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: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




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

That's America. 


The numbers would be way worse because all the electric planes, trains, and automobiles will now need wattage (and associated infrastructure and losses) instead of direct conversion of fuels to mechanical energy.




posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

60 co-sponsors!


So who is down with this mishmash? There are 60 co-sponsors!

Declared candidates Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) are all co-sponsoring the resolution, as are likely contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), according to their offices. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is also on board, saying in a tweet that she is "proud to join" the "fight for our planet and our kids’ futures."


Here's who's on board the crazy train and running for president.

Apparently, the reports are the Mazie Hirono, at least, was not so amused. She was smart enough to realize that getting rid of air travel would be a significant hardship for her own state of Hawaii.
edit on 8-2-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

It's like the fallacy of solar and wind being green energy. It costs just as much in carbon plus pollution footprints to mine, manufacture, deliver and install as it does to pump oil out of the ground, refine it and use it.. What the greenies like to say is, "oh look, it doesn't emit carbon or pollution while it's working" without remarking that all the carbon use and pollution is on the front end, right up to the time these make work and taxpayer subsidized projects are installed.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 2/8.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Since so much of the toxicity stays in the countries like Africa where the rare earth mining takes place, it's out of sight, out of mind. They can feel virtuous about it all.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Lumenari




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

That's America. 


The numbers would be way worse because all the electric planes, trains, and automobiles will now need wattage (and associated infrastructure and losses) instead of direct conversion of fuels to mechanical energy.


What seems to be completely ignored in this "Green New Deal" is that conversion of our entire infrastructure to electric only (regardless of generation type) would make our entire country dependent upon uninterrupted transmission of power. So, if a bad actor decided to disrupt the country, a strike on a few key transmission points would literally (not figuratively) cripple the entire nation. Bring it all to a stop....within hours if not minutes. The national security ramifications are staggering in this plan. Yet, it seems that is not even considered. Hardening these areas and/or designing a fault-tolerant system would take more than the time allotted for the entire project.

Having a point of use fuel is imperative to the security of the nation since it removes the single point failure risk for key areas of infrastructure. Heck, even in my home, I thought of that before buying it! I wanted more than just a single point of heat, so I wanted gas and a fireplace, even for a stove to mitigate the risk of cooking during an electrical blackout.

Sheesh, are these people so disconnected from reality that this is not even a consideration???


edit on 2/8/2019 by Krakatoa because: fixed spelling errors



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

They're globalist. Who is going to attack us if we're all one big, global family. Right?



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krakatoa

They're globalist. Who is going to attack us if we're all one big, global family. Right?


Yeah, and families NEVER fight at all....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaa



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Lumenari




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

That's America. 


The numbers would be way worse because all the electric planes, trains, and automobiles will now need wattage (and associated infrastructure and losses) instead of direct conversion of fuels to mechanical energy.


What seems to be completely ignored in this "Green New Deal" is that conversion of our entire infrastructure to electric only (regardless of generation type) would make our entire country dependent upon uninterrupted transmission of power. So, if a bad actor decided to disrupt the country, a strike on a few key transmission points would literally (not figuratively) cripple the entire nation. Bring it all to a stop....within hours if not minutes. The national security ramifications are staggering in this plan. Yet, it seems that is not even considered. Hardening these areas and/or designing a fault-tolerant system would take more than the time allotted for the entire project.

Having a point of use fuel is imperative to the security of the nation since it removes the single point failure risk for key areas of infrastructure. Heck, even in my home, I thought of that before buying it! I wanted more than just a single point of heat, so I wanted gas and a fireplace, even for a stove to mitigate the risk of cooking during an electrical blackout.

Sheesh, are these people so disconnected from reality that this is not even a consideration???



Great insight. The left doesn't usually think about the big picture...



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
I'm not going to in this thread ask about the other portions of the "New Green Deal" but have some questions on the "elimination of fossil fuels and internal engines in 10 years" portion of the bill.

I'm hoping someone could point me in the right direction.

How is that.... going to actually work?

So a portion of that would be to make all of our buildings in America a LOT more energy efficient, requiring the rebuilding or upgrading of approximately 136 million residential homes and 4.5 million commercial buildings.

SoOo....

If we retrained a large portion of our citizens to be carpenters, electricians, HVAC and plumbing people, purchased all the raw material on the planet? and could kick one of these out every two weeks from start to finish it would take us about 5.4 million years to complete. Or with 1 million crews we could do better, I guess... but the manufacture and transportation of materials alone would still screw up your two week timeline.

Still a bit longer than the 10 years needed...

Another question... if we not longer have jets (and I am assuming ships as well, because they emit more carbon than jets do), then how are we transporting anything from continent to continent anymore?

Do we really need to get in gear and perfect teleportation in the next 10 years as well?

Or will all commercial shipping now be battery-powered?

Upgrading the energy grid... we don't have enough rivers for generating more than about 10% of what energy we use. And we could no longer use them for transportation...

Can't go 90% solar/wind on this time-frame....

Tidal? Geothermal? Magic?

Storage is another issue of course... I would assume that we will have to really be getting on more efficient energy storage inventions.

Since even after the couple hundred years needed to upgrade the buildings, we would still use a ton more electricity with all our new electric cars.

So many questions I have on just this facet of the New Green Deal.

Anyone out there have any real answers?



While I don't really have answers, and I think 10 years is incredibly optimistic (read: not possible), I think she's at least thinking in the right direction. Why not try to be less reliant on fossil fuels? China is doing a good job with solar power, so is Germany. We can do it as well, it will just probably take longer than 10 years.

It'll be tough for sure, but it's relatively easy to stick some solar panels on a roof, and said panels then run that building/house. My neighbor hasn't had an electric bill for the better part of a decade, and he only has a few panels on his roof, not even half of it is covered.

If we got more people backing that, rather than oil and gas companies, and the politicians beholden to them, then having some sort of government-sponsored solar initiative would help tremendously. If sticking solar panels on your roof resulted in some type of kickback or tax write-off (there are some things along those lines already, but not significant enough), then who wouldn't do that? Spend 8k putting solar on your roof, get a kickback/tax write-off for it, and never have another energy bill in your life? Seems like a no-brainer.

Zero carbon emissions is impossible for where we're at, technologically speaking. Solar powered planes could happen on a mass-production level eventually, but not for a long time, and especially not while oil and gas companies are as powerful as they are.
A part of the Deal is investing in high-speed rail systems, which I think is a great idea. Ever been to Japan or China? Those bullet trains are AWESOME, and are entirely magnetic. It's a little jarring to be traveling that fast without any sound, but it's really cool. I don't understand why rail travel never caught on here like it did in Europe/Asia. It just makes way more sense to me. Expensive? Sure, which is why I don't think it'll happen in 10 years. But that's a great way to cut down carbon emissions.

Long story short: Great ideas, but way too optimistic of a timeline.

However, if you put any stock in when scientists are saying the singularity will happen (15-20 years according to some people that are way smarter than I am), then we won't have to worry about any of this. Once that hits, all of these problems will be sorted out by AI in about a month, and their robots will build it all too.
It's going pretty deep into sci-fi world, but I think everything in the Deal is possible, but we'll have to develop a lot more powerful AI to help us get there.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator

And the ripples throughout the economy when we stop using fossil fuels?

How much do you use in your day to day life that relies on petroluem? I'm not talking about energy. I'm talking about everything. Remember, to give up petroleum, we're talking about remaking every aspect of our lives that uses it and having viable replacements for those areas too.

No one even addresses that aspect of all this. And A good point has been brought up - if you rely on one source of power, you are incredibly vulnerable to that one source being disrupted. You have no backup plan in place.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

And the ripples throughout the economy when we stop using fossil fuels?

How much do you use in your day to day life that relies on petroluem? I'm not talking about energy. I'm talking about everything. Remember, to give up petroleum, we're talking about remaking every aspect of our lives that uses it and having viable replacements for those areas too.

No one even addresses that aspect of all this. And A good point has been brought up - if you rely on one source of power, you are incredibly vulnerable to that one source being disrupted. You have no backup plan in place.


Sometimes economic ripples are necessary. Obviously if we just cut it off all at once, it would cause a huge disruption, not necessarily a good one. But if it happened gradually, and businesses didn't account for the gradual change, well, that's on them.

I don't want to rely on only one form of power. I just think solar is a good start. I get a lot of my power from a wind farm nearby, but I'm pricing out solar panels as well. A significant portion of Vegas runs on hydroelectric. There are plenty of options for the US. I was simply suggesting to start small and work our way up.

It's possible, we just have make the transition as smartly as we can, rather than ripping it off like a band-aid.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

And the ripples throughout the economy when we stop using fossil fuels?

Remember, to give up petroleum, we're talking about remaking every aspect of our lives that uses it and having viable replacements for those areas too.

Yep, that would be a monumental task that we're not even close to being able to resolve just yet. I don't think AOC has a grasp on the logistics or the magnitude of what she's asking for. If she would approach it with realistic short term goals in order to obtain the long term goal, it would be a lot more plausible.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TinySickTears

so the idea is to get people talking about this, but you don't want anyone saying anything against the thing you say isn't realistic? I invite you to take another look at your platform here and decide if you have anything to offer, or just like to troll, as you have said before. Either is fine, but own it, don't be a wuss.


People can say whatever they want

I think it's funny

Got an outsider in trump that says stupid things and proposes stupid things and it's chess baby and you love it.
Art of the deal and all

She does exact same stuff and you all hate her.

It's funny



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TinySickTears

so the idea is to get people talking about this, but you don't want anyone saying anything against the thing you say isn't realistic? I invite you to take another look at your platform here and decide if you have anything to offer, or just like to troll, as you have said before. Either is fine, but own it, don't be a wuss.


People can say whatever they want

I think it's funny

Got an outsider in trump that says stupid things and proposes stupid things and it's chess baby and you love it.
Art of the deal and all

She does exact same stuff and you all hate her.

It's funny


you all? quote me saying I hate her.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

generalizing an entire group because you just don't have what it takes to join a discussion isn't a good look.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

More questions:

How do we guarantee jobs to everyone and still guarantee a good standard of living even to those unwilling to work?

I mean, I get unable to work, but simply unwilling? Who's going to want to work if you don't have to and you can still be guaranteed a decent life?


Don't know. Just pass the necessary laws first, then we'll figure it out! Oh, and I hate Trump because he's a meany so lets do this together!



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
a reply to: Lumenari


The plan is a sure fire way to destroy this country in well less than the 10 years it is supposed to fix it in. That actually may be the purpose of it to begin with. Much easier to fundamentally transform this country when it is in shambles and the people are desperate.


Then you would watch the rise of a real rebellion with real purpose. None of this basement dwelling mommy boy crying.





posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I'm hearing AOC's NGD is being taken offline.
Appears so.
ocasio-cortez.house.gov...



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm hearing AOC's NGD is being taken offline.
Appears so.
ocasio-cortez.house.gov...


It's still listed there, but only as a hyperlink to the congressional website
www.congress.gov...



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm hearing AOC's NGD is being taken offline.
Appears so.
ocasio-cortez.house.gov...


It's still listed there, but only as a hyperlink to the congressional website
www.congress.gov...


AOC is saying that Republicans are trying to sabotage it.

Meanwhile, it hasn't actually been written yet but has 64 Reps and 9 Senators wanting to co-sponsor it at this point.




posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

you all? quote me saying I hate her.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

generalizing an entire group because you just don't have what it takes to join a discussion isn't a good look.




cool
you 1 post in 1 thread does not say that you hate her
awesome

my point stands
we all generalize. humans i mean

do you ever say the democrats or the left?
i know you do

thats generalizing

its easy for discussion boards
so let me clarify for the thick

most of you all hate her

i know it and so does everyone else.

i dont hate or even like her. i like the video of her in the hearing or whatever talking about corruption in the gov
that was cool

my dog in this fight is the fact that so many of you(not all. calm down) can not stand her and constantly talk # about her for many of the same reasons trump is so awesome.

so the ones that hate her legit cant stand her politics
or other reasons.

are there other reasons?

when people call trump stupid many of you defend. not true.
he has run companies. he does this and he did that
you dont get to his position if you are dumb


yet people call her dumb

why?

give trumpy bear a chance right?

but not her

you people are unreal



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join