[kortilla]

The green new deal comes from a place completely detached from reality rather than anything remotely feasible.

Remember, the green new deal not only included destruction of all fossil fuel industries (aviation, non electric cars, trucks, trains, etc) but it also included provisions for people who weren’t willing to work (used to be in the FAQ).

It started as a plan to completely restructure the US into the most socialist country on the planet with an energy economy based on technology that doesn’t exist all in the next ten years.

Politics is not about foisting your vision onto everyone else, despite the current rhetoric in the US.

[josinalvo]

> Politics is not about foisting your vision onto everyone else, despite the current rhetoric in the US.

The only paragraph I agree with. But I agree strongly!

Politics is about consensus and horse-trading, and they are much superior to winning and making the other side miserable (for a short while, until they get the chance to do the same)

[francisofascii]

So you don't think 100% from renewable energy is feasible? If not, then, shouldn't we be creating policies to preserve more fossil fuel to give us more time? It is finite, after all. What exactly is your plan?

[kortilla]

Nuclear is the only answer that works based on existing technology. Build it, subsidize it, whatever.

It’s a trivial solution that doesn’t require a fundamental restructure of the economy. It’s just not popular with the left precisely because it is too compatible with our current economic structure.

Australia alone has enough coal under it to burn for a hundred years+. Any policy that doesn’t include nuclear for base load is a policy to burn that coal.

[benj111]

How does anyone get that from what Bogle said?