Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Will Be The Leading Democrat On Climate Change

[oberliner]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning primary victory over powerful U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley in the working-class New York district stretching from the Bronx to Queens is likely to propel her avowedly left-wing platform into the Democratic mainstream as the 2018 midterm elections heat up.

But her detailed proposals to deal with climate change could prove among the most influential at a time when the Democrats have failed to rally around any policy that could feasibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically enough to make a difference.

Ocasio-Cortez outlined plans to transition the United States to a 100 percent renewable energy system by 2035. It’s a goal hailed by environmentalists as the last best hope of staving off the most catastrophic effects of human-caused planetary warming, and it’s one already adopted by a coalition of mayors representing 42 percent of U.S. electricity use and representing major cities such as Atlanta and St. Louis.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ocasio-cortez-climate-change_us_5b3307a5e4b0b5e692f25e18?guccounter=1

[joshcryer]

1. This is an extraoridinarily unrealistic proposal.

I laud sustainable and renewable energy but this is just not possible in 17 years. It is industrially not possible without new technologies being invented. The rare earth metals production alone for the wind necessary to do this simply doesn't exist nor can it exist without new an exotic technologies. Solar, can, in theory, expand that quickly with a mega solar factory being built, but deploying those solar panels is simply impossible in that period of time. You need about 10 billion homes with solar panels on their roofs (assuming a 3,000 sq foot average roof). That doesn't exist. You need large open areas to deploy them (which requires planning, environmental impact reports, dust mitigation as you install, etc, etc).

[KPN]

2. "Unrealistic". That's what many said about

Kennedy’s proposal to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s too.

Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon in July 1969.

While the 100% goal by 2035 may actually be unrealistic, we won’t get anywhere near there without trying. Our goals should be lofty.

[joshcryer]

3. I've argued for big projects like this for two decades.

I know what is and isn't possible from a technical standpoint.

The current roadmap and policies for achieving this that have been advocated by US energy organizations do not in any way meet the realistic real world constraints to having the end result in this time frame.

You can read the recommended policy moves here: https://www.energy.gov/policy/initiatives/quadrennial-energy-review-qer/quadrennial-energy-review-second-installment

[WhiteTara]

6. And all this has never been more urgent.

If it gets people going in the right direction, the right people will begin to steer the effort.

[hatrack]

5. The moon shot was an expansion on existing technology, and (relatively) limited in scope

This is a fundamental reinvention of how we power, build, light, move, record, grow and distribute everything.

It's not that's she's wrong about the urgency of the problem - far from it. Nor am I arguing for inaction, since we might have time to blunt the very worst of the impacts if we get off our collective ass now.

It's that (A) there are going to be issues we didn't think of that suddenly rear their ugly heads, and (B) that we're going to be trying to do this on an increasingly destabilized planet, with crop failures and fishery collapses and failed states and mass movements of refugees demanding steadily more of our time and attention . . . making life ever-easier for Shitstain, Orban, Putin and their spiritual successors.

[brooklynite]

7. Kennedy had the bully pulpit and clout of a President...

Ocasio-Cortes seems to have the ability to piss off Democratic office-holders she'll need for support.

[Nanjeanne]

4. I'm excited by big ideas and bold plans. And excitement is key to encouraging voters.