Home | About | Donate

As Grassroots Momentum Surges, Over 300 Local Officials From 40 States Declare Support for Green New Deal


As Grassroots Momentum Surges, Over 300 Local Officials From 40 States Declare Support for Green New Deal

Jake Johnson, staff writer

With support for a Green New Deal growing rapidly at the grassroots, in Congress, and among potential 2020 presidential candidates, over 300 local elected officials from 40 states threw their support b


I’d bet everything in my back account, that if the Democrats had adopted the Green Party’s, Green New Deal, the numbers of local officials who would be willing to sign on to it, would be at least 3 or 4 times these numbers.


For our Mother Earth: May we outgrow our madness.



You’re actually able to save money? Kudos


Yes sir.

Correction : Bank account, not Back account.


There’s so much we can do, too. Just a couple of examples…for city folk who just can’t go all vegetarian, do at least Meatless Monday. Another, I’m trying to get a grandkid to get her class project to be getting businesses with drive-throughs to put up signs asking motorists to turn off their engines while waiting in lines. I want to get some bumper stickers with some kind of message for people not to sit in parking lots and leave their engines running for long periods of time…


Excellent ideas Toni.


Really? You think so? My kids roll their eyes…


All wonderful things you can do as you watch civilization collapse and millions of species disappear.

The only things to do that will make any significant difference in the survival of civilization are political actions to remove Republicans from power, get progressive, climate-dedicated people in power, shut down fossil fuel corporations and the actions of right wing politicians, corporations, think tanks and other obstructors of rational action. This will almost certainly take a massive, assertive, determined, peaceful revolution.


Congrats you support the Green New Deal, but do any of these people have any idea what is required to facilitate a 100% renewable energy portfolio for the USA? Yes the movement talks applying a tax for renewable investment, but even before economics you need to understand the technical challenges of renewable penetrations above 70%. If you go above this limit you will create such high variability in grid distribution due to intermittency that you require MASSIVE grid infrastructure changes and MASSIVE energy storage investment.

Why is that when I read published scientific articles they discuss this very point along with other challenges for an energy transition, but when you read the Green New Deal movements by progressive outlets there are literally zero references to scientific journals or discussions about continental grid distribution changes and large scale energy storage investments.

Its great to see people motivated by a political group in support of science, but what your movement does not actually contain any science evidence to support the feasibility of your plan that’s a real problem.

Please take your time to read some articles about technology that would likely be required and challenges for 100% renewable penetrations:

Grid Flexibility and Storage requirements for High Renewable Penetration

Electrical Power Systems Required for 100% Renewable Energy Strategy

Economic Assessment of Energy Storage in Systems With High Levels of Renewable Resources

Power Quality Challenges due to Renewable Integration

Technical and Economic Assessment of Power System Flexibility for CAES- Compressed Air Energy Storage

Geophysical Constraints on Reliability of Solar and Wind

A Review of Voltage Regulatory Control Strategies for Smart Grids in Distributed Networks with High Renewable Penetration


Is my Green New Deal bigger than yours? Here’s mine (gp[dot]org/green_new_deal), Let’s see yours.


Of course…the political action goes without saying. Been fighting Repugs for over half a century and fighting the duopoly for at least a decade. Hopefully, the new blood coming in is sincere and works to hang together and bring in lots and lots of people and changes.


There are many studies now using various methods, showing different ways to reach 100% renewable energy. We could do it quickly, in fact we could have done it years ago, if the richest of the rich didn’t insist on making yet more money from energy production, and the lunatic right wing hadn’t been fighting rational responses with billions of dollars.

Clean safe renewable energy includes onshore and offshore wind, utility and distributed (rooftop, parking lot, etc.) solar PV, solar thermal (CSP), clothesline paradox energies like annual cycle energy systems and solar cooking, hydro, micro-hydro, geothermal, tidal, wave, OTEC, muscle power, efficiency, conservation, wiser lives… that is, a number of kinds of dispatchable energy in addition to variable sources like wind and solar PV. The falling price of batteries and imminent advances in battery and other storage mean variable renewables are also virtually dispatchable. Ongoing improvements in the capacity factor of wind (65% offshore) and solar (converting the force of falling water into power, eg.) and combining all the available sources in a distributed grid with demand response techniques will take us to 100% RE, especially when EVs are added. There is no technological or logistical challenge to prevent that, despite the climate denying delayalists and fossil and spent fuel rod naysayers.

“The many roadmaps we already have — such as IEA’s World Energy Outlook, recent NREL studies, the IIASA Global Energy Assessment, and the REN 21 Renewables Global Future Report — all show that the barriers to 100% renewables are not technological.”

IEA www.worldenergyoutlook.org/gassy
NREL www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/
IIASA www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/Flagship-Projects/Global-Energy-Assessment/Home-GEA.en.html
REN21 www.martinot.info/REN21_GFR_2013_print.pdf

Jacobsen has done several studies on 100% for the US and most of the world


https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/08/new-jacobson-study-draws-road-map-100-renewable-energy/

Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) in Finland has been sporadically releasing the results of a long-running research program which evaluates the potential of a country or region’s ability to transition to a 100% renewable electricity system. So far LUT has presented a case for a 100% Russia & Central Asia by 2030; a 100% Iran & Middle East by 2030; and its biggest accomplishment, a successful model of a 100% renewable energy planetary system. India by 2050:

2 more 100% RE studies, 2018

"The cost of installing 99% of the required nameplate capacity for 100% CRE by 2037 is $3,524B+$2,753B = $6.3T. This is similar to the calculated total cost of the Iraq + Afghan wars." Of course this was more than a month ago so the cost is lower now. You might add the cost of upgrades to grids that have to be done anyway and it’s obvious that money is not a problem, ether, although the political will to get it from where it now is has been lacking. If we want to survive, we have to get over that and use the Wille Sutton rule.

Renewables: The 99.9% [electricity] solution U of Delaware
January, 2013
“At expected 2030 technology costs, the cost-minimum is 90% of hours met entirely by renewable,” the team report. “And 99.9% of hours, while not the cost-minimum, is lower in cost than today’s total cost of electricity.”

Here’s what it would take for the US to run on 100% renewable energy
”The core of the plan is to electrify everything…
Electrifying everything produces an enormous drop in projected demand,
With additional, relatively easy efficiency measures and even somewhat wiser lives, energy use could be reduced by half, at least.


Oops: Rick Perry may have stumbled upon the solution to going 100 percent renewable
“Buried in his grid study is how electric cars and smart control systems will enable deep penetration of solar and wind energy”
Aug, 2017 https://thinkprogress.org/buried-in-perry-grid-study-is-solution-to-going-100-percent-renewable-d9e9b2512a2b/

Either wind or solar alone could provide many, many times what the world uses.



Have your kids lived to see everything that you have Toni?

This, could be the reason cars with both combustion engines and electric engines were developed. Once you dropped your speed to a certain RPM, like idling in line, you’re no longer polluting the air with your electric engine.

Run that by the kids. Bet they like that.


You know what’s interesting about all of your sources? NONE OF THEM are for 100% renewable transitions for a country the scale of the USA in 10 years…

And then there’s the Green New Deal movement:

“The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed in order to achieve the following goals, in each case in no longer than 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan: 1. 100% of national power generation from renewable sources”

The point of my comment was not to say that 100% renewable penetration was impossible. The point was to point out what would be required from a grid distribution perspective to provide society with 100% renewable energy.

I have extreme doubts about this movement because I have done extensive research into 100% renewable plans and while I don’t necessarily believe they present the best possible plan of action I at least have put forth the effort to read these plans. If you read the Green New Deal executive summary you will not find a single one of the 100% renewable energy proposals you listed as a reference. Do you know why? Because of none of these published reports and articles call for 100% renewable energy by 2030.

Now you would think that should be a major red flag for the progressive movement, yet it appears that this group’s plans are based more on political empowerment and social change than science. If your party does not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis that 100% renewable in 10 years is feasible then you by definition have zero scientific credibility and I for one will never vote for your proposals.


And no doubt they intend to spend billions of $$$$ to hamstring any green new deal.


Really? I mean REALLY??? We can’t save the planet for our offspring because it would be too hard to do?
Wouldn’t it be better to get started by creating a system to refuel electric cars then moping about worrying about why it can’t be done. Failure here Is Not An Option!


It’s like everything else with the people, you can’t get a response until they are suffering enough personally, or a national calamity happens overnight. Otherwise all we can do is keep chipping away at their sensibilities a few at a time.


2030 is 12 years away, by which time the IPCC has said it’s necessary to reduce GHGs by half to stay under 1.5°C. They’re being wildly optimistic, as has been pointed out many times already, by many of the most informed and respected experts. 1.5° may only be 5 years away and we are not staying under it. Nor are we staying under 2°. Delay has made both mathematically impossible.

That’s right, almost no one is admitting (to themselves or the public) how dire the crisis is and how fast and how far we need to move as a result. (1) That doesn’t matter, it can still be done, in less than 10 years. (That includes things like grid distribution, which has been written about by many and included in some of the studies. Others just assume it, but in no case does it negate the possibility of 100%. Try David Roberts for a start on this aspect of it.) And it must be if we want civilization and millions of threatened species to survive. To do it faster will cost more and take resources away from other things just like winning WWII did (2). In this case maybe luxury cars and shopping trips to Paris and oh, yeah, 75-90% of the US military, whose main purpose is boosting corporate profits and protecting an empire we can no longer afford. And a lot more. We can no longer afford rich people, for example–even globally rich people. Those are the costs of our long delay and the failure to face facts that most in the US and elsewhere are still indulging in. If we want to make the transition to a sustainable society (ie, one not doomed in the near-future) we have to prioritize the needs of everyone and give up those and other luxuries, along with the economic system that produced them and the Bastiatian (3) ideology constructed to justify those economics.

Most experts who have investigated getting to 100 have said there are no technological or logistical reasons preventing getting there, that we have all the technology we need right now. No doubt improvements will be made as we go, but at this point in the stages of development of much of the tech, the way to bring the price down even faster is to build large amounts. That’s exactly how the Chinese brought the price of solar PV, wind turbines, EVs and EV buses down to where they are now.

The Green New Deal is great. If we want to survive, it needs to be part of a much larger transformation of global society, much of which is centered in the US. Radical equality and democratization, reforestation, transformation of agriculture, radical shifts in transport (high speed rail replacing flying, mass transit replacing most driving, eg) shipping, concrete and steel and other industrial production, and over the longer term, population reduction (will almost certainly happen involuntarily at this point) and healing of the psychological affliction that’s the cause of all our problems.
All of these except the psychological are happening–not nearly as fast as needed, but much, much faster than expected by most.

It wounds my heart greatly that you won’t be voting for us, helping in any way, or agreeing with anything, although I would never have expected anything different. We’ll try to struggle on nevertheless.
But PS, it ain’t my party and it ain’t my proposal.

Leading into emergency mode http://theclimatepsychologist.com/leading-the-public-into-emergency-mode-a-new-strategy-for-the-climate-movement/ |
Emergency blueprint https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fe55ec_79e69ca7863c4f0bacb598e21650b267.pdf|
The Victory Plan
Ezra Silk, 100pp https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/victory-plan
10p Exec sum https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fe55ec_d8d534e3c856410b8519944537bdbef1.pdf

(1) There’s no hard deadline (except there is, if you pay attention to the puns there). There’s only gradually and then exponentially increasing death, destruction, suffering and chaos. Since it’s mostly and firstly going to happen to poor people of color the uber-rich people of mostly white have decided it’s OK and they’re not going to do anything to stop it. In fact, they’re doing everything they can to speed it along. Whether this is conscious, unconscious, in the middle or both is unknown. Maybe the Truth and Reconciliation process can get enough internal documents to find out, when the new government starts arresting the people whose fault all this is. (They’re tragically mistaken about their ability to isolate themselves from the horror, btw.)

(2) Private car production was stopped in January,1942; rationing, (much more severe in Britain because of German submarines) and other minor sacrifices were instituted. But thanks to Eleanor Roosevelt’s one-person governmental justice movement (backed by millions of others protesting, lobbying, etc. of course) by the end of the war, most people in the US were more materially rich than they had been at the start. Of course ours will be similar in some ways, very different in others.

(3) “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
― Frédéric Bastiat


PB, thanks for that tidbit of education! If I ever knew it, it’s long gone in the cobwebs of my mind.

No, of course, they haven’t seen even a fraction of what we old ____ have seen. I’m the only one in the family with a hybrid car. It seems like in town, I see very few such cars and even less electric cars.