The Green New Deal

[thaiboxerken]

Bwhwhwha! Mike Lee... The Jar Jar Binks of the US Senate.

Outstanding!!

Sadly, he's typical of elected Republicans.

 

[Upchurch]

Backatcha' you moron. This so-called "bluff vote" was just what was needed - another chance to see what a dimwit everyone with an actual brain thinks you are, as well as everyone who voted for you. Now get out of the way, you give congresspersons bartenders a bad name.

You just can't stand that she exists, can you?

LOL

I'm a little leery of statements like this. I remember 2008, when Republicans were constantly saying "Democrats must be terrified of Sarah Palin. They never pass up an opportunity to attack her." I'm not saying that the two women are equivalent, but blanket dismissal of criticism isn't really productive. Assuming it's constructive criticism. Insults and name-calling are even less productive.

Yeeeeeeeah, but mgidm86's criticism isn't constructive. It is nothing but insults and name-calling. In fact, I've yet to see mgidm86 post substantive criticisms of AOC. Impassioned criticisms, sure, but nothing that specifically outlines what she's wrong about and why.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Yeeeeeeeah, but mgidm86's criticism isn't constructive. It is nothing but insults and name-calling. In fact, I've yet to see mgidm86 post substantive criticisms of AOC. Impassioned criticisms, sure, but nothing that specifically outlines what she's wrong about and why.

One doesn't necessarily need to be the originator of an idea to agree or disagree with it.

There has been plenty of discussion here and elsewhere regarding the GND failings. Including BOTH sides of the aisle BTW.

 

[Upchurch]

One doesn't necessarily need to be the originator of an idea to agree or disagree with it.

Just because there is a legitimate reason against something does not mean that legitimate reason is the motivation behind a criticism. We can agree that murder is wrong, but is it wrong because sentient beings have worth or is it wrong only because God will punish a murderer in Hell for eternity? It is possible to come to a good conclusion for crap reasons and having crap reasons to be against something is not instructive or constructive.

"AOC is sooooo stuuuupid"* is not a constructive criticism against the GND.



* read in Dexter's voice from Dexter's Laboratory

 

[Red Baron Farms]

"AOC is sooooo stuuuupid"* is not a constructive criticism against the GND.

Someone who is in political opposition to her is also not required to give constructive criticism either. Why help the enemy?

Me personally I don't really care so much about what side of the aisle the plan came from. I just don't like certain aspects of it.

I personally am happy to give constructive criticism, even though I happen to agree, "AOC is sooooo stuuuupid" is funny

She is not alone in her stupidity though. We have seen many liberals propose solutions that are way too expensive to enact like the so called Green New Deal. If we can’t afford to pay for it, how in the world could we actually manage to do it no matter how good it sounds? This complex problem requires a conservative holistic solution.

I am going to go against everyone who sponsored bills so far and say not only is carbon sequestration into the soil a viable solution to global warming, it in fact is part of the only fiscally sound and viable solution to global warming.

Keep in mind though this requires BCCS as part of the solution, not CCS, not even BeCCS. Carbon capture and storage (CCS attached to power plant stacks) is expensive as hell and does minimal help. It’s cheaper just to go with wind, solar or hydroelectric.[1] Even nuclear is cheaper than that! Bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BeCCS) is growing corn and soy to make fuel to supply the powerplants who then apply CCS. It’s as unrealistic and complicated as it sounds. Worse, it takes almost as much, and sometimes even more energy to grow and refine biofuels as we get back in energy.[2] Then applying CCS to that would sequester carbon, but at a net loss in energy! Three steps backwards to go two steps forward.

Even dropping emissions to zero has no hope at all of being a solution. Here is why. Currently about 1/2 of excess CO2 emissions are being absorbed by the oceans. But as soon as we stop increasing fossil fuel emissions, that stops too. If we actually lower CO2, then the oceans start emitting CO2 they absorbed back into the atmosphere. We actually gain little to nothing and the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep the heating going until a new radiative balance is reached. That could be locked in hundreds of years or more.[3]

But BCCS is different. That is the biological way the earth balances the carbon cycle in the first place. Not trees, but the LCP biochemical liquid carbon pathways mostly found underground in symbiosis with grass roots.[4]

On the other hand soils can hold stable carbon thousands of years or more if left undisturbed. That carbon sink is actually larger than all the CO2 in the atmosphere and all the biomass carbon combined. So not only can it offset emissions, but when the oceans start outgassing, it can hold that CO2 too.

Now of course we still need to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels, because while that soil sink is huge, it is not infinite. But right now it is still large enough. We still have time to convert to alternative energies. And we should of course do that too. It makes sense to make our energy needs sustainable even if we didn’t have the side effect of pollution and global warming. But when combined with BCCS, we can turn something so expensive as to bankrupt the whole world’s economy into something we can actually manage at a net profit![5]

Here are a couple articles I wrote explaining how that type of biological carbon capture and sequestration works:

Why can't anyone just make a carbon capture machine (a turbo charged chloroplast) and solve global warming?

Can we reverse global warming?

Footnotes

[1] Carbon Capture And Storage: An Expensive Option For Reducing U.S. CO2 Emissions

[2] It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

[3] Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years

[4] Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

[5] Farming a climate change solution

 

[acbytesla]

Someone who is in political opposition to her is also not required to give constructive criticism either. Why help the enemy?

Me personally I don't really care so much about what side of the aisle the plan came from. I just don't like certain aspects of it.

I personally am happy to give constructive criticism, even though I happen to agree, "AOC is sooooo stuuuupid" is funny

She is not alone in her stupidity though. We have seen many liberals propose solutions that are way too expensive to enact like the so called Green New Deal. If we can’t afford to pay for it, how in the world could we actually manage to do it no matter how good it sounds? This complex problem requires a conservative holistic solution.

I am going to go against everyone who sponsored bills so far and say not only is carbon sequestration into the soil a viable solution to global warming, it in fact is part of the only fiscally sound and viable solution to global warming.

Keep in mind though this requires BCCS as part of the solution, not CCS, not even BeCCS. Carbon capture and storage (CCS attached to power plant stacks) is expensive as hell and does minimal help. It’s cheaper just to go with wind, solar or hydroelectric.[1] Even nuclear is cheaper than that! Bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BeCCS) is growing corn and soy to make fuel to supply the powerplants who then apply CCS. It’s as unrealistic and complicated as it sounds. Worse, it takes almost as much, and sometimes even more energy to grow and refine biofuels as we get back in energy.[2] Then applying CCS to that would sequester carbon, but at a net loss in energy! Three steps backwards to go two steps forward.

Even dropping emissions to zero has no hope at all of being a solution. Here is why. Currently about 1/2 of excess CO2 emissions are being absorbed by the oceans. But as soon as we stop increasing fossil fuel emissions, that stops too. If we actually lower CO2, then the oceans start emitting CO2 they absorbed back into the atmosphere. We actually gain little to nothing and the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep the heating going until a new radiative balance is reached. That could be locked in hundreds of years or more.[3]

But BCCS is different. That is the biological way the earth balances the carbon cycle in the first place. Not trees, but the LCP biochemical liquid carbon pathways mostly found underground in symbiosis with grass roots.[4]

On the other hand soils can hold stable carbon thousands of years or more if left undisturbed. That carbon sink is actually larger than all the CO2 in the atmosphere and all the biomass carbon combined. So not only can it offset emissions, but when the oceans start outgassing, it can hold that CO2 too.

Now of course we still need to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels, because while that soil sink is huge, it is not infinite. But right now it is still large enough. We still have time to convert to alternative energies. And we should of course do that too. It makes sense to make our energy needs sustainable even if we didn’t have the side effect of pollution and global warming. But when combined with BCCS, we can turn something so expensive as to bankrupt the whole world’s economy into something we can actually manage at a net profit![5]

Here are a couple articles I wrote explaining how that type of biological carbon capture and sequestration works:

Why can't anyone just make a carbon capture machine (a turbo charged chloroplast) and solve global warming?

Can we reverse global warming?

Footnotes

[1] Carbon Capture And Storage: An Expensive Option For Reducing U.S. CO2 Emissions

[2] It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use

[3] Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years

[4] Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

[5] Farming a climate change solution

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.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

Join the crowd. Lots of people refuse to believe it on principle, just like you.

This lady especially must be an evil witch trying to fool the world. Look! She even wears a hat and cape. All she needs is a cat and broomstick to complete the look.



This guy must be the devil himself:



Oh and you already stated this guy talks too slow, so everything he says can be safely ignored. The rate of carbon emissions being inversely proportional to how fast a person talks:



And we all know the USDA soil scientists can't be trusted. Just a bunch of dirt eaters:



As bad as the USDA is, those CSIRO Aussies just plain drink too much! Her PhD clearly came from a kegger label.



Oh and don't forget the infamous Scientific American. Those purveyors of woo should be replaced with DC Comics! Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change?

You on the other hand know exactly why they are wrong, you just won't back your argument because you are clearly so much smarter than all these people actually doing it in the field. Your expertise being so great even a simple dismissal, "you ain't buying it", is plenty enough to counter all sort of people actually doing what you say is impossible. Liars all!

 

[acbytesla]

Join the crowd. Lots of people refuse to believe it on principle, just like you.

This lady especially must be an evil witch trying to fool the world.



This guy must be the devil himself:



Oh and you already stated this guy talks too slow, so everything he says can be safely ignored. The rate of carbon emissions being inversely proportional to how fast a person talks:



And we all know the USDA can't be trusted:



As bad as the USDA is, those CSIRO Aussies just plain drink too much! Her PhD clearly came from a kegger label.



Oh and don't forget the infamous Scientific American. Those purveyors of woo should be replaced with DC Comics! Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change?

You on the other hand know exactly why they are wrong, you just won't back you argument because you are clearly so much smarter than all these people actually doing it in the field. Your expertise being so great even a simple dismissal, "you ain't buying it", is plenty enough to counter all sort of people actually doing what you say is impossible. Liars all!

This is the difference between you and me. You seem to think that if I'm not willing to watch 4 hours of slow talking babbling and personal stories without much data, I'm closed minded.

But that's not it at all. I don't question that CO2 can be captured in the soil. I question that it alone solves the CO2 problem. And you could get 30 people to say it would and I remain skeptical. To support your argument, instead of presenting say a peer reviewed articles you present the most boring people alive in multiple hour videos and just say that AOC is so stoopid.

I do not believe it alone can come close to addressing the problem. I don't buy back of the envelope answers. Who's going to pay people to replant our grasslands? And how do you get fresh water to them to make sure your efforts don't go to waste?

 

[mgidm86]

Yeeeeeeeah, but mgidm86's criticism isn't constructive. It is nothing but insults and name-calling. In fact, I've yet to see mgidm86 post substantive criticisms of AOC. Impassioned criticisms, sure, but nothing that specifically outlines what she's wrong about and why.

Sure you haven't.

How about the Green New Deal itself? She can't explain how to pay for it, she can't explain how it's going to work at all because it is a ridiculous piece of fluff. Do I actually need to explain why to you? She's an angry young radical idealist and her own party is distancing themselves from her.

If she's actually brilliant then please show me where and how because I don't see it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well, this thread fills me with hope that we're on the right track...

 

[lomiller]

Agreed. I'm convinced that at this point we are not facing climate change, but climate catastrophe.

It seems to me that the US has allowed corporate money to enter it's political process and the result of that is that politics are now in the pocket of vested interests. And that means that the US will never again implement a radical vision like the original New Deal or a radical change to climate-friendly technology or infrastructure. Simply because new things compete with the old things and the old things are owned by the people who own the political parties.

The worst part about it is that if we had started in the late 80’s when the reality of climate change became undeniable it wouldn’t have taken radical action to make a difference. Instead we kept building car centric cities that basically force people into high carbon footprints.

 

[theprestige]

The worst part about it is that if we had started in the late 80’s when the reality of climate change became undeniable it wouldn’t have taken radical action to make a difference. Instead we kept building car centric cities that basically force people into high carbon footprints.

What car-centric cities have we built since the late 80s?

 

[Eddie Dane]

What car-centric cities have we built since the late 80s?

I suspect no new cities at all.

 

[Baylor]

Agreed. I'm convinced that at this point we are not facing climate change, but climate catastrophe.

It seems to me that the US has allowed corporate money to enter it's political process and the result of that is that politics are now in the pocket of vested interests. And that means that the US will never again implement a radical vision like the original New Deal or a radical change to climate-friendly technology or infrastructure. Simply because new things compete with the old things and the old things are owned by the people who own the political parties.

Clearly, you don't live in California.

eta: or the US

 

[Baylor]

Then it totally failed! 100% of Democrats stood united in their refusal to vote for it.

Two Democratic Senators voted nay.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I suspect no new cities at all.

I suspect you are wrong, but lomiller said we kept building car-centric cities. Did all city building stop in 1980? Have any not been car-centric until very recently?

But the problem isn't so much the city itself, it's the number of people who work in the city who live outside it. Suburban sprawl dramatically increases miles driven. Between 1980 and 2017 the number of US vehicle miles increased from 1,527,295 million to 3,212,347 million (73% of which was done in passenger cars / 'light duty' vehicles) - an increase of 2.1 times, while the population only increased 1.4 times.

Gas in the US is too cheap, city jobs pay too much, and people don't want to live in urban areas or take public transport. Half the population doesn't even want to believe that Global Warming is real, let alone do anything about it. And they won't change their minds until it's too late.

No matter how you try to spin it, lomiller is right - we didn't decide to make cities less car-centric back in 1980 when we first knew there was problem and should have done something about it. The only thing that had any impact was OPEC raising oil prices - which only had a temporary effect. That's 40 years of procrastination we will pay for dearly...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Who's going to pay people to replant our grasslands? And how do you get fresh water to them to make sure your efforts don't go to waste?

Those are just petty details to be worked out later. The important thing is to believe, which makes it far more credible.

AOC wants all the benefits of actually gathering support for her idea, without actually having to gather support for her idea. The Senate is reminding her that's not how it works.

How it now 'works' is that Republicans make a mockery out of the legislative process. No discussion, no expert testimony - the source alone is enough for them to be against it. Force an early vote so Democrats can't discus it either, then say that they are 'divided'. Anything to avoid giving it serious consideration.

But don't worry, we can see through their little stunt. And I hope they keep doing this sort of thing, because the more they reveal their true agenda the better. As for the partisans who defend them...

 

[Brainster]

Two Democratic Senators voted nay.

Technically three: Manchin, Jones and Sinema, plus Angus King who is an independent but caucuses with the Democrats.

Manchin is a given given the coal-driven economy of his state. Jones needs some cover and this vote was made for him. Sinema surprises me; yes, she's from a reddish purple state and barely got in during a Democrat tide election, but she's got 5+ years before she faces the voters and she was a Green candidate before she was a Democrat.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Those are just petty details to be worked out later. The important thing is to believe, which makes it far more credible.

You incapable of reading too? Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho Only someone who has no knowledge would claim the solution to the water problems is actually the problem itself.

How it now 'works' is that Republicans make a mockery out of the legislative process. No discussion, no expert testimony - the source alone is enough for them to be against it. Force an early vote so Democrats can't discus it either, then say that they are 'divided'. Anything to avoid giving it serious consideration.

Actually there were calls for the Republicans to put it to the vote right away. But being a junior congresswoman, she made a rookie mistake. She hadn't checked for Dem support first and ignored the fact there was already bipartisan legislation many senior members were already committed to. She's a rookie making rookie mistakes. No need over analyze it.

But don't worry, we can see through their little stunt. And I hope they keep doing this sort of thing, because the more they reveal their true agenda the better. As for the partisans who defend them...

It's very clear to me the problem is that Dems use this problem to further a socialist agenda. The one thing I respect about AOC is that of all Dems, at least she admits this and spelled out that socialist agenda right in her original bill. But of course that also was rookie mistake. Including it wasn't the mistake. That's been done by Dems for generations. Reps have their own things they like to sneak in as well too. Both sides do it. The mistake AOC made was in putting it forward instead of sneaking it in the backdoor of the process.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Socialist agenda........LMAO