The Ten Most Insane Requirments of the "Green New Deal"

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12194
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

An Elite War On The Working Class

Post by Riddick » 05-02-2019 08:53 PM

Subsidizing wind and solar while rooting out carbon is very expensive. That’s why industrial electricity prices in Europe are nearly 50 percent higher than they are in the rest of the Group of 20 advanced nations — and why energy firms are loath to invest in Europe.

Transplanting such European-style policies across the Atlantic, as the GND essentially aims to do, would kill energy jobs and drive up the price of energy in America. For American workers, the unspoken message from GND environmentalists is: Go and learn computer programming, or at best you will end up wiping snow and sand off solar panels.

The GND, in other words, is ­redistributionist, yes, but the redistribution goes from the bottom to the top — from the poor and from workers to wind and solar investors. Again, Europe’s example is ­instructive. The drive to subsidize renewable energy led Britain to drop its pledge to abolish fuel poverty.

The official measure of fuel poverty, defined as households spending 10 percent or more of their income on energy, kept rising. So it was ­replaced with a new government definition less sensitive to rising ­energy costs, instantly halving the number of households officially deemed fuel poor.

Meanwhile in Germany, Europe’s wealthiest country, at one stage more than 300,000 households a year were being disconnected ­because of ­unpaid bills.

“It is only gradually becoming apparent how the ­renewable energy subsidies redistribute money from the poor to the more affluent,” the left-of-center Der Spiegel newspaper editorialized. Energy companies know that the best way to avoid accusations of price gouging is to claim that it’s to fight climate change. For this reason, ­renewable energy acts as a conspiracy against the less well-off.

In the US, a capitalist aristocracy is pushing wind and solar. Its members include blue-blooded capital from the likes of the Rockefeller, MacArthur and Ford foundations, and Silicon Valley billionaires touting phony claims of 100 percent ­renewable energy.

Climate change is ethics for the super-rich. The self-righteous rhetoric of this aristocracy legitimizes the vast accumulations of wealth by the green robber barons of the 21st century.

Republicans have decried the GND as “socialist.” But whatever its real-world outcomes, and they were horrendous, at least the old socialism in theory sought to advance the economic interests of the working class. The GND does the opposite. The big question Republicans should ask is: Why?

Successful prosecutors show the motive behind the crime. So it is in politics. The supposed motive ­behind the GND — fighting climate change — doesn’t wash. If the scheme were genuinely about climate change, green activists would be campaigning to expand nuclear power rather than trying to shut it down. The truth is the climate war isn’t about climate. It is and always has been deeply ideological.

Control energy to reverse the ­Industrial Revolution and abolish industrial capitalism — these are the real targets of green ideology.

The progressives’ climate war is a war that will be lost before the first shot is fired. America doesn’t exist in a climate bubble. China, India and other developing economies are going to keep growing and keep emitting. The good news is that the GND could well fracture the Democratic coalition, pitting billionaire funders and upper-middle-class green ­activists against blue-collar workers and ethnic minorities for whom well-paying jobs and cost of living come first.

Both for reasons of principle and political advantage, Republicans are right to put GND front and center. But the message they need to ­develop shouldn’t just focus on the plan’s impracticality. Instead, the right should hammer at the left’s class war against workers. Hone and repeat that message through 2020, and they will win.

FULL STORY

User avatar
Doka
Pirate
Posts: 5322
Joined: 09-02-2009 08:15 PM

Re: The Ten Most Insane Requirments of the "Green New Deal"

Post by Doka » 05-04-2019 11:21 AM

Another good, thoughtful article. Perhaps, IF we can stop this World from becoming one big "Gulag" and Science can get back on track, we may find acceptable solutions not only to energy but a lot of other things not even mentioned yet. Making people make a choice of to either have electricity OR food, Just doesn't seem right to me! Turn those lights out! It's Bad, Bad Power! :rolleyes:



John Stossel: The Green New Deal and the one thing no one ever wants to talk about

The Green New Deal’s goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.

“That’s a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced,” James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video.

“Renewable is so inconsistent,” he adds. “You can’t just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers.”

Because wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, “renewable” energy requires many more transmission lines and bigger batteries.

Unfortunately, says Meigs: “You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous.”

Green New Deal wants to move America to 100 percent clean energy within a decade

Does the Green New Deal punish Americans while enabling China? Tucker takes on Build the Wave executive director Nate Lerner.

The Green New Deal’s goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.

“That’s a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced,” James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video.

“Renewable is so inconsistent,” he adds. “You can’t just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers.”

GAVIN NEWSOM'S 'TRAIN TO NOWHERE' REPRESENTS A BIG PART OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL

Because wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, “renewable” energy requires many more transmission lines and bigger batteries.

Unfortunately, says Meigs: “You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous.”

“Batteries are a lousy way to store energy,” adds physicist Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Also, the ingredients of green energy, like battery packs, are far from green.

“You have to consume 100 barrels of oil in China to make that battery pack,” he explains. “Dig up 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging is done with oil, by big machines, so we’re consuming energy to ‘save’ energy -- not a good path to go.”

Still, wind turbines and solar batteries are 10 times more efficient than when they were first introduced! That’s not good enough, writes Mills, to make “the new energy economy” anything more than “magical thinking.”

“They hit physics limits. In comic books, Tony Stark has a magic power source, but physics makes it impossible to make solar 10 times better again.”

The dream of “green” causes us to misdirect resources. Even after billions in government subsidies, solar still makes up less than 1 percent of America’s energy -- wind just 2 percent. And even that energy isn’t really “clean.”

“We use billions of tons of hydrocarbons to make the windmills that are already in the world, and we’ve only just begun to make them at the level people claim they would like them to be built,” says Mills. “Pursue a path of wind, solar and batteries, we increase how much we dig up and move by a thousand-fold.”

“You gotta clear-cut the forest. These machines kill a lot of birds,” says Meigs. “I agree that we should bring down our carbon emissions … but we should also make sure we’re spending money on stuff that really works.”

The Rest of Article
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/stossel ... al-nuclear
Karma Rules

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12194
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Sudden Extreme Hearing Loss

Post by Riddick » 05-04-2019 08:44 PM

Stossel makes sense. People like him are why utopian anarchist alarmists go deaf.

Image

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12194
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Hands Up, Heads Down: Today's Alternate Energy Tip

Post by Riddick » 05-05-2019 02:01 PM

Ethanol added to gasoline, clearly that's gotta be good for reducing greenhouse gases right? Umm, no, not when introducing ethanol dilutes the BTU content so you have to burn more blended fuel in total to travel the same distance as with using old-fashioned gas without the ethanol

There's also the CO2 contributions from the process of producing ethanol - But hey, that's just another thing we don't want to talk about, yet it doesn't mean you can't do something about it -

To avoid distress when discussions don't go your way, alternatively 1) raise your hands up to your head and stick your fingers in your ears, or 2) lower your head and insert your cranium deeply and directly up your arse. Ease with accomplishing the latter comes with experience.

- From "Survival Skills For The Willfully Ignorant," CC Cluster-F*** Up Edition (Dumb & Dumber Press)

User avatar
Doka
Pirate
Posts: 5322
Joined: 09-02-2009 08:15 PM

Re: The Ten Most Insane Requirments of the "Green New Deal"

Post by Doka » 05-18-2019 11:25 PM

Uh O! Rebellion.........say what!? When Al Gore starts driving a VW bug and Obami moves back to Kenya and lives in a shack off the grid........then maybe, ......I'll worry :coolhat:



Hey Greenies: Check out the global revolt against your green agenda...

May 18, 2019

By Monica Showalter

For all the good press the green agenda gets in the mainstream media, voters in free countries across the globe are getting wise to just what this feelgood earth religion really about.

Not green jobs, as President Obama liked to promise. Not lower emissions - just ask Germany about that one. Not saving the planet.

Nope, just less money in one's pocket and more power in the government's hand reaching for it.

The Heartland Institute's H. Sterling Burnett, writing for the Washington Examiner, has a good one on just what's going on globally, calling it 'backlash':
From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France, and beyond, voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to purportedly fight human-caused climate change.
Skepticism over whether humans are causing dangerous climate change has always been higher in America than in most industrialized countries. As a result, governments in Europe, Canada, and other developed areas are much farther along the energy rationing path, cutting carbon dioxide emissions as required. However, residents in these countries have begun to revolt against the higher energy costs they suffer under due to high taxes on fossil fuels and mandates to use expensive renewable energy.

This is what originally prompted protesters in France to don yellow vests and take to the streets in 2018. They were protesting scheduled increases in fuel taxes, electricity prices, and stricter vehicle emissions controls, which French President Emmanuel Macron had claimed were necessary to meet the country’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris climate agreement. After the first four weeks of protest, Macron’s government canceled the climate action plan.
Article/Comments

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... genda.html
Karma Rules

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12194
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Wait, WHAT?!

Post by Riddick » 07-14-2019 02:18 PM

Image

Green New Deal Was Not Really About The Climate

The Chief of Staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated her signature Green New Deal was not really about saving the planet after all. In a WaPo report, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

The GND roll-out itself was fraught with complications, including confusing language and contradictions in the FAQ. Now withdrawn sections widely shared with media & posted online touted "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work" & “a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases.”

FULL STORY

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2014 - Present”