Posted on 06/08/2019 6:37:09 AM PDT by Libloather
Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that any plan to sufficiently address the climate crisis will need to cost at least $10 trillion.
I think we really need to get to $10 trillion to have a shot, the progressive firebrand said in response to a question from The Hill in the Capitol.
I know its a ton," she added. "I dont think anyone wants to spend that amount of money, its not a fun number to say, Im not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but ... its just the fact of the scenario.
**SNIP**
I think the entire field of climate plans still needs to be pushed, she said. I think it just needs to be pushed in terms of the scientific scale, that is scientifically supported in what we need to solve this problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Does she just make up numbers or pull them out of the air? It’ this like tip money from pole dancing? Did she really graduate from grammar school?
Lol. Scientific sale! Gotcha
I have been telling folks to think 90 after I learned Clint producd amovie at 86.
Yesterday I learned that Clint at 90 or so is prodicing a new movie.
I am thinking about revising the admonition to think 95 : )
First off, she would have to prove to me that there really is a solvable anthropogenic climate problem. That would be the tough one as I don’t think it can be proven. Secondly, if that first problem WAS proven(unlikely)she would need to be able to show & guarantee exactly how the $10 trillion would be spent & how it would solve the problem(if there were one). Until she can do that, I see no point in listening to her on the subject.
All Out Crazy
The optimal CO2 concentration for all living plants and crops today is between 800 and 1400 ppm, depending on species. Why is it that a glacially slow increase from 390 to 410ppm is disastrous to the planet, if it gets closer to the best growth and photosynthesis rates for plant life?
Speaking of glaciers, the Earth had an Ice Age just 10,000 years ago. How does political control over the scheduling of Ice Ages help the earth? When will you allow the next Ice Age? What are the negative impacts on earth for delaying the next Ice Age?
What is the world's average temperature supposed to be for each of the next 50 years, and what will you do if your control over global manufacturing and industry and farming and transportation doesn't match those numbers exactly?
Why is it that plant and animal life on earth thrived in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentrations were over 7000ppm?
If global average temperatures differing by just 2 degrees makes such an impact, how do you explain the absence of negative effects when we have a few consecutive warm or cool years over the last century?
Why has there been no increase in water levels in the canal city of Venice, Italy, where residential doors are within an inch of water levels in many cases?
Without internal combustion engines, how will the state of Hawaii be impacted? How will international shipping and travel be done? What will be the effects on global trade? How will Nancy Pelosi travel between her home district and Washington DC?
We look forward to your replies.
Her website states that she earned degrees in Economics and International Relations.
Even with a minor, the federal debt statement shows she didn't learn anything about macro economics. Even a student who took a survey class should know better.
Its not popular, its not politically popular.”
_________________________
But climate change IS politically popular, if only among a limited enthusiastic group. Yet, all the things Democrats stand for — extreme abortion, homosexuality and beyond, reparations, Socialism — are also only popular among limited enthusiastic groups.
Openly homosexual Mayor Pete, like openly Socialist Bernie Sanders, will never attract enough votes from the general public to become President — but neither, most likely, will 100% of the other 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls unless Sleepy Joe Biden, stuck at 35% support, miraculously changes comic-book-style into a political Superman.
So AOC, despite her many mental lapses, has at least had the sense to make herself a prominent voice of her party by stepping in to fill the Democratic vacuum of Leader of the Climate-Change Enthusiasts — a major Democratic faction which no other prominent Democrat has yet been willing to passionately speak out for week after week.
It is funny how they come up with a price tag. Would we be able to start an ice age if we spent $20 trillion?
Environmentalists do not have a clue but politicians are wise to join the trend because it leads to $$ and power.
How much of the 10T will go to Dem donors? For the eart of course.
Twelve years, beginning in 2019, would end in 2031. But thanks for playing.
If the planet is warming we should be able to save money. Less clothes. Less heating requirements. Longer growing seasons mean cheaper food. It takes a special kind of dingbat to turn a profit scenario into a 10 trillion dollar loss scenario.
Her claim — the 12 year figure — came from a group of scientists who wrote a report for the UN. That was October 2018.
Thus, 12 years from 2018 would be 2030.
only 11.58 years left before we all die from climate change?
we better fire up those money-printing presses to Warp speed ASAP!
Her claim - which came from her mouth - happened on January 22, 2019. Was she a year off? Could explain a lot. Looks like you’ll be exiting the Milky Way before I plan to.
Ocasio-Cortez: ‘World will end in 12 years’ if climate change not addressed - January 22, 2019
That's about the best AOC description I've seen. Thanks.
Ten trillion is a staggering sum of money that she can not even fathom.
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.