Bernie Sanders Has an Audacious -- and Hugely Expensive -- Climate Plan

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,436
Reputation
4,639
Daps
89,719
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Bernie Sanders Has an Audacious -- and Hugely Expensive -- Climate Plan


Notably, the plan restricts tools that could help rapidly cut greenhouse-gas emissions, including nuclear power and technologies that can capture carbon dioxide. Sanders wants to pump more than $16 trillion into a version of the Green New Deal that would eliminate emissions from the US power sector, as well as all ground transportation, within a decade. To pull it off, he wants the government to play a much larger role in the electricity sector. His plan would direct new or expanded federal agencies to build nearly $2.5 trillion worth of wind, solar, geothermal, and energy storage projects.

The plan would also force major changes on the fossil-fuel sector, including ending federal subsidies, mountaintop-removal coal mining, and the import and export of fossil fuels. He'd also direct federal agencies to investigate whether companies broke the law in covering up their role in climate change, or owe damages for the destruction they cause. In addition, Sanders wants to invest more than $2 trillion to help families and small businesses improve the energy efficiency of their homes, buildings, and operations; and more than $1 trillion to retrofit or construct bridges, roads, water systems, and coastal protections in ways that will stand up to harsher climate conditions. He says the plan will create 20 million jobs, while offering wage guarantees, job training, and other assistance to displaced energy workers. His broader goals for the Green New Deal go beyond climate and clean energy as well, boosting funding for affordable housing and rural economic development, and enhancing protections for civil rights, environmental justice, and labor.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,436
Reputation
4,639
Daps
89,719
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Notably, the plan restricts tools that could help rapidly cut greenhouse-gas emissions, including nuclear power and technologies that can capture carbon dioxide.
ElaWj94.png

Socialist really out here on some, 'save the planet our way or not at all'.
These nikkas must be stopped.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
80,494
Reputation
9,995
Daps
237,920
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
When the US wants to build a nuclear power plant, a large part of it will have to come from Japan because no one in the US knows how to build it anymore.

You may have to look in a nursing home to track down the last engineers that know how to build it from the 70's.

People have mentioned Thorium fuel though. But I don’t think those are in production.

But yes if you want to reduce CO2, nuclear is the most efficient thing to scale up right now. France has low emissions cause of that.
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
26,399
Reputation
4,597
Daps
120,693
Reppin
Detroit
I think nuclear should be on the table.

That said, any plan that actually addresses climate change in a meaningful way is going to be huge and expensive. That's just the way it has to be because we waited too long.


Ignoring climate change is and would be far more costly. :manny:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,940
Daps
204,108
Reppin
the ether
Notably, the plan restricts tools that could help rapidly cut greenhouse-gas emissions, including nuclear power and technologies that can capture carbon dioxide.

Every nuclear power plant I've ever been anywhere near has now closed down. Kinda ridiculous to complain about not building new ones when you already shut down all the old ones. And clearly the human and environmental disasters that result from an accident are fukking ridiculous, not to mention the issue of forever waste. I'm not steadfastly anti-nuclear but it makes sense to me why it's not considered part of the plan.

I'm GLAD the plan doesn't include carbon-capture. It's a bad idea on multiple levels, without getting into all the arguments the biggest issue is that it addresses ONE of the symptoms of the problem rather than addressing the actual cause of the problem. You capture carbon, then you're still producing just as much air pollution other than carbon (including other greenhouse gases), just as much water pollution, just as many oil spills, etc. And there are some potential side-effects too.
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
43,828
Reputation
22,319
Daps
135,556
Notably, the plan restricts tools that could help rapidly cut greenhouse-gas emissions, including nuclear power and technologies that can capture carbon dioxide.

So, no thorium nuclear power plants and no carbon capturing. :patrice: The carbon capturing would be useful for graphene manufacturing. And thorium power plants are safer (in terms of meltdown consequences) than current nuclear power plants. I don't know if I'm liking this idea. I get why, but still I don't know. :patrice:

Sanders wants to pump more than $16 trillion into a version of the Green New Deal that would eliminate emissions from the US power sector, as well as all ground transportation, within a decade.

So, but we can't do reparations either huh. :unimpressed:
 

YvrzTrvly

All Star
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
3,811
Reputation
-187
Daps
9,015
Carbon capture isn’t ideal and nuclear waste will outlast mankind...
Go ahead explain nuclear waste...I have two engineering degrees have taken multitudes of physics...you understand generational changes in reactors..what’s your take on thorium...
 
Top