The Green New Deal

#501
#501
volinbham said:
Ed Markey is a co sponsor (Senator) and in his defense of the legislation he's argued that the need is so urgent that me must move immediately. But not that immediately apparently - it's feel good BS that he never intended to enact.

If the argument is that McConnell is wasting time then so is Markey/ACO in drafting legislation they have no intention of taking forward.
Click to expand...

Well, again.. If the senate wants to get ahead of the house, you would think ammendments would be in order, but apparently this has nothing to do with passing a resolution, rather than to mock it. But we know that. And we also know that if the house ammended the existing resolution to exclude the most outrageous content, it wouldn't make it to the senate floor.
 
#502
#502
Stew Cook said:
Well, again.. If the senate wants to get ahead of the house, you would think ammendments would be in order, but apparently this has nothing to do with passing a resolution, rather than to mock it. But we know that. And we also know that if the house ammended the existing resolution to exclude the most outrageous content, it wouldn't make it to the senate floor.
Click to expand...

Why would they need to amend legislation that they have voiced approval for? If it’s gonna be mocked then that should say all you need to know about those that drafted it and supported it.
 
#503
#503
C-south said:
Why would they need to amend legislation that they have voiced approval for? If it’s gonna be mocked then that should say all you need to know about those that drafted it and supported it.
Click to expand...
Because that is what is done to make a resolution pass. If Mitch wants to allow that, I say good on him, but he won't, so I don't.
 
#507
#507
Ah, the Green New Deal. I’ve been waiting to see the details. I guess I’ll have to keep waiting as it is light on specifics. In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of the dems’ resolution is not what it includes but rather what it does not include.

Despite what one might think from reading VN, the resolution does not take a position on nuclear energy. It calls for the US to “meet 100% of our power through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”. When asked about AOC’s web page that was removed, Markey explicitly stated that banning nuclear is not part of the resolution.

Another big argument the GND coalition has tabled is carbon pricing. Their letter last month said that signatories will vigorously oppose market-based mechanisms like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes and (presumably) favor direct command & control style regulation instead. May it remind you that market-based mechanisms are a conservative invention that the left wing was initially (and now may be once again) opposed to.

Obviously there is still plenty of infighting amongst the GND supporters to be settled before the idea becomes legislation. I’m interested to see how the nuclear fight plays out among the dems’ 2020 hopefuls. Cory Booker has been a staunch supporter of nuclear energy. John Delaney, Andrew Yang, and Amy Klobuchar are a few more. Will their party use it against them in a race to the left in the primaries? Or will these candidates use it positively to differentiate themselves from the field?

There is dissent among green groups too. Many organizations like Greenpeace signed on to the January letter, but several heavyweights refused. These include the NRDC, EDF, Audobon society, Sierra Club, and even Tom Steyer and Al Gore’s organizations. Their reasons include the letter’s opposition to nuclear, CCS, and carbon pricing, as well as the fact that the GND still simply lacks specifics.

I will say that AOC is right about one thing; we do need a WWII type of effort if we are going to be serious about stopping climate change. But if her coalition is just going to use climate change to push a laundry list of unrelated far left wishes, their supporters will start dropping like flies. Using a very serious problem like climate change to promote a political agenda absolutely takes away from the seriousness of the issue. But I’ll reserve judgment until we see which factions win out and what kind of legislation is actually proposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shotgun83
#508
#508
BartW said:
Ah, the Green New Deal. I’ve been waiting to see the details. I guess I’ll have to keep waiting as it is light on specifics. In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of the dems’ resolution is not what it includes but rather what it does not include.

Despite what one might think from reading VN, the resolution does not take a position on nuclear energy. It calls for the US to “meet 100% of our power through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”. When asked about AOC’s web page that was removed, Markey explicitly stated that banning nuclear is not part of the resolution.

Another big argument the GND coalition has tabled is carbon pricing. Their letter last month said that signatories will vigorously oppose market-based mechanisms like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes and (presumably) favor direct command & control style regulation instead. May it remind you that market-based mechanisms are a conservative invention that the left wing was initially (and now may be once again) opposed to.

Obviously there is still plenty of infighting amongst the GND supporters to be settled before the idea becomes legislation. I’m interested to see how the nuclear fight plays out among the dems’ 2020 hopefuls. Cory Booker has been a staunch supporter of nuclear energy. John Delaney, Andrew Yang, and Amy Klobuchar are a few more. Will their party use it against them in a race to the left in the primaries? Or will these candidates use it positively to differentiate themselves from the field?

There is dissent among green groups too. Many organizations like Greenpeace signed on to the January letter, but several heavyweights refused. These include the NRDC, EDF, Audobon society, Sierra Club, and even Tom Steyer and Al Gore’s organizations. Their reasons include the letter’s opposition to nuclear, CCS, and carbon pricing, as well as the fact that the GND still simply lacks specifics.

I will say that AOC is right about one thing; we do need a WWII type of effort if we are going to be serious about stopping climate change. But if her coalition is just going to use climate change to push a laundry list of unrelated far left wishes, their supporters will start dropping like flies. Using a very serious problem like climate change to promote a political agenda absolutely takes away from the seriousness of the issue. But I’ll reserve judgment until we see which factions win out and what kind of legislation is actually proposed.
Click to expand...
You do know your 2nd paragraph completely disagrees with your 5th. You say it doesnt cut nuclear, but the reason people weren't signing on was because it was anti nuclear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and shotgun83
#509
#509
BartW said:
Ah, the Green New Deal. I’ve been waiting to see the details. I guess I’ll have to keep waiting as it is light on specifics. In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of the dems’ resolution is not what it includes but rather what it does not include.

Despite what one might think from reading VN, the resolution does not take a position on nuclear energy. It calls for the US to “meet 100% of our power through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”. When asked about AOC’s web page that was removed, Markey explicitly stated that banning nuclear is not part of the resolution.

Another big argument the GND coalition has tabled is carbon pricing. Their letter last month said that signatories will vigorously oppose market-based mechanisms like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes and (presumably) favor direct command & control style regulation instead. May it remind you that market-based mechanisms are a conservative invention that the left wing was initially (and now may be once again) opposed to.

Obviously there is still plenty of infighting amongst the GND supporters to be settled before the idea becomes legislation. I’m interested to see how the nuclear fight plays out among the dems’ 2020 hopefuls. Cory Booker has been a staunch supporter of nuclear energy. John Delaney, Andrew Yang, and Amy Klobuchar are a few more. Will their party use it against them in a race to the left in the primaries? Or will these candidates use it positively to differentiate themselves from the field?

There is dissent among green groups too. Many organizations like Greenpeace signed on to the January letter, but several heavyweights refused. These include the NRDC, EDF, Audobon society, Sierra Club, and even Tom Steyer and Al Gore’s organizations. Their reasons include the letter’s opposition to nuclear, CCS, and carbon pricing, as well as the fact that the GND still simply lacks specifics.

I will say that AOC is right about one thing; we do need a WWII type of effort if we are going to be serious about stopping climate change. But if her coalition is just going to use climate change to push a laundry list of unrelated far left wishes, their supporters will start dropping like flies. Using a very serious problem like climate change to promote a political agenda absolutely takes away from the seriousness of the issue. But I’ll reserve judgment until we see which factions win out and what kind of legislation is actually proposed.
Click to expand...
Let the last crazy remain standing.

Here's some of the low lights of the New Red Deal masquerading as an ecological, economic and politicalfix. No where is it even hinted at, or even mentioned, what the cost of and how this "deal" will be funded. Dreams (pie in the sky) are great but those pesky details (reality) are always a problem.

A nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative replacing unemployment offices with local employment offices offering public sector jobs which are "stored" in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment.

The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college. We will also forgive student loan debt from the current era of unaffordable college education.

The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit.

The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions.
  • create a federal bank with local branches to take over homes with distressed mortgages and either restructure the mortgages to affordable levels, or if the occupants cannot afford a mortgage, rent homes to the occupants;
  • expand rental and home ownership assistance;
  • create ample public housing; and,
  • offer capital grants to non-profit developers of affordable housing until all people can obtain decent housing at no more than 25% of their income.
The right to fair taxation that's distributed in proportion to ability to pay.

Invest in green business by providing grants and low-interest loans to grow green businesses and cooperatives, with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors.

Prioritize green research by redirecting research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar and geothermal. We will invest in research in sustainable, nontoxic materials, closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution, as well as organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.

Provide green jobs by enacting the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 16 million jobs in sustainable energy and energy efficiency retrofitting, mass transit and "complete streets" that promote safe bike and pedestrian traffic, regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing.

The takeover of our economy by big banks and well-connected financiers has destabilized both our democracy and our economy. It's time to take Wall Street out of the driver's seat and to free the truly productive segments of working America to make this economy work for all of us. Real Financial Reform will:


1. Relieve the debt overhang holding back the economy by reducing homeowner and student debt burdens.

2. Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means we'll nationalize the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and place them under a Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.

3. Break up the oversized banks that are "too big to fail."

4. End taxpayer-funded bailouts for banks, insurers, and other financial companies. We'll use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off.

5. Regulate all financial derivatives and require them to be traded on open exchanges.

6. Restore the Glass-Steagall separation of depository commercial banks from speculative investment banks.

7. Establish a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.

8. Support the formation of federal, state, and municipal public-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities. Under the Green New Deal we will start building a financial system that is open, honest, stable, and serves the real economy rather than the phony economy of high finance.

  • repealing the Patriot Act and those parts of the National Defense Authorization Act that violate our civil liberties;
  • prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI from conspiring with local police forces to suppress our freedoms of assembly and of speech; and,
  • ending the war on immigrants – including the cruel, so-called "secure communities" program.
  • reducing military spending by 50% and closing U.S. military bases around the world;
  • restoring the National Guard as the centerpiece of our system of national defense; and,
  • creating a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives.
Green New Deal

No this is not satire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64, tennvols77 and 2 others
#514
#514
LouderVol said:
You do know your 2nd paragraph completely disagrees with your 5th. You say it doesnt cut nuclear, but the reason people weren't signing on was because it was anti nuclear.
Click to expand...

I apologize if it wasn’t clear but I am drawing a distinction between (1) the GND letter sent to Congress in January (2) the official resolution presented earlier this month and (3) AOC’s withdrawn ‘fact sheet’ or whatever.

The official resolution doesn’t cut nuclear. AOC’s website had some language about retiring nuclear plants in addition to a number of ridiculous things that people are rightly mocking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shotgun83
#516
#516
I'm all for more nuclear plants.. maybe drop the price on stuff a bit more..

Cut military spending.. to be fair.. on my deployments, I didn't use anything more high tech then a GPS, M4, and a few bigger guns. Never once saw any of that Call of Duty stuff... but I dunno.. I kinda want to let DARPA keep doing their thing.. the electronic warfare stuff I used in Afghanistan was remarkable.

National Guard... core of defense?? Okay... let them actually guard the southern border instead of sitting 10 miles away from it cleaning horse stables and pmcs'ing vehicles.

AOC and whomever helped her write that idealistic crap really don't know their butts from a hole in the ground
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, marcusluvsvols, AirVol and 2 others
#517
#517
BartW said:
I apologize if it wasn’t clear but I am drawing a distinction between (1) the GND letter sent to Congress in January (2) the official resolution presented earlier this month and (3) AOC’s withdrawn ‘fact sheet’ or whatever.

The official resolution doesn’t cut nuclear. AOC’s website had some language about retiring nuclear plants in addition to a number of ridiculous things that people are rightly mocking.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head in your original post, Bart. This "deal" has less to do with the environment and more to do with a wide scale implementation of socialism/communism. It's just invoking the environment as a carrot to get a couple of crowds on board. The environmental crowd might like the "green" portion of the deal...until they see the price tag associated with it. And there's the real hidden portion. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what this will cost. But it's already projected in the trillions. Put a capital T on that.

Look, as I've said before and will probably continue saying until some of the mouthbreathers on your side of the aisle finally wise up, there is a far greater advantage in getting the private sector to start going to alternate energy sources than it is for it to be government mandated. And furthermore, it's far better for your mouthbreathers in the environmental movement to STFU about alternate energy sources like hydro when they come up. Or nuclear. Or not protesting a solar farm that happens to be going into a "pristine" area. You want green energy, but your side isn't willing to compromise on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64 and tennvols77
#518
#518
I'm all for nuclear power. More so, the military has been able to for years, take salt water and run their nuclear power plants on nuclear subs. That was many many years ago, how much better are they now......
 
#519
#519
shotgun83 said:
I'm all for more nuclear plants.. maybe drop the price on stuff a bit more..

Cut military spending.. to be fair.. on my deployments, I didn't use anything more high tech then a GPS, M4, and a few bigger guns. Never once saw any of that Call of Duty stuff... but I dunno.. I kinda want to let DARPA keep doing their thing.. the electronic warfare stuff I used in Afghanistan was remarkable.

National Guard... core of defense?? Okay... let them actually guard the southern border instead of sitting 10 miles away from it cleaning horse stables and pmcs'ing vehicles.

AOC and whomever helped her write that idealistic crap really don't know their butts from a hole in the ground
Click to expand...
I kinda like the Dolph Lundgren Army of One concept. Sort of my business model actually, but with catalysts rather than guns.
 
#521
#521
dinosaurs-far-side-gary-larson.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33, marcusluvsvols and AM64
#523
#523
marcusluvsvols said:
Insanity. If any Democrat starts shutting down nuclear plants like Germany...we need a revolution. Sadly, i cant remember which US president killed the progress by cancelling plans to replace all the coal plants with nuclear...but it was super stupid. Extremely shtupid...we should generate all of our power with reactors until we are able to meet our needs with ocean tides, waves, wind and solar, etc...and only then if it makes very good sense to do so. Nuclear is safe, clean, and efficient. Dimmocrats are shtupid, shortsighted, and shtupid
Click to expand...
This Democrat has a great interest in advances in nuclear power. TERRA POWER backed by Bill Gates was on track to have it's first plant in China to stop the proliferation of planet-killing coal burning installations. The Terra Power wave reactors burn spent fuel rods that are perhaps the greatest drawback to the nuclear power we've used for decades.
The main support for the hysterical anti-nuke movement came from fossil fuel companies - hmmm seems like every sustainable energy alternative is the victim of the Merchants of Doubt headed by Koch's Heartland Institute. Those kings of misinformation have put our grandchildren in mortal danger so something like Terra Power would be a serious contender to reduce carbon emissions.
But thanks to the TRUMPUBLICANS the effort in China has been stopped. = I guess the "Chinese Hoax" will not be remedied while the Tweeter in Chief is in power.
Yeah cheaper nuclear power that helps eliminate the current radioactive waste would put a serious dent in Trumps favorite coal and oil barons income so we cannot have that even if it might save the planet for our children's children.
 
#524
#524
I doubt this belongs here but its a new technology issue
 
#525
#525
aurabass said:
This Democrat has a great interest in advances in nuclear power. TERRA POWER backed by Bill Gates was on track to have it's first plant in China to stop the proliferation of planet-killing coal burning installations. The Terra Power wave reactors burn spent fuel rods that are perhaps the greatest drawback to the nuclear power we've used for decades.
The main support for the hysterical anti-nuke movement came from fossil fuel companies - hmmm seems like every sustainable energy alternative is the victim of the Merchants of Doubt headed by Koch's Heartland Institute. Those kings of misinformation have put our grandchildren in mortal danger so something like Terra Power would be a serious contender to reduce carbon emissions.
But thanks to the TRUMPUBLICANS the effort in China has been stopped. = I guess the "Chinese Hoax" will not be remedied while the Tweeter in Chief is in power.
Yeah cheaper nuclear power that helps eliminate the current radioactive waste would put a serious dent in Trumps favorite coal and oil barons income so we cannot have that even if it might save the planet for our children's children.
Click to expand...
Things like 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the main support for the anti-nuke movement.

Don't have a meltdown over this post*

*Nod to McDad
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top