The Green New Deal

bytewizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would mining be impossible?
Why would Lumber be obsolete?
Why would shipping supplies be impossible?

Most retrofitting of buildings to make them energy efficient is adding insulation, double glazing, and energy beneficence lighting and appliances. Why would this be so hard?
 
She is no surprise, given the relentless propaganda in the government schools, the media, and entertainment industries.

She has been manufactured, by the millions.

She is also no surprise given the democratic party's abandonment of the working class - it's spite for them.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
She is no surprise, given the relentless propaganda in the government schools, the media, and entertainment industries.

She has been manufactured, by the millions.

She is also no surprise given the democratic party's abandonment of the working class - it's spite for them.
Click to expand...

When you have something to offer other the usual "Down WIth The Establishement" tripe, we might have something to dicsuss.
Amusing how in your world every politician is manufactured except for Trump.
 
Looks like Art of the Deal to me.

Ask for the sky, and let it get whittled down to what is feasible.

Great way to get the conversation moving for anyone who is interested in offering solutions instead of derision.

Of course, from those who think climate change is a liberal lie, I guess derision is to be expected.
 
quadraginta said:
Looks like Art of the Deal to me.

Ask for the sky, and let it get whittled down to what is feasible.

Great way to get the conversation moving for anyone who is interested in offering solutions instead of derision.

Of course, from those who think climate change is a liberal lie, I guess derision is to be expected.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's AOC. That's only acceptable if the Orange Turd does it, then it's genius!
 
quadraginta said:
Looks like Art of the Deal to me.

Ask for the sky, and let it get whittled down to what is feasible.

Great way to get the conversation moving for anyone who is interested in offering solutions instead of derision.

Of course, from those who think climate change is a liberal lie, I guess derision is to be expected.
Click to expand...

I have derision for the climate change deniers, but also dersion for some of the individual proposols in TNGD.
 
It's an interesting mix of achievable, plausible but stretching, and "what the".

In essence, it's no different to any other US politician (or any politician) setting a vision - except that this time the content is not treading the same old boards - and I think that's what is generating the attention.
 
quadraginta said:
Looks like Art of the Deal to me.

Ask for the sky, and let it get whittled down to what is feasible.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is feasible in the time frame they propose is nuclear power, but they have expressly ruled out nukes. This is not a serious proposal, it's a cruel joke. It's the usual happy horsecrap about we can convert to solar and electric vehicles and not sacrifice a bit because all the improvements will boost the economy. And don't worry about the cost we can create banks to finance it.

Oh, and that part about not having to sacrifice a bit? They were just kidding. You're going to have to get used to taking trains if you want to travel long distance, and don't bother trying to order a burger--the farting cows are all gone.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

I always find this funny coming from "small government" Republicans.

Nuclear is the biggest of "big government" energy solutions. Government pays for all the fundamental research to the tune of billions of $ each year. Government does all the underwriting because no insurance company can deal with the potential property damage. Government finances the projects because the up front costs are too high to finance privately.
 
dudalb said:
I have derision for the climate change deniers, but also dersion for some of the individual proposols in TNGD.
Click to expand...
Yeah parts of it are pretty bad, but it's not necessarily worse than many terrible ideas widely accepted by Republicans. I'm less inclined to focus on fringe left wing ideas that call for using the Fed to "pay for it" when the sitting Republican President is actively trying to push to politicize it's monetary policies. Equally terrible ideas, but the latter is decidedly mainstream and a real issue right now.
 
Brainster said:
The only thing that is feasible in the time frame they propose is nuclear power
Click to expand...

An ~20X increase in Nuclear power is not feasible in any foreseeable time frame. It's not economically feasible either in terms of financing or manufacturing and it's not technically feasible with current or next gen reactor technology.

There is research into reactor technologies that satisfy the last requirement somewhat but these are not even on the road-map for production ready technology yet so it's impossible to even begin assessing their economic viability yet.
 
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course, nuclear power has its risks and downsides, but that's why we have regulation. Over-regulation, mind you, has made the sector very expensive, downright unprofitable, even. The issue is mostly political, though the fission technologies we developed during WWII aren't necessarily the best for our modern needs. There's just no will to push this one further. Fusion, moreso, but it has its own issues. Regardless I think fission's still our best option, until such a time as solar becomes a real powerhouse, if ever.
 
lomiller said:
I always find this funny coming from "small government" Republicans.

Nuclear is the biggest of "big government" energy solutions. Government pays for all the fundamental research to the tune of billions of $ each year. Government does all the underwriting because no insurance company can deal with the potential property damage. Government finances the projects because the up front costs are too high to finance privately.
Click to expand...

That would indeed be funny, if this thread were not about the single most idiotic plan in human history that contains such nuggets as:

Guaranteed income for people who do not want to work.
Retrofitting every ******* structure in the Untited States.

Although complaining about fundamental research to the tune of billions of dollars a year demonstrates a next level ignorance of economics. It is cool, farting cows are the REAL problem.
 
Fine, fine, everyone have a laugh at it.

Now. If it's so bad, provide a better plan that will produce better results. Apart from Soylent Green and burning the poor to keep the rich warm, of course.
 
The Big Dog said:
if this thread were not about the single most idiotic plan in human history
Click to expand...

No that would be the plan to balance the budget by cutting taxes...

It's not a good plan, but it's no worse than the nonsense mainstream Republicans accept on a regular basis. The major difference is Republican nonsense has enough support that it has a chance to actually become policy, which makes it a bigger problem.
 
My mother posts Trump support all the time and she's terrified of nuclear power. It's not a left-right issue.
 
lomiller said:
No that would be the plan to balance the budget by cutting taxes...

It's not a good plan, but it's no worse than the nonsense mainstream Republicans accept on a regular basis. The major difference is Republican nonsense has enough support that it has a chance to actually become policy, which makes it a bigger problem.
Click to expand...

No, it is literally the dumbest ******* plan in human history.

These lunatics want to retrofit or rebuild every structure in the United States.

Put aside the cost, put aside the disruption, put aside the waste, and riddle me this: just how in the **** do these brain dead future totalitarian asshats intend to enforce this policy?

They want to build a train system that would completely replace airlines, never mind you know the people, animals, wildlife, crops that are already there?

For Christ sake even Nancy Pelosi took one look at this pot smoke hilarious freak show and rolled her eyes, calling it a green dream.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
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....
Click to expand...

Just build a bridge to Hawaii.

(any fans of Bojack Horseman?) ;)
 
Norman Alexander said:
Fine, fine, everyone have a laugh at it.

Now. If it's so bad, provide a better plan that will produce better results. Apart from Soylent Green and burning the poor to keep the rich warm, of course.
Click to expand...

The status quo will produce a better result than this plan. That’s how bad it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom