Posted on 08/10/2020 9:50:04 PM PDT by rktman
In the runup to World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt enlisted the entire US economy in an effort to scale up production of war material. All of the countrys resources were bent to the task. In 1939, the US had 1,700 aircraft; in 1945, it had 300,000 military aircraft and 18,500 B24 bombers.
By the time the war was won, the economy was up and humming with a massively expanded workforce (drawing in women and African Americans) and turbocharged productive capacity. Investments made during the war mobilization yielded a robust middle class and decades of sustained, broadly shared prosperity.
A similar mobilization will be necessary for the US to decarbonize its economy fast enough to avert the worst of climate change. To do its part in limiting global temperature rise to between 1.5° and 2° Celsius, the US must reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest. To achieve this, the full resources of the US economy must be bent toward manufacturing the needed clean-energy technology and infrastructure.
FDR began with two questions. First, he asked not what was politically feasible but what was necessary to win the war. He also asked not how much funding was available in the federal budget but how much productive capacity was available in the economy what was possible.
Saul Griffith is trying to answer those same questions on climate change: what is necessary, given the trajectory of global warming, and what is possible, given the resources in the US economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
Awesome...any advice on how to catch bone cancer?
Drink more oil? Use more talcum powder? Stand near 5G towers?
Misleading, they neglect to add that the U.S.A. was largely untouched by war, while other nations were devastated by war and our productivity rebuilt other nations and supplied products worldwide. Other countries were crippled while we were productive. FDR got way too much credit for our postwar growth, while he was largely to blame for prolonging the depression.
Liberals Teslas cant move one inch without petroleum. What do they think tires are made of? There are thousands of essential products made from petroleum-derived hydrocarbons. So-called fossil fuels are essential to everyday life, even if we never used another drop as fuel. So, libs can never get rid of them, but what the fools can do is make all of the petroleum-derived products we use (plastic, anyone?) vastly more expensive.
Vox will tell us how to make China #1, in addition to being #1 polluter and CO2 emitter. Start with releasing a deadly virus.
The author needs 30 days on a farm, and then another month in a big rig.
The climageddonists are clueless assclowns. Imbeciles would be too kind a term for them. As they lecture us in their synthetic outerwear.
Boil all the pretty pink unicorns and use their grease as fuel.
Then 30 days in a nut house. Obviously insane. But, vox.com
Isn’t that called ‘rendering’?
Sorry, no. Out to lunch and ignorant as a post.
Ain’t skeered of globull warming.
These people could be level headed but are so full of BS it is running out of both ears.
Metallurgical Solar power will produce Steel?
My teenager Diesel cars will be fueled by windmills? [How does THAT work?]
Sounds like typical ‘Rat Utopian BS.
...given the trajectory of global warming...
Like H E double hockey sticks.
A physicist, engineer, researcher, inventor, serial entrepreneur, and MacArthur genius grant winner, Griffiths recent work ....
Well, we finally found out who eventually invents the Mr. Fusion personal power generator.
No thanks, we’ll take the climate change.
It’s really about crashing our economy. They want as many people as possible to be poor and angry.
Easier to control that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.