Do the board leftists support a $94 trillion dollar green new deal?

[pknopp]

So we should destroy the environment in the approved New Green Deal way by putting up wind mills and solar panels that take up a lot more land

I can see 3 wind mills from where I'm sitting, each takes up about the size of a decent size housing plot. Solar is even simpler. each of us can simply put some up their roof.

How many does it take to generate the power a nuclear plant supplies?

Feel free to put them in your back yard.

nd have a high removal cost due to the hazardous materials they contain.

I'm sorry to tell you, but nearly all products we use today contain quantities of hazardous materials, everything from cell phones to tv's to the cars we drive. The removal cost of the hazardous materials doesn't seem any hindrance to it's use, why is it a problem with solar cells and windmills? Not to mention that the cost of removing those materials that are often recycled pale in comparison to the cost of removing spend fuel rods that have to be stored for in some cases hundreds of thousands of years ( a time scale that makes doing so an effort in futility) in order to be rendered harmless.

The materials used to make windmills and solar panels is highly hazardous and/or nonrecyclable (wind mill blades).

How much waste is going to be generated from your new green deal projects in comparison to nuclear when compared to power generated? I bet there's millions of tons more.

At least with my method we still have $93 trillion to spend on hazardous waste cleanup.

That sentence would mean something if. One, someone could explain to me where that number comes from?

Cost savings of not investing $94 trillion on your New Green Deal.

Two, someone can explain to me why only the cost of a entire new industry with all it's attended benefits like job creation and profit from producing it, is considered?

Nuclear power plants generate jobs too.

Three, someone can explain to me why the cost of not reacting and global sea levels rising and increased droughts, forest fires, etc., etc. seems to be conveniently NOT considered?

The climate has always changed. There was an ice age just ten thousand years ago. Didn't someone tell you that in school?

There was a warming period just a thousand years ago also. Did you know they were growing grapes in Greenland then?

View attachment 414660

*****CHUCKLE*****

Nobody is willing to spend the money for a nuclear plant nor does anyone want one built near them so they are not an answer to anything.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Nobody is willing to spend the money for a nuclear plant nor does anyone want one built near them so they are not an answer to anything.

Nobody wants to invest in your corrupt money laundering deal either.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Green New Deal is really about control and oppression and stealing

 

[pknopp]

Nobody is willing to spend the money for a nuclear plant nor does anyone want one built near them so they are not an answer to anything.

View attachment 414665

Nobody wants to invest in your corrupt money laundering deal either.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I wish I had a deal.

 

[forkup]

How many does it take to generate the power a nuclear plant supplies?

Feel free to put them in your back yard.

True, although one windmill can provide power for about 300 households. Doesn't seem all that prohibitive.

The materials used to make windmills and solar panels is highly hazardous and/or nonrecyclable (wind mill blades).

I beg to differ. Recycling of wind turbine blades - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki

How much waste is going to be generated from your new green deal projects in comparison to nuclear when compared to power generated? I bet there's millions of tons more.

True, on the other hand I rather get rid of copper and composites material than spend uranium fuel rods.

I can get rid of radioactive waste by placing it in subduction zones. You know where the tectonic plates go down into the earth and will take whatever is on them with them.

Great idea. Lets make a construction designed to hold tons of highly radioactive materials in a place that by definition is earthquake sensitive. You do realize that that's the manner how stuff is "taken" with it right? We are talking a process of inches a year

Cost savings of not investing $94 trillion on your New Green Deal.

Answers nothing. How exactly is this number calculated? What's the time frame? Just consider how high that number is. You are trying to claim that anyone is suggesting to spend 94 000 BILLION dollars on wind and solar power.

Nuclear power plants generate jobs too.

Sure they do. And yet I'm not trying to make the argument that nuclear power can create jobs. I was asking why green power creating jobs is NOT being considered.

The climate has always changed. There was an ice age just ten thousand years ago. Didn't someone tell you that in school?

There was a warming period just a thousand years ago also. Did you know they were growing grapes in Greenland then?

A few thousand years ago they where growing grapes in Greenland? A few thousand years ago agriculture was hardly discovered. If you would say grapes grew in Greenland I would believe you.

The climate has always changed. Climate though has never changed so quickly, nor has the climate changing happened in a world that has 7.8 billion people in it, or have those 7.8 billion people been both the cause and are in a position to influence the severity of that climate change.

It also is not answering my question. Why is the attended cost of the consequences of doing nothing not considered. Both in human and raw economics?

 

[edthecynic]

Just wondering. Explain it to us and how that gets done.

If not, then explain to us why you are against it.

We are waiting.

Nothing to explain because your $94 TRILLION is a BULLSHIT fake number.

The Green New Deal is meant to fool you lemmings while the fat cats get richer. Sheep will continue to be sheep and the Democrats know it all to well. They are at the point now where they can cheat in the open and their sheep won’t even see it.

Pure projection!

 

[edthecynic]

Do I approve the idea of forwarding things like investments into renewable energy? Yes.

Your question is far too broad. What you ask about is a huge undertaking and not anywhere close to passing. It should get introduced into the House and debated. The Senate should get a crack at it and so on and so forth and then we can decide what we support and what we do not.

I do not support things like a carbon tax.

You fully realize 94 trillion dollars means everyone in the middle class loses their home, unless they can afford an annual 50k property tax bill right?

BULLSHIT!

 

[edthecynic]

We are now 27 trillion in debt.

Thank you Dumb Ass Trump!
$4.286 TRILLION Trump budget deficit so far this year!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Where does $94,000,000,000,000 come from?

Given that it’s 5x the economy, that number seems a tad bit off.

It comes from Tramp's fat ass!

 

[edthecynic]

Where does $94,000,000,000,000 come from?

Given that it’s 5x the economy, that number seems a tad bit off.

The D's will raise taxes and borrow the rest from the Bank of China. Remember that Biden is Chairman Xi's boy.

BDS!

 

[edthecynic]

How about we start with our 27 trillion deficit?

Gee all of a sudden after a Democrat is elected the tea baggers now care about the debt.
The Right suddenly bitching about the debt proves they know Biden won the election!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

I doubt they will. In four years we will probably be $30 trillion plus in debt.

That would be a much smaller increase than the "king of debt" Tramp racked up in his 4 years!

 

[BlindBoo]

I haven't seen a 94 trillion dollar plan. Just an overly broad outline that seems to me to be very optimistic.

 

[BlindBoo]

How about we start with our 27 trillion deficit?

Gee all of a sudden after a Democrat is elected the tea baggers now care about the debt.
The Right suddenly bitching about the debt proves they know Biden won the election!!!!!

They're practicing yelling "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Debt Ceiling" for the next session.

 

[danielpalos]

We should abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror especially since the Right Wing doesn't want to pay for them with their Tax Cut economics paradigm and allegation that Big Government nanny-Statism is abhorrent to them (at least in socialism threads.)

Those warfare-State public policies must be worthless under Capitalism when they inspire no confidence to pay War Time tax rates for them.

 

[edthecynic]

Everything they accuse others of, is precisely what they are guilty of. Everything.

Way to mindlessly parrot Russia Limpboi!
See mt sig!

 

[Blues Man]

So we should destroy the environment in the approved New Green Deal way by putting up wind mills and solar panels that take up a lot more land

I can see 3 wind mills from where I'm sitting, each takes up about the size of a decent size housing plot. Solar is even simpler. each of us can simply put some up their roof.

nd have a high removal cost due to the hazardous materials they contain.

I'm sorry to tell you, but nearly all products we use today contain quantities of hazardous materials, everything from cell phones to tv's to the cars we drive. The removal cost of the hazardous materials doesn't seem any hindrance to it's use, why is it a problem with solar cells and windmills? Not to mention that the cost of removing those materials that are often recycled pale in comparison to the cost of removing spend fuel rods that have to be stored for in some cases hundreds of thousands of years ( a time scale that makes doing so an effort in futility) in order to be rendered harmless.

At least with my method we still have $93 trillion to spend on hazardous waste cleanup.

That sentence would mean something if. One, someone could explain to me where that number comes from?
Two, someone can explain to me why only the cost of a entire new industry with all it's attended benefits like job creation and profit from producing it, is considered?
Three, someone can explain to me why the cost of not reacting and global sea levels rising and increased droughts, forest fires, etc., etc. seems to be conveniently NOT considered?

It's not so much the disposal as the damage that mining rare earth elements causes.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks

Doesn't it seem a bit shortsighted to pin our future electrical power needs on rare earths that are difficult to mine and have horrid environmental impact?

It seems a little contradictory to "save the planet" by using materials that create toxic sludge dumps.

 

[Blues Man]

How about we start with our 27 trillion deficit?

Gee all of a sudden after a Democrat is elected the tea baggers now care about the debt.
The Right suddenly bitching about the debt proves they know Biden won the election!!!!!

Democrats only care about the debt when Republicans are in office and Republicans only care about the debt when Democrats are in office.

Which is why we desperately need a viable third party

 

[Blues Man]

I haven't seen a 94 trillion dollar plan. Just an overly broad outline that seems to me to be very optimistic.

optimistic meaning naive.

 

[BlindBoo]

I haven't seen a 94 trillion dollar plan. Just an overly broad outline that seems to me to be very optimistic.

optimistic meaning naive.

Very optimistic could be termed a little naive.