Ocasio-Cortez Bungled Green New Deal’s Release. Her Staff Took Its Webpage Offline

dailycaller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor


Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York bungled the release of the “Green New Deal.”
Her office was forced to take down a summary of the bill because it contained a series of gaffes.
Those included anti-nuclear power language, a reference to “farting cows” and welfare for “unwilling” workers.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kicked off Thursday unveiling her highly-anticipated “Green New Deal” resolution to cheers from Democrats and environmentalists, but by the day’s end, her staff was forced to take a gaffe-riddled summary of the bill offline.

Ocasio-Cortez gave NPR the scoop. Her office provided NPR the Green New Deal resolution and its accompanying FAQ document that laid out its goals, namely to “[m]ove America to 100% clean and renewable energy” within 10 years.

What immediately became clear, however, was that the legislative language didn’t match with Ocasio-Cortez’s FAQ, especially when it came to nuclear power, welfare programs and “farting cows.”

“Frankly, it does a disservice to the debate,” Jeremy Harrell, policy director at ClearPath, a conservative group that promotes low-emissions energy, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. (RELATED: What’s Really Motivating The ‘Green New Deal’? Ocasio-Cortez Straight Up Told Us)

The Green New Deal resolution, which has more than sixty cosponsors in the House, does not have language ruling out nuclear or banning fossil fuels, but its accompanying FAQ actually did.

The FAQ document Ocasio-Cortez’s staff gave to NPR reads:


A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

In fact, NPR reported the “ultimate goal is to stop using fossil fuels entirely, Ocasio-Cortez’s office told NPR, as well as to transition away from nuclear energy.”


U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) moves through a group of reporters after a news conference for the proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

“Realistically, you can’t decommission a nuclear plant in ten years,” Harrell told TheDCNF.

“She’s making false promises that aren’t even in the realm of the doable,” Harrell said. “She’s using this to push a liberal agenda.”

Harrell wasn’t the only one to notice the discrepancy. Mike Shellenberger, founder of the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress, called for Ocasio-Cortez do clear up the confusion.


I have been questioned on my reporting that Green New Deal is anti-nuclear & I stand by it

The office of @AOC put out a *written* document stating that “plan is to transition off of nuclear”

If @AOC isn’t calling for death of nuclear then she needs to issue *written statement* https://t.co/NGvVEU3cDJ

— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) February 7, 2019

Shellenberger pointed to the fact Ocasio-Cortez herself said at a Capitol Hill rally for the Green New Deal was about “transitioning to 100% renewable energy,” despite the legislative text.

Energy expert Christopher Clack, who co-authored a comprehensive study on the feasibility of a 100 percent renewable grid, told TheDCNF that while he thought the legislative text was “ambitious and far-reaching,” the FAQ complicated things.

“If they are not wanting newer technologies, and wanting only wind, solar and hydro, as the FAQs represent, that would be more problematic,” Clack said, “however, that is not how the bill is written.”

Clack’s study estimated that completely decarbonizing the grid, including the use of nuclear power and carbon capture, would cost somewhere between $20 trillion and $40 trillion by 2050.

Ocasio-Cortez’s staff took out the anti-nuclear language from the FAQ posted on her congressional website. However, that FAQ page was taken down Thursday afternoon.



But those weren’t the only changes made to the FAQ before it was taken down.

The Green New Deal’s FAQ also explained how the resolution used the term “net-zero emissions, rather than zero emissions” was because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

The FAQ also called for a “[b]uild out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Ocasio-Cortez’s staff eventually deleted “farting” from the FAQ, but not before reporters found it.

Democrats were also hard-pressed to explain how Americans would phase out the internal combustion engine and what a world without air travel would look like. Also included in Ocasio-Cortez’s FAQ was the promise of “[e]conomic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work,” which was also missing from the legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Green New Deal as a “suggestion,” and named more members to the House climate change committee. Ocasio-Cortez was not named to the committee.


U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) hold a news conference for their proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey introduced a companion bill in the Senate Thursday that was cosponsored by several Democratic 2020 hopefuls.

The Green New Deal’s FAQ at least twice mentioned planting trees as a way to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and fight global warming. In fact, the FAQ says a Green New Deal would mean we “plant lots of trees” to reduce emissions.

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective,” reads the FAQ, referring to carbon capture technology.

“Planting trees is not going to eliminate or reduce emissions from a variety of point sources. In the end, you need carbon capture and nuclear to meet emissions goals,” Harrell said.

Ocasio-Cortez’s office did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.




Thank You Mr Bastach and the DC.

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.

ISIS Executes Cross Dressing Man By Throwing Him Off Waterfall

weaselzippers

diversity rules!

Global Warming made them do it.

Thanks Zip.

This Oil Thing Is The Real Deal

Zero Hedge;

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/06/2015 16:50 -0500


Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Well! WTI below $50 and Brent below $53 when I start writing this. Who knows where they’ll be by the time I’m finished?! The euro down below $1.20, US stocks flirting with -2%, major European ones off -3%, Italy and Greece over -5%. Welcome to the real world, baby! Didn’t think you’d see it again so soon, did you? Welcome to the world where the Kool-Aid recovery does not reign supreme.

Not that you’re not going to hear that anymore, and 24/7 incessantly so, but there’s no recovery with these oil prices, no matter what anybody says. The damage must be gargantuan by now. Everybody’s invested in oil. Sure, lots of shorts and stuff by now, but that’s not going to do much good. Not for pensions funds, or for governments. This thing will not blow up or over softly.

There’s not an oil major or minor or a producing country left that makes a profit at these prices, and there’s no sign anywhere to be seen that the drop will stop. If this keeps going, someday soon somebody’s going to go to war. Maybe domestically, maybe across a border, but it’ll happen.

Read More

Thank You Mr Durden and Mr Mejier.

War?

Maybe we shouldn't have elected a Green Fraudster to inflate the price in the 1st place.

skyrocket gas pic cred to maksim/peoplescube.

$5.7M NSF Grant For Card Games, Videos To Disinform Public About Global Warming

CNSNews;

$5.7M NSF Grant For Card Games, Videos To Educate Public About Global Warming

August 20, 2013 - 11:40 AM

---

By Alissa Tabirian

(CNSNews.com) – A multi-million dollar project funded by the National Science Foundation is developing card games, videos and other educational programs “to engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

The $5.7 million Polar Learning and Responding (PoLAR) project is just the latest in a series of federally-funded climate change efforts since Congress established the Climate Change Educational Partnership (CCEP) in 2009.

CCEP has already spent $46 million on taxpayer-funded research projects around the country designed to find the most effective ways to convince Americans that the federal government should confront what researchers claim is the threat of global warming.

Stephanie Pfirman, principal investigator and professor of environmental science at Barnard College, told CNSNews.com that one of the games under development by PoLAR is “EcoChains” - a card game in which “players learn the components of an Arctic marine food chain, the reliance of some species on sea ice, and potential impacts of future changes.”

Other games include “Future Coast” -  described as “a community-based activity where participants consider the implications of sea level rise coupled with a storm surge, as happened with [Hurricane] Sandy.”

Also under development is “The Polar Explorer” game, which “charts a range of ways to explore Earth climate data both spatially and temporally,” and “a mobile app that is designed to help people understand the relationships of climate change to their day-to-day lives.”

Educational initiatives include “radio programs that address both local Arctic and Antarctic perspectives on climate change,” and “online teacher professional development courses” that educate “middle and high school teachers” on contributing factors and consequences of climate change

Scientists and like-minded educators are hoping that the games developed by PoLAR will eventually lead to a society that accepts global warming as a fact, and is willing to adopt “responses and solutions.”

“Achieving this vision requires profound and sustained transformations in formal (K-16) and informal educational systems across the nation, both to improve the quality and effectiveness of learning materials, pedagogies, and educator preparation for climate education and to increase access and exposure to effective resources,” according to a CCEP Alliance Office solicitation.

Authorized in 2012 and running through 2017, PoLAR grantees will be spending $5.7 million of additional taxpayer funds in an effort to convince “millions of adults” to support a “change in practices and policies by seeding game-like approaches in informal and formal educational environments” – despite the fact that the Earth’s temperature has been at a statistical standstill for a decade and a half, and may have actually begun cooling instead of warming.

“Climate change is especially pronounced in polar regions – which is what our project addresses,” Pfirman told CNSNews. “Arctic sea ice reached historic low extent and volume last year,” she continued. “Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and many smaller glaciers, continue losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.”

However, data recently released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that temperatures in the North Pole are well below normal this year.

“Doom and gloom is not going to motivate anyone. It is more important to educate people so that they can come up with solutions,” said Mary-Elena Carr, associate director of Columbia University’s Climate Center.

According to the CCEP description on the National Science Foundation website, the program’s educational research objectives include “preparing a new generation of climate scientists, engineers, and technicians equipped to provide innovative and creative approaches to understanding global climate change and to mitigate its impact” and “preparing today's U.S. citizens to understand global climate change and its implications in ways that can lead to informed, evidence-based responses and solutions.”

As part of the CCEP program, the National Science Foundation funded the establishment of a national Climate Change Educational Partnership Alliance Office to coordinate the research efforts of various climate education studies across America.

Asked about the project’s benefits to American taxpayers, Pfirman said, “Educated citizens will be better prepared for a changing climate. Because the U.S. is an Arctic nation, public awareness of the implications of changes taking place in that region is important.”

Thank You Ms Tabirian and CNS.

OK; HHS just Billed every man, woman and child from newborn to deathbed for $223,333.33 Apiece to propagandize ObamaCare.

Latest ObamaCare Push: $67 Million For 'Messengers'

What's this NSF dodge going to cost Every person in the US, Individually?

$5.7M plus the $46M CCEP has already flushed, divided by 300M people is, . . . another $172,333.33 Apiece.

http://junkscience.com/

http://www.climatedepot.com/

See how easy it was to Solve the what do we do about man made Climate Change equation?

Can we now clawback that $51.7M NSF/CCEP flushed?

And we want our personal 10% Finder's Fee: $5.17M for saving America the other 90%.