• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

More crapping on Green New Deal

Feb 4, 2009
31,358
11,764
136
I hate articles like this one. Summary is why bother doing something about climate.
My response is should I expect clean and plentiful fusion power within the next 5 years? What is the harm of doing something now. What is the opportunity cost of doing something now vs doing nothing and hoping the industry fixes itself.


a happy side effect, the advent of practical fusion energy would likely prove to be bitter gall and wormwood to Sanders and the rest of the Green New Dealers. Besides this development making the Green New Deal superfluous
I am okay discussing the merits for and against the Green New Deal when it comes up for a vote. Anything else is pointless.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,223
5,330
146
I hate articles like this one. Summary is why bother doing something about climate.
My response is should I expect clean and plentiful fusion power within the next 5 years? What is the harm of doing something now. What is the opportunity cost of doing something now vs doing nothing and hoping the industry fixes itself.




I am okay discussing the merits for and against the Green New Deal when it comes up for a vote. Anything else is pointless.
Nevermind the fact that even free unlimited power a la star trek doesn't 'fix' climate change. We generate greenhouse gases from a myriad sources, and yes most of it is energy generation (~75%), but there's still a LOT of additional gases released elsewhere, and we still have no real plan in place to sequester it. Free power doesn't put coal back in the dirt.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,279
2,870
126
Climate change is going to require everyone to adjust their lifestyle to some degree, or pay extra in some other way if they don't want to make those changes.

All these articles about some future hypothetical do is make people think they won't have to be inconvenienced even just a little bit.
 
Feb 4, 2009
31,358
11,764
136
BTW, why not start doing something now and modify that plan if/when fusion power becomes readily available or even better do something now and modify that plan to get better or even less costly results as time goes by.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,403
3,899
136
Well a poorly written political op-Ed type article pretending to be a pop-sci article. What could go wrong??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,241
3,728
136
I hate articles like this one. Summary is why bother doing something about climate.
My response is should I expect clean and plentiful fusion power within the next 5 years? What is the harm of doing something now. What is the opportunity cost of doing something now vs doing nothing and hoping the industry fixes itself.




I am okay discussing the merits for and against the Green New Deal when it comes up for a vote. Anything else is pointless.
Source article is from Washington Examiner - Flag #1
First paragraph content - Flag #2
Quick skim shows it to be another editorial written by a political writer - Confirmation that first 2 observations were spot on and that article's sole purpose exists to gets clicks from right wingers and to be torn apart by anyone who looks at the article with any sort effort.

In the spirit of of the Washington Examiners editorial staff's digital content decision making and Marks Whittington desire have his portfolio of articles readily available out in the wild my comment is as follows.

It's possible that Mark R. Whittington, author of <insert book here> may have been arrested for animal abuse when he was found by police naked doing a sexual act with chicken in Texas.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,346
3,720
136
Anything that messes with short term profits is a no-can-do thing, especially where $billions$ are involved. Big Oil will spend whatever it takes to keep those petro bucks swimming in oil or until a more profitable energy source can replace/supplement it. Remember how electric trolleys were killed off by the powers that be?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,114
4,157
136
Solution is easy. Do what we can with current technologies, dump much more money into research and development of new technologies.

As opposed to the current GQP plan of do nothing now, don't invest in new tech, and claim new tech will save us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElFenix
Mar 11, 2004
21,530
3,688
126
OP, you're becoming one of the shittiest, dumbest, most worthless fucking posters on here.

Pure personal attack AND based on a lazy misreading of the OP. Not welcome here.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,696
821
136
OP, you're becoming one of the shittiest, dumbest, most worthless fucking posters on here.
Did you read a different OP than I did? Seems like a legitimate discussion.

Hedging our bets on a future technology that is unproven, may require a significantly longer timetable than the optimistic yet ambiguous "by 2025" figure in the article, and may never actually be achieved seems folly.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,224
9,786
136
"A practical fusion power plant" by 2025? Who the hell is this clown?

The ITER project, which has received $20+ billion in funding from various governments is, in theory, supposed to result in a test reactor by 2025, a full blown experimental reactor by 2035, and perhaps commercialized fusion by 2050. And even that is speculative. But this "SPARC" project is going to yield practical fusion power by 2025? Yeah, sure it is.

I sincerely wish we could count on fusion reactors as a partial solution to climate change, but anyone with an ounce of objectively knows we are decades off. Anyone suggesting otherwise is utterly full of shit. Article is light on real analysis and long on ideological and partisan polemics. Oh, and if we tax billionaires too much, it's going to make climate change worse. LOL.

It's just click bait for republicans.
 

Stokely

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2017
1,108
1,118
136
Why bother worrying about whether we are going to bother doing anything. Answer: we won't.

We'd better hope the scientific community is wrong, or some magic tech out of a bad sci-fi movie appears to save the day, whisking all the greenhouse gases up like a big hoover. Short of these, we're fucked.

"We" can't even come to some consensus on how to deal with something as relatively simple as a pandemic. People are throwing tantrums over slapping paper on their face, making analogies to Jews in WWII. There's no shot, at all, of the US or probably any other country putting in some kind of long-range plan involving self-sacrifice by all of us to try to only get to "shitty future" (which is likely the best case at this late date).

I'll be dead by the time the worst happens, but I am sad for my kids and their generations, and any future ones after that. Our selfishness is going to turn their world into something we can't even recognize now if the scientists are right. The time to start acting was decades ago. We could start acting now if we want to make it "less bad". But it'll be nothing but token efforts that will do little.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,746
2,857
126
I hate articles like this one. Summary is why bother doing something about climate.
My response is should I expect clean and plentiful fusion power within the next 5 years? What is the harm of doing something now. What is the opportunity cost of doing something now vs doing nothing and hoping the industry fixes itself.




I am okay discussing the merits for and against the Green New Deal when it comes up for a vote. Anything else is pointless.
The issue I see with it is what if the new super magnet doesn't work? We're back to square one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Meat

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,241
3,728
136
To recap the Green new deal
(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a
Green New Deal--
(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
through a fair and just transition for all communities
and workers;
(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and
ensure prosperity and economic security for all people
of the United States;
(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of
the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of
the 21st century;
(D) to secure for all people of the United States
for generations to come--
(i) clean air and water;
(ii) climate and community resiliency;
(iii) healthy food;
(iv) access to nature; and
(v) a sustainable environment; and
(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping
current, preventing future, and repairing historic
oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color,
migrant communities, deindustrialized communities,
depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income
workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with
disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution
as ``frontline and vulnerable communities'');
(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of
paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ``Green
New Deal goals'') should be accomplished through a 10-year
national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the
``Green New Deal mobilization'') that will require the
following goals and projects--
(A) building resiliency against climate change-
related disasters, such as extreme weather, including
by leveraging funding and providing investments for
community-defined projects and strategies;
(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in
the United States, including--
(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions as much as technologically
feasible;
(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to
clean water;
(iii) by reducing the risks posed by
climate impacts; and
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure
bill considered by Congress addresses climate
change;
(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the
United States through clean, renewable, and zero-
emission energy sources, including--
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading
renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;
(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient,
distributed, and ``smart'' power grids, and ensuring
affordable access to electricity;
(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United
States and building new buildings to achieve maximum
energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety,
affordability, comfort, and durability, including
through electrification;
(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing
in the United States and removing pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and
industry as much as is technologically feasible,
including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing
and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;
(G) working collaboratively with farmers and
ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector
as much as is technologically feasible, including--
(i) by supporting family farming;
(ii) by investing in sustainable farming
and land use practices that increase soil
health; and
(iii) by building a more sustainable food
system that ensures universal access to healthy
food;
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the
United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions from the transportation sector as much as is
technologically feasible, including through investment
in--
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure
and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible
public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse
health, economic, and other effects of pollution and
climate change, including by providing funding for
community-defined projects and strategies;
(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere
and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems
through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil
carbon storage, such as land preservation and
afforestation;
(K) restoring and protecting threatened,
endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally
appropriate and science-based projects that enhance
biodiversity and support climate resiliency;
(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and
abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and
sustainability on those sites;
(M) identifying other emission and pollution
sources and creating solutions to remove them; and
(N) promoting the international exchange of
technology, expertise, products, funding, and services,
with the aim of making the United States the
international leader on climate action, and to help
other countries achieve a Green New Deal;
(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent
and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with
frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker
cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;
and
(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a
Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects--
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures
that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes
and returns on investment, adequate capital (including
through community grants, public banks, and other
public financing), technical expertise, supporting
policies, and other forms of assistance to communities,
organizations, Federal, State, and local government
agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal
mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into
account the complete environmental and social costs and
impacts of emissions through--
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and
vulnerable communities shall not be adversely
affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality
education, including higher education, to all people of
the United States, with a focus on frontline and
vulnerable communities, so that all people of the
United States may be full and equal participants in the
Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and
development of new clean and renewable energy
technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic
development, deepen and diversify industry and business
in local and regional economies, and build wealth and
community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality
job creation and economic, social, and environmental
benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and
deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise
struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas
intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and
participatory processes that are inclusive of and led
by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to
plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal
mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization
creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing
wages, hires local workers, offers training and
advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and
benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining
wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid
vacations, and retirement security to all people of the
United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all
workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain
free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace
health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and
hour standards across all employers, industries, and
sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement
standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and
environmental protections--
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and
pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the
United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans
are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent
of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect
indigenous peoples and their traditional territories,
honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous
peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty
and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every
businessperson is free from unfair competition and
domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States
with--
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate
housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and
affordable food, and access to nature.
<all>


The writer of the article opines that this
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in partnership with a company called Commonwealth Fusion Systems, has tested a magnet" makes the Green new deal pointless and uses the article to make opinionated statements about "Things" while boogey-manning Bernie Sanders.

That article was absolute shit. It came across as something whose target demographic is your uncle who worked as an engineer is close to retirement. He's spent the past 15 years complaining about "Indians" and outsourcing and challenges everyone that any change is stupid and he doesn't know why they teach "New math" and just do it the old way....
Now he just listens to conservatives talk radio and his son, your cousin keeps telling you about this guy "Ben Shapiro....have you ever heard of him? He really makes you think!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane
Feb 4, 2009
31,358
11,764
136
Sure feels like fusion has been "right around the corner" for most of my life...
Exactly! For 30 plus years I have been hearing limitless fusion energy will be here soon.
I firmly believe I will see fusion power during my lifetime. I also want to be realistic about these claims and build times and evaluation to ensure safety or proper building.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
31,358
11,764
136
Did you read a different OP than I did? Seems like a legitimate discussion.

Hedging our bets on a future technology that is unproven, may require a significantly longer timetable than the optimistic yet ambiguous "by 2025" figure in the article, and may never actually be achieved seems folly.
He has taken a disliking to me recently.
I do enjoy his posts.
May have had to do with me being rough on the bernie bros last year. I think I remember some bro-ness to him during the election. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane
Mar 11, 2004
21,530
3,688
126
Did you read a different OP than I did? Seems like a legitimate discussion.

Hedging our bets on a future technology that is unproven, may require a significantly longer timetable than the optimistic yet ambiguous "by 2025" figure in the article, and may never actually be achieved seems folly.
Apparently. Because the article is a shitty op-ed from a shitty horribly biased right wing media site. That's my issue. And the OP apparently didn't bother to vet that at all. Which is what shit for brains right wingers on here do. We have one that has linked to the same source (Washington Examiner) multiple times while either being too dumb or playing dumb that they aren't aware, whilst they hide it behind an aggregator link. I was going to ask where the actual article was from because I saw the MSN link and don't want to give clicks because that helps promote it on the aggregator, but thankfully someone pointed that out, and also mentioned it was just a dumbass op-ed to boot.

Its not a legit discussion of fusion power or recent "breakthroughs" (that are just incremental progress, despite what some media - namely right wing financial focused sites - has been trying to spin).

Like others mentioned, even fusion doesn't save us from climate change (it would help certainly, but its not going to magically solve it). Not to mention considering the same shithead right wingers have been griping about electric power replacing fossil fuels, they're not actually in favor of fusion. If anything it seems they're trying to hype it so they can once again point to it, and electric power (for instance electric cars) being a failure.

And yes, I'm aware the OP was pointing out how its just a hit piece for the green new deal more than anything. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't cite the actual source or really make much of an argument.

I'm actually surprised that one of the fluff articles that were being pushed out last week or the week before when this stuff just first came out didn't have a thread before now. The advancement that set it all off really is a pretty minor (important, but still minor) thing, and they had several articles touting it as though this was a major breakthrough and we'd have cheap abundant fusion reactors in just a couple of years. Which is not even remotely close to the actual situation. The scientists themselves were excited but noted there was still a lot of work to do and that its just one of the steps in the journey of making fusion viable. But then we have clownshit articles like that in the OP, which is just going to fuel a bunch of idiocy.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,696
821
136
Apparently. Because the article is a shitty op-ed from a shitty horribly biased right wing media site. That's my issue. And the OP apparently didn't bother to vet that at all. Which is what shit for brains right wingers on here do. We have one that has linked to the same source (Washington Examiner) multiple times while either being too dumb or playing dumb that they aren't aware, whilst they hide it behind an aggregator link. I was going to ask where the actual article was from because I saw the MSN link and don't want to give clicks because that helps promote it on the aggregator, but thankfully someone pointed that out, and also mentioned it was just a dumbass op-ed to boot.

Its not a legit discussion of fusion power or recent "breakthroughs" (that are just incremental progress, despite what some media - namely right wing financial focused sites - has been trying to spin).

Like others mentioned, even fusion doesn't save us from climate change (it would help certainly, but its not going to magically solve it). Not to mention considering the same shithead right wingers have been griping about electric power replacing fossil fuels, they're not actually in favor of fusion. If anything it seems they're trying to hype it so they can once again point to it, and electric power (for instance electric cars) being a failure.
Fanatical Meat is a shit for brains right winger? Wow, I was sure fooled for a minute there. Thanks for clearing that up, I've blocked him.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
3,544
1,903
136
Fanatical Meat is a shit for brains right winger? Wow, I was sure fooled for a minute there. Thanks for clearing that up, I've blocked him.
Cant tell if serious … but no, he is not a right winger lol
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,403
3,899
136
To recap the Green new deal
(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a
Green New Deal--
(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
through a fair and just transition for all communities
and workers;
(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and
ensure prosperity and economic security for all people
of the United States;
(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of
the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of
the 21st century;
(D) to secure for all people of the United States
for generations to come--
(i) clean air and water;
(ii) climate and community resiliency;
(iii) healthy food;
(iv) access to nature; and
(v) a sustainable environment; and
(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping
current, preventing future, and repairing historic
oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color,
migrant communities, deindustrialized communities,
depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income
workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with
disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution
as ``frontline and vulnerable communities'');
(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of
paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ``Green
New Deal goals'') should be accomplished through a 10-year
national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the
``Green New Deal mobilization'') that will require the
following goals and projects--
(A) building resiliency against climate change-
related disasters, such as extreme weather, including
by leveraging funding and providing investments for
community-defined projects and strategies;
(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in
the United States, including--
(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions as much as technologically
feasible;
(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to
clean water;
(iii) by reducing the risks posed by
climate impacts; and
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure
bill considered by Congress addresses climate
change;
(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the
United States through clean, renewable, and zero-
emission energy sources, including--
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading
renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;
(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient,
distributed, and ``smart'' power grids, and ensuring
affordable access to electricity;
(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United
States and building new buildings to achieve maximum
energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety,
affordability, comfort, and durability, including
through electrification;
(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing
in the United States and removing pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and
industry as much as is technologically feasible,
including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing
and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;
(G) working collaboratively with farmers and
ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector
as much as is technologically feasible, including--
(i) by supporting family farming;
(ii) by investing in sustainable farming
and land use practices that increase soil
health; and
(iii) by building a more sustainable food
system that ensures universal access to healthy
food;
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the
United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions from the transportation sector as much as is
technologically feasible, including through investment
in--
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure
and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible
public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse
health, economic, and other effects of pollution and
climate change, including by providing funding for
community-defined projects and strategies;
(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere
and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems
through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil
carbon storage, such as land preservation and
afforestation;
(K) restoring and protecting threatened,
endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally
appropriate and science-based projects that enhance
biodiversity and support climate resiliency;
(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and
abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and
sustainability on those sites;
(M) identifying other emission and pollution
sources and creating solutions to remove them; and
(N) promoting the international exchange of
technology, expertise, products, funding, and services,
with the aim of making the United States the
international leader on climate action, and to help
other countries achieve a Green New Deal;
(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent
and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with
frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker
cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;
and
(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a
Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects--
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures
that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes
and returns on investment, adequate capital (including
through community grants, public banks, and other
public financing), technical expertise, supporting
policies, and other forms of assistance to communities,
organizations, Federal, State, and local government
agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal
mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into
account the complete environmental and social costs and
impacts of emissions through--
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and
vulnerable communities shall not be adversely
affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality
education, including higher education, to all people of
the United States, with a focus on frontline and
vulnerable communities, so that all people of the
United States may be full and equal participants in the
Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and
development of new clean and renewable energy
technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic
development, deepen and diversify industry and business
in local and regional economies, and build wealth and
community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality
job creation and economic, social, and environmental
benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and
deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise
struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas
intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and
participatory processes that are inclusive of and led
by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to
plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal
mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization
creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing
wages, hires local workers, offers training and
advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and
benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining
wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid
vacations, and retirement security to all people of the
United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all
workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain
free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace
health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and
hour standards across all employers, industries, and
sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement
standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and
environmental protections--
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and
pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the
United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans
are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent
of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect
indigenous peoples and their traditional territories,
honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous
peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty
and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every
businessperson is free from unfair competition and
domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States
with--
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate
housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and
affordable food, and access to nature.
<all>


The writer of the article opines that this
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in partnership with a company called Commonwealth Fusion Systems, has tested a magnet" makes the Green new deal pointless and uses the article to make opinionated statements about "Things" while boogey-manning Bernie Sanders.

That article was absolute shit. It came across as something whose target demographic is your uncle who worked as an engineer is close to retirement. He's spent the past 15 years complaining about "Indians" and outsourcing and challenges everyone that any change is stupid and he doesn't know why they teach "New math" and just do it the old way....
Now he just listens to conservatives talk radio and his son, your cousin keeps telling you about this guy "Ben Shapiro....have you ever heard of him? He really makes you think!!!"
Yeah but....$93T US! I mean, not even Chyna could afford that :p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY