Nope, they won’t be satisfied until america is like Venezuela

As AOC said, those are those "just shouting from the cheap seats." https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1099126500924760064?lang=en

Its the internet. Kinda true don't you think? It would be like me giving the keys to my care to a dude and then yelling at them during the drive on how to do things

It was in criticism to her new green deal that would utterly destroy the economy and lead to million if nt billions of deaths that was latter admitted to be about changing the economy rather than helping the environment.

Calmroonflower, don’t listen to OberstGylbert. He doesn’t even live in America like we do. He just think he does.

Doesn't mean he's wrong.

He is wrong.

"l that would utterly destroy the economy and lead to million if nt billions of deaths"

Don't tut your own horn. At worst the GND would ruin America, which fair enough would have serious effects on the rest of the world, but wouldn't cause /Billions/ to die. I don't see it happening

" latter admitted to be about changing the economy rather than helping the environment."

Well you do need to change the economy to save the Environment. As the economy stands today, it will not be good enough to save the environment and/or the climate.

OberstGylbert, for the upteenth time, you don’t live in the US. Don’t suggest what we should do.

But what if he actually come up with an improvement? USA follows the marketplace of ideas exactly for that reason.

But what he is coming up with is not what is right for this country. What works for Germany doesn’t work for the US. Come on now, you don’t agree with him either.

I don't have to agree with what he says, to believe he has a right to say it. Even then, a wrong statement or flawed system can be informative of how not to do things.

Banning fuel you need to transport, grow, and process food leads to mass starvation. No need for another Holodomor. You'd also have to switch to wood for cooking and heat without fossil fuels. We need an actual transition to a new fuel source rather than a gold turkey plan.

And the green new deal is not meant to help the environment, only change the economy. That's why stuff unrelated to the environment was included.

"Banning fuel you need to transport"

Electric Car, buses, etc. Next

" grow, and process food"

Again. Switch to Electrical means that are Greenhouse gas neutral

"You'd also have to switch to wood for cooking "

again. There is a nifty thing called electrical ovens and what not. Coal need not apply

" new fuel source"

New? Just transition to electrical

"And the green new deal is not meant to help the environment, only change the economy."

Well you need to change the economy to save the environment.... so

Now you might ask: How are we to power all these nifty electrical devieces without resorting to Coal and Oil and what not to provide electricity. To that I say: Renewable energy! Wind turbines. Hydro Electrical power plants, solar energy. And then you might say, but what about a cloudy day or a day without uch wind. To /That/ I say batteries.

You sure love to tell us how to run our country. Then you get mad at me when I tell you to buzz off. You don’t live here and understand why we do the things we do.

Once again. You don't need to listen to me. You can simply ignore me if you really believe that I shouldn't comment on Foreign affairs.

Stop trying to dictate.

Dictate what? I see your slowly slipping back into your old routine

LOL, yes, currently natural gas and coal generate most of it and you'll need lots time and lots of resources to replace it with the other source, rather than going cold turkey. And even then you cannot make enough with these source and what you do make will be much more expensive and the mining and refining the materials themselves also cause pollution and environmental damage. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html

Also interesting you didn't mention nuclear, which can more easily replace fossil fuels.

"Well you need to change the economy to save the environment.... so"
Doesn't mean any change will help the environment. Just because something needs done, doesn't mean any something will do

"" you'll need lots time and lots of resources to replace it with the other source"

Well best get started. In Germany we're already phasing out Coal Oil Gas and Nuclear Power. A substantial amount of German energy is Green. If we can do it so can you

"And even then you cannot make enough with these source"

Actually you can

"what you do make will be much more expensive"

Lol no. Wind and Sunlight costs nothing. The major expenses will be in building and maintain the Power plants. The resources that will make Power are readily available and cheap

"and the mining and refining the materials themselves also cause pollution and environmental damage."

Yes, but considering that it only happens in the production and the lack of any true alternatives for building the Renewable energy power plants. And unlike a Fossil Fuel power plant, which causes pollution and Environmental damage constantly for a huge period of time and thse huge amounts of it, the building of the Green Energy alternatives is fast and doesn't cause reletaviley as much Pollution or environmental damage as a Wind or Solar

"Well best get started." Now you have a new goal post. Phasing out was what I called for, but you're defending a hard cut off date. If you wish to present a new argument, then do so rather than goal post shifting.

"Actually you can" Why? because you asserted it is so? I provide a citation, you have nothing.

"Lol no. Wind and Sunlight costs nothing." No, you even proved that wrong with your next sentence.

"Yes, but considering that it only happens in the production and the lack of any true alternatives for building the Renewable energy power plants." Wrong, mining rare earth metals needs for those plants causes damage just from the mining alone. That doesn't include the energy or tools needed to mine. You also get byproducts from refining and processing the materials, that is also without the energy being included.

"basic off a flawed study, by someone that has skin in the game."

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/E5021

Which was disputed by people who themselves also had skin in the game. But one could argue everyone has skin in the game when it comes to climate change.

"The USA has just over 6% of the world's land. Much of which wouldn't to good for building green power. That make me wonder if it is technically possible to actually do this."

That would be if we only built on land. The Oceans are readily available.

"Also each part of the project would need to jump through a huge number of hoops and fight red tape for possibly decades over environmental concerns.. "

Well yeah. The biggest Hurdle for Climate Justice is the lack of Political Will

"I was referring to the cost of building, so it seem you misunderstood me"

I know. But I was reffering to actual Wind and Sunlight. The facilities that convert them into energy wil not be cheap if mass produced. No one is denying that.

"Sorry, this time I misunderstood."

Yeah No problem.

"Phasing out was what I called for, but you're defending a hard cut off date. If you wish to present a new argument, then do so rather than goal post shifting."

Whoops. Didnt mean thag to happen.

Let me rephrase that:

Indeed it will take alot of time, effort, resources and will. No one is saying it'll be easy, but something should be done, and favourably now.

"Why? because you asserted it is so? I provide a citation, you have nothing."

Bbecause we are already doing it? Let me fish a link for you

https://www.ewg.org/energy/22422/100-percent-renewable-energy-us-possible-yes-0

Altho the USAGov. only predicts 80% to be possible by 2050 if you began today

"No, you even proved that wrong with your next sentence."

No. I meant wind, as in actual wind nnot a wind farm, and sunlight produced by the sun. But I can see how I could be missunderstood

"Wrong, mining rare earth metals needs for those plants causes damage just from the mining alone. That doesn't include the energy or tools needed to mine. You also get byproducts from refining and processing the materials, that is also without the energy being included."

Lol Isnt that what I said?

"Bbecause we are already doing it? Let me fish a link for you"
basic off a flawed study, by someone that has skin in the game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#100%_renewable_energy
If you don't like the wiki, check the citations for the dispute.
But this truck me, "All of which would require approximately 1% of the world's land to be achieved." The USA has just over 6% of the world's land. Much of which wouldn't to good for building green power. That make me wonder if it is technically possible to actually do this.

Also each part of the project would need to jump through a huge number of hoops and fight red tape for possibly decades over environmental concerns..

"No. I meant wind, as in actual wind nnot a wind farm, and sunlight produced by the sun. But I can see how I could be misunderstood"
I was referring to the cost of building, so it seem you misunderstood me

"Lol Isnt that what I said?"
Sorry, this time I misunderstood.

"Also interesting you didn't mention nuclear, which can more easily replace fossil fuels."

True, but I don't think its a good alternative due to the dangers of a meltdown, or sabotage

"Doesn't mean any change will help the environment. Just because something needs done, doesn't mean any something will do"

I know, but still the GNDs Plan to cut down on Air travel and replace it with Trains is a good step. And introducing a Carbon Tax as well. Although a Tax might be a bit more problematic.

It took me a bit, but here is the text of the GND. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

I skimmed it, but it seems you offered more suggestion to reach the goal than the deal itself. It also doesn't address costs or how to pay for it, https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/

The goals are not bad, but we need an actual plan to get there at a cost we can afford. Preferably without the socialism.

Yeah not the best response, Politically speaking.

"Preferably without the socialism"

Absolutely. Tho I highly doubt its really socialism. Anyway

As far as I am aware the GND was never ment to be passed as law, it was meant to be a bundel of ideas that could be negotiated and molded and to get people talking about the issue. So yeah cool huh?

You know AOC rebuffed critics of the GND as shouting from the cheap seats, right?

STFU Gylbert. You don’t know shit about my country. You don’t even seem to know too much about your own.

Hmm, where have I heard that before... Hmmm

Obviously some people liked them enough to vote them into office. Also please explain how they are Marxists.

Oh the German chimes in. Yeah, these are representatives from looney toon districts in my country. They have these pockets of idiots here and there. They don’t represent the rest of us. That is why their nationwide favorability ratings are in the toilet.

Ah of course

You chose to come on my meme and comment. I didn’t seek you out...not did I have any plans to.

*nor

Did I say otherwise?