It is ever more certain that climate change is going to be a major issue in the 2020 Presidential election. Many of the declared candidates have already endorsed Congressional resolutions called the “Green New Deal” (GND) introduced by a freshman Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Senator Edward Markey, D-MA. The program has been costed at a mere $93 trillion over ten years to reduce human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and series of government programs to decrease the income differences between lower and higher income citizens. This number may not mean much to most people, but it is roughly five times US gross national product and is supposed to be accomplished in 10 years.
So if adopted, this program would take the place of about half of current expenditures in the US economy for a ten year period. Commercial aircraft service and fossil fuel energy use would be banned. Obviously, there would have to be very difficult cuts in many other types of expenditures since half of current such expenditures would have to be cut to free up resources for all the required new expenditures. Food and medical care and essential government expenditures (such as military) would have to be maintained. So what would be cut? Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey have not specified. It is likely that there would need to be rationing, perhaps on a very broad scale, even compared to World War II.
Perhaps the major weakness of the GND is that it would accomplish nothing of significant value. Assuming that the Obama-era climate models provide any useful information, it is estimated that if fully implemented it might reduce temperatures by 0.14 degrees C by 2100, which is not measurable. As pointed out in a number of many previous blog posts, it is doubtful that it would have any significant effect at all. So huge sacrifices and no measurable benefits. Some leading experts argue that small increases in global temperatures would be beneficial, rather than a cost since humans would benefit from slightly increased temperatures.
The opposition to GND needs to concentrate on the costs of GND because public support for decarbonization is very soft, particularly if the costs are high. Are people willing to give up all air travel? Are people willing to build a high speed rail network and spend days making transcontinental trips and use ships to get to Hawaii, Alaska, and other non-contiguous destinations? The US has reduced CO2 emissions than any other country, but the rest of the world has demonstrated a widespread inability to reduce CO2 emissions by government imposed decarbonization. But the authors of the GND may have not learned much from many years’ experience to implement decarbonization. It is the US which has “achieved” the most and has done it largely through the operation of the energy market.
It is likely that the GND proposal will undergo changes before the 2020 Presidential election, but the economic benefits are unlikely to increase much as reductions are made in the scope of GND. It would be more reasonable to abandon the whole concept before someone actually takes it seriously.
canada cialis online
SPA
can i buy cialis in toronto
American health
[…] our “social democratic” and progressivist future as typified by the Democrat Party’s “Green New Deal.” This project is designed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions; to convert 100 percent of power […]
[…] our “social democratic” and progressivist future as typified by the Democrat Party’s “Green New Deal.” This project is designed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions; to convert 100 percent of power […]
[…] our “social democratic” and progressivist future as typified by the Democrat Party’s “Green New Deal.” This project is designed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions; to convert 100 percent of power […]
[…] proposal, the Green New Deal (GND), advocates spending about half of US national product on this virtue signaling over the next ten […]
[…] proposal, the Green New Deal (GND), advocates spending about half of US national product on this virtue signaling over the next ten […]
[…] more for energy of much lower quality. One proposal, the Green New Deal (GND), advocates spending about half of US national product on this virtue signalling over the next ten years That means real output will fall by half since […]
There is potential for theater, given the context of a hearing about the perils of increasing carbon dioxide gas.
The administration will defining its policy process. Reporters don’t get to ask the questions, people like Epa administrator wheeler can pose the questions. Are there any reliably known harms associated with CO2?
A general can ask what is a bigger national security threat, an H bomb on a Chinese rocket traveling 10,000 miles an hour, or a trace-level life essential gas?
The Administration should look back at the Scopes monkey trial and the theater surrounding it for insights about to conduct its policy review.
A crucial aspect is asking sensible questions that can yield educational answers for the public. Voters have been mistreated and misled for so long, all can benefit from hearing good questions and credible effective responses.
The hearing could be broadcast on tv. Fox News would carry it, whereas socialist networks would choose not to do so, because they have zero incentive to reveal to their viewers how dishonest this cargo cult science.
The White House could later take the high road and state that climate alarmism resembles a godless religious faith and as such is entitled to free speech protection under the first amendment to the constitution. This would be to discourage outraged members of the public from gathering up pitchforks with which to chase after environmentalists.
It can be the trial of the new millennium.
Professor Happer weighs the case of carbon dioxide.
Does CO2 deserve to be the great socialist bugaboo? Is it truly “carbon pollution”. A great threat to our future, as preached by Obama, Merlel, Gore, the UN, and Federal climate scientists?
Or is CO2 a trace gas essential to life, just as essential as water and oxygen? Does CO2 put the green into plants? And replenish oxygen in the atmosphere?
What controls temperature on earth? The sun or CO2?
professor Happer can investigate the truth about CO2.
Obama and Gore remind me of the Scopes Monkey trial. They are on the wrong side of science.
They brand CO2 as carbon pollution.
However In actual reality, CO2 is a low level gas essential to life on earth. It combines with sunlight to enable photosynthesis. This reaction creates green plants and generates oxygen to replenish earths atmosphere. Animals graze on plants, creating a food web based on the element carbon.
Trump can commission a Happer trial about the merits of carbon dioxide and reveal Obama and Gore as climate clowns..
It’s a shame that intelligent people
like Mr. Carlin have to waste time
refuting such a ridiculous proposal,
that the mainstream press treats
as if it makes sense.
Public schools have failed to teach
critical thinking.
The first issue:
There is no climate crisis
that needs to be solved !
Earth’s current climate is
the best it has ever been
for humans and animals.
More CO2 in the air is improving
the ‘health’ of green plants too.
Real science says putting more CO2
in the air is beneficial — only junk
science sees an “existential threat”.
The “threat” is that the average temperature
might be +0.1 degree C. higher in ten years
… or maybe -0.1 degree C. lower ?
The real climate threat is the current interglacial
will end someday, and the planet will get
significantly colder.
We can’t stop that, but it is a real threat !
Of course leftists do not even know what
an interglacial is !
And they never think about the past 20,000 years
of global warming (95% of Canada
under a thick glacier, for one example)
— was all that ice melting, raising
see level by 400 feet, from burning coal
and gasoline !
Only a fool would want to stop global warming,
happening at a rate so slow no one would even notice
if not for the braying hysterical leftists !
Well, maybe the few people living in Alaska
have noticed their warmer nights !
Consider diverse religions. Each competes for believers. And have different beliefs, seminaries, and scholars. Each can be considered a self sustaining island of thought occupied by the faithful.
Is the faith of climate change similar? It believes it is secular and uses scientific methods and data.
However, many alarmist believers do not want to debate with skeptics. Nor do they formulate hypotheses In keeping with the scientific method. Manuscripts may be peer reviewed by other believers, but this is a trivial test within an intellectually in-bred field. The only reason to exclude skeptics from manuscript reviews is to shelter the entire field of climate alarmism against existential doubts and questions.
If the Administration undertakes a review of climate science, it should mention refusal to debate existential assumptions of the alarmists. And refusal to follow the fundamental scientific method by framing a hypothesis. And refusal to engage in meaningful review of manuscripts with skeptics in lieu of the present practice of in-house reviews by fellow believers and buddies.
If climate change is a hoax, as some believe, deviations from the scientific method deserve strong and clear mention. A great number of scientists purport to believe in climate alarmism. How can such a wide spread erroneous belief be explained? What are the major failings in scientific methods that allow and maintain this ridiculous hoax?
To be as persuasive as possible, the assumptions and errors of climate alarmists deserve to be placed within the fuller context of how best to consider if the climate is changing owing to human influences.
What are the assumptions and uncertainties of the alarmist case that are most questionable?
How could more fair minded scientists consider if carbon dioxide impacts climate?
What are some questionable judgments that can explain why UNEP has made mistakes about alarmism?
The climate change issue is not actually a failure of science. This is an important point, deserving of emphasis.
It is rather a failure to be mindful of scientific uncertainties, methods, and assumptions. The UN is hardly a scientifically pure institution. it is a political organization. Same with political parties. Same with newspapers.
Money talks a language that people understand. Each American family will have to pay $650,000 smackers to enable the green brew deal. Which will do nothing to prevent climate change according to UN models.
And which does not even exist in the first place, according to me. I am angrier over the eco lies and madness than about the money.
There is no reason to invest even a nickel in fighting climate change.
Climate alarmism is much less credible than the idea the moon is made out of green cheese.
The Dutch Tulip bubble only lasted a year or two before bursting. It is an interesting commentary on the power of modern political propaganda that pseudo scientific alarmism has lasted for decades.
Maybe it is apt to compare climate alarmism to a religious faith or cult that holds especial appeal for socialists who believe it is supported by science, as they are taught by priests and journalists within the CIC.
In parallel with a science review of alarmism, it could be helpful to have public service announcements that teach basic points.
CO2 enables plants and trees to grow.
CO2 enables plants to restore essential oxygen to the earths atmosphere.
People and animals are much larger sources of CO2 than combustion.
Curbing combustion emissions of CO2 at great expense will achieve no environmental progress.
Many past Federal agency claims of rising surface temperatures inside the US are not scientifically defensible.
I fear Doc Carlin could be right in his prophecy that the socialists will back out of aspects of the Green New Deal before the election.
The GND has to be the zaniest political platform ever dreamt up for a democracy. Bankrupt your nation on behalf of a cause that does not exist following a program which will not work. High paying government jobs for everyone. Free health care. Open borders.
The provocative absurd Green New Deal makes a debate over climate science all the more likely and imminent.
If the socialists are vested in GND, it behooves the President to reveal some of the fatal science flaws underpinning climate alarmism.
The way to beat bad science is with countervailing better science. Then get the administrations views out there, into the public domain.
There will be a propaganda attack from the Fake News and university leftists. This is the inevitable price for puncturing their giant bubble of cargo cult nonsense.
The angrier they are, the greater their anguish for being exposed as lying charlatans by a casino businessman.,
I was challenged to read a book by acclaimed Canadian author, Naomi Klein. It is titled “This Changes Everything: Capitalism versus the Climate”. Ms. Klein is an entertaining writer, but is swimming far beyond her depth on this issue. It does provide some important insight to understanding how strong belief in an issue can be used to rally political action – no matter how misguided from a scientific and technical perspective. I submitted a review of the Kindle edition to Amazon. Her ability to impress most of her readers is well illustrated by the vast majority who give her a 5 out of 5 ranking on the Amazon website.
A lot of resemblance to “The Green New Deal”