Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey to unveil 'Green New Deal' bill

[Sparko]

You're confusing "MWH per year" with "MW", they are very very different units.

A MW is a measure of how much energy the turbine produces per second in optimal wind conditions. A MWH per year is average total energy production over the course of a year. A wind turbine with 1.5MW rated capacity tends to average 5000 MWH per year depending on exactly much the wind blows. Your subsequent math is out by a factor of ~3333x as a result.

OK. thanks.

782,200 is the correct answer given the above, not 2.6 billion.

Similarly the correct answer given the above is 1.1 million acres or 1833 square miles, aka 1.6% of Arizona's land area. Of course, putting wind turbines out to sea seems quite popular, so you don't need land area that way at all.

[Sparko]

There is no such official document.

Possibly you are referring to one of the early draft of an old planned document that was going to have that title and was briefly released in error and then immediately withdrawn, possibly you are referring to something the right-wing made up, I'm not sure. Please concentrate on the actual public text of the resolution presented to congress not to fictional or errant or irrelevant documents. The above text is what Democratic members of congress are officially advocating and publicly signing on to. Any other documents have no relevant status other than whether they do or don't accurately explain what is in the actual text of the Resolution above. It's only 6 pages of bullet points so is a fairly easy read, and I suggest you read it.

It was posted by NPR, a left leaning liberal organization so it wasn't some fake document.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ

They just took out all of the specifics when they wrote the official resolution. The linked document has the specifics in it. They removed it because of the backlash by the public when their true agenda was revealed.

[Sparko]

Indeed, your post is that. You're getting your wires crossed as usual. Have a lobotomy and stop reading / writing Breitbart and you might get on the path to sanity.

Did you check his link to the cached page of AOC? The FAQ in its entirety is there. So this wasn't some fake or doctored document that was being passed around.

Compare:

The document from NPR:
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ

The Cached page from AOC:
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=oca...Jnch56EPcazHTd

[Mountain Man]

Did you check his link to the cached page of AOC? The FAQ in its entirety is there. So this wasn't some fake or doctored document that was being passed around.

Compare:

The document from NPR:
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ

The Cached page from AOC:
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=oca...Jnch56EPcazHTd

But don't you see? That's fake because... Breitbart... something... *mumble mumble*

[lilpixieofterror]

The extent to which US conservatives seem so utterly gullible when it comes to improbable conspiracy theories always astounds me.

What 'truth' does it reveal? That someone in AOC's office staff or some group they were communicating with wanted some things or had some goals that didn't make it into the Resolution text during the drafting process? Because that's what it reveals to me. But we could assume that anyone, so in practice it tells us nothing.

Presumably AOC's office consulted with a wide range of activist groups, labor groups, experts, and the offices of other congress people (and they've said as much on Twitter and in interviews)... and everyone sent in their wish-lists, which all had to be merged, negotiated, and discussed as the proposal was drafted. The desires of some people and groups who were contributing will have been different to others and not everyone got everything they wanted, because that's how this process worked. Finally what came out of it was the Resolution text which is being proposed to the House as a whole. Since this is a Resolution not a Bill, all it does is authorizes the committee to produce a Bill on the topic within the general outline provided. Doubtless that Bill's final text will result from a process of discussion and compromise so likely won't go nearly as far as the Resolution itself does, and Dems may make deals to try and get some Republican sign-on.

But a kooky conservative conspiracy theory that all liberals everywhere have some sort of secret plan that's been revealed by a mistaken release of an old FAQ document that didn't match the official Resolution text is just kinda funny. Why would all liberals agree on these issues? Why wouldn't all liberals have slightly different views to each other as to what policies etc are best? I mean, I wish all liberals agreed with my views, but sadly that isn't the case. And if all the liberals agreed, why would they keep the policy goals secret? Why not release the policy goals and let the credit roll in from their base who would presumably be cheering them if their politicians were finally standing up for some liberal values instead of saying "well, we need to compromise 99% with the Republicans, but we'll try to give you 1% of change toward some liberal policies" that the ineffective Dem politicians of the last 30 years have been repeatedly telling their liberal voters. For your crazy conspiracy to work, not only do you need to assume that Dem politicians agree with each other on policy to an extent that is clearly well and truly not the case, but you need to assume that they are all secretly super-progressives despite the amount of time they spend mocking progressives, and you need to assume that they would want to hide from their own liberal voters that they themselves are taking popular progressive positions and instead prefer to openly embrace less popular centrist positions. It's kinda like a sandwich of stupid conspiracy theories all on top of each other.

Ironic, coming from the person that labels consertives as evil, but if baby killing was so popular, why all the uproar over New Democrat bills doing just that? If trillion dollar plans to rebuild basically every building in America is so popular, why delete the FAQ and attempt to memory hole it? Still stuck in your bubble I see, but it’s funny how you’re supposed to ignore your lying eyes and pretend the FAQ was never released.

[lilpixieofterror]

And that 4 Presidential candidates hopped on and endorsed.

[Cow Poke]

They are correct, it isn't true. It's not part of the Green New Deal as it has been proposed in the House resolution. They were, entirely reasonably, baffled about why people ...

...would ever take seriously anything actually posted on her website, however briefly.

[rogue06]

They are correct, it isn't true. It's not part of the Green New Deal as it has been proposed in the House resolution. They were, entirely reasonably, baffled about why people were asking them about that because they were well aware it wasn't in the resolution.

No. He revealed there had been a completely incorrect text released to the media in error as an accompanying 'explainer' of the Resolution text that didn't match to what was in the resolution. This was causing the media to get very confused and think the Green New Deal was about pretty crazy things - although many right-wingers were already busy entirely making up crazy things they felt like it was about. While it took everyone a while to work out what had caused the confusion, it seems mostly sorted now.

You just make stuff up don't you?

After Ocasio-Cortez's campaign manager admitted that the proposal to provide economic security for those unwilling to work, her expert admitted he was in error when he claimed that wasn't true.

[Cow Poke]

You just make stuff up don't you?

After Ocasio-Cortez's campaign manager admitted that the proposal to provide economic security for those unwilling to work, her expert admitted he was in error when he claimed that wasn't true.

Several of us have said this, and even quoted and cited the sources, but Starlight chooses to ignore facts and go with drama.

[rogue06]

Right... ignore them accidentally releasing their actual plans and concentrate on the cleaned up version they submitted instead. Where they state things like a goal to be on totally renewable energy, but leave out the previously revealed "How" of eliminating cars and planes.

Speaking of which here's an interesting vid of Ocasio-Cortez contradicting herself in the same day (NPR and MSNBC) about the need for a massive government takeover being needed to enact her Green New Deal: https://www.facebook.com/ijrredprese...4MTEzNDQ3OTg4/

[Cow Poke]

Speaking of which here's an interesting vid of Ocasio-Cortez contradicting herself in the same day (NPR and MSNBC) about the need for a massive government takeover being needed to enact her Green New Deal: https://www.facebook.com/ijrredprese...4MTEzNDQ3OTg4/

Bless her little heart.

[Starlight]

They removed it because of the backlash by the public when their true agenda was revealed.

Right... ignore them accidentally releasing their actual plans.

You just make stuff up don't you?
...
[makes stuff up for the remainder of his post]

Indeed you do seem to do that.

Speaking of which here's an interesting vid of Ocasio-Cortez contradicting herself

Do you need help understanding why the words "takeover" and "intervention" don't mean the same thing? And why someone might be fine with one and not the other?

[Starlight]

Several of us have said this, and even quoted and cited the sources, but Starlight chooses to ignore facts and go with drama.

I've read / watched those sources and others. What I've been objecting to is false claims by posters here with regard to what those sources say and mean. Rogue, as per usual, keeps repeating false claims long after they have been debunked. That is his usual MO.

[lilpixieofterror]

[TheWall]

The Green New Deal.

Honestly from what i understand of it it seems like a logistical nightmare. Renovating every building in the U.S. is absurd.

I figure if you want alternative fuel to become a bigger enterprise you have to show that is commercially viable.