Be advised this will be a longer than normal post. Much of the confusion is the result of self inflicted wounds by the AOC staff with sloppy FAQ work. The opponents of GND have picked the ball handed them by the GND authors, run some wild and claims about it.
What is pending before Congress is a nonbinding resolution outlining the goals of the authors. Legislation to implement the GND goals will be required and no bills have been introduced.
We can first dispose of some of the more amusing outrageous claims mad by GND opponents. 2030 will come and there will still be planes, internal combustion engine cars, cows, oil, gas, and the military. As noted above the sloppy FAQ work of the AOC staff helped provide this fodder.
I'm ignoring the social goals of GND and focusing on the climate goals. The climate goals envision a net-zero GHG economy by 2030. Net-zero does not mean no GHG. It means a calculation of GHG releases minus those emissions that are removed or captured resulting in no net addition to the atmosphere. The chances of this happening are very slim. The U.N. panel of experts report last fall contemplated 2050 as achievable for net-zero emissions.
Electricity Goals: 100% zero emission energy by 2030. There are no details on how to get there. Again, sloppy FAQ by the AOC staff leads to confusion. The pending resolution does not mention nuclear energy or carbon capture but its supporters appear to reject both as part of reaching the goal. There is no mention of cost and funding in the resolution. Cost estimates are hard to pin down but will run into the $trillions.
Transportation: This sector now produces more GHG than the electricity sector. The resolution says reductions would be required as much as is technologically feasible. It mentions zero emission vehicles and manufacturing, public transit, and high speed rail. If zero emission vehicles are the preferred option, battery technology would need a great leap forward. Testing of all electric vehicles by agencies such as Consumer Reports should give pause to promoting them outside of urban corridors. Where I live testing indicates a 200 mile range declines by 30-40% in winter, to say nothing of the required driving distances. A plug in infrastructure that would stop a rural driver for a recharge every 130-200 miles does not pass a laugh test where I live. Same with high speed rail which is not profitable even in urban corridors. The internal combustion engine can very likely be gone by 2050. Not so for 2030. Again, sloppy FAQ work by AOC staff muddies discussion here.
.
Agriculture: The resolution calls for working with this sector to remove GHG to the extent technologically feasible. It mentions supporting family farms, sustainable land use, and increased soil health. Again sloppy FAQ work leads to confusion. Cows and ice cream will still be with us.
Energy Efficiency goals for buildings can be met in a relatively short time, with little or no net cost. Little is said of how to get to net-zero by 2030. Changes in building codes and incentives for max energy efficiency can get to them net-zero by 2050. It is not possible by 2030.
GND could be a base point for an aggressive goal of net-zero GHG. A massive increase in government control of the economy is not necessary with priority investments in technology and incentives/rewards. A coherent conversation is needed that includes input from the entire country that would hopefully make the east coast authors of GND aware of how the rest of the country works and can work to achieve net-zero GHG. My two cents.
What is pending before Congress is a nonbinding resolution outlining the goals of the authors. Legislation to implement the GND goals will be required and no bills have been introduced.
We can first dispose of some of the more amusing outrageous claims mad by GND opponents. 2030 will come and there will still be planes, internal combustion engine cars, cows, oil, gas, and the military. As noted above the sloppy FAQ work of the AOC staff helped provide this fodder.
I'm ignoring the social goals of GND and focusing on the climate goals. The climate goals envision a net-zero GHG economy by 2030. Net-zero does not mean no GHG. It means a calculation of GHG releases minus those emissions that are removed or captured resulting in no net addition to the atmosphere. The chances of this happening are very slim. The U.N. panel of experts report last fall contemplated 2050 as achievable for net-zero emissions.
Electricity Goals: 100% zero emission energy by 2030. There are no details on how to get there. Again, sloppy FAQ by the AOC staff leads to confusion. The pending resolution does not mention nuclear energy or carbon capture but its supporters appear to reject both as part of reaching the goal. There is no mention of cost and funding in the resolution. Cost estimates are hard to pin down but will run into the $trillions.
Transportation: This sector now produces more GHG than the electricity sector. The resolution says reductions would be required as much as is technologically feasible. It mentions zero emission vehicles and manufacturing, public transit, and high speed rail. If zero emission vehicles are the preferred option, battery technology would need a great leap forward. Testing of all electric vehicles by agencies such as Consumer Reports should give pause to promoting them outside of urban corridors. Where I live testing indicates a 200 mile range declines by 30-40% in winter, to say nothing of the required driving distances. A plug in infrastructure that would stop a rural driver for a recharge every 130-200 miles does not pass a laugh test where I live. Same with high speed rail which is not profitable even in urban corridors. The internal combustion engine can very likely be gone by 2050. Not so for 2030. Again, sloppy FAQ work by AOC staff muddies discussion here.
.
Agriculture: The resolution calls for working with this sector to remove GHG to the extent technologically feasible. It mentions supporting family farms, sustainable land use, and increased soil health. Again sloppy FAQ work leads to confusion. Cows and ice cream will still be with us.
Energy Efficiency goals for buildings can be met in a relatively short time, with little or no net cost. Little is said of how to get to net-zero by 2030. Changes in building codes and incentives for max energy efficiency can get to them net-zero by 2050. It is not possible by 2030.
GND could be a base point for an aggressive goal of net-zero GHG. A massive increase in government control of the economy is not necessary with priority investments in technology and incentives/rewards. A coherent conversation is needed that includes input from the entire country that would hopefully make the east coast authors of GND aware of how the rest of the country works and can work to achieve net-zero GHG. My two cents.
