Joe Biden

Biden's New Green New Deal Is the Same as the Old Green New Deal

It's uncanny how solving climate change just happens to require the progressives' longstanding economic agenda.


Although he doesn't call it that, Joe Biden, the presumptive 2020 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, rolled out his version of the Green New Deal during a Tuesday speech on how his administration would handle man-made climate change. Biden's "plan for a clean energy revolution and environmental justice" incorporates most of the environmental and economic policies outlined in previous Green New Deal proposals.

Take the Green New Deal resolution introduced last year by Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.). While somewhat vaguely aspirational, this aims to commit the U.S. to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, to creating millions of unionized jobs, to investing much more in clean infrastructure and industry, to hugely expanding public transit and high-speed rail, and to greatly increasing federal support for research and development in no-carbon energy generation. In June 2019, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez estimated that the Green New Deal would cost $10 trillion.

The left-wing think thank Data for Progress outlined a more concrete Green New Deal vision in 2018. It aims to get the U.S. to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035, shuttering all natural gas and coal-fired generation plants in the process. All fossil fuel emissions would be ended by 2050; all new passenger automobiles for sale by 2030 would be zero-emissions vehicles; and all vehicles, railways, and aviation would be totally fossil-fuel-free by 2050.

In June 2020, the congressional Democrats released the Solving the Climate Crisis report, which outlines their "action plan for a clean energy economy." This plan has a goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the United States by 2050. To that end, it calls for mandating net-zero emissions from the electric power generation sector by 2040. It wants all cars sold after 2035 to be zero-emissions, and it wants a national network of electric car charging stations. The plan would also double federal spending on public transit. All existing buildings would be retrofitted to reduce emissions, and all new residential and commercial buildings would have to be net-zero-emission by 2030. The plan also urges Congress to secure workers' right to organize a union and negotiate for higher wages, safer working conditions, and better benefits. And it calls for Congress to reestablish the Civilian Conservation Corps and to create a Climate Resilience Service Corps that would engage in such efforts as reforestation and remediating abandoned mines and oil wells.

In his climate speech this week, Biden declared that "we have nine years before the damage is irreversible." This dire forecast seems to be an update of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez' claim that "we've got 12 years to turn it around." Both politicians are misrepresenting the findings of a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which concluded that humanity should cut global carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 to have a good chance of limiting future average warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Climate damages do become worse as average temperature rises, but there is no cliff of catastrophe that humanity runs off if the global average temperature increase exceeds 1.5 degrees. "Climate change is a problem of degrees, not thresholds," tweeted the Breakthrough Institute climate researcher Zeke Hausfather. "The world doesn't end if we don't limit temperatures to some arbitrary threshold like 1.5C, but at the same time the longer we delay mitigation the worse the problem gets."

Biden's clean energy plan is basically a rehash of the earlier Green New Deal proposals. For example, Biden's plan promises that all American electricity generation would be carbon-free by 2035 and the entire economy would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050. While Biden does not set a firm date for phasing out the sale of fossil-fueled vehicles, he vows to replace the three million vehicles in the federal fleet with zero-emissions automobiles and trucks, build 500,000 electric charging stations around the country, and offer cars-for-clunkers-type incentives for people to trade in their gas- and diesel-powered cars for electric automobiles.

Biden also plans to incentivize and subsidize the retrofit of energy efficiency features in 4 million buildings and weatherize 2 million homes over 4 years. This will supposedly create a million jobs. All new commercial buildings would have to meet a net-zero-emissions standard by 2030. Biden would also subsidize the construction of 1.5 million energy-efficient homes and public housing units, and he wants to give every American city with 100,000 or more residents high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options by 2030. He would also "spark the second great railroad revolution" by making sure that America has "the cleanest, safest, and fastest rail system in the world." Biden promises to mobilize conservation and resilience workers through a Civilian Climate Corps that would, among other things, help to plug abandoned oil and gas wells and to restore and reclaim abandoned coal and hard rock mines.

A constant refrain in Biden's plan is that all the jobs it will create will be "good union jobs." The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act is integral to his climate plan. The PRO Act, Biden asserts, will make it easier for workers to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employers by implementing card check, union, and bargaining rights for public service workers. It would also classify gig economy workers as company employees, and it would ban all right-to-work laws in the 27 states that currently have them.

Biden says that his plan would cost $2 trillion over the next four years. This is a substantial increase over his original climate and clean energy plan, which was estimated to cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years. If that rate of expenditure is sustained through 2030, Biden's Green New Deal would cost $5 trillion, instead of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez' estimate of $10 trillion. Why the faster timeline and the jump in costs? Because, Biden declared, "We're going to lock in progress that no future president can roll back or under cut to take us backward again."

Scanning through the plans proposed by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, the Solving the Climate Crisis report, and now Biden, it's uncanny how fixing the problems associated with man-made climate change just happen to coincide with the exact same economic policies long advocated by political progressives.

Unabated man-made climate change will likely to become a significant problem for humanity as the century advances. But instead of the Green New Deal's top-down, centralized, command-and-control approach, the best policies to deal with climate change are those that encourage rapid economic growth, thus endowing future generations with the wealth and superior technologies that would enable them to handle whatever comes at them.

NEXT: Goya Boycott: Everything Is Political Now

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Biden confusing degrees with thresholds is something less of a sin than denying the problem exists at all because your dumb boutique political philosophy can't account for environmental damage.

    1. There is much Biden is confused about. What state he's in, the office he's running for, and why he had Stacy Abrams invited to MSNBC.

      1. The guy's 16 points ahead without leaving his basement. If his crew has any sense, they'd keep him there until November.

        1. You know who else was 16 points ahead in the run-up to the election?

          1. Trump's most important accomplishment.

            1. Keeping Hillary out of the white house will probably be the greatest accomplishment of his life.

              1. A month back. I was like a Beggar asking everyone for money and shelter, But a really nice man introduced me to the best on-line work . This work needs no special skills . Everyone starts without investment.GCd Now I am able to earn $996/day and $12k/month easy and non-stoppable money . It helps lots financially .Everybody must try this Visit for Details.

                ════════════► Home Profit System

            2. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY... MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE► Full Detail Here.

          2. 1964 Phillies

          3. Dewey?

          4. Nothing new, just a regular politics...

        2. I'm not backing any of the "conspiracy" claims about the lockdowns being politically motivated, but having them end before November is possibly the worst thing that could happen to Biden. If he loses a credible reason for avoiding the kinds of public appearances that would put him in a position to have to think/talk on his feet, it'll be harder to keep people from noticing that he'd be going into the office at possible a cognitive level on par with how Reagan left it; there's probably not much that the trump campaign could do that would hurt Joe Biden more than people witnessing Biden speaking live and off the cuff at a campaign event could.

          I recently heard an interesting summary of the 2020 race as being between "the candidate who can't talk and the one who shouldn't talk". Getting past the 2-party reductionist take might lead to adding a caveat of "and several who won't be allowed to talk"...

        3. If the nation has any sense the voters will keep him there afterwards.

    2. Who are you talking to?

      The debate isn't so much about whether climate change is real. It clearly is, but about what can or should be done about it. It is not obvious that the proposed solutions will be particularly effective, or that the money couldn't be used in a more effective way to mitigate the effects of climate change, which happens with or without people contributing to it.

      1. We can probably exert more influence on continental drift.

      2. Or if it's a major problem. Or if it's a problem at all.

      3. Zeb
        July.16.2020 at 3:41 pm
        "Who are you talking to?
        The debate isn’t so much about whether climate change is real. It clearly is, but about what can or should be done about it..."

        As far as Tony has a thought process, if you do not agree that only a massive government take-over of the economy is the ONLY possible solution to what might not even be a problem, you are a DENIER!

      4. I would suggest that if you want your policy approaches to be taken more seriously, you purge your ranks of science deniers.

        1. Considering your unscientific take on nuclear power and the fact that your solutions are actually opposed to what the science actually suggests (e.g. nuclear being the best option) I would call others science deniers if I were you.

          1. Now do fracking, GMO foods, vaccines, sonograms, ...

    3. Toady, no one is denying a problem. The only disagreement is what the problem is.

      Your team relies on a dubious 97% "scientific" consensus backed up by the paranoid rantings of a mentally impaired teenage highschool dropout to claim some "crisis" exists.

      You're goddamn right a crisis exists; it's this, nature is hostile to the existence of life on this planet. And we need stupendous amounts of science and technology to make the place even moderately liveable for the mass of humans that call it home.

      Catastrophic events have occured with unpredictable regularity throughout the existence of this tiny rock we affectionately call Mother Earth throughout the history since some of the products of the big bang first started to coalesce into this lovely planet of ours.

      Every year since before humans even existed horrendous storms that we now call "hurricanes" formed in the North Atlantic tropics, the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico. Some blew themselves out in the middle of the vast ocean and were only seen by man when he first ventured forth on ships to find what lay beyond the horizon. These storms had existed for millennia before men did such things and will probably exist long after we cease to exist her. Others lashed the coasts of the continents that bordered the vast Oceans and they caused immense loss of life and destruction.

      1. All of a sudden there are some people who claim these storms are worse and/or more numerous because of "climate change". The problem for these people is that other people who have actually made the study of these storms a specialty say that this is nonsense. Within recorded history of the European occupation of the east coast and gulf coasts of North America many storms causing considerably more loss of life and property damage than Katrina or "superstorm" (a made up designation for a fairly common event) Sandy. A relatively quick check of the historical record will confirm this.

        Another thing, coastal erosion due simply to the regular ebb and flow of the tides and aggravated by the many storms that strike the coasts has been happening forever. coastal islands ar wiped away and reformed somewhere else. Historically ignorant people call this "seal level rise" in spite of the fact that sea levels have actual stayed constant since, well, just about forever.

        So, Toady, just keep pretending that your crisis is real. Some of us know that the real problem is making sure that people have the means to survive in the face of a planet that is hostile to their existence rather that to gloom and doom being peddled in the reports of the english and soc/psych majors who make up the staff who write executive summaries for the IPCC that journalism majors further distort when reporting this stuff to the public.

        1. All of a sudden there are some people who claim these storms are worse and/or more numerous because of “climate change”.

          And the reasons are the same that people from 200 years ago thought we'd reached the Biblical end times. There's a bad storm and an earthquake in the same month! This is God's vengeance, and the four horsemen are riding. We must hurriedly repent our sins, for the children.

          1. They said the same thing about a smallpox epidemic in Boston at that time, as they surely would say about COVID today. Funny thing is that the new prog puritans who love to say that SCIENCE has all the answers can’t really say much about COVID other than “wear a mask!”. Because the scientists don’t really have a fucking clue about it.

      2. So, that was life in the "old days".

      3. nature is hostile to the existence of life on this planet

        Almost all of nature is hostile to life, but this planet is an exception.

        1. No, on this planet nature is hostile to life, on other planets life is for all practical purposes impossible.

          On our planet, Earth, life requires a constant struggle to be possible. It requires advanced technology to be any where near as comfortable as the conditions we live under today.

          On other planets, it would take advanced technology to be anything close to possible. There is some doubt as to whether any such technology actually exists.

          1. So you favor strong intervention to deal with climate change.

            1. If climate change hadn't killed the dinosaurs we wouldn't exist.

              1. Yep.

            2. No, what you cal "climate change" is what I call this planet's natural hostility to life.

              What I am advocating is continuing humanity's natural struggle through intellectual and physical effort to survive.

              If you had paid any attention to anything I have written you would understand that what you call "climate change: is nothing but natural forces that existed long before humans ever showed up on this fragile little rock.

              But you continue to display your contempt for the individual initiative and creativity of ordinary people to survive on this hostile planet and tell us that we should instead rely on your idols Caesar, Ghengis, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et al to plan our futures for us in spite of all of their records of destruction and genocide.

              You have nothing to offer for the advancement of humanity, that is why I write your name as though I have a cold. You make me sick as do all of your ilk who think you have a right to rule over us.

              1. That’s because Tony is a science AND history denier.

          2. That's not true. Pretty much anywhere there's liquid water life will arise. There's probably life on the moons of Saturn.

            1. Sure, but not the level that we see on our planet.

              Call me an Earth chauvinist. I am here to say that no life akin to humanity exists anywhere in this solar system. Indeed call me a human chauvinist. This does not mean that I do not think there are no ethical limits to how we treat other species on our own or other planets. How we perceive our ethical relationship with every being and indeed everything on our world and our universe is a matter for constant intelectual examination and may indeed be in a constant (indeed the only constant) state of change.

              You can always change my mind with a convincing argument. And by an argument I mean a presentation of your evidence, not your raising your voice to drown out everyone else's,

              1. OK, I take some of that back.

                When I said "On other planets, it would take advanced technology to be anything close to possible. There is some doubt as to whether any such technology actually exists" I meant, of course, anything resembling the development of what we (and by "we" I mean human chauvinists like myself).

                I realize that on other planets and their satellites in this solar system their may be forms of life, but I doubt that any of them are at anything like the level of development as homo sapiens on this our beloved earth. Furthermore I doubt that there is any life that approaches anything like the cutest, cuddliest creature we have here let alone the most fearsome predators or anything in between.

                But what do I know. I am just an unreconstructed earthling human chauvinist.

                1. Isaac Bartram is Ken Schultz on drugs.

    4. Was it Reagan's dumbing-down of our schools which caused this great ignorance of science in the US?

      I earned a Master of Science in this field in 1982, when folk were still taking the hard courses and changing things not sitting and griping. You are all posturing about a complex topic in which you have no education, no matter what you want to think.

      This is real. Look up ocean acidification for one of the problems.

      1. It's not the environmental developments so much as the hysterical doomerism and data massaging, such as Mann's hockey stick, that led to this skepticism.

        Scientists are not gods, and we don't have to take everything they preach to us as the pure, distilled Truth.

        1. It’s not the environmental developments so much as the hysterical doomerism and data massaging, such as Mann’s hockey stick, that led to this skepticism.

          Horseshit. What led to the denialism - not skepticism - is that the science raises a question that we don't want to think about. That combusting oil has negative consequences

          The US rose to global dominance for one reason - we controlled oil.
          We controlled the production directly for a long while. Then controlled the production by proxy for a long while - with all that involves - overthrowing govts, installing puppets, fomenting revolution, etc. And since we began to lose control of that production by proxy, we've controlled the purchase - which is why the dollar is the reserve currency and bluntly why the rest of the world is willing to speak English to conduct business.
          Our system of mass production started with the car - and everything about our American version of capitalism flows from that.
          We changed where we live relative to where we work - and our entire lifestyles - because we were able to control oil
          We fought wars and Americans died to maintain that control. We used oil as a weapon to force enemies to submit to our will.

          We Americans can no longer imagine a world where oil is not the dominant form of energy and where we do not control the world via our control of that energy. Other superpowers have found ways to persist beyond whatever factor may have made them dominant. To use the strengths of one period to transition to the next. America will not be that. The end of oil dominance is the end of our power. And what then?

          THAT is why you deny.

          1. Yes, that is all we talked about growing up in the 70s, our control of oil...

            1. And since we began to lose control of that production by proxy, we’ve controlled the purchase

          2. Alrighty then.

      2. So you earned a Master of Science in this field in 1982. That must have been not to long after this:

        The plain fact is that the whole "global warming/climate change" debacle stated because the British Tories wanted to destroy the Miner's Union and promote subsidies for Nuclear Power and promoted Margaret Thatcher and her scientific credentials to do it.

        I don't recall any "Reagan’s dumbing-down of our schools..", I do recall a constant infantilizing of America's, and other country's, children by the left since then.

        1. Yeah, Reagan and his allies in all the teachers' unions.

      3. So, we destroyed in 100 years what took many hundreds of millions of years to build?

        1. We didn't destroy anything. Give Shellenberger a read. He threw away his entire career because he couldn't take the ecofascist bullshit any more. That took balls. Has Ron not heard about this guy? The degree to which humans influence the climate, and if there is anything whatsoever to do about it, is very much up for grabs, but probably more on the side of "it's just gonna happen whether we like it or not, so get ready." Suggest redirecting funds for potential after effect mitigation rather than wasting it on whatever green crap du jour. Cause we ain't stopping it.
          Remember when the planet was supposed to freeze by 2000 and we had to have population control right away or it would be a catastrophe? 1970 Erlich right?

          1. Shellenberger appears to be pretty much on the same page a Ron Bailey.

            Climate change due to man made CO2 emissions is a thing but it is nowhere near the apocalypse that the green/left says it is. The remedies proposed are simply too costly and destructive of the wealth that is needed to deal with humanity's problems.

            Shellenberger still believes that government action, spending, planning and taxation are necessary to deal with human needs he just doesn't think we should destroy the world's economy to do it.

            We can still disagree with him but he is not the same enemy that the hard Green/Left alliance is.

            1. Climate change due to man made CO2 emissions is a thing but it is nowhere near the apocalypse that the green/left says it is.

              This all day. Hell, it could even be beneficial. Before the industrial revolution CO2 levels were dangerously low.

              1. Good point.

      4. Was it Reagan’s dumbing-down of our schools which caused this great ignorance of science in the US?

        Please explain how a President has control over the thousands School Systems in this country. Please explain when local School Boards ceded their control to the President.

        1. That and 'ocean acidification' mark him as an idiot. The idea that small changes in the composition of the atmosphere could exert any significant impact on a liquid body orders of magnitude larger, and also heavily buffered says he got that degree from a box of crackerjack.

      5. Was it Reagan’s dumbing-down of our schools which caused this great ignorance of science in the US?

        No, it was The Long March on the Institutions that started in the 60s.

      6. Yes, Reagan was in charge of the Teachers Unions and textbook publishers. That darn Reagan

    5. First, Brain-Damaged Biden was MBNA's bitch as a Senator. Now, BDB has become AOC's bitch as a POTUS candidate. Some things never do change.

    6. Global warming's gonna kill all life, even single-cellular, huh Tony? Isn't what that nice NPR reporter told you during your daily science belief session?

      1. You forgot to capitalize Science.

        1. Oh, right. Lower-casing "science" is something a science heretic would do.

          I will self-flagellate with 14 hours of Bill Nye, followed by 2 weeks of fervid "All Things (communist) Considered" listening.

      2. Well, since it was 40 degrees hotter when life first crawled out of the oceans, I'd say we have quite a ways to go.

        There were no polar ice caps on this planet for almost all of its existence. Except complete coverage in ice 680 million years ago

    7. Because in Libertopia electricity comes from thorium nuclear reactors and stored in graphene batteries for use so it's not a problem.

      1. Odd, since when I visit libertopia it’s a nightmarish hellscape.

        1. I'm sure it is for you.

          1. Toady can't stand the idea of a world where "his people" aren't in charge.

            Since Toady has previously stated that he lives comfortably with a trust fund I can only assume that "his people" are fellow trust fund holders.

            Likely he has no idea how people who actually have to work for a living actually live.

            And contrary what he and other people like him say most of us who actually work or run small businesses actually have a much better idea how people who have less live because more of us have actually bee there.

      2. I like that idea.

    8. Of course the climate changes you blithering faggot. It just isn’t driven by human activity.

    9. This content is very helpful and the generic Academic Writing Service is the best platform for completing assignments. This online portal is very effective and provides quality reports at low prices. This is the place where experts mainly focus on the content quality rather than just providing the paraphrased content with quantity.

    10. I have made 96,760 Buck just last month by working online from my home. I am a full time college student and just doing this in my free time for few hours per week by using my laptop.Everyone can check this out and start making cash online in a very easy way by just following instructions…....COPY This Website....HERE══════►►►  Read more  

    1. Sorry bud, it’s already settled.

      1. Just vortex it for about 30s, it'll go back into suspension.

      2. Damn right it's been settled.
        Just ask those two scientific brains, Al Gore or Queen Greta the Terrible.

  2. Climate science demands single payer healthcare.
    Public health science demands the left can protest but everyone else has to stay home.
    Education experts say we cannot open the schools without defunding the police and establishing a 1% wealth tax.

    If you smell a rat, you are a science denier.

    1. ‘It’s NOT just about a mask!’ Conservative woman takes Lefty talking points about how ‘it’s just a mask’ apart in EPIC thread

      1. It’s just a mask. It’s just six feet. It’s just two weeks. It’s just for non essential businesses. It’s just for non essential employees. It’s just a bar. It’s just a restaurant. It's just a salon. It's just to not overwhelm hospitals. It’s just until the cases go down.

        It’s just to flatten the curve. It’s just a few inmates. It’s just to keep others from being infected. It's just a few more weeks. It’s just church. It’s just until we get a vaccine. It’s just an app. It’s just for tracing. It’s just to let people know you have no temperature.
        It’s just so others know who you’ve been in contact with. It’s just a few more months. It’s just a few more inmates. It's just for large gatherings. It's just until the clinical trials are complete.

        It’s just an account. It's just to prevent hateful speech.
        It's just to stop hateful content. It's just to prevent false political stories. It’s just a peaceful protest. It's just to punish bad cops. It's just a statue. It's just a monument. It's just some graffiti. It's just them doing what they do. It's just their freedom of speech.

        It's just their freedom of expression. It's just to show solidarity. It's just a few sqaure blocks. It's just a curfew. It's just an anthem. It's just a flag. It's just a football game. It's just to protect the children. It's just a little fine. It's just to prevent a spike.

        It's just to achieve distancing. It's just some skewed statistics. It's just a few places that won't take currency. It's just so people can safely vote. It's just a debate. It's just a few gaffes. It's just to protect his son. It's just a veiled threat. It's just a radio show.
        It's just a White House meeting. It just slipped his mind. It's just a change in beliefs. It's just a clump of cells. It's just for choice. It's just a false story. It's just until proof is shown. It's just for 2 years until after he retires. It's just a movie.

        It's just a TV show. It's just a Chrismas song. It's just a textbook. It's just a slave owner. It's just a founding father. It's just an outdated amendment. It's just the electoral college. It's just petroleum products. It's just fracking. It's just innocents seeking asylum.
        It's just a border. It's just a mean spirited tyrant building a wall. It's just educational opportunities for impoverished minorities. It's just the underprivileged feeling frustrated. It's just shoplifting to feed their family..

        Do you see how it's NOT just about a mask ???

        1. It's just until Nov.4th...assuming Joe wins.

          1. With hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, it will take waaaay beyond Nov. 4th to determine a winner!

        2. It's just a wood chipper

        3. It's about America becoming a Chinese puppet state. That's what it's about. The dems would be endlessly orgasming over a dem win in November (or December or January in counting the fake ballots).

    2. I'm so sick of people saying that "the science" tells us what we must do. That is not something science does. Anything that climate science suggests might help is a hypothesis that has not yet been tested. And if the test is throwing trillions of dollars into subsidies and incentives, I'm pretty sure human welbeing could be improved in bigger ways by doing something else with that money (preferably allowing people to make their own choices about what's important).

      1. I’m so sick of people saying that “the science” tells us what we must do.

        People who constantly shout that believe in scientism, not science.

        1. Exactly. There is no “The Science”.

        2. Yes, and when they call you a denier know what they really mean is heretic.

      2. Too bad Lalalalalala I can't hear you Lalalalalala isn't considered science. If it was, we might actually be currently having a 'scientific debate' about climate change.

        1. We're not having a debate about "Climate Change" because one side has already declared victory.

          The science is settled. Except, it isn't. Science is never settled.

          1. Every month I read new "science theories" of how the universe was formed. It's "hilarious science".

          2. I have no truck with climate change, any more than I dispute there is a fossil record, or geologic processes. But that is not what we are discussing when the usual suspects proclaim the need to do something about climate change.

            That is an exercise in question begging.

        2. What's this "Lalalalalala I can’t hear you" bullshit?

          You're the one's who don't want a debate about "climate change."

          You're the one's who are declaring victory that the "science is settled" while there are many, many highly respected and highly credentialed academics who are questioning your "science" and proving that your 97% agree is a myth.

          You are the ones closing your eyes and holding you hands over your ears and crying "Lalalalalala I can’t hear you".

    3. De Blasio to Replace NYC Schools with 'Public Childcare Program'

      Okay, here’s a question: If sending your kid to school is too dangerous right now because it’s a public place where a bunch of people are all gathered together and the virus can spread, then… why isn’t a community center or a library full of people also dangerous? Is the virus going to stay out of the building because there’s no “SCHOOL” sign out front? Are you just going to call the place a “virus-free zone” and hope the deadly microbe gets the message?

      1. No wonder de Blasio wants people to wear masks: it's so he doesn't see all the bitter incredulous laughter.

      2. virus -free-zone works just as well as gun free zones

      3. It is not wise to question Kommissar De Blasio's edicts.
        Such doubts will land you in the gulag in the south Bronx.
        This is you're official Party warning.

    4. If you smell a rat, you have your nose in the wrong place.

      1. "We've always been at war with Eastasia."

  3. Biden says that his plan would cost $2 trillion over the next four years.

    So even less than the Trump Welfare and Virus Panic Act of 2020.

    What a deal!

    1. He ran it right past Nancy's veto too.


        I know because I've been told Trump is an uber-libertarian who would never blow close to $3 trillion on a stimulus handout welfare giveaway!

        1. Well, not without Nancy signing off on it at least.

          1. Why not blame Mitch too?

            Oh, because Republicans don't waste trillions?

            Sorry, forgot that I was on

            All Nancy's fault - got it.

            1. Why not blame Mitch too?

              Where does spending originate?

              That's why.

              1. The Senate could have killed that spending bill if Republicans weren't lying scumbag hypocrites that love Big Government.

                Democrats are just Big Gov scumbags. They don't lie about it.

                1. So it's not Nancy's fault because she handed it to her ideological enemies and they didn't kill it.

                  Got it.

                  1. Hey he forgot to pathetically deny this one lets see if he catches it.

              2. I didn't make this comment.

                1. No one cares.

            2. Those dastardly Democrats, they tricked Republicans into spending like drunken sailors *yet again*.

              1. Yeah if only the held the purse.


              2. No, drunken sailors are spending their own money.

              3. So o blame for Nancy jeff? That's what you're going with. Again. Media matters troll.

              4. Both Team Red and Team Blue are responsible for spending. Get it now?

                1. Yes, you have no actual value to the discussion. You think you are sanctimonious, but the real issue is you're simply an idiot.

            3. Why don't you and Tony get a room somewhere and leave the rest of us out of your mutual jerkoff?

          2. So you and Kiddie Raper are pals now? Yeah, you probablyly crave young boy flash too.

        2. 07/17/2019-6:57pm House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 419 - 6 (Roll no. 493). (text: CR H5958-5959)

          Passed Senate, under the order of 3/25/20, having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 0. Record Vote Number: 80.

          I too wonder why Trump didn't veto.

          1. Why did you dig Hugh up, Tulpa?

            You Trump Trash already ran him off.

            1. Wasn't me.

              Buy today we discovered that Hugh Akston is one of shreeks old socks.

              1. No, Hugh was polite by this board's standards. No one ever called me polite.

                Once Hugh strayed from his usual snarky attempts at humor and got into some politics and the Trump Trash piled on him like hyenas devouring a gazelle. You fucking Peanut-ass little Trumplings won't get to the Buttplug like that.

                1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug
                  July.16.2020 at 4:16 pm
                  No, Hugh was polite

                  And if we weren't sure he was your sock before, that seals it.

                2. I’ll ask again. Please stop calling people peanuts. It’s very creepy coming from someone who links to kiddie porn.

                3. I expect law enforcement will get you, or maybe the father of one of your young sodomy victims.

                  I seriously hope they kill you.

              2. As usual Tulpa, your threshold for knowledge is hilariously low.

                Accept only genuine Hugh Akston™ comments.

                1. But Tulpa was right I am also Palin's Buttplug. Just look at how I magically appeared and how SPB knew.

                  1. I didn't make this comment.

                    1. Am I seriosuly watching a grown man come from another website to defend the honor of a name that he stole
                      from Ayn Rand?

                2. Hi screech

                3. Buttplug immediately knows it's not Hugh posting but falls for the other socks, and then Hugh convenietly shows up.

                  You're not fooling anybody Shreek/Hugh

                  1. There's nothing convenient about it. nicole still monitors the comments here for whatever reason, and she alerted me that someone was ruining my good(?) name.

                    She failed to mention that Reason redesigned the comments section to make it impossible to follow a thread, though.

                    1. sure buttplug

                    2. "my"

                      Don't you mean the name of a Rand character you have some weird feeling of entitlement and ownership of?

                      That's what you meant right shreek?

                    3. Yes he came running here from another website to defend the name of a Rand character that doesn't belong to him.

                    4. It would be sad if it weren't exactly screech's move.

                    5. It's still very very pathetic

          2. I didn't make this comment.

            1. If this is the "real Hugh", yeah, this place has been overrun with name spoofers lately.

              1. He was right about me being SPB tho. You can tell just by reading the replies.

                1. I didn't make this comment.

                  1. No one cares Shreek

              2. This is the real Hugh. I haven't commented in a long time. Possibly years.

                When its meds run out, shreek/mary/whatever likes to come around perennially and spoof other commenters.

                On the one hand it's nice to be remembered, but on the other hand I feel like I've been sullied and need a long hot shower.

                1. Damn outing yourself as Shreek has you very UPSET.

                  Please by all means resume damage control shreek

                2. I never would have guessed that you were buttplug

                3. "On the one hand it’s nice to be remembered, "

                  Got it from a book don't remember anybody here going by that name

                  1. I didn't make this comment.

                    1. No seriously no one cares.

                    2. I care. I went to the trouble of ripping it off from the author and this name is mine.

                    3. Fake but accurate?

              3. You mean like your buddy the White Knight? Cuz he’s the only one that was stealing my name. To defend you even.

              4. Yep, it sure has Pedo Jeffy. And prog weasels with lots of sock puppets too.

                You’re one of them.

            2. Remeber when you got banmed screech? For..what was it...posting something....

  4. chemjeff assures me that Trump wanting to jail flag burners is worse.

    1. Nope. It's that there's a whole lot of bad on both sides and freaking out about the GND while ignoring all the other bad is irrational and letting fear drive your decision-making.

      And, fuck off Tulpa.


        chemjeff also assures me that Trump wanting to censor Twitter is worse.

        And no Jeff YOU fuck off no one was talking to you.

        1. You were lying about me, as usual, because that's what you do Tulpa. Fuck you.

          1. No Jeff fuck YOU no one was talking to you, but as usual you think you can spam up the thread at your leisure.

            1. "I'm just going to keep telling you to fuck off because when I shit up a thread its justified" is just about as Jeff an answer as you can get.

              1. It’s weird The White Knight isn’t asking Lying Jeffy to stop saying “Fuck you”.

                1. You know who's shitting up the thread? Everyone who is obsessively focused on me instead of trying to discuss the article.

                  1. Please stop shitting up the thread with your complaining. This entire subthread is just your narcissistic ass whining so please stop.

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist
                    July.16.2020 at 4:05 pm
                    Those dastardly Democrats, they tricked Republicans into spending like drunken sailors *yet again*.

                    1. And the pedo had already said that too.

                    2. It’s funny he claims he’s not a Democrat.

                    3. He doesn’t like being called out for being a pedophilia enthusiast either.

                2. He lost to me badly so he runs away and hides.

                  In fact he lost so bad that ge have up on trying and ran to the authorities

                  1. I think Code Blue members get fired if they are found out.

  5. The biggest environmental advance of the past decade--CO2 levels dropping--was accomplished without any massive, money gulping government program at all--natural gas fracking.

    Entrepreneurs took the risk and government just passed reasonable regulations, that's it. At least it was in Pennsylvania, which is now number two in gas production nationally. Because coal-fired electric plants moved to cheap natural gas, they cut their CO2 in half.

    1. The biggest environmental advance of the past decade–CO2 levels dropping–was accomplished without any massive, money gulping government program at all–natural gas fracking.

      ^ This. For all the hand-wringing about the US 'ceding its environmental leadership' no other country has had the success of the US at cutting CO2 emissions, and it was done in spite of the government.


  6. "It's uncanny how solving climate change just happens to require the progressives' longstanding economic agenda."

    Uncanny you say. Same with racial disparity, gender inequality, and climate crisis; all serve quite well as vehicles for another agenda; the elimination of "inequality" in every possible sphere or life, and the suppression of any deviation from the creed.

    1. Yep, the solution for every problem is socialism. Bunch of fucking geniuses at the DNC.

  7. Environmentalists are like watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Commie collectivist cumsausages.

    1. I was going to snarkily thank you for that widely circulated old joke but then I realized that describes me too.


    2. So are BLM the seeds? Both the black ones and the feeble white ones?

  8. I mean, are we discussing Biden's plan, or are we discussing all of the other wacky environmental plans out there?

    Because if you actually look at Biden's plan, it is largely stripped away of the social welfare nonsense that was in something like AOC's plan. Like spending zillions on tangentially related things "in the name of the climate" or some such.

    I mean it's still full of regulations and spending and mandates and all sorts of stuff to get libertarians upset. But it is not the AOC plan.

    1. I heard Trump being mean to immigrants is worse.

      1. "I mean, are we discussing Biden’s plan, or are we discussing all of the other wacky environmental plans out there?

        Because if you actually look at Biden’s plan"

        cover for someone/something
        — phrasal verb with cover verb
        US /ˈkʌv·ər/

        to provide an excuse for someone

      2. No, Trump is nice to Immigrants. Just not accommodating to illegals.

    2. We get it. Fat people hate the heat. So you dont really care as much if rights are lost to keep it a tiny bit cooler.

      1. Oh look, now another middle school Mean Grrl has shown up.

        1. No that's still you, you're just so fat that you think you're two people.

          1. Is that why he shits up conversations with his sock puppets?

        2. Pointing out people have no self control and are fat due to their impulses isn't mean.

          So now you are a Critical Race theorist who backed BLM for 3 weeks and now are a Fat Empowerment chick.


          1. No, do keep going. Why don't you make up more bullshit about me. This is getting a little bit amusing.

            1. Why don’t you just kill yourself? Stop being so selfish and just do it.

    3. Because if you actually look at Biden’s plan, it is largely stripped away of the social welfare nonsense that was in something like AOC’s plan.

      That's bullshit. He's adamant about creating union jobs, destroying the gig economy, repealing right-to-work laws. He also wants to build lots more high speed rail. He wants to require to build more low-income housing near public transit stations to help increase urban density.

      It's all fucking social welfare, really. "Environmental justice" is something someone says when they're using environmentalism as a screen for their socialist agenda.

  9. Poor Lying Jeffy now has to either say that Ron is just buying into right wing fear mongering or be dishonest.

    I wonder what he’ll do?

    1. I think he took just a superficial look at the plan, to be honest.

      1. There it is.

        1. Genuinely surprised he didn't "fuck off Tulpa" you.

        2. Jeff defended blm for 3 weeks before realizing they are marxists and authoritarians. He still doesnt mind other leftist forms of either though.

          1. Umm what? You cannot help but lie about me.
            How is the organization Marxist? You don't even know what Marxism is.

            Good Lord.

            1. "How is the organization Marxist? "

              Because one of the founders said so.

              No they're wrong and lying I guess.

              1. Okay then, let's test that logic.

                Because Reason's founder was a libertarian, therefore, Reason as it currently stands is "a libertarian institution". Correct or incorrect?

                Because most of America's Founding Fathers were racist slaveowners, therefore, America as it currently stands is a "racist nation". Correct or incorrect?

                1. "Okay then, let’s test that logic."

                  You didnt. You babbled.

                  So she isnt a Marxist and she was lying?

                2. Okay then, let’s test that logic.

                  Ok the logic would require

                  She said she was a marxist and the others were too = GW said he was a racist slaveowner and the others are too.

                  Yours isn't a correct comparison.

                  1. Jefferson:

                    " Comparing them [blacks] by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous."


                    You should read it. Jefferson goes on and on to ponder why exactly he thinks blacks are inferior to whites.

                    And he was most definitely a slaveowner.

                    So, by the "BLM standard", should we say that since one of the Founding Fathers was a racist slaveowner, that all of America today should be rightly judged to be a "racist nation"?

                    Or, maybe we should adopt a more reasonable standard, one that evaluates what the institution is like as of this moment on whether or not to judge if the institution meets a certain characterization or not, regardless of what the founders of said organization might have said or done at the time.

                3. Is the founder of Reason still involved with Reason? You can’t stop being dishonest.

                  1. Oh so now we're shifting the goalposts.

                    1. And you support importing pedophiles from foreign countries.

                  2. And you cannot argue honestly to save your life.

                    You and Jesse and the other Mean Grrlz around here are just catty assholes. God what a pathetic bunch of fucks you are.

                    1. Noe. We’ve just had enough of your sophistry, your lies, your sock puppets, and everything else that makes you such a Pedo Jeffy.

                      So go away.

                  3. So the founder of Reason isn’t involved with Reason. Like I said. So it’s a dumb comparison.

                    You realize the criticism of Reason is that it’s not what it used to be? But that’s not the criticism of BLM?

                    My conclusion is the reason Lying Jeffy defends BLM is because he’s really a Marxist.

                    1. You're shifting the goalposts.

                      If BLM is to be judged by what the founders said and did, then Reason is to be judged by what the founders said and did, and America is to be judged by what the founders said and did.

                      You want to have it all ways so that BLM is denounced as "Marxist" because three people involved in the organization claimed it was Marxist, and yet excuse away why America shouldn't be regarded as "racist" when the majority of the founding fathers themselves were racist slaveowners.

                      If you are going to demand that America in the present moment be judged by what America is today, rather than endlessly raked over the coals by the sins of the past - which, by the way, I believe is the *correct standard* - then you should have the intellectual honest to apply that same standard to all organizations. You don't apply it to the ones you hate because you are an intellectually lazy moron.

                    2. Damn you’re obtuse. The Marxist founders of BLM are currently still running BLM. Reason was founded by a libertarian and was libertarian...when he was still involved. But he’s dead now, so he’s not involved anymore. Get it?

            2. I thought you had actually learned something yesterday. My god jeff. Forget what I ever said yesterday, you're a fucking idiot.

              Please, educate yourself on Critical Theory.

              1. Why don't you educate yourself on critical race theory and explain to us all how it is compatible with Marxism. And then, once you've done that, why don't you tell us all WTF any of that has to do with BLM. You cannot because the only reason you are spouting Marxism and Critical Race Theory in the same sentence as BLM is because Tucker Carlson and Breitbart told you to. You cannot form independent thoughts to save your life. Turn off the right-wing media and think and listen for a change. If you can.

                1. Lying Jeffy doesn’t think abolishing the family and replacing it with collectivism is a Marxist idea.

                  1. You know what is a Marxist idea? That people should be treated fairly. So does everyone who believe that people should be treated fairly really a crypto-Marxist? That is called a logical fallacy.

          2. Wait, he admitted he was wrong and I missed it? I don’t believe you.

            1. He pointed out yesterday how BLM is involved in the destruction of the nuclear family and posited some portions of critical theory as wrong. I thought this meant Jeff had actually learned something for once this Decade. I was wrong.

              He is back to defending open marxists.

              1. I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense.

                I'm not "defending open Marxism". I never have.

                BLM as an organization is demonstrably not "Marxist". To call them "Marxist" belies an ignorance of what Marxism is. Marxism is about the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This is also why critical race theory can't coexist with Marxism, because critical race theory demands that society be divided by race, not by class. You can't have a class struggle if the white proletariat and the black proletariat can't find solidarity, for example.

                Disruption of the nuclear family is, in my view, a bad idea, regardless of whether a Marxist espouses it or not. The issue however is whether the nuclear family is to be regarded as a normative family structure.

                I could go on but I think that any response will just be met with more nonsense from you.

                1. Many of the founders are self admitted marxists. They have Marxist goals. Money donated to BLM goes to an organization that funds extreme far democrat related groups.

                  So stop with your bullshit. Best you just go away.

                  1. To people like you, Biden is "far left".

                2. I’m not “defending open Marxism”. I never have.

                  Poor Lying Jeffy defends people that are openly Marxist. But don’t take their words for it. Even though they say they’re Marxists, he knows better.

                  1. I have never once defended those three BLM people who claimed to be Marxists. Never not once.

                    What I don't do is engage in the 'collective guilt' nonsense so in vogue on the right now as to denounce everyone who sets foot at a BLM protest as a "Marxist".

                    It is bitterly ironic that you lie about me day after day after day but have the gall to call ME a liar.

                    1. now as to denounce everyone who sets foot at a BLM protest as a “Marxist”.

                      And another lie from Lying Jeffy.

                3. AND CULTURAL MARXISM REPLACES CLASS WITH ' IDENTITY'. It is the same collectivist struggle, yet even more odious

                  1. You know, you're going to have to find an authoritative source on "cultural Marxism" because I see that term thrown around so loosely, generally just describing "things that liberals do that I don't like". If "cultural Marxism" is an actual thing then please come up with an adequate rigorous definition of it, that isn't just whining about leftists.

                    1. “you’re going to have to”

                      No one has to do shit for your ignorant ass.

  10. "The world doesn't end if we don't limit temperatures to some arbitrary threshold like 1.5C, but at the same time the longer we delay mitigation the worse the problem gets."

    I've got a couple hundred years of unmitigated human history that say otherwise.

    1. The thing is 99.99999% of the human population has to die before extinction becomes a worry.

  11. But instead of the Green New Deal's top-down, centralized, command-and-control approach, the best policies to deal with climate change are ...[something else]...

    Well we only have two political parties. One of them is offering this GND stuff as their solution to climate change. The other denies that climate change even exists.

    So looks like, in fact, that there is only ONE policy option. The inevitable consequence of libertarians or classical liberals allying with conservatives/R's

    Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing - F Hayek

    1. Yeah it would be nice if there was more than one attempt to discuss this issue from a serious place. I think we have seen over and over is that voters will tend to take a bad plan that promises to 'do something' over no plan and just outright denial.

      1. Here’s Lying Jeffy advocating for government actions as the solution to problems.

      2. What's a real shame is that the L's are utterly silent on this. In effect, they are thinking like conservatives and not even moving as fast as those corporations who don't really give a shit about it either but recognize that their younger customers do and think they can bamboozle em a bit. Much less corporations that actually do give a shit about it. One might think the latter is actually the 'natural kind-of-ally' for LP - but apparently not.

        'Climate change' or 'environment' or whatever other keyword might compel one to find out more is completely missing from the LP's 'issues' page. 10 issues that the LP thinks are the ones where they offer something different than the DeRps. Crickets.

        Two sentences in the platform - Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required. Cool. So - um - exactly how do you intend to privatize the climate? Or provide legal standing in court to claim damages 10/15 years down the road? Because otherwise this just looks like a bunch of philosophy BS that could have been written 50 years ago. A long time not to be able to flesh out two sentences.

        R voters don't care about the issue so R denial that it even exists is perfect. But L's are missing a massive opportunity here.

        1. What's your suggestion?

          1. For R's? - No suggestions at all. Head up ass fits what their base wants so why would they ever want to change that.

            For LP?

            I trust that they actually understand some of their issues like Drug War and Criminal Justice. At the level of detail/prescription where they can actually help candidates/prospectives understand those issues to better answer voter questions like 'Why should I vote for you?' Problem is those two issues just don't get many votes (and they are also kind of the same thing). IDK how that knowledge was acquired organizationally (and I may be presuming it when it doesn't actually exist) - but I suspect it is because there were L's who wanted to go into the weeds on this, to learn more about it, to acquire a fat rolodex (showing my age here) of others knowledgeable about it, to flesh things out, and then to be able to boil it down in a form that can be communicated.

            On so many other issues - from local to national - I don't get the sense that LP is even interested in anything beyond platitudes that can't go anywhere. But my suggestion in a comment board like this is - whatever happened re the Drug War and Criminal Justice issues - do that.

        2. "In effect, they are thinking like conservatives and not even moving as fast as those corporations who don’t really give a shit about it either but recognize that their younger customers do and think they can bamboozle em a bit."

          It's almost like you have no idea that CO2 emissions have fallen in the U.S. because of changes in consumer behavior.

          1. Or that that IS the correct libertarian viewpoint.

            1. If you're saying that we don't need to have a government policy to address climate change because entrepreneurs and consumers are doing the hard work without the government's involvement, then I agree with you.

              Incidentally, Canadian geese don't need the government to tell them to fly in a "V"-formation either. They just struggle to find the path of greatest return for the least amount of effort, and they end up behaving as if they understand the laws of aerodynamics without any help from the government at all.

              If the geese had to wait for a scientific consensus and a government plan before they decided to fly in formation, they'd have gone extinct thousands of years ago. Let's just keep ignoring the government and their experts, and let them try to figure out for themselves what Darwin and Hayek taught libertarians long ago.

              1. “If you’re saying that we don’t need to have a government policy to address climate change because entrepreneurs and consumers are doing the hard work without the government’s involvement, then I agree with you.”

                Yes, that’s what I’m saying. And thank you for the story about geese.

              2. So tragedy of the commons isn't a thing. Got it.

                1. Come on Tulpa, now you’ve gone to far. Mimicking Jeff to bring up middle school level collectivist nonsense? No one will fall for this.

    2. "So looks like, in fact, that there is only ONE policy option. The inevitable consequence of libertarians or classical liberals allying with conservatives/R’s"

      This is factually incorrect.

      The heavy lifting of fighting climate change is being done by entrepreneurs and consumers. The ultimate solution to climate change is entrepreneurs offering consumers greener options that consumers want, and in case you haven't heard, entrepreneurs and consumers are responding to climate change.

      In case you're unaware, CO2 emissions in the United States have fallen since 2007.

      They didn't fall by accident. There are two big contributors:

      1) Entrepreneurs using fracking to make cheap natural gas available to American energy consumers, which releases about 40% less in the way of greenhouse gases than coal.

      2) American consumers choosing to buy electric cars, hybrids, and cars with better mileage from entrepreneurs.

      Buying dirty, SUVs with low gas mileage used to be the standard. That's now socially awkward at best. American greenhouse gas emissions sure as hell didn't fall because oil prices have skyrocketed since 2007.

      It's because consumer tastes have changed--and that's what we're talking about. Entrepreneurs and consumers making legitimate changes in their lives to fight climate change because they care enough to change their behavior while Democrats blab about how entrepreneurs and consumers have done nothing--despite all the evidence to the contrary.

      1. 2) American consumers choosing to buy electric cars, hybrids, and cars with better mileage from entrepreneurs.

        Well, the subsidies didn't hurt either.

        Buying dirty, SUVs with low gas mileage used to be the standard. That’s now socially awkward at best.

        Out in my area of the country, which is a pretty red place, I still see plenty of SUV's, along with plenty of pickup trucks which are even worse in terms of fuel efficiency.

        1. So you've graduated from telling us about your feelings to personal anecdotes? I supposed that's an improvement.

          Fuel economy continues to rise nationally regardless of how you feel about it and regardless of what you notice when you're driving down the street.

          1. The point is that driving vehicles with low gas mileage, like SUVs, is not "socially awkward at best". Also:

            It’s because consumer tastes have changed–and that’s what we’re talking about.

            They have, to an extent. The "consumer tastes" were also bribed to an extent due to subsidies for purchasing hybrids.

            1. If you look at the fuel mileage on most SUVs and midsize trucks they have increased dramatically over the past decade. I owned a 2003 F-150 and now own a 2013. I get 50% greater gas milage with better towing and more power. Dodge/Ram and Chevy also have increased the gas milage of the midsize trucks nearly as much as Ford. You can also get the eco-boost engines in explorers and expedition,while Ford will be introducing an electric and a hybrid version of the F-150 next year.

            2. That you think hybrids are the difference only displays your lack of real world experience.

        2. Big SUVs with ,ow fuel economy are still not sellers

          1. ‘Hot sellers’.

            Damn squirrels.

      2. 2) American consumers choosing to buy electric cars, hybrids, and cars with better mileage from entrepreneurs.

        Buying dirty, SUVs with low gas mileage used to be the standard. That’s now socially awkward at best.

        There's lots of evidence that EV and hybrids are simply adding on to the motor pool (and emissions) rather than displacing it. Along similar lines, there plenty of evidence of a third reason, inherent economic restructuring, that's a greater contributer to reductions than hybrids and EVs. Bob the coal miner losing his job, learning to code, and working from home under COVID lockdown with his 10-yr.-old Ford Excursion in the driveway is better (emissions-wise) than him keeping his job at the coal mine and commuting in a Tesla.

        Anecdotally, having spent a week driving between Chicago and Butte, campers, RVs, and the tow-behinds and popups that hipsters seem to love are more popular than ever. Far more popular, even if only to rent, than any SUV or hybrid.

        1. This isn't just about COVID-19. This trend has been apparent since just after 2007, when the economy cratered and so did oil prices.

          At first, EIA was issuing reports saying that drop in emissions was because there were so many unemployed people staying at home, but then the economy came back, the unemployment rate went down, and oil prices came back--and emissions kept falling.

          Look at the graphs on this page--between 2007 and 2020.

          Between 2007 and 2020, you'll see natural gas use rising while it displaces coal, but you'll also see petroleum use falling. A large part of that is because consumers are driving cars with better mileage these days. Last I checked, people are still paying a premium for hybrids, etc. over the NPV of their gas they would save. They were buying more efficient cars because they wanted them.

          You can say that they just bought those more efficient cars because it was fashionable to care about the environment, but that's what we're talking about--changing consumer tastes. Early adopters pay a higher premium to be especially fashionable before everyone else, and over time, as scales increase and efficiencies come to fruition, suddenly even poor kids can afford a smart phone. That's what we're talking about--and the proof is in seeing oil consumption drop even as the economy grew and auto sales were great.

          1. "In the United States, emissions associated with the consumption of petroleum fuels—motor gasoline, distillate, jet fuel, and more—have consistently made up the largest portion of CO2 emissions. In 2018, the transportation sector’s consumption accounted for 78% of U.S. CO2 emissions from petroleum and more than one-third of all U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions."


            Even before COVID-19 in 2020, our petroleum emissions were below where they were before we went into recession in 2007.

            Consumers working in markets with entrepreneurs and their investors have done all this work--while progressives blab about how we're doing nothing.

        2. Schoolies are Uber hip. And rolling ecological disaster.

          Go figure.

      3. In case you’re unaware, CO2 emissions in the United States have fallen since 2007. They didn’t fall by accident. There are two big contributors (natgas replacing coal and EV cars)

        EV cars are irrelevant. And by subsector - transportation completely tracked employment, residential/commercial has stayed constant, industrial has risen slightly, and electricity has fallen (with slightly increased demand).

        Looking backwards - natgas AND renewables displaced coal for electricity. As a % of that displacement, natgas displaced about 2/3 and renewables displaced 1/3. Just to deflate your ballon a bit about how fossil fuels can reduce carbon emissions.

        Looking forwards - electricity demand will grow if transport shifts to that. What energy source will supply that growth? Coal? Say goodbye to that CO2 bragging. Natgas? Sorry nope. That increase was the result of junk debt issued with both historically low (and subsidized) prime interest AND historically low junk/prime spreads. The consequence was roughly a 10 percentage point reduction in the capital cost of that production. Even with that massive tailwind (which will never happen again), the entire sectors debt load is about to implode over the next couple years. It has not in FACT been profitable for the market to produce that 'sustainably' (by that I mean purely capitalist sustainability - not going bankrupt). So unless you are advocating nationalizing shale gas - and directly subsidizing it that same/higher amount going forward, then there is no future growth from natgas. Even if you do, there's not much increase there. Hydro and geo won't be growing - they are already tapped. So that leaves ONLY wind, solar, and nuclear.

        You R's will remain stuck on stupid until the stupid train rolls into hell. You will pin your hopes on nuclear. You'll be misplaced with that hope too. Meanwhile the rest of the world is figuring how wind/solar really work. We are increasingly becoming both a technological backwater for new sources of energy AND an empire that is spending a shitload trying to keep oil propped up as the foundation of global energy. By the time you twits wake up, it will be too late to play catch up. Just like this covid incompetence.

        Libertarians share the same fate if they remain attached to the R's dingleberry on this issue.

        1. "EV cars are irrelevant."

          I didn't say it was because of EV cars.

          I said:

          "2) American consumers choosing to buy electric cars, hybrids, and cars with better mileage from entrepreneurs."

          ----Ken Shultz

          The fact is that we're throwing up less in the way of greenhouse gases from automobiles now than we were in 2007--before the recession--and we have continued to throw up less in the way of greenhouse gases since then up to and through COVID-19.

          I gave you a link that demonstrates this in a chart from the EIA, and if you didn't bother to look at it, don't expect the rest of us to ignore the facts just because you did.

          1. I gave you a link that demonstrates this in a chart from the EIA

            That's where I got the 2/3 1/3 breakout re coal displacement. Maybe YOU should look at your own link because on p13 it very clearly shows exactly what I said re transportation and CO2 emissions. That it went down until 2012 or so - and since then has been going UP - ie tracked employment

            Electricity is responsible for virtually 100% of all reductions in carbon emissions.

            1. "That it went down until 2012 or so – and since then has been going UP – ie tracked employment"

              Because it intermittently goes up at some points and down at others 1) That doesn't mean it's ever gone back up anywhere near where it was before 2007 when our average gas mileage was much worse, and 2) That doesn't mean it didn't go down from 2007 and stay below that number--even when the economy was growing and the demand for oil was increasing as they economy grew.

              I think it's great that you're finally coming to grasp with real facts. Opinions without them are mostly just feelings. But playing funny with the facts won't change a thing. They are what they are, and the fact is that CO2 emissions have fallen since 2007 because of natural gas displacing coal and because of the changing tastes of consumers for cars that get better gas mileage. Because it doesn't go in a perfectly straight line ever downward doesn't mean anything.

              Jesus Christ, are you ten years old?

              1. You pretty fucking clearly aren't even looking at your own link

                And there has been no significant move by consumers to buy vehicles for fuel economy. American manufacturers have basically stopped even making cars now. They didn't stop making cars because consumers were demanding the obvious fuel economy change of switching from SUV's/trucks to cars. Whatever changes have occurred there are the minor incremental stuff every time a new generation of engines is developed. Irrelevant

                1. And BTW - while I'm glad you actually use a credible source for the data you think you want to present - might I suggest that if you are going to talk about changes in CO2 emissions or somesuch that you link to something that has - you know - numbers - rather than a Powerpoint slide presentation of a graph converted to a PDF format.

  12. Biden was probably doing a better job of campaigning for himself when he was hiding in his basement.

    This isn't about to make him popular in the swing state rust belt.

    1. I concur; this was an unforced error on his part.

  13. If you like the economic consequences of the shutdowns, you will LOVE the plans from ol' Joe's staff of people waiting to see who the DNC will anoint for VP to take over on day two.

    1. Is there anything that can't be blamed on Thatcher?

      1. Someone getting an erection?

      2. Ken, Margaret Thatcher did a lot of good for the UK and the world, but there is no denying that she was used quite willingly to promote the global warming myth to achieve useful goals; ie closing down Britain's unprofitable (and therefore unsustainable) coal mining industry and the immensely powerful union that kept it going.

        I will let the article that I linked to speak for itself. I've been posting it from time to time since I first started here on H&R .

        The fact is that IMO Reagan , Thatcher etc have a lot to answer for regarding drug war policy, police militarization, state secrecy etc but they did a lot to free up economic and entrepreneurial activity.

        Biden and his his ilk (Charlie Rangel for just one) have to answer for not just drug war policy, police militarization, minimum sentencing, state secrecy etc but also for not doing anything to free up economic and entrepreneurial activity. In fact they did everything they could to block it. And they continue to do so.

        1. Thatcher, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump seem to get the blame for an awful lot of things that they had nothing to do with, and regardless of whether Thatcher cited climate change in the 70s and 80s as a good reason to let inefficient mines go broke, we should either enact or ignore The Green New Deal anyway.

          P.S. Yesterday, there were people in comments blaming the civil war in Syria on Bush Jr.--as if the Arab Spring wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq?!

          I'm as critical of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq as any critic of the Iraq War needs to be, but for goodness' sake, Bush Jr. wasn't to blame for things that would have happened with or without him and the Iraq War--and neither is Thatcher.

          1. Ken, seriously, when did I ever say that "we should either enact or ignore The Green New Deal anyway." Although if you come down to it to the extent that I do think about, I think we should most certainly ignore and reject The Green New Deal.

            The fact is that I actually do not bring up Thatcher's early support of global warming to provoke those on the right, no, I bring it up to antagonize the left about the irony that the left has taken on a cause that was originally advanced against sacred leftist objects: first, the nationalized British coal industry*, second the ultra powerful miner's union and in support of the biggest leftist target of the time, the nuclear power industry.

            Indeed my main goal is to provide the cautionary tale, "Beware that the dog that you sic on your enemies today does not come back and bite you on the arse tomorrow, good and hard."

            *my personal history with this is a former boss and good friend of mine who got his start as a land surveyor in the coal mines of the town that he lived in when in 1950s he was presented with the choices of going to work in the mines digging coal or getting out and getting a serious professional qualification. If you look at the history of the Labour Party's nationalisation program when they got power in 1945 you will see just what a boondoggle the brought on. The funny thing is that some of the targets oh nationalisation, ie coal steel and railways, might have survived they pretty much all ended up as failures.

            1. "Ken, seriously, when did I ever say that “we should either enact or ignore The Green New Deal anyway.”

              I said that.

              Regardless of whether Thatcher really did that, the Green New Deal should be enacted or rejected anyway. There isn't anything about Thatcher having done that or not done that that should change anyone's mind about whether they support or oppose the Green New Deal--either way.

              That's my point.

              1. Ken, maybe you and I can get together some time in Solana Beach to hash these things out. Last time I was there was 1973 the year before my grandfather died.

                I keep wanting to go back and see how much the place has changed. When I first went there in 1963 it was a sleepy little California coast town. Of course, there isn't any such thing any more, is there?

  14. Here is a criticism of the Biden plan from a left-of-center viewpoint.

    They call it "half a loaf and a little more". That is a far cry from just saying that it's the same as all of the other left-wing plans out there.

    It is very much a compromise plan between the more radical Sanders/AOC vision of "the whole wishlist is justified in the name of climate change" and what Biden put forth.

    1. I know this: Anyone using the phrase "Environmental Justice" is a complete clown who doesn't belong in a serious political conversation. They might as well advocate for Aeronautical Free Enlightenment or Horticultural World Peace.

      1. I’ll go one further. Anytime the word ‘justice’ is added to any subject a progressive is discussing, it is entirely code for a Marxist restructuring of the subject. Period.

        And all those people must go away. This country won’t survive the cancer that is progressivism if we have large numbers of progressives.

      2. Is that so.

        Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

        Disagree with that all you want, but it's something worthy of consideration at a minimum. If we're going to have environmental regulations - and even in Libertopia there would be a few, since the Tragedy of the Commons is actually a thing - it would be nice if those environmental regulations affected all persons in a just and equitable manner.

        1. So you read that nonsense, and then actually went so far as to quote that bullshit to prove that it's not bullshit. I don't know how anyone is ever going to be convinced by the idea of "racially conscious environmentalism."

    2. Is there a Vox site you don't treat as gospel?

      1. How would you know? You only read right-wing garbage.

        1. Stop lying Pedo Jeffy.

  15. Elon Musk and a few leaders at NASA have the only viable long term solution to climate change.

    Even if you don't believe climate change models, we are going to run out of resources on Earth sooner or later.

    Don't shut down Earth's economy.

    Colonize space. That's the only long term solution.

    1. Right, because there are loads of resources in space.

      1. An entire universe of resources!

    2. Colonize space. That’s the only long term solution.

      Long term, the colonization of space began in St. Augustine in 1565.

      Unless you're black, then it was 1619.

    3. When we colonize space I call dibs on the name Rocinante for my space ship.

    4. Space has nothing to do with climate change. Every planet in the solar system is worse than Earth will ever be.

      Secondly, we won't run out of resources any time soon. The only real resource we can run out of is helium, because it escapes the atmosphere. Everything else can be recycled (in a worse case scenario), it's just a matter of spending energy.

      1. And if we ever crack the fusion code, we can make helium while creating energy.

    5. "we are going to run out of resources on Earth sooner or later."

      Really? Where are they going?

  16. What a hot load of horseshit. Plan, column and discussion.

    I have a plan. Stop trying to steal my fucking money, and stop trying to fucking tell me what to do.

    1. And anyone who does try should be dealt with, decisively.

  17. Fuck the left and democrats and every part of their stupid ideology.

  18. >>how his administration would handle man-made climate change

    everyone dies from the covids. ~~claps hands in brushoff fashion

  19. Don't worry about Biden spending trillions of dollars on a climate hoax.
    After all, it's not his money he's spending.

  20. Let me know when they create an electric truck that can haul a load of cattle 200 miles from my place to Billings for sale. Or an electric combine that can cut a full section of wheat in 100 degrees F on one charge.

    1. Or even better if that same combine can harvest corn in the corn belt where it has to deal with heat and humidity.

    2. Dream on. I think a future where most of the population of the planet is involved on some level of subsistence farming or gardening. For the cattle, I think their future will be to stay put in the range, with gawking tourists traveling up to 200 miles to appreciate their gentle ways in petting zoos and safari parks.

      1. What are you fucking smoking? Most of the population involved in subsistence farming (please tell me this is Tulpa doing his thing because no one can really be this stupid).

        1. You got something against farming and gardening?

          1. I actually know how it works, considering I am an agricultural extension agent, have a M.S. in animal science and actually own a ranch.

            1. I hope it's not too late to find yourself another line of work. I don't see much of a future in industrial agriculture. Smaller scale farming and gardening will take up a much greater amount of our time.

              1. Bullshit. If you believe that it just demonstrates how little you actually understand about food production. No, you can't grow enough good in the city to feed you more than a couple days. As long as the population remains mainly urbanized you will always require industrialized agriculture. And if you think a tech worker in San Francisco can ptodu e enough good to feed themselves you are full of shit. First, I doubt they want to do the work and second, it goes completely against science and history. In fact, when most the country was involved in agriculture we produced less food and hunger and starvation were common. Fuck, do you know anything? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

                1. Industrial agriculture is essentially the process of taking fossil fuels and turning them into food. If solar and wind are to become the most important energy inputs, agriculture will become more like the old days, ie more widespread and not concentrated in the hands of a few specialists.

                  1. No, industrialization is the process of using modern science to produce more food on fewer acres with less than 5% of the population involved and it produces more food than we consume. In fact we could almost feed the entire world with what we produce. Now, as to fossil fuels, if you could produce efficient batteries most farmers would be happy with electric vehicles or solar powered vehicles if they actually worked. However, on a per pound of food produced GHG emissions from has decreased steadily since the 1970s. And according to the USDA and EPA, agriculture only accounts for less than 18% of all US GHG emissions. As we convert to more GMOs and possibly perineal cereal crops ,(some are already in the market and yields are improving yearly) GHG emissions will continue to decrease. In fact perineal crops have the possibility of being GHG sinks, that remove more GHG than are produced farming them. Already no-till and minimal till have made farming cereal crops nearly GHG neutral. Range for cattle and sheep is also nearly neutral, as the range absorbs almost as much GHG as the cattle produce. Most meat cattle already spend most of their life on range. And newer winter feeding methods, such as windrow and bale grazing have greatly reduced the GHG emissions from winter feeding.

                    1. I think eliminating fossil fuel use from agriculture will have more consequences than you do. You're hoping for an electric truck that will haul cattle long distances without recharging. Dream on, I say.

                    2. Not hoping for but pointing out that eliminating fossil fuels is not nearly as easy as the greens think it is. No, eliminating fossil fuels from agriculture, without a replacement, will have one consequence, mass starvation.

                    3. "will have one consequence, mass starvation."

                      That's why it will require massive social mobilization if we want to avoid such consequences. Localized, individualized, with emphasis placed on resiliency and self sufficiency. These are anathema to those with a taste for centralized authoritarian solutions, but I don't see a more attractive alternative to the one I'm offering.

                  2. As for subsistence farming, especially without fossil fuels, it is very labor heavy and requires lots of man-hour to accomplish. You wouldn't have any time to do anything but farm. You would also probably need a large family to help with the labor (it's a well known fact that industrialization has led to smaller families, subsistence farmers generally have very large families to help with the labor). You can also kiss school and college goodbye, computers, free time, going to the bar, meeting friends all will be forgotten.

                    1. "As for subsistence farming, especially without fossil fuels, it is very labor heavy and requires lots of man-hour to accomplish. "

                      There will be many changes, I'm sure. Eliminating fossil fuels will have many consequences in all our lives. The good thing is we will still be able to utilize electricity thanks to solar and wind which will make our lives more comfortable.

    3. Wheat? You mean from the government controlled People’s Collective Farm?

  21. Oh, come on. Meat is murder and nobody nice wants wheat and all that nasty gluten. You will just have to grow hemp, hire a bunch of feminist artisans to make gender-free tampons, and take them to market on your solar-powered e-bike.

    1. The funny thing about that to tongue in cheek post is hemp is so fibrous it takes more energy to harvest than wheat or corn.

      1. Hemp also has a nasty habit, more so than other crops, of catching harvesters on fire.

  22. "the best policies to deal with climate change are those that encourage rapid economic growth,"

    Maybe so, if your rapid economic growth exists only on paper. If it's an actual physical phenomena we're talking about, it's not the best policy. It doesn't mitigate CO2 emissions or methane or anything else. Economic growth over the centuries is linked to more intense use of energy, ie burning more fossil fuel and its precursors. Unless you've got a way of delinking economic activity from fossil fuels, you are only adding to green house emissions.

    Problem with this Green New Deal is that it isn't communist enough. We should be looking at the sun and wind as our common property to be shared among all the people on the planet. It's a science fictiony utopian vision that won't come cheap, but it seems to be technically feasible. All the solar collectors in the US created under the GND aren't much use at night. But meanwhile, on the opposite side of the earth, it's broad daylight. Solution is a world wide web of sources of solar electricity connected by a high voltage direct current grid. That is communist in concept.

    The promise of a secure well paid union job doing something good for the future has an undeniable attraction to it for many people. America seems lost at the moment and engaging in something of a crusade like this might bring people together and give them a sense of solidarity, of common fate and destiny. This is more likely to inspire the young and those willing to face the new with courage and optimism. For the adult diaper crowd who make up most of the commenters here, it's seen as a fearsome threat.

    1. Industrialization leads to more CO2 but once a country is industrialized their emissions flatten or begin to decline.

      1. We're not talking about a country, which can always have another country take up its carbon emissions, like the US transferring its manufacturing to China. We're talking at a global level and there's only one globe and no other to serve as a dumping ground for our green house gases.

        1. The myth that China does all of the US manufacturing, or even a majority, is just that a myth.

          1. There's a lot of manufacturing in China. Clothes, computers, etc. More than is strictly necessary, truth be told. It's no myth.

            1. Most heavy manufacturing still occurs in the states, as does most food manufacturing. Even goods manufactured in China are still often assembled in the US. So, yes it is a myth. You picked two examples and missed the rest of manufacturing. Hell, Reason runs a story on why this is a myth about once a week.

              1. Do you agree that computers Americans used and clothes Americans wore were once likely made in America and now are more likely to be made in China? Is that a myth? In fact it doesn't matter what country they are made in. In both cases, whether China or the US or anywhere else, the manufacturing takes place on the planet earth, the only one we've got.

                1. So we go back to the Stone age? Because you aren't eliminating manufacturing. And again you are focusing on a few markets well ignoring a whole bunch of other industries like I just said.

                  1. What did you expect from him? A display of real knowledge? An honest discussion? Come now, that won’t be happening.

                  2. "So we go back to the Stone age?"

                    If you take the ideas of climate change seriously, a move from fossil fuels to wind and solar sources is indicated. This should have some profound knock on effects which you may not approve of.

                    1. Yes. Which basically seems to mean, in your case, suggesting we give up technology and return to manual, subsistence farming. Basically go back to the Stone age.

                    2. "Basically go back to the Stone age."

                      You need to bone up on history. A couple of centuries ago, farm animals, fueled by solar energy, did a good deal of the heavy lifting around farms. Elephants, horses, yaks and the like also were kept as beasts of burden. These creatures were also fueled by solar energy. The stone age goes back much further.

    2. As for a global solar network, it would actually be cheaper and more secure to build collectors in space and use microwaves to transmit energy. And it wouldn't require any form of global communism to accomplish.

      1. "As for a global solar network, it would actually be cheaper and more secure to build collectors in space and use microwaves to transmit energy."

        Quite possibly so. I'm no engineer. I shy away from concepts like this and nuclear which are most susceptible to centralized control as I suppose any space based solution would be. I find the idea of a decentralized network more resilient and resistant to authoritarian influence.

        1. That is why you proposed a stupid world wide network that requires what you even admit would be some form of communism? Nuclear only requires a centralized authority (as do orbital solar collectors) because people like you insist they need it. If you haven't been paying attention we are entering the age of civilian space exploration and industry.

          1. You don't have to go to outer space to find sunlight. There's plenty here on earth, even in cold places like the arctic.

            1. First, it is is more efficient to gather it in space. There is more of it and you can place the mirror in an orbit where it never is blocked from the sun nor are the rays filtered by our atmosphere or our magnetosphere. Secondly, you can't run solar very efficiently in the artic. And there is not sunlight for months on end in the artic and Antarctic.

              1. "First, it is is more efficient to gather it in space."

                Very possibly. I think people would be willing to sacrifice efficiency in favor of having more direct control via a decentralized network. I don't find attractive the idea of having astronauts and space industry experts having control over the on/off switch so to speak, for all the added efficiency it may bring. Call it energy independence if that's not already too hackneyed a term.

                1. Again that is a straw man argument. If they are earth based than the companies still control the on off switch. It is no different. Keep reaching. Again, those space experts don't need to be few or government agents.

                  1. "If they are earth based than the companies still control the on off switch."

                    Not necessarily. A distributed network with many contributing sources is the model I'm thinking of. Kind of like the Internet.

                    1. But they are still based in countries. And therefore the government can still control the on off switch. Despite your sophistry.

                    2. "And therefore the government can still control the on off switch."

                      Not as easily done on a distributed network than in your preferred model. It's easy to kill a tree by cutting it down. It's hard to kill a rhizome (ie crab grass) because it has no central point to attack. I hope you appreciate and understand the botanical metaphor.

                2. Basically, you don't like any solutions but your own so your are making straw man arguments now to discount what actual scientist and engineers have proposed as better methods.

                  1. "you don’t like any solutions but your own"

                    I wouldn't say it's my own solution, but I think it's superior to the GND, which focuses on only one country. An international communistic solution is better in my opinion. The idea that we should shut everything down because night falls is unattractive to me. Much better that we can avail ourselves of the sunlight on the other side of the world through a HVDC grid.

                    The 'better methods' you and the author here speak of don't mitigate green house gas emissions, they promote them, through the pursuit of the holy grail of economic growth.

                    1. No. They are real world solutions that could easily be used if the Government got out of the way. You aren't even being consistent now. You ridicule my options as central authority bug now you are ridiculing them as being to free market and not government controlled. So which is it?

                3. You're also demonstrating an extremely narrow minded attitude and seem not to grasp a subject you obviously don't understand (you do the same thing upthread with you asinine idea that people will go back to subsistence farming).

                4. Also, you solutions is to build solar collectors around the world and then move the electricity to countries that aren't getting sunlight. This means the countries, say if they are in China or Iran, would be in charge of the on off switch. To combat this you would have to have some form of centralized authority. You even admitted such in your original post and even admitted it would be a form of communism. If anything the system you proposed would require more centralized authority than a private company building a solar collectors high enough out of the atmosphere that it is never blocked from the sun and remains in geosynchronous orbit beaming energy to a receiver on Earth 24 hours a day. If anything this would require far less centralization than your plan. Also, building a bunch of mini-reactors and hurrying them in strategic areas, where they produce electricity for 25 years with little to no maintenance would also require far less centralization than your plan. If anything, your plan is the most centralized system you could come up with.

                  1. "You even admitted such in your original post and even admitted it would be a form of communism."

                    Read Marx, not Lenin.

                    " If anything the system you proposed would require more centralized authority than a private company"

                    Private companies have centralized control. They are called owners.

                  2. "If anything, your plan is the most centralized system you could come up with."

                    I disagree. A decentralized network is less centralized. The name says it all.

    3. Maybe I'm dense but I'm having a hard time figuring out if your post is serious or satirical.

      1. No, given his history, it's totally real.

      2. "Maybe I’m dense but I’m having a hard time figuring out if your post is serious or satirical."

        If you're dense, you'll be content in your perplexity. If you're smart, you'll think about what I wrote. If you super smart, you might even come up with a better solution, win an nobel prize and the love and admiration of the entire planet.

        1. "...If you super smart, you might even come up with a better solution..."

          You don't have to be even moderately intelligent to realize the shit-stream you offer as a solution is pretty much the opposite of what should be done.

          1. Sevo, spokesperson for the adult diaper crowd. If it's any consolation, Sevo, I wouldn't worry. You'll probably be raped to death by Marxist Antifa asylum seekers in a unisex toilet before any of this solar stuff comes to pass.

            1. Trueman, spokesperson for the supposedly adult-idiot crowd, offering bullshit and lies.
              And you'll be first to be lined up against the wall.

              1. There's one thing more I got to say right here
                Now, now we're people, we're like the birds and the bees
                We rather die on our feet than keep livin' on our knees

    4. Or even better yet remove the redtape so we can build next gen nuckear reactors, molten SALT reactors and burner reactors. Then we won't need to rely on solar from China or Iran or any other country and can skip your communism.

      1. I don't like nuclear any more than your other centralized, authoritarian space based solutions. I don't think 1000s of nuclear power generators spread across the globe is ideal either. Red tape goes hand in hand with nuclear It is inevitable. Even the nuclear programs of China and North Korea are faced with red tape. Democracies only more so.

        1. "...Even the nuclear programs of China and North Korea are faced with red tape..."

          Commies have red tape? I'm sure you find that surprising.

          1. "I’m sure you find that surprising."

            You don't have to spend too much time in communist countries to understand that much. What I found most surprising living in communist China is how much more fearful it is of its populace. When the US government does something for its people it's because it wants to garner votes. In China, it's because the government is afraid the people will rise up and replace them. Mandate from heaven and all that....

            1. So why did you make the statement if you knew it was so blatantly false?

                1. Even the nuclear programs of China and North Korea are faced with red tape…

                  1. Of course they are. They're built by communists. They don't call it red for nothing.

                    1. So why did you say it? No one is surprised by it and it wasn't really pertinent to my point. In fact, rather than dispute my point it actually reinforces my point about nuclear.

                    2. "So why did you say it? "

                      That's my take on things. I'm not trying to hide them. Nuclear power is popular in command, authoritarian countries like China and North Korea. I assure you they still have bureaucracies and red tape. Being communist is no escape from these inevitabilities.

                    3. No shit Sherlock, Communist have central authority and red tapes. God you are a fucking moron.

        2. Why do you keep calling the centralized authoritarian? There is nothing centralized about nuclear, or orbital solar, by its nature. In fact mini-reactors would actually be less centralized. As for orbital solar platforms, again we have a civilian space industry that is already launching astronauts and satellites, delivering and building a solar collectors, as well as buying land to build a microwave receiver station is completely possible without any centralized government. In fact, the main reason we don't build more reactors and newer reactors or orbital solar collectors is mainly because the central authorities have made it nearly impossible to do so economically. Rescinding some if these stupid rules would make it easier and less centralized. Fuck, that is a stupid argument. Nuclear and orbital solar would not have to be centralized or authoritarian. Space is fucking huge. Even near space.

          1. "Why do you keep calling the centralized authoritarian? There is nothing centralized about nuclear, or orbital solar, by its nature."

            Its nature is not important. Find yourself a nuclear power plant. It's certain to be surrounded by armed guards and electric fences. Authoritarian and centralized by nature.

            "As for orbital solar platforms, again we have a civilian space industry that is already launching astronauts and satellites, delivering and building a solar collectors"

            The world's energy needs are too important to be left in the hands of a few astronauts and space industry experts. The sun comes all the way to us for free. We don't have to meet it half way.

            "the central authorities have made it nearly impossible to do so economically"

            Democracies will continue to do this. Nuclear today is thriving in command economies like China or North Korea. And it's still subsidized to its eyeballs.

            1. First, our atmosphere actually filters out about 90% of the sun's rays. The fact that you don't understand this shows how little you grasp the subject. Secondly your point about armed guards is moot since you'll often find armed guards and electrical fences at any power plant. And mostly they are private. And mini-reactors can actually be buried and require no maintenance for 25 years. Molten SALT reactors can't be weaponized do the need to guard them drops dramatically. You don't even understand what you are arguing right now.

            2. And as for a few astronauts, again this is the result of decades of government monopoly. Once the civilian space industry gets footing, astronauts, space construction crews will be just another industry.

              1. Some will prefer a centralized, authoritarian system. Evidently you do. I prefer a decentralized, individualized system.

                1. You again show your inability to read.

                2. Again, why do you insist it needs to be a centralized authority? I just told you why it doesn't have to be and why it probably won't be one. That argument is a complete straw man.

                  1. "Again, why do you insist it needs to be a centralized authority?"

                    Centralized because the plants are centralized unlike the decentralized solar sources. Authoritarian because they are owned controlled and guarded by authorities. Again unlike the possibilities solar affords us. That's just my taste. Some prefer a central authority they can look up to. Not my cup of tea, I'm afraid.

                    1. No. You aren't listening. The plants are owned by civilians and guarded by civilians, not the government. Especially mini-reactors. They are small and will be dispersed. Maybe one per town (they can power about 10,000 houses) you'll obviously need more for bigger cities, or a larger more traditional tractor. But that seems fairly fucking dispersed to me. And nuclear power plants aren't owned by the fucking government, they are privately owned dipshit.

                    2. "The plants are owned by civilians and guarded by civilians, not the government. "

                      The plants in North Korea and China are not owned and operated by government or government connected people? That's untrue. They are. Same holds for any nuclear plant in the world today and the 1000s that will be required around the planet if they are to replace fossil fuels. The idea that jack booted government thugs are not and will not be deeply involved in the financing, design, construction and operation of nuclear plants is 'dream on.'

      2. One man’s red tape is another man’s city not blowing up.

        1. First of all that isn't even possible with most reactors. Secondly, SALT reactors can't explode or meltdown and they produce very little radiation. Are you able to dress yourself or do you have an aide that does it for you their at the halfway house, because anyone with a functional brain and basic physics understanding would know how stupid the statement about cities blowing up is.

          1. We call him a valet, and he tells me that nuclear reactors are dangerous when you are careless with them, citing more than one actual meltdown that happened, but surely removing red tape will mitigate that problem.

            1. Three in 70 years and Three mile island shouldn't even count because it didn't melt down, the safety features actually worked and prevented a meltdown. And everyone of those meltdowns were poor designs from the 1950s, not modern reactors and not one of them blew up a city and not one of them was a Molten SALT reactors or a modern mini reactor.

              1. When it comes to these things, since we’re talking about the math of market viability, it’s not about body count so much as the cost of insurance. Could nuclear reactors even exist in the first place without public subsidy in one form or another?

                I personally don’t care because I think energy production should be completely socialized, but you’re supposed to, especially since it’s your panacea for climate change.

                1. "...Could nuclear reactors even exist in the first place without public subsidy in one form or another?.."


                2. Like most socialist and progressives you're playing the game were you ignore most of the high insurance costs are the results of government mandated and people like you who don't understand it but are scared by it (modern luddites). Then you blame the insurance companies rather than blaming yourself for the high costs. You do the same with health insurance. Most of the cost is because of government mandates. As for mini-reactors and SALT reactors, they are safer than solar or wind, and if the market was allowed to set the price for insurance it would be pennies on the dollar. But you make the rules and then complain when those rules raise prices, or in this case point out the high prices as justification to avoid doing what science and engineering suggests is the best option.

    5. "...It doesn’t mitigate CO2 emissions or methane or anything else. Economic growth over the centuries is linked to more intense use of energy, ie burning more fossil fuel and its precursors..."

  23. In June 2019, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez estimated that the Green New Deal would cost $10 trillion.

    The feds blew through half of that this year alone. Fuck it, go for broke. Literally.

    1. To religious fanatics, the relative size of the sacrifices they make is a testament to depth of their devotion. $10 trillion is presumably preferable to Biden's $2 trillion among the especially devout for that reason alone. I don't know if anyone has else has seen this video of the Democrats on their way to the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, but it's telling. These people are devout!

      1. "To religious fanatics, the relative size of the sacrifices they make is a testament to depth of their devotion. "

        America's most successful social reformers have always come from religious communities. Think abolition of slavery or prohibition of alcohol. It's hardly surprising given that the country was founded by dissident Puritans fleeing from a decadent, corrupt and unpious monarchy.

        1. "America’s most successful social reformers have always come from religious communities."
          Well, when you conflate abolition and prohibition, you've kind of made a dog's breakfast of your argument. The first started when the population of the country was heavily religious, and strove to cloak all aims as 'God's will'. By the time of the Civil War, it was a long, long way from a religious movement.
          IOWs when it was a real 'movement' it wasn't 'religious'.

          "...or prohibition of alcohol."
          That idiocy can be laid at the feet of religious fundies.

          1. Look at the religious or spiritual background of America's early abolitionists, temperance, and woman's suffrage movements. Susan B. Anthony, for example. Quaker background. Religious or spiritually motivated people have always been at the vanguard of America's social change. Environmentalism will be no different.

            1. The difference is those movements recognized that they were religious movements. Environmentalist cloak themselves in flawed understanding of science and engineering.

              1. "Environmentalist cloak themselves in flawed understanding of science and engineering."

                It's also not strictly speaking a religious movement. It's not a set of practices and ideas to facilitate our interaction with the super natural world. That's my working definition of a religion. Environmentalism doesn't need recourse to some transcendent or super natural world. It has everything it needs right here in the material world.

                "Environmentalist cloak themselves in flawed understanding of science and engineering."

                If you lived a life of decadence in luxury New York apartment buildings, you'd have a flawed understanding of lots of things.

                1. "...Environmentalism doesn’t need recourse to some transcendent or super natural world..."
                  Bullshit. It is purely an appeal to a post-Mosaic religion, with a fig leaf claim of "science"; it has nothing to do with objective reality.

                  "If you lived a life of decadence in luxury New York apartment buildings, you’d have a flawed understanding of lots of things."
                  Were you hoping that stinking pile of shit would suggest other than the comment of a shoveler of stinking piles of shit?

                  1. You seem to have a different idea what religion is than I do. I gave you my definition already.

            2. "Look at the religious or spiritual background of America’s early abolitionists, temperance, and woman’s suffrage movements. Susan B. Anthony, for example. Quaker background. Religious or spiritually motivated people have always been at the vanguard of America’s social change."
              As I mentioned, you're confusing the attachment to a religion over time: Someone with a "Quaker background" then is similar to saying someone "attends church" now, and, again, at the time, all people wanted to claim God's will in their purpose. Slave-holders for example.

              "Environmentalism will be no different."
              On this I agree, but this is a post-Mosaic religion, claimed to be based on science while totally ignoring the matter, but certainly imbued with an Edanic claim of earlier 'purity', along with a 'rapturous' claim of 'repent or spend forever in hell!'.

          2. Wrong on both. Abolition was a religious movement, prohibition was a coalition of evangelicals, feminists, and progressives. Women being the biggest driver (their men were spending their pay on booze, coming home drunk, or not coming home at all). It's like you've never even read anything about anything

            1. It's like that, is it?

    2. "In June 2019, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez estimated that the Green New Deal would cost $10 trillion."

      So likely 10X that amount?
      I'm sure this woman didn't make change when she was keeping bar; she had the cash register calculator.

  24. "...Why the faster timeline and the jump in costs? Because, Biden declared, "We're going to lock in progress that no future president can roll back or under cut to take us backward again."..."

    So it'll take the populace in the streets?

  25. I’m not responding to Tulpa’s shenanigans. He just wants attention without earning it by being smart.

    1. And that is different from you how? Because, I see little wisdom in any of your posts, just tired, leftist tribalism and talking points.

        1. Truth often is.

          1. Indeed, which is why good manners requires constant fibbing.

            1. First, most of the insurance cost is related to government mandated. Second, SALT reactors and mini-reactors are so safe if the Government got out of the way, insurance would be cheaper than got solar or windmills (which both actually have a poorer safety record than even old nuclear plants.

            2. No, only sociopaths justify their lying. Manners can be fucked if it results in bad outcomes because people don't want to tell the truth. You avoid any truth that runs counter to your world view and than cry when people point it out to you. Now you are hiding behind manners to avoid the truth. Excuses are worth nothing. Your inability to tell the truth is not manners, your inability bto accept any truth that doesn't fit your narrative isn't manners, it is just a sign of how narrow minded you really are. Yes, you, like most progressives, are the most narrow-minded people on the Earth. Far more than any conservative I've ever known and far more given to group think.

            3. Tony
              July.16.2020 at 9:39 pm
              "Indeed, which is why good manners requires constant fibbing."
              We have all noticed that you are incapable of posting honesty, and now we see that 'manners' requires you constant lying.
              Fuck off and die, you lying piece of lefty shit. Make your family proud and the world a better place.

              1. Were you raised by wolves?

  26. Mudassar, 12:53 PM
    Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.Click For Full Details.

  27. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE►Click Full Detail Here.

  28. So all these wonderful GND plans will require massive government spending, which will require massive revenue from taxes, presumably on the very rich, and fossil fuels. But if the very rich people leave, say for another country that doesn’t want to tax them as much, that will leave the poor slobs who have to commute 100 miles each day to pay for new buildings and transit to jobs that aren’t going to pay for their fuel expenses or rent in a swank progopolis that has mass transit. What are they gonna do?

    1. Not to mention, like their tobacco tax, as we transition from fossil fuels these sin taxes will raise less and less revenue,requiring more and more taxes. These taxes will invariably hit the poorest and be very regressive in nature. Those living in the bottom percentile of incomes are likely to drive the oldest vehicles, that have the most maintenance issues and thus the poorest gas milage.

      1. Of course, the progressive answer will be to buy everyone on welfare a Tesla. Universal transportation after universal health care.

        1. I forgot universal housing and universal basic income.

    2. "So all these wonderful GND plans will require massive government spending,"

      See the lying piece of shit trueman above; s/he claims:
      "..Problem with this Green New Deal is that it isn’t communist enough..."
      Yep, this lefty piece of shit seems to think there is yet a "true' commie system.

  29. What is this mythical carbon-free energy?

    All methods of producing energy have some lifecycle CO2 production. (Which doesn't mean some methods aren't worse, but 'carbon free'? Impossible).

  30. We need to be more competitive in Europe and our green policies is a big handicap. The more country have that, the better.
    Yes please America do the green new deal !

  31. You could force by law that all cars had to be electric to reduce emissions, however this would actually increase emissions because of how electricity is generated.

    You could replace all coal and natural gas power plants, and litter the land with solar and wind generation. Don't forget that the manufacturing of solar panels requires toxins. That it's not always sunny or windy.

    Nuclear power has been taken off the table and research on breed reactors squashed by the environmentalists, but it's the best answer to reducing the environmental impact.

    Biden's answer is worse than the cure as there is no environmental protections in a collapsed society. There will be bigger fish to fry so to speak.

  32. Climate science is based on models, that are not validated and seem to run hot when compared to the only untampered data set...satellite temps. CMP6 and CMP5 models run hot even when compared to HADCRUT 4 data. So the "predictions" of where the climate will be in 80 years or 30 years are based on nonsense.

    Also almost none of the secondary predictions of increased tornados, hurricanes, drought, polar amplification, tropospheric hotspot, sea surface temps has materialized. When Greenland becomes farmable via ancient methods and grapes grow on the Thames then we will be at a point where we were in the MWP.

    Any alarmist that does not back nuclear energy is just not serious.

  33. The only way unions reduce global warming is by making sure more people are unemployed and therefor not driving to work, and ensuring what little manufacturing we have left goes overseas. But this won’t actually help anything since those workers in those countries will still be driving to work in gasoline powered cars and working in high polluting factories. It’s all the same atmosphere.

  34. The US can spend trillions on reducing carbon and at zero it will make no difference to the effects of carbon in our atmosphere. According to NASA
    Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.
    The US is but a small part of the emissions and unless all countries go to zero we will waste our time and resources and accomplish nothing. At least Greta would feel better though.

  35. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors.

  36. To buy into this you need to believe that in spite of climate changing throughout the history of the earth that the present climate is the absolutely perfect climate. Further you have to believe that government can control it like a thermostat if only you pay huge new taxes, far higher costs for your energy, change your lifestyle and submit you freedom of where to live, what to drive, what to eat and more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.