(Column number two on the Green New Deal, as outlined on the Green Party Platform posted on its website.)
As with the first column, I will cite full sentences with nothing taken out of context. The Green New Deal is published in dozens of forms and shapes; which one is the true/real New Deal is anyone’s guess.“Enact an emergency Green New Deal to turn the tide on climate change, revive the economy and make wars for oil obsolete. Initiate a WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change, the greatest threat to humanity in our history. Create 20 million jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable (regenerative) agriculture, conservation and restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems.”
Twenty million jobs are a drop in the bucket; plastic bucket production will be banned by the way. The cuts just in the military will directly and indirectly cost 8 million jobs; oil, coal, construction, natural gas, air travel, lumbering jobs will exceed 20 million in no time flat.
The 300-pound gorilla in the room is the how; how are we going to pay for the transformation to 100% green? In 10 years? How are we going to build the new infrastructure with “clean manufacturing” practices? Steel without coal? Steel/aluminum without mining ore? Plastic/composite materials, so necessary in electric cars, are being produced how? Without oil, roads without asphalt? Tires without styrene-butadiene? Electric vehicles without nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion and Li-ion polymer?
“Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.”
The word missing from this paragraph is private ownership; all infrastructure that we must have if we are to not move back into caves will be a government entity. Competition? We don’t need no stinking competition. The government knows best, and government monopolies are the answer.
“The Green New Deal will provide assistance to workers and local communities that now have workers employed in the fossil fuel industry and to the developing world as it responds to climate-change damage caused by the industrial world.”
The Green New Deal will provide? How will they provide? Do they have the trillions it will take? Think of the number of folks they want to make unemployed. If you are in an industry that uses directly or indirectly oil, gas, plastics, mining, drilling, forestry products, asphalt or repair of equipment used in those industries. Let’s not forget they want those not in the “industrial world” to prosper, that is not you.
The real question is how do they produce using “clean manufacturing” all the solar collectors, windmills, geothermal stations and infrastructure necessary? The best way to produce clean renewable energy in my opinion is hydroelectric, but that will destroy some types of fish, so let’s not do that.
Mandated worker and government ownership of all property and processes, pure socialism, has been tried thousands of times, on small scales (communes) and larger scales the USSR and Peoples Republic of China, and it never works for long.The fairy tale by Hans Christen Anderson “The Emperor’s News Clothes” is a good example of the Green New Deal. It will work! If you think it will not, you are a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who wants to see poor children die in the streets. Good Americans who question climate change are climate change deniers, a not-too-cloaked comparison to the holocaust deniers.
Angels and pixie dust will make the Green New deal work, so as Senator Mazie Hirono stated so eloquently, “old white men should just sit down shut up.” Debate, discussion? We don’t need no stinking debate; questions, especially the hows are never asked/answered except in the broadest terms.
Please do not forget with 85 million people being added to the world’s population each year, we cannot feed the world without petrochemicals, even if the Green New Deal believes we can use good intentions and nature to kill insects, mold and fungus. 103.4 million tons of grain was exported from the United States in 2016/2017. It was planted and harvested with gas/diesel equipment, moved to river ports by truck/train, put into barges pushed down rivers by diesel tugs, and transported worldwide by diesel ships. Stop the use of petrochemicals/fuel in grain production/distribution and the world will go to war for food sooner rather than later.
The Green New Deal simply fails the common-sense test.
And where is the independent/unbiased media asking how will it work? Hiding in the intellectual darkness, too terrified of condemnation to even ask questions.
As is rightly pointed out in various ways in this Army Bob column on “The Green New Deal”, and as I have often myself thought, this authoritarian liberty and prosperity grab proposal by the left could be more honestly called “The Green New Steal”. It is all premised on a man-made doomsday climate change theory that is an unbelievably naive and powerfully political speculation at best and it amounts to a hoax at worse. In this politically-correct view the money, power and academic respect flows only to those who promote it, and the sound-mined resisters are shouted down and mocked. So joining the bandwagon is tempting to far too many who do or should know better. The available known science and historical data all show that this made-up and novel panicked “hair on fire” arrogant trendy thesis is without any supportable common sense, let alone honest sound merit.
That being true of course does not mean we cannot or should not attempt to be more “green” in a sound and responsible ongoing endeavor. I’ve spent some of my many years and diverse efforts in the realms of energy and transportation efficiency. One thing I can personally verify in both concept and practice is this… Achievable increased “green-ness” does not have to be taxpayer funded or be a job killer for needed industries. There are always better and more efficient ways of doing virtually everything in our lives and in respect to the environment. We should pursue those steps whenever reasonably possible and practicable. I spent some years literally giving away energy and money savings, while profiting from doing so. Government policies often just got in the way and stopped good things from going forward. Many companies are now involved in this kind of “energy services” business and efficiency technologies are getting cheaper. The energy and cost savings achieved by some of these simple technologies are such that the technology can be provided at no cost outlay or risk whatsoever to the user. The anticipated proven savings alone allows the provider to produce, install and even manage the efficiency technology at no cost to the recipient. The savings is shared for a period and then the recipient is given outright both the technology and 100% of the savings forward. Practical efficiencies can more than pay for themselves and should. They can also produce cleaner air, water and other aspects of the environment, and better health.
Transportation efficiencies can and are doing the same kind of thing. The government is not required to take the lead in these common sense technological and practical advances and improvements. The government must merely encourage them and just stay out of the way of the doers. The market will produce good things that can greatly effect savings and green efficiencies.
Terry Parks,
Exceptionally well stated, thanks for the comment.
I second Army Bob’s comment on Mr. Park’s response. The big take -away is government in any capacity is never as efficient as the free market. Entrepreneurs are always in competition to make things better, less costly, and easier to use. Government needs to get its camel nose out from under the tent.