Say what you will about the woman, but this was brilliant.
Is it projection if you use a rhetorical first person singular?
Here is something I found. The US has been producing less CO2 emissions since 2005. It went from around 6,000 metric tons to almost 5,000. It still puts the US as the 2nd highest behind China at more than 10,000 metric tons. But the US has basically the most GDP per metric ton while lowering emissions. Everyone else is raising CO2 emissions. It seems that the US is doing it’s part while it’s the rest of the world who keeps pumping more and more, especially the developing world. Does the Green New Deal take that into consideration?
You havent factored in that the reason other nations (esp India, China) are producing more emissions because they are developing natiions with emerging middle class populations thus have increasing demand for energy.
The US needs lead, not slow the process of transition from fossil fuels.
Yes i did.
Does this really make sense if you think about it? Let’s say US eliminated all CO2 emissions today. Is India, the 2nd largest population at 1.3 billion going to follow? Do they even have the capability to transition in the next decade?
How long does the current climate model put before we start seeing end of world damages? If the US cuts all emissions, we would still get there around the same time if everyone just produces more at this rate right?
It doesn’t seem like a legit solution for climate change using the idea the US leads and others will follow. Especially one that amounts to monumental costs. How many countries are even capable of transitioning out of fossil fuel in the next 1 or 2 decade?
so, maybe she should be admitting she’s the stupid guy for pushing socialism over this better topic, which most voters could rally around.
Does not trying to change course make sense? The cost of inaction is far greater than cost of transitioning in the long term. And the consequences of inaction and continuing on the current trajectory will be catastrophic.
The US needs to show leadership. The capability is there, the political will is not and will not be so long as safeguarding the profits of oil companies takes priority over the welfare of US citizens.
Giving more power to the powerful because of a fear mongering campaign does not make one lick of sense,
“Giving more power to the powerful [Exxon] because of a fear mongering campaign [Trump/GOP]”
You finally got one right!
You’re almost clever this morning.
What will be the cost of taking away oil revenues from countries around the world? Venezuela for instance. The U.S. didn’t start the fire but will be asked to put it out on numerous fronts. It’s not all just about adding zeros to bank accounts.
Occasional Cortex doesn’t care. It’s all about government control of everything aka communism.
Not to mention that the US (and other developed countries) effectively outsourced the emissions to developing countries. First to Korea and Taiwan back when they were poor, then to China and India and Vietnam etc.
Also, if you measure the emissions by corporations, the fossil fuel companies like Shell, Chevron, BP etc. are responsible for the majority of them and they are headquatered in developed countries.
Green energy also creates jobs. According to Fortune magazine:
According to Fortune, "renewable energy creates new jobs 12 times faster (http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/) than any other segment of the economy. That’s 20 percent annual growth and a total of 4.5 million jobs in the United States alone.
The cost of manufacturing and implementing green technology has fallen across the board, while the return on investment has skyrocketed as consumers across the country demand solar energy for their homes and local policies that support clean energy use."
Also, how much of those oil revenues are the people in those countries currently seeing? Where are those profits going to?
2009, Obama set up Green Energy Loan Program.
Those firms received hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. ALL went bankrupt.
Are you referring to the DOE loan program, which is now in the black?
you are aware of PG&E’s problems?
The Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program is facing a $8.3 billion PG&E loss, which makes Solyndra $528 million loss pale in comparison.
Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the DOE to issue loan guarantees to eligible projects that “avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases” and “employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued”.
PG&E’s renewable-energy projects contracted to supply power to PG&E with a total of $8.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees. US government may take a $8.3 billion loss.
The DOE loan guarantee program has transferred risk from PG&E investors and California ratepayers to US taxpayers.
On the money
I’m registered as a Dem for the first time in my life (tried to sneak in for the last vote but missed the deadline). Will definitely be voting in the primaries. Voting in general election overseas is pretty pointless in NYS
I know almost nothing about AOC. My casual observation is that she seems to be hated about as much as Trump, of course by the other side. This video was shared by a friend on fb. Again, it’s brilliant. Probably applies also to Taiwan.
Give this article a go, it pretty much sums up where she comes from, which groups are behind her (Cenk Uygur’s name raised my eyebrow, he was particularly upset about the Trump win and with the Democrats).
Personality wise she seems funny, smart, quick witted and one of the reasons she rose to popularity. Now the policies, that’s something else.