Green New Deal
Green New Deal
(OP)
It is being widely ridiculed, but at the same time, there are a lot of nutters around who like the sound of it.
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
|
Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.
Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:
Register now while it's still free!
Already a member? Close this window and log in.
RE: Green New Deal
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
Johnny Pellin
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-g...
RE: Green New Deal
It seems to me that the parts that relate directly to the environment, whilst being very generalised, are quite reasonable.
I think it's a shame they have chosen to write it in a way that seems to be intentionally divisive along political party lines, thus guaranteeing the opposition of many who would agree with the environment related statements.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: Green New Deal
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
RE: Green New Deal
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: Green New Deal
It IS a divisive topic, no two ways about it. Sorry IDS, no offense and no intention whatsoever of shooting you down personally, I was simply answering your question. I believe we have already been moving toward a better end in the last 40 or 50 years in many regards environmentally. Why must the social programs be part of a "green" initiative? How does it figure in? It's the line item veto debate. Why must we be fed the distasteful garbage along with something that is worthy and conscionable?
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
RE: Green New Deal
Where to start:
1) Net zero green house gas emissions is admirable, but a bit overzealous considering where we are now.
2) The stuff about ensuring jobs for all has nothing to do with the environment. Just goofy political rhetoric since the government can't really create jobs.
3) I don't know how "healthy food" is an environmental necessity. More political goofiness.
4) All the stuff about oppression of various groups is meant purely as political posturing.... See the other side likes to kill puppies. It has nothing to do with improving the environment or reducing global warming.
5) The cost of upgrading all existing building (by federal mandate) will cost us (the american people) a ton of money. It's one thing to say new construction or retrofits should be energy efficient, et cetera. Totally another thing to force all existing building to meet the new criteria.
6) Why the emphasis on UNION jobs? Again, this is purely political and has nothing to do with the environment.
7) Health care for all because that's soooo important to the environmental and the fight against global warming?
Honestly, I feel like if they really cared about this project / resolution, they would have written this in a vastly different way. A way that focuses on the environment. Rather, this is a socialist manifesto on how they want to transform the US into a democratic socialist utopia. I gotta appreciate their honesty about it though!
RE: Green New Deal
""Technologies include wrapping lines that are likely to spark in fireproof materials, or installing “smart” wires that can read wind speed, temperatures and humidity to accurately predict the risk of wildfire, and either immediately shut down or reverse power flow.""
ROFLMAO
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/electric-compani...
RE: Green New Deal
Well duh, if you reverse the power flow, it puts fires out......right?
oh, oh...Well duh, you need to reverse the flow to empty all the electricity from the power lines so you don't get a leak.
Doesn't the wind speed, temperature, and humidity of large swathes of California present significant risk of wildfires for over half the year? That's a lot of down time for these transmission lines.
Andrew H.
www.mototribology.com
RE: Green New Deal
Solar collectors, windmills and other similar devices must be numerous and large to collect energy from a diffuse source and collect it to make electricity. The very fact that these devices must be large, cheap and numerous means that they will be at risk due to the increasingly violent weather that we all are experiencing.
Solar panels, mirrors and the like are subject to wind storm and tornado damage. The old thermal coal, gas and nuclear plants are not.
Windmills located offshore (the best place to generated power) are subject to the increasing hurricane threats.
Generating wave power by using floating devices is just a contest waiting for the next storm .....
There are few places in the US to increase generation by hydropower....
The only two viable means of CONTROLLED power generation in the future are combined cycle (gas fired) power plants and nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants generate ZERO carbon dioxide CC plants generate roughly HALF the amount that a similar sized coal plant would generate.
I read a recommendation that, after the storm devastation in Puerto Rico, we should simply power the entire island by solar power ....
Yea ..... that would work, for a while anyway....
MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
I think this Green New Deal does a good job of at least getting the point across that drastic, radical steps need to be taken immediately; even if the specific action items are questionable or debatable. Someone had to start somewhere to get us off dead center. We are talking about it more now aren't we? So I'd say the pot was effectively stirred, if nothing else.
Maybe instead of mocking and dismissing it out of hand, we could lend our collective expertise into improving the technical aspects and eventually lead to sound policies that can be enacted with bipartisan support. Issues aren't politicized by politicians - they are politicized by our collective attitudes. Politicians aren't going to take any legislation seriously until the population as a whole starts taking the threat seriously. Why do we expect them to have any guts to act boldly when we trash and mock the first person who dares to try something, instead of saying "OK, that's a start. But here's what won't work and here's what might work and here are the constraints and here are the areas we should focus our investment to overcome those constraints", etc.
My old boss used to say, "don't tell me why something isn't going to work unless you are coming to me with a solution". If government policy was enacted that forced us (and funded us) to find solutions, I'm confident engineers would bring solutions to the table instead of showing up with reasons it can't be done. It's what we've always done.
I'm currently working on a WWTP upgrade where the facilities are being constructed with "stilts" to accommodate a 4 ft sea level rise and increased storm surge predicted by the year 2075. So am I a liberal nutter or a pragmatic engineer doing what needs to be done to ensure water resources are available in the future? I certainly got a well-paying job out of it, as will the local masons, precasters, MEP contractors, etc.
RE: Green New Deal
Excellent point. Hopefully, this kick starts a more rational and feasible course of action on things that are REALLY meant to address global warming rather than over the top socialism.
I don't think we have been "dismissing it out of hand", rather we have been dismissing it based on a rational evaluation of what it actually says... very little of which relates to global warming or the environment. Also, I would argue that the Green New Deal was always INTENDED to be a hyper-partisan document. Its intention is to create division (IMHO). I'm just can't tell if the intent was to create division between Republicans and Democrats or between the socialist and the moderate wings of the Democrats.
If I had to guess, I'd say it was intended to create division between Dems and Repubs, the puppy killer argument that I keep mentioning. But, the reality is that it's creating more division within the Democratic party.
This whole thing is a great lesson in politics. Nancy Pelosi (who's really, really politically astute) knew immediately that this resolution was a problem, so she distanced herself from it. The presidential candidates (Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, etc) who are no where near as smart as Pelosi (IMO) embraced it before reading it. Then Mitch McConnell decides to bring it to a vote in the Senate, which was a great political move. It made AOC look bad, because no one voted for it. Which highlighted how extreme AOC's wing of the party is and helped create (or at least amplify) divisions within the democratic party.
RE: Green New Deal
It just all comes down to whether you believe the report or not. If your reaction to the report isn’t for extreme action, then that can only mean you either: 1) don’t believe it’s really happening, or 2) believe it but don’t really care or it’s just too big of a problem to solve without affecting our current lives significantly, so why bother trying.
I get the political maneuvering, but it just seems so petty in the context of a potential extinction-level threat. But it’s really us who are enabling and instigating that pettiness with our own collective views and attitudes.
RE: Green New Deal
1) I think several of us here haven't "drunk the koolaid" because we appreciate how models can be manipulated to give the answer you want. I think several of us are suspicious of the data manipulation that has been practiced in the past.
2) I think several of us are suspicious of what we see as "government over-reach", regardless of it's objective.
3) I think anything to try and "solve" the problem is so disruptive to our society that it is a political non-starter. I would like to see more nuclear powerstations, more research on fusion power. Making petrol $10/gallon would be a start (though a political/economic non-starter). Making FF based energy expensive is a political non-starter, but this is the primary driving force in our economy (ie if it costs more, we will become more efficient in using it).
4) I think what we're trying to implement now won't "fix" the problem, but is politically acceptable. Taxing for "climate change" is just money going into the government coffers, and little action against the problem.
5) I think many of us appreciate that this is a truly global problem, needs global solutions, and us falling on our swords won't "fix" it (but will doom us).
6) As engineers, we should be designing to account for anticipated changes in our climate, ie building sea-walls, accounting for anticipated/predicted sea-level change ... the worst thing to happen is our client spends alittle more on his project. Of course too we should look into more efficient ways to extract energy, to use energy, and to develop alternative means to create usable energy that produce less CO2. Our clients can then invest in these projects.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
Regarding the topic of climate change, it was predicated above that "If we accept the conclusions as fact" then extreme measures are required on our part to immediately address it. Many of us environmentally conscientious individuals don't blindly accept the bastardization of the scientific method that has been wielded by the likes of Al Gore for political and personal gain as objective and convincing evidence that we are responsible for what is being referred to as global warming, climate change, anthropogenic climate change, or whatever else you choose to call it.
Maui
RE: Green New Deal
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: Green New Deal
Every time I get into this topic on this site, it seems we end up backpedaling from the initial discussion and find there is very little common ground of mutually accepted facts from which to start from. It's frustrating. People have every right to be skeptical about anything, we're all critical thinkers in our own way... but this issue is a doozy for humanity, so I'd rather be on the safe side and assume scientists aren't just being alarmists so they can secure another grant.
RE: Green New Deal
I chuckled out loud at my desk when I read this. I really enjoy your sense of humor.... Not because I want to make fun of environmentalists. But, because I read the Green New Deal and found it to be quite naive and sophomoric.
It's interesting, I believe Al Gore merely did with this issue what politicians do all the time on a wide variety of political issues. His intention was the same as all politicians... to advance their particular political agenda. The problem, as I see it, is it did the exact opposite.... While it helped his career (Nobel Prize etc), it hurt the cause he was trying to support.
That being said, I believe the time has come for us to put aside political differences and work out some kind of compromise agreement to reduce our C02 emissions. If we don't there is a pretty good chance there will be some devastating effects. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it's based on pretty sound science and there are a lot of folks / scientist that agree. Can we at least get you to go along with some reasonable common sense legislation to reduce our carbon emissions? Maybe add a federal gas tax (minor at first that climbs a bit each year), maybe add a large fee / tax on the power plants that produce the most carbon per MegaWatt? That way we can move away from coal plants.
RE: Green New Deal
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: Green New Deal
I really don’t think the Green New Deal or its proponents are naive and sophomoric. I think it was designed to recalibrate the public’s sense of urgency and to convey the scale of changes that are necessary in the immediate future. I think it did fairly well in that respect.
People who think it’s overreaching, unachievable and pie-in-the-sky are missing the point... with the scale of the threat and the time we have left to combat it, the only options we have left that have a chance of creating a better outcome for future generations ARE the drastic ones. The outcome for doing nothing and the outcome for taking some moderate incremental action are the same outcome. We really need to get our heads around that. It’s surreal that we are in this situation, but here we are.
RE: Green New Deal
https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/5979290/c...
RE: Green New Deal
I don't think this is a case of government propaganda though. The central government's policies are clearly intent on phasing out coal, but the endemic corruption of provincial governments makes it hard to enforce the wishes of the central leadership. Fundamentally it's commercial market forces rebelling against "overreaching "centralized government policies that are at cross-purposes with industry profit motive. Maybe there will be a crackdown before too many of these coal plants come online.
RE: Green New Deal
Excuse me ?!?!
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
In 2017 China emitted twice the amount of CO2 than did the USA. And it is rising rapidly.
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
Second of all, per capita rates relate to efficiency. There’s no reason why the most developed country should be the least efficient. Drive through China and you’ll see most houses have solar water heaters. I’ve seen that in the US maybe a couple times. We just choose to be wasteful and inefficient because we feel entitled to a convenient lifestyle.
If you look at criticism of “alarmists”, it’s always the same old strategy: find some minute controversial detail to latch onto so you can undermine their credibility. Nevermind the argument as a whole, just focus one tiny thing so you can discredit the rest. Classic.
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
A relative showed me some economic study about how the high requirements for manufacturing in Europe (cleaner power, energy efficiency, and others) resulted in net INCREASE in CO2. The reason being the manufacturing was sent to other countries without these strict requirements, then adding on the CO2 to ship the finished products back to Europe.
Rather than use this as a reason to not take ANY action, we have to adjust our thinking a bit. So, why not tax any imported goods that are deemed to be higher in carbon emissions than if they were manufactured here? Maybe not the best solution, but it's something to think about.
The sad thing is I think no matter what solution we come up with, we're going to have to live through a period of higher inflation. But, this is merely because the current price of goods that we have doesn't reflect the real long term cost of those goods.
RE: Green New Deal
it's a pity that the US is so against building nukes (as China is) which are probably the best short term energy solution. Renewables have a niche to fill, but they won't create a total solution. Renewables are being built with govt subsidies, which can/will change on a whim (we recently lost our govt incentive for hybrid/electric cars because of a govt change).
the questions I'd pose to "believers" would be "what level of CO2 do you want ?" (maybe 260ppm) then "why?" (the level before industrialisation") and "what has to happen to get there?". And therein is the problem. Nothing (short of killing about 80-90% of the population, and returning to subsistence a life style) will get us back to that level, and maybe we shouldn't. And then, for all we know, some other natural mechanism may take over and defeat our "best" efforts to control the environment.
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Green New Deal
What ppm would we want as our goals? I'd settle for keeping future CO2 emissions where we are now as short term goal. Then maybe 350 for a long term goal.... approximately where we were at in 1995.
RE: Green New Deal
I did clarify that I meant per capita and provided a link to support my statement. I also conceded that there are other ways to look at it, which I thought was mature and reasonable on my part.
Have you considered the time factor? How many more decades has the US been producing consistently high levels of pollution compared to the developing world? The earth doesn't reset the effects of pollution every year and wipe the slate clean. Where does the US rank if you consider cumulative contribution over time?
It's up to government to set the agenda and goals based on best available climate science. It's up to engineers and the private sector to figure out how to get from point A to point B. It's up to government to form policies and allocate funds and resources to the appropriate places to give us the best chance of succeeding. That's why I think the Green New Deal is a good start. It's a statement of purpose with a defined goal and timeline. So in my mind it is fulfilling government's role.
Yes I'm a "believer", but I'm a structural engineer, so my ideas on energy are pretty broad and basic. But conceptually I think our best shot is to maximize distributed renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal. We already have these technologies available, we just need an externality (the government) to tip the economic scale to stimulate action. In parallel to the build-up of distributed generation, develop reliable energy storage and modernize distribution technologies. This would minimize demand on large power plants and build up a middle class industry of small scale renewable system designers and installers. I don't think any of this is that far out of reach. We have the technologies, expertise and funds to do it if we chose to.
Unlike Josh, I think more taxes are politically unviable, so I'd rather see massive tax credits that make these systems dirt cheap for most people. Pay for the tax credits by reducing reallocations in the budget or simply add on to the national debt. The debt is so astronomically high already that it's essentially meaningless at this point. It's especially meaningless if the climate is going to be unlivable in a generation or two. You might say I'm being ridiculous, but it's the exact same approach as the Republican tax reform bill.
One easy thing we could do is just stop subsidizing the fossil power industry.
RE: Green New Deal
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: Green New Deal
You keep saying these things like
and
At what point in time do you think human nature will make an abrupt change from what it has historically been and we will no longer be able to adapt to a changing climate? Humans live and thrive in just about every available climate on Earth. Barring a global cataclysm, which we can neither prepare for nor prevent, I just cannot see how the climate could change so drastically that we would not survive it as a species.
Let's just say for discussion's sake that we were to face extinction for any reason. So what? Extinctions happen. The Earth continues on it's merry way. We won't be around to rue it and no one aside from our dogs will miss us.
I am all for a sustainable existence and minimizing our negative impact on the world, but let's not forget that the number one attribute that has made humans into the species we are today is our ability to adapt whether behaviorally or physically.
Andrew H.
www.mototribology.com
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
I'd prefer to try to prevent a rise in global hardship if it's within our power. If it's beyond our control, than yea it is what it is and we'll have to adapt. Preventative adaptation is different from reactive adaptation. We are capable of preventative adaptation, but apparently less capable of agreeing on the need to adapt. I'm choosing to go with the hypothesis that we need to adapt because 1) I'd rather be on the safe side and 2) I believe the corrective actions are beneficial to our quality of life whether or not a threat actually exists.
RE: Green New Deal
Humans aren't exactly great at avoiding unintended consequences and I think ANYTHING we would try with the intent of "fixing" the climate would make the planet, and us, suffer worse than if we minded our own business. It is pure hubris to think the climate even should be "fixed" so it is ideal for humans.
Andrew H.
www.mototribology.com
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
I don't agree that extremism (in any direction) is a good position for governmental bodies to operate from.
Norm
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal
RE: Green New Deal