Category Archives: Technology and Society

Business, Economics, Education, Law, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

The “Green” “New” Deal

35 Comments

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.

Business, Economics, General Science, History, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Judith Curry

1 Comment

…will be testifying before Congress tomorrow (if she can get out of Reno). Given that the Democrats are in charge of the House now, it looks like it will be a hostile audience. I wonder who invited her?

[Thursday-morning update]

Her post-testimony thoughts:

In 2003 or so, I hired Kim Cobb at Georgia Tech. During my later years at Georgia Tech, we disagreed on A LOT of things.

But I will give credit where it is due:

Kim walks the talk in her personal lifestyle: vegetarian, rides bike to work, solar panels, minimizes flying etc. Very few climate scientists do this.
She genuinely wants climate solutions, and is prepared to work with energy companies and Republicans. VERY FEW climate scientists do this.
Here is excerpt from the first paragraph of her written testimony:

“My message today is simple: there are many no-regrets, win-win actions to reduce the growing costs of climate change, but we’re going to have to come together to form new alliances, in our home communities, across our states, and yes, even in Washington. There are plenty of prizes for early, meaningful action. These include cleaner air and water, healthier, more resilient communities, a competitive edge in the low-carbon 21st century global economy, and the mantle of global leadership on the challenge of our time. I’m confident that through respectful discourse, we will recognize that our shared values unite us in seeking a better tomorrow for all Americans.”

She discusses adaptation, innovation, energy efficiency, land use practices, as well as CO2 emissions reductions.

Compare her recommendations with my closing recommendation (slightly modified on the fly, from what was given in my previous post):

“Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather events, pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures, and land use practices. Each of these efforts has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. These efforts provide the basis of a climate policy that addresses both near-term economic and social justice concerns, and also the longer-term goals of mitigation.”

Is it just me, or is there common ground here?

The no-regrets angle is key here. Richard Lindzen reminded me that ‘no-regrets’ used to be the appropriate framework for climate policy.

It’s now almost a decade since I proposed that we come up with a regret matrix. I’ve still never seen one.