In Excess of $37,000 yearly cost per household for Green New Deal pushed by AOC (Joe Biden's climate change task force co-chairwoman) and co-sponsored

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
more pollution.

The Green New Deal would massively expand the size and scope of the federal government’s control over activities best left to the private sector. It would empower the feds to change and control how people produce and consume energy, harvest crops, raise livestock, build homes, drive cars and manufacture goods.

Secondly, the Green New Deal would result in a number of unintended consequences. For instance, policies that limit coal, oil and natural gas production in the United States will not stop the global consumption of these natural resources. Production will merely shift to places where the environmental standards are not as rigorous, making the planet worse off.

Moreover, it’s not as if wind, solar and battery technologies magically appear. Companies still have to mine the resources, manufacture the product and deal with the waste streams. There are challenges to disposing potentially toxic lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, or even wind turbine blades that are difficult and expensive to transport and crush at landfills.
 
Not certain any numbers coming out of a group who’s purpose is to support the oil industry are going to be accurate.
Your line of argument certainly saves the great amount of energy that would be required for actually assessing the evidence and looking into the numbers presented in the document.

Not sure that that kind of “saving of energy” makes any difference regarding the lessening of climate change or your supposed carbon footprint, but points for consistency. 😁
 
Last edited:
One of the main reasons why pollution increased worldwide across many decades is the first point: deregulation. To make matters worse, much of food production, pharma, etc., were eventually concentrated among a few corporations, with their owners controlling much of virtual wealth globally.

Second, production has been shifting to many places with lower environmental standards for decades, or long before the Green New Deal, due to outsourcing and dependence on the dollar as a reserve currency. That’s why the U.S. per capita has very high consumption rates compared to the global average or even what the biosphere can provide.

Finally, the last point is correct, and in addition to not being “green” renewable energy also has low energy returns. That means it can’t easily replace fossil fuels.

In short, the world faces not one but two crisis: environmental damage on an incredible scale and limits to growth. That’s why a Green New Deal or the opposite won’t be able to counter these. In fact, they’re not even problems but predicaments, which means at some point more will be forced to decrease energy and resource use by nature itself.
 
My children and I all suffer from asthma. Hmm…Fossil fuels or clean air …which to choose…my kids’ health or petrochemical shareholders…
😁
False dichotomy. Much of what supports your kid’s health comes from the petrochemical industry. I suppose freezing in the dark without transportation or medical technology is preferable to the satisfaction brought on by feeling virtuous, whether or not there are any real benefits to be had by shutting down petrochemicals.

You would need to greatly reduce or completely stop using the following…

paper, consumer electronics, detergents, footwear, adhesives, paints, furniture, textiles, pharmaceuticals, food packaging, electronics, insulation, building materials, inks, sports equipment and a variety of other stuff.
 
But I might possibly be able to use the argument to convince my Trumpster mother-in-law to vote against him because his environmental policies are putting her grandchildren’s health at risk
😇
 
Good thing green new deal not Biden’s agenda. So no problem.
Anyone who thinks that Biden actually has a platform is not paying attention, as he has reversed enough to discredit himself to anyone listening dispassionately.

And anyone who is paying attention to Joe’s state will understand that Kamala did not miss-state herself when she spoke of the Harris/Biden ticket.

When she was running for the presidency in the rounds of democratic primaries, she could not even garner sufficient backing to stay in the race.
 
Last edited:
Trading about 1/10 the pollution, or in essence cutting it by 90%.
Not sure where this statistic comes from,

A study was done ibn England comparign the amnount of pollution for a gasoline car vs. an all electric car.

Starting with the mining of the materials, through the processes of creating the various parts and ending with the issue(s) of the generation of electricity to charge the car, the study concluded that the all electric vehicle produced slightly more carbon during their equivalent lifetimes.

Also noted that with known deposits of lithium, putting the entire British area under an all electric vehicle law would come close to using all the known deposits - meaning, where is any other country going to turn to obtain the raw materials.

And none of that reached to the issue of the mining process which in some parts of Africa is using child labor and adult hand labor of a dangerous material.

The major big oil companies are and have been investing in alternate fuels and alternate sources of energy.

And no one has yet addressed the issue of how airlines are going to fly based on alternate energy.

The article from Forbes is interesting as much for what it does not say as for what it does.
 
Last edited:
But I might possibly be able to use the argument to convince my Trumpster mother-in-law to vote against him because his environmental policies are putting her grandchildren’s health at risk
😇
I see. So manipulating people’s political views by not telling the whole story is the purpose for your disinformation campaign? Seems slightly less than noble to put your children and yourself in long term jeopardy to achieve short term political ends, but that is your call, I suppose.

:confused:
 
40.png
John_Martin:
Good thing green new deal not Biden’s agenda. So no problem.
Anyone who thinks that Biden actually has a platform is not paying attention, …
I think his platform is something akin to the Price is Right. For the price of electing Joe you will have the door revealing his platform opened so you can find out what you get.

Trump made his name with a reality TV show. Biden is going one step beyond and turning politics into a game show. His sponsors in the CCP will provide all the consolation prizes. 😒
 
That’s how politics is played. There is no truth, and every side has an agenda that meets its own goals.

Usually, the goal is for political consultants to earn big paychecks.
 
Good thing green new deal not Biden’s agenda.
But it is what harris believes in. Biden will not make it thru two years of his presidency. People are not voting for Biden, they are voting against Trump and for harris
 
Last edited:
That’s how politics is played. There is no truth, and every side has an agenda that meets its own goals.

Usually, the goal is for political consultants to earn big paychecks.
I see. So you are bringing the political playbook into how you treat your mother-in-law and inform her about what is true in the world?

That should result in solid family dynamics and trust. 🤔
 
Countries are moving green when the tech is available and the country is ready - this is a total lie - no Government would fully implement a green policy on the people on day one its a transition over time. Ridiculous headline and is obviously untrue.
 
Yes, it will be a gradual transition. However, when the door opens a little, it eventually opens all the way. I think of cable television. Once we let it in, it eventually became the norm. I am not saying the Green Deal is bad. It may well be beneficial to us and the world in the long run. It will also likely cause financial harm to some. One thing, I believe, is almost certain, and that is, it is, for better or worse, the wave of the future, and our grandchildren will no doubt take it for granted despite our present complaints, just as our children now take the technological computer age for granted despite oldsters like me who long for the good old days when we did not live in a virtual reality and under the thumb of monopolies such as Microsoft.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it will be a gradual transition. However, when the door opens a little, it eventually opens all the way. I think of cable television. Once we let it in, it eventually became the norm. I am not saying the Green Deal is bad. It may well be beneficial to us and the world in the long run. It will also likely cause financial harm to some. One thing, I believe, is almost certain, and that is, it is, for better or worse, the wave of the future, and our grandchildren will no doubt take it for granted despite our present complaints, just as our children now take the technological computer age for granted despite oldsters like me who long for the good old days when we did not live in a virtual reality and under the thumb of monopolies such as Microsoft.
I’m sure you’re right, but as you say, the transition has be gradual, and the choice to retain the Old Way has to be present at least for a while.

As the oldsters die off, the New Ways will become the Normal and will be affordable. But to bring all the New Green Ways in right this very instant, within the next four years, will be unaffordable and will very likely destroy the economy.

My husband and I do not have cable TV.

My husband has one of those E’book things and uses it. I had one, but hated it, so I still read real books.

We still have a regular car and probably will until we become too old to drive.

We still heat with gas, although we are hoping to build a home (after we retire) on a lot in the country that we own, and we do plan on installing some solar panels. There’s a big tax break in Illinois for doing this–we would be stupid not to do it,.

My husband collects typewriters and uses several everyday to do various tasks.

I collect uranium glass, and I use my pieces for food serving!

My point is that we still have a choice because everything is being phased out and phase in GRADUALLY. Oh, yes, I’m sure that eventually, it will be impossible to watch TV with an antenna (unless you’re wealthy and can indulge in a “vintage” setup), and I’m guessing that any new books or magazines will have to be read on some kind of “device” rather than paper, and I’m sure that cars will be replaced by something that is more friendly to the environment.

But we still have options, and we don’t have to spend a huge amount of money to do everyday things like watch TV, read, drive, etc.

I fear that the New Green Deal proponents, many of them young, have gotten so used to having things “instantly”–like any show they want to watch, or communicating with others (cell phones, computers) within seconds, or bringing up a book on a device instead of searching a bookshelf, and calling an uber instead of learning to drive and buying a car–that they think all the environmentally friendly things should happen NOW, right NOW, hang the costs and hang the economy and our current way of life, because the disaster will happen really really soon, just like bringing up a website or streaming a movie happens instantly.

They don’t realize that change is best done gradually.
 
are you for real? who do you think will pay any increase in a business owner’s taxes? the consumer, the middle class. businesses don’t pay taxes their customers pay it.
Wow! That is actually who pays the cost of the tariffs on China by Trump and the border wall cost for Trump.

Competition will keep prices down with Biden; tax payments by corporations will just come from excess current profit harvested currently by those not letting anything “trickle-down” (a fable told to the masses).
 
We certainly agree on this issue. And I believe that Biden, in his heart of hearts, also agrees. However, he may not be calling all the shots, and that, I think, is the fear of many of us. Biden himself is no socialist and no progressive, no matter what he says. But those in his Administration, if he is elected (and, that is still a big IF, in my view), may very well be progressives and (democratic) socialists, and will no doubt have a lot of influence on his policy decisions.
 
We certainly agree on this issue. And I believe that Biden, in his heart of hearts, also agrees. However, he may not be calling all the shots, and that, I think, is the fear of many of us. Biden himself is no socialist and no progressive, no matter what he says. But those in his Administration, if he is elected (and, that is still a big IF, in my view), may very well be progressives and (democratic) socialists, and will no doubt have a lot of influence on his policy decisions.
Yes, I think you’ve called this correctly. VP Biden was once a pretty nice guy, but the allure of the highest office in the land has caught him up in a web and at this point, he’s just going along with it and hoping that everything will turn out OK.

His Party called upon him to be front-runner out of a large field of hopefuls because of his past likeability and his 46 years of public service, and because he is less extreme than the others (e.g., Sen. Sanders), and finally, because of his association with Pres. Obama, who is respected by most and beloved by many who are inspired by his election as the first African American President (a noble and historic accomplishment).

But VP Biden has surely figured out by now that he is not in charge–he will do the bidding of his Democratic Party progressive (and quite likely socialist-leaning or worse) thinkers who crave power and wealth. He’s trapped now, and probably too old and frail to fight back against them and lead the country down a more moderate path that would be welcomed by many, including many Republicans.

Sadly, most Americans voting for VP Biden are voting for what they think will be a more moderate Presidency, and I fear they are in for a shock. As many learned from Pres. Clinton, better someone with a lot of fleshly weakness who has the best interests of the U.S. in mind than a “gentleman’” who is willing to sell out the country for the sake of an exalted office.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, most Americans voting for VP Biden are voting for what they think will be a more moderate Presidency,
Actually they are voting for him to have someone who will take the 220,000 deaths seriously, although it will probably double that before taking over from the current pretense can happen in January. The big issue is covid and pretending it went away last April.
 
Last edited:
Actually they are voting for him to have someone who will take the 220,000 deaths seriously, although it will probably double that before taking over from the current pretense can happen in January. The big issue is covid and pretending it went away last April.
This is ridiculous.

The President has done well with COVID-19–I believe any other man or woman would have handled it pretty much the same way.

I think some people would have fired Dr. Fauci after he first said “masks do more harm than good so don’t wear them,” and then a few weeks later said, “Wear the mask!” --to me, this would have been grounds for letting him go quietly (no reason to humiliate him) and hiring someone else with a little more carefulness about making public pronouncements before all the evidence is in.

IMO, this gaffe from Dr. Fauci is the main reason for the mask skepticism in this country.

John_Martin, what exactly would YOU have done differently than Donald Trump? You have read the timeline of actions that he took from the beginning of COVID-19 awarenesss, haven’t you? What did he miss?

Do you honestly think that he could have prevented the infection from spreading throughout the country? No other country has been able to do this, other than South Korea (with a virtual shutdown of everything). Do you really think that Soutth Korea’s approach would have worked here in the United States of America?

I think the one thing I would have done differently is OPEN UP THE ECONOMY as soon as we realized that 96% of people do NOT have serious, life-threatening sequelae from COVID-19 infection, but I think that the U.S. Constitution gives that power to the governors, not the President. Sigh. But I would have put a lot of pressure on governors to let their economy open.

I also would have curtailed the news media and told them that for every tragic story of young people dying of COVID-19, they had to show a story of someone who tested positive but didn’t even know they were sick. But again, I do not think the Constitution allows the President to commandeer the media. Free speech (Bill of Rights) and all that good stuff.

But I don’t know what he could have done. I believe that if a Democrat had been President, they would have done pretty much the same things, other than firing Dr. Fauci early on.

We are watching my city in Northern Illinois virtually collapse due to closures that many people believe are utterly unnecssary. I am hoping with all my heart that Donald Trump wins and somehow manages to circumvent the governors and open up the economy and the schools again–we were doing so well here before the COVID-19, and now so many people in our city are on government aid and the learning curve is going down down down again because of a governor who is ruling by fear and claiming it is “science.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top