myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Climate Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64 ... 94, 95, 96  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5601
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
So identify a specific issue you have with this, not the "socialist" nonsense that Isobars and NW spew. https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf

It is a resolution, not a law. But I hear that NW has taken to walking old Native American paths to work so he can avoid any of those "socialist" roads. He's arranging to pay the surviving Chumash for the right of way.
Hea everybody, "it's not a law" we can put down our pitchforks, yay.
The inside of your house must be full of mirrors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 12162
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
CB—The righties here are lazy; nobody shows any sign of having read it. They repeat the talking points sent to them by their favorite alarmist site. While the objective of the resolution may be to stake out a position for 2020, there is much here that I think is a good idea. It calls for

Building resiliency
Repairing infrastructure
Expanding renewable energy sources
Building distributed power grids
Upgrading buildings (conservation)
Clean manufacturing
Restoring ecosystems
Cleaning up hazardous waste and abandoned sites
Making public investments in the research and developmenf of new clean nd renewable energy technologies

None of this is particularly radical. What I suspect gores the sensibilities (or determination to maintain market share) of mrgybe and the GOP is language that provides “by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change.”

I challenged the stooges to provide something specific that they object to. They didn’t, they can’t.

I suggest you read it before you judge either it or its sponsors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 12162
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least the Washington Post got it right. Trump lied--and the stooges repeated those lies here.


By Salvador Rizzo
February 11 at 3:00 AM
“I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called ‘Carbon Footprint’ to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military — even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!”

— President Trump, in a tweet, Feb. 9, 2019

“There are multiple doctored GND [Green New Deal] resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there. Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109.”

— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), in a tweet, Feb. 9, 2019

No one is proposing to “eliminate all planes, cars, cows, oil, gas and the military."

No one created “doctored” versions of the Green New Deal that included these outlandish proposals.
As a reader service, we’re going to summarize what’s actually in the Green New Deal from Democrats, and how we ended up with all this confusion.

The Facts
The Green New Deal is a manifesto calling for sweeping changes to American society. Key goals include cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero over 10 years and guaranteeing jobs for all. The plan has prominent Democratic backers, including Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), all of whom are running for president. Many liberal and environmental groups are on board. Republicans say it’s a non-starter that reeks of socialism.

Climate change is a critical issue, but some experts say the Green New Deal is overambitious and unworkable. “I’m afraid I just cannot see how we could possibly go to zero carbon in the 10-year time frame,” Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist and secretary of energy under President Barack Obama, told NPR. “It’s just impractical. And if we start putting out impractical targets, we may lose a lot of key constituencies who we need to bring along to have a real low-carbon solution on the most rapid time frame that we can achieve,” such as labor unions, Moniz said.


Sixty-nine percent of Americans are “somewhat worried” or “very worried” about climate change, according to a December survey by Yale University in Connecticut and George Mason University in Virginia. The percentage represents “the highest level since our surveys began in 2008, and an increase of seven percentage points since our previous survey in March 2018,” the pollsers said.

The resolution in Congress from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) calls for a “10-year national mobilization” that would include:

“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.”
“Providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”
“Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”
“Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
“Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”
“Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”
“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.”
“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in — (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”
“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”
“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."
There’s a real question of how much of this could be accomplished in 10 years or longer.

“In my own subjective assessment, getting to near-zero emissions over the next decade would be physically possible but sociopolitically infeasible,” said Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “During World War II, up to 60 percent of national GDP was directed towards the war effort. If we were to mobilize around the climate problem the way we mobilized around the fight against Germany and Japan, then we could possibly do this.”


Even if it passed, the resolution would not have the force of law. Resolutions like this are broad statements about policy priorities. Ocasio-Cortez’s office says a formal legislative proposal would come later.

Nothing in the resolution eliminates “all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military,” as Trump tweeted. Accomplishing some of the goals undoubtedly would affect the industries Trump mentions, but it’s inaccurate to say the Green New Deal would “permanently eliminate” them. It might be accurate only for the oil industry, since the plan calls for “meeting 100 percent of the power demand” with clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources. It should be noted that some key provisions in the Green New Deal call only for “technologically feasible” changes.

The White House did not respond to an email Sunday seeking comment.


So where did all this talk about eliminating cows and airplanes come from?

As part of the resolution’s rollout, Ocasio-Cortez’s office released some accompanying literature in the form of “frequently asked questions.” These FAQs included statements that went beyond the terms of the resolution itself, and they soon became fodder for attacks by Fox News commentators and Republicans. There were also signs that not all Democratic backers of the Green New Deal were on board with statements in the FAQs. Campaigning in Iowa, Booker noted that he endorsed only the “framework and the resolution.”

One version of the FAQ from Ocasio-Cortez’s staff said the Green New Deal sought “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.” That’s not in the resolution itself, which calls instead for “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage.” An adviser to the congresswoman, Robert Hockett, erroneously said on Fox News that the “unwilling to work” line was from a doctored document.


Saikat Chakrabarti
@saikatc
We were essentially thinking about pensions and retirement security. E.g. economic security for a coal miner who has given 40 years of their life to building the energy infra of this country, but who may be not be willing to switch this late in his career.

At another point, the FAQ called for building “high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” This line also went beyond the terms of the resolution, which calls for high-speed rail investments but doesn’t mention airplanes or air travel.

The FAQ also said:

Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels?

Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it — this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.


Another version of the FAQ, which has been taken offline by Ocasio-Cortez’s staff, said something similar: “The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then. However, we do believe we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, restore our ecosystem, and more to get to net-zero emissions.” (We pulled up an archived copy of this document using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.)


“It’s literally — clearly — irony,” Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent said in a brief phone interview Thursday when asked about the airplanes and cows.

On Saturday, however, Ocasio-Cortez walked back all the statements in the FAQs.

“Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109,” she tweeted. Ocasio-Cortez also said: “There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around. There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there.”

The statements and FAQs at issue were not doctored. They were all produced by her staff. Now, Ocasio-Cortez is saying they were “draft” versions not ready for prime time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5601
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool lets do the entire Green deal thing, and then we can put a dome over our country, we may have to sacrifice Hawaii and Alaska, dem be da breaks. If we don't, the rest of the dirty, polluting, fossil burning countries won't be able to destroy the nirvana we have created from those nasty trade winds.
They don't call then "trade winds" for nothin', they trade it all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3371

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some of the highlights from Mac's post:
Quote:

The Facts

The Green New Deal is a manifesto calling for sweeping changes to American society. Key goals include cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero over 10 years and guaranteeing jobs for all.

“Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in — (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”


How do you "cut greenhouse gas admissions to net zero" and still have airlines flying, and of course, all cars being electric? it's a joke.

Maybe the catch phrases are "as is technologically feasible" and "net zero" (however that is defined).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 12162
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well at least Techno tries. NW can’t do more than troll. Net zero, I believe, accompanies emission increases with emission offsets. It’s been done with cap and trade—a program pioneered by Republicans before they became a subsidiary of the oil industry.

Try reading the resolution. It’s aspirational, not regulatory. There are some questions about how far we can go, and how fast—but it is better than pretending there isn’t a problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 425

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac, I agree, the basic ideas are neither radical nor new, it's more the ambitiousness and some random points like the unrelated "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling (!) to work".

Before mrgybe mentioned the GND here, I had seen some headline and a 3 sentence blurb and didn't think much of it. Now, seeing how much it piques the right, I think there is something important to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5601
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Well at least Techno tries. NW can’t do more than troll. Net zero, I believe, accompanies emission increases with emission offsets. It’s been done with cap and trade—a program pioneered by Republicans before they became a subsidiary of the oil industry.

Try reading the resolution. It’s aspirational, not regulatory. There are some questions about how far we can go, and how fast—but it is better than pretending there isn’t a problem.

My point, which few over your head like a fossil burning jet plane, is that if it's not a global effort across the board, it's all for not.
Trade winds don't care who's trying and who's not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4519

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Many of you here will be deciding which Democrat Presidential candidate to support. To gain some insight into the intellect and breadth of knowledge of the leading candidates, and of the current darling of your party, I suggest that you read the Overview of the Green New Deal which has received their enthusiastic support.

Most here also missed my point. The Green New Deal is so infantile that it not worth discussing. It is not too costly, it is not too socialist........it is impossible with current technology and anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about the energy markets. Those of you protesting that it is better for politicians to trumpet ridiculous, unachievable goals, "because it is better than doing nothing" will hopefully learn that most people are tired of being lied to by politicians. Booker, Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Sanders have all signed on to the GND. Mindless opportunism, which tells thoughtful voters a lot about them. That was the point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3371

PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
There are some questions about how far we can go, and how fast—

Now there's an understatement. How about the fact:
Quote:
“Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
I guess this falls into your guestions about "how far we can go and how fast". As I said, it's a joke.

He also said:
Quote:
Net zero, I believe, accompanies emission increases with emission offsets.


Do you mean that as long as emission increases are balanced with decreases in emissions, that is the goal of net zero? In other words, no increase beyond where we are today?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64 ... 94, 95, 96  Next
Page 63 of 96

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group