Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal would reshape US energy in 10 years. A lot could go wrong
Some "experts" think 10 years is too fast.
Some "experts" think 10 years is too fast.
-
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
Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez unveils bold plan to fight climate change
Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez unveils bold plan to fight climate change
Blueprint for a carbon-neutral economy has been embraced by prominent Democrats and evokes FDR’s famous legacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is releasing a broad outline of a vision for the Green New Deal, a plan to battle economic and racial injustice while also fighting climate change.
The new congresswoman’s blueprint, to be made public today, does not set a date for phasing out fossil fuels. But it does aim to develop a carbon-neutral economy in 10 years, which would require huge strides in reducing the US’s reliance on oil and gas and coal. Specifically, the resolution says it is the duty of the federal government to craft a Green New Deal “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”. That includes getting all power from “clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources”.
The document also endorses universal healthcare, a jobs guarantee and free higher education
Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez unveils bold plan to fight climate change
Blueprint for a carbon-neutral economy has been embraced by prominent Democrats and evokes FDR’s famous legacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is releasing a broad outline of a vision for the Green New Deal, a plan to battle economic and racial injustice while also fighting climate change.
The new congresswoman’s blueprint, to be made public today, does not set a date for phasing out fossil fuels. But it does aim to develop a carbon-neutral economy in 10 years, which would require huge strides in reducing the US’s reliance on oil and gas and coal. Specifically, the resolution says it is the duty of the federal government to craft a Green New Deal “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”. That includes getting all power from “clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources”.
The document also endorses universal healthcare, a jobs guarantee and free higher education
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
^^ I asked before without any response. What is the difference between a carbon neutral and carbon free nation ?
A Green New Deal can give us the freedoms to allow humanity to flourish
A Green New Deal can give us the freedoms to allow humanity to flourish
Relating the Green New Deal to FDRs four freedoms
The principles that animated the New Deal are often associated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s proposed (but never fully enacted) Economic Bill of Rights. These included rights to employment, medical care, housing, education, and social security.
The right has claimed the language of freedom for decades. But their vision of freedom as your right as an individual to do whatever you want – so long as you can pay for it – is a recipe for disaster in the 21st century, when it’s clearer than ever that all our fates are bound up together. Freedom has to mean something more than the capitalist’s freedom to invest or the consumer’s freedom to buy.
They describe five freedoms of the GND
Enemies of climate action warn of totalitarian dullness, while the fossil industry commits crimes against humanity to maintain the privileges of a few. The point of a Green New Deal is to build the opposite: a colorful democracy for all, to live through sun and storm.
A Green New Deal can give us the freedoms to allow humanity to flourish
Relating the Green New Deal to FDRs four freedoms
The principles that animated the New Deal are often associated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s proposed (but never fully enacted) Economic Bill of Rights. These included rights to employment, medical care, housing, education, and social security.
The right has claimed the language of freedom for decades. But their vision of freedom as your right as an individual to do whatever you want – so long as you can pay for it – is a recipe for disaster in the 21st century, when it’s clearer than ever that all our fates are bound up together. Freedom has to mean something more than the capitalist’s freedom to invest or the consumer’s freedom to buy.
They describe five freedoms of the GND
Enemies of climate action warn of totalitarian dullness, while the fossil industry commits crimes against humanity to maintain the privileges of a few. The point of a Green New Deal is to build the opposite: a colorful democracy for all, to live through sun and storm.
Carbon free would stop all fossil fuel burning. Carbon neutral would be net zero due to mechanisms such as carbon capture.
Ten years is probably too short a time to completely stop burning but carbon capture could make us net zero.
House Republicans reveal how they’ll attack the growing popularity of a Green New Deal
House Republicans reveal how they’ll attack the growing popularity of a Green New Deal
GOP lawmaker questions why the "grownups" of the Democratic Party are supporting the bold climate plan.
Words and phrases like “socialism” and “top down” and “Soviet-style” are beginning to be used by Republicans to describe the Green New Deal, a major policy proposal to rapidly reduce emissions.
(And probably VENEZUELA!)
House Republicans reveal how they’ll attack the growing popularity of a Green New Deal
GOP lawmaker questions why the "grownups" of the Democratic Party are supporting the bold climate plan.
Words and phrases like “socialism” and “top down” and “Soviet-style” are beginning to be used by Republicans to describe the Green New Deal, a major policy proposal to rapidly reduce emissions.
(And probably VENEZUELA!)
Carbon Neutral can also include things like bio fuels or synthetic hydrocarbons made from captured or atmospheric CO2 plus water and renewable energy. To my thinking, this is the most sensible way to solve the carbon emissions from aviation. Renewable methane can also be put into the existing natural gas distribution system.
To replace all the gas and diesel vehicles in the US in 10 years would cost about $10 Trillion dollars (250 million vehicles times $40.000). This does not include the cost of increasing the electric generation, charging stations and switching all electric generation to renewables. So yes it would be fairly tough to do it in 10 years
Tough, but maybe not as difficult as the big sounding numbers suggest. Average selling price for a new car in 2018 was about $37,000 and in 2016 about 17,500,000 cars were sold. That is $647B annually right there that people are spending in a decent economy. It doesn't include the costs of gas and related infrastructure. Assuming we allowed for some gas and diesel vehicles to remain, classics, special purpose vehicles and the like, and just started aging out cars or increasing fees or incentives to get people to retire their older ICE vehicles and choose a zero emissions alternative, it might not be 10 years, but it's probably closer to 10 than 20. I suspect that if US customers were buying 10-15m electric vehicles a year prices would drop and the infrastructure would quickly be economically viable.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The US currently spends almost 9 Trillion dollars a decade on oil (at $3 a gallon.)
Whether one car or a country full, the costs about pencil out when electricity is inexpensive ... if we are so foolish as to ignore the externalized costs of pollution and the military costs of securing oil. A more reasonable accounting points out the obvious: oil is bankrupting the country.
Big surprise here . WSJ and Fox mock GND.
WSJ writer slams Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, says it looks like Dem parody bill
“Somehow, government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are also ‘required’ for a clean economy,” the writer wrote. “I would love to understand this logic. (And imagine what wages will need to be to pay for billion-dollar-per-kilowatt electricity).”
Leftists, communists. Socialists, Venezuela, oh my.
Full off the rails rant!
WSJ writer slams Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, says it looks like Dem parody bill
“Somehow, government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are also ‘required’ for a clean economy,” the writer wrote. “I would love to understand this logic. (And imagine what wages will need to be to pay for billion-dollar-per-kilowatt electricity).”
Leftists, communists. Socialists, Venezuela, oh my.
Full off the rails rant!
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
They need an entrance exam for their journalists and editors:
1. What is the difference between a kW and a kWh ?
2. What is the difference between 1 Billion dollars and 2 cents ?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dissects America's 'fund…:
A simple explanation of the basic problem
A simple explanation of the basic problem
Trump's latest cabinet pick: another profit-over-humanity Republican
Trump's latest cabinet pick: another profit-over-humanity Republican | Ross Barkan
Trump's latest cabinet pick: another profit-over-humanity Republican | Ross Barkan
Rail is not the most economical mode of transport! Airlines are better than commuter rail!
Last edited:
San Francisco Explores Taking Over PG&E’s Local Electricity Assets
Looks like San Francisco is thinking of trying to take over PG&E's distribution system in the City as part of its own "Green New Deal" during the bankruptcy.
San Francisco voters passed Proposition A last June, which allows the SFPUC to issue a revenue bond to pay for power equipment, so long as it has a two-thirds approval from the Board of Supervisors. The goal of the proposition was to spur the development of renewable energy generation and prohibit San Francisco from funding any more plants that generate power from fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
“The list of grievances between the city and county of San Francisco and PG&E is growing exponentially,” Peskin said. “Whether it is affordable housing, or recreation and parks facilities, Municipal Transit Agency facilities, PG&E — relative to our own power — has put up roadblocks at virtually every place that they can. Costly, time consuming roadblocks. And then with the CleanPowerSF program, they are figuring out ways to screw us on community choice aggregation. I mean this really continues to be a hostage situation.”
Looks like San Francisco is thinking of trying to take over PG&E's distribution system in the City as part of its own "Green New Deal" during the bankruptcy.
San Francisco voters passed Proposition A last June, which allows the SFPUC to issue a revenue bond to pay for power equipment, so long as it has a two-thirds approval from the Board of Supervisors. The goal of the proposition was to spur the development of renewable energy generation and prohibit San Francisco from funding any more plants that generate power from fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
“The list of grievances between the city and county of San Francisco and PG&E is growing exponentially,” Peskin said. “Whether it is affordable housing, or recreation and parks facilities, Municipal Transit Agency facilities, PG&E — relative to our own power — has put up roadblocks at virtually every place that they can. Costly, time consuming roadblocks. And then with the CleanPowerSF program, they are figuring out ways to screw us on community choice aggregation. I mean this really continues to be a hostage situation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8500644dc98_story.html?utm_term=.844e3640eb2c
Eugene Robinson.
The resolution’s goal is to reduce net U.S. carbon emissions to zero through a “10-year national mobilization.” Such a crusade, as envisioned, would create jobs and economic development while at the same time safeguarding the biosphere. Yes, proposals such as “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States” and “spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing” and “overhauling transportation systems” sound like pie in the sky. But that’s the scale of the crisis.
Sooner or later, we’re going to have to go big on climate change. So let’s start thinking big.
Eugene Robinson.
The resolution’s goal is to reduce net U.S. carbon emissions to zero through a “10-year national mobilization.” Such a crusade, as envisioned, would create jobs and economic development while at the same time safeguarding the biosphere. Yes, proposals such as “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States” and “spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing” and “overhauling transportation systems” sound like pie in the sky. But that’s the scale of the crisis.
Sooner or later, we’re going to have to go big on climate change. So let’s start thinking big.
- Status
Similar threads
