What's in this Green New Deal?

originally posted by: ketsuko
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?

They would be trying to eliminate the source of over 60% of our power without offering a real solution.

We do not have the topography in the US to generate enough hydroelectric power for 318 million people.

As far as getting rid of automotive emissions?

You would have to have an electric car, which again is currently recharged by electricity generated from fossil fuels.

It's mathematically impossible... just the power side of it.

I read the thread earlier on this and i started writing a response to it. In the end i didn't bother but for the most part...i like the idea behind some of the things in there but the ideas were behind a lot of vague unrealistic wording and mixed in with some pretty scary things. The funding and banking stuff was pretty scary.

It's like a lot of things that seem to go through government. Good stuff mixed with a whole lot of shady bad or outright unfeasible things that outweigh the good.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Well true...

But a socialist country has to be really careful with their resources so they couldn't afford immigrants...

Just for the sake of irony, the two "socialist" European countries that are touted by Bernie and Co. make the majority of their money on.... oil production.

SoOo... how exactly is that going to work?

All green for the USA, but to fund it we have to sell fossil fuels to the rest of the world?

It's insanity.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The power grid averages 25 years old. A significant part of it is over 35 years. Many of the power plants are similarly aged. The grid is inefficient by modern standards but more importantly it is overstressed and subject to failure.

I’m not talking about the home and small business distribution lines. I’m discussing the high voltage transmission grid. It is in need of a major upgrade but over the next 20 years.

a reply to: Lumenari

Why do I have a sudden mental image of people up on platforms blowing really hard on wind turbines as a green job?

originally posted by: ketsuko
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?

You mean like battery production?

Heh.

Is the hemp Iphone going to be the next awesome fad?

What are we going to do with all these electric cars with no tires?

I guess plumbing will go back to the Copper Age...

and no more windows.

Or shielded electric cables...

At least we won't have computers anymore, so we won't get online and bitch about it...

Because we won't have fiber optic.

a reply to: whywhynot

There might be some merit to the power grid plan if I seriously though they meant to do things like harden it against EMP or solar flare, but you know that isn't part of it at all.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

Why do I have a sudden mental image of people up on platforms blowing really hard on wind turbines as a green job?

Just set the turbines up in the Senate.

Lots of hot air there.

Oh WAIT... it's Co2!!!

This would be a great joke if some people didn't actually take it seriously...

It is so worthy of mocking.

a reply to: Lumenari

That would be a NiMCoC - Not in My Chamber of Congress. I could see the House and Senate both fighting over which one had to have the windfarm.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

That would be a NiMCoC - Not in My Chamber of Congress. I could see the House and Senate both fighting over which one had to have the windfarm.

What I find funny is that if you want to shut down the oil industry, you are killing yourself as a government as far as taxes are concerned.

In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron CVX +2.07% paying a combined total of 45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up.

As well as getting rid of these...

Electric Power Generation and Fuels technologies directly employ more than 1.9 million workers. In 2016, 55 percent, or 1.1 million, of these employees worked in traditional coal, oil, and gas.

Most of these jobs are 80-125k a year on the bottom of the pay scale, for workers.

We don't need these jobs though... LOL

a reply to: TheRedneck


Ha!


Point blank, I would advise her to draft "The Technology Reform On Patents & Intellectual Property Act" which would state that technology advances cannot be buried through use of patent and IP laws and regulations.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I made a a thread on christmas about the early draft.
That draft had lots of stuff about limiting lobbyists and taking down the fed. But that stuff didn't make it to the bill.

This is what I said in gramblers thread about it.

Ok, wtf??? They stripped 90% of the stuff I liked from the first draft. I still like the infrastructure fixing.

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.

But I don't like that it calls for tax money to be spent in trying to hurt the current energy providers. Better in my opinion to just slowly make the modern upgrades in our infrastructure and let the economy decide.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Carcharadon

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

I hear the collectives were amazing in the Soviet Union too.

Smdh.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

Why do I have a sudden mental image of people up on platforms blowing really hard on wind turbines as a green job?

Im picturing hundreds of people in warehouses on hamster wheel contraptions.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Hydro kills fish and solar/wind kills birds.

Your right, nothing we do (that I know of) to generate energy is going to be 100% clean. I noticed you didn't mention solar, but you could have. After all solar produces waste in the building process. But,

Pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear does this as well. In greater numbers.

Why not use the energy source that does the least amount of damage?

Most people on the left understand and see it this way. But propaganda from the right is strong and has many believing that the left thinks renewables are the end of pollution.

They know it isn't. But damn if I don't agree that it's a good start.

As long as it isn't forced on the rest of us by them.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Hydro kills fish and solar/wind kills birds.

Your right, nothing we do (that I know of) to generate energy is going to be 100% clean. I noticed you didn't mention solar, but you could have. After all solar produces waste in the building process. But,

Pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear does this as well. In greater numbers.

Why not use the energy source that does the least amount of damage?

Most people on the left understand and see it this way. But propaganda from the right is strong and has many believing that the left thinks renewables are the end of pollution.

They know it isn't. But damn if I don't agree that it's a good start.

As long as it isn't forced on the rest of us by them.

By a unit to unit measure of product to energy. Nuclear is the least bad, followed by petroleum, and then coal. Renew-able is still not at a level to compete. Sad but true

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

What does that have to do with pollution?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm gonna pull my classic "piss off both sides of the isle" and isolate myself to a tiny island haha.

The problem with much of what she is proposing is she's trying to use the government to dictate the free market.

Ironically I say that from a position of wanting many of the things outlined for both environmental and energy independence reasons. But I want it organically.

All that said, the establishment partisans have been creating an artificial market in the energy sector for decades, the right a bit more blatant, much more aggressive at times as well.

We need the market to decide. And national security would benefit if we can lose reliance on the Middle East.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I didn't forget it... I just wanted to address each individual goal. Of course, that's one bigly problem with the plan overall.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ahabstar

Wait, you're saying that Alabama... RURAL Alabama... has better communications infrastructure than Ohio? I'm 5 miles from the closest US route, on a little side road with a nice crop of potholes ready for harvest, and I have fiber to my house.

The mind boogles.

TheRedneck