The Green New Deal is Actually Feasable

[Third Party]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

You're right.

My state started building one of the largest wind farms in our nation in the 1990s. Now it's huge.

When the electricity first came on line, it produced way too much electricity for the existing grid to handle.

So we voted to raise our taxes on electricity, not gas, to build a new grid.

We also started shutting down our coal fire plants. We have one left and it's being shutdown now.

We have more electricity than we use and sell our excess to other states for a profit. We also have the second lowest electric rates in the nation.

Most of our electricity comes from water, a little over 60%. The rest comes from wind, sun, natural gas with a very little from that coal fire plant that is used by farmers out in the middle of nowhere. Soon they too will be off coal.

I have not read the green new deal but I support something that does seriously address this problem.

I've been watching the causes of climate change since the 80s. I've been watching the damage from climate change since the early 2000s.

Rivers that once were huge raging rivers that supplied water to farmers and both commercial and sport fishermen. That supplied water to people all over the state for a variety of uses. Including to drink. Everything alive on this planet needs water to survive. Now those rivers are small trickles that I can literally step over.

Mountains that had ice caves that existed for millions of years. Those ice caves started melting in the 80s and some are totally gone forever.

The tallest free standing mountain in the lower 48 states used to be covered with snow on it all year round. We used to call it our giant ice cream cone. We can't do that anymore. Now that mountain doesn't have snow on all of it all year around. Now the bottom up to half way up the mountain is most without snow. I saw it this past weekend and just cried. In my 59 years of living here I have never seen that mountain without snow like that before. I've been seeing the black spots that are spots without snow but I've never seen it like it is now. There's waterfalls where there used to be snow and ice. Our ice cream cone is melting and I wish something could be done about it.

My state is more environmentally friendly than most states but no matter what we do, the rest of the nation and world isn't doing it so our efforts won't make much difference. We need everyone in all nations to be changing and working on this very critical problem.

I have photos of it all but I'm not going to go through my photos and post them. It's too big of a job. But here's the photos I took this weekend. Clouds were covering half the mountain so the top can't be seen. All of what's in these photos except the trees, is supposed to be under many feet of snow and ice. The first shot is the bottom of the whole mountain taken with a wide angle lens. The rest of the shots are parts of the mountain taken with a zoom lens.


View attachment 277134 View attachment 277135 View attachment 277136 View attachment 277137 View attachment 277138

Two problems-10 million people work with fossil fuels-not enough"clean" jobs for them. We don't know for sure carbon is creating climate change, and other countries produce way more carbon than we do.

Have you ever heard of being retrained in a different career?

Many people have done it throughout history.

Should we not have changed to floppy disks because keypunch operators wouldn't have a job? Should we have not changed to fossil fuels because whale hunters would be out of a job?
Should we have not changed to cars because blacksmiths and buggy manufacturers would be out of a job?

What you're saying is ridiculous. What makes fossil fuel jobs more important than any other job that has become obsolete?

Yes we do know that carbon is causing climate change or is one of the causes. You just don't want to accept it.

If you don't believe that carbon is one of the things causing it why say that other countries produce more than we do in a pathetic attempt to justify not doing what's right? And why should we not change just because other countries put out more carbon than we do?

All of your post is written like it's coming from a 12 year old child. You're using the same rational that a child uses when they're caught doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. Make lame excuses and point fingers.

Shame on you.

STOP. You are taking shots at me just because I did not agree with your position? What kind of POSTER are you? You are the one who should be ashamed. I could counter each of your points with something other than a 12 year old argument, but you don't deserve that-Apologize and I'll reconsider.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Should we have not changed to cars because blacksmiths and buggy manufacturers would be out of a job?
What you're saying is ridiculous. What makes fossil fuel jobs more important than any other job that has become obsolete?
.

Well buggy manufacturers simply shifted over to producing automobiles and it was not driven by government action but because of the introduction of a disruptive technology for the buggy makers; automobiles.

If we are going to accelerate a change with net job growth, I think devising ways to do it with minimal sheer to peoples lives is the only fair way to do it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not many questions in the OP are being addressed; how do we keep the US dollar from crashing when we replace petroleum with electric al power?

 

[Votto]

Yeah, I know everyone has heard a lot of BS about the GND, but it can actually be implemented and I plan to put a more detailed explanation in the Clean Debate forum.

I give two links to a Carlson interview with Robert Hockett discussing this. Of course, Carlson is 10% investigator and 90% entertainer and he is trying to make Hockett look like a typical Woketard, but Hockett isn't. The Green New Deal can actually work and I would like to upgrade and modernize our energy tech and resources. Most of this needs to be done independently of the Green New Deal or not.

Robert Hockett - Cornell law professor



There are some problems for Green New Deal with a simple and broad idea of how it can be addressed:
1) shrinking petroleum industry is a risk to the petro dollar - go to a commodities based US dollar.
2) existing industries to be replaced will fight it for survival - have partnerships with these industries to implement the GND and thus allow them to continue making revenue
3) how to pay for it? - by using government funds to act as catalyst instead of the sole implementing agent
4) What are these green new sources of energy? - Most are well known, but Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are totally green energy, it is existing technology, and can be put into place through a crash program. These TMSRs are 100% safe to people and the environment. Improving efficiency in our grid by using more locally based power generation would also be helpful. Our grid really needs to be upgraded.
5) how to keep people employed from replaced industries? - use these industries to implement the change, if they are willing to, the employment numbers can be maintained as they transition to new forms of energy
6) what to do with petroleum, coal and gas? - petroleum can still be used to make high grade plastic for construction, coal can be used to make carbon nanotube cable, and gas can be stored and used to keep the power grid stable during less green energy convenient times.

In addition, if we coupled the modernization of our power grid with a new industry of asteroid mining, with all its spin off industries and tech, full employment is easy peezy.

If the Green New Deal is such a good idea, why was it Mitch McConnell who forced it to a vote and why did the democrats who proposed it all not vote for it?

Hmm?

 

[whitehall]

The U.S. gradually leads the way in environmental reform but that's not good enough for democrats. Under the Green Plan, corporations and citizens would be forced to comply eventually at the point of a federal gun. Is that what you want? I guarantee it ain't what the real Jim Bowie would have wanted.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The U.S. gradually leads the way in environmental reform but that's not good enough for democrats. Under the Green Plan, corporations and citizens would be forced to comply eventually at the point of a federal gun. Is that what you want? I guarantee it ain't what the real Jim Bowie would have wanted.

Where in the GND does it state that government coercion is used?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the Green New Deal is such a good idea, why was it Mitch McConnell who forced it to a vote and why did the democrats who proposed it all not vote for it?
Hmm?

Lol, that was a brilliant move by McConnel, but it was because the GND was not and still is not understood by most Americans.

Democrats have been 'leaning away' from it, except for the Presidential candidates who all support it.

Makes me wonder who has the correct information, those who endorse it or those who seem embarrassed by it.

No matter who thinks what, Thorium Molten Salt Reactors powering an electric grid that is clean, safe and plentiful is a better way forward.

I just want to know, 1) what happens to the US dollar as the World reserve currency which is primarily based on the oil markets, and also 2) can we make a 'soft' transition by getting fossil fuel companies to be part of the transition and hel p build and own part of that new grid.

 

[Dana7360]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

You're right.

My state started building one of the largest wind farms in our nation in the 1990s. Now it's huge.

When the electricity first came on line, it produced way too much electricity for the existing grid to handle.

So we voted to raise our taxes on electricity, not gas, to build a new grid.

We also started shutting down our coal fire plants. We have one left and it's being shutdown now.

We have more electricity than we use and sell our excess to other states for a profit. We also have the second lowest electric rates in the nation.

Most of our electricity comes from water, a little over 60%. The rest comes from wind, sun, natural gas with a very little from that coal fire plant that is used by farmers out in the middle of nowhere. Soon they too will be off coal.

I have not read the green new deal but I support something that does seriously address this problem.

I've been watching the causes of climate change since the 80s. I've been watching the damage from climate change since the early 2000s.

Rivers that once were huge raging rivers that supplied water to farmers and both commercial and sport fishermen. That supplied water to people all over the state for a variety of uses. Including to drink. Everything alive on this planet needs water to survive. Now those rivers are small trickles that I can literally step over.

Mountains that had ice caves that existed for millions of years. Those ice caves started melting in the 80s and some are totally gone forever.

The tallest free standing mountain in the lower 48 states used to be covered with snow on it all year round. We used to call it our giant ice cream cone. We can't do that anymore. Now that mountain doesn't have snow on all of it all year around. Now the bottom up to half way up the mountain is most without snow. I saw it this past weekend and just cried. In my 59 years of living here I have never seen that mountain without snow like that before. I've been seeing the black spots that are spots without snow but I've never seen it like it is now. There's waterfalls where there used to be snow and ice. Our ice cream cone is melting and I wish something could be done about it.

My state is more environmentally friendly than most states but no matter what we do, the rest of the nation and world isn't doing it so our efforts won't make much difference. We need everyone in all nations to be changing and working on this very critical problem.

I have photos of it all but I'm not going to go through my photos and post them. It's too big of a job. But here's the photos I took this weekend. Clouds were covering half the mountain so the top can't be seen. All of what's in these photos except the trees, is supposed to be under many feet of snow and ice. The first shot is the bottom of the whole mountain taken with a wide angle lens. The rest of the shots are parts of the mountain taken with a zoom lens.


View attachment 277134 View attachment 277135 View attachment 277136 View attachment 277137 View attachment 277138

Two problems-10 million people work with fossil fuels-not enough"clean" jobs for them. We don't know for sure carbon is creating climate change, and other countries produce way more carbon than we do.

Have you ever heard of being retrained in a different career?

Many people have done it throughout history.

Should we not have changed to floppy disks because keypunch operators wouldn't have a job? Should we have not changed to fossil fuels because whale hunters would be out of a job?
Should we have not changed to cars because blacksmiths and buggy manufacturers would be out of a job?

What you're saying is ridiculous. What makes fossil fuel jobs more important than any other job that has become obsolete?

Yes we do know that carbon is causing climate change or is one of the causes. You just don't want to accept it.

If you don't believe that carbon is one of the things causing it why say that other countries produce more than we do in a pathetic attempt to justify not doing what's right? And why should we not change just because other countries put out more carbon than we do?

All of your post is written like it's coming from a 12 year old child. You're using the same rational that a child uses when they're caught doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. Make lame excuses and point fingers.

Shame on you.

STOP. You are taking shots at me just because I did not agree with your position? What kind of POSTER are you? You are the one who should be ashamed. I could counter each of your points with something other than a 12 year old argument, but you don't deserve that-Apologize and I'll reconsider.

I'm not taking shots at you. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your post is.

Just because you don't like the fact that I pointed it out doesn't mean I'm taking shots at you.

If you don't like people telling you that your replies sound like a 12 year old child, don't post using their behavior.

Using your logic simply because no one ever went to the moon, means we shouldn't have strived to do so and succeeded.

Change is constant. If you don't go with it you'll be left I the dust.

If you're going to post like a child, then I'm going to reply to you as I would a child.

 

[woolster22]

Yeah, I know everyone has heard a lot of BS about the GND, but it can actually be implemented and I plan to put a more detailed explanation in the Clean Debate forum.

I give two links to a Carlson interview with Robert Hockett discussing this. Of course, Carlson is 10% investigator and 90% entertainer and he is trying to make Hockett look like a typical Woketard, but Hockett isn't. The Green New Deal can actually work and I would like to upgrade and modernize our energy tech and resources. Most of this needs to be done independently of the Green New Deal or not.

Robert Hockett - Cornell law professor



There are some problems for Green New Deal with a simple and broad idea of how it can be addressed:
1) shrinking petroleum industry is a risk to the petro dollar - go to a commodities based US dollar.
2) existing industries to be replaced will fight it for survival - have partnerships with these industries to implement the GND and thus allow them to continue making revenue
3) how to pay for it? - by using government funds to act as catalyst instead of the sole implementing agent
4) What are these green new sources of energy? - Most are well known, but Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are totally green energy, it is existing technology, and can be put into place through a crash program. These TMSRs are 100% safe to people and the environment. Improving efficiency in our grid by using more locally based power generation would also be helpful. Our grid really needs to be upgraded.
5) how to keep people employed from replaced industries? - use these industries to implement the change, if they are willing to, the employment numbers can be maintained as they transition to new forms of energy
6) what to do with petroleum, coal and gas? - petroleum can still be used to make high grade plastic for construction, coal can be used to make carbon nanotube cable, and gas can be stored and used to keep the power grid stable during less green energy convenient times.

In addition, if we coupled the modernization of our power grid with a new industry of asteroid mining, with all its spin off industries and tech, full employment is easy peezy.

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

Yea but you won't be able to afford an electric car because you've taxed gas to the point that us truckers will have to charge you 10 times more for shipping so EVERYTHING you buy will be more expensive. WAY WAY more expensive. With every penny fuel goes up it costs our trucking company almost 1 million dollars a year in extra fuel costs which of course we pass along to our customers to deliver their products to them that they in turn pass on to the customers who buy their products, YOU.

You're one dumb son of a bitch if you think a tax on gas will only raise the price of gas and everything else will remain the same.

Until it’s economically feasible and if it’s in place of abundant fossil fuel resources, it only serves to drive the price of everything up. The poorest people in third-world countries will starve as those dictators will not take the economic hardship on the chin. They will pass those costs onto the poorest in their countries driving them from poverty to starvation.

I am talking about a program for the USA, not the Third World. I suppose eventually it rolls out to third world countries too, but only as a secondary effect.

But if this supplants US oil extraction the global price of oil goes way up and that ripples globally. In a very bad way.

The shift has already started. EV adoption in Europe has begun. Truckers will be out of work soon. The reason bloated corporations and courts don't use electronic communication is to prolong their parasitic existence. Once healthcare and any paperwork intensive field transition and automation and AI hit to compound everything, millions will be out of work. With this, untold trillions will be saved annually as clerks, lawyers, truck drivers and accountants (to name a few), are largely eliminated.

What a tax on fuel would provide, is stability from fluctuating markets for "clean" and "green" energy startup/investments to mature. Wind and solar has fought a rather cyclic battle ro establish a foothold. Investment money would pour in with rising costs driven by decisions from across the globe. Theyd start projects, battling for ideologues with cash to burn on saving the planet. Then oil would plummet, their already struggling to compete product is prohibitively expensive and unrefined, and the company folds.
The cycle repeats, true R&D doesn't have time to occur.
It seems we've started to reach the point where the technologies have started to become competive viable solutions despite our subsidization of fossil tech. If we could stop our drilling efforts and become a pioneer for green tech, we would lead the world to the ultimate solution.
If third world poverty is deemed solved with cheap energy, then you subsidize building things out for them after you have futureproofed our own energy needs and have invested in mass producing said tech.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Anyone able to clarify yet what happens to the US dollar status as the world reserve currency under the GND?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Change is constant. If you don't go with it you'll be left I the dust.

So what hap[pens to the US dollars status as the World Reserve Currency without petroleum markets to prop up its value?

 

[woolster22]

Anyone able to clarify yet what happens to the US dollar status as the world reserve currency under the GND?

The answer to that question will be determined after WW3.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Anyone able to clarify yet what happens to the US dollar status as the world reserve currency under the GND?

The answer to that question will be determined after WW3.

There isn't going to be a WW3 in the next century and likely never.

Bush wars for ever it seems is our fate now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

On the issue of Thorium MSR being 'green energy', I found this:


Nuclear Power Is Not a Viable Solution for Green New Deal

Trog
Apr 7

“The Green New Deal resolution is a bold and necessary path forward to tackle the climate crisis.”​

Bold ideas are not always good ideas. But to establish this is a necessary path to tackle the climate crisis, one must show that there is no other path that can work.

"To be successful, it must leave nuclear power behind. "​

The wording of the resolution does not exclude nuclear power. If it had specifically excluded nuclear, that would have decreased support for it and decreased its chances of going anywhere.

“To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 60 percent by 2030, and down to zero by 2050, we need cost-effective, proven energy generation technology that can be scaled up to meet these benchmarks.”​

This assumes that nuclear technology being developed right now cannot make a contribution by 10 to 20 years from now. I also notice this “proven” requirement is conspicuously confined to generation technology. Why? Because for intermittent renewables to attain high levels of penetration, they will need cheap, bulk, grid-level storage of a sort that we do not have right now. Anti-nukes maintain we will get better, cheaper storage as a result of research, innovation, and repetitive production (in other words, new kinds of batteries which aren’t “proven”), but it is an article of faith that the same factors can never, ever, deliver better, cheaper nuclear.

“Nuclear power does not and will not ever meet these criteria.”​

Only because the criteria includes the utterly arbitrary and senseless condition that all future forms of energy generation must already be developed and proven right now.

“After 60 years, despite massive subsidies, the nuclear industry is dying of its own accord. Why? Because it’s too expensive, too dangerous and dirty, and takes too long to deploy.”​

At best, this is an argument against current forms of nuclear power. It is not an argument against all possible forms.

“Nuclear power simply cannot compete against safer, cleaner and cheaper renewable energy.”​

Old-tech nuclear cannot compete under the current regulatory regime against cheap gas and subsidized and mandated and erratic renewables. That does not mean that all forms of nuclear power would never be able to compete in a fair market.

“For 60 years, nuclear power has posed a serious risk to people and our planet.”​

It probably saved nearly two million lives by displacing more dangerous and more polluting alternatives.

“It will be the same for the next 10,000 years.”​

Presumably this “risk to people and our planet” would be from spent fuel. So far as I can tell, the death toll from handling and storing many tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel over the history of commercial nuclear power currently stands at zero. That seems like a pretty small risk to people (much smaller death toll than from wind or solar power) and the notion that spent fuel represents a risk to the whole planet is breathless, hyperbolic nonsense.

“Our children and generations of their children will be forced to endure the radioactive pollution and fallout from devastating accidents like 3 Mile Island, Fukashima and Chernobyl”​

If the thriving wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is lucky, it will be a few more decades before humans swarm back in and wipe it out. The fish proliferating off the coast of Fukushima may get as much as another ten years before heavy fishing resumes. From an ecological point of view, the effect of these accidents has been the opposite of devastation.

Globally, our children and theirs will emit far more natural radioactivity from their own bodies than they will take in from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima combined. And all three of those accidents involved meltdowns. They do not constitute an argument against kinds of reactors which cannot have meltdowns.

“and the permanent waste that no one can safely store.”​

Some of the reactors in development could consume it as fuel. It is way premature to claim that it will wind up as permanent waste.

“The risks of nuclear proliferation and the spread of dangerous weapons and technology only adds to this.”​

Nuclear power reactors have contributed nothing to proliferation. In fact, under the Megatons to Megawatts program, enough bomb fuel was destroyed in power reactors to make 17,000 ICBM-class warheads. That’s more warheads than exist in all the world’s nuke arsenals combined. And that’s way more bomb fuel than all the nuclear disarmament groups of the world combined ever got rid of. And with molten salt fast reactors, there would be even a stronger economic incentive to consume bomb fuel for starting them up.

“Nuclear power is too slow to scale up to our current challenge.”​

All the non-fossil options we have right now combined are too slow to scale up. On our current track, global projections are that we will burn more fossil fuels in 2035 than we will this year. We are going to need better options, and it would be best if we develop all of our strongest options.

“The endless talk of a new nuclear technology that will magically transform this problem is a pipe dream that has a proven record of failure.”​

“Man will not fly for 50 years.” Wilbur Wright, 1901

“Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” – Director, U.S. Naval Observatory, 1902

“Aerial flight is one of that class of problems with which man will never be able to cope.” – Simon Newcomb, 1903

The first flight at Kitty Hawk was in Dec. 1903. All the different kinds of attempts at powered flight before that also had a “proven record of failure”. Pretty much every advanced technology we’ve undertaken started out with failures. But failures don’t “prove” anything. They just show us where we need to try different approaches, and that’s how technology evolves and gets better.

“Hundreds of billions were spent on “breeder” reactors and other esoteric designs and not a single one has yielded a commercial scale reactor.”​

I’m sure that “hundreds of billions” can’t be for the U.S., but we did have some notable breeder development programs–all of which were killed before they reached completion. Given the clear signals of a politically hostile climate, it’s hardly surprising that no one attempted a commercial version. And government labs have been good for making discoveries, advancing theory, and doing basic research, but they are a lousy model for trying to develop designs capable of competing in an open market. That is what private development excels at, but there was virtually no private development of nuclear reactors in the last century. It’s a very different story now, with dozens of private teams working on advanced reactor designs of various sorts.

​

So let’s make it even more daunting by opposing development of what could be some of our strongest clean-energy options.

“We must move from a 20th-century energy system based on dirty, dangerous and expensive fossil fuel and nuclear power to a 21st-century energy system based on renewables.”​

Advanced nuclear would be a 21st-century energy technology, and what matters more than whether the energy source is renewable is whether it is clean and sustainable.

“The solution is a massive commitment to ramping up renewable energy coupled with energy storage while applying modern energy efficiency technologies to decrease demand.”​

Many people who have looked at this say we need to do all that, but that progress will be slower, harder, and more expensive if it does not also include nuclear.

“Wind and solar are cheap, clean and proven to work. We must focus all resources on scaling those up.”​

We should invest some of our resources into developing our best options for the future.

“Some have suggested that climate change is so dire that all options must be on the table. But that’s an ideology, not a strategy.”​

Not all options. Our best options. Some options have very poor prospects (eg. Solar Freaking Roadways!).

“We must choose the technologies that will not produce greenhouse gases and can be scaled up quickly, safely and at lowest cost.”​

Even better if it can reliably deliver power on demand. It would also be useful to have sources of high heat for industrial processes. Being able to power heavy cargo ships would also be a bonus.

“That means the path ahead must be based on renewable energy.”​

In part, yes. But the notion that it must be based exclusively on that is ideology.

“If we want to stop the worse of the climate crisis and pull humanity back from the apocalypse, this is the only way forward.”​

Using nothing but renewables is not the only way. It is not even clear that it is a viable way. It certainly isn’t going to fly in today’s political climate. It would require a revolution before such a plan has a chance of happening. Meanwhile, efforts to support and promote advanced nuclear development have broad and deep bipartisan support, and Congress has already passed several such measures. And if any of the new reactors work out, we won’t need a revolution to get them deployed.​

 

[Lewdog]

Change is constant. If you don't go with it you'll be left I the dust.

So what hap[pens to the US dollars status as the World Reserve Currency without petroleum markets to prop up its value?

You know what you use more in your daily life that will replace it? Clean, potable water.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah, I know everyone has heard a lot of BS about the GND, but it can actually be implemented and I plan to put a more detailed explanation in the Clean Debate forum.

I give two links to a Carlson interview with Robert Hockett discussing this. Of course, Carlson is 10% investigator and 90% entertainer and he is trying to make Hockett look like a typical Woketard, but Hockett isn't. The Green New Deal can actually work and I would like to upgrade and modernize our energy tech and resources. Most of this needs to be done independently of the Green New Deal or not.

Robert Hockett - Cornell law professor



There are some problems for Green New Deal with a simple and broad idea of how it can be addressed:
1) shrinking petroleum industry is a risk to the petro dollar - go to a commodities based US dollar.
2) existing industries to be replaced will fight it for survival - have partnerships with these industries to implement the GND and thus allow them to continue making revenue
3) how to pay for it? - by using government funds to act as catalyst instead of the sole implementing agent
4) What are these green new sources of energy? - Most are well known, but Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are totally green energy, it is existing technology, and can be put into place through a crash program. These TMSRs are 100% safe to people and the environment. Improving efficiency in our grid by using more locally based power generation would also be helpful. Our grid really needs to be upgraded.
5) how to keep people employed from replaced industries? - use these industries to implement the change, if they are willing to, the employment numbers can be maintained as they transition to new forms of energy
6) what to do with petroleum, coal and gas? - petroleum can still be used to make high grade plastic for construction, coal can be used to make carbon nanotube cable, and gas can be stored and used to keep the power grid stable during less green energy convenient times.

In addition, if we coupled the modernization of our power grid with a new industry of asteroid mining, with all its spin off industries and tech, full employment is easy peezy.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Yeah, I know everyone has heard a lot of BS about the GND, but it can actually be implemented and I plan to put a more detailed explanation in the Clean Debate forum.

I give two links to a Carlson interview with Robert Hockett discussing this. Of course, Carlson is 10% investigator and 90% entertainer and he is trying to make Hockett look like a typical Woketard, but Hockett isn't. The Green New Deal can actually work and I would like to upgrade and modernize our energy tech and resources. Most of this needs to be done independently of the Green New Deal or not.

Robert Hockett - Cornell law professor



There are some problems for Green New Deal with a simple and broad idea of how it can be addressed:
1) shrinking petroleum industry is a risk to the petro dollar - go to a commodities based US dollar.
2) existing industries to be replaced will fight it for survival - have partnerships with these industries to implement the GND and thus allow them to continue making revenue
3) how to pay for it? - by using government funds to act as catalyst instead of the sole implementing agent
4) What are these green new sources of energy? - Most are well known, but Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are totally green energy, it is existing technology, and can be put into place through a crash program. These TMSRs are 100% safe to people and the environment. Improving efficiency in our grid by using more locally based power generation would also be helpful. Our grid really needs to be upgraded.
5) how to keep people employed from replaced industries? - use these industries to implement the change, if they are willing to, the employment numbers can be maintained as they transition to new forms of energy
6) what to do with petroleum, coal and gas? - petroleum can still be used to make high grade plastic for construction, coal can be used to make carbon nanotube cable, and gas can be stored and used to keep the power grid stable during less green energy convenient times.

In addition, if we coupled the modernization of our power grid with a new industry of asteroid mining, with all its spin off industries and tech, full employment is easy peezy.

Right because a green economy worked out great for Spain.
Spain’s experience with the ‘green’ economy: Save the planet, lose some jobs

 

[skookerasbil]

Yeah, I know everyone has heard a lot of BS about the GND, but it can actually be implemented and I plan to put a more detailed explanation in the Clean Debate forum.

I give two links to a Carlson interview with Robert Hockett discussing this. Of course, Carlson is 10% investigator and 90% entertainer and he is trying to make Hockett look like a typical Woketard, but Hockett isn't. The Green New Deal can actually work and I would like to upgrade and modernize our energy tech and resources. Most of this needs to be done independently of the Green New Deal or not.

Robert Hockett - Cornell law professor



There are some problems for Green New Deal with a simple and broad idea of how it can be addressed:
1) shrinking petroleum industry is a risk to the petro dollar - go to a commodities based US dollar.
2) existing industries to be replaced will fight it for survival - have partnerships with these industries to implement the GND and thus allow them to continue making revenue
3) how to pay for it? - by using government funds to act as catalyst instead of the sole implementing agent
4) What are these green new sources of energy? - Most are well known, but Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are totally green energy, it is existing technology, and can be put into place through a crash program. These TMSRs are 100% safe to people and the environment. Improving efficiency in our grid by using more locally based power generation would also be helpful. Our grid really needs to be upgraded.
5) how to keep people employed from replaced industries? - use these industries to implement the change, if they are willing to, the employment numbers can be maintained as they transition to new forms of energy
6) what to do with petroleum, coal and gas? - petroleum can still be used to make high grade plastic for construction, coal can be used to make carbon nanotube cable, and gas can be stored and used to keep the power grid stable during less green energy convenient times.

In addition, if we coupled the modernization of our power grid with a new industry of asteroid mining, with all its spin off industries and tech, full employment is easy peezy.

LOL.....you dummy........the term "Green New Deal" will not even be spoken at the DUM convention next year. In fact, wont get within 1,000 miles of the convention center. Heres the political reality......it would be like the Trump supporters who want zero taxation having part of the platform next year at the convention.

I mean duh.......only mental cases think the DUM party establishment is going to let a candidate ensure certain general election defeat.

The same bozo's who think the GND is a possibility also think reparations will be part of the DUM platform!!!. You fucking dummies........its primary season. None of the fringe shit ever makes it into next spring!!!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Last time America had a 'New Deal" it was a liberal dream come true, and a true nightmare for America's future.

No thanks.

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice....shame on me.

 

[Ame®icano]

But they did not try a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor.
I think such reactors are how this thing can work, primarily.

Those reactors are not operational. The "commercial scale prototype" expected to be up and running within four years, so in 2024. However, they had the same "within four years" prediction timeline back in 2015.

We have built them back in the 1950's. This is established off the shelf tech, not really new mostly.

The Chinese, India, Europe and Indonesia are going full speed into building Thorium reactors, and we should too.

Oh, please! You are betting on unproven technology, despite your claims. How will you use this system to power aircraft? They tried and failed to make it work.

Dude, did you actually6 read my response?

WE HAVE ALREADY BUIILT FUNCTIONING THORIUM REACTORS BACK IN THE 1950's.

This is proven tech.

Seriously, so why not use it?

If is proven technology, it would've already been used. Why they have stop developing it? Because it was not feasible. Small scale reactor might have work, but large scale functioning reactor is still years away. If ever.