The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

Post by Red » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:10 pm

It's been a while since I wrote a full out post, so here goes nothing.

I'm pretty sure most of you are familiar with the new Congresswoman who has recently been elected to the House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is representing my State, New York (so obviously liberal, Democrat), and, as per usual whenever I hear of a new Politician who is seeking office (especially at the federal level, and if they're a Democrat), I Google their energy policies (To be honest I was surprised when Al Gore wasn't pro-nuclear. I don't think he's against nuclear, but he's not exactly pro either), to of course see their stance on nuclear energy, because if you're against nuclear energy, you can basically wave goodbye to my vote (I didn't really bother searching any of her other policies, I just know she's for universal healthcare and free education (though I have some qualms with that, that's not important at the moment)).

The Economic Point
While I was searching around, I came across her idea of a 'Green New Deal,' and I instantly thought "What nebulous bullshit, but let us be open-minded here." To be honest, I would just call it the 'Green Deal,' since I'm pretty sure most people don't even know what the New Deal even was, and in tradition of other American Domestic Policies (Square Deal, Fair Deal, etc.).

The effectiveness of the New Deal is debatable. I mean, I like it, it definitely did a lot of good (gave us things like SS and the TVA, and led to things such as Medicare), but the nature of it is largely questionable when referring to it ending the Great Depression. A big part of the New Deal was the WPA, the Works Progress Administration, which helped build tons of roads, bridges, buildings, parks, etc. This sounds like a great thing (and it definitely helped), but the issue is that there are only so many buildings and bridges you can make (especially in some areas you can't build at all, due to the environment, private property, and even wilderness preservation laws), so eventually, the steam in that engine will run out once all of the infrastructure is built (not to mention is kinda screws over posterity who won't be able to build many new things. Well, I guess restoration is enough). But any honest historian will tell you that it's very hard to dictate the effectiveness of the New Deal, especially since there was a Recession that happened in '37, the first year of Roosevelt's new term, and things really didn't start picking up until the U.S. entered World War II.

Why I bring this up, you may ask? Well, this 'Green New Deal' (I refuse to colorize the term 'Green' any further) is trying to solve a similar problem (even though unemployment is very low) with similar solutions but suffers similar flaws. There are only so many solar panels and windmills that can be built (not to mention how dangerous they are not only to install, but also to maintain, and also being pretty dangerous in general). Even if our unemployment is like 15%, this won't end unemployment for these people.

I always hear this rhetoric from the liberal media. 'Oh! This shit's fantastic! Think of all those jobs that'll be created!' Oh, like those SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS?
https://youtu.be/H901KdXgHs4?t=956

I was never really swayed by the 'It'll create jobs!' argument, since, not only is it meaningless rhetoric, but that doesn't mean that the job is useful (and can even be harmful). I'm pretty sure McDonald's has created millions of jobs too, and those jobs have helped give us an obese and very unhealthy population, a suffering environment, and billions of murdered animals. I'll only be convinced if the job is generally long lasting and serves a useful purpose (like an electrician or a plumber).

Also, America is not the only country worth giving a damn about (despite what Trump and even some Democrats might think). Other countries have basically no strong, working economies, with unemployment rates much higher than ours, and they don't even have a welfare option. Why not tell us your policy about free trade, which would go a long way in helping with that. It doesn't really seem as though you have a stance on it (I couldn't find any). You are aware that other countries exist, correct? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be worried about our issues over here, just that we shouldn't be so nationalistic. But I'm getting ahead of myself, and this section is much longer than I intended, though I still have a few other things to say.

The Political Enforcement
I've calmed down a bit on my politics (I still am a liberal and have progressive beliefs, but I've focused my attention less on political issues and more on issues abroad), but for a person who has been elected to Congress, their politics actually matter a great deal.

Going back to FDR's New Deal, you'll notice that FDR was, not only a skilled politician, but also a great party leader who helped secure large majorities in both houses on Congress, which in turn helped him pass a lot of his New Deal agenda. Not to mention, FDR was also the President, not a mere member of Congress. I'm not saying Ms. Cortez's office is worthless, and I'm not trying to belittle her, but she has almost no influence outside of her supporters.

As a single member of the House of Representatives with no political experience, it's not going to be easy (if even possible) getting this 'Green New Deal' legislation passed. I highly doubt the committee will consider it, and even if they do, it has to go through both chambers of Congress (435 House Members + 100 Senators = 535 People who look it over, so minimum 218 + 50 = 268), one of which is still controlled by Republicans (and even some Democrats might not get on board with it, especially sensible ones that are Pro-Nuclear, but I'll get to that, believe you me).

Not to mention, by the insane chance that one bill is even passed, it has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court (which is controlled by Republicans; I'm sure they won't overrule it, but it's a possibility) and it also has to go to the President, Mr. Donald Trump, whose environmental policy is basically the opposite of the 'Green New Deal' in just about every way, for approval. Trump is understandably against things such as Solar and Wind as energy sources (though I have no love for his support of fossil fuels), and is actually pro-nuclear (which again, I will get to). There is no chance in hell Trump would sign a piece of legislation like this, so the paper that bill is printed on would probably be put to better use if you were to wipe your ass with it. Unless, of course, you think you can override that, which is even less likely, actually, borderline impossible.

The Environmental Impact
Okay, I'm not going to go into too much detail about the effectiveness of Solar and Wind, because not only is it redundant, but most of you who've been here for a while now already know that Solar and Wind are impractical solutions to our energy problem. I'm also not going to talk about the details of nuclear energy, because we all know it's clean and our best solution, and I assume most of you here already know that. I'm working on a Wiki Page which I haven't updated for a while and I feel bad about that (among other things but anyway), so read that when it's done.

OKAY, I'll try to make this quick since I probably lost the attention of most of you guys already.

Guess what this deal calls for? No nuclear energy! Yay!
My honest reaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC3wXwaGYlA

Don't believe me? It says it right here: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... n-new-deal

That's right folks, our most realistic solution to combating climate change is being completely discarded in favor of shit like Solar and Wind (situational) and Geothermal and Hydro Energy (not bad energy sources, but can only be utilized in so many places).

You know, for someone who apparently won second place in a science contest about Microbiology, she doesn't seem to be that scientifically literate. I know they're unrelated fields, but I figure a general rule of thumb is, if you're a connoisseur of the sciences, you're likely to be more open-minded to those who are experts in the sciences you are unfamiliar with. Isn't that how the Dunning Kruger Effect works?

But sadly, rather not. She seems to have bought into the liberal bullshit of being anti-nuclear (and I'm assuming subscribing to a lot of liberal pseudoscience), and will help bring on the deaths of like a few billion people or so if she manages to become super powerful.

She's young, and hopefully intelligent. She still has a lot to learn, and may likely be more willing to change her mind. I would love to get into contact with her (and again she represents my State; I live near two Assemblymen, a former State Senator, a few Councilmen, etc, so maybe this is something I can do? Maybe?), but you know whatever.

So those are basically my qualms with this 'Green New Deal' bullshit. As mentioned before, she's definitely gonna have a hard time getting much support from either Party in Congress. Now, someone like Bernie Sanders might like this agenda, but not me, I have standards.

So that's what we're dealing with here, any thoughts?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm

There's some good stuff in there, but ultimately excluding nuclear makes it unrealistic goal-wise, which just makes the whole thing look like a joke.

There's some low hanging fruit where we can add in more solar and geothermal (particularly on homes, not so much for industry), and absolutely improvements to energy efficiency make sense, but those won't get us all the way there.

To that end, I tend to prefer more limited programs which encourage building out solar and creating jobs where it's practical, and don't talk about shutting down other power sources. It's OK to spend some money on solar because it's better than coal and it's easier (in terms of politics), but it's only a very small part of the solution and must not get in the way of other things.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:41 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm
There's some good stuff in there, but ultimately excluding nuclear makes it unrealistic goal-wise, which just makes the whole thing look like a joke.
To be honest, if it were in favor of nuclear, then I'd forgive all the flaws and be in full support of it (though just nuclear would be preferable).
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm
There's some low hanging fruit where we can add in more solar and geothermal (particularly on homes, not so much for industry), and absolutely improvements to energy efficiency make sense, but those won't get us all the way there.
I hear some states like California passed a new law that requires by 2020 (I think it's 2020, might be later) for all homes to have solar panels. I think that's a great idea, but personally, we should wait a few more years for the solar technology to be more efficient and powerful since it won't be of much use for the more northern states, so it'd be possible for more people to have constant energy regardless of the time. For a sunny state like California it might do a lot of good (I doubt it'd solve the problem entirely since it's a very large state and the most populous), but for other states not so much.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:51 pm
To that end, I tend to prefer more limited programs which encourage building out solar and creating jobs where it's practical, and don't talk about shutting down other power sources. It's OK to spend some money on solar because it's better than coal and it's easier (in terms of politics), but it's only a very small part of the solution and must not get in the way of other things.
but what about clean coal m8?

I hope Cortez isn't calling for a moratorium on nuclear...
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:46 pm

Wow, had no idea the people from Slate are anti nuclear.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... energy.amp
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Jamie in Chile
Full Member
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 pm

The basics of the green deal seem like a good idea even though of course you an quibble some of the details.

The basic reason green = jobs is because you have to do a bunch of work to make the energy rather than just take it out of the ground. Since oil and gas have inherent value while still in the ground, and since that value is a significant fraction of the final sale price of usable fuel, and since fossil fuels and renewables have a similar energy cost at the level of the final product, and since ultimately most of the value of a product can be traced back to manual labour, it logically follows that, all other things being equal, a higher proportion of the value of renewable energy is in manual labour, and therefore more jobs per KW.

I think there are more jobs with green energy and also green energy helps with income equality whereas the money gets more spread around. Whereas big fossil fuel companies make multi-billion investments and create rich people with tens of millions each.

With regard to your comment: "There are only so many solar panels and windmills that can be built (not to mention how dangerous they are not only to install, but also to maintain, and also being pretty dangerous in general)." We all know that oil spills and gas spills and so on kill a lot of people, as well as deaths from climate change. Nuclear accidents have also killed people from radioactivity. I have never heard much about people dying from solar or windmills. It seems clear to be that we should look beyond local safety and look at the overall effects. Wind power and solar power clearly reduce deaths and suffering due to reduced pollution and climate change, and therefore your "dangerous" assessment seems to me disingenuous. As long as it kills or hurts less than most or all power sources per kilowatt, it doesn't seem like a valid point against it.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9070
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:20 pm

Red wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:46 pm
Wow, had no idea the people from Slate are anti nuclear.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... energy.amp
Very unfortunate.
Looks like it's this guy, Gregory Jaczko, is responsible.

Looks like he's working his way up there with anti-vaxx fear mongers as one of the most powerful forces of evil in our day.
Efforts by Jaczko to strengthen security regulations for nuclear power plants have included requiring new such plants to be able to withstand an aircraft crash.[8]

On February 9, 2012 Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote on plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years when the NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. He cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, saying "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".[9]
Apparently he's a paranoid nutcase. You can kill a lot more people by crashing an airplane into almost ANY other target.

And Fukushima as evidence against nuclear?
The reason people died was the large-scale evacuation, not the radiation.

ONE worker has died from radiation exposure in cleanup. Six had high exposure and have a higher risk of cancer.

Zero civilians have died from radiation, and the projected increase in risk is not significant.

Meanwhile 15,000 died from the earthquake and tsunami, and at least a few hundred to a couple thousand died due to the extended and unnecessary evacuation.

The only people who should have been removed from the area are children, pregnant women, and young adults might have been discouraged from spending too much time in the area for a while.
Radiation is not a problem for the elderly, who are prone to die of old age before they'll experience any consequence from the radiation. But evacuations are very much a problem for them.

I wonder how many people were killed by solar panels falling off roofs or impaled by solar equipment and shrapnel. Is that a great reason to call solar too dangerous? These people.

Solar is more dangerous than nuclear, accounting for ALL disasters and deaths. That's the only fact that should be relevant here.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:49 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:20 pm
Very unfortunate.
Agreed, I thought they were more sane and balanced.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:20 pm
Looks like it's this guy, Gregory Jaczko, is responsible.

Looks like he's working his way up there with anti-vaxx fear mongers as one of the most powerful forces of evil in our day.
Yeah, and he worked under Obama as Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a position he obviously did not belong in.

Odd that someone like him was nominated, since Obama wanted to open more Nuclear Energy plants (but of course, then Fukushima happened). I like to think that was just an error on Obama's part, since it's the only conclusion that makes sense.

In terms of damage though, I would say that Bernie Sanders is worse, since Sanders exercises political power.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:20 pm
Apparently he's a paranoid nutcase. You can kill a lot more people by crashing an airplane into almost ANY other target[...]
Radiation is not a problem for the elderly, who are prone to die of old age before they'll experience any consequence from the radiation. But evacuations are very much a problem for them.
Let's call him Gregory Waczko since he's nuts.

According to his Wikipedia page, he has a Ph.D. in theoretical particle physics, and an Ivy League Bachelor's degree in Physics, so he has no excuse for this type of thinking.

So is he inane or insane? Or both?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:20 pm
I wonder how many people were killed by solar panels falling off roofs or impaled by solar equipment and shrapnel. Is that a great reason to call solar too dangerous? These people.

Solar is more dangerous than nuclear, accounting for ALL disasters and deaths. That's the only fact that should be relevant here.
Well duh, the panels can't directly kill someone! :roll:
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:05 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 pm
The basics of the green deal seem like a good idea even though of course you an quibble some of the details.
Do you mean 'quibble?'
I mean, it has good intentions (which the road to hell is paved with) sure, but the flaws must be pointed out.

Again, I could look past the flaws if it just embraced nuclear.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 pm
The basic reason green = jobs is because you have to do a bunch of work to make the energy rather than just take it out of the ground. Since oil and gas have inherent value while still in the ground, and since that value is a significant fraction of the final sale price of usable fuel, and since fossil fuels and renewables have a similar energy cost at the level of the final product, and since ultimately most of the value of a product can be traced back to manual labour, it logically follows that, all other things being equal, a higher proportion of the value of renewable energy is in manual labour, and therefore more jobs per KW.
The same can be said for Uranium and Thorium.

The Nuclear Industry can create tons of jobs if that's the goal; mining the resources, building the plants and other required materials, refining the uranium, guarding the nuclear waste, just having workers in the plant, and so on.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, can you please elaborate?
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 pm
I think there are more jobs with green energy and also green energy helps with income equality whereas the money gets more spread around. Whereas big fossil fuel companies make multi-billion investments and create rich people with tens of millions each.
I don't really disagree here. But if we're gonna make jobs, nuclear can help with it.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 pm
Nuclear accidents have also killed people from radioactivity.
Not as many as you might think, and a lot of the time it has almost nothing to do with the radioactivity directly.

Nuclear accidents are almost never likely to occur with modern equipment, techniques, and reactors, so the concern of danger of nuclear energy is a non-issue, especially considering the relatively low amount of deaths caused by it. As brimstone pointed out, more people have died from solar than nuclear.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 pm
I have never heard much about people dying from solar or windmills. It seems clear to be that we should look beyond local safety and look at the overall effects. Wind power and solar power clearly reduce deaths and suffering due to reduced pollution and climate change, and therefore your "dangerous" assessment seems to me disingenuous. As long as it kills or hurts less than most or all power sources per kilowatt, it doesn't seem like a valid point against it.
You really need to brush up on this stuff, since it's very inaccurate. Have you watched Pandora's Promise?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObcgG9vjUbs
Watch it if you're able to set aside an hour and a half.

Wind has caused fewer deaths than nuclear, sure, but also consider the amount of birds killed by turbines, and we can not forget the long term effects: Wind cannot sustain us as a species; Nuclear can. Wind will do nothing for the issue of climate change, at best. Nuclear is the thing that will fight it (and also put the oil industry out of business).
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Jamie in Chile
Full Member
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm

Yes i mean quibble, isn't that what I said. I mean that I broadly support the green deal, but we need to see the detail and debate it but the broad goals look correct.

I don't think I need to elaborate. I am not getting at anything. I am just defending the point that green = jobs. What I hear and read suggests that in many regions and countries that has been proven correct and that's a story I've heard often in books, articles etc.

Wind and nuclear deaths I discussed on the other thread. I don't see why wind and solar can't sustain as a species.

The argument that Fukishima will never happen in Europe/US because x is a hard thing to prove one way or the other. Personally I think the history of the nuclear industry suggests some caution if you look at all the incidents overall globally, minor and major, there are quite a lot. Probably the best thing to do is to look at the historical data.

If either of you have an estimate of deaths from different types of energy I'd be happy to see it and review it. Personally, I've never looked in depth at wind and solar deaths or nuclear deaths. I've always assumed all are smaller than fossil fuels, possibly even by orders or magnitude.

We have to be realistic here. Nuclear faces some irrational, emotional opposition as well as rational and governments (and prospective ones) will in practice have to consider this. When 50 people die in a terrorism attack, everyone goes into panic mode even though a similar number of people might die every day from heart disease, car accidents, cancer, or any number of things. If 50 people die this year falling off wind turbines and fix them that will not really register for people in terms of opposition to wind turbines. If 50 people die in a nuclear incident everyone will lose their sh1t and their will be immediate national debate on banning nuclear. Just the way it's going to be. It's partly irrational and it's partly selfish - nuclear and fossil fuel deaths can (be perceived to) affect ME and YOU and voters but solar and wind deaths are not going to ever be a problem for a voter.

Nuclear, like terrorism, has this out of control uncertainty element about it.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2712
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:39 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm
Yes i mean quibble, isn't that what I said. I mean that I broadly support the green deal, but we need to see the detail and debate it but the broad goals look correct.
Well you said 'an quibble' so it confuzzled me.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm
I don't think I need to elaborate. I am not getting at anything. I am just defending the point that green = jobs. What I hear and read suggests that in many regions and countries that has been proven correct and that's a story I've heard often in books, articles etc.
Oh ok.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm
Wind and nuclear deaths I discussed on the other thread. I don't see why wind and solar can't sustain as a species.
I addressed this in the other thread too.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm
The argument that Fukishima will never happen in Europe/US because x is a hard thing to prove one way or the other. Personally, I think the history of the nuclear industry suggests some caution if you look at all the incidents overall globally, minor and major, there are quite a lot. Probably the best thing to do is to look at the historical data.
Genetic Fallacy?

Fukushima was built to withstand either a tsunami or earthquake. Not both.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm
If either of you have an estimate of deaths from different types of energy I'd be happy to see it and review it. Personally, I've never looked in depth at wind and solar deaths or nuclear deaths. I've always assumed all are smaller than fossil fuels, possibly even by orders or magnitude.
You should look into the literature.
This is a good book to get your feet wet in regards to the various energies, with their advantages and disadvantages:
https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Future-Pr ... 0393345106
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:26 pm
We have to be realistic here. Nuclear faces some irrational, emotional opposition as well as rational and governments (and prospective ones) will in practice have to consider this. When 50 people die in a terrorism attack, everyone goes into panic mode even though a similar number of people might die every day from heart disease, car accidents, cancer, or any number of things. If 50 people die this year falling off wind turbines and fix them that will not really register for people in terms of opposition to wind turbines. If 50 people die in a nuclear incident everyone will lose their sh1t and their will be immediate national debate on banning nuclear. Just the way it's going to be. It's partly irrational and it's partly selfish - nuclear and fossil fuel deaths can (be perceived to) affect ME and YOU and voters but solar and wind deaths are not going to ever be a problem for a voter.

Nuclear, like terrorism, has this out of control uncertainty element about it.
Ugh, that's probably depressingly true. I cling to hope though.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Red and 3 guests