Home | About | Donate

Ocasio-Cortez's Climate Genius Stroke: Her #GreenNewDeal Is the Most Serious Response to the Crisis Yet


#21

This will be one of the few things we agree upon. This prediction is either bullshit or it is an attempt at scientific humor that I’m just not getting. Who is Sam Carana or Malcolm Light? Are they scientists at all? (there are plenty of kooky scientists I realize). I read as much as I could stand on the linked website - this isn’t any science I recognize like I do reading a site like http://www.realclimate.org.

I know you were being sarcastic, but public transportation is more easily electrified than replacing all the cars people have. And if properly designed and sized for traffic patterns, it can use less total energy as well.

I don’t think progressives need a wealth tax beyond the existing property taxes and registration fees for vehicles though we could make these progressive to hit very large properties at a higher percentage. Consumption taxes (especially a $100/MT CO2 tax) would be useful. And it isn’t unreasonable to up the income tax marginal rates - though at estimates of $75 billion/year extra income, it just isn’t enough to do all that much - free public college tuition and some other very useful things - but no dent on things of the scale like Improved Medicare for All or the Green New Deal (to the degree that we try really hard - I don’t think their timetables are achievable though it doesn’t hurt to get started).


#22

Yeah growing Hemp is a must ,as it can replace so many nonrewneable resources .

Another solution is ending individual ownership of the resources and land .We are here to be good stewards of this gift called life .Our planet has to be looked after .We are asked by life to be her care takers and the care takers of each other .
I understand that we are primitive the toddlers of the universe if you will,but conscious evolution has arrived .It’s time to Awaken The Species .


#23

Oh do tell us how OTHERS (excepting you of course) should be criticized for NOT having a magic wand that can do whatever they wanted simply by mouthing the words. So how about applying your ‘if it were real’ criticism of others to your own words? How much can you actually get done on your own? Someone like Mcgibbens has been responsible for educating tons of people and organizing a number of events and marches etc. Those are real world facts and all to his credit (and those like him)l who actually do something useful instead of indulging in idle carping and negative divisiveness. Trolling in other words!

As Yoda might’ve said - ‘Do … don’t talk’
OR ( as we might say )
Shut up and do something.


#24

The Green Party developed the Green New Deal, and has been promoting it for almost a decade. Give credit where credit is due, Mr. McKibben.
Shows how much repression and suppression goes on in Big Media and even Left Media - ignoring the work of the Greens.


#25

… The call to get off fossil fuel by the 2030s is hard but technically achievable

Yes, it is technically achievable, but framing the problem in terms of technology is not only short-sighted, it’s misleading. It’s far, far more a cultural and lifestyle problem for the American consumer. It’s going to take a major upheaval of American culture, not to mention our political system, to transition to an all renewable energy and transportation system and ditch fossil fuels. The American consumer will fight like hell to keep their gas burning cars and trucks and politicians will do their best to back them up. Had this country begun the process of transitioning away from fossil fuels twenty years, ago, we could have eased into it, gently, and been well on the way there by now. Instead, ground has been lost, even as the problem has become ever more serious and critical. The Green New Deal is good as far as it goes, but it will come up against a brick wall until a serious strategy is developed to address the cultural, political and societal issues getting it implemented.


#26

HI WiseOwl: a limerick : )

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Oh believe her for she means what she says!
Corporate sell-outs are blundering,
But the voters aren’t slumbering!
For the PLANET—Green New Deal—say OH YEZ!!! : )


#27

“The call to get off fossil fuel by the 2030s is hard but technically achievable”

What scientifically credible published report proves that the GND is technically achieveable?

There is already published feasibility analysis for 100% renewable by 2050 that suggests it would take installation rates that are uprecedented in human history. Not over the last 30 years or the last 50 years or since WW2 or since the industrial revolution- HUMAN HISTORY!

From Loftus et al. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.324

  1. “Apart from Jacobson & Delucchi, WWF, and Worldwatch, the projected average rate of solar capacity additions range from 50 to 150 GW/year in the next decade and beyond (a normalized rate of 0.7–2 GW/year/$T of GDP). This rate is as much as five times the historical high of roughly 31 GW in 2012. However, both Jacobson & Delucchi and Worldwatch call for building an average of more than 700 GW/year of solar—reaching a total installed capacity of 30,000 GW in 2050 and 18,000 GW in 2030 respectively. WWF envisions over 300 GW/year after 2030 as capacity grows to more than 8000 GW in 2050. These three scenarios call for sustained normalized solar deployment in the range of 3–8 GW/year/$T of GDP. As with the wind addition rates envisioned by these studies, this solar capacity addition rate would be higher than has been demonstrated for any single technology in global history, and on a sustained basis, would be more rapid than total global power generation capacity additions.”

  2. “Most studies assume annual deployments of wind turbines in the range 50–100 or 0.5–1 GW/year/$T of GDP. While these rates are roughly double the rate of wind capacity additions from 2010 to 2012, they compare favorably to normalized rates of capacity addition for several other technologies (i.e., coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro). Jacobson & Delucchi envision approximately 500 GW/year to yield 19,000 GW in 2050. WWF assumes 200–500 GW/year to attain 7200 GW in 2030. Worldwatch projects more than 200 GW/year to yield 4800 GW in 2030. These three scenarios call for global wind deployment in the range 2–6 GW/year/$T of GDP, every year for the next 35 years. Those rates are roughly 33–300% faster than has been demonstrated historically for any single technology”

  3. “sustaining global energy intensity improvements for decades at a rate twice as fast as the most rapid energy intensity improvement experienced in any single year in recent history and roughly 3.5 times faster than the average global rate sustained from 1970 to 2011”

  4. “Wave and tidal generators are not currently commercially viable and the installed base is essentially zero. Despite this, Jacobson & Delucchi’s scenario assumes we can build 1000 GW of installed capacity by 2050, Worldwatch calls for roughly 300 GW by 2030, and Greenpeace/EREC envisions 200 GW by 2050."

  5. “Geothermal’s 2012 contribution to global capacity stood at approximately 11 GW with additions over the last 20 years less than 0.01 GW/year/$T of GDP. Jacobson & Delucchi, Worldwatch, and WWF project much larger increases in installed capacity: approximately 500 GW in 2050, 1000 GW in 2030, and 3000 GW in 2050, respectively, or 0.2–1.0 GW/year/$T of GDP. As another point of comparison, an MIT Energy Initiative study estimated that an aggressive development plan making use of enhanced geothermal techniques not yet demonstrated at commercial scale could potentially yield a cumulative installed capacity in the United States of 100 GW by 2050.46 Worldwatch calls for adding this much geothermal capacity worldwide every 2 years between now and 2030“.

  6. “normalized capacity additions of the remaining eligible low‐carbon energy technologies of 5–23 GW/year/$T of GDP (Figure 6). In contrast, normalized global generation capacity of all types grew by just 1.5–3 GW/year/$T of GDP from 1965 to 2010.”

The GND provides zero scientific data and analysis with its proposal, yet proclaims it can achieve 100% renewable energy by 2030, which is 20 years faster than the WWF, WorldWatch, and WWS Jacobson & Delucchi Studies. Additionally the GND includes aspects of development not found in extremely ambitious 100% renewable studies such as:

  • full scale electrical grid alterations
  • state-of-the-art residential and industrial modifications
  • Decarbonization of Agriculture
  • Decarbonization of Manufacturing
  • Decarbonization of Industrial Sectors

Where is the explanation of how this will be accomplished? Where is the explanation of what exactly is going to be accomplished? Where is the data and evidence that this is possible in 10 years?

Please provide any scientific documentation and analysis that the GND is in any way feasible?


#28

If you want to get rid of all nuclear products, let’s first just focus on energy.

Please explain how you plan to replace 804,905 GWh of energy (that is not currently able to be ramping) in 10 years without increasing CO2?

Natural gas emits 456 g CO2/KWh more than Nuclear (according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Lifecycle Harmonization Assessment of CO2) for a frame of reference, so the coal approach is not going to work.


#29

We need to applaud, and then support the few advocates of a GND that go beyond the talking points and actually do something about it. Of course you have to have the power of the votes in the long run or it all remains rhetoric.


#30

This cooptation of the progressive values of the Green Parties ideals by the Democrats, is nothing new as a way to give their constituents hope for change but unfortunately, it is great con that works well!


#31

BINGO! AOC like Bernie, Paul Wellstone and others have been and are great distraction tools that nothing will change. The pistol, packin, mama from Alaska had it correct when she exclaimed about Obama: " how is that hopey changey thing workin out fer ya’.