What's in this Green New Deal?

It took some looking, but I finally found a copy of this Green New Deal that seems to be the talk of the town. It's thus far just a draft, but I think it might be important to actually look at what's being proposed. I'm OK with any discussion of the entire document, but I am concentrating this OP on the scope being proposed:

(6) SCOPE OF THE PLAN FOR A GREEN NEW DEAL AND THE DRAFT LEGISLATION.—

(A) The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:
• Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through 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;
  
• eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;
  
• eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;
  
• funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;
  
• making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

So let's take these one at a time:

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

I actually like this part. Anything we can do to improve renewable energy sources is a good thing. The American people are a very capable and resourceful lot, if properly motivated. Making research funds available would be a wise move IMHO. Of course, anything beyond making research and start-up funding available would be a very bad idea. Government is simply not very good at making a profit, and profitable industries are sustainable industries.

building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;

I'm a bit confused here. Technology has already advanced to the point that even I, sitting in a hollow in extreme rural Ala-freakin'-bama, have smart meters and power-company-provided high-speed internet. Even my landline uses VOIP technology now, and TV signal is also available through the same process (although I prefer DirecTV).

Perhaps there are still some areas where technology is lacking. If so, upgrading would be a wise move overall IMO.

upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;

Here I see a problem. Not with the goal, but with legislation. Never has legislation kept pace with technology... just think back to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Yes, they were inefficient; my home and shop are both 100% LED, for good reason. But the effect of the timing of the legislation was to introduce the CFL bulb because LED was not sufficiently developed to take advantage of scale economics. CFL bulbs are not suitable for some applications (in my case, the stray EM fields they toss out would have led to excessive damage to unprotected CMOS components), but LED does not have those problems. The timing of the legislation, which was not based on technological development, was inappropriate.

In a similar vein, it would surprise me if legislation requiring or even outlawing certain energy-related products would not likely end up forcing technology to be implemented before it was appropriate to do so, based again on a misunderstanding (or even willful misrepresentation) of the state of the technology.

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

Any time I hear a politician talking about agriculture, it scares me. I live in a farming community; i am well aware of how specialized farmers are. Politicians seem to have this tendency to think that everyone lives the way they do, and that would make efficient agriculture impossible.

Until and unless I see exact details, I oppose this in the strongest terms. Leave the food supply alone.

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;

It is simply not possible to remove CO2 emissions from transportation in time spans that are under decades. Even if a new energy source could be located that would rival chemical fuels, the infrastructure changeover alone prohibits this. Any workable plan to alter transportation must be market-driven.

funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;

I have no issue with any research funding.

making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

My Daddy would have called this, "getting the cart ahead of the horse."

One cannot export what one does not possess. The fool decides to export something before he has it, ignoring the possibility that it might not be possible. The wise man develops the technology first, then looks toward expanding his market.

Of course, this simply underscores my overall concerns: those who want to control the technology do not understand the technology. No one controls what is and is not physically possible; politicians, however, seem to think they can.

On that basis alone, I cannot support this. I do agree with some of the goals, but the potential bad far outweighs the good.

Your turn, ATS.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have a far more damning view of the legislation

It is unattainable utopian socialism nightmare that would collapse the us economy

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wonder why they call this a "deal"?

Mandate..
Burdensome legislation.....
Ginormous spending bill......
Pipe dream....

I can think of much better words for this monster....

Maybe mr whipple delivered this "deal" to the dems..

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It took some looking, but I finally found a copy of this Green New Deal that seems to be the talk of the town. It's thus far just a draft, but I think it might be important to actually look at what's being proposed. I'm OK with any discussion of the entire document, but I am concentrating this OP on the scope being proposed:

(6) SCOPE OF THE PLAN FOR A GREEN NEW DEAL AND THE DRAFT LEGISLATION.—

(A) The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:
• Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through 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;
  
• eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;
  
• eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;
  
• funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;
  
• making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

So let's take these one at a time:

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

I actually like this part. Anything we can do to improve renewable energy sources is a good thing. The American people are a very capable and resourceful lot, if properly motivated. Making research funds available would be a wise move IMHO. Of course, anything beyond making research and start-up funding available would be a very bad idea. Government is simply not very good at making a profit, and profitable industries are sustainable industries.

building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;

I'm a bit confused here. Technology has already advanced to the point that even I, sitting in a hollow in extreme rural Ala-freakin'-bama, have smart meters and power-company-provided high-speed internet. Even my landline uses VOIP technology now, and TV signal is also available through the same process (although I prefer DirecTV).

Perhaps there are still some areas where technology is lacking. If so, upgrading would be a wise move overall IMO.

upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;

Here I see a problem. Not with the goal, but with legislation. Never has legislation kept pace with technology... just think back to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Yes, they were inefficient; my home and shop are both 100% LED, for good reason. But the effect of the timing of the legislation was to introduce the CFL bulb because LED was not sufficiently developed to take advantage of scale economics. CFL bulbs are not suitable for some applications (in my case, the stray EM fields they toss out would have led to excessive damage to unprotected CMOS components), but LED does not have those problems. The timing of the legislation, which was not based on technological development, was inappropriate.

In a similar vein, it would surprise me if legislation requiring or even outlawing certain energy-related products would not likely end up forcing technology to be implemented before it was appropriate to do so, based again on a misunderstanding (or even willful misrepresentation) of the state of the technology.

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

Any time I hear a politician talking about agriculture, it scares me. I live in a farming community; i am well aware of how specialized farmers are. Politicians seem to have this tendency to think that everyone lives the way they do, and that would make efficient agriculture impossible.

Until and unless I see exact details, I oppose this in the strongest terms. Leave the food supply alone.

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;

It is simply not possible to remove CO2 emissions from transportation in time spans that are under decades. Even if a new energy source could be located that would rival chemical fuels, the infrastructure changeover alone prohibits this. Any workable plan to alter transportation must be market-driven.

funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;

I have no issue with any research funding.

making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

My Daddy would have called this, "getting the cart ahead of the horse."

One cannot export what one does not possess. The fool decides to export something before he has it, ignoring the possibility that it might not be possible. The wise man develops the technology first, then looks toward expanding his market.

Of course, this simply underscores my overall concerns: those who want to control the technology do not understand the technology. No one controls what is and is not physically possible; politicians, however, seem to think they can.

On that basis alone, I cannot support this. I do agree with some of the goals, but the potential bad far outweighs the good.

Your turn, ATS.

TheRedneck

Mostly BS and unicorn rainbows.

Renewables have as many environmentalist objections as other sources. Hydro kills fish and solar/wind kills birds. It's a no win situation for energy, but nobody wants to stop using it on the left. Their favorite energy consumption is flying to climate change conferences on private jets.

Pretty sad.

a reply to: Grambler

Sorry; I didn't see that thread before.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The power grid upgrade alone has costs estimated between $2 - $5 trillion.

If Trump agreed to the entire thing would they still vote for it?

Honest question.

The one that makes me laugh is the part about eliminating emissions in agriculture and local scale agriculture across the country.

More than anything this highlights the utter stupidity of these people.

They actually think that community gardens and backyard garden plots can feed the country and supply food for all the overseas food aid programs.

Its utterly insane and is just completely absurd on every level.

You know how many people would starve to death in America and around the world with this "agriculture" plan.

I shake my head and laugh. Until I remember that these Communists are totally serious.

You would have to literally disperse tens of millions of people around the country in farming collectives to even come close to producing enough food for American citizens and supply food programs for the UN.

Don't forget that they also want open borders so you would have another 40-80 million migrate to the US over 10-15 years.

This. Is. Communism.

100%.

a reply to: whywhynot

I'm honestly not sure what all is left to upgrade on the power grid. We have solid power here, even moreso considering the miles of line that we have through wilderness just to reach everyone. We have smart meters. We have fiberoptic Internet available for, I believe, everyone who has access to a power line. That's in rural Alabama. I would assume that other states and large cities are even more advanced with their power grid. Is that not so?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Grambler

It is unattainable utopian socialism nightmare that would collapse the us economy

Isn't that the whole point of doing it in the first place?

You gotta get it outta your head that their hearts are in the right place. That they "mean well", however misguided they are.

They don't.

Local scale agriculture.

Very scary words to ponder because a key removal/reduction of GHG in the transportation would be to eliminate the current logistics of transporting agricultural products all over the country. While we are more than capable of producing lettuce and strawberries in Ohio for the needs of Ohioians, we do not have the growing season of say California so we would have to do without for half the year. And California will have to deforest considerable citrus groves to have soy beans.

Transcontinental logistics. But maybe high speed magrail freight trains powered by windmills and solar panels will fix it up nicely. Just pick a centralized rail hub for each state to do the warehouse shuffle... I can’t keep a straight face while spelling out a prime target for future wars.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You forgot to mention that the astronomical funding for this absurd proposal is coming from a potential Federal Reserve deal.

In other words billions or maybe trillions of $ printed out of thin air, devaluing our existing currency supply.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

Sorry; I didn't see that thread before.

TheRedneck

I dont have a problem with multiple threads.

This idiiocy needs to be everywhere so it can be thoroughly dismantled for the communist garbage it is.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Fiber optic line runs along 725 and 122, not here at the house despite being between them. Nor does cable tv and the land line phone lines are so outdated the phone would only ding twice before hanging up as opposed to a full ring for about a year before they fixed it.

a reply to: Carcharadon

It's called the Gandhi plan. India did famously under it. /sarcasm

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

Sorry; I didn't see that thread before.

TheRedneck

I like your thread

Anytime someone wants to put time in to go line by line thru legislation it is a great thing

I believe they said they want to eliminate fossil fuels and go entirely green. How do they replace the petroleum products we use in everything? Can you imagine medicine without plastics? And that's just one thing ... what about so many other sectors?

Renewable resources? Corn gas that causes major polution...Biofuel from making pellets out of every last branch when logging which depletes the ability of the forests to regenerate...Their plans tend to be harder on our environment than they save the environment, look at how great nuclear waste has been increasing....Then there is paying for this stuff, tax the hell out of everyone and then burn up three quarters of the money paying the people who are making up this crap.

Yes, our environment is in need of oversight and we have to take steps to curb the negative impact we put on it but it has to be across the board and we need to curb production of products that are socially outdated a few years after being made and they do not last half as long as they should be lasting from deathdating them so we have to buy them in a few years. Planned obsolescence is the spawn of the devil.

So the Green New deal is probably a deal with the devil. It is going to be deception at it's finest. Every one of these programs the government gets involved in greases the palms of certain people and gets really expensive every time. Our societies have to demand products that last for a long time and we need to stop the stupid going out of style sales propaganda. There is also no such thing as a generation gap, that is also a scam.

a reply to: Carcharadon

Actually, most socialist and communist countries have a very strict immigration policy.

So no... this is collapsing the system so they can offer a solution... which is of course Progressivism, the American word for socialism.

First you have to crash the system, you see.. which is exactly what the New Green Deal would do.

The borders would slam shut once they got to where they wanted to be.

a reply to: Lumenari

The borders would have to. No one in their right mind with the means would actually want to stay here for very long in that insanity.