Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Save the World from Climate Change?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Source Wikimedia, author Chillbedextous, licence Creative Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon – Cortez shocked establishment Democrats when she won the NY-14 Primary a few weeks ago. But even climate advocates are skeptical that a transition to 100% renewables could be achieved by 2035, and are skeptical of Cortez’s apparent rejection of the nuclear option.

Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Save the Planet?

Democrats lack an organized plan to stop global warming. Climate scientists say the newcomer has the beginnings of a good one.

By EMILY ATKIN
July 4, 2018

Progressives have been practically leaping for joy since 28-year-old self-described democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her primary election for Congress last week, an outcome that CNN called “the most shocking upset of a rollicking political season.” But perhaps no group has been more excited than environmentalists. In a political environment where even her fellow Democrats often stay vague on climate change, Ocasio-Cortez has been specific and blunt in talking about the global warming crisis. She also has a plan to fight that crisis—one to transition the United States to a 100-percent renewable energy system by 2035.

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that aggressive action is needed to stave off the violent storms, rising seas, and debilitating droughts projected to worsen as the climate warms. Avoiding that means the earth’s average temperature can’t rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above where it was in the year 1880. Unfortunately, we’re already nearly there; as The Guardian’s Carbon Countdown Clock shows, humans can only emit greenhouse gases at our current rate for another 18 years before we reach the 2-degree mark. We can buy more time, however, if we stop emitting so much greenhouse gas. “The science is pretty clear—we want to reduce emissions, to near zero, as fast as possible, if we want to minimize climate change,” Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler told me. That means rapidly decarbonizing the U.S. economy—much like Ocasio-Cortez has proposed.

But for most of the the climate scientists I spoke to, their alignment with Ocasio-Cortez’s plan stops there. That’s not because they don’t want a 100-percent renewable energy system by 2035, but because the Green New Deal lacks some important details. “How will energy be stored as an economical cost if only using wind and solar? What is the role for nuclear power in such a plan? Who will fund this transition?” said Penn State climate scientist David Titley, also the former chief operating officer of NOAA. “I’m very skeptical such a transition can be done in a period less than 20 years from what is basically a standing start.

Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/149520/can-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-save-planet

Nuclear power is the only certain path to rapid decarbonisation of the economy. France converted over 75% of their electricity to nuclear back in the 1970s. They kept costs down by mass producing nuclear power plants and reprocessing nuclear fuel.

Cortez’s website doesn’t even seem to mention nuclear power – she wants a 100% renewable solution by 2035.

Why do greens like Cortez ignore the nuclear option? Why risk the planet, why risk continued political stalemate fighting for acceptance of renewables, when a nuclear programme would meet far less resistance from Cortez’s right wing opponents? How can socialists like Cortez in good conscience reject the one solution which might win rapid bipartisan support, when they claim the fate of the planet hangs in the balance?

One possible explanation is that embracing nuclear power would not offer politicians like Cortez the same opportunities as renewables to restructure society – life in capitalist nuclear powered France is similar to life in neighbouring countries which have not embraced nuclear power. But this explanation would suggest that Cortez is just another left wing fanatic who sees climate change and renewables as a convenient vehicle to force acceptance of her social programmes.

Advertisements

232 thoughts on “Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Save the World from Climate Change?

    • I watch the Guardian climate clock everyday. I love watching the CO2 emissions going up. It is interesting that the greenies and alarmists always seem to pick a target that is 18 to 20 years in the future. That gives them plenty of time for them to change their minds and pick a new target date for a tipping point. I have been looking for a tipping point for 40 years and havent found it yet.

    • A warning to the USA on the 4th of July:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/27/100-renewables-by-2035-surprise-new-york-primary-winner-takes-on-democrat-climate-moderates/#comment-2391692

      [excerpt]

      In the USA, the leftist infection is much more prevalent than a just few violent paid protesters. About half the population in the USA is effectively on the dole, since they consume more than they contribute – these people will usually vote for anyone who promises them more free stuff, like Ms Ocasio-Cortez. She knows what she is doing – it is the standard Marxist formula that has dragged down so many countries in the world.

      The solution is to get the unemployed back to work, which Trump is doing – and a key component is keeping energy costs low, so the USA can compete with China and other low-labour-cost countries. Trump is on the right track to saving the USA, and the Marxists cannot stand it.

      When Marxists want to sabotage a country, they increase energy costs unnecessarily, which cripples the economy. That is the left’s strategy, and it is working, except in the USA, China and a few other countries.

      A key leftist strategy is to cripple the energy industry – examples are endless regulatory snarls and successful anti-pipeline movements – these have cost Canada $120 billion in lost revenues – a huge amount of money that should have been available for industrial re-investment, job creation, health, education, etc.

      The leftists were the scourge of the 20th Century – Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed a total of about 200 million people. Almost 200 countries that once had viable economies are on a downward spiral – Zimbabwe and Venezuela lead the way, but many others follow. That is the Marxist agenda, and it is working.

      Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

      • Marxism made simple:

        The Groucho Marxists are the leaders – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of recent history, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.

        The Harpo Marxists are the followers – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”.

        George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

        One can easily identify many members of these two groups in the global warming debate – and none of them are ”climate skeptics”.

        Need more evidence? Read the quotations at http://www.green-agenda.com

        Just a few examples:

        “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
        which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
        – David Brower,
        founder of Friends of the Earth
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
        saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
        an ecologically sound society under socialism.
        I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
        – Judi Bari,
        principal organiser of Earth First!
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
        industrialized civilizations collapse?
        Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
        – Maurice Strong,
        founder of the UN Environment Programme
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
        United States. De-development means bringing our
        economic system into line with the realities of
        ecology and the world resource situation.”
        – Paul Ehrlich,
        Professor of Population Studies
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        • Senior Democrat Party members hailed Zimbabwe and Venezuela as the future of the world. People really should pay attention to what they want for the “world”. And now they are declaring South Africa as the next Great Success Of Humanity. Oi.

          • I remember saying to anyone listening at the time that Winnie Mandela had her followers “necklacing” her political opponents that SA was going to be the next Cambodia. Only took 25 years to get it in place, and now the ball is rolling nicely along.

        • Allan

          And who could forget Christina Figueres (AKA Cruella Deville):

          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”.

          We of course note she doesn’t define what economic development model (Capitalism) will be changed to what other economic development model (socialism perhaps?) or if she has invented another economic development model, or perhaps resurrect Feudalism Cruella!

          • Hi HotScot.

            The “economic” model is like Zimbabwe – a murderous absolute monarch like Robert Mugabe sitting atop a sh!thole of poverty and oppression. That is the TRUE Marxist model, stripped of all the fancy rhetoric.

            The death tolls attributable to these “fearless leaders” of the left are approximately:

            Adolf Hitler – WW2 on all sides: ~50 million killed

            Josef Stalin – Russians in internal purges: ~50 million killed

            Mao Tse Tung – Chinese in internal purges during the “Great Leap Backwards”: ~80 million killed

            Pol Pot – Cambodians in internal purges: ~3 million killed

            These numbers are from memory so may be imperfect – but I think Mao gets the record for sheer numbers of deaths, whereas Pol Pot gets the “percentage of total population” prize. Attaboys all around!

            Fanatical ideologues are truly dangerous people – given enough power, they usually act the same way.

            Justin Trudeau has openly approved of the effectiveness of one-party rule – and has admired Fidel since he was a pup.

            Mao owned 25 Mercedes 600’s [the most expensive car built in the 1970’s and 1980’s] – so much for Socialism. Many other vicious leftist dictators have also owned them – including Pol-Pot, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Idi Amin, etc., etc.

          • It gets better, Allan. Cuba Archive just described the three modern jet liners the Castros used to ferry themselves about.

            This, in the context of the recent crash of the overage Cubana Airlines Boeing 737 that killed 112 people. That particular 737 was apparently some 14 years past its retirement date, and was poorly maintained.

          • “…belonging to Mexican charter airline Aerolíneas Damojh, S.A. (EasySky Airlines)…”

            I’m not sure if this supports or refutes the socialism thing. Does it mean the state-owned Cuban airline couldn’t afford to buy their own plane? Maybe not, all airlines lease planes, but they’re more careful where they get them.

          • The Castro dictatorship destroyed the Cuban economy many years ago. I realize that dictatorship apologists like to blame the embargo, but Cuba has been able to trade with other nations, received enormous soviet subsidies, and after 1998 it robbed Venezuela of billions of USD.

            Socialism simply destroys economies, although it can appear to work for a while as it consumes the fat stored by capitalists. The reasons it fails are quite obvious to me, because I’ve lived in Cuba, Venezuela, Rusia, and other nations, and could see how they worked, their destruction, and their corruption and abuses.

            The unsafe condition of air travel is caused by the concentration of power, lack of free expression, corruption, and the entrenched communist party elite. The only solution is to dump the regime, install democracy and capitalism, and build a museum and monument to the victims of this terrible regime.

          • Fernando L

            My late father in law worked with both Fidel and Raúl, when he was in the UN. He established and executed a forestry policy that would have created an entire industry. He built factories and distribution networks to manufacture and export timber products such as plywood and chipboard. He told me that when he needed equipment he need only ask, and brand new Russian plant was shipped in within weeks. Fleets of brand new bulldozers and trucks, manufacturing and handling equipment, worth a fortune.

            But when he left, he knew what would happen, and it did. Factories left to rot and the machinery sold internationally. No one ever saw the money from the proceeds.

          • Thank you for your post Fernando. All too true. And yet, remarkably, the imbeciles in our midst continue to vote for these wanna-be dictators, and realize too late that their country and its economy are ruined.

            http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/calgary-economic-development-aims-to-humanize-the-energy-industry-with-new-video/wcm/d8ed2341-bc45-4e5f-885c-58dc5f132620#comments

            [excerpt]

            Destroying the economy is one of the classic tactics of dictators when they want to take control. Then they institute martial law and often imprison or execute those who oppose them, blaming them for the terrible economic mess; then they live like kings on top of the disaster that once was a prosperous country.

            Examples abound:
            Stalin in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), all the FSU vassal states, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Kim’s in North Korea, Castro in Cuba, many countries in South America (e.g. Venezuela), many countries in in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. Zimbabwe) – it’s a long and tragic list.

        • As to that last quote from Ehrlich, If you want a real laugh read His 1968 “Population Bomb” in hindsight, It is funnier than Douglas Adams “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” In part because you will find more actual science in the Hitchhikers Guide. In truth the agents of the Climate Scare all read his fictional best seller and set the IPCC on their mission to build the Global Warming Hobgoblin. Mus’nt let all the great unwashed burn through all our limited resources don’t you know. The Groucho Marxists plan to hoard those for themselves.

        • You forgot to add the Chico Marxists, Allan, the enablers.

          These are the apparatchiks who join the party out of ideology and for career advancement.

          They man the hierarchy of authority, direct the business of tyranny, and live the comfortable life that is the reward for their support of murderous corruption.

      • America’s very FIRST Marxist President, Barrack Hussein Obama, famously said that … “energy prices will necessarily need to rise”. This is a Marxist dream … to crush the middle class between the millstones of higher taxes and inflation. And as the American public has fewer and fewer disposable dollars to spend … then our Consumer, Capitalist System will die on the vine of stagnant GDP. Inotherwords … we’d become a perfect candidate to join the EU or UN and ditch our Constitution, Culture, and Character.

        • Not just “…rise…” but “…skyrocket…” That’s what I remember him saying. Which he wouldn’t say again once he started campaigning for POTUS.

        • Oil prices are, in real terms (corrected for inflation) 2 1/2 times higher than 20 years ago. The oil price trend should continue, and it is reasonable to expect that, by 2038, they will be around $150 to $165 dollars per barrel.

          Natural gas prices should also increase gradually over time. I just read that SE Asia, a large producer in the past, has now reached peak production, and Australia is expected to take that market. But in 20 years Australia should start feeling the pinch.

          I would also expect USA natural gas prices to rise, because it’s exporting to Mexico and via LNG, which means that, if enough export terminals s are built, the USA consumer will be paying European prices minus the transport differentials.

        • Every Republican Senator, Representative, or Federal worker should IMMEDIATELY remove their children from Sidwell-Friends … if any attend. It is clearly a leftist incubator of HATE. Disgusting what this Sidwell teacher did. I hope she goes to bed each night eating her own liver over the realization that the PEOPLE of America REJECT her brand of totalitarian Marxism.

          • And she is not the exception . Most American and Western World kids spend their days in an indoctrination center we call school.

      • Marxism can’t take hold in the US …… as it always requires oppression of the masses. Thanks to the second amendment, all this babe could accomplish is precipitating a civil war. And I doubt seriously that the bubbas in the military will line up to defend her ilk.

        • Marxism is taking hold of the USA. They are embedded in the educational system, poll results show a large portion of the younger generation believes socialism is better than capitalism, and that democracy is no good.The US is ripe for the fall. And meanwhile most of you are sitting there and can’t even look up to see that 20 ton rock coming down on your heads.

  1. Why do greens like Cortez ignore the nuclear option?
    The mistake is to think the greens want to avoid an energy supple crises , they don’t they look for it because such a crises offers them the opportunity to force on people , for the good of the planet , green ideas that they would never vote for . Such as the end of all personal powered transport , included EV. By nature they are control freaks that wish to see not merely that people are punished for ‘bad environmental behavior’ but they cannot even think about acting in such a way in the first , for their own good of course .

    • While we are discussing nuclear options;

      The US is subsidizing the international financial sector with a significant portion of it’s total GDP, via interest payments and military interventions. If the Treasury starts printing Billion Dollar notes, these can be used to pay of the Global Silver Smith’s Guild.

      You can’t use Billion Dollar notes at the bakery. They are only useful if your tax bill exceeds that amount. So they will not affect the real economy too much.

      The freed up resources can be used to build a continent wide DC current transport network. Then solar energy from the Chihuahua dessert can be used to power NY City during the day. And at night the Niagara falls can run the lights in Las Vegas and Mexico City. You might even run super conducting cables to Tunisia and Australia, so you have solar power 24/7.

      The Radical Arm of the Democratic party seems to be gaining influence, so they may be able to overthrow the Wall Street Arm of that party and make it happen.

      • ” these can be used to pay of the Global Silver Smith’s Guild.”

        What are you talking about?

      • What on earth are you on about? Did you forget to take your tablets this morning?

      • Basic economics, you can’t just print more money to pay your debts. This leads to hyperinflation and devastation of your economy. Even a basic study of history will show that.

        • Well Ms. Ocasio was offended and in protest against reality rejected the cruelties if economics.
          Just as she did with history, finance, basic science, and ethics.

        • Why not? Obama did it. Which he got by with only by suppressing the economy so much with over-regulation it never really recovered from the ’08 Recession. (I’m speaking totally off the cuff, I have no facts to back this up. But if you would like a better answer, you make one up.)

      • “The Radical Arm of the Democratic party seems to be gaining influence, so they may be able to overthrow the Wall Street Arm of that party and make it happen.”

        The only thing that this will lead to is their demise. The intransigence driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome, the blind acceptance of a green idiocracy, the failure to understand the economy, the failure to recognize the difference between legal and illegal immigration, the demands to disband ICE, the demands for Socialism and so much more are marginalizing the left in the minds of every sane person in America. There’s so much abject insanity coming from the left, the blue wave that would have been expected in a mid term election is likely to turn into an unprecedented red tidal wave.

      • So the “silver smith guild” now has Trillions in freshly printed billion dollar notes (actually this would take place via SWIFT). So what do they do? They buy US assets and also enter into the FX markets and buy other currencies. Do you know what the impact of that would be on Americans?

        The other laughable option is the “debt jubilee”. What will pension funds and life insurance companies do when Trillions of their investment assets are marked down to zero?

        What you are really after is selective default, which will eventually happen. Forget the “billion dollar note” games and the “debt jubilee”. Just say it: the US should default on it debt to foreigners.

        I think it is avoidable if the US would balance its budget, however politically I don’t think it can be avoided. Detroit COULD have been fixed 20 years ago. It was politically impossible. At some point the takers create too large of a voting bloc to overcome.

      • All Americans will be billionaires but most of them can’t afford to use that energy. You really like to change America in a third world country.

      • There is really no difference between the “Greens” and the “Reds”. They simply change masks depending on the issue.

        • JOEY : That is why in Australia they are called
          “THE WATER-MELONS” …..green on the outside….red on the inside !
          Same murderous ideology , same “glorious Utopia ” , same pernicious
          tactics , same evil POWER GRAB. Really evil people pretending to
          be “compassionate and caring” but really narcissistic , nihilistic nobodies !!
          Unfortunately , there are A LOT OF THEM in our education systems
          where they fester away contaminating our children with their
          destructive views and insidious indoctrination !
          IT IS TIME THAT THEY WERE “DISINFECTED” FROM
          ALL OUR SYSTEMS and this time it actually IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD !

        • Hence the term Watermelons. Environmental Green on the outside and Commie Red on the inside.

    • Renewable energy t is the carrot, ‘sustainable development’ is the stick…

      RENEWABLE ENERGY IS THE CARROT – SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS THE STICK:

      “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, New York Times journalist on climate change

      “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

      “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    • An energy crisis gives them mire opportunity to steal from the people.
      Open corrupt immigration gives this evil young woman more slaves for her plantation.

  2. Why would this woman have any level of understanding about climate related matters, (…Why do greens like Cortez ignore the nuclear option?…”)? She is a young politician/socialist, end of story.

      • Trading a corrupt go-along Democrat for a dyed in the wool Socialist/Marxist?
        Not much of a bargain.

        • crowley was/is, above all else, a politician.

          new lady is an ignorant zealot who does not realize that she is calling attention to the stupidity/ignorance of her ilk.

          Good trade. Short term or localized long term … either way it is likely a good thing.

          (possible down side may be that this creates an impetus for crowley to move on to more lucrative/damaging endeavors)

    • She’s a communist. Nowadays they like to hide their nature under different labels. Did you notice the “democratic” socialist tag? That’s vague enough for the ignorati to fall in the trap. To them “democratic” involves abandoning representative democracy (they gut and destroy the congress or parliament), and creating what they call “protagónic democracy” in which a charismatic communist leader “gets in touch with the people” and rules by excercising control over police, media, and what’s taught. In schools.

      This formula was already laid out many years ago, and has been applied in Venezuela, Bolivia, and now it is being applied in Spain. Later this year it will be applied in Mexico. And of course it’s already being applied in the USA. Obama formalized the proccess using Title 9 letters to enforce a repressive atmosphere in college campuses and creating a system where the brainwashing of students can proceed smoothly.

      This has been happening in Spain, where now a socialist allied with a communist and separatists is ruling the country. By next month he will have full control of the state media apparatus, they will change the school curriculum formally to introduce even more communist ideas, and in parallel they plan to flood the country with economic migrants transported by NGOs financed by leftist contributors and rich folk like George Soros.

      • Some would say that Trump is attempting to reverse the process.
        The Brexit vote was an expression of resistance to it.
        There is no doubt that authoritarianism is gaining ground world wide and the best way to oppose it is to return to the concepts of national identity and sovereignty
        Diverse independent nations trading freely are better than the development of monolithic authoritarian blocs such as the EU.

        • Not just Brexit. The revolt of the V-4 nations, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia has now been joined by Austria in their objections to EU-German immigration policies. Empires usually collapse on the fringes, and that’s what appears to be the case now.

          • The thing that appears to be collapsing the modern socialist push is their insane insistence on white ethnic cleansing. I understand that the goal is to destroy national identity but they must surely understand that at some point those being threatened with extinction are going to push back against it. Moreover it is unclear why the consider a literal Armageddon to be in their best interests.

          • They are expanding the example of Czarist Russia and the Revolution. The Bolsheviks, were not the first revolutionaries but took ruthless advantage of the chaos of the Great War and the revolution already started by people seeking democracy.

            Che Guevara preached that if a country is not ripe for socialist revolution it is the duty of every good socialists to make it so.

            The useful idiots and fellow travelers are so blinded by the orthodoxy that they fail to see the lessons of history. One would believe after a century of brutal socialist experiments, killing tens of millions, that those on the left would learn; one would be wrong.

          • EDWIN :
            HOW did YOU learn about the NEGATIVE
            aspects of COMMUNISM ?
            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
            You certainly WEREN’T TAUGHT THAT IN HISTORY
            AT SCHOOL.
            Those atrocities have been CAREFULLY OMITTED
            from any school curriculum these-days
            IT’S AS THOUGH THEY HAD NEVER OCCURRED.
            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
            AND YET the Left-wing clique in Hollywood STILL HAS
            US FOCUSSED ON THE HORRORS OF THE NAZI’S
            ( Right Wing……terrible !……and yet the Germans
            have APOLOGISED and continue to APOLOGISE
            for that ABERRATION ) BUT THERE IS NEVER
            ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE MURDEROUS
            COMMUNIST REGIMES got it WRONG or that
            they have ANYTHING TO APOLOGISE ABOUT !
            Hollywood can complain about Harvey Weinstein ,
            with whom they were ALL COMPLICIT , when it suits them.
            .. BUT SOMETHING AS REPREHENSIBLE AS
            COMMUNISM always gets a CLEAN SLATE !!
            What ghastly and horrible people they really are !
            No wonder they are FOSTERING CAGW IDEAS !!
            Celebrities ! Disgusting ! Moral Cowards.

          • Sorry Trevor but the Nazi’s were leftists not right wing. It was the German democratic socialist party. Same as the KKK were the shock troops for the democrats in the US. Don’t let the leftists get away with the lies

          • See Alan Kors’ talk on the Legacy of Socialism.

            He is outspokenly critical about how young people have not been taught of the horrors of socialism, and remain entirely ignorant of it.

            “Hitler” is properly a pejorative. but Stalin, who murdered far more than did Hitler, is still papa Joe.

            Kors describes the legacy of socialism as “millions, and millions, and millions, and MILLIONS, of dead.” They cry out in silence and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dances on their graves.

            Alan Kors is a Professor of History at UPenn. He is also a co-founder of “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education” FIRE, which defends freedom of speech in the academe; a freedom now under more vicious assault than ever before.

          • I remember my father talking about Stalin/Papa Joe some 50 years ago. He wondered how the media could portray the man in any kind of a positive light, but that was the case even back then.

    • That is so 1980s! You don’t need to understand stuff, you just have to really, really, really care.

      And of course you don’t have to understand that economics (which always underlies politics) is the study of trade-offs. Yes, perhaps we can avoid all those droughts and stuff, but that will mean going without say improvements in health care and not curing cancer.

      So which do you want? Because you can’t have both.

      • Which droughts and stuff? Global warming requires a positive water vapor feedback, this implies more clouds and more precipitation. So let’s say the theory is right, in that case we may need to improve water transport and infrastructure to reduce flood risk. At the same time winter will be warmer, the growing season will also be longer, plants will be taller and oranges will be the size of small watermelons. The increased CO2 will allow plants to use less water, which means they’ll grow in areas where today they find it difficult to survive. Again, if we actually believe in the theory we should see less numerous storms, but the storms will bring more water (the reason why it will be important to improve water handling and storage infrastructure). Overall, the USA willl see a large benefit if the theory is right. The country which may have an adaptation problem is Bangladesh, because it sits on a giant delta and it’s really overpopulated.

    • While she did receive 57% of the vote in her district, if anything, her nomination is more of a sign of the general apathy of the American voting public particularly in primary elections than for any particular cause. Less than 12% of those eligible to chose to vote. The district has been a lock for the Democrats for years.

  3. US politicians are no more ignorant than those on this side of the Atlantic. The Minister for Energy in the UK told me that the future would be solar — he thought it had become cheap enough to dominate the future. I said ‘Yes, Minister, but you will have to store the energy.’ He looked nonplussed, then said hurriedly ‘Yes, yes, store the energy, we’ll have to do that’. He then bounced off.

    It was obvious that the UK Minister for Energy had not been briefed that one uses electricity or stores it, it doesn’t magically hang around waiting to be used.

    No wonder we’re heading for an energy crunch.

    JF

    • Probably something like 15 years ago I had a conversation with a senior UK civil servant in which HE raised the issue of storage & the intermittency of supply and we talked about the options. I suggested pump storage – he asked if I knew how many sites were needed, I said I’d worked out roughly 100 he said there weren’t enough sites for anything like that.

      They are now trying to force everyone to get a “smart meter” (more aptly dumb meter ) with the intention of brining in time of day pricing. Not long ago there were huge scandals as electricity companies bamboozled customers into paying vastly inflated prices with JUST ONE TARIFF.

      There is no doubt if dumb meter come in – the price of electricity will rocket and as usual the people for whom it will have the biggest impact will be the poor.

    • The lack of knowledge and intelligence in secretaries and ministers is widespread. For example, nowadays those of us in the oil industry are laughing at Trump insisting that Saudi Arabia make up for the oil shortfall he will create if Iran sanctions are enforced and obeyed by other nations. I understand his secretary of energy is a lawyer from Oklahoma, which explains the confusion and rather lame tweets begging the Saudis to produce oil they don’t have. Somehow that dummy forgot to check to see if Texas had the well logistics and the pipeline capacity to move extra oil out of the Permian?

      Let’s face it, the drop in IQ is general. If we keep going this way in 100 years everybody on earth will speak Chinese.

      • Rick Perry is the head of the DOE. He used to be the Governor of Texas. Scott Pruitt is the head of the EPA. He used to be the attorneys general of Oklahoma (the “lawyer from Oklahoma”).

        • Rick Perry has a bachelor’s in animal science and was in the Air Force.
          Scott Pruitt is a lawyer and politician.

          I assume neither left their brain at the door when they took their new positions and can research and learn what is needed to do their jobs. If we only filled positions with “qualified people” then there are those who would scream it was crony capitilism, that favoritism what being shown, etc. Let’s face it—there would be no government whatsoever. Maybe we could do better, but not enough people care to do so or we would do better.

          • Evidently Perry doesn’t know much about the oil market or the oil industry (going to the Dallas Petroleum Club or playing golf with a member of the Texas Railroad Commsion doesn’t help much). On the other hand it looks like Trump makes decisions after talking to his son in law, Bolton and Netanyahu.

            The fact is that he’s left tweeting desperately, blaming OPEC for not covering for the shortfall created by the USA when it destabilized Libya and returned to sanctions on Iran. Now he’s got elections coming with high pump prices and all he can do is look like a fool.

          • Fernando,

            high pump prices … up to about $3 from about $2.6.

            At this point, nobody is going to blame the republican party

    • I think I wrote on here the other day that in the UK only 26 out of 650 MPs have a science degree. 96 have history degrees but far more have degrees in “social sciences”.

      They may actually be quite bright, but they have never been taught to look beyond the first, let alone the second thought.

        • Sheri

          To be fair, one of the defining characteristics of democracy is that anyone can achieve political office irrespective of their education.

          There are, of course, political qualifications but we should discourage the emphasis on academic achievement in politics. It’s probably the single environment left where people of passion and commitment can make a difference.

      • The UK has some of the least intelligent politicians on Earth, people who quite literally could not run a sweet shop. Watch interviews with Diane Abbott or David Lammy on Youtube, and cringe.

        • We are not alone in the ‘thick as mince’ politician stakes. Our transatlantic cousins have rep. Hank Johnson. Just google for his name and ‘Guam’. Videos of his other performances are hardly less painful to watch.

          • Let’s just be glad he’s not a Senator.

            Then again, he might single-handedly do away with the filibuster. A half hour of his “debating” and I expect even the diehard Dems would be moving for cloture.

    • Was that Greg Clark? Andrea Leadsom actually understands what intermittency and dispatch mean in the context of power generation.

    • Julian Flood writes:

      “The Minister for Energy in the UK told me that the future would be solar — he thought it had become cheap enough to dominate the future. I said ‘Yes, Minister, but you will have to store the energy.'”

      IMHO, the minister was right, the future is solar, and you were wrong, because it is nonsense to store electrical energy.

      Build a ring of High Voltage Direct Current Power Line (HVDCPL) around the Earths and you will enjoy solar energy everywhere 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 52 weeks a year.

      Maybe you think that HVDCPL is not economical, so I would like to draw your kind attention that already a total lengths of 20000 Km of such power line has built everywhere in World and a further 20000 Km is under construction.

      • no mate. Cost and energy security make that a bad idea.

        Its bad enough importing oil and gas from hot islamic countries.

        Don’t want to be importing solar…

        • I’m sure Russia would be happy to participate in the construction of thousands of km of high voltage line through its territory to connect the USA to Europe. 😐

        • Let’s see, resistance is directly related to amps, and we can reduce amps by raising the volts to still get the same power, so if we transform solar output to a 1,000,000 kVDC (the DC idea is intriguing, it would allow 60 cycle and 50 cycle from the same transmission line, since you have to have an inverter to get it onto your grid anyway), how much do we lose in that process? About as much as transmitting the same power around the world at 135 kVAC?

          Edit: after a little reading, I find he may not be as crazy as we think.

          In July 2016, ABB Group received a contract in China to build an ultrahigh-voltage direct-current (UHVDC) land link with a 1100 kV voltage, a 3,000 km (1,900 mi) length and 12 GW of power, setting world records for highest voltage, longest distance, and largest transmission capacity.

          I’m still a little (read a lot) nervous about the energy security part, though.

          • Red, the UHVDC in your example is a method for transmitting power from where it was generated to where it is needed.

            Peter is proposing building a huge loop of wire in order to circulate current as a means of storing energy.

        • Mark,

          Here is the calculation of the ohmic loss (resistance loss, Joule heating, Copper Loss) for a power line between California and Germany, the two land overinvested in solar. The distance is about 10 000 000 m (more precisely it is 9 309 505 m between Casey’s Irish Pub, Los Angeles and Berlin Bier-Akademie).

          Now, imagine an electric cable made of aluminium having a 0.01 m2 cross section. The electrical resistivity of Aluminium is 2.65*10E−8 (ohm*m) so the resistance of the whole
          cable (2.65*10E−8 divided by 0.01 m2 cross section and multiplied by 10 000 000 m length) is R=26.5 ohm.

          Next, I will calculate the loss of this cable. Suppose, we will want to use this cable to transfer P=1 GW (=1 000 000 000 W) power at a voltage level of 1 000 000 V. This means I=1000 A will flow over the line. The power loss can be calculated from this data by Joule’s first law, P=I*I*R. With our data this means P=26 500 000 W or 0.0265 GW loss over 10 000 000 m power line.

          In other terms, it means 2.5 % power loss. This doesn’t seem to me a big issue.

          Cheers to everyone

  4. living proof that those who seek political positions do not have to be smart just evil,

  5. Well first lets see if she wins her election, otherwise she is just another second place trophy winner 🙂

    • Well, to her credit she was a community organizer so she does meet the qualifications for a Democrat Presidential candidate.

    • She’s running in Manhattan, they could run someone who’d been dead for a decade, and he’d still win.

        • yah so the last one didnt work so they more than doubled the time they gave themselves from the last one. However this one will be the last tipping point prediction because once the 18 year period is over in 2036, The UAH satellite data temperature point will be at the bottom end of the new 40 year cycle. At that point everyone will see that global warming was a hoax. Unfortunately trillions of dollars will have been wasted at that point.

          • Get with the program Alan!
            Didn’t you know that global warming actually causes the earth to cool? Or something….

      • A hundred upvotes for finding this! The Internet never forgets.

        The Guardian is being uncharacteristically coy about their failed prediction. But then, when have they ever got anything right?

    • onehundredmonths.org; I like it, no need to post revisions to documents…just mark “latest” and it is always current!

    • That’s not really failure, it is what they successfully do. It’s the people’s failure because we continually re-elect them.

      • Tom in Florida

        Fair point, but when a campaign promise as unachievable as this is made, it’ll become obvious rather quickly that it can’t be fulfilled.

        e.g. If 2035 is the target date for a transition to 100% renewables, and, for arguments sake, say it currently stands at 10% renewables (arbitrary figure as I have no idea) then there needs to be, roughly, 5% of the target renewables built every year. That’s an awful lot.

        I don’t know what planning consent applications in the US are like, but in the UK, schemes as large as she’ proposing can take 5 – 10 years to get through the process alone, never mind multiple applications that will undoubtedly be subject to lengthy objections. And god forbid they are simply waved through by her regime, they’ll be sued by every minority group on the planet.

        So if, within say, five years, there isn’t around 20% of conventional power sources replaced by renewables, then the remainder simply isn’t achievable over the remaining 12 years available.

        And of course, you, me, and everyone else on this blog knows, renewables can’t exist without conventional baseload, so, from year one out, it’s going to rapidly become increasingly clear to voters that her promises are ill informed and worthless.

        • Sorry Tom. Just noticed it’s the entire USA she want’s to convert to 100% renewables!

          Good luck with that luv, Trumps second term will make that 17 years about 10 years you have left to achieve the whole shooting match!

          There’s not a voter in the country who would believe that, not even Al Gore.

          • They couldn’t build enough solar panels and wind mills to power the entire country in just 17 years.
            And that doesn’t cover replacing the existing panels and mills that wear out over that 17 years.

          • MarkW

            They couldn’t build enough in a million years to make the country 100% renewables because there will always be a need for baseload, for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

            What she’s proposing isn’t just barmy, it’s impossible.

          • She’s not the only nut:

            “MERKLEY, SANDERS, MARKEY, BOOKER INTRODUCE LANDMARK LEGISLATION TO TRANSITION UNITED STATES TO 100% CLEAN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY”

            Senator Merkely, prior to joining with the above bill, was pushing for the same 2035 date. Theys lots o’ voters in Oregon that think Merkely is doing the right thing … they believe.

            When you get free the stuff (welfare folks), and when you get paid well for doing relatively little (public sector), it is easy to fall into the fantasy land of make believe.

  6. “The science is pretty clear—we want to reduce emissions, to near zero, as fast as possible, if we want to minimize climate change,” Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler told me. That means rapidly decarbonizing the U.S. economy—much like Ocasio-Cortez has proposed.

    No, it means decarbonizing China and India. Just look at the math.

    Now, why does no-one say this?

    • Reality does not matter which is why the Democrat party supports anti-government anarchy, in addition to massive deficit spending on government programs that do not work.

      The Green policy and a large part of the Democrat platform is idiotically unworkable.

      Basic engineering issues, cost estimates, how much money is available to spend, the deficit, out of control current programs, loss of competitiveness, and so on are ignored.

  7. But the reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, eliminating fossil fuel burning in the USA will have little effect on total so called greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere which is dominated by H2O. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. If her “plan” were somehow successful it would have no effect on the Earth’s climate.

  8. Yes she can!! with probably about the same likelhood of success as the last yes we can! crowd.

  9. Cortez has already said that she wants the USA to become another Venezuela, where you have to have a voter ID card to be eligible to buy food. Shades of the Soviet Union!

    She’s a bimbo, yes, but she’s extreme enough to be watched closely. No, she does not have a “plan”. She has an open venue for making noises that sound semi-good but have no substance to them. The more she flaps her lips, the more we know what she’s really like. She doesn’t have a full head of steam up just yet. Not even a wolf in sheep’s clothing – just loud enough to draw attention to herself.

    • 8th grade graduates from the 1950’s have far more sense than her she has NO real education based on the idiocy she proposes.

    • Callingvher a bimbo detracts from your good points.
      Pointing out that she talks and acts like a female Hugo Chavez is useful.
      And let focus on betting which of her family and friends she will enrich with her constituents money.

      • She is exactly the kind of useful idiot that Stalin and Mao depended on to round up their neighbors or rat on them, thinking they themselves would come out on top of the party swamp. That, and her mindless party line psycho babble, make her a bimbo.

    • As with all leftist future Utopias, it doesn’t really matter what the Utopia is, or looks like, you just have to first destroy the existing future and that leftist Utopia will organically spring forth from the ashes! Or something like that, I haven’t perused my Marxist handbook lately.

  10. Not so much Ocasio-Cortez who rejects nuclear power as the whole of the far left. Their argument is that renewables can be locally “democratically” controlled but nuclear power cannot be. According to them nuclear power is inherently beyond local control, so must be centrally controlled. It’s not an argument they’ll ever tell you, but if you Google what they say, then this is it. Trying to have a discussion with these people about energy when they won’t even tell you their real motives is a bit pointless. But rather than projecting onto them you are better off researching what they say.

    • People finally came to their senses in Ontario Canada and elected a guy Doug Ford who promised to shut down carbon trading. The problem is the ruler of the country Justin Trudeau is more clueless than Ocasio-Cortez. He called Fidel Castro a great man.

      • Trudeau could have liked Castro a lot since it is debatable that Castro might be his real father. There is a definite familial similarity. Look at a picture of a young Castro and compare to to a pic of Justin and decide for yourself. Remember his mother was quite the free spirit. If true it would explain a lot.

  11. The hard-core greens oppose nuclear power because it works, and they desire the destruction of industrial society. Renewables are unable to sustain current society, so it fits their desire for nihilism.
    Remember, having cheap and abundant power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.

    • 1) Agree on hard-core greens. AKA ‘lethargists’
      2) But many of these greens are run by hard-core lefties who, more than anything, want to smash capitalism, and believe their brand of socialism will magically work afterwards. [see my post above for their ideas]
      3) Other greens, liberals, etc. Many people have an firm belief in scarcity. Not just greens who’ve, for decades, believed, fossil fuels were a few years from running out. These are actually the majority. In this worldview fossil fuel must be restricted because it is ‘dirty’. Renawables and/or nukes are the way forward. Peter Huber and Mark Mills (H&M, The Bottomless Well) call these people ‘cornocopians’, to distinguish them from the ‘lethargists’ (traditional greens). But Mills & Huber have a very distinctive meaning for ‘cornocopians’
      H&M cornocopians – are either foolish enough to believe renewable energy ‘works’, or that we can get plentiful energy to everyone by driving its price up! They are a kind of useful idiot for lethargists.
      lethargists – under no delusions, they want to drive up price of energy to restrict demand.

      Real progressives, who want human flourishing, have 3 foes to argue against. All 3 opponents will present themselves as ‘cornocopians’ (of the H&M flavour)

      • Further point on group 3, the Mills & Huber ‘cornocopians’. They do not think we will run out of fossil fuel but they are still scarcity obsessed. They believe we are running out of clean air. That fossil fuels dirty that air, so must be banned, taxed, or stopped. On that, they will broker no discussion. You are a ‘denier’, flat-earther, shill, Nazi, or Republican; you cannot be reasoned with. Fossil fuel puts: too much CO2, or methane, or CFC, or PM 2.5, ‘acid rain’ … in their ‘clean air‘.

    • “The hard-core greens oppose nuclear power because it works, and they desire the destruction of industrial society. Renewables are unable to sustain current society, so it fits their desire for nihilism.”

      But because they live in this society with all its luxurient benefits… the are also hypocrites right?
      No contradictions there?

      • That the left and the greens are dominated by hypocrites is a fact that is well documented.
        Sort of like politicians jumping on a private jet to give a speech about the evils of fossil fuel consumption.

  12. The question to ask is: who does the ‘we’ refer to?

    The usual transition is from we the whole world have to get to zero emissions. Then in the next sentence or two the we that is the US, or sometimes North America and the EU, are the ones that have to get there, with the implication that if we do, this will lead to global zero.

    Or make a big dent in getting there. Or doom civilization if we do not. There is a complete denial of who is doing most of the emitting, and who is increasing. You will still find greens who are in denial about the fact that China has the same per capita emissions as the EU. Yet it is considered totally unacceptable to suggest they too should reduce, both per capita and in terms of tons.

    To save civilization, you know.

    If you watch the pea under the thimble, you will see that the assumption continues to be that we the West are driving global emissions. Whereas in fact, as the BP report shows, we are doing around a third of total global emissions.

    It reminds one of Monty Python. Don’t talk about China. Or India….

  13. Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Save the World from Climate Change?

    No. The climate will continue to change on its own and we can’t stop it.

    Anyone who doubts the above needs to be told about the dirty thirties.

  14. Democrats lack an organized plan to stop global worming …

    Because deep down also they know that there is no such thing as man-made global warming?

  15. She is the “future of the democratic party” according to the head of the DNC. Maybe the democrats will join the Whigs in future history books. When you have this level of ignorance you can promise anything.

    • The party of Jefferson was for limited government once. These days the rattling of his bones in the grave must be deafening.

  16. She’s an ideologue, and the ideas she espouses are dangerous and un-American. Sure, she probably can’t win in a general election, but the fact that she won a primary says something very troubling about the Democratic Party. The result of their ever-increasing extremist views regarding energy, and “social justice” will (and already has) drive moderates away in increasing numbers. It is a big reason why Trump won in fact. They just don’t get it.

    • She probably can’t win a general election? As much as I would like to believe that, one name proves otherwise: Maxine Waters.
      I never realized that the bottom of the IQ scale must go below zero until she started ranting.

    • She’s in a Democrat safe seat in a majority-Latino area. And she wants to disband ICE and open the US border to anyone who walks across it from Mexico.

      She’ll easily win.

      • I don’t know about that President Trump’s approval rating with Latino voters went up 10 points last week even with all of the negative media reports about the border issues. Smart people are seeing through the Lie-beral media bullcrap.

    • Pandering to vocal super-minorities while alienating your base is not a winning political move.

  17. “Avoiding that means the earth’s average temperature can’t rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above where it was in the year 1880. Unfortunately, we’re already nearly there”

    And in the real world, no-one’s really noticed. So what are they expecting to happen if there’s another fraction of a degree increase?

  18. ” transition the United States to a 100-percent renewable energy system by 2035.”
    Excuse me, but I think I’ve just wet myself from laughing too much.

  19. ‘Avoiding that means the earth’s average temperature can’t rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above where it was in the year 1880.’

    Cos we know what the earth’s average temperature was in 1880.

    We don’t know what is was in 1975.

  20. Canada has its Climate Barbie.
    Not to be outdone…
    The US Democratic Socialists now have their Climate Lolita.

  21. Action on Existential Threats
    Prior to 1973 oil was used for gas turbine power. The OAPEC oil war of 1973/74 imposed an embargo on oil exports to the Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States for their support of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. This caused a severe recession in the US.
    France rapidly converted from oil to nuclear power and Denmark to natural gas.
    Why the French like nuclear power

    How was France able to get its people to accept nuclear power? What is about French culture and politics that allowed them to succeed where most other countries have failed?
    Claude Mandil, the General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at the Ministry of Industry, cites at least three reasons. First, he says, the French are an independent people. The thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted that nuclear might be a necessity. A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is “no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice.”

    By 1982/83 the US had developed enough new oil to effectively eliminate net oil imports.
    Responding to Crisis”. University of Wisconsin. April 26, 2010.
    (But then oil imports grew to >12,000 bbl/day by 2005.)
    Despite the alarms, how is “climate change” possibly an existential threat like the OPEC Oil Embargo?

  22. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance.

    I’ll give 100:1 odds that she doesn’t know that France is nearly 100% nuclear. Or that nuclear is currently the largest source of green energy in the US.

  23. “she wants a 100% renewable solution by 2035.” Did she forget the “unicorn for every household” and “never a rainy day”?

  24. Four years of work experience as a bartender has given Ocasio-Cortez all the deep insight into the complexities of energy generation, delivery and use in the modern world that she needs to conclude that it can be made to run on 100% renewable energy within 17 years, and anyone who doesn’t agree must certainly be a racist, sexist hater.

  25. “Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

    Alice in Wonderland.

    • Or if you believe that we are in the world of Oz, Toto hasn’t yet learned to pull back the curtain.

  26. Perhaps it is proof that Cortez actually is what she sounds like she is: Someone who is afflicted with a case of incurable terminal dumb-ass. Ignorance is curable, you know. But stupidity is most likely for life and terminal.

  27. For the greenhouse theory to operate as advertised requires a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop to “trap” energy and “warm” the earth and atmosphere.

    For the GHG up/down/”back” radiation energy loop to operate as advertised requires ideal black body, 1.0 emissivity, LWIR of 396 W/m^2 from the surface. (K-T diagram)

    The surface cannot do that because of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, moving over 50% ((17+80)/160) of the surface heat through non-radiative processes, i.e. conduction, convection, latent evaporation/condensation. (K-T diagram) Because of the contiguous turbulent non-radiative processes at the air interface the oceans cannot have an emissivity of 0.97.

    No GHG energy loop & no greenhouse effect means no CO2/man caused climate change and no Gorebal warming.

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
    http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW

  28. The woman is a nutcase….and the media is trying to make her into some kind of hero. Typical

  29. She can use all of daddy’s and mommy’s money and it will make no difference at all. Little rich girl wants socialism for everyone except herself, as usual for leftists. I have watched 3 different interviews of her and she struggles to form a coherent sentence. THAT is the face of the Democrat Party. I love it.

  30. A lot of discussion about a 28-year-old candidate for the House of Representatives who has visions to control the world. Loads of free publicity.

    Can progressives change the climate? Yes, you don’t even have to ask them. They will tell you they have the power to do so and will, if you believe hard enough.

    • All it takes (according to them) is truckloads of OPM.
      … and when that fails, they’ll claim it was because they didn’t take enough OPM.

      A vicous cycle of Never Enough defines Socialism.

  31. Cortez is wrong about everything. Pick any topic.
    That’s the nature of being progressive.
    Fortunately the progressive mob is being eviscerated by their own actions causing a movement of liberals walking away from the Democrat party.
    Cortez is a poster child for there is no such thing as too far left.

    • The more publicity she gets, the more Democrats walk away to Trump. This isn’t what most of them thought they were voting for.

  32. Funny how she is such a product of her age group demographics. No original thinking there. Best of luck to NY if she wins, they will need it.

  33. CIA agents are running for congress this year like a swarm of deep state locusts – some incognito, apparently. Cortez’ bio suggests she’s a CIA cupcake. Obama with boobies.

  34. In concept green energy sounds fantastic. In reality the scale of the problem is so great that people vastly underestimate what is required.

    100 trillion dollars is required. The 100 billion annual climate fund the UN promised would take a 1000 years to pay for the change to green. But of course the UN fund was doomed from day 1.

  35. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a primary election that will allow her to be on the ballot for the upcoming Congressional elections. If she is ultimately elected, she will be a freshman member of the US House of Representatives, with almost zero political power and very little influence on national policy. Her demand for “100% renewable solution by 2035” is entirely rhetorical — and should not be taken seriously.

    Even climate hawks can’t take that seriously — it is simply, categorically impossible both politically and physically. Even if her “plan” (there is no plan, btw) included nuclear, it would be impossible to build nuclear power plants fast enough. Without nuclear, the idea is an Alice-in_Wonderland story.

    • Obama was a do nothing bloviator who wascabke to con his way into the Oval office on one term.

    • Her district is heavily Demo-Rat leaning. She almost certainly will win in November.

      • Joel ==> I think that you are right == all the I Love Hillary dems will vote for A O-C as a proxy for their failed bid to put HC in the Oval Office. That said, she will still be a Freshman Congresswoman from a state with 26 other congresspersons, will have no important committee positions and will spend two-three years trying to figure out what she is supposed to be doing.
        She may be a Big Fish in the Bronx and Queens — but she’ll just be bait in Washington DC.

  36. When Joe Lieberman lost a Democratic primary, he got elected as an independent.

  37. The AGW cult explained:

    “OK, boys and girls, sit up and please listen. Suspend all your critical thinking skills and refuse to question my or any other authority. First, let’s ignore the facts. Let’s ignore that we are in an Ice Age. Let’s ignore that temperatures shot up from 18 to 11 thousand years ago when CO2 was low and man was still banging on rocks in the caves. Let’s ignore that temperatures have been going up and down for the past 11 thousand years. Let’s ignore the ice records that show CO2 has been steadily increasing for the past 8 thousand years. Let’s ignore that the same ice records showing no correlation between temperatures and CO2. Let’s ignore that it has been warmer many times in the past. Let’s ignore all those facts.

    “Let’s instead focus on only the current warming since the end of the last cooling period. The last 150 years. No, Jimmy, do not look past that. The past does not matter. You mustn’t know that it has warmed naturally before. Why? Because…. I hate the oil companies! Hate! Hate! Hate oil! We hate oil! Oil bad! Oil evil! You must believe every lie we make up because oil is evil! Hate! Oil evil! Tear down all the oil! Put up windmills! Windmills good! Windmills not oil! Hate oil! Oil! OIL!!!!! *start frothing at mouth and babbling in tongues*”

    AGW in a nutshell.

  38. This young millenial is clearly guided by a childish belief that the magical thinking in Harry Potter was a management and policy guide.
    There is no physical way to convert the US to so-called “renewables” without impoverishment and genocidal population reduction.
    She is a cute Pol Pot spouting the same hatred that evil mass murderer did.
    She would impose a corruption on us as bad or worse than Venezuela and the kleptocrats who have destroyed that foolush nation. And even as she and her family and insiders steal and starve our nation, blame the victims who dare to speak out.
    Eff her.

  39. Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Save the World from Climate Change?

    Dunno, but she actually does have something in common with the weather. Weather is the action of the atmosphere, and her head contains the same substance….

  40. gonna be hard producing and applying that expensive lipstick w/o dependable power….

  41. Cortez is 28 years-old. . .been sailing downwind in the sunshine nearly all those years . . . in time she’ll find that she has to turn around and sail upwind in rough weather to get anything done (which she won’t). At best she’ll be nothing more than an attractive nuisance!

  42. But, but, but the planet has already been saved by South America’s new Evita, Christiana Figueres, who modestly told us she had done so.

    I do hope this doesn’t lead to a fight for the title between them…and how many times can the world be saved?

  43. By the way, millenials melt down over certain names.
    Focus on her hypocrisy, her linjs to Hugo Chavez and the desyruction of Venezuela, her immoral support of lawless opn borders, her nonsense that “renewables” can be achieved, her disrespect of the millions of hard workets with good energy sector jobs.
    Her childish and selfish demands of others in the name of her faux morality, etc.
    The democrats have embraced this young spoiled viper.
    Let them enjoy her.

  44. Renewables are not sustainable. They use more energy than they produce. They can only exist now because fossil fuels are still used to power the industry that manufactured and installed them, heat the homes, provide food, entertainment, etc. for people who install, maintain and administer them, power nearly all vehicles, power farming, etc.

    The fallacy of renewables is revealed with simple arithmetic.

    5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.

    Installed cost @ $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6.

    Add the cost of energy storage or standby CCGT for low wind periods. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, administration.

    Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse with special concern for disposal and/or recycling at end-of-life (about 15 yr for PV).

    The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.

    Without the energy provided by other sources renewables could not exist.

  45. First of all, it’s a huge leap to assume we can control climate by changing or eliminating the source of our energy (primarily renewable vs non-renewable), but assume that’s accurate for this argument. Wikipedia says (based on 2015 figures in the US) that total primary energy consumption by fuel gives:

    Oil–37%
    Natural Gas–31.3%
    Coal–17.4%
    Nuclear–8.3%
    Hydro–2.5%
    Renewables–3.1%

    Eliminating energy from oil, natural gas, and coal means the renewables (Hydro + “Renewables” = 5.6%) will have to expand by a factor of 14 to achieve parity in energy production. Hydro can’t be expanded and neither can Nuclear; indeed, there are serious efforts to eliminate both, usually from the same people that propose these targets.

    So “Renewables” would have to expand by a factor of 79.7/3.1, a ratio of 25 times. That won’t happen by their target year but instead energy sources would go in decline, along with our GDP. Anybody proposing such targets is either stupid or a willful tool of subversives.

  46. Why don’t greens like nuclear? One word: radiation! That’s a bigger bugaboo than CO2.

  47. “But this explanation would suggest that Cortez is just another left wing fanatic who sees climate change and renewables as a convenient vehicle to force acceptance of her social programmes.” There you said it. That is right on the mark.

  48. Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Save the World from Climate Change?

    Not a bad question,., A better one would be: Can see save the world from oceanic tides or will she like King Canute of blessed memory fail?

  49. Clearly a hypocrite|liar|ignoramous.

    If she really wanted to help the people, she would not be insisting on policies to impoverish them. If she was sincerely concerned about global warming, she would be insisting on policies to impoverish them. But either way, if she were honest, she would not get elected.

    And I do not think she is stupid.

  50. Her policies will definitely result in a huge drop in CO2 emissions.
    First by destroying the economy and sending millions into poverty.
    Second by causes death on a scale not seen since the halcyon days of the Soviet Union.

  51. The question is phrased to imply that drastic Climate Change is occurring, burning fossil fuels is causing it, and we can actually do something about it.
    Whatever she actually proposes, we are not sure that it will be any more effective that doing nothing.

    • She looks kinda like Cher, but without the wit or charisma. Jury’s still out on her singing voice.

  52. She needs to be taught what her Popes have said (she claims to Catholic, Like Pelosi & Kerry & Biden, etc.) about Socialism!

    https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/what-the-popes-really-say-about-socialism

    “Hideous”, “destructive”, “wicked”, and “perverted” are only some of the adjectives used by the Popes to describe socialism.”

    Just one example of many:
    Saint Pope John XXII – considered by many to be a “liberal” said this –
    “No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism” JOHN XXIII (1958-1963)

    Likes these other Dems who are so-called Catholics – if she believes in Socialism, her beliefs are antithetical to Catholicism. https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-to-reject-socialism

    The leader of her Archdiocese, Cardinal Dolan, not long ago said that there is no longer a place in the Democratic Party for Catholics.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/24/new-yorks-cardinal-dolan-democrats-have-abandoned-catholics.html

    So, she’s either ignorant, or purposefully going against the leanings of her claimed Church. Either of which should be seen as bad.

    Is she in favor of abortion? If she is, pundits need to take her apart for it. But as “socialistic” as Pope Francis seems, he has walked a fine line to never say that he is in support of Socialist government … and I don’t think he is … he probably believes in “Distributism,” the only economic system ever ‘endorsed’ by the Catholic Church. G. K. Chesterton wrote on Distributism, which very much has a Capitalistic basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

  53. Jeeze guys, it’s simple! All she has to do is use OtherPeople’sMoney© to buy lots of AA batteries from the nice communists in China – imported electrons, no bad or confusing energy making technical stuff to confuse her voting constituents and there – one saved world!

    All that’s left is to give her lots of gold stars to stick on her chest, build the throne she can henceforth rule from, a suitably appropriate uniform tailored with a very big hat and those special camps for her opponents to live in.

  54. Miss Cortez is just another functionally illiterate socialist, all the free stuff sounds good until you find out just how much it costs and who actually pays the price.

  55. She’s an activist which means she knows essentially nothing except how to motivate people to protest. Whatever she proposes or discusses, whether it be socialism, free college, or abolition of ICE, is done with almost zero knowledge of the real world. She’s a Dem fad.

  56. Ocasio-Cortez is idealistic, but naive and ignorant of the history of economics and the technology of energy. And her Socialist philosophy has been proven to be an utter failure wherever it has been tried around the world in the past century. Sorry, if this is the best the Democrats have got, the party is in a declining state.

  57. Cortez doesn’t have, and never did have, anything to add to the climate change discussion; BUT – she will try to tell you that you will feel good about climate change if you listen to her tell you what she would like to do about it.

  58. The fact that fence-limboing Alexandria “Let-them-eat-cake” Cortez advocates 100% renewables and is taken seriously by the left, shows that the ecofasc1sts are contemptuous of technical and scientific reality. Either consciously or unconsciously they are working for an electricity-starved feudalism / serfdom. Imperial Russia showed that the key ingredient of successful serfdom is tying the peasants to the land (witness the “propiska” or internal passport needed for merely moving between cities). Denyal of affordable and reliable energy achieves that aim. 100% renewable “energy” means no energy. Those pulling Alexandria’s strings know this. Playing to the “useful idiot” scientifically brain-dead masses will destroy electricity supply and undo the industrial revolution.

  59. The nation doesn’t need another 28-year-old pseudo-know-it-all who is actually uneducated, ignorant, and ideologically-minded. Can we please be spared all the know-nothing rhetoric and progressive-socialist pablum?

Comments are closed.