How Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" Almost Imploded On Its First Day

zerohedge

by Tyler Durden

Fri, 02/08/2019 - 13:05

2

SHARES

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" initiative was immediately met with a torrent of ridicule after its unveiling on Thursday, not just by climate change deniers but also by establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who dismissed it as a "green dream" and insisted that there were other, more practical, ways to fight climate change than banning cow farts and airplanes.

But in what's looking like a staggeringly haphazard rollout, the controversy over the plan continued on Friday when co-sponsor Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Senator who was the plan's lead backer in the Senate, slammed Ocasio-Cortez and the plan's "fact sheet" for calling for a ban on nuclear power, which supplies roughly 50% of America's carbon-free energy. 



Here's more from Bloomberg:

Giselle Barry, a spokeswoman for Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is the Green New Deal’s lead Senate backer, disowned the fact sheet and said Markey’s office wasn’t consulted before it was sent out. "We did not draft that fact sheet," she said.

Markey sought to do damage control at a midday press conference, emphasizing the proposed resolution doesn’t address specific energy technologies. Language on nuclear power “is not part of this legislation,” he said. “The resolution is silent on any individual technology that can move us to a solution.”

Not only did the nuclear power provision annoy potential supporters of the deal who see nuclear power as an essential component of any carbon-free energy infrastructure, it also revealed how difficult it might be to "build consensus" around such an extreme, radical collection of proposals. But that wasn't the only criticism of the plan lobbed by other green-energy advocates. 

Many, including former Obama Administration Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, argued that the goal of shifting the US economy to 100% renewable energy within 10 years simply wasn't realistic. And pursuing such an aggressive milestone would put too much pressure on important constituencies of the left like, for example, labor unions.

“I’m sure it has some co-sponsors scratching their heads,” said Jeff Navin, who served as acting chief of staff for Ernest Moniz, President Barack Obama’s energy secretary.
Moniz himself said that it may be impossible to achieve zero carbon emissions in 10 years, as the plan calls for.

"It’s just impracticable," Moniz told National Public Radio. "And what concerns me about that is if we start putting out impracticable targets we may lose a lot of key constituencies that we need to bring along."

He cited labor unions as an example.

"We cannot strand too many assets and frankly stand too many workers with impracticable unrealizable objectives," Moniz said. "We will jeopardize what I think has been the very significant movement of the large energy companies toward developing their new business models to function in a low carbon world."

Others insisted that any renewable energy plan that doesn't include nuclear power (which is a controversial subject among the green energy set) would be doomed to fail.

“Any approach to eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions requires all clean energy technologies, including nuclear, to work together to address that urgent problem,” Maria Korsnick, the group’s president said in a statement issued after the Green New Deal was unveiled.

Thursday’s kerfuffle over nuclear might just be a taste of things to come.

"These are ideological documents - not legislative blueprints,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute. It will get even tougher “when you actually have to create legislative language.”

Considering the walk-backs and infighting that have arisen already, the unveiling of AOC's signature multi-trillion "green plan" has made the first Trump travel ban rollout almost look orderly in comparison.


 Do you Really want to let These people have control of your money and your Liberties, Your Rights?

Cow Farts?

Thank You Mr Durden and Zerohedge.

Trump Refuses To Hand Over $2B Pledge To UN Climate Change Fruitcakes

Climate Home News
Published on 09/08/2018, 9:12am

By Megan Darby and Karl Mathiesen

 

The future of the UN’s major climate fund hangs in the balance, with a looming cash shortfall and a boardroom locked in conflict.

That is the assessment of international green leader Frank Rijsberman, in the most candid high-profile interview on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) since its board meeting collapsed last month.

Rijsberman is head of the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), which elected former UN chief Ban Ki-moon as its president this year. The GGGI has worked closely with the GCF to help developing countries bypass development banks and gain “direct access” to climate finance. He told Climate Home News he wanted the fund to succeed but it faced “massive challenges”.

Its most pressing issue was the need to convince governments to put in more cash, when the projects approved for grants or loans so far have barely started work.

“They need a replenishment faster than they will be able to show results, meaning they will have to be replenished based on goodwill and intent, which is difficult,” said Rijsberman.

Tensions between rich and poor country board members came to a head in July as they tried – and failed – to agree a process for raising fresh funds.

The GCF in numbers
Governments promised $10.3 billion in start-up capital, but Donald Trump is refusing to deliver $2bn of the US pledge. The pot has lost another $1bn in value due to currency fluctuations.

The board has committed $3.5bn to 74 projects worldwide. That leaves $2.8bn to play with. At the recent rate of approvals, that could be used up within a year. Drumming up a new round of pledges is expected to take at least that long.

Last year just $144.7m was disbursed. The target for 2018 was $900m, but the fund has stopped reporting this metric on its portfolio dashboard. Instead, it publishes the more flattering value of projects “under implementation”, which stands at $1.4bn.

But the fund’s problems run deeper than the immediate cash crunch, says Rijsberman, due to its unique governance structure. A core principle of the GCF is to give developed and developing countries an equal say in board meetings, unlike donor-driven funds. Their divergent interests in how best to invest makes conflict all but inevitable.
 
“A normal board comes together to run the organisation and the only interest they have is the good of the organisation and the mission of the organisation,” said Rijsberman.

National board representatives are typically drawn from the ranks of climate negotiators. “Here a lot of the political discussions [from UN climate talks] spill over into the board, which makes the board extremely difficult to work with,” he said.

Decisions are made by consensus, which gives every board member veto power. “If the consensus is not coming forward for some reason, you actually block the entire fund,” explained Liane Schalatek, a regular observer from the Heinrich Boell Foundation.

Countries who insisted that the @GCF Board should be made up of climate negotiators – you got what you asked for. https://t.co/KsBwyBQfMf

— Paul Bodnar (@bodnarclimate) July 4, 2018

This has proved unwieldy, with many policy decisions deferred due to lack of consensus. Proposed alternative ways of decision-making have likewise been blocked.

Where there are policy gaps, staff from the fund secretariat improvise, an official from a development bank told CHN. “They are making stuff up as they go along, due to lack of clear guidance from the board,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“A full root-and-branch assessment is now needed” before governments put in any more money, the source added. “Contributors can’t sign blank cheques. Everyone knows that.”

Analysis: 8 takeaways from the Green Climate Fund meltdown

Through this turbulent time, the fund secretariat is rudderless. Executive director Howard Bamsey quit with immediate effect at the board meeting, citing ‘personal reasons’.

The board has started to look for a successor to Bamsey, a fund spokesperson said, but has not yet advertised the job. Deputy chief Javier Manzanares is running the show until a permanent replacement is found.

In the past, the fund has struggled with recruitment to its headquarters in Songdo, South Korea. Bamsey’s replacement will have the sensitive tasks of fundraising, fixing governance and administrative problems while navigating boardroom politics.

Bamsey once held Rijsberman’s position at the GGGI, but the Dutchman ruled himself out. “‘Why would you think I would be interested?… I think it’s extremely difficult to get anything done,” he said. “I don’t know of any other similar mechanism where the board have so much overbearing influence on everything. So the freedom, the flexibility, the authority of the secretariat is extremely limited.”

If you like what we do, support us
Become a CHN patron for as little as $5 per month to help us keep bringing you the most in-depth coverage of climate politics and underreported stories from around the world.
We have set up a Patreon account. It’s a simple, safe and easy way for you to become part of a community that will secure and guide our future.
Thank you!

The fund’s troubles come in a critical year for UN climate talks, with ministers due to finalise the rulebook for the Paris Agreement in December and discuss how to ramp up action.

UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa told the Thomson Reuters Foundation “it will impact on the general atmosphere” if the GCF cannot resolve some of its issues by then. She offered no specific suggestions for reform, but urged finance ministries to get involved in the discussion.
 
That echoed a plea for political intervention from Laurence Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris Agreement, in an article for the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The French diplomat, who now leads the European Climate Foundation, stressed the GCF’s unique role in helping the world’s poor tackle climate change.

“The GCF was born for a reason. Poor countries lack faith in the multilateral development banks. This was the fund to solve that. And while projects aren’t being funded fast enough, those that have been funded have been innovative and impactful,” she wrote.

She called for investment in the fund’s board and the appointment of a strong director to make it “effective and decisive”.

Rijsberman said that, despite the fund’s importance, there are high-level conversations being held contemplating the failure of the fund to fulfil its mandate.

Personally, he said, he wants to remain optimistic. “I don’t want to contemplate that it will fail because it is such a critical part of what the world needs right now.”

 Thank You
Megan Darby and Karl Mathiesen, and Climate Home News.

GASSHOLE ALERT! Experts Mock California Enviro Push To BAN Fossil Fuel Vehicles In State

dailycaller
CHRIS WHITE
Energy Reporter
1:50 PM 09/29/2017

Analysts and conservatives believe a Democrat-led plan to propose a ban on gas-powered cars in California later this year is a pie-in-the-sky scheme that ignores important factors about the state’s auto industry.

Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill in January that would ban the sale of gas-powered cars produced after 2040. The Democratic lawmaker said California drivers must adopt electric vehicles if the state is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but some are scoffing at the push.

“The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way. At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand,” Ting told reporters Friday. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have joined his push to wipe out the state’s fossil fuel industry.

“It’s an important conversation to have and we’re glad it’s starting to get some traction,” said Gina Coplon-Newfield, an official with the Sierra Club who works on promoting green energy technology. Ting and Sierra Club are meeting some stiff resistance from people who suggest the idea probably not doable.

Kerry Jackson, a fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based free market non-profit group, for instance, told reporters that the push to force citizens to abandon their gas-powered cars is another example of the state’s overzealous environmentalism.

“The reaction is like, ‘Gee, somebody has been reading The Onion and they got taken in by the parody,” he said, responding to lawmakers’ desire to delete the fossil fuel industry. “But then it fades a little bit and you go, ‘Yeah, this is California.'”

Electric vehicle sales in California amount to less than five percent of the state’s overall car sales, despite the Golden State’s title as a champion for the electric vehicle market. Analysts, meanwhile, believe the market for these types of vehicles is not anywhere near large enough to overcome gas-powered cars.

“I think really the lag here is consumers,” Jessica Caldwell, an analyst with Edmunds, told reporters Friday. “For the automakers, they have to balance the lawmakers’ desires versus what they can actually sell.”

Ting is one several California Democrats pushing to increase incentives for drivers to adopt electric vehicles. His overall push could hit stiff resistance from an unlikely foe: Democrats who are still tied in with the state’s strong manufacturing unions.

Democrats passed an amendment to a California program earlier this month requiring manufacturers verify that they are “fair and responsible in their treatment of workers” before they can take advantage of a $2,500 rebate encouraging citizens buy Tesla vehicles.

The legislation was a shot across the bow of Tesla, a company that relied on a $82.5 million subsidy from the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, which gives extra incentive to 32,842 Tesla buyers in seven years.

California’s legislature defeated a pair of bills that would have required all electricity in the state to come from non-carbon sources by 2045. Unions vehemently opposed the bill, primarily because they feared the bill didn’t do enough to help protect union workers.

The bill was derailed despite California’s huge Democratic margins in both houses and the Gov. Jerry Brown, who consistently promotes himself as a climate change warrior. Activists were disappointed that unions stymied the effort.

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


Tags: California, Energy, Jerry Brown, Tesla

Thank You Mr White and DC.

PS: We initially were going to tag this as 'Bullshit' but considering that this blog's central theme is the corrupt/unlawful imposition of tax payer funded Govt mind control, . . . that tag could probably be applied to 90% of what we've already posted.

It's just too unwieldy.

Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama's Climate Change Agenda

Let's see how long it takes some activist Court to throw a hissy fit and block this one.

Townhall
Katie Pavlich |Posted: Mar 28, 2017 3:41 PM



Flanked by more than two dozen coal miners at the Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday afternoon, President Donald Trump signed an executive order officially rolling back President Barack Obama's climate change agenda.

"My administration is putting an end to the war on coal," Trump said. "I want to thank the miners. You know, my guys get enough thanks. These guys haven't had enough thanks. They've had a hard time."

"We’re going to have safety, we’re going to have clean water, we’re going to have clean air, but so many [regulations] are unnecessary, so many are job-killing,” Trump continued.

"In particular, I want to thank the miners." @POTUS signs executive order rolling back Obama-era energy regs https://t.co/Ew37He8x98 pic.twitter.com/6L997Y4Kan— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 28, 2017

Vice President Mike Pence, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were also on stage.

"We see coal miners who have been sidelined without a thought given to their future. This executive order will begin the process to unravel the red tape that has been keeping us on the sidelines," Perry said.

"Our nation can't run on pixie dust and coal," Zinke added. "The world is safer when America is strong, and our strength relies on energy."

The executive order rescinds Obama's Clean Power Plan, which was implemented to put coal power plants out of business through impossible emission compliance regulations. It also opens up gas leases on federal lands.


Thank You Ms Pavlich, Townhall, and President Trump.