Home | About | Donate

No Time to 'Let the Market Handle It': Watch Ocasio-Cortez's Urgent Call for Green New Deal

#25

"“The initial response was, ‘Let the market handle it. They will do it.’ Forty years and free-market solutions have not changed our position.”
—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

That is not quite right. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez says that Exxon Mobil knew as early as 1970, while Exxon and Mobil did not merge until 1999, and if her claim that the oil giants knew in 1970 that would be 49 years! Millennial math? (Sorry, but there is so much denial and pushback from the fossil fools that we need to get our details right.) Meanwhile, several web sites date the knowledge of AGW to the late 1970s or early 80s, while one of my former physics professors told me in 1972 that he had just read an article about it. Hansen’s original paper on AGW was published in 1981, and the update in 1988, at which time he also testified before Congress.

But her point is dead on. Had we responded with appropriate alarm even as late as 1989 (30 years ago), we would have the situation well in hand, with a stable or cooling planet at most 1.5 degree C above pre-industrial levels by 2050 essentially a done deal. But it could not have been done through market incentives alone even then, and in fact could NEVER be done without significant guidance from the public sector. At this point we will save the planet for human habitation only with the most massive mobilization plan imposed by whatever entity is capable of imposing it.

2 Likes
#27

GM & Ford manufacture obsolete municipal paratransit lift vans. Seniors, disabled and all transit patrons deserve easy boarding low-floor and low-emission vehicles. They get about 10mpg and should be replaced with hybrid and battery EVs that can get an effective 30mpg. GM has been sitting on a patent rear suspension, front wheel drive chassis with ideally stable handling since the 1970’s. GM manufactured 12,000 of these successfully but discontinued the vehicle because transit is competition with car sales. Standard municipal 40’ buses are likewise obsolete, get 4mpg loudly spewing diesel and can be replaced with this more ideal smaller, less expensive bus on many routes. Cities too should be sued for reparations and/or reforms.
As for pollution from military vehicles, the shear number of commercial vehicles (cars/trucks/ships/airplanes) produce an estimated 100x as much air and water pollution.

#28

AOC is brilliant; would someone please tell that MSNBC boy child that the “gate” through which he sees everything is nowhere but in his miserably uneducated head!

2 Likes
#29

Slightly lofty concept, rule the world is. Gee, why wouldn’t I want my tax dollars spent trying to rule the world while others who pay taxes have crappy schools to go to, crime in the streets, and struggle to find food and shelter. Disgusting, is a start in describing the world conquering ideal.

1 Like
#30

There are some fixes for air travel.

Air friction is related to air speed to the fourth power. So, if airplanes were to fly at a mere 80% of their current velocities, their air friction would drop to 80%x80%x80%x80% = 40.96% of their current air friction. Total fuel use per trip would drop by about 60%. With a speed reduction to 50% of current air speeds, total fuel use might plunge by about 94% per passenger-mile.

Now, airline flight crews spend half of their time on the ground, flight crews are maybe half of all labor costs and airline labor costs are about 2/3 of total air travel costs. If you save 60% of current fuel use and increase each plane’s time in the air by 25% then you increase total air travel costs by maybe 8%.

The airlines will of course scream and hold their breaths. “An 8% increase in ticket prices is intolerable because it’s uneconomical.” However, all airlines will have to do it equally. It will help if planes are redesigned to take best advantage of these slower travel speeds.

2 Likes
#31

I get it about the smaller vans (and more user friendly). Labor cost and the demand varying over the course of the day have been obstacles, and with the present mindset the engineers would all too likely collaborate with municipal officials to support that transition using “self driving” vehicles. I’m sure you are familiar with GM’s earlier forays into screwing up public transit.

1 Like
#32

But we all have to get there yesterday. It’s very important.

In reality, that is likely to become one of the hardest selling points for any GND.

1 Like
#33

Be nice if the media pointed out on occasion that the Green New Deal was a Green Party proposal more than a decade ago. A little credit where credit is due. Shows that it might be a good idea to allow third party candidates on the debate stage to put forward ideas instead of handcuffing them when they try to gain access to the debate stage.

2 Likes
#34

Thanks for keeping the flame alive. I’m still waiting for a candidate I can voter FOR from the duopoly. Otherwise I will continue to vote Green when available.

#35

The biggest problem with the GND and especially medicare for all is the collective consciousness in the USA is still of a warrior status.
The US started with an invasion and near genocide and fought a few so called righteous wars ( actually no such thing) and then turned war into a government run business. Even the anti war crowd still has a
"Support The Troops " mentality and as such there is no concerted effort to reduce the military budget , which would be one of the best ways to pay for MFA.
Maybe a sort of hybrid version like the Germans and belgians have would be more palatable than a total tax based system?

#36

The Green New deal is a great start but our whole economic system must be overhauled.

We have used more resources in the last 40 years than 40 000 and we are not slowing down .
This they call progress but it’s progress towards our own demise .
Our economy is based upon power and possession .The more stuff you own land,houses,cars ect the more power you have to control society .
Not so enlightened…
We cpuld move to a Use and Access economy one where we have Access to the stuff of life but do not Need to own it .We are all taught to have our own personal copy of everything here in the West .
We could just share the stuff between us ,move to a cooperation model .
If people can get Access and Use of all that we think we need to be happy that creates happiness I guess .
Moving to a wealth creating society for the highest good of all.

#37

Thanks for the link. Being from Alaska, I can tell you most Alaskan politicians are owned lock stock and barrel by the fossil fuel industries, but what a lot of people may not know, is so are the vast majority of Alaskan voters…it is called the Permanent Fund Dividend which gives every Alaskan resident an oil dividend, except for a few people like me.

3 Likes
#38

Good points…thanks.

#39

I agree, but what do you suggest as a way to move NOW!

1 Like
#40

There should almost always be an open stage for debate, time willing. We should be careful of what we believe about climate change. We all go to who we trust. We just need to keep in mind that republicans only trust Trump and Fox Noise.

#41

I’m glad you agree with Tulsi Gabbard and me on this Congresswoman.

Yes, it is very urgent. We don’t have time for leisurely committee meetings discussing this. We need to take action, or at least attempt to take action by passing a bill in the House that actually does something with specific, measurable actions on a time table.

SAY WHAT??? I thought this was urgent? I thought this was something that had to be comprehensive and done right away.

So what is this garbage with a RESOLUTION???

Not a bill that would be law. Just a resolution, which means it doesn’t do a damn thing, it just is an expression of a point of view that the members of the House agree on.

In other words talking about doing something someday.

I’m sick of this.

Enough of the political theater.

I won’t shut up on this until everybody realizes that the Green New Deal isn’t anything.

1 Like
#42

I’m living in a dark age right now. Just waiting for the oligarchs to catch up, I’ve got something for them

1 Like
#43

Climate change is not a debatable issue. Nature is not debatable.

1 Like
#44

I called Markey’s office about this. I said the same so right on about that. A resolution is nothing- just fiction and cowardice.

1 Like
#45

Fortunately, “driverless” vehicle tech is a fraud. It’s not technically feasible, its claims of safety are pretentious, it would increase fuel/energy consumption, emissions and traffic (to the detriment of mass transit patronage). It would continue undue corporate influence if it were possible. Fortunately, the fraud can become the basis of civil action lawsuit against automobile-related business interests. GM & Ford are cancelling their hybrid models knowing full well that plug-in hybrids have more potential to reduce passenger car fuel/energy consumption than all-battery BEVs. For heavier vehicles (vans, trucks) plug-in hybrid PHEVs are the more suitable technology in terms of equitable and ideal resource distribution.

1 Like