The opening part of the Green New Deal taken directly from the Green Party, US web site is below. The document in its entirety can be seen on their website.“The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just. The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030. It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure…”
The Green New Deal is just plain insane and incredibly naive. First, if we do nothing, according to the Green folks, the Earth will end in 12 years because of greenhouse gases, but Armageddon has been predicted in the past with the end date passing.
For argument’s sake, let’s say we all scrap our internal combustion vehicles, 270 million, home furnaces, barbecue grills, and air travel, planes replaced with high speed rail. Also, for argument’s sake let’s say we build the hundreds of thousands of charging stations they call for; who builds them? Who pays the bill? Where does the electricity come from to charge the electric cars/trucks? If it’s wind and solar electricity, how do we store the electricity for dark calm days? Can we use toxic batteries?
The average government subsidy for electric vehicles now is from $2,500 to $7,500. If we all must replace our current internal combustion engines, and with our current vehicles having zero value, how do we pay for the new vehicles costing from $38,000 to well over $100,000? For new heating and cooling systems that will cost many thousands per home? We have ten years to do this by the way.
Who pays for the vastly expanded electric grid? Where are the millions of toxic storage batteries going to be built? Who pays to replace the new fire trucks? Ambulances? Service vehicles? What is the environmental impact of producing all that metal/plastic/rubber?
Let’s be the adults in the room and look at reality, not the ivory tower academic, Shangri-La, asinine, in a perfect world we could _______(fill in the blank) folks. First, if we replaced our vehicles with electrics, it would not be anywhere near the number of vehicles in most of the world. China has more vehicles than the U.S., and three other nations have a higher rate of vehicle ownership than we do. The number of vehicles with internal combustion engines is expanding disproportionally in other countries, as is the use of coal-fired power plants in the third world. The population of the world will double in 30 years, with the population of the U.S. remaining stable. We are 6% of the world’s population now, and going down rapidly, as is our percent of the world’s energy use.
Whatever we do will be a drop in the environmental bucket today and even less in the years to come. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me; what happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was going to fry us all? Whatever happened to Global Cooling or Global Warming for that matter? What we refer to as climate change is a “heads, I win tails you lose” situation — the climate always changes.Back to the cost of the Green New Deal. If high speed rail worked, we would have it. If electric vehicles were practical, we would have them. If the government spending billions of dollars for green jobs worked, we would have them after President Barack Obama’s green stimulus package spending $831 billion.
Ten years to do what the Green Party wants is totally stupid, and they are backing off the original proposal at better than light speed. The WW II type effort they called for would not be even close enough to do what they proposed. The media should be tearing up this “Green New Deal,” but they just praise its forward, positive, environmental, message.
Are you prepared to purchase electric vehicles and retrofit your home with electric heat? Scrap all your fossil fuel equipment replacing it with electric? In ten years? Got that kind of money? Neither does our government.
Here’s a little follow up on your commentary.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/
Very interesting but correct me if I’m in error.
If one is to attain net zero . One has to find a way to maintain a level set at time of installation of the project..
I will use the now famous cow as an example. If the amount of cows at the present time release an acceptable amount of methane . In order to keep the amount of methane at the acceptable level no new cows would be allowed to live unless one died than one replacement would take it’s place.
Humans and animals do not operate on a one life to one death basis
So in my mind one would have to reduce the cow population to hold a constant acceptable level.
Seems everything they want to control emission on would need to be drastically reduced.
It may sound interesting on paper, but I really doubt anything on this level will gain support from the citizens. Especially when they grasp how they will have to change the life style they are accustomed to.
To say this is workable would be very utopian and utopia only exists in the world of dreams.
Mr. Smit,
To quote your comment “Especially when they grasp how they will have to change the life style they are accustomed to.” You said it all with this sentence.
Bob, I take issue with your use of the terms “insane” and “naïve.” Is it insane to attempt better stewardship of the earth, as we are admonished to be in the Bible? I think not. Responsible use of our resources, and retaining as clean an environment as possible, are not crazy ideas. And I might be inclined to use a word more like idealistic than naïve to describe the intentions of the New Green Deal.
You are correct that a ten year window is unreasonable for all the reasons you give. But aren’t these goals at least worth a valiant effort? Does it not seem advisable to balance the benefits of socialism and capitalism to achieve a just and verdant world?
Lately, it seems, the right wants to equate the terms socialism and communism. Some in the conservative camps want to drum up a fear of socialism with the 1950s fear of McCarthy-era capital C Communism.
Socialism is not evil in and of itself, just as capitalism is not evil in and of itself. Both need to be respected for their benefits to society, and the electoral process should govern how much we depend on each. Finding the optimum balance should be our goal, rather than poo-pooing each other outright without rational thinking.
Ms Mandaville
From what I have found thru places to research the terms Socialism and Communism. It is generally contended they are so similar that the only reason one is called Socialism because no one makes a profit whatever profits made are shared with everyone.
Communism functions with the manufacturers, business owners, or anyone who makes a profit keeps it. But all other aspects are interchangeable.
One of the weakest parts of Capitalism is when the socialistic parts of capitalism start to become overly attractive to those not willing to become productive.
Jealously of those making a profit become excellent candidates to push the Socialistic agenda
Most people realize something has to change regarding the world’s environment.
If one reads the fact checked version of this plan the actions are naive and insane as stated.
Yes helping our environment is not naive or insane it’s the lack of how and cost that the plan lacked to address that makes it naive and insane.
Logically once people understand how and what has to be done plus the cost and loss of some comforts they now have. This The New Green Deal will have to be rewritten into a more realistic ( sane) and sound scientific examples ( naive) to accomplish a reduction of pollution and polluting the environment
The descriptors Army Bob chose to use in describing The Green New Deal are most appropriate. Only idiots and Marxists would come up with something so asinine. If you placed solar panels and wind turbines across the United States the amount of energy wouldn’t be enough to keep up with demand. And it will only increase. Words and platitudes, wishes and dreams are the only thing Democrats have, they never accomplish anything of value except to show disdain for the working Americans.
Ms. Mandeville, I challenge you to go to the border in your state (AZ) to personally speak with border landowners to see what they feel about the illegals coming across the border.
Ms. Mandaville,
Lynn,
I never referred to anyone as a Communist. Socialism and Communism are different in the degree of government control they desire. The goal of both is to control folks ability to exercise free will, replacing it with group think and group or government control of all aspects of society.
The” verdant” movement is a way to move us towards government/group control of every aspect of our lives. People can be controlled by those who ration food, water, electric power, HVAC and transportation.
You could not have moved to Arizonan without government approval in a true socialist America.
Enjoy the warm weather, more snow last night and single digits tonight.
Thank you for the comment.
Bob, my comment was not directed at you specifically. I was merely making reference to what I am seeing over and over again from some on the right. This “red scare” type of response to social programs worries me, as it should all Americans. I don’t take issue with anyone who wants to exercise his right to choose, through the ballot, whether we offer social programs, or whether we allow the capitalists to become richer at the expense of the real working people, like you and me. I fear we are returning to the days of the robber barons, where the rich believe they deserve more than those who put the bread on their tables and the money in their banks.
Ms. Mandeville,
You are right about robbers, but without the barons. There are those among us that take and take and never provide for themselves. Without government support, they would starve. I’m not talking about those who are mentally and physically disabled. I’m talking about physically and mentally capable people whom refuse to work for welfare or to improve their lives content of living at poverty level on the government dole.
Most of us weren’t born with a silver spoon in our mouths and had to work to get ahead. Some people get it. Some don’t and never will.
They are a drag on the economy and their fellow citizens working to provide for themselves AND those that want everything given to them. Those days will be ending with the next economic crash.
Woe to those who are takers only and not contributing to society..
People fought the findings of scientists hired by The Ethyl Lead Company for decades before lead was removed from gasoline to the point in 1986 only 0.6% of all gasoline soled in the US had any lead added. Should our government have still disregarded those scientists who had evidence that airborne lead was dangerous, especially for children because the American public demanded gas-powered engines that had been standard since the early 1900s, since that’s what people want?
A few weeks ago, the author was extolling hydro-power. Hydro-power is part of clean energy although building dams could require taking land that isn’t owned by federal or state governments. When is eminent domain acceptable?
Simply because you disagree with science and scientists and those who believe them doesn’t mean they are wrong headed. I am old enough to remember when “conservatives” who used to be called Republicans disagreed with President Kennedy’s goal of putting Americans on the moon because it was a waste of resources. Thankfully the majority approved and the U.S. Space Program produced two generations of engineers who contributed to advancements in electronics, computer science, chemical and mechanical engineering.
If electric vehicles were as ridiculous as the author implies, Daimler Benz, Toyota, Ford, General Motors and others wouldn’t be spending billions (combined) to develop electric delivery vehicles for delivery services like FedEx, UPS and DHL for use in crowded cities like Beijing, Mexico City, London, Paris, Rome and other high population, high pollution urban areas that need to reduce exhaust emissions for their populations’ health.
The Green New Deal is a wish list. I think it’s a very aggressive program that can bring about positive results, but not necessarily in the initially proposed time frame. Detroit Edison and Consumer’s Power are already on track to reduce their carbon footprint through use of wind power. Consumers Energy’s goal is to have 40% of its power generated by renewable sources by 2040.
Are those major utilities knee jerk tree huggers? I think not.
And so it goes.
So California burns, Huston drowns and Puerto Rico gets smashed by two epic hurricanes and its still a big nothing to you? The tropics are getting so hot (120f+) that airplanes can’t fly in the thinned out air and going outside is deadly. Allegan county agriculture had record setting prevented planting acres last year due to monsoon like spring rains and it’s likely we won’t have peaches next summer as the polar vortex visited due to a breakdown of the normal global weather patterns that keeps those systems bottled up in the arctic are breaking down. I could go on and on. Action is needed and the state GOP once again chooses willful ignorance in service of their corporate paymasters instead of service to the people. This is a profound moral failure in addition to being suicidal. And BTW the ozone hole got fixed because we banned the worst of the chemicals that caused it.
DOTM, a few comments on your two responses to this column:
1. “Woe to those who are takers only and not contributing to society.” One could make an argument that it is the rich and the mighty corporations who are the takers. They amass fortunes that don’t always go toward the betterment of the people who make their vast fortunes possible, but, rather, improve the bottom line for their investors (whose contributions amount to amassing more money for the money hoarders). Their unreasonable tax breaks mean that they are not contributing to American society at a level equal to those at the middle or lower levels of American productivity.
It’s only my opinion that I think it unfair of you to categorize anyone on government assistance who is not physically or mentally challenged as a drain on society, or as content with his lot to remain poor on a handout. The reasons why people are reduced to dependence on a handout are many and varied, and I wonder if you have been exposed to their stories. Even in my limited contacts with those who you would categorize as mentally and physically able to avoid assistance, I have yet to encounter even one who “prefers” that lifestyle. Each and every one I have known would rather be working, bringing home a paycheck that would attest to their value in society. Seriously, who gets up each morning and says to himself, “Wow, another day where I don’t know where my next meal is coming from! Another day of feeling like a piece of sh*t! Boy, this is the life of Riley?”
2. Would you please provide me with contact information for those landowners at the AZ border to whom you have spoken about their attitudes toward illegals crossing the border? I’d very much like to hear, first hand, what they think. Right now I am limited to only what I read in local news sources here in AZ and what I hear from friends and neighbors who have lived in border towns to know what those border-dwellers think.
3. “Words and platitudes, wishes and dreams are the only things Democrats have…” Some of mankind’s greatest and most noble achievements have come out of wishes and dreams. One small achievement that comes to mind is the modern Civil Rights movement that came about through the infamous dream of one Martin Luther King, Jr. and his disciples. The words and platitudes that remain from that struggle continue to serve modern men and women today who “have a dream,” and will overcome the obstacles to their advancement, regardless of their colors or creeds or sexual orientations, etc.