Tail, I am pointing out 2 items from one of your previous posts that I think are invalid. The concept behind her bill is not completely erroneous. It is reaching beyond our present capabilities. Please keep in mind I am only talking about the energy portion of the bill. I pointed out where green energy does make sense. Also, using less energy is green. The second statement that is invalid is that green energy is unreliable, here also, I pointed out in basic terms why. Green energy is an area where I have extensive experience. I am simply pointing out where and why green energy is viable as a business proposal, and that our goals should always outreach our existing technology.

It has it's place... But I heard electric cars don't perform well in cold weather... How's a plane suppose to fly... 🤔

Does the GND mention banning air travel or cars? I'm guessing that people who enjoy gasoline vehicles will be able to keep them, right? And I would imagine that air travel would need to stay the same until technology improves, correct?

I was under the impression that part of the GND's purpose was to make “greener” options more available and financially viable to the masses, not take Joe Bob's favorite 4x4 away...guess I need to read this thing.

It's all gotta go by 2030... No more car shows or air travel.. except by balloon.. well, even that would be banned too... 🤔

Electric cars are not particularly viable. The longest driving distance is about 330 miles on a single charge and that is the very expensive Tesla. I think for electric cars to ever be viable and make economic sense super capacitors will need to replace batteries. Nissan worked on super capacitors for about 10 years I think, with no real success. I don't think any company is perusing that technology at this time. A much more viable option is natural gas. It burns much cleaner than gasoline. Also there is a pretty decent refueling grid already in place, many utilities and bus terminals have stations to refuel natural gas cars. There is an issue with the cohesiveness of natural gas.

I considered converting my burb to CNG but a 2003 was to old.. I've traded it off tho... But that's still a fossil fuel.. 😟

True, to me the concept of green certainly can use fossil fuel. Green is about less pollution. Green also needs to make economic sense. Plus, you can make biofuel from garbage, it's about 50% methane, same percentage as natural gas. There is another fuel source in its infancy as far as research, using blue-green algae to generate electricity.

GND was pretty short. It was a bit vague on some stuff and used the phrase “as much as technologically feasible” many times when discussing its goals. That leaves a ton of wiggle room for actual policy and results which will most likely need some bipartisan support anyways...guess maybe someone could declare a national emergency and try to get some of it done that way, but I don't agree with that method.

I didn’t see anything about banning vehicles or cow farts, but maybe I missed it. Also didn’t see anything about universal basic income.

I would probably care if there was a resolution out there gaining support full of right-wing talking points that I thought were stupid, so I can understand the hyperbole on this one. I wonder what the “Right-Wing New Deal” would be like?

Yet.....hydro is BAAAAAAAAAD.....

If you like your gasoline powered vehicles, you can keep your gasoline powered vehicles....I also heard she wanted to ban cow farts...aren't cow farts a source of methane?:-k

She'll need a lot of butt plugs... big ones, too... 😟

If this thing gets any traction, I think it will actually hurt the GOP.....and not just because of childish tweets coming from Trump. It is past time for Republicans to start tacking away from reflexively dismissing anything having to do with warming global temps. I think we'd have been on much firmer ground if we acknowledged possibility of human-influenced warming, but challenge the idea that there's a response that can have any affect. I think that investment in some coastal protection and other mitigation efforts would be a far smarter use of the buttloads of money that is about to be spent with out a shred of a chance that it might have any effect. Maybe a 25 or 30 year plan to get us to 75% or better nuke power....I suspect the time is ripe to make a strong move towards nuclear.

I didn't realize only Republicans didn't believe in global warming... 🤔

Most renewables are unreliable.
Here in new england we don't get the same solar energy as Arizona. For instance.
Wind is even worse in terms of reliability.
If you want to power your home with wind AND solar, you NEED another form of electrical supply.
Because if it's a cloudy, windless day you'd be f*cked.

I like the idea of tidal sources, but there are limited areas to put them.

Biofuels are considered green, but they're nothing more than diesel made from plants. It does nothing to improve the pollution aspect, just the supply.

We need new ideas. The government should encourage this. But not with their foot on our throats.
If we are forced to divert all efforts towards renewable and alternative energy, then we'd be minimizing our efforts to improve efficiencies with our existing sources.

AOC's plan is dangerous and misguided and based on fear mongering.

Don't fall for it.



For renewable energy to work we need storage.
Super conductivity would be a plus, but unless we live at zero degrees kelvin we're still a ways off.

These are good goals. But tying our hands to half the viable options is the wrong way to achieve anything.

Not in my back yard.

A top adviser to New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has admitted that an official "Green New Deal" document posted by Ocasio-Cortez's office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work" -- but not before he went viral in progressive circles for claiming the exact opposite, repeatedly, in an interview with Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Cornell University Law School Professor Robert Hockett, who counsels Ocasio-Cortez on environmental initiatives, challenged host Tucker Carlson when he quoted from an outline and list of "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) that had been posted on Ocasio-Cortez's official website. The FAQ was also shared with NPR.


The FAQ stated that the program will provide "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," and also noted, "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."

:-k

Not saying to tie our hands. You miss my point. I an not saying green is a solution to everything. I AM saying it works in certain places. In certain large places it is viable.

Also, I was not speaking of biodiesel, I was speaking about biomethane. It burns much cleaner than gasoline.

Oh, also the big windmills you see are not the future of harnessing wind energy. Small wind turbines about 3 feet tall and conical are. They work in winds as low as 3 mph. Specifically they will be and are being used on flat roofed buildings. Payback is reasonable in most states, about 7 years. But that has to get down to 3 years before business will drive this.

the big windmills suck... I heard Obama made them put electronic eagle callers in them... 😟