International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Green New Deal (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334672)

Brainster 7th February 2019 01:39 PM

The Green New Deal
 
AOC rolled out her Green New Deal today:

Quote:

Under the plan, the electricity system would run entirely on "clean, renewable, and zero-emission sources," the resolution states. It envisions new investments in public transportation, improving building energy efficiency, clean manufacturing and green infrastructure. Investments would prioritize communities that "may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries" while also ensuring room for "high-paying union jobs" that include prevailing wages and protect collective bargaining rights. It also pushes to "stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas."
Sounds wonderful, but the devil is in the details. For starters, the GND hand-waves away any questions about funding:

Quote:

The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit.
And in case that isn't specific enough:

Quote:

At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy, that will grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how we'll pay for it but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.
The document is not all smoke and mirrors; only 90%. Getting down to specifics, they envision ending all air travel in 10 years. No, I'm not kidding:

Quote:

...build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary...
And no nukes:

Quote:

A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants.
Oh, and there's this little proposal:

Quote:

Upgrade or replace every building in the US for state of the art energy efficiency.
The plan claims support from 92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans, including Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand among others.

The Big Dog 7th February 2019 01:42 PM

You missed the hilarity of the farting cows!

Sen Mazie Hirono (D-HI) on Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal & trying to cut down on air air travel. “That would be pretty hard for Hawaii”

When Crazy Mazie think your plan is crazy... well....

Thermal 7th February 2019 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12593035)
You missed the hilarity of the farting cows!

Sen Mazie Hirono (D-HI) on Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal & trying to cut down on air air travel. “That would be pretty hard for Hawaii”

When Crazy Mazie think your plan is crazy... well....

That's like four in the space of an hour! I predict many more

Ranb 7th February 2019 01:55 PM

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ
Quote:

Guaranteeing economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.
How is she going to get the working public to support that?

There is no real plan yet, and additional taxes are not ruled out. So without air travel, it will be mostly trains and ships? Sailing ships? Perhaps she knows she'll never need an air ambulance. I was fortunate to get an airlift when I open fractured my leg out in the woods. :)

Ranb

dudalb 7th February 2019 01:57 PM

Well, if the Republicans could come up with own Plan for Climate Change and Protecting the Enviorment.....
But they can't because any that would work would violate the Lassize Faire, Let Business Do Whatever It Wants dogma that is the GOP's stock in trade.

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranb (Post 12593054)
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ

How is she going to get the working public to support that?

There is no real plan yet, and additional taxes are not ruled out. So without air travel, it will be mostly trains and ships? Sailing ships? Perhaps she knows she'll never need an air ambulance. I was fortunate to get an airlift when I open fractured my leg out in the woods. :)

Ranb

Not exactly thrilled with it myself.
I think the "high speed rail to replace air travel" is just plain ridiculous
And it's wrong,wrong,wrong on Nuclear Power.
And it's really vague about where the money for all this is going to come from.

The Big Dog 7th February 2019 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593059)
Well, if the Republicans could come up with own Plan for Climate Change and Protecting the Enviorment.....
But they can't because any that would work would violate the Lassize Faire, Let Business Do Whatever It Wants dogma that is the GOP's stock in trade.

Walk us how that is going to make this mindbendingly awful plan somehow less awful?

thread; here is an awful plan by the progressive numbskulls in Congress.
dudalb: Republicans bad!

seriously do you have a macro or something that automatically posts nonsense like that?

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12593051)
That's like four in the space of an hour! I predict many more

As much as I dislike TBD and his snide cows remark, there is a lot to criticize in the plan.

The Big Dog 7th February 2019 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593066)
As much as I dislike TBD and his snide cows remark, there is a lot to criticize in the plan.

It is not my snide cow remark!

It is literally in the FAQ! I didn't write it, the goofballs in Congress did.

Farting cow then... farting cows Now.... farting Cows Forever!

You will have to rip the farting cows out of my cold dead hands....

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: "I have nothing to offer but milk, manure, moos, tears and farts."

Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this cattle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the cows cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies's farts.

Thermal 7th February 2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593066)
As much as I dislike TBD and his snide cows remark, there is a lot to criticize in the plan.

There is always room for criticism and improvements, agreed. Any floundering steps in the right direction are a good thing, though.

Re: cow farts. As silly as it seems, the methane produced by massive cow farming is believed to have a measurably negative impact on the environment

Thermal 7th February 2019 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12593069)
It is not my snide cow remark!

It is literally in the FAQ! I didn't write it, the goofballs in Congress did.

Farting cow then... farting cows Now.... farting Cows Forever!

You will have to rip the farting cows out of my cold dead hands....

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: "I have nothing to offer but milk, manure, moos, tears and farts."

Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this cattle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the cows cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies's farts.

Just...just too many to hilite...the Ides of March have cut loose their hideous flatulence

Belz... 7th February 2019 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593060)
Not exactly thrilled with it myself.
I think the "high speed rail to replace air travel" is just plain ridiculous
And it's wrong,wrong,wrong on Nuclear Power.

Agreed.

bytewizard 7th February 2019 02:21 PM

Quote:

Upgrade or replace every building in the US for state of the art energy efficiency.
Perhaps more energy efficient walls?

The Big Dog 7th February 2019 02:26 PM

The twitter posse is slaughtering AOC's sacred (farting) cows:

Other Green Dream promises

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:27 PM

I guess it's good to start a serious discussion, but it's really badly flawed as a plan.
Needless to say, it is being savagely attack by the Trump supporters, but ,sadly, their attacks seemed to be based on the "Climate Change Is A Huge Scam'.
We are dealing with too extremes here: People who just want to pretend that Climate Change does not exist, and and unrealistic plan to fix it.
Another criticism of the plan is that an awful lot of it seems pretty unconnected to real enviormental problems and is just wish list of progressive proposols.

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12593096)
The twitter posse is slaughtering AOC's sacred (farting) cows:

Other Green Dream promises

OK, granted the The New Green Deal has many flaws, what are your proposols for dealing with Climate CHange?:
Or do you prefer to pretend it's not a real problem?

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12593079)
Agreed.

The total dismissal of Nuclear Power is pure pandering to all the ex hippies out there.
I think the enviormental movment made a huge mistake in it's rejection of nuclear power. Totally based on "Nuclear is BAD" rather then any real reasoning.

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12593061)
Walk us how that is going to make this mindbendingly awful plan somehow less awful?

thread; here is an awful plan by the progressive numbskulls in Congress.
dudalb: Republicans bad!

seriously do you have a macro or something that automatically posts nonsense like that?

We are waiting for your proposols for dealing with Climate Change.
I won't hold my breath.

sir drinks-a-lot 7th February 2019 02:35 PM

Unicorns and Rainbows.

The Big Dog 7th February 2019 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593099)
OK, granted the The New Green Deal has many flaws, what are your proposols for dealing with Climate CHange?:
Or do you prefer to pretend it's not a real problem?

It would appear that this thread is for the purpose of ridiculing the idiotic green plan foisted by wildly out of touch lunatics this morning.

But as for myself, i adhere to a three part plan:

1. Nukes, nukes and more nukes.
2. leave my farting cows alone
3. if it don't work out, I hear tell that it is going to work out pretty good for us folks around the great lakes, so.... win the water wars i shall...

Brainster 7th February 2019 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12593069)
It is not my snide cow remark!

It is literally in the FAQ! I didn't write it, the goofballs in Congress did.

Heh, didn't catch that on my first read-through, but you are right:

Quote:

We set a goal to get to net-zero rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast...
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. And farting cows.

acbytesla 7th February 2019 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593102)
The total dismissal of Nuclear Power is pure pandering to all the ex hippies out there.
I think the enviormental movment made a huge mistake in it's rejection of nuclear power. Totally based on "Nuclear is BAD" rather then any real reasoning.

I'm with you there. I keep reading about Molten Salt Thorium Reactors. A technology that was pioneered by the US and abandoned which has been picked up in a big way by China, India, Norway and others. It looks like another example of invented by Americans and capitalized by others.

carlitos 7th February 2019 02:41 PM

The FAQ isn't much help - the anti-nuclear stance isn't fact or science-based.

The elimination of air travel is a pipe dream written by someone without a working knowledge of American geography or economics.

I'm kind of bummed, honestly. I figured that I wouldn't like this, but I had hoped for a more fact-based document after all of the buildup.

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12593121)
The FAQ isn't much help - the anti-nuclear stance isn't fact or science-based.

The elimination of air travel is a pipe dream written by someone without a working knowledge of American geography or economics.

I'm kind of bummed, honestly. I figured that I wouldn't like this, but I had hoped for a more fact-based document after all of the buildup.

Same here. Heaven knows we need to address climate change, but this document does not come close to being workable.
One reason is a lot of it is not even that connected with Climate CHange, but more like trying to force in a lot of Progressive Dogma in a thin disguise of Climate Change.

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot (Post 12593108)
Unicorns and Rainbows.

A lot of it is, but I repeat, let's here a conservative program for Dealing With Climate CHange..other then "It All A Hoax".

dudalb 7th February 2019 02:50 PM

I think a lot of Dems who are oohing and awing about the plan are going to move away when they actually read the damn thing.

Brainster 7th February 2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593099)
OK, granted the The New Green Deal has many flaws, what are your proposols for dealing with Climate CHange?:
Or do you prefer to pretend it's not a real problem?

Stop pretending that this is not going to require sacrifice and that it can be accomplished in the timeframe they are talking about. Nuclear power is the long-term solution, but even if we start building now it will be years before they come online. And of course we won't start building now because the "Greens" will oppose nuclear power.

ChrisBFRPKY 7th February 2019 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12593069)
It is not my snide cow remark!

It is literally in the FAQ! I didn't write it, the goofballs in Congress did.

Farting cow then... farting cows Now.... farting Cows Forever!

You will have to rip the farting cows out of my cold dead hands....

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: "I have nothing to offer but milk, manure, moos, tears and farts."

Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this cattle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the cows cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies's farts.

Obviously for the long term: She's probably planning to phase out these farty climate killing cows and everyone will eventually switch from beef to tofu. Issue bovine condoms to prevent further cattle births and ramp up calf abortions to collect the freshest veal.

In the meantime, we can install cattle butt plugs with regulators and use the collected methane to power solar panel factories.
Chris B.

PhantomWolf 7th February 2019 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12593111)
And farting cows.

I'm not sure if they actually say "farting cows" in the document, but if so, it's actually wrong, the issue is not "farting cows" but rather "burping cows."

Being in one of the major diary areas in the world, this is an actual issue. Diary herds produce a lot of Methane in their gut, and they burp it up. Here in NZ this methane is our largest source of Greenhouse gases. Methane is also 30 times worse than Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas!

We are working on ways to decrease it, such as genetically engineering the microbes in the cow's gut so that they produce less Methane, and changing the grasses so that they aren't broken down in a way that produces methane.

So yeah, it's easy to giggle at "farting cows," but it actually a very real issue that needs solving.

dudalb 7th February 2019 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12593139)
Stop pretending that this is not going to require sacrifice and that it can be accomplished in the timeframe they are talking about. Nuclear power is the long-term solution, but even if we start building now it will be years before they come online. And of course we won't start building now because the "Greens" will oppose nuclear power.

I favor Nuclear Power,but also think that other forms of non fossil fuel energy are going to be valuable.
One thing is sure, the Trump administration contempt for anything but fossil fuel energy is a step backward. And I actually think that it's simply because Trumpy thinks that fossil based energy is macho,and non fossil based energy is wimpy.
Even somebody as right wing as Robert Heinlein said we need to move away from fossil fuels for energy, for no other reason then fossil fuels are to valuable to use when other methods are available.
But I agree that it's going to require sacrifice. And few Politicians of any stripe nowdays seem to want to do a Churchillian "Blood Sweat and Tears" speech.

carlitos 7th February 2019 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12593181)
I'm not sure if they actually say "farting cows" in the document, but if so, it's actually wrong, the issue is not "farting cows" but rather "burping cows."

"Farting cows" comes from the FAQ word for word:



Quote:

Originally Posted by the FAQ
We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.


dudalb 7th February 2019 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12593185)
"Farting cows" comes from the FAQ word for word:

Retrofit every building in America??????????
Leaving cost aside is that even feasible?

carlitos 7th February 2019 03:23 PM

"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized."
--Daniel Burnham, probably

PhantomWolf 7th February 2019 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12593185)
"Farting cows" comes from the FAQ word for word:

Ahh, yeah when it first came up here the media used the same term, but it was eventually cleared up that most of the gases they produce comes from them burping up the gases from their stomachs. Either way it is a real issue, and we are spending a lot of money trying to solve it down here.

PhantomWolf 7th February 2019 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593188)
Retrofit every building in America??????????
Leaving cost aside is that even feasible?

It reads more like a dream list that a practical one. It nice to have a target to aim for though, and why not go for the "best case scenario" rather than creating a target that is already watered down?

dudalb 7th February 2019 03:34 PM

And I think a lot of people are supporting this without actually studying it because "Green New Deal" sounds so nice.

PhantomWolf 7th February 2019 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593213)
And I think a lot of people are supporting this without actually studying it because "Green New Deal" sounds so nice.

I think that a lot of it is practicable or at least worth researching.

Over the last 10 years of so, we have had a huge Government program to get homes in New Zealand properly Insulated and energy efficient.

A lot can be done, switching to LED lighting where practical, insulation being added where practical. Putting in double glazing where it is needed. Switching out energy inefficient appliances with newer more efficient ones.

I actually suspect that it would be a lot easier in the US than here because a lot of buildings would already have the insulation and double glazing due to your weather extremes, whereas here the idea of heavily insulating a building is a very new idea and a lot of homes built prior to the 1990's don't have a huge amount, and virtually none have double glazing.

theprestige 7th February 2019 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12593203)
It reads more like a dream list that a practical one. It nice to have a target to aim for though, and why not go for the "best case scenario" rather than creating a target that is already watered down?

"We should retrofit every building in America!"

Ten years later:

"A few buildings got retrofitted, thanks to my genius plan!"

PhantomWolf 7th February 2019 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12593237)
"We should retrofit every building in America!"

Ten years later:

"A few buildings got retrofitted, thanks to my genius plan!"

As I noted above, I do wonder how many buildings actually need to be retrofitted based on the climate in the US. However it is actually practical as we have done it here and continue to do it. It started with Government Subsidies for homes older than 1990, and carried on through free insulation for pensioners and those on low incomes, and now they are working on getting as many rental properties as possible done. By 2030 most homes in the country will be up to spec. Yes it would be a larger scale in the US, but you also have more people capable of doing the job too.

bytewizard 7th February 2019 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12593188)
Retrofit every building in America??????????
Leaving cost aside is that even feasible?

No. Without the internal combustion engine, what building supplies are to be used? Mining for steel and aluminum would be impossible using only wind and solar. Lumber would be obsolete. Shipping the supplies would also be impossible. Is the plan to first retrofit every building then eliminate the combustion engine? Think of the carbon footprint left behind from this massive task.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.