The Hill: Gillibrand backs Green New Deal to fight climate change | TheHill.
Gillibrand backs Green New Deal to fight climate change
Gillibrand backs Green New Deal to fight climate change
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
Why Excluding Nuclear, Fossils With Carbon Capture, & Biofuels From The Green New Deal Makes Financial & Climate Sense — #RealityCheck | CleanTechnica
Not nuclear
Thus, every dollar spent on nuclear results in 1/5th the energy production and 5 to 17 years more coal and gas burning than if wind or solar were installed instead. This delay and lower energy production from new nuclear condemns millions more to die from air pollution, which today kills 4 to 9 million people worldwide.
By choosing to build several nuclear plants a decade ago that have yet to operate, China suffered an increase in its overall CO2 emissions by 1.4 percent between 2016 and 2017 rather than seeing a decrease of 3.4 percent if it had spent the money on wind and solar instead.
Not biomass, not CCS
Adding CCS to coal plants also increases air pollution and land degradation by about 25 percent. Finally, the captured CO2 is used for enhancing oil recovery, causing even greater damage to climate and health. Thus, CCS represents an enormous opportunity cost compared with developing wind or solar.
Finally, biofuels for transportation and electricity cause substantial air pollution, climate-relevant emissions, land degradation, and water drawdown compared with truly clean, renewables such as wind and solar.
Not nuclear
Thus, every dollar spent on nuclear results in 1/5th the energy production and 5 to 17 years more coal and gas burning than if wind or solar were installed instead. This delay and lower energy production from new nuclear condemns millions more to die from air pollution, which today kills 4 to 9 million people worldwide.
By choosing to build several nuclear plants a decade ago that have yet to operate, China suffered an increase in its overall CO2 emissions by 1.4 percent between 2016 and 2017 rather than seeing a decrease of 3.4 percent if it had spent the money on wind and solar instead.
Not biomass, not CCS
Adding CCS to coal plants also increases air pollution and land degradation by about 25 percent. Finally, the captured CO2 is used for enhancing oil recovery, causing even greater damage to climate and health. Thus, CCS represents an enormous opportunity cost compared with developing wind or solar.
Finally, biofuels for transportation and electricity cause substantial air pollution, climate-relevant emissions, land degradation, and water drawdown compared with truly clean, renewables such as wind and solar.
https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/
The old deniers are going away.
According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), there are 30 fewer lawmakers in Congress compared to last year who deny some element of climate change — whether it’s fully denying that global temperatures are increasing at all or just that warming is exacerbated by human activity. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent publication housed at CAP).
That means there are total 150 lawmakers who deny or downplay climate change, all Republicans, who were singled out by the report. They represent 28 percent of the 116th Congress. Together, these lawmakers have received an average lifetime contribution of $455,730.55 from fossil fuel political action committees (PACs), CEOs, and employees
The old deniers are going away.
According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), there are 30 fewer lawmakers in Congress compared to last year who deny some element of climate change — whether it’s fully denying that global temperatures are increasing at all or just that warming is exacerbated by human activity. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent publication housed at CAP).
That means there are total 150 lawmakers who deny or downplay climate change, all Republicans, who were singled out by the report. They represent 28 percent of the 116th Congress. Together, these lawmakers have received an average lifetime contribution of $455,730.55 from fossil fuel political action committees (PACs), CEOs, and employees
Kamala Harris, Mike Bloomberg come out in support of a Green New Deal
A December poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that 81% of voters questioned supported the concept of a Green New Deal when it was explained to them, with majorities across the political spectrum – although more support from left-leaning voters.
It’s about jobs and social justice as much as the climate
While 100% renewable energy by 2030 may be a top-line demand of the Green New Deal, the legislation is much, much more than that. The Sunrise Movement insists that anything called the Green New Deal must include net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a federal job guarantee for all Americans, clean air and water, and “a just transition for all communities and workers”.
A December poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that 81% of voters questioned supported the concept of a Green New Deal when it was explained to them, with majorities across the political spectrum – although more support from left-leaning voters.
It’s about jobs and social justice as much as the climate
While 100% renewable energy by 2030 may be a top-line demand of the Green New Deal, the legislation is much, much more than that. The Sunrise Movement insists that anything called the Green New Deal must include net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a federal job guarantee for all Americans, clean air and water, and “a just transition for all communities and workers”.
In depth analyst analysis of Green New Deal.
Analyst Roundtable: Breaking Down the Green New Deal (Part 1)
Analyst Roundtable: Breaking Down the Green New Deal (Part 2)
Analyst Roundtable: Breaking Down the Green New Deal (Part 1)
Analyst Roundtable: Breaking Down the Green New Deal (Part 2)
Although I believe we should move towards renewable energy where it makes economic sense I do not believe global warming is mainly caused by us nor do I believe it will cause a disaster. Global cooling would be much worse for us. There have been much higher and lower temperatures and CO2 in the past before man was even on the planet.
So based on this New Green Deal you believe we should have the government force us to rapidly move to renewable energy no matter what the cost. This would include the government guaranteeing everyone a living wage job. Gee what could go wrong. I lived in Russia for a couple of years and saw how that worked. Everyone was guaranteed a job as long as they didn't piss someone off in the government. If you worked hard you didn't make any more than someone that didn't. Pretty quickly everyone did as little as possible. This led to very low wages because productivity was so low. They actually had a saying. I pretend to work since they pretend to pay me. Venezuela is a perfect example where the government is supposed to provide for everyone.
Since you ignore the science of global warming (man caused, headed for disaster), there's no point in further discussion.
Also... Venezuela!!!
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... there was also death before guns... does that mean that guns don't kill??? Seriously.... what brand of warped logic is that????
Past climate shifts are irrelevant. The physics of our situation are undeniable. A 6' rise in sea level over the next century is nearly inevitable and that alone would qualify as a 'disaster'. Add in hundreds of millions losing drinking water as salt invades aquifers and glacier fed streams dry up. Climate change is going to replace Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall with Flood, Drought, Fire and Famine.
The level of ignorance, arrogance or callousness required to reject this level of reality is beyond pathetic.
Which fact do you think is not true?
1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.
The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?
Merrill
Merrill
Again you continue to show us that you are ignorant of the facts.
Here’s the thing. None of this has anything to do with belief. That’s for matters of faith. Dispute the science with science, and take your beliefs to church.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yep;
Science questions:
- Have CO2 levels increased since the industrial revolution? YES!! ~280 => >400!
- Did Humans emit enough CO2 to cause that rise? YES!! >2x as much as would be necessary!
- Does CO2 cause warming? YES!! CO2 is transparent to most of the wavelengths emitted by the sun but opaque to most wavelengths emitted by the Earth => WARMING!!!
Last edited:
Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. I get really annoyed when people say they believe in science. You can either accept the science or not, but if you don't you need to show proof of your position. The litmus test of science is repeatability.
I have read both plus and minus for man made Global Warming. I still look at arguments for both and don't need to call folks names just because they disagree with me. I'm actually in agreement that we are in a period of global warming but from all I have read and studied I do not think it's all caused by burning fossil fuels. There are a great many scientiests that agreee with my point of view. I find it interesting that you dismiss any other causes for the current warming period other than the increase in CO2. I have studied tha facts and I'm positive that climate has changed radically several times before we were burning fossil fuels. Take a look at the highest recoreded temperatures per state and you will see that the majority are in the 1030s. As I remember there were 33 out of 50 that were before 1950, That certainly was not caused by burning fossil fuels.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
NO ONE disputing that climate has changed in the past for reasons other than fossil fuels. But most of those shifts have been dominated by a change in CO2. Glaciations are triggered by orbital wobbles but driven by a change in CO2. A slight warming causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans since warmer water cannot contain as much gas in solution as cold water. We know for a fact this is not occurring now since the concentration of CO2 is INCREASING in the oceans as we oversaturate the atmosphere.
.... if it's not fossil fuels that are the primary driver of current climate change what is? There are ZERO alternative hypothesis with any credibility. CO2 as a result of our fools fuel addiction matches nearly perfectly. The measured increase in the thermal content of the oceans is what would be expected of the altered radiative balance of the atmosphere. No other proposed hypothesis has provided a better explanation for the observed changes.
It's odd that you would even suggest an alternative without explaining what that alternative is. That's NOT how science works! Einstein didn't 'disprove' Newton by pointing out the flaw in predicting Mercurys orbit. He put forth general relatively as a better explanation for the observations. So..... what's the better explanation than our addiction to fools fuel altering the radiative balance of the planet with CO2????
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
We've derailed this thread enough. If you have an alternative explanation for why this is occurring;
Please post it here with links to peer-reviewed articles. Honestly interested to see what else this could possibly be....
Please post it here with links to peer-reviewed articles. Honestly interested to see what else this could possibly be....
Being called names isn't the best, but it's definitely an occupational hazard when you come out publicly against established science. You could probably ask flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, homeopathy adherents and the like how it goes for them and hear similar complaints. The best way to enforce a position counter to the established consensus is to bring peer-reviewed papers and data to the table, and/or dissect and discuss what might be wrong with an existing publication. Generally that's done by reviewing methodology and trying to replicate and then invalidate the study.
Hand waving arguments (the climate changed before/it's cold in Toronto today) are not educated responses. Those of us who support the scientific community and understand and respect the collective work that has been poured into one of the most crucial topics facing us today are discussing policy changes that address a risk that has been outlined by that collective work. That's the promise of the Green New Deal. If you disagree with it because of dogma, that's fine, but there's no real need to participate here. You're going to be called names and chased out. And if you have a scientific argument against it, let's discuss it, but be prepared to bring something of substance to the table.
It's easy to say you "don't need to call folks names just because they disagree with me" when their position is reasonably supported by evidence and yours isn't.
The late Ordovician ice age occurred around 450 million years ago, when temperatures plunged 10C from "greenhouse conditions" despite CO2 levels of around 4500 ppm in comparison to today's level of 400 ppm, demonstrating that CO2 is not the "control knob" of climate.Apr 2, 2014. So obviously there are other factors besides CO2 that affect the climate. As you state they can also be caused by orbital changes, the sun output and other factors.
We've derailed this thread enough. If you have an alternative explanation for why this is occurring;
Please post it here with links to peer-reviewed articles. Honestly interested to see what else this could possibly be....
- Status
Similar threads
