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.
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.
Oops! It should have been 2030. I have corrected it.
Again with the Ocasio-Cortex heh. Autocorrect.
Thanks Great American Satan!
Yes, auto-correct is not always my friend.
#1
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.
Let me quote James Hansen, arguably the most famous and influential climate scientist.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf
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.
https://youtu.be/KnN328eD-sA?t=2041
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