Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Green New Deal 26
- Thread starter hokie66
- Start date
- Status
-
1
- #2
ornerynorsk
Industrial
There are some attractive bits in the planks of the Communist Manifesto, as well. AOC has but a wispy grasp of timelines, monetary reality, and how much government overreach will be tolerated by the right.
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #3
-
1
- #4
JoshPlumSE
Structural
It's got a cool catchy name. That's the best thing about it. But, I'm a bit of a cynic.... When it comes to the general public, gaining support starts with creating a catching jingle / catchy name. If you can sell that (make america great again, yes we can, compassionate conservative, et cetera) then you've won half the battle.
JoshPlumSE
Structural
Sometimes the point of a bill is that it is NOT supposed to pass. Then you get to point to your political opposition and say, "See my opponent hates puppies! He / she voted against XYZ. The puppy killer vote is more important to him/her than your vote is!"
-
2
- #7
-
1
- #9
- Thread starter
- #10
One attempt at costing the Green New Deal.
Having now read the proposal, I'd be interested to hear which bits people find objectionable.
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
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
-
3
- #12
ornerynorsk
Industrial
Well, IDS, except that we're all to be become minions of an incredibly all-powerful socialist government, yeah, it's a brilliant plan. It's the same form of utter BS and nonsense that every despotic form of government has come from. "We'll take care of you" - "You'll be safe" - "Your children will have a better world to live in". Blah, blah, blah. We're already moving toward and doing the important bits, why must these grand plans always involve selling our souls to the socialist left? Oh, that and the price tag. 93 trillion or so? Really? And that money will come from where?
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.
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.
Looks like there's no point in trying to have a sensible discussion about what it actually says, so I'll leave it.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
ornerynorsk
Industrial
"I'd be interested to hear which bits people find objectionable."
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.
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.
-
6
- #15
JoshPlumSE
Structural
IDS -
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!
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!
-
1
- #16
snarkysparky
Electrical
""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
ROFLMAO
SuperSalad
Chemical
snarkysparky said:
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.
One of the topics that is never discussed regarding a "carbon free" power generating system is it's fragility.
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
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
-
1
- Thread starter
- #19
FDR had a lot of critics too, but I think the New Deal worked out pretty well overall. There will always be way more people who say something can't be done than those who have the bold vision to try to change the arc of history in a positive direction. The "juveniles" have the most skin in the game, since it's our future quality of life and security on the line. It's only natural that someone would emerge from that generation to try to make create a movement to clean up the mess left to them by previous generations. It's called clear-eyed self-preservation. It's also predictable that the reaction from previous generations would be dismissive, since to admit there is an urgent problem would be to implicitly accept some level of culpability.
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
