Axios: Guess What Democrats Have Stopped Talking About?

[HeyNorm]

Here's my opinion. Remember, I'm not an expert.

It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

Ask Ding if he agrees. He's appointed himself as an expert.

This “we” you’re talking about is China and India. The rest of the world doesn’t contribute enough to change the warming, even if it’s man made, to do diddly squat.

 

[DonGlock26]

There had been a dearth of screeching from the left about the impending climate apocalypse. With the failures of the Green New Boondoggle as a slush fund for leftist waste, fraud and abuse, perhaps it was just s "phase they were going through".

Axios: Guess What Democrats Have Stopped Talking About?

Democrats have stopped discussing the Green New Deal. What does this mean for climate policy?

hotair.com

Here's a hint: It's something that Democrats could not shut up about for the last four years. No, it's not Defund the Police. That mission still gets some support from the progressive/socialist vanguard, as we see in New York City. And you know it's not about Donald Trump and his supposed "threat to democracy."

So which Democrat dog has ceased its barking? The one that barked up the wrong energy tree, according to an Axios review of Democrat speeches and social-media accounts:

Democrats aren't explicitly disavowing the Green New Deal, but they've abruptly stopped talking about it as they scramble to find new ways to talk about climate change.

• Over the past three months, Democrats in Congress collectively said "Green New Deal" only six times across social media and on the floor.
• That's the fewest mentions since the proposal rose to prominence in the fall of 2018, according to data from the legislative tracking service Quorum.

The second potential reason may be more applicable. Joe Biden actually managed to get a big chunk of the Green New Deal through Congress by calling it the Inflation Reduction Act. His administration then took that cash and just handed it out to progressive orgs run by cronies like Stacey Abrams. As we found out a few weeks ago, the Biden Regency gave out $90 billion in "loans" from the IRA after losing the election, with $42 billion going out the door in the last two days of Biden's wretched term

The grift is over.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another thread where right wing geniuses think that nothing matters? Viruses arent real, vaccines arent real, Global pollution isnt real, warming trends arent real, elections arent real, labor metrics arent real, literally the handwriting of the president on cards isnt real.

Green new deal was aspirational and had a lot of good in it, along with some things that were unworkable. It was a vision not legislation. The right would like to simply throw garbage all around the world because of the manliness of shitting on the environment. Nothing more manly than ******* everything up.


View attachment 1144699

The Green New Deal: What it says, what it doesn’t say, and how close we are to adopting it | Penn Today

Mark Alan Hughes, director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, discusses the basics of this energy-mobilization proposal.

penntoday.upenn.edu

The Green New Deal is a non-binding resolution that outlines broad goals for addressing climate change and promoting economic growth. It aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions and create high-paying jobs, but it does not specify how these goals will be achieved or provide funding mechanisms. The resolution emphasizes the need for a 10-year mobilization to implement these goals, but it remains a non-legally enforceable document.

Here's the settled science: China CO2 = (USA *2) + India

 

[citygator]

Here's the settled science: China CO2 = (USA *2) + India

How does the CO2 per capita compare since the countries have vastly different populations? Let me make this easy for you. If we were as efficient as China the world would have tons less CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does the CO2 per capita compare since the countries have vastly different populations? Let me make this easy for you. If we were as efficient as China the world would have tons less CO2.

View attachment 1144730

Per capita? Does the IPCC say that low per capita CO2 is less dangerous?

Did you know that India and China have the same population?

Did you know China emits 400% more CO2 than India — per capita?

 

[citygator]

Did you know that India and China have the same population?

Does the US?

Did you know China emits 400% more CO2 than India — per capita?

And the US emits 700% more CO2 than India - per capita.

Listen, you stuck your foot in your mouth twice now. Want a third?

Per capita? Does the IPCC say that low per capita CO2 is less dangerous?

Let's check:

There are very large inequalities in per capita emissions across the world.

The world’s largest per capita CO<span>2</span> emitters are the major oil-producing countries; this is particularly true for those with relatively low population size. Most are in the Middle East and include Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

However, many of the major oil producers have a relatively small population meaning their total annual emissions are low. More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States, Australia, and Canada which on average have emissions that are around 3 times higher than the global average.

Since there is such a strong relationship between income and per capita CO<span>2</span> emissions, we’d expect this to be the case: countries with high standards of living would have a high carbon footprint. But what becomes clear is that there can be large differences in per capita emissions, even between countries with similar standards of living. Many countries across Europe, for example, have much lower emissions than the US, Canada, or Australia.

CO₂ emissions

How much CO₂ does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the US?

And the US emits 700% more CO2 than India - per capita.

Listen, you stuck your foot in your mouth twice now. Want a third?


Let's check:

There are very large inequalities in per capita emissions across the world.

The world’s largest per capita CO<span>2</span> emitters are the major oil-producing countries; this is particularly true for those with relatively low population size. Most are in the Middle East and include Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

However, many of the major oil producers have a relatively small population meaning their total annual emissions are low. More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States, Australia, and Canada which on average have emissions that are around 3 times higher than the global average.

Since there is such a strong relationship between income and per capita CO<span>2</span> emissions, we’d expect this to be the case: countries with high standards of living would have a high carbon footprint. But what becomes clear is that there can be large differences in per capita emissions, even between countries with similar standards of living. Many countries across Europe, for example, have much lower emissions than the US, Canada, or Australia.

CO₂ emissions

How much CO₂ does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

Is per capita CO2 more dangerous?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the US?

And the US emits 700% more CO2 than India - per capita.

Listen, you stuck your foot in your mouth twice now. Want a third?


Let's check:

There are very large inequalities in per capita emissions across the world.

The world’s largest per capita CO<span>2</span> emitters are the major oil-producing countries; this is particularly true for those with relatively low population size. Most are in the Middle East and include Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

However, many of the major oil producers have a relatively small population meaning their total annual emissions are low. More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States, Australia, and Canada which on average have emissions that are around 3 times higher than the global average.

Since there is such a strong relationship between income and per capita CO<span>2</span> emissions, we’d expect this to be the case: countries with high standards of living would have a high carbon footprint. But what becomes clear is that there can be large differences in per capita emissions, even between countries with similar standards of living. Many countries across Europe, for example, have much lower emissions than the US, Canada, or Australia.

CO₂ emissions

How much CO₂ does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

You’re not making any sense, well, unless you’re defending the CCP

 

[citygator]

You’re not making any sense, well, unless you’re defending the CCP

I’m pointing out we are major emitters and trying to say China is bad too so let’s ignore it is childish.

 

[whitehall]

The "green new deal" wasn't about the environment or the climate. It was a political extortion racket. Why else would greenies burn Teslas?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I’m pointing out we are major emitters and trying to say China is bad too so let’s ignore it is childish.

We're small potatoes compared to China

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I guess that is different than Republican waste, fraud, and incompetence.

DOGE’s big illusion: the heavy costs of the Trump administration’s so-called efficiency - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

CREW’s review of some of the programs targeted for cuts by DOGE and the Trump admin found that the elimination or reduction of these programs have directly cost over 50,000 people their jobs. DOGE’s cuts could result in a loss of over $10 billion in U.S.-based economic activity and the...

www.citizensforethics.org

After Lobbying Blitz, Trump IRS Formally Kills Direct File Program That Would've Saved Americans Billions | Common Dreams

Trump's IRS chief this week formally declared the death of the Direct File program that was slated to save the average taxpayer $160 each year. The long-expected move comes after months of aggressive lobbying by companies like Intuit and H&R Block.

www.commondreams.org

Avoid the . Org kook sites simp.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

How does the CO2 per capita compare since the countries have vastly different populations? Let me make this easy for you. If we were as efficient as China the world would have tons less CO2.

View attachment 1144730

Source global carbon budget. You’re hilarious !

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I’m pointing out we are major emitters and trying to say China is bad too so let’s ignore it is childish.

I thought CO2 was the most dangerous crisis facing humanity?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I’m pointing out we are major emitters and trying to say China is bad too so let’s ignore it is childish.

Major emitters:
Forests
Oceans
Valcanos
Glaciers

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Another thread where right wing geniuses think that nothing matters? Viruses arent real, vaccines arent real, Global pollution isnt real, warming trends arent real, elections arent real, labor metrics arent real, literally the handwriting of the president on cards isnt real.

Green new deal was aspirational and had a lot of good in it, along with some things that were unworkable. It was a vision not legislation. The right would like to simply throw garbage all around the world because of the manliness of shitting on the environment. Nothing more manly than ******* everything up.


View attachment 1144699

The Green New Deal: What it says, what it doesn’t say, and how close we are to adopting it | Penn Today

Mark Alan Hughes, director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, discusses the basics of this energy-mobilization proposal.

penntoday.upenn.edu

The Green New Deal is a non-binding resolution that outlines broad goals for addressing climate change and promoting economic growth. It aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions and create high-paying jobs, but it does not specify how these goals will be achieved or provide funding mechanisms. The resolution emphasizes the need for a 10-year mobilization to implement these goals, but it remains a non-legally enforceable document.

A hundred bucks says no one got past the first sentence.

Just completely insufferable.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I thought CO2 was the most dangerous crisis facing humanity?

Remember when Al Gore said NYC would be underwater by 2013?

He's so awesome, makes me wanna be a Democrat when I grows up.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Nah, not surprising. I know you have your head up your nasty ass.

Stay classy, fuckface.

 

[toobfreak]

Joe Biden actually managed to get a big chunk of the Green New Deal through Congress by calling it the Inflation Reduction Act. His administration then took that cash and just handed it out to progressive orgs run by cronies like Stacey Abrams. As we found out a few weeks ago, the Biden Regency gave out $90 billion in "loans" from the IRA after losing the election, with $42 billion going out the door in the last two days of Biden's wretched term. The EPA is trying to claw back that money now, and the massive spending binge is raising a lot of questions that Democrats don't want to answer.

Someone needs to fly a Boeing 787 jumbo jet right through Joe's front door for that. While he is soaking in the tub. But once again, our "justice" system will find 15 ways come Tuesday for saying that he is "protected" from prosecution.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

There had been a dearth of screeching from the left about the impending climate apocalypse. With the failures of the Green New Boondoggle as a slush fund for leftist waste, fraud and abuse, perhaps it was just s "phase they were going through".

Axios: Guess What Democrats Have Stopped Talking About?

Democrats have stopped discussing the Green New Deal. What does this mean for climate policy?

hotair.com

Here's a hint: It's something that Democrats could not shut up about for the last four years. No, it's not Defund the Police. That mission still gets some support from the progressive/socialist vanguard, as we see in New York City. And you know it's not about Donald Trump and his supposed "threat to democracy."

So which Democrat dog has ceased its barking? The one that barked up the wrong energy tree, according to an Axios review of Democrat speeches and social-media accounts:

Democrats aren't explicitly disavowing the Green New Deal, but they've abruptly stopped talking about it as they scramble to find new ways to talk about climate change.

• Over the past three months, Democrats in Congress collectively said "Green New Deal" only six times across social media and on the floor.
• That's the fewest mentions since the proposal rose to prominence in the fall of 2018, according to data from the legislative tracking service Quorum.

The second potential reason may be more applicable. Joe Biden actually managed to get a big chunk of the Green New Deal through Congress by calling it the Inflation Reduction Act. His administration then took that cash and just handed it out to progressive orgs run by cronies like Stacey Abrams. As we found out a few weeks ago, the Biden Regency gave out $90 billion in "loans" from the IRA after losing the election, with $42 billion going out the door in the last two days of Biden's wretched term

The Future of Clean Energy Isn’t Government-Driven—It’s Consumer-Driven

Learn how government policies can aid in clean energy success, without unnecessarily propping certain technologies up.

c3newsmag.com