Climate Activists Demand a Global Green New Deal

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate activists are demanding to know why Green New Deal proponents are so selfish, why they want to keep trillions of dollars of Green New Deal cash inside the USA, instead of sharing the cash with everyone through the United Nations.

The Green New Deal Isn’t Global Enough

The resources Democrats want Washington to appropriate and use domestically instead need to flow elsewhere in the world.

By Mihir Sharma
17 March 2019, 11:04 GMT+10

At the fourth United Nations Environment Assembly in Kenya this past week, experts and officials from around the world debated how to come up with the investment and innovation needed for countries to grow without dooming the planet. National leaders, NGOs and others discussed, among other things, how to create more “sustainable patterns of consumption and production.” What really struck me in Nairobi, though, was what wasn’t discussed: the Green New Deal being pushed by Democratic Party politicians in the U.S.

This is surprising, in a way: It was the United Nations Environment Programme that first called for a “Global Green New Deal” in 2009, hoping to revive the world economy through investment in climate change-related sectors.

Yet, fawning coverage of the Green New Deal rubs many in the developing world the wrong way. We’ve long known that an economy transitioning to a low-carbon growth path will both require investment and create jobs. But, the New Deal of the 1930s is simply not the right analogy. Then, economies across the world had enormous amounts of unused capacity that just needed to be put to work.

By contrast, a global low-carbon transition will require laying claim to resources that are productively employed in carbon-intensive sectors of the economy. It will be expensive. It will require sacrifice. And resources will need to flow more freely across national borders.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-17/green-new-deal-won-t-solve-global-climate-change

Shame on you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Your US centric climate vision has really offended green activists in other countries who feel entitled to a share of the Green New Deal cash you plan to spend in the USA.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
92 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R Shearer
March 17, 2019 6:08 am

High speed train to nowhere, all over.

Reply to  R Shearer
March 17, 2019 8:06 am

Does it really work? Can it be tested? Is Venezuela a good test?

Sara
Reply to  R Shearer
March 17, 2019 12:17 pm

Just keep them out of my yard, okay????

ThomasJK
March 17, 2019 6:10 am

“Report: Green New Deal Could Cost Every US Household $65,000 A Year.”

And that will be $65,000 of real, commodity or hard money. Federal Reserve/Treasury Fiat funny money will not suffice for paying this debt.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  ThomasJK
March 17, 2019 6:25 am

Yeah, well, the U.S. is only 4% of the world’s population. If the entire world is entitled to be saved from going off the climate cliff 12 years from now, American households need to cough up a lot more than $65,000 per year. Since everything’s all our fault, simply multiply that 65k by 25, so the whole world can jump on the bandwagon at American taxpayers’ expense.

That’ll come to $1,625,000 per household, per year, thank you very much. Where’s the dough supposed to come from? Hey — if you believe in doomsday, you can believe in magic. Now GET CRACKING!

R Shearer
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 7:10 am

Going to have to raise the minimum wage as well as COL adjustments.

Rich Davis
Reply to  R Shearer
March 17, 2019 8:01 am

Brilliant! You must be an economist, RS!

Let’s see, if we need each person in the two-person “family” to contribute $812,500/yr and they “work” 35 hrs a week, 40 weeks a year (as appropriate for a civilized country), and they should not spend more than 60% of their income on GGND (because fairness), then I reckon the new minimum wage should be set at $968/hr. That’s only about two orders of magnitude higher than current rates. Easy peasy.

The retirees will simply be exempted from contribution with their dues paid by the government. (Same for those unwilling to work).

The exemptions can be paid for through a 600% tax on billionaires and trillionaires.

R Shearer
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 17, 2019 8:36 am

Round it up to $1000/hr as that has a nice sound to it, then raise it by 5%/year. That ought to work.

Plus we can have safe injection sites on every corner, next to the porta potties without walls (and toilet paper) because walls don’t work.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 17, 2019 10:22 am

Too much brilliance in one day. You will burn yourself out.

H.R.
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 17, 2019 10:50 am

Rich Davis: “The retirees will simply be exempted from contribution with their dues paid by the government. (Same for those unwilling to work).”

Whew! R Shearer had me going for a minute there. I’m both retired and unwilling to work. I deserve two checks.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 17, 2019 12:27 pm

And if you had the correct social credit score HR, you would be entitled to that, and more! Unfortunately our records indicate you are a climate denier. No check for you!

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 17, 2019 5:01 pm

H.R. You’re entitled to as many checks as you are votes… (Even after you’re dead).

DonM
Reply to  R Shearer
March 17, 2019 4:09 pm

I’m willing to work, but I only want to work on productive projects … I’m not willing to drag my ass out of bed to work on fantasy projects.

Am I entitled to anything, under the new green deal?

Trebla
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 8:05 am

It’s an attempt to use the wealth created by fossil fuels in an effort to eliminate fossil fuels. Weird!

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Trebla
March 17, 2019 8:14 am

Ironies such as that are usually hard to come by, sort of like squaring the circle. But in this post-modernist, feelings are more important than facts age, anything is possible.

observa
Reply to  Trebla
March 17, 2019 3:21 pm

Well you gotta give them some credit for appreciating the wonderment of fossil fuels like that.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 8:10 am

Lol! I’ll start putting my pennies in my piggy bank.

SMC
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 8:33 am

No need to have any elaborate schemes for raising the money. What do you think Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is all about?

MarkG
Reply to  SMC
March 17, 2019 10:08 am

Money printers powered by unicorn farts.

They can print all the money they want. Doesn’t mean anyone has to accept it.

Ah, well. Democracy had a decent run. Nothing like as long as a good monarchy, but it was worth trying just for grins.

Kenji
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 10:40 am

The bloody 3rd World should be PAYING America for the fantastic progress we’ve made in cleaning up our parts of the world. The climate is Sooooooo better off because of our capitalist wealth.

Now if we could just stop WASTING all our $$$ Resources on this whole Global Warming myth …

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 18, 2019 6:23 am

Tom

That will make decisions in developing countries very easy to make. People who are currently employed producing goods and earning about $2500 a year will look at the $65,000 figure and come to a quick decision about whether or not to participate.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  ThomasJK
March 17, 2019 10:17 am

I think people who believe this crud should pay for it and leave us alone 👍

ozspeaksup
March 17, 2019 6:12 am

now thats funny;-)
immediate hands out for cash
when the first global slush fund for warmists was mooted I said it was going to be far more harmful than they thought(or didnt think) to the very nations promoting the damnfool idea
kiribas n tuuvalu are just fast n vocal but all the 3rdworlders see it as a lovely cashcow.

Kamikazedave
March 17, 2019 6:14 am

“Climate Activists Demand a Global Green New Deal”

You aren’t getting one. Now what are you going to do?

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Kamikazedave
March 17, 2019 8:34 am

Hide your wallets, they’re coming for it. Other people’s Money is promised and every loony Green Marxist/Fascist trougher with their hand out. But I’m pretty good with a sharp machete.

Goldrider
Reply to  Kamikazedave
March 17, 2019 9:53 am

Hold my hand out for Guaranteed Basic Income. So I can wash my popcorn down with beer all day.

Y. Knott
Reply to  Goldrider
March 18, 2019 5:40 am

– No. NO!!! No beer – it’s carbonated with eeevil CO2ies.

Wine?

March 17, 2019 6:16 am

They should check Nordhaus first about the costs and benefits
https://mobile.twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1102627948962697221/photo/1

R Shearer
Reply to  Hans Erren
March 17, 2019 6:24 am

They are projections based on assumptions based on unsubstantiated theory. In other words, one bullshit theory is as good as another.

Reply to  R Shearer
March 17, 2019 9:02 am

But even Nordhaus shows that climate damage is limited to only 3% GDP, so where is the thermageddon in the consensus peer reviewed literature?

Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 6:17 am

This crusade to repeal the industrial revolution and return to the Stone Age should NOT be led by a spoiled brat from Yorktown Heights, NY who coasted through Boston University and was awarded a degree without learning anything. You want a world without metal? Without machinery? Without any combustible fuel other than wood? Better to find someone who still lives in the Stone Age, and knows what they’re talking about. Maybe an obscure tribe in the highlands of New Guinea, or goofy survivalists in a remote valley in Montana.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
March 17, 2019 6:41 pm

Tom Gelsthorpe March 17, 2019 at 6:17 am

“Maybe an obscure tribe in the highlands of New Guinea,”

can anyone say,,, Michael Rockefeller

michael

Tom Abbott
March 17, 2019 6:17 am

From the article: “” What really struck me in Nairobi, though, was what wasn’t discussed: the Green New Deal being pushed by Democratic Party politicians in the U.S.”

That’s probably because the Green New Deal proposals are so outrageous that even the members at the meeting didn’t take it seriously. It doesn’t help your cause when you make yourself a laughingstock by making outlandish, impossible proposals.

Tom in Florida
March 17, 2019 6:18 am

“It will be expensive. It will require sacrifice”

Whenever an elitist says that they mean YOU will have to sacrifice and pay for it not them.

Harry Passfield
March 17, 2019 6:20 am

And with each small step the world is moved ever closer to a (planned) UN Government – and a socialist one, at that.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 17, 2019 8:03 am

Worse Harry. A socialist gov is nominally supposed to look after the poor at least. We’re talking Champagne Socialists here. These elitist billionaires have a blind stupid spot. Take down the borders and impoverish and dispossess the plebes, control their travel, consumption, speech, living space… and they will have chaos of perpetual geurilla warfare, economic sabotage, huge underworld crime, blackmarketeers … this is why disarming US citizens (gradually, in a marxy thin edge of the wedge sort of way) is high priority.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 17, 2019 8:41 am

In principle, Socialism is a return to serfdom. Like the land barons, Socialism looks after the poor and to keep them in line, must keep them poor by preventing them from succeeding individually. All success is positioned as for the collective good, which is code for the greater good of those in charge.

MarkG
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 17, 2019 10:11 am

This is why authoritarians love ‘Universal Basic Income’: if it works in any meaningful way, the majority will come to depend on it to survive, and the government will be able to cut it off if their Social Credit Score goes too low.

The majority of the left are too mesmerized by Free Money to even conceive of this, let alone understand it.

Wade
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 17, 2019 9:06 am

I disagree. I believe the world is moving toward a global UN communist government. I realize that communism is a form of socialism. But you can have more rights under socialism. And I believe that one of the first things to go will be religion. You can’t have people worshiping the state and a deity at the same time. Plus, people have used religion as an excuse for many wars and many prejudices. I am sure the UN is thinking that if we get rid of religion and redistribute wealth — their wealth excluded, of course — all over the world, then everyone will live in peace and sing happy songs about the UN all day. And if you don’t sing your happy song, then a blue-helmet UN “peacekeeper” will take care of that problem.

MarkG
Reply to  Wade
March 17, 2019 10:14 am

It’s not possible to have a global government when production is decentralized. No-one’s going to listen to the UN if they can make almost all the things they need in their basement with a couple of robots, a CNC machine and a 3D printer. Nor can you steal their wealth when it no longer exists in a bank account, but in their mind.

Marx, oddly enough, was actually right about something. We’re heading toward a future where the workers own the means of production, and the UN will fade away.

They can make plans and proclamations all they want, but they’re irrelevant if people won’t go along.

MarkW
Reply to  Wade
March 17, 2019 2:02 pm

“It’s not possible to have a global government when production is decentralized. ”

Which explains why they want to impose socialism as a first step.

Goldrider
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 17, 2019 9:55 am

We can de-fund the UN entirely any time we like. Where’s the will to do so? They’ve been far out of their original lane for 50 years now. OUR tax dollars are being routed to the people who think this slop up!

Latitude
March 17, 2019 6:21 am

odd….the same people that harp against world population
..are the same people that demand more money sent to these countries, to prop up a population…
…that is not sustainable, and totally dependent on that outside money coming in

Roger Bournival
March 17, 2019 6:24 am

“who feel entitled to a share of the Green New Deal cash you plan to spend in the USA.”

Cash that doesn’t exist, by the way.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Roger Bournival
March 17, 2019 6:51 am

“Cash that doesn’t exist, by the way.”

Yeah, the U.S. would have to borrow the money from China.

Those UN CAGW moochers should just go to the source, China, and ask them to finance their worldwide New Green Deal.

China says, “Yeah, we’ll help you out. The first one is free.”

SMC
Reply to  Roger Bournival
March 17, 2019 9:09 am

The cash will exist. What do you think Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is all about?

Petit_Barde
March 17, 2019 6:27 am

US climate activists are a bunch of selfish capitalists force-fed with fossil fuels !

Shame on you AOC, you are a travesty ! The “cause” needs true believers!

/sarc !

R Shearer
Reply to  Petit_Barde
March 17, 2019 7:51 am

Where does rationality end and cultism begin? It’s getting pretty weird when leftists are verbally abusing Chelsea Clinton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=798&v=DQ8w6PuLC4o

Tom Abbott
Reply to  R Shearer
March 17, 2019 12:32 pm

“It’s getting pretty weird when leftists are verbally abusing Chelsea Clinton.”

The Loony Left is getting more extreme by the day. When Chelsea doesn’t pass the Liberal test, then you know her critics are radical to the extreme.

The Democrat pary is being destroyed from within by radicals trying to outdo each other in their extremism.

Marcus
March 17, 2019 6:31 am

“hoping to revive the world economy through investment in climate change-related sectors.” ?
Seriously ? ROTFLMAO…..

R. Wright
March 17, 2019 6:43 am

Let’s see. Close all the airports, including the New York Airports, which are the stepping stones for travel to Europe and much of the world. Also, kill all the beef cattle. And all the cows. And all the sheep. And all the pork. And all the bison on Ted Turner’s ranches. Where does it end? Dogs, cats, humans?

The rest of the world must be laughing at these outrageous proposals.

John Endicott
Reply to  R. Wright
March 18, 2019 5:43 am

Let’s see. Close all the airports, including the New York Airports, which are the stepping stones for travel to Europe and much of the world

Ok, you’ve sold me on that one. That might actually be a net positive.

Also, kill all the beef cattle. And all the cows. And all the sheep. And all the pork.

And then you lost me with that one. Nothing positive there.

fxk
March 17, 2019 6:57 am

No Soup for you!
Isn’t denying the rest of the world a Green New Deal the economic equivalent of a BORDER WALL?
Hasn’t that been characterized as immoral by Nancy Pelosi?
Get that printing press running. Need more cash!

Coeur de Lion
March 17, 2019 6:58 am

But why are we worriting on about the Green New Deal? We already have a world-wide GND in the IPCC’s SR1.5 – surely let’s all get on with that before The End of Coal in 2030!
Or has everyone except the Synod of the Church of England forgotten about it? Such a huge unreadable document cannot surely be forgotten? I drop in on it from time to time for a bit of a laugh, marvelling at the volume of named scientists from everywhere who have signed up to it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 17, 2019 11:52 am

The GND is going the way of the UN IPCC SR15; once people understand the ideology-based, unrealistic proposals they run, not walk, away.

Not one of the usual suspects brings up SR15 in serious discussions. It made the mistake of putting dollar amounts on the costs for “avoiding” the imaginary catastrophe of a 1.5 C increase in average world temperatures. Once peoples’ eyes popped out at those cost figures, they began to look at the preposterous, unreliable model and fragile-ecology assumptions made to support the catastrophe fantasies.

Similarly, when the House Democratic Caucus looked at the cost estimates for the GND, a majority rejected pursuing the legislation. Their fundamental problem is, however, that the Democratic Party is forever associated with the GND. Additionally, hard-line primary voters won’t let them walk away from the socialist cant. [“Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.” I relish low humor.]

Bruce Cobb
March 17, 2019 7:03 am

I just love when they eat their own. Now, where’d I put my popcorn?

Alasdair
March 17, 2019 7:15 am

The logic of the Green Deal is that of a snake consuming its own tail.
It takes the wealth produced by fossil fuels to enable the destruction of the fossil fuels themselves. At some point it must all come to a grinding halt.

R Shearer
Reply to  Alasdair
March 17, 2019 7:52 am

That appears to be the case in Venezuela.

u.k.(us)
March 17, 2019 7:15 am

Why, exactly, is this young lady getting so much attention ?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 17, 2019 7:53 am

She ticks all the leftard US MSM boxes and more:
Young -check
Pretty – check
Female ethnic minority – double check
Freshly elected as US Representative – check
Uses Twitter a lot – check
Trashes Trump a lot – check
Extreme left bordering on Communist views – check mate.

LdB
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 17, 2019 8:07 am

You left out has some dance moves.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 17, 2019 8:30 am

You left one out: Incapable of rational thought – double check

DonM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 17, 2019 4:13 pm

MSM likes her ’cause she says is just one step kookier than they are, she says what they think is cutting edge and cool, AND they think that they are way way smarter than she is.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 18, 2019 3:24 pm

Hmmmmm, (gets out mirror)

Young – check (you’re as young as you feel, right?)
Pretty – check (as long as you don’t look too close at the date on those glamor shots [1968] )
Female ethnic minority – check (native Alaskan with only a couple of Russians and Norwegians hiding in the family tree to apologize for)
Freshly elected as US Representative – er not yet, but we can fix that.
Uses Twitter a lot – check (there are birds twittering outside my window on this gorgeous spring day)
Trashes Trump a lot – well no
Extreme left, bordering on communist views – (BEEP) no

Oh well 😉 😉

MilwaukeeBob
March 17, 2019 7:32 am

Well, that didn’t take too long. I was wondering how long it would be till the “poor” socialists in the rest of the world noticed the door to the gold vault (the American taxpayer) was cracked open – -a bit more. Of course, the “Deal” as written now will NOT suffice. As time moves on and not “enough” is changing, MUCH MORE sacrifice (MONEY!) will be DEMANDED. As Tom G. wrote above, $65,000 will not be nearly enough. BUT this NOT a take-all-at-once scheme. THIS IS A DRIP-BY-DRIP TILL YOU ARE DRY (or dead) plan. The “…all we have is 12 years…” (boiling water) mantra is incessantly repeated JUST to set-up your mind to “except” the progressive 25-year (tepid water) tax-to-save-the-world plan.
“Oh no Mr. Frog, (Stupid American) why would we boil (tax) you to death? That would be counter-productive. See how nice and comfortable (affordable) this (tax plan) water is……” “Don’t forget, YOU’RE saving the world, so jump right in….”
RMH

Ron Long
March 17, 2019 7:44 am

“Share the cash with everyone through the United Nations”? Here’s a clue, Sparky, the United Nations is a corrupt, do-nothing waste of American taxpayer money, and, minus the cash that disappears in the middle, a cash-cow for questionable organizations all over the world. On the other hand, giving the money to the United Nations would guarantee that nothing gets done. I’m conflicted here.

RelPerm
March 17, 2019 7:46 am

The unelected corrupt UN diplomats are whining about not receiving mountains of cash like the good old days under the Obama administration. No surprise!

Globalists came up with the idea first for taxing carbon to redistribute wealth globally and are miffed that someone is selfishly using this concept wanting to redistribute wealth only locally within the US. No surprise!

The green in Green New Deal is obviously about cash instead of the environment. It is a nifty way to redistribute money with a lot of it landing in places like Al Gore’s pocket. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Gamecock
March 17, 2019 7:54 am

GND is an environmentalist facade for a socialist takeover of the U.S.

It’s right there on on the Justice Democrats website:

https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues/

For the hard of hearing, AOC is the spokes model for the Justice Democrats.

Andy Pattullo
March 17, 2019 7:56 am

Not really a problem. If the Green New Deal fantasy ever became reality the US would become just like all of those poor developing (or de-developing) countries and, without any controlled borders, you wouldn’t know where the US ends and the third word begins.

LdB
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
March 17, 2019 8:09 am

I think it would actually go into civil war before that happened as there are many who simply would not accept it.

rah
Reply to  LdB
March 17, 2019 8:25 am

Yep, there would come a point where the black rifles would come out. I am inclined to believe that we have been moving towards some real crisis for some time now and that unless something drastically changes there will be a real shooting war with real casualties. Thomas Jefferson was right.
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

R Shearer
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
March 17, 2019 8:54 am

There are plenty of near third world communities already in the U.S. I don’t worry about the ones in Appalachia, but I’m headed to Philly next week.

March 17, 2019 8:33 am

In Canada, pensioners get $1100 a month from the government. However, if you are a refugee you get $2500 a moth.

So, as a first step in solving the climate crisis, pensioners in canada should be claiming refugee status, from the very real fear they will be killed by climate change.

At the very least, the extra $1400 a month will let the pensioners buy a better grade of dog food for their meal time.

Because nothing shows how much Canada cares about pensioners than to pay refugees more than twice as much to come to Canada.

And when refugee children die in a fire, Canada flies their relatives in from Syria. When Canadians die, the government flies to Florida on vacation.

R Shearer
Reply to  ferd berple
March 17, 2019 9:04 am

Could I identify as the opposite sex and move to Revelstoke as a refugee because Trump? Are discounted passes available?

RobbertBobbert
Reply to  ferd berple
March 17, 2019 8:29 pm

Ferd…That 1100 dollars Canadian seems a bit lowish to get by. And Monthly!
Aussie dollar is about 70% USA. The Canada dollar is worth about 1.05 Aussie.
The Aussie pension is about $900 per fortnight for singles and includes an $80 supplement. For couples it is $690 each including $60 Supplement.
While Veterans Singles is about $990 with another potential supplement of $270….
Do Canadian pensioners get some sort of supplement bonus on top of that $1100 or health and transport cards that cover varied expenses. We have such things.
Does everyone have retirement funds…we call that Superannuation… as well but still get the pension on top? Super means you pay near to 10% of your gross wage and employer does the same into your invested retirement funds.
If you have about $800,000 or more on retirement you will probably NOT get a Part pension here as those funds are expected to pay you $30, 000 or more in investments.
$1100 per month in Australia puts you well under the poverty line if that were your only income.
Regards from The Kangaroos and Koalas.

Bryan A
March 17, 2019 8:42 am

Shame on you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Your US centric climate vision has really offended green activists in other countries who feel entitled to a share of the Green New Deal cash you plan to spend in the USA.

AOC and her GND cohorts along with the Renewable Subsidy Seekers and Climate Scientist Rent Seekers are the equivalent of the Next-generation 21st Century Robber Barons.

Gary Ashe
March 17, 2019 8:49 am

And no doubt it will take a ”one world government” of un-elected Bureaucrats as well.
An organisation like the UN for instance.

vuk
March 17, 2019 10:16 am

That’s not even funny, if you want to have a good laugh come to the UK and observe British government in action 🙂

rah
Reply to  vuk
March 17, 2019 11:20 am

You mean in inaction don’t you? Lets face it. The only way there is going to be the Brexit that the people voted for is if they take to the streets and do protracted yellow vest riots like they’ve been doing in France. And even then it might not happen!

Alan Tomalty
March 17, 2019 11:04 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU&feature=youtu.be+%E2%80%A6+%E2%80%A6

This video exposes who Alexandria Ocasio Cortez really is and who is behind her. The Democrats are being overtaken by megalomaniacs.

Flight Level
March 17, 2019 12:04 pm

That thing is still in phase one.

It’s actually pure tactics. Ask for outrageous even to green standards free money efforts.

Then in phase two, come with a “more reasonable” plan perceived as the less of two devils by most.

And have it accepted by all as a sensible solution to a non existing problem.

Greens actually have no limits in their indecency. They observed one minute of silence for their colleagues who perished in an air disaster prior the conference and then proceeded to their claims unaffected by the events to which they have largely contributed. To them it was business as usual.

Fuel saving madness just added 157 to it’s achievements. The quest for fuel efficiency has pushed a new set of potentially dangerous airframes into daily operation.

In summary, an airframe can not be optimal in all portions of it’s envelope. Reason why over-optimal in cruise at altitude aircraft can achieve serious fuel saving figures while sacrificing stability in other phases such as take-off, climb, descend, approach, landing.

Which is why handling is assisted (disguised ?) by flight management computers that interpret or otherwise interfere with command and sensors inputs to the control surfaces.

Failures of the process present the crew with an inherently unstable extremely hard to maneuver airframe with often unpredictable reactions in critical phases.

Fuel saving madness has killed 157 more times and no one dares to question the green pressure that brought us all there.

All the greens can come with is plans for even more free money in the wake of loosing 30 or so of their colleagues to the consequences of their financial pressure.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Flight Level
March 17, 2019 12:39 pm

“The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire.”

Flight Level
Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 17, 2019 4:18 pm

Indeed….

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 17, 2019 12:10 pm

I really feel I should help our friends in the USA out here. If Loonella Deville really believes in spreading your money worldwide I think you should do a sample test first – so I volunteer. Please send one billion US dollars in used notes and I will try to maintain a sustainable lifestyle and straight face for a day or two and send a report – from an as yet to be decided luxury holiday island. It’s a tough ask but someone has to do it.

On a completely different note I was interested to discover that a healthy human has an iron ratio in the bloodstream of between 350 to 480 ppm. Curious coincidence with our currently healthy level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Must be some way of using this coincidence to annoy the eco-loons.

Best wishes all!

Gunga Din
March 17, 2019 1:04 pm

The Green New Deal.
Aside from that fact that CO2 is not a real problem, even the bit that comes from fossil fuels, these morons seem think that “wealth” seems to just “exist”. There is a pot of gold out there that some people are dipping into more often than they should. Everybody should get an equal handful.
It’s St. Patrick’s Day. But there are no Leprechauns. There is no pot of gold to find dip into.
“Wealth” comes from people producing or contributing to the production of something of value to those who choose to buy it.
The Green New Deal with it’s removal of all practical and proven means of producing the energy needed (remember, the Greens hate and hinder nuclear and hydro also) would mean there would be no people producing or contributing to the production of something of value.
Once the bank vaults’ of “the rich” have been emptied by the “dreamers”, the pot of gold is empty and no one will have the means to refill it.
The Green New Deal really means a return to a subsistence existence for all.

Gamecock
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 17, 2019 5:53 pm

Correct.

The problem with taking from the rich is you can only do it once.

Once you redistribute wealth, it is gone.

ATheoK
March 17, 2019 3:55 pm

“hoping to revive the world economy through investment in climate change-related sectors.”

Another leftist and publication admits the real reason for the climate change scare is to redistribute America’s and other Western countries’ wealth.

Isn’t it amazing that they do not expect all of the socialist countries to redistribute their wealth?

John Endicott
Reply to  ATheoK
March 18, 2019 9:22 am

Isn’t it amazing that they do not expect all of the socialist countries to redistribute their wealth?

probably because all of the socialist countries have no wealth worth redistributing.

Warren
March 17, 2019 4:37 pm
Gamecock
Reply to  Warren
March 17, 2019 5:57 pm

Sorry. Not interested in ‘restructuring the world economy.’

observa
Reply to  Gamecock
March 17, 2019 9:19 pm

Well obviously not but I’m certainly eminently qualified to tackle the redistribution job as World’s Fearless Leader and the Great Leap Forward along with plenty of my flunkies.

Leonard Jones
March 21, 2019 12:14 pm

Alexandria Empty Cortex rode on the short bus all the way to college. I am currently
organizing and categorizing a few hundred thousand jokes, memes, humor, etc. in
about 100 categories in anticipation of starting my own Blog. In my rogue’s gallery
of political figures, she leads in the number of entries.

I understand that Empty Cortex has been the victim of meme exaggerations, but in less
than a day she usually says something so stupid that it only reinforces the fact that she is
the Forest Gump of American politics, except that Forest Gump, understood the concept
of weather cycles.

One of the greatest pieces on global warming was a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles
Slimes about 25 years ago. A geezer (sorry Senior Citizen) wrote that his family moved
from Oklahoma to Southern California about 70 years earlier. He said that he was not
a scientist, but the normal weather pattern was 5-7 years of dry, followed by1-2 years of
wet. I cannot remember all of the details but he described the El Nino and La Nina
weather patterns that have been the norm for thousands of years. His letter was in
response to a woman who confused weather patterns with global climate.

%d bloggers like this: