Because two blogs aren’t enough, obviously.
So, The Green New Deal was put forward without an explanation of how to implement it. I have started a weblog to try and show ways in which the principal elements of The Green New Deal could actually work. It is here: https://thegreennewwave.com/
Here is a sample: If all elements of the Green New Deal were successfully put in place, what would America look like?
Umm, Norway, maybe? They currently have an unemployment rate of 3.9%, similar to our current level in the U.S. They were the first country to provide universal health coverage with a single payer system, way back in 1902. College is basically free there, and more than a third of the population has a degree. 99% of their electricity comes from renewable resources. Energy efficiency of homes and buildings in Norway has improved by more than 30% since 2000.
If we adopt the Green New Deal, that’s pretty much what we would see in America.
So how does having those elements of the GND affect the lives of Norwegians?
Well, life expectancy is 84.3 years for women and 80.9 years for men, compared to 78.6 for adults in the U.S. Norway has the second highest score in the Happiness Index, 7.59. The US is 18th on the list, with a score of 6.89.
Norway is not a productive example. The problem with socialism is, what do you do when you run out of other people’s money? Enthusiasts point to Norway, “See? See? It really works!” Ummm, no, not on it’s own. Norway has tons of “other people’s money” as a result of its oil sales. Pull that prop and you’ll see it all come tumbling down.
Glad to see you back, Tom.
I will second D. J. Hawkins’ opinion on Norway’s success. It is in large part built on oil revenues. In short, Norway is a petro-state.
I would also add that it has a mature political and social system, high in trust, in large part attributed to it’s homogeneous population.
The first question I would ask anyone advancing the Green New Deal is, “how do you implement that in Chicago?”
Let’s not forget Solyndra.
Well, first, who’s the bigger petrostate–Norway or the US?
Second, Norway has 16.5% of foreign born people within its borders–the US has 13.5%. Immigrants from specific countries are divided into several ethnic groups. For example, there are both Turks and Kurds from Turkey, West Punjabis and East Punjabis from Pakistan and India respectively, Macedonians and Albanians from Macedonia, Sinhalese and Tamils from Sri Lanka, Arabs and Berbers from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Jews and Palestinans from Israel, Pakistanis and Pathans/Baluchs from Pakistan and immigrants from Iran are divided into Mazandaranians, Azeris, Persians, Kurds and Lurs.
Third, the Norway system of government was instituted in 1814, 30 years after the US.
Per capita oil production for Norway is 554 bbl/day-person.
Per capita oil production for USA is 28 bbl/day-person.
Oil production for Norway is 20X per capita over the USA. So, yeah, Norway is the bigger petrostate. Taxes, licenses, etc are 21% of Norway’s governmental income. US government income from royalties, etc on oil is 2.5 billion (US) per year (including coal) and Norway is 33 billion (US). US population, 330 million, Norway, 5 million. Per capita US income, $7.58, per capita Norwegian oil income, $6,600. Yep, those are the right decimals.
So you’re saying that we choose to charge lower royalties than Norway? We produce almost exactly ten times as much oil as they do–15.6 mbd vs. 1.65. If we charged the same royalties as the Norwegians, think of how much money we wouldn’t have to pay in taxes. We are da yuge petrostate. Da yugest!
Over 99% of the electricity production in mainland Norway is from hydropower plants. The total production of electricity from hydropower plants amounted to 135.3 TWh in 2007. So when we talk about “renewable energy” in Norway we are not talking about wind and solar. Household costs for electricity in Norway are about 55% of those in Denmark which produces much of its power from wind and solar.
Obviously it’s not a perfect comparison–but I still think it’s valid. We produce a lot of electricity from hydropower as well. If we uprated the turbines we could produce a lot more without even building any more dams.
But I also think that in states with good insolation we should put up a lot more solar and in states with a lot of wind we should put up more wind turbines.
Sorry, there is no way way the US can become Norway. First, you don’t have the topograhy to get all your electricity from hydro and you don’t have the geology to export enough oil and gas enough tp build a buffer fund of USD200.000 pr capitata. We dont lubricate th eeconomy with oil proceeds, we use a part of the interest from this fund….
Even if you wanted to be like slightly less affluent Swedes or Danes that owe their living standard to hard work the transition may be ” thermodynamically” impossible. Just looking at all benefits and the GDP of two countries and conclude it’s possible is misleading. There are just too many people that would have to give away too much to people that wouild want something else then they were getting.
I suspect that ethnic Norwegian-Americans living in the US have educational, longevity and wealth statistics similar to those of their cousins in the old country and if other Americans simply copied their lifestyle choices they too would have similar, gratifyingly positive statistics regardless of the US’s current socioeconomic arrangements.
There is no question that longevity and health, etc., are very different for middle and upper class Americans than for the poor and lower middle class. More of a reason for the GND, not less, in my humble opinion.