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.

But it is not just AOC. Most of the Democrats who have announced they will run for President in 2020 have co-sponsored her resolution.

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.

I'd guess at this point there is practically nothing in it that can be acted on. Dare I call it hot air?

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

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!"

The Green New Deal is not a bill. It is a resolution. It is intended to state a bold position about future US action needed to avert the most severe consequences of climate change. It does not outlaw cows, cars or planes.

Johnny Pellin

Note above that's 6 to 1 engineers talkkng.

For those of you who are interested in reading the content of this proposal, it is attached in its entirety. It is a very quick read.

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=9d932602-73dd-4f29-97a9-a

One attempt at costing the Green New Deal.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-g...

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
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

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.

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
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

"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.

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!

""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...

Quote (snarkysparky)

""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.""

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

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

This resolution has been put to a vote in the Senate. Voted down 57-0, without a single Democrat vote in favor. Even the ones who are running for President and have given their endorsement voted "present". Gutless. So what do the juveniles propose next?

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.

Quote (Bones206)

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.

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.

Quote (Bones206)

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

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.

The conclusions of the federal climate change demand extreme action. If we accept the conclusions as fact, we should all be considering ourselves extremists and aligning ourselves with extremist politicians. The word extreme has a negative connotation but sometimes it’s prudent and conservative to be extreme. Being extreme doesn’t necessarily equate to overreacting. I would argue that being slow to act and making incremental changes might well lead to extreme negative consequences.

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.

my 2c ...

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 ?

We don’t seem to have a problem drinking the kool aid when it comes to military spending for perceived security threats. But in reality what is the greater threat and where are all our tax dollars going?

I have a great deal of difficulty discussing the actual content of the "Green New Deal" with a straight face when it reads as though it was written by a 5th grader who is on heavy medication.

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

We could do something both meaningful and extreme, like building a bunch of nuke plants. Uhhhh, no we couldn't...

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Maui - what does Al Gore have to do with the National Climate Assessment? These are the authors. Do you have any evidence that any of those government employees wrote that report for political or personal gain?

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.

Quote (Maui)

I have a great deal of difficulty discussing the actual content of the "Green New Deal" with a straight face when it reads as though it was written by a 5th grader who is on heavy medication.

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.

Quote (Maui)

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

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.

We can do anything we want / can tolerate. If China and India don't buy in as well, what we do just won't matter. It is a GLOBAL issue.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

China started making drastic changes and large investments in clean energy a decade ago. The US pollutes more than any other country but will probably be the last to act.

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.

Be careful of swallowing the Chinese propaganda.

https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/5979290/c...

Wow, that is an unfortunate development Hokie. I lived in China for a while, working on a part of their massive nuclear power buildup. A lot of the friends I made there have made good careers working on the many renewable energy and nuclear project. They've built an absolute army of young engineers to meet the demand and are a significant part of the new middle class.

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.

"The US pollutes more than any other country . . ."

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.

I guess it depends if you are ranking by gross output or per capita. Besides carbon emissions, America certainly generates more solid waste than any other country. It doesn't really matter if the US is number 1, 2, 3, 4... the point is the US is one of the very top polluters on the planet. So it's only fair that we should be getting busy cleaning up our act, not pointing fingers at others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

In 2017 China emitted twice the amount of CO2 than did the USA. And it is rising rapidly.

And per capita the US emits more than twice the amount China does.

The earth does not care about per capita. It cares about tons, and it is not as you stated. This is why alarmists have low credibility.

First of all, China is busy making the necessary changes and investments. We are not. At least they are trying and not in denial about it.

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.

Bones, grow up. If you are going to participate in any discussion check your facts first, unless you really do not care if they are correct or not.

Composite pro has a decent point.... I don't know that is enough to argue that we shouldn't clean up our own act, but we have to also understand there are repercussions.

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.

recognise too that China has a different government style than the US.

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 ?

I think we need to create a new type of environmentalism..... Aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Pro Nuclear power, pro hydro, anti-coal. Wind and Solar are fine ideas, but have real limits to when and where they can be used.

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.

Quote (Compositepro)

Bones, grow up. If you are going to participate in any discussion check your facts first, unless you really do not care if they are correct or not.

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.

Quote (Compositepro)

The earth does not care about per capita. It cares about tons, and it is not as you stated. This is why alarmists have low credibility.

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?

Quote (rb1957)

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?".

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.

you tip your hand with statements like "if the climate is going to be unlivable in a generation or two".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

bones206,
You keep saying these things like

Quote (bones206)

if the climate is going to be unlivable in a generation or two

and

Quote (bones206)

a potential extinction-level threat

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

I was just making a point about the relative importance of the national debt to the hardships predicted to be imposed by major climate change. In 2075 your coastal cities are underwater and your crops can't produce enough to feed the population, I don't think you will look back at 2019 people and say boy I'm glad they minded the budget instead of taking on debt to try to stop this from happening. Please don't take me so literally.

Again, just making a contextual framework for an argument. Not saying the contextual framework (unlivable climate, extinction) is definitely going to happen, but these are the potential outcomes that are being considered so that's why I put things in that perspective.

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.

I would rather not try to prevent anything from happening since we have absolutely no basis or historical evidence to imply our actions would not makes things worse. Going ahead with reducing our impact, adapting to the changes already in motion, and letting the Earth fix itself over time is the safest and most logical option. The Earth has a proven track history of balancing forces that become to powerful to sustain.

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

So you are providing a context of geologic timescale, in which case I totally agree that the earth is gonna do its thing and humanity is just small potatoes and the grand scheme of the universe. My concerns are in the context of the next several generations of my descendents and the prospects of their quality of life and ultimately survival. And we aren’t really minding our own business are we? We have been actively affecting the climate so we have to actively stop doing that.

If I could only determine that this resolution was more about a seed of environmental engineering wrapped up in some social engineering chaff rather than the other way around . . .

I don't agree that extremism (in any direction) is a good position for governmental bodies to operate from.


Norm

An old negotiation perspective which is true is you can't get what you don't ask for. So why not ask for it all and celebrate when you get some? AOC fronting the Green New Deal scheme is just a promotional phenomena. The the attention should be placed on who fronted here and why, but as our main stream press has now said, we just present, we don't investigate. Sell the sizzle....

Sell the sizzle...and the idiocy that underlies it all.

And I though the experiments with socialism in the 20th century concluded that, no, socialism is not a good idea, and no, it wont deliver what it promises...