The Green New Deal

Parsman said:
May I ask then what actions you would propose to start the USA to taking some sort of positive action on climate change? So far your responses in this thread seem to have been naysaying. It won't work so don't try. Genuinely I would be interested in hearing some positive ideas from you rather than negative comments.
Click to expand...

Reduce pollution. Increase energy efficiency. Maintain a significant industrial base. The first two make things better regardless of what happens with the global climate. The third ensures that we have the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
60 million families in the US so 60 million structures for their private homes would be the dominant factor. 10K per building? 600 Billion dollars. Divert 1 year of military budget and it's done in a year. Spread it over a decade and it's less money that Trump has added to the military budget in his two years.
Click to expand...

Wow, that will go over great with the people who don’t own houses....

Just throwing other people’s money at something is a pipe dream.

You need material, you need skilled workers, you need transportation of both and then when you are done, you need to do something with the debris.

Example: in my general area, there are nine windows. So I need nine windows, new insulation, caulk, paint, guys to put them in, ways for that stuff to get here, and somewhere to get rid of and recycle 500 plus pounds of debris. Times 60 million....
 
Ziggurat said:
You're not being honest at all. You know that I know what a straw man is.
Click to expand...

Given what you wrote that I responded to, no, I don't. What I posted was not a strawman because it's not an attempt to phrase your argument in a way that's easy to attack. So before you accuse others of dishonesty, you should make a modicrum of effort to understand what the hell is being said.

The rest of your post is just an attack, as usual, since you're unable to support any of the arguments you make, ever.
 
Parsman said:
May I ask then what actions you would propose to start the USA to taking some sort of positive action on climate change? So far your responses in this thread seem to have been naysaying. It won't work so don't try. Genuinely I would be interested in hearing some positive ideas from you rather than negative comments.
Click to expand...

My thought too.

If the eventual course is to wind-down the fossil fuel power plants and replace them with renewables the only real downside of 'just getting on with it' is that you might engage in projects that could have been more efficient/cheaper if they'd been planned to perfection. But, really, there's little or no harm done by making a start.

And if we all, eventually, get cooked/frozen/drowned/blown away/whatever because of China, India and the rest then it hardly matters.

So, Ziggurat, what course of action would you propose?
 
theprestige said:
Reduce pollution. Increase energy efficiency. Maintain a significant industrial base. The first two make things better regardless of what happens with the global climate. The third ensures that we have the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment.
Click to expand...
OK that is all good theprestige and I agree, but how would does the USA go about reducing pollution if they can't agree on being part of a plan to reduce emissions? And improving the efficiency of current power sources is a start but they are all based on finite resources. Even Uranium for nuclear plants. The world needs to start thinking about sources of power that are not finite and it would be best to do it while we still have some of the older sources of power as a back up while renewables are made better and more efficient themselves. On the industrial base, no argument here.
 
Ziggurat said:
Go big on nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

The steadfast refusal to even consider new nuclear plants (AOC's plan is to decommission the remaining plants when possible) reveals how profoundly un-serious this proposal is. The GND seems to believe that renewable energy plants won't be just as vehemently opposed by the enviro-wacko crowd as nukes are. You can't build new hydroelectric dams because the rivers should run free. You can't build a solar energy farm because you will disturb the habitat of the desert tortoise. Wind power? Killing too many birds. And that's before we start talking about the environmental impact of laying 50 thousand or more miles of high-speed railroad track across the country.

And the timeframe proposed for this project is completely unrealistic. By 2030? The California high-speed rail was approved by the voters in 2008. They are currently hoping to have the San Jose-Bakersfield route operating in 2027. That's about 241 miles in 19 years.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Actually you are, and it is plain for everyone here to see

Ziggurat said:
The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this. No, it doesn’t work that way. Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.
Click to expand...

Do you see anyone here agreeing with the idea that all flight must end?

Do you see anyone here agreeing with the idea that all cows must be extermnated?

No, the logic being used here is "that we must do something, this is a starting point to generate discussions." and it has.

People are talking about it; some are participating in the discussions in good faith, some (like you) are just sniping and yapping from the bleachers.
 
Ziggurat said:
How would you suggest we force people to have fewer children? Mandated abortions? Involuntary sterilization? What do we do with countries that don’t go along with this? Invade them?
Click to expand...

You can't force people to have fewer children but you can not reward them for having more children. Mandated abortions would be a hard sell but we could stop trying to restrict abortions. As far as countries that don't go along, cut off all financial aid, don't let their excess population into our countries and let them deal with famine and epidemics themselves. It's harsh and cruel but reducing birthrates, especially among the poorest nations and among the poorest people in the richest nations, is the only long term solution.
 
This is all you have to know about the incompetents that put this ridiculous stunt together:

they are calling the FAQ they prepared a "mystery FAQ" and are denying that it is theirs

The pdf, however, clearly states that it was prepared by AOC's chief of staff.

America is being gaslighted by socialist grifters
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-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
Click to expand...

The Little Red Book and an AK is the proven formula.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is not what you wrote before. What you wrote before was wrong:
Click to expand...

It may have been incomplete, but it wasn't wrong.

Ziggurat said:
They are explicitly not ceasing the manufacturing of internal combustion powered cars.
Click to expand...

They explicitly ARE phasing them out. ALL NEW MODELS will be electric means that NO NEW MODELS will be only internal combustion powered. What part of "A Volvo Cars spokesman said the company would continue to manufacture existing petrol or diesel-only models launched before 2019, but they will gradually be replaced by hybrid and fully electric cars." escapes you?

You really do not understand how PHEV cars work, do you? Well, here is primer for you...

https://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/e...ml?intcid2=innovation-technology-library-phev

The internal combustion engine in a PHEV only connects to the drive train in high speed driving. As an example, my daughter's Audi, this would only ever happen if she were to significantly exceed the speed limit. She does not speed, which is why the car has rarely needed to use its internal combustion engine, and even then, only due to range limitations

PHEVs are not the ultimate solution, but they are a big step in the right direction.
 
Ziggurat said:
Go big on nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

And yet a forum search tells me that's your first mention of 'nuclear' in this thread. Why not enter that possibility into the debate, rather than sneer and snipe at other suggestions ? (while entering into interminable, page-filling debates about 'strawmen')

I tend to agree with the nukes approach as a part of the solution, though certainly not the whole solution. My attitude may be poisoned by the likely engineering and financial fiasco of the UK's Hinkley Point C nuke project, its disastrous Finnish predecessor, and the involvement of China. And nuclear waste, which is quite an issue.
 
Here is a video where an AOC operative flat out lies on National TV about the FAQ that was published on the socialist grifter's own website and written by her chief of staff:

This is gaslighting of the purest sort

These people do not assume that leftists are stupid, they are flat out counting on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom