1. The elements of the proposal that aren’t about the environment should be scrapped. 2. The timeline seems impossible, but judging by history, it’s very doable IF IF IF we are willing to make the sacrifices.
Yeah, we have to act now: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/10/glaciers-arctic-ice-vanishing-radical-politics The first, led by the veteran Greenland glaciologist Jason Box, looked across the Arctic at everything from “increased tundra biomass” to deepening thaw of the permafrost layer. Their conclusion: “the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its 20th century state and into an unprecedented state, with implications not only within but beyond the Arctic.” To invent a word, the north is rapidly slushifying, with more rainfall and fewer days of hard freeze; the latest data shows that after a month of record temperatures in the Bering Sea, ocean ice in the Arctic is at an all-time record low for the date, crushing the record set … last April. The other study looked at the great mountain ranges of the planet, and found that their glaciers were melting much faster than scientists had expected. By the end of the century many of those alpine glaciers would be gone entirely; the Alps may lose 90% of their ice. From the Caucasus to the South Island of New Zealand, mountains are losing more than 1% of their ice each year now: “At the current glacier loss rate, the glaciers will not survive the century,” said Michael Zemp, who runs the World Glacier Monitoring Service from his office at the University of Zurich. ————————————————- What it means, I think, is that no one should be shocked when Extinction Rebellion activists engage in mass civil disobedience. No one should be annoyed when school kids start leaving class en masse. No one should be surprised that Green New Deal advocates are now calling for dramatic overhaul of American society. In fact we should be deeply grateful: these activists, and the scientists producing these reports, are the only people on the planet who seem to understand the scale of the problem. Not our political leaders. Obviously not Trump, but even most of the theoretically engaged premiers and presidents let themselves constantly be distracted by much smaller questions. (Brexit would seem like a silly charade at the best of times; at the moment it seems actively obscene). Not our business leaders, who make occasional greenwashing noises but continue passively belonging to organizations like the Chamber of Commerce that continue to fight serious change. Not those pension fund trustees still clinging to fossil fuel stocks even as they lose money. The respectable have punted; so now it’s up to the scruffy, the young, the marginal, the angry to do the necessary work. Their discipline and good humor and profound nonviolence are remarkable, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Greta Thunberg. They are what’s left of our fighting chance.
Are you sure about this? I herd heard they want to fund this by taking away my Social Security, Medicare, Medigap, VA, Welfare, Food Stamps, Handicap Auto Plates and free access to Nat. Parks. Also I never gotta duck or a cell phone. If you get summoned by an IRS guy in a crouch...be prepared to say ouch. Better yet...if the phone rings and it's Agent Panther....don't anther! [My profound apology to Ogden Nash...R.I.P.]
It’s a good starting point. We do need to act fast, and by all means let’s separate the environmental goals from the progressive goals, if we are serious about making it happen.
Solar is cheaper (in many ways) than coal... Building new wind and solar power capacity is often less expensive than people realize. Here's a look at the price trend making coal less and less competitive.https://t.co/Y514fxf4iR— Inside Climate News (@insideclimate) April 14, 2019 But something something about California prices....
The only important element of a Green New Deal discussion is to get Democrats elected. The most thoughtful, most scientifically accurate plan that could be crafted means nothing without that. So I favor any plan, ridiculous or sober, that has the desired political effect. Once that occurs, we can get serious and eject the stupid plans. Until then, though, if stupid sells, I'm all for stupid.
And something something about a nuclear lobby firm website: @ceezmad just quoting you to put together the discussion on energy sources that was happening in this thread.
About that South Korean nuclear power article... Nuclear powers reliance on viable uranium sources is not unlike the reliance on fossil fuels. It's running out as well. Scaling up nuclear power will just make us run out faster. Nuclear power is neither a cheap nor a long therm solution. You have to throw a shit ton of money at it to scale it up (while still keeping it relatively save). Might as well throw that money at a "true green" solution. When I read that article I see a lot of parallels to Germanys exit from nuclear power. Quite a few differences as well. When the Koreans built their first own Reactor Germany was already gearing up to implement an exit strategy. The rise of the green party as a viable political option during the 80s was aided by a strong anti nuclear power stance before and of course after the catastrophe in Chernobyl. Certain regions in Germany got hit by quite a bit of fallout from that one. There are still certain parts of Bavaria where people are discouraged from eating fungi and game from those areas because of the radiation buildup in those organisms. That's one of the reasons why opposition to nuclear power has been traditionally high in Germany. So it wasn't a big surprise, when the first SPD+Green Party, center left+environmental left government coalition decided in 2000 to shut down all atomic power plants in Germany by ~2020. The CDU+FDP, center right+neo liberal coalition tried to reverse this decision in 2010, they also proposed far reaching changes to security standards, trying to sell that as making atomic power safer when in fact they where weakening old security standards to allow power companies to run their old plants longer without having to spend billion of € on safety features like they would have to do otherwise. Unsurprisingly that bullshit wasn't popular at all with opposition parties. Then Fukushima happened. Safety concerns became front and center in the news and letting old plants run longer became hugely unpopular. Merkel acted accordingly. Seems to me that the only way to keep atomic power commercially viable around the world is to skimp on the side of safety. Not a great look.
Lot's of the safety costs of nuclear safety are like the anti terrorism cost, the possibility of an accident is so horrific that we err on the side of caution. Think about all the money we spent every year on airport security, time wasted, ect. All because a few religious nut jobs crashed a few planes into buildings. Similar to nuclear, nobody wants to be know as some one that put cost savings over safety, so nuclear power plants safety requirements and it's cost keep going up. There is probably a better balance of how much safety requirements are really needed vs. what politicians/the public would want. The amount of uranium needed to generate power is small, so we won't be running out any time soon. There are other materials that can be used, but they are less efficient and/or more expensive to use.
Really? I know where you can find some. It's not being mined at the moment, but it could be. http://www.virginiaplaces.org/energy/mininguranium.html
The most underestimated problem in the world is the population growth. In every continent outside Africa, people are having an average of two children. That seems to be fine, new people are needed but no huge population growth. The average African is having almost five children, now that's problematic for Africa and the rest of the world. Africa's population will rise from 1 billion to 5 billion this century. The global population will rise from the current 8 billion to 12 billion the next decades if nothing happens. Most researchers on this topic agree that that's a figure which will lead to a huge amount of (environmental) problems and a huge increase in poverty around the world. The African population growth needs to reach the growth levels of the other continents. North Africa and South Africa have decent fertility rates, but most other African regions need to take this underestimated problem more seriously, for themselves and the rest of the world. Kenya took the population growth problem very seriously, and their fertility rates dropped from 7 to 2 in 30 years time. They proved it can be done. Africa needs more money for birth control and family planning. More investments in African education is also necessary to slow down the birth explosion. I think we, the richest countries and African nations should invest more in African birth control for the sake of the planet. A lot of environmental deals are being made, but the real problem of too many people isn't taken seriously by a lot of people. Not driving cars, not flying plains, not eating meat, not using electricity... Those are pretty bad solutions to camouflage the real problem of the global population growth taboo.
Women education is making the predictions above incorrect. https://www.economist.com/middle-ea...high-birth-rate-is-keeping-the-continent-poor https://www.valuewalk.com/2013/09/fertility-rate-africa/ https://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/rapid-slowdown-population-growth Again education for women.
All nuclear facilities should be restricted to densely populated areas. Sooner or later population control will occur.
I like the way you tied it all together. Personally, I think nuclear power is safe if you don't have the likes of Homer SImpson in charge. But that's the problem.
Interesting articles ceezmad. By the way, Bill Gates has a foundation which helps with family planning in the poorest countries: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.
Thanks...I put a lot of time and thought into that. Well yes....so are T-Rexs if all you do is read about them.