The Green New Deal

thaiboxerken said:
Socialist agenda........LMAO
Click to expand...
I am curious. Why would you lyoao over your own ignorance?

Explainer: Why some US Democrats want a ‘Green New Deal’ to tackle climate change

Look at the last two pointers on the Green New Deal.
    • 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.
Click to expand...

There is your socialist agenda
 
thaiboxerken said:
"Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
Basic income programmes and universal health care."


How are those socialist?
Click to expand...
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (and services)
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Like the military? Taxes?
Click to expand...
No Those are the proper uses of Government, so long as they are not abused.

But now you are just trying to be absurd on purpose. All governments need some degree of taxes to operate. And most countries have some military expense regardless of the type of government they are. Your statement has little relevance at all to socialism. Nor does it even matter if that form of socialist agenda is beneficial or not. All the list proves is that certain Dems use climate mitigation (and other environmentalist issues) as a tool to avoid having to debate their socialist agenda.

This way they can claim anyone against them is some evil person who wants pollution and wants to kill all the whales and wants to pollute the drinking water etc etc etc etc... When essentially no politician really advocates all that. They simply don't want socialism or communism to take down America's special form of captalism. Design the bill right and the resistance will fade away.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
In essence, you are engaging in special pleading.
Click to expand...
No because those uses of government are common to all countries' government forms. There is nothing special about a military or taxes. It matters little what form of government, they all have taxes and military.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
What car-centric cities have we built since the late 80s?
Click to expand...

What cities do you think are finished? I can’t think of any that are not still being built, but if you have some examples of cities that are not actively being built I’m willing to listen. In most cases the majority of this has been car centric.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (and services)
Click to expand...

Good, you've made a start, now where does this occur in the section you highlighted? What manufacturing does it propose being run by either government or collective of workers? What distribution would be run by either government or a collective of workers? In fact what you highlighted says nothing about either of these so by definition it's NOT socialist.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
No Those are the proper uses of Government, so long as they are not abused.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the definition of socialism says anything about “proper use of government”. It’s either socialist, AKA performed by the government or it isn’t. Whether you’d like it to be performed by the government is subjective and irrelevant.

Since I do not consider military to be either production or distribution I’d still argue that it’s isn’t socialist to have it run by the government, but “I think it’s something government should do” is not the dividing line between socialism and not-socialism. The dividing like is who controls production & distribution. Of you are going to say something is socialist you need to be able to explain how it’s communally or government run.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
No Those are the proper uses of Government, so long as they are not abused.

But now you are just trying to be absurd on purpose. All governments need some degree of taxes to operate. And most countries have some military expense regardless of the type of government they are. Your statement has little relevance at all to socialism. Nor does it even matter if that form of socialist agenda is beneficial or not. All the list proves is that certain Dems use climate mitigation (and other environmentalist issues) as a tool to avoid having to debate their socialist agenda.

This way they can claim anyone against them is some evil person who wants pollution and wants to kill all the whales and wants to pollute the drinking water etc etc etc etc... When essentially no politician really advocates all that. They simply don't want socialism or communism to take down America's special form of captalism. Design the bill right and the resistance will fade away.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, they are socialistic in nature. As is the police, fire protection, the health department, the CDC, public education, the courts, the prisons, the food and drug administration, the EPA, the USDA, and many, many other programs.

There are no pure capitalist nations outside of maybe Somalia or some other hell hole. A certain amount of socialism is not only desirable it's essential.

I find it interesting that someone against all forms of socialism wants to implement a huge socialist program to improve soil conditions.
 
acbytesla said:
Sorry, I don't buy it. And I think the science behind it is sketchy as well as impractical. I love how you believe you have the answer how to save the world and all these other people are so stooopid. I've read enough about what you have said about the original New Deal and Welfare to roll my eyes when I read posts like this.
Click to expand...

Not that it will sway Red Baron Farms any more than it has in the past but this article at Realclimate explains why it’s physically impossible for grasslands to offset the impact of human CO2 emissions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-anthropocene-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/


Approximately 8 Petagrams (Pg; trillion kilograms) of carbon are added to the atmosphere every year from fossil fuel burning and cement production alone. This will increase in the future at a rate that depends largely on global use of fossil fuels. To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year. To a very rough approximation then, the net carbon uptake by all of the planet’s vegetation would need to triple (assuming similar transfers to stable C pools like soil organic matter) just to offset current carbon emissions every year

IOW even if 100% of the carbon absorbed by all the plants on earth were permanently sequestered it would not offset our CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

In practice getting anywhere close to this number is absurd because it means finding a way to stop all the plant and animal matter on earth from decaying, which would release the carbon back into the atmosphere rather than sequestering it.

At a global scale, grasslands are generally distributed in regions of low precipitation across a wide range of temperatures, with precipitation particularly limiting grassland productivity. Within a zone, grassland carbon cycles respond significantly and sometimes dramatically to fluctuations in inter-annual precipitation. This is because soil water is essential for vegetation to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis and it also drives variation in microbial processes that affect the loss of carbon from soils. Consequently, soil water availability represents a much greater limitation to maximum carbon storage in global grasslands than does grazing management.


IOW for grasslands to absorb more CO2 there would need to be more water available because water is needed for the photosynthesis process that absorbs the carbon.

The gotcha is that soil moisture also controls how quickly bacterial in the soil break down organic material and release the carbon contained in it back into the atmosphere. IOW grasslands can only absorb more carbon if they become wetter, but if they become wetter they can no longer sequester the carbon and begin releasing it back into the atmosphere.
 
acbytesla said:
Nevertheless, they are socialistic in nature. As is the police, fire protection, the health department, the CDC, public education, the courts, the prisons, the food and drug administration, the EPA, the USDA, and many, many other programs.

There are no pure capitalist nations outside of maybe Somalia or some other hell hole. A certain amount of socialism is not only desirable it's essential.

I find it interesting that someone against all forms of socialism wants to implement a huge socialist program to improve soil conditions.
Click to expand...
Have you actually seen my plan in comparison to the GND or the EICDA?

I propose a market solution rather than a socialist solution...

Now you would be fair to ask what that means since you clearly have no clue what socialist policies in US politics look like. So I will walk you through it so you can no longer claim ignorance.

In the EICDA there is a carbon market set up. Nothing wrong with that. It's a form of fee and dividend market which in principle could work.

Except one part. The dividend is paid equally to everyone regardless of their carbon footprint.

I have proposed the dividend be used to pay for a service. Those sequestering carbon receive the dividend exactly as those using fossil fuels pay the fees. Both sides are based on the impact they have on the carbon cycle. This is a market solution rather than a hybrid market and socialist solution found in the EICDA. Both of course need a government supervised market to be set up. But the way the dividend is spent makes all the difference.

There are many advantages to this.
  • One advantage is that if this were set up we could eliminate or dramatically reduce the socialist USDA farm bill subsidies currently. That would save 10's to 100's of billions annually in direct and indirect subsides currently in effect.
  • We would be paying for a verifiable service. Those exceeding better would be paid better. Thus market forces and human nature combine to pressure excellence. The EICDA pays a dividend to people even when they are excessive wasteful and/or have huge wasteful carbon footprints. It's a "everyone is equal" policy which penalizes excellence.
  • When the goal has been reached the fee and dividend can be dramatically reduced or eliminated in my plan. However, the EICDA is designed to be "durable". In other words it is designed to never actually solve AGW, but instead become the next forever socialist entitlement that will never end. When I debated this exact clause at skeptical science the representative there of the EICDA said exactly this:
    By being uniformly revenue-neutral, this helps it be the most "progressively & uniformly just" and therefore, the least regressive to all the sectors of the economy, across the board. This allows the tax rate to be as high as possible and still be politically durable. In other words, if impact is proportional to tax rate (above a minimum threshold), then we want the tax rate to be as high as possible. But, a high tax rate, if not designed right, could cause too much regression and then would not be politically durable, and would get repealed. Therefore 100% equal distribution is not seen as a cop-out, but instead as a crafty way to achieve as high a tax rate as possible and still maintain political durability.[1]
    Click to expand...

The green new deal is a bit too vague to analyze it in depth, but it is similar in that it proposes expanding socialist entitlements. I propose a far more straight forward opportunity. Simply pay for a service. No crafty plans to raise the tax rate indefinitely. No sneaky plans to force successful people to redistribute wealth. Just straight up fix AGW by balancing the carbon cycle with market forces. Pay for a service, and those who cause the problem pay for those who are fixing it.. It's no different than paying a fee to have your garbage hauled away. Why should we pay the garbage men, but refuse to pay the farmer? The farmer must go on welfare instead. It's stupid and typical of the realities of socialism. It sounds good until you put it to practice.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Not that it will sway Red Baron Farms any more than it has in the past but this article at Realclimate explains why it’s physically impossible for grasslands to offset the impact of human CO2 emissions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-anthropocene-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/
Click to expand...
You are right. It won't sway me. Because the math is completely flawed in that article.

lomiller said:

Approximately 8 Petagrams (Pg; trillion kilograms) of carbon are added to the atmosphere every year from fossil fuel burning and cement production alone. This will increase in the future at a rate that depends largely on global use of fossil fuels. To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year.
Click to expand...
The real figure is 123 PgC/yr.

lomiller said:
To a very rough approximation then, the net carbon uptake by all of the planet’s vegetation would need to triple (assuming similar transfers to stable C pools like soil organic matter) just to offset current carbon emissions every year
Click to expand...
But improve the transfer less than 10% and it completely offsets emissions 100%. Increase the transfer 5% and we only need cut emissions by half..

lomiller said:
IOW even if 100% of the carbon absorbed by all the plants on earth were permanently sequestered it would not offset our CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
As pointed out before, that figure is 123 PgC/yr. So obviously false.

lomiller said:
In practice getting anywhere close to this number is absurd because it means finding a way to stop all the plant and animal matter on earth from decaying, which would release the carbon back into the atmosphere rather than sequestering it.
Click to expand...
No In fact the LCP is a completely different biochemical pathway than the decay cycle. It does degrade slowly over time, but 78% of the LCP is sequestered long term in the soil by turning into humic polymers tightly bound to the mineral substrate. Only 22% returns to the atmosphere as CO2. This is completely different than the labile carbon in the O-horizon.
lomiller said:

At a global scale, grasslands are generally distributed in regions of low precipitation across a wide range of temperatures, with precipitation particularly limiting grassland productivity. Within a zone, grassland carbon cycles respond significantly and sometimes dramatically to fluctuations in inter-annual precipitation. This is because soil water is essential for vegetation to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis and it also drives variation in microbial processes that affect the loss of carbon from soils. Consequently, soil water availability represents a much greater limitation to maximum carbon storage in global grasslands than does grazing management.
Click to expand...
Actually this premise is correct but the conclusion flawed because it is the management that improves the carbon and soil water availability. Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical,
physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie


lomiller said:
IOW for grasslands to absorb more CO2 there would need to be more water available because water is needed for the photosynthesis process that absorbs the carbon.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct and as shown above, there is much more water available.

lomiller said:
The gotcha is that soil moisture also controls how quickly bacterial in the soil break down organic material and release the carbon contained in it back into the atmosphere. IOW grasslands can only absorb more carbon if they become wetter, but if they become wetter they can no longer sequester the carbon and begin releasing it back into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
That's true in the O-horizon. It is not true of the LCP deep in the A and B horizons.

Horizons.gif
Image courtesy wikimedia commons

In short you are conflating the labile carbon cycle which is a catabolic process with the stable carbon cycle that first creates new carbon rich soil in a anabolic process and then sequesters carbon into deep geological time rather than releasing it to the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
The green new deal is a bit too vague to analyze it in depth, but it is similar in that it proposes expanding socialist entitlements.
Click to expand...
Entitlements have nothing to do with socialism. They are simply programs for with the legal authority is long term instead of being altered re-authorized and potentially changed in every budget.
Red Baron Farms said:
No crafty plans to raise the tax rate indefinitely.
Click to expand...

By definition any market solution will increase the cost of emitting CO2 until the externality (rising CO2) is gone. You can be sneaky and avoid saying this openly, but this is what any market solution will do.
Red Baron Farms said:
No sneaky plans to force successful people to redistribute wealth.
Click to expand...

Funny how you seem to be ok with the last 40 years of wealth being transferred to rich from the middle class and the poor than has been going on for the last 40 years, but call any suggestion that flow be reversed as “sneaky”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom