EnviroLink Forum

Turn left at the green
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Iowanic [ Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Turn left at the green

How about this 'New green deal?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

An idea whose time will not come given the make up of the Senate.........

Author:  Milton Banana [ Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

End the fossil fuel industry. End the airline industry and replace it with trains. Rebuild or retrofit every building in America, and oh yes all of this will end racism. All in ten years. What could possibly go wrong? :crazy:

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

Milton Banana wrote:
End the fossil fuel industry. End the airline industry and replace it with trains. Rebuild or retrofit every building in America, and oh yes all of this will end racism. All in ten years. What could possibly go wrong? :crazy:

You should actually read the bill and not just listen to the conservative talking heads for a change ....

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

Renewable energy

"meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources"
This would be a wholesale turnaround in US energy. Renewables -- including hydroelectric, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal -- currently account for about 20% of US energy production, about on par with nuclear energy as outlined by the US Energy Information Agency. Natural gas accounts for the largest share -- about 32% -- and coal isn't far behind, at 30%. The current projection is for renewable energy to account for about 31% of US energy generation by 2050, with steep drops for nuclear and coal.
Smart grid

"building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and 'smart' power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity"
Improving the nation's patchwork electrical system is an enormous undertaking that Congress has been grappling with for more than a decade. It provided funds toward a smart grid -- a reimagined electrical grid that makes use of technology to improve reliability and efficiency -- as part of the 2009 economic stimulus, but not explicitly since then. The Department of Energy has provided some funds since then, according to the Congressional Research Service, putting $3.6 billion each year toward the smart grid -- not nearly enough to implement it nationwide by 2030. It'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars over 20 years, according to estimates, but greatly improve the country's electrical infrastructure.
Energy efficiency

"upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification"
Without having to Google, we know there are a LOT of buildings in the US. Upgrading all of them would certainly make the green building industry explode. Would it be done through tax credits? Grants? Large-scale building upgrades have been tried before, including in the 2009 stimulus, which put $4.5 billion toward retrofitting federal buildings and $3 billion toward retrofitting public housing projects. Here's a HUD report on the public housing effort, which argues that savings on electricity and water costs were achieved. However, to repeat, there are a LOT of buildings in the US, and no one knows what it would cost to make them all "green."


"overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail"
There are models to encourage low-emission vehicles that the current government is abandoning. Some federal tax incentives for people buying electric vehicles are running out (Tesla!) and haven't been renewed. Others, like increased emissions standards, have been jeopardized by the Trump administration. Relatively cheap gas in recent years also hasn't helped Americans move toward better fuel efficiency.

But encouraging people with a tax incentive is different from overhauling transportation systems. And that's hard: Just days after the Green New Deal was introduced, California's new governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and progressive, nixed his state's planned high speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco to instead focus on three smaller Central Valley communities. One reason Newsom said he didn't end the program altogether was because he didn't want the state to have to return a $3.5 billion federal loan.

Low-tech solutions

"removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution, including by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as preservation and afforestation"

This could cover a lot of things, one of which, essentially, would be planting trees to combat climate change. It's a thing. It's been tried in Israel and Europe and there are efforts to reforest in Brazil. It is the cutting of rainforests there, however, that plays a bigger role in climate change. Carbon Brief has a handy world map. The US Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service have a complicated cost estimate for afforestation in every county in the US. Another might be the protection and rehabilitation of wetlands to guard against the effects of climate change.

Cows and climate change

"working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible"
This element has already been boiled down to cow farts, according to the President and that prematurely published set of FAQs. Cow and livestock emissions are something that deserves attention. This is not about your your purebred heritage cow, but rather about industrial agriculture.

Beef is responsible for 41% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions, and that livestock accounts for 14.5% of total global emissions, according to a CNN special report this year, which also pointed to the UN Panel on Climate Change Report, which suggested changing diets worldwide could contribute 20% of the effort needed to keep down global temperatures. The USDA projects the average American will eat about 222.4 pounds of meat and poultry in 2019, 53.4 pounds of which will be beef.

Guaranteed job, leave, vacation and retirement

"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States"

Here we veer from the climate change portion of the document to goals that seem even more difficult to achieve. Would a family-sustaining wage mean different pay for people with different numbers of children? Would it require that both adults in a given household work? The living wage in Springfield, Illinois -- chosen randomly -- in MIT's Living Wage calculator is $11.41 per hour for one adult and $18.44 for two adults and two children. If one of the adults is working part-time, the baseline hourly wage rises to $26.39.
Things change when you factor in benefits. An interesting 2018 report from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities with some back-of-the envelope calculations on the cost for a federal jobs guarantee suggested the government could provide 9.7 million jobs to the under- or unemployed at a mean wage of $32,500 to account for different levels of experience, etc. Adding in taxes and benefits makes the annual cost of each job about $56,000. So the total cost to the government each year would be about $543 billion.
That's less than the nearly $674 billion the government spends on the Pentagon's budget. It is much less than the government spends on safety net programs Medicare and Social Security each year.

Labor laws

"strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, anti-discrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors"

There's a patchwork of wage laws across industries. Tipped workers, like restaurant employees, have a lower minimum wage. Some states have enacted much higher minimum wages for their workers. Creating new laws on this front would require a national debate. Discrimination is already illegal. But it also has very little to do with climate change.

Public ownership

"providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization"

The public is going to pay for all of this change, so the public should get a return, is one way to look at this passage. The public as an owner is likely enough to strike fear in many Republicans. And it'd be a sure trigger for them to bring up Venezuela, which has squandered the riches of its state-run oil company.
On the other hand, California is again dealing with the bankruptcy of a privately owned public utliity, PG&E, and debating whether it should be turned into a public utility. How governments should own things is an important question without a clear answer.

Providing higher education

"providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so those communities may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization"
There's a lot in this portion, but let's focus on the part about higher education for all people. That sounds a lot like the free-college proposals of recent years. It might not be something any Democrats are going to oppose, exactly. But it's also not something they've found a way to accomplish yet. One free-college proposal, which was not included in Green New Deal but offers a guideline, came from from Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent. He would provide states with $47 billion per year to cover two-thirds of the cost of tuition for students at public colleges and universities. Sanders proposed a new tax on Wall Street trades to finance the program.

Trade unions

"strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment"

Unions have been in a long-term decline in the US. While 20% of US wage and salary workers were in unions in 1983 -- about 17.7 million people, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- that was down to 10.5% of wage and salary workers and 14.7 million union workers by 2018. There are many reasons for this decline, not the least of which is the changing nature of US manufacturing.

Unions remain strongest in the public sector and among government workers ranging from law enforcement to teachers. An additional 1.6 million workers are in jobs covered by union contracts but are not members of the unions.

Trade deals

"enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections"
In this case Green New Dealers might align with Trump against trade deals, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has. She, like Trump, opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He said it was poorly negotiated. She said it didn't do enough for international worker rights. But the Green New Deal crowd goes further, and opposes even the deals Trump supports, like the planned US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which Warren has called NAFTA 2.0.

Indigenous people

"obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and landrights of indigenous people"

You could see this playing a role in particular in terms of oil drilling, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or in terms of standoffs like the one at Standing Rock in North Dakota in 2016. This would certainly be a policy shift for the US government, which has at times seemed to give deference to oil companies.

There could be lost development opportunities, but many Democrats would certainly trade that for the twin objectives of slowing oil dependence and honoring indigenous peoples.

Health care, housing, security, clean air and water, healthy food and nature

"providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature"
This is lumping a lot of things in together. The quibble here between progressives and conservatives will be whether the US government should be providing access to health care. Many Green New Deal supporters all support "Medicare-for-all," which is both a general idea that many Democrats are behind and also a specific policy proposal that has fewer supporters.
One question is whether the government would have to essentially end the private health care industry in order to create a public one. That kind of drastic change has the potential to really frighten voters, who punished Democrats for creating the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and then published Republicans for trying to take it away in 2018.

The government already does quite a lot, although some say not nearly enough, on the food, water, air and nature fronts with the Food and Drug Administration, the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service, so it's hard to so say what would change under a Green New Deal without more specifics.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

You've have backed up my post brilliantly. I just said it without all the fancy, flowery, political speak. I'm confident this isn't going to take place anytime soon. There's no way they would try this on a well armed population.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

Milton Banana wrote:
You've have backed up my post brilliantly. I just said it without all the fancy, flowery, political speak. I'm confident this isn't going to take place anytime soon. There's no way they would try this on a well armed population.

Thanks for showing that we are dealing with a less than mentally stable portion of the population.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

Turn green not left or right, with practical knowledge and not the hopium of ignorance.
To conserve natural resources requires using them at a rate at or below regeneration, recharge, and replenishment. With the soils and aquifers it would need to be 100 times less, and less than that to allow the recharge of aquifers and the natural rebuilding of soils. Fossil fuels have been being used at 50,000 times their natural regeneration rate, so to allow regeneration would require using them more than 50,000 times less. Then there is the absorption and processing rates of various pollution. The CO2 has gone up at 30 times the planetary ability to process with the world's plants and the number of trees that naturally kept the atmosphere have more than half been cut down, so not only would the trees need to be planted, 3 trillion of them, but time to remove the CO2 with no more emissions or very low. CO2 to carbonate factories would need to help and even then it would take hundreds of years. The biggest one is the increased CO2 has caused the world's oceans to add heat of more than 6 billion Hiroshima size atom bombs that is presently melting the sea ice cover, in another 5 years, of 1500 GTs of methane hydrate on shallow continental shelves, that then the latent heat effect will cause to go into massive releases going exponential, with the CO2e of 100 for the first year, and then the release of 10K methane swellings in the permafrost containing another 1K GTs of CH4. As the heat trapping goes south, the global temperature increases at a rate of 1*F per year. then faster. The rise from just CO2 is 4*F since 1750 pre-industrial with half masked by soots of combustion. Crop plants quit growing with another 3*F of rise and species with another 4*F. As the temperature goes up toward a thermal max from 100% global humidity and total 100,000' thick cloud cover stops solar heat gain, at +25*F from preindustrial temperature. Half way up most surface life goes extinct except for some bacteria and tardigrades. The oceans take more time and thermal vent life stays on and SO2 producing bacteria thrive in many shoreline areas causing acid rain. Deep underground extremophiles also live on and seed the evolution of surface life again after several million years. The initial cool down of a storm ridden planet takes over 100K years and people living in the many underground fortresses die off one by one as supplies run out or power systems fail. Then there is the problem of the nuclear waste and power plants and bombs, which would need to be made safe away from new shorelines and needed to power the waste using Gen 4 power to build CO2 removal factories, drone factories to replant trees and OMTEC refrigeration units to keep the oceans cool enough to prevent uncovering the methane clathrate deposits after a 10 year global winter event from either a super volcano or man made with buried nukes. That is the best case scenario, a Toba style bottleneck rather than the extinction of 99% of life because of human gross overpopulation's demands. The survivors would need to be strong and smart and adopt a new morality and spirituality of replenish the Earth on page one of the Old Testament skipped over by so many for so long. There is enough for about 50 million underground that could last the ten years while many species are dormant. One glacial cycle would be skipped. If too much cooling is done, then the glacial cycle due, begins. Not enough, and the melting comes back and releases the methane, and the Permian style end continues. The chances of stopping the progression of the MT Event without an added radiation event of long term, is not good. Humanity has a history of doing too little, too late. Those with incomplete knowledge and hopium think it will be as easy as everyone switching to green power and practices without massive population decline. They protest and want everything done for them without the severe sacrifices and hard work and intelligence needed. The things they want should have happened Earth Day One, and most protesting kids should never have been born. The greed should have ended back then, and the heat gain and momentum still left would not have happened. Now mass death is inevitable, and extinction of most life probable unless there is a Toba Event with attendant preparation and post event efforts of several hundred years.

Author:  peerlesspalmer [ Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex


“What’s infuriating about manipulations by Non Profit Industrial Complex is that they harvest good will of the people, especially young people. They target those who were not given skills and knowledge to truly think for themselves by institutions which are designed to serve the ruling class. Capitalism operates systematically and structurally like a cage to raise domesticated animals. Those organizations and their projects which operate under false slogans of humanity in order to prop up the hierarchy of money and violence are fast becoming some of the most crucial elements of the invisible cage of corporatism, colonialism and militarism.” — Hiroyuki Hamada, artist


“How is it possible for you to be so easily tricked by something so simple as a story, because you are tricked? Well, it all comes down to one core thing and that is emotional investment. The more emotionally invested you are in anything in your life, the less critical and the less objectively observant you become.” — David JP Phillips, We Don't Have Time board of directors, “The Magical Science of Storytelling”

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01 ... lyS9GlFP2M

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green


Still looks like 2024 to zero ice point, late summer, then latent heat from sunlight will raise it enough to start methane runaway in 18 months. The abrupt heat gain accelerating from + 1/2*F the first year heading south in 6 months, then next year +1*F then +1*C is possible per year until extinction half way to thermal max. Good luck going to Heaven.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu May 09, 2019 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turn left at the green

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... 9RGoX-KOa4

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group