Disaster Outline of The Green New Deal is Released

So you've seen "The Green New Deal" being tossed around by progressives recently. Now an outline of it was released today. Pelosi isn't a fan of it, referring to it as "The green dream or whatever they call it" when it was introduced in the House. If you start looking at the details it reads like something written up by a schizophrenic. Some points:

• It calls for net-zero green house gas emissions in 10 years which is utterly impossible and I'm sure breaks some laws in science.
• Revamping the U.S. agriculture industry
• 'retro-emission vehicle infrastructure' (retrofit all cars into electric vehicles)
• subsidize electric vehicles and build charging stations "everywhere"
• Upgrade and replace every active building in the U.S. to make them energy efficient.
• (no joke) build high speed rail on such a massive scale that air travel is eliminated
• “to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, de-industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” (who knew that created climate change)
• 'Community ownership' (hammers and sickles intensify)
• Unions get a massive shot of power to the point they'd pretty much control the businesses
• Completely nationalized healthcare (because climate change??)

https://news.yahoo.com/green-deal-does-mean-climate-110908001.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...green-new-deal-for-clean-energy-idUSKCN1PW16I
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gyayv4/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-whats-in-the-green-new-deal?


The Outline in full

 

[Cosmug]

You dont have to be an engineer to craft a sane green energie concept. takes like 5 mins....

1. Nationalise the Railroad Tracks and invest in transcoastal lowspeed rail. Sounds socialist, but will improve competition on the rail greatly. Get goods transportation from the road to the rail, makes road maintenace much cheaper and is a greener solution, cost neutral.
2. encourage local green energie production in flyover country. start with small natural gas cogeneration powerplants, slowly transition to biomass, there is enough agriculture waste for energie production.
3. Use taxcredits to encourage people to buy natural gas cars.
4. Use your oldest nukes to glass CA.

You’re misunderstanding my point. That statement was directed at the bill author saying “we don’t have to figure out how to pay for it” but in the USA, that’s precisely the job of the Congress. They define the budget and milestones and turn that over to the people with the skill to deliver on it. The author doesn’t appreciate what their actual job is despite being sworn in to a recitation of their responsibilities less than a month ago.
Your point about biomass to methane I can get behind 100% though.

 

[Plissken]

I wonder how many drugs were taken prior to writing this drivel. None of this shit is either reasonable or possible, let alone in such a short time as 10 years. In this political climate too, with the communist dogma that is nestled in that deal? It won't ever happen.

 

[Maxliam]

You dont have to be an engineer to craft a sane green energie concept. takes like 5 mins....

1. Nationalise the Railroad Tracks and invest in transcoastal lowspeed rail. Sounds socialist, but will improve competition on the rail greatly. Get goods transportation from the road to the rail, makes road maintenace much cheaper and is a greener solution, cost neutral.
2. encourage local green energie production in flyover country. start with small natural gas cogeneration powerplants, slowly transition to biomass, there is enough agriculture waste for energie production.
3. Use taxcredits to encourage people to buy natural gas cars.
4. Use your oldest nukes to glass CA.

Let me tell you a dirty little secret here. The US is was too huge to have the same rail system small European countries can handle. If it only stops in major cities, what's the point? You can just fly between them. I do like the idea of nuking California.

Demolishing and rebuilding every structure to fit the "green initiative" is a multi century effort that will cost quadrillions of dollars by itself, generate millions upon millions of tons of waste - toxic, planet-damaging, harmful waste that cannot be recycled - and will upend the lives of every US citizen, just so 23 million coastal lefties don't have to cry during reruns of Planet Earth on NatGeo.

And that's just for starters.

It's hilarious how much they love those shows but wouldn't dare go out into the actual wilderness. Their little green belts are about as wild as they would go out. God I hate urban liberals so much. Don't realize the amount of work that went into building, maintaining, servicing, etc. the luxuries of modern life they enjoy while they talk down to the very people who helped provide it.

 

[2 litre soda]

Goddamn every single time I go back to this thing I find something else completely insane. Phase out air travel completely. Lockheed would be sending its private paramilitaries to put two in the backs of every family member's heads of any legislator who came anywhere near voting for this

I'm not sure I can agree with you here. Who do you think would be putting on a big song and dance for Congress and to get the multi-billion dollar contract to design and build all the lines and trains?

 

[Pargon]

I'm not sure I can agree with you here. Who do you think would be putting on a big song and dance for Congress and to get the multi-billion dollar contract to design and build all the lines and trains?

I assumed some other company since retrofitting all of their infrastructure to manufacture a completely different set of hardware (for a project that may or may not actually take off) is usually an expense stockholders balk at but for all I know they've got some site in the asshole of Eastern Europe ready to get revved back up again.

 

[Freddy Freaker]

And it's an even more stupid thing to do.

How this will be paid for is the most important question of all. If it cannot be realistically financed, it's a meaningless bit of pontification and nothing more.

Come on you evil white pieces of shit! Agenda 21 pays for itself and if you disagree you're super hitler!

 

[eldri]

I thought fear of nuclear energy was a boomer thing.
Also, what happens if we break the fusion barrier?
Ignore it, because it's nuclear energy???

 

[Freddy Freaker]

I thought fear of nuclear energy was a boomer thing.
Also, what happens if we break the fusion barrier?
Ignore it, because it's nuclear energy???

Nah, ecotards of every generation think nuclear will kill us all and pay zero attention to improved uranium reactors, thorium reactors, or fusion.

 

[Stoneheart]

Let me tell you a dirty little secret here. The US is was too huge to have the same rail system small European countries can handle. If it only stops in major cities, what's the point? You can just fly between them. I do like the idea of nuking California.

for Goods, not for People. The US is on a good way(or was, the numbers arent looking that good if you take out the increase on oil transport on rails,a bad idea and mostly caused by dickheads against pipelines) but could do more. Getting Truck onto Rails is a win-win for everybody.

Highspeed Railroads are just usefull on the coasts, flying is always a pain and you dont wanna drive your car for 10 hours(ending the fag speed limit would help with that too...).
People would use it if it has the same quality as high speed trains in europe.

 

[2 litre soda]

(for a project that may or may not actually take off)

Considering they're already specialists in making things that don't take off...

 

[eldri]

Reading this, I can't help but think AOC will be one of the first politicians to come out with an anti-space exploration agenda.

That may seem out of left field, but there is a rising opinion among progressives that NASA is useless as it does not directly help fix humanitarian problems i.e. doping up the voter base. NASA, as a brand, is extremely popular; therefore, in the progressive eyes, it is problematic and must be taken down a few pegs.
And, since AOC is stupid enough to be against nuclear energy i.e. fusion, then she is stupid enough to be against space exploration.

If you like NASA and space, be on the look out for this shit. It will come.
The only thing preventing it now are the billion dollar companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and so on.

 

[Weppers]

The Green Leap Forward

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Reading this, I can't help but think AOC will be one of the first politicians to come out with an anti-space exploration agenda.

That may seem out of left field, but there is a rising opinion among progressives that NASA is useless as it does not directly help fix humanitarian problems i.e. doping up the voter base. NASA, as a brand, is extremely popular; therefore, in the progressive eyes, it is problematic and must be taken down a few pegs.
And, since AOC is stupid enough to be against nuclear energy i.e. fusion, then she is stupid enough to be against space exploration.

If you like NASA and space, be on the look out for this shit. It will come.
The only thing preventing it now are the billion dollar companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and so on.

NASA works for them already. Most of their budget is spent fudging climate data and models to support whatever the most recent global warming Armageddon prediction is.

 

[NQ 952]

I don't know what's worse: that this is the single dumbest thing I've ever read, or the fact that there are actual people in the House that support this like it's some kind of godsend.

If implemented as worded this would cause rampant deflation and would end us as a viable country.

 

[thx1138]

So let's do some math...

Spoiler: Warning...THE 'TISM.

There are 74,000,000 single-family free-standing homes in the United States.

There are 10,700,000 building construction workers in the US. 50 people required to build a house, so 214,000 "teams" of house-builders.

The average cost of demolishing a home - 12,500USD.
Again, 74 million homes - 925,000,000,000USD.

With 6.65 years of non-stop, 7-days-a-week, 24-hours-per-day work to demolish every home in the US. However, teams can't work a full 365 days per year, they can only work 261 days per year, and only 8 hours a day, or 88 full days per year.

Demolition of all residential homes will take 27 years.

Each home demolition will produce on average 8.85 40-yard dumpsters of waste.

This will produce 663,000,000 yards or 377,130 miles of waste.

(California itself is only 163,696 square miles.)

But back to time considerations. 27 years of home demolition. And remember they want this done as quickly as possible so we can't stop and put part of the team back on home construction!

So at the end of 27 years, with one-and-a-half generations of Americans (all Americans not living in multi-home structures) being without a private home, we must now turn our attention to commercial structures.

There are 2.25 million apartment (multi-family rental properties) in the US. As of 2012 there were 5.6 million commercial buildings. The time to demolish each building will vary, because this includes everything from single-unit outbuildings (stand-alone convenience stores or fast food restaurants) to multi-story skyscrapers (how long do you think it will take to demolish the Transamerica Building in San Francisco - remember, replacement of all buildings is part of the initiative). So that's unknown, but I think it's safe to assume "Years".

Now let's go back to homes. We've buried a California-sized space three times over in demolition refuse. We've displaced 150 million people. We've demolished 20-30 million businesses (remember, a lot of the commercial buildings are multi-occupant like malls, office complexes, and so on). It's approximately 50 years down the line and with the bulk of the United States living under tents and working in open lots, let's get to construction!

The first thing we have to rebuild, because we're not monsters, are houses for the displaced 150 million. And we want to give them the average 2750 square feet of house back. So let's look at this.

Four months average to build a house. We have to build 75,000,000 of them (we're assuming baseline population has stayed roughly the same and, when you consider that making babies is something you'd rather do in relative privacy and not in a tent next to someone else's tent, we'll assume no great population boom).

We have our 214,000 50-person teams ready to start construction. I'll assume also that "green house" technologies, 50 years from now, are similar to current mundane construction techniques and not corner cases that require specialists and additional time.

We've established that 88 days is the realistic work-time. 214,000 50 person teams working 88 days a year (that is, 200 some 8 hour days, with weekends off), will build .75 houses each, per "88 day year". In other words, 1.5 houses per working year per team or 3 houses every two years per working team. That's 160,500 houses per working year. Again, we're not working these people to death, 24/7/365. They get weekends off, and only work 8 hours per day.

To replace everyone's home, per the New Green Deal...will take...467 years.

On top of all the other costs, just the construction of 75,000,000 new homes will be twenty two trillion, twelve billion, five hundred million dollars.

Now, that's a *mere* 47 billion dollars per year! Why, that's a drop in the bucket! Less than NASA's budget for 2003! And to think, in a mere 200 years, your family, who were dragged out of their home, and watched as it was demolished, might get to live in a house again!

...and we have yet to address the destruction and reconstruction of every commercial structure in the US.

 

[pwincess fwuffypants]

The Green Leap Forward

Let's pray it doesn't involve millions dying from starvation.

 

[JambledUpWords]

Let's pray it doesn't involve millions dying from starvation.

If we just kill a bunch of people off before they can starve, nobody will die of starvation. It will be for the greater good.

 

[ButterBar]

Has anyone told PETA this would basically be a holocaust for cows?

PETA wants a holocaust for cows though. They view domesticated animals as tainted and unnatural and basically want them all neutered and extinct.

 

[registereduser]

Not realy a good idea on a big scale and completly useless if you could just retrofit them to run on natural gas for a fraction of the cost. Natural Gas is much cleaner and can easyly be replaced with power-to-gas.

I might have been mislead by propaganda or some shit, but I think the big issue with natural gas, from a "green" level, is that is almost entirely obtained through fracking, which does a lot of damage to the environment. High use of water, pollution of surrounding ground water and, destabilization of surrounding land. My half-assed Googling tells me they can also get it through horizontal drilling, but at much higher cost.
Personally I am more in favor of harnessing methane and other biomass for this purpose.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

for Goods, not for People. The US is on a good way(or was, the numbers arent looking that good if you take out the increase on oil transport on rails,a bad idea and mostly caused by dickheads against pipelines) but could do more. Getting Truck onto Rails is a win-win for everybody.

Highspeed Railroads are just usefull on the coasts, flying is always a pain and you dont wanna drive your car for 10 hours(ending the fag speed limit would help with that too...).
People would use it if it has the same quality as high speed trains in europe.

The problem is it would be an enormous financial undertaking for something that is currently much more flexible creates many more jobs and uses existing infrastructure, trucking.