I already said high speed rail is best for medium distances so I’m not sure what your point is. That I’m right?
And you should also include time to get from the origin to the train station and vice versa in the Paris/Lyon calculation. Rail is still probably faster, but you need to make it truly apples-to-apples.
I’m okay with handwaving these issues.
Bigger problem is just that nuclear apparently costs a lot of money.
Well in both cases the answer seems to be to set them aside and leave them be.
Also, I am not an expert on nuclear power by any means, but I recall reading something (most likely in The Economist) a few years ago about a new technology that radically reduced the quantity of waste. So hypothetical new nuclear plants should hopefully generate a lot less waste than their older counterparts.
There’s a reason France is doing well on their carbon emissions, and it’s nuclear power.
I don’t see any proposed coast to coast routes. I don’t even see New York to Austin that AOC wouldn’t take.
Well then how is she planning to meet her goal of making air travel unnecessary???
Probably the same way Republicans plan on balancing the budget through tax cuts.
Maybe she’s hoping Elon will suceed in his project.
So, a ridiculous fantasy.
As a P&C Property actuary I definitely see the CATs, I don’t know that we can solely blame climate change for all of the CAT change and just call that climate change impact that we should have reallocated to slowing the economy down for significant changes.
The US has made some pretty significant climate change changes, almost entirely by replacing coal generation with natural gas.
The sad story is despite the US having had such a big impact on carbon footprint we’re still at the mercy of what the world does, and China is rapidly building more coal plants. We shouldn’t advocate to do something silly like spend vast amounts of money on renewable energy so we get even bigger bragging points against the rest of the world while still dealing with the climate change effects we’re stuck with anyway.
Honestly, frankly, we’re not going to get China and the developed world to not use a lot more carbon. A lot of that money we should spend on helping to mitigate the impacts of the climate change inevitabilities we’re facing.
The bullet point starts with the words “totally overhaul transportation” so I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of her intentions.
You don’t need to ask… the FAQ specifies “by 2030”. (I erroneously said 2029 in an earlier post… I will look for that error and correct it. ETA: Corrected)
I’m sure parts of the green new deal are in fact fantasy and may never be realized. But folks thought the hand held communication devices on Star Trek and “shoe phone” of Maxell Smart were once fantasy.
I also wouldn’t judge the GND on high speed rail alone and decide it’s not wort pursuing.
2030 is probably unrealistic. But if you make the goal 2030 maybe you accomplish it between 2035 and 2040. If you make the goal 2040 maybe you accomplish it by 2050.
If you don’t set a goal, maybe you never even work towards it.
I dunno, I always believed that we’d have mobile devices and I remember dreaming up GPS as a kid (not how to accomplish it, but the need for a map that knew where on it you were) and figured it would be a thing in my lifetime and it is. So I’m not sure that stuff was dismissed as fantasy. Just futuristic. I don’t know the shoe phone reference specifically but I’m reminded of AT&T’s commercials with Tom Selleck, which almost universally came true… not always precisely as imagined in the commercials but pretty close.
And even with high speed rail, there probably will be a time when going from Seattle to Miami via rail is a reasonable alternative to air travel. But that time is not 2030.
I think as long as we are acknowledging things like the current cost of climate change as well as the future costs, we can have a debate about how to best deal with it. Yes, the developing world will rely more on coal and that will offset any progress the developed world makes, but how long will that go on? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Advancement could come quickly as well - South Korea I think is a good example if you compare where they are now compared to 1990, and now making climate pledges to be be carbon neutral by 2050.
A good step 1 is to recognize that climate is changing, and humans have caused a material part of that change. But that seems to have fallen victim in order to own the libs for a good percent of our elected officials.
That’s certainly true. There’s the old adage that between fast, cheap, and good you can have at most two.
But the stuff about replacing ICE’s irrespective of whether EVs are an adequate replacement sounds pretty draconian. My life will be measurably worse if I am not able to travel to my in-laws’ home in a day. Right now I can make the drive in 15 hours or fly in about 8 hours door-to-door, and I’ve done both. It seems that AOC wants to make both of those impossible for me, and without providing a suitable replacement and she doesn’t seem to give a shit if I dislike it.
I agree, sadly the debate is often between GND and bringing snowballs into Congress which doesn’t really progress things. Carbon taxes seem such an American solution that could really help orient America towards innovating the new energy solutions that the entire world would use but somehow we haven’t managed to get that through Congress.
But that is also super vague. Again, I think you’re taking a vague marketing platitude way too literally.
No doubt McDonalds is going to totally overhaul how we eat by introducing a new cheeseburger next year.
When asked her communications director responded “obviously no, we’re not trying to ban air travel”.
You don’t need to ask… the FAQ specifies “by 2030”. (I erroneously said 2029 in an earlier post… I will look for that error and correct it. ETA: Corrected)
The faq wants to get to “net zero emissions” by 2030. Which I agree that sounds insanely ambitious.
But it does call for doing any specific thing by 2030.
Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with a goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle
And the phrase “with a goal to…” suggests to me not actually doing the thing.
The same faq actually mentions not getting rid of airplanes in 10 years.
I assume you’re missing a “not” from context. That said, the part I quoted is accurate as it stands as the FAQ clearly states that GND is a “ten year plan”. It came out in 2019 which is where I got 2029 from originally, but given multiple references to 2030 I’m assuming that she meant “starting in 2020”.
Also, you can get to a train right before it departs
For a plane you need to plan more of an advance
I can also do work on an Amtrak and feel better when I arrive
Last time I took Amtrak you had to get there a minimum of 30 minutes early and go through TSA. (Or if it wasn’t TSA it was similar… they put my luggage through a scanner and I had to walk through something.) It’s admittedly been a while. Still better than commercial air travel, but not “right before it departs” either.
I’ve taken trains in England and arrived less early than that but they don’t have TSA.
If we could get rid of TSA as part of GND I would be a lot more interested.