A new select committee report is perfectly in tune with the growing climate policy alignment on the left around standards, investments, and justice.
The committee was formed as a consequence of the changing party control of the US House of Representatives in 2108.
In 2018, just before Democrats re-took the House, Pelosi proposed reconstituting the committee. In the wake of the election, climate change activists, led by newly elected Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, demanded that the new committee have teeth — that it be charged with developing a Green New Deal. The original sit-in at Pelosi’s office, where AOC drew scads of media attention by appearing after having been elected but before being sworn in, was in part about demanding a more robust committee. Activists eventually got dozens of lawmakers to sign on to the effort.
After the initial hullabaloo, the select committee largely fell out of the headlines and got to work.
…
“We didn’t need subpoena power to do our work,” says Melvin Félix, the committee’s communications director. “People were eager to share their views on how to solve the climate crisis.”
All those consultations, hearings, and meetings have culminated in the release of the select committee’s official report and recommendations: “Solving the Climate Crisis: The Congressional action plan for a clean energy economy and a healthy and just America.”
It is the most detailed and well-thought-out plan for addressing climate change that has ever been a part of US politics — an extraordinary synthesis of expertise from social and scientific fields, written by people deeply familiar with government, the levers of power, and existing policy.
The goal of the recommendations is even stricter than the reductions called for by the IPCC.
The policies would result in net GHG’s reduced from 2010 emissions levels by 37% by 2030 and 88 percent by 2050.
Of course it claims to save money.
“The cumulative net present value of the estimated monetized annual health and climate benefits,” the report says, “are equal to almost $8 trillion (real 2018 U.S. dollars) at a 3% discount rate.”
That’s $8 trillion in savings — up to $1 trillion a year by 2050, relative to the no-policy baseline. Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
It’s got pillars, twelve of them
- Invest in infrastructure to build a just, equitable, and resilient clean energy economy.
- Drive innovation and deployment of clean energy and deep decarbonization technologies.
- Transform US industry and expand domestic manufacturing of clean energy and zero-emission technologies.
- Break down barriers for clean energy technologies.
- Invest in America’s workers and build a fairer economy.
- Invest in disproportionately exposed communities to cut pollution and advance environmental justice.
- Improve public health and manage climate risks to health infrastructure.
- Invest in American agriculture for climate solutions.
- Make US communities more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
- Protect and restore America’s lands, waters, ocean, and wildlife.
- Confront climate risks to America’s national security and restore America’s leadership on the international stage.
- Strengthen America’s core institutions to facilitate climate action.
After detailing the plan, the article ties it into the political and electoral landscape…
For each policy, the report identifies the congressional committee with jurisdiction. What’s notable is that just about every committee in the House, from Agriculture to Natural Resources to Transportation to Financial Services to Defense, has a full menu of things to do. There is lots of work to go around.
“This is an ambitious and comprehensive plan,” says Stokes. “It shows that the committee listened to stakeholders, watched the Democratic primary carefully, and learned from climate champions like Governor Jay Inslee.”
and ends on this not unexpected note.
And so, as the select committee report illustrates in the starkest possible terms, if you want serious policy to address urgent national problems, there’s only one party offering it.
A warming world is net beneficial,
A greening world is cornucopious,
Our warming contribution is minor,
But our greening is miraculous.
This Democratic response is misdirected, leading our children into a deep morass of authoritarian swamps.
Nonetheless there are elements which are not foolish and dangerous, particularly those lending aid to adaptation.
Decarbonation is unnecessary and wasteful, inevitably leading to higher priced energy,
cruelly damaging the poor.
Unless nukes of course. Simply develop non-wasteforming nuclear energy and/or pitch unrefinable wastes into sub-ducting oceanic trenches.
There it is. Read it or weep.
—————
—————
Keep in mind what Gallagher said:
“The opposite of Progress is Congress.”
You know it when you see it, this odious congress.
————
————
In the midst of the Congressional Committee’s pandering to the climate alarmist narrative with this plan, Tom Nelson brought this to the attention of his readers on his Twitter page recently:
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-major-paleoclimatology-global-upended-years.html
From the phys.org article linked above:
“The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.”
1.0 deg. C minus 0.7 deg. C = 0.3 deg. C
So, while the authors of this study are pushing the greenhouse gases panic button, elementary arithmetic from their temperature numbers tells us the Earth’s climate is only 0.3. deg C warmer than it was 6,500 years ago. The study’s authors and the Congressional Committee members will please excuse me if I do not exactly panic over this revelation…especially when the climate’s ECS sensitivity is an uncertain issue and the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperatures is taken into consideration.
Whatever it is that motivates this kind of behavior from academia and the politicians in Congress, they are making fools of themselves in the mind of people like me. Fit them all for clown suits. God help us if Biden wins in November.
More fake math. There is no way to determine the average global temperature the tenth digit from 6500 years ago. Since most of the 20th and 21st centuries much of the temperature data has a reading uncertainty of +/- 0.5degF (and much of the early 20th century has an uncertainty of +/- 1 degF there is no way to come to a global climate temperature to the tenth of a degree.
First year engineering students are taught the application of significant digits It is so disheartening to know that even PhD scientists today have no concept of significant digits. 2 + 2 does not equal 4.0!
All interglacials peak in their middle so far as temperature goes.
We are cooling folks, for how long even kim doesn’t know.
—————
—————
Every other study has concluded that the Holocene Optimum was 3 to 5C warmer than it is today.
This can be shown by tree lines that were miles poleward and hundreds of meters higher than they are today.
‘Tis so.
——
——
The whole CAGW EDIFICE rests on ignoring the Thermodynamic Laws. Therein lies the route to disaster.
Heat dissipates, so does sense.
——-
——-
“And so, as the select committee report illustrates in the starkest possible terms, if you want serious policy to address urgent national problems, there’s only one party offering it.”
and that would be the GOP … since AGW is not a real national problem …
The only equality the government can guarantee is misery.
Pshaw me, Missouri.
———-
———-
“People were eager to share their views on how to solve the climate crisis.”
FIFY: “People were eager to share their views on how to bring about the Glorious Peoples Revolution.”
Great Leap Backwards.
———
———
Kim, I like your style. 🙂
From the report:
“The costs of wind and solar energy have fallen dramatically, but some of the lowest cost resources are located far away from population centers. Moreover, much higher penetrations of variable-output
renewable energy sources can be reliably integrated when the grid is able to draw from resources
across wide geographic areas on an hour-to-hour basis”
Huh? Do the committee members think the wind blows somewhere in the US when the sun is on the other side of the earth? Did the committee not even bother to ask a 6th grader to review the report?
“To meet its climate goals, the country needs to build cross-state High Voltage Direct Current
(HVDC) transmission lines to significantly ramp up renewable electricity generation. ”
Ask any second year electrical engineering student if this can be done. Resistance losses are based on current. It doesn’t matter if the current is DC or AC. The higher the voltage the less the current has to be for the same level of power transmission. HVDC has *huge* engineering problems. Consider: how do you convert 28vdc from a solar panel to 10Kvdc to compete with 10KVdc? I know of no simple way to do this. Yet it is what would have to be done to get HVDC to compete with high voltage AC. AC can be converted from low voltage to high voltage simply by using transformers. Not so with DC.
Did the committee ask *any* electrical engineers how to accomplish this? I would love to know how they create HVDC and manage interconnections between systems where the voltage needs to be equal or bad things will happen.
“To bend the emissions curve more quickly, federal policy needs to focus on expediting deployment of zero-emission vehicles and fueling infrastructure; making gasoline-powered vehicles as clean as
possible by setting strong pollution standards; and pursuing lower-carbon liquid fuels as alternatives to gasoline as vehicles transition to zero-carbon options.”
Not a specific proposal provided on how to do any of this, not one. It’s nothing more than a wish, not an implementable policy provision.
“However, states and territories currently lack the explicit authority to require that telecommunications companies deploy and maintain wireless infrastructure to be resilient to wildfires and other natural hazards.”
How do you make a cell site that might be isolated for literally weeks by resilent to wildfires and other natural hazards”? Sooner or later the batteries run down! Did this committee talk to ANY kind of an engineer?
These are just a few that I picked out. The impossibility of the most of the proposals in this report is endemic. It’s as if not a single engineer sat on the committee or was used as a resource to review the report!
See Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ for a partial explanation that is greed; more explanation is from CO2 phobia and a madness of the crowd.
Horrible power density and intermittentcy are insoluble problems, so far, for wind and solar energy.
These renewables cannot be dispatched economically.
It’s that simple.
————
————
How do you convert low voltage DC (BTW, industrial solar panels start at around 400VDC) to high voltage DC?
Inverters. That problem was solved generations ago.
They don’t directly interconnect HVDC lines.
“However, states and territories currently lack the explicit authority to require that telecommunications companies deploy and maintain wireless infrastructure to be resilient to wildfires and other natural hazards.”
You don’t have to work for the government to know that you need to protect your assets.
“Sooner or later the batteries run down!”
They are either connected directly to the grid, or they have solar panels.
Mark,
Inverters? Inverters that convert 400vdc to 10kvdc? Remember, 10kvdc is a *minimum* voltage for feeder transmission lines. Many cross-country transmission lines carry 345kvac.
Can you provide a link where you can buy a 400vdc inverter to 10kvdc or 345kvdc? I can’t find any.
The most obvious way would be to use the 400dc to run a dc motor which in turn turns an AC generator so you can use transformers to increase the voltage up to 10kvac or 345kvac. Then you would have to rectify the AC to get back to DC. A highly inefficient operation!
And what do you mean you don’t interconnect HVDC lines? What good are they then? Do you have to convert the lines back to AC in order to interconnect with the grid? Another highly inefficient proposition!
How do you protect assets in the middle of a wildfire? What good are solar panels when the forest fire can have flames up to 150ft high with temperatures of 2000degF? The panels will warp and melt into useless globs. Do you *really* believe that grid power can survive temps of 2000degF?
It’s not obvious that you have the knowledge base to discuss these issues.
“Did the committee ask *any* electrical engineers how to accomplish this? I would love to know how they create HVDC and manage interconnections between systems where the voltage needs to be equal or bad things will happen.”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from HVDC)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Long distance HVDC lines carrying hydroelectricity from Canada’s Nelson River to this converter station where it is converted to AC for use in southern Manitoba’s grid
A high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission system (also called a power superhighway or an electrical superhighway)[1][2][3] uses direct current for the bulk transmission of electrical power, in contrast with the more common alternating current (AC) systems.[4] For long-distance transmission, HVDC systems may be less expensive and have lower electrical losses. For underwater power cables, HVDC avoids the heavy currents required to charge and discharge the cable capacitance each cycle. For shorter distances, the higher cost of DC conversion equipment compared to an AC system may still be justified, due to other benefits of direct current links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
from your link:
——————————————
“The disadvantages of HVDC are in conversion, switching, control, availability, and maintenance.
HVDC is less reliable and has lower availability than alternating current (AC) systems, mainly due to the extra conversion equipment. Single-pole systems have availability of about 98.5%, with about a third of the downtime unscheduled due to faults. Fault-tolerant bipole systems provide high availability for 50% of the link capacity, but availability of the full capacity is about 97% to 98%.[30]
The required converter stations are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances, the losses in the converter stations may be bigger than in an AC transmission line for the same distance.[31] The cost of the converters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss.
Operating an HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often exclusively for one system, as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes faster.
In contrast to AC systems, realizing multi-terminal systems is complex (especially with line commutated converters), as is expanding existing schemes to multi-terminal systems. Controlling power flow in a multi-terminal DC system requires good communication between all the terminals; power flow must be actively regulated by the converter control system instead of relying on the inherent impedance and phase angle properties of an AC transmission line.[32] Multi-terminal systems are rare. ”
—————————–
Thee *is* a reason why HVDC systems have never been popular for providing energy for customers spread over a large geographical area. That is not likely to change any time in the future.
Nor does this article go into sufficient detail about the conversion equipment. For instance, it talks about using series rectifiers to convert from AC to DC. The more rectifiers you have the more losses you incur from internal resistance. At very high voltages it can cost you enough heat loss to require expensive cooling techniques, up to and including water cooling. This would add tremendous cost and expense at each conversion point.
My point remains, HVDC for cross-state electricity transmission will never be cost-effective. Any engineer should be able to tell you that. Even the article you reference says “At smaller transmission distances, the losses in the converter stations may be bigger than in an AC transmission line for the same distance.[31] The cost of the converters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss.”
This has NOTHING to do with climate and everything to do with totalitarian control as so many are now correctly pointing out.
As I’ve long been saying we are at the abyss of war with these control freaks. It just isn’t the kind we’ve been used to. Get ready!
Behind the pillars are the following ulterior motives:
1) Get taxpayers (and ratepayers) to pay for the transmission line upgrades that wind project developers are counting on for remote wind projects with line upgrades to nowhere
2) Drive innovation and deployment with federal spending on all the fake, politically connected startups that thrived during the Obama years including Solyndra
3) Buy votes in the Midwest with promises of domestic (union) green manufacturing
4) Give money to minority startup companies because they claim to have a better green mousetrap
5) Keep union votes
6) Dole out money to the big urban centers and AOC’s district
7) Return to EPA’s asthma playbook to play god with industry shakedown and kill off ICE vehicles
8) Placate farmers with ethanol and other payoffs
9) Subsidize waterfront development and pay for the the NYC subway upgrades
10) Shut down all activity on Federal lands and kill the offshore oil industry and all prospects domestically according to Sierra Club dictates and kill all pipeline projects
11) Take money from national security to spread around other programs and vote buying efforts while China expands to a global military threat and Russia and NK and Iran modernize weapon systems (Their game of Risk is working well with proxy states and first strike weapon capabilities.)
12) Reward institutions for their part in the Climate Crusades with Federal money
The Evil is worked in wondrous and knowable ways.
—————
—————
The trillions of dollars that governments have already spend has not done anything to reduce global CO2 emissions, but have increased CO2 emission
by encourage business to go to China, making China emit the most amount of CO2. And supports Chinese government deprive people of freedom. And release a virus which killed 1/2 million people.
Another significant things was policy of using biofuels- which mostly burning down forests. And solar energy and wind energy don’t work and there mere existence is destroying the environment. Cost huge amount of money, don’t work, and operation destroys environment. They are expensive misery and poverty machines.
We in Ice Age and have been for millions of years and will continue to be in Ice Age. And whole idea is to stop warming of Ice Age, which isn’t occurring, but what governments policy does is not stop warming of Ice Age. But even if one stop warming of Ice Age, it’s obviously better to be warming when in an Ice Age.
The advantage for politicans is they distract from important issues, and not be held accountable for their continuous failure of their policies of changing climate.
It’s effectively a war against to people they govern.
Catastrophic alarmism is an economic war against the poor, an evil exercise in gaining power, a travesty against science, a failure of communication in an age of information, and a pathological disease in the body politic.
——————
——————
Also the Public failing to learn anything in elementary school.
Also the climate skeptics failing understand global climate. And confusing it with weather.
And Accepting the cargo cult religion of the “Greenhouse Effect theory”
who probably don’t know who the author of this theory is. And treat it as the word of God.
We are living in what is called a global Icehouse climate.
I like the term, icebox climate. Or if want to clearer I could use another word for icebox, refrigerator. Or we living in a refrigerator climate. Earth has another extreme climate condition called the Hothouse climate. Hothouse is another word for greenhouse. Hothouses/greenhouses can allow one tropical plants in the frigid UK.
So in hothouse climate world one could grow tropical plants outside of the Tropics. One might be able to grow tropical plants UK {without a greenhouse] but one should able to orange trees in UK, and might be able to grow orange trees in Germany.
Such global hothouse climate were quite literally different a world than modern world- not just warmer but transformed by plate tectonic to appear only vaguely similar to our present world. We can’t have a hothouse climate because we are in a different world, an icebox climate world- a world which is being refrigerated.
So if people understood this they would be so fixated varying sunlight having something to do with global climate. Certainly it should effect weather, though. And all global warming everyone is talking about is mostly weather. And all about the atmosphere.
Global climate is all about the Ocean. And we have a cold ocean: average temperature: 3.5 C {strangely about same temperature as where keep lettuce in your ice box}.
So icebox or icehouse global climate has a cold ocean.
A hothouse global climate has a fairly warm ocean, say around 15 C or warmer.
The recent dog that ate the global climate homework, is the heat was “lost in the ocean”. And it’s presently commonly said that 90% of “global warming” warms the ocean. {But more correct to say warms the cold ocean.} And then cargo believers go on explain how terrifying warming this cold ocean would be. Quite amazingly stupid.
Anyhow, their “greenhouse gases” aren’t warming the ocean.
Nobody knows if the deep oceans and thus the planet is warming or cooling.
——-
——-
It appears to me, the ocean has cooled by at most .5 C over the last 5000 years and a significant portion of .5 C cooling occurred during the Little Ice Age from 1350 to 1850 AD and since end of Little Ice Age the entire ocean warmed by .1 to .2 C. Or in terms global climate we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Sea levels since end of LIA have risen about 8 inches and about 2″ of the 8″ is due thermal expansion of the warming ocean.
Plus the unexplored aspect of our deep ocean, is being addressed and we are finding out more about it- but one can still say that it remains largely unexplored. I think one exciting place to explore and it seems efforts are being made to do this is arctic mediterranean.
Say, as an example:
“The speculations about the driving forces behind the oceanic meridional circulation and the importance of the northward transports of oceanic heat for the ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean have a long history, but only after the Fram expedition 1893-1896 and from the studies by Nansen, Helland-Hansen and Sandström in the early 1900s did these speculations attain observational substance. In the late 1970s and onward these questions have again risen to prominence. A study of deep convection in the Greenland Sea, then assumed to drive the global thermohaline circulation, started with the Greenland Sea Project (GSP), while the investigation of the exchanges of volume and heat through Fram Strait had a more hesitant start in the Fram Strait Project (FSP). Not until 1997 with the EC project VEINS (Variation of Exchanges in the Northern Seas) was a mooring array deployed across Fram Strait. ”
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EGUGA..16.2048R/abstract
Nobody knows if the deep oceans and thus the planet are warming or cooling.
——-
——-
Oops
I see GBaikie has it covered.
——-
——-
More from the report:
” According to the International Energy Agency, annual worldwide investment in
carbon-free and low-carbon energy has stalled in recent years but will need to more than double its
current level by 2030 in order to meet emissions reductions goals aligned with the Paris Agreement.620
Public RD&D funding, along with new support initiatives, will need to drive this major investment in
clean energy deployment. Because of the long runway for clean tech commercialization, it is
important to ramp up research now, so the new technologies needed for deep decarbonization will be
market-ready as soon as possible and not later than midcentury”
Huh? This is a conflation of research and deployment investment. Public RD&D doesn’t drive capital invested in deployment, costs drive capital invested in deployment. World-wide investment in “clean” energy has gone down because of 1. very little new innovation has been identified by research, and 2. costs for “clean” energy deployment is high, very high.
If the Democrats *really* want to spur investment in clean energy deployment then GO NUCLEAR! Why are the Democrats so dead set against nuclear?
“Why are the Democrats so dead set against nuclear?”
It works, and they don’t.
Where do you get the raw materials to make all these renewable generators and electric vehicles?
Is there enough lithium accessible in the world?
Who gets first shout for these raw materials?
How do you make all these renewable generators without using fossil fuel?
How do you educate all the workers who are going to get these high paying jobs? (I don’t think gender or media studies are a good start.)
How do you pay these workers while they are being re-educated?
What do you do with those who don’t want to work?
How do you persuade the Chinese and Indians to follow your example?
Is it all necessary anyway?
The report says the government has to invest more in finding these essential ingredients in America? Huh? How do you find what doesn’t exist?
It also says the government needs to incentivize finding alternative ingredients. One more pie-in-the-sky pipedream!
from pg 269 of the report:
“Building Block: Support the Construction, Expansion, or Retooling of U.S. Automobile
Manufacturing Facilities”
This building block addresses getting more electric vehicles into production. Yet not one single mention of the costs or methods for handling the salvage products from the electric vehicle batteries. Once again, it is apparent that not one single engineer either sat in on the committee or reviewed the report. It is a wish list for politicians that have no real understanding of reality.
Tim
“Those who can do, do…” Those who can’t even teach teachers become politicians.
Dear ecomentalists. FOAD!
We can ridicule, run down these proposals and the people and ask questions that we know have no answer. We need to realize that these people are serious and dangerous. If Biden wins he will carry a lot of Senators and Representatives with him perhaps allowing the Democrats to control the legislative branch. This will allow a lot of these policies to be put into place.
Rather than talk we need to act – get involved in your area. Write editorials to your local paper. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Use facts and be reasonable.
the “climate” is a set of statistics, it is not some force and has NO power, any set of stats based on constantly changing stats will always constantly change = climate change is the 100% natural fact about a set of ever changing stats…….
The real existential threat is outlined in pillars. It’s also an IQ test of how things really work in vote buying and resource redistribution at the congressional level. This select committee is alike a proxy state in Middle East wars.
Only 12 Pillars?
My late father joined the, then new Royal Air Force, at the same time as TE Lawrence (aka Shaw) in 1920/21 at RAF Uxbridge and shared his early training. T.E.L is renowned for his SEVEN pillars of Wisdom, whichI read all those years ago – and AOC doesn’t come close. For her, I have no time.
But please, dear readers, allow me to blow your minds, as mine was, nearly 50 years ago, by the words of T.E.L: they have a certain resonance that I am still trying to work through (especially the worms!):
I loved you, so I drew these tides of
Men into my hands
And wrote my will across the
Sky in stars
To earn you freedom, the seven
Pillared worthy house,
That your eyes might be
Shining for me
When I came
Death seemed my servant on the
Road, ’til we were near
And saw you waiting:
When you smiled and in sorrowful
Envy he outran me
And took you apart:
Into his quietness
Love, the way-weary, groped to your body,
Our brief wage
Ours for the moment
Before Earth’s soft hand explored your shape
And the blind
Worms grew fat upon
Your substance
Men prayed me that I set our work,
The inviolate house,
As a memory of you
But for fit monument I shattered it,
Unfinished: and now
The little things creep out to patch
Themselves hovels
In the marred shadow
Of your gift.
———————–
Thank you for your time. Would that the likes of AOC could rise to such realms of poetry and consciousness.
Harry, T.E.Lawrence was reputed to have read every book in the history library in Oxford. Can’t find a link.
Detailed nonsense.
Detailed and elaborate plans are the ones most likely to fail. This one from the Democrats is no exception.
“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,” Robert Burns.
Detailed and Elaborate Plans are the ones most likely to fail. This one from the Democrats is no exception.
“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,” Robert Burns.
Fighting CO2 requires all plants to be cut off and replaced by BACTERIA, which are more efficient at photosynthesis than plants. So instead of forests we are going to have ponds with bacterial matts grown in them.
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-bacteria-hyper-efficient-photosynthesis-machines.html
https://medium.com/@alishbai734/what-if-non-photosynthetic-bacteria-could-harvest-light-create-useful-products-728d482fa7e7
From the article: “It’s got pillars, twelve of them
Invest in infrastructure to build a just, equitable, and resilient clean energy economy.
Drive innovation and deployment of clean energy and deep decarbonization technologies.
Transform US industry and expand domestic manufacturing of clean energy and zero-emission technologies.
Break down barriers for clean energy technologies.
Invest in America’s workers and build a fairer economy.
Invest in disproportionately exposed communities to cut pollution and advance environmental justice.
Improve public health and manage climate risks to health infrastructure.
Invest in American agriculture for climate solutions.
Make US communities more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
Protect and restore America’s lands, waters, ocean, and wildlife.
Confront climate risks to America’s national security and restore America’s leadership on the international stage.
Strengthen America’s core institutions to facilitate climate action.”
The Democrat plan is just a bunch of platitudes. They should have thrown “World Peace” in there wilh all their other ambiguous “pillars”.
Radical Democrats = Worthless
Nowhere in the document is any specific, actionable proposal made let alone any real cost estimates. No analysis of possible unintended consequences exists anywhere in the document.
An example is (paraphrased): get more blacks into farming. Do so by buying their land and equipment for them!
Yeah, like that isn’t going to have all kinds of unintended consequences when they fail!
You want more black farmers? Then get them into FFA (Future Farmers of America) or 4H when they are young so they learn from the ground up. Good luck. You’ll probably have the exact same result I had two decades ago trying to recruit blacks into the Boy Scouts! Black culture today, at least for the most part, isn’t oriented toward rural living at all let alone the outdoor life. You can cry racism all you want but it is the truth!
The Green New Deal is already old.
AOC speaks of “having teeth”. The image that comes to my mind is a big green monster with shark teeth.