The Green New Deal

[SVine]

Proposed legislation supported by the progressive left that would have sweeping long term changes aimed at preserving the health of our planet, while also keeping the economic impacts of the lower class in mind...



https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...w-Deal-FAQ.pdf


I love it and think the health of our planet, and ultimately, the health of our economy long term depends on it.

[BroncoBeavis]

A bartender got together with her trial lawyer buddies to reimagine the world's largest economy.

What could go wrong.

[Fear the Hawk]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

A bartender got together with her trial lawyer buddies to reimagine the world's largest economy.

What could go wrong.

A clueless con man who thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax gets elected president. What could go wrong?

[ShaneFalco]

imagine being that stupid.....to embrace currency manipulation just so you can finance your "dream".

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

A bartender got together with her trial lawyer buddies to reimagine the world's largest economy.

What could go wrong.

A corrupt so called business man who has filed chapter 13 4 times and turned reality tv star because people like how he said 'you're fired' became the POTUS. I guess anything is possible.

[Pony Boy]

OCASIO-CORTEZ: FIXING GLOBAL WARMING REQUIRES ‘MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION’

The Green New Deal

Democrats’ plans to counteract climate change will involve “massive government intervention” into Americans’ lives, one of the chief proponents admitted in an interview Thursday morning.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she has no qualms about acknowledging a so-called “Green New Deal” will mean unprecedented governmental intrusion into the private sector. Appearing on NPR, she was asked if she’s prepared to tell Americans outright that her plans involve “massive government intervention.”
“It does, it does, yeah, I have no problem saying that,” Ocasio-Cortez quickly replied.

https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasi...assive-governm

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

OCASIO-CORTEZ: FIXING GLOBAL WARMING REQUIRES ‘MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION’

The Green New Deal

Democrats’ plans to counteract climate change will involve “massive government intervention” into Americans’ lives, one of the chief proponents admitted in an interview Thursday morning.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she has no qualms about acknowledging a so-called “Green New Deal” will mean unprecedented governmental intrusion into the private sector. Appearing on NPR, she was asked if she’s prepared to tell Americans outright that her plans involve “massive government intervention.”
“It does, it does, yeah, I have no problem saying that,” Ocasio-Cortez quickly replied.

https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasi...assive-governm

She's not wrong. The market's not going to do **** about it until it's way too late.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fear the Hawk

A clueless con man who thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax gets elected president. What could go wrong?

So double down, amirite?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

imagine being that stupid.....to embrace currency manipulation just so you can finance your "dream".

But people mentioning Venezuela are off their rockers.

[Garcia Bronco]

We shouldn't get rid of Nuclear energy and no carbon taxes.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

imagine being that stupid.....to embrace currency manipulation just so you can finance your "dream".

How’s bit coin working for you?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

We shouldn't get rid of Nuclear energy and no carbon taxes.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a carbon tax in base theory.

I've just never seen a proposal that would do anything but line the pockets of preferred friends and contributors.

[Fear the Hawk]

Originally Posted by bowtown

She's not wrong. The market's not going to do **** about it until it's way too late.

I disagree. Solar and wind power are getting progressively cheaper and better. Soon, they will produce electricity cheaper than fossil fuels.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominic.../#10ef98874ff2

Tesla has proven that EVs can sell, and the battery tech is also getting better and cheaper. I believe by the mid 2020s EV tech will rival ICE cars in cost and convenience, and thereafter surpass gas guzzlers in value, safety, and other measures.

And Tesla's energy storage packs will likely replace gas peakers. They are already saving millions of dollars in Australia with better performance.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/07...r-gas-peakers/

Really, all we need is Rump and idiot conservatives with a hardon for coal to get out of the way.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a carbon tax in base theory.

I've just never seen a proposal that would do anything but line the pockets of preferred friends and contributors.

The problem with saying you'll get rid of nuclear energy is that in human history the sun (in the case of solar) has not always be available. So one of my many tasks in my work history is designing disaster recovery and business continuity plans. You have to plan for the contingencies. As far as our energy is concerned, we should not solely rely on any one thing. We should diversify our energy sources. So that means relying on renewable and non-renewable sources with an emphasis on renewable sources.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by bowtown

She's not wrong. The market's not going to do **** about it until it's way too late.

The unanswered question is who pays for massive government intervention when the government is already 21 plus trillion dollars in debt?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The problem with saying you'll get rid of nuclear energy is that in human history the sun (in the case of solar) has not always be available. So one of my many tasks in my work history is designing disaster recovery and business continuity plans. You have to plan for the contingencies. As far as our energy is concerned, we should not solely rely on any one thing. We should diversify our energy sources. So that means relying on renewable and non-renewable sources with an emphasis on renewable sources.

No, I'm a big fan of nuclear. If these kids were serious about anything resembling their claimed goals, they'd be doubling down on it. Not shuttering it. But in reality what they're looking for is corporate blood more than "saving the planet."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

The unanswered question is who pays for massive government intervention when the government is already 21 plus trillion dollars in debt?

You realize that if we don't mitigate climate change, the national debt will be the least of our problems.

[ghwk]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The problem with saying you'll get rid of nuclear energy is that in human history the sun (in the case of solar) has not always be available. So one of my many tasks in my work history is designing disaster recovery and business continuity plans. You have to plan for the contingencies. As far as our energy is concerned, we should not solely rely on any one thing. We should diversify our energy sources. So that means relying on renewable and non-renewable sources with an emphasis on renewable sources.

What does that have to do with getting rid of nuclear energy? My work history also includes business continuity and DR. You don’t plan every contingency scenario because you can’t fund or execute them all.

Nuclear doesn’t necessarily make or not make the cut. Plus as further advances are made some contingencies are rendered obsolete. Given that nuclear has the worst byproduct it would be the first thing I’d try to eliminate given our disposal options now.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by ghwk

What does that have to do with getting rid of nuclear energy? My work history also includes business continuity and DR. You don’t plan every contingency scenario because you can’t fund or execute them all.

Nuclear doesn’t necessarily make or not make the cut. Plus as further advances are made some contingencies are rendered obsolete. Given that nuclear has the worst byproduct it would be the first thing I’d try to eliminate given our disposal options now.

Agreed...we do not fund every contingency, bit we should plan this. But since Nuclear power already exists and it serves a large number of people it should always be on the road map until there is something better. If you eliminate Nuclear power, what is the alternative in the is not wind, solar, or hydro-electric?

Also, Nuclear has arguably the worst by-product, but we can manage that. It's not like we are talking about a nuclear plant in every home.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You realize that if we don't mitigate climate change, the national debt will be the least of our problems.

Actually, the economic impacts will be horrific as well (and already are). The defense department already considers climate change a major threat to national security. We have 30% of the population (the idiots) who have control of the wheel and are actively trying to drive the ship onto the rocks.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Actually, the economic impacts will be horrific as well (and already are). The defense department already considers climate change a major threat to national security. We have 30% of the population (the idiots) who have control of the wheel and are actively trying to drive the ship onto the rocks.

Yep.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You realize that if we don't mitigate climate change, the national debt will be the least of our problems.

So what’s your priority, affordable healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, education overhaul or global warming?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

So what’s your priority, affordable healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, education overhaul or global warming?

They're inter-related.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...4&postcount=12

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

So what’s your priority, affordable healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, education overhaul or global warming?

Climate change is number one. If you don't fix that, the rest don't matter.

[bowtown]

The correct answer is: it's too hard to decide so let's just give the money to rich people