Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,795
There is one implied narrow aspect to Cortez's overly ambitious utopian goals that actually makes sense. That revolves around passenger carrying commercial aircraft. A long term pet advocation has been that passenger trains replace short-haul passenger aircraft between high density cities (of less than 300 miles (more or less)) such as Washington DC and New York. This would free-up more airspace and terminal capacity for long-haul passenger traffic, where the speed of aircraft over trains would provide a substantial benefit.

What would probably prove to be ironic (should such a rail proposal go forward) is that environmental left wing groups would obstruct the massive infrastructure development to support an enhanced rail transportation system under the guise of it projecting a "disparate impact" on minority communities " and/or "social justice" .

Currently Cortez's "Green New Deal" is in the form of a non-binding resolutions. Specifics to be provided later. Her (unrealistic) environmental goals seem laudable. Can't really argue against helping the environment. But there was also an ill-advised shout-out in her proposal to detrimental "social justice" which could easily subvert any pro-environmental efforts by politicizing them. Pursing "social justice" will be a nightmarish legal pretzel. Cortez's needs to "be careful of what you wish for". Unintended consequences are waiting.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline
 

NauticalGent

Pristine Curmudgeon
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
2,405
I do not have a high opinion of politicians in general, but this bird aint seen the football since the kick-off...
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,795
Two recent stories just popped-up concerning the overly ambitious utopian desire for high speed rail. I would support high speed rail, if it can be implemented in the old fashioned "we can do it" manner.

A Democratic governor just quashed Democrats’ dreams of high-speed rail in America

Why the United States will never have high-speed rail

My current post is actually about a concept that I have overlooked (as many others have) concerning the adverse environmental effects of commuting to work. I was reminded of that by Steve Hilton, when he was discussing the cancellation of the California high speed rail.

The quick summary, many roads are clogged by traffic and it can take many minutes (maybe even an hour or two) to get from home to work. This wastes both energy and time besides contributing to environmental degradation and paving of the landscape.

A review of Cortez's "Green New Deal" did not disclose any policies that would "encourage" the minimization of commuting. After all, what good would it be if we drive an electric vehicles at at a hypothetical 10 MPH average speed to get to a job 20 miles away?

Trying to "force" the minimization of community distances will be a virtually impossible goal. Would Cortez & company, go out on a limb, as part of this Green Initiative to propose high density low income housing around virtually every corporate headquarters's location?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I continued to surf the internet, I ran across this article: Updated: What the Green New Deal Means for Planning

A 'Huge Flaw'

Finally, an article by Alex Baca exposes that lack of focus on issues of land use and development as the "huge flaw" of the Green New Deal. Here's Baca's strongly worded premise:

But the Green New Deal has a big blind spot: It doesn’t address the places Americans live. And our physical geography—where we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places—is more foundational to a green, fair future than just about anything else. The proposal encapsulates the liberal delusion on climate change: that technology and spending can spare us the hard work of reform.
To make that point, Baca analyzes digs into the environmental and economic costs of sprawl, directly countering arguments that electric vehicles can save the planet from climate change if humans continue to sprawl across the planet.
 
Last edited:

Mark_

Longboard on the internet
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,112
The major issues with the "New Green Deal" start at the beginning.
Two major arguments used to support it are the "500 Billion dollars" projected to be lost in 2100 and the estimate of 1 Trillion dollars in infrastructure and real estate damage due to climate change.

Those numbers are significant as the United States pays about 500 Billion annually to service the interest on the national debt and the current national debt is over 22 Trillion.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,533
The video is astounding. That gentleman should have his own humor-oriented op-ed show on a regular basis. He has an absolutely MARVELOUS delivery ability.

I am amused by his ultimate solution. The heck with climate-change issues. Go out, get married, make babies. It ain't the WORST advice I've ever heard on any topic.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,795
Another major complication concerning the "Green New Deal".

Go solar, or save the trees? Georgetown University solar farm would clear 240-acre forest in Charles County

"Fights over forest loss are relatively common in the rural Southern Maryland county, about an hour outside Washington. But this time, the debate isn’t about housing developments and shopping centers — it’s a choice between a vanishing ecosystem and a push toward cleaner energy."
"In Maryland, most conflict over solar farms has been tied to loss of agricultural land, which is usually solar developers’ first choice because it doesn’t require much clearing or other site preparation. But advocates said the Georgetown project was the first example of clear-cutting for solar development they were aware of in the state."
The proposal by Georgetown University to destroy environmentally sensitive habitat to generate clean energy is repugnant at best.
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,533
The ultimate dilemma:

To save a tree or NOT to save a tree. That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to clear-cut a forest to generate solar power,
or to burn fossil fuel to preserve the greenery around you,
and by saving the trees, increase the CO2 in the air. To change climate -
no more to reduce the carbon footprint. And by "no more" we mean cessation of the push to solar power.
To end the heartache of the choice, and the thousand recriminations that Man is heir to.
'Tis a dilemma for which a solution is devoutly to be wished. To live, to work, to rest, perchance to dream of the solution. Aye, there's the rub - that in that dream of a solution, what ideas may come...

... with apologies to Will S.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom