Awkward questions about the Green New Deal
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis poses queries to WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE climate alarmists
In the past 10 days, concerns about climate change have reached hysterical levels, with teenage activist Greta Thunberg testifying before Congress and schoolkids all over the country released from class to protest and block streets (a scientifically proven method of creating sympathy for one's cause).
People, especially young people, are demanding "legislative" solutions to climate change – and they want it now.
So let's look at this logically.
Let's assume for the moment anthropocentric climate change is real and this "climate emergency" will indeed doom the planet in 12 years.
Let's assume, as children are being taught in school, that unless we do something NOW we're ALL GONNA DIE.
The Green New Deal (GND) was put together by a former bartender, so it's heavy on ideals but light on specifics.
Even the liberal site Investopedia admits the GND "is the most detailed plan yet to transform the economy presented to the American people, even though it is itself extremely vague and more a set of principles and goals rather than policies." [Emphasis added.]
But the devil is in the details, and implementing the GND presents logistical problems the left cannot or will not address.
The details can't be "vague."
If you're planning to completely dismantle and restructure the United States economy literally from the ground up, and disrupt the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, you'd darn well better be specific.
So how – specifically – do we implement the GND in 12 years?
I have only 1,000 words in this column, so I can touch only on a few points.
I'll ask some questions and let enlightened leftists provide solutions.
Every public school student in America will be waiting breathlessly to hear how their future will be impacted by the answers.
Here are a few highlights of the GND (paraphrased for brevity):
Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced 60% below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
How should this be done?
The Heritage Foundation ran the numbers.
Using the Energy Information Administration's National Energy Model to assess how the plan would affect the economy, the model crashed.
Oops. Is there a better model available?
Overhaul transportation systems to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including use of zero-emission vehicles, public transit and high-speed rail.
California flirted with high-speed rail.
"[The] bullet train went from peak California innovation to the project from hell," announced the L.A. Times.
"Ten years after voters approved it, the project is $44 billion over budget and 13 years behind schedule.
… Now the rail authority faces the need to secure $50 billion in additional funding to complete the project."
Voters are urging the government to abandon the project.
How will rapid public transit be constructed across the entire nation?
Whose land will it cross and how many people and businesses will be forcibly displaced?
Who pays for this massive infrastructure?
Create 20 million jobs by transitioning to 100 percent clean renewable energy by 2030.
How many solar panels or windmills are necessary to power an average-sized city?
Where will they go?
What is the environmental impact of manufacturing solar panels? (Hint: They're not very "green.")
How many birds and other wildlife are killed with these energy options, either fried by solar panels or butchered by wind turbines?
If 20 million jobs will be created by switching to renewable energy options, what happens to the tens of millions (or more) people who will lose their jobs from the switch? (Oh wait, that's addressed below.)
Implement a Just Transition that empowers those communities and workers most impacted by climate change and the transition to a green economy.
Ensure that any worker displaced by the shift away from fossil fuels will receive full income and benefits as they transition to alternative work.
If displaced workers receive a "full income and benefits" as they transition to alternate work, who provides the income?
How long will it take to retrain tens of millions of people into "green" jobs?
What if they like their current jobs and don't want to change?
Will they be forced to accept training and different employment against their wishes?
How will this be enforced?
Upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and build new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.
All existing buildings?
The United States has approximately 120 million buildings, including residential, commercial and industrial.
Where do we start?
How long will this take?
How much will this cost?
Where will we get the retrofitting materials, and what is the environmental impact of manufacturing those materials?
Who's paying for it?
Anyway, you get the gist.
These questions will never be answered.
Why? Because liberals cannot argue with logic and facts; they can only argue with feeeeelings.
It is estimated the GND will cost anywhere from $52 trillion (over the next 10 years) at the low end, to a high estimate of $93 trillion.
Costs for each household will range from $35,000 per year up to $100,000 per year, depending on location.
Do you have that much surplus cash lying around?
Me neither.
nd no, even "the rich" collectively don't have $52 trillion in their pockets.
What happens if people can't or won't pay?
Will they be jailed?
Will their homes and assets be seized?
What the poor brainwashed, panicking, protesting public school students don't know (because no one ever taught them) is the unimaginable complexity of the modern supply chain for everything from sterile medical supplies to their beloved smartphones
(review this classic essay "I, Pencil" to see what I mean).
If you try to make this supply chain "zero emissions," you will either shut it down or jack up the end price astronomically.
There's only one way to implement these green goals, and that's for the government to take over everything and ruthlessly force these changes upon us, suspending the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the process (the dearest wish of liberals).
The free market would cease to exist since no one could control how "green" unregulated goods or services might be.
In short, implementing extreme "climate change" efforts such as the Green New Deal would bring America to its knees, plunging the nation into a level of poverty far, far exceeding that of the Great Depression.
And of course, it will fail.
The dirtiest nations on earth are those with the most government control.
The nation's children would suffer most of all.
But that's OK. The liberals won't care.
No comments:
Post a Comment