Mike Shellenberger is president of Environmental Progress, which fights for “clean power and energy justice to achieve nature and prosperity for all.” He kind of lost us there at “energy justice,” but one thing he knows is this: a Green New Deal without nuclear is a non-starter.
Back in February, Shellenberger wrote in Forbes that the Green New Deal excluded nuclear and would, therefore, increase carbon emissions, as happened in Vermont. The Green New Deal has since been amended, but if Vermont is the model for clean energy, they’re doing it wrong.
They hyped Vermont as climate model. It
– pledged to cut emissions by 50%
– invested heavily in wind, solar, efficiency
– shut down its nuclear plant
– increased emissions 2x more than US as whole
– needs 474 years to replace lost nuclear with wind https://t.co/3b5pO8UcIK— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) April 2, 2019
The GND doesn't call for the phasing out of nuclear anymore. They deleted that language from the resolution. https://t.co/TRATOXFDKd
— Michael Fiorelli (@mfiorelli5) April 2, 2019
indeed… baby steps
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) April 2, 2019
The article was published the day the GND was released when @AOC explicitly trashed nuclear
I will happily praise GND when it helps nuclear which it currently doesn't
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) April 2, 2019
It’s nice that freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has changed her mind and decided to allow Americans to have some electricity.
The simple truth is you can’t trust anything the GND evangelists say because they will say anything to garner support of the dumbed down populace. The original, most extreme version of the plan IS their ultimate goal. It will never include any form of nuclear.
— Colorado Patriot ?? (@redco2012) April 2, 2019
Recommended
Well said; the most extreme version of the plan is their ultimate goal. And there’s so much in the Green New Deal that doesn’t have anything to do with climate change but keeps the other Democratic Socialists on board.
Vermont is home to Ocasio-Cortez allies, and Green New Deal advocates, Senator Bernie Sanders and climate activist Bill McKibben. Both insist the world can be powered on renewables alone. But consider what’s actually happened in their own state.
In 2005, Vermont legislators promised to reduce emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2028, through the use of renewables and energy efficiency only.
What’s happened since? Vermont’s emissions rose 16.3%. That’s more than twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.
When you account for the U.S.’s far faster growth in population, Vermont’s per capita emissions rose 5% while U.S. per capita emissions declined by 17%.
That’s … not surprising.
Can you still give a "yikes" if you're not even remotely surprised at an event?
— Shaun3h (@Shaun3h) April 2, 2019
A roaring socialist success story.
— Gerald Pelchat (@pelchat_gerald) April 2, 2019
1) Wind & solar drive up cost of power.
2) Vermont burns a lot of wood (for both heat and power). They call it "green biofuel." When actually it's worse than coal.
3) Vermont is an economic death zone.
4) Vermont gets 15% power from Seabrook Nuclear Station, New Hampshire.— paul kramarchyk (@paul_kramarchyk) April 2, 2019
Yeah, and they now rely on Quebec and Ontario for their peaks.
They have to import energy from a foreign country because they shot down their power plants! Bravo!
We'll hope for them Trump will not threaten to close the north borders…— ??? (@alainduchesneau) April 2, 2019
I’m always wondering, why leftists always shouting about “new energy” but eliminate the nuclear power plants which are currently the only possible replacements to oil and coil?
— cobralion (@cobralion2) April 2, 2019
Yep, there is no clean future without nuclear. Math don't lie.
— G Pittelli (@PittelliGabriel) April 2, 2019
And this pastoral state that banned billboards to protect its once beautiful vista is now littered with solar arrays in almost every pasture. pic.twitter.com/vN8SigG5eF
— Dan Ferraris (@dan_ferraris) April 2, 2019
What's the use? We're here only 12 years
— The Deacon (@DaveKodi1812) April 2, 2019
Why do 'progressives' & 'greens' keep shutting down nukes? The NDP (far left) party here in Ontario ran on a campaign where they were going to shut down one of our nukes… Replace it with more wind. Which we already have arces of…
— Mike ???? (@34_91_16) April 2, 2019
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) April 2, 2019
There’s the hot truth: “The problem with nuclear energy is that it doesn’t demand the radical re-making of society, like renewables do.” As the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein explained, “When I say Green New Deal would require a revolution, I don’t mean it in the loose sense (like Reagan Revolution) — I mean it more like the French Revolution or Russian Revolution — i.e., [it] would have to topple the existing structure of government.”
And just listen to all the noise lately about abolishing the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, and even the Senate. It’s coming from the Democratic candidates for president — who all tripped over each other racing to co-sponsor the Green New Deal.
So when she said we had 12 years left
It never occurred to me that she wanted to speed up the clock— Enough Already (@loochc1) April 2, 2019
It makes sense though
Think of the carbon footprint associated with rebuilding every home and building— Enough Already (@loochc1) April 2, 2019
And we’re going to build a nationwide network of high-speed trains to render air travel unnecessary, and we’re going to build it with … windmills?
Related:
Senate Democrats who refused to vote for Green New Deal proudly launch Climate Crisis committee https://t.co/UFwfXjg73D
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 27, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member