UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Remember when you said a bunch of democrats supported open borders?
You just made that up
Occasio Cortez, New Green Deal visionary?
- Thread starter Fogdog
- Start date
You just made that up
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
How come you lied about your reasons for celebrating alongside white suremscists on election night?
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
And there's just one catch:
Life must end at thirty unless reborn in a fiery ritual of carrousel.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's possible but I can't go there without something factual that says it was one of her staff members who made it up. I can't believe that anybody, not even tty would post "welfare for people who don't want to work" as a justification for the New Green Deal. I'm not saying impossible but I do think it's improbable and more likely the site was hacked. It wouldn't be the first time that happened.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
according to this link that you posted...
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution
page 2 at the bottom it states
"a Global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40-60% from 2010 levels by 2030
and net zero Global emissions by 2050"
page 6 then goes on to outline the 10 year plan which includes 100% renewals done by usa
the first page of the faq on npr
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ
goes on to restate the 10year plan with 100% renewable
and also in the first page is the line about "unwilling to work"
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/omar-calls-for-defunding-homeland-security-1-hour-after-insisting-that-tsa-workers-get-backpay
it would be nice if we had politicians that thought about what they were saying, before they said it out loud...it inspires very little confidence in the whole new crop of democrats that got in because people were so angry at the republicans...it makes it seem to me (and i'm really trying to be charitable about it) that most of them haven't got a fucking clue how to do the jobs they now have, that they have no idea at all how to achieve all the things they promised to do while running....the new green deal is ridiculous...it's completely impossible to achieve anything on it in a reasonable time....i understand its a non binding bill, that it's more to get the idea out there...but that doesn't really achieve much...do they really have time for non binding bills? wouldn't their time be better spent writing bills that can pass? bills that have achievable goals in this lifetime? in this senate term?....all this makes me feel like they aren't ever going to get anything done, that they're going to be professional time wasters.......and i'm really trying to like them.....a lot of people hate them before they ever stepped foot into office....so get ready for a wall of ignorant opposition to everything they do....which is why i say don't waste time on non binding legislation....legislate your ass off and PUSH the important stuff through...tie it to everything trump wants done...if he gets fuck all, he gets it with something WE want....
it would be nice if we had politicians that thought about what they were saying, before they said it out loud...it inspires very little confidence in the whole new crop of democrats that got in because people were so angry at the republicans...it makes it seem to me (and i'm really trying to be charitable about it) that most of them haven't got a fucking clue how to do the jobs they now have, that they have no idea at all how to achieve all the things they promised to do while running....the new green deal is ridiculous...it's completely impossible to achieve anything on it in a reasonable time....i understand its a non binding bill, that it's more to get the idea out there...but that doesn't really achieve much...do they really have time for non binding bills? wouldn't their time be better spent writing bills that can pass? bills that have achievable goals in this lifetime? in this senate term?....all this makes me feel like they aren't ever going to get anything done, that they're going to be professional time wasters.......and i'm really trying to like them.....a lot of people hate them before they ever stepped foot into office....so get ready for a wall of ignorant opposition to everything they do....which is why i say don't waste time on non binding legislation....legislate your ass off and PUSH the important stuff through...tie it to everything trump wants done...if he gets fuck all, he gets it with something WE want....
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
i've read through the green deal
its very much wishful thinking pie in the sky crap.
she adds in a little bit for everyone but those bits stand against the goals she set herself
ever heard the saying "you can have it fast, good or cheap. pick 2"
except shes picking much or than 2 or even 3
i'm not going to go on about how we need nukes atm
but lets say what she's suggesting is possible and a split of 50%50% wind and solar
thats 80000 square miles of wind turbines and 55000 square miles of solar panels needed for her plans
so 8000square miles of wind per year installed and 5500sqaure miles of solar per year
also you would need to replace the entire national grid with a smart grid for it to work
and massive construction of high speed rail all over the country.
lets just pretend that there is the will, manpower money and manufacturing available to do that
but with the knowledge it will take massive land use to do
she talks about changing farming practices, good but it will inevitably require more land to grow the same amount of food
so extra land stress
then
she talks about the environment and relieving stress on endangered bi-oms and wildlife. and that you'd need to do research on it before doing anything
theres solar farms that have had to have construction stopped because of endangered animals found onsite. imagine how that would work when your talking 10's of thousands of square mile construction per year
she talks about not abusing eminent domain and talking to local communities and indigenous people to get full permission before any construction happens.
so will end up in a mire of nimbys no way on earth are you ever getting permission for that much land use with heavy eminent domain usage
there is no way to get something like this done in the time scale without being a dick to both the environment and the people who's land you need to use
whilst i can could go on for ages about how this is a bad path something needs doing and the time is past for listening to everybody about their concerns
we did it long enough with the deniers
its very much wishful thinking pie in the sky crap.
she adds in a little bit for everyone but those bits stand against the goals she set herself
ever heard the saying "you can have it fast, good or cheap. pick 2"
except shes picking much or than 2 or even 3
i'm not going to go on about how we need nukes atm
but lets say what she's suggesting is possible and a split of 50%50% wind and solar
thats 80000 square miles of wind turbines and 55000 square miles of solar panels needed for her plans
so 8000square miles of wind per year installed and 5500sqaure miles of solar per year
also you would need to replace the entire national grid with a smart grid for it to work
and massive construction of high speed rail all over the country.
lets just pretend that there is the will, manpower money and manufacturing available to do that
but with the knowledge it will take massive land use to do
she talks about changing farming practices, good but it will inevitably require more land to grow the same amount of food
so extra land stress
then
she talks about the environment and relieving stress on endangered bi-oms and wildlife. and that you'd need to do research on it before doing anything
theres solar farms that have had to have construction stopped because of endangered animals found onsite. imagine how that would work when your talking 10's of thousands of square mile construction per year
she talks about not abusing eminent domain and talking to local communities and indigenous people to get full permission before any construction happens.
so will end up in a mire of nimbys no way on earth are you ever getting permission for that much land use with heavy eminent domain usage
there is no way to get something like this done in the time scale without being a dick to both the environment and the people who's land you need to use
whilst i can could go on for ages about how this is a bad path something needs doing and the time is past for listening to everybody about their concerns
we did it long enough with the deniers
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
he may be long winded about it, but i think he has a point in this case...why waste time on non binding pie in the sky, never gonna happen legislation? aren't there enough real, obtainable goals to reach for? start reachin' for things you can actually get.....
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he was speaking out in favor of "phasing out" cultures he deems "less competent" in another thread and bugeye was rooting him along
but don't call them nazis or anything
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
you're not talking to an opponent...i grew up watching the old star trek series, to me the future has always been open borders, one world government, equality for everyone, sensible, renewable energy, intelligent farming and animal husbandry....but there's no way it's all gonna come at one time....get started, do what you can do now, then do something else....don't try to literally change the world in ten years
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That second link takes one to a copy that never made it to the final draft. I get that people who don't like the idea of people changing their behavior due to earlier mistakes made by mankind would want to focus on that. But to say that's what is submitted to Congress as the final draft is false. The only valid version -- the only copy linked to in the OP -- says nothing about welfare for people unwilling to work. Don't make me laugh by bringing up drafts that were either released by mistake or hacked. Hacked is what I think happened.
Getting back to the ONLY VALID DOCUMENT, https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution
Page six says nothing of the sort as you claim.
Does not as you say "outline the 10 year plan which includes 100% renewals done by usa". The "100%" number does not show in the text on that page at all.
What it does say in section B is "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.".
Is as much as technologically feasible not reasonable?
So, now, NOT on page six but on on page seven in a different section, section C, it says in ten years "meeting 100% of the power demand through renewable and clean, and zero emission energy sources". That's POWER DEMAND, not 100% emissions, which would include emissions from cars and factories. Getting fossil fuel burning cars off the road or out of agriculture in ten years isn't possible nor is it something the US public and their representatives in Washington will agree to. So, agree that zero emissions and all power by renewables in ten years is not possible and --- SURPRISE! -- that's not in the resolution that Cortez released.
If your point is that the plan is a reach and even 100% power demand using renewables by 2030 is expensive, difficult and probably not politically possible, I'd agree. From where we are right now, where only 12% of our energy demand is from renewables and given the state of politics in our government, it's poltically impossible. If we focused on it like we did WWII, it is technically feasible.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Most times, I would agree that a non-binding, practically impossible resolution is a waste of time. This one, however contains an admission that zero emissions isn't just tweaking energy supply sources.
I think it's an important document that clearly states systematic changes to our society are necessary to achieve zero emissions within 30 years. It's only pie in the sky if we let the fat cats tell us so. They want their tax cuts and with the wealth they build by selling into the fossil fuel society they are going to be just fine. The 99% are being punked by them.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your opinion.i've read through the green deal
its very much wishful thinking pie in the sky crap.
she adds in a little bit for everyone but those bits stand against the goals she set herself
ever heard the saying "you can have it fast, good or cheap. pick 2"
except shes picking much or than 2 or even 3
i'm not going to go on about how we need nukes atm
but lets say what she's suggesting is possible and a split of 50%50% wind and solar
thats 80000 square miles of wind turbines and 55000 square miles of solar panels needed for her plans
so 8000square miles of wind per year installed and 5500sqaure miles of solar per year
also you would need to replace the entire national grid with a smart grid for it to work
and massive construction of high speed rail all over the country.
lets just pretend that there is the will, manpower money and manufacturing available to do that
but with the knowledge it will take massive land use to do
she talks about changing farming practices, good but it will inevitably require more land to grow the same amount of food
so extra land stress
then
she talks about the environment and relieving stress on endangered bi-oms and wildlife. and that you'd need to do research on it before doing anything
theres solar farms that have had to have construction stopped because of endangered animals found onsite. imagine how that would work when your talking 10's of thousands of square mile construction per year
she talks about not abusing eminent domain and talking to local communities and indigenous people to get full permission before any construction happens.
so will end up in a mire of nimbys no way on earth are you ever getting permission for that much land use with heavy eminent domain usage
there is no way to get something like this done in the time scale without being a dick to both the environment and the people who's land you need to use
whilst i can could go on for ages about how this is a bad path something needs doing and the time is past for listening to everybody about their concerns
we did it long enough with the deniers
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i'm completely in favor of rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. it would bolster the economy to very close to wartime conditions.
rebuilding most of the bridges and tunnels in the country would take decades.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/us/2018-structurally-deficient-bridges-trnd/index.html
then there are the roads themselves. the interstate system is crumbling, well over half the roadways should be replaced. the original cost of building just the roadways was 119 billion...that's not including pre-existing turnpikes that were incorporated.
aging, inefficient, unsafe power grids would have to be replaced. there are 5.5 million miles of local power lines, and 200,000 miles of high power lines, that need to be upgraded, replaced, buried where possible....just NYC has 6,500 miles of water mains that need to be replaced....
then you have to find locations for wind farms that won't cause the extinction of any of the wildlife in the area, that won't decimate migrating fowl, that are actually strategically placed to be effective, that are well enough maintained to remain effective....
then do the same thing in different locations for solar farms....
and that's a drop in the bucket....this bill IS impossible to achieve in ten years, just logistically.....maybe in 25. if you could get the entire country, and most of the manufacturing industries in the country, behind the plan. and that would still be a massive job...
don't get me wrong, i would be happy if it happens, and would be happy to contribute to it.
as far as it being a symbol of the countries commitment to improving itself, there's no harm in that, and it may be a significant psychological victory, but psychological victories and symbols don't pave any new road....
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
.....new crop in? sounds like it's good shit....