Green New Deal

[Zeek 16,649]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/435362-green-new-deal-vote-tests-dem-unity-in-senate

Quote

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) this week will face his biggest test keeping White House hopefuls aligned with the rest of the Democratic caucus when Republicans force a vote on the Green New Deal.

Schumer wants all Democrats to vote “present” on the motion to proceed to the ambitious, and divisive, climate change measure championed by firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), despite the fact that several presidential candidates in the chamber have already endorsed her proposal.

The Senate’s companion resolution, sponsored by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), is co-sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who are all running for president.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) scheduled the vote in hopes of driving a wedge between 2020 Democrats, who are trying to appeal to the party’s liberal base, and more centrist Democrats who face competitive reelection campaigns next year.

McConnell says the Green New Deal has all the components for “a good old-fashioned, state-planned economy,” and that it is “garden variety 20th century socialism.”

The proposal says the federal government must achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create millions of high-wage jobs by investing in sustainable infrastructure.

It sets a 10-year schedule to meet 100 percent of the nation’s power demand through renewable, zero-emission energy sources and upgrade all buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency.

Democrats argue McConnell is setting up a “sham vote” and note that liberal advocacy groups like the Sunrise Movement and Credo Action that back the Green New Deal have given senators a pass to vote “present.” They also say polling shows majorities of Americans think climate change is a serious problem that requires action.

The Green New Deal, however, is a sensitive topic within Democratic circles and has failed to garner sponsorship from even ardent environmentalists like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Whitehouse says the Green New Deal “doesn’t have substance yet” and describes it as “aspirational.”

He said he likes the aspiration but hasn’t co-sponsored the resolution.

“I’m a legislator and I like bills,” he said.

Whitehouse instead is working on legislation to implement a “carbon fee,” an idea that has the backing of prominent economists such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel laureate Robert Shiller.

A Democratic senator familiar with internal discussions about strategy said Schumer has asked all caucus members to vote “present” on the Green New Deal.

But at least one Democrat is preparing to break ranks. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a major coal-producing state, said he plans to vote against the measure.

“They can do what they want to do. I’m not a present-type guy,” he told The Hill last month. 

Schumer has yet to face a test of this magnitude since the 116th Congress began in early January.

He easily kept Democrats on the same page during the 35-day partial government shutdown and with a resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency border declaration — two issues that badly divided Republicans.

Senate Republicans say the Green New Deal vote will be the first of several tests they're planning for Schumer.

“That will definitely happen,” said a GOP aide, adding that Democrats could also face votes on legislation previously sponsored by Sanders to provide Medicare for all, as well as votes on U.S.-Israel policy and Democratic calls to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“The fact that Joe Manchin is going to vote against the Green New Deal makes it tough to justify voting present,” said the aide about the upcoming vote.

The Republican strategy is to force rank-and-file Democrats, including those facing competitive races like Sens. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), to stand with or against colleagues running for president on big, bold liberal proposals.

“Given that the presidential campaign is in full swing already, everyone is going to have to answer for the most prominent presidential candidates who are going so far left,” said the GOP aide, referring to the broader Democratic caucus.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, says it won’t be easy for presidential contenders to vote against the Green New Deal because it’s very popular with a base that expects candidates to stand by their principles.

“Green New Deal is very popular with the voters,” she said.

Polling by her firm, Lake Research Partners, found that 76 percent of likely Democratic primary and caucus voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada have a favorable view of the Green New Deal, and 47 percent have a very favorable view.

“If it gets defined as investing in clean energy, creating jobs and dealing with climate change, it’s going to be very, very popular,” she added.

Lake said that while general election voters are more forgiving of candidates who vote against the principles they endorse because they see specific legislation as flawed, Democratic primary voters want to see lawmakers back up their talk with action.

“Swing voters will tolerate the idea of flawed-bill-but-good-idea and want to know more about it. In the case of the base, they’re going to want to know, ‘What are you doing?’” she said. “They’re going to want to know, 'Why didn’t you fix the bill? Why didn’t you introduce your own?'”

A vote on Medicare for all could pose another test of Democratic unity.

Sanders introduced a bill in 2017 to establish a universal Medicare program that won the support of Harris, Booker, Gillibrand and Warren. Those candidates have doubled down on their support for universal Medicare as they jockey for position ahead of the 2020 Democratic primary.

Lake Research Partners found that 80 percent of likely Democratic primary and caucus voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada have a favorable view of Medicare for all, with 53 percent voicing strong support for it.

Harris said during a CNN town hall in January that she felt “very strongly” about ensuring every American has access to health care and even went so far as to advocate for doing away with private health plans.

Booker and Warren, who support Medicare for all, aren’t yet willing to call for an end to private insurance plans.

Other Democrat argue that Medicare for all is not sound policy.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who opted against a White House run, warned last month that providing Medicare for all Americans is not practical. He instead wants to lower the age for Medicare eligibility to 55.

McConnell sees this as another wedge issue to use against Democrats.

“Democrats have taken the pulse of the American people and here’s what they’ve decided: They’ve decided that American seniors want their Medicare hollowed out until the only thing left is the name,” the GOP leader said on the Senate floor earlier this month. “They decided that middle-class families are eager to be kicked off their health insurance plans and forced into a one-size-fits-all government alternative.”

When Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) offered a single-payer health insurance proposal as an amendment in 2017 to embarrass Democrats, 43 Democratic senators voted “present” and four centrist Democrats facing tough races, as well as Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), voted against it.

Lake says that while concepts of investing in clean energy and creating jobs and dramatically increasing access to health care are popular issues, votes on Medicare for all and the Green New Deal pose political risks.

“The biggest problem for our side with these bills coming up so early — and this of course is why McConnell is pushing it — is that we haven’t been able to define these bills yet,” Lake said. “As concepts they’re very popular, but we haven’t been able to define these bills, and [Republicans] have the bully pulpit to define it in negative ways.” 

McConnell may also try to divide Democrats running for president from the rest of the caucus by proposing votes on pro-Israel legislation.

Harris, Sanders, Warren and Gillibrand have said they will skip the annual American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington this week.

MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that’s popular among the Democratic base, called on presidential candidates to boycott the event because of AIPAC’s opposition to former President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal and for allegedly promoting “anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric.”

Other Democrats, including Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), plan to attend the conference.

McConnell could force a vote on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, a topic that divided House Democrats. He needled Democrats on the subject earlier this month.

“Apparently, within the Speaker’s new far-left Democrat majority, even a symbolic resolution condemning anti-Semitism seems to be a bridge too far,” McConnell said on the floor.

The GOP leader may also force a vote on the controversial proposal endorsed by some Democratic presidential candidates, such as Gillibrand, to abolish ICE.

Warren last year called for rebuilding the nation’s immigration system “from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our values.”

Schumer has tried to temper that movement by calling for the agency to be reformed instead of eliminated.

“Look, ICE does some functions that are very much needed,” he told reporters in July. “Reform ICE? Yes. That’s what I think we should do. It needs reform.”

This "Green New Deal" is a doozy for sure. I agree with it's goals but man is it chalk full of some coo-coo ideas.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 3:07 PM, Zeek said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/435362-green-new-deal-vote-tests-dem-unity-in-senate

This "Green New Deal" is a doozy for sure. I agree with it's goals but man is it chalk full of some coo-coo ideas.

It's going nowhere. Just another AOC thing to get her some attention. And it worked.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

There are multiple ways to help clean up the environment. One of the best is re-forestation. Trees do a wonderful job of removing Carbon Dioxide also provide shade which indirectly cools the land. The countries that have been most impacted by forest loss are the poorer countries one because it is one of the few ways people can earn money and two wood is used for heating and cooking. The problem in reforestation are very complicated one the countries that need it the most can't afford it, two even if richer countries give money to the poorer countries to help forest planning and planting the countries are often very corrupt and the money does not actually go to what it was donated for. We need to find a solution to re-forest in those types of countries. Maybe a Forestation service that comes into a country independent of local government that actually does the work but with regulations on percent of local people that must be hired and used.This would require knowledgeable people that would need to find right combination of trees and plants for the area where they would plant, ability to irrigate, ability to stop locals from cutting the new plants and trees down for heating and cooking.

The green New Deal addresses the US whose Carbon footprint has actually been going down both before and after Trump became President and tends to dream about green energy {Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, etc.} without truly understanding the economic and environmental impact of those solutions.

Climate change is a real issue and should be discussed in the Halls of Congress and in our homes and businesses.While I am for small government there is a place for guidance in building regulations.  Little things that can make a big difference. . Michigan walls 2x6 studs on 2' centers instead if 2x4 studs on 16" centers that means you get 51/2" inches of insulation instead of 31/2"  insulation. A 2x6 is more expensive but by having them every 2 feet instead of every 16 inches you use fewer boards. It will still cost a little more but compared to total home price will pay for itself in a few years with energy savings both in winter and summer. Type of insulation used can make a big difference also.

 If somebody remodels a home give them a Tax break if they replace current Insulation with foam insulation. Larger tax break for low income people or even small subsidies for low income people to upgrade insulation.

Basically we need to find ways to cut down on energy usage in a way that people can afford to do it. Solar on every home is a wonderful idea but at this time is not economically feasible especially for the low income families. Electric cars are coming. Once we have a true energy storage breakthrough that will increase car range ,quick re-charge time, ideally a solution that is not fire prone, lighter than current batteries, and doesn't have to be replaced every few years the electric car will take off. Mass produced they will actually be cheaper then current internal combustion engines. 

These are the things we should be doing in this country some like energy research being done by both private companies and government grants but would be nice if we could do more. What we can't do is let government try and drive it. We can't afford more Solyndra's. One of the reasons over the last couple of decades that the US carbon footprint has gotten smaller is because of capitalism. Natural gas energy production has been replacing coal because of fracking natural gas is a byproduct of it and is cheaper and cleaner burning than coal. Without any government regulations coal plants will eventually disappear but in a gradual manner as older plants are replaced buying time for areas that produce coal to wean themselves off of coal jobs. Education that is based on science, philosophy and debate so you have a technical background and a critical thinking background not an indoctrination background.

I took a debate class at Auburn many years ago don't remember the professors name but half the class was given the assignment of proving we should be in Vietnam and the other half to prove that we should not be there. we had our debates two weeks later. He then graded each debater on how good your research was and how well you made your point.. The professor then had the two groups take the other position and then two weeks later we debated. It forced everybody to research and look at both sides. to this day I don't know if the professor was for or against the Vietnam war. He made us think and make our own choice that is what a good teacher does. People who are taught to research  and make informed decisions will help us improve our standard of living while improving out planet. We have to fix education in this country.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 3/28/2019 at 10:31 PM, Proud Tiger said:

It's going nowhere. Just another AOC thing to get her some attention. And it worked.

Certainly worked with the MAGA's!  

Just look at the AOC threads on this forum for example.  It's hilarious.

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

21 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Michigan walls 2x6 studs on 2' centers instead if 2x4 studs on 16" centers that means you get 51/2" inches of insulation instead of 31/2"  insulation. A 2x6 is more expensive but by having them every 2 feet instead of every 16 inches you use fewer boards. It will still cost a little more but compared to total home price will pay for itself in a few years with energy savings both in winter and summer. Type of insulation used can make a big difference also.

Great Post NTex. Much of coastal Florida requires new construction with 2 x 6 exterior studs @ 16". Based on storm resistance more than energy cost I suppose.  2 x 6 alleviates a lot of problems with space and super for insulation but increase window and door jamb cost. Never have been a proponent of any wall with studs @ 2'. Creates problems in other areas. Amazing how energy efficient we can build things. Love to see tax breaks on replacement windows.    

[homersapien 11,367]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase.html

U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed

WASHINGTON — America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.

Strikingly, the sharp uptick in emissions occurred even as a near-record number of coal plants around the United States retired last year, illustrating how difficult it could be for the country to make further progress on climate change in the years to come, particularly as the Trump administration pushes to roll back federal regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The estimate, by the research firm Rhodium Group, pointed to a stark reversal. Fossil fuel emissions in the United States have fallen significantly since 2005 and declined each of the previous three years, in part because of a boom in cheap natural gas and renewable energy, which have been rapidly displacing dirtier coal-fired power.

Yet even a steep drop in coal use last year wasn’t enough to offset rising emissions in other parts of the economy. Some of that increase was weather-related: A relatively cold winter led to a spike in the use of oil and gas for heating in areas like New England.

But, just as important, as the United States economy grew at a strong pace last year, emissions from factories, planes and trucks soared. And there are few policies in place to clean those sectors up.

“The big takeaway for me is that we haven’t yet successfully decoupled U.S. emissions growth from economic growth,” said Trevor Houser, a climate and energy analyst at the Rhodium Group.

 

As United States manufacturing boomed, for instance, emissions from the nation’s industrial sectors — including steel, cement, chemicals and refineries — increased by 5.7 percent.

Policymakers working on climate change at the federal and state level have so far largely shied away from regulating heavy industry, which directly contributes about one-sixth of the country’s carbon emissions. Instead, they’ve focused on decarbonizing the electricity sector through actions like promoting wind and solar power.

But even as power generation has gotten cleaner, those overlooked industrial plants and factories have become a larger source of climate pollution. The Rhodium Group estimates that the industrial sector is on track to become the second-biggest source of emissions in California by 2020, behind only transportation, and the biggest source in Texas by 2022.

There’s a similar story in transportation: Since 2011, the federal government has been steadily ratcheting up fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks, although the Trump administration has proposed to halt the toughening of those standards after 2021.

There are signs that those standards have been effective. In the first nine months of 2018, Americans drove slightly more miles in passenger vehicles than they did over that span the previous year, yet gasoline use dropped by 0.1 percent, thanks in part to fuel-efficient vehicles and electric cars.

But, as America’s economy expanded last year, trucking and air travel also grew rapidly, leading to a 3 percent increase in diesel and jet fuel use and spurring an overall rise in transportation emissions for the year. Air travel and freight have also attracted less attention from policymakers to date and are considered much more difficult to electrify or decarbonize.

Demand for electricity surged last year, too, as the economy grew, and renewable power did not expand fast enough to meet the extra demand. As a result, natural gas filled in the gap, and emissions from electricity rose an estimated 1.9 percent. (Natural gas produces lower CO2 emissions than coal when burned, but it is still a fossil fuel.)

Even with last year’s increase, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States are still down 11 percent since 2005, a period of considerable economic growth. Trump administration officials have often cited that broader trend as evidence that the country can cut its climate pollution without strict regulations.

But if the world wants to avert the most dire effects of global warming, major industrialized countries, including the United States, will have to cut their fossil-fuel emissions much more drastically than they are currently doing.

Last month, scientists reported that greenhouse gas emissions worldwide rose at an accelerating pace in 2018, putting the world on track to face some of the most severe consequences of global warming sooner than expected.

Under the Paris climate agreement, the United States vowed to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The Rhodium Group report warns that this target now looks nearly unattainable without a flurry of new policies or technological advances to drive down emissions throughout the economy.

“The U.S. has led the world in emissions reductions in the last decade thanks in large part to cheap gas displacing coal,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, who was not involved in the analysis. “But that has its limits, and markets alone will not deliver anywhere close to the pace of decarbonization needed without much stronger climate policy efforts that are unfortunately stalled if not reversed under the Trump administration.”

The Rhodium Group created its estimate by using government data for the first three quarters of 2018 combined with more recent industry data. The United States government will publish its official emissions estimates for all of 2018 later this year.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

I wonder why the process of taking CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into fuel hasn’t gotten much play?  It sounds like the perfect solution. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harvard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I wonder why the process of taking CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into fuel hasn’t gotten much play?  It sounds like the perfect solution. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harvard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html

I suspect because it's a recent development which is undoubtedly years away from scale up and deployment.

From a greenhouse gas standpoint, it doesn't make a lot of sense to convert CO2 back to a fuel, since the same CO2 will be re-released when the fuel is burned.  It would instead need to be sequestered for it to have a net reduction of greenhouse gases.

There are other proposed ways to eliminate or extract greenhouse gases, but none of them will have much net effect without vastly reducing emissions in the first place.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

I suspect because it's a recent development which is undoubtedly years away from scale up and deployment.

From a greenhouse gas standpoint, it doesn't make a lot of sense to convert CO2 back to a fuel, since the same CO2 will be re-released when the fuel is burned.  It would instead need to be sequestered for it to have a net reduction of greenhouse gases.

There are other proposed ways to eliminate or extract greenhouse gases, but none of them will have much net effect without vastly reducing emissions in the first place.

I’m sure it is years away, but the possibilities are exciting.  Consider that a lot of car manufacturers will only build electric cars after 2040 (which will reduce the fossil fuel CO2 released into the atmosphere), recapturing this C02 will greatly reduce the need for oil in the future.  Therefore, less refineries, oil spills, etc. 

One could envision this process will be able to provide enough diesel/jet fuel to fuel tractors and aircraft without dipping into the natural resources.  I know it’s pie in the sky at this point, but it could work.  A piece of the puzzle, not the whole solution.

The GND wants to get rid of CO2 emissions totally, but without nuclear power and rely on renewable energy.  The land/sea required to do this would be massive and, from what I am told by a Duke Power engineer, the toxic byproduct of the solar panels is a problem.  She mentioned that the life of a solar panel is around 20 years, also a problem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#38185a2e121c

Producing electricity is, I believe, still the #1 contributor to CO2 emissions, so how does having electric cars help with reducing CO2 emissions without nuclear power?  It’s typical of AOC to through this stuff out without any thought of how it works. I’m sure it’s the reason the Senate voted 57-0 on this proposal.

[homersapien 11,367]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m sure it is years away, but the possibilities are exciting.  Consider that a lot of car manufacturers will only build electric cars after 2040 (which will reduce the fossil fuel CO2 released into the atmosphere), recapturing this C02 will greatly reduce the need for oil in the future.  Therefore, less refineries, oil spills, etc. 

One could envision this process will be able to provide enough diesel/jet fuel to fuel tractors and aircraft without dipping into the natural resources.  I know it’s pie in the sky at this point, but it could work.  A piece of the puzzle, not the whole solution.

The GND wants to get rid of CO2 emissions totally, but without nuclear power and rely on renewable energy.  The land/sea required to do this would be massive and, from what I am told by a Duke Power engineer, the toxic byproduct of the solar panels is a problem.  She mentioned that the life of a solar panel is around 20 years, also a problem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#38185a2e121c

Producing electricity is, I believe, still the #1 contributor to CO2 emissions, so how does having electric cars help with reducing CO2 emissions without nuclear power?  It’s typical of AOC to through this stuff out without any thought of how it works. I’m sure it’s the reason the Senate voted 57-0 on this proposal.

Reducing or eliminating pollution from centralized sources is far more feasible and efficient that trying to control dispersed sources.

And nuclear is not the only emissions-free source of energy.  There is also solar, wind and hydro - including tidal.

And the "new green deal" as I understand was more about what should be done instead of how.  Most of what was in it is at least technically feasible, at least long term.  The economic issues will sort themselves out as the cost of inaction becomes more apparent.