The term "de carbonize" is propaganda.
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 country’s 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 B–24 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 ...
>>A similar mobilization will be necessary for the US to decarbonize its economy fast enough to avert the worst of climate change.
It won’t offset the pollution from China.
How much did the ChiComs pay for this puff piece of propaganda?
PLASTICS!
You don’t have to drive the economy, it will find it’s own way, with you, or against you.
Ground all air travel for starters.
That’ll go over like a lead zeppelin
You could always put a mast and a sail in the bed.
/pirates of the Appalachians
;) arrh
FDR needed WWII to end the Great Depression. After NINE years of massive federal spending, unemployment was still at 1932 levels.
Another angle on “socialism is the answer”.
To correct institutional racism, we need socialism.
To correct income inequality, we need socialism.
To correct global pandemics, we need socialism.
To correct over-incarceration, we need socialism.
To correct expensive education, housing, etc, we need socialism.
All these groups are coming together in a global call for socialism....The Great Reset....where western economies would all be reorganized under a single socialist system for the “greater good”.
If you doubt me, look up “The Great Reset”
Let's tweak that a little - if we could bomb most of China, then there would be little "incoming" while the rest of the world would clamor for our goods.
Well... I'm not really suggesting we bomb anybody for economic advantage. But to further illustrate how ridiculous the author's argument is, and respond to your post, I'll add:
1) China is roughly 28% of global mfg. output. Other countries would rush to fill in the gap* - I estimate that in one year we would be left with at most 25% of the advantage we had after WW2.**
*In many cases with more carbon emissions than ours.
2) Most analysts believe China "going down" hard would result in a worldwide contraction. (Remember that many other countries trade heavily with China without such heavy trade imbalances as the US / China relationship.)
**3) I also include in this figure that in your scenario the rest of the world outside China does NOT need to rebuild. Some demand would be generated by ramping up to replace China, but that is countered by reduced demand from China itself. (Again, see point #2.)
4) All this has to be sustained - for 30 years or so? While we not only continue at a disadvantage vs. many other countries, we make it even worse. (Shooting ourself in the foot with the "38" becomes blowing our feet off w/ a 12 ga. shotgun.)
The whole thing is insane - I was "illustrating absurdity by being absurd".
I would like to see a steel mill run on wind power and solar power.
Oh...you can make everything from plants...
;]
The term "de carbonize" is propaganda.
Why we need really high import tariff and the USA would be self sufficient very quickly - again.
Climate crisis is is coming back into propaganda vogue? I guess the Corona Hoax is losing steam.
Why are there idiots looking for problems, issues and solution where none are needed or wanted?
I see the inmates have taken over the asylum.
I see the inmates have taken over the asylum.
And speaking of which, they are preparing for global cooling.
Idiocy. We’ll have a war WAY before 2035, and this eco-idiocy will be the LEAST of our concerns after that.
The man is another example of someone not knowing history. Westinghouse & Tesla beat Edison in the Electric War. That laid the foundation for modern society.
That was a gift to mankind that still serves us today. That won’t change for the foreseeable future. Alternative energy can’t supply the grid 24/7 like base load power plants.
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.