Cost of AOC's Green New Deal

Dec 2015
17,319
16,301
Arizona
#11
We are not talking about a few trillion dollars here, not even $5 billion dollars that the Dims are in a fight to the death to stop from being paid to fund building a wall.

No.

We are talking about $90 trillion some dollars here.

So I will ask you, is the price tag accurate or do you offer another?

And if it is another, who will say? AOC won't.

Don't you think questions like this are important or does it really not matter how far in debt the US goes? Was Dick Cheney right? Do deficits really not matter?

If not, why do any of us work for a living? Pay off my mortgage and give me free cash to live on and I'll give you my car and never fly on a plane. I'll even give up red meat and it will all be a whole lot cheaper.
Mr. Intelligence, I am a Democrat so when you refer to my party as Democrats instead of DIMS, I will consider having a discussion with you.
 
Mar 2013
10,008
10,797
Middle Tennessee
#13
Well first let's start with the fact that the "estimate" was written by a REPUBLICAN aligned think tank. And then they accused everyone else of using "lazy assumptions" in their math. This practically screams hatchet piece.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again. While some of the green deal is pie in the sky, some of it desperately needs to addressed by this nation. Jimmy Carter warned us 40 years ago that our dependence on foreign oil was the most serious threat to our national security we faced. That is why his mentor Admiral Rickover spent the last years of his career building the nuclear navy. So that even if oil became scarce our ships could still operate. We are just 5% of the worlds population yet we use an inordinate percentage of the world's resources. So much of our daily lives is dependent on minerals and rare earths that we do NOT have. They are all imported from foreign countries. We need, desperately need, to start looking at every single aspect of how we live our lives and slowly moving towards renewable sources of everything. Starting with moving away from fossil fuels for energy and transportation.

The dollar amount will be completely irrelevant when we are fighting wars for our very survival.
 
Likes: hoosier88
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#14
Well first let's start with the fact that the "estimate" was written by a REPUBLICAN aligned think tank. And then they accused everyone else of using "lazy assumptions" in their math. This practically screams hatchet piece.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again. While some of the green deal is pie in the sky, some of it desperately needs to addressed by this nation. Jimmy Carter warned us 40 years ago that our dependence on foreign oil was the most serious threat to our national security we faced. That is why his mentor Admiral Rickover spent the last years of his career building the nuclear navy. So that even if oil became scarce our ships could still operate. We are just 5% of the worlds population yet we use an inordinate percentage of the world's resources. So much of our daily lives is dependent on minerals and rare earths that we do NOT have. They are all imported from foreign countries. We need, desperately need, to start looking at every single aspect of how we live our lives and slowly moving towards renewable sources of everything. Starting with moving away from fossil fuels for energy and transportation.

The dollar amount will be completely irrelevant when we are fighting wars for our very survival.
As I suspected, the dollar amounts don't matter cuz we are all gonna die!

Funny thing, why no mention of nuclear power in the green deal if we are all fighting such a war? They are expensive, and really the only energy source needed that will meet the countries demands, yet people like AOC don't want it.

That tells me they really don't believe what they are saying or they simply don't care about meeting the needs of the country.
 
Mar 2013
10,008
10,797
Middle Tennessee
#15
As I suspected, the dollar amounts don't matter cuz we are all gonna die!

Funny thing, why no mention of nuclear power in the green deal if we are all fighting such a war? They are expensive, and really the only energy source needed that will meet the countries demands, yet people like AOC don't want it.

That tells me they really don't believe what they are saying or they simply don't care about meeting the needs of the country.

And how comfy would you be with a nuclear plant in your back yard ?? Nuclear has it's own issues.
 
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#16
And how comfy would you be with a nuclear plant in your back yard ?? Nuclear has it's own issues.
Nuclear power has come a long way. In fact, I think the technology is now out there to where a melt down is no longer a concern.

The horror stories we have seen on TV are from 1960's technology nuclear power plants.

As for it being in my back yard, I don't think anyone wants to live near one, but at the end of the day if carbon emissions are what is destroying us and we only have 12 years till we all die, what choice is there?

It seems odd to me that people like AOC think we are in a desperate war but refuses to use various weapons.
 
Mar 2013
10,008
10,797
Middle Tennessee
#17
Nuclear power has come a long way. In fact, I think the technology is now out there to where a melt down is no longer a concern.

The horror stories we have seen on TV are from 1960's technology nuclear power plants.

As for it being in my back yard, I don't think anyone wants to live near one, but at the end of the day if carbon emissions are what is destroying us and we only have 12 years till we all die, what choice is there?

It seems odd to me that people like AOC think we are in a desperate war but refuses to use various weapons.

I'm not really all that worried about carbon emissions. I'm worried about the fact that China has 1.4 BILLION people, 3 1/2 times our population. India has 900 million and change, right at 3 times our population. Their economies are growing and rapidly. China's economy is second only to ours and they have already passed us in some cases (automobiles). India is just a few years behind. There is only so much oil, coal, and other minerals to go around. With three and a half times our population, a huge percentage of the world's natural resources and more than sufficient manufacturing capabilities. Short of a nuclear exchange, how long do you think we'd last in a conventional war with China ?? They'd do to us what we did to Germany. They'd just throw so many troops and machines onto the conflict they'd eventually grind us down until we had used up every last bit of men and material.

Probably not in my life time, but if we don't start in the very next few years, fundamentally transforming our economy and society, our grand children may not have much of a future.
 
Feb 2019
1,758
421
here and there
#18
I'm not really all that worried about carbon emissions. I'm worried about the fact that China has 1.4 BILLION people, 3 1/2 times our population. India has 900 million and change, right at 3 times our population. Their economies are growing and rapidly. China's economy is second only to ours and they have already passed us in some cases (automobiles). India is just a few years behind. There is only so much oil, coal, and other minerals to go around. With three and a half times our population, a huge percentage of the world's natural resources and more than sufficient manufacturing capabilities. Short of a nuclear exchange, how long do you think we'd last in a conventional war with China ?? They'd do to us what we did to Germany. They'd just throw so many troops and machines onto the conflict they'd eventually grind us down until we had used up every last bit of men and material.

Probably not in my life time, but if we don't start in the very next few years, fundamentally transforming our economy and society, our grand children may not have much of a future.
So if the US takes a big hit on the economy by tackling this issue and China does not, then China will be that much stronger.

And if China overtakes the US, well.................then the country that does not give a damn about carbon emissions will reign as king.

Food for thought.
 
Mar 2013
10,008
10,797
Middle Tennessee
#19
So if the US takes a big hit on the economy by tackling this issue and China does not, then China will be that much stronger.

And if China overtakes the US, well.................then the country that does not give a damn about carbon emissions will reign as king.

Food for thought.

China has reluctantly started implementing emissions controls and an aggressive greening program. Even they realize we can't continue on our current path.
 
Feb 2007
5,580
3,142
USA
#20
How can this "Green New Deal" not include nuclear power investment?

Does anyone here think the US can be fossil fuel free with just wind and solar?

From a scientific viewpoint, that is just plain silly unless we are going to use a whole lot less energy than we do now.
...and the studies from the scientific research that concluded that it "is just plain silly unless we are going to use a whole lot less energy than we do now" can be found at...?

(Personally speaking, I think it is quite possible the entire (lower 48 states + possibly Alaska via Canada) could eventually become 100% electrified by wind and solar...along with various forms of energy storage such as flow batteries, & all connected together in a smart grid. That evolving technology actually exists today...and at deceasing prices over time, combined with increasing capabilities and efficiencies.)


Edit:

Now, if we had only listened to and learned from these gents some years ago...
(Their vision then is possible now.)

In 1987 the book “Uncommon Friends: Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel, & Charles Lindbergh” was published. The author James D. Newton was a friend of each one of these prominent figures from history.


Many of the discussions and incidents described in the book occurred decades before the publication date. To support their veracity Newton stated that he kept contemporaneous notes: 1


I have not had to rely on my memory alone to record the events, anecdotes, and conversations in which I took part with my friends over a period of nearly fifty years. Fortunately, during most of that time I kept a diary in which I noted times and places, key phrases, and vivid impressions. I also relied on publications by and about my friends, which jogged my memory.​

Newton described a conversation between Thomas Edison, automobile manufacturer Henry Ford, and tire manufacturer Harvey Firestone. Edison began with a provocative remark about the possible depletion of resources in the future. Boldface has been added to excerpts: 2


“We are like tenant farmers, chopping down the fence around our house for fuel, when we should be using nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy—sun, wind, and tide.”
Firestone responded that oil and coal and wood couldn’t last forever. They’d been tackling rubber. He wondered how much hard research was going into harnessing the wind, for example. Windmills hadn’t changed much in a thousand years.”
Ford said there were enormously powerful tides—for example, the Bay of Fundy. Scientists had only been playing with the question so far.
Edison said, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had more years left!”​

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/09/solar/
 
Last edited: