I would say that those people have been smoking all the grass, but that's something only those socialist hippies would be doing, not good, God-fearing Americans.
Maybe Republicans should embrace this paper. Basically, it says we are fvcked, it is too late to do anything about global warming, we need to plan on how to deal with the consequences. Reps may not like this part. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...r-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy From the republican POV, More military spending to fight wars for water. More starving immigrants means more money for walls.
An article about the corruption of the South Korean nuclear power industry, that touches on the cost problems of nuclear power. The article makes it sound like South Korea could be a nuclear disaster waiting to happen, if it does it will give a lot of bad publicity to nuclear power. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...as-nuclear-industry/?utm_source=pocket-newtab Another good article on the cost of nuclear. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/nuclear-power-energy-future-or-dinosaur-death-spiral-20103
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/15/18213988/chronic-kidney-disease-climate-change Kidney disease is correlated to hot weather. So in parts of the earth where climate change means hotter (which is most of the earth), invest in dialysis futures.
So as countries around the Ecuador get richer, they will be able to afford more medical treatment, if they are already more likely to get kidney failures, then investing in companies that will provide them with treatment would be a good investment.
So, costs are rising because technical specs have become increasingly complex since the 60s/early 70s. Both from a tech and a materials science perspective in the name of safety. There's no reason to necessarily believe they'll continue to increase at the same rate. If nuclear becomes a critical decarbonization bridge among pols, the tech requirements could even drop a bit. It doesn't look competitive vs. fossil fuels being the bridge between today and complete decarbonization with better renewable storage capacity.
#exxonmobilKnew This @exxonmobile chart from 1982 predicted that in 2019 our atmospheric CO2 level would reach about 415 parts per million, raising the global temperature roughly 0.9 degrees C. Update: The world crossed the 415 ppm threshold this week and broke 0.9 degrees C in 2017 1/ pic.twitter.com/sLpOVkwzTF— Tom Randall (@tsrandall) May 14, 2019 Here’s another from @exxonmobile 1982. It showed how global warming would initially be almost indistinguishable from normal climate fluctuations. But by 2020 there could be no doubt—the old "normal" would be entirely left behind. Welcome to the future 2/ https://t.co/BPRn3ZMigz pic.twitter.com/lYvqLldBdh— Tom Randall (@tsrandall) May 14, 2019
Inslee proposes comprehensive Green Deal: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jay-inslee-jobs_n_5cdc8ae4e4b09648227aae06 Inslee released a sweeping $9 trillion economic plan Thursday to create 8 million jobs, revitalize the labor movement and rapidly cut planet-warming gases, propelling the Washington governor far out ahead on the Green New Deal at least nine of his rival 2020 presidential candidates vowed to enact. The 38-page Evergreen Economy Plan promises at least 8 million jobs over 10 years, and offers the most detailed policy vision yet for mobilizing the entire United States economy to stave off catastrophic global warming and prepare for already inevitable temperature rise. The proposal lays out a five-pronged strategy to launch an unprecedented deployment of renewable energy, fortify the nation’s infrastructure to cope with climate change, spur a clean-tech manufacturing boom, increase federal research funding fivefold and level income inequality by repealing anti-union laws and enacting new rules to close the racial and gender pay gaps. By spending $300 billion per year, the plan projects another $600 billion in annual economic activity generated by its mandates. “The thing that can really cost is the path of inaction, the path of letting Paradise, California, keep burning down, the path of letting Davenport, Iowa, keep flooding, the path of letting Miami be inundated,” Inslee told HuffPost by phone on Wednesday. “It’s too expensive, besides being too deadly.” The breadth is stunning, with few problems left untouched. The plan includes specifics on everything from national parks to drinking water, “ultra-high-speed” rail to electric scooters, climate literacy education to a new Climate Conservation Corps. The proposal spells out exactly how an Inslee administration would expand collective bargaining rights and bolster wage growth in ways unseen since the threat of communist revolution loomed large in the minds of America’s elites a lifetime ago.
Check my math, but 9 trillion divided by 8 million is about 1,125,000 USD per job. That is more expensive than the foxconn jobs in Wisconsin.
That is an incredibly stupid way to look at it. It includes all of the infrastructure spending, not just "jobs." The 8,000,000 jobs would be included in the $9 trillion, not all of it. Also, it is not $9 trillion in one year. Come on, @ceezmad, you are better than this. https://jayinslee.com/issues/evergreen-economy I have downloaded the entire plan, but have not had time to read it.
You haven’t accounted for, you know, climate change. Source/link? He specializes in quarter-baked “well, actually” nonsense.
There are good jobs and bad jobs for the government to create. This is better than say spending 9 trillion on military weapons to invade Iran even if it were to create 8 million jobs. But the jobs part was the first thing the quote mentioned, so I did the math, because they seem to think that was a very important part of their plan.
That may be true, but is not relevant to the conversation. Your math was WRONG. Frankly, you did not "do the math," you simply took the single dumbest, most simplistic attempt at math you could possibly do. With your ridiculous doubly down on "doing the math," I retract my statement: and I agree with @superdave. This is precisely the type of "analysis" one would see on "Fox and Friends." You are the Brian Kilmeade of BigSoccer.
Or put it in another way, they could save humanity like 100 trillion GDP loses over the next 30 years. Come on, do the math, @ceezmad. (100trillion-9trillion/10 billion)/30 years.
But will it? It will cost a shit lot more than 9 trillion to lower temperatures by 2.3/3 degrees. It may be a good start, but it is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed, but you need to start with a few drops.
No sure who that is, is he the blonde dude? Or the guy that does not wash his hands. I don't watch as much fox news as you do.
I am strong believer than nuclear power is a very important part of the mix of future energy to reduce global carbon footprint. Yet when I read articles about the cost and problems with nuclear power I posted them in this thread, you can see above for them, because even if I have the preconceived notion that nuclear is important, I still want to make sure we have a cost benefit analysis on it. Governments promise a lot of benefits and "underestimate" the cost when they put out plans on investment, be it government spending or tax breaks. So let's see the plan. This is hopes and dreams, but bullshit, the US alone can not defeat global warming, we are currently going backwards and are fvcking this up, so at joining the fight would be a positive, I am glad states and cities are pushing forward while the federal government goes backwards. This is a better goal, this is something that will be hard and expensive to accomplish, but it is something that we can realistically aim for, but even if the USA can accomplish this (net-zero climate pollution) it may still not be to do anything about the world, but we can only worry about our side, so lets get there first. He wants the federal government to spend 300 Billion a year (so that is 3 trillion) he does say that later on. the other 6 trillion I assume he wants to come from the private sector? So incentives for the private sector to spend 600 billion per year on climate safe R&D and infrastructure. Money for coal miners, that is good. For sure, with out updating out national electric grid, lots of spending on clean sources of energy will be a waste, we need to be able to transmit the electricity long distances, our current system can't do that. We also would need tons of battery storage, but that is a whole other debate. He has a section on workers rights and wages, I guess when you have a "most pass" bill, you throw extra stuff in there. So I did not see anything on how is this going to be paid (Maybe i missed it). Maybe Mexico will pay for it. Maybe he will subscribe to MMT and just print the money. Maybe he will raise taxes on the rich (that is popular) Maybe he will cut other spending (military? oil subsidies?) Now a nice Carbon tax could help raise money to cover some the 300 billion per year. Sure our electric bill will go up, but it is the price to pay to go to net-zero climate pollution.
Now he did have a large section on how industry is going to develop new technologies, I skimmed that section, for you all that read the whole thing in detail, did he go over technology to capture carbon from the atmosphere and store it or convert it to other stuff? Because that is a very important part to achieve net-zero, and it is something that was mostly left out of the Paris accord. There is deferentially a huge business opportunity to develop technologies that can do it at a reasonable economic cost.
Well, at least you put a modicum of thought into these post, and took a look at the proposal, as opposed to simply "doing the math" and declaring victory. That is a good start.