The New Republic asked the stupidest question of the month, so far.
Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez save the planet? https://t.co/VLMafsYh8l pic.twitter.com/aKaYkfMfGP
— The New Republic (@newrepublic) July 7, 2018
Why are they asking this?
In a political environment where even her fellow Democrats often stay vague on climate change, Ocasio-Cortez has been specific and blunt in talking about the global warming crisis. She also has a plan to fight that crisis—one to transition the United States to a 100-percent renewable energy system by 2035.
To achieve this ambitious goal, she has proposed implementing what she calls a “Green New Deal,” a Franklin Delano Roosevelt–like plan to spur “the investment of trillions of dollars and the creation of millions of high-wage jobs,” according to her official website. “The Green New Deal we are proposing will be similar in scale to the mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan,” she told HuffPost last week. “We must again invest in the development, manufacturing, deployment, and distribution of energy, but this time green energy.”
“Green energy” is the most expensive kind of energy there is.
Of course there are cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels, like hydroelectric dams or nuclear reactors, but those never get classified as green.
No, she wants wind and solar, which is incredibly inefficient.
She wants to spend a trillion dollars to create a power grid that won’t meet demands and will cost people 10 times as much or more per kilowatt hour.
Remember, Australia switched to green energy and ended up with the highest energy sources in the world.
The one thing socialists are good is is destroying the economy.
Venezuela went from the richest country in South America to destitution because it has so socialized its oil industry it can’t make a profit on oil at competitive prices.
In America, with the total amount of food that we produce and export, destroying our energy market will result in a famine of global consequence.
So perhaps The New Republic is right that Ocasio-Cortez may save the world, if you consider it from the radical environmentalist perspective that the world is over populated by a billion or so people.
After the Northwest Japan earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent Fukushima accident, Germany decided to end nuclear power generation and switch to “green” energy. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough wind, solar and hydro to keep the economy running, nor are there enough potential sites to make up the difference. The solution was to re-open lignite coal fueled power plants, thus trading a virtually zero emission power source for one of the dirtiest. Supposedly this will be a stop-gap measure until technology can develop unicorn farts into a viable power source.
I also note increasing protests over wind farms due windmills being “bird-cuisinarts” and interfering with scenic views.
Fun fact: since Fukushima, Japan’s increase in fossil fuel burning to make up for their nukes being shutdown is 125% of the solar and wind generation of the United States.
Did anyone explain to Germany that they’re not in danger from tidal waves?
Socialists are too stupid to learn from other people mistakes.
As Nuke road Warrior said we, the Germans, did the exact same thing She Guevara proposed – it’s called “Energiewende” and it tanked spectacularly.
Now we buy nuclear power from France and Belgium to supplement our demand and the neighbouring countries shield their power grids against the fluctuations caused by our “green” energies.
Plus all these promised high-wage-jobs do not exist or the companies tanked.
The environment can be categorized into three basic components: air, water, and land. Solar and wind are easier on air (though exaggerated), but greatly at the expense of land. Environmentalist used to care about sprawl and deforestation, now they’ll happily pave thousands of acres of desert ecosystem for an immeasurable difference in climate.
Ocasio-Cortez is an economics denier.