Green New Deal

[jerry33]

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.

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?

And beside, the argument "everybody else is doing it" didn't work in kindergarten or elementary school. It doesn't work now that we're grown up either. Before we can throw stones at others, we need to get our own house in order.

 

[juliusa]

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.

Of course it is. Because poverty can be addressed locally. Climate change cannot.

When California decided to keep strict emissions laws

Their laws do nothing to address global warming. They were enacted to address smog in LA and other areas.

This is, I'm sorry, the most poorly thought out argument I ever hear. It's childish.

My point exactly! We all live on one planet, and the childish arguments against a global solution of "lead and they will follow", "set and example" and "do the right thing" are exactly that - a bunch of nonsense.

Should we unilaterlally disarm and save the $700B a year we spend on defense on the expectation that the rest of the world will follow?

Maybe we can agree on this: The proposals should show the change in climate change that the scientists say will be accomplished by following the plan. Maybe we can get 99% of the benefit for half the cost? Or maybe 10x the benefit for a 10% increase in cost. How can one make policy without that information?

 

[ohmman]

Of course it is. Because poverty can be addressed locally. Climate change cannot.

Of course not. It was intended to point out that a plan can be jurisdictional and still a plan. You said it's not a plan, which is demonstrably wrong.

Their laws do nothing to address global warming. They were enacted to address smog in LA and other areas.

And again, my point was that emissions standards permeated beyond a jurisdiction because the government had the will to act within their jurisdiction, and you knew that.

Maybe we can agree on this: The proposals should show the change in climate change that the scientists say will be accomplished by following the plan. Maybe we can get 99% of the benefit for half the cost? Or maybe 10x the benefit for a 10% increase in cost. How can one make policy without that information?

Every large-scale policy framework begins as hypothesis. If you think this plan is going to be implemented exactly as it was laid out, you haven't been paying attention to government. Of course there will be analysis. But this is a common oppositional talking point - attack the framework as if it's being voted on tomorrow.

Your responses are very deflecting, so I am guessing you know better. Maybe you're just trying to get rise out of people here.

 

[JRP3]

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.

Actually it is. You don't start change at 100% ever. As the US moves towards renewable technologies the costs of those technologies keep dropping, the availability keeps increasing, and they spread across the world because the alternatives no longer make sense. Undeveloped rural areas aren't building phone lines because cell phones make them obsolete and too expensive.

 

[juliusa]

As the US moves towards renewable technologies the costs of those technologies keep dropping, the availability keeps increasing, and they spread across the world because the alternatives no longer make sense.

Excellent! I'd like to see that in the scientific model - an acceleration of the reduction in costs and resulting increased adoption as a result of the plan. Maybe we should spend more to get more acceleration.

Undeveloped rural areas aren't building phone lines because cell phones make them obsolete and too expensive.

Excellent example. With all the investment in phone technology the US has made over the past 150 years, what is the penetration of telephones worldwide today?
With all the investment in mobile technology over the past 40 years, what is the penetration of mobile phones worldwide? Seems to be somewhere around 66%. Not sure what the US government role was in moving that foreward - was there a mobile new deal? Did the government have to crush the ilecs to make that happen?

 

[juliusa]

If you think this plan is going to be implemented exactly as it was laid out, you haven't been paying attention to government.

Actually, I don't think it will be implemented at all. I think it is a campaign slogan. Sort of like the wall that Mexico is paying for.

attack the framework as if it's being voted on tomorrow.

No, I just want to see the science behind the framework. How can he expect us to back spending $16T when we don't know what the projected benefits are?

 

[nwdiver]

Actually it is. You don't start change at 100% ever. As the US moves towards renewable technologies the costs of those technologies keep dropping, the availability keeps increasing, and they spread across the world because the alternatives no longer make sense. Undeveloped rural areas aren't building phone lines because cell phones make them obsolete and too expensive.

Yep; One of the biggest reasons I was able to buy solar for $1/w was because Germans were paying ~€7/w 20 years ago (Assisted by generous government subsidies). The reason the panels for my last project cost $0.50/w was because people like me paid $1/w 7 years ago.

 

[JRP3]

Excellent! I'd like to see that in the scientific model - an acceleration of the reduction in costs and resulting increased adoption as a result of the plan.

Really, you're completely unaware of the way technological progress works?

Not sure what the US government role was in moving that foreward - was there a mobile new deal?

As with much technology the government did quite a bit in developing it

Steve Jobs may have been a genius — he certainly had an eye for design — but his most successful product would not exist if it weren’t for the billions of dollars that the US government spends every year on research and development. The best accounting of this has been done by Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State, who skillfully explains that touch-screen displays, GPS, the Internet and even Siri were the product of public research funding — features the iPhone wouldn’t be very compelling without.

Love Your iPhone? Don’t Thank Apple. Thank the US Government.

 

[juliusa]

Yep; One of the biggest reasons I was able to buy solar for $1/w was because Germans were paying ~€7/w 20 years ago (Assisted by generous government subsidies). The reason the panels for my last project cost $0.50/w was because people like me paid $1/w 7 years ago.

If we spend $16T, how much more will that accelerate? Or is the status quo (what we are doing now) working fine?

 

[juliusa]

Really, you're completely unaware of the way technological progress works?

Nope - just want to see the scientific model and results.

As with much technology the government did quite a bit in developing it

As we have and are with renewable energy. Just looking to see the impact of an additional $16T is all.

Love Your iPhone? Don’t Thank Apple. Thank the US Government.

Love your solar or EV? Don't thank the manufacturer. Thank the US Government. I don't think the US Government put $16T into the iPhone. Just asking what we are getting for the ADDITIONAL $16T.

 

[JRP3]

Just asking what we are getting for $16T.

Good jobs, improved economy, better more affordable technology and a chance that the world remains habitable for humans.

 

[nwdiver]

If we spend $16T, how much more will that accelerate? Or is the status quo (what we are doing now) working fine?

Who says we have to spend anything? We just need some structural changes. The DOE has a loan program open to nuclear plants. Open that to home owners so they can get similar terms on a PV system. Imagine if anyone could get a 10kW PV system with a 2% 30 year loan like utilities can. They could save $200/mo and pay ~$150/mo on their loan.

Internalize the cost of fools fuel. I have a customer interested in a 500kW ground mount but they would only save ~$0.03/kWh because of the way Xcel has their rates structured and the cost of fuel is <$0.02/kWh. The external value of not burning that fuel is >$0.10/kWh. I'd be installing 500kW for that customer tomorrow if they could save the ACTUAL value of the system.

 

[d21mike]

The Green New Deal (GND) is a proposed United States Legislation that aims to address Climate Change and Economic Inequality.
Green New Deal - Wikipedia

I would prefer there be legislation that focuses on Climate Change ONLY! I believe the people behind GND are more about social changes then climate change. They are simply using "climate change" as a way to address major social changes. If they truly believed we have "12 years" to solve this problem they would simply make it ALL about Climate Change. The other part of the GND will cause it to FAIL.

I bought my first Tesla Model S 2 years ago. My wife just got her Tesla Model 3 1 month ago. We are installing Tesla Solar with Power Walls within a couple months based on scheduling and SCE.

I started with Tesla because of the technology. Primary going with AutoPilot but found that I also love electric cars for the power and in home charging. However, I also agree with Elon Musk that we need to get off of fossil fuels sooner or later. I also believe we need to stop our global involvement in OIL and all that comes with that involvement including protecting our "national interest" in OIL.

Soon my solar will be up and running. Based on others experience I believe strongly we should have solar on every roof the can use it. I believe California (my state) is forcing all new homes to have solar very soon. Then I think the more people drive electric cars the more people will see the true benefit of them and will explode adoption. Then with the huge investment in solar on houses and the addition of solar in the grid and the transition to electric vehicles we will be well on our way in doing our part of addressing Climate Change. We do not need to force complete "social change" along with it.

 

[JRP3]

We do not need to force complete "social change" along with it

The point of the GND is that without some social changes the switch to renewables will not be fast enough and will negatively impact those who can least afford it. The growing social/economic divide is no more sustainable than continued fossil fuel usage.

 

[ohmman]

The point of the GND is that without some social changes the switch to renewables will not be fast enough and will negatively impact those who can least afford it. The growing social/economic divide is no more sustainable than continued fossil fuel usage.

One example of the crossover between social equity and climate change is affordable housing. This is prevalent in my community. Teachers, firefighters, retail clerks, hotel staff, etc. cannot afford to live in my town. Instead, they commute an hour each way from less expensive communities, causing congestion and additional emissions. Social equity has many ties to climate change once you dig in. They're difficult to disentangle.

 

[d21mike]

The point of the GND is that without some social changes the switch to renewables will not be fast enough and will negatively impact those who can least afford it. The growing social/economic divide is no more sustainable than continued fossil fuel usage.

And this is the reason the GND will never get off the ground. The opposition will say that GND has "zero" to do about Climate Change and all about Social Change.

Many years ago it was Global Warming or we would be doomed by "now".

Now we change the name to Climate Change and will be doomed in 12 years if we do not change our social/economic divide "so" that we can "then" address Climate Change which will never happen.

Again, this issue appears to be "social/economic" and very little to do with the actual threat of Climate Change. And that will be the message over the next 10-20 years.

 

[d21mike]

One example of the crossover between social equity and climate change is affordable housing. This is prevalent in my community. Teachers, firefighters, retail clerks, hotel staff, etc. cannot afford to live in my town. Instead, they commute an hour each way from less expensive communities, causing congestion and additional emissions. Social equity has many ties to climate change once you dig in. They're difficult to disentangle.

This is my point. We can not do anything to solve Climate Change without first doing something about housing cost in the city. Do we really only have 12 years to make major changes? I predict "zero" will happen in the next 12 years. Like what has happened the past 20 years.

There will be no agreement on what we should do NOW. I certainly hope all of the Climate Change Scientists are completely wrong because as it is going we will certainly find out sooner than you think. You will be surprised in 10 years at how fast it just went by.

 

[jerry33]

This is my point. We can not do anything to solve Climate Change without first doing something about housing cost in the city. Do we really only have 12 years to make major changes? I predict "zero" will happen in the next 12 years. Like what has happened the past 20 years.

There will be no agreement on what we should do NOW. I certainly hope all of the Climate Change Scientists are completely wrong because as it is going we will certainly find out sooner than you think. You will be surprised in 10 years at how fast it just went by.

1. We have around 12 years to make changes that will be somewhat affordable. Waiting will bring changes that are ruinous.
2. Quite a lot has happened in the past twenty. The polar jet stream has become unstable. Global temperatures have gotten warmer, 20% of the Amazon rainforest is gone. The list goes on.

 

[d21mike]

1. We have around 12 years to make changes that will be somewhat affordable. Waiting will bring changes that are ruinous.
2. Quite a lot has happened in the past twenty. The polar jet stream has become unstable. Global temperatures have gotten warmer, 20% of the Amazon rainforest is gone. The list goes on.

Because of the huge divide on what should be done and the HATE between the political parties I sadly expect nothing will actually be done. Again, the focus needs to be on the real problem and not on a complete social/economic change which will absolute not happen in 12 years.

 

[nwdiver]

I would prefer there be legislation that focuses on Climate Change ONLY!

So would I. But think about it. The most effective way to encourage a move away from fools fuel is to make fools fuel more expensive relative to responsible alternatives. The people that are most responsible for the position we're in are those profited from our addiction to fools fuel are also best able to afford shifting to alternatives and => will be least effected by a rise in the cost of fools fuel. This is what lead to the yellow vest protests in France. Any shift away from fools fuel needs to be on the shoulders of the people that profited most from the addiction.

How do you expect the average person with <$400 to their name to buy an EV and get Solar? Our perpetual addiction to fools fuel is in some ways a symptom of larger problem. It's going to be more effective to treat the disease than the symptom.