If the “Green Deal” is passed, Aviation in the US is toast!

Imagine life without aviation in the US in 12 years.

Going to be tough for Americans in Alaska and Hawaii without aviation for sure. But I think TATL and TPAC will be left.

I think you need to add some more information to your OP to get a discussion going. I, for one, have no idea what green deal you are talking about.

I posted a thread a couple hours ago with a link to the entire document. It was removed with no explanation.

https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files ... ewdeal.pdf

I'm pretty sure a thread on this topic was already started, but I can't seem to find it now. Mods, was it deleted?

I’m not a huge fan of hers but that’s some stupid crap. US Aviation isn’t going anywhere and neither is her green deal frankly.

Ocasio-Cortez is just straight up crazytown.

Link to Bill: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

Link to NPR Quick Sheet on the new Bill: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

Of Interest is this idiotic statement:

"Make airlines unnecessary"...
"Rebuild and modernize every building"
"Make every job a union job, even for those that cannot work or will not work"
Over 60 Democrats co-signed this, wow.

This is what happens when the populace gets lazy and votes for free stuff no one could ever possibly pay for.

Creeping closer and closer to socialism. Yikes.

Is this going to result in some wide-sweeping legislation that rebuilds the country and rids us of all fossil fuel-consuming machines? Hell no. Anyone who thinks this has any chance of happening any time soon is delusional.

Is it a good thing to acknowledge the reality of climate change and set a direction we can take to do more to combat it? You bet. Just because some of the ideas in this proposal are costly and/or impractical doesn't mean it's entirely worthless. Gonna be hard to have aviation in many coastal areas if they're underwater.

Major leaps in US history— abolishing first slavery then segregation, voting for women, social security and the new deal, moon landing— are made when people have audacious goals. It’s not about enacting everything in here, it’s about changing the yard line where the game is being played- including for the airlines.

jetblastdubai wrote:

I posted a thread a couple hours ago with a link to the entire document. It was removed with no explanation.

https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files ... ewdeal.pdf

Likely because it went off topic, like every hot-button issue that gets discussed here. I expect the same to happen in this thread as well.

Was AOC scared by a mean ol' airplane as a child?

But if they get rid of private jets then how will Al Gore get to his Global Warming summits?

We'll see how long it takes before this gets moved to non-av where it belongs, but a couple points. First off, all new legislation is ambitious, it's through the legislative process that it gets watered down. Secondly, this bill isn't even going to be brought for a vote in the House, let alone have any chances of passing the Senate and being signed into law.
To suggest that we're 12 years from the end of US Aviation simply because a resolution was introduced is absurd.

Please forgive Occasional Cortex, she finally had to make her first rent payment and went a little 5150.

It literally says that they're not getting rid of airplanes.

ncflyer wrote:

Major leaps in US history— abolishing first slavery then segregation, voting for women, social security and the new deal, moon landing— are made when people have audacious goals. It’s not about enacting everything in here, it’s about changing the yard line where the game is being played- including for the airlines.

Major leaps backwards. This would turn the US into Venezuela not bring about any needed or wanted progress. It's litteraly regressive thought.

max550 wrote:

We'll see how long it takes before this gets moved to non-av where it belongs, but a couple points. First off, all new legislation is ambitious, it's through the legislative process that it gets watered down. Secondly, this bill isn't even going to be brought for a vote in the House, let alone have any chances of passing the Senate and being signed into law.
To suggest that we're 12 years from the end of US Aviation simply because a resolution was introduced is absurd.

But according to Ocasio-Cortez if we don't do something now the World will end in 12-years:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address

UpNAWAy wrote:

ncflyer wrote:

Major leaps in US history— abolishing first slavery then segregation, voting for women, social security and the new deal, moon landing— are made when people have audacious goals. It’s not about enacting everything in here, it’s about changing the yard line where the game is being played- including for the airlines.

Major leaps backwards. This would turn the US into Venezuela not bring about any needed or wanted progress. It's litteraly regressive thought.

Are you saying abolishing slavery and female voting rights are major leaps backwards?

Fossil fuels are finite, there is no debate there. but if renewable were used for homes and cars (for commutes and delivery trucks) and such, it could extend the supply of fossil fuels by hundreds of years, allowing for aviation to continue, Believe it or not, the biggest polluter of climate change gasses is NOT the internal combustion engine...but the meat industry, yes..cow farts...methane is twice as bad a carbon monoxide. so instead of eating a bacon cheese burger everyday, try one or twice a week.

UpNAWAy wrote:

ncflyer wrote:

Major leaps in US history— abolishing first slavery then segregation, voting for women, social security and the new deal, moon landing— are made when people have audacious goals. It’s not about enacting everything in here, it’s about changing the yard line where the game is being played- including for the airlines.

Major leaps backwards. This would turn the US into Venezuela not bring about any needed or wanted progress. It's litteraly regressive thought.

It's a roadmap to get rid of capitalism and make everyone dependent on the Government. They're power hungry and can't get over themselves.

WeatherPilot wrote:

max550 wrote:

We'll see how long it takes before this gets moved to non-av where it belongs, but a couple points. First off, all new legislation is ambitious, it's through the legislative process that it gets watered down. Secondly, this bill isn't even going to be brought for a vote in the House, let alone have any chances of passing the Senate and being signed into law.
To suggest that we're 12 years from the end of US Aviation simply because a resolution was introduced is absurd.

But according to Ocasio-Cortez if we don't do something now the World will end in 12-years:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/426353-ocasio-cortez-the-world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address

She's one of 435 members of the house, we're always going to have some crazy ones on both sides of the aisle. I don't think this topic has anything to do with aviation.

She’s a complete moron if she thinks aviation is going bye bye

zkojq wrote:

It literally says that they're not getting rid of airplanes.

Don't let literacy and stating of facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation.

Sure some of the ideas are absolutely out there. But ultimately we have to begin caring for the earth a bit better than we have.... and start thinking sustainability instead of growth as the answer to everything. Hard decisions for sure. But let's not get too carried away demonizing young ideologist.

George Carlin once said.... Scratch under the surface of any cynic and you'll often find a disappointed ideologist.

The decade long push we've had towards fuel efficiency, greater seating density and higher load factors have all actually had a role in improving fossil fuel dependence. It's not all bad news! But we can do better, individually and collectively. Economics are driving lower fuel consumption per passenger mile in a variety of ways and that's a good thing.

Now about those one use straws and papercups :p

Delta28L wrote:

She’s a complete moron if she thinks aviation is going bye bye

Bing! Bing! Bing!. You win the Internets for today. Thank you for that 8th contribution of yours. Please, read the article and cool your hysteria. It literally says they are not getting rid of airplanes.

ODwyerPW wrote:

zkojq wrote:

It literally says that they're not getting rid of airplanes.

Don't let literacy and stating of facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation.

Sure some of the ideas are absolutely out there. But ultimately we have to begin caring for the earth a bit better than we have.... and start thinking sustainability instead of growth as the answer to everything. Hard decisions for sure. But let's not get too carried away demonizing young ideologist.

George Carlin once said.... Scratch under the surface of any cynic and you'll often find a disappointed ideologist.

The decade long push we've had towards fuel efficiency, greater seating density and higher load factors have all actually had a role in improving fossil fuel dependence. It's not all bad news! But we can do better, individually and collectively. Economics are driving lower fuel consumption per passenger mile in a variety of ways and that's a good thing.

Now about those one use straws and papercups :p

Suppose the United States went full green power everything, became this utopia of renewable energy and self-sustainability, what do you do about the rest of the World? You know, countries like China and India. It's their trash islands spinning out there in the ocean, their smog that floats across the Pacific and dumps acid rain on the PNW so they can make all the stuff for us so we can be 'Green' and feel better about ourselves. Keeping all our dirty laundry out of sight out of mind on a different continent while pretending we're saving the planet is hypocrisy at it's finest.

ODwyerPW wrote:

zkojq wrote:

It literally says that they're not getting rid of airplanes.

Don't let literacy and stating of facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation.

Sure some of the ideas are absolutely out there. But ultimately we have to begin caring for the earth a bit better than we have.... and start thinking sustainability instead of growth as the answer to everything. Hard decisions for sure. But let's not get too carried away demonizing young ideologist.

George Carlin once said.... Scratch under the surface of any cynic and you'll often find a disappointed ideologist.

The decade long push we've had towards fuel efficiency, greater seating density and higher load factors have all actually had a role in improving fossil fuel dependence. It's not all bad news! But we can do better, individually and collectively. Economics are driving lower fuel consumption per passenger mile in a variety of ways and that's a good thing.

Now about those one use straws and papercups :p

Indeed. After years and years of doing nothing, it's refreshing to see that reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is finally back on the agenda. It's been ignored at a national level for far too long - thanks in no small part to lobbyists for the relevant special interest groups. Noone is calling for an end to aviation or an end to farming, but it does make for a 'good' clickbaity headline.

Democrats; you're fired.

WeatherPilot wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

zkojq wrote:

It literally says that they're not getting rid of airplanes.

Don't let literacy and stating of facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation.

Sure some of the ideas are absolutely out there. But ultimately we have to begin caring for the earth a bit better than we have.... and start thinking sustainability instead of growth as the answer to everything. Hard decisions for sure. But let's not get too carried away demonizing young ideologist.

George Carlin once said.... Scratch under the surface of any cynic and you'll often find a disappointed ideologist.

The decade long push we've had towards fuel efficiency, greater seating density and higher load factors have all actually had a role in improving fossil fuel dependence. It's not all bad news! But we can do better, individually and collectively. Economics are driving lower fuel consumption per passenger mile in a variety of ways and that's a good thing.

Now about those one use straws and papercups :p

Suppose the United States went full green power everything, became this utopia of renewable energy and self-sustainability, what do you do about the rest of the World? You know, countries like China and India. It's their trash islands spinning out there in the ocean, their smog that floats across the Pacific and dumps acid rain on the PNW so they can make all the stuff for us so we can be 'Green' and feel better about ourselves. Keeping all our dirty laundry out of sight out of mind on a different continent while pretending we're saving the planet is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Well for one thing innovating in the US would show the rest of the world that it's possible to cut emissions and bring the price of such technology down. But back to the aviation topic at hand. In China you can travel from Shanghai to Beijing by train in as little as 4.5 hours; in the US it takes 19 hours to go the same distance, say NY-Chicago with far less frequency than is available in China. We can keep saying we should do nothing until the rest of the world does everything (when in reality they're making far more progress in a lot of areas than we are) or we can innovate on our own and hope the rest of the world follows, which they'll have to do if they want to stay competitive.

This bill is obviously extremely ambitious, but the point is to start a conversation and I don't think it's totally insane to suggest we could replace some of the high volume, relatively short airline routes with a less carbon intensive means of transportation.

nomorerjs wrote:

If the “Green Deal” is passed, Aviation in the US is toast!

Imagine life without aviation in the US in 12 years.

It literally goes out of it's way to specifically say in the document that commercial aviation won't go away.

WeatherPilot wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

zkojq wrote:

It literally says that they're not getting rid of airplanes.

Don't let literacy and stating of facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation.

Sure some of the ideas are absolutely out there. But ultimately we have to begin caring for the earth a bit better than we have.... and start thinking sustainability instead of growth as the answer to everything. Hard decisions for sure. But let's not get too carried away demonizing young ideologist.

George Carlin once said.... Scratch under the surface of any cynic and you'll often find a disappointed ideologist.

The decade long push we've had towards fuel efficiency, greater seating density and higher load factors have all actually had a role in improving fossil fuel dependence. It's not all bad news! But we can do better, individually and collectively. Economics are driving lower fuel consumption per passenger mile in a variety of ways and that's a good thing.

Now about those one use straws and papercups :p

Suppose the United States went full green power everything, became this utopia of renewable energy and self-sustainability, what do you do about the rest of the World?

China is actually doing a lot to clean up their act. Closing down coal plants by fiat, for example. China and India are both still committed to the Paris Accords. The USA is not.

India is at ~13% renewable energy, USA is 12%. Maybe time to jump off your moral high horse.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/22/re ... gust-2018/

Steering the conversation back to aviation, Indian LCC Indigo has the world's largest fleet of ultra efficient A320neos.

WeatherPilot wrote:

You know, countries like China and India. It's their trash islands spinning out there in the ocean, their smog that floats across the Pacific and dumps acid rain on the PNW so they can make all the stuff for us so we can be 'Green' and feel better about ourselves.

Manufacturing moving to China has nothing to do with the green movement.

Judging by the conversation on here AOC is having EXACTLY her intended effect!! Pretty damn shrewd for such a young politician.

Imagine if she said “airlines need to reduce fuel consumption by 2% per year for the next decade?” Think that would garner any discussion?

WeatherPilot wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

But we can do better, individually and collectively.

Suppose the United States went full green power everything, became this utopia of renewable energy and self-sustainability, what do you do about the rest of the World? You know, countries like China and India. It's their trash islands spinning out there in the ocean, their smog that floats across the Pacific and dumps acid rain on the PNW so they can make all the stuff for us so we can be 'Green' and feel better about ourselves. Keeping all our dirty laundry out of sight out of mind on a different continent while pretending we're saving the planet is hypocrisy at it's finest.

I think doing better individually and collectively means we'd all work hard to consume a bit less, make wiser decisions... and therefore produce less unnecessary stuff in India and China.

Don't get all hysterical just because a few folks call to our attention our need to be a bit more conservative. No one is saying we will wear clothing sown from hemp, sing kumbaya, drink Starbucks, and buy apple gear made overseas all day long. If we consumed less, others would produce less... Being the world's second largest economy has that effect. Yeah I know that rubs against everyone's growth models.... Folks would need to find new enterprises, new ways to monetize something in order to make ends meet... But we know that time is coming anyway, don't we? How much more biomass, with everybody trying to get there's, can the earth support? Not painting a doomsday picture.... Only saying it doesn't hurt to listen to a few ideas without dismissing them as fanatics, dreamers, etc....

Man someone mentions controlled growth and conservation and folks go into FULL panic mode..

WeatherPilot wrote:

Suppose the United States went full green power everything, became this utopia of renewable energy and self-sustainability, what do you do about the rest of the World? You know, countries like China and India.

It's for this reason that CO2 emissions per capita is the appropriate metric of measurement. You'll find that the US are overwhelmingly more egregious offenders than China or India.

zkojq wrote:

WeatherPilot wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

Don't let literacy and stating of facts get in the way of everyone's righteous indignation.

Sure some of the ideas are absolutely out there. But ultimately we have to begin caring for the earth a bit better than we have.... and start thinking sustainability instead of growth as the answer to everything. Hard decisions for sure. But let's not get too carried away demonizing young ideologist.

George Carlin once said.... Scratch under the surface of any cynic and you'll often find a disappointed ideologist.

The decade long push we've had towards fuel efficiency, greater seating density and higher load factors have all actually had a role in improving fossil fuel dependence. It's not all bad news! But we can do better, individually and collectively. Economics are driving lower fuel consumption per passenger mile in a variety of ways and that's a good thing.

Now about those one use straws and papercups :p

Suppose the United States went full green power everything, became this utopia of renewable energy and self-sustainability, what do you do about the rest of the World?

China is actually doing a lot to clean up their act. Closing down coal plants by fiat, for example. China and India are both still committed to the Paris Accords. The USA is not.

India is at ~13% renewable energy, USA is 12%. Maybe time to jump off your moral high horse.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/22/re ... gust-2018/

Steering the conversation back to aviation, Indian LCC Indigo has the world's largest fleet of ultra efficient A320neos.

WeatherPilot wrote:

You know, countries like China and India. It's their trash islands spinning out there in the ocean, their smog that floats across the Pacific and dumps acid rain on the PNW so they can make all the stuff for us so we can be 'Green' and feel better about ourselves.

Manufacturing moving to China has nothing to do with the green movement.

Manufacturing moved to China in the 80's and 90's precisely because of the green movement. People think it was because of labor costs. It wasn't, it was because China would let companies get away with polluting the air and water so that manufacturers could save a buck.