It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An honest question for proponents of the "New Green Deal".

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Alright, prepare to lambaste me.

The Green New Deal proposed today isn't a bill or a policy, specifically. It's a framework (in the form of nonbinding resolution) for a starting point of ideas to aggressively combat carbon emissions in the United States.

"How can we go 100% renewable in 10 years?"

We're already approaching that goal. The entire province of British Columbia, Canada is powered by renewable energy. Quebec too! Norway, Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica are all 100% renewable. The entire state of California is 32% (1/3 of the way there!), Texas is about 20%. America is smart enough and rich enough to reach 100% renewable or carbon neutral energy generation by 2030.

"Eliminate the use of planes?"

The resolution specifically calls for high-speed rail development that would make air travel obsolete. Not airplanes, but air travel. 'But Links,' I can hear you say, 'how will we develop national rail within 10 years?' The Eisenhower highway system was started in 1956 and wasn't 'completed' until 1992. It's a lofty goal, which most of these are. It's doable though, we've already got the infrastructure in place across the nation, we didn't always have that with the interstate system.

You probably have a few more questions but, I want to re-iterate, this is a framework and not a fleshed-out finalized product.




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Lumenari

Go to the source. Ask Cortez for a detailed explanation of how it will be paid for, including all numbers from her studies and and access to all the studies and data she used herself to come to her conclusion 10 years would work.

She says we could replace planes with high speed rail but I wonder, how does that work for Hawaii and what would that cost to create whats needed to handle the 2.6 million who fly daily according to the FAA. How many passengers does one of those trains hold and how do they cross oceans. How long would it take to build and how much land would have to be taken away from the owners.

It takes 10 to 15 years to permit a new power plant or solar farm. How does that work. How do they stop the lawsuits that add more years to that.

Questions I would ask.


EVERY building in the US would have to be either torn down/rebuilt or upgraded.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I wonder why anyone would even want college when they could just take the guaranteed income and do zero ?

😎


That is when we'll see doctors from other countries being able to practice in the US without US medical education.

See what I mean, LUNATICVILLE USA coming your way soon



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: links234



So it's a compromise, a starting point.






posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Lumenari

yeah .

cause all this sky is falling crap thats going to happen is never going to happen.

it reads to me like that anyway

nothing to say about any of that right?

figures


So you really are out of the loop on this.

The nonbinding bill is currently being used as a litmus test for 2020 Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

Politically, it actually is a big deal... it is something that will also probably split the Democratic party apart, causing some rather large ramifications.

So no, it is not a "sky is falling" thing.

It will however fundamentally transform American politics for decades to come.

This is the actual Progressive Agenda, naked and for all to see after about 100 years of hiding until they thought it had enough political power to just push it past the finish line.

Fun times.

Think harder.




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

theyre not reading it

the circle jerk is heavy these days



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Lumenari

yeah .

cause all this sky is falling crap thats going to happen is never going to happen.

it reads to me like that anyway


The entire rationale behind the Green New Deal itself is a "sky is falling" scenario that isn't ever going to happen. Anthropomorphic climate change is a pipe dream, a boogeyman invented to separate the middle class of the western world from our money and freedom to give the third world a chance to play "catch-up" so the global moneychangers can shake out whatever peanut butter is in those jars now that they've finished with the USA and Europe. The ocean is never going to overtake coastal cities, the planet isn't going to die because of CO2, and all of these measures are certainly not going to change anything climate wise while they are going to self-impose poverty and ruin on the country while making our Constitutional Rights useless.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Lumenari

Alright, prepare to lambaste me.

The Green New Deal proposed today isn't a bill or a policy, specifically. It's a framework (in the form of nonbinding resolution) for a starting point of ideas to aggressively combat carbon emissions in the United States.

"How can we go 100% renewable in 10 years?"

We're already approaching that goal. The entire province of British Columbia, Canada is powered by renewable energy. Quebec too! Norway, Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica are all 100% renewable. The entire state of California is 32% (1/3 of the way there!), Texas is about 20%. America is smart enough and rich enough to reach 100% renewable or carbon neutral energy generation by 2030.

"Eliminate the use of planes?"

The resolution specifically calls for high-speed rail development that would make air travel obsolete. Not airplanes, but air travel. 'But Links,' I can hear you say, 'how will we develop national rail within 10 years?' The Eisenhower highway system was started in 1956 and wasn't 'completed' until 1992. It's a lofty goal, which most of these are. It's doable though, we've already got the infrastructure in place across the nation, we didn't always have that with the interstate system.

You probably have a few more questions but, I want to re-iterate, this is a framework and not a fleshed-out finalized product.



British Columbia... I grew up there, wonderful place.

The entire population of British Columbia is less than the population of the city of New York or the city of Los Angeles.

So yes, you can certainly do renewable there, what with the rivers.

Us, not so much.

Norway is 100% renewable, powered by hydroelectric mostly that was paid for (and their whole economy too) by their oil well production... oops.

The entire state of California is 32% there and utterly bankrupt... so I wouldn't use that as an example.

SoOo... take the numbers 320 million people and the number 3,662,561 MwH/year.

That's America.

Norway has 5,446,780 people and uses 474 MwH a year.

Are you seeing the problem yet?

As for rail travel, that's awesome... in America we can use Amtrack as a blueprint, I guess.

You didn't answer the question of how we are going to trade commercially with other countries...

And I guess nobody can go to Hawaii now?

Unless we are making a high-speed rail connection to there...

AND....

You still have not addressed how we are going to "eliminate fossil fuels and internal combustion engines in 10 years."

All the places you have mentioned have gasoline-powered cars.

If you eliminate fossil fuels (plastic and rubber) then you do not have much of a car left... no tires, for instance.

So are we going to be dependent on other countries to buy fossil fuel products?

Back to British Columbia... since all of their other income is going south now, they are doing the unthinkable and looking to drill for oil off the coast...

LOL


edit on 7-2-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: links234

theyre not reading it

the circle jerk is heavy these days




Lol, said the guy who doesn't read or care about anything.

Give it up bro, your troll is weaker then AOC New Green Deal.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
@AOC is worried about global warming but still wants to abolish ice.

😃



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Please excuse me for not reading the thread, but I felt the need to reply to your original post. Agenda 21 (or whatever they have renamed it now) answers most of your questions. If the govt made it illegal to live anywhere but large cities only those cities would need to be retrofitted- though I think it would be easier to bulldoze them and rebuild from the infrastructure up. These cities could be powered by a combination of solar and wind power, privately owned transportation would not be allowed, public transport only (although I think travel outside of your assigned city would also not be allowed). Housing and jobs would be assigned, breeding would be by special permit only (birth control handles by chemicals in food, water and possible air- with additional additives for thought control, i.e. rebellion control). Energy would be rationed of course, as would be food, clothing, etc. Anyone questioning the status quo would be sent for "re-education" and failing that would just disappear. I imagine you've seen enough to fill in the details yourself...



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   
We'll start from the top and work our way down:


originally posted by: Lumenari

The entire state of California is 32% there and utterly bankrupt... so I wouldn't use that as an example.


Bankrupt?


SoOo... take the numbers 320 million people and the number 3,662,561 MwH/year.

That's America.

Norway has 5,446,780 people and uses 474 MwH a year.

Are you seeing the problem yet?


It's a problem of scale-ability that you're getting at, right? It is a problem. A problem that we need to willing to solve instead of just throwing our hands up and declaring, 'impossible!'


You didn't answer the question of how we are going to trade commercially with other countries...


It may just be your posting style but you had a lot of questions through a number of posts and I was trying to hit the first few I could find. A lot of your questions were interspersed with declarations and thoughts so I wasn't sure if they were direct questions or rhetorical.


And I guess nobody can go to Hawaii now?

Unless we are making a high-speed rail connection to there...


No one's saying you can't go to Hawaii. I believe the idea is to eliminate domestic air travel within the contiguous United States.


You still have not addressed how we are going to "eliminate fossil fuels and internal combustion engines in 10 years."

All the places you have mentioned have gasoline-powered cars.


Again, you had a lot of questions throughout the thread despite your post title 'an honest question.' Before I answer, I want to ask why you attack the fact that I bothered to respond at all rather than, you know, trying some constructive conversation?

To this question though, the idea is to eliminate internal combustion engine vehicles and push for electric vehicles. It's an idea that could come to fruition through any number of ways.


If you eliminate fossil fuels (plastic and rubber) then you do not have much of a car left... no tires, for instance.

So are we going to be dependent on other countries to buy fossil fuel products?


Plastic and rubber are products but not fuel. I think you're confusing the difference. You can recycle plastic and rubber and any applications that require non-recycled plastic or rubber can be crafted from existing oil wells.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: links234

theyre not reading it

the circle jerk is heavy these days



ATS has been this way since I've been here (nearly 10 years now!).



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

It's a problem that cannot be solved in the time frame proposed. It took decades for basic electricity to reach every house in the US.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


What I actually find odd, and I don't know why with everything that has happened, is that the house democrats are actually supporting it.

Maybe they are letting her get her feet wet before the tsunami washes away her naievety.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I thought they were dropping the "no IC engine" deal.
Anyway, the plan is unrealistically ambitious, and unworkable..in the 10 year timeframe, double or triple that.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Power cars with no internal combustion? Simple.




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Electricity is a great example. We developed the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933 and it became a model for the rest of the nation in modernizing rural America. The Hoover Dam took 5 years to build.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

So obviously from the moniker under your user name “American Socialist”, you are in favor of this insane plan?
AOC can’t seem to explain where the money is going to come from, can you?



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: links234

So obviously from the moniker under your user name “American Socialist”, you are in favor of this insane plan?
AOC can’t seem to explain where the money is going to come from, can you?


They secretly plan on taxing the rich in other countries !! 😎



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join