The Green New Deal

[Roger Ramjets]

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.

Well you know, conservatives could have countered that by actually being concerned about the environment, rather than hijacking it for their own political agendas. But what did we get instead? "Global Warming is myth!" and "Anyone who wants to conserve the environment is a communist!".

Socialists and communists didn't 'hijack' the environmental movement. That's just a meme invented by right wing 'conservatives' who are afraid of having to pay for the damage they are doing. The truth is, conservatives have always labeled environmentalists as 'socialist' and 'communist' even when they weren't. Because you see, the mere act of being concerned about the environment means you are a communist.

 

[Zambo]

Not really. Uranium reserves are very high in Australia, Canada and Russia, not places like the Congo. Nor would it be mined in that way.

I did notice that, i said construction and decommissioning and you answered with a preprepared answer on mining in the Congo.

 

[Zambo]

Reduce maximum freeway speed to 70 km an hour (just about halves my fuel consumption).

In your plan can the electric vehicle users continue at 120km/hr?

 

[applecorped]

Lol

“He wants to silence your voice by letting your elected representatives votes on the enormous fecal taco I co-wrote!”

Jonah Goldberg

 

[Zambo]

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

"The*Chernobyl*explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on*Hiroshima"

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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

In 1971 a Ford Pinto cost $1,919. In 2019 dollars that would be $11,926. A Ford Fiesta costs $14,260 - $21,340. Manufacturing advances in the last 48 years have greatly lowered production costs, yet cars are still significantly more expensive. A Ford Pinto made in 1971 with all the safety features expected in a modern vehicle would have priced it way above its intended market. Even today the extra expense of making small cars safe prices them out of reach for many people on lower incomes.

My brother recently bough a new SUV, which he is paying off. However he also wanted a cheap runabout that he could use without worrying it getting dinged or stolen etc. so he was looking at purchasing a used RAV4. Problem is the older models have a poor safety rating, and my brother is worried about what might happen in a crash. But the newer models are too expensive! My brother isn't poor, but right now the vehicle he wants is unaffordable.

Nuclear power plants are not any more 'unaffordable' than modern cars, they just cost more than alternatives that don't irradiate half the country if they blow up. They could be made cheaper and less safe, but understandably people don't want to take the risk. Because it would only take one incident to completely destroy the nuclear power industry here. Similarly, no car manufacturer would produce a Pinto today, because they would (rightly) be sued into bankruptcy by all the people it injured.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Well you know, conservatives could have countered that by actually being concerned about the environment, rather than hijacking it for their own political agendas. But what did we get instead? "Global Warming is myth!" and "Anyone who wants to conserve the environment is a communist!".

In this case you are right about that. But I would claim that those Merchants of doubt are not conservative at all. At the risk of sliding down the slippery slope of the true Scotsman fallacy, I do not consider that a conservative strategy at all.

A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.-Rod Dreher

The merchants of doubt strategy is certainly only a political strategy though, not to be taken seriously. And actually kind of embarrassing.

Socialists and communists didn't 'hijack' the environmental movement. That's just a meme invented by right wing 'conservatives' who are afraid of having to pay for the damage they are doing. The truth is, conservatives have always labeled environmentalists as 'socialist' and 'communist' even when they weren't. Because you see, the mere act of being concerned about the environment means you are a communist.

No actually they did and I am certain about this "conspiracy theory" aspect of it. I learned that first hand way back in the very early 1980s when I simply applied for a sales job (that turned out to actually be a fundraiser), got sucked into the inner circle of a few "environmentalist groups" simply because I was good at fundraising, then saw for myself who was controlling the organizations from the top and their admitted true purposes and interconnections with the communist party.

Boy was I naive in my youth, and boy did I get the hell out of there fast as soon as I figured that out!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In your plan can the electric vehicle users continue at 120km/hr?

It so happens that electric vehicles generally also get better 'fuel' economy at lower speeds. So no, that probably wouldn't be a good idea.

You may think that being prevented from driving as fast as possible is an imposition - and you would be right. However if we don't get serious about stopping global warming them Mother Nature is going to impose a whole lot more. Reducing highway speeds is a cheap way to help without imposing too much, and also benefits electric cars which prefer to travel at lower speeds.

But human nature is a hard thing to deal with. Lowering highway speeds to save fuel - "you're taking away my freedoms!". Commuting for 3 hours each day because you bought a house in the wrong location - "that's just the way it is, nothing I can do about it".

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In this case you are right about that. But I would claim that those Merchants of doubt are not conservative at all.

Yeah, they're just all members of the Republican party (or whatever the equivalent is in your country). When all around the World we see 'conservatives' consistently denying Global Warming or minimizing its effects (and have done so for decades) it's time to change the definition of 'conservative'.

At the risk of sliding down the slippery slope of the true Scotsman fallacy, I do not consider that a conservative strategy at all.

You see, all the people living in Scotland today are not true Scots. The real Scots died out centuries ago.

I learned that first hand way back in the very early 1980s when I simply applied for a sales job (that turned out to actually be a fundraiser), got sucked into the inner circle of a few "environmentalist groups" simply because I was good at fundraising, then saw for myself who was controlling the organizations from the top and their admitted true purposes and interconnections with the communist party.

Interesting anecdote, but it doesn't prove that "the environmental movement has been hijacked by communists". I remember 1980 like it was yesterday, but in truth it was way back in the last century. A lot has changed since then. Today, anyone who acknowledges that something needs to be done about Global Warming is effectively a part of the 'environmental movement'. And of those who are doing something about it, very few (if any) have 'interconnections with the communist party'. OTOH many Global Warming deniers have proven links to oil companies or other industries that stand to benefit, or even to Russia!

 

[Belz...]

In 1971 a Ford Pinto cost $1,919. In 2019 dollars that would be $11,926. A Ford Fiesta costs $14,260 - $21,340. Manufacturing advances in the last 48 years have greatly lowered production costs, yet cars are still significantly more expensive. A Ford Pinto made in 1971 with all the safety features expected in a modern vehicle would have priced it way above its intended market. Even today the extra expense of making small cars safe prices them out of reach for many people on lower incomes.

My brother recently bough a new SUV, which he is paying off. However he also wanted a cheap runabout that he could use without worrying it getting dinged or stolen etc. so he was looking at purchasing a used RAV4. Problem is the older models have a poor safety rating, and my brother is worried about what might happen in a crash. But the newer models are too expensive! My brother isn't poor, but right now the vehicle he wants is unaffordable.

That's all very nice but you can still buy cards, no problem.

Nuclear power plants are not any more 'unaffordable' than modern cars, they just cost more than alternatives that don't irradiate half the country if they blow up.

Ignoring for a second the fact that this is a gross misrepresentation of the dangers of nuclear power plants, they're still so expensive as to have become a major argument against building more. You don't hear that argument about card in general. At most some people can't afford them.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Interesting anecdote, but it doesn't prove that "the environmental movement has been hijacked by communists".

Maybe not proof, but when you look at the provisions in the Green New Deal and see:

"Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
Basic income programmes and universal health care."

It makes one wonder how much really has changed. Not a whole lot actually.

And don't even dare look at the actual Green Party's platform.

"We call for a graduated supplemental income, or negative income tax, that would maintain all individual adult incomes above the poverty level, regardless of employment or marital status."

sound familiar?

 

[lomiller]

I don't think this is as much an argument against Yucca than it is for having more variety in reactor types. Whatever is left still needs to be put somewhere.

Ideally a fast reactor uses every spec of fissile material so it doesn't really produce waste in the same sense as current reactors. You just keep adding small amounts of fuel over it's lifetime and there is never anything to remove or haul away. Even at the end of the reactors life it can be reprocessed and used to fuel other reactors. What's left after that is too depleted to even generate heat on it's own and while not safe it's nowhere near as dangerous as the waste from today's reactors so Yucca is overkill.

This technology doesn't really exist yet outside the minds of the people working on it in laboratories, but utilizing the fuel to this degree is really the only way to produce Nuclear energy on the scale we use energy from fossil fuels.

 

[acbytesla]

It so happens that electric vehicles generally also get better 'fuel' economy at lower speeds. So no, that probably wouldn't be a good idea.

You may think that being prevented from driving as fast as possible is an imposition - and you would be right. However if we don't get serious about stopping global warming them Mother Nature is going to impose a whole lot more. Reducing highway speeds is a cheap way to help without imposing too much, and also benefits electric cars which prefer to travel at lower speeds.

But human nature is a hard thing to deal with. Lowering highway speeds to save fuel - "you're taking away my freedoms!". Commuting for 3 hours each day because you bought a house in the wrong location - "that's just the way it is, nothing I can do about it".

There seems to be some argument about its actual value. In 1974, the US implemented a nation wide Highway speed limit of 55 mph down from 70 mph. The government hoped it would result in 2.2 percent reduction of fuel. Unfortunately, fuel savings estimates were only from, .02 to 1 percent. Of course, actually calculating this is close to impossible.

I'd be far more happy if people migrated to electric or higher efficiency ICE vehicles. Sadly in the US, the trend toward SUVs and Trucks when the price of gas went down about 5 years ago just shows how most people don't take the climate or even fuel efficiency into account if the price of fuel is low. Electric cars on average are about twice to 5 times more efficient than ICE cars that people are driving.

The funny thing about why Tesla cars became so popular has little to do with their energy efficiency. No it's that they have amazing torque and are fun to drive. They blow the doors off almost any car on the road.

 

[Zambo]

It so happens that electric vehicles generally also get better 'fuel' economy at lower speeds. So no, that probably wouldn't be a good idea.

My suggestion is you limit the gasoline cars to 70km/hr but allow the electric vehicles to drive at 120km/hr. That way more drivers would change from gasoline to electric (or take an EV taxi if they were in a hurry) I think that would be more effective at GHG reduction than just increasing the range/efficiency of the EV batteries.

 

[BadBoy]

Maybe not proof, but when you look at the provisions in the Green New Deal and see:

"Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
Basic income programmes and universal health care."

It makes one wonder how much really has changed. Not a whole lot actually.

And don't even dare look at the actual Green Party's platform.

"We call for a graduated supplemental income, or negative income tax, that would maintain all individual adult incomes above the poverty level, regardless of employment or marital status."

sound familiar?

Those things have nothing to do with the environment and specifically global warming.

The ideas around Universal Health Care and Universal Basic Income are not "communist". Providing Universal Health Care just benefits everyone, it doesn't make the UK or Canada suddenly a communist country.

The United States could easily afford a Basic Universal Income. The idea is it gets people out of the poverty trap, creates mobility. I have no idea if it would actually work, it's just an idea to solve certain social problems, but it shouldn't be dismissed just because it smells of Communism by some people.

The problems in the West generally I think are associated with a lack of social cohesion and too much consumerism over what really matters. Don't get me wrong I am no communist and I like having nice stuff. But for me a good country to live in is one where people care for each other and are respectful and are proud of their wellfare state.

 

[theprestige]

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.

A substantially less productive industrial base. It's a great recipe for always being a developing nation, and never actually getting to the big kids' table.

 

[BadBoy]

In my opinion, developing new systems to cope with the challenges of our rapidly changing world, whether it is finding solutions to green energy or transport or carbon sequestration or recycling or genetically modified foods or water shortage solutions is a huge world wide market.

I am continually surprised that the entrepreneurial spirit and capitalistic bent in the United States is not jumping on this. Instead China may well become the world leader in these areas.

I wonder if there are any studies being done around the potential future impact of economies for countries that embrace this future and those that ignore it.

For me this isn't about left or right wing, it's about progressives vs conservatives.

 

[smartcooky]

The funny thing about why Tesla cars became so popular has little to do with their energy efficiency. No it's that they have amazing torque and are fun to drive. They blow the doors off almost any car on the road.

100% I was lucky enough to have a ride (and a short drive) of a Tesla a few weeks ago (2014 model S P85 Auto)

HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCK-****. 0-100km/hr in about four seconds. It felt like someone had run a bus into the back of the passenger's seat.

 

[smartcooky]

In my opinion, developing new systems to cope with the challenges of our rapidly changing world, whether it is finding solutions to green energy or transport or carbon sequestration or recycling or genetically modified foods or water shortage solutions is a huge world wide market.

I tried to make this point about developing countries... It fell on deaf ears

 

[Zambo]

I nearly made a mistake yesterday as i ponderously tapped out a post on my phone. I was going to state that steel and aluminium smelters can easily be run by renewable power generation, but then for steel i realised i had forgotten about coke in the production.

But puting aside the difficulty of substituting coke, just on cost in the mid term aluminium and steel manufacturers won't be able to compete unless they use mainly hydro, wind and solar power.