We should mark time the best ways we can

Why doesn’t someone ask a Democratic presidential candidate this: If we go forward with their Green New Deal, how are we going to maintain a military or fly the hundreds of cross-country airline flights or run our commercial traffic in the form of trains and semi-trucks? These vehicles can’t rely on wind and sunlight.

Lets get realistic, candidates, and admit that we need fossil fuels for a very long time. This type of fuel is needed in a country as large as ours.

Our roads full of electric vehicles are going to need charging sites. Wind does not always blow, and the sun has been known to not appear in some parts of the country for days at a time.

Our economy would come to a standstill. We need to work on energy efficiency for certain. This can be done with a realistic plan, not a Green New Deal.

Thank you.

Mike Cannan

Port Leyden

Johnson Newspapers 7.1

Recommended for you

(4) comments

Gracie02

China uses, produces more coal per year than the rest of the world's countries combined, followed by India, Australia and the USA... That's why it's hard to get excited about the miniscule effect individuals in the US have on this problem...get China on board and the world will make progress... BTW Australia exports most of it's coal to China..and it's a huge part of their economy...

hermit thrush

we could exert enormous economic pressure on china to green up their economy if we wanted to. and the fact that they have an authoritarian government means it's a fairly simple path to get them to do it.

rdsouth

According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

Probably not practical or related to green, but not a threat to national security. Family sustaining means one person working at minimum wage can support several more.

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

Those are excellent legislative goals, not individual legislation.

"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."

Legislative goals unrelated to electric cars.

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

There is no danger of this happening right away. It will require technical progress. But a good goal.

"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

This addresses the complaint about not being able to handle the increased load due to electric cars.

"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

This too. And technical wait.

"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

New buildings. They aren't coming for your attic. Yet.

"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

Sounds expensive. But electric fighter jets are a long way off.

"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

Vague.

"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

The whole point is to do something about climate change while also not putting a burden on anybody by simply shifting all burdens to the infinite money supply. The realistic way to do something about climate change is to simply tax carbon based fuels to discourage their use. This will burden (aka motivate) the people who use carbon based fuels (ie everybody) and lead to most of those goals above being produced by markets. But it doesn't look free. The GND is vague and impractical, but it is not a threat to anyone.

Nice_Commenter

Mi Mike! What was the economy like at the end of George W Bush’s presidency? What was the economy like at the end of the Reagan/Bush presidency? History can be tough when you watch Fox News all day. However smart people want to stop giving billions in tax dollars to the coal industry. I know Republicans love government welfare for “businesses’, but we can’t afford your ignorance any more.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.