+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14360
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Author Topic: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️  (Read 36018 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1680 on: March 16, 2019, 05:45:03 pm »
Kids Around the World Cut Class for Climate Justice

March 16, 2019

Students in over 100 countries skipped school and took to the streets to DEMAND serious climate policy from world leaders

https://therealnews.com/stories/kids-around-the-world-cut-class-for-climate-justice

Agelbert NOTE: Public reaction from Fossil Fuel POLLUTER ENABLERS like Theresa May:

Private reaction from  Fossil Fuel POLLUTER ENABLERS:

Great Thunberg understands that Fossil Fuel POLLUTER ENABLERS must LEAVE GOVERNMENT NOW if humanity is to survive.
NOTHING can change the SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME!

 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1681 on: March 16, 2019, 06:52:03 pm »
MAR 13, 2019| TD ORIGINALS

It’s the Green New Deal or Else ☠️

I suppose we all owe UCLA economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow Lee Ohanian 🦕 a debt of gratitude for telling us how it is .  The “free market” propagandist recently took to the pages of The Hill, a Washington, D.C., journal for political insiders, to explain that the holy laws of economics dictate that humanity must consent to its own extermination .

In a piece titled “The Green New Deal is a Pipe Dream,” Ohanian drowned climate activists’ overheated dreams of ecological salvation in the icy waters of bourgeois reality, arguing that the proposed legislation’s advocates are, in fact, nefarious, big-government “command-and-control” zealots—eco-Stalinists—who want “to impose their social and economic preferences on others at an extravagantly high economic cost.”

Ohanian described the Green New Deal’s goal of net-zero U.S. carbon emissions in 10 years as an “infeasible” aim that demonstrates a failure “to understand basic cost-benefit analysis.”

If that weren’t enough, the Hoover fellow noted that “the GND would be extremely expensive and that America lacks “the technological know-how” to reach zero carbon emissions Ohanian 😈 further pleased the Hoover Institution’s big-business 🐉🦕🦖 sponsors by adding his judgment that the Green New Deal’s promise of a living wage will make workers lazy and unproductive. No such promise can be fulfilled today, “when jobs can be easily offshored, outsourced, and automated,” he pronounced.

Now that we understand these economic realities, we can prepare—without rebellion, with calm acceptance and within the limits of our stagnant incomes—for our coming extinction. Onward with the coming macroeconomic ecocide.


Except, wait. Hold on. Maybe Ohanian is full of petroligarchic crap. Maybe there’s still hope for the species after all.

He is, and there is.    

It’s simply not true that we lack the technological expertise to achieve zero carbon emissions. Writing for Scientific American, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and University of California at Davis research scientist Mark Delucchi have shown repeatedly over the last decade that humanity could convert to a completely renewable energy-based system by 2030 if nations employ technologies vetted by scientists rather than those championed by private industry.

In their state-level analysis, which focuses on New York and California, Jacobson and Delucchi conclude that wind turbines, water machines, solar installations and other green technologies are affordable and available for rapid utilization. “The main obstacles are political and social—getting politicians onboard,” Jacobson told a leading science reporter six years ago. “There are always naysayers who think it’s pie in the sky, that we’ll never get there. And there are people who are tied into a certain industry who push back the most.”

The Green New Deal would cost a lot of money, Ohanian insists. What, like the giant tax breaks that Donald Trump and Congress gave the richest 10th of the 1 percent and their corporate allies, adding $2.2 trillion to the national debt (equal to $17,500 per household)? Like our subsidies for the military-industrial complex, which costs taxpayers $700 billion today and is projected to cost $972 billion by 2024, despite having the largest carbon footprint of any single institution on earth? Like the $204 billion spent on advertising in the U.S. last year to push a maddening surfeit of consumer products, many, if not most, designed in accord with the ecocidal principle of built-in obsolescence?

From 2014 through 2018, the global capitalist system spent $2.72 trillion on advertising alone. Imagine where we’d be on the path to slowing climate change if all that money had been spent on wind turbines, water machines, solar installations, sustainable agriculture, reforestation and green retrofitting, infrastructure and regional planning. There’s more than enough money to fund training to close the skilled heating, ventilation and air-conditioning-worker gap.

Meanwhile, Ohanian’s classist notion that workers will become indolent and inefficient if they are guaranteed a living wage is a Dickensian old wives’ tale. Productivity positively—not negatively—correlates with a living wage. And how does Ohanian think workers are supposed to lead dignified lives without one? Are millions of young adults supposed to live with their parents indefinitely or rely on food pantries and homeless shelters to get by while working full-time jobs?

Outsourcing, offshoring and automation are not without solutions, such as government and union restrictions; capital controls; green government jobs programs to absorb technically displaced workers; international efforts to raise wages and labor standards abroad; and guaranteed national incomes. Much of this is addressed in economist Robert Pollin’s important book, “Greening the Global Economy,” which advances “just transition” polices that include “solid pension protections, re-employment guarantees, as well as retraining and relocation support for individual workers, and community-support initiatives” for communities negatively affected by the suspension of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Here’s a true pipe dream (maybe we should call it a “pipeline 🦕 dream”): the continuation of a decent human existence even for rich nations comparatively sheltered from the worst consequences of climate change.

In 2008, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and seven other leading climate scientists reported that we would see “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss” if the planet’s average temperature rose above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F), thanks to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reaching 450 parts per million (ppm).

When the report was published, CO2 levels were at 385—“already in the dangerous zone” according to Hansen and his team. They warned that deadly, self-reinforcing “feedbacks” could be triggered at that level. The dire prospects they warned of included “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.”

The only way to assure a livable climate, Hansen and his colleagues warned, was to cut CO2 to at least 350 ppm.

Here we are, 11 years later, having blown past Hansen’s 1 degree Celsius red line since 2015. We currently stand at 410 ppm, the highest level of CO2 saturation in 800,000 years. The latest climate report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflects the consensus opinion of the world’s leading climate scientists. It tells us that we are headed to a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) in the next 12 years. Failure to dramatically slash emissions between now and 2030 is certain to set off catastrophic developments for hundreds of millions of people, the report warns.

The IPCC finds that at our current pace, we are headed for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius (5.4 F to 7.2 F) temperature increase by the end of century. That will mean a planet that is mostly unlivable.

It gets worse. Numerous climate scientists have indicated that the IPCC’s findings are excessively conservative. That’s because the institute deletes and downplays research demonstrating the likelihood that irreversible climatological tipping points could arrive sooner than expected. Among the reports pointing to these conclusions is a recent NASA-funded study warning that the unexpectedly abrupt thawing of permafrost could release massive volumes of CO2  and methane within a few decades.

Earth, biological and social scientists are increasingly raising the specter of climate-driven human extinction in the not-so-distant future. In vast swaths of the world, across much of sub-Saharan Africa, India, the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, climate catastrophe is already underway.

Conservative though it may be, the U.N. report is no whitewash. It gives us 12 years to drastically slash greenhouse gas emissions or face catastrophic consequences. It also calls for “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to drop global CO2  emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels and 60 percent below 2015 levels by 2030. We need to hit zero by the midcentury point, the IPCC says, and we cannot do that without radically and rapidly reducing our energy consumption.

Cost-benefit analysis? The Green New Deal is, if anything, insufficiently radical. It does not go to the full class-rule taproot of the many deadly ecological rifts (the climate crisis is only the most urgent) opened by capitalism’s relentless, totalitarian drive to commodify everything on earth. Progressive-Democrat Green New Deal advocates have yet to join serious ecosocialists in calling for green investments to be garnered from massive reductions in the U.S. military budget, which eats up more than half of federal discretionary spending and sustains a global military empire that is the world’s single largest institutional carbon emitter. The Green New Deal’s sponsors have yet to call (as they will have to if they are serious about environmental reconversion) for their program to be funded and protected from capital flight by the nationalization of the United States’ leading financial institutions.

Still, at least Green New Dealers are talking seriously about the benefit of a livable earth. It seems like society might want to be ready to absorb significant costs to achieve the continuation of the species. Professor Ohanian should write the environmentalists’ maxim 500 times on a UCLA chalkboard: “There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is no economy on a dead planet.”

Zero carbon emissions by 2030 (or even 2040) is a grandiose goal. But guess what? Now is precisely the time to aim sky high on ecology and way low on carbon release. How much are we willing to pay for human survival? Do environmental calamity and the real risk of extinction count as “extravagantly high costs”? When might we be willing to achieve the not-so-fringe benefit of continued existence by confronting the totalitarian “command and control” imposed on all of us by big carbon capital’s social and economic preference for short-term private accumulation and profit over the longer-term common good—over any kind of decent future for human beings and other living things?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/its-the-green-new-deal-or-else/

 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1682 on: March 17, 2019, 09:09:24 pm »
MAR 13, 2019| TD ORIGINALS

It’s the Green New Deal or Else ☠️

I suppose we all owe UCLA economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow Lee Ohanian 🦕 a debt of gratitude for telling us how it is .  The “free market” propagandist recently took to the pages of The Hill, a Washington, D.C., journal for political insiders, to explain that the holy laws of economics dictate that humanity must consent to its own extermination .

In a piece titled “The Green New Deal is a Pipe Dream,” Ohanian drowned climate activists’ overheated dreams of ecological salvation in the icy waters of bourgeois reality, arguing that the proposed legislation’s advocates are, in fact, nefarious, big-government “command-and-control” zealots—eco-Stalinists—who want “to impose their social and economic preferences on others at an extravagantly high economic cost.”

Ohanian described the Green New Deal’s goal of net-zero U.S. carbon emissions in 10 years as an “infeasible” aim that demonstrates a failure “to understand basic cost-benefit analysis.”

If that weren’t enough, the Hoover fellow noted that “the GND would be extremely expensive and that America lacks “the technological know-how” to reach zero carbon emissions Ohanian 😈 further pleased the Hoover Institution’s big-business 🐉🦕🦖 sponsors by adding his judgment that the Green New Deal’s promise of a living wage will make workers lazy and unproductive. No such promise can be fulfilled today, “when jobs can be easily offshored, outsourced, and automated,” he pronounced.

Now that we understand these economic realities, we can prepare—without rebellion, with calm acceptance and within the limits of our stagnant incomes—for our coming extinction. Onward with the coming macroeconomic ecocide.


Except, wait. Hold on. Maybe Ohanian is full of petroligarchic crap. Maybe there’s still hope for the species after all.

He is, and there is.    

It’s simply not true that we lack the technological expertise to achieve zero carbon emissions. Writing for Scientific American, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and University of California at Davis research scientist Mark Delucchi have shown repeatedly over the last decade that humanity could convert to a completely renewable energy-based system by 2030 if nations employ technologies vetted by scientists rather than those championed by private industry.

In their state-level analysis, which focuses on New York and California, Jacobson and Delucchi conclude that wind turbines, water machines, solar installations and other green technologies are affordable and available for rapid utilization. “The main obstacles are political and social—getting politicians onboard,” Jacobson told a leading science reporter six years ago. “There are always naysayers who think it’s pie in the sky, that we’ll never get there. And there are people who are tied into a certain industry who push back the most.”

The Green New Deal would cost a lot of money, Ohanian insists. What, like the giant tax breaks that Donald Trump and Congress gave the richest 10th of the 1 percent and their corporate allies, adding $2.2 trillion to the national debt (equal to $17,500 per household)? Like our subsidies for the military-industrial complex, which costs taxpayers $700 billion today and is projected to cost $972 billion by 2024, despite having the largest carbon footprint of any single institution on earth? Like the $204 billion spent on advertising in the U.S. last year to push a maddening surfeit of consumer products, many, if not most, designed in accord with the ecocidal principle of built-in obsolescence?

From 2014 through 2018, the global capitalist system spent $2.72 trillion on advertising alone. Imagine where we’d be on the path to slowing climate change if all that money had been spent on wind turbines, water machines, solar installations, sustainable agriculture, reforestation and green retrofitting, infrastructure and regional planning. There’s more than enough money to fund training to close the skilled heating, ventilation and air-conditioning-worker gap.

Meanwhile, Ohanian’s classist notion that workers will become indolent and inefficient if they are guaranteed a living wage is a Dickensian old wives’ tale. Productivity positively—not negatively—correlates with a living wage. And how does Ohanian think workers are supposed to lead dignified lives without one? Are millions of young adults supposed to live with their parents indefinitely or rely on food pantries and homeless shelters to get by while working full-time jobs?

Outsourcing, offshoring and automation are not without solutions, such as government and union restrictions; capital controls; green government jobs programs to absorb technically displaced workers; international efforts to raise wages and labor standards abroad; and guaranteed national incomes. Much of this is addressed in economist Robert Pollin’s important book, “Greening the Global Economy,” which advances “just transition” polices that include “solid pension protections, re-employment guarantees, as well as retraining and relocation support for individual workers, and community-support initiatives” for communities negatively affected by the suspension of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Here’s a true pipe dream (maybe we should call it a “pipeline 🦕 dream”): the continuation of a decent human existence even for rich nations comparatively sheltered from the worst consequences of climate change.

In 2008, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and seven other leading climate scientists reported that we would see “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss” if the planet’s average temperature rose above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F), thanks to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reaching 450 parts per million (ppm).

When the report was published, CO2 levels were at 385—“already in the dangerous zone” according to Hansen and his team. They warned that deadly, self-reinforcing “feedbacks” could be triggered at that level. The dire prospects they warned of included “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.”

The only way to assure a livable climate, Hansen and his colleagues warned, was to cut CO2 to at least 350 ppm.

Here we are, 11 years later, having blown past Hansen’s 1 degree Celsius red line since 2015. We currently stand at 410 ppm, the highest level of CO2 saturation in 800,000 years. The latest climate report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflects the consensus opinion of the world’s leading climate scientists. It tells us that we are headed to a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) in the next 12 years. Failure to dramatically slash emissions between now and 2030 is certain to set off catastrophic developments for hundreds of millions of people, the report warns.

The IPCC finds that at our current pace, we are headed for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius (5.4 F to 7.2 F) temperature increase by the end of century. That will mean a planet that is mostly unlivable.

It gets worse. Numerous climate scientists have indicated that the IPCC’s findings are excessively conservative. That’s because the institute deletes and downplays research demonstrating the likelihood that irreversible climatological tipping points could arrive sooner than expected. Among the reports pointing to these conclusions is a recent NASA-funded study warning that the unexpectedly abrupt thawing of permafrost could release massive volumes of CO2  and methane within a few decades.

Earth, biological and social scientists are increasingly raising the specter of climate-driven human extinction in the not-so-distant future. In vast swaths of the world, across much of sub-Saharan Africa, India, the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, climate catastrophe is already underway.

Conservative though it may be, the U.N. report is no whitewash. It gives us 12 years to drastically slash greenhouse gas emissions or face catastrophic consequences. It also calls for “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to drop global CO2  emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels and 60 percent below 2015 levels by 2030. We need to hit zero by the midcentury point, the IPCC says, and we cannot do that without radically and rapidly reducing our energy consumption.

Cost-benefit analysis? The Green New Deal is, if anything, insufficiently radical. It does not go to the full class-rule taproot of the many deadly ecological rifts (the climate crisis is only the most urgent) opened by capitalism’s relentless, totalitarian drive to commodify everything on earth. Progressive-Democrat Green New Deal advocates have yet to join serious ecosocialists in calling for green investments to be garnered from massive reductions in the U.S. military budget, which eats up more than half of federal discretionary spending and sustains a global military empire that is the world’s single largest institutional carbon emitter. The Green New Deal’s sponsors have yet to call (as they will have to if they are serious about environmental reconversion) for their program to be funded and protected from capital flight by the nationalization of the United States’ leading financial institutions.

Still, at least Green New Dealers are talking seriously about the benefit of a livable earth. It seems like society might want to be ready to absorb significant costs to achieve the continuation of the species. Professor Ohanian should write the environmentalists’ maxim 500 times on a UCLA chalkboard: “There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is no economy on a dead planet.”

Zero carbon emissions by 2030 (or even 2040) is a grandiose goal. But guess what? Now is precisely the time to aim sky high on ecology and way low on carbon release. How much are we willing to pay for human survival? Do environmental calamity and the real risk of extinction count as “extravagantly high costs”? When might we be willing to achieve the not-so-fringe benefit of continued existence by confronting the totalitarian “command and control” imposed on all of us by big carbon capital’s social and economic preference for short-term private accumulation and profit over the longer-term common good—over any kind of decent future for human beings and other living things?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/its-the-green-new-deal-or-else/


Quote
Green New Deal’s goal of net-zero U.S. carbon emissions in 10 years as an “infeasible” aim that demonstrates a failure “to understand basic cost-benefit analysis.” 

It's more than anything else a failure to understand basic thermodynamics principles...

Quote
It’s simply not true that we lack the technological expertise to achieve zero carbon emissions. Writing for Scientific American, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and University of California at Davis research scientist Mark Delucchi have shown repeatedly over the last decade that humanity could convert to a completely renewable energy-based system by 2030 if nations employ technologies vetted by scientists rather than those championed by private industry.

https://youtu.be/V2KNqluP8M0

I give you this pointer... but there are others...

Quote
Outsourcing, offshoring and automation are not without solutions, such as government and union restrictions; capital controls; green government jobs programs to absorb technically displaced workers; international efforts to raise wages and labor standards abroad; and guaranteed national incomes. Much of this is addressed in economist Robert Pollin’s important book, “Greening the Global Economy,” which advances “just transition” polices that include “solid pension protections, re-employment guarantees, as well as retraining and relocation support for individual workers, and community-support initiatives” for communities negatively affected by the suspension of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Robert Pollin is the epitome of the **** clueless moronic silo thinker peddling the 'Green Growth' delusion.

https://youtu.be/AIE9klWvA4g

If you look carefully at the comment section, I merrily and thoroughly DEBUNKED his shitty excuse of a premise.

Blinded by ideology and opining on matters he knows JACKSHIT about... that's your average economist for ya...




The article is well researched and the proposed Green New Deal certainly DOES NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics in its premise, logic, function and application. As to the comments section, they are irrelevant.

Furthermore, Green "growth" (an OXYMORON when it applies to Renewable Energy) is a straw man ridiculous argument that fine fellows like you just love to bring up. Any fool knows that the TOTAL carbon footprint of humanity MUST be reduced if we are to survive.

The FACT that the current incredibly STUPID energy status quo GUARANTEES an INCREASE in the human carbon footprint IS THE ISSUE HERE, Einstein.

THAT is the the REASON we MUST HAVE a GREEN NEW DEAL, that in addition to the one presented, is FAR more ambitious in scale and in scope.

However, that, IN NO WAY, advocates for GROWTH of the HUMAN CARBON FOOTPRINT. The REDUCTION of the HUMAN CARBON FOOTPRINT is SINE QUA NON to the Green New Deal.

You just cannot seem to grasp that. Too bad. 👎 If you want to spin the Green New Deal as some greenwashing exercise that INCREASES the human carbon footprint by building a bunch of industrial gadgets that, allegedly, cause a population increase that, allegedly, increases the carbon footprint of humanity, I will consistently challenge you on that erroneous biosphere math challenged scare mongering.

The Green New Deal is NOT a technofix, so spare me that argument as well. Technofixes will NOT save us, as I have been saying for several years in the following quote:

Quote
"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will."-- A. G. Gelbert

THIS is what needs to be fixed about the current extinction producing carbon footprint:
The 17%  🐉🦕🦖 problem


Percent CO2 Emissions by income category

The issue is NOT limited to energy and the human carbon footprint destroying the viability of the biosphere. The issue is SOCIAL JUSTICE too. I guess you think the Laws of Thermodynamics make that a "pipe dream" as well. ::) If that is where your nihilist heart is at, I feel sorry for you. Greta Thunberg and AOC may be dreamers, but their dream is NOT a "pipe dream". Their dream must become a reality or we are TOAST.

UBL, It's time for you to sing this song or GET OUT OF THE WAY of the massive increase in CARING CAPACITY.


A NEW CLIMATE SONG

Quote
On the show I play the new song “We Don’t Have Time” written by Ingemar Beattone Aberg, CJ Palmer and Adam Baptiste, with a little Gret Thunberg in the track. On Earth Day, this April 22nd, you can visit the new social network “for saving the climate and truly making a difference.” Get a sneak preview at wedonthavetime.org. 
https://www.ecoshock.org/2019/03/the-rules-of-extinction.html


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1683 on: March 18, 2019, 02:13:45 pm »
THE POLITICS OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL: PART 2 ON CAPITAL

March 16, 2019/62 Comments/in Green New Deal /by Ed Walker 👍

Posts in this series Part 1 on Labor

In Part 1 I discuss some of the ways the working class will be affected by disruptions brought on by climate change, and some of the ways the Green New Deal proposes to ease those burdens. Climate change will also hurt capital and capitalists. It’s not possible to outline all the potential damage and disruption so I’ll just lay out some of the obvious problems.

Real estate investments are in danger. Some of that impact will be borne by small landholders, owners of vacation homes on Galveston Bay or condos on the beach in Naples FL, for example. But much of it will be borne by larger holders, such as owners of apartment complexes near the coasts, marinas, and commercial property near the coast, and the owner of Mar-a-Lago. Rising sea levels will also affect the infrastructure of cities on the coast, such as Miami, which is already planning to spend $100M on flood protection.

The coasts aren’t the only areas facing weather problems. Wind storms are becoming more serious; recently extraordinary winds blew the roof off a warehouse near Dallas. Here’s a Wikipedia page documenting tornadoes in the US in 2019. It shows we have already had 3 intense tornadoes, including the two that struck Alabama recently. We can expect more.

Wildfires are a terrifying danger in drought-stricken areas. PG&E, the California utility giant, filed bankruptcy January 29, 2019 to deal with its liability for damage from wildfires it caused. The Los Angeles Times wrote:

Quote
PG&E said a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, which allows the company to continue operating while it comes up with a plan to pay its debts, was the only way to deal with billions of dollars in potential liabilities from a series of deadly wildfires, many of which were sparked by the company’s power grid infrastructure.

Financial pressure has been mounting on PG&E since October 2017, when a series of wildfires ravaged Northern California, killing 44 people. State investigators determined that PG&E’s equipment sparked or contributed to more than a dozen of those fires, which killed 22 people. The company’s crisis only grew with the November 2018 Camp fire, which killed 86 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E said a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, which allows the company to continue operating while it comes up with a plan to pay its debts, was the only way to deal with billions of dollars in potential liabilities from a series of deadly wildfires, many of which were sparked by the company’s power grid infrastructure.

Financial pressure has been mounting on PG&E since October 2017, when a series of wildfires ravaged Northern California, killing 44 people. State investigators determined that PG&E’s equipment sparked or contributed to more than a dozen of those fires, which killed 22 people. The company’s crisis only grew with the November 2018 Camp fire, which killed 86 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E arranged a $5.5bn interim loan from a consortium of banks but creditors objected and then the Bankruptcy Judge stated serious concerns. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Judge noted that PG&E was under criminal probation after a criminal conviction on six counts arising from the deadly San Bruno fire. The federal District Court in that case imposed a public safety regime on PG&E, and the later fires might be deemed to be the result of violations of parole, in which case the supervising court could replace management. That would be a breach of the financing loan. The Bankruptcy Judge also noted the strong possibility of more wildfires in 2019, saying that more damages could tip PG&E into default. Either default would give the bank lenders control of the company in Chapter 11 and the creditors objected to that possibility. The costs of this bankruptcy are horrendous, and will be borne at least in part by people forced to be customers of PG&E because it’s a monopoly. Some shareholders have suffered losses in stock value, and more may be lost. The stock is down $50 since September 2017 to about $20. It’s an ugly story and it’s going to be repeated.

Climate change will also damage the 🐉🦕🦖 oil and gas industry 👍😀. A number of huge petrochemical plants and refineries are located in hurricane territory. Here’s a detailed map; see for yourself. Last year refineries on the gulf coast of Texas were hit by Hurricane Harvey. Harvey weakened to a Category 3 hurricane before making landfall, and the damage was mostly from flooding. The loss of capacity caused spikes in gasoline prices for consumers. Some of the losses to refineries will be covered by insurance. But insurance companies are just for spreading risk, not eating it, and that implies a rise in the cost of insurance. Here’s an excellent article by Bradley Hope and Nicole Friedman in the Wall Street Journal from October 2018, focused on the impact on reinsurance companies. Here’s a taste related to studies predicting increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Persian Gulf:

Quote
“Climate change makes the historical record of extreme weather an unreliable indicator of the current risk,” says Stephen Pacala, a board member at Hamilton Insurance Group Ltd. and a Princeton professor, who wasn’t involved in the study. “So, what’s the insurance industry to do? No hurricane has ever threatened the massive unarmored oil and gas infrastructure in the Persian Gulf.”

So what dose the Green New Deal offer to capital?

Section 2.1 (I think; whoever made up this numbering system is a traitor to clarity) calls for

… building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies …

The emphasis on community planning is notable. Section 2.2 calls for rebuilding infrastructure. Section 2.4 calls for upgrading the power grid. Section 2.5 calls for rebuilding existing buildings to improve durability among other things. Section 4.1 requires insuring sufficient capital for entities, including businesses, working on the goals of the Green New Deal. Section 4.4 calls for educating workers so they can handle the new work that will need to be done. Section 4.11 calls “… enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections ….” Section 4.14 calls for strict enforcement of anti-trust and other laws to encourage competition and discourage monopoly.

I’d say that’s a fairly strong plan for decent businesses under the Green New Deal. True, it doesn’t give capital a free hand to make the overarching decisions, and it doesn’t give capital all the money, and it has other provisions that hem in capital, but it sure doesn’t sound like the socialist dystopia the 🐉🦕🦖 Republicans are shrieking about.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/03/16/the-politics-of-the-green-new-deal-part-2-on-capital/

Agelbert NOTE: The above series of, (two, so far) articles makes crystal clear that the Green New Deal is NOT some "irrational pie in the sky" energy and social justice reform proposition. Nevertheless, CAPITALISTS in general, and Fossil Fuelers in particular, still alternate between mocking dismissal and wailing, moaning and shrieking about the "violation" of the Laws of Thermodynamics while, of course 😉, remaining silent as death about the ENERGY WELFARE QUEEN POLLUTER GOVERNMENT HAND OUTS, that are the ONLY REASON those energy "industry" crooks and liars continue to be "profitable".



The fossil fueler propaganda baloney about the "violation" of the Laws of Thermodynamics that a 100% Renewable Energy powered economy represents, and is therefore "impossible", has been debunked over and over again by scientists who actually understand Thermodynamics and are NOT being paid by the polluter energy "industries" to bad mouth Renewable Energy infrastructure.

Amory Lovins is physicist. He has been a scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute for over 30 years. He forced the math on fluid mechanics formulas in engineering courses to be corrected when he proved they were wrong with instruments he invented and used. This was decades ago. He is an EXPERT in maximizing the efficiency of energy using devices.

Since then he has been on the forefront of patiently explaining to all who would listen objectively that the status quo energy system is so ruinously wasteful that we could reduce our energy use by 80% by switching to 100% Renewable Energy, that is mostly NOT CENTRALIZED, as is now the case for Fossil Fuel and Nuclear powered DIRTY energy, but harvested and distributed near the point of use. Amory Lovins has, with peer reviewed studies and published papers, made the case that human civilization can operate, at the standard of living we know have (which is nothing to brag about outside of first world countries, but he 👨‍🔬 has proposed solutions there as well. ;D), with 20% of the energy we NOW USE.

Below you can see a graphic from Amory Lovins clearly displaying the ruinously wasteful, and therefore stupidly biosphere damaging, electrical grid energy system based on coal fired power plants:


As you can see, the Laws of Thermodynamics do NOT need to be "violated" to massively reduce the energy use in our civilization, even without ANY reduction in the amount of electricity we use in the home. THe Fossil Fuelers KNOW THIS. They also KNOW that, if the inefficiencies are taken out of the present system, as Amory Lovins is not just proposing, but actually making it happen in many places all over the world as I write this (go to the Rocky Mountain Institute web site if you do not believe me!), the CONSUMPTION, along with the DEMAND (see: DEMAND DESTRUCTION )for the fossil fuel polluting PRODUCT will plummet. They do not want taht. They want us all to believe the BULLSHIT that the system we have is "efficient" and the "best there is" and "we are alla gonna die" if we get rid of fossil fuels, nuclear power (and subsides for those profit over planet "loyal servants").

It is, I admit, a clever pitch. Most people are unaware that the level of waste in our energy system is BY DESIGN. More WASTE means more USE OF THE PRODUCT, get it? If you don't, you do not understand the Fossil Fuel Ideology. Any Fossil Fueler=CAPITALIST understands that the more product you sell at a (guaranteed by corrupted Government Welfare Queen subsidies ) profit, the more money you have to further corrupt the government to strangle Renewable Energy competitors in a Fascist Utopia Captive Market Pipeline Dream.



You are being lied to. The current system is a biosphere destroying system. We need it like a dog needs ticks. We CAN MASSIVELY lower our carbon footprint, bankrupt the polluters and make great strides towards improved SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Finally, please look at this graphic I prepared some years ago. After that, look at the map referenced in the article. we CAN switch to FAR MORE that 100% Renewable Energy.


I only clicked on the Geothermal power plants but on the map linked in the article, you can unclick everything but coal and you can see that far too much of our grid electricity still comes from coal. This is stupid and unnecessary.


WE can go to 150% EASILY. We can use that extra energy to start sucking that excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. NO, we don't need to build a lot of gadgets to do that! All we need to do is grow Azolla and/or Lemna minor (duckweed) in vast desert areas on the earth. It could take 50 years or more to get back to 350 PPM of CO2, depending on how fast we scaled the building (with Renewable Energy powered equipment) of 3' deep huge ponds tended with Renewable Energy water pumps and fertilized with pig feces (there are a lot more pigs than there are people on this planet!). Planting trees will help but it is too slow compared with the aquatic plants I just referenced in the ability to exctract CO2 from the atmosphere. For energy we need to go 150% Renewable. For CO2 removal we need millions of acres of fast growing fresh water aquatic plant growing ponds all over the planet, NOT Carbon Sequestering SCAMS like this one shown below:

Carbon Capture Technofix Scam by Big Oil

REAL WORLD solutions EXIST. The Green New Deal is just the first step. The Zero Hour platform is the framework of ACTION on Energy, Climate Change and SOCIAL JUSTICE that must be followed if we are to survive. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, no matter what the nutball fossil fuelers and nuke pukes claim.

Zero Hour Just 🦅 Transition

Zero Hour Platform and attacks on them by the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖

« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 06:29:03 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1684 on: March 18, 2019, 09:18:25 pm »
Quote
The FACT that the current incredibly STUPID energy status quo GUARANTEES an INCREASE in the human carbon footprint IS THE ISSUE HERE, Einstein.

THAT is the the REASON we MUST HAVE a GREEN NEW DEAL, that in addition to the one presented, is FAR more ambitious in scale and in scope.

This might shock you, but believe it or not, I'm not against a Green New Deal.
 I'm against:
#1. Political opportunist with Grand Designs schemes that CLEARLY haven't been THOUGHT OUT CAREFULLY.
#2. Political opportunist who want to convince every citizens they can lead the country because they read a 3$ book on climate change they bought at the library 6 months ago.

What would need to be done to have a REMOTE chance of just MITIGATING the worst outcome would require to have the CONSENT of NOT ONLY the US population, but eventually that of all countries. It would require the PLANNED end of CAPITALISM by CONSENSUS.

That's not going to happen. 100% renewables ain't going to happen in my lifetime.
What's going to happen is going to happen; the best we can do is spread the knowledge that explains WHY we got into that [S ]ituation ; it's the best way, actually, the only way to achieve maximum cooperation when things get a little dicey...

Maybe you should have a glass of wine while listening to George Carlin's "Saving the Planet" skits ...

Cheers !

Man can do what he will, but he cannot will what he wills.
~A. Schopenhauer



Quote
Man can do what he will, AND he can, SOMETIMES, but not ALWAYS, will what he wills.
There, fixed that fer ya!

Nothing you say shocks me because you constantly, and smugly, engage in serial pejorative hyperbole with the express purpose of disdaining any possibility of success for a GND program that is based on sine qua non human survival requirements. The REALLY OPPORTUNISTIC BASTARDS are in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries, though you can't seem to bring yourself to recognize that FACT of corrupted government life. Then again, maybe you do recognize it and could care less.

True, you can claim that BECAUSE our government is so corrupted, we do not have a prayer of getting a massive Green New Deal on steroids going for the forseable future. I strongly disagree. Those pollution profiting corrupters of good government are having their profits eaten alive by Demand Destruction CAUSED by more and more Renewables coming on line. They are LOSING political power they must have to corrupt our government much faster than folks like you realize.

NO, we do NOT need 100% of the people to be on board. ALREADY, over 70% of the American public IS on board. Your "nobody wants to spend more than $3 a month on climate change" is laughable, despite some baloney poll just published. We spend a LOT MORE than THAT on subsidies NOW.


ALL WE NEED is for the government to to DECIDE TO DO the 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY THING OUT OF SIMPLE NATIONAL SELF INTEREST.

You believe that ain't gonna happen (here, or anywhere else on the planet - I guess Costa Rica at 98% Renewable Energy, the Netherlands and Norway, doing quite well too, do not exist. I guess Germany getting 60% of there juice from wind so far in March is "irrelevant". I guess The U.K. getting 35% of their juice from wind so far this year is also "irrelevant".) The efforts of all those countries I just named (plus Portugal and Spain, also China is no sluggard on Renewable Energy either) evidence that you are wrong.

Sing all the Carlin nihilist songs you want, pal. The move to deep six all this stupid, corrupt, inefficient polluting energy crap you think is "impossible" to change is much further advanced than the media will let on (thanks to fossil fuel propagnada money).

Did you even LOOK at the map I linked? did you SEE the MASSIVE amount of wind (on shore AND offshore) resources and solar resources and geothermal resources? OF COURSE NOT!

Did you LOOK at the geothermal power plants and all the Solar and Wind and Battery and Renewable Energy Harvesting facilities in operation? OF COURSE NOT!

Your inability to question your nihilist ideology is the hallmark of ideological bigotry. Your posturing and insufferably arrogant attitude is tiresome, as well as self defeating.

If you wish to convince people of your views, I suggest you try to be respectful. That works a lot better than using too clever by a half sophistry to try to position yourself as the "teacher" of "wisdom and truth" to the student, sonny boy.

Humility isn't your thing. I get that. People who lack humility have great difficulty learning from people they do not consider an "authority". You have obviously classified me as one beneath you in knowledge of Climate Science, Renewable Energy technology and planetary biosphere ecology. Consequently, you will, despite the energy use and abuse facts in my posts, irrationally reject just about every bit of graphic and/or statistical evidence I present to you that undermines your "there is no hope" world view. 👎
 
Seven years of posts here by yours truly speak for themselves. You are free to reject everything I say, as you have mostly done to date, of course.

You, and people that share your "it can't be done" views, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I KNOW what CAN be done and what CAN'T be done. 

I am convinced by your puffery that you do not. If you begin repeating your tired nihilistic arguments, your posts will be deleted as soon as I read them. I will not allow polluter propaganda demonizing Renewable Energy and Social Justice solutions to our climate Crisis on this forum. Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 06:44:18 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1685 on: March 20, 2019, 01:43:03 pm »



By Brian Kahn

Friday 6:50pm March 15, 2019  Filed to: THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1686 on: March 20, 2019, 06:52:17 pm »
 

MAR 19, 2019 OPINION | TD ORIGINALS

The Secret to Funding a Green New Deal

By Ellen Brown —  Public banks, including a central bank operated as a public utility, could generate billions without raising taxes or driving up the debt.    

Read more
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1687 on: March 21, 2019, 01:10:48 pm »
THE POLITICS OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL: THE OPPOSITION OF THE 👹💵🎩 RICH

March 20, 2019/14 Comments/in Green New Deal /by Ed Walker

Posts in this series:

The Green New Deal Challenges The Domination Of Capital Part 1 on Labor

The Green New Deal: Part 2 On Capital

Every discussion of the Green New Deal begins with the assertion that it can’t pass. In the US this means one thing: the donor class doesn’t like it. We need to confront this fact.

If the richest people in the US strongly supported the Green New Deal, it would be on its way to passage with the support of enough Republican legislators. As evidence, let’s look at a widely read study by Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern of legislative actions and voter preferences. Here’s a short description. In this rebuttal of their critics, a group of researchers including Gilens and Page say this:

When only the affluent strongly support a proposed policy change, that policy is adopted 46 percent of the time; when only the middle-class strongly support a policy, that policy is adopted only 24 percent of the time.

The affluent are, not surprisingly, better at blocking policies they dislike than achieving policy change they desire. When a policy is strongly opposed by the affluent (less than 25 percent support) but not strongly opposed by the middle-class, that policy is adopted only 4 percent of the time. But when a policy is strongly opposed by the middle-class but not by the affluent, the policy is adopted 40 percent of the time.

Blocking the Green New Deal is obviously a priority of the capitalists in the donor class, and given their selection of old men in the Senate who won’t live to suffer the damage of climate disaster, the donor class will likely get its way in the near term.

Page and Jeffrey Winters published an article in December 2009 titled Oligarchy in the United States?. Here’s a less academic version. They think that oligarchs, meaning the very richest among capitalists, share three goals which I summarize as:

1. Protecting and preserving wealth
2. Insuring the unrestricted use of wealth
3. Acquiring more wealth.

I think most capitalists  share those goals, and the richer they are, the more they agree.

In the past when confronted with economic disaster capital used its political and ideological power and of course its money to get the government to bail it out of economic difficulty, to direct the efforts of the government to deal with the problem (not necessarily solving it), and to enable capital to profit from dealing with the problem. We don’t have to look back but a decade to see this.

The Green New Deal is a direct threat to that approach. Capitalists. and their political allies are angry and outraged at the very idea that something should be done. It must be infuriating to hear politicians say that government should protect the working class and local communities from climate change and its consequences. It especially terrible because that protection will sometimes come at the expense of the three goals of the capitalists.

For example, Section 4.4 calls for increased research and development of new and renewable energy technologies and industries. Section 4.1 establishes a goal of:

providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization ….

In the past, the government has created valuable knowledge and technical expertise, and turned it over to the private sector to exploit at no or very little cost. Not only that, but there were no price controls to protect the consumers who are, of course, working class, not capitalists. This source of profit dries up under the Green New Deal. Capital is not permitted to impose excessive prices as it routinely has, for example in the drug business.

Section 4.5 adds this:

directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;

In the past, capital has invested where it chose for its own reasons. Capitalists 🦍 use that power to extract tax preferences from state and local governments. Or they choose to locate in places with compliant, meaning non-union, workers, who are much easier to exploit. Section 4.5 seeks to change that. Section 4.7 calls for better jobs with higher pay. Section 4.6 insists on deep involvement of the community in planning for reaching the goals of the Green New Deal.

Taken together, these provisions should lead to a more resilient economy by spreading work and production across the nation. It’s true that the Green New Deal will reduce the freedom of capital to invest for its own benefit without regard to the costs it imposes on workers and society,and perhaps lower returns. Politically, making the economy work for everyone should be seen by the vast majority as a more important goal.

Until now, wealthier people, not all capitalists, have acted to ensure that factories, refineries, and other heavy polluters are kept in poor communities . >:( The Green New Deal calls for moving to cleaner energy and production, and offers a path to that future. It also calls for cleaning up the mess the capitalists have imposed on society. It requires industry to go green as well, reducing pollution and damage to the people nearby. Thanks to the requirement for heavy community involvement, the balance of power related to the location of work should shift towards the working class. This, we can hope, will lead to a healthier and happier population.

It will also affect the profitability of some businesses because it forces capital to eat costs it has imposed on people and on the environment for decades. But the cost of improvements will be partly offset by government contributions of technology, financial assistance, and technical support under Section 4.1. And following Econ 101 logic, forcing capital to internalize all of its costs improves market outcomes by making the costs of production obvious.

The good things offered by the Green New Deal are not enough for the capitalists. They have always had their way, and they won’t give up without a fight. They’ve already started operating their most trusted tool: Shrieking About Socialism. I’ll look at that next.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/03/20/the-politics-of-the-green-new-deal-the-opposition-of-the-rich/

 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1689 on: March 22, 2019, 10:58:26 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

March 22, 2019

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1690 on: March 24, 2019, 12:59:13 pm »


Africa’s Hurricane Katrina: Tropical Cyclone Idai Causes an Extreme Catastrophe

Dr. Jeff Masters  ·  March 20, 2019, 2:22 PM EDT

Above: Residents stand on rooftops in a flooded area of Buzi (population 200,000), in central Mozambique, on March 20, 2019, after the passage of cyclone Idai. Image credit: ADRIEN BARBIER/AFP/Getty Images.

SNIPPET:

Over 400 are dead and countless more are at grave risk, huddled on rooftops or clinging to trees, in the horrifying aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Idai in Mozambique. In scenes reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, aerial survey teams photographed thousands of marooned people in the “inland ocean” up to 30 miles wide :o that heavy rains from Idai have created in central Mozambique.


Tropical Cyclone Idai made landfall on Thursday evening as a Category 2 storm with 110 mph winds just north of Beira, Mozambique (population 530,000) near the time of high tide, driving a devastating storm surge into the city. The cyclone also caused enormous wind damage, ripping off hundreds of roofs in Mozambique’s fourth largest city. Since the cyclone was large and moving slowly at landfall, near 6 mph, it was a prodigious rainmaker, with satellite-estimated rainfall amounts in excess of 2 feet in much of central Mozambique.

Idai stalled and died over the high terrain along the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border on Saturday, but Idai’s remains hovered over the region through Tuesday, bringing additional heavy 💧 rains--over a foot in eastern Zimbabwe. Runoff from these rains 💧 have submerged huge portions of central Mozambique. Damage to improverished Mozambique, whose GDP is just $12 billion, will be many billions of dollars and take more than five years to recover from.

Full article with several eye opening 👀 graphics:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Africas-Hurricane-Katrina-Tropical-Cyclone-Idai-Causes-Extreme-Catastrophe


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1691 on: March 26, 2019, 11:00:17 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

March 25, 2019


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1692 on: March 27, 2019, 09:25:36 pm »

Republicans claimed a Green New Deal is "elitist." They didn't expect what came next.

Watch this video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's scathing rebuke of Republicans after they called a Green New Deal "elitist."

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1693 on: March 28, 2019, 02:45:24 pm »

I LOVE this young woman. Future US President, if she can avoid taking the "Wellstone exit."

I have often thought the same thing. Then again, she is from New York. On top of the New Yorker thick skin, she is of Puerto Rican stock. We Puerto Ricans are old hands at playing dodge ball with TPTB, being a colonized folk for over a century (after hundreds of years of Spain's Imperialism!). 

I'll let you in on this. That type of person is NOT emotional AT ALL. AOC knows exactly when to let loose some vitriol and when not to. She also is clearly aware of the danger she faces from TPTB. Here's who is going to come after her BIG TIME, long before the FBI gets into the Wellstone AND JFK jr. aircraft "accident" skullduggery. It's OBAMA ! Wall Street Lackey Obama and Pelosi and Corporate Dumocrat pals are going to make her life as miserable as those SICK FU-CKS can. She KNOWS it and has plans, in place, ready to be used, modified and honed daily, on how to deal with it.

Sure, they may find some way to compromise her and shut her up. They will certainly try to tarnish her position and run her out with a trumped up claim that she "took a bribe" or something like that.

It might work against AOC, but it will not work against the tidal wave of ANGER against a system of STUPID, GREEDY exploitation of people and planet that is dooming our species and thousands of others that we depend on to survive. AOC is just the leading edge of a TSUNAMI that will destroy the polluter power structure. All those loyal FU-CKS like Mueller and Obama (and so on) will become irrelevant BECAUSE the loyal FU-CKS at the street level have kids EVERY DAY telling them that people like Greta Thunberg, AOC, Kevin Anderson, etc. are THE ONLY HOPE THEY HAVE. As Chris Hedges has correctly stated, Revolutions are successful when the "palace guards" refuse to be stupidly exploitative and cruel to fellow citizens. As soon as that happens, the Nomenclatura ASS-HOLES like Obama (and all the corporate Dumocrats) immediately change their tune, right along with all the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn funded Republicans, who will then claim a massive transition to Social Justice based Equality and Clean Energy is something they were "always in favor of" .

AOC may get taken out, though they will need to bring a sandwich if they think she is a pushover, but what she stands for will not.




 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31316
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #1694 on: March 28, 2019, 07:04:03 pm »
 

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.






Our House is On Fire, But Bret Stephens 🦕 Is Still Pondering Insurance

This week’s Green New Deal debate has certainly generated its fair share of fireworks, highlighting the growing rift between deniers who are insane (like Utah Senator Mike “Climate change? Fu-ck it!” Lee) and those who are pretending to be sane (like Matt “Holocaust denial’s fine but climate denial isn’t” Gaetz).

But if proposed solutions involve dumping piles of money on the fossil fuel industry to develop carbon capture technology or improve fracking as part of an “all of the above” energy portfolio, then they’re just delay tactics. As Kate Aronoff put it on Twitter, any climate policy the fossil fuel industry supports is probably not going to be effective at solving the problem fossil fuel use caused in the first place.

It’s no surprise the GOP is apparently incapable of offering a plan to kick our fossil fuel addiction, given that the industry funds their campaigns. Oil Change US found this week that the fossil fuel industry gave more than $55 million to politicians who voted “no” on the Green New Deal, while “no” voters received 11 times more fossil fuel money than the “present” voters over the course of their careers.

However, some people are apparently willing to say super dumb stuff on climate change without the benefit of a campaign contribution. Take, for example, everyone’s favorite WSJ-turned-NYTimes columnist and hatemonger Bret Stephens. Stephens went on MeetThePress daily this week to talk about the GND. His take would have been perfectly intelligent...if it were 10 years ago.

Back then, we hadn’t yet concretely connected the dots between extreme weather and climate change. We knew the shape of it, that warmer air can mean stronger rains and more flooding, and that hotter temperatures can mean more drought and wildfires, but it was still largely an issue for the future tense. It was still a risk we needed to address with an insurance policy.

And that’s Stephens’ current approach. He said on air that climate policy is “something like a question of there could be a fire in your house” and so “we have to take out fire insurance. That is a sensible thing to say.”

That would be a sensible thing to say before one’s house is aflame. But it’s not too apt an analogy now that our house is on fire, literally and metaphorically. Floods are drowning military installations, farmlands and coastal communities. Pests are mowing down forests, drought is drying out crops, heat waves are killing us, and the smoke from Paradise burning down was inhaled all the way in Boston.

And when your house is on fire, that’s not the time to think about insurance. That’s the time, as Stephens’ fellow panelist Heather McGhee suggested, to “fight the fire.”

For some reason, Stephens simply ignored the correct answer from the woman of color on the panel, instead soldiering on with his decree that “what you can’t say is we’re going to bankrupt ourselves in the process of insuring ourselves against the potential risk.”

But as anyone who isn’t a fossil fuel stooge or has done even a cursory amount of due diligence knows, climate action pays for itself in reducing damages from impacts and saving people’s lives. And more importantly, when the house is on fire, the risk is no longer potential. It’s real, it’s here, it’s our fault, and it’s time to fight it..

Obviously, though, that isn't a viable position for the fossil-fuel funded denial machine, which will do whatever it takes to keep pumping profits out of the ground by pumping pollution into the air. So while it’s incredible that the Green New Deal’s sudden popularity has forced the GOP out of denial and to the table with proposals, those proposals have to recognize that it’s not insurance that we need at this point, but a whole fleet of firetrucks.

And if that sounds too expensive, consider whether you’d rather be broke and unburnt or lavishly entombed.


► Beto O'Rourke, and every other presidential candidate, must say no to fossil fuels (The Hill, Annie Leonard op-ed)
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/435936-beto-orourke-and-every-other-presidential-candidate-must-say-no-to

► EPA pretends climate change and water quality are separate issues — they're not (The Hill, Bob Wendelgass op-ed)
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/435838-epa-pretends-climate-change-and-water-quality-are-separate-issues

► Sen. Schatz: Democrats are right on climate change (MSNBC, Brian Schatz interview)
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/sen-schatz-democrats-are-right-on-climate-change-1466093635895
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 04:43:04 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 03:57:10 pm

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 02:25:56 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 12:39:48 am

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 10:39:41 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 07:12:53 pm

Homebody Handy Hints by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 03:24:18 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 05, 2019, 09:59:49 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
December 05, 2019, 08:03:04 pm

You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination by AGelbert
December 05, 2019, 05:40:36 pm