Home | About | Donate

Green New Deal Is Feasible and Affordable


Green New Deal Is Feasible and Affordable

Jeffrey D. Sachs

There are three main ideas of the Green New Deal Resolution introduced by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.



The Healthcare Insurance scam is strangling our economy, and killing our people.

It’s demise may be one of our best chances at economic salvation.



Good summary of nice things for the working class. Jeffrey brought up the right wings distain for these proposals, and perhaps he understands the obstacles on the left, but just doesn’t come out and say it. So lets be clear, the majority of the “left” party does not support these issues either, Feinstein’s response on video proves the DNC has no intention of supporting them anytime soon, if ever. Unfortunately the mid-term elections showed we can’t enjoy nice things using the easily corruptible voting machines we vote with, removing these machines must be our starting point.



“Green New Deal Is Feasible and Affordable”

Let’s forego the use of “affordable” and all other money-based concepts regarding what is required–a total reset on humanity’s habits, which requires a total rewrite of “economic” paradigms. It is clear that:

Business As Usual Is Neither Feasible Nor Viable

Viability is the metric that we should be using as we face this existential crisis. Fuck the current money system. It has imprisoned far too many of the planet’s intrinsic gifts.

When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money
-Usually attributed to the Indigenous Cree People



The Green New Deal is a “modest” proposal in relation to the health of our planet, society, and our collective future. But in 2019 Wingnut America it’s as radical as a Che Guevara written constitution; hence, it ain’t never going to happen. But now, having been written and championed by AOC and Murkey, it’ll haunt all those that oppose or come up short; that’s just the manifest history of it!



Amen brother. As long as the corrupt assholes are willing to cheat their way into office, we are at war.



"Onward Christian Soldiers…"

1 Like


Mr Sachs is wrong in stating, “Cars and trucks will shift from gasoline to electricity, using batteries or fuel cells.” There are 3 basic EV drivetrains, these two and the third plug-in hybrid PHEV. Which offers most potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption? The correct answer is plug-in hybrid. I’ll briefly explain: The widest distribution of battery and charge resources could go to 17 PHEVs, 3 Nissan Leafs, or 1 Tesla. Vans and trucks are heavier than a Tesla. These too would require more energy resources. Freight trucks even more so. PHEVs also utilize hydrogen at lower pressure, thus more practical than for use in fuel cell FCEVs. The much smaller battery pack of a PHEV is the more ideal match to ‘rooftop’ and ‘neighborhood’ solar PV arrays. All household EVs gain a backup power supply and the means to reduce energy consumption for both household and for driving. Large battery BEVs and FCEVs presume the amount of driving we do isn’t insane and wasteful. The 20-30 mile short range PHEVs offer is an incentive to drive less, whereby local economies grow and more trips become possible without having to drive, whereby walking, bicycling and mass transit - all more energy efficient than EVs alone - may serve more travel needs. When a suitcase-size PHEV battery pack reaches its useful lifespan, they can become a ‘stationary’ power source for low-power household uses; not so readily possible with large BEV battery packs which are also much more expensive to replace. This is the basic argument for plug-in hybrid tech to retain and utilize. High-speed rail likewise should utilize diesel/electric hybrid technology rather than all-electric HSR for most rail passenger-rail corridors in the USA.



Rumors. One of my top ten albums. Although wearing a little thin nowadays.Only saw them live once. They were sooo loud it was nearly too much.



Gee, if we really put our efforts into the GND to make it work, we could finally begin to catch up with the civilized nations of the world!



In reality the dead wood which has replaced the grey matter in congress and the general public needs to be set on fire in order for a reaction.

Even before the proposal of The New Green Deal was made public the first step should have been a campaign to educate the population to its feasibility, benefits and critical need for its viability.



This is all today’s technology. We will be inventing new ways and methods before you can say “Plug me in please.” Locomotives have been diesel-electric for decades.



I’m confused, and admit know little about this subject. I was under the impression hydrogen was removed from the equation. Not that it’s not a good energy source, but because of it’s flammability and safety issues in vehicles, even more so than LPG. Are you telling me these safety issues have been overcome? If so, how? As an ex-first responder who has been to untold MVA’s and fought more car fires than I care to count, we can’t remove LPG tanks from vehicles fast enough. I can’t imagine rolling up to a vehicle on fire with a tank of hydrogen onboard.



If you’re thinking self-driving car tech is feasible and safer (it is neither), ask yourself why the most corrupt corporate interests behind it want us to believe their lies? Diesel-electric locomotives have been around since the 1930’s, but the greater need for resource distribution is to address inner-city traffic rather than inter-city travel, much of which is a wasteful luxury.



I’ll never own a self-driving car, and don’t know about it’s efficiencies. I envision things like the solar paneled bike path in Scandinavia, and an electro- magnetic or newer tech tube train urban and rural. While in construction solar panels are built along side and power used where most practical.
But we won’t get this critical infrastructure while our tax dollars go to the military and black ops budgets.

1 Like


When a hydrogen tank erupts, the flames last mere seconds and can be directed away from vehicle occupants. There’s no good explanation for why hydrogen is still considered appropriate for fuel cell EVs in that the quantity of hydrogen is greater and is kept at higher pressures than combustible use in plug-in hybrid drivetrains. Consider also the flammability of much larger lithium-ion battery packs for BEVs like the Tesla and much heavier utility and freight trucks. I make this case for PHEVs to disrupt corporate schemes of car dependency, ie, a transportation monopoly. They want us to remain dependent upon cars, finance and insurance, fuel/energy supply, sales, advertising, maintenance, repair, replacement. PHEVs should last years longer, have fewer accidents, offer owners lifesaving incentives, support the growth local economies and alternate means of travel.
No EV needs to self-driving.



WiseOwl: Business as usual will not falter unless the right-wing influence jokers are voted out of office. That would leave us with think tanks, disgruntled politicians, energy companies and support groups.
We need to produce evidence and cost effective alternatives. Personal and private are not enough. Mayors and community boards have to join the revolution, even if is one at a time.



Maglev trains use up to 40% more energy than standard light rail. Their guideways, both elevated and so-called hyperloop tube, are similarly more expensive with worse environmental impact. Solar panels are best installed on rooftops or neighborhood arrays to reduce the distance of power transmission and to assure households have a backup power supply during grid failure. Self-driving car tech is a fraudulent ruse meant to distract the fucking gullible public from actual solutions to traffic havoc and related costs of living which go direct to corporate overlord bank accounts.

1 Like


Any public solar collection is a good thing. Just the small apps like phone charging and partial auto recharging etc.
As far as tube trains go we may have wait until invention is allowed to be used. How much, if any power is needed for anti-gravity propulsion, or pneumatics.



That’s all fine, and I’m on board with all that, but you don’t mention that they’ve larded it with junk like “guaranteed jobs for all”. Now if anything is going to turn into a big scam its that, besides being a lighting rod for anyone right of AOC to object to it. I get the need to do make it a fair and equitable transition (unlike Macron in France) but seriously, address those problems directly, not with rubbish guarantees