The “Green” “New” Deal

As I noted on Twitter, it’s neither new, or green, and you know these morons aren’t serious about CO2 reduction when they try to shut down nuclear as fast as possible. Mike Shellenberger relates the history of this insanity in Vermont:

[Update a few minutes later]

The ten most insane requirements of it:

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal cost are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing are but trifling projects compared to a plan [that] overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

These people are out of their minds. And Markey has always demonstrably been an idiot.

[Update a while later]

[Update a few minutes later]

Pelosi to AOC and Markey: It’s a “suggestion,” of which they’ll receive many. Translation: She’s not as stupid as they are. It’s DOA.

[Late-morning update]

More from Tyler O’Neil.

[Update early afternoon]

The “Green New Deal” represents everything that is wrong with “progressive” environmentalism.

[Update a while later]

[Late-afternoon update]

This is hilarious. It’s OK, Occasional Cortex, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

[Evening update]

The “Green New Deal” FAQ is now available for download, despite the fact that it was “taken down.”

I’m thinking I should come up with some other ideas left on the cutting-room floor. It could be fun. And these people are now officially unable to be parodied.

35 thoughts on “The “Green” “New” Deal”

  1. So the GND is really the Red New Deal. Or the description by Kevin Williamson, “the Green Leap Forward”!

    Der Kommissar Sandy must be making Mao proud.

    1. If this thing was actually implemented with the speed and scope it claims to require, the results would make Pol Pot blush. Everybody opposing it would have to be taken out and shot for it to have any chance of working.

      1. And everyone has been wondering how long it would take for Marxists to turn the most advanced and wealthy country into one where the zoos have no food. Some thought it would take generations but the Marxists said, “We only have 12 years before the world ends.”

  2. Just following the German model. First close down all the nuclear plants, THEN close down all the coal plants. Brilliant. When rolling blackouts have to then be prevented by expensive on demand natural gas plants that get their fuel from where? …. wait for it…. RUSSIA!

    Meanwhile France, already nearly 100% nuclear on electrical generation, marches on, Paris accord goals? No problem! Now go away before I taunt you again you silly man.

    1. OK fact check. France 72.5% nuclear, 17.8% “renewables” and 8.6% “fossil” re: hydrocarbon, fuels.

      Still the largest percentage of nuclear in the world among the “developed” nations.

      Caught it myself. And I stand by my OP.

      1. Yes, but I heard that the elites in France are now wanting to shutter their nuclear plants so they don’t lag behind Germany?

          1. They could get gas from Azerbaijan, but that means playing nice with Edrogan. HAHAHA. Even if they choose Edrogan; the Greeks and Italians also get a say. Only Spain and Portugal are missing out. And people wonder why the Brits want to exit?

        1. Yes, a big part of Marcon’s environment agenda is to shutter the vast majority of France’s nuclear plants.

          Some of the replacement electricity, per the plan, would come from new coal plants, but those won’t add anything to France’s CO2 output because they’re to be located just over the Italian and Swiss borders.

          To pay for obscenities like this, the government saddled drivers with loads of new restrictions and taxes. This is why they now have “Paris is burning!” day every weekend, because the yellow vests have had enough.

          1. “…but those won’t add anything to France’s CO2 output because they’re to be located just over the Italian and Swiss borders.”
            Only a lawyer, in the worst sense of the word, would support that kind of crazy accounting.

          2. France has been busy killing one of the few competitive advantages their industry has i.e. the nuclear sector for quite some time. There have been a lot of wind power and natural gas power plant projects in recent years.

        2. I was a grad assistant to a professor who grew up in France. One of my stats projects for her was to find a statistically significant correlation between poverty and nuclear plant site locations in France. I believe that the hypothesis was something along the lines of “poor communities can’t fight against having a nuclear plant put near them”, or “people are being oppressed by nuclear plants” or something like that. Not, of course, “power plants are built where land is cheap, and land is cheap where people are less affluent”. I don’t recall performing any spatial correlations of radiation-blamed illnesses or anything like that.

          I bring that up to point out that some of the de-nuking of France is the result of Social Justice movements, not just myopic “green” initiatives.

          Of course, wind power can be even more damaging to health if you live in the shadow of a turbine, and you need significantly more turbines spread over significantly more land to replace a single nuke, but again, myopia is as myopia does…

    1. Apparently some members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation weren’t too keen on commuting home by train and boat.

  3. I’m actually glad they put out the GND. We have some gullible people in the US that don’t actually believe that this is what socialist want to do. They may be gullible, but they aren’t batshit dumb. They might be willing to give up that old 100W bulb for a 7W LED once the make it bright enough. But they are not going to go back to the 19th Century for vacation travel.

    These socialist got a combined 1.6 million votes (1.3 million of those are Markey’s, who got those votes in 2014 and is up for re-election this year). That would have put them 3rd in the Texas Senate race. These people shouldn’t be ignored. They, and their vocal supporters, should just be ridiculed with abandon.

  4. There is a Green solution to air transportation.

    Fuel jet planes with liquified ammonia. Generate ammonia using Gen 4 high-temperature liquid-salt nuclear reactors.

    No more nuclear power?

    Never mind!

    1. Beyond the no nuclear issue for an energy source, I’m pretty sure ammonia has less energy density and more handling difficulties than kerosene.

      1. I looked it up.

        The hard thing about ammonia is getting it to burn — not such a great thing in an airplane, where a flame-out results in a forced landing or a crash.

  5. Is there any way house Republicans could force this GND to the floor of the house for a vote? Because Pelosi sure as heck won’t; not even she is quite that stupid.

    I recall Republicans doing something similar to a bill put forward by a Democrat, to re-introduce the draft. It was political showboating, of course, so over his objections they brought it to the floor, where even the guy who write it voted against it.

  6. Actually I think this proposal was quite smart. She basically put everything on the table including the more ridiculous proposals.
    This means that she can change the narrative to a point where people in her party and maybe in Congress will start to think about making substantive changes. Instead of going for the compromise strategy typically favored by the Democrats which basically led them nowhere in terms of policy over the last decades. It basically turned the Democrats into the Republican party in terms of overall policies.

    I am not a big fan of renewables to be honest. But the USA is probably one of the few places where a renewables strategy would make sense because you have the natural gas reserves to power peak power plants and most of the population is along the coast which has a vast wind resource. In fact to a degree it has already been happening. Wind+solar in the USA already generate more than hydropower. Also despite being supported by both W Bush and Obama new nuclear reactor construction in the USA has kinda fizzled out because of construction delays and costs at the same time the oil price (other fossil fuels as well) crashed.

    For example you had Westinghouse develop the AP1000 nuclear reactor design in the USA. The Chinese have four of those reactors in operation already. In the USA two of the planned reactors are still under construction and the other two planned were cancelled.

    I am pro nuclear. But the USA has been severely lagging in the nuclear industry so to expect much from it is kinda hard. US utilities simply can’t stomach the long term investments in large nuclear power plants. In China they can do it because these are huge state run utilities with access to government loans. The US’s long term infrastructure funding has been busted for a long time. Even with the substantial low interest rate government loans Bush and Obama provided to the nuclear industry to erect new nuclear reactors the results thus far have been really lackluster like I said.

    If anything I think it would be a good idea to develop peaking natural gas generation sources more efficient than current turbines. Perhaps molten carbonate fuel cells or something like that.

    1. I have a better idea of how to improve the GND.

      America needs to get down to the basics of Socialism, which means government direction of heavy industry. America needs to increase steel production.

      Instead of mini mills that rely on large amounts of uninterrupted electric power, I propose micro mills. Our engineers and scientists should get to work on how to use bio-fuels in steel making to make them carbon neutral, and how to scale a mill down in size, say, at the community level.

      People at the local levels could be organized into “communes” or “collectives.” Operating the community micro mill along with spreading out over the country side to collect bio fuel would serve to fulfil the jobs guarantee under the GND. Wealthier people could have their immigrant landscapers collect lawn trimmings and brush, to be dried and contribute to the supply of bio fuel to operate the micro mills?

      What do people think?

    2. Actually I think this proposal was quite smart. She basically put everything on the table including the more ridiculous proposals.
      This means that she can change the narrative to a point where people in her party and maybe in Congress will start to think about making substantive changes. Instead of going for the compromise strategy typically favored by the Democrats which basically led them nowhere in terms of policy over the last decades. It basically turned the Democrats into the Republican party in terms of overall policies.

      You don’t start making “substantive changes” by demanding unicorns right off the bat. It just signals that you’re not serious.

  7. I think a lot of the proposals in the Green New Deal are trial balloons. Don’t be surprised when some of them resurface in other forms, such as meat taxes to offset the impact of cow farts, or increased property taxes on older, less energy-efficient homes.

    1. The customers of PG&E in California are already subject to electricity rationing in their “tiered” rate plans.

      The subject of PG&E came up in connection with the California wildfires and PG&E asking for bankruptcy protection in the face of massive liability payouts. Holding PG&E liable for starting wild fires through undermaintained transmission lines and electrical gear is all fine and good, but who is going to end of paying for all of this? I went to the PG&E Web site for their rate schedules to find out.

      My goodness – how come they don’t have a Yellow Vest Revolt in California? Are the people living there such sheep?

      Some decides on your Tier 1 baseline allotment of kWHrs based on some factors regarding your house, what kind of heat source it has and I guess where you live? You pay something like 22 cents/kWHr for your Tier 1 allotment. As you use more electricity and go into higher tiers, you pay over 40 cents/kWHr?

      I couldn’t tell if there was also a “connect” or “base charge”, which has been substantially increased here in ‘Sconsin. I am an engineer and I know where every last watt of load in my house comes from so my bill would fall within the PG&E Tier 1, and my last wintertime electric bill was $44.33 for 181 kWHr, amounting to 24 cents/kWHr. Mind you, I pay over 20 dollars to be connected to the grid for that month regardless of usage whereas I pay about 13 cents/kWHr of actual use.

      I suppose there isn’t a big government tax-skim on the PG&E bill, yet, and the money to supply the electricity has to come from rate payers in one form or another. Instead of viewing Tier 1 as rationing, one could view it is a subsidy to lower income people, as a kind of “lifeline” tariff for an amount of electricity to serve basic human needs?

      If so, we could regard the Tier 2 level of about 30 cents/kWHr of simply what it costs to supply electricity to homes in California? If so, Californians are paying-through-the-nose for electric power — is this the result of goofball government regs promoting wind and solar, pushing all coal generation outside the state and shuttering nukes?

      I read a book on Ronald Reagan regarding his time as California governor, and it quoted his predecessor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Sr.’s take on President Johnson’s expansion of the Welfare State, “The Great Society? Here, we call if ‘California’.”

      The Green New Deal? Out West, they call it “California.”

  8. A rare instance where reading the comment section of an ArsTechnica article is actually entertaining.

    A few brave souls appear to have dared to raise the point of a lack of “nuclear” in the proposal. A response:

    The nuclear industry has itself to blame. They haven’t delivered on time or on budget in the west for decades. Nuclear is a shitty bet if you actually want to deliver power.

    And this one, about how to pay for it, as far as I can tell, was posted with 100% earnestness:

    Are you serious? Venezuela was able to find a way to finance forward-looking programs for their people, so surely the United States can as well.

      1. Not it doesn’t. Basically it pretends that Venezuela was just fine until the US and EU decided to no longer support Maduro. Venezuela was in far better shape before Chavez took it down the path of Socialism.

      2. This provide a decent counter point to a lot of comments about Venezuela.

        It’s funny how there’s this weird obligation among some people to support the state capitalists like Venezuela and Cuba. They aren’t on your side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *