Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[GHOSTUSER 361]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I disagree on your assessment of US space flight capabilities when Kennedy gave his speech. We could barely scratch LEO if the rocket didn't blow up or veer of course. Going to the moon and back, much less even understanding all of the challenges and how we could accomplish it was very much unknown. We didn't even know if people could survive in zero gravity for extended periods of time at that point for fucks sake.

The moon landing was a more insurmountable problem than addressing climate change. We know what is causing the worst of it, we have proven solutions to make a meaningful impact (solar, nukes, carbon sequestration, renewable fuels, etc), the only thing that's stopping us is special interests. The moon landing required the whole-cloth creation of entire fields of academics and engineering, the greatest peacetime federal jobs program since the New Deal, and people taking real human risks every day just to make progress.

The only thing we stand to lose if we pursue a green new deal is some corporate profits, and we never even felt the benefit of those anyways. So fuck em, and fuck the idea that we can't make massive changes to fight climate change. There are solutions out there, it's just that we're too scared to stand up to special interests to even start experimenting and taking financial risks to actually try something new.

No doubt that going to the Moon on Kennedy’s timeline incredibly aggressive and required incredible technological advancements. The difference between going to the Moon and solving climate change is clear. NASA could devote all of its resources and come up with a means to get to space itself. Solving climate change requires a multitude of different players with different needs and perspectives to act in concert even if it would impose upon them a tremendous toll. That is unrealistic and goes against everything witnessed in human history. What’s going to save us are technological advancements to combat climate change. That’s the reality.

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

lol this guy is a fucking idiot.  She asked him a question about his article about how it's not illegal for outside groups (soft money) to make hush money payments, and then he turns around and starts talking about hard money for some reason and how it would be illegal to use that for hush money payments.  

I thought his two strongest points were that she misrepresented the dark money by 500%(just for reference it is a big gaffe) and that Congress is largely responsible for making the laws, and therefore the circumstances, she is complaining, pointing out what is known for the most part, about.  

She is bringing about conversation throwing molotov verbals.  We'll see if Pelosi and the rest clean her up like the guys in the white coats do here as she hits the normal DC way of doing things brick wall:

 

[troph 24806]

No doubt that going to the Moon on Kennedy’s timeline incredibly aggressive and required incredible technological advancements. The difference between going to the Moon and solving climate change is clear. NASA could devote all of its resources and come up with a means to get to space itself. Solving climate change requires a multitude of different players with different needs and perspectives to act in concert even if it would impose upon them a tremendous toll. That is unrealistic and goes against everything witnessed in human history. What’s going to save us are technological advancements to combat climate change. That’s the reality.

We have the technology and if we lead everyone in the world except Russia will follow. Some more begrudgingly than others but all will. And Canada will and apart from Russia that’s the only other country on earth that would see a strategic benefit with warming. Everyone else is fucked. China is trying and India will follow, both of those countries are in deep trouble if climate change sets in fully. No one is up for losing ground in the short run which is why very little is being done, but they will all follow if we lead. Your objections are frankly unfounded.

 

Our next president may have to make this priority number 1. It’s that critical.

[Captainant 27674]

11 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

No doubt that going to the Moon on Kennedy’s timeline incredibly aggressive and required incredible technological advancements. The difference between going to the Moon and solving climate change is clear. NASA could devote all of its resources and come up with a means to get to space itself. Solving climate change requires a multitude of different players with different needs and perspectives to act in concert even if it would impose upon them a tremendous toll. That is unrealistic and goes against everything witnessed in human history. What’s going to save us are technological advancements to combat climate change. That’s the reality.

You're missing the point I'm making - the moon landing required a multitude of different players with different needs and perspectives to act in concert. Nasa heavily outsourced much of their engineering, design, and development work, relying on contractors and private industry to build to their exacting specifications. The Apollo suits were designed, prototyped, and produced by a fucking fashion company, International Latex Corporation (also known as Playtex). They didn't just crank everything out in their machine shop. The tech they needed didn't exist when they set out to solve the challenge. They accomplished it within a decade. I really don't think you understand and appreciate the staggering complexity and level of effort that was required to accomplish it.

What I'm saying it, the moon landing is proof positive that America can accomplish whatever it damn well wants to accomplish given actual resources and motivation. You're saying we need technological advancements, I'm saying we KNOW that the US can generate miraculous technological advancements. So there's no reason we can't be addressing climate change now, other than people thinking it's too big a challenge for us to handle. Well, that and corporate profits.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Captainant

[Asithappens 974]

AOC isn't perfect by any means. She may not even be very good (yet).

But, given her age and level of experience, she is fantastic. 

It also helps her Congressional Cred that she's going up against some of the most vile, hypocritical dipshits this country has seen in a long time. 

Keep up the good fight, AOC.

[NBMisha 224]

As an engineer I will grant that ending fossil fuel usage in 10 years does not appear remotely possible for many reasons.  But the GND is a placeholder for doing all we can, give our best effort in combating climate change and reducing fossil fuel emissions.  That is simply the opposite of policy to day, which has been to do as little as possible, nothing when possible.  An about face is called for, and that's what this represents.

Edited February 8, 2019 by NBMisha
one word

[Homercles 10205]

 

It’s gotten so bad the past few days I’m trying to learn how block fox from my google news feed.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

AOC isn't perfect by any means. She may not even be very good (yet).

But, given her age and level of experience, she is fantastic. 

It also helps her Congressional Cred that she's going up against some of the most vile, hypocritical dipshits this country has seen in a long time. 

Keep up the good fight, AOC.

I feel like we’re watching the Lebron James of politics rookie season in the NBA. 

She is coming in as advertised, very good.

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

AOC isn't perfect by any means. She may not even be very good (yet).

But, given her age and level of experience, she is fantastic. 

It also helps her Congressional Cred that she's going up against some of the most vile, hypocritical dipshits this country has seen in a long time. 

Keep up the good fight, AOC.

she needs to learn the issues, but the heart is in the right place.  She'll improve no doubt and will be big time in the decades to come. Maybe the next Pelosi, eh? 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're missing the point I'm making - the moon landing required a multitude of different players with different needs and perspectives to act in concert. Nasa heavily outsourced much of their engineering, design, and development work, relying on contractors and private industry to build to their exacting specifications. The Apollo suits were designed, prototyped, and produced by a fucking fashion company, International Latex Corporation. They didn't just crank everything out in their machine shop. The tech they needed didn't exist when they set out to solve the challenge. They accomplished it within a decade. I really don't think you understand and appreciate the staggering complexity and level of effort that was required to accomplish it.

What I'm saying it, the moon landing is proof positive that America can accomplish whatever it damn well wants to accomplish given actual resources and motivation. You're saying we need technological advancements, I'm saying we KNOW that the US can generate miraculous technological advancements. So there's no reason we can't be addressing climate change now, other than people thinking it's too big a challenge for us to handle. Well, that and corporate profits.

Yes, I’m sure we as a nation can come up with the technological advancements ourselves over time. That’s not the issue. The issue is to get African countries, Asian countries, etc that are looking to industrialize not to build and run the cheap coal fired power plants compared to the new clean source of power generation our country invents in the future. The NYT ran an article recently saying that while China is developing renewable technology they are financing and building hundreds of coal fired power plants throughout the world. A carbon neutral world would require those same countries not having internal combustion cars, buses, etc in favor of electric vehicles and the expensive infrastructure needed to accommodate it. Those countries will be cheaper and more competitive for manufacturing than a carbon free 1st world. How do we deal with that? Those are the issues and that’s why it so fucking difficult because it deals with economic dislocation, different nations with different needs, etc.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[Captainant 27674]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Yes, I’m sure we as a nation can come up with the technological advancements ourselves over time. That’s not the issue. The issue is to get African countries, Asian countries, etc that are looking to industrialize not to build and run the cheap coal fired power plant compared to the new clean source of power generation put country invents in the future. Having those same countries not having internal combustion cars, buses, etc in favor of electric vehicles and the expensive infrastructure needed to accommodate it. Those countries will be cheaper and more competitive for manufacturing than a carbon free 1st world. How to we deal with that? Those are the issues and that’s why it so fucking difficult because it deals with economic dislocation, different nations with different needs, etc.

You're right, lets do nothing and burn the whole fucker down. That's a good fucking plan.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're right, lets do nothing and burn the whole fucker down. That's a good fucking plan.

The solutions offered by the Green New Deal ignores human nature. A carbon free world will happen when the technology makes it a cheaper, more efficient and more advantageous way of doing business than it is now. If she said we should put the same effort behind carbon neutral that we did to go to the Moon that’s something that can be put into concrete action potentially without being scoffed at with a 10 year timeline. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[elfenix 34243]

13 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If she said we should put the same effort behind carbon neutral that we did to go to the Moon that’s something that can be put into concrete action potentially without being scoffed at with a 10 year timeline.  

i mean ... just ... wow

[Dahobbs 17534]

12 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

The solutions offered by the Green New Deal ignores human nature. A carbon free world will happen when the technology makes it a cheaper, more efficient and more advantageous way of doing business than it is now. If she said we should put the same effort behind carbon neutral that we did to go to the Moon that’s something that can be put into concrete action potentially without being scoffed at with a 10 year timeline. 

Kennedy's new speech:

"We choose [not] to go to the moon in this decade and [not] do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are [not] willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win [lose], and the others, too."

Very inspiring. 

[retread 2951]

Our federal govt's approach to all hard problems. Kick the can down the road. ^

[wildcat09 29354]

5 minutes ago, retread said:

Our federal govt's approach to all hard problems. Kick the can down the road. ^

Icono fully supports this approach except when it comes to throwing immigrants in concentration camps.

[troph 24806]

As an engineer I will grant that ending fossil fuel usage in 10 years does not appear remotely possible for many reasons.  But the GND is a placeholder for doing all we can, give our best effort in combating climate change and reducing fossil fuel emissions.  That is simply the opposite of policy to day, which has been to do as little as possible, nothing when possible.  An about face is called for, and that's what this represents.

I would think in a decade we could drastically reduce coal powered plants and be well on our way to a nation wide replacement of the vast majority of fossil fuel based electricity production.

I think transportation is a much harder issue - air, rail, autos, ships - but we have to be well on our way by then.

I don’t know where we will be on battery and storage technology or resource availability and allocation for transportation but we desperately need to be moving on this post haste.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

The 1935 hurricane that hit the Florida Keys not only wiped out a passenger train.  It also completely obliterated the tracks themselves.  How many times are we going to have to rebuild a thousand miles of railroad tracks if this idiotic plan of hers is ever implemented?

How many times do we rebuild roads and bridges after a hurricane?  

[bad_teammate 13196]

It is fantastic and shocking how far left Bernie pushed the party from 2015-2018 and how far left this freshman Congresswoman is pushing the party from 2018+.

The Clinton disease is being eradicated from the Democratic Party and it's so encouraging to see.

[Js1 85342]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It is fantastic and shocking how far left Bernie pushed the party from 2015-2018 and how far left this freshman Congresswoman is pushing the party from 2018+.

The Clinton disease is being eradicated from the Democratic Party and it's so encouraging to see.

We were also due for a left/progressive turn after Trump and the GOP's hard right turn.

[troph 24806]

We were also due for a left/progressive turn after Trump and the GOP's hard right turn.

I don’t want far left for far lefts sake but a hard reset and turn on the following would make me very happy.

- campaign finance
- corruption
- climate change
- equality (lgbtq rights)
- balances budgets with tax reform
- healthcare reform

[GHOSTUSER 361]

44 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i mean ... just ... wow

elfenix I don’t get why you don’t understand the difference between a US government led mission utilizing our own universities, scientists, etc versus an intractable problem involving hundreds of different countries. Have we made progress and can we make even more in 10 years. Of course, but can we be carbon neutral completely by 2030. Fuck no. The main problem from a human nature perspective is that it requires lots of effort without seeing immediate benefits. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, NBMisha said:

As an engineer I will grant that ending fossil fuel usage in 10 years does not appear remotely possible for many reasons.  But the GND is a placeholder for doing all we can, give our best effort in combating climate change and reducing fossil fuel emissions.  That is simply the opposite of policy to day, which has been to do as little as possible, nothing when possible.  An about face is called for, and that's what this represents.

I love engineers and all (my son is one), but what does being an engineer have to do with this?

I mean, I once worked with Industrial Engineers (from Stanford, if that matters) and those guys, to me anyway, didn't have some kind of soul connection to the universe of fossil fuels.

[troph 24806]

I love engineers and all (my son is one), but what does being an engineer have to do with this?
I mean, I once worked with Industrial Engineers (from Stanford, if that matters) and those guys, to me anyway, didn't have some kind of soul connection to the universe of fossil fuels.

Second to lawyers they are the most knowledgeable about all things.

[Js1 85342]

35 minutes ago, troph said:

 

 

I don’t want far left for far lefts sake but a hard reset and turn on the following would make me very happy.

- campaign finance
- corruption
- climate change
- equality (lgbtq rights)
- balances budgets with tax reform
- healthcare reform

 

And this would be exactly why we end up with a far-left turn.  Right now, we have a government doing the opposite of those things that tend to get YUGE approval among the population.

-Dark money in politics
-Total corruption and lack of transparency
-Ignoring climate change
-Gutting equality under the guise of "religious freedom" (for evangelicals only)
-Massive tax cuts and huge deficits to pay for them
-Enough said on "healthcare" and what Republicans think are "reform"

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Eh, we see the world practically if nothing else.

 

And damnit y’all are making me agree with Icono. A decade is a goal, but passing a non-binding resolution ain’t going to do it.

 

Sending a man to the moon is an engineering project. One goal. One agency, government funded. Tons of support. Here’s the GANTT. Here are the problems. Here’s a RACI. Here’s the crazy big budget and project controllers. Talk to the department heads every week starting next week. Go. Go.

 

Reducing or replacing the world’s dependency on fossils fuels (the most cost efficient energy source man-kind has ever known until unlocking the power of the atom a generation ago, I might add) isn’t even a massive international geopolitical infrastructure project funded by no one and led by no one. It’s bigger and more complex than that.

 

[elfenix 34243]

2 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

most cost efficient

*when you ignore all the externalities

[Fozzz 152]

This is just like when Stalin liquidated the kulaks (though they deserved it).  

 

 

[Asithappens 974]

38 minutes ago, troph said:

Second to lawyers they are the most knowledgeable about all things.

Second?

They blow attorneys away like a neutron star blows shit up.

 

[elfenix 34243]

Just now, Asithappens said:

Second?

They blow attorneys away like a neutron star blows shit up.

 

can you even see the sky from the bottom of that sarchasm?

[F250 28777]

1 hour ago, troph said:

I would think in a decade we could drastically reduce coal powered plants and be well on our way to a nation wide replacement of the vast majority of fossil fuel based electricity production. 

We already have drastically reduced coal powered plants and the process is speeding up. I think we are down to having less than a third of all U.S. power plants running on coal and that will likely drop to less than a 1/4 within the next 5 years. There is too much momentum to reverse the trend at this point despite Trump's promises to revive the coal industry. It's just not economically feasible to build new coal plants anymore and the existing one's are old and slated for retirement. We have already passed the point of no return for coal plants.

At this point, the environmental challenges regarding coal plants are going to be what to do with decommissioned plants.

 

 

 

[troph 24806]

Second?
They blow attorneys away like a neutron star blows shit up.
 

It was an attempt at self deprecating humor.

[troph 24806]

We already have drastically reduced coal powered plants and the process is speeding up. I think we are down to having less than a third of all U.S. power plants running on coal and that will likely drop to less than a 1/4 within the next 5 years. There is too much momentum to reverse the trend at this point despite Trump's promises to revive the coal industry. It's just not economically feasible to build new coal plants anymore and the existing one's are old and slated for retirement. We have already passed the point of no return for coal plants.

At this point, the environmental challenges regarding coal plants are going to be what to do with decommissioned plants.

 

 

 

 

And with a louder and more intense leadership role our dependency would go to zero and we could get the world to follow. Coal however is only the beginning. NG powered plants and combustible engines need to go too or so it seems

[elfenix 34243]

i'm definitely against engines catching on fire.

[Dahobbs 17534]

25 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

Eh, we see the world practically if nothing else.

 

And damnit y’all are making me agree with Icono. A decade is a goal, but passing a non-binding resolution ain’t going to do it.

 

Sending a man to the moon is an engineering project. One goal. One agency, government funded. Tons of support. Here’s the GANTT. Here are the problems. Here’s a RACI. Here’s the crazy big budget and project controllers. Talk to the department heads every week starting next week. Go. Go.

 

Reducing or replacing the world’s dependency on fossils fuels (the most cost efficient energy source man-kind has ever known until unlocking the power of the atom a generation ago, I might add) isn’t even a massive international geopolitical infrastructure project funded by no one and led by no one. It’s bigger and more complex than that.

 

The resolution is the start of changing the narrative. It isn't the end or the mechanism to accomplish everything. But, you have to start the process to get anywhere. All that detail and complication you want addressed can only be done if we start the process of asking how to do it. That's the goal of this resolution.

Also, as pointed at below, you don't get to ignore external costs (i.e., global warming) when talking about efficiency. 

[Asithappens 974]

22 minutes ago, elfenix said:

can you even see the sky from the bottom of that sarchasm?

Lol. Nice. 

 

[F250 28777]

10 minutes ago, troph said:

 

And with a louder and more intense leadership role our dependency would go to zero and we could get the world to follow. Coal however is only the beginning. NG powered plants and combustible engines need to go too.

Well, NG is a completely different story. The reason coal plants are on their way out the door is partially due to all of the new gas plants being built. Grid reliability is dependent on NG since coal is being phased out. Phasing NG out will take decades. Anyways, my original point was that coal plants are already on their way out the door.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, Llano Estacado said:

Eh, we see the world practically if nothing else.

 

And damnit y’all are making me agree with Icono. A decade is a goal, but passing a non-binding resolution ain’t going to do it.

 

Sending a man to the moon is an engineering project. One goal. One agency, government funded. Tons of support. Here’s the GANTT. Here are the problems. Here’s a RACI. Here’s the crazy big budget and project controllers. Talk to the department heads every week starting next week. Go. Go.

 

Reducing or replacing the world’s dependency on fossils fuels (the most cost efficient energy source man-kind has ever known until unlocking the power of the atom a generation ago, I might add) isn’t even a massive international geopolitical infrastructure project funded by no one and led by no one. It’s bigger and more complex than that.

 

I felt the same way agreeing with hayden and Brisket on the Venezuela thread. Weird and uncomfortable.

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I felt the same way agreeing with hayden and Brisket on the Venezuela thread. Weird and uncomfortable.

Y'all probably agree upon more than you think.

[Guest Lobo]

Curious the uproar about Amazon HQ2 in the same week as Bezos battle with the tabloids.  And some of the HQ2 footprint being in AOC's district.  And them both having trump in common as a candidate but Bezos being who she targets for her wealth redistribution plan.  But then again, his (soon-to-be) ex-wife is a simpatico thinker of hers.  Then again, she never believed the false promise of new jobs in the district.  Then again, Amazon will bring about new Green jobs since it'll remove our need to drive solo in big cars to strip malls to buy shit we can get more efficiently.  Interesting.  District 14 and HQ2 have more in common than I thought, yet here is NW Queens threatening to boot HQ2.  I wonder what she'll say on that topic...

[Bat Guano 359]

3 hours ago, zork said:

I thought his two strongest points were that she misrepresented the dark money by 500%(just for reference it is a big gaffe) and that Congress is largely responsible for making the laws, and therefore the circumstances, she is complaining, pointing out what is known for the most part, about.  

She is bringing about conversation throwing molotov verbals.  We'll see if Pelosi and the rest clean her up like the guys in the white coats do here as she hits the normal DC way of doing things brick wall:

 

Kids these days don't know how to make a decent Molotov cocktail. Sad!

[jimmyjazz 45958]

It's almost as if Icono and the crew can't imagine a multi-national collaborative effort aimed at solving a dire problem for the benefit of mankind.

[bad_teammate 13196]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Curious the uproar about Amazon HQ2 in the same week as Bezos battle with the tabloids.  And some of the HQ2 footprint being in AOC's district.  And them both having trump in common as a candidate but Bezos being who she targets for her wealth redistribution plan.  But then again, his (soon-to-be) ex-wife is a simpatico thinker of hers.  Then again, she never believed the false promise of new jobs in the district.  Then again, Amazon will bring about new Green jobs since it'll remove our need to drive solo in big cars to strip malls to buy shit we can get more efficiently.  Interesting.  District 14 and HQ2 have more in common than I thought, yet here is NW Queens threatening to boot HQ2.  I wonder what she'll say on that topic...

Do you smell burnt toast?

[Guest Lobo]

Nope, gluten-free.  You honestly haven given any thought to the interesting chain of events taking place in NW Queens this week?  Sometimes adults see a larger picture.  AOC is one of those people, so I'm wondering where this all fits in with her, HQ2 pulling out of Queens would be a big deal.  

[Cajun 11705]

On 2/7/2019 at 10:17 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

AOC is publicly exposing the corruption in government, and Republican voters have a problem with her????

No problem with that at all.

On 2/7/2019 at 10:20 AM, GSU&UT said:

It's almost as if they're hypocrites and everything they stand for suddenly changes when the other side agrees.

You mean like border barriers?

[Dahobbs 17534]

7 minutes ago, Cajun said:

You mean like border barriers?

I don't think anyone of importance has ever been against any border barriers. I think every rational person is against a sea-to-shining-sea border barrier. Barriers make sense in certain specific places. They don't make sense across the entire border. It isn't hypocrisy to be in favor of the former and opposed to the latter. 

[Biff Tannen 45688]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anyone of importance has ever been against any border barriers. I think every rational person is against a sea-to-shining-sea border barrier. Barriers make sense in certain specific places. They don't make sense across the entire border. It isn't hypocrisy to be in favor of the former and opposed to the latter. 

This has been said multiple times and yet the right seems to completely ignore it.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Kimberley Strassel absolutely slays AOC in this op-ed. She is fucking awesome and love her appearances on Fox News. In all seriousness, I genuinely like AOC and would rather have big dreamers and reformers like her in Congress even if I disagree completely with her approach than corrupt politicians looking out for themselves only.

The Socialist That Could

Meet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the secret Republican weapon for 2020.

Kimberley A. StrasselFeb. 7, 2019 6:55 p.m. ET

The Republican Party has a secret weapon for 2020. It’s especially effective because it’s stealthy: The Democrats seem oblivious to its power. And the GOP needn’t lift a finger for it to work. All Republicans have to do is sit back and watch 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez . . . exist.

AOC, as she’s better known, today exists largely in front of the cameras. In a few months she’s gone from an unknown New York bartender to the democratic socialist darling of the left and its media hordes. Her megaphone is so loud that she rivals Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the face of the Democratic Party. Republicans don’t know whether to applaud or laugh. Most do both.

For them, what’s not to love? She’s set off a fratricidal war on the left, with her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, this week slamming the “radical conservatives” among the Democrats holding the party “hostage.” She’s made friends with Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, who has been accused of anti-Semitism. She’s called the American system of wealth creation “immoral” and believes government has a duty to provide “economic security” to people who are “unwilling to work.” As a representative of New York, she’s making California look sensible.

On Thursday Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her vaunted Green New Deal, complete with the details of how Democrats plan to reach climate nirvana in a mere 10 years. It came in the form of a resolution, sponsored in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Edward Markey, on which AOC is determined to force a full House vote. That means every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.

It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face—as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.

It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.

Opinion Live Event

Join us on March 4 as WSJ Opinion’s Paul Gigot leads a “State of TV News” panel discussion including Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo, CBS’s Christy Tanner and “Network” actor Tony Goldwyn. Included in your admission to the event is a ticket to see “Network” on Broadway at a subsequent date.

And that might be the easy part. According to an accompanying fact sheet, the Green New Deal would also get rid of combustion engines, “build charging stations everywhere,” “upgrade or replace every building in U.S.,” do the same with all “infrastructure,” and crisscross the nation with “high-speed rail.”

Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).

This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.

Finally, the resolution is Democratic math at its best. It leaves out a price tag, and is equally vague on what kind of taxes would be needed to cover the cost. But it would run to tens of trillions of dollars. The fact sheet asserts the cost shouldn’t worry anyone, since the Federal Reserve can just “extend credit” to these projects! And “new public banks can be created to extend credit,” too! And Americans will get lots of “shared prosperity” from their “investments.” À la Solyndra. 

At least some Democrats seem to be aware of what a danger this is, which is why Ms. Pelosi threw some cold water on the Green New Deal this week. They should be scared. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a freight train gaining speed by the day—and helping Republicans with every passing minute.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

[bad_teammate 13196]

28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This has been said multiple times and yet the right seems to completely ignore it.

They're lying morons, so...

[GHOSTUSER 361]

54 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's almost as if Icono and the crew can't imagine a multi-national collaborative effort aimed at solving a dire problem for the benefit of mankind.

Let me know when that has ever happened other than WWII. As humans, it’s much easier for us to band together and kill a common enemy than work together putting aside self interest to work on a problem without an immediate benefit. That’s why the hope should be technological advancement that benefits the world financially through the adoption of technology that’ll mitigate the causes of climate change.