Green New Deal

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
McConnell is talking about the resolution I linked. Which, for the record, is the only real version.

But hey, if you'd rather attack specters than discuss the actual text, you can do that on your own.
If you’d like to pretend she never released a document you now call a specter then feel free. I will concede since I don’t know that she could have changed it after she rolled it out and before it was submitted as a resolution. Although the wording is changed I will point out that current wording would still promise the same thing as before.
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
We must transition ASAP to a green economy or be left behind.
I think the growing pains associated with the transition will always be too much for a majority of politicians to support it. The end point might be nice but all the time in between will be painful to somebody's pockets and some other people's jobs. The house is elected every 2 years. They will not vote on legislation that is slow before it benefits people when they have reelection coming up in less than 24 months.
 

Tider_in_GA

Scout Team
Nov 25, 2009
106
17
42
Rossville, GA
But let’s visit the topics one at a time:
I have no problem with the first; move should have been started long ago in earnest. Other countries in Europe, and China, are far ahead of us in this regard. Nuclear energy is not “clean”; other than the fact that nuclear waste disposal is problematic and fraught with potential dangers, Fukushima shows us that these facilities themselves can be at risk due to natural disasters.
I could go on and on, about how even the Dutch are developing “paddle” systems to generate power from wave action on the shoreline, etc, but suffice it to say I have no issue with this at all.
When the topic of clean energy comes up most point to solar power as the answer to all problems. However, solar power isn’t as “clean” as it’s made out to be either. As this article points out https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.f...-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/amp/ solar panels are made with lead and cadmium, both of which are toxic and must be properly dispose of. As more panels are made and thrown away, this problem exponentially compounds.

While nuclear obviously isn’t free of risk, it provides the most energy with the least amount of impact on the environment.

I would prefer that money be spent to advance science in fusion reactors, such as ITER https://www.iter.org, understanding that there is no guarantee of a return on that investment.
 

rjtide

1st Team
Dec 15, 1999
522
161
162
AL
We must transition ASAP to a green economy or be left behind.
By ‘we’ if you mean the federal govt then good luck. But by ‘we’ if you mean individual citizens that’s doable. I’ve stated on a couple different threads (too lazy to link specific posts) that change must begin at the individual level. In terms of thinking ‘green’.....ie installing solar panels at home, driving a plug in electric car etc. If enough individuals do that the market place will carry the country to the head of the pack or at least towards the front in terms of having a much more green economy imo. I think the best thing the govt can do is encourage such adaption of cleaner technology/green technology via tax incentives
 

Elefantman

Hall of Fame
Sep 18, 2007
5,935
3,855
187
R Can Saw
If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?

As a result, nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity. In fact, the climate scientist James Hansen finds nuclear plants have actually saved 1.8 million lives to date by preventing the pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.What about Fukushima? According to the World Health Organization, “even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.”In other words, the second worst nuclear disaster in history will have no impact on cancer rates even in the area where the accident occurred.
Solar panels produce 300 times more waste for the amount of energy created than do nuclear plants, according to simple calculations done by Mark Nelson and Jemin Desai of Environmental Progress.And, at the end of their life, solar panels are usually destined for landfills, often in poor nations, where workers and residents are at risk of exposure to the panels’ dangerously toxic heavy metals.Wind and solar generate energy for just a fraction of the year which is why, when nuclear plants are shut down, they are mostly replaced with fossil fuels, something even some anti-nuclear groups are starting to acknowledge.
But, backed by fossil-renewable energy investors like Tom Steyer, and Wall Street tycoons that stand to profit from complex carbon trading schemes, environmental groups like NRDC and EDF work with Democratic politicians like Bernie Sanders to a fossil-renewables fuel mix to replace nuclear plants.Given who’s paying for those efforts, it’s not surprising that the spread of solar and wind is locking-in fossil fuels and raising electricity prices, which has made dealing with climate change harder, not easier.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,193
3,328
187
If you google French and German nuclear disasters, you will see 0 fatalities and, in the previous 30 years, a remarkable record of safety. (Not problem-free, but generally pretty safe.)
I think that if we are serious about global warming/climate change, nuclear will be indispensable in the near-term. Lots of nuclear.
What’s the half life on nuclear waste? Where is it currently being stored? How “well protected” are these storage sites from natural disasters and terrorism?
I’m asking because I don’t know, but I think anyone who supports nuclear energy should know.
Let’s address another topic: how many jobs would be created transitioning to renewables versus building a few more nuclear plants?
I agree nuclear should be utilized but only to transition to renewables; it’s not the long term answer.
On another note...

https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-Soak-Pollutants.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
What’s the half life on nuclear waste? Where is it currently being stored? How “well protected” are these storage sites from natural disasters and terrorism?
I’m asking because I don’t know, but I think anyone who supports nuclear energy should know.
Let’s address another topic: how many jobs would be created transitioning to renewables versus building a few more nuclear plants?
I agree nuclear should be utilized but only to transition to renewables; it’s not the long term answer.
On another note...

https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-Soak-Pollutants.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Unlike the "Green New Deal" the wind doesn't always blow...
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
What’s the half life on nuclear waste? Where is it currently being stored? How “well protected” are these storage sites from natural disasters and terrorism?
I’m asking because I don’t know, but I think anyone who supports nuclear energy should know.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I remember a news story about how the current administration was sending radioactive stuff to a state out west via trains. Unfortunately, trains do occasionally wreck.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...clear-waste-train-but-nowhere-to-go/14904167/

Climate change deniers point to some preliminary stuff in a draft proposal, focus on the faults, and wash their hands of doing anything about the problem.

In my opinion, the New Green Deal is an attempt to jerk the Overton Window several notches in the correct direction. It seems to be doing just that.
 
Last edited:

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
If you google French and German nuclear disasters, you will see 0 fatalities and, in the previous 30 years, a remarkable record of safety. (Not problem-free, but generally pretty safe.)
I think that if we are serious about global warming/climate change, nuclear will be indispensable in the near-term. Lots of nuclear.
While googling French and German safety records concerning nuclear power, it might also be a good idea to include Japan.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
While googling French and German safety records concerning nuclear power, it might also be a good idea to include Japan.
I would agree. For starters don't build one I'm an area prone to earthquakes, and not in the coastal plane subject to tsunamis.
And while we are at it, I would not recommend building on the Chernobyl model either.
In the short run, if we are really concerned about climate change, the most reliable and cost effective energy with no carbon emissions is nuclear. It is not risk-free, even if everything goes right, because there is radioactive waste to deal with, but to dogmatically refuse nuclear energy a role shows a lack of seriousness about the problem.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.