This reminds me of one of my beefs. We have a “Wounded Warrior” program asking for donations. The government sent them, were responsible for their injuries, and should be paying for 100% of a wounded veterans treatment costs, and for any special needs.
Who are the corporate media? We need to shame names.
I have a better idea: Why don’t you go sit in your car in your garage (or some other enclosed space) and start the engine and let carbon monoxide (which is just as invisible as the carbon dioxide that is driving global warming) save the rest of us from your idiocy. While it’s true that – with considerable pressure from Local, State and Federal governments – a lot of our VISIBLE pollution has been cleaned up in the past half-century, the per capita INVISIBLE pollution is about as bad as it ever was (not to mention plastic waste, which has gotten MUCH worse). Since there are so many more of us now (many more “capitas”), the TOTAL of invisible pollution (CO2 and CH4, etc.) is much greater than it was, and the world IS warming — faster than predicted 50 years ago. What you can’t see CAN kill you, but in your case clearly (NPI) not fast enough.
p.s. I sure hope you haven’t exacerbated gross overpopulation by polluting the world with any offspring.
Speaking of which, if you participate in the Carbon Tax and Credit Scheme (its official title) and their Carbon Credits greenmail extortion, you are allowing all the major industries to continue to pollute, in return for tithe dispensations from the unelected and anti-human IPCC Scientocracy New Carbon Catholic in Bern. Those tithes flow from Bern to tin-pot dictators and their generals in SEAsia, in South America, in Africa and in India, who have bulldozed, and will continue to bulldoze, 100,000s of 3W indigents and aboriginals off their freeland holdings, every year more, clear-cutting the tropical rainforests and burning the undergrowth for ‘renewable’ palm oil plantations and biofuels megafarms, entrapping the dispossessed innocents in squalid work camps or horrid urban ghettoes where they starve and die, documented, by the millions now.
The blood of millions of innocents is on Gore Gang of Four, IPCC and the Green New Dealers. You as a IPCC sychophant are a global genocider. Now you can no longer claim, ‘I am a Good Greenman, and I did not know.’
Realistically what exactly would media outlets be discussing for the Green New Deal?
This proposal has zero scientific data or evidence corroborating its plans. There are already existing 100% renewable plans that have never received discussion from media outlets, largely because they contain actual scientific discussion and analysis, which most reporters do not have an education in and have not shown the ability to effectively report.
So besides just stating that this proposal exists, what exactly would you want these outlets to say?
That it’s the best plan for solving the climate crisis?
- there’s literally zero evidence supporting such a claim.
That it would dramatically decrease emissions?
there is literally zero projected data made for this proposal, and this proposal does not even address how the country would transmission for low carbon non-renewables to 100% renewable (a feat that has largely never been accomplished worldwide unless supplied with large scale hydro).
In fact this proposal doesn’t even define what sources of energy, resources, and technology would be considered renewable. There isn’t actually a consensus among 100% renewable plans as to what is renewable. Some plans exclude resources like biomass and biofuel as they require combustion. Some plans exclude large scale hydro due to environmental detriment upon construction, installation and production. Some plans use CHP energy storage, which largely requires Natural Gas CCS/HELE systems to supply heat.
The GND make no ruling on what technologies would actually be used, so how are media outlets supposed to report anything?
There should still be news coverage if nothing else to start having a more educated discussion on what possible solution for climate mitigation are, however based on the responses I have received on this site I have a feeling that progressives would be outraged if the news coverage was anything but full support for the Green New Deal, despite the overwhelming problems with the proposal.
Maybe we will get that news coverage of the Green New Deal after we get comprehensive discussions and public officials detailing a couple of Medicare for all options.
What a backward country we are becoming.
Unfortunately, one part of the problem is the use of the word “green.” Too many people now associate it with a 1970’s hippy “treehugger” mentality or, if they’re a bit more savvy, with the Green Party itself and its history of myopic infighting. For many, it doesn’t sound like a step forward. Better labels might be found in areas around efficiency, smart energy, inclusiveness, civic participation, etc. – values that Greens have stood for, but rebranded to reflect their virtues, not the stereotypes invoked by the largely ignorant mainstream media. Even the word “progressive” has better withstood the test of time.
Just now ·
After more than two years of the deafening screeches of fake news being leveled at every major media and magazine source, you’d like to think that at least a FEW people might begin to find other sources, or cooperating articles, rather than continue to defend thirty-second clips as definitive fact-finding with which to defend their “informed” positions.
If there has been one thing that the corporate giants across the spectrums have gotten a laser accuracy on, it’s the blind and complacent acceptance of repetitive talking points as undeniable facts, and spontaneous reactions to glittering objects as well-thought and critical goals.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
These reports actually do exist and there have been substantially greater evaluation of Medicare for all. Additionally several large developed countries participate in a state led Medicare system.
Now does that mean it’s necessarily the best system, in my opinion there are still some details that need to be worked out for hospitals. However, this isn’t a great example compared to what I’m talking about.
There is already evidence for 100% renewable studies, however the GND is not a 100% renewable study, because it does not contain anything consistent with any published study. It’s a platform of loosely assembled ideas with no reference or comparison to existing scientific research, unlike like plans such as Medicare for all which compare US medical system to the likes of Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Spain, China etc.
“Efficiency, smart energy, inclusiveness, civic participation”
How specifically does the GND address these aspects and how specifically are you defining these characteristics?
“Green” is just as much a vague term as “smart energy”.