Saturday, February 09
We're Going To Need A Bigger Envelope
I've been doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the real-world impact of the Green New Deal, based on existing projects like the California and Texas high-speed rail lines, and the cost escalation involved in running a multitude of such megaprojects simultaneously and on impossible deadlines.
First, if we take the published GND outline literally, the cost would run to around $375T per year, about four times the Gross World Product.
Second, during the execution of the 10 Year Plan, industrial and transport activity would be multiplied by roughly a factor of six - and so of course would greenhouse emissions. Replacing air transport with high speed rail, for example, would take 500 years to show a net reduction in CO2 emissions.
I've been doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the real-world impact of the Green New Deal, based on existing projects like the California and Texas high-speed rail lines, and the cost escalation involved in running a multitude of such megaprojects simultaneously and on impossible deadlines.
First, if we take the published GND outline literally, the cost would run to around $375T per year, about four times the Gross World Product.
Second, during the execution of the 10 Year Plan, industrial and transport activity would be multiplied by roughly a factor of six - and so of course would greenhouse emissions. Replacing air transport with high speed rail, for example, would take 500 years to show a net reduction in CO2 emissions.
Third... I'm not sure if there even is a third. This is insane.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:02 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Wow. There is literally not enough money in the world to finance that dreck.
Posted by: Ed Hering at Sunday, February 10 2019 11:13 AM (/cXdK)
2
You can tell that no-one involved in this has ever done a cost analysis in their life. And they've never even heard of second-order effects.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, February 10 2019 12:39 PM (PiXy!)
3
Pixy You've omitted a major piece of the equation.
In fairness they were omitted from their FAQ.
These are socialists.
In order to bring high speed rail to everyone, they just have to upgrade the Acela slightly and kill everyone who doesn't live near it. Fewer people need less power so paving everything south of the Mason Dixon line with solar panels will power the Acela corridor nicely.
In fairness they were omitted from their FAQ.
These are socialists.
In order to bring high speed rail to everyone, they just have to upgrade the Acela slightly and kill everyone who doesn't live near it. Fewer people need less power so paving everything south of the Mason Dixon line with solar panels will power the Acela corridor nicely.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sunday, February 10 2019 01:32 PM (gxCG3)
4
Yep. I said on Twitter:
When you do the arithmetic, it turns out that diverting the resources necessary to replace all air travel in the continental United States with high speed rail in the space of ten years would kill everyone on the planet.
On the other hand, zero emissions achieved.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, February 10 2019 04:12 PM (PiXy!)
5
Which conveniently takes care of the objections from the dopey Senator from Hawaii.
Posted by: Rick C at Monday, February 11 2019 08:01 AM (Iwkd4)
50kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.4071 seconds.
58 queries taking 0.3984 seconds, 344 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
58 queries taking 0.3984 seconds, 344 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
