it isn't.

If we're very lucky, it will go down in flames. But it's much more likely the House will pass it to spite the Republicans, and we'll be stuck with this albatross around our collective necks and preventing sensible policy and planning for decades.

Re: Cool

[c6gunner]

Corporations are back to laying of workers again

Talk about a workplace benefit! I gotta move to the US ...

Re:Cool

[blindseer]

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.

Re: Cool

[apoc.famine]

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%?

Re:Net zero emissions?

[blindseer]

here's no logical reason we cannot get to 100% renewable energy

Sure there is, material demands.

http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

For the same energy output nuclear takes far less materials than wind, hydro, geothermal, and especially solar. There is not enough mining in the world to meet the kind of material needs to switch to 100% renewable energy. We aren't going to get there any time soon either as we are talking not about a doubling or tripling of output but orders of magnitude difference. Nuclear takes no more materials than coal for the same energy. We can switch to nuclear without any kind of "green deal", we only need a government willing to issue licenses for their construction and put an end to the subsidies on wind and solar that drive them out of the market.

Re:When a barista tries to be a lawmaker

[melted]

Yes, about 300K per quarter is "millions", for those good with basic arithmetics. That's 2 years after Nobel Prize winning economists wrote off US economy as having no growth prospects beyond 2% a year.

Re:Cool

[Uberbah]

America spends about $80B keeping Middle East using the petrodollar

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.

Randian blather

[Uberbah]

Funding the military is a constitutionally mandated function of the federal government

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.

I want to see more nuclear power but the problem is that the federal government placed itself in the position that they are the one and only place where anyone in the USA can go to get a license. I want the federal government out of my business.

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.

Get the government out of our energy. We would be far better off in the long run for it.

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.

Some kernels of good ideas...

[Chas]

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).

Economic security for those unwilling to work?

[galabar]

Can someone explain that to me? **unwilling** to work -- did I read that correctly?

Re:Got any specifics?

[jwhyche]

I believe most of us are better off than we where years before.

AOC is fighting

She needs to stop fighting an sit down and shut up. Every time she opens her mouth it just shows how clueless she really is. Calling her a dingbat is actually being kind to her. Her ideal are so insane that normal people look at her and think "this is what the democratic party is becoming." Trump is better than what she wants to do. Nobody believes anything she wants to do is remotely possible. Nobody takes her seriously. When she talks all she does is help to make sure Trump is re-elected in 2020

Re:Cool

[MrKaos]

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.

Re:It's done just fine everywhere it's been tried

[blindseer]

I'm getting real tired of having to say this on a bloody science forum, but here we go again:

This is what AOC & Bernie are: Democratic Socialists.

I know, they are calling for national socialism for the workers. There's been many such political parties and they never seem to end well for millions of people. If you think that a democratic socialist government is such a nice government to have then why stay in the USA? I like it here much as it is now, and there aren't many places like it left. Don't ruin this "terrible" place for me, go where it suits you.

If America is such a terrible place then we need a wall on our borders. We don't want people wandering in and exposing themselves to this. Keep them out, for their own benefit. In fact, leave while you still can. I hear that there's a terrible man in government determined to see our borders walled up. Go, you might not have much time. Save yourself from this terrible government. Go, leave me behind, I'll hold off the thugs that might keep you here so you can escape. I will gladly sacrifice myself to spare you from this terrible nation.

Please, go quickly. I BEG YOU!!

Re:Cool

[blindseer]

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.

Re:They're not

[jwhyche]

Well I did google it. The first links that came up showed that wages are up, and that Nancy Pelosi is wrong. So yeah, we are doing better. Now you may be in the small percent that isn't doing better, but who's fault is that really?

I don't think you understand the damage she is doing. Trump isn't going to lose to any right wing Democrat.. He is going to win 2020 pretty easy. Crap like dingbat lady says is what helps him. Every foolish word she says drives more people over to Trump.

So yes. Dingbat sit down, shut up.

Re: Cool

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Cool

[AmiMoJo]

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.

china and india

[mapkinase]

until these two monsters of CO2 pollution do anything it wont make any sense to even try to decrease first world pollution.

Re:Net zero emissions?

[AmiMoJo]

There are some pretty glaring errors in that blog post.

For example, he claims that Nuclear creates CO2-free energy, which is obviously false. His own graph goes on to contradict the headline, but even that is very optimistic compared to the peer-reviewed IPCC study of lifetime CO2 emissions (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf) that puts it at up to 110 gCO2eq/kWh depending on the fuel source.

His numbers for the amount of raw materials that go into renewables are kinda crazy too, and unsourced. Again, the IPCC report has proper peer reviewed numbers, but just looking at the amount of steel and concrete he thinks go into solar makes it obvious how badly he fudged the numbers.

And, because of course, he uses the classic "deaths per kWh" misdirection at the end to ignore the vast cost of nuclear accidents.

Re: Cool

[Type44Q]

And you can see how well that's working out for the French.

We need a demo

[biggaijin]

Perhaps Ocasio-Cortez could hold her breath indefinitely to demonstrate how net-zero emissions would work.

Re: Cool

[apoc.famine]

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.

We're all here talking about it

[rsilvergun]

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).