The Green New Deal is out; most Orwellian Socialist garbage I have ever seen

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Show me any piece of evidence from an credible person saying we can eliminate greenhouse gasses in ten years.

The mania is extending 🤣

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Proposes 70% Taxation to Pay for ‘Green New Deal’

In an interview set to air Sunday on CBS News’ 60 Minutes, Ocasio-Cortez — who has begun referring to herself by the nickname, “AOC” — told Anderson Cooper that the “Green New Deal” would “require a lot of rapid change that we don’t even conceive as possible right now,” including raising taxes to a marginal rate of 70%, as in the 1960s.

AOC referred to the 70% rate on people at the “tippy-tops” as the rich merely paying their “fair share” of the tax burden.

😆

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Well that's nice,

We need jobs, this idea/policy would destroy jobs by the thousands. There is no way that green jobs would replace the amount of jobs already in place.

When I was in elementary school, they told us how robots would soon replace factory workers, but that was OK because we would still need people to repair the robots.

Even as a child, I realized that the number of people needed to repair robots would be tiny compared to the number of people the robots replaced.

This green agenda is the same way. Only a tiny percentage of the jobs destroyed will be replaced by new jobs. Where will these "guaranteed" jobs come from?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Soup line attendants.

I always thought of this young woman as a sort of comedy relief harmless kook.

but she is in congress and has actual power and influence.

if her district keeps re-electing her--which is what usually happens--imagine what she could do when she gets seniority.
imagine her becoming Speaker in a few years.
imagine her getting the democrat nomination for POTUS. any fool has at least a 50% chance of winning as a democrat.
I believe she's around thirty, so she could have forty more years to do this stuff!

please God don't let her be the wave of the future.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Well that's nice,

We need jobs, this idea/policy would destroy jobs by the thousands. There is no way that green jobs would replace the amount of jobs already in place.

When I was in elementary school, they told us how robots would soon replace factory workers, but that was OK because we would still need people to repair the robots.

Even as a child, I realized that the number of people needed to repair robots would be tiny compared to the number of people the robots replaced.

This green agenda is the same way. Only a tiny percentage of the jobs destroyed will be replaced by new jobs. Where will these "guaranteed" jobs come from?

These questions are racist. Can somebody PLEASE think of the children! (not the children of the people who will lose their jobs and starve, um, some other children)

originally posted by: ElGoobero
I always thought of this young woman as a sort of comedy relief harmless kook.

but she is in congress and has actual power and influence.

if her district keeps re-electing her--which is what usually happens--imagine what she could do when she gets seniority.
imagine her becoming Speaker in a few years.
imagine her getting the democrat nomination for POTUS. any fool has at least a 50% chance of winning as a democrat.
I believe she's around thirty, so she could have forty more years to do this stuff!

please God don't let her be the wave of the future.

I think the only positive sign is that even the media seem to realize she's bad news. They do do fluff pieces about her sometimes (of course, she's a Democrat) but they also highlight her stupidity sometimes. I don't think they really like her. Dem leadership is looking for someone the media likes enough to dutifully crawl up their ass and stay there like they did with Obama. I don't the AOC is what they're looking for.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Show me any piece of evidence from an credible person saying we can eliminate greenhouse gasses in ten years.

You seem to be cherry picking sentences out of her report. I assume you are referencing:

IV: eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

V: eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;




Switching from gas vehicles to electric is the easy/obvious solution to satisfy those requirements, and I myself work in the emissions collection field (where we already utilize century old technology to scrub greenhouse gases from industrial processes). Note she is not saying all greenhouse gas emissions are to be eliminated, but that actions should be taken in certain areas, with the end goal being to be greenhouse gas emission neutral in 10 years.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

It's pretty clear they didn't study this at all to determine feasibility. They just threw together a bunch of progressive environmentalist pipe dreams into one document because it sounds good.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

Now you're just being obtuse without offering a counter-argument. All I acknowledged was that you are correct insomuch as all nations are unique in their own ways. The point you misconstrued was the fact that it has been done means it is possible, not that because its been done in other countries its still silly (because the US isn't other countries).

You know what two countries I would love to see join us on this road to greenery? China and India. I think they really should be leading the charge on all of this, don't you? I believe that if they can make it work, then so can we, so let's have them take the first steps into this. I don't want the US to be a leader in this tech, I want us to be the ones that have to play catch-up. That way the other countries get the bugs worked out of these systems before we adopt them.

a reply to: Wayfarer

No she is saying no emissions in ten years.

The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:

Here is just part one of this asinine proposal.

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

That means no fossil fuel usage in our power grid in ten years. She admits this will require entirely renewing the energy grid which has taken over s century to build, and even goes so far as to say all buildings, even residential such as houses with be updated by the government for comfort.

Show me any reasonable engineer or scientist that thinks this is remotely possible.

And even the parts you quote say eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within ten years. Not lowering; eliminating. Show me how we will all have vehicles with no emissions in ten years.

You say electric cars. Where will we get the electricty for the cars without using fossil fuels? Already the entire grid has tio eliminate fossiul fuels and be completely redone, but now it needs to fuel all vehicles as well withion ten years?

Again, show me one engineer saying this is even remotely possible.

And that is just small parts of the plan.

We also have univeral health care and income within ten years, guarnteeing equality of outcomes based on gender, race, etc., and many more utopian government controls of freedom into life that would cost trillions of dollars and be impossible tio implement in ten years on their own.

a reply to: xuenchen

this is your "socialist monster"... imagine believing socialism/communism is raising taxes...

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

No she is saying no emissions in ten years.

The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:

Here is just part one of this asinine proposal.

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

That means no fossil fuel usage in our power grid in ten years. She admits this will require entirely renewing the energy grid which has taken over s century to build, and even goes so far as to say all buildings, even residential such as houses with be updated by the government for comfort.

Show me any reasonable engineer or scientist that thinks this is remotely possible.

And even the parts you quote say eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within ten years. Not lowering; eliminating. Show me how we will all have vehicles with no emissions in ten years.

You say electric cars. Where will we get the electricty for the cars without using fossil fuels? Already the entire grid has tio eliminate fossiul fuels and be completely redone, but now it needs to fuel all vehicles as well withion ten years?

Again, show me one engineer saying this is even remotely possible.

And that is just small parts of the plan.

We also have univeral health care and income within ten years, guarnteeing equality of outcomes based on gender, race, etc., and many more utopian government controls of freedom into life that would cost trillions of dollars and be impossible tio implement in ten years on their own.

She specifies the parts she's aiming at eliminating greenhouse gasses from. I've already said that we have the technology now to do it, yet you seem to infer that getting rid of vehicle/factory emissions implies ALL emissions forever and ever amen.

Second, its not the grid that requires complete overhaul, but rather the energy generation sources/powerplants. I can accept that the 10 year goal is quite lofty (and as I mentioned earlier I suspect more of a bargaining position point than a realistic expectation), but the US is indeed capable of achieving the goal with existing technology, and further advancements only further serve to make the enterprise even more feasible.

Electric Cars already exist. Wind/Solar/Geothermal/etc powerplants already exist. What we lack is the political will to invest the capitol to make it happen.

a reply to: Grambler

As I mentioned in a previous reply to you.............these initiatives are already under way at the Municipal levels.

To understand better, see:

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

No she is saying no emissions in ten years.

The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:

Here is just part one of this asinine proposal.

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

That means no fossil fuel usage in our power grid in ten years. She admits this will require entirely renewing the energy grid which has taken over s century to build, and even goes so far as to say all buildings, even residential such as houses with be updated by the government for comfort.

Show me any reasonable engineer or scientist that thinks this is remotely possible.

And even the parts you quote say eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within ten years. Not lowering; eliminating. Show me how we will all have vehicles with no emissions in ten years.

You say electric cars. Where will we get the electricty for the cars without using fossil fuels? Already the entire grid has tio eliminate fossiul fuels and be completely redone, but now it needs to fuel all vehicles as well withion ten years?

Again, show me one engineer saying this is even remotely possible.

And that is just small parts of the plan.

We also have univeral health care and income within ten years, guarnteeing equality of outcomes based on gender, race, etc., and many more utopian government controls of freedom into life that would cost trillions of dollars and be impossible tio implement in ten years on their own.

She specifies the parts she's aiming at eliminating greenhouse gasses from. I've already said that we have the technology now to do it, yet you seem to infer that getting rid of vehicle/factory emissions implies ALL emissions forever and ever amen.

Second, its not the grid that requires complete overhaul, but rather the energy generation sources/powerplants. I can accept that the 10 year goal is quite lofty (and as I mentioned earlier I suspect more of a bargaining position point than a realistic expectation), but the US is indeed capable of achieving the goal with existing technology, and further advancements only further serve to make the enterprise even more feasible.

Electric Cars already exist. Wind/Solar/Geothermal/etc powerplants already exist. What we lack is the political will to invest the capitol to make it happen.

I am sorry I heavily disagree.

Saying because techh exists means its doable is like saying we could have said when the first cars were made "Ok no horse and uggies in ten years time"

The scale is what is important. Show me the elevctric airplane that exists? That is transportation, which she says will have no emissions in ten years.

Show me any egnoinerer saying anythong like this is rmeotely possible anywhere close to ten years.

And that ognores all of the social justice equality of outcome based on race, universal income and helathcare, government jobs for everyone, refitting everyone single house for comfort, etc.

Lets go back to my example of selling a house.

Sure its a great idea to list my $50000 house at 5 billion, after all, we knnow tech exists that could make a house worth 5 billion!

Or no, thats a horrible idea.

Her plan amounts to total government control of the energy and economy of the countnry, race and gender based social justice policies, and all sorts of other gorvenment intrusions that have lead to the destruction of countries everytime they have been suggested on a massive scale like she is promoting.

a reply to: Wayfarer

What we lack is the political will to invest the capitol to make it happen.

My guess is that the political will is gathering headway as we speak even as the political capital necessary to get these initiatives completed is being gathered up.

One aspect of these initiatives that many of the fogey's on ATS don't quite get is the slow but inevitable turn over in the employment lake. As the world consumes less fossil fuels, employment in those industries drops. At the same time, employment in Alternative Energy fields is ever increasing and is one of the fastest growing sources of employment. Hence for example, the recent drops in the price of oil; not only is that a function of over production/over supply, its also a function of declining demand. As fewer and fewer gasoline vehicles are produced and sold, replaced by electric vehicles, the demand for oil and gas products will plummet leaving hundreds of thousands unemployed. The intelligent will retrain for jobs in the Solar and Wind energy fields; the stupid will die of opioid addiction further decreasing demand for oil and gas products.

Truthfully, the future is for the youth and that's why the fossils die off.