Green New Deal

[juliusa]

ndeed, it was quite maddening. They wanted to build NG peaker capacity, with no pipeline in place, and truck in NG until a pipeline could be built, which of course caused a lot of protests.

Wow. Glad you stopped it. My guess is the company building and operating the peaker plant would not be footing the cost - more likely it would be the rate payer.

"Supposedly" the government is regulating this and would stop such a folly. Sort of like one would expect a federal prison could keep an inmate alive. The incompetence of government never ceases to amaze me.

 

[ohmman]

I always though the main problem was that people ignore the "well regulated militia" part and turned it into free day at the zoo.

If you want an interesting listen, Radiolab's More Perfect did a show on the history of that reinterpretation.

The Gun Show Reprise | More Perfect | WNYC Studios

 

[nwdiver]

I always though the main problem was that people ignore the "well regulated militia" part and turned it into free day at the zoo.

We're getting a bit off topic here.... but.... if you read the Federalist Papers it's clear that 'The right to bear arms' is a response to the necessity of maintaining a standing army. Basically people like Madison wanted a standing army while opponents were afraid it would become a tool of oppression so as a compromise the 2nd amendment was created. 'A well regulated militia' referring to the standing army and 'the right to keep and bear arms' referring to citizens.

Regards I think the whole thing is rather moot because of technology. You're not going to fight a predator drone with an assault rifle and most people would agree it's bananas to allow someone to buy a SAM.

 

[mspohr]

Time has Come to Nationalize the US Fossil Fuel Industry - Resilience

Over the past few months a handful of US politicians, spurred by a youth-led climate mobilization, have started to wrap their heads around of what it will actually take to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change in the country. This has led to the introduction of the Green New Deal Resolution back in February, and the recently proposed Climate Emergency Resolution.

Despite their different purposes, the proposed resolutions agree in one aspect of the climate fight; if we are to successfully transform our energy system in the next decade mobilization efforts will need to resemble those taken during World War II.

It is well documented that in both World Wars the US government did not shy away from seizing the control of industries deemed crucial to the war efforts. This included the nationalization of the railroad system, telegraph, telephone and radio networks and manufacturers in World War I, in addition to coal mines, oil companies and refineries, and even a department store in World War II.

What we are proposing is very, very different — a program of nationalization and rapid decommission, designed to keep unextractable carbon permanently in the ground while creating the planning space needed for a just transition for affected workers.

By shifting them to public hands, those reserves would be detached from the profiteering machine that requires fossil fuel companies to continue extraction indefinitely, to the point where they are still projecting bringing new oil, gas and coal fields into operation long after science says we need to have decarbonized our energy sector.

Time has come for people and the planet to stop paying the costs of the failed fossil fuel and financial systems. By nationalizing the fossil fuel industry — the core industry that keep fueling the extractive mentality and further promoting social and environmental inequalities — through the sovereign monetary power of the Fed, we will be able to unleash the potential for an economy where sustainability, equity and democracy are at its center.

 

[mspohr]

How would a Sanders Administration reach 100% renewables in electricity and transport?

Even more aggressive is U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’ (D-New York) Green New Deal resolution, which would have the nation move to 100% renewable energy in electricity by 2030. But today, U.S. Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) one-upped even that, saying that his administration would target 100% renewable electricity by 2030 as well as full decarbonization of transportation under his version of the Green New Deal.

The 100% renewables goal in both versions of the Green New Deal has some key differences from the 100% zero-carbon electricity mandates that have been passed by five states. Chiefly, the Sanders campaign says that his plan does not rely on what they describe as “false solutions” including nuclear power, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.

In terms of pv magazine’s own research on this matter, we cannot stress enough how geographically specific the transition to very high levels of renewable energy is. While regions like the West Coast and Mountain West may have an easier time getting closer to 100% renewable energy due to the ample hydroelectric power in the Pacific Northwest, this may require additional transmission, and substantial changes to market rules and probably even governance structures would be necessary.

The price tag for this move is not small: $16.3 trillion in public investment. This translates to $1.6 trillion annually up to the 2030 goal, which is more than the federal government’s entire discretionary spending in 2018. Like Jacobson, the Sanders Campaign invokes the mobilization of resources made during the New Deal and World War II.

The Campaign also says that this effort will pay for itself through a variety of means over 15 years including making the fossil fuel industry pay for its pollution and eliminating subsidies, collecting revenue from the sale of electricity, scaling back military spending, reduced need for federal and safety net spending, and “making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share”.

 

[mspohr]

More on Bernie Sanders plan

Bernie Sanders unleashes $16 trillion climate plan that builds on Green New Deal

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has released a $16.3 trillion climate plan that builds on the Green New Deal and calls for the United States to move to renewable energy across the economy by 2050 and declare climate change a national emergency.

While the Vermont senator had already endorsed the sweeping Democratic proposal to combat climate change and had teamed up with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York on climate legislation, Sanders' climate plan provides the most detail yet on how he envisions the climate change moonshot taking shape if he is elected president.

Sanders describes his plan, released Thursday, as a "ten-year, nationwide mobilization centered on equity and humanity" that would create 20 million new jobs. The Green New Deal resolution, which Ocasio-Cortez put forth with Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, calls on the nation to eliminate its carbon footprint by 2030 and to shift away from fossil fuels such as oil and coal and replace them with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

 

[mspohr]

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal is the most progressive in the race

At $16.3 trillion spent over 15 years, Sanders’ climate deal is by far the priciest of all the Democratic candidates left in the primary race. It’s also arguably the most progressive — pushing for the US to have a carbon-free economy by 2050. The senator from Vermont also set a 2030 benchmark goal of reaching 100 percent renewable energy in the country’s two most carbon-intensive industries, transportation and the power sector, by investing in solar, wind, and geothermal power. Sanders’ plan would also declare climate change a national emergency, bring the US back on board with the Paris climate agreement, and commit $200 billion in funding to help developing nations cut their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.

“WE WILL NOT RELY ON ANY FALSE SOLUTIONS LIKE NUCLEAR, GEOENGINEERING, CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION”

. “A move to get the US fully decarbonized by 2050 shifts the narrative, that’s a new standard for what is actually bold and ambitious.”

 

[RDoc]

People talk about a mobilization similar to that of WWII to combat global warming. I agree that's what's needed, and likely will happen eventually, however, I don't view it at all as a good thing.

With the government essentially having close to martial law power, any notion of community objection, environmental concerns, limitations of eminent domain, etc. will go out the window. If you doubt that, look at what actually happened during WWII.

My greater concern is that while the WWII mobilization lasted about 4 years, it's likely to take decades for a real global warming fix. Politicians and government agency personnel are often very reluctant to give up power after wielding it.

 

[mspohr]

People talk about a mobilization similar to that of WWII to combat global warming. I agree that's what's needed, and likely will happen eventually, however, I don't view it at all as a good thing.

With the government essentially having close to martial law power, any notion of community objection, environmental concerns, limitations of eminent domain, etc. will go out the window. If you doubt that, look at what actually happened during WWII.

My greater concern is that while the WWII mobilization lasted about 4 years, it's likely to take decades for a real global warming fix. Politicians and government agency personnel are often very reluctant to give up power after wielding it.

I think it is about mobilizing resources.
If the government sets priorities and goals, it will be better than the greedy capitalists setting priorities. The problem we have is that the capitalists are in charge now and have created this disaster. Capitalists currently control the government which is why we don't have the "political will" to fix the problem. If you can pry control of government from the capitalists, you'll have a chance of success.

 

[nwdiver]

If the government sets priorities and goals, it will be better than the greedy capitalists setting priorities.

I don't know about that. The market is a tool. Just like any tool it can be used for good or evil. A hammer can be used to build a house or vandalize one.... just depends on the priorities of whoever is holding the hammer. We need to create a carbon tariff to make carbon reduction a priority for the market. The role of government will be to soften the blow to people that can't manage their finances to ensure they don't carry a disproportionate share of the burden.

 

[jerry33]

The role of government will be to soften the blow to people that can't manage their finances to ensure they don't carry a disproportionate share of the burden.

That only works when the government hasn't been dismantled for thirty years with accelerated dismantling in the last three.

 

[JRP3]

Thirty?

 

[jerry33]

Thirty?

Ever since Regan.

 

[JRP3]

I think it predated that by quite a bit.

 

[SageBrush]

We're getting a bit off topic here.... but.... if you read the Federalist Papers it's clear that 'The right to bear arms' is a response to the necessity of maintaining a standing army. Basically people like Madison wanted a standing army while opponents were afraid it would become a tool of oppression so as a compromise the 2nd amendment was created. 'A well regulated militia' referring to the standing army and 'the right to keep and bear arms' referring to citizens.

Yep. There was also the matter of far flung areas being able to mobilize a defense force in a timely manner. I've always read the intent as citizens being able to form a militia when needed, not for any moron to terrorize his community at will.

The Repuke interpretation is way, way beyond insane

 

[SageBrush]

The role of government will be to soften the blow to people that can't manage their finances

 

[juliusa]

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal is the most progressive in the race

The problem with his plan, and all the GND plans, is it does not address the biggest part of the problem: emissions from outside the US and destruction of sequestration (Brazil burning the Amazon).

An expensive plan that addresses just 15% or so of the problem is not a plan.

 

[jerry33]

The problem with his plan, and all the GND plans, is it does not address the biggest part of the problem: emissions from outside the US and destruction of sequestration (Brazil burning the Amazon).

An expensive plan that addresses just 15% or so of the problem is not a plan.

In other words, because someone else is doing something wrong, you are okay with doing something wrong too. That's not a valid argument.

 

[juliusa]

In other words, because someone else is doing something wrong, you are okay with doing something wrong too. That's not a valid argument.

Yes, I've heard the talking point. Bunch of nonsense.

If that were true, Bernie Sanders would be "setting an example" and "doing the right thing" and "leading by example". Al Gore too. F'ing huge carbon footprints, and they have a ton of money they "could" spend on cleaning up their own poop. They choose not to.

Without the rest of the world (or at least a significant part of the emitters), we are simply pissing in the wind if the plan does not address that. Doesn't even mention it as best I can tell.

Where is the science behind his plan - what are we getting for the $16T? What is the change in earth temperature with his plan vs without? Perhaps too small to measure?

So in this century we will be "spreading green" around the world, like we spread "democracy" around the world in the last century? Is that included in the $16T?

 

[ohmman]

The problem with his plan, and all the GND plans, is it does not address the biggest part of the problem: emissions from outside the US and destruction of sequestration (Brazil burning the Amazon).

An expensive plan that addresses just 15% or so of the problem is not a plan.

When a city comes up with a plan to reduce local poverty without addressing poverty in neighboring regions, is it not a plan? Of course it is. We make plans that control what's in our jurisdiction. Unless, of course, you're arguing for a world government. Maybe you're a big world government guy. Nah, I don't think so.

When California decided to keep strict emissions laws in place for auto manufacturers, despite the Trump administration rollbacks, what has occurred? Auto manufacturers are signing up to stick with the Obama-era California upheld emissions standards. Why? Because we're a huge consumer market. There are market effects outside of our jurisdiction if you're able to get things done inside of it. Surely you know that.

If that were true, Bernie Sanders would be "setting an example" and "doing the right thing" and "leading by example". Al Gore too. F'ing huge carbon footprints, and they have a ton of money they "could" spend on cleaning up their own poop. They choose not to.

This is, I'm sorry, the most poorly thought out argument I ever hear. It's childish. I support higher tax rates on high income individuals. I fall into the category of high income. When people ask me why I don't just add extra to my taxes, it's a sign they lack any idea of how society works. What will add more to the budget? A little extra from me and two other volunteers in the whole country, or using the money I would have paid to support candidates who will get all high income earners to pay more?