Home | About | Donate

Applause at Global Summit as Ocasio-Cortez Calls Climate Crisis 'Consequence of Our Unsustainable Way of Life'

I appreciate your kindness and thoughtfulness in this.

But as far as me, I do not object to spirited debate and vehement disagreement with my views. I think it is healthy to have such debate until we start falling into the temptation of personal attacks. But I understand how that happens and forgive if it happens to me and hope others do the same to me when I cross the line.

We are discussing one of the most critical issues of our time. It makes sense that we would get upset.

1 Like

What we must do to save the planet .

The fossil fuel industry receives a lot of criticism these days, and rightfully so. But in the final analysis, we are the ones who support the energy industry and it is our standard of living that will need to change. So contemplate what you can do for the cause

Personal Actions

End our love affair with the automobile

Ride more trains and buses

Car pool

Walk and bike more

Change from air conditioners to electric and hand fans in the summer and dial the thermostat down in winter

Become vegetarians or vegans

Refill plastic water bottles with tap water

Discontinue using aluminum cans with and without carbonation

Maximize use of reusable bags and products

Recycle junk mail

Recycle maximally, especially aluminum cans

Drive and accelerate more slowly

Climb more stairs

Plant more trees

Forego use of spray cans

Ride more trains and buses

Repair, mend and alter as much as possible

Buy solar panels

Compost as much as possible

Last person out of the room turn off the lights

Eat and farm organic

Ride more trains and buses

Fly fewer planes

Promote conference calls and web cams, fewer meetings

Use manual tools instead of power tools

Share more

Use rakes rather than leaf blowers

Decrease use of bottled water and refill plastic bottles with tap water

Maximize reusable bags and products

Replace lawns with vegetable gardens

Stop fertilizing and mowing lawns

Compost as much as possible

Minimize use of disposables (Pampers);

Maximize high efficiency LED and solar powered lighting;

Limit endless gadgets

Use motion lighting, where appropriate

Decrease consumption

Limit family size

Buy smaller cars

Local Government Actions

Reorganize cities, building taller residences with a smaller footprint (the end of suburbia)

Institute a carbon tax

Promote car pooling subsidize and expand mass transit

Expand bike paths

Have shareable (zip) cars

Ban electric outdoor signs;

Eat and farm organic

Promote conference calls and web cams, fewer meetings

Eliminate approximately 50% of all street lighting and office lighting in unoccupied buildings

Federal Government Actions

Eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel corporations

Ban gasohol

Rein in the militaries for defense only and outlaw war

Shrink, do not upgrade nuclear arsenals and increase treaties

Discontinue night baseball

Promote making electronics, house wares, furniture, etc to be as durable and long-lived as possible

Promote recycling

Set standards for making appliances to be as energy efficient as possible

Discontinue single use aluminum cans

Ban electric outdoor signs

Subsidize solar and wind power;

Change from petroleum based fertilizers to regenerative agriculture

Reverse deforestation, plant more trees

Restrict spray cans

Promote conference calls and web cams, fewer meetings

Promote zero population growth with free condoms and educate girls world-wide

Mandate making smaller cars

Proscribe junk mail

Scrap the mission to Mars

3 Likes

Corporate capitalism must continue to grow and expand to keep profitable. Infinite growth is fatal to a planet with finite resources.

This basic fact is ignored by capitalists, who have effectively doomed most life on earth by their greed and selfishness.

Anyone remember the Green New Deal? The only people who hate AOC are the establishment Dems, the republicans, the banking and energy executives, the right wing extremists, the white supremacists and hate groups, etc.and everyone who stands with any of them. She is one of about 5 real progressives in the entire USA government. Go ahead and hate if you must, but keep it to the 99.9999%, not the few who actually care.

1 Like

Agree with you. As far as my previous comment, “We should not look a gift house in the mouth,” As you say, AOC is one of a very few dedicated progressives, and we should give her a chance. Not second guess her before we know where she ends up heading to.
All anyone could fault with presently is that she may be taking on too much for a first term congress critter.

Hi, Adam.

I always remember AOC’s Green New Deal. I also remember the original Green Party Green New Deal. I also remember Tulsi Gabbard’s Off Fossil Fuels Act (OFF Act). Finally I remember Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal plan.

Do you mind telling me what your understanding is of what AOC’s Green New Deal is?

Old Twit with Tits has you bunch of snowflakes going. This is all BS Trump MAGA 2020

The Green New Deal is an example of a progressive introducing legislation into the congress which addresses capitalism, environment, and Greed. It is the only legislation ever introduced which would have had any measurable significant impact on climate change if implemented, although not enough to save us I’m afraid. Critics across the spectrum said it went too far - because to them, not enough to save us is going too far. Pretty much every single critic of the green New Deal was personally and directly responsible for the policy of climate negligence which after over 30 years of criminal negligence necessitated extreme measures to resolve it. More than anything, the green new deal is a statement that although a small and much hated minority, there are a few patriots and responsible citizens in this country, and if they were not beaten down incessantly by the Anti American right wing christian, child abducting and child abusing, crimes against humanity supporting, terrorist majority, would actually be able to have a meaningful conversation in government about ethics, and truth and justice, and do something about the complete and total lack thereof.

1 Like

I thought so, as far as what you’d think.

If I thought it was what you think it is, then I’d also be defending her.

But it isn’t.

  1. It isn’t legislation. It is a resolution. A bill if enacted makes law- if the other body passes it and the President signs it. A resolution doesn’t go beyond the body that passes it and all it does is express the thinking of the body that adopts it. The exact langauge (which is in all resolutions and so is in AOC’s resolution) is: " Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that-"

A resolution doesn’t do anything beyond adopt a commen talking point that supposedly all members of the body agree to. Of course those voting against a resolution don’t really agree. But then one can say that the body has that view. That’s all it is.

It isn’t intended to become law.

A bill does intend to become law, something that is written into the books and enforced.

  1. It would not have any impact on anything even if it was a bill because it is vague and general, nothing but a brief description of the problem and then an outline of various goals- good goals- but too general and vague to accomplish anything. There is hardly a time table (a mention of ten years) and no ordering of anything or amount to be spent or methods of enforcement. This is what I mean when I say it is not actionable.

  2. It is not the only legislation ever introduced that would have any impact on climate change. First and Second are my two points about. But most important is the third point. Tulsi Gabbard’s Off Fossil Fuels Act, the OFF Act, is what you think AOC’s GND is. It was introduced in the 115th Congress (2017-2019) and AOC actually ran for Congress in part by saying she’d support it and work for it. It is:

  1. legislation not a resolution
  2. actionable
  3. measurable
  4. has a strict time table

It is a powerful piece of legislation that many in the climate change movement have said is the best legislation in the entire world. Like I said, AOC supported it in 2018.

For some reason she dropped that support as soon as she was elected.

  1. It is not true that all critics of AOC’s GND are part of the climate negligent crowd. I am one of the most addamant posters in these comments sections on how we need to take drastic action. Me? I have been saying we need to OUTLAW burning fossil fuels for a long time and gotten lots of flack here, hardly any support. People say I’m too idealistic, too unrealistic, etc., etc., etc.

But this is a catastrophe and we need to take drastic measures yesterday. That’s why I critique AOC’s GND because it is empty rhetoric that is tricking people into thinking talking about doing something in vague terms someday is actually doing something.

Others tell me I should support AOC. Come on. She has no idea what I’m posting here. You know who do? Supporters of AOC who get upset with me for asking them to not just naively praise her for doing nothing but talking, but to realize we need to DO SOMETHING and to switch to advocating for us doing something.

We don’t have time for what AOC wants. To pass her resolution in the House this Congress to set her up (if the Dems take back the Senate and the White House in 2020) so come the 117th Congress she can be the chair of the sub comittee that would start working on drafting a bill that might be the controversy of the 2021 summer break town halls and mabye get passed in early 2022. (I’m borrowing the timetable of Obama’s ACA, here.) Then it has to be years out from then.

No. We know what to do NOW. We’ve known for years. We need to outlaw fossil fuel. We need to spend hugely on a scale of like we did for WWII to redo our energy system to renewables that aren’t carbon burning and to transfer displaced workers to new and better jobs. We’ve got already written legislation in the OFF Act. We could take Bernie’s Green New Deal plan and make it actionable legislation, probably in a week or two. We could introduce these real bills and then spend all our energy on passing them, promoting them, and purging those who refuse to support them.

We don’t have a lot of time left. Our power grid is already failing. Hurricanes are destroying the Carribean. Pacific Islands are drowning. Methane is bubbling out of the ocean. The permafrost is melting and destroying the boreal forest. The tropical rain forests in the Amazon, the Congo, and Indonesia/New Guinea are burning.

This is happening now. We need to act now.

1 Like

If the climate crisis is urgent, and it obviously is, then waging a hate campaign at the only elected congressperson who speaks at all about the crisis at various rallies and summits is about the stupidest possible response imaginable. Sure AOC isn’t single-handedly resolving the issue on her first hour in office, but she clearly cares and is figuratively screaming from the rooftops to get dialogue going and to rally people behind the cause. Trying as if your life depended on it to tear that down is idiotic, and highly suspect at best. I’m inclined to think the word troll if I didn’t know any better. Surely there is someone else you could direct your hatred toward. You say immediate action is needed, and that’s an understatement, but AOC isn’t capable of immediately implementing policy that will immediately resolve this issue is she? She’s doing what she can! If your insinuating that government has no role to play and therefore elected officials who cannot mobilize the entire apparatus of government, (democrat and republican alike), behind them should just shut up and know their place, well I’m not in agreement at all. At the end of the day AOC has done more than you, she’s done more than me, and she’s done more than 99.9% of everyone else too, and its not enough. and that’s our fault not hers.

1 Like

Wow. I guess there’s no point in debating with you if you can somehow take that away from the post you responded to.

Blessings.

Aoc is talking in the halls of government, and publicly about the crisis, this is all she can do, and the first real person who has consistently done it. Its clearly not what you want, but since you aren’t forcing immediate action either, should we all focus our hate on you? Let the woman talk. In a world where the news says nothing on the subject at all, someone has to clear the air. Fucking Troll!

1 Like

Both the OFF ACT and Bernie Sander’s Green New Deal are terrible plans that are not based on scientific studies nor are they supported by any major scientific or engineering institution, any US Department of Energy Office or National Laboratory, any renewable trade association, any major union hall especially those in the energy industry, or any contractor organization.

If the most important groups of people don’t support your plans that’s not a good way to start.

Also:

"We need to outlaw fossil fuel"
I don’t think you, Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard appreciate all of what we use fossil fuels for. Most interestingly is that Sander’s Green New Deal contains zero provisions pertaining to the petrochemical industry, and Gabbard’s Off Act specifically excludes biofuels and biomass in its plan, which are effectively the only chemical substitutes for petroleum and other fossil fuel products. The petrochemical industry makes up 20-30% of the use of petroleum and natural gas in the USA according to the EIA. Yet neither plan makes any effort to address a transition in this industry sector.

You can’t ban fossil fuels if you have no idea what youre doing for petrochemicals. You don’t make ethylene out of wind…

"We need to spend hugely on a scale of like we did for WWII to redo our energy system to renewables that aren’t carbon burning and to transfer displaced workers to new and better jobs."

If we mobilize people and spend like we did in WW2, we will massively miss all of our targets. I get that the scale we are talking about is difficult for a lot of people to understand, but this idea that we can just implement government programs like we did in the 1930s and 1940s demonstrates that politicians have no clue how large and how sophisticated an energy transition of continental scale is…

Ironically while conservative yell about cost, both the OFF Act and Sander’s Green New Deal are astronomically LOWER in cost when compared with scientific studies on energy transitions with cost estimates. Furthermore both acts put more effort and description into changes made every industry besides the energy industry despite the fact that these are supposedly energy policies…

"transfer displaced workers to new and better jobs."

Additionally on workers - do you wonder why ZERO major unions support these bills despite the fact that both candidates have a strong favor for unions? Because of time and industry unions know their industries. Both of these plans call for completion within in the next 10 years for the electrical energy sector. There are major projects to date that these unions are a part of with a timeframe of completion by contract of over 10 years.

They understand the fact that if you were to actually attempt to do these plans you have to change existing construction contracts, which would be a legal disaster with the largest utilities in the nation. But even if ignored that massive problem, to get all of this infrastructure built in a 10 year period you would have to work like you did in the 1930s - with NO EPA OR OSHA. Land, environmental and safety permitting would likely need to be eradicated as this process in pre-construction alone has taken over 10 years. What a shocker that labor unions have a problem with a timeframe that likely requires the elimination of the single most important labor agency in the federal government’s existence.

"We could take Bernie’s Green New Deal plan and make it actionable legislation, probably in a week or two"
Might be getting a little bit ahead of yourself. You do realize that Sanders’s Green New Deal contains no information about what specific energy sources he plans to use, or at what concentration he wants to use those energy sources, or what specific types of energy storage he wants (he only talks about batteries, while ironically 90% of energy storage in the USA is pumped hydro, but sure batteries FTW. )

These plans don’t at all have a fundamental understanding of the energy and electrical energy industries - and that’s a major problem. Instead you rely on buzz words to get the general public on board, but you can’t go to a contractor or a utility owner and say “make this a smart grid”. The first thing they are going to ask you is what do you think you mean when you say that. Because smart grid applies to a very wide range of technologies across multiple areas of the electrical energy industry, and depending on the area, consumer base, existing infrastructure, geography, economic sector concentration, and existing/planned generating infrastructure, what specific grid load distribution balancing technology you would use changes.

Not so many years; it’s AOC’s birthday and she’s turned 30! She’ll be 35 before you know it! ¡Feliz cumpleaños amiga!

3 Likes

You are correct, Adam.
When I see these jealous, sniping, hating, condemning posts aimed at people like Bernie, AOC and the few other progressives we have, and look at the hubris and arrogance of the people who post them, I see how pathetic our electorate is.
Slagging AOC is what right-wingers do. People come here to CD and use clever tactics to pretend they’re progressive, but what they’re actually concern trolls seeking to poison the good that people like AOC and Bernie do.
“AOC hasn’t done anything real.” Bullshit.

1 Like

You are a traitor to America and your hero Trump is a even worse than you.
I view you as an anti-slavery person would have viewed a Confederate Army soldier–as a terrorist.

I checked you out. Definitely a right wing, religious fundamentalist extremist fundamentalist, Anti-American, terrorist supporting, fascist troll. No Question!

1 Like

Iowa already generates 1/4 of the 81,654 GWh of electric power with wind power. Last year, Iowa generated 21,686 GWh wind power. Wind power can generate this much energy easily. Currently, in Iowa all of MidAmerican Energy customers receive all their electricity from wind power. And they are expanding at a very fast rate.

1 Like

Iowa has the best shot as they only have to increase their generation by about 5,100 GWh to replace Duane Arnold Energy Center.

However I highly doubt that the excess energy from Iowa is being sent across the country to the PJM connection to supply energy in mass quantities for New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts and Ohio and Michigan.

Iowa is an example of renewables can have an impact. You asked how can we replace the energy needed with renewables. This is how we can. New York, New Jersey, and the rest of the states can all join in - obviously, there is a way we can generate this electricity with renewables. Our energy companies just have to do it, just as MidAmerican did. By the way, MidAmerican tried many years ago to get the ratepayers to pay for a new nuclear power plant. The voters had the opportunity to vote on it statewide, they voted NO. So MidAmerican started building wind mills. The closed Maytag plant in Newton, Iowa was turned into a factory for making making windmills. It was a win for everyone in the state. Now Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple have built server farms in Iowa to take advantage of the renewable energy.