Green New Deal

[coins4commies]

This isn't a new idea.  Its a very old idea even though MSM is acting like AOC created it.  The policies are all based on extensive research and most of them have been successfully put into practice in other places.  The new resolution is almost word for word the same as the one used as the green party platform from 2012 and 2016.  It was polling nationally at 81% last month. 

Here is a copy of the resolution framework as well as a FAQ that the fakenews media is using as the resolution.

Resolution framework: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5731829-Ocasio-Cortez-Green-New-Deal-Resolution

FAQ: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

The FAQ has created controversy because it contained some language that wasn't in the resolution.  Specifically the phrase "unwilling to work" which corporate media has, of course, taken and ran with it.  Some articles are basically reporting that phrase, which isn't in the resolution, as the entire resolution.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=unwilling+to+work&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEw4yzwK_gAhWIhFQKHUVbBysQ_AUIDygC&biw=960&bih=439

[1714920615]

1714920615

[1714920615]

1714920615

[1714920615]

1714920615

[1714920615]

1714920615

[TECSHARE]

hahaha "extensive research".

Even her own party is already shitting on the plan. This plan is insane, she is insane, and you are even more insane for supporting it.

[coins4commies]

I've supported it since 2012 because it is the only plan available that gives us a chance at avoiding the impending climate catastrophe.  You say it is insane but have no reasoning for calling it insane. I know you deny climate science, but like the new deal, these stimulus proposals are economically viable regardless of weather or not there was an impending catastrophe. 

Of course the corporate-backed democratic party establishment doesn't support it.   Instead of that statement, you might as well just say "the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, and insurance lobbies don't even support it" because thats what it means.  The Pelosi style democrats are in a tough spot not only because of donor pressure, but because accepting the right path forward would require them to admit their course of action during the Obama years was problematic and even harmful. 

They also don't see a need to accomplish anything in order to win elections.  Their calculation is that they only need to be slightly left of republicans to keep office but that calculation is wrong and failed miserably in 2016.   This new wave of democrats with green party ideology is transforming the party.  There are over 60 co sponsors on this bill.  It will be THEE issue in 2020 and I expect a dozen or so more AOC's entering congress.

[TECSHARE]

I've supported it since 2012 because it is the only plan available that gives us a chance at avoiding the impending climate catastrophe.  You say it is insane but have no reasoning for calling it insane. I know you deny climate science, but like the new deal, these stimulus proposals are economically viable regardless of weather or not there was an impending catastrophe. 

Of course the corporate-backed democratic party establishment doesn't support it.   Instead of that statement, you might as well just say "the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, and insurance lobbies don't even support it" because thats what it means.  The Pelosi style democrats are in a tough spot not only because of donor pressure, but because accepting the right path forward would require them to admit their course of action during the Obama years was problematic and even harmful. 

They also don't see a need to accomplish anything in order to win elections.  Their calculation is that they only need to be slightly left of republicans to keep office but that calculation is wrong and failed miserably in 2016.   This new wave of democrats with green party ideology is transforming the party.  There are over 60 co sponsors on this bill.  It will be THEE issue in 2020 and I expect a dozen or so more AOC's entering congress.

"deny climate science" = expecting empirical data to support a scientific position

What revolutionaries you are for making a list of things that everyone wants with no real plan to get there. Just calling it viable doesn't magically make it so just like printing more money is not "Modern Monetary Theory", it is just inflation and theft. This "new wave" are low information high moral grandstanding true believers selling rebranded Communism.

[Spendulus]

I've supported it since 2012 because it is the only plan available that gives us a chance at avoiding the impending climate catastrophe.  ....

The plan is the catastrophe, not the climate.

[BADecker]

This isn't a new idea.  Its a very old idea even though MSM is acting like AOC created it.

So that's why it is green. It's so old that it is moldy.

 

[TECSHARE]

This isn't a new idea.  Its a very old idea even though MSM is acting like AOC created it.

So that's why it is green. It's so old that it is moldy.

 

It used to be red, but they are rebranding.

[Spendulus]

I've supported it since 2012 because it is the only plan available that gives us a chance at avoiding the impending climate catastrophe.  You say it is insane but have no reasoning for calling it insane. I know you deny climate science, but like the new deal, these stimulus proposals are economically viable regardless of weather or not there was an impending catastrophe.......

I honestly do not think you are on a winning bandwagon with this one.

[Quickseller]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

[TECSHARE]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

Why interrupt your opponent when they are making an error?

[BADecker]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

Why interrupt your opponent when they are making an error?

Especially with an interruption that might take you into their socialism if you push it hard enough.

 

[Spendulus]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years). .....

Wait...

What would happen to all my frequent flyer miles?

[BADecker]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years). .....

Wait...

What would happen to all my frequent flyer miles?

They have a few electric planes, and electric turbines are being developed. And we can get electricity from nuclear, water, and solar.

You will be able to keep all your frequent flyer miles... except if you use them, of course.

[Quickseller]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

Why interrupt your opponent when they are making an error?

This is never going to be put for a vote, as it is dead on arrival in the House. Pelosi has publicly said what amounts to that it will not be put to a vote, and she is smart enough to not put it to a vote based on the amount of ridicule it is receiving alone.

Trump is wanting to give this as much attention it can get to highlight the extremism on the left.

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years). .....

Wait...

What would happen to all my frequent flyer miles?

They would get redistributed to those with less. The miles would not be good for anything though.   

[OgNasty]

My favorite part is where they say it provides economic security for all, even those unwilling to work.

The Green New Deal is the most fantasyland proposal I’ve ever personally seen proposed seriously in government.

BUY BITCOIN!

[Spendulus]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

Why interrupt your opponent when they are making an error?

I would like to do my part. One steak a day and 2x/day on weekends would be doing my part to reduce the cow population.

Will THE PLAN pay for these?

[OgNasty]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years). .....

Wait...

What would happen to all my frequent flyer miles?

They have a few electric planes, and electric turbines are being developed. And we can get electricity from nuclear, water, and solar.

You will be able to keep all your frequent flyer miles... except if you use them, of course.

Yes, they will, “need to invent technology that's never even been invented yet.”

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

[Spendulus]

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years). .....

Wait...

What would happen to all my frequent flyer miles?

They have a few electric planes, and electric turbines are being developed. And we can get electricity from nuclear, water, and solar.

You will be able to keep all your frequent flyer miles... except if you use them, of course.

Yes, they will, “need to invent technology that's never even been invented yet.”

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

Okay, but I would like to be placed in charge of getting rid of all the Evil Farting Cows. I will cut them up into juicy steaks, and these will form the basis for a underworld crypto currency to finance the rebellion.

Based on Proof of Steak.

[eddie13]

In my opinion the entire "Man Made Global Warming" debacle is an ingenious ploy traceable all the way up to those seeking ultimate power by creating a one world government.

At many stages it has attempted global wealth redistribution, to weaken the west and win the hearts of potential benefactor nations.
It attempts to destroy the economies of the west, making us spend money on nonsense to make us more poor so we are easier to take over.
It attempts to make us use less energy, making us weaker and easier to take over.

The CO2 theory is completely debunked in my opinion.



CO2 right now is very low compared to the history of the earth and does not correlate to historical tempature.

Infact CO2 correlates well with historical plant growth. At times in our earths history when CO2 was high/higher the earth had much more lush vegetation. Our CO2 is so low right now that plants are barely surviving compared to history.

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is also minuscule compared to other gasses in out atmosphere, most importantly water vapor.  

AGW is nothing but a scare tactic political weapon.

[BADecker]

^^^ The scare tactic idea is the simple idea.

The wealthy who are causing the chemtrails to be sprayed, so that the earth cools down even more, are doing it to get rid of people. The Georgia Guidestones show that there are people who are promoting depopulation of the world - https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-the-georgia-guidestones/. Promoting CO2 and global warming would cause the population to grow.

[TECSHARE]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

[eddie13]

If you have it in you to see the big picture you can look at almost anything the left does, any action the left takes, and trace it directly back to the quest for the ultimate authoritarian one world government.

Try me.. I will show you..
I am curious to see any leftist policy that I can't relate to advancing their quest of an ultimate authoritarian one world government to gain ultimate power..

[BADecker]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

The interesting thing about this is, that even though there might have been as many as 200 million people murdered by their own governments in the 1900s, the population of the world is higher than it has ever been this side of prehistory.

How puny people are that they can't even kill themselves off successfully!

[soulcancer]

green is the new red....now shut up and enjoy our useful idiocy

[TECSHARE]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

The interesting thing about this is, that even though there might have been as many as 200 million people murdered by their own governments in the 1900s, the population of the world is higher than it has ever been this side of prehistory.

How puny people are that they can't even kill themselves off successfully!

Well that really depends on how you measure success. It seems it was enough to continue concentrating wealth and power. The difference is this time they have robots and AI and really don't need most of us around to work for them any more... People should be worried less about not having a job and more that the people with limitless resources soon will have no incentives to keep you alive.

[coins4commies]

This has gone completely off the rails with a flurry of posts that are either conspiracy theories or straight up lies.  It seems as though none of the responders read the resolution. What a mess!   I will attempt to tidy up a bit...

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

Everything in this post was a lie.   How long would it take to search the resolution for those terms?  Net zero emissions does not mean the same thing as completely eliminating emissions.  Planting trees as well as plants for biofuels can completely offset the limited use of fuel. 

But the president tweeted it so it must be true right?

This is actually a good post by quickseller

This is never going to be put for a vote, as it is dead on arrival in the House. Pelosi has publicly said what amounts to that it will not be put to a vote, and she is smart enough to not put it to a vote based on the amount of ridicule it is receiving alone.

Trump is wanting to give this as much attention it can get to highlight the extremism on the left.

This isn't being released now to get trhough this congress.  The idea is that it gets out into the conversation 2 years before the election as a litmus so the 81% of the population who support and demand these policies can see who is with them and who is against them. This is the end of the Pelosi democratic party and everyone knows it.  A green wave is coming in 2020.

My favorite part is where they say it provides economic security for all, even those unwilling to work.

The Green New Deal is the most fantasyland proposal I’ve ever personally seen proposed seriously in government.

BUY BITCOIN!

You mean a universal income?  The policy that already has been supported by significant amounts of studies and has garnered supports from libertarians as well.  The biggest fantasy at play here is getting people like the ones in this thread to accept research conclusions that are contrary to their preconceived notions. 

I would like to do my part. One steak a day and 2x/day on weekends would be doing my part to reduce the cow population.

Will THE PLAN pay for these?

Buying steak causes the number of cows to increase.  You should limit your meat consumption as much as possible.  If not for the health of the planet, for your own personal health.

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

Lie.  I posted the resolution link.  I cannot click on it and read it for you.

In my opinion the entire "Man Made Global Warming" debacle is an ingenious ploy traceable all the way up to those seeking ultimate power by creating a one world government.

At many stages it has attempted global wealth redistribution, to weaken the west and win the hearts of potential benefactor nations.
It attempts to destroy the economies of the west, making us spend money on nonsense to make us more poor so we are easier to take over.
It attempts to make us use less energy, making us weaker and easier to take over.

The CO2 theory is completely debunked in my opinion.

So not only is the entire international scientific community wrong, they are all co-conspirators involved in a secret plot to use faked science to make their own home countries collapse and be taken over.  They have also convinced the political leadership of all those same countries to get on board at destroying themselves as well.  No one could figure it out except some random dudes on the internet.

Tell me again who is extreme?

[mOgliE]

This has gone completely off the rails with a flurry of posts that are either conspiracy theories or straight up lies.  It seems as though none of the responders read the resolution. What a mess!   I will attempt to tidy up a bit...

Don't.

They haven't read it. Of course they haven't. Their Emperor God Trump have already told them what they should think about this proposition.

Anyway you won't go anywhere with such subject here. You have in the same project, ecological, social and economical changes. The people here are also posting in their own thread how climate change is a lie and doesn't exist. The most "reasonnable" ones don't deny climate change but just the fact that it's man made.

You can't discuss logically with people denying what 90% of the scientific community is completely supporting since 2010.

So, close your thread or let them discuss how brillant they are between themselves. But trying to "discuss" with such individuals is pointless.

Good luck though.

[Carlton Banks]

In my opinion the entire "Man Made Global Warming" debacle is an ingenious ploy traceable all the way up to those seeking ultimate power by creating a one world government.

At many stages it has attempted global wealth redistribution, to weaken the west and win the hearts of potential benefactor nations.
It attempts to destroy the economies of the west, making us spend money on nonsense to make us more poor so we are easier to take over.
It attempts to make us use less energy, making us weaker and easier to take over.

The CO2 theory is completely debunked in my opinion.

So not only is the entire international scientific community wrong, they are all co-conspirators involved in a secret plot to use faked science to make their own home countries collapse and be taken over.  They have also convinced the political leadership of all those same countries to get on board at destroying themselves as well.  No one could figure it out except some random dudes on the internet.

That's an exaggeration in many ways.

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?


I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

[mOgliE]

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

Sure. They can be wrong. But guess what? Most of the time peer review works so if nearly all of them say it is, then it probably is.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

You mean appart from the correlation between human activities, co2 lvl and temperature rise?

[Spendulus]

...

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

Lie.  I posted the resolution link.  I cannot click on it and read it for you.

Looks like he's right.

the Green New Deal calls for the entire country to be powered by renewable energy. While solar and wind energy are prominently featured, one power source is deliberately left out: nuclear.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/

[Spendulus]

.....

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?


I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

Since the 1980s, climate alarmist have been pushing a ten to fifteen year ultimatum. They don't stop, they just slide the Doom Year forward. But the Earth has done just fine.

[Carlton Banks]

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too.

Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[mOgliE]

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too.

Ok then my bad, as you didn't refer to anything in perticular I alligned your views on the others on this thread who mostly claim climate change isn't real. Hence I understood you were saying a debate about the existance of climate change.

Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.

The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.

[Spendulus]

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too.

Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

What happens is that someone like myself, who has read the IPCC reports and has access to the literature, immediately sees the lies propagated by alarmists who claim "Climate scientists SAY...."

They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.

[mOgliE]

They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.

Or maybe I just made a bad assumption of what he wanted to say, corrected myself and apologized when he explained his thoughts with more details?

You know it's not only people like you and TECSHARE here, some people are actually able to say "oh ok I misunderstood you I was wrong"...

[Spendulus]

They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.

Or maybe I just made a bad assumption of what he wanted to say, corrected myself and apologized when he explained his thoughts with more details?

You know it's not only people like you and TECSHARE here, some people are actually able to say "oh ok I misunderstood you I was wrong"...

I wasn't referring to you with the "They" in that statement. And yes it  is extremely easy to misunderstand with internet conversations.

But in general the mark of a scientific comment is measured preciseness, an attempt to say no more or no less than what is true.

By that standard we can note both climate alarmist and "denier" comments that fall short of the scientific standard. However they may fit within a political framework.

A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets.

[mOgliE]

A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets.

Hypocrisy of the ruling class is a completely different subject but I'm sure we can agree on it.

[Carlton Banks]

Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.

The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.

I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above.

[Spendulus]

Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.

The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.

I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above.

Consider the following. Suppose the West Antarctica Peninsula is structurally weak, and could break off, resulting in sea levels rising. Suppose further that this is argued to be  the result of recent AGW.

Should people then believe their leaders when they are told that only harsh taxes will solve the problem? When the politicians actually stand up and say they will roll the oceans back?

This planet is a big place with lots of surprises. We could have that peninsula fall off, we could have a super volcano erupt in Yellowstone, the West Coast of the USA could have the big earthquake, an asteroid could hit....

[eddie13]

Climate change is real. The climate has been changing constantly since the beginning of the earth.
Their have been ice ages and major changes in sea level in history. Deserts have become rainforests and rainforests have become deserts. Land has become ocean and barren tundra has become fertile land diverse with life.

Climate change is real and my problem with it only comes when you try to blame it on me, try to say it is my fault, and then punish or hurt me and my family over it..

[OgNasty]

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

Lie.  I posted the resolution link.  I cannot click on it and read it for you.

Seems like maybe you didn't read the Green New Deal and most definitely didn't read the now deleted FAQ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-excludes-nuclear-and-would-thus-increase-emissions-just-like-it-did-in-vermont/

The written statement distributed by the office of Ocasio-Cortez says "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."

[coins4commies]

The FAQ is not a piece of legislature. I made this point in OP.  There are a few details in the FAQ that are nowhere in the resolution.  Incidentally, these details are the entire focus of criticism against the resolution.  The faq must have been written by an aide and it seems as though it was just copied from the Green party/Jill Stein website. 

Nuclear is not part of the green new deal but it isn't "outlawed" as stated in this thread. The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years.  This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online.  We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power. 

[Spendulus]

... The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years.  This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online.  We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power. 

That all may change with thorium reactors.

And then there is the promise of fusion.

And then there are those who would create a new dark age.

[mOgliE]

That all may change with thorium reactors.

And then there is the promise of fusion.

And then there are those who would create a new dark age.

This is completely different. It's not because you want out of nuclear energy that you want out of nuclear RESEARCH.

Thorium aren't incredible, they're not a long term solution, but they're definitely an amazing innovation greatly enhancing the possibilities of old reactors. Especially in the waste disposal part ^^

Fusion would change everything. It's like discovering petrol again.
Fusion would mean no need for negative growth, no need to chose between green and consumation, no wars for at least 50 years.

Fusion is a singularity. It would basically mean free (or nearly free) energy without any pollution for all humanity.

I'm against nuclear energy but I'm all for funding fusion research as much as we can ^^

[Spendulus]

That all may change with thorium reactors.

And then there is the promise of fusion.

And then there are those who would create a new dark age.

This is completely different. It's not because you want out of nuclear energy that you want out of nuclear RESEARCH.

Thorium aren't incredible, they're not a long term solution, but they're definitely an amazing innovation greatly enhancing the possibilities of old reactors. Especially in the waste disposal part ^^

Fusion would change everything. It's like discovering petrol again.
Fusion would mean no need for negative growth, no need to chose between green and consumation, no wars for at least 50 years.

Fusion is a singularity. It would basically mean free (or nearly free) energy without any pollution for all humanity.

I'm against nuclear energy but I'm all for funding fusion research as much as we can ^^

So if we can survive the Potus singularity, the Green abyss, the AI singularity, then we have a home run with the fusion singularity?

[Quickseller]

Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.

[Spendulus]

Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.

Since the bill proposes to immediately cut deep into many sectors of the economy, what it actually represents is giving some group of government Overlords total control over those portions of the economy.

That's directly a totalitarian takeover.

Voting is probably usually based on the opportunities for graft. That's huge in this scheme but it's also huge as things are unchanged.

After such a bill is passed, what has occurred is a transfer of power. The original purported "green goals" are forgotten or just given lip service. All it was ever about was power.

[Flying Hellfish]

Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.

McConnell has already said he will be doing just this.

[squatz1]

Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.

McConnell has already said he will be doing just this.

Did he really?

WOW YOU'RE NOT LYING WHAT A TIMELINE - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/mitch-mcconnell-to-force-the-senate-to-vote-on-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal.html

This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.

[Flying Hellfish]

This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.

It's a big fat nothing burger as usual, do you really think McConnell invented show votes.  McConnell can't force anyone to vote on anything all he can do is bring it to the floor, since it won't pass the dems don't need to do ANYTHING.  The dems that don't want to be on the record either way will vote present (as GOP and dem senators have done many time in past show votes) or not show up to vote at all.  The ones that are looking to appeal to the progressive base will happily vote for it.

Ironically as usual Yurtle the Turtle has rallied against show votes when the dems have done them but of course when he thinks it will benefit him he is all about it!

Show votes are completely irrelevant and accomplish nothing but a waste of everyone's time and money.

[TECSHARE]

This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.

It's a big fat nothing burger as usual, do you really think McConnell invented show votes.  McConnell can't force anyone to vote on anything all he can do is bring it to the floor, since it won't pass the dems don't need to do ANYTHING.  The dems that don't want to be on the record either way will vote present (as GOP and dem senators have done many time in past show votes) or not show up to vote at all.  The ones that are looking to appeal to the progressive base will happily vote for it.

Ironically as usual Yurtle the Turtle has rallied against show votes when the dems have done them but of course when he thinks it will benefit him he is all about it!

Show votes are completely irrelevant and accomplish nothing but a waste of everyone's time and money.

Interesting that you care about our fiscal responsibility all of a sudden, especially since you don't pay taxes here. I wonder how much that witch hunt Russia probe cost.

[Spendulus]

This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.

It's a big fat nothing burger as usual....

So a vote on the GREEN NO BURGERS plan is a no burger?

[DireWolfM14]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it?  It isn't climate change, it's control.  Control not only of your modes of transportation, but also your thoughts.  They know they won't win a debate peddling a transparent socialist agenda.   So they attempt to peddle it to you hidden and obfuscated by legislating moral virtues.  The newspeak Green New Deal is nothing but a Red Old Scam.  

The climate control crowd are the modern day Nazis.  You can't challenge their "extensive research" without being dismissed as a backwoods, right wing conspiracy theorist.  It's ironic they claim to know so much about the climate, and postulate how they are so powerful that they can change the nature of the planet.  But they only demonstrate that human nature is nearly impossible to change.  

If you have it in you to see the big picture you can look at almost anything the left does, any action the left takes, and trace it directly back to the quest for the ultimate authoritarian one world government.

Try me.. I will show you..
I am curious to see any leftist policy that I can't relate to advancing their quest of an ultimate authoritarian one world government to gain ultimate power..

They don't have solutions to problems, they only want to beat you over the head with all the problems for which you're to blame.  That way they can justify taxing the shit out of you under the guise that will fix the problem.  But of course history demonstrates that only generates more problems...  For which, you're to blame.

  

[coins4commies]

Mcconnell's idea will backfire long term.  Calling a vote will thrust this even further into the conversation.  He thinks that will hurt the democrats but 81% of the population supports it.  This will result in people who have never voted showing up to vote for the candidates that support the green new deal.  Establishment "moderate" democrats in power will no longer be able to play both sides or dodge the issue.  Those Pelosi types will be pushed out  and replaced by a coalition of much more progressive justice democrats. AOC could be speaker as soon as 2021...

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

This is a mischaracterization.  Population is not an issue and depopulation is not achieved through genocide.  The problem with the environment is how the top 50% consume almost all of the natural resources.  Its a small amount of people causing all of the environmental harm and the population of this group is not actually increasing.

The other thing is that women without education and access to reproductive healthcare have a lot more children so providing those things to everyone is a right would be the easiest solution.

Its only people who want to avoid the inconvenience of cutting back consumption or spending money on education who even bring up "overpopulation"

That's an exaggeration in many ways.

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?


I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

You are taking the "scientists have been wrong in the past" and using it to justify your assumption that no only scientists are wrong in this case, but that the opposite is true.  Nothing is 100% certain in science but we still operate with it as "fact" because there is overwhelming evidence supporting it.

... The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years.  This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online.  We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power.  

That all may change with thorium reactors.

And then there is the promise of fusion.

And then there are those who would create a new dark age.

Fusion and thorium are also far into the future.

[Spendulus]

....
Fusion and thorium are also far into the future.

Thorium is today.

But we could use a crash 10 year program for nuclear.

[Spendulus]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it?  It isn't climate change, it's control.  Control not only of your modes of transportation, but also your thoughts.  They know they won't win a debate peddling a transparent socialist agenda.   So they attempt to peddle it to you hidden and obfuscated by legislating moral virtues.  The newspeak Green New Deal is nothing but a Red Old Scam.  ....

If you look at the proposed power structures only and ignore the nonsense, that's correct. The claim is "my way will save the planet so give me total control of the planet."

Yes, they think people are that stupid.

[Flying Hellfish]

The other thing is that women without education and access to reproductive healthcare have a lot more children so providing those things to everyone is a right would be the easiest solution.

I'll just leave this here for all to enjoy, as a wise man once said:


The green new deal has already brought the conversation right back into mainstream focus and like healthcare will help the GOP take another epic lose in 2020 like they did in 2018!

[TECSHARE]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

This is a mischaracterization.  Population is not an issue and depopulation is not achieved through genocide.  The problem with the environment is how the top 50% consume almost all of the natural resources.  Its a small amount of people causing all of the environmental harm and the population of this group is not actually increasing.

The other thing is that women without education and access to reproductive healthcare have a lot more children so providing those things to everyone is a right would be the easiest solution.

Its only people who want to avoid the inconvenience of cutting back consumption or spending money on education who even bring up "overpopulation"

Thanks for this reply as it is a great demonstration of how you don't actually read and absorb a premise, you just talk past people as if their sentences are just a bag of words for you to pick out and reply to in any order or context you choose to make it relevant to making your world view seem right.

First of all I never said I thought overpopulation was an issue. I said depopulation via genocide has happened before and could happen again. Now before the steam shoots out of your ears and you shift to your preprogrammed response go back and read what I just said again.

This is a fact. Again, this is a fact, not open for dispute. Also it is interesting that you mention women and consumption, because it seems the ones crying the loudest about these things are the biggest perpetrators of it. Women do something like 70%-80% of all the purchasing and consumption by dollar value. Perhaps they should be looking closer at their own habits then trying so hard to find scapegoats. This is just another case of wanting all the rights but shifting the responsibilities off to others...

[Spendulus]

The other thing is that women without education and access to reproductive healthcare have a lot more children so providing those things to everyone is a right would be the easiest solution.

I'll just leave this here for all to enjoy, as a wise man once said:
.....

The green new deal has already brought the conversation right back into mainstream focus and like healthcare will help the GOP take another epic lose in 2020 like they did in 2018!

Derail.

[DireWolfM14]

My son just showed this to me.  If it wasn't so true it would be hilarious.

[TECSHARE]

[mOgliE]

Thorium is today.

No.
Not at all.

Thorium is "not so far tomorrow normally".

Not today.

[mOgliE]

My son just showed this to me.  If it wasn't so true it would be hilarious.

Are you all "free citizen of the glorius America without too much government cause the Fathers were goddamn right about how horrible democracy is" even aware that normally government = citizens?

That's even the reason of your second amendment if you weren't such cowards...

[TECSHARE]

Thorium is today.

No.
Not at all.

Thorium is "not so far tomorrow normally".

Not today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Background_and_brief_history

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/06/130605-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-tennessee/

My son just showed this to me.  If it wasn't so true it would be hilarious.

Are you all "free citizen of the glorius America without too much government cause the Fathers were goddamn right about how horrible democracy is" even aware that normally government = citizens?

That's even the reason of your second amendment if you weren't such cowards...

That's funny. The government = citizens. That is the whole point of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, to make sure the people have equal POWER with the government. It very explicitly limits government power, and details birth rights the government can neither grant nor take away. What are you implying, unless we start a civil war against ourselves we are cowards? I am sure you are very hard core on the internet. Where are you from again? Lets talk about your nation.

[mOgliE]

Thorium is today.

No.
Not at all.

Thorium is "not so far tomorrow normally".

Not today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Background_and_brief_history

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/06/130605-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-tennessee/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

My son just showed this to me.  If it wasn't so true it would be hilarious.

Are you all "free citizen of the glorius America without too much government cause the Fathers were goddamn right about how horrible democracy is" even aware that normally government = citizens?

That's even the reason of your second amendment if you weren't such cowards...

That's funny. The government = citizens. That is the whole point of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, to make sure the people have equal POWER with the government. It very explicitly limits government power, and details birth rights the government can neither grant nor take away. What are you implying, unless we start a civil war against ourselves we are cowards? I am sure you are very hard core on the internet. Where are you from again? Lets talk about your nation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[TECSHARE]

Thorium is today.

No.
Not at all.

Thorium is "not so far tomorrow normally".

Not today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Background_and_brief_history

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/06/130605-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-tennessee/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

My son just showed this to me.  If it wasn't so true it would be hilarious.

Are you all "free citizen of the glorius America without too much government cause the Fathers were goddamn right about how horrible democracy is" even aware that normally government = citizens?

That's even the reason of your second amendment if you weren't such cowards...

That's funny. The government = citizens. That is the whole point of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, to make sure the people have equal POWER with the government. It very explicitly limits government power, and details birth rights the government can neither grant nor take away. What are you implying, unless we start a civil war against ourselves we are cowards? I am sure you are very hard core on the internet. Where are you from again? Lets talk about your nation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

BWAHAHA now you care about logical fallacies do you? That wasn't an argument, that was literally me just asking you what nation you are from. You seem to purposely obfuscate it while constantly criticizing other nations. I am curious.

Also what does that have to do with the fact that thorium reactors are not future technology?

[mOgliE]

BWAHAHA now you care about logical fallacies do you? That wasn't an argument, that was literally me just asking you what nation you are from. You seem to purposely obfuscate it while constantly criticizing other nations. I am curious.

Absolutely not, I'm criticizing the bizarre state of mind of American patriot who want so much to act like the "funding fathers" wanted them to while not doing what they really did.

France if your question has any interest.

Also what does that have to do with the fact that thorium reactors are not future technology?

Well it was probably not clear but as your answer were just 2 Wikipedia links I acted the same.

Thorium aren't future technology indeed. But when you say Thorium reactors, 98% of the time you in fact mean either subcritical reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_subcritical_reactor) which are still in research or molten salt reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) which are in the end of research cycle but still not operationnal.

Anyone saying Thorium reactors refers to those 2 because those are the 2 reactors supposed to bring nuclear energy to the next level.

Coin4commies clearly talked about those 2 types of reactors saying that Thorium and fusion are future...

[TECSHARE]

BWAHAHA now you care about logical fallacies do you? That wasn't an argument, that was literally me just asking you what nation you are from. You seem to purposely obfuscate it while constantly criticizing other nations. I am curious.

Absolutely not, I'm criticizing the bizarre state of mind of American patriot who want so much to act like the "funding fathers" wanted them to while not doing what they really did.

France if your question has any interest.

Also what does that have to do with the fact that thorium reactors are not future technology?

Well it was probably not clear but as your answer were just 2 Wikipedia links I acted the same.

Thorium aren't future technology indeed. But when you say Thorium reactors, 98% of the time you in fact mean either subcritical reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_subcritical_reactor) which are still in research or molten salt reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) which are in the end of research cycle but still not operationnal.

Anyone saying Thorium reactors refers to those 2 because those are the 2 reactors supposed to bring nuclear energy to the next level.

Coin4commies clearly talked about those 2 types of reactors saying that Thorium and fusion are future...

Do you mind rephrasing that first statement again, only this time with a clear premise.

Oh I see, since what he was talking about was not what you were thinking about, you aren't wrong then huh? Coin4commies is not an expert on anything except Critical Theory, so sorry if I missed his expert review.

[Spendulus]

BWAHAHA now you care about logical fallacies do you? That wasn't an argument, that was literally me just asking you what nation you are from. You seem to purposely obfuscate it while constantly criticizing other nations. I am curious.

Absolutely not, I'm criticizing the bizarre state of mind of American patriot who want so much to act like the "funding fathers" wanted them to while not doing what they really did.

France if your question has any interest.

Also what does that have to do with the fact that thorium reactors are not future technology?

Well it was probably not clear but as your answer were just 2 Wikipedia links I acted the same.

Thorium aren't future technology indeed. But when you say Thorium reactors, 98% of the time you in fact mean either subcritical reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_subcritical_reactor) which are still in research or molten salt reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) which are in the end of research cycle but still not operationnal.
....

Leaving nit picking aside I'd absolutely love to see a ten year crash program to bring molten salt reactors operational. So would a whole lot of other people.

[mOgliE]

Do you mind rephrasing that first statement again, only this time with a clear premise.

Oh I see, since what he was talking about was not what you were thinking about, you aren't wrong then huh? Coin4commies is not an expert on anything except Critical Theory, so sorry if I missed his expert review.

Your argument is incredibly ridiculous considering the fact that if you take "thorium reactor" in its broad definition, it' live since half of the 20th century. It's completely obvious that he wasn't referring to those old technologies otherwise his post makes no sense at all... We're talking fututistic technologies here, trying to say "hmm when you say thorium reactors you refer to 60 old reactors" is either a misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge (which is fine and needs explanations) or complete bad faith. Which side are you on?

For the first statement:
-I'm not criticizing America in itself which would make no sense considering the size and diversity of the country
-I'm criticizing American patriots who seem so afraid of their government and are so fond of their funding fathers and their constitution while not using the it like their funding fathers did.

Clearer now?

Leaving nit picking aside I'd absolutely love to see a ten year crash program to bring molten salt reactors operational. So would a whole lot of other people.

You were the one nit picking.

And there is no way a ten year program can lead to a guaranteed success in such complex field. A ten year crash program is completely stupid. That's basically saying "ok guys, scientists are going to find this revolutionnary tech in 10 years I'm confident, let's stop everything as we won't need it once they found the answer".

Subsidize research. A lot. Once the tech is mastered, crash all the old reactors.

[Spendulus]

....

And there is no way a ten year program can lead to a guaranteed success in such complex field. A ten year crash program is completely stupid. That's basically saying "ok guys, scientists are going to find this revolutionnary tech in 10 years I'm confident, let's stop everything as we won't need it once they found the answer".

Subsidize research. A lot. Once the tech is mastered, crash all the old reactors.

Well if I agree with you, then we agree that the "Green new deal 10 year crash program" is also completely stupid.

I think I'll agree with you.

[mOgliE]

Well if I agree with you, then we agree that the "Green new deal 10 year crash program" is also completely stupid.

I think I'll agree with you.

Can't say, haven't read it.

But if it somehow implies that you will shut down your reactors BEFORE finishing the research, that's the dumbest idea I've heard coming from anyone else than TECSHARE for a looooooong time.

[TECSHARE]

Do you mind rephrasing that first statement again, only this time with a clear premise.

Oh I see, since what he was talking about was not what you were thinking about, you aren't wrong then huh? Coin4commies is not an expert on anything except Critical Theory, so sorry if I missed his expert review.

Your argument is incredibly ridiculous considering the fact that if you take "thorium reactor" in its broad definition, it' live since half of the 20th century. It's completely obvious that he wasn't referring to those old technologies otherwise his post makes no sense at all... We're talking fututistic technologies here, trying to say "hmm when you say thorium reactors you refer to 60 old reactors" is either a misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge (which is fine and needs explanations) or complete bad faith. Which side are you on?

For the first statement:
-I'm not criticizing America in itself which would make no sense considering the size and diversity of the country
-I'm criticizing American patriots who seem so afraid of their government and are so fond of their funding fathers and their constitution while not using the it like their funding fathers did.

Clearer now?

Yeah except its really not future technology in spite of your relativism and demands he must be speaking of the very specific type of model you were thinking of in your head but only later mentioned when called out on it then and insisted this could be the only way.

It is kind of hard to use the government in the same way... when the government is no where near the same thing so. Cool story bro. Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?

[Spendulus]

Well if I agree with you, then we agree that the "Green new deal 10 year crash program" is also completely stupid.

I think I'll agree with you.

Can't say, haven't read it.

But if it somehow implies that you will shut down your reactors BEFORE finishing the research, that's the dumbest idea I've heard coming from anyone else than TECSHARE for a looooooong time.

Yes you've just heard the dumbest idea you'll hear in a long time. Not worth reading the stupid thing. See, somehow in the USA green libtards are all anti-nuclear, which one of the few redeeming things about France, is that France is pro-nuclear.

Here, they'll lie and duck and dodge about the matter, but it's basically just plain true to say Green == anti-nuclear. Side note: I always have suspected that was due to back door funding of our Dems from Saudi oil interests, since it was rational that to the extent America went off nuclear, we went on oil ( eg Saudi oil).

[coins4commies]

The reason is because the way the litigation works in this country it takes 40 years to put a new nuclear plant online.  We don't have a system in place to move waste around long distances nor do we have reprocessing infrastructure.  Fossil fuel people push for nuclear as green energy, not because they want nuclear, but because they know it will buy them several more decades of fossil fuel burning.

We can't afford any more delay.  WE have to take a path we a certain will get us where we are going in 10-15 years. The obama type liberals already waste too much time on slow drip progress.