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

[rogue06]

He probably has a higher IQ than I do. That doesn't mean he's automatically more correct on issues.

So you're saying you have room temperature I.Q.?

[Mountain Man]

It'll be interesting to see how many of it's co-sponsors won't vote for it

Markey claims that by "rushing" the vote, it doesn't give Democrats enough time to drum up support for the proposal.

[One Bad Pig]

So you're saying you have room temperature I.Q.?

It's sufficient to join Mensa if I desired.

[Mountain Man]

It is kinda amusing that you keep ignoring these issues and simply repeat what you already said with zero acknowledgement of these issues.

That's because Democrats haven't rolled out their talking points to dismiss these objections.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's because Democrats haven't rolled out their talking points to dismiss these objections.

[Cow Poke]

At the moment the Green New Deal is only in the general outline phase....

In other words, "OK, they bungled it so badly they have to pretend that wasn't really what they wanted to say, and they're going to give it another go, trying to figure out how to make it sound less batpoop nutty".

[lilpixieofterror]

In other words, "OK, they bungled it so badly they have to pretend that wasn't really what they wanted to say, and they're going to give it another go, trying to figure out how to make it sound less batpoop nutty".

Like I said earlier, their mistake is they accidentally told the truth and the red paint is showing through the green paint as a result. It is interesting that the only solution to climate change is a government take over of sectors of our economy, an expansion of government power, or more government over reach.

[Terraceth]

An interesting point here about cars. This is my first upper midwest winter in my Prius. That sucker slides around on the road like crazy. Most electric cars must be lighter than my Prius. There's a definite safety issue there, at least here in the upper midwest and northeast, where there are other concerns than just pollution or even fuel efficiency (the reason I bought the car). I know a lot of compact and subcompact gasoline engine cars do the same, but in moving down from a full size sedan to a compact, I feel like I've traded away a good portion of my safety. I don't know if I would get another hybrid or full electric compact or sub compact unless it's ability to drive in adverse conditions got better.

Hrm, I haven't had any real issues with sliding on my Prius. Did you get winter tires? Those things make a big difference.

[Starlight]

In other words, "OK, they bungled it so badly they have to pretend that wasn't really what they wanted to say, and they're going to give it another go, trying to figure out how to make it sound less batpoop nutty".

No.

The Green New Deal is currently a proposed Resolution. A Resolution is different to a Bill - passing it doesn't make it a law, and it doesn't need Senate or Presidential sign-off. A Resolution is a formal declaration, aka a public memo from the House to itself. It has been submitted to the House now, so it will go through a debate and discussion and amendment period, and then the House will (probably) vote on the final version of it. If it passes, it will effectively be a formal declaration by Democrats (assuming Republicans don't vote for it) of what their policy is, and at that point the House Climate Change Committee will be handed the passed text of the Resolution, and instructed to begin drafting legislation and interviewing experts, with the goal of producing one or more Bills that implement the goals of the Resolution which can then be submitted back to the House for debate, amending, and voting, and if and when those pass the House, Senate, and get Presidential sign-off they will become law.

Hence, as I said...

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.

[Starlight]

Too bad part of the energy deal is shutting down nuclear power.

No, it isn't. I quoted its text and discussed it in my post. Go back and read.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, it isn't. I quoted its text and discussed it in my post. Go back and read.

Denial and attempts to wash away what was plainly said will not work here.

[Starlight]

Markey claims that by "rushing" the vote, it doesn't give Democrats enough time to drum up support for the proposal.

Hmm, that's a good point. Obviously with any new proposal, those who weren't involved in proposing it and their staff need to be briefed on it, they need to consult with their advisers and constituents and consider whether they are going to support it etc. This would be especially important for those Senators who aren't an expert on these issues or knowledgeable about the topic.

Obviously if you stick a new document in front of someone and tell them "vote on it immediately", they'll just scratch their heads and be confused.

As an aside, Wikipedia lists McConnell as being one of the resolution's proponents.

Imagine if McConnell gets as many Republicans as he can to sign onto it, and they all vote for it too.

[Starlight]

Switching to electric cars is going to happen naturally, and as fast as they can bring the cost down and install charging stations across the country, AND come up with a reliable FAST charging system so you don't have to wait hours to recharge. There is no need to legislate it into being.

I think you awkwardly blur a complex reality here. The government has huge scope for controlling the speed at which this happens.

For example, the government here is busily installing charging stations across my country.

In the US, the state of California has long had huge influence over the car manufacturing industry due to setting emissions standards. Its choices have affected what models car manufacturers release and what technologies they pursued.

Likewise, government policy is hugely influential in affecting the relative cost of electricity and gas. A choice to install more power stations can lower electricity prices. A choice to subsidize gas less can raise gas prices. This in turn affects the decision of individuals as to whether they purchase an electric car, a hybrid, or a gas car.

So I think your statement that it will happen "naturally" is quite wrong. Governments were instrumental in pouring massive amounts of money into R&D for green technologies. They set emissions standards which affect the rate at which the automotive industry chooses to transition vehicle production to greener vehicles. They control the relative price of gas and electricity. They build (or don't) charging stations for electric vehicles. So none of this happened "naturally" - it has been planned, controlled, and shepherded by governments from start to finish, and they have massive, massive control over the rate at which the transition continues to occur.

I think a good clean energy production method that hasn't been exploited well yet is wave power. Using turbines set in oceans to capture the power of waves and the tides.

I agree that it sounds like a great idea in theory. The simple problem is that it just doesn't generate very much power and isn't cost-effective compared to other methods.

And if they ever perfect fusion power, we won't need anything else. It is clean, and can produce all the energy we need.

Indeed, I think 50 years from now, fusion could become a major power source. Unfortunately that isn't fast enough to deal with current climate issues. I could write you a rant on how governments have been underfunding fusion research for decades now, and how it is possible we could have invented viable fusion power by now if they had, but that is beside the point. Governments should be putting more money into fusion R&D, but they haven't, and at this stage where we need rapid action to reduce greenhouse emissions, transitioning to fusion is simply not an option.

All this stuff will happen as fast as they can perfect the technology and make it commercially viable. Trying to force it into being won't make it happen any faster.

You say this as if we can't control the rate at which technology improves. Of course we can. Tech R&D rates have always been massively controlled by government funding choices, as most R&D is directly government funded and what R&D occurs in private industry is usually government subsidized.

Remember when President Kennedy decided to put a man on the moon, and the government poured in massive money to fund that R&D, and the government was able to achieve his goal within 7 years?

Perhaps instead of giving deadlines, they should give grants and prizes to the people and companies that can make these technologies economical and viable.

Prizes after the fact seem a bit irrelevant. But grants are already given. I agree they should give more.

I have problems with them trying to force innovation even at the expense of our economy to the point it is hurting people.

How does spending money on innovation, which creates jobs and boosts the economy, hurt people or the economy? You seem to have it backward.

[Terraceth]

Markey claims that by "rushing" the vote, it doesn't give Democrats enough time to drum up support for the proposal.

Wasn't that the plot of the musical 1776?

[lilpixieofterror]

In the US, the state of California has long had huge influence over the car manufacturing industry due to setting emissions standards. Its choices have affected what models car manufacturers release and what technologies they pursued.