Ocasio-Cortez rallies to stop all fossil fuel production
During a fundraiser in Washington D.C., liberal Democratic House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for all fossil fuel production to stop or else civilization has 12 years left to save the planet from catastrophe.
Democratic House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied an audience of supporters in Washington Thursday evening with calls to implement single-payer health care and tuition-free college – along with an appeal to stop fossil fuel production entirely.
Ocasio-Cortez, who is running to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District, has made no secret of her opposition to fossil fuels. She’s called for politicians to forsake donations from the industry and is pushing a “Green New Deal” plan which entails a shift to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.
But she cast her position in stark terms Thursday, during a fundraiser at a restaurant along D.C.’s hip 14th Street.
“There’s no debate as to whether we should continue producing fossil fuels. There’s no debate. We should not,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Every single scientific consensus points to that.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report earlier this weekdeclaring that civilization only has 12 years to save the planet from “climate catastrophe.” Preventative steps include reducing coal production and bringing global net emissions close to zero by 2030.
However, Ocasio-Cortez’ position departs from that of some Democrats who advocate what the Obama administration termed an “all of the above” energy policy – embracing oil and natural gas production, as well as the generation of renewables like wind and solar.
America’s natural gas production has surged in recent years, fueled in part by the fracking boom that has produced thousands of jobs and billions in revenue. While Democrats largely remain skeptical of the Trump administration’s efforts to revive the struggling coal industry, some – especially in states like North Dakota that stand to benefit economically – have encouraged the energy economy to embrace the natural gas boom.
But fracking remains controversial for its environmental side effects, and Ocasio-Cortez’ “Green New Deal” envisions turning the renewable energy investment into a jobs engine – in the spirit of FDR’s New Deal.
During the fundraiser, she touched on several other big government plans – including universal, government-backed health and “tuition-free public colleges.”
She railed against “dark money” in politics and mass incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses, an issue the Trump administration may be revisiting.
“The time is always right to fight for what is right. It will never be convenient, but it is what our duty is to our future generations,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
Ocasio-Cortez burst onto the national spotlight after beating Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley, a member of party leadership, in a primary upset. The Democratic socialist espouses a number of policies backed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders like ‘Medicare for All’ – which President Trump this week attacked in an op-ed for USA Today.

I wish it were possible to stop burning gas and oil and coal on such a large scale. But not because of global warning. But because I figure at some point we will run out of oil to burn and if there are no viable alternatives, what will happen when we run out? I have no idea how long it can go on, but if the world does not end soon we must run out at some point. But I don't see how we can stop at the moment because in my understanding we do not have viable alternatives yet.

There are no alternatives, because nothing else has the energy density of fossil fuels -- nor do any of the alternatives have the same EROEI (energy return on energy invested).

Growing corn for ethanol takes almost as much energy to produce as you get out of it!  The EROEI is 1:1, if not negative.
So it costs 1 joule of energy to produce 1 joule of energy from ethanol.

I think fossil fuels are more like 1:25 or 1:30 -- it's not even close.

No other fuel besides jet fuel could ever get a jet plane aloft, for example. Solar and wind energy simply wouldn't work.

A good video demonstrating the pseudo science of climate change:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/X2SLYupjXujh/

.
How the hypothesis of "climate change" (a.k.a. weather) has been bolstered by tampering with the data:
.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZrZbL5Cd4eii/
.
I was waiting to hear how select weather stations have been disregarded because their temperatures have not risen enough.
I suspect that is one of the ways they tampered with the data but this video doesn't go into such details.
It sticks to the broader principles, such as time spans and acronyms for different data sets.
.
One such method, GHCN, uses land measurements from the contiguous United States, a small part of the earth's surface, 6.6%.
But their measurements account for 40% of the data that goes into this global temperature number for GHCN.
That ought to translate to a 2.64% reliability in their conclusions! (6.6% x 40% = 2.64%)
But the way global warming alarmists hype it up, you'd think it was more like 95% reliable!

There are no alternatives, because nothing else has the energy density of fossil fuels -- nor do any of the alternatives have the same EROEI (energy return on energy invested).

Growing corn for ethanol takes almost as much energy to produce as you get out of it!  The EROEI is 1:1, if not negative.
So it costs 1 joule of energy to produce 1 joule of energy from ethanol.

I think fossil fuels are more like 1:25 or 1:30 -- it's not even close.

No other fuel besides jet fuel could ever get a jet plane aloft, for example. Solar and wind energy simply wouldn't work.

In addition, ethanol production supports the Bayer-Monsanto global monopoly because corn production is largely dependent on Round Up's use as a desiccant to ensure a uniform crop production whether or not the corn is GMO (produced by Monsanto) or non-GMO.

In other words, the glyphosates in Round-Up are sprayed as an herbicide while the crop is growing, then it is sprayed again just before harvesting as a desiccant to serve as a mold inhibitor.

Ultimately Monsanto wins financially every time while cancer rates keep increasing in the agricultural communities due to increased toxic uses of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and desiccants.

With increasing cancer rates, the parent company Bayer is ensured a huge profit margin with the demand for pharmaceuticals used in chemotheraphy.

https://pharma.bayer.com/en/innovation-partnering/research-and-development-areas/oncology/

This is personal because I just lost two friends to cancer due to Round-up use. In addition, other friends have had repeated miscarriages due to living in agricultural communities where Round-Up and other toxic chemicals are used.