Green new deal equals magical thinking

[kallend 1,623]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

She said we're, which is a conjunction of we and are.  So she is part of the group doing the asking.  My point stands, in context and without back pedaling.  I say again, breathless and catastrophic.

Isn't it uncomfortable when your pants are on fire?

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

Isn't it uncomfortable when your pants are on fire?

 

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

Isn't it uncomfortable when your pants are on fire?

I'll let you know when it happens 

[gowlerk 1,909]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

She said "we're," which is a conjunction of we and are.

It's actually a contraction not a conjunction. And you are a nit picker, as I am. But who cares?

[brenthutch 383]

You are quite right sir.  I should never try to Speakers Corner, when I am trying to put the kids to bed, good catch.

Edited April 18, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

On 4/16/2019 at 8:58 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

Can you point to any reputable scientist (not a grandstanding politician) making that sort of prediction?

All the ones I'm aware of don't make those sorts of 'breathless predictions'. They say the serious, catastrophic consequences will occur in the future (100-300 years).

Source please.

I would love to learn more about reputable scientists who claim "catastrophic consequences" WILL occur in 100-300 years in the future.  (I want a job like that)

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

In AOC's own words, without redactions.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/17/the_intercept_a_message_from_the_future_with_alexandria_ocasio-cortez.html

Just as I said, 12 years.  Some of you guys are starting to look as foolish as AOC.

Edited April 18, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

In AOC's own words, without redactions.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/17/the_intercept_a_message_from_the_future_with_alexandria_ocasio-cortez.html

Just as I said, 12 years.  Some of you guys are starting to look as foolish as AOC.

Go to the 52 min mark.  She's talking about the responsibility of her role and what they prioritize, what they react to, what's important.  I think you can tell that she's not making a dissertation on climate change.  

 

[brenthutch 383]

You need to take another look at the video I linked to

[airdvr 197]

I think the original point to all f this is lost.  If you put a Tesla and bascially any fossil fuel road vehicle and ask them to drive 2000 miles the fossil vehicle will only have to stop 4 or 5 times.  The EV?

[airdvr 197]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

In AOC's own words, without redactions.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/17/the_intercept_a_message_from_the_future_with_alexandria_ocasio-cortez.html

Just as I said, 12 years.  Some of you guys are starting to look as foolish as AOC.

 

54 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You need to take another look at the video I linked to

You must be new here.  You can't diss the new green religion while services are under way.  Shhh.  You heathen sceptic!

[billvon 2,396]

49 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I think the original point to all f this is lost.  If you put a Tesla and bascially any fossil fuel road vehicle and ask them to drive 2000 miles the fossil vehicle will only have to stop 4 or 5 times.  The EV?

Well, the original point is that the green new deal is some kind of impossible fantasy.  As discussed, it is not.

As to the road race, a model S would have to stop 8-9 times.  Who would win?  Hard to say, since the model S can go a lot faster, but both vehicles will have to stop more often if they are driving at their top speed.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

You need to take another look at the video I linked to

Are you talking to me?

Are we talking about the literalism that the world will end in 12 years?  The video clarifies that she's saying we have 12 years to make that change not that in 12 years everyone would die.  Didn't we already do this dance like 2 days ago?

[Rick 67]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, the original point is that the green new deal is some kind of impossible fantasy.  As discussed, it is not.

so you think this is possible?

Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

It would be great if it was but I don't see it. Where do these jobs come from? Who is covering this guarantee??

 

[brenthutch 383]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, the original point is that the green new deal is some kind of impossible fantasy.  As discussed, it is not.

 

I stand corrected.  I thought the GND was just a bunch of left wing gibberish.  As AOC's intercepted message from the future proves, not only was it possible, it was wildly successful.  I apologize 

 

[billvon 2,396]

12 minutes ago, Rick said:

so you think this is possible?

Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

It would be great if it was but I don't see it. Where do these jobs come from? Who is covering this guarantee??

 

The government could; ensure that every single person has a job even if it's raking leaves.  That, however, would not be a good goal.  Providing most jobs through the economy (as we do now) is a better path forward.

Family and medical leave?  Again, some states already do this; we've proven it can be done.   Retirement security?  Social security.  (Needs fixing though.)  Paid vacations?  Definitely possible - but not a good idea overall.

[Rick 67]

The plan looks great on paper but there is no way it could be implemented. And I believe the author's new that. Where would the money come from for this? Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States

There is no way this  "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.   could be accomplished in 10 years. And again where is the $$$ coming from to pay for it?

[billvon 2,396]

22 minutes ago, Rick said:

 

There is no way this  "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.   could be accomplished in 10 years. And again where is the $$$ coming from to pay for it?

It certainly _could_ be done.  The Consumer Energy Alliance estimates that to upgrade every building in the US with the most efficient available natural gas-fueled furnaces, water heaters, stoves and dryers would cost $244 billion.  Let's go wild and multiply that by a factor of 10 to add every conceivable improvement you can think of to US buildings.  Now it's $2.4 trillion as a WAG.  

We spend $3.9 trillion a year.  So by cutting almost everything else, we could do it.

Now, is that a good idea?  No, because most of the gains come from the low hanging fruit (lighting, A/C and refrigeration mainly) and there are much better ways of making that happen than by just handing out money.

[Rick 67]

implementing the green new deal is about as likely to happen as Mexico paying for the wall. And both of these things were presented for the same purpose. 

[billvon 2,396]

Just now, Rick said:

implementing the green new deal is about as likely to happen as Mexico paying for the wall. And both of these things were presented for the same purpose. 

To get into office by making false promises?  Given that one happened before the election and one happened after, I don't think that's really true.

[Rick 67]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

To get into office by making false promises?  Given that one happened before the election and one happened after, I don't think that's really true.

pandering to the base is what I was referring to

 

[brenthutch 383]

If the GND is so great why isn't China doing it?

 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

Edited April 18, 2019 by brenthutch

[lippy 771]

52 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If the GND is so great why isn't China doing it?

 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

If capitalism is so great why isn't China doing it? 

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

If the GND is so great why isn't China doing it?

 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

I can remember that we were world leaders, and didn't really follow anyone else.  Now your standard is "what China does should be the goal?"

[brenthutch 383]

If ever we were to pursue the GND as a nation, we would become the world leader in stupidity.  

[kallend 1,623]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If ever we were to pursue the GND as a nation, we would become the world leader in stupidity.  

 Electing Trump already did that.