Herochat

The Green New Deal

Bran Mak Morn

  • *******
  • 4366
  • +18/-15
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2019, 08:59:31 PM »
Yeah obviously areas with high wind corridors is ideal as opposed to thinking it's a suitable source of power for everyone, everywhere.

It's just when that Aust. politician banned its use in one area reasoning they were ugly to look at, it was pretty obvious to the general public that there was a hidden agenda afoot.
"It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.
It won't work & you just end up annoying the pig."
-Judge Judy.

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10517
  • +1141/-119
  • Knives in the senate house?
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2019, 09:04:57 PM »
I imagine solar power is a big deal in Australia? ... unless the glare enrages the drop bears.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4392
  • +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2019, 01:54:36 AM »
Quote
It seems like a wish list generated by a bunch of people with no practical experience in what they are talking about instead of a carefully thought out plan.

I don’t mean to sound defeatist or to suggest that a bunch of junior politicians should be experts in all of the fields that one would need to be in order to enact something like this. But I’d expect them to consult some experts to see what can reasonably be done and what the costs are.

ALSO: Any plan to cut fossil fuel consumption needs to embrace nuclear power. That the Green Deal is so dismissive of nuclear power makes me think it’s written by people who care more about ideology than facts or results.

And they way the authors kept changing it as certain aspects proved to be unpopular, then acting as if the newer versions were their real plan all along, makes me doubt their ability and integrity.

This

I worry considerably that the Democrats will run on Trump outrage and go directly at military spending and social issues rather than understand that we are in a very serious conflict with China and social justice isn't the government's job.

E.G The United States has perfected light, sweet shale extraction and well productivity so well in the last 10 years that we will be completely energy independent by the middle of 2020. We will need to import approximately 20% of our crude, which we can easily do from a number of nations that are friendly - and allies.

 The problem with renewables (solar and wind) is lack of cost-effective storage of generated energy. Currently, when renewables become about 15% of the grid things begin breaking down. Too much power when not needed and too little when needed due to the intermittency of sun or wind.

In short, the problem is in photovoltaic storage capacity, battery power, and access to solar power. You can run a household's electrical power on solar energy, but you can't run a factory on it, especially in states that have seasons.

So, I really worry about AOC getting a bunch of millenials excited about socialism and shale-busting and getting someone into power who has no backbone and doesn't understand:

1 - Our command and control military structure is 10-15 years ahead of any nation but lacks the cyber, space, and infrastructure protection to keep it that way. it also requires a real concerted effort to create technologies that will surivive the new, existing military threats while new dimensions in warfare are being built

2 - Just reallocating wealth is a stupid way of solving the dumpster fire of health care and wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is a huge issue I'm reading a lot about, but government never does better than capitalism.

Health care, however, is another story.

378$ for humalog insulin without insurance?!?!?!?!

That's unbelievable!!!!!!!!

This isn't cutting edge technology, this is a 10-year old drug that costs litte to make being marked up close to 1000% to people who can barely afford to stay alive as is.

Anyhow

So, to sum up - the current Dems are about perpetuating outrage culture and the AOC's of the world are forcing policy wonks like Elizabeth Warren to pretend she's further left than she is. I don't like this left won tea party that's forming, it's as dangerous as the nuts on the right

These people are dangerously out-of-touch to the strategic realities of the world.

The Green New Deal should be about the perpetuation of carbon capture technologies and infrastructure for areas that are beyond saving. Sea-levels will rise in some areas and engineering has to be created to move back structure, protect existing structure, and prevent further damage.

Solar technology will eventually become about space. The easiest way to get unfiltered solar is above cloud interference and then it can be captured in enormous gobs if photovoltaics can be shrunk to scale. Over the next 10-20 years that will become a meaningful technology

A bunch of leftist lunatics trying to prove that they're not as bad as Trump won't do a fucking thing but cause a new and impressive set of problems


Bran Mak Morn

  • *******
  • 4366
  • +18/-15
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2019, 04:14:38 AM »
I imagine solar power is a big deal in Australia? ... unless the glare enrages the drop bears.

The Drop Bears mastered the use of boomerangs.
Any given day you'll see a barrage of boomerangs flying out of tree tops smashing solar panels.

Apparently they chased David Attenborough out of the country.
"It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.
It won't work & you just end up annoying the pig."
-Judge Judy.

therock

  • ********
  • 9162
  • +65/-65
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2019, 09:35:23 AM »
Quote
It seems like a wish list generated by a bunch of people with no practical experience in what they are talking about instead of a carefully thought out plan.

I don’t mean to sound defeatist or to suggest that a bunch of junior politicians should be experts in all of the fields that one would need to be in order to enact something like this. But I’d expect them to consult some experts to see what can reasonably be done and what the costs are.

ALSO: Any plan to cut fossil fuel consumption needs to embrace nuclear power. That the Green Deal is so dismissive of nuclear power makes me think it’s written by people who care more about ideology than facts or results.

And they way the authors kept changing it as certain aspects proved to be unpopular, then acting as if the newer versions were their real plan all along, makes me doubt their ability and integrity.

This

I worry considerably that the Democrats will run on Trump outrage and go directly at military spending and social issues rather than understand that we are in a very serious conflict with China and social justice isn't the government's job.

E.G The United States has perfected light, sweet shale extraction and well productivity so well in the last 10 years that we will be completely energy independent by the middle of 2020. We will need to import approximately 20% of our crude, which we can easily do from a number of nations that are friendly - and allies.

 The problem with renewables (solar and wind) is lack of cost-effective storage of generated energy. Currently, when renewables become about 15% of the grid things begin breaking down. Too much power when not needed and too little when needed due to the intermittency of sun or wind.

In short, the problem is in photovoltaic storage capacity, battery power, and access to solar power. You can run a household's electrical power on solar energy, but you can't run a factory on it, especially in states that have seasons.

So, I really worry about AOC getting a bunch of millenials excited about socialism and shale-busting and getting someone into power who has no backbone and doesn't understand:

1 - Our command and control military structure is 10-15 years ahead of any nation but lacks the cyber, space, and infrastructure protection to keep it that way. it also requires a real concerted effort to create technologies that will surivive the new, existing military threats while new dimensions in warfare are being built

2 - Just reallocating wealth is a stupid way of solving the dumpster fire of health care and wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is a huge issue I'm reading a lot about, but government never does better than capitalism.

Health care, however, is another story.

378$ for humalog insulin without insurance?!?!?!?!

That's unbelievable!!!!!!!!

This isn't cutting edge technology, this is a 10-year old drug that costs litte to make being marked up close to 1000% to people who can barely afford to stay alive as is.

Anyhow

So, to sum up - the current Dems are about perpetuating outrage culture and the AOC's of the world are forcing policy wonks like Elizabeth Warren to pretend she's further left than she is. I don't like this left won tea party that's forming, it's as dangerous as the nuts on the right

These people are dangerously out-of-touch to the strategic realities of the world.

The Green New Deal should be about the perpetuation of carbon capture technologies and infrastructure for areas that are beyond saving. Sea-levels will rise in some areas and engineering has to be created to move back structure, protect existing structure, and prevent further damage.

Solar technology will eventually become about space. The easiest way to get unfiltered solar is above cloud interference and then it can be captured in enormous gobs if photovoltaics can be shrunk to scale. Over the next 10-20 years that will become a meaningful technology

A bunch of leftist lunatics trying to prove that they're not as bad as Trump won't do a fucking thing but cause a new and impressive set of problems


We do need to go after Military spending somewhat

The enemies you mention are important. But not sure building world War 2 era weapons the best way to do it. We probally need some drones and better cyber tecniques and some of the space shit you mention.  For instance remember when people were upset when cops had millitary tanks. Part of the reason is we were making so many the goverment had no idea what to do with it. In fact the millitary was ask "Please STOP making these".  That not a small nit pick thing. That like Billlions upond Billions of dollars. If we can't afford the speaical olympics and paying teacher well then we can cut at least some of that bullshit

There is a lot of waste. That why I wouldn't sale is as cuts. I sale it as accounting. For stuff not top secret stuff would explain what we are cutting. advance tecenolgy I would put cash. shit we don't use I would cut. Then it up to the other side to explain why we do the cut. Then I would show what I AM putting money into when it comes to the millitary. Which is a more high tecenlogy form of warfare. There is a massive amount of waste in the millitary because a lot of it a Jobs program


People always ask how do we pay for it with lefty stuff. Which is a question that I actully don't think unfair. But they ONLY do it with left stuff. They never do it when buying a new tank or Tax cuts. With war I undestand somewhat. Because protecting our country important..where we find the money. I may say the same about the health of our nation

same with Taxes. 75 percent may be overboard. But did we NEED a trillion dollar tax cut that help mostly the rich. That may end up being 2 trillion. Do we need MORE tax cuts for them and getting rid of estate tax. Why does the rich not sunset..but the lower tax cuts do. And if we need it..why isn't the quesiton ask how We going to pay for it. That a lot of money. How we going to pay for that. Because trickle down don't seem to work. If it does work in a long run. The Question that SHOULD be ask, is how we going to pay for it. Because asking how do we pay for it doesn't mean don't do it. It just a follow up Question

Like I am for health care. But if we want Europian style health care we might have to accept we have to accept europian style taxes. And not just for the rich. Not enough money for that. But that a tougher sale to the American people. Taxing  wall street 75 percent..then say yea wall street taxes will go up a lot higher but yours will go up a bit


With research in new Energy is the starting investment in it will always be expensive. And we won't see the benfits of it for a while. And the first roll out like a lot of merging tecenlogy going to have issue and might be kind of shitty. but with investment will eventully approve on it. But we got to start the investiment we should of made a long time ago. Same like we should of invested our infranstructure with shit like high speed rails a long ass Time ago. Now it going to be crazy expensive

As for SJW stuff. I say it depends on what your talking about. People say idenity politics is bad at the same time saying "Dems need to reach out to the white working class". Which is true but I am like "Thats identity politics asshole".  Most politics is Idenity politics to someone

Or for instance what was going on with the children in cage who won't be reunited. Think that an injustice in society..and its ok to fight that maybe with some would say with a the fiercness of a warrior

Think what they mean. Is the right can afford to pissed off certain groups more..because their vote locked in to the dems..and as many of them in swing states. While Dems have to get everyone...because they have to beat the spread. And to do that they may have to ingore or downplay some henious shit. That would be a bit more honest conversation if they had it

For instance they got to to talk up coal Jobs and say its coming back. Even though industry that employes less people then Denny's. An industry that not getting replace by Solar or Immigrants...they getting replace by other forms natural gas. They probally going to need to be retrain. But since their in swing states and this Job they counted on for generations its a tough conversation to have. But its an unavoidable conversation


Also this going to be who base comes out more.  Trump been feeding his base red meat since he been in office. We can tossed our base some kale every now and then

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2798
  • +15/-2
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2019, 01:33:04 PM »
The individuals/groups that bring up the "How do we pay for it" lines are usually operating in bad faith. They almost never bring those lines up when it comes to funding wars, military increases and waste, corporate welfare, tax cuts for multi-millionaires/billionaires and corporations, etc. Those lines are specifically geared to helping preserve and further re enforce the often corrupt status quo.

Here is a pretty nice ( though not unique ) breakdown, courtesy of David Pakman. It's worth a ten minute watch imho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd-MP6pXzuc
Avatar : Glynis Barber, as Harriet Makepeace
Sig : Casi Davis, as Cammy White


MTL76

  • ********
  • 10517
  • +1141/-119
  • Knives in the senate house?
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2019, 01:48:28 PM »
The individuals/groups that bring up the "How do we pay for it" lines are usually operating in bad faith. They almost never bring those lines up when it comes to funding wars, military increases and waste, corporate welfare, tax cuts for multi-millionaires/billionaires and corporations, etc.

This isn’t true, unless by “individuals/groups” you’re referring to career GOP politicians. I’d love to scale down our military and withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. Yet I’m told daily by mainstream media that deposing Assad is somehow the duty of America.

My objection to the Green New Deal isn’t just how to pay for it. It’s more that the things they are suggesting don’t seem physically possible, and that its creators are big on concept and short on details.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2798
  • +15/-2
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2019, 02:07:31 PM »
The individuals/groups that bring up the "How do we pay for it" lines are usually operating in bad faith. They almost never bring those lines up when it comes to funding wars, military increases and waste, corporate welfare, tax cuts for multi-millionaires/billionaires and corporations, etc.

This isn’t true, unless by “individuals/groups” you’re referring to career GOP politicians. I’d love to scale down our military and withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. Yet I’m told daily by mainstream media that deposing Assad is somehow the duty of America.

All too often it's a fair enough assessment though. It goes without saying that GOP politicians have crossed those lines. But it isn't just them. And didn't begin with Trump.

Supposedly "liberal" media outlets frequently approach topics from an elitist or corporate point of view. We've seen everything from "But what about the jobs" on CNN regarding America's involvement in places like Yemen. To MSNBC using Republican "talking points", aka fearing mongering, as something actually legitimate, central, and/or overriding.

There is a definite impression that many in those bubbles care little about anything but their status, and that tax cuts aren't undone and/or are done over and repeatedly. While being relatively unconcerned if much of the rest of the nation ends up looking like something out of dystopian novel.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 08:09:54 PM by Imperial »
Avatar : Glynis Barber, as Harriet Makepeace
Sig : Casi Davis, as Cammy White


Rufio

  • ****
  • 780
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2019, 02:09:31 PM »
The goal of literally zero emissions is nuts, and not necessarily even a good goal. The real issue is reducing emissions to the point that the carbon absorbed in the ground and emitted into the atmosphere gets closer to equilibrium.

Part of that equation should also be looking into climate engineering to buy time, e.g., cooling the planet with the same sort of particles that get released and result in a couple years of cooling whenever a volcano erupts. Other efforts to capture carbon by rebuilding greenery or through other methods should also be pursued.

Myopically focusing on “zero emissions” and only solar and wind is not helpful. It feeds into partisan talking points and makes it easy to conflate the crazies with people proposing real solutions. Also, it makes no sense to bundle identity politic talking points and UBI into the same proposal (especially not with UBI summarized as providing support to those “unwilling to work”). And it’s not even an actual bill or anything. It’s just a manifesto or wish list of things they want.

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2798
  • +15/-2
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2019, 02:14:02 PM »
( Didn't see Rufio's post before posting this. Just to clarify. )

As for the GND specifically, a problem I have with it is that some of it's supporters seem to want to package or attach too much to it. Which I think is generally unwise, and makes it even easier to attack.

But as I said earlier though, it likely hardly matters. For many, AOC and such could have proposed significantly downscaled reforms and they still would have been attacked. You are dealing with politicians, interest groups, and media that aren't primarily if at all concerned about the future. But rather batting down anyone/thing that interrupts their neverending nearterm revenue streams.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 02:17:36 PM by Imperial »
Avatar : Glynis Barber, as Harriet Makepeace
Sig : Casi Davis, as Cammy White


MTL76

  • ********
  • 10517
  • +1141/-119
  • Knives in the senate house?
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2019, 02:44:30 PM »
But as I said earlier though, it likely hardly matters. For many, AOC and such could have proposed significantly downscaled reforms and they still would have been attacked.

It DOES matter. Hypotheticals like this aren’t helpful to people who aren’t corporate GOP or DNC politicians or their paymasters. The authors of the Green New Deal proposeD something and it’s open to criticism, and criticizing it doesn’t make someone a GOP shill.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2798
  • +15/-2
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2019, 02:54:28 PM »
But as I said earlier though, it likely hardly matters. For many, AOC and such could have proposed significantly downscaled reforms and they still would have been attacked.

It DOES matter. Hypotheticals like this aren’t helpful to people who aren’t corporate GOP or DNC politicians or their paymasters. The authors of the Green New Deal proposeD something and it’s open to criticism, and criticizing it doesn’t make someone a GOP shill.

I didn't say it inherently did. I said for many it doesn't matter much. And that is true.

Furthermore, their attacks would still be believed, echoed, or perhaps unknowingly repeated by a substantial amount of noise even if they were more modest. Hell, I have even criticised the GND in this very thread. Do I think I am a GOP shill?
Avatar : Glynis Barber, as Harriet Makepeace
Sig : Casi Davis, as Cammy White


therock

  • ********
  • 9162
  • +65/-65
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2019, 02:59:12 PM »
The individuals/groups that bring up the "How do we pay for it" lines are usually operating in bad faith. They almost never bring those lines up when it comes to funding wars, military increases and waste, corporate welfare, tax cuts for multi-millionaires/billionaires and corporations, etc.

This isn’t true, unless by “individuals/groups” you’re referring to career GOP politicians. I’d love to scale down our military and withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. Yet I’m told daily by mainstream media that deposing Assad is somehow the duty of America.

My objection to the Green New Deal isn’t just how to pay for it. It’s more that the things they are suggesting don’t seem physically possible, and that its creators are big on concept and short on details.

Even then it makes little sense. Even by a warmongering stand point

because Our Millitary large enough where we can do cuts, and fuck up a lot of countries shit right up. Unless where going to attack Assad with diamon plated Mechs then don't think we need a to increase it by another 600 Billion when we got plenty of stuff that make things go BOOM BOOM

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10517
  • +1141/-119
  • Knives in the senate house?
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2019, 04:56:00 PM »
Any foreign war is monumentally expensive. There’s no way to do it cheaply. If our goal is to decrease military spending, we need to stop foreign military adventures that gain us nothing.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 05:06:00 PM by MTL76 »


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

nu-safado

  • ************
  • 4392
  • +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2019, 11:20:51 PM »
Before this conversation goes off the rails

James Matti, before being Trumped out of office, declared in an official document by the US military that the era of ME warfare had ended and that the era of great power competition has returned

I cannot stress enough how significant that is.

I also cannot stress significantly enough how serious the competition from Russia and China is.

Russia is a complicated story, but it is a serious and immediate threat that has, at minimum, exposed how vulnerable US cybersecurity is to sovereign nation attack.

China is attempting to squeeze the US out of global leadership.

The Oe Belt One Road initiative is part of a larger, underlying attempt to rebuild world infrastructure under Chinese influence and retake Taiwan while controlling the South China Sea and First Island Chains.

To accomplish this, China has built it's first aircraft carrier and is working on its second. While this is a far cry from coming close to US Ford-class carriers and F-35's, China has long ange missiles and disel subs that are very dangerous to US hardware.

If China were to get control of this area, it would be able to suffocate Japan and South Korea, control the Pacific and become the major power of the Asian sphere. Japan won't let that happen, so excpet it to rearm shortly and bit by bit, and hope the US can do what it needs to which is:

Agreed with everyone saying the military can't be a jobs program

US has to, and I mean has to - develop cyber and control and command defenses that give the best military weapons in the world a chance to defend themselves. Most of what China is really doing is creating low-cost ways of off-setting high tech weapons with defenses that can't hurt the US, but can deny it the ability to operate in China's sphere.

That means the US has to create things like

Drone swarms that can protect F-35's from anti-aircraft batteries

Bolster satellite, command and control defenses, and cyber capabilities that control hardware with robust systems that can't be infiltrated or hacked. We are very behind in protecting our military hardware and one lost carrier would drive that point home in a nasty way

Repair parts for the US's best weapons need to be up-to-date.

Cost-effective weapons have to be developed: smaller carriers that carry fewer planes (like Japan's helicopter carriers that could carry F-35's which take off vertically)

Hypersonic missiles which are the new sphere of warfare

Firmly develop methods to weaponize space (sorry if it seems outlandish) but space is where future warfare is heading. Not in the form of space pew pew mind you but in the sense of satellites, hypersonics, satellite defenses and the ability to knock out enemy control and command

I have a lot to say on this but Tl;Dr - US has to up spending, cut waste, and prepare to modernize a very vulnerable military against an enemy that has motive and means to do harm

I doubt we're going into any military adventures in the Middle East anytime soon

Then this

Quote
The goal of literally zero emissions is nuts, and not necessarily even a good goal. The real issue is reducing emissions to the point that the carbon absorbed in the ground and emitted into the atmosphere gets closer to equilibrium.

Part of that equation should also be looking into climate engineering to buy time, e.g., cooling the planet with the same sort of particles that get released and result in a couple years of cooling whenever a volcano erupts. Other efforts to capture carbon by rebuilding greenery or through other methods should also be pursued.

Myopically focusing on “zero emissions” and only solar and wind is not helpful. It feeds into partisan talking points and makes it easy to conflate the crazies with people proposing real solutions. Also, it makes no sense to bundle identity politic talking points and UBI into the same proposal (especially not with UBI summarized as providing support to those “unwilling to work”). And it’s not even an actual bill or anything. It’s just a manifesto or wish list of things they want.
Modify message


Yeah

There's little doubt that climate change is real.

Very few people can effectively tell me how it's happening mechanically. All we really know is that carbon emmissions are up billioons fold since industrialization and there's a direct correlation

I'd make the case that it's well worth the moneyt to research the mechanisms of climate change and how its happening to create realistic solutions

 I agree with tree planting and other carbon sequestration solutions. I reall do

A vague New Dal that doesn't hold up to scrutiny is just going to bring Mich Mcconell and his jowls into the limelight and bring talking heads back to screaming at each other on ridiculous talking points. We need policy wons that can show how this is done and a charismatic leader with a backbone that can get it through