Politicians who oppose the Green Deal, better do so quietly

Oh look, another prediction from the Global Warming crowd. Let me guess, the world will be a disaster in 10 to 20 years?

Those kooks were saying that 10 to 20 years ago.....

 

As limits to growth kicks in, something like a Green Deal with eventually take place, and nature will impose it.

 

This says it all,
When met with the question "how do we pay for it?"

 

Not openly.

 

I've noticed the new GC meme is "cascading" natural disasters.

 

In every generation there is a village idiot who runs around claiming the sky is falling. Heck, will it be so bad if the human race is extinct in 12 years? If you ain't living you won't miss being here. Bring on the big sleep and let the world spin out of control. What me worry today, where's my fishing pole.

 

No one voted for the Green Deal in Congress. That sad chapter is closed.

 

Absolutely not. There is no reason whatsoever why we wouldn't develop the technology. That is not an issue at all

This is like the Moon project. Back then we had to hurry up to meet the deadline and, in that case, beat the russians. But there was no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind that the technology would be developed. Same thing in this case.

Please quote. Don't bother. It's not true. No scientist said such a thing. It's yet another misconception pushed by the right wingnut media. There has never been certainty that the ice would be gone at all. It's just one of many scenarios. But the ice sheet doesn't need to be gone for the consequences of Global Warming to be devastating.

It will do it for anybody in Wyoming who has family or friends in Puerto Rico. Plus anybody in Wyoming who has the intelligence and foresight to think "hey!.... this could happen to us!". And when it happens in Wyoming, the same will be true in North Dakota.... and so on. The progression will be geometrical in the upcoming years.

 

Nonsense! Pollution, yes.... The rest.... who says those are "the top" environmental issues?

spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;
​

So.... we should, but we shouldn't, but then again.... we should.... Make up your mind.

We have to! Period! Of course this has to be a Global conversation. That's why we had a Paris Agreement. So we can check on other nations, and make sure they're also doing their part. Unfortunately, some Orange idiot pulled out. But we can get back in.

So many like you said the same thing when Kennedy gave his famous "we choose to go to the Moon" speech. We absolutely can develop the technology. Furthermore, unlike the 60s, we don't have to do it on our own.

Where you see "obstacles", the people who are more like those who made this country the powerful nation it is today see opportunity.

You are talking nonsense! You haven't even seen it. This is a roadmap.

It's called "Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."

In other words, the Green New Deal has to be created. It just provides the bullet points. Each one has to be developed by experts in each field. That's how the Moon Project started. That's how all complex projects start.

 

So you concede that you are clueless as too how the Senate works. That's all we need to know.

 

You're saying she plans to stay in office by pushing significant legislation that benefits our country despite the fact she doesn't believe in it?

What a scandal! How devious of her! What a hypocrite!

But.... you know what?

I'll take it!!!

 

Do so quietly? Did you not see it just get unanimously voted down in the senate?

 

Funny thing is.... damn kooks were right!

 

I read the roadmap - and you crying "nonsense" sans knowing what you are talking about - is ridiculous.

Unlike you and Cortez - I did not just wake up this morning and start studying Environmental issues. When you have cleaned up hydrocarbon contaminated sites - using innovative technologies such as Bioremediation - which actually cleans up the soil rather than moving it from one place to the other "dig and dump" - which was the practice of "Engineers" for decades- let me know.

Good that you recognize what that the number 1 issue is pollution of the Oceans. What you do not seem to understand is mass balance.
The problem with population (with respect to the environment) is not feeding people. The problem is the byproducts of consumption.

In a study I read a decade ago - China was (11) - we were (36) - someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Africa is (1) in terms of consumption.
The study stated that if China was able to reach our level of consumption - world resource production would have to double.

The number of people industrialized at that time was roughly 1.4 Billion - (now it would be higher say 1.8 Billion) the industrialization of these extra souls has resulted in a huge increase in 1) pollution due to byproducts of consumption 2) greenhouse gas emission. This not only due to energy use but - when you go from eating a bowl of rice a day to eating a piece of meat once in awhile - Cows fart methane which is roughly 30 x the greenhouse effect of CO2.

"Livestock emissions make up anywhere between 14.5 and 18 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Comparably, the transportation sector is responsible for around 14 percent of emissions"
https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html

It is not just China that is industrializing - India and numerous other nations are doing to as well. 1.4 Billion is 20% of the worlds population of 7 Billion (its actually closer to 7.5) - if the rest of the world cumulatively gets half way - this represents a tripling of current emissions - and this is assuming that these nations industrialize cleanly (we are now very efficient in the first world) - which is not going to happen.

Never mind the ocean pollution. Going 100% green energy - lets say we can get half way - which is at least somewhat plausible I suppose - in 10 years. Its not going to happen but lets speak hypothetically. Then separate out the fraction of emissions coming from livestock and other sources - and you are left with perhaps a 40% reduction on 20% (which is US emissions). This then represents 8% of total current emissions.

If we estimate the time frame to industrialize "half" the non industrialized population at 30 years (probably this is too long) This means global carbon output will have increased by 66% in 10 years due to industrialization - and we will have reduced 8%. This is being conservative with respect to industrialization and wildly optimistic with respect to our potential reduction.

Estimates for electric vehicle growth vary wildly. One estimate has growth from 3 million now to 125 million in 2030. There are currently 1 Billion cars on the planet.

Battery technology accounts for roughly half (and more depending on the element) of the rare earth metal consumption. The price of Lithium, Cobalt and Palladium has skyrocketed due to the increased demand. This is on the basis of a very small fraction of annual sales - roughly 1.5-2% annually. The supply demand problem is huge. These markets are very inelastic = a small increase in demand causes the cost to increase exponentially. Going from 2% to 6% would result in a doubling of demand for these rare earths. The price of these elements would skyrocket - like to the moon. Well past the point of being economic feasibility.

Never mind getting to 50% .. this is just right from outer space - and we are still only half way there. The timeline from actually finding a deposit - to getting a mine up and running is roughly 5 years. Sure things might happen a little quicker given a massive demand scenario but it will still take a long time. This is assuming we can find these deposits to begin with - which also takes considerable time.

My hope is that we find alternatives - but, as of yet we don't have them. Maybe in 5-10 years we will. Perhaps quicker if we pour more cash into research - thing is though - there is already lots of cash being poured into such research - its a slow process.

None of this is to say that we don't try - that we do not sent out on this path. The problem is that I do not want the one leading us down this path to be someone who has no clue what they are talking about - someone like Cortez.

Rather than doing something so radical - and expensive - pie in the sky stuff that is not going to fly anyway - and its not - The Establishment will prevent this from happening .. both Red and Blue - doing stuff that only focuses on the US and does so with really stupid ideas such as blocking the Keystone (something that will not change the amount of oil used by one drop) based on completely flawed logic and political BS Blocking the Keystone actually increases pollution in the oceans - and is thus an overall a negative for the environment.

If you find someone out there who is against the Keystone - put them into the "has no clue" basket... FULL STOP.

So rather than doing radical and dumb things - we need to be focusing on the global equation - which means addressing wealth inequality and Oligopolism - Monopolism and corporate greed.

Obviously - the above carbon equation /mass balance equation is exacerbated by increasing the global population. What good does it do to decreased global emissions by 8% over 10 years - if the global population increases by 10% ?

We have oligopolies cutting down forests (carbon sinks) to plant palm - for palm oil. This product should not be legal - it should be on par with "blood diamonds".

How are you going to fight against the Establishment (the group who is preventing these efforts) when you don't even know what the Establishment is - never mind knowing how it works ? Maybe Cortez knows - sure .. that's it.

In reality this is not so much about fighting the Establishment as it is about getting it on board - putting a leash on bit money interests - somewhat with their consent.

Time is short - and that is no joke - Last thing we need is some radical know nothing leading the charge.

 

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

You were saying?

 

Very quietly. Anybody expecting to serve more than one more term would be nuts to speak too loudly. They'd have to be running in a state so red, it would make Che Guevara blush.

 

If people are that worried about natural disasters they can move.

 

If you call a unanimous pan of the gnd as presented being quiet about their disapproval I'd hate to hear what you would call screaming about it

 

Your climate argument is specious. But more to the point climate change is a small part of the Green New [Idiotic] Deal.

 

According to al gore the ice caps were supposed to be gone 7 years ago

 

This naive notion that "X produces Y% of Global Warming, therefore, the left wants to eliminate X"

What a load of poppycock! Look. This is absolute nonsense. The way it works is this: Reasonable goals are established for each country. Each country can reach their goal any way they want. So long as they reach it.

But that has nothing to do with the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is how we meet our goals. We can develop great technology. And this technology can be sold to other countries so they can meet theirs. So we can actually end up making a profit from all of this.

I don't know how we are supposed to know that you read the Green New Deal from anything you wrote, because it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The details of the Green New Deal have yet to be established. What needs to be done in our country, is pretty well understood. And the only reason we might not do it in the time frame, would be the ignorance of the right. But this will increasingly be an issue that will bemore important for Americans, and in which they will lose.

 

She plans to stay in office by making headlines pushing for radical ideas instead of trying to achieve practical results.

Either that or she’s dumb enough to think her ideas are practical. Perhaps I’m giving her too much credit.

 

Most folks don't know what the Green New Deal is about and critics know even less. The Green New Deal is an admirable list of goals and objectives to address global warming and various economic challenges. As such, the pieces of the NGD are open for discussion, debate, implementation or rejection. Republicans have made their typical boneheaded knee-jerk, reactionary mistake of condemning everything about the proposal. Their take is, "We hate it but we're too dumb to understand it." Worse, Trumpets have convinced themselves the majority of American voters hate "it." It's a replay of the "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" debacle. We'll repeal it but we are too dumb to know how to replace it so don't ask.

The whole thing is another demonstration that the Grand Old Party is now the Party of Trump. It's not just the Stupid Party as many Conservatives suggest, it is also the party of anti-anything proposed that smacks of forward progress, science, or rational thought. Progressing backwards is fine. The majority of Americans, not being aligned with the Stupid Party, have already begun the discussion and found positive elements in the NGD. Other elements not so much. This is the adult approach. If the Trumpets want to demonstrate they are bumbling dummies on yet another front, I suggest they throw the baby out with the bath water and assume the public is too dumb to notice.

 

I was saying .... Well, I'll cut and paste what I said "No scientist said such a thing."

Al Gore is not a scientist.