Green, With Envy

 

An end to industrial civilization, but like in a totally pro-union way.

If this week’s Green New Deal boomlet was politically significant, it wasn’t just because a legislative newcomer elected by 110,318 voters in Queens and the Bronx proposed a government program to renovate or replace every building in the country within ten years, abolish internal-combustion-engine cars and commercial air travel, shut down all conventional utility generation without building nuclear, phase out flatulent cows, support persons “unwilling” to work, print new paper money to pay for it all, and on and on. New York City voters have elected radical mavericks to Congress before and will do so again.

No, the more interesting part of the story was the number of more senior politicians who chose to enable and promote this foolery. That would include Sen. Edward Markey, the veteran Massachusetts Democrat who stood alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at her announcement. And it would definitely include Sens. Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand, all presidential candidates who took to Twitter to endorse the initiative.

The boosters did not, let it be noted, include Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is nobody’s fool and has an important institution to run. “’The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?'” Pelosi said in an interview just before the announcement.

The ensuing public discussion revealed points of view that I hardly remembered still existed, such as this, from a former Democratic Senate economist:

Q: Can we afford a #GreenNewDeal?
A: Yes. The federal government can afford to buy whatever is for sale in its own currency.

Which in turn drew this perfect response from Marc Goldwein:

Q. Can you microwave a metal fork?
A. Yes. The microwave is big enough to fit the fork, and will turn on with the fork in it if you hit the start button.

Large sectors of the left commentariat either withheld critical comment entirely, or relegated it to paragraphs far down in pieces that otherwise took the plan Very Seriously. An exception was Jon Chait , who called the Green New Deal strategy “at best grossly undercooked, and at worst fatally misconceived.”

For the rest of us, incredulous reactions were more front and center, especially as to practicality. For example, one of the more popular planks — high-speed rail — is not exactly new, having been green-lighted by California voters more than ten years ago. In a state entirely controlled by Democrats, it has faced what one reporter calls “numerous lawsuits, huge delays, cost-overruns, [and] mismanagement,” and is “nowhere near being done.” A proposal for a maglev line to link Baltimore and Washington is finding tough going in liberal, environmentalist Maryland, in part because there’s seen as being nothing in it politically for poorer communities it would run through on its way between the two cities. And you guessed it: the Green New Deal scheme contemplates much more procedural complication of the sort that tends to slow or stop projects, including a leading role in decision processes for “front-line” marginalized communities, new veto rights for representatives of indigenous groups, and so forth.

One important dividing line here, it seems to me, is between those on both sides of the political aisle who acknowledge that policy involves unwelcome tradeoffs between different goods and those who are unwilling to make any such acknowledgment. The latter group tend to explain political opposition to their plans as arising from some combination of malice and ignorance, since who would knowingly oppose steps that have only benefits and no costs? Bernie Sanders has always favored rhetoric implicitly denying tradeoffs, and he has plenty of company on the Republican side.

Every politician who rushed to endorse the Green New Deal slogan — whether before the filling in of details about what it meant, or afterward — ought to be held to account by voters.

Published in Environment
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 61 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  1. Arahant Member

    Walter Olson: Every politician who rushed to endorse the Green New Deal slogan — whether before the filling in of details about what it meant, or afterward — ought to be held to account by voters.

    Can’t argue that.

    • #1
    • February 8, 2019, at 7:39 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  2. Quietpi Member

    I understand that the bill, published on the ‘net somewhere, has mysteriously disappeared. While I was ellipticalling, Tucker Carlson interviewed some university econ prof, identified as AOC’s advisor. His line was, “she didn’t say that. Whatever it was you were reading was fake.” So I gather that they’re seeing this whole thing blow up in their face, and are running for cover.

    BTW a question for some of you engineer – types: How many tons / cubic miles of landfill would be created by tearing down and replacing every building in the U.S. – over the next ten years? @concretevol?

    Not to mention clearcutting every stick in every national forest, dredging every river, eviscerating every limestone source… Now, think of all the jobs that would create in the Rustbelt!

    • #2
    • February 8, 2019, at 7:47 PM PDT
    • 15 likes
  3. Max Grossmann Inactive

    While I agree with your assessment, I’d also argue that the Green New Deal is actually a brilliant negotiation opener—and evidence of a technique that Republicans will soon regret to not have adopted.

    • #3
    • February 8, 2019, at 7:53 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  4. Randy Webster Member

    Max Grossmann (View Comment):

    While I agree with your assessment, I’d also argue that the Green New Deal is actually a brilliant negotiation opener—and evidence of a technique that Republicans will soon regret to not have adopted.

    I’m not sure what kind of reverse policy proposals can oppose such idiocy. What’s your anti-proposal: I want to have twice as many cars on the road in 10 years?

    • #4
    • February 8, 2019, at 8:23 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  5. toggle Coolidge

    Walter Olson: For example, one of the more popular planks — high-speed rail — is not exactly new, having been green-lighted by California voters more than ten years ago. In a state entirely controlled by Democrats, it has faced what one reporter calls “numerous lawsuits, huge delays, cost-overruns, [and] mismanagement,” and is “nowhere near being done.”

    Is it designed to be wind powered ? Need more of that (because we’ll need more wind power to build the components of wind power).

    • #5
    • February 8, 2019, at 9:03 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  6. Arahant Member

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Max Grossmann (View Comment):

    While I agree with your assessment, I’d also argue that the Green New Deal is actually a brilliant negotiation opener—and evidence of a technique that Republicans will soon regret to not have adopted.

    I’m not sure what kind of reverse policy proposals can oppose such idiocy. What’s your anti-proposal: I want to have twice as many cars on the road in 10 years?

    How about, “I want people to have the freedom to choose the car and fuel they want without having the market distorted by subsidies and prejudicial taxation.”

    • #6
    • February 8, 2019, at 9:12 PM PDT
    • 14 likes
  7. Bruce Caward Thatcher

    I keep wanting someone to ask her:

    “You’re talking about “global” warming, right? Terrible things being done to our globe? You want to save “the planet”, right?

    Well, if by magic all or your presciptions for the USA were accomplished, and by magic it all came out as you hope – the USA has zero pollution – what do you propose for the rest of “the planet”?

    We’re all in this together, here on Spaceship Earth – Global Warming is for one as it is for all. America’s share of total climate-affecting pollution is a small fraction of that eminating from China, India, and all the rest of the “less enlightened” countries. And they all seem to be advancing, not retreating, when it comes to planet-despoiling practices.

    So, if global warming is an existential threat to the USA, and you are in charge of protecting us, how are you going to persuade China and India to adopt your measures, for the good of the planet? If they tell you to go pound salt, are you willing to go to war to save the planet, maybe kill them all? If not, why not? I mean, it’s the planet at stake here.

    • #7
    • February 8, 2019, at 9:22 PM PDT
    • 29 likes
  8. James Lileks Contributor

    Max Grossmann (View Comment):
    While I agree with your assessment, I’d also argue that the Green New Deal is actually a brilliant negotiation opener—and evidence of a technique that Republicans will soon regret to not have adopted.

    On the contrary: it delegitimizes everything that’s not as forward-thinking and comprehensive as the GND. If the planks of the GND are the only way to forestall catastrophe – and let’s leave out the entitlements they larded on this bill of fare from the Unicorn Cafe – then half-measures won’t work. If it is necessary to retrofit every structure in the country, then that’s what we have to do, and people who propose rolling out a 20-year program to weather-seal windows and offer incentives to install regulators on your boiler aren’t serious about climate change. Or they are admitting that the situation isn’t dire. 

    Alas, there won’t be a skeptical press that drives home that message, and there’s no one on the right with a high profile and a robust rhetorical toolkit who’ll make that case. But you can hang the GND around all their necks, and a simple 2020 message of “Vote for me and you’ll get to keep your car. Those other guys, they want to take it away” will have legs

    I mean, how do they climb down from this? You get to fly on an airplane, but only so much, and with the government’s permission? Gedouddaheah.

    • #8
    • February 8, 2019, at 11:14 PM PDT
    • 22 likes
  9. Dave of Barsham Member

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    I mean, how do they climb down from this?

    Insanity plea.

    • #9
    • February 9, 2019, at 3:00 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  10. Eridemus Coolidge

    I’m shocked that the Democrats are letting “big mouth” AOC onto serious committee assignments.

    But this is the kind of less publicized activity behind the scenes that scares me even more: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20190209/799886d5-f379-4116-9f3a-be5d9d888891 Some of the background grindings in congress will go into high gear if democrats get control – just look at how they are getting ready now! When the woman named in that piece (appointed not elected) talks about “people” wanting severe emergency action, you know it’s not Trump supporters or businesses! But if enough ordinary Americans go nuts from the negative barrage of snob news they listen to, Democrats will go back to trying to transform/ruin the country.

    • #10
    • February 9, 2019, at 3:06 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Jimmy Carter Member

    toggle (View Comment):

    Walter Olson: For example, one of the more popular planks — high-speed rail — is not exactly new, having been green-lighted by California voters more than ten years ago. In a state entirely controlled by Democrats, it has faced what one reporter calls “numerous lawsuits, huge delays, cost-overruns, [and] mismanagement,” and is “nowhere near being done.”

    Is it designed to be wind powered ? Need more of that (because we’ll need more wind power to build the components of wind power).

    And We should demand that They manufacture the parts and build these “wind farms” without any fossil fuels. 

    • #11
    • February 9, 2019, at 4:23 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  12. Chris Campion Coolidge

    Eridemus (View Comment):

    I’m shocked that the Democrats are letting “big mouth” AOC onto serious committee assignments.

    But this is the kind of less publicized activity behind the scenes that scares me even more: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20190209/799886d5-f379-4116-9f3a-be5d9d888891 Some of the background grindings in congress will go into high gear if democrats get control – just look at how they are getting ready now! When the woman named in that piece (appointed not elected) talks about “people” wanting severe emergency action, you know it’s not Trump supporters or businesses! But if enough ordinary Americans go nuts from the negative barrage of snob news they listen to, Democrats will go back to trying to transform/ruin the country.

    This stuff really makes me want to punch something:

    “The Democratic caucus is unified under the belief we have to take bold action on the climate crisis,” Castor said in an interview.

    Unless it costs people jobs, and then votes, and then we won’t care quite so much.

    While that can take many forms, the transition to renewable energy such as wind and solar power is “job one,” she said.

    In other words, let’s eliminate base load generation for the country. This is a great idea, until people turn their lights on in the morning, and nothing happens. Then they go vote.

    Castor, who’s in her seventh term representing the Tampa Bay area, said Congress has a “moral obligation” to protect future generations from the costly effects of climate change, including more severe hurricanes, a longer wildfire season and a dangerous sea-level rise.

    I guess there’s no moral obligation to the future generations we’ve saddled with 21 trillion in debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But ok, screw it – Green New Deal!

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named Castor to lead the panel in December, saying she brings experience, energy and urgency to what Pelosi called “the existential threat of the climate crisis” facing the United States and the world.

    House Speaker Pelosi then retreated to her enclave to wallow in 100 dollar bills and cackle at the moon.

    She and the eight other Democrats named to the panel “are ready to stand up to corporate polluters and special interests” as they press for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move toward a clean-energy economy, Castor said.

    Wow. Edgy. Literally stand-up? Like on feet and stuff?

    “Climate deniers, fossil fuel companies and other special interests have had an outsized influence” in Congress in recent years, she said, promising to “stand up” to those forces to protect the environment and create green jobs.

    Apparently idiots also have an outsized influence in Congress. And not just in recent years.

    Let’s beat these selfish dunces from Fort America.

    • #12
    • February 9, 2019, at 4:27 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  13. Randy Webster Member

    Eridemus (View Comment):

    I’m shocked that the Democrats are letting “big mouth” AOC onto serious committee assignments.

    But this is the kind of less publicized activity behind the scenes that scares me even more: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20190209/799886d5-f379-4116-9f3a-be5d9d888891 Some of the background grindings in congress will go into high gear if democrats get control – just look at how they are getting ready now! When the woman named in that piece (appointed not elected) talks about “people” wanting severe emergency action, you know it’s not Trump supporters or businesses! But if enough ordinary Americans go nuts from the negative barrage of snob news they listen to, Democrats will go back to trying to transform/ruin the country.

    From the article:

    “Castor, who’s in her seventh term representing the Tampa Bay area, said Congress has a “moral obligation” to protect future generations from the costly effects of climate change…”

    But no moral obligation to protect future generations from the costly effects of massive debt.

    Sorry, Chris. I posted before reading all the comments.

    • #13
    • February 9, 2019, at 5:24 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  14. Stad Thatcher

    Quietpi (View Comment):
    BTW a question for some of you engineer – types: How many tons / cubic miles of landfill would be created by tearing down and replacing every building in the U.S. – over the next ten years? @concretevol?

    Also, they’d better replace all the buildings before they replace the 3,000,000 diesel-fueled trucks needed to haul the debris away . . .

    • #14
    • February 9, 2019, at 5:54 AM PDT
    • 16 likes
  15. inkathoots Bethany

    This Green New Deal seems hatched by the same type of brilliance and lack of common sense that launched “close planting” and “deep plowing” policies that resulted in two major famines. 

    https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/trofim-lysenko/

    The urban ruling class seems to have lost their minds completely after a few glasses of expensive wine (beer in the case of Elizabeth Warren) and parading their hot new expert on everything on as many media outlets as possible.

    • #15
    • February 9, 2019, at 6:15 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  16. Eridemus Coolidge

    I’m sorry if I was confusing in OP on the “expert lady” – I meant a representative but appointed to the committee itself, which of course we voters don’t get a say about.

    Also, if there are energy experts on Ricochet, since we may not be able to just wave this stuff off as nonsense in a country filled with moonbat rantings like “save the planet by rebuilding” being heard by many with no grasp of the science or the business …. can anyone offer a speculative wild guess how much real savings would accrue from tearing down a typical piece of our stock and replacing it with a “green building” at our current state of technology? (Consider that a lot of country would barely benefit from solar so assume barely tolerable levels of light and heat since people will of course become more stoic). That should yield a benefit/year going forward once occupied. Then subtract the energy spent in the tear down, cleanup, and rebuilding effort itself (since the slave power needed won’t be around right away at the start of the 12 years, assume normal trucks, lumber cutting and materials delivery etc?)

    Just wondering how many years before we would “break even” (in case nobody else in the world cooperates and the whole thing doesn’t affect the earth in its stubborn intent).

    • #16
    • February 9, 2019, at 6:41 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  17. Miffed White Male Member

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    While that can take many forms, the transition to renewable energy such as wind and solar power is “job one,” she said.

    In other words, let’s eliminate base load generation for the country. This is a great idea, until people turn their lights on in the morning, and nothing happens. Then they go vote.

    No, then they go foraging for food, like the people in Venezuela.

    • #17
    • February 9, 2019, at 6:47 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  18. Miffed White Male Member

    Eridemus (View Comment):

    I’m sorry if I was confusing in OP on the “expert lady” – I meant a representative but appointed to the committee itself, which of course we voters don’t get a say about.

    Also, if there are energy experts on Ricochet, since we may not be able to just wave this stuff off as nonsense in a country filled with moonbat rantings like “save the planet by rebuilding” being heard by many with no grasp of the science or the business …. can anyone roughly guess how much real savings would accrue from tearing down a typical piece of our stock and replacing it with a “green building” at our current state of technology? (Consider that a lot of country would barely benefit from solar so assume some kind of other greenish light and heat). That should yield a benefit/year going forward once occupied. Then subtract the energy spent in the tear down, cleanup, and rebuilding effort itself (since the slave power needed won’t be around right away at the start of the 12 years, assume normal trucks, lumber cutting and materials delivery etc?)

    I’m honestly not too worried about it.

    In the 1930s, during the depression, this country was able to build Hoover dam in less than five years, and the Empire State building in just over a year.

    In the 1980s/1990s it took something like 15 years to build a visitors center at Hoover dam. And it’s not like we’ve gotten more agile with our ability to build anything since then.

    Any proposal to do the kind of massive scale construction in the “New Green Deal” not only won’t be completed in ten years, it probably won’t have cleared the first round of lawsuits by the time AOC is retiring from Congress at the age of 80.

     

    • #18
    • February 9, 2019, at 6:55 AM PDT
    • 17 likes
  19. David Carroll Thatcher

    Walter Olson: The boosters did not, let it be noted, include Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is nobody’s fool and has an important institution to run. “’The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?’” Pelosi said in an interview just before the announcement. [Emphasis added.]

    But we have to pass it, so we can find out what is in it.

    • #19
    • February 9, 2019, at 7:27 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  20. Slow on the uptake Thatcher

    Max Grossmann (View Comment):
    One important dividing line here, it seems to me, is between those on both sides of the political aisle who acknowledge that policy involves unwelcome tradeoffs between different goods and those who are unwilling to make any such acknowledgment.

    You took the words right out of my mouth.

    I don’t for a moment imagine that AOC thought of it that way, but that woman and those like her will get some of it, or will use it to influence other legislation to move in this direction. Sure, we think it’s a tale, “told by an idiot…signifying nothing”, but as the OP noted – some seemingly don’t: Or at least are quite ready to use it to accomplish their ends.

    • #20
    • February 9, 2019, at 7:29 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  21. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Eridemus (View Comment):

    I’m sorry if I was confusing in OP on the “expert lady” – I meant a representative but appointed to the committee itself, which of course we voters don’t get a say about.

    Also, if there are energy experts on Ricochet, since we may not be able to just wave this stuff off as nonsense in a country filled with moonbat rantings like “save the planet by rebuilding” being heard by many with no grasp of the science or the business …. can anyone roughly guess how much real savings would accrue from tearing down a typical piece of our stock and replacing it with a “green building” at our current state of technology? (Consider that a lot of country would barely benefit from solar so assume some kind of other greenish light and heat). That should yield a benefit/year going forward once occupied. Then subtract the energy spent in the tear down, cleanup, and rebuilding effort itself (since the slave power needed won’t be around right away at the start of the 12 years, assume normal trucks, lumber cutting and materials delivery etc?)

    I’m honestly not too worried about it.

    In the 1930s, during the depression, this country was able to build Hoover dam in less than five years, and the Empire State building in just over a year.

    In the 1980s/1990s it took something like 15 years to build a visitors center at Hoover dam. And it’s not like we’ve gotten more agile with our ability to build anything since then.

    Any proposal to do the kind of massive scale construction in the “New Green Deal” not only won’t be completed in ten years, it probably won’t have cleared the first round of lawsuits by the time AOC is retiring from Congress at the age of 80.

    This is it. We are now experts, as a country, in how not to get things done. During the early Obama Administration, Rachel Maddow and Spike Lee did a video featuring the Hoover Dam using it as an example of the kind of big infrastructure project America needed to undertake today. In their ignorance they didn’t realize that the kind of process laws they advocate for would prevent or delay by decades that type of project today.

     

    • #21
    • February 9, 2019, at 7:47 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  22. Unwoke Caveman Lawyer Coolidge

    I love the analogy about microwaving a fork, and I agree that the part at the end of the original post about tradeoffs in policy (and assuming bad faith of any dissenters) is an extremely important insight that I wish the whole country would meditate on, but I think my favorite part here is Pelosi’s line.

    “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

    That’s just about perfect.

    • #22
    • February 9, 2019, at 7:51 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  23. DonG Coolidge

    GND is obviously a farse. But it has moved the Overton Window and instead of discussing why the planet has not warmed in the last 1/3 century (thus disproving the CAGW theory), we are discussing how many years it would take build trains. This is a win for Dems.

    However, they Dems can never take back the fact that they endorsed a plan to eliminate the automobile industry. That is a fatal position in the Midwest, which has many swing states. This is huge loss for the Dems.

    Meanwhile, India is all-in on coal as PM Modi coming out as a hero for his plan to electrify every village in India. Electricity=prosperity. India is leaping forward and the GND wants to drag us back to the pre-industrial 1880’s. That is immoral.

    • #23
    • February 9, 2019, at 7:51 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  24. Percival Thatcher

    A moderately attentive and informed twelve-year-old could entertain himself for an afternoon blowing technical and logical holes in this twaddle. 

    We need a designation for the point at which no amount of True Faith in the Progressive Cause will prevent eye-rolling and face-palming.

    I propose we christen it “the Chiat Line.”

    • #24
    • February 9, 2019, at 7:53 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  25. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Let’s set aside for a moment the science of climate change, the economics, and the physical impossibility of the Green New Deal. Let’s set aside that it reads like a junior high school term paper. There is a fundamental difference between the environmental laws enacted in the 1970s regarding air, water, and hazardous waste and this proposal. The earlier laws dealt with environmental pollution within the boundaries of the United States and, in that sense, were solvable by our own actions – and, in fact, they have largely been solved.

    In contrast greenhouse gases and whatever impact they have is a global issue. They are fungible commodities. It does not matter where they originate. This is not the early 1950s when the U.S. had more than half the industrial production of the entire world. It is not even the early 1990s, when the U.S. had a bit more than 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Today, the U.S. has less than 15% of global emissions and is on a steady decline. If you actually read the reports climate alarmists rely upon you realize (1) any change in emissions trends will have impact only late in this century – whatever will happen the next 30-40 years is already baked in – and, (2) because of the continuing decline of U.S. emissions whatever we do will have virtually no impact in any event. 

    The Green New Deal is simply an excuse to move to a completely government controlled economy.

    But don’t worry, they’ll have the best people on that job!

    • #25
    • February 9, 2019, at 8:00 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
  26. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    A concise summary of my comments above on the merits of the Green New Deal:

    • #26
    • February 9, 2019, at 8:05 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Unsk Member

    To pick up where Bruce left off, I am of the opinion that some of the biggest environmental criminals on the planet are these pseudo-environmental nut cases like Miss Occasion-Lopez and Al Gore who demand and have demanded over the last twenty years extreme restrictive measures here in highly regulated and environmentally respectful America which will only cause and have in the past caused huge amounts of industry to move to places like environmentally reckless and predatory nations like China which have totally befouled the planet over the last twenty years. For example, in those last twenty years, 66% of all new electrical generation on the planet has been in China, which has over the last ten years added more Coal fired toxin producing power generating plants (with very poor environmental controls) than America has ever built causing worldwide toxic effects.

    Yes, in essence these radically extreme measures proposed by these insane Democrats will in effect cause significantly more environmental damage when looking at the earth as a whole and will not help the environment at all.

    That said, there is growing evidence, including our current severe winter, that we are heading into a severe historic “solar minimum” where we will experience significantly lower temperatures with growing polar ice sheets over the next decade and maybe longer eviscerating the never scientifically supported “global warming” meme. This “global warming” meme has skewed the regulatory assault on energy and other production into concentrating regulatory efforts into restricting CO2, which really has never been proven to be a problem otherwise, and to lessen the focus on restricting real toxins which are the real problem. As a result, here in America and elsewhere in the Western World we are spending huge amounts of money fighting a contrived politically inspired fake problem that has decimated our industry and our industrial work force causing much poverty and ruining millions of lives. I can only hope that nut cases like AOL , Al Gore and their supporters are someday held to account for the massive amount of misery they have caused.

    • #27
    • February 9, 2019, at 8:09 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  28. Randy Webster Member

    Eridemus (View Comment):
    Just wondering how many years before we would “break even” (in case nobody else in the world cooperates and the whole thing doesn’t affect the earth in its stubborn intent).

    Never.

    • #28
    • February 9, 2019, at 8:15 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  29. Randy Webster Member

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    In the 1930s, during the depression, this country was able to build Hoover dam in less than five years, and the Empire State building in just over a year.

    The Pentagon, 6,500,000 sf, took a little over a year to build.

    • #29
    • February 9, 2019, at 8:18 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  30. Stad Thatcher

    DonG (View Comment):
    However, they Dems can never take back the fact that they endorsed a plan to eliminate the automobile industry.

    And the airline industry, which will put one hulluva dent in the tourist industry too.

    • #30
    • February 9, 2019, at 8:43 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3