that would be a severe misreading of Patrick Moore. I believe he had a sincere and genuine conversion experience from being an eco-true believer to being an environmental pragmatist. But of course ymmv
In fairness, AOC didn't offer a "plan." It would be like if I said, "in 10 years, we should develop technology that would save us from climate change." That's a wish. Not a plan. Her current statements, while perhaps meants as aspirational, are ridiculous not only from an economic standpoint but also from failing to consider the environmental, practical and life-impacting consequences of her "solution."
I sadly don't know what "ymmv" means. I am just going from Wikepedia. Some have criticized him as such. I am not weighing in on whether the criticism is warranted or not.
Moore calls global climate change the "most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually predict with any kind of accuracy what's going to happen".[35] In 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[46] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[47] Moore has stated that global climate change and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.[48] Rather than climate change mitigation, Moore advocates adaptation to global warming.[49] In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. Congress on the subject of global climate change. "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," according to Moore's testimony. "Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today...Humans just aren't capable of predicting global temperature changes."[50] BUT: Moore's views and change of stance (see above) have evoked controversy in environmentalist arenas. He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter".[27][59] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[27] Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[43] Monte Hummel, MScF, president, World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions". The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure.[32][60] The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group, criticized Moore, saying that his comment in 1976 that "it should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in this apparently insoluble problem" was seen as forecasting his own future.[61] A Columbia Journalism Review editorial criticizes the press for uncritically printing "pro-nuclear songs" such as Moore's, citing his role as a paid spokesperson of the nuclear industry.[61][62]
How does a tax cut that's already occurred have anything to do with AOC's fantasy legislation - GND ? That's not to state that I was / am in favor of the tax cuts , I'd rather they left them as is , cut spending and paid down the debt - at which point we can then talk about tax cuts …. But this GND is pure fantasy "Today" - I'm sure we'll see some of it implemented in the not too distant future - when it becomes economically & technologically viable to do so but some of the other **** is just a hostile take over of our lives. Kinda reminds me of the days before the power grid was in place around 1930 - people had generators on their homes / farms the gubmint came in and forcibly removed them telling them they didn't need them anymore that they would supply them with power …. making them dependent upon gubmint and the fossil fuels industry for that power. Most were none too happy to begin with and were justified long term in the the rising costs …. when their fuels cost them literally nothing. The role of government is to regulate - to keep a relatively fair playing field within the rules , not to interfere with , manipulate or otherwise control that market. What I see here is a bunch of people who are envious of those who have made more than they need …. Well , those people like Bezos and Co are getting their just reward for taking risks , working harder and being innovative and many of you are getting your just reward too - being mired in mediocrity (or worse) for not doing those things for whatever reason. This is America - this country was founded for the very reason of over taxation. What's funny as hell is that these people already pay the loins share of taxes and they can afford to move their company headquarters anywhere in the world , what happens when they up and move for a sweetheart deal elsewhere ? They can denounce their citizenship just as well and avoid personal taxation … What's your plan for those scenario's ? Tariffs ? confiscation ?! …. yeah , that's American …. Don't think it can happen , look at New York. These people aren't the problem , they are part of the solution. The problem is your lawmakers spending like drunken teenagers with daddy's credit card while constantly grabbing more power and authority over your lives while playing off of your sense of entitlement or playing identity politics with the acronym of the day.
Some members of the left need to be eaten. Climate change will directly impact kids more than anybody else currently living, normally it would be very shitty to use kids for political matters, but I think this case is fine considering the context of the message.
I was guessing that the Republican’s GND would be centered on tax cuts for the uber rich, since that appears to be their solution to all problems. Seriously the Republicans have no plan, but to b**** and moan.
Agree. This is a 50 year change AT BEST. Probably more like 100 years. That's not being negative on it...that's simply injecting reality into the conversation.
Keep this in mind when hearing about eliminating all greenhouse gases: In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are: Water vapor (H. 2O) Carbon dioxide (CO. ... Methane (CH. ... Nitrous oxide (N. 2O) Ozone (O. ... Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Hydrofluorocarbons (incl. HCFCs and HFCs) SO, to eliminate greenhouse gases, we NEED TO ELIMINATE ALL WATER? Next...we need to STOP BREATHING? Not to mention that it isn't just cows farting...it's ANYONE farting. So, farting would need to become a capital offense. Ya, that's a good idea....
There are good points in the GND but most of it is just downright outlandish. Honestly I don't think it'll take 50 years or even 25 to move to (mostly) renewables , the technology is advancing rapidly - it just has to be economically feasible before the markets make the conversion - particularly on autos and energy generation. But then you'll have a decade or two where there are still lots of gas / diesel powered vehicles on the road and they will slowly fade away. On a side note - It just boggles my mind why every soccer mom and her sister need a damn 4WD SUV the size of the short bus just to go to the grocery store or drive the kids to school ... maybe they ride the short bus ? Some of the other stuff will happen on its own too , just let the market decide when that happens .... but no , we don't need to give people who don't want to work free money and we don't need to tax cow farts to make people eat something else - that one makes me wonder who's funding her? Chicken , pork and veal weren't on her hit list .... Rebuilding every structure in America - there's only a hundred million or so not including residential , that's another hundred million ... ludicrous idea. High speed rail ... aint gonna work other than possibly on the East coast. I'm even on board with the medicare for all idea - eliminating the insurance industry and putting that money to work on actual care makes it much more affordable - they take ~35-40% off the top (My wife is an insurance executive) - We'd probably all save a bundle of $$$. No , I'm not on board with the gubmint taking over the entire medical industry - just taking the place of the insurance man and removing his profits from our costs. Free college .... no need. What we need is to do away with the notion that you have to go to college to get a decent job. What good does a degree do if its not in the actual field or the company has to train you anyway ?! And what the hell do you need a degree for in many fields ? More trade schools ... sure but what's the point if on the job training is cheaper and more efficient or you are going to have to compete with illegal labor in many of those trades ?! (FWIW I went to college with a double major and two different trade schools - sue me , I couldn't make up my mind what I wanted to do!)
It's not even a technology issue (although as you correctly indicate, the technology itself isn't mature yet, and needs time to develop)...it's the scale of what is being talked about. And the cost of doing so. Not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. How do you keep our economy competetive with this increased cost? Can you provide a plan indicating how this would happen? (if so, you'd make a mint, because you'd be the first) What renewables would be used? Where would all those plants be built? How would you convert all the cars? All the gas stations? As you indicate, the technology isn't economically viable currently, so not only would their need to be a HUGE upfront cost, but an ongoing increased energy cost. Where will the upfront money come from? It WON'T come from private industry...as you indicate, it isn't cost effective yet, no one is investing trillions of dollars in a money losing venture. So, it will have to come from government. So, we are taking over public control of power generation now? Plus, you need to not only pay for building all those plants, but also for purchasing and decommissioning all the older ones. And set up the power grid to them and acquire all the land necessary What about all the oil burning heaters in homes? Need to convert all those. Who is paying for that? Switching out all the gas stations? Who is doing that, and how is it being done? Then...what about all the non fuel uses of petroleum? How are we building roads, as one example (asphalt is a petroleum product). Can use synthetics...most synthetics are petroleum based. Most fabrics are synthetic. Plastic? That's out now. The reality is that people like OAC HAVE NO IDEA what they are actually talking about. NONE. Meaning paying much attention to them isn't very smart.
Interesting, this shortened version of the video has gone viral (especially with political extremists). This L.A. Times article discusses the short version and the longer version... Flap over Dianne Feinstein lecturing children in viral video underscores Democrats’ split on ‘Green New Deal’ https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...0223-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
The sunrise movement is a disgusting souless organization that exploits children. Good for DiFi for standing up to them. There are few things that both sides agree on, but never using children as mouthpieces for your agenda is definitely one. Its definitely not 'fine'. The reason you don't use kids is that they don't even have developed brains. None of them are capable of understanding the NGD or what it means. Spare me the 'it effects them' crap. Every policy fits this description.
To be fair, we do need GHG in general to maintain the climate we have. Eliminating all water vapor, for example, would have disastrous effects on the climate. We need to stop increasing the greenhouse effect we're causing with our emissions. I don't think the problem is even the economic viability. There are parts of the country, for example, where the electricity is so expensive that getting PV panels is an in-the-money investment choice, and the footprint of where that is true is forecasted to grow. As I see it, the economic problem is not the cost but the market structure. For solar, these are assets that are long-lived but are expected to quickly become obsolete -- the panels built 5 years from now will be cheaper than the ones built today. So developers have a difficult investment case to make where they can't promise investors that they'll continue to earn today's prices 5 years from now. They look for long-term purchase agreements to shore up the investment case. But, of course, the counterparties don't want to do that because they may lock themselves into paying more for electricity 5 years from now than the market would dictate. Like Georgetown TX is now learning. So the marketplace isn't creating an environment where investors feel safe. And this is why the GND is so effing stupid. Because it essentially wants to just promise the renewables companies this longterm security by paying whatever it would take to get them to build, with no regard to how the market will react. I'm not so much worried about the cost of the subsidy to overcome the risk premium. I'm worried about how it craters the market and scares away investors from doing anything that doesn't guarantee them federal dollars. Need some peakers or batteries to smooth the early-evening spike after the duck curve? Better be a subsidy for that. And if you put all this spending in the ratebase (what we typically do, the alternative being the tax base), you'll have bills going up even as you throw excess generation away. It ends up costing you twice -- once when you pay a subsidy, and again when you pay for the uneconomic consequences of the generation that couldn't succeed on its merits. The point of all that being this: economic viability is not a question of cost competitiveness, it's a question of getting the market structure right that properly assigns value to all the characteristics of generation. If being no-carbon is valuable, make a mechanism for the market to dynamically assign the value, and investors will drive the growth without costing consumers for inefficiency. Likewise, if being dispatchable (not intermittent like wind and solar) is valuable (and I think it is), that should have a value as well.
You are really barking up the wrong tree here …. I agree that most of this GND is total garbage but that some of it is an eventuality and may happen much sooner than we think - not tomorrow or next week , next year or even in 10 years … but maybe within 15-20 years from now "Some Of" this stuff may be reality even if its not on the scale that AOC wants done by next week. I look around my neighborhood - typical upper middle class …. and every week or so another house has solar panels on it. Literally every major automaker has a new electric on top by 2021 …. https://www.businessinsider.com/ele...charge-and-just-became-available-in-the-uk-19 The gubmint wont have to be involved , the free market will make the transition slowly but surely , one step at a time - when its financially feasible / profitable , not this all at once clusterf@3k these AOC and Co are trying to sell us.
If the Intelligencia had it their way, we would've sterilized anyone not deemed worthy 100 years ago. Climate change is the new Eugenics. Its all this idea of finite resources and all issues lead to a smaller population. It was foolish then and its foolish now. The arrogance and certainty of people to believe what they do and want to oppress, shut down and make illegal anyone that believes or thinks otherwise is quite dangerous to humanity.
