So, we've reached the end of my proposed series on climate plans. Now I'm gonna look at Howie Hawkins and his ecosocialist green new deal. I voted for Hawkins after Bernie dropped out believing that ERMAHGERD IF WE DON'T SOLVE THE CLIMATE BY 2030 WE'RE SCREWED, but it looks like I bought into some alarmist leftist rhetoric and we actually have until 2050. To be fair, I voted for him for other reasons, like UBI, medicare for all, free college, etc., but I did also buy into the green new deal at the time, believing UBI was unattainable and the green new deal was needed for the economy.
Now, Hawkins website discussing his plan is convoluted, and I don't really wanna quote all of it as it is unwieldy, but I would like to touch on each topic somewhat.
Overview: Interstate Renewable Electricity System
Renewable electricity must be the foundation for any sustainable economic system. Nonrenewable energy, by definition, can be depleted, that is, used up, gone forever (or at least for millions of years). Thus, by definition, a society based on nonrenewable energy is not indefinitely sustainable. In addition, fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, causing catastrophic climate change. Wood, which has been a nonrenewable staple for thousands of years, destroys forests, which are perhaps our most precious natural resource, after soil. Wood can be collected in a sustainable manner, but then can only be used sparingly. Catastrophic nuclear power accidents might be even worse than catastrophic climate change.
A national plan to build an economy based on renewable electricity would be composed of several components. There would be a national, interstate component, probably based mostly on wind, interconnected with a rebuilt national grid system. Solar plants and geothermal plants could be added to such a national grid, although only an a wind farm network is explored here. At the other end of the spectrum, at the level of individual buildings, we could plan for solar, geothermal, and efficiency construction that would provide for the bulk of building-level energy use, as explained in the building self-sufficiency section.
A renewable electricity system requires an electric transportation system, based on electric trains, trucks, and cars, with small-scale use of planes and internal combustion-based vehicles.
The following are the subsystems and programs required to implement a Renewable Electricity System:
In addition, in order to create an Interstate Renewable Electricity System, it will be necessary to buy out most of the electric utilities in the country, and to buy out the oil companies.
He has this costing $410 billion. Which is...fair I guess. We need to spend a lot of money to get off of fossil fuels, but I'm pretty sure other candidates like Yang and Biden got here cheaper.
Wind Farm Network
Constructed over a 10 year period, the Wind Farm Network of the Interstate Renewable Electricity System will generate all of the electricity that the US currently consumes, approximately 4,000 terrawatt hours. The Federal government is best placed to construct this system because of the system’s cost, time span, and spatial characteristics. As shown in cost, the total cost over 10 years will be approximately 3 trillion dollars. Markets can handle neither the time scale nor the size of such an investment.
In addition, the spatial siting of the wind farms will be critical to using the Interstate Wind System as a base load for the country’s electrical system. In other words, wind farms will have to be situated such that there enough wind farms receiving enough wind at any point in time that the supply of supply of electricity will be constant. The Interstate Wind System is an example of a system: the structure of the system is as important as its elements. The placement of the elements withing the system is critical to the functioning of the system. Only the government can design a system in which the structure is critical; markets cannot place the wind farms where they need to go, in terms of the country as a whole
Another important aspect of the design of the placement of wind farms is that by placing wind farms in the Great Plains, in particular, the destruction of ecosystems and birds and bats can be minimized, as well as any discomfort for people living in the immediate area of wind farms.
I mean, again, very necessary, but kind of expensive. he's also heavily focusing on employment here, with 650k being created for this. Again, very expensive. Yikes.
Smart electric grid and storage
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our electric grid, the set of high-capacity wires that moves electricity all around the country, is in terrible shape, earning a D+ grade. The current system will simply not be able to handle a Wind Farm Network, or other renewable sources such as solar or geothermal.
We also want the grid to be “smart”, that is, able to integrate with information technology and sense and control problems and even home appliances in order to keep the national electric system running smoothly.
A well-designed grid could also include a substantial amount of storage of electricity. There are many types of storage, but we will assume a certain amount of large-scale battery storage.
Again, very essential, but his cost is very high. This would cost $170 billion according to him.
51% Oil Company Buyouts
A Plan to Nationalize Fossil-Fuel Companies, by Peter Gowan
Jesus Christ he's trying to nationalize companies. Really going all in with the "socialism" here.
51% utility buyouts
If we add together the top 26 power utility companies’ market capitalization in 2019, the sum comes to $781 billion. To buy 51% of that, which is a controlling interest, it would cost about $400 billion. So over 10 years, the cost to bring power utilities under public control would be $40 billion per year.
Ditto. I know Bernie had this plan to have a federal agency sell electricity, but this is kind of ridiculous. It's expensive, and it's a bit too far left for me.
Overview: Green buildings and housing for all
Homes for All
Using US Census data, the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that the US has a shortage of 7.8 million units of affordable housing for very low income (7.5 million) and homeless (400,000) households and individuals. The study used the federal standard of affordability of 30% of income.
Public Housing
It is much less costly for government to directly build public housing units than to try to incentivize private developers to build affordable units with tax breaks and subsidies. That latter approach has been the dominant housing policy since the 1970s and the housing affordability crisis has only increased under this policy. Relying on the private market to provide sufficient affordable housing has never worked because more profits are to be found in upscale housing development than in affordable housing development.
It is time to return to public housing to provide affordable housing, but this time do it the right way by building high-quality, humanly scaled developments that house affluent and middle-income people as well as low-income people. Public housing is available to all income groups in many European countries. In some European cities, as much as 60% of the housing is not-for-profit housing in the public and cooperative sectors.
We estimate the costs for Homes for All in the Walkable Community Construction Program under the Green Economy Reconstruction Program. The Walkable Community Construction Program will create 2.5 million units of public housing a year. By making 40% of these units affordable for very low income people, 8 million affordable units for very low income people will be created over the course of the 10-year program and will close the affordability gap for very low income people.
The public housing we envision will be mixed-income like public housing in many western European countries, where low-income, working-class, and middle-class people all live together in public housing developments. Mixed-income housing will cost the public treasury less because the rents will be scaled to income and the higher income residents’ higher rents will partially cross-subsidize the lower rents that low income people will pay.
Mixed-income public housing will also break down the race and class segregation in housing that has persisted and actually grown more extreme since the 1990s despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. The old public housing increased segregation by concentrating poor people of color in housing projects that are often isolated from jobs, public transportation, grocery stores, educational institutions, and other resources, services, and opportunities. By mixing households across income levels in the new public housing, it will desegregate housing by economic class and by race because race and income stratification correlate to a significant degree.
The new public housing will be built to sequester carbon in building materials and to be powered, heated, and cooled by clean renewable sources of electricity. The developments will be located to redevelop out cities and towns into walkable communities that are more energy and resource efficient.
In sum, this public housing program will be a jobs program, a desegregation program, a walkable communities program, and a clean energy program as well as an affordable housing program.
Universal Rent Control
With the shortages of affordable housing, high rents are driving many working-class people out of their homes, often into periods of homelessness. The gentrification of working-class neighborhoods unnecessarily displaces many families away from their neighbors and community institutions even if they can find affordable units elsewhere. Displacement tears at the fabric of neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. We need to find ways to uplift communities – and re-densify poor urban communities that have lost housing and businesses – without displacing current residents. One way is to ensure new development includes sufficient affordable housing, which our public housing program is designed to do.
In the meantime, as affordable public housing units are being built, we need to protect existing residents from being displaced from their communities by rising rents. Rents are rising much faster than incomes and the cost of living in cities and towns across the nation.
We therefore advocate a federal program of Universal Rent Control that will cap rent increases each year and end evictions without a just cause so that people can stay in their homes. The federal government had national rent control during World War 2 when resources were devoted to the war effort and away from housing development, creating a tight housing market. We should do the same now to protect tenants in today’s tight housing markets. Oregon passed a state law in 2019 that ends evictions without a just cause and caps annual rent increases. We should do the same federally to help people stay in their homes while sufficient affordable housing is being built.
Like Bernie, he's putting a housing program in here. Seems a little out of place, although I guess it goes into climate somewhat. I'm not opposed to housing programs and this ain't too unreasonably priced, like $250 billion. But yeah.
I have to cringe at rent control though. I know leftists seem to love the idea for some reason but it just reduces the housing supply making the problem worse, and while it benefits existing tenants, it screws future ones.
It's not a good policy.
Walkable Community Construction Program
This program could be divided between both the transportation reconstruction program and the green buildings program, because by building apartment buildings next to each other, the program serves two purposes: decreasing building energy costs and decreasing the needs for automobiles. In addition, the density of dwellings makes it more efficient to recycle materials.
The key to eliminating the use of petroleum for transportation is to change the way buildings are placed in relation to each other. In other words, instead of the sprawl of spread-out suburbs, we need density of old main streets and city centers. While not everybody would want to live in a city as dense as New York City, and particularly Manhattan, residents of New York City contribute less than 30% of the greenhouse gases of the average American, according to David Owen in his book Green Metropolis. Therefore, if everybody lived in a New York City, US greenhouse gas emissions would plummet by at least one-third, because transportation would use renewable electricity, and heating and cooling would be much easier. This is because the way we place buildings in relation to each other has a profound influence on the way we use energy.
There used to be something called a “town” in the United States, with a Main Street where all the commercial activity took place, generally with a train station situated in a strategic position so that goods could easily be transported from the station. Almost all housing was within walking distance. Not all homes need to be within walking distance, but they should still be fairly close to a town center and readily reached by electric vehicles, which are very efficient at in-town speeds of 30 mph or less. Since town centers have almost ceased to exist, part of a “densification” program will involve what is called “infilling”—that is, placing new, large buildings in the middle of a newly constructed town center.
Even most city centers no longer have walkable residential neighborhoods. Instead, they survive as business districts and become deserted after working hours. A densification campaign therefore would be needed in most cities as well.
When residences are in apartment buildings instead of single-family homes, the costs of heating and cooling greatly decrease, because usually only one wall faces the outside, where heat or cool air can escape.
Idk, forcing changes from the top down seems to be what I'm not big on. I mean, this is the issue with "leftists". They all glorify dense city living and public transportation, and while it is green I dont think many people wanna live that way. Also, at least in my city, while my city is very "walkable", we got high crime. You DON'T actually wanna walk any where. Unless you wanna get mugged.
Solar electricity and storage
There are two main sources of solar energy: centralized plants, called Concentrated Solar Power, and distributed rooftop systems. Here we focus on distributed rooftop systems which can be put on top of buildings, but we will also consider some solar farms. Obviously these systems only work when the sun is out; each location has different seasonal sunlight, and systems work best if they can move to follow the sun. We will use rough average estimates here. Also, the price of photovoltaic (PV) systems continues to decline, but we will be conservative in our estimates. We will include storage batteries for buildings here, so people can store the solar energy for use at night; this would work very well with geothermal heat pumps/retrofitting, as the solar panels could power the heat pump at night via the batteries, so that buildings would use very little electricity, if any, from the national grid. This would not only free up the grid electricity to be used by industry and transportation, but it would also decrease the possibility of going without power in the case of a blackout. The Distributed Solar System, because it could interact with the Interstate Renewable Electricity System because of its battery storage, would really be an extension of the Interstate Renewable Electricity System, in the same way we can consider local road systems an extension of the Interstate Highway System.
I mean investing in solar electricity and storage is good. You don't want MTG to think the lights go out when the sun goes down after all. Also just to point out the price tag, $200 billion.
Geothermal heat pumps and retrofitting
Geothermal energy comes in two main forms: large geothermal plants that are built deep into the Earth and generate energy around-the-clock, and shallow geothermal units built to provide the heating cooling needs of one building. Geothermal plants are not addressed in this study, mainly because of the lack of research, although a system of geothermal plants could theoretically be the ideal way to provide continuous electricity for any society. MIT has proposed a crash program to develop the technology.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of geothermal heat pumps have been installed in the United States. According to Oklahoma State University, “Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) are electrically powered systems that tap the stored energy of the greatest solar collector in existence: the earth. These systems use the earth’s relatively constant temperature to provide heating, cooling, and hot water for homes and commercial buildings.”
While retrofitting, that is, insulating, plugging leaks, replacing windows, etc., to make a building leak less heat or cool air, has been a major goal in the past, it is becoming more likely that, in general, using solar panels and geothermal heat pumps make more sense, unless those two options are not possible
Geothermal is worth investing in too. Also $200 billion though. Hawkins' plan is expensive.
Overview: Transportation Reconstruction
The only way to make transportation sustainable is to make it almost completely electric. Since oil comprises 98% of the fuel for the current transportation system (cars, trucks, diesel rail, planes, and ships), this will be quite a task. The Interstate Renewable Electricity System can provide the electricity, but to remake the transportation system will require a large-scale change in the vehicles used, in the infrastructure built, and perhaps most importantly but least understood, in the way cities and towns are laid out.
An electric transportation system spanning a continent will have to be based on the original transcontinental system—that is, rail. Electric high-speed rail is actually the most recent innovation for a major mode of transportation. High-speed rail will replace short-distance and intermediate-distance air travel. For long-distance and intercontinental air travel, the clean energy solution for this 10-year budget will be biofuels. The technology does not exist yet for large electric-engine jets powered by batteries (weight is the problem) or hydrogen fuel cells (hydrogens storage space in the problem). Air travel now accounts for 2% of the world’s carbon emissions. We can cut a substantial portion of that through electrified high-speed rail for short and intermediate distances. High-speed rail means not just passenger traffic but also freight traffic. High-speed electric freight trains will have to replace long-distance trucking if we don’t want to use large quantities of oil. Finally, most transportation within a city region will need to use electric rail—with some use of electric buses, small electric trucks, and small electric cars.
Again, I feel like Hawkins keeps romanticizing all of these stereotypical far left ideas like high speed rail when I'm not sure they would work out for us. Perhaps he has a point about freight, but at the same time, uh...how many rail ways will we have to have to have the logistics currently provided by trucks and airlines? Like, I'm just not sold on this.
Interstate High-Speed Rail System
The United States has the worst high-speed rail system in the industrialized world. If you define high-speed rail as rail traveling in excess of about 150 miles per hour, then the US actually has no high-speed rail system at all. Europe, Japan, and now China have much more extensive systems. One could use part or all of the Interstate Highway System to construct an Interstate High-Speed Rail system, or we could place the system parallel to parts of the Interstate Highway System, as proposed by the US High-Speed Rail Association. However it is put together, a High-Speed Rail System would have to replace most plane routes, since air travel will become less and less practical at shorter distances as the price of oil rises.
Again, not sure this is worth the investment. Would rather just make fleets of battery powered trucks.
I mean looking at the map hawkins talks about, look at all of the places not actually covered. While it connects lots of major cities, there are lots of places not hooked up to these rail networks at all. And then we'll be having to transport the stuff onto trucks and then get them to their destination anyway.
Also, he has this costing $100 billion PER YEAR, or $1 trillion.
Regional Transit
Automobiles use about 50% of oil. The only way to decrease the consumption of oil is to decrease the use of automobiles, and the only way to decrease the use of automobiles is to make denser cities and towns that can use electrified transit — subways, light rail, and buses. Transit is completely dependent on density in order to thrive. There are many parts of the country that could have more transit now, even with their levels of density. But to make transit practical for most of the population, most of the population will have to live in dense areas.
Transit is a good example of how the expansion of one industry can help expand an entire industrial “ecosystem” of suppliers, as Jonathan M. Feldman points out.
Ok, so now we put everything on subways, light rail, and buses.
Again, do people other than the poor and the driving averse really WANT to switch to public transportation? I feel like leftists try to push for solutions that would go against what most Americans want.
I actually aint opposed to expanding public transportation somewhat. And I don't really like driving, but at the same time, driving IS far more convenient, even if it is much more expensive for an individual person.
Transportation Infrastructure
The following table is based on the American Society of Civil Engineer’s Report Card on the Infrastructure. They present cost data for bridges, waterways, ports,roads, and aviation. These show how much more money needs to be spent than is currently being spent; the Green New Deal budget assumes that the Federal government will have to pick up the difference.
While most studies assume that aviation, roads, and shipping will grow at the same rates as in previous decades, the Green New Deal assumes that there may actually be a large contraction in these modes of transport. For instance, much car and truck traffic may instead be done via passenger and freight rail. We will assume that roads will be maintained for the next 20 years, but not expanded, so ASCE figures about $60 billion per year to fix roads and enhance them. Bridges should be fixed, whether the transportation system is centered on rail or on cars and trucks. The central economic program for the Green New Deal is to increase domestic manufacturing, which should mean that the level of cargo ship traffic into the U.S. could decline significantly. However, we assume that ports should be upgraded because, hopefully, any decrease in ships coming into the U.S. will be made up by a similar increase in ships carrying exports to other countries.
Air traffic will probably decline more than most studies assume, because much air traffic will be replaced by the Interstate High-Speed Rail System. However, we assume a conservative 4 billion per year to upgrade the airports, at least to implement the current air traffic control upgrades.
Transportation will have to move from being based on petroleum to being based on renewable electricity. However, it makes sense to at least maintain the current infrastructure while a new transportation system is being built. In the following table, we show those assumed cost levels.
Roads: 60 billion
Bridges: 13 billion
Ports: 5 billion
Aviation: 4 billion
Waterways: 1 billionTotal: 85 billion, rounded up
Again, is the demand REALLY there? or is the left trying to shoehorn most Americans to live in a way they would likely revolt against? Americans are stubborn and this "socialist" plot to take away your cars would likely have the right, and even a lot of the center, in a tizzy.
There's no way most Americans will be on board with this.
Electric Car Subsidies
Since cars and trucks account for over 60% of oil consumed, it would be critical to make cars and trucks electric, so that they can use renewable sources of energy.
There are projected to be about 280 million cars at the end of 2019 in the United States.
If one third of these were not needed in 10 years, because of the walkable neighborhood construction and construction of transit, then the Federal government would need to encourage the purchase of 200 million electric cars. If it provided $10,000 per car, that would mean $2 trillion over 10 years, or $200 billion per year.
While this is what we need to be focused on, Jesus Christ, that cost.
Yeah, all of these figures are generally YEARLY. So any time I say $200 billion, that's $200 billion A YEAR.
This is gonna be even more expensive than Bernie's plan, isn't it?
I'm not even getting into all the job creation we're talking about. MILLIONS of jobs. MILLIONS.
He's really pushing the "new deal" aspect of this.
Regenerative Agriculture
Agriculture is not currently sustainable. Pesticides, much irrigation, artificial fertilizers and other farming techniques destroy the soil on which all civilization is dependent. The runoff of the pesticides and fertilizer contaminate fresh water and large parts of the oceans. The foods grown with these techniques lead to myriad health problems, while factory farming of livestock leads to super bacteria and unhealthy meat. Oil is required to run farm equipment and to move food thousands of miles.
The goal of a sustainable agricultural system would be to make each region of the country as self-reliant in food as possible, with farm belts around the major city or cities, and encouragement of urban gardens. All food would be grown without pesticides or artificial fertilizer, that is, grown organic Such a system would require a much higher amount of labor, using intensive agricultural techniques, so that the main methods of farming would be closer to gardening than farming. If grains like wheat, rice and corn could be grown better in the Midwest, then we would want to switch to perennial varieties being pioneered by the Land Institute. Livestock must be raised sustainably, sustainable fish aquaculture should be encouraged, and the revival of the oceans must become a top priority.
We also need to find ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of livestock, which now accounts for 15% of all human-caused emissions. For example, research indicates that adding a small 0.5% proportion of seaweed to cow feed reduces the belching and farting of the potent greenhouse gas methane from cows by 80% without impacting milk production.
I mean, what we're doing isn't sustainable, but organic? This guy really is pushing a weird leftist utopia where we all shop at whole foods.
I mean, this does need to be solved, I just think the other candidates plans I've read probably do a more cost efficient job.
Civilian Conservation Corps
This category reconstitutes one of the most successful programs of the original New Deal: the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The main task of the new CCC will be to plant trees and restore ecosystems, with the main goal of drawing down as much carbon dioxide as possible. It could be possible to draw down about 24 gigatons of CO₂ per year by restoring ecosystems, according to research. Another line of research indicates that planting a billion trees could draw down about 200 gigatons of CO₂ in total. According to a UN report, soil can be a good source of carbon drawdown. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released a report that concluded that, at the high end, afforestation, soil enrichment, and biochar could reach about 25 gigaton CO₂ equivalent per year. Humans now spew about 35 gigatons into the air per year from fossil fuel sources, but since fossil fuels account for about 60% of emissions, the total equivalent should be around 50 gigatons when all sources are included.
In addition, the CCC will address several of the issue areas in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Report Card on the Infrastructure. There is also the larger issue of reviving ecosystems that have been damaged, or even creating large park-like areas, such as a proposed Buffalo Commons that would cover a large part of the Great Plains, or long wildlife corridors. Also, fish sanctuaries should be established to allow oceans to repopulate.
Public parks and recreation
According to the ASCE’s report card on public parks, there is “only” about $10 billion in shortfall funding for federal parks, but close to $95 billion for state parks. So the monies for the CCC would include these needed funds for state and federal parks.
Hazardous Wastes
According to the ASCE, a 2004 study by the EPA estimated that $209 billion would be needed to clean up all hazardous sites in the next 30 to 35 years. Let’s assume $10 billion per year for 20 years, although it is quite possible this is an underestimate. That comes to 200,000 jobs. Let’s assume less than normal manufacturing, since these jobs are mainly service jobs, so let’s assume 20,000 of the jobs will be manufacturing jobs.
I mean, we need more trees, and most plans have this, so yeah. Again, he seems to take the Bernie/Warren approach though.
arbon Mineralization
America’s most prominent climate scientist, James Hansen, estimated in December 2018 in “Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm” that with natural carbon sequestration (afforestation, habitat restoration, organic agriculture), it might still be possible to “return global temperature close to the Holocene range by the end of this century,” by which he meant atmospheric CO₂ below 350 ppm. In Hansen’s “Nutshell” paper, he cites a study presenting a pathway to 350 ppm by the end of the century that requires a zeroing out of carbon emissions by 2030 and drawing 150 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere, which is about the maximum estimated capacity of natural carbon sequestration through habitat restoration.
In an earlier paper in 2017, “Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO₂ Emissions,” Hansen and colleagues concluded that because we are near the limits of the capacity of natural carbon sequestration to draw down enough carbon by the end of this century (in combination with a rapid phaseout of greenhouse gas emissions), it may be necessary to find other ways to draw carbon out of the atmosphere.
Because the carbon storing capacity of natural carbon sequestration is uncertain and greenhouse gas emissions continue, it is prudent to research and develop other ways of drawing carbon out of the atmosphere in order to return to the climate safety zone below 350 ppm. A promising approach is to accelerate the natural geological carbon cycle where atmospheric carbon is mineralized in rock through weathering.
David Schwartzman and Peter Schwartzman, who are ecosocialist Green Party members and environmental scientists, argue that biospheric carbon sequestration will have to be augmented by geospheric carbon sequestration. They call for a solar-powered industrial acceleration of weathering that fixes carbon in the Earth’s crust in the natural geological carbon cycle. Water and CO₂ react chemically with rocks to create carbonates that fix carbon in the Earth’s crust for geological time scales. The technical feasibility of accelerating this process industrially was recently demonstrated in Iceland, where CO₂ dissolved into water was injected into a basaltic rock formation and 95% of the carbon was mineralized as carbonates in the porous basaltic rocks within the following two years.
The Schwartzmans note that solar-powered industrial geospheric sequestration would need to continue well beyond 2100 because about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities since the fossil fuel age began has gone into the ocean and life-forms. While oceans are being acidified by the absorption of atmospheric carbon, oceans also emit carbon dioxide like carbonated drinks do, especially as they warm. When life-forms die, their decomposition emits CO₂ and methane. The industrial carbon mineralization will be needed because natural carbon sinks in the biosphere will have been filled to capacity by afforestation, wetland and other habitat restoration, and organic agriculture.
The Schwartzmans estimate in The Earth Is Not for Sale: A Path Out of Fossil Capitalism to the Other World That Is Still Possible (pp.103–107) that it will take on the order of 25 trillion watts of global energy annually to power industrial carbon sequestration in Earth’s crust as well as to end global energy poverty and provide every person on Earth a decent standard of living, as climate justice demands. Current annual global energy production is 18 trillion watts, but the Schwartzmans argue that 25 trillion watts of renewable energy production is technologically feasible. They were the first to compute in 2011 how an initial investment of non-renewable energy can create a self-reproducing and exponentially-growing 100% wind/solar renewable energy system in about 25 years under the conservative assumptions of using existing renewable technology and modest rates of energy investment in renewables (1% of non-renewables and 10% of renewables during the transition). In a 2016 follow-up study, they find that this 100% global clean energy system can be built with an initial energy investment of just 20% of proven conventional oil reserves. The wells for that oil are already producing. No fracking, arctic, or deep ocean wells are necessary. Oil is chosen because it releases less greenhouse gas than coal and natural gas over their life cycles.
If we need to draw down 150 billion tons of carbon by the end of the century in order to return to the safe climate zone of below 350 ppm as Hansen’s scenario above indicates, and if that is near the capacity of natural carbon sequestration, it is worth starting a research and development program of carbon mineralization to have ready to scale up if it is needed.
The Iceland experiment in carbon mineralization cost $25 per ton of carbon. If 100 billion tons of carbon mineralization is needed, it would cost $2.5 trillion at $25 per ton. Spread over 50 years, it would cost $50 billion a year at the current state of technology to mineralize 100 billion tons of carbon.
For now, we have put $10 billion per year in the budget for carbon mineralization research and development because it may be needed. Carbon mineralization must not be seen as an excuse to go slow on decarbonizing the economy. Carbon mineralization should be seen as an emergency measure that may be needed to bring the atmospheric CO₂ back below the climate safety zone of below 350 ppm by the end of the century.
Given the IPCC's deadlines, he seems to be alarmist and going above and beyond. Keep in mind we just need to reduce our greenhouse gases by half by 2030, and be net zero by 2050. This takes into account the warming already there. Once again, this guy seems to be going for an overly expensive sledgehammer to solve the problem. I know Yang talked about decarbonization too and he didn't have such an expensive idea either.
There are several aspects of a functioning water system: drinking systems, wastewater systems, levees, climate change mitigation, and dams. Currently, state and local governments are responsible for the cost of fixing these systems. With the general lack of revenues that local governments are experiencing, it is no wonder that water systems are deteriorating. The Green New Deal would provide Federal funds for fixing the water systems of the country, thus freeing funds for other local government needs.
Reliable drinking water must be available to all inhabitants. In their report card for drinking water, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that $1 trillion is needed to fix the nation’s water systems. That is $50 billion per year. As we have seen in Flint, this is a high priority part of the infrastructure.
In the wastewater report card of the ASCE, it is estimated that fixing waste water systems would cost about $300 billion over 20 years, which comes out to about $15 billion per year, but let’s double that to account for climate change mitigation, to $30 billion per year.
Levees account for another $80 billion, according to the ASCE. Let’s double that number to account for climate-change related construction work, for instance, for New York City. Then we have $8 billion per year Finally, the ASCE says that we need $45 billion to fix dams in danger of collapsing. Let’s assume $2 billion per year
So our totals for cost and jobs are the following:Drinking Water: 50 billion
Wastewater: 30 billion
Levees: 8 billion
Dams: 2 billion
Total: 90 billion, rounded up
This one isn't too bad on a yearly basis. And yeah we do need to change our infrastructure.
Overview: Manufacturing Reconstruction
Economies are based on production, and production is dependent on the infrastructure. The economic rationale for a large-scale infrastructure-building program is to rebuild the manufacturing and other parts of the production system. Instead of using up fast disappearing resources such as oil, fresh water and various metals, the Federal government should set up a national recycling system that will provide most of the inputs for the production system. This would include organic material to compost for the redesigned agricultural system. Agriculture needs government help to move from dependence on pesticides, artificial fertilizers and other fossil fuel inputs to organic farming located close to towns and cities. Factories need help to replace their current machinery with machinery that will not pollute, will not create greenhouse gas emissions, and that will produce ‘Zero Waste’ products,which would involve emphasizing design of products so that they can be re-used, not recycled. . Companies need help redesigning products that can be pulled apart and reused instead of being thrown away as garbage.
If the agricultural and manufacturing systems are set up to mimic nature’s ability to sustainably recycle and reuse, instead of mining, polluting and destroying, then whatever is produced, either from a factory or a farm, will do so in a sustainable way, that is, it will not take more out of ecosystems than it puts back.
This ecological manufacturing sector will expand useful wealth for the people, as measured by use values, even as it will reverse “economic growth” as measured by GDP, which is the sum of exchange values. It will also radically reduce the amount of physical material flowing from the environment through the economy and out as waste. Zero-waste manufacturing will be able to achieve these goals because goods will be produced for durability instead of planned obsolescence and designed to reduce, reuse, or recycle materials. This increase in useful wealth while GDP and material flows decline applies to the rich countries. In poor countries, energy and material flows needs to grow until all people enjoy a decent standard of living.
This transformation will need to occur world-wide, which is why a Global Green New Deal will have to create a new massive economic-assistance plan to help all countries implement their own Green New Deals — in return for which they will agree to protect their ecosystems
Like many things here I don't disagree with this, but it's $200 billion a year.
Green Manufacturing Reconstruction
The current value of all factory machinery is about $1.5 trillion. Therefore, to replace most machinery, including research and development, could reasonably done for $2 trillion over 10 years, or $200 billion per year (assuming we would need more machinery than we have currently, because of the added manufacturing from the Green New Deal). The machinery would not emit greenhouse gas emissions, would not pollute, and would create products that could be recycled/reused. Part of this could include a robust R&D program to create the different kinds of machinery needed.
Again, don't disagree with the concept, but the cost is a problem.
Recycling
In order for the manufacturing system to be sustainable in the very long-run, the inputs have to be recycled from previously used goods. With the possible exception of some particularly plentiful resources such as iron and silicon, all other raw materials are being depleted at a rate that most will be gone within a century. Some resources, such as oil, may become too expensive for mass use in the next decade. In addition, mining causes serious environmental damage, as well as polluting precious water supplies.
Solid Wastes and Hazardous Waste
According to the ASCE, solid waste management is one of the better infrastructure programs in the United States. However, the Green New Deal foresees the eventual elimination of solid waste. Therefore, money for solid waste improvement is part of the recycling program in the Green New Deal. In the same way, hazardous sites should eventually disappear, because the Green New Deal will pay for the installation of nonpolluting manufacturing machinery.
Again not opposed to recycling.
Global Green New Deal (US actions)
All developed countries and regions would contribute green machinery to developing countries to enable the developing countries to create their own Green New Deals. In return, the developing countries would agree to protect their critical ecosystems (e.g., Amazon, Borneo). As a start, the U.S. would commit $100 billion for this effort, but this could increase pending further analysis of what would be needed to industrialize the poorer countries sustainably. Since this would all require creating machinery, this would generate about 1 million good machinery producing jobs per year.
yearly totals, Green Economy Reconstruction Program:
Total jobs:
30,484,000
Total manufacturing jobs:
8,564,000
Total cost:
$2.75 trillion
I can't support this. Maybe Hawkins has good other ideas, but this is too far left for me, it is too literally socialist for me, it would radically transform the country and not in a good way IMO, and honestly, it's expensive as all hell. While Hawkins supports a UBI (and I can briefly look at that separately), this is what he emphasizes.
I honestly would rather spend money on things like healthcare and UBI, and I really just want to solve the climate issues in the most efficient way possible to not jeopardize funding those programs. He does support these things, but taking a brief look at his UBI he takes the easy way out on that, pushing an NIT that he claims costs $200 billion a year. Not sure the numbers add up on that, but yeah.
Still, would I vote for Hawkins again? Not for this, but given his other priorities at least pay lipservices to my other major priorities, it's possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment