Home | About | Donate

Sen. Chris Murphy to Doubters: Green New Deal 'Absolutely Realistic' and the Kind of Plan Needed to Avert Climate Disaster


Sen. Chris Murphy to Doubters: Green New Deal 'Absolutely Realistic' and the Kind of Plan Needed to Avert Climate Disaster

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Addressing head-on those claiming that the Green New Deal plan unveiled last week by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is impractical, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared on Sunday that the proposal is "absolutely realistic" and represents the kind of ambitious thinking that will be necessary to avoid climate catastrophe.




I am not sure about the Federal Jobs Guarantee? If done correctly this act should put almost everyone to work at decent wages. We need better safety nests for those left behind. Do we not to tie this to Green New Deal?


It is way more than climate change.

Here is the latest:

“The [insect] trends confirm that the sixth major extinction event is profoundly impacting [on] life forms on our planet.

“If insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind,” said Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, at the University of Sydney, Australia, who wrote the review with Kris Wyckhuys at the China Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing.

Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers

Plummeting insect numbers ‘threaten collapse of nature’


“It’s people who want to stop anything having to do with fossil fuels,” Manchin said. “The Green New Deal, you’ve heard about that? That shuts everybody down. They think in 10 years we can be down to no gas, no coal, no oil, no nothing. That is not feasible, not practical, and it’s not going to happen.” Senator Joe Manchin

How to hold regressive politicians responsible for policies that are leading to destruction so massive that only a few if any will survive? This is the face of the opposition and he has to go.


Perhaps those who claim that the New Green Deal is unrealistic have a point.

But this point is equally true: While we tinkered at the edges of addressing the climate catastrophe, we set the planet up for unimaginable and violent devastation.

So which point will we be guided by – more of the same ‘realistic’ half measures or a balls-to-the-wall effort to salvage some sort of livable planet?

If you’ve read my comments on this topic, you know where I’m placing my bet. People love nothing more than the status quo.


Lordy, Lordy, whatever will we do with the street lamp lighters and the whale oil salesmen?


Article below this item on CD home page: ‘Study Shows Richest 0.00025% Owns More Wealth Than Bottom 150 Million Americans’. Now we know where to find the money to pay for this.


Each person’s eyes open a hidden vista when the person is ready to see.

“Existential threat” is the statement that indicates clear perception of magnitude. Shade it any which way.

Now the riddle is to actually apply the collected intelligence of our nation. Sociologically. The collected millions and billions are ready to build a new hive. Scouts are out looking for a home. Reports are returning daily. Quadrillions of brain synapses are dancing in the street. What do they want?




“I think there were a lot of people who said it wasn’t realistic for the United States to get a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, when President Kennedy initially outlined that goal. But we did it.”

I can’t help but think of JFK citing the Irish writer, Frank O’Connor. It’s one of my favorites.

From Mark Holan’s Irish-American blog:

In his 1961 autobiography, “An Only Child,” O’Connor wrote of how, as a boy, he and his companions would toss their caps over orchard walls, leaving them with no alternative but to scale the barriers, no matter how high or formidable.

In his Nov. 21, 1963, speech in San Antonio, Texas, Kennedy said: “This nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they must be overcome.”


The combination of 60% of electric customers currently having smart meters, the rapid advancement of renewal energy sources, and EV critical mass only 2 to 3 years out, 2030 is realistic goal for the Green New Deal (GND) goals to be reached.

JFK’s moon goal was realized one year early. With AOC and other dynamic leaders shepherding the GND we might even be there by 2029 !


What does “tinkering around the edges” mean? Here in California, where the state has done more than any other state to meet GHG emissions targets, we are not on track to meet our goals. The state (and Congress) is limited on what it can do by the courts, while the public here just passed a property tax law expansion that will work against the new density provisions of CEQA. Moreover, the country has to find a way to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled without garnering the angst of millions of automobile owners that want congestion reducing, capacity enhancing roadway projects. In California, where the legislature passed a law instituting VMT as the new traffic metric 5 years ago, things aren’t exactly going smoothly. Turns out the public doesn’t like it when you tell them they need to take other forms of transportation before you pursue capacity increasing projects.

Until I see real answers, not just sloganeering, this is all political fantasy talk. Ten years is a laughable zero emissions target, and it’s not just a matter of sellouts, willpower, or beliefs. I see 2050 as way more realistic.


Nice analogy but I bet O’Connor and friends were motivated by hunger.


What us unrealistic is the deadly path we’re on as a species, a path that could have been altered and avoided if it were not for corporate greed, and political complicity abetted by a crooked, dishonest corporate press.


Ludicrous. This can’t even be compared to the landing on the moon. The entire country has to change its road construction traffic metrics, from the FHWA on down. We aren’t even close to doing that, and really only one state has started, California, and it’s not exactly going smoothly. Even if a law were passed in late 2021, it would take at least two years for FHWA to issue new guidelines and another year or more for pilot states to implement them. Say three years (crazy aggressive since major GHG producing capital projects can take 5-10 years to get to construction) of reporting with audits, and you are well passed 2025. Another two years for Congress to amend a new highway bill to take any program national, plus regulatory rewrites, and you are well passed 2030.

We don’t have zero emissions best management practices developed, settled traffic metrics (Level of Service—congestion—is what the country uses now), or 100 other things. I’m 100% supportive of these efforts, but it is crazy to pretend zero carbon emissions by 2030 is doable.


The Green New Deal is a move in the general direction of real. That’s not really good enough.

I want a Green New Deal that faces up to the Arctic meltdown that can destroy Eaarth’s ecosystem all by itself. We can choose to inhibit and stop this catastrophe, just as we can choose to try to stop a forest fire. Or, we can choose to burn up. An unfortunate few have made such dire choices.

I want a Green New Deal that recognizes with 20/20 vision the reality of R&D. Power from photovoltaic panels used to cost 100 times as much as power from coal-fired steam turbines. Offshore wind power used to be rather uneconomical.

We need to focus our R&D efforts on fields that are likely to displace gigatons of greenhouse gases. My own targets are totally fuelless and no sheet plastic warm-weather vegetable production in winter (you should see my tomato plants!), heating all buildings in winter, solar thermal storage for generating electricity after sunset and transit innovations.

I’m asking for focused organization of this effort. It’s not as if we want Halliburton to rebuild one 1950s-style Disneyland monorail for a billion dollars and then give up. We need committees of honest idea champions to find many meritorious ideas out here, as opposed to so-so ideas advertised with loud clanging sounds. We need technologists to try to poke a few holes in the incoming ideas, and then try to patch the holes, in order to ultimately make the ideas more robust.

I’m sorry if nothing is ever simple, but we live with a government that tends mightily toward corruption. Right now we’re subsidizing ethanol production, even though a gallon of ethanol takes the energy equivalent in oil to produce, so that ethanol production is pretty dumb. However, Big Ag loves the subterfuge.

want to get this right.


No, your idea of a “ball-to-the-wall” is a great idea plan is not a great idea. A plan that discusses no longer needing air travel is asinine and childish. Implementing it would destroy our economy and bring terrible poverty to millions of people. It’s borderline communism. As this Reason.com article describes, it would certainly suck to live in Hawaii…


If our world had slower airplanes we could save the majority of the commercial aviation fuel that we now waste. However, if airlines had slower airplanes they would have higher labor costs per flight, and so they would all scream and hold their breaths until they turned blue. After all, higher labor costs aren’t economical.


Does the capitalist band aid that is “the new green deal” mention the US army, the single largest polluter on the planet, even once?