Jump to content

Problem(s) with the "GREEN NEW DEAL"?


DTEJD1997
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey all:

 

I've seen plenty of criticism for the "Green New Deal"...but I think most of it is foolish and misplaced.  Specifically, most of the criticisms focus on it's price tag.  Arguing that it's cost is too high is misplaced.  The argument against it should be that it is murderous policy and that tens of millions will starve.

 

Fortunately, I am not the only one starting to point this out.  One of the founders of GreenPeace is voicing similar criticisms.  Please see:

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31465-green-new-deal-would-kill-almost-everyone-warns-greenpeace-co-founder

 

Among the many problems of the "Green New Deal" is that it aims to completely get rid of internal combustion engines (ICE).  OK, now what?

 

How are you going to have widespread food distribution?  Battery powered trucks?  Electric trains?  OK, fair enough...but you won't have enough, not even close.  There is also talk that electric trucks won't work out as the batteries needed simply grow too large in relation to the amount of cargo that can be hauled.  So food distribution would definitely go down, perhaps by a tremendous amount.

 

Take a step back though.  How are we going to plant/harvest the food in the first place?  A battery powered tractor pulling a plow?  Don't think that is going to work...battery weight will either be too large, OR you are not going to get enough "juice" to plow a field...or maybe you are changing batteries after every few rows?  Same thing with combines.

 

Even if batteries and their weight was NOT a problem, how are you going to charge all of them if you get rid of oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas electric plants?  Wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro is simply NOT going to provide enough power not even close.

 

How are you going to get international trade shipments?  Remember, no ICE.  Also, no nuclear powered ships.  So that leaves wind powered ships.  Back in the 1700's and early 1800's this is exactly what humans did...but I would think international trade goes down by a MINIMUM of 90%, we simply won't be able to build enough sailing ships.  Also, how many sailing ships to carry the same amount on a containership?  10, 25, 100, more?

 

Air freight & travel will also be incredibly restricted.  Nuclear planes?  NO WAY.  So that leaves blimps & zeppelins.  Air travel/freight goes down by 90%+

 

Finally, let us say the USA implements this....what of other countries?  No more tanks, humvees, aircraft carriers, subs.  Honduras could easily invade & take us over!

 

So food production plummets, trade collapses, military is ineffectual.  80%+ of the population's job is simply to scrounge up enough to eat.  That is your new job.

 

Of course, a dramatic population reduction is probably what is wanted by the proponents of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny too how these tools who won't vote for it still have the nerve to call voting on it, "a sham". How do you expect it be taken seriously if not one person was willing to vote for it, and even the people who sponsor it, consider the prospect of holding a vote, a joke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy at its highest. The Democrat scumbags didn't want to be tainted by having voted for this plan going into their next election. That includes socialist Elizabeth Warren by the way.

 

They must feel that even their liberal area could not bear such stupidity.

 

Climate change is a complete hoax at least in the short to medium term (20 to 50 years, maybe 100 years+). I agree with Dan Pena that if the threat was real in the next decades that banks and insurance companies would take precaution and not issue multi-decade loans and same for insurance policies.

 

Ask Democrat supporter Buffett next time around: "Do you price in climate change in your policies and associated risk which should become clear over coming years according to AOC?"

 

Then you will first hear a bunch of: Hmmm, dumb laughs and a few caughs. Before some politically correct answer along the lines of: "We are keeping an eye on it"...

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

Seems like the "Green New Deal" has even more problems than I anticipated!

 

Here is one question that I've never addressed regarding climate change.

 

What about other countries?

 

Specifically, why aren't we doing EVERYTHING in our power to get them to come along with the Green New Deal (or other preventative measures).  I don't mean by simple letters of understanding and such.  I'm talking about heavy fisted actions along the lines of "reduce carbon output by XX% or we'll do it for you."  If the world is ending in 12 years, why aren't we going to war over it OR getting close to doing so?

 

We fought WWII and went all out.  It was a very serious matter, but not as serious as ALL human life getting wiped out.

 

And if the world is ending in 12 years or so, why aren't they calling for MUCH more severe actions in USA?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

Seems like the "Green New Deal" has even more problems than I anticipated!

 

Here is one question that I've never addressed regarding climate change.

 

What about other countries?

 

Specifically, why aren't we doing EVERYTHING in our power to get them to come along with the Green New Deal (or other preventative measures).  I don't mean by simple letters of understanding and such.  I'm talking about heavy fisted actions along the lines of "reduce carbon output by XX% or we'll do it for you."  If the world is ending in 12 years, why aren't we going to war over it OR getting close to doing so?

 

We fought WWII and went all out.  It was a very serious matter, but not as serious as ALL human life getting wiped out.

 

And if the world is ending in 12 years or so, why aren't they calling for MUCH more severe actions in USA?

 

This is a great point. We make up a relatively insignificant amount of the world. If we are the only ones implementing even anything to the effect that the crazies are asking for, it will be a total waste of time if we are not joined in unison by pretty much every other industrialized nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We joined WW2 pretty late in the game...

 

Didn’t we refuse to join the Paris climate agreement? Seems the rest of the world is more serious than we are.

 

Actually, even though we are not part of the Paris agreement, we have lowered emissions by quite a bit already.  The fact China and India, two of the worlds fast growing polluters, are exempt shows the agreement to be a farce.

 

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We joined WW2 pretty late in the game...

 

Didn’t we refuse to join the Paris climate agreement? Seems the rest of the world is more serious than we are.

 

Actually, even though we are not part of the Paris agreement, we have lowered emissions by quite a bit already.  The fact China and India, two of the worlds fast growing polluters, are exempt shows the agreement to be a farce.

 

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind

 

What are the emissions per person when you compare the three countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We joined WW2 pretty late in the game...

 

Didn’t we refuse to join the Paris climate agreement? Seems the rest of the world is more serious than we are.

 

Actually, even though we are not part of the Paris agreement, we have lowered emissions by quite a bit already.  The fact China and India, two of the worlds fast growing polluters, are exempt shows the agreement to be a farce.

 

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind

 

What are the emissions per person when you compare the three countries?

 

China's emissions are lower per capita, but in aggregate are twice the US level. You can see that China's emission have increased 4-fold since 1990 while the US remains flat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China

 

India and China have some of the worst polluted cities in the world

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration

 

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that this is a global problem and yet exempt two of the largest, and fastest growing, polluters in the world. The Paris agreement is a total farce as long as some of the largest polluters in the world are exempt.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We joined WW2 pretty late in the game...

 

Didn’t we refuse to join the Paris climate agreement? Seems the rest of the world is more serious than we are.

 

Actually, even though we are not part of the Paris agreement, we have lowered emissions by quite a bit already.  The fact China and India, two of the worlds fast growing polluters, are exempt shows the agreement to be a farce.

 

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind

 

What are the emissions per person when you compare the three countries?

 

China's emissions are lower per capita, but in aggregate are twice the US level. You can see that China's emission have increased 4-fold since 1990 while the US remains flat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China

 

India and China have some of the worst polluted cities in the world

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration

 

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that this is a global problem and yet exempt two of the largest, and fastest growing, polluters in the world. The Paris agreement is a total farce as long as some of the largest polluters in the world are exempt.

 

Those two countries are also adding the most Nuclear because they are trying to reduce emissions and have a higher standard of living. Would you reduce your standard of living to match theirs and emit as much as you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We joined WW2 pretty late in the game...

 

Didn’t we refuse to join the Paris climate agreement? Seems the rest of the world is more serious than we are.

 

Actually, even though we are not part of the Paris agreement, we have lowered emissions by quite a bit already.  The fact China and India, two of the worlds fast growing polluters, are exempt shows the agreement to be a farce.

 

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-but-some-states-are-falling-behind

 

What are the emissions per person when you compare the three countries?

 

China's emissions are lower per capita, but in aggregate are twice the US level. You can see that China's emission have increased 4-fold since 1990 while the US remains flat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China

 

India and China have some of the worst polluted cities in the world

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration

 

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that this is a global problem and yet exempt two of the largest, and fastest growing, polluters in the world. The Paris agreement is a total farce as long as some of the largest polluters in the world are exempt.

 

Those two countries are also adding the most Nuclear because they are trying to reduce emissions and have a higher standard of living. Would you reduce your standard of living to match theirs and emit as much as you want?

 

No, but my point, which you are ignoring, is everyone has to reduce emissions or whats the point?

China and India continue to add new coal plants, not sure where you see a whole lot of nuclear being built?

 

https://www.dw.com/en/chinas-push-for-more-coal-power-imperils-climate-goals/a-48091409

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-coal-power-china-imperils-climate.html

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

Slide 3 on Cameco’s presentation https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets-us-west-2/quarterly/Cameco-Investor-Presentation-November-2018.pdf

 

I have quite a few Uranium investments in the portfolio. There is potentially a big catalyst in a couple of weeks when the US decides if it wants to protect uranium producers in the US.

 

This podcast is worth listening to if you haven’t looked at Uranium in a while.

 

http://themikealkinshow.curzioresearch.libsynpro.com/ep-52

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

Slide 3 on Cameco’s presentation https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets-us-west-2/quarterly/Cameco-Investor-Presentation-November-2018.pdf

 

I have quite a few Uranium investments in the portfolio. There is potentially a big catalyst in a couple of weeks when the US decides if it wants to protect uranium producers in the US.

 

This podcast is worth listening to if you haven’t looked at Uranium in a while.

 

http://themikealkinshow.curzioresearch.libsynpro.com/ep-52

 

Disposal of spent fuel rods has always struck me as a messy proposition but overall very interesting indeed.  Thanks for sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

Slide 3 on Cameco’s presentation https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets-us-west-2/quarterly/Cameco-Investor-Presentation-November-2018.pdf

 

I have quite a few Uranium investments in the portfolio. There is potentially a big catalyst in a couple of weeks when the US decides if it wants to protect uranium producers in the US.

 

This podcast is worth listening to if you haven’t looked at Uranium in a while.

 

http://themikealkinshow.curzioresearch.libsynpro.com/ep-52

 

Disposal of spent fuel rods has always struck me as a messy proposition but overall very interesting indeed.  Thanks for sharing

 

Yeah, it's a long term proposition but they hardly take any space up.

 

Not many people are talking about what to do with spent solar panels and all of the toxic metals in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough to have certainty on carbon dioxide and global warming.  However, I believe that Bill Gates appears to be thoughtful and rational on the subject - https://twitter.com/BillGates.  He has influenced some of my thinking below.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

(1) I believe that there is a sentiment that we need to do "something".  Also, big problem means big "something".  Also, something or a big something is better than nothing.  I disagree.  A "something" that is ineffective and costly is worse than nothing for any variety of reasons.  Would I want to endure a painful and costly surgery if it didn't cure or fix my problem?  Definitely not.  I believe the GND is along those lines.  Costly and ineffective.

 

(2) The problem is a global problem, and policy should take that into account.  State and local legislation is the wrong path.  Should be national and global.

 

(3) It is not just an energy problem.  Bill Gates mentions that energy is minority of CO2 emissions.  Agriculture is a big contributor.  Concrete and steel require significant carbon emissions.  These sources of CO2 get almost no attention.  In addition to any policies thinking globally from a geographic perspective, they should also be global from a source of carbon perspective.

 

(4) It is not a matter of just ramping up wind and solar.  We have a pretty good idea these can't satisfy all energy demands, and as mentioned above, energy is not the only issue.  Also, I have concerns about the environmental impact of wind and solar.  Wind, for example, is a very land intensive operation.  The favored nation status of wind and solar is one of my big frustrations.  I don't think the fact that wind turbines occupy large swaths of land should be ignored or we should ignore that ramping these up is a solution to the problem.  One of the things I like about Bill Gates.

 

(5) Why is nuclear ignored?  One of our best actual paths to lowering CO2 emissions and it is being decreased.  I don't understand how some can say CO2 is an existential crisis and be against nuclear.

 

(6)  Since it is a global problem, I think solutions need to be attractive.  I don't think you are going to force China, India and the rest of the world into expensive and unreliable solutions.  Need to offer competitive and attractive solutions.

 

(7)  Given all that, I would certainly focus on innovation.  Some might consider this magical thinking.  That is, rather than doing the "hard work" associtaed with CO2 reduction, I'd look to techological solutions.  I disagree.  It is certainly speculative, but as I noted above, I don't think there is a path with current technologies.  I'd take my chances trying to develop solutions that would work over spending innordinate amounts of money on things that I don't think have any chance of working.

 

(8) Innovation doesn't mean that you couldn't consider a carbon tax or other methods.  A carbon tax could be one lever to help spur innovation. 

 

(9) GND if implemented as written would be an economic and environmental disaster (economic disaster leading to environmental disaster).  I take the proposal at its word (eliminating fossil fuels means, for example, replacing all natural gas heating).  AOC proposed it.  Others lauded it.  I take them at their word.

 

(10)  I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to confidently state the extent of CO2 being a problem and the cost/benefits of reducing CO2 versus mitigating the effects.  Generally deferring to the scientific majority on climate change, while I remain cautious about the scientific community.  That is, science I think can often be misrepresented, unrepeatable, biased by political or other influences, subject to hubris (we can answer less than we think), etc.

 

Just my thoughts on a Saturday morning.

 

StevieV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...