Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Despite the poor initial reception, politicians and pundits are rallying around green socialism, they are still looking for a way to make the green new deal seem acceptable to the general public.
Fighting climate change may be easier than we think
By Geoffrey Heal
Updated 0253 GMT (1053 HKT) February 13, 2019…
The Green New Deal, spearheaded by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, has garnered attention for its ambitious goal of completely shifting to renewable and zero-emission energy over a decade.
…
Take the United States as an example. Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity. In some locations, wind and solar energy prices are as little as one-third the cost of coal. Even without including the contribution of coal to global warming, it is simply no longer a cost-effective energy source. Wind and solar are now economically sounder investments.
The United States is working on that, too. Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries, which has been a tremendous contributing factor to the reduction in the price of renewable energy sources. In addition, there is hydropower, which is renewable, and nuclear energy, which is carbon-free. Both sources are not intermittent, meaning they can be relied upon for constant power, and can complement battery storage and provide backup to renewables. As the Green New Deal gains steam, there is also further hope for an even more concerted economic transition to clean energy jobs and infrastructure.
…
I estimate it would take a gross investment in renewable power plants, extra grid capacity, and storage capacity of about $3.3 trillion over the next 20-30 years (US GDP is about $20 trillion). But the cost is not really all chargeable to the transition to renewables. All our coal plants are old and will have to be replaced well before 2050. This is also true of many of our gas and nuclear plants, regardless of the movement to go carbon-free. That would offset the cost associated with transitioning by about $1 trillion.
…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/12/opinions/climate-change-opinion-heal/index.html
3.3 Trillion dollars is a lot of money.
If you spent a million dollars every day since the birth of Christ until today, you would still be nowhere near to spending 3.3 Trillion dollars.
In the 1950s US scientists who developed the first atomic bomb calculated the cost of launching a manned starship mission at 3% of the speed of light to Alpha Centauri using known technology at 10% of US GDP, $2 trillion in today’s money.
The sheer waste, the money already spent, the money being demanded by climate action advocates – future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.
If it is such a great deal why are they not implementing it upon themselves? Show the way, have the courage of your convictions, prove it can be done. Oh, yea, they will never do any of it, they will continue to use oil and coal and airliners and limos and blahblahblah.
You see an initial damage control effort. Don’t they still have 20 months?
If it can be done affordable and effectively, Capitalism WILL find a way.
Socialism will only act to destroy that with which it disagrees
It’s a strangle-weed – a parasitical ideology that latches onto a host system and destroys it.
Wind and solar are now economically sounder investments. = I guess they’ve disregarded the cost of treating diseases carried by insects and rodents that are food for bats and birds. A population bomb of these things is what I see coming out of this.
Rocky Mountain spotted fever used to be something in “the West”. Not so much any more. But I’d guess that these people don’t venture outside their offices, but rather, live in enclosed colonies, kind of like one of Bucky Fuller’s domed cities.
“future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.”
Current historians wonder how they can be so stupid!
Historians have already traced the cause of our stupidity to government run edu…doctrination and the Propaganda Press. As Reagan would say the problem with my liberal friends is that there is so very much they know that just isn’t so.
I wouldn’t mention indoctrination and Reagan in the same sentence. Charlotte Iserbyt took quite a few documents during his tenure for her book “The deliberate dumbing down of the world”
Didn’t shed too positive a light on Reagan’s administration in that regard
One propagandist ripping someone else for being a propagandist.
Big whoop.
It’s also positivity versus negativity.
They may be equal and opposite, but they aren’t the same thing.
Future historians will have an algorithm for “homogenizing” history. Climate science has blazed the trail for them. If science has become whatever one thinks it should be and data should be emended to fit, wifty poofty (in)humanities certainly won’t constrain practitioners with dogmatic riguor, objectivity and integrity to stem creative juices.
This article is false nonsense. Every scary prediction made by the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record – nobody should believe them.
Battery storage is NOT a practical solution for intermittent grid-connected green energy.
Here is our successful predictive track record from 2002.
Regards, Allan
______________________________________
Brian Walters wrote on February 1 at 7:43pm ·
“Hey Allan MacRae…looks like you and the folks at NASA can agree on this!!”
NASA SEES CLIMATE COOLING TREND THANKS TO LOW SUN ACTIVITY
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity/
Thank you Brian for remembering.
We published with confidence in 2002 in a written debate with the Pembina Institute, sponsored by APEGA:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
and
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Past decades of actual global observations adequately prove that these two statements are correct to date. Since then, many trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism and costly intermittent green energy schemes. Any global warming observed to date has been mild and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment – the only measurable effect of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is greatly-increased plant and crop yields.
I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
My (our) now-imminent global cooling prediction predates Theodor Landscheidt’s 2003 paper. I’d be happy to be wrong about that cooling prediction, but it’s looking pretty good, based on the crash in solar activity in Solar Cycle 24 – the lowest since the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800).
NEW LITTLE ICE AGE INSTEAD OF GLOBAL WARMING?
Theodor Landscheidt, First Published May 1, 2003
https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646
I will stand with this prediction – for moderate, natural cooling, similar to that which occurred from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, despite increasing atmospheric CO2. As stated previously, I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods.
The first two predictions of 2002 are correct to date. If I get my third 2002 prediction for imminent global cooling correct as well, it will be a perfect Trifecta.
Then, I will write Sweden and demand the IPCC’s Nobel Prize. 🙂
Regards, Allan
Battery storage is NOT a practical solution for intermittent grid-connected green energy.
I’ve got a couple of D cells. That should be enough. Right?
I must have messed up the block quotes.
Either way, two D cells won’t do the job – but neither will any of the other proposed battery solutions – batteries are not cost-effective. 🙂
I suppose it all depends on what your comfort level is…the cave man had less than a couple of D cells and they survived! Problem is, acolytes of AOC wont be happy with such a life; they’ve been conditioned to expect Nirvana on somebody else’s dime!
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
According to NASA GISS, the five warmest years from 1880 to 2018 were: #1=2016, #2=2016, #3=2015, #4=2018, and #5=2014. And the average of those 5 years was about 0.25 degrees Celsius warmer than in 2002. So the world will have to cool a bit in order to have the temperature from 2020 to 2030 average what it was in 2002.
Oops. #2 should have been 2017: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The GND is a piece of juvenile, science-fictional gibberish that reads like a World’s Fair brochure ca. 1965.
What amazes me is that it EVER saw the light of day let alone is being taken seriously. However, if the GOP wanted to make sure the Dems never get another bill through Congress, ever, they could scarcely do better than this. They are now trolling themselves!
Articles like this need to be circulated widely:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-14/martin-armstrong-slams-al-gores-deliberate-global-warming-fraud-increase
Green Growth Knowledge Platform, Geneva, Switzerland, Est. January, 2012
” A Global Green New Deal: Policy Brief”
And, scroll down to Related Resource articles.
Also see Partners List.
http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/resource/global-green-new-deal-policy-brief
And,
UN Sustainable Development
Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), Geneva, Switzerland
UN Global Partnership Organization.
Description
#SDG Action 11356
Registered: March 29, 2016
More information.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=11356
Look behind the scenes?
The Green Bad Dream
does serve the
global warmunists
in a way that even tricks
the intelligent people
and scientists here.
The GBD diverts attention
from the underlying
lack of real science
behind the
CO2 is Evil Cult.
Lab experiments
and temperature measurements
are the only real science.
They suggest, but don’t prove,
the mild harmless warming in the
troposphere may be from more CO2
in the air.
Actual measurements
since 1950 show mild,
harmless, intermittent
global warming,
with very little, if any,
warming in the past 15 years.
Real science says there is no
climate problem that needs
to be solved now (or ever).
Real science also says
halting man made CO2 emissions
would stop the ‘greening’ of our
planet, and the acceleration
of green plant growth.
The Green Bad Dream
is a “solution” to a problem
that doesn’t exist … but it
is so radical that it encourages
debate on details of the plan …
diverting attention away
from the fact that the “plan”
addresses a non-existent “problem”
created by climate junk science
(a fake problem).
I discuss this in more detail
on my climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
UN Environment
“What is Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) ?”
According to UN Environment, GGKP is a global network of international organizations and experts.
Brief Overview
http://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/green-economy/what-we-do/green-growth-knowledge-platform
Also available on the internet.
UNEP, September, 2009
“Global Green New Deal”
“An Update for the G20 Pittsburgh Summit”, 14 pages
“Notes” p.14 for more references and information on this topic.
https://unep.ch/etb/publications/Green%20Economy/G%2020%20policy%20brief%20FINAL.pdf
Also available on the internet.
“Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity.”
WOW what a lie. How can they look anybody in the face. They are the least green energies on the planet, but, if you ignore the initial fabrication and installation of the equipment and infrastructure and ongoing management and maintenance issues, yea, they are cheap. However, that is to ignore a huge amount of expense, dishonestly as it were.
Not really, in Australia at least. Govn’t climate policy has made conventional sources of geretaion so expensive wind and solar can now compete.
Rejoice ! The end of the world is not in 10 years minus two weeks from the last pronouncement, the end of the world has been postponed by another extra 20 years.
It’s a pity that one or two readers of this blog, regretfully will not be around in the 30 years time to witness such grand event in the history of humanity.
I’ve discovered that Taco Bell is the cheapest way to generate natural gas. The world as we know it may end in as little as 30 minutes.
Taco Bell Gas…I’ll pass
future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.
If they pass this thing and try to implement it, there will be no future historians.
Sure, there will still be future historians. It’s just that they will have to publish their work by writing on cave walls. Humanity won’t end if GND is passed, but we may just go paleolithic.
From the article: “All our coal plants are old and will have to be replaced well before 2050. This is also true of many of our gas and nuclear plants, regardless of the movement to go carbon-free. That would offset the cost associated with transitioning by about $1 trillion.”
Windmills and industrial solar will have to be replaced before these coal, gas or nuclear power plants need replacing. All windmills and industrial solar will have to be replaced “well before 2050”.
Indeed, by 2050, two full generations of wind turbines will need to be replaced, since they last only 12 to 15 years.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html
Plus, this more than doubles the estimated cost, since the experienced lifespan isn’t close to the original estimates. I don’t believe the costs quoted in the article. In Ontario, wind turbines lose money at 17 cents per kWhr, while nuclear lives comfortably at 6 cents per kWhr.
Articles like this need to be circulated widely:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-14/martin-armstrong-slams-al-gores-deliberate-global-warming-fraud-increase
Story of windmills’ economics is so eloquently told to Canadian audience a year ago by Lord Christopher Monckton
https://youtu.be/ZH4m-Cs-u3Y
Can’t help but notice that the author left out the socialist elements in the GND. Sell the sizzle although everything he wrote about costs is wrong. No matter how they polish this thing it will still be a stinker.
Writing it down was an irretrievable mistake. We won’t waste this opportunity.
The GND by AOC is a POS for ALL! People expect some meat on their strips of bacon but this whole plan has none! It makes old episodes of Survivor look like a walk in the park!
To build on commieBob’s comment above. POS is also the standard electrical abbreviation for the positive terminal of a battery.
From the article: “The United States is working on that, too. Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries, which has been a tremendous contributing factor to the reduction in the price of renewable energy sources. In addition, there is hydropower, which is renewable, and nuclear energy, which is carbon-free. Both sources are not intermittent, meaning they can be relied upon for constant power, and can complement battery storage and provide backup to renewables.”
Well, I believe the Green New Deal does *not* include nuclear power as an option. I think Rep. Ocasio specifically turned thumbs down on nuclear.
How can you delay 20-30 years when there is only 12 years left? I will believe Ocasio-Cortez is serious when she and all her elected official supporters give up their now unnecessary pensions.
All goal posts are open to negotiation.
Because “The Science” is settled?
If wind and solar were truly the cheapest for of electricity generation, you wouldn’t have to force people to adopt it. They would be demanding it.
What is it about left wingers and their eagerness to spread such lies?
They are only lying when their lips are moving or their pens are scratching or their fingers are typing.
A good indicator of the lack of feasiblity for 100% renewables is how much any utility company is willing to pay mark jacobson. His expertise would be worth a salary of $1m+ a year if the conversion to 100% renewables was even remotely feasable.
A lot of US utilities are in fact jumping on the renewables bandwagon. They are even shutting down working coal plants to make room for wind and solar. Why? Because they make a fortune rebuilding their asset base. As regulated utilities, the more they spend the more they make.
Let”s not forget that those same utilities are left with no choice by their State governments. When you have States putting into law that X percentage of electricity generated in the State must be sourced from “renewable” sources there is not much wiggle room.
Fact is that if those requirements and Federal subsidies were removed we would see another wind mill or solar facility built.
The problem is with them being regulated utilities. Might as well be honest about it and have them be owned by the government directly. At least then the people will be able to figure out who to blame for these fiascoes.
Exactly. When did consumers ever say they wanted more expensive energy?
Why does the media – forever whining about false news – not check this stuff properly? Win d in the UK is only the “cheapest” if you ignore half the costs of wind but include the arbitrary carbon tax on gas. And even then it’s only a few pence cheaper. Fully costed versus pre-tax cost shows that wind is 50% or more more expensive than gas. There is no reason why the US should be any different.
Now the entire European grid is unstable? Is this true?
https://stopthesethings.com/2019/02/14/wind-solar-chaos-leaves-europes-power-grid-on-brink-of-total-collapse/comment-page-1/?unapproved=462570&moderation-hash=c2c77c4385ca228496ec8b535dd2af9a#comment-462570
“If wind and solar were truly the cheapest for of electricity generation,”
If you consider that the output characteristic of these renewables is totally unsuitable for powering grid loads, the cost is irrelevant, no mater how cheap it becomes.
Their market value is negative, so their cost needs to be negative (subsidized) to be economic.
Unreliable, intermittent electricity is useless.
They operate on emotion and when the situation doesn’t obey their desires, they get even madder!
It is. Let’s just ignore climate change.
Exactly. At least for 12 years before worrying about it again.
Nuclear is where we’re missing the boat for the really long term. Wind and solar are ok for small applications in remote locations but are not really feasible, as yet, for the large scale applications they are being used for right now. Sun shines 270 days per year here and solar well pumps and tank heaters beat trucking diesel or gas out to the (water) well site. Large scale they are a blight on the land and have their own ecological negative impacts. Coal, gas and oil will do just fine while we implement our nuclear, if we ever wake up to reality.
Yes, all the Democrats would have to do to turn the Green New Deal into a viable plan would be to come out in favor of using nuclear power for all new energy requirements. Forget the windmills and solar and their numermous associated big problems, and go with 100 percent nuclear power for the future.
Nuclear produces all the energy we will require for the years ahead and does not produce CO2. Nuclear will allow the economy to continue functioning in its present manner while providing all the energy needed and meeting the alarmists CO2 reduction goals.
There is a simple solution to their problem, all they have to do is get over their paranoia about nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is very easy to deal with if done properly.
Republicans will get on board the nuclear train, so no problem politically.
Of course, the Green New Deal is not meant to solve problems, it is really meant to impose Leftwing will on the rest of society. So making logical arguments to them is probably a waste of time. But we’ll give it a shot anyway. 🙂
Nuclear doesn’t address transport, however. No getting away from fossil fuels on that front until the entire road network is rebuilt to supply electricity on the fly, because batteries don’t cut it and there’s not enough “rare earth” metals for all the batteries you’d need.
And who would build the nuclear plants once we start paying people for not wanting to work?
We will have to get rid of paying for people who are unwilling to work, and switch over to promoting the “if you don’t work, you don’t eat” policy.
Fat chance!
While I am very pro-nuke, there’s much more wrong with the green new deal than just being anti-nuke. It’s a grotesque power grab. AOC the RPOS wants to grab nearly the entire economy and keep it under her personal control. Even if the alarmist were correct, it’s a horrible thing being suggested. It would be worse if it worked.
Notice that every single thing suggested to “fight global warming” involves adding huge levels of power and control to the government. Not a single thing ever suggested involved the government getting smaller or weaker, or even staying the same. Not even changing to something else of similar degree of power and control. It is ALWAYS about increase, by large amounts.
Everyone needs to recognize that “greenness” and “econess” expressed by political parties is a just issue-smithing they use as a tool to gain votes amongst a mass audience where a “democratic majority” can be achieved by appealing to emotion rather than knowledge and research, as people willing to actually study such issues are a minority. It’s about political power, aphrodisiac of politicians of every type.
Everyone won’t ever recognize such. (everyone here might….)
70% of the population is either:
*part of the emotional decision making clan, OR
*they just aren’t into societal bickering (don’t care, don’t have time, etc.).
I wouldn’t trust those calculations.
Apparently we can no longer afford to build nuclear power plants, while in the 1970s they were really affordable. Between 1969 and 1989 Spain installed 10 nuclear reactors that have been tremendously profitable and have resulted in zero accidents. You would think that 30 years of progress should result in cheaper, more powerful, safer nuclear reactors. I don’t know about the last two, but the cheaper nuclear is nowhere to be seen in Western countries.
And how many accidents has France had? To go with its cheap electricity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country#France
Zero fatalities. Wind generators kill people almost every year in most countries that have significant wind energy generation. Wind turbine maintenance crew is a very dangerous job. We are very selective about what worries us.
Good question. Some. Of all the accidents listed here, only Russia and Japan have had fatalities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
The Big One, Chernobyl, was over 30 years ago. BBC has an interesting report of what that area is like now, radiation levels, how the wild animals are doing, the people who still live there.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47227767
The problem with Chernobyl is that it is a permanent problem in human terms. The solution applied was temporary, as the sarcophagus had a 30-year life. The Chernobyl Shelter Fund has consumed nearly 1 billion dollars in providing a more stable cover. But there is still the issue of the 18 million curies of radioactivity that are there.
The cost of the disaster is mind-boggling, and the problem hasn’t been fixed.
Nothing is permanent, the problem decreases over time.
Anyway, it is an accident that could never have happened in the West, and took an extraordinary sequence of screw ups to happen in the Soviet Union.
1) A design that was rejected in the west because it was unstable, was used by the Soviets because it was cheap.
2) To save even more money, they skipped the containment building. (Had there been a containment building, nobody in the West would have ever heard of Chernobyl.)
3) A test designed to see how close they could take the reactor to the critical region without losing control, got too close to the critical region and they lost control. (In order to run the test, the first thing they did was shut down most of the safety equipment.)
Even with all that, the area around Chernobyl is recovering and the main reason why people are still kept out is political.
What annoys me about Japan is that not only did no one die at Fukushima from any nuclear related problems, several thousand people did die as a result of a 9.0 scale earthquake, of which just over 2500 were never found.
Oh! There was a fire at a nuclear power plant! The humanity! We must close all nuclear power plants!
So 15896 dead and 2537 missing from the earthquake and tsunami and the take away is ‘nuclear is bad’.
Same old same old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NnWphc8IY
I presume that the twaddle emanates from CNN, not Eric Worrall, but it’s not always made clear.
I would hate to have my name mistakenly associated with such views.
I am shocked at the number of people who believe that wind and solar are actually cheaper or less CO2 producing then coal or gas. Repeat the lie often enough and people will begin to believe.
Come on; people believe in CAGW. Are you surprised that they think that wind and solar can replace all out electric needs?
Or course if you traveled to Alpha Centauri at 3% the speed of light it would take about 133 Earth years (about 130 years to the travelers) and that is without stopping at Alpha Centauri. So the travelers are going to be pretty old when they get there, approximately the same age as those currently residing in Sun City Florida.
Are you accounting for time dilation?
Yes, hence the 3 year difference from those on Earth and those aboard the ship.
You’d either need some form of suspended animation technology (usually called cryogenics or “cold sleep” in sci-fi) or a community supership with multiple age groups onboard, with the logistics to perpetuate and prepare the youngest travelers to take up the mission that the original crew in all likelihood will not live to complete.
Any way you present it the “New Green Deal” was nothing short of the government mandating scientists and engineers come up with solutions based purely on a politically driven schedule. Any one want to guess how well that would have turned out?
Politically mandated production goals are never achieved. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated production of 16 B gal/yr of cellulosic ethanol (CE). We have essentially produce <1 million gal/yr after 12 years of research and investment. A total failure.
We do produce 16B gal of ethanol a year, but use copious amounts of corn to do so. The cost to the world's food supply is still being determined, but it isn't positive.
I pointed out to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2008 that they would not meet their CE targets for the Low Carbon Fuels Standard by 2010 as promised by the CE industry. Today the CE industry still has not produced commercial quantities of ethanol from anything other than Corn, and that doesn't qualify for cellulosic RINs (D-3 RINs).
And if we were able to use the 1 billion tons of biomass that the DOE said was available, all agricultural materials would need to be used and all forests harvested (mostly clear cut) to provide the biomass. And this would produce only ~3 million bbl/day of hydrocarbon fuels (or their equivalent) at best. And the cost for building these biofuels plants would be north of $1.3 trillion.
Going Green is essentially too expensive and too costly to the environment to even consider.
Hey buddy, you in the lab coat! Take a trillion or two and get to work on the Ultra-Super-Autocharging-Battery-That-Solves-Every-Energy-Problem-On-Earth-And-Probably-Elsewhere. Break all the laws of physics you need to. And do see if you can’t get it done before lunch. It’s Taco Tuesday!
“Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries, . . . ”
Who knew?
In related news: from Wikipedia
The first electric car in the United States was developed in 1890-91 by William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa; the vehicle was a six-passenger wagon capable of reaching a speed of 23 kilometres per hour (14 mph).
“…future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.”
And then future future historians will wonder how future historians’ generation could have been so stupid. It’s simply human nature. It’s never not been that way.
The prototypical human being is just not a very bright being — A pretty dim bulb.
If any of the claptrap in the column was actually true, we would have already ceased using carbon based fuels for energy sources. The problem is that the measurable torque or acceleration that can be derived from fantasies must be fantasized.
How many horsepower does your average unicorn have?
It’s a bad idea no matter how long it takes. The entire economy would collapse.
I think that’s part of the plan.
Why would anyone other than dimwits listen to what CNN says?
Unfortunately, dimwits vote. More than once when they can.
Geoffrey Heal the author is Professor of Social Enterprise at Columbia in NYC. No more need be said.
Still not at peak stupidity then, amazing as that is.
Nor at the peak of sheer dishonesty either, judging by the outrageous piece of news management by the BBC news today. Finding some schoolchild eager to repeat the carefully coached climate change babble put into her head by uninformed parent/teachers/extremist NGO and encourage her peers to walk out of school lessons tomorrow, the BBC more or less ran its own strike advert. Not that anyone is likely to hold what is supposed to be a public service broadcaster to account for this grossly irresponsible, self-serving and educationally damaging misconduct. But just let some errant parent try and take their child out of school for some legitimate purpose and watch the education authorities and BBC media luvvies call them out.
The BBC has a grim track record of destroying education in the UK, most recently with its kids TV series “The Four O’clock Club”, which glorifies the cool pupils who get detention, and who show zero interest in learning anything at school.
CNN. The voice of the Fourth Reich.
I’m sorry – this isn’t partisanship or bias. It’s evil.
Now, now if they talk disasters, exaggerating a bit is OK but no need to do as much as they do.
It isn’t a good idea at any price or time limit. Congress can write any law but nature follows it’s own laws.
Even if the cash was fully in hand, let’s see a prudent demonstration project in Washington DC as a first step.
Power the DC Metro on exclusively renewables every day for ten years so we have a track record to judge whether it’ll work everywhere else first. Make DC live the economic disruption first. If DC wants to rip 200 years of human progress and freedom away in ten years, let them be first, let’s see if they can power even one DC Metro escalator and subway train with solar panels and windmills.
Besides, human CO2 emissions barely register compared to all natural ocean outgassing, so why bother?
No amount of soviet-style central planning will ever change the climate.