THE GREEN NEW DEAL - John Wawrzonek

UrgentCareEarth.com

Chapter IV

The Green New Deal

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

Whereas the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 oC’’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—

(1) human activity is the dominant cause of ob- served climate change over the past century;

(2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;

(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius be- yond preindustrialized levels will cause—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) along with other members of congress has championed the Green New Deal. As I read it the essence of the proposal is to marshall sufficient resources to effect the necessary changes and that such a program would provide a boost to the economy and permit addressing the needs of other than the very rich.

To my mind this is a breakthough in spirit if not precisely in letter. It is not possible to educate the entire populace and the govermnent with the required depth to overturn irrational mind-sets. The strategy seems to be a solid one where a dramatic plan replaces prolonged and impractical teaching. The proposal as such would likely be bold enough to shake the foundations under ill-concieved opposition.

Nevertheless, if this is the strategy, comprehension of the essense of global warming, the coming and present impact (tornadoes at this moment are tearing through the US southeas) is necessary to demonstrate the intelligence behind the plan. Therefore at this point I will present various summaries of scientific and moral issues that I view will be helpful in the upcoming struggle.

"A Green New Deal is a big, bold transformation of the economy to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change. It would mobilize vast public resources to help us transition from an economy built on exploitation and fossil fuels to one driven by dignified work and clean energy."

"To tackle the climate crisis at the speed that justice and science demand, a Green New Deal would upgrade our infrastructure, revitalize our energy system, retrofit our buildings, and restore our ecosystems. In so doing, a Green New Deal would cut climate pollution while creating millions of family-sustaining jobs, expanding access to clean air and water, raising wages, and building climate resilience. To counteract inequality, those benefits would go first and foremost to the working class families and communities of color that have endured the brunt of the fossil fuel economy."

Monet's Meadow

Not having The Green New Deal or its equivalent is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, and hoping for a cushy tree to catch you.

In risk analysis the first question is to determine the worst case, and in this situation that is the planet becomes uninhabitable perhaps in 100 to 300 years, or possibly sooner. For the purpose of analysing risk, there is no way to prove that this could not happen and there are many ways to formulate scenerios where it would happen. It is complicted by knowing that the climate has already done enormous damage with only 1°C rise in temperature and we are at this point targeting 1.5°C which appears impossible since emissions are going up when they should be going down rapidly. I do not believe any of the industrialized countries has a plan in place for 1.5°C. Most scientists have already conceded that the target must be 2.0°C but even that is unlikely in the absense of a plan that fits the philosophy of the Green New Deal.

We also cannot predict the effect of various positive feedback forces such as the melting of the tundra in combination with zero or modest reduction in emissions.

India is a good example. It has built enormous solar farms in order to provide power for growth but it still must keep its coal plants operation so there is no reduction in emissions.

Ultimately what we decide to do is a moral issue. Do we make the best possible effort to preserve the planet, or do we go the whole route with negative emissions and return the carbon dioxide to 350 ppm and Bill Mckibben advocated with his organization 350.org.

My own very strongly held opinion is that we have done a notoriously poor job. Energy companies are still pushing oil and natural gas, there is no coordinated research in negative emissions, there is no coordinated program to reduce emissions and there is no program to develop nucler power that is 100% safe.

My conclusion is that the agressive position of the Green New Deal is absolutely necessary even if it requires all the spare wealth of the world and a revolution in attitude and commitment at least as strong and likely stronger than that of World War II, including possibly seveeral Manhattan Project.

It is extremely unlikely there is a cushy tree in just the right place.

In the graph below there are three trendlines extrapolating NASA data on temperature from 1850 to 2017. The two outer curves are polynominal expansions done by Excel with no fudging or modification by me. The center line is a power expansion done by me using emperical curve fitting. There are many esperts including the EPA that have argued for the possibility of 5 to °C in 2100. That would likely leave the climate out of our control, result in the melting of all ice and a sea level rise of over 120 feet. This is our last chance to avoid this scenerio and that will make it essential that we elect a new president in 2020, one that not only supports a program like the Green New Deal but that provided extraordinary leadership.

Ultimately what we decide to do is a moral issue. Do we make the best possible effort to preserve the planet, or do we go the whole route with negative emissions and return the carbon dioxide to 350 ppm and Bill Mckibben advocated with his organization 350.org.

My own very strongly held opinion is that we have done a notoriously poor job. Energy companies are still pushing oil and natural gas, there is no coordinated research in negative emissions, there is no coordinated program to reduce emissions and there is no program to develop nucler power that is 100% safe.

My conclusion is that the agressive position of the Green New Deal is absolutely necessary even if it requires all the spare wealth of the world and a revolution in attitude and commitment at least as strong and likely stronger than that of World War II, including possibly seveeral Manhattan Project.

It is extremely unlikely there is a cushy tree in just the right place.

In the graph below there are three trendlines extrapolating NASA data on temperature from 1850 to 2017. The two outer curves are polynominal expansions done by Excel with no fudging or modification by me. The center line is a power expansion done by me using emperical curve fitting. There are many esperts including the EPA that have argued for the possibility of 5 to °C in 2100. That would likely leave the climate out of our control, result in the melting of all ice and a sea level rise of over 120 feet. This is our last chance to avoid this scenerio and that will make it essential that we elect a new president in 2020, one that not only supports a program like the Green New Deal but that provided extraordinary leadership.

From the Sierra Club website: A GREEN NEW DEAL

EARTH TEMPERATURE 7 for fpp;omg arpimd (version 1).xlsx
Powered by SmugMug Log In