The Green New Deal

[Belz...]

When sea levels rise, my inland property will become far more valuable than the flooded coastal areas where most of the rich people live.

Invest in higher elevation property, sell your coastal property to the blind rich people who ignore global warming warnings.

You're starting to sound like Lex Luthor.

 

[theprestige]

- cancel debt to all developing countries to the amount they invest fighting climate change

I'm pretty sure most developing countries would rather have the debt and keep investing in development of their industrial base. Cleaning up pollution and restructuring development loans can be done once they've taken a seat at the big kids' table.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm pretty sure most developing countries would rather have the debt and keep investing in development of their industrial base. Cleaning up pollution and restructuring development loans can be done once they've taken a seat at the big kids' table.

I don't think so.
You can invest in your industry in a climate-conscious way: replacing high-pollution factories with clean ones etc.

 

[applecorped]

Guaranteeing economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.


Saved for posterity

 

[dudalb]

- design cities to reduce the distance stuff and people have to travel
- start a real carbon credit system
- cancel debt to all developing countries to the amount they invest fighting climate change

Last two I agree with, first one is WTF unrelisitic.
What are you going to do, uproot millions of people and move them to a new city.
I would say improving methods of transportation to be more "green" is a lot more realistic then massive transfer of population..which you would need a totalarian government to carry out anyway.

 

[a_unique_person]

If that is the case, it only supports my position concerning the massive damage the Greens have done towards the hopes for a sustainable future.

The greens didn't have to do anything. People have been wary of nuclear power since days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm pretty sure most developing countries would rather have the debt and keep investing in development of their industrial base. Cleaning up pollution and restructuring development loans can be done once they've taken a seat at the big kids' table.

Cancelling the debt in line with investing in development of their environmentally conscious industrial base is worth considering. They get to cancel their debt, and build an industrial base powered by renewables.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

The greens didn't have to do anything. People have been wary of nuclear power since days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and Fukushima really didn't help build trust in the nuclear industry's safety skills either.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Guaranteeing economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.


Saved for posterity

Clearly a priority in the face of climate catastrophe. And a surefire way to get both sides of the political spectrum on board. Clever.

Hey guys, California is on fire, Miami is about to drown and there are a couple of million people who would rather not work. This is going to be expensive, but it will be worth it!

 

[Eddie Dane]

When sea levels rise, my inland property will become far more valuable than the flooded coastal areas where most of the rich people live.

Invest in higher elevation property, sell your coastal property to the blind rich people who ignore global warming warnings.

The bad news: I live in the Netherlands
The good news: I'm on a slightly elevated piece of land, so I and a couple of neighbours will have our own Island!

 

[Eddie Dane]

- design cities to reduce the distance stuff and people have to travel
- start a real carbon credit system
- cancel debt to all developing countries to the amount they invest fighting climate change

Good ones.

European cities are walkable. I don't know if US cities could be made that way. Everything seems to be built for transport by car.

 

[Belz...]

Cancelling the debt in line with investing in development of their environmentally conscious industrial base is worth considering. They get to cancel their debt, and build an industrial base powered by renewables.

Canceling debts sounds great for countries, but what about the lenders?

 

[Belz...]

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and Fukushima really didn't help build trust in the nuclear industry's safety skills either.

It's weird that the Pinto didn't erode trust in cars like Chernobyl did. The loss in trust is due to the shock value of the accident, not the actual safety of the technology. Blame the Soviets for spoiling the whole thing for us.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and Fukushima really didn't help build trust in the nuclear industry's safety skills either.

Huge cost overruns pushed onto consumers haven't helped build trust in the nuclear industry either.

When all factors are considered it's not looking good for nuclear:-

New IAEA Energy Projections See Possible Shrinking Role for Nuclear Power

Nuclear power’s electricity generating capacity risks shrinking in the coming decades as ageing reactors are retired and the industry struggles with reduced competitiveness, according to a new IAEA report.

Over the short term, the low price of natural gas, the impact of renewable energy sources on electricity prices, and national nuclear policies in several countries following the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 are expected to continue weighing on nuclear power’s growth prospects, according to the report. In addition, the nuclear power industry faces increased construction times and costs due to heightened safety requirements, challenges in deploying advanced technologies and other factors...

Overall, the new projections suggest that nuclear power may struggle to maintain its current place in the world’s energy mix. In the low case to 2030, the projections show nuclear electricity generating capacity falling by more than 10%...

Longer term, generating capacity declines to 2040 in the low case before rebounding to 2030 levels by mid-century, when nuclear is seen providing 2.8% of global generating capacity compared with 5.7% today.

That last figure should give everyone pause. Nuclear is struggling to provide even a miserable 5.7% of global capacity, so imagine what would be needed to make it the 'cornerstone' of energy production! If you think safety concerns and waste disposal are a problem now...

 

[Red Baron Farms]

about time someone other than only Environmentalists cared about the Environment.

The environmental movement has been hijacked by the socialists and communists as long as I can remember. It was being discussed at least as far back as the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Since then is was never actually about the environment ever, but rather how to gain support for socialism and communism. This Green New Deal is a prime example of that actually. The job guarantee, Basic income, and universal health care provisions of the GND is proof of that.

It's nothing more than old fashioned "kiss the baby" politics, restyled for modern consumption.

In the old days they would proclaim awww look at him. He cares for the children, we must vote for him. Later they said, awww look at him. He wants to save the whales, we must vote for him. And now awww look at her. She will save us from global warming, we must vote for her.

Except it never is about the cuteness, it's about hiding the true purpose behind the cuteness. So people that really do want to save the children, save the whales, and save the world from global warming get tricked into supporting a whole lot of other policies they may or may not agree with at all!

And in this case anyone showing opposition to the Job guarantee, Basic income, and Universal health care provisions, will instead be proclaimed to be anti-environment, or causing global warming. Like somehow they time traveled back to the beginning of human civilization and started all this mess on purpose.

As illogical as that may be just look at your own post! You just made the exact same error in assuming all political opposition to environmentalists was against the environment!

 

[smartcooky]

That was pretty much where I was going. In those places where you need a lot of energy in one spot, you either deal with increased cost due to transmission losses (your first option using a distributed grid) or you need something local that puts out a lot of power.

I agree, solar and wind won't replace all our needs. I think they'd be fine for a large part of our residential and light commercial use, but industrial and heavy usage areas are still going to need something more.

Potentially, every house could meet 100% of its power needs with solar and wind with storage batteries for down times. For starters, the house designs themselves can all but eliminate heating and cooling requirements. There are houses right now that are not only 100% self sufficient, but that actually export their excess energy back onto the grid.

This is a solar powered luxury home here in NZ that even has its own hydro power system as a back up...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/...le-comes-with-free-power-from-solar-and-hydro

 

[ahhell]

Potentially, every house could meet 100% of its power needs with solar and wind with storage batteries for down times. For starters, the house designs themselves can all but eliminate heating and cooling requirements. There are houses right now that are not only 100% self sufficient, but that actually export their excess energy back onto the grid.

This is a solar powered luxury home here in NZ that even has its own hydro power system as a back up...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/...le-comes-with-free-power-from-solar-and-hydro

The 10kW solar power system incorporates 45 solar panels, most of which are mounted on the roof of a large shed a short distance from the house. The house itself has just four solar panels that provide the hot water for the house, and heat the swimming pool.

There is also 80kW of battery storage, a hydro variable wattage generator and a 10kW back-up generator. While there are several streams on the property, just one is used for the hydro system. Water is dammed and then falls 12m into a turbo system that generates power.

All we have to do is outfit every home in the world with one of those. What are we waiting for?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's weird that the Pinto didn't erode trust in cars

But it did. You think manufacturers would be stuffing cars full of advanced safety features if customers didn't want them? Whats the reason many people choose SUVs over more efficient small cars? Safety.

It's the same with nuclear. Just as a modern SUV costs more due to all the safety features built into it, so it costs more to make a modern nuclear reactor safe.

What's interesting about the Pinto is that it actually wasn't any worse than other 'subcompact' cars of the era.

What Made the Pinto Such a Controversial Car

The Pinto became known as the subcompact car that Ford sold while ignoring major safety defects. But was that just a false narrative?

...contrary to popular belief, the Pinto was in the middle of fatality rates for cars of its type. On the top of the list at the time was the Volkswagen Beetle. There was also no significant difference in the rate of fatalities caused by rear end collisions, the structural defect for which Ford paid a heavy price.

One largely unexplored issue was the safety record of subcompacts in general. Drivers and passengers in such cars in the late 1970s, including the Pinto, but also including foreign imports, were twice as likely to die in crashes as those driving larger cars.

The truth is, the safety technology of small cars in general was poor, and consumers' trust in them did erode.

Blame the Soviets for spoiling the whole thing for us.

And the Japanese, and...

The more nuclear plants are built the more likely it is that another incident will occur, especially if corners are cut to get costs down (the only reason the nuclear industry has such a good safety record is that they work very hard to maintain it). Now imagine hundreds of plants being built in Third World countries with no oversight, and Chernobyl may look mild in comparison. What's worse is that when a nuclear plant blows it doesn't just affect the immediate surroundings. We may not care about a few Africans, but when the fallout reaches us it will be a different story.

 

[Belz...]

But it did. You think manufacturers would be stuffing cars full of advanced safety features if customers didn't want them? Whats the reason many people choose SUVs over more efficient small cars? Safety.

It's the same with nuclear. Just as a modern SUV costs more due to all the safety features built into it, so it costs more to make a modern nuclear reactor safe.

But new safety features didn't make all cars unaffordable.

 

[a_unique_person]

The environmental movement has been hijacked by the socialists and communists as long as I can remember. It was being discussed at least as far back as the late 1970's and early 1980's.



Since then is was never actually about the environment ever, but rather how to gain support for socialism and communism. This Green New Deal is a prime example of that actually. The job guarantee, Basic income, and universal health care provisions of the GND is proof of that.



It's nothing more than old fashioned "kiss the baby" politics, restyled for modern consumption.



In the old days they would proclaim awww look at him. He cares for the children, we must vote for him. Later they said, awww look at him. He wants to save the whales, we must vote for him. And now awww look at her. She will save us from global warming, we must vote for her.



Except it never is about the cuteness, it's about hiding the true purpose behind the cuteness. So people that really do want to save the children, save the whales, and save the world from global warming get tricked into supporting a whole lot of other policies they may or may not agree with at all!



And in this case anyone showing opposition to the Job guarantee, Basic income, and Universal health care provisions, will instead be proclaimed to be anti-environment, or causing global warming. Like somehow they time traveled back to the beginning of human civilization and started all this mess on purpose.



As illogical as that may be just look at your own post! You just made the exact same error in assuming all political opposition to environmentalists was against the environment!

It hasn't been hijacked by the extreme Left. They take a ride on whatever looks convenient but the worst environmental disasters have been in the communist countries.

The conversation movement is experiencing a considerable rise in support from conservatives, of all people, who want to conserve what we have now.