100 trillion project: the US has decided to radically change the economy
The world around us is rapidly changing before our eyes. It is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to obvious climate change. The geopolitical landscape is also transforming. Yesterday's allies in the new economic realities become irreconcilable rivals. Germany, the leading power of the European Union, is conducting a large-scale program to modernize its own energy sector with the aim of transferring it from dangerous and harmful atoms and coal to environmentally friendly Russian gas and renewable "green" sources, which we told earlier. Now the United States has started talking about a fundamental restructuring of the energy sector and the entire structure of the economy.
Representatives of the Democratic Party proposed a colossal-scale program called "Green New Deal", in other words, "New Green Deal." The name itself, taken by analogy with Roosevelt's New Deal, which helped the United States emerge from the Great Depression, hints that their affairs today are not as good as they seem. What exactly is proposed in it?
The task for the first world economy for the next 10 years is posed nontrivial:
At first, it is supposed to switch to 100% use of renewable energy sources, and to reduce the level of harmful emissions in the USA by 2030
Secondly, United States National Transportation System To Be Redesigned To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Move To High-Speed technology. One of the initiators of the program, member of Congress Alexandria Okasia-Cortes even hinted that a refusal of air transportation is possible, which caused an angry reaction in politics, after which this thesis was hastily deleted. However, this idea was continued by the American edition of The Hill:
ThirdlyEnergy efficiency upgrades should turn up every building in the US.
All of this, according to the initiators of the New Green Course, should create millions of new highly paid jobs, as well as provide everyone with an excellent education and medicine. However, the program also has critics who put forward quite reasonable counter arguments.
Perhaps Elon Musk with his “Hyperloop” and applauds her standing, but the owners of one of the leading corporations in the country Boeing, already experiencing serious problems, are unlikely to be delighted. Millions of new jobs are great, but first you need to decide where to hire those who already work in the field of fossil hydrocarbons.
Also a big question is the ways in which the "green" intend to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Oddly enough, the main danger to the ozone layer is not the exhaust pipes of cars, but of millions of farm animals whose manure is the source of methane production. Initiators offer to "work in collaboration with farmers and ranchers," but in reality, it can not be anything other than reducing the number of livestock subject to monetary compensation. Senator John Barrazo, known for his anti-Russian initiatives, was very upset by the New Deal:
And finally, it's time to mention the cost of this entire 10-year program. According to President Trump, something like that will cost about $ 100 trillion. The Greens acknowledge that it is a little expensive, but the investment will pay off due to the general rapid economic growth. The New York Times summarizes:
Time will tell who will turn out to be clairvoyant and rich enough to be the first to be on the cutting edge of technological progress.
Representatives of the Democratic Party proposed a colossal-scale program called "Green New Deal", in other words, "New Green Deal." The name itself, taken by analogy with Roosevelt's New Deal, which helped the United States emerge from the Great Depression, hints that their affairs today are not as good as they seem. What exactly is proposed in it?
The task for the first world economy for the next 10 years is posed nontrivial:
Turn the old gray economy into a new sustainable and environmentally friendly.
At first, it is supposed to switch to 100% use of renewable energy sources, and to reduce the level of harmful emissions in the USA by 2030
Secondly, United States National Transportation System To Be Redesigned To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Move To High-Speed technology. One of the initiators of the program, member of Congress Alexandria Okasia-Cortes even hinted that a refusal of air transportation is possible, which caused an angry reaction in politics, after which this thesis was hastily deleted. However, this idea was continued by the American edition of The Hill:
We can save a lot of time by replacing flights between cities such as Boston and New York with electrified high-speed rail.
ThirdlyEnergy efficiency upgrades should turn up every building in the US.
All of this, according to the initiators of the New Green Course, should create millions of new highly paid jobs, as well as provide everyone with an excellent education and medicine. However, the program also has critics who put forward quite reasonable counter arguments.
Perhaps Elon Musk with his “Hyperloop” and applauds her standing, but the owners of one of the leading corporations in the country Boeing, already experiencing serious problems, are unlikely to be delighted. Millions of new jobs are great, but first you need to decide where to hire those who already work in the field of fossil hydrocarbons.
Also a big question is the ways in which the "green" intend to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Oddly enough, the main danger to the ozone layer is not the exhaust pipes of cars, but of millions of farm animals whose manure is the source of methane production. Initiators offer to "work in collaboration with farmers and ranchers," but in reality, it can not be anything other than reducing the number of livestock subject to monetary compensation. Senator John Barrazo, known for his anti-Russian initiatives, was very upset by the New Deal:
Ice cream, cheeseburgers and milkshakes will be a thing of the past because livestock will be banned under the Green New Deal.
And finally, it's time to mention the cost of this entire 10-year program. According to President Trump, something like that will cost about $ 100 trillion. The Greens acknowledge that it is a little expensive, but the investment will pay off due to the general rapid economic growth. The New York Times summarizes:
A green new course is technologically possible. His political prospects are another matter.
Time will tell who will turn out to be clairvoyant and rich enough to be the first to be on the cutting edge of technological progress.
Information