The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal is the non-binding resolution introduced by representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and senator Ed Markey to highlight the importance of climate change and the need to find ways to combat global warming as well as providing a better standard of living for most people. A major goal is to achieve a 100% conversion to renewable energy by 2030. You can read the resolution here. Here is a summary of the main points.

  • Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions via a “fair and just transition for communities and workers”
  • Creation of millions of “good, high-wage jobs”
  • Investment in infrastructure and industry
  • Prevention and repair of “historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities”
  • A goal for 100 percent renewable energy in the U.S.
  • Clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and “a sustainable environment for all for generations to come”
  • Investments in buildings to make them more energy efficient
  • “Eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible”
  • “Universal access” to clean water

Here is a more detailed description of some of the ideas being suggested.

Of course, that freaks out the right wing even though the ideas in it poll very favorably, even among Republicans.

Samantha Bee looks at the deal and their response.


  1. ridana says

    100% conversion by 2020 -- in less than 2 years? I don’t think that’s possible even with no opposition and all the monies to pay for it.

  2. Holms says

    Even with the figure of 2030, the situation is not much improved -- I don’t think it is even physically possible to power USA 100% with renewables.

  3. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Let me quote James Hansen, arguably the most famous and influential climate scientist.

    Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

    This is far from an unusual position among actual scientists. Among climate scientists, and scientists at large, the evidence seems to indicate that this is the majority position, along with support for nuclear power to address the CO2 problem.

    The problem is that the green energy movement is basically a religious cult -- almost completely devoid of proper science and engineering, and based on preconceived dogmatic faith beliefs that many members will defend at all costs, and the movement is lead in some large part by liars and frauds i.e. Mark Jacobson is a liar and fraud in his relevant academic work, easily shown to be so, and yet he’s elevated to the rank of “most respected expert” by many in the English speaking green energy movement. He’s probably just a paid shill by the fossil fuel company to create credible doubt, just like the tobacco industry and leaded gasoline industry did in their own time.

    Again, the belief “the green energy movement is like a religious cult” is not an unusual position. James Hansen says as much during a Q&A with several other very prominent climate scientists, who wrote an open letter to the green energy movement asking them to reconsider their position on nuclear.

    During Q&A in the press conference, one of the questioners basically asks “why don’t we have more nuclear now?”. Timestamp in link.

    Well, I can point out one or two points. What you find if you advocate -- You know, frankly, I’ve spoken to many scientists, and by far the majority agrees that nuclear needs to be part of the solution. However, when you stand up and say that, there’s an anti-nuclear community, which I would characterize as quasi-religious, which just hammers you, and you have to spend a lot of your time trying to deal with that. I’ve even found that some of the -- you know that I’m no longer a government employee I have to raise the funds to cover my group of four people, and there are a number of foundations [???] foundation that have been my most reliable source while I was a government employee because I like to speak out is not part of my government job but so I had to prove that I was not using government funds, so when I traveled I had to get non-goverment funds to pay for that. Well, the foundation that provided the funds now will not give me a dime because they are anti-nuclear, and so there’s a lot of pressure on scientists just to keep their mouths shut, but we’re at a point where we’d better not keep our mouths shut when we can see a story which has become very clear, and that is that it’s a .. mirage to think that all-renewables can provide all of the energy that we need, and at the speed we need. China and India are using tremendous amounts of power, almost all coal for their electric plants, and there’s no way that they can power their steel mills and all the other factories that they’re building products for us on solar panels.

  4. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I haven’t fully vetted the facts in this source, but it comes from someone that I currently trust, and it describes how the American environmental movement -- due to its Malthusian delusion -- became a force against all forms of affordable, sustainable energy, and how that led them to target nuclear power specifically because of its superb affordably and scalability, and the strategy that they pursued against nuclear power was to lie about the harms of nuclear power.

    > How Fear of Nuclear Ends | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxCalPoly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *