Green New Deal 26

[JoshPlumSE]

Someone had to start somewhere to get us off dead center. We are talking about it more now aren't we? So I'd say the pot was effectively stirred, if nothing else.

Excellent point. Hopefully, this kick starts a more rational and feasible course of action on things that are REALLY meant to address global warming rather than over the top socialism.

Maybe instead of mocking and dismissing it out of hand, we could lend our collective expertise into improving the technical aspects and eventually lead to sound policies that can be enacted with bipartisan support

I don't think we have been "dismissing it out of hand", rather we have been dismissing it based on a rational evaluation of what it actually says... very little of which relates to global warming or the environment. Also, I would argue that the Green New Deal was always INTENDED to be a hyper-partisan document. Its intention is to create division (IMHO). I'm just can't tell if the intent was to create division between Republicans and Democrats or between the socialist and the moderate wings of the Democrats.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was intended to create division between Dems and Repubs, the puppy killer argument that I keep mentioning. But, the reality is that it's creating more division within the Democratic party.

This whole thing is a great lesson in politics. Nancy Pelosi (who's really, really politically astute) knew immediately that this resolution was a problem, so she distanced herself from it. The presidential candidates (Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, etc) who are no where near as smart as Pelosi (IMO) embraced it before reading it. Then Mitch McConnell decides to bring it to a vote in the Senate, which was a great political move. It made AOC look bad, because no one voted for it. Which highlighted how extreme AOC's wing of the party is and helped create (or at least amplify) divisions within the democratic party.

 

[bones206]

The conclusions of the federal climate change demand extreme action. If we accept the conclusions as fact, we should all be considering ourselves extremists and aligning ourselves with extremist politicians. The word extreme has a negative connotation but sometimes it’s prudent and conservative to be extreme. Being extreme doesn’t necessarily equate to overreacting. I would argue that being slow to act and making incremental changes might well lead to extreme negative consequences.

It just all comes down to whether you believe the report or not. If your reaction to the report isn’t for extreme action, then that can only mean you either: 1) don’t believe it’s really happening, or 2) believe it but don’t really care or it’s just too big of a problem to solve without affecting our current lives significantly, so why bother trying.

I get the political maneuvering, but it just seems so petty in the context of a potential extinction-level threat. But it’s really us who are enabling and instigating that pettiness with our own collective views and attitudes.

 

[rb1957]

my 2c ...

1) I think several of us here haven't "drunk the koolaid" because we appreciate how models can be manipulated to give the answer you want. I think several of us are suspicious of the data manipulation that has been practiced in the past.
2) I think several of us are suspicious of what we see as "government over-reach", regardless of it's objective.
3) I think anything to try and "solve" the problem is so disruptive to our society that it is a political non-starter. I would like to see more nuclear powerstations, more research on fusion power. Making petrol $10/gallon would be a start (though a political/economic non-starter). Making FF based energy expensive is a political non-starter, but this is the primary driving force in our economy (ie if it costs more, we will become more efficient in using it).
4) I think what we're trying to implement now won't "fix" the problem, but is politically acceptable. Taxing for "climate change" is just money going into the government coffers, and little action against the problem.
5) I think many of us appreciate that this is a truly global problem, needs global solutions, and us falling on our swords won't "fix" it (but will doom us).
6) As engineers, we should be designing to account for anticipated changes in our climate, ie building sea-walls, accounting for anticipated/predicted sea-level change ... the worst thing to happen is our client spends alittle more on his project. Of course too we should look into more efficient ways to extract energy, to use energy, and to develop alternative means to create usable energy that produce less CO2. Our clients can then invest in these projects.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[bones206]

We don’t seem to have a problem drinking the kool aid when it comes to military spending for perceived security threats. But in reality what is the greater threat and where are all our tax dollars going?

 

[Maui]

I have a great deal of difficulty discussing the actual content of the "Green New Deal" with a straight face when it reads as though it was written by a 5th grader who is on heavy medication.

Regarding the topic of climate change, it was predicated above that "If we accept the conclusions as fact" then extreme measures are required on our part to immediately address it. Many of us environmentally conscientious individuals don't blindly accept the bastardization of the scientific method that has been wielded by the likes of Al Gore for political and personal gain as objective and convincing evidence that we are responsible for what is being referred to as global warming, climate change, anthropogenic climate change, or whatever else you choose to call it.

Maui

 

[SnTMan]

We could do something both meaningful and extreme, like building a bunch of nuke plants. Uhhhh, no we couldn't...

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[bones206]

Maui - what does Al Gore have to do with the National Climate Assessment? These are the authors. Do you have any evidence that any of those government employees wrote that report for political or personal gain?

Every time I get into this topic on this site, it seems we end up backpedaling from the initial discussion and find there is very little common ground of mutually accepted facts from which to start from. It's frustrating. People have every right to be skeptical about anything, we're all critical thinkers in our own way... but this issue is a doozy for humanity, so I'd rather be on the safe side and assume scientists aren't just being alarmists so they can secure another grant.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I have a great deal of difficulty discussing the actual content of the "Green New Deal" with a straight face when it reads as though it was written by a 5th grader who is on heavy medication.

I chuckled out loud at my desk when I read this. I really enjoy your sense of humor.... Not because I want to make fun of environmentalists. But, because I read the Green New Deal and found it to be quite naive and sophomoric.

Many of us environmentally conscientious individuals don't blindly accept the bastardization of the scientific method that has been wielded by the likes of Al Gore for political and personal gain as objective and convincing evidence

It's interesting, I believe Al Gore merely did with this issue what politicians do all the time on a wide variety of political issues. His intention was the same as all politicians... to advance their particular political agenda. The problem, as I see it, is it did the exact opposite.... While it helped his career (Nobel Prize etc), it hurt the cause he was trying to support.

That being said, I believe the time has come for us to put aside political differences and work out some kind of compromise agreement to reduce our C02 emissions. If we don't there is a pretty good chance there will be some devastating effects. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it's based on pretty sound science and there are a lot of folks / scientist that agree. Can we at least get you to go along with some reasonable common sense legislation to reduce our carbon emissions? Maybe add a federal gas tax (minor at first that climbs a bit each year), maybe add a large fee / tax on the power plants that produce the most carbon per MegaWatt? That way we can move away from coal plants.

 

[SnTMan]

We can do anything we want / can tolerate. If China and India don't buy in as well, what we do just won't matter. It is a GLOBAL issue.



The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[bones206]

China started making drastic changes and large investments in clean energy a decade ago. The US pollutes more than any other country but will probably be the last to act.

I really don’t think the Green New Deal or its proponents are naive and sophomoric. I think it was designed to recalibrate the public’s sense of urgency and to convey the scale of changes that are necessary in the immediate future. I think it did fairly well in that respect.

People who think it’s overreaching, unachievable and pie-in-the-sky are missing the point... with the scale of the threat and the time we have left to combat it, the only options we have left that have a chance of creating a better outcome for future generations ARE the drastic ones. The outcome for doing nothing and the outcome for taking some moderate incremental action are the same outcome. We really need to get our heads around that. It’s surreal that we are in this situation, but here we are.

 

[hokie66]

Be careful of swallowing the Chinese propaganda.

https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/...ucking-global-shift-from-coal-power/?cs=12512

 

[bones206]

Wow, that is an unfortunate development Hokie. I lived in China for a while, working on a part of their massive nuclear power buildup. A lot of the friends I made there have made good careers working on the many renewable energy and nuclear project. They've built an absolute army of young engineers to meet the demand and are a significant part of the new middle class.

I don't think this is a case of government propaganda though. The central government's policies are clearly intent on phasing out coal, but the endemic corruption of provincial governments makes it hard to enforce the wishes of the central leadership. Fundamentally it's commercial market forces rebelling against "overreaching "centralized government policies that are at cross-purposes with industry profit motive. Maybe there will be a crackdown before too many of these coal plants come online.

 

[ornerynorsk]

"The US pollutes more than any other country . . ."

Excuse me ?!?!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[bones206]

I guess it depends if you are ranking by gross output or per capita. Besides carbon emissions, America certainly generates more solid waste than any other country. It doesn't really matter if the US is number 1, 2, 3, 4... the point is the US is one of the very top polluters on the planet. So it's only fair that we should be getting busy cleaning up our act, not pointing fingers at others.

 

[Compositepro]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

In 2017 China emitted twice the amount of CO2 than did the USA. And it is rising rapidly.

 

[bones206]

And per capita the US emits more than twice the amount China does.

 

[Compositepro]

The earth does not care about per capita. It cares about tons, and it is not as you stated. This is why alarmists have low credibility.

 

[bones206]

First of all, China is busy making the necessary changes and investments. We are not. At least they are trying and not in denial about it.

Second of all, per capita rates relate to efficiency. There’s no reason why the most developed country should be the least efficient. Drive through China and you’ll see most houses have solar water heaters. I’ve seen that in the US maybe a couple times. We just choose to be wasteful and inefficient because we feel entitled to a convenient lifestyle.

If you look at criticism of “alarmists”, it’s always the same old strategy: find some minute controversial detail to latch onto so you can undermine their credibility. Nevermind the argument as a whole, just focus one tiny thing so you can discredit the rest. Classic.

 

[Compositepro]

Bones, grow up. If you are going to participate in any discussion check your facts first, unless you really do not care if they are correct or not.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Composite pro has a decent point.... I don't know that is enough to argue that we shouldn't clean up our own act, but we have to also understand there are repercussions.

A relative showed me some economic study about how the high requirements for manufacturing in Europe (cleaner power, energy efficiency, and others) resulted in net INCREASE in CO2. The reason being the manufacturing was sent to other countries without these strict requirements, then adding on the CO2 to ship the finished products back to Europe.

Rather than use this as a reason to not take ANY action, we have to adjust our thinking a bit. So, why not tax any imported goods that are deemed to be higher in carbon emissions than if they were manufactured here? Maybe not the best solution, but it's something to think about.

The sad thing is I think no matter what solution we come up with, we're going to have to live through a period of higher inflation. But, this is merely because the current price of goods that we have doesn't reflect the real long term cost of those goods.