Lance Olsen has a new article over at Counterpunch. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/03/why-all-the-uproar-over-the-green-new-deal/
Now that the Green New Deal has reached Congress there is only the money to worry about. Capitalist vs. Capitalist is the only game being played in Washington, D.C., regardless of the title of the legislation being debated. It’s where the spending is authorized. It’s where appropriations are decided. Who’s ox gets gored, and who’s pockets are stuffed with cash. Nothing new, nothing unusual. But, as always, those decisions impact real lives.
We are now down to two choices, both bad. Sorry, folks, that’s all you’re ever going to get. More than two would confuse people into thinking that any thinking might be required. I hope some might find some useful information in Lance’s article.
Piece of Mindful 
Well he is showing his bias cards in the very beginning framing this as a fight against evil o(i)ligarchs and capitalism, so at least he’s staking a claim on one side of the bullshit boomer dialectic, not getting all luke warm on us. What no one ever talks about is how you balance the grid on renewables, especially the provably insane concept of 100 percent renewables. I know how. Extreme rationing.
I work in the transformer industry with lots of engineers who can fill people in on this. Find someone who is knowledgable about massive electrical grid balancing and ask them. I guarantee you won’t like the answer. Also the other thing they never tell you is how tanks and jets will run on solar. So its continuing the man made scarcity program or total NWO fascism. I literally see no other answer. Its all about who controls the carbon based fuels, not getting rid of them. It never was about getting rid of them.
LikeLike
Curious what you may think of these ideas on balancing: https://greeningthegrid.org/integration-in-depth/balancing-area-coordination
I am seldom comfortable with anything headed up by USAID, especially after a doing a little research, but it seems to be part of what is being discussed.
LikeLike
I used to visit the “Our Finite World” blog pretty frequently. It’s run by Gail Tverberg, a former actuary and insurance consultant turned researcher. From her “Getting Started” page:
“We live in a world that is finite. While there are huge amounts of oil, gas, coal, and minerals (such as uranium, gold, silver, copper, and lithium), we tend to extract the easiest to obtain, highest quality resources first. Eventually, we find it is more and more expensive to extract additional quantities of these items. Aquifers that are slow to replenish become more and more depleted. Top soil tends to erode faster than it is replaced. Pollution tends to be a problem too, with the most obvious example being carbon dioxide added to air and water…
THE ISSUE IS NOT A LACK OF OIL, BUT A LACK OF CHEAP, AFFORDABLE OIL. If oil prices could rise high enough (and people’s pay checks could rise to accommodate this increase in price), there would likely not be a problem–we could just extract more higher priced oil. The fact that things seem to work in this manner helps solve the mystery regarding how there could be a huge amount of oil still in the ground, but oil supply still not be growing.”
https://ourfiniteworld.com/getting-started/
The consensus in her comment section over the years has been this:
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE
How do we maintain global supply chains (land, sea and air) without oil? How do we maintain our interstate and national shipping lanes without oil? How to we address the demands on our electric grids without oil? How to we continue our petrochemical industry without oil? How do we continue industrial scale agriculture without oil? How do we power our military machines without oil?
How will NASA send Elon Musk to Mars to start a new human colony without oil?
Perhaps there is an oil shortage problem but it is a shortage of cheap, easy to get oil. The same goes for other extractable resources and minerals. The deeper and longer you dig the more energy inputs you need for digging. How do we extract hard to get resources these days? Do we power our machines with wind farms? Solar cells?
So the elites put out a global warming scare to justify and telegraph their intention to ration the oil supply, while the opportunists among them tack on a profit making scheme (carbon taxation). In the end, the wealthy elites will be the second to last oil consumers left standing (they can afford rising oil prices) while the last will probably be the armed forces (they can claim the oil at gunpoint).
From the early 20th century onward our towns and cities were built around the internal combustion engine. The effects of urban and suburban sprawl, coupled with a lack of good and affordable public transportation, forced many people into personal car ownership (another chain of debt slavery). Advertisers sold the personal automobile as a symbol of freedom and adventure. Buying your car also made you a reliable, repeat customer of the oil industry – you had to routinely fill up your gas tank. The elites were happy with this system, as long as there was cheap, easy to extract oil. Now, they’re yanking us in the opposite direction.
What bothers me the most is the implied guilt aimed towards average citizens. As though it was our idea to build suburbs and mega shopping malls across the country that require personal automobiles to navigate; or encasing our food and water with plastics; or living and working arrangements that result in hour + long commutes from our homes and families, etc.
Lastly, here’s another elephant in the room when it comes to the elites’ pretend battle against carbon emissions:
“After water, concrete is the most widely used substance on Earth. If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world with up to 2.8bn tonnes, surpassed only by China and the US.”
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth
LikeLike