Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Democrat Presidential Primary candidate Beto O’Rourke is hoping you’ll find the $5 Trillion cost of his green new deal lite more palatable than the $93 trillion cost of the full Green New Deal.
O’Rourke releases plan to fight climate change with $5 trillion investment and net-zero emissions by 2050
By Kate Sullivan and Leyla Santiago, CNN
Updated 1539 GMT (2339 HKT) April 29, 2019O’Rourke plans to invest $5 trillion over 10 years in infrastructure and innovation and also sets a goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, according to an outline of O’Rourke’s proposal which his campaign put out ahead of a tour of Yosemite National Park on Monday.
The former Texas Democratic congressman’s plan called climate change “the greatest threat we face” and outlined a four-part framework to address this “existential threat” and “growing emergency.”
If elected president in 2020, O’Rourke’s “very first bill he sends to Congress … will mobilize $5 trillion over 10 years — spurred by the single largest investment to fight climate change in history — to transform our aging infrastructure, accelerate innovation, and empower our people and communities to lead the climate fight,” according to his plan.
…
According to his proposal, O’Rourke’s $5 trillion mobilization would be “directly leveraged by a fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment,” and the bill he would introduce to Congress would be funded by “changes to the tax code to ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies.”
…
O’Rourke’s climate change plan would “set a first-ever, net-zero emissions by 2030 carbon budget for federal lands, stopping new fossil fuel leases, changing royalties to reflect climate costs, and accelerating renewables development and forestation.”
…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/29/politics/beto-orourke-climate-change-policy/index.html
From Beto’s website;
…
Start Cutting Pollution on Day One and Taking Executive Actions to Lead on Climate
Beto’s four-part framework starts with a forceful day-one agenda because he knows that delay is tantamount to denial — to misunderstanding the severity and scale of this growing crisis. We will cut pollution on day one, improving the quality of our air, our water, and our public health right away. At the same time, we will create jobs, support communities, and strengthen our economy — not just to compete, but to lead the world in addressing this crisis.
As President, Beto will use his executive authority not only to reverse the problematic decisions made by the current administration, but also to go beyond the climate actions under previous presidents:
- Re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond;
- Reduce methane leakage from existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry for the first time and rapidly phase-out hydrofluorocarbons, the super-polluting greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide;
- Strengthen the clean air and hazardous waste limits for power plants and fuel economy standards that save consumers money and improve public health, while setting a trajectory to rapidly accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicles;
- Increase consumer savings through new, modernized, and ambitious appliance- and building-efficiency standards;
- Create unprecedented access to the technologies and markets that allow farmers and ranchers to profit from the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions they secure;
- Leverage $500 billion in annual government procurement to decarbonize across all sectors for the first time, including a new “buy clean” program for steel, glass, and cement;
- Require any federal permitting decision to fully account for climate costs and community impacts;
- Set a first-ever, net-zero emissions by 2030 carbon budget for federal lands, stopping new fossil fuel leases, changing royalties to reflect climate costs, and accelerating renewables development and forestation; and
- Protect our most wild, beautiful, and biodiverse places for generations to come — including more of the Arctic and of our sensitive landscapes and seascapes than ever before — and establish National Parks and Monuments that more fully tell our American story.
…
Read more: https://betoorourke.com/climate-change/
One question Beto – if you end tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and hike up royalty and compliance costs, won’t they simply pass the additional costs straight on to consumers, causing an economically damaging spike in consumer fuel and energy bills?
It is all very well investing in innovation, but maybe you should hold off pushing up the price of fossil fuel, until that innovation investment yields a viable and affordable alternative.
“Negotiation” Progressive Style.
Naturally the impossibility of the original concept will never be discussed.
The Republicans really should counter offer by asking “Beta” How much Unicorn Fence he wishes to purchase?
We appear to be reaching the point where our fools and bandits will be made an “offer” they dare not refuse.
Something like, get a real job.
Beto and his family can start the journey by:
a) never taking airplanes. All political appearances by Beto should be done over the internet.
b) always taking public transit. No more cars for Beto.
c) set his air conditioning at a comfortable 85F
d) never use a clothes dryer. Always hang out his washing to dry.
I’m sure others have CO2 savings for Beto to follow.
Never taking airplanes? If, like Europe or China, the US had a high speed rail network, that would be easy…
European nations and China have managed to construct thousands of miles of 220+ mph track in the last 2 decades… how come the USA, a world leading economy and technological innovator can’t do that?
It doesn’t need to because air travel in the USA is cheaper and quicker. In case you hadn’t noticed air travel in the U.K. is also cheaper than train travel if you need to travel at times when the rail system has to be strictly rationed by hiking up prices.
And HS2 is going so well….
It is rare to see HS2 (George Osborne’s personal vanity project) mentioned here, but I’m glad you have because it is an indicator of what happens when government attempts to pick winners. Originally to cost £32bn (to save a train passenger an approximate 20-25 minutes on their journey) the current cost estimate (from 2015!, so already outdated) is £55.7bn. Commentators qualified in this field of costing transport are now saying that a more realistic projection would be £100-110bn, well over £1,500 for every man, woman and child in the UK. After the Crossrail fiasco even that could be an underestimate.
I mention this because when a politician tells you that the cost of his/her hairbrained scheme will be $xbn it would not be unrealistic to suggest the real cost would be $3xbn. Leaving aside all the hidden consequential societal costs which could be many times that.
griff
if you wanted to travel from the UK to Oslo or Alicante would you do it by train? We are talking large distances here with many places not readily accessible by train
We can afford automobiles, gasoline and airline tickets.
We can afford large automobiles (trucks and SUVs) and large homes (flats in the UK). Forced downsizing in the U.S. by policy over reach will sink any Party that tries it. Call it Peak Party.
People are not stupid. When rational minds cost out green dreams, the dreams fade away.
Your misapprehensions are showing again, Griff. Eurostar only covers portions of France, Belgium, UK (basically London) and Switzerland. TGV and connected networks only cover Germany, France, Switzerland, northern Italy.
If you stretch the definition of “high speed” you just about get a network just about capable of a chunk of the US east coast. There’s definitely no “high speed rail” capable of traversing the continental United States, which would be required to replace air travel the way you apparently believe it has replaced air travel in Europe.
Here’s a hint: it hasn’t. High speed rail is slow.
Check the price for
Madrid to Paris
High-speed train costs at least double the cheapest airfare. And takes at least 3 times as long. (May 1st – 112 euro for the cheapest plane, 303 euro for the cheapest train – I think the price is in euros. Even if the price is in dollars the relative price is still the same.
Also, bear in mind that France has cheap nuclear power.
I shudder to think of the cost in California of a trip on “the bullet train to nowhere” would be if the electricity was provided by wind and solar.
I believe neither the French TGV or the Japanese Shinkansen have ever been profitable.
That’s not relevant when you are trying to save the planet.
And pick up chicks at the same time.
Bars, yes. But picking up chicks on trains?
Bowling alleys are great, too.
[Repeated reply was deleted. Mod]
The Japanese Shinkansen stops at railroad stations to get in and out.
Also in Tokyo to switch to local trains.
one can go to work / at home from work.
airplanes can not deliver that.
Just saying.
https://www.jrailpass.com/maps
I take it you haven never visited the US, have you Griff? It’s a BIG place, and mostly rathers sparsely inhabited.
There is really only two areas in the US with large enough cities close enough to make high-speed trains feasible: Dallas/Ft Worth-Houston and the Washington DC-Boston corridor.
The first will probably get one, the second is infeasible for political reasons. To many states, counties, towns, landowners, lobbyists, lawyers etc involved.
Hey, we’ve got high speed rail from Chicago to Springfield here in the Land o’ Lincoln, so the Chicago politicians can get to their capitol offices sometime before noon and still make a golf game in Aurora at 6.
If one compares the proposed Houston/Dallas high speed rail to the Acela line on the east coast from Washington to NYC, (similar distances) it becomes apparent that the Texas line has no chance of having the officially predicted passenger count that the money losing Acela has. It would be cheaper to make I-45 from Houston to Dallas 6 lanes (100 miles is still 4-lanes) than it will be to build the Texas line.
Hey Griff, where have you been? California Governor Newsum has just canceled the ex-Governor Moonbeam bullet train project between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Why? Not profitable! Very costly! Liberal dream? Brief return to sanity?
Did a lot of work in Lyon a couple of years ago, travel options are:
Land
Packed Commuter train to London 2:16
Tube Transit Waterloo to Kings X 30 Mins Lucky 1 Hr Unlucky
Eurostar to Paris 2:16
Metro Transit Gare du Nord to Gare De Lyon 30 mins to an hour
TGV to Lyon 2:30
8 hours one way plus any waiting time for connections includes dragging your baggage across city twice
Air
40 Minutes to Regional Airport 30 minutes check-in and waiting
Flight to CDG 50 Minutes
Debarkation, move to transit area, board connecting flight to Lyon 1 Hour max
Flight to Lyon 1 Hour
Debarkation, Customs and can to lyon Central from Saint-Exupery/Satolas airport 1 Hour max
5 Hours with no aggravation what so ever
Air was usually cheaper too
But China and Europ’s high speed electric rail networks are powered by coal and nuclear, both of which are opposed by climate change believers.
Beto can stop flying NOW. Practice what he preaches.
Griff
Our high speed rail network is called Southwest Airlines. It even has rail lines to Hawaii now.
I was an IT consultant for about 10 years, traveled all over the US for various projects. I started out living on the east coast, in Virginia very close to Dulles Airport. But, Dulles was expensive to fly out of, so I often flew out of BWI (Baltimore), which was a good hour drive from my house.
After a while, I found that if the project was within a certain distance from my house, I would just rent a car and drive. It was more cost effective for the client, no air fare to pay for, and the rental car cost pretty much the same as renting a car when I arrived at my destination anyway. So I had projects in New Jersey, and Ohio for a time, and once I even rented the car from Dulles Airport, drove to Columbus, OH for a couple week project, then straight to NJ for another one. These were the few years following 911, which meant lines were long and slow. So the time spent driving was roughly the same as the time spent going to the airport early enough, waiting in lines, etc. It was much less aggravating for me than sitting in a cramped airplane for a couple hours.
I hated Southwest. I didn’t like vying for seats.
Free peoples vote with their wallets/feet.
Because high speed passenger rail makes less than zero economic sense.
Trains are the most energy efficient way to move bulk cargo over land.
Rail at any speed is the least energy efficient way to move people from point A to point B. It’s actually worse on an energy efficiency basis than single occupancy cars. How does that help carbon reductions? The problem ultimately is that the weight of passengers is negligible against the weight of the train. From an energy efficiency perspective, you might as well be moving empty trains around for no particular reason.
In griff’s world, spending trillions on something you don’t need is how you prove how righteous you are to the rest of the world.
Like his claims about an ice free artic, people have explained reality to griff over and over again, but it never manages to actually sink in.
Well, his best argument seems to be ‘simply EVERYBODY’s doing it’.
Monkey-see, Monkey-do is apparently a great motivator in his world.
Funny how independent thought seems absent on his side of the fence.
You are giving Europe way too much credit. France’s TGV can exceed 300 kph, but the other European high speed rail systems are not that fast.
China has built an impressive high speed rail system linking much of the country. The 高铁 sections that I have ridden on travel at 300 kph and the newest trains can exceed that speed. There are concerns in China that the capacity has increased at a higher rate than customers which could mean that certain sections may not be profitable.
The US has not built a true high speed rail network because of the costs building an entire high speed rail infrastructure.
A major driving force for high speed rail construction in East Asia is the horrendous road congestion in and around major East Asian cities. You must experience the traffic in Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai to understand how bad it can be. LA, San Francisco, New York and other North American cities are not nearly as bad as the large cities in East Asia. Aside from the extreme costs of building a US high speed rail network, we do not have the extreme congestion of East Asian metropolises driving the majority of US citizens to demand a high speed rail network.
There’s no need or desire to restrict ourselves that way – because it’s idiotic.
We also don’t have countries the size of states.
Griff….if you even had a gram of sense and knowledge with respect to the operating and capital economics of railways, you could answer your own question. A little background on the physics, land use, and electric power consumption behind high-speed rail would be beneficial as well.
It’s fine to ask these questions, but the snarky, “trollish”, sarcastic tone of so many of your comments discredits your questions and observations.
At the moment, I’m getting a visual of a know-it-all, propeller-head, very disruptive (highly unwarranted) student in a past class I taught – that tested the patience of everyone else in the lecture hall, including mine.
Keep asking questions, Griff. This is the basis of science. But please do some basic research first.
All dependent utterly upon fossil fuels for mining, smelting, refining, forming, machining, manufacturing, assembly, transport, installation, operating and maintenance.
Nor are bullet trains able to operate at speed in many urban jurisdictions. There is zero difference between freight trains and bullet trains when local jurisdictions mandate strict speed limits.
Or does g. plan to claim to capture more lands from private ownership via eminent domain?
Classic elitist progressive socialist tyranny.
How come the USA cannot have 220+ mph train tracks?
Because consultants.
https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/news/21078445/how-californias-highspeed-rail-project-was-captured-by-costly-consultants
“…European nations and China have managed to construct thousands of miles of 220+ mph track in the last 2 decades…”
Thousands of miles barely scratches the surface of the passenger transportation needs in the US.
LA to NY alone would be close to 3,000 miles. And at 220 mph, you’re beyond 13.5 hours of travel time before accounting for any stops.
These are very simple calculations…slightly more complicated than 7 x 3, so maybe you had best find a math tutor and some common sense as well.
Because the U.S. doesn’t need it, Griff?
Griff, why would free peoples need or want bureaucrats determining their modes of transport? If it sounds good to control freaks, it isn’t.
“European nations and China have managed to construct thousands of miles of 220+ mph track in the last 2 decades.”
To my knowledge, there isn’t a single route in Europe that consistently averages 220+ mph. Here is an article that shows design speeds versus actual speeds for several countries:
https://www.eurotrib.com/story/2011/7/16/192457/201
Has AOC spoken up yet about Beto’s plan? AOC has already indicated that the World will come to a bad end in 2032 if we aren’t already 100% decarbonized by then. Beto’s plan to go to 2050 is 18 years beyond AOC’s “Best if used by” date. If She caves and agrees with Beto’s 2050, it will indicate that her 12 years is hogwash and she just another huckster.
Please stop reinforcing this privileged, self admitted thief and probable liar’s obsession with pretending to be Irish. Please. His name is Robert. He is a 4th generation American preying on stereotypes and groupthink. Thankfully he is not the only nut in the box of Democrat candidates so his chances of implementing this farrago are less than zero.
Global Warming Climate Alarmism is certainly “the greatest threat we face”, but it is not even worth a single dollar.
As usual, the radical greens have it completely wrong – the opposite of the true facts..
The reality is that “atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high – it is alarmingly LOW for the continued survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth.”
https://nationalpost.com/news/alienated-alberta-project-seeks-to-find-common-language-on-climate-change#comments-area
[excerpt]
… plants evolved at 2000 to 6000 ppm atmospheric CO2 and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators pump 1000-1200 ppm CO2 into their greenhouses.
Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event.
During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150ppm and THAT will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high – it is alarmingly LOW for the continued survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth.
C4 corn as the main feedstock for US’s ethanol production is just one of many ironies of the Green stupidity.
The necessity of natural gas-derived ammonia fertilizer for that corn-to ethanol is another of the many.
Thank you Joel, I appreciate your many comments on wattsup.
Corn ethanol is also exacerbating the rapid drawdown of the vital Ogalalla aquifer in the USA Midwest. Corn is a crop that requires considerable water, which is often supplied there by pumped irrigation drawing from the Ogalalla.
Fully 40% of the huge USA corn crop is devoted to fuel ethanol. This to me is anti-environmental lunacy.
Pumping from the Ogalalla started in 1911 but major depletion of this aquifer apparently started after WW2, circa 1950. The depletion problem became really obvious circa 1980-1990.
A good summary reference on this issue is National Geographic Magazine: August 2016 Edition.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-aquifer-interactive-map/
and
https://www.texture.com/magazines-issues-summaries/national-geographic-magazine-august-2016-edition/
There is much more information here:
USGS – Groundwater Atlas of the United States
https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/gwa.html
This is REAL environmentalism, not the usual green leftist BS, and it is very serious. In a former career I consulted in Hydrogeology and among other projects, wrote the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment for a new major oil refinery and petrochemical complex in Canada.
I am very concerned about this issue – I suggest that a solution to the problem is needed – now; preferably several decades ago.
Best, Allan
“Fully 40% of the huge USA corn crop is devoted to fuel ethanol.”
…
This is a very misleading statement. It is true that 40% of the crop is used as a feed stock for ethanol production, but you forget to mention that the leftover distiller’s grain is used to feed livestock. So in reality, much less than 40% goes into ethanol production, as the residue goes into producing beef.
Alistair wrote:
“This is a very misleading statement. It is true that 40% of the crop is used as a feed stock for ethanol production, but you forget to mention that the leftover distiller’s grain is used to feed livestock. So in reality, much less than 40% goes into ethanol production, as the residue goes into producing beef.”
Alistair, I did not “forget”- I used to have a corn ethanol plant in Torrington Wyoming, and cattle feedlots bought our distiller’s grain. I could, I suppose, have also detailed where the residue of that distiller’s grain goes, but we already have too much BS in the field of climate science. 🙂
I suggest that the draining of the vital Ogalalla aquifer in the USA Mid-West, exacerbated by the heavily-subsidized and heavily irrigated corn-to-fuel-ethanol business, is highly counter-productive and anti-environmental.
For the record, similarly destructive is the clear-cutting of tropical rainforests in South America for sugarcane fuel ethanol production and in SE Asia for palm oil biodiesel production.
Similarly destructive is the use for grid-connected wind and solar “green-energy” power generation schemes, which are not green and produce little useful “dispatchable) energy, due primarily to intermittency.
It is remarkable how so many green schemes of the uber-left phony environmentalists turn out to be costly, counter-productive and anti-environmental. Are they really that misguided, or is it that they have other primary objectives?
Regards, Allan
Thank you Allan, this is very neatly and succinctly summarised and I am copying it on to some teachers who I know and who like to take a wider view. As always WUWT provides invaluable and independent facts.
Robert Francis “Puto Pendejo” O’Dourke’s plan for American Energy Impotence…
[…]
What’s the opposite of “dominance”?
Puto appears to be going for “all of the above”…
Unless Puto plans to carve out an exception for Federal waters, this would quickly gut the nation’s #2 source of new oil production.
But, Puto’s plan for energy impotence apparently wasn’t impotent enough…
What he’s really talking about is American Economic Suicide. He doesn’t understand that relative to the value added to raw materials, energy has surpassed labor and those energy costs ripple through the economy like a growing tsunami. Whoever has the least expensive energy will become the worlds next dominant global economic power and Beto and his comrads want to ensure that America relinquishes this role to China.
“You can’t even manage your own life, I’ll be damned if you’ll manage mine.”
A classic!
Paraphrased from the original.
Memories of Junior High School… 😉
You’re a better man than I am. I don’t remember Junior High…
My 7th grade English teacher, Ms. Hartle, would sit on the edge of her desk and give me quite a show. I had a memorable physical reaction.
Hah! For me it was my 7th grade Biology teacher, Mrs. D’Augustine.
Sadly Dr. Judith Curry actually agrees with a lot of this. She said so on her blog at Climate Ect. https://wp.me/p12Elz-6tg
I also noted she is deleting comments that call her out for pushing this. What a shame.
Even if we don’t p!$$ away $5 trillion over the next ten years, we might not be that far from zero *net* emissions by 2050.
“The best way to insure no action on climate change is to insist on the Green New Deal, and a 12-year time table..”
Yeah she seems to be in reality denial alright /sarc
KS_Referee I read your impassioned comment there, then noted it was deleted along with one of mine.
popesclimatetheory asked me there what those comments were, so I answered him, and now that comment in response is probably not going to appear there either.
She highlighted Enforcing our laws to hold polluters accountable, including for their historical actions or crimes as something ‘hard to argue against any of these.’ I disagree as Beto’s words are a trojan horse. CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and it hasn’t caused the weather or climate to change, so no one should be held accountable for the beneficial gas of life or any energy production or use on those bases.
There is no need to give the alarmists anything they want out of their unfounded fears, as man-made emissions are very small compared to naturally occurring CO2, so there isn’t any human-caused climate change to mitigate against. This country has been modernizing and becoming more energy efficient for many many decades, while the environment has improved, in spite of weather changes.
We shouldn’t just be outraged against the imposing overarching financial burden, our paramount objection ought to be aimed at the openly proposed rapid destruction of modern civilization over what shouldn’t really qualify as ‘climate change’ at all, but bad weather.
Let’s destroy our economy over uncontrollable bad weather and hand over our freedom and wealth to these American communists.
Let’s just pretend if we all dance in unison together to AOC-Beto’s GND tune we’ll attain a perfect temperature and great weather will reign forever.
Even if we only did all the things JC agreed with from Beto’s plan, they wouldn’t ever stop pressuring us to upend and remold our civilization, as that is truly their real goal, a communist revolution. That is enough reason to never give them the power to do any of it.
He wants to convict people of actions that weren’t crimes at the time the actions were committed.
When liberals are in power, even the past isn’t safe.
I’m glad someone saw both my post as well as kellermfk (Michael F Keller) a man with a far more impressive education and background than me, even though I have a BSEE and a MSEE as well as being a PE, because all we did was call her out for advocating proposals to public policy which are based on nothing more than CO2 = bad and CAGW/CACC. If not for CO2= bad and CAGW/CACC there would be ZERO reason to support any of Beto’s proposals.
I honestly thought she was starting to bring some true scientific skepticism to the Climate Science scare which has been proven to be a scam, rife with proven fraud via “adjusting” the historical climate record, no… adjusting multiple historical climate records, conspiracy and collusion to commit scientific fraud and collusion to silence any and everyone who points out their scam. I genuinely believed she was going to be one of the few voices of sanity but alas it appears as if she couldn’t take the pro CAGW/CACC alarmists attacks on her character so she seems to have jumped back on the politically correct, cultural Marxism bandwagon which appears to be trying to bring about the destruction of Western Civilization.
I also stated I would no longer be following her nor comment on her posts, asking what her soul was worth and how she could sell it so cheaply because the past couple months have been filled with crazy posts and reposts by her, with the occasional sane post like the “Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science'”.
For her to support Beto’s $10 Trillion proposal, based upon nothing but, “The sky is falling and we need to do SOMETHING!” tells me that she clearly believes in CAGW/CACC, despite all the proof to the contrary, so why would any sane and rationally objective person follow her when it appears her path is leading everyone over a very high cliff edge?
Neither the post by Mr. Keller nor me warranted being deleted as both were factual. Her combating cognitive dissonance when being called out for supporting unsupportable dogmatic Scientology is not a justification for deleting fair opinion posts. Asa matter of fact, by deleting our posts as well as others, Dr. Judith Curry is engaging in the EXACT same tactics used by the pro CAGW/CACC crowd by attempting to silence dissent. Amazingly it appears she cannot remember condemning those very tactics when they were used against her by the pro CAGW/CACC crowd.
Personally, I don’t need the drama. So as far as Dr. Judith Curry goes I only have one thing to say. “Bye Felicia!”
Thanks for your comment Bob. Take care.
I need to correct one mistake. I put $10 Trillion in my post above when it should say $5 Trillion. Then again, everything new the federal government does, their estimated costs are typically 1/3 to 1/4 of what the actual costs end up being, for any and every project. So the reality would likely be $15 to $20 Trillion… but what’s a few trillion one way or another when all they have to do is print more money to pay for it?
Almost everywhere I look at government in the US, be it local, county, State or federal, I see unconstitutional nonsense in 95% or more of it, yet more and more, people and industries are demanding and crying for government to “fix” the latest problems, refusing to understand and accept that government created those problems because people and industries were demanding government “fix” other problems in areas the government had no enumerated power to act.
Fortunately I will likely be dead before all the insanity is implemented by our government but my sons will suffer and their children will suffer and I feel bad for them.
Once it gets started you’ll soon be dreaming of the days when you thought it was only going to cost double the estimate….
BTW Bob, I read your post that you linked and it is spot on. Keep fighting the good fight!
KS_Referee ==> Dr. Curry is quite right to applaud the “no regrets” actions contain in Beto’s climate plan. The bits that are rather nonsensical/non-science-ical she calls out.
I am not sure that you — KS_Referee — have not over-simplified the problem/solution set to a binary “all in_or_all out” proposition.
Such things as rapid decisive action to cut back methane (natural gas) leaks at the well-head and processing plants are a big Win-Win — and “ought to be done under any circumstances” action items such as “Better management of federal lands and forests” — another Win-Win.
It is very wise politically to support all of these no regrets actions — even in the absence of any threat from climate change.
You realize he just made up that number…right?
sounded good
Come on Latitude, he’s still working on the FAQ 😉
“All words are made up.”
–Thor, Avengers: InfinityWar
Climate numbers are just words.
+ infinity
What good is a plan that saves us by 2050 if we’re all dead by 2030? The alarmists really have to get their talking point together.
Reduce government travel by 25%/year (except for military).
R Shearer: How about, not only reducing the amount of government travel, but also make all government people (except military) fly by commercial airlines, strictly base economy class, and Greyhound Bus, and maybe a coach seat on a train with no bunk or compartment. I think I’ll stop short of requiring them to stay at lower class hotels where the bathroom is down the hall, which I have done.
And here I thought the US Constitution forbade the Fe’ral Government from instituting a national religion.
Just don’t call it a religion, even though it meets every criteria for one.
Numerous Democrat’s in office saying “I Believe in Science” should be exhibit A if the Supreme Court ever has to face that question.
“very first bill he sends to Congress ….”
The first thing this idiot would need to do is change the constitution.
Second thing he could do would be to sponsor a waste of time climate bill.
Or he could do what liberals always do. Just ignore it.
DonM: Whoa Boy, do I agree with you on that idiot having to change the U.S. Constitution ! Just starting with article 1, section 1 , for me, brings out a big “Oh, Oh !
DonM April 29, 2019 at 6:37 pm
“very first bill he sends to Congress ….”
He cannot sent a bill to congress all bills most originate in congress.
fool he is.
michael
Bingo, DonM!
Another extreme leftist never bothered to read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments or any books about how American Government operates.
But what is he going to do about China ?. And then India ?. Then South
East Asia, and so on.
Hopefully nature will rescue us from all of these Crazies, but then we will
have a problem, colder conditions and we will still have a lot of renewable.
MJE VK5ELL
A $1 green new deal would be a waste time, effort, money and intellectual capital if it doesn’t have at least several dollars in returned value. I can’t see how $5 trillion wasted on this insanity will do anything but become $5 trillion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse.
Regarding the spending of 5 Trillion dollars:
https://despair.com/products/corruption
https://despair.com/products/change
What they should be spending time and money on is a plan to deal with the inevitability of the return of the ice sheets.
The Oil and Gas companies don’t get trillions of dollars in tax breaks. They have the same tax structure as any other company
Facts to a liberal is like garlic to a vampire.
The depletion allowance and a few other things are structured a little differently than most businesses, because oil & gas are “wasting assets,” but the net effect is the same… It’s just how expenses are written off.
Yeah, the tax structure for oil and gas is similar to that of producing sand and gravel, except for those depletable resources there is a domestic production tax credit. Oil and gas are not given that credit and taxed at a higher rate.
On a full-cycle basis, oil is probably more heavily taxed than any other goods or services that are economic necessities.
If all the “greenies” are elected women will have to go back to wearing fur coat and then they will be stoned by the animal protection groups who will be walking around naked ’cause they have nothing to wear and the will want all the women’s fur coats. We are in for sad times.
Nekkid womens in fur coats? Don’t see the downside…
You have obviously not seen what our female politicians look like with clothes on then.
Ann Widdecombe and Diane Abbott come to mind, let’s not even imagine Theresa May….
Never mind them: think of Jeremy Corbin naked, or Ken Clarke – sorry if anyone’s eating breakfast!
The best thing any politician can do to reduce air and other pollution is get his mouth sewn shut.
Isn’t the world supposed to end in 12, 11 1/2, whatever, years? If so, then who cares about 2030. The world will have ended by then.
Just more heavy handed government approach is all they offer.
With Beto O’Rourke, an even more leftists version of the European Union will be coming to America.
I can’t understand why Democrats, having been beaten in 2016 for leaning too far to the Left, think that moving to the extreme socialist Left will give them victory in 2020.
The only explanation I can come up with is that they are living, along with most of the mainstream media, in their own echo chamber.
Plus a firm delusion that “this time it will work”.
“If elected president in 2020, O’Rourke’s “very first bill he sends to Congress”
US Presidents don’t send bills to Congress.
Robert O’Rouke, AO-C, Markey, Sanders, Warren, Booker, Harris, they and the rest are all clueless morons about energy and agriculture, and how our food manages to appear in stores at prices people can afford.
With every statement they make about killing fossil fuels, either by excessive taxation, heavy regulation of production or outright bans using the police powers of the state, these morons demonstrate they do NOT understand one bit how our foods are grown and the energy input it takes at every step from planting, fertilizers, machinery, irrigation pumps to harvest. And then the additional energy to process, refrigerate, and transport even produce so it appears fresh in grocery stores.
Imagine if someone on the Left were to actually tell the truth of what these morons like O’Rourke or AO-C proposed regarding the impacts their proposals would have. If that reality were presented to their die-hard supporters as the reality of what would happen to their fresh produce in their fav green grocer.
Those progressive types that would then see bare shelves and empty produce sections at their local Whole Foods, Natural Grocers, and Sprout’s Markets. They could still find produce at high-end, upscale stores like A-J’s, but at prices 10X of today. A $1 head of lettuce in summer costing $10. Baby spinach instead of $3 for a small container, try $30. And on and on.
Of course the billionaires and the multi-millionaire libs would be okay. Our political class”elites” would raise their salaries to keep up. Everyone else, it would be Soylent Green.
All he is doing is adding non starters to his/Democratic/Progressive/Socialist platform. Encourage him to continue is the best course of action.
Please call this guy by is real name, Robert F. O’Rourke. Beto is a nick name given by his little brother.
I find it difficult to take “Beto” seriously (his name and his actions/statements).
He seems a little detached from reality. Five Trillion dollars is a lot of money.
One thing about the Liberals, they always have a lot of plans for all the taxpayer money they think they are going to get to play with. They are undaunted by Huge numbers when it comes to other people’s money.
A little?????
That jack-ass hasn’t been attached to reality since he was elected to the US Congress in 2012.
Tom,
While his given name is Robert, he has been called Beto (bet-o) from infancy. At Columbia University he tried going by Robert. That didn’t work.
You, Tom, might try getting people to call you, say Alberto or Corbyn, or another strange name. When you fail to answer, they will call you Tom.
In any case, he has slush for ideas.
I see, Beto came by his name honestly. Ok, you can’t blame a guy for having a name given to him by his parents.
Now I’m questioning his parent’s thought processes. 🙂
Beto’ll be gone by Labor Day. There’s no following there except for the sad pseudo-Kennedy faction, most of whom were born long after the Kennedys died.
No money machine.
Apologies for threadjacking … but is anyone following the Oroville dam situation?
Water level is over 882 feet (19 feet below EMERGENCY spillway top), and live webcam shows minimal outflow from rebuilt spillway.
Thoughts? Doing real world testing of emergency spillway?
Looks odd, to put it mildly.
Inflows are running under 15K CFS and not projected to rise much above that for the coming months with the rainy season ending and the snow melt seson underway.
Outflow can be ramped up to over 25K CFS thorugh the normal spillway. They are just trying to fill the lake and still send water down stream in preparation for a long hot summer.
I figure they want a near full lake which will maximize hydro generation while PG&E costs are rising and struggling to buy cheap power while under fiscal duress for a soon coming court directed bankruptcy plan imposing spending austerity to pay pending giga-dollar claims from the Camp Fire.
“PG&E costs are rising and struggling to buy cheap power while under fiscal duress for a soon coming court directed bankruptcy plan imposing spending austerity to pay pending giga-dollar claims from the Camp Fire.”
On top of that, PG&E could cut off electricity for five million Californians during extreme fire danger weather.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/692249102/millions-could-lose-power-under-pg-es-plan-to-prevent-wildfires
“hydrofluorocarbons, the super-polluting greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide;”
How relevant are hydrofluorocarbons if their amount in the atmosphere is only one nine-millionth of the amount of carbon dioxide?
It feels right to liberal politicians. And it sounds right to the loons that vote for them.
Would you put that man in charge of coordinating your guests visits to the outhouse at the cottage?
If all this nonsense actually got implemented the costs re ruining the economy for everybody would be a huge amount many times greater than $5 trillion! It would be just as bad as AOC’s Green Machine. There would be no difference really. Beto is an looney.
When we are talking about trillions in this context, are we talking about Short Scale (10EXP12) or Long Scale (10EXP18). But then again, what is 6 orders of magnitude if we are talking utter BS anyway.
While POTUS, Obama pledged $3,000,000,000 to the UN’s Green Slush Fund. On the way out the door he gave the 2nd of $500,000,000.
Trump has backed away from this madness.
The Paris Agreement had no other purpose than to formalize this wealth transfer, and shame the developed countries (e.g., the USA) into parting with the tax payers money.
To “Re-enter the Paris Agreement ” is nothing more than stepping into the lashes for not giving up the money as Obama agreed to. A president Beto will have to offer more money to compensate.
Beto O’Rourke seems to know nothing about climate change, and nothing about the serious issues of the Nation.
His folks should bribe someone to get him into a good university.
Obama got away with those expenditures for two reasons:
– 1. he was on his way out the door.
– 2. As the first minority President, he knew he was un-impeachable by playing the race card.
Beto would have to get an appropriation from Congress to make those payments. Good luck with that.
O’Rourke wouldn’t get the free-pass Obama took advantage of.
Mitch McConnell has already Pledged to be the Grim Reaper of all things Liberal should Democrats run DC again in 2021.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/440041-mcconnell-pledges-to-be-grim-reaper-for-progressive-policies
The greatest threat we face is the prospect of elected leaders tossing trillions of dollars at rent seekers, subsidy miners and just regular ne’er do wells in the cause of facing down a non-existent threat.
Beto’s proposals are bemusing because what is reasonable is not new, and what is new is not reasonable.
There has been as yet no acknowledgement that CO2 is not in control of climate, and that we are not in control of CO2. The natural experiment has been done: 1929-1931, a 30% decrease in human CO2 production with no change in the atmospheric CO2 trend, with temperature increasing to 1942, then decreasing through the years of WWII and post-war reconstruction. Shall we repeat that?
No acknowledgement that there has never been a temperature reversal in the last 550 million years preceded by a CO2 change. And more recently, there was no preceding CO2 change prior to emergence from the Last Glacial Maximum, the descent into the Younger Dryas, the rapid emergence from that to the Holocene Optimum (CO2 280ppm), the gradual descent from that to the present punctuated by the Minoan (CO2 280ppm), Roman (CO2 280ppm), Medieval (CO2 280ppm), and current Warmings, not to mention the beginning (CO2 280ppm) of the Little Ice Age characterized by drought, famine, plague, and peasant revolts, and its merciful end.
No acknowledgement that the GHG efffect of CO2 is at 50% in the first 20 ppm, and declines exponentially after that. So that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%.
It ignores the decarbonization that has been proceeding naturally for the last 1,000 years as we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and potentially to nuclear.
It ignores the fact that plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. We eat them and inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Looks like a win-win to me. 30% of the agricultural increase since 1950 has been attributed to CO2. Satellite pictures show the greening of the earth.
There is no recognition of the existence, much less the importance, of unintended consequences.
This is in fact what we expect of our politicians. We do not expect everyone – and I mean everyone – to fall for it.
Beto’s proposals are bemusing because what is reasonable is not new, and what is new is not reasonable.
There has been as yet no acknowledgement that CO2 is not in control of climate, and that we are not in control of CO2. The natural experiment has been done: 1929-1931, a 30% decrease in human CO2 production with no change in the atmospheric CO2 trend, with temperature increasing to 1942, then decreasing through the years of WWII and post-war reconstruction. Shall we repeat that?
No acknowledgement that there has never been a temperature reversal in the last 550 million years preceded by a CO2 change. And more recently, there was no preceding CO2 change prior to emergence from the Last Glacial Maximum, the descent into the Younger Dryas, the rapid emergence from that to the Holocene Optimum (CO2 280ppm), the gradual descent from that to the present punctuated by the Minoan (CO2 280ppm), Roman (CO2 280ppm), Medieval (CO2 280ppm), and current Warmings, not to mention the beginning (CO2 280ppm) of the Little Ice Age characterized by drought, famine, plague, and peasant revolts, and its merciful end.
No acknowledgement that the GHG efffect of CO2 is at 50% in the first 20 ppm, and declines exponentially after that. So that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%.
It ignores the decarbonization that has been proceeding naturally for the last 1,000 years as we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and potentially to nuclear.
It ignores the fact that plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. We eat them and inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Looks like a win-win to me. 30% of the agricultural increase since 1950 has been attributed to CO2. Satellite pictures show the greening of the earth.
There is no recognition of the existence, much less the importance, of unintended consequences.
This is in fact what we expect of our politicians. We do not expect everyone – and I mean everyone – to fall for it.
Thanks Jimm
The most incredible feature of the COGS (Constantly Offended Green Socialists) is their belief, that no matter what they propose, they will not personally suffer in any way from the impact of their policies.
The AOC’s, Pelosi’s, Caroline Lucas’ and all the other Green shrills, do not picture themselves bucketing water from the stream to wash in cold, before they begin their walk to the fields in search of any crop they can find to eat and see them through to tomorrow.
They do not have a clue, about real deprivation that awaits society devoid of energy, society banned from the use of the only energy available that makes rural life possible.
They do not understand, that once the street lights go out in the major conurbations, the people with even less that the meagre little, available in the middle class households will target those middle class households.
The wealth flight we have seen in major US cities, epitomised by Detroit, which stands out as the poster child of socialist failure/maladministration, awaits anyone with resources if the Democrats ever introduce their desired future.
The difference this time round is there will be nowhere for the wealthy to flee to. The latest plans advanced by the COGS, is a rerun of Pol Pot philosophy.
The other point we need to make or a question that needs to be asked, is why are the fossil fuel companies not resisting this obvious impossible world future? The proposals by the increasingly shrill Democrats/Socialists and the brainwashed institutions across the Western World, can never be implemented.
China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the rapidly developing industrial giant nations in the World, are not interested. Those countries don’t believe in the energy driven apocalypse envisioned by the Western Green advocates. They are continuing to increase the number of middle class economically active people in their societies and see the benefit of doing that. Energy and the availability of reliable low cost energy is driving those growing nations.
Why are the Greens only interested in demanding the Western Nations commit economic suicide, by shutting down its energy options?
Of course they don’t see that. They believe in gun confiscation, except from their security guards.
The most incredible feature of the COGS (Constantly Offended Green Socialists) is their belief, that no matter what they propose, they will not personally suffer in any way from the impact of their policies.
Rod, I don’t know that I totally agree with that.
I think that Beto is an opportunist about what he believes, and that he has a Barak Obama smile and personality, BUT AOC, I think she doesn’t believe there is a downside. I think she believes that:
a) we are only just a little more R&D money away from solar panels that capture and convert 100% of the energy that hits them.
b) just a little more R&D away from solar panels that will not degrade over 12 – 15 years but have a lifespan in the decades.
c) just a little more R&D away from discovering and perfecting cold fusion.
d) just a little more R&D away from perfecting wind power.
e) just a little more R&D away from perfecting battery storage that will allow us to capture all that great free energy we get daily and storing it over night so we can use it.
f) that electricity comes from a non-polluting environmentally friendly source.
g) if the right people are in charge (her and people who think like her) we’re just around the corner from utopia.
I think people like AOC grew up with too much science fiction and too many teachers whose science education was woefully inadequate and so many politicians parroting the same BS that she really believes what she says. I can see it in her eyes when they spin in different directions when she talks.
I was only a child when JFK was elected president. He set the nation on course for the moon landing. But one part of his legacy that, in my opinion didn’t help the nation, was saying that within a decade we will land a man on the moon. Not that the moon landing was bad but since then people seem to believe we can accomplish anything if the government says we can. Consider if he said that a decade earlier. Could that have been accomplished by the end of the 50s? Would people have thought he was nuts?
Remember when zero (Obama) was president? They set CAFE standards for ridiculously high mileage that included the whole line of business (cars AND trucks) and for them to go into effect off in the future. I said to my wife, why, if this is so easy don’t they just set the standards for the next model year? Because they knew that the technology didn’t exist and they assumed the manufacturers would have to create it, OR people would have to get used to smaller, lighter and less powerful cars and trucks and likely more deaths as the vehicles would be made of lighter and lighter materials.
I think the take away from that has been that people think if you throw a lot of money at something, especially with the government’s assistance that you can accomplish what you want like unlimited – non polluting – low cost (or even free) energy.
The top 20% earners pay 87% of all income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay ZERO%…
Who, exactly, isn’t paying their “fair share” of taxes?
Spending $500 billion/year on CAGW is a little less than what the US spends on defense.
AOC’s hilarious Green New Deal proposed spending about $100 trillion to keep CO2 warming below 1.5C (target was originally 2.0C)…
It makes more sense not spend a DIME on CAGW lunacy and enjoy about 0.6C~1.2C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery…
But the top 20% are not paying anything like the same proportion of their earnings as the bottom 80%….
And your point is what griff?
Many of the top US taxpayers are still paying close to 50% taxes on their earning if state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, capital-gains taxes etc., are calculated.
Income taxes are destructive because they penalize good behavior and reward bad behavior.
One flat national sales tax to replace all taxes (and the 76,000 page tax code) is the “fairest” and least destructive form of taxes.
“One flat national sales tax to replace all taxes (and the 76,000 page tax code) is the “fairest” and least destructive form of taxes.”
I like the idea. A national sales tax would also capture all the tax money that is currently being lost in the underground economy. Even criminals would have to pay their fair share of taxes.
It is called the Fair Tax.
It would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes, SS and Medicare tax, etc. and would get the government out of MY financial records. There is a “prebate” given to every household to account for the taxes due for basic living purchases so would still be a progressive tax.
Really great idea but politicians will always be against it because all of their campaign funding is for creating benefit to their supporters which mostly comes from manipulating the tax code.
The Fairtax is a real thing that almost no one has heard of because MSM and most ALL politicians are against the idea of giving up their power to manipulate taxpayers by the tax code.
1.5 C and we’re already 2/3 of the way there.
Wow $5 thousand billion to stop the last 0.5 C!
Get out while you can . . .
Suggest
.
“1.5 C and we’re already 2/3 of the way there.”
I’m not sure exactly where “there” is but from the peak temperature of the “hottest year evah!”, Feb 2016, it has cooled about 0.5C, so whereever “there” is, we are 0.5C farther away from it than we were in Feb. 2016.
The UAH satellite chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2019_v6.jpg
They’re paying a much higher percentage than the bottom 80%… The bottom 50% pay almost no income tax.
No
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/
Fraud is not even either…..
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit
Looking at the income tax data, you’re wrong (as always) griff – at least in regards to the US of A. If you are talking about somewhere else in the world, then fair enough (you’re probably still wrong, but you’ll have to specify where you are talking about in order to be proven wrong).
the top 1% pay an average income tax rate of 26.87%
the top 5% pay an average income tax rate of 23.49%
the top 10% pay an average income tax rate of 21.19%
the top 25% pay an average income tax rate of 17.84%
the top 50% pay an average income tax rate of 15.57%
the bottom 50% pay an average income tax rate of 3.73%
so while it isn’t broken down by 20%/80%, it should be easy enough to determine the 25%/75% numbers to illustrate how wrong you are.
top 25% is given for us at 17.84%.
Top 50% is 15.57% which means the 50-74% group must average to 13.3%
combine that 13.3% with the bottom 50%’s 3.73% gives us a bottom 75% value of 6.92%
17.84% (top 25%) is greater than 6.92% (bottom 75%).
Yes, Samurai — “It makes more sense not spend a DIME on CAGW lunacy and enjoy about 0.6C~1.2C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery…” And use the resources preparing for a) rising sea levels (whether CO2 increases or not) and b) the alternative return of glaciation.
‘….and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies.”
Are these tax breaks unique to fossil fuel companies or available to all companies?
Ssshhhh you aren’t supposed to say that….. You’ll puncture the imaginary subsidy bubble
Highlighted elsewhere;
‘Enforcing our laws to hold polluters accountable, including for their historical actions or crimes;’
Hmmm. If it wasn’t for the industrial revolution we would be faced with a short, brutish cold and unhealthy life in considerable servitude to those with power.
Our increased comforts as a result of industry allowed us to greatly increase our quality and length of life, to put food on the table and a roof over our heads, to allow such things as the rule of law and culture to spread, for democracy to take root and for us to see places and experience things previously only the province of the very rich and powerful.
So I make no apologies whatsoever for the benefits of the industrial revolution, in the great balance sheet of humanity it is a huge plus.
Those that want to scrabble around in the negative part of the balance sheet can do so, but leave those alone who enjoy the benefits of egalitarian civilisation that industry has brought.
tonyb
Judith C has been short of money (looks like Willis E don’t mind her new enlightenment).
I’s say Judith has a new client.
If you’re in manufacturing currently enjoying USA’s low electricity prices, you have a problem.
Don’t leave it to the last minute.
Set-up a parallel operation in China or Vietnam now and make certain you have the space to double quickly.
Australian manufacturers learnt the hard way.
Don’t end up like them . . .
Ummmmm, what ?
Every plan for governmental action requires continual implementation through decisions. Every decision is an opportunity for corruption. The greatest threat we face is a plan.
So, he wants the wealthiest to pay more tax and end a tax break that provides a break of 10s of billions to fossil fuel companies, BUT…….. Then he will hand out a whopping 1.5 Trillion dollars to people or companies of his choice.
This sounds like fraud on a scale never seen before. Welcome to left wing politics aka 1984.
In response to this article, I have in mind a song lyric that is ostensibly about ‘rain’ — but the song is really about peoples’ confusion and expectations when confronted by political plans such as outlined in the article.
“I went down Virginia seekin’ shelter from the storm
Caught up in the fable I watched the tower grow
Five year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmrwAW5-5rU
Note here, that as the verse previous to the one quoted above seems to indicate, the “rain” is really an allegory for the mystery of how to really satisfy people (or maybe for how politicians try to entice people).
— as in the “rain” = “Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground”
New Green Deal.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
What’cha got ??
Once again this insane view that US unilateral action can have an effect on the global climate.
If everyone else carries on behaving as they are, and have said they will, even were the US to vanish, its emissions are such a small percentage that their disappearance would have no effect.
So the argument must be the equally insane view that the rest of the world is looking and will follow the US example. Perhaps because, well, the US is the moral leader of the world, and everyone leaps to follow the US example?
This is complete insanity – to take action in the name of solving or helping to solve a problem, when the action proposed can have no effect on it.
If the theory of global warming is correct, and if disaster is coming, and if everyone else is going to behave as they are and have said they will, then the only rational policy to advocate would be one which attempts to protect the US citizens against the effects of warming.
Trying to deal with the problem by unilateral reductions is like Tuvalu trying to deal with rising sea levels by limiting its emissions. Completely insane.
This really is a chapter out of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Or the madness of liberals.
“Tuvalu trying to deal with rising sea levels by limiting its emissions. Completely insane.”
Sane: Tuvalu loves sea levels, tourism and new airports.
https://www.vilatimes.com/2018/03/01/new-international-airport-terminal-opens-in-tuvalu/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Tuvalu+tourism+new+airports&oq=Tuvalu+tourism+new+airports&aqs=chrome.
Actually, Michel, the 30% reduction in all human CO2 production from 1929-1931 had no effect on atmospheric CO2, and no effect on global temperature which continued to rise to 1942
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Everett Dirksen
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/everett_dirksen_201172
Just replace billion with trillion.
O’Rourke and Stacey Abrams appear to be like regional franchisees of the crazy brand. That comes with a lot of out of state license plates, consultants, and crazy minion staffers.
He and a lot of his ilk are the recession/depression scenario in real life. Of course that opens up the opportunity for a huge stimulus spending spree on whatever like Obama’s Whatever.
If elected president in 2020, O’Rourke’s “very first bill he sends to Congress
As others pointed out, Presidents don’t send bills to congress , it’s congress that sends the bills to the president. The only bills the president sends to congress are the ones he vetoes, which I’m pretty sure isn’t Robert’s plan for the bill he describes.
Biden’s going nowhere. Yes, right now the Big Donors and DNC are trying to pump energy into his pep rally, but that speech he made last night sounded like he needed a 2nd oxygen tank. He’s going through the motions. The only reason he’s leading right now is because of name recognition and the fact that almost all other contenders are waaaaay too scary to the Big Donors.
This guy in a debate against Trump? Are you kidding me? He’s like a lump of warm Crisco left on the railroad tracks. Greasing the Trump train’s way, YEAH!
Not sure why you posted about Joe Biden in response to my post about Robert “Beto” O’Rourke.
Biden’s going nowhere
Remains to be seen. All the other contenders have jumped on the train to crazytown, making Biden seem like the only sane adult in the Democrat’s room (not just to big donors, but to ordinary voters). Which, in part, is why polls* show Biden leading the pack
* yeah, I know, polls aren’t very reliable as 2016 showed us. But they are about the only data we have until the primary votes start coming in.
This guy in a debate against Trump? Are you kidding me? He’s like a lump of warm Crisco left on the railroad tracks. Greasing the Trump train’s way, YEAH!
Trump is not one to underestimate in a debate, to be sure. We all saw how he wiped the floor with the entire Republican establishment field last go round. Not sure which candidate would be able to handle Trump’s debate style the best. Certainly establishment type candidates (like Biden) will fair the worst in a debate with Trump. But I can’t see many of the far-left candidates doing any better. Whatever candidate the Dems pick is going to have to do what none of the Republicans nor Hillary managed to do last time round – figure out how to win a debate with Trump.
Let’s see if we can make this more factual and honest…
As President, Beto AKA “PUTO” will ATTEMPT TO END-AROUND CONGRESS IN A WAY THAT’S REALLY BAD ONLY WHEN TRUMP DOES IT to not only to reverse the GOOD decisions made by the current administration, but also to PILE ON MORE STUPID AND USELESS “CLIMATE ACTIONS” ABOVE AND beyond the STUPID AND USELESS climate actions under previous presidents:
Re-enter the MEANINGLESS Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan FOR ECONOMIC SUICIDE OF EVERY NON-CHINA, INDIA, AND OTHER “DEVELOPING” NATION for 2030 and beyond, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULDN’T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO THE CLIMATE;
REQUIRE REDUCTION OF methane leakage from existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry for the first time WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF COST OR PRACTICALITY, WITH THE UNSPOKEN INTENT OF MAKING OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE IT, and rapidly phase-out hydrofluorocarbons, the SUPPOSEDLY “REALLY BAD” BUT ACTUALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times AS HYPOTHETICALLY POWERFUL AS THE HYPOTHETICAL POWER OF carbon dioxide, WHICH HAS NEVER ONCE BEEN EMPIRICALLY SHOWN TO DO ANYTHING TO “CLIMATE” EVER;
Strengthen the clean air and hazardous waste limits for power plants TO DRIVE UP ENERGY COSTS IN THE HOPE THAT THIS WILL SUDDENLY MAKE WIND MILLS AND SOLAR PANELS APPEAR USEFUL and fuel economy standards that FORCE PEOPLE TO DRIVE SMALL, UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNSAFE VEHICLES THEY DON’T WANT, while setting a trajectory to rapidly FORCE the adoption of zero-emission vehicles THAT NOBODY NEEDS OR WANTS;
Increase APPLIANCE AND HOUSING COSTS through COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY AND INCONSEQUENTIAL new, modernized, and ambitious appliance- and building-efficiency standards [TRANSLATION: NEW WASHERS THAT DON’T GET YOUR CLOTHES CLEAN, REFRIGERATORS THAT DON’T KEEP YOUR FOOD COLD ENOUGH, AIR CONDITIONERS THAT HAVE NO TEMPERATURE SETTINGS BELOW 80 DEGREES, AND HOUSES WITHOUT ANY WINDOWS];
WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY ON the USELESS technologies and USELESS markets that allow farmers and ranchers to profit from GOVERNMENT MANDATES AND SUBSIDIES THAT REQUIRE reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, WHICH WILL DO NOTHING ABOUT CLIMATE BUT MIGHT BUY SOME FARM STATE VOTES;
WASTE $500 billion in annual TAXPAYER CONTRIBUTIONS to UNNECESSARILY “decarbonize” across all sectors for the first time, WITHOUT ANY PRACTICAL WAY TO ACTUALLY DO SO, including AN UNNECESSARY new “buy clean” program for steel, glass, and cement THAT UNNECESSARILY RAISES THE COST OF STEEL, GLASS, AND CEMENT AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM STEEL, GLASS, AND CEMENT;
Require any federal permitting decision to BE UNNECESSARILY INFLATED TO COVER IMAGINARY “climate costs” and “community impacts” “ESTIMATES” WHICH WERE PULLED OUT OF SOME BUREAUCRAT’S ASS;
STOP new fossil fuel leases, THEREBY DRIVING UP ENERGY PRICES, changing royalties to reflect IMAGINARY “climate costs,” TO FURTHER DRIVE UP ENERGY PRICES, and accelerating THE CLEARLY IMBECILIC REQUIREMENTS AND SUBSIDIES FOR USELESS “renewables” development and RELATED DEFORESTATION THAT COMES WITH USING LOW DENSITY POWER GENERATION; and
STOP ENERGY EXPLORATION IN AS MUCH LAND AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN GET CONTROL OF TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA, ENSURING NOTHING BUT THE BLIGHT OF USELESS WIND MILLS AND SOLAR PANELS INVADING our most wild, beautiful, and biodiverse places for generations to come — including ABANDONING ENERGY EXPLORATION IN THE Arctic, ALLOWING THE CHINESE TO DO IT INSTEAD AND WITH MUCH LESS REGARD FOR REAL POLLUTION, and CLUTTERING our SUPPOSEDLY, BUT NOT REALLY, “sensitive” landscapes and seascapes WITH USELESS WIND MILLS AND SOLAR PANELS than ever before — and establish National Parks and Monuments that more PUT AS MUCH LAND UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT ENERGY EXPLORATION CAN BE BLOCKED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, ALL WHILE INSURING THAT [BENO’S/PUTO’S] BUDDIES INVESTING IN “RENEWABLES” “CARBON CREDITS/CAP & TRADE,” AND OTHER SUCH USELESS BULLSHIT CAN ALL MAKE THEIR ILL-GOTTEN BILLIONS (AFTER CONTRIBUTING HANDSOMELY TO HIS CAMPAIGN, OF COURSE).
I think you got the gist of it, though too many CAPS makes it hard to read, so I can’t say for certain.
When Robert Francis O’Rourke jumps up on a lunch counter and starts talking about “white privilege”, everyone around him should hold up a mirror. If he ever starts to make headway in the primary, the crowd will drag him back down with questions about the drunk driving episode that magically went away.
If Be
ato(ffthinks he’s going to impress everyone by bragging how much his administration will burden the taxpayers, he may have a bumpy campaign trail.This should be seen as a positive move, in that it brings forward very specific, time bounded and budgeted proposals rather than high minded principles and dreams.
It allows those of more skeptical mindset to carry out rigorous due diligence on individual proposals, to identify unintended consequences if any and to delineate in detail the effect such proposals will have on daily lives in the here and now.
It is possible for two opposing sides to agree on some individual proposals, whilst disagreeing on others. It creates the possibility for some bipartisan support, rather than tribal trench warfare as is found far too often in US politics.
It is possible to support reforestation without supporting reentering the Paris Climate Treaty.
It is possible to support clean procurement in steel, cement and glass without hammering the oil industry in the near term.
It is possible to support energy efficient homebuilding without supporting carbon neutrality.
Etc etc.
It would also behove Republicans to bring forward alternative proposals, so they are also seen as constructive rather than stonewalling vandals.
The point of debate is to reach conclusions, not to argue for the sake of it.
Reaching any conclusions in this arena requires bipartisan compromise. It does not mean compromise everywhere as red lines will exist on both sides and some may be mutually incompatible at this time.
However if two tribes of politicians are so implacably resistant to dialogue, it is questionable whether either tribe are fit to serve….
If it’s not a problem, why compromise on an unnecessary solution?
Climate change is a given, not a problem. CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.
“Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.”
Bravo!
Clearly a skate boarding head trauma injury .
What is the political price for Democrat bag man money ?
The Green Deal ?
If humans could change…or even control the weather they would have done it millions of years ago.
It’s un-doable. People who don’t know that have mush between their ears and nothing relevant coming out of their mouths..