I agree with Eugene Robinson’s latest column in the Washington Post:
That’s a rationale for the Green New Deal that the Make America Great Again crowd should embrace. If you believe in American exceptionalism, you believe that the United States has a duty to lead at moments of crisis. This is such a moment.
Look at the big picture. Unless you deny the science of climate change, you have to believe that we need to take bold action. Stop all the nitpicking. Enough with the posturing. Let’s talk about what to do.
Let’s think big! Here, just off the top of my head, are some examples of such big thinking:
- Ban container ships. Indeed, ban large cargo ships entirely. There is no such thing as a green cargo ship.
- Ban intercontinental air travel.
- Prohibit privately owned non-commercial jet aircraft from landing at public airports.
- Prohibit Congressmen from traveling by air during their terms of office.
- End the construction of interstate highways.
- Eliminate agricultural subsidies.
- Ban the interstate sale of electrical power. It’s inefficient.
- Reduce or eliminate immigration from Mexico and Central America. A family of four in Mexico or Guatemala produces substantially fewer carbon emissions than that same family of four in the United States.
I could go on practically indefinitely. At least arguably every single one of the things I’m proposing would reduce carbon emissions, they’re all within the power of Congress, they don’t need appropriations, and they don’t require imaginary science.
Solar and wind power would probably have to go. Nearly all solar panels and windmills are completely produced or use components produced in Asia (nearly all use components made in China) and shipped here in container ships. When looked at from a total lifecycle standpoint they aren’t nearly as green as their proponents seems to think. And are pretty awful from an environmental standpoint. Hydroelectric is suspect—it certainly isn’t green.
Electric vehicles aren’t as green as you might think, either, when everything is taken into account (small diesel might actually be better). A lot depends on how the electricity they use is generated. Small modular nuclear reactors would be a lot greener than just about anything presently in use, particularly if they’re manufactured here with components made here.
I’ll leave you with just one thought. Why do all examples of “big thinking” that are promoted by columnists in the Washington Post seem to involve doling out large sums of money and increasing the power of politicians?
You are obviously being sarcastic. But in your query comes the obvious answer. In point of fact there is no crisis. Plainly put, Mr Robinson and his ilk are full of shit.
I believe the statistic is that France produces 75% of its energy through nuclear. Germany is committing suicide. The French pay half for electricity what the Germans do…………..and the only CO2 emitted is from construction. I also believe that the statistic is that the complete de-industrialization of the US is estimated to reduce temperatures by a tenth of a degree in 75 years. (of course, I have recently been informed we are all dead in 12; dang)
I repeat, Mr Robinson and his ilk are full of shit fools, and should be ignored as such.
Everything on my list is easy to administer and enforce, doesn’t require appropriations, is within the power of Congress and would reduce carbon emissions immediately rather than over the course of decades. But aren’t feel-good measures and they would upset the wrong people.
The economies of California and Washington would collapse but, hey, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Think big!
Ban human breeding altogether.
I think it depends on one’s assumptions. If you assume that we deindustrialize and we continue the consumption of products made by heavy industries elsewhere, say, in China, India, or Malaysia, then it could actually result in more carbon emissions and more warming. In other words it’s not enough to stop producing cars here. We’ve got to stop buying cars as well.
Gimme five: I stopped breeding 35 years ago.
Wind is already pretty green. The estimates I am reading suggest they are a net good after about 5-8 years. Solar is harder to figure out, but the new thin films are probably a net good. Hydro can clearly be a net good if it is sited properly.
Steve
The point is that they are not a priori green. It’s more complicated than that. The naive seem to think that anything that doesn’t have a smokestack is green.
With hydro the only way to really know is to study it. Start with Grand Coulee Dam. That accounts for about a quarter of the hydroelectric power already built.
All the good dam sites were built-out by the 70’s. New dams could never survive the environmental impact process.
There won’t be any new ones and the existing ones, particularly in the southwest, have limited lifespans thanks to silting.
And I agree – it’s not surprising that climate “solutions” are as much dogma and pre-existing policy preference as anything else.