America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by izonfire. 193 replies replies.
4 Pages1234>
The Green Dream...
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
The measure is currently in a form of a non-binding resolution -- meaning even if it passes it won’t do anything. But it formally outlines the proposal in Congress for the first time and would mark a start on the path toward what Ocasio-Cortez has called “a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100% renewable energy.” Cost estimates for the sprawling proposal range into the trillions.

The resolution, obtained by NPR, says the U.S. “has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions” and calls for the U.S. to take a “leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation.”

The resolution paints a grim view of present-day America, saying it is “experiencing several related crises” including declining life expectancy, economic stagnation, erosion of worker bargaining power, increasing income inequality and the exacerbation of “systemic racial, regional, social, environmental and economic injustices.”

It goes on to say that “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” is an opportunity to tackle systemic injustices of minority groups, create millions of high-wage jobs and “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”



Think
opelmanta1900 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
LOL someone needs a hug...
deadeyedick Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,068
Nothing about light bulbs? Think
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Lightbulbs will be ok... But they will only work if the wind is blowing... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
significant numbers of people hated and opposed the New Deal and the Marshall Plan...
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
So, you're a Greenie..?? Huh
Speyside Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Green is good, governmentally forced green not so much. Certain forms of green make complete business sense. LED lighting typically has a payback of less than 2 years commercially. It affords massive decreases in the CO2 footprint. It is a win, win. Solar power also makes complete business sense in certain parts of the country. 3 to 5 year paybacks is high sunlight low snow areas such as California, Arizona, and Florida. Geothermal energy is also a win for businesses. Wind power is more of a case to case basis, basically is there sufficient wind. Then you need to take into account if the existing electrical grid is sufficient to handle the electrical input from non traditional locations.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Why do you hate the eagles..?? Huh
RMAN4443 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
DrafterX wrote:
Why do you hate the eagles..?? Huh

mostly because they beat the Patriots last year in the Super Bowl...Anxious
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
It's pretty obvious that anyone who supports wind power hates the eagles.. Mellow
RMAN4443 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
I don't support wind power...I think it's pretty ugly up here in or around the mountains and National Forests...I do hate the Eagles(Philadelphia), but I do have a pretty nice eagle in flight(the bird), tattooed on my chest...Anxious
MACS Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU&t=14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&t=11s&index=3&list=WL

Dr. Tim Ball, a climate scientist, says; "It was warmer than today for at least 95% of the last 10,000 years."
MACS Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
delta1 wrote:
significant numbers of people hated and opposed the New Deal and the Marshall Plan...


I still do. Social security takes OUR money... ostensibly for our benefit, right? And then they give us how much of it? And if we die before we collect, we get nothing. Our survivors get a pittance.

It was bullsh*t then, and it still is.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Has anyone of you actually read her proposal? Zero carbon emissions by 2035 and nuclear is a no go. That means scrapping all internal combustion engines (getting rid or your current cars, trucks, motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc.). Shutting down all power plants. Converting heating systems in every home and business that uses oil, propane or natural gas. No fireplaces, no grills, no campfires. We'd have to get rid of all current aircraft, including our fighter jets. I guess our warships could be converted back to wind powered and they could launch non exploding projectiles using rubber bands. We could have battery powered electric military vehicles and tanks, but no exploding shells and no weapons using gun powder. Oh, that means your guns would have to be surrendered too. No steel mills or foundries. I could go on and on and on with 1000s of more examples of just how insane this plan is, but I hope you've got my drift.

Another part of her plan is providing a living wage for all those who are un-able or UNWILLING to work. So, if you decide you don't feel like working, the government will supply you with a living wage. What incentive is there to work? Without workers, how would all the things in her "dream" plan be accomplished? Who will grown, raise and produce our food? Who will work in the new factories to produce the goods we buy?

Opps, I almost forgot. Her original plan proposed that we had to find ways to prevent cows and other livestock from farting. I'm not kidding. She has since removed that part from her website. There is also a mention of a healthy food requirement. I assume that means everyone is going Vegan.

AOC is an insane, mentally ill women child, who never grew up. She lives in a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows. How can anyone with as much as half a functioning brain support this spoiled, entitled child, and her insane "dream" plan?

David
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
delta1 wrote:
significant numbers of people hated and opposed the New Deal and the Marshall Plan...


Nice talking point, Al. I heard AOC use the same words. Did you get it from her, or is this a new left talking point?

David
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
MACS wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU&t=14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&t=11s&index=3&list=WL

Dr. Tim Ball, a climate scientist, says; "It was warmer than today for at least 95% of the last 10,000 years."


There have been times when this planet had no ice caps. The Artic and Antarctic regions where tropical rain forests. This has been proven by fossil records. Some scientists are predicting a coming ice age due to low sun spot activity. I'm sure that if that happens, the left will blame it on man made global warming.

One thing I find interesting is the increasing scientific consensus of the magnetic poles flipping. This has happened several times in the history of this planet with devastating effect. If this where to happen again, global warming will be the least of our worries.

David
deadeyedick Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,068
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Has anyone of you actually read her proposal? Zero carbon emissions by 2035 and nuclear is a no go. That means scrapping all internal combustion engines (getting rid or your current cars, trucks, motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc.). Shutting down all power plants. Converting heating systems in every home and business that uses oil, propane or natural gas. No fireplaces, no grills, no campfires. We'd have to get rid of all current aircraft, including our fighter jets. I guess our warships could be converted back to wind powered and they could launch non exploding projectiles using rubber bands. We could have battery powered electric military vehicles and tanks, but no exploding shells and no weapons using gun powder. Oh, that means your guns would have to be surrendered too. No steel mills or foundries. I could go on and on and on with 1000s of more examples of just how insane this plan is, but I hope you've got my drift.

Another part of her plan is providing a living wage for all those who are un-able or UNWILLING to work. So, if you decide you don't feel like working, the government will supply you with a living wage. What incentive is there to work? Without workers, how would all the things in her "dream" plan be accomplished? Who will grown, raise and produce our food? Who will work in the new factories to produce the goods we buy?

Opps, I almost forgot. Her original plan proposed that we had to find ways to prevent cows and other livestock from farting. I'm not kidding. She has since removed that part from her website. There is also a mention of a healthy food requirement. I assume that means everyone is going Vegan.

AOC is an insane, mentally ill women child, who never grew up. She lives in a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows. How can anyone with as much as half a functioning brain support this spoiled, entitled child, and her insane "dream" plan?

David


Yet, the good citizens of NY elected this illusion.
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I think she's F'd in da head... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I like her....or at least, I admire her.

I don't agree with much of anything she's ever said, but she's got a passion and a following that I think is refreshing. I think the conservatives should be thankful for her. She will, almost single-handedly, drive the dems far enough left so as to allow independents and middle of the road men and women to vote Republican for the next few years. Contrasted with the likes of the recently departed 29 term Dingle....and the slew of current octogenarians....she is nice to have ...for now. I also like that she has energized young people....they aren't all stupid and lazy, so many will educate themselves and support more intelligent change down the road. Hopefully, young conservatives will likewise become energized as a counter...and not just to come out and talk about how stupid she is
MACS Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
^But she IS astoundingly stupid.
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Ya..!! Mad
opelmanta1900 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
dstieger wrote:

I don't agree with much of anything she's ever said, but she's got a passion and a following that I think is refreshing.

Like Charles Manson!
victor809 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I just read it, out of curiosity.
Dave... You're exaggerating a bit. Your "provide a wage for all those unwilling to work"? Yeah... The only place that may have been mentioned is the last couple lines where it has a "ensure economic security for all Americans". You're reading a lot into that line if that's what you thought it meant (personally I think it's a terrible section which distracts from her proposal, but it isn't what you claim)

As for the rest, you neglected to point out that after a large number of her statements there's the clause "as much as technologically feasible". If a process cannot be performed without fossil fuels, they will be used.

It reads as an aggressive plan... I don't think it's feasible. But if you read it as stretch goals, then it would get us moving in the right direction. Seriously... If we accomplish 40% of what's outlined in that, we will still be better off not worse.

Or we can just trash the planet and make it uninhabitable for your kids and grandkids. I don't care. I don't have kids or grandkids, and I don't like other people's. So we can also totally ignore her and go roll some coal, because nothing says freedom and America like intentionally polluting while gaining nothing personally.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
A quick search yielded the following

Quote:
Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D., Mass.) introduced a Green New Deal bill Thursday that, in addition to transitioning the U.S. entirely to renewable energy in ten years, promises to provide “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.”


https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-green-deal-promises-economic-172719411.html

OK, I didn't remember it exactly correct, but she did say she wanted to provide economic security to those UNWILLING to work. What does that mean, if it doesn't mean the government is going to send you a check if you decide to sit home all day and watch TV?

David
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
MACS wrote:
^But she IS astoundingly stupid.


But, but, you're just a mean racist and a sexist. Oh, and Russia!

David
delta1 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Nice talking point, Al. I heard AOC use the same words. Did you get it from her, or is this a new left talking point?

David


didn't know she said that, but it IS true...almost obvious to anyone who has an understanding of historic economic plans that addressed serious major destructive conditions that had lasting benefits to the US and for the rest of the world...

to be honest, I haven't read her plan and I'm not supporting her plan...my position is that we are on the cusp of severe and threatening circumstances that could threaten the world...

we can evaluate, prioritize and address the most critical issues now, to our economic advantage and safety...

or we can ignore the issues until the devastation forces us to act, greatly increasing the costs...
ZRX1200 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,580
Well we went from agenda 21 to 2030, so they gotta rush things now.
victor809 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Dave. Your quote is someone else's words... Not AOCs, and not from the bill. You're literally trusting that they are giving you an accurate assessment.

Kinda funny that you then tell Al he's using left talking points.

Read the bill. I did a quick scan of it... I pointed out the only words in the bill which I found which could be loosely interpreted to mean what you said... If you find other lines in the bill, I'll agree with you.but if you're just using someone else's "summary" ... Then you don't have as much information as I do. You can get that information easily. The bill is linked in an NPR article.
delta1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
"it's easier to throw stones than to build a wall," unknown
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I don't know how the bill is intended. I'm not privy to AOCs staff meetings... And the cameras I hid in her bathroom don't have sound....

But it doesn't read as terrible to me. It doesn't read as feasible either... But that's not always the point.

If someone wrote a bill that had something like "eliminate all abortions in the US by the year 2035" I bet a lot of people here would be super excited. It's not feasible either... But you would look at it as a goal that if you missed by a little, at least you improved the current situation.

The bill doesn't appear to be particularly prescriptive... And has enough caveats in it that I doubt it would cripple any current activities. It reads as a mission statement. A broad strokes set of goals which can be referred to by other documents to indicate why we are trying to improve efficiency, reduce fossil fuels use...etc etc. Those aren't bad goals.

Hell... There's a number of lines referring to making sure all Americans have access to clean water. Seriously... Who the f-k thought in 2019 we would need to worry about making sure there was clean water?
DrafterX Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
So, we should throw rocks back at the illegals..?? Huh
Phil222 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
This video is AOC related. I thought it was pretty good.

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics | NowThis"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gxiMTIudA
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
^ dumbed down civics lesson on money driving politics in America...easy enough for 8th graders...
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill....
Whistle
dstieger Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I found my thrill
On Capitol Hill
Phil222 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
delta1 wrote:
^ dumbed down civics lesson on money driving politics in America...easy enough for 8th graders...

I remember Trump talking about similar things in a few of his campaign speeches. People cheered when he said drain the swamp...
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Now this is ironic.

Quote:
‘The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?’
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pelosi-calls-ocasio-cortezs-new-deal-climate-plan-a-green-dream-2019-02-07

David


MACS Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
Wait, whoa... hold on.

AOC is going to pay me to sit in the mancave, drink beer and smoke cigars? I don't have to work?

Well, sh1t... she now has my vote.
RMAN4443 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
We're gonna have to do away with Volcanic eruptions, because I heard they have devastating effects on global warming and carbon emissions....
What's her take on smoking cigars, butane for lighters, and matches for lighting cigars?....and I guess we can do without electricity, they didn't have electricity way back when, they would read by the fireplace or use kerosene lanterns...
whoops I'm pretty sure those are no-nos under her plan...Shame on you
tailgater Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The concept behind the bill is erroneous.
This was predicted back when algore fooled the masses with his hockey-stick graphs.

Americans are embarrassed by our wealth. Similar to white guilt.
Americans also like to claim they're pro-environment. It's for the children, remember?

Uncle Sam has tried to capitalize on this guilt, but failed miserably in the 1970's with their anti-pollution campaign. Sure, people became aware of the effects from our excess, but there was quite literally no money in it.

Enter algore and the bogus consensus.
Blame fossil fuel for hurricanes and the polar vortex.
Create a global carbon-credit scam.
Legislate and cripple big corporations while the gettin' is good.

I see an admirable goal but the myopic approach is dangerous.
Government goals become counterproductive when unobtainable.
Set realistic goals and leave all options on the table.
If we can reduce emissions by X percent we shouldn't care if it was through improved fossil fuel efficiencies versus unreliable renewables. The markets will drive the most effective methods, and government's role should be to encourage not to hinder.

If America were successful in eliminating all fossil fuel consumption in such a relatively short timeframe, what do you think would happen in the rest of the world?
With America not consuming, fuel prices would plummet. Third world countries with no regulations would consume exponentially higher quantities of the newly affordable dino-juice.

Yeah.
That sounds like a victory for mother nature.

The shortsightedness is staggering. Which might explain how readily Pelosi and her minions embraced it.

tailgater Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
MACS wrote:
Wait, whoa... hold on.

AOC is going to pay me to sit in the mancave, drink beer and smoke cigars? I don't have to work?

Well, sh1t... she now has my vote.


Don't be fooled, man.
I'm still waiting for my obama phone.

Phil222 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
I haven’t really taken a good look at the “Green Dream” yet. Not enough for me to have a strong opinion.

I do like that AOC believes in third-parties and primarying incumbent politicians though. She also doesn’t accept PAC money, and speaks on these things openly in the press.

Those three things alone are enough for her to earn my respect. At least until she gives me a reason not to believe her.
MACS Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
According to Dr. Tim Ball, an historic climatologist... It is a fact that our planet has been hotter than it is today for 95% of the last 10,000 years.

victor809 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail....
That's .. just.... Not smart.
Where did you get that? I don't believe you could have come up with that on your own.

You literally just said "if we don't keep the cost of fossil fuels up by using them in America, 3rd world countries will use them" as an excuse not to generally support some environmental initiative?

You want to apply externalities to fossil fuels, but completely ignore the fact that developing fossil fuel alternatives will also impact the use of these alternatives elsewhere.

It's like you're just looking for an excuse... Not like you actually want to solve a problem. That's fine. You don't need to want to solve a problem. I don't want to... It sounds like effort and it doesn't benefit me at all. But I at least don't pretend that I'd really like to solve a problem, but those solutions just aren't good enough.
victor809 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS.... Why do you believe ball and not any of the other scientists?

Just curious... What about his academic credentials causes you to think his statement is more credible than another scientist?
victor809 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And additionally, MACS... We already established that the AOC wages for people not willing to work thing is a stretch, mostly something fabricated by a synopsis David read. (He of course has not acknowledged that... Just decided to move on from it...)
opelmanta1900 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Cnbc ran an article this morning with the exact title:

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal offers 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'

I didnt put the quotation marks in, Cnbc did...

Edit: didn't realize I was working with an old version of this thread... Ignore this pot head please...
victor809 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I don't see it...
Maybe it's there and I missed it in my read thru.

I'll look through those articles to see what they reference.
Speyside Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tail , you are wrong on a couple of points. Lighting is the low hanging fruit that makes sense both from a financial viewpoint, and an environmental viewpoint. I sold retrofit lighting for a long time. In a typical year I lowered the CO2 footprint by 5 million pounds. As far as unreliability really? The sun shines every day, there is wind every day, there are waves on oceans and large lakes every day, geothermal activity is continuous. The question is where are these forms of energy economically viable. Typically most businesses need to see a 3 year or less payback to consider something a good business decision. A certain percentage of companies use 5 years.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So...this is pretty amazing.
I did a search for AOC and "unwilling" and got a LOT of articles with the exact same title as Opel put above.

I thought... Huh... If this many articles use that exact word "unable to or unwilling to work"... I must be wrong. I must have missed it on my first read through.

So I pulled up the bill again. And this time did a word search for "unwilling". No results. So I thought maybe the format wouldn't allow searches ... So I searched for "the"... Tons of results. Ok. Search is working. So I searched "work"... 3 references none of which are really relevant.

I searched security... And did find the section at the end which I already mentioned.

But this is kind of fascinating. All these articles with the exact same title, which is say... 98.2% wrong? And none of the authors bothered to check the f-king bill?
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
4 Pages1234>