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

[Mountain Man]

I like how his idea of "debunking" a claim is to uncritically parrot the liberal spin.

[Starlight]

At the moment the Green New Deal is only in the general outline phase, and it will doubtless be the subject of a great deal of changes from negotiation and feedback.

Renovating every building in the U.S. is absurd.

It depends what is meant by that. I tend to presume, based on recent similar laws in my own country, that what is meant is shoving some insulation into the floors or ceilings. So you would not be talking any actual renovations. The process here has been: 1. Change the building code so new buildings require more insulation, 2. Require landlords of rented properties to determine and record how much insulation was in their properties, 3. Give landlords a time period for upgrading the insulation if required and feasible (if the existing building design prevents easy installation of insulation that is considered a valid excuse for not doing so) and give them a subsidy towards financial costs of the insulation.

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

With regard to electricity production, solar and wind power already seem to be commercially viable. What is required is simply the political command to transition the electricity production grid off fossil fuel power plants and onto renewables, and provide a little bit of $$ for the new power plant installations.

With regard to a transition to electric cars and away from gasoline cars, pretty much ever major car manufacturer in the world now has electric car models in production and is planning to add more. Depending on your vehicle usage patterns, they are already very cost competitive - my sister is planning to buy an electric car shortly in order to save money because her daily commute is a reasonable distance and gas is a lot more expensive than electricity when it comes to recharging/refilling a car. Although the economics of this in the US will be slightly different because here there is a fairly steep tax on gas that is used to fund road maintenance, while in the US gas is subsidized, so the gas vs electricity cost analysis for the average consumer works out differently by about a factor of 2.

Governments are also by far and away the primary funders of scientific and technological research and development, and further government spending on bettering green technologies would likely be worthwhile.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

Star, honey.... OCA's own....

nevermind - you're right. She's absolutely brilliant and I think she should be the model for all Democrats!

[lilpixieofterror]

Star, honey.... OCA's own....

nevermind - you're right. She's absolutely brilliant and I think she should be the model for all Democrats!

[lilpixieofterror]

At the moment the Green New Deal is only in the general outline phase, and it will doubtless be the subject of a great deal of changes from negotiation and feedback.

It depends what is meant by that. I tend to presume, based on recent similar laws in my own country, that what is meant is shoving some insulation into the floors or ceilings. So you would not be talking any actual renovations. The process here has been: 1. Change the building code so new buildings require more insulation, 2. Require landlords of rented properties to determine and record how much insulation was in their properties, 3. Give landlords a time period for upgrading the insulation if required and feasible (if the existing building design prevents easy installation of insulation that is considered a valid excuse for not doing so) and give them a subsidy towards financial costs of the insulation.

With regard to electricity production, solar and wind power already seem to be commercially viable. What is required is simply the political command to transition the electricity production grid off fossil fuel power plants and onto renewables, and provide a little bit of $$ for the new power plant installations.

With regard to a transition to electric cars and away from gasoline cars, pretty much ever major car manufacturer in the world now has electric car models in production and is planning to add more. Depending on your vehicle usage patterns, they are already very cost competitive - my sister is planning to buy an electric car shortly in order to save money because her daily commute is a reasonable distance and gas is a lot more expensive than electricity when it comes to recharging/refilling a car. Although the economics of this in the US will be slightly different because here there is a fairly steep tax on gas that is used to fund road maintenance, while in the US gas is subsidized, so the gas vs electricity cost analysis for the average consumer works out differently by about a factor of 2.

Governments are also by far and away the primary funders of scientific and technological research and development, and further government spending on bettering green technologies would likely be worthwhile.

True, to a degree.

[Starlight]

Sure, but it's generally less practical and more expensive to go changing up those things in existing buildings than it is in new builds. The usual compromise in this regard in the countries whose politics I observe tends to be that the building code for future new-builds gets upgraded to require more energy efficient and effective components, while existing buildings are only required to have minor changes.

If anyone were proposing 100% solar + wind only your comments would be relevant, but they're not so your comment is not really relevant. The US already has other types of non-greenhouse gas emitting power (hydro, nuclear) which currently provide around a quarter of US power production and aren't being slated for removal in this proposal. The point is to aim to replace as much as possible of the ~60% of current electricity production that is fossil fuel based with non-greenhouse-emitting sources of production.

The thing is Americans tend to drive longer distances and this is one of the major downside of an electric vehicle.

Well hybrids solve that issue fairly effectively. One can use up the cheaper electric power as much as possible and then they automatically switch to the gas.

Since the average household in my country (and in America) owns two cars, it is fairly common here for one of those cars to have been intentionally bought as an 'around town' model of car (usually smaller, more fuel efficient etc) and the other to have been bought intentionally for long trips (usually bigger car and engine and and storage area). I imagine little would stop most American families owning one fully-electric car, and having the other be a gas or hybrid car.

[Tassman]

I like how his idea of "debunking" a claim is to uncritically parrot the liberal spin.

[rogue06]

Star, honey.... OCA's own....

nevermind - you're right. She's absolutely brilliant and I think she should be the model for all Democrats!

star's obstinate refusal to accept incontestable facts here will come back to haunt him when he starts insisting on something in the future. He has wandered off deep into little jimmyL territory and refuses to get out.

[seer]

This should be interesting:


McConnell to bring Green New Deal to vote, forcing 2020 Dems to go on record...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...o-radical-plan

[lilpixieofterror]

Sure, but it's generally less practical and more expensive to go changing up those things in existing buildings than it is in new builds. The usual compromise in this regard in the countries whose politics I observe tends to be that the building code for future new-builds gets upgraded to require more energy efficient and effective components, while existing buildings are only required to have minor changes.

US new construction building codes have changed over the years to include energy efficiency. Where do you get your information from?

If anyone were proposing 100% solar + wind only your comments would be relevant, but they're not so your comment is not really relevant. The US already has other types of non-greenhouse gas emitting power (hydro, nuclear) which currently provide around a quarter of US power production and aren't being slated for removal in this proposal. The point is to aim to replace as much as possible of the ~60% of current electricity production that is fossil fuel based with non-greenhouse-emitting sources of production.

I do wonder where you get your numbers from because the DOE says 17% for all renewable energy. Anyway, I know you want to ignore the press release where the goal is indeed 100% renewable energy, but we would need a lot more dams, wind turbines, and solar cells to replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

Well hybrids solve that issue fairly effectively. One can use up the cheaper electric power as much as possible and then they automatically switch to the gas.

Yes and no. Hybrids do have that gas engine and while it is used mainly as a back up generator, you still have the associated weight and maintenance of a gas engine. Plus, they do run less efficient on long distance vs city.

Since the average household in my country (and in America) owns two cars, it is fairly common here for one of those cars to have been intentionally bought as an 'around town' model of car (usually smaller, more fuel efficient etc) and the other to have been bought intentionally for long trips (usually bigger car and engine and and storage area). I imagine little would stop most American families owning one fully-electric car, and having the other be a gas or hybrid car.

Depends on the house. Americans also tend to drive larger vecicles too and many have both partners that do work.

[Mountain Man]

I wonder how many will vote "present".

[Starlight]

US new construction building codes have changed over the years to include energy efficiency.

Great! Also, unsurprising. Also... so why the objection to the Green New Deal wanting more of what's already happening?

I do wonder where you get your numbers from

One source of numbers and graphs on the subject (wiki). But it's nothing you can't google.

the DOE says 17% for all renewable energy.

Nuclear power is a non-greenhouse gas emitting method for electricity generation that is often not classed as 'renewable' but sometimes is, or varies depending on the precise nuclear power generation method, and which constitutes ~20% of current US electricity generation. The DOE's "renewables" definition isn't including nuclear, and my figure for non-greenhouse emitting methods did include it, hence different numbers.

Nuclear power has long been a divisive topic, as it offers powerful pros along with powerful cons, and how one thinks they balance out is rather subjective. Some people view the expansion of nuclear power usage as an easy solution to the problem of climate change, others think that nuclear power in general should be phased out. Personally, I think nuclear power is a decent choice and nuclear capacity should probably be expanded (although Republican states in the US seem to typically use new nuclear power plant projects as a way to funnel taxpayer money to private companies who don't actually end up building the power plant, thus costing $9 billion in South Carolina and $28 billion in Georgia but not producing actual power plants... ).

Something that may be controversial about the final Green New Deal may be whether it explicitly embraces or explicitly rejects nuclear power. I suspect the negotiation process will split the difference and stay relatively silent on the subject. The current Resolution text before congress does not mention the word nuclear, and its commitment to zero-emission sources is worded:

meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources

It is not clear whether nuclear power meets that criteria or not, and I suspect the ambiguity was quite intentional. I suspect the final approach by the Democrats post-special-committee analysis, will be to neither say anything against nuclear power nor anything for it, and that it will be allowed to be counted toward the 100% zero-emitting sources goal but that it won't be encouraged or subsidized. But that's just me guessing. It could well be affected by what, if anything, 2020 presidential candidates say about nuclear power.

I know you want to ignore the press release where the goal is indeed 100% renewable energy, but we would need a lot more dams, wind turbines, and solar cells to replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

More dams is impractical in the US because most rivers that could reasonably be dammed already have been. However many existing dams are not currently being used for power generation and could be altered to be power stations. You would indeed need/want quite a lot of wind turbines and solar cells, and it would require covering land area equivalent to ~1%-3% of the state of Arizona with them to supply the entire country's electricity needs off them alone. So I suggest retaining the country's existing hydro and nuclear production and supplementing it with solar and wind power would be a better way to go.

[Starlight]

This should be interesting:

McConnell to bring Green New Deal to vote, forcing 2020 Dems to go on record...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...o-radical-plan

Sounds great to me. I too would like to see where Dem Senators stand on the subject. It will usefully torpedo the 2020 chances of any centrist or right-leaning Democrats who aren't prepared to sign onto it.

McConnell obviously cynically thinks it will be politically useful to do this. I think he's miscalculating in the extreme, and apparently not paying any attention whatsoever to the polling data. His base might cackle madly at him for trolling the libs. But he's underrating just how utterly popular action on climate change is among millennials. If he wants to make every single millennial turn out to vote democratic in 2020, then the single easiest way to do that would be to have Republican senators vote against action on climate change, and Democratic senators vote for it, and then trumpet that result. So his choice here pleases me.

[Mountain Man]

"polling data"

If polling data meant a hill of beans then Hillary would be president, and the Democrats would have control of the Senate!