If they weren't in favour of implementing "socialism" would the same plan work?
Socialism is the plan. Your question doesn't even make sense.
This is their plan in their words:
- 100% of national power generation from renewable sources.
- Building a national energy-efficient “smart” grid.
- Upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.
- Decarbonising manufacturing, agricultural and other industries.
- Decarbonising, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure.
- Funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases.
- Making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the US, helping other countries transition to carbon-neutral economies.
- Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
- Basic income programmes and universal health care.
Notice the last two?
- Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
- Basic income programmes and universal health care.
Remember, this is
THEIR words, not some biased reporting trying to undermine the plan.
THEIR own words and the undermining of the plan was done by them! This is why the plan is
DOA. It never stood a chance in hell of working. Even if by some insanity it should happen to be passed, the damages to the economy of the country make it impossible to actually implement!
Scroll down to David Voxx's comments.
David Roberts of Vox on why the Democrats should push for a "Green New Deal" in Congress, even though it will never get passed.
Even they know its impossible. The purpose of it is NOT to actually solve AGW nor even pass the legislation, but only to appear a certain way so as to garner votes for the Democrats next election. Just smoke and mirrors to appear caring of the environment and inch forward the true purpose for the Democrats
- Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
- Basic income programmes and universal health care.
Now if you were to change the question to ask could their plan work if it was really attempting to reverse AGW?
1) At current technology, 100% of national power generation from renewable sources is not possible without nuclear being part of that, if we maintain the same standards of reliability. We can do a lot, but not 100%. Not yet. With Nuclear we could, but they specifically said no nuclear.
2) I suppose a energy-efficient “smart” grid is possible to an extent, but I am not exactly sure how much more efficient they think they can be. Utilities are already stretching efficiencies to the limit of real world technology. Efficiencies never reach theoretical in the real world though, so I guess there is some room for improvement.
3)Rebuilding and/or refitting every building in the United States is simply not going to happen even if it was possible. The best we can do with that is building codes for new buildings and for remodels, but grandfathered in buildings are not going to be part of that even where it is possible, simply due to costs. It is literally impossible. The country doesn't even have the manpower to convert every building in the country to state of the art any time soon, even if we could afford it.
4)We can decarbonize some manufacturing, agriculture and some other industries. But unless we actually completely change agriculture to regenerative methods, we can;t get this to a net negative or even net zero. Certainly we can't decarbonize everything 100% right now at current technology. There is a lot we can do, but that's ridiculous. The fact they included agriculture here is encouraging, unfortunately nothing in the Green New Deal even hints at the required changes to infrastructure and reductions in regulatory burden or changing of commodity markets' buffer stock schemes necessary to actually accomplish this goal. I suppose we could be generous and grant that they eventually could get around to writing those required changes down too.
5)We can start decarbonising, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure. But we won't be finished in my lifetime. And I don't even want to go back to a world without flight. That's ridiculous and unnecessary anyway.
6) Their massive funding in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases is primarily focused on future CCS technology only in its infancy and combined with biofuels BeCCS. In theory it could work, in reality it doesn't. So they are going to throw money at the problem, but it is taking 2 steps backward to go three steps forward even under the best ideal potential circumstances. In reality now, biofuels take more fossil fuels energy to produce than they offset. BeCCS is dead in the water, but luckily evolution solved that particular problem millions of years ago and BCCS does work right now at current tech. So someone needs to tell them I guess. So they don't waste throwing all that money at a problem already solved by biology. Rather they should build the infrastructure for regenerative agriculture.
7)I have no problem with investing in technology so that later we can export it for a profit. Not sure the government needs to do this though. Just handle the buffer stock schemes and the regulatory burden changes, and we citizens can handle the rest.
8)9) oops Back to socialism rendering all the above financially impossible anyway, even if it could work.
