Green New Deal is also incredibly sound economics and conservative ethos. Economically speaking, which is better: something you have to spend a bunch of time and effort mining for and then can only ever use it once or something you spend a bit more effort mining and manufacturing, but then can receive gains off your investment for decades? Gains that exceed your initial investment well before expected end of life.
And that’s just the economics of the gains; completely forgoing the cumulative costs burdened upon society by climate-change (increased heating/cooling-costs, early deaths because of pollution, crops failing and the mass-migration as a result of that). Continuing with fossil fuel is very very dumb if you look at the medium to long term.
For sure, but I focused on just the easily quantifiable economic returns because most people who would call the Green New Deal the Green New Scam are also climate change deniers. So, focusing on just their own pocketbooks with things that can easily be measured and calculated seems a better approach.
True, although we shouldn’t pretend that the cost for building a coal mine or developing an oil field is more single use than a solar farm or wind turbine. Many oil wells and coal mines operate for decades with relatively small operational costs after initial build out. Time in production difference is not statistically significant enough to make that a linchpin argument.
The jobs created by solar and wind in R&D, manufacturing, and construction and maintenance, along with most importantly the carbon emissions benefits are the most relevant economic points. Nuclear should also be part of the Green New Deal, but fossil fuel companies successfully fear mongered that sector to death.
Green New Deal is also incredibly sound economics and conservative ethos. Economically speaking, which is better: something you have to spend a bunch of time and effort mining for and then can only ever use it once or something you spend a bit more effort mining and manufacturing, but then can receive gains off your investment for decades? Gains that exceed your initial investment well before expected end of life.
And that’s just the economics of the gains; completely forgoing the cumulative costs burdened upon society by climate-change (increased heating/cooling-costs, early deaths because of pollution, crops failing and the mass-migration as a result of that). Continuing with fossil fuel is very very dumb if you look at the medium to long term.
For sure, but I focused on just the easily quantifiable economic returns because most people who would call the Green New Deal the Green New Scam are also climate change deniers. So, focusing on just their own pocketbooks with things that can easily be measured and calculated seems a better approach.
True, although we shouldn’t pretend that the cost for building a coal mine or developing an oil field is more single use than a solar farm or wind turbine. Many oil wells and coal mines operate for decades with relatively small operational costs after initial build out. Time in production difference is not statistically significant enough to make that a linchpin argument.
The jobs created by solar and wind in R&D, manufacturing, and construction and maintenance, along with most importantly the carbon emissions benefits are the most relevant economic points. Nuclear should also be part of the Green New Deal, but fossil fuel companies successfully fear mongered that sector to death.