Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel

First topic message reminder :

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) today introduced a House resolution outlining her long-awaited Green New Deal. The resolution, as Reason's Ron Bailey reported earlier today, cites climate change concerns as justification for a plan that would remake the U.S. economy over the next 10 years.

The resolution's aims include "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." According to an overview of the resolution, this will be accomplished, in part, by "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

In other words, the Green New Deal wants to make commercial air travel obsolete. Is this in any way feasible? The short answer is no. "It's actually probably even dumber than it seems," says Baruch Feigenbaum, assistant director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.

Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives at Americans for Tax Reform, was even blunter. "The Green New Deal reads like word vomit from a 13-year-old child asked to scribble out their bold new thoughts for a radically different America than we have today," Blair said in a email to Reason. "This includes the phasing out of American air travel."

In fact, there are more than 5,000 public airports in the U.S. It's hard to imagine the planning and money that would go into connecting even half of them with high-speed rail lines, or serving the hundreds of millions of people who fly in the U.S. each year. "To suggest that it's even remotely possible to transition our transportation system in this way, to handle not only the capacity of air travel but get near its efficiency is a pipe dream," says Blair.

Considering that California officials have proven themselves incompetent when it comes to constructing a high-speed line through that state, a similar project on a much larger scale would probably be disastrous. The California rail is "a waste of money" that's "ruining farms and highways, and will never work," Blair explains.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal


This poor girl is so hurt, that Pelosi laughed her off today.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm talking about actually doing something. I won't address your deceptions that you like to pull.  

No you're not.  You are trying to equate volunteerism to social programs put on by government, and say that the former could replace the latter.

Let's go back to what I said:  "It's a deception.  It's called appearing to be what one is not.  One is, in effect, lying."  To wit: there is no such thing charitable giving in any on-going fashion.  It's a ruse.  Volunteerism is a lie because it has neither the breath, depth, nor the longevity to replace governmental social programs.  It's too little, too late.

The same people who suggest that voluntarism could work, are the people who are trying to suppress minimum wages, lower income for the middle class, and withhold healthcare from the masses.  All of their instincts are geared toward denial.

And you think they are prone to charity?  Dream on...

Yeah, I'm talking about your deceptions.  Sorry.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No you're not.  You are trying to equate volunteerism to social programs put on by government, and say that the former could replace the latter.

Let's go back to what I said:  "It's a deception.  It's called appearing to be what one is not.  One is, in effect, lying."  To wit: there is no such thing charitable giving in any on-going fashion.  It's a ruse.  Volunteerism is a lie because it has neither the breath, depth, nor the longevity to replace governmental social programs.  It's too little, too late.

The same people who suggest that voluntarism could work, are the people who are trying to suppress minimum wages, lower income for the middle class, and withhold healthcare from the masses.  All of their instincts are geared toward denial.

And you think they are prone to charity?  Dream on...

Yeah, I'm talking about your deceptions.  Sorry.

What you are really talking about is refusing to face the issue.  You are dodging it by your invention of a category called "actually doing something".  The problem is, nobody is "actually doing something" in volunteerism.  Volunteerism is sporadic at best.  It is either massively underdone, or non-sustaining.

If volunteerism was so capable, we would have a military funded by contributions.  The entire US government could be supported by the Red Cross.  Your ideas are silly and impractical.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Yeah, I'm talking about your deceptions.  Sorry.

What you are really talking about is refusing to face the issue.  You are dodging it by your invention of a category called "actually doing something".  The problem is, nobody is "actually doing something" in volunteerism.  Volunteerism is sporadic at best.  It is either massively underdone, or non-sustaining.

If volunteerism was so capable, we would have a military funded by contributions.  The entire US government could be supported by the Red Cross.  Your ideas are silly and impractical.

I'm dodging nothing.

In any event, how much more than you owe, are you sending in to the government this year?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What you are really talking about is refusing to face the issue.  You are dodging it by your invention of a category called "actually doing something".  The problem is, nobody is "actually doing something" in volunteerism.  Volunteerism is sporadic at best.  It is either massively underdone, or non-sustaining.

If volunteerism was so capable, we would have a military funded by contributions.  The entire US government could be supported by the Red Cross.  Your ideas are silly and impractical.

I'm dodging nothing.

In any event, how much more than you owe, are you sending in to the government this year?

I'm quite pleased to pay what I owe. I have a CPA and she keeps track of my business and my personal finances.

I'm quite comfortable. Hoarding is a mental obsession.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm dodging nothing.

In any event, how much more than you owe, are you sending in to the government this year?

I'm quite pleased to pay what I owe.  I have a CPA and she keeps track of my business and my personal finances.

I'm quite comfortable.  Hoarding is a mental obsession.

Why dont you pay extra?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm quite pleased to pay what I owe.  I have a CPA and she keeps track of my business and my personal finances.

I'm quite comfortable.  Hoarding is a mental obsession.

Why dont you pay extra?

No need.  The US is the richest country in the world...ever.  Times have reached the point where the issue is what to spend it's resources on, rather than how much the nation can amass.

First on the priority list is healthcare. If we can run around the world starting frivolous wars, then surely we can afford a healthcare establishment that will care for every single citizen as a matter of right.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Why dont you pay extra?

No need.  The US is the richest country in the world...ever.  Times have reached the point where the issue is what to spend it's resources on, rather than how much the nation can amass.

If there is no need, why do some people want to raise taxes?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No need.  The US is the richest country in the world...ever.  Times have reached the point where the issue is what to spend it's resources on, rather than how much the nation can amass.

If there is no need, why do some people want to raise taxes?

The one thing that a responsible nation does is make sure that there is a source of funds for every program that costs money.  Taxes go up and down, but fiscal responsibility remains the same.

The same reasoning should apply to tax reductions.  Yet, we have just had massive tax cuts for corporations, which have resulted in buy-backs enriching the wealthiest individuals of the nation, with no attention paid to where the money comes from.  Whence, then, do the resources come?  Right, it goes right into the debt column... Republicans being fiscally irresponsible.

The debt burden, then, must be assumed by the middle class and poor. So, what Republicans are doing is shifting their luxury over and onto the middle class and poor. This has the effect of packing more and more wealth into the top 1%...furthering the income and wealth gap between the wealthy and the middle/lower groups.

It seems nonsensical, but we need a tax rise to pay for the tax cuts.  Ridiculous?  Yep, that's Republicans for you.