The “tippy top” plan for a “Green New Deal’s” same-old misanthropy

Guest essay by Dr. Charles Battig

Organized by the Sunrise Movement, over 200 youth activists supported by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took over House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office the morning of November 13, 2018 lobbying Democrats to act decisively on climate change. However, Pelosi’s first address to the 116th session of Congress Thursday, January 3, 2019 stating that she would be “reinstituting the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” was not sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Sunrise Movement

Varshini Prakash, founder of Sunrise Movement, was quoted as saying we are “feeling really disappointed that Nancy Pelosi had failed to follow the leadership of the 45 members of Congress, including some of the freshest faces of the Democratic Party—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Joe Neguse, so many more—in calling for a select committee for a Green New Deal.”

Mid-January, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has now already published a Draft Text for a Proposed Addendum to House Rules for 116th Congress of the United States which lays out what such a Green Deal would establish. It includes:

“The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;

upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;

funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;

making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.”

Also included are these goals:

“Mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low income, deindustrialized or other marginalized communities in such a way that builds wealth and ownership at the community level);

include additional measures such as basic income programs, universal health care programs and any others as the select committee may deem appropriate to promote economic security, labor market flexibility and entrepreneurism; and

deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment.”

This hodge-podge of wishful socialist thinking, climate non-science, social justice mandates, population control advocacy, and progressivism laced with technocracy is not new nor original. Even before Jill Stein, failed Green Party 2016 presidential candidate, there was the Club of Rome, founded in 1968.

They have also issued their plan for climate control, and with much the same goals and mechanisms for the world to conform to their view. Is it possible that the “tippy top” Green New Deal spokesperson had the recent Club of Rome publication in mind when she published her Draft Text?

“Climate change is the most pressing global challenge, constituting an existential threat to humanity. The Club of Rome – Climate Emergency Plan sets out 10 priority actions for all sectors and governments, and is an urgent wake up call. On December 4th 2018, Club of Rome Co-President Sandrine Dixson-Declève presented the Plan at the European Parliament to representatives from the EP, the European Commission, business and NGO leaders. The event was co-hosted by Heidi Hautala (MEP, VP European Parliament) and Jo Leinen (MEP).”

The Club of Rome Climate Emergency Plan calls for 10 priority actions:

1. Halt fossil fuel expansion and fossil fuel subsidies by 2020: No new investments in coal, oil and gas exploration and development after 2020 and a phase-out of the existing fossil fuel industry by 2050. Phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

2.Triple annual investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies for high emitting sectors before 2025: Give priority to developing countries to avoid lock-in to the carbon economy.

3. Put a price on carbon to reflect the true cost of fossil fuel use and embedded carbon by 2020: Introduce carbon floor prices. Tax embedded carbon through targeted consumption taxes. Direct tax revenues to research, development and innovation for low-carbon solutions, cutting other taxes or supporting the welfare state.

4. Replace GDP growth as the main objective for societal progress and adopt new indicators that accurately measure welfare and wellbeing rather than production growth.

5. Improve refrigerant management by 2020. Adopt ambitious standards and policy to control leakages of refrigerants from existing appliances through better management practices and recovery, recycling, and destruction of refrigerants at the end of life.

6. Encourage exponential technology development by 2020: Create an International Task Force to explore alignment of exponential technologies and business models with the Paris Agreement to promote technology disruption in sectors where carbon emissions have been difficult to eliminate.

7. Ensure greater materials efficiency and circularity by 2025: Significantly reduce the impact of basic materials e.g. steel, cement, aluminum and plastics from almost 20% of global carbon emissions today by the early introduction of innovation, materials substitution, energy efficiency, renewable energy supply and circular material flows.

8. Accelerate regenerative land use policies and adaptation: Triple annual investments in large-scale REDD+ reforestation and estuarine marshland initiatives in developing countries. Compensate farmers for building carbon in the soils and promote forestry sequestration. Support efforts to restore degraded lands. Implement adaptive risk management procedures in every state, industry, city or community.

9. Ensure that population growth is kept under control by giving priority to education and health services for girls and women. Promote reproductive health and rights, including family planning programmes.

10. Provide for a just transition in all affected communities: Establish funding and re-training programmes for displaced workers and communities. Provide assistance in the diversification of higher carbon industries to lower carbon production. Call upon the top 10% earners of the world to cut their GHG emissions by half till 2030.

Together with its national chapters and partners across the globe, the Club of Rome will work with all stakeholders to translate thought leadership into action in implementing the Emergency Plan and realizing a positive vision of the future.”

Hailed, by some, as the new youthful face of the Democratic Party Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (possessed of an occasional “tippy toppy” thought) seems to be reading from the same old page written by the old Club of Rome. Nothing new under the sun, and nothing new about the socialist/progressive quest for absolute power over the masses and acquiescence by the deplorables. Climate change is the new scapegoat, and control of energy sources the new shape of the ruling iron fist.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 23, 2019 10:18 pm

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows nothing about climate change, I will bet anything – just ask her a question about it to her if you can get through that head/skull of her’s.

What % of the atmosphere is CO2 ???

Reply to  Jon P Peterson
January 24, 2019 5:41 am

Getting through her skull is not the problem.

(wish I knew where to find the picture I saw yesterday of an ear doctor shining a light in her right ear and it illuminating the wall on her left.

Reply to  icisil
January 24, 2019 2:45 pm

Every time I see stories about AOC and how she is the “Future”, I hear the lyrics to Bad Company’s “Shooting Star”. I wish her well with her youthful optimism. Not a bad thing in the right proportion.
Unfortunately her inevitable crash into the realities of The Real World will not be pleasant for her.

I am surprised the obvious extreme socialist bent of her rhetoric is not pointed out. Of course the same can be said of Bernie Sanders.

Reply to  Jon P Peterson
January 24, 2019 7:17 am

She is the perfect example of how someone can go through the US Higher Education system and stil. come out as a blithering idiot.

Reply to  Buckeyebob
January 24, 2019 7:30 am

Her college education was a thorough success! It succeeded in the primary mission of leftist indoctrination. Occasional Cortex is the Poster Child of a crippled intellect celebrating a successful transformation into the mainstream thanks to the Doctorates who stuffed her head full of mush

Reply to  Buckeyebob
January 24, 2019 11:16 am

I’m afraid that the production of blithering idiots has become the primary goal of most US Higher Education.

January 23, 2019 10:39 pm

Alexandria Occasional-Cortex will soon have to go in for her regular oil, grease and brain-transplant. She will come out from the operation, still knowing nothing about Climate, economics or peoples’ lives.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
January 24, 2019 6:02 am

Nicholas, I believe you misspelled AOC’s first name; it’s Alaxand . . .

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
January 24, 2019 10:07 am

She seems to be fairly bright, at least according to her Wikipedia page. No, her problem is not that she knows nothing; her problem is that she knows everything.

kent beuchert(@arthur4563)
Reply to  Curious George
January 24, 2019 11:41 am

“fairly bright”? This was the girl who claimed that the three branches of govt were the House, the Senate and the White House. This from a Congressman, no less. There have been other indications of her vast ignorance. Notice her photos – her mouth is actually larger than her brain.

Mike Bryant
January 23, 2019 10:44 pm

Just more global central government control.

Don’t tell me how to think or live. 

Don’t tell me what to take or give. 

I’ve learned enough to make a simple choice. 

If you decide I’ve stepped outside 

Some little circle you provide 

I hope you know you’ll hear my lifted voice. 

I won’t step your stilted dance. 

And like your dancers I’ll not prance 

And tiptoe fearfully within 

Your small ideas of sanity and sin. 

I know all the requirements 

Of democratic precedents. 

Hear this above the outcry and the din,  

I’m slave only to the man within.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 25, 2019 5:49 pm

UN Sustainable Development
Publication Series

“A Global Green New Deal”, 2009, GGND

Explains what this is.


The Green New Deal issue in the U.S. Congress is the U.S. version of the GGND that dates back to late 2008 and early 2009.

This is basically from the United Nations and is not new.

David new Guy-Johnson
January 23, 2019 11:01 pm

That’s an awful lot of top priorities they have there! It can’t be long before vulnerable people, tipped over the wedge by all this bedwetting alarmism, start killing people.

Garland Lowe
January 23, 2019 11:06 pm

AOC, typical millennial, she’s been in office for just a few days and thinks she should run the show.

Reply to  Garland Lowe
January 24, 2019 1:37 am

Yep, I’m young and have neither education nor experience so obviously I know better than everybody else…

These youngsters actually believe (like Obama) that they are geniuses for spotting that the world is not perfect, and that the solutions are simple. Unfortunately they don’t get the basics of econimics: the original New Deal “worked” (I think it was mistaken) because in the Great Deoression the US had massive unutilised resources (machinery, people, land). Now it does not, so every person working in renewables is no longer working on steel or health or policing or teaching. You want to make every home “safe” then you gave to give up sonething.

Reply to  Phoenix44
January 24, 2019 9:02 am

Actually, the New Deal thwarted signs of a recovery and worsened the depression.
In regard to consumer consumption, the depression lasted until 1947.

Reply to  Phoenix44
January 24, 2019 9:48 am

The “New Deal” did NOT work. It turned a recession into the Great Depression. Europe had a short recession.

Reply to  Phoenix44
January 24, 2019 11:18 am

Most economists have come to believe that the New Deal only prolonged the Depression.
We didn’t get out of the Depression until we entered WWII and FDR had to scrap most of the New Deal Regulations so that business could start producing the stuff needed to fight the war.

George Daddis
Reply to  Garland Lowe
January 24, 2019 6:13 am

H. L. Mencken said it well:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

AGW is not Science
Reply to  George Daddis
January 24, 2019 6:25 am

But in this case there is NO “problem” at all. Human-induced climate chaos is a myth. We are just along for the frakking ride, just like we always have been. Imagining ourselves to have suddenly become the “driver” of the Earth’s climate is the ultimate hubris.

The better quote of H.L. Mencken which describes the whole global warming/climate change BS story to the tee is this one –

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Phillip Bratby
January 23, 2019 11:06 pm

I blame it on a dumbed-down socialist education system which is widespread across the western world.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 24, 2019 10:24 am

and how is that funded?

I didn’t think so. You get out what you put in. Violence in, violence out.
And it is evident these people are power hungry, malthusian, violent actors just praying they get enough power to enforce their worldview.

January 23, 2019 11:14 pm

We know something is wrong when environmentalists think reducing CO2 is a good thing. It would be like Feeding America saying they need to reduce food.

michael hart
Reply to  Reanne
January 24, 2019 4:27 am

Yes. Greenpeace vehemently opposes that which makes the world greener. It still beggars belief every time I think about it.

(And while Greenpeace do not advocate directly for violence, their methods are often physically intrusive, designed to cause loss, obstruction, and economic damage. That is not “peaceful” in my book.)

January 23, 2019 11:17 pm

They must be slipping as I didn’t see …’and world peace’ anywhere.

Rich Davis
Reply to  observa
January 24, 2019 2:44 am

Ominously, perhaps they no longer aspire to a peaceful takeover. They are obviously losing patience. More and more divergence between rhetoric and reality.

Alan Tomalty
January 23, 2019 11:21 pm

I asked her if she was a Communist. She replied “Not even close. A democratic socialist.” There is no official definition for this because 100% socialism is impossible and I told her that and then asked where did she draw the line? She didn’t reply back. The reason is that socialists never do draw the line. The reason they don’t is that they intuitively know that if they say something like all heavy industry has to be owned by the government ( like in China where 2/3 of the economy is owned by the CCP); then they would be forced to admit that there would be 1/3 of the economy where workers would have to compete in the marketplace and get “exploited” by the capitalists that own that 1/3 of the economy. Capitalists don’t really exploit workers because workers in a capitalist system are free to change jobs. However socialists/communists don’t see it that way. Thus they can’t have a situation that allows private capital. So therefore we are back to 100% socialism which has never worked for very long as it always leads to dictatorship and/ or communism . Socialists will never admit this, thus they really are Communists but they don’t realize it.

What I want to know is what will this new green deal cost? What are the total projected gross and net costs to the taxpayer?

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 12:59 am

If *democratic socialists ever did draw a line, they would bring a giant “eraser” with them.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 1:23 am

Hmm… Europe has had generations of post war democratic socialist governments in multiple countries since WW2. to the benefit of their populations. USA should try it…

Reply to  griff
January 24, 2019 1:40 am

Which ones exactly? Every time socialist governments have increased inequality, decreased employment growth, decreased GDP growth, increased debt, reduced public service quality and decreased innovation. How does that “help the population”?

Reply to  griff
January 24, 2019 2:07 am

You must mean all of Eastern Europe, the parts that belonged to the Soviet Union. Failures, every one of them.

Reply to  griff
January 24, 2019 2:48 am

As someone who lives in Europe, please can you explain what benefits are those please?

Reply to  Jules
January 24, 2019 5:14 am

Isn’t that where kids never know what snow is because they can’t get out of the house?
Mind you we could probably do with a bit in Adelaide just at present to stick in front of all the diesel driven fans-
Yeah I know the brains trust think gennys that can consume 80,000L/hr of refined fossil fuels saves plant food if you blow up the coal fired power stations. I look on the bright side. It keeps them from blowing up school-kiddies and throwing polar bears off skyscrapers until the rolling blackouts and yellow vests.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
January 24, 2019 5:08 am


“Europe has had generations of post war democratic socialist governments in multiple countries since WW2. to the benefit of their populations. USA should try it”

We value our freedom of speech in the USA too much to go the way of the European authoritarians.

Not that our domestic authoritarians wouldn’t like to do to us what the European authoritarians have done to Europe. I hear they put people in jail in Europe for criticizing others. You have to have your mind right in Europe or you put yourself in jeopardy. And definitely don’t go criticizing Muslims in Europe. You are putting yourself at risk of government censure expounding on that subject in Europe. Not in the United States. Not yet anyway. And never, if I had anything to do with it. The remedy to “hateful” speech is more, counter speech, not censorship.

The Democrat Socialists in Europe want to shut you up. And do a pretty good job of it.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  griff
January 24, 2019 5:15 am

Q: Why can’t you name one instead of making vague assertions?
A: Then someone could use facts to point out your error, must avoid that…

Reply to  griff
January 24, 2019 11:02 am

The claim that the populations have benefited is not demonstrated by the facts on the ground.
Of course those who prefer not to work, are better off, everyone else, much less so.

Gerard O’Dowd
Reply to  griff
January 26, 2019 12:07 pm

Europe has benefitted from the US taxpayer financing of a significant portion of the NATO military alliance since the end of World War II, which has permitted the continent to pursue soft power of international political institutions, the Eurozone Treaty of economic alignment, a new currency, without also financing an independent military force befitting an economic super power. Most European countries have not spent more than 1-2% GDP/ annum on their militaries, although those percentages are said to be scheduled to slowly increase in the coming years in response to American diplomatic pressure of the current administration. An annoyance for most Americans aware of the early retirement age (55 y.o.) of national European welfare systems is that this benefit would be less affordable if they were required to fund the total cost of their self defense. That there were advantages to American defense spending on NATO of about $50 Billion per year at the height of the Cold War between 1950-1990’s TIL the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991-2 to maintain the strength and the cooperation of Western Alliance of Democratic States to deter Soviet aggression and the start of another WW goes without saying. This peaceful status quo is changing rapidly. Vladimir Putin is now exploiting the military weakness of Europe with the invasion of Northern Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, a military build up along the Baltic States, his State Intelligence led cyber warfare and denial of service attacks, etc. Democratic Socialism does not exempt a nation from its own defense from hostile powers.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 2:42 am
The Democratic Socialists of America

Not sure where she is: Doesn’t sound like an “official” Democratic Socialist, as they don’t like the Democrat hierarchy:

“We face the daunting task of joining the resistance to the ruling far Right’s attacks on working people, women, immigrants, people of color and LGBTQ individuals. But we also know that neoliberal Democratic Party elites offer a tepid vision of “inclusiveness” that refuses to challenge the oligarchic nature of U.S. society.

DSA, therefore, works to build its own organizational capacity and to legitimate socialism as a mainstream part of U.S. politics. We also are committed to working in coalition with forces that oppose both right-wing rule and the dominant national corporate wing of the Democrats.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  dennisambler
January 24, 2019 5:14 am

That sounds just like Ocasio. She started her career out by protesting in Nancy Pelosi’s office.

Rep. Ocasio is a True Believer in her ideology, who thinks she has things all figured out, and if you don’t share her views, then she is going to see you as an enemy, whether you be Democrat or Republican. She may be a little more polite to her Democrat enemies, but she will still see them as obstacles that need to be moved out of the way.

Steve O
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 4:19 am

If only we had a half century of experience, with multiple examples around the world of how it actually works in practice…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve O
January 24, 2019 5:23 am

Yeah, this is too easy! For rational people. Socialism fails every time it is tried.

Unfortunately, we are not dealing with rational people in many cases. Instead, we are dealing with people who live in a false reality, either because they are mental cases, or they are ignorant and thoroughly misinformed by the socialist Leftwing Media who generate these false realities.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 24, 2019 11:22 am

Socialists have infinite confidence in their own ability to get it right.
I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been told that: This time it will work, because this time we’ll be the ones in charge.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 8:26 am

@ Alan Tomalty

“Capitalists don’t really exploit workers because workers in a capitalist system are free to change jobs. ”

Yeah right. What century are you living in? This is capitalism’s biggest problem and its most faulty myth.

Once corporations went global, they have just gone to the cheapest labor they can find anywhere on the planet. And as a result, once the corporations go find labor elsewhere, capitalism no longer works for the people who have had their jobs shipped overseas.

In the US, right now capitalism is working for the top ten percent of wage earners, it is not working for the 90% who have had income stagnation or income loss since the 1970’s.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
January 24, 2019 9:49 am

Why don’t 90% wage earners move to Venezuela, a socialist country?

Reply to  Curious George
January 24, 2019 11:27 am

Because 90% of workers are smarter than David.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
January 24, 2019 11:27 am

david once again demonstrates that he’s never actually visited the real world.
As long as there is more than one company in the world, workers are free to change jobs.

As to hiring workers in less expensive parts of the world. So what? Labor rates are only one factor in the cost of goods. The most important factor is labor productivity, and low cost labor is almost always low productivity labor. A man who’s paid $10/day but makes 1 widget/day is the same cost as someone who makes $100/day and makes 10 widgets/day.

How do you increase productivity? Two ways, investment in machinery and investment in people. Investment in machinery can and does happen everywhere. Investment in people means that the person who’s been trained can demand more money, and if you don’t pay him more money he’ll quit and go work for your competitor.

Ah yes, the standard marxist myth of stagnant labor. Like all idiots, David only cares about one portion of the paycheck.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 9:22 pm

I can honestly say I’m not overly worried that my job in retail might be moved overseas. It’s hard for a store in China to sell things to buyers in Indiana.

Now, moving it Online, that’s more of a worry.

As for Factory jobs, 20 to 30 years ago everyone was worried about them all moving to Japan. Then it was South Korea. Then Mexico. Then China and India. And apparently Malaysia is next.

There’s always going to be someplace on Earth where the foolish can still find really cheap labor for their factories. And it will stay cheap right up to the day the people there realize they are now skilled workers who can ALSO change jobs, just like the other Capitalists.

Phil R
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 8:29 am

Karl Marx: “Democracy is the road to Socialism.”

V. I. Lenin: “Communism is Socialism in a hurry.”

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Phil R
January 24, 2019 9:49 am

Trotsky: Ouch

D carroll
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
January 24, 2019 12:58 pm

Shes actually, more like the nazi’s They took control by simply deciding what industry could and couldn’t do. Plus she’ll take their money.
But, make no mistake, this woman may be an idiot, but she is also extremely dangerous. She is radicalizing many more useful idiots behind her from fear of the end of the world in 10 years!! You could see climate yellow vests on the streets of New York and LA!! Or her green new deal may be like the great leap forward!! It wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last, that a nut job got control of a nation!

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
January 23, 2019 11:25 pm

Everything comes around, and around.

Bell-bottom jeans.
Tie-dye T shirts.
Club-of-Rome’s socialism disguised as environmentalism.
Hippy-dippy new ageism.
Ms AOC is just finding all of these …. again for her generation.

Yes, she may be as dumb as a box of rocks….
But like a broken watch and looked at long enough, it’ll have its time of “correct” again.

January 24, 2019 12:22 am

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis: a committee searching for a crisis.

Ernest Benn said it well: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

The current House majority is full of political artists.

Reply to  stinkerp
January 24, 2019 1:01 am

Insert B.$. “artists..for sure.

George Daddis
Reply to  stinkerp
January 24, 2019 6:29 am

Nancy recently scolded a reporter questioning the need for a wall saying that “the sum of anecdotes is not data”.
A wise woman. So the first thing she should do for her Select Committee is to invite Drs. Christie, Spenser, and Pielke Jr. to present the actual data on whether there is an extreme weather crisis, and THEN they can start their work.

Reply to  George Daddis
January 24, 2019 11:29 am

While it’s true that the plural of anecdote is not data, it’s also true that you can refute someone who proclaims that there is no problem, by pointing to actual problems.

January 24, 2019 12:29 am

“feeling really disappointed that Nancy Pelosi had failed to follow the leadership of the 45 members of Congress, including some of the freshest faces of the Democratic Party…”

The Left are the ones who have insisted for decades that the young and inexperienced should be ‘leaders’. They’ve done this because the young were the ones most easily swayed by their propaganda and indoctrination.

They now reap the whirlwind that they have created. Their followers are increasing unstable and will continue to demand things that are impossible or that would be incredibly destructive to society. The majority of a generation that believes if you feel it, it must be true.


Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 24, 2019 1:26 am

Wow. That is some wish list and if they succeed in pushing the current Democrat leadership aside and get into power to try this nonsense it will be the end of civilisation as Americans know it.
Seems everyone who ought to know better is in a race to emulate an economic version of the destruction of Atlantis. The Chinese must be having a really hard time keeping a straight face every time they attend international conferences.

The real “cost” of fossil fuels? That would be heat, lighting, medicine production and storage, transport, etc etc etc. Can this ernest bunch figure that out for themselves, because it doesn’t read like they can?

Rod Evans
January 24, 2019 1:34 am

I attended a hustings back in 2015 when the last proper General Election was held in the UK. The audience were allowed to ask a question of the prospective MP candidates, which included a Green, a LibDem, a Tory a Labour and a UKIP hopeful.
My question was preceded with the promise, I would vote for which ever candidate got the answer right to within 10%.
The question was, “What level of CO2 in the atmosphere is required to maintain life on earth”?
No one was able to offer an answer.
That is how far removed from awareness our political class are.
Go to any of Dr. Patrick Moor’s lectures for the answer

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 24, 2019 5:32 am

“What level of CO2 in the atmosphere is required to maintain life on earth”?”

That’s a great question to ask a politician!

It might get them to thinking about CO2 in a completely different way. One they never saw before. I doubt it would have much effect on a CAGW True Believer but it might make someone on the margin think a little bit.

Every politician should be asked that question. Among others.

Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 1:35 am

Wow! Is this website still going. Amazing. Haven’t heard a word about Watts in years. I just presumed he must have accepted reality by now.
Keep it up Tony. The World can always use a laugh as global temperature hits new record highs almost every year now.
Of course I know you won’t post this anyway but at least you’ll know that we all think you are a pathetic joke these days.

Reply to  Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 1:44 am

You haven’t “heard a word” because you only listen to one side of the argument. Bizarrely you think that makes you super-duper clever.

But then again you confuse data with cause, so perhaps we shouldn’t expect too much from you.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 1:48 am

Look up ad hominem, Leslie.

Reply to  Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 2:12 am

Those “record highs” only exist through the rewriting of historical records. For instance, the Australian BOM simply don’t admit that the extreme heat of 1896 happened. Instead, they falsely claim that the quite normal heat of January 2019 “breaks all the records”.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 2:55 am

Mr Graham, the joke is you, have you seen the “view” & “comment” stats for this website?
There isn’t any Climate website that can match 375,573,542 views.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 5:38 am

“Keep it up Tony. The World can always use a laugh as global temperature hits new record highs almost every year now.”

Time to inject a little reality into your conversation.

The UAH satellite chart shows that the world is not hitting new record highs almost every year. What it does show is the World has cooled by about 0.6C since Feb. 2016. See for yourself:

comment image

Reply to  Leslie Graham
January 24, 2019 11:32 am

It’s been cooling for the last 3 years. But what the heck, it’s not like you have ever had any interest in reality.

Soro’s must be running out of trolls.

Ian Macdonald
January 24, 2019 1:48 am

Someone point Cortez at and ask her, given over $200 billion a year current world spending and 0.9% of world energy transitioned over the last decade, how long she thinks it will take to reach the magic 100% point.

Then ask her if tripling the USA spend – or even the world spend – on wind turbines, will achieve her aims.

Have a calculator on hand, IME politicos are often not good at arithmetic.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
January 24, 2019 3:29 am

You might think $22.2 trillion, but you’d be wrong. How long would it take to bail out the ocean? How long would it take to walk to the moon? Is it a matter of dividing the volume of the ocean by the volume of your bailing bucket, or dividing the distance to the moon by your walking speed?

The cost of doing something that is technically impossible is infinite.

With effort, you may jump a meter off the ground. A few centimeters is easy (low cost). A meter takes signicantly more effort (higher cost). No matter how much effort you expend, you will not jump 10 meters (infinite cost). The efforts thus far at replacing fossil fuels with renewables are akin to jumping a meter. Now they are calling for jumping a 50-story building.

You can’t just extrapolate the past cost for a low conversion rate. The low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

Now admittedly, 100% renewable energy is not technically impossible. You can only use energy when it’s available, and live a radically different lifestyle. You can kill 90% of the population to cut demand. Lots of “practical” solutions that we deniers haven’t been willing to embrace.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 24, 2019 7:02 am

True, but the objective is to give the wind and solar advocates something which shows, in measurable terms, that it cannot work. It’s 200 trillion by the way, as the major expenditure so far was spread over ten years.

A nice analogy is that for the cost of the world going 100% renewable by wind and solar, we could give every homeless person in the USA their own private Trump Tower. Somehow that brings home the jawdropping scale of the cost better than any numbers.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
January 24, 2019 4:59 pm

It’s a good argument, Ian, but it would be strengthened by demonstrating that even this unbelievable cost is definitely underestimated because it is technically impossible to just keep doing what they’ve been doing. It’s not the same thing as saying we have walked nine tenths of a mile and we just have to keep walking until we reach 100 miles.

Beyond 20-30% of total electric generation, it becomes unstable. They can only make use of intermittent sources if they pair them with something that can be quickly turned up and down like gas turbines. You can’t get to 100% hydroelectric and if you could, why wouldn’t you just use it all the time? If the realistic capital cost is to install a KW of gas turbine for every KW of wind or solar, that’s an incredibly high cost.

So then they will start hand-waving about how they will be developing energy storage solutions. Except that there aren’t any practical ones. Let’s say you’re going to pump water into a water tower when there is excess supply and run it into a reservoir through a hydroelectric generator when demand outstrips intermittent supply. What does it cost to build the water tower, install the pumps, and the generator? What is the efficiency of the pump, what is the efficiency of the generator? How long do these components last before you need to replace them? If you need to store most of the energy you use, and you have huge losses in the storage system, how much nameplate capacity will you need just to get the base load that you need? The cost is likely to be astronomical. Needless to say, there has been little energy storage built thus far. From here on out, pretty much all additional renewable sources are going to require these costs.

Now even if you manage to build a storage system that when coupled with nameplate capacity 5x the required capacity, is able to satisfy base load with only renewable sources, what about industrial processes that currently do not use electricity and can’t practically use electricity such as steel making?

And you also need to convert all cars and trucks to electric. Is there enough lithium or cobalt to actually do that?

January 24, 2019 1:59 am

“fossil fuel subsidies “, “embedded carbon”, “exponential technology development”, “materials efficiency and circularity”. Buzz-phrase political trashcan-fodder (that’s one of mine). I really do wonder if she has the first idea what she’s talking about.

January 24, 2019 2:33 am

I don’t know where she thinks we will get reliable, despatchable electricity from?
At present in the UK demand for electricity is 46.36 GW
Provided by
Coal. 6.84
Nuclear. 6.11
Gas. 27.12
Wind. 0.24
Solar. 0.40
Pumped storage. 1.25
Hydro. 0.66
French, Dutch and Irish Interconnectors

There may be some rounding errors, but this situation does show the problem, especially when wind producers crow about providing 25% of demand (on a windy Sunday with low demand).
Peak demand seems to come each evening at 6 to 7 pm, so it will be interesting to see what happens today.

A C Osborn
Reply to  StephenP
January 24, 2019 2:58 am

You forgot the 3GW of Biomass, mostly DRAX burning up US Forests.

Reply to  A C Osborn
January 24, 2019 3:10 am

Sorry about that.
I wonder what Ms AO thinks about that source?
Maybe the US forests should be burnt to provide electricity for NY rather than the UK.

Rod Evans
Reply to  StephenP
January 24, 2019 6:13 am

Thanks you saved me the trouble. Wind power is hopeless. My favourite monument/folly to wind power which has been static in South Shropshire for well over a year, remains static.
A pointless folly destroying the landscape for nothing.
It produces zero energy.
On the plus side, the maintenance costs are also zero, unlike many many others…

January 24, 2019 3:15 am

The Democrats relentlessly prove E. Hoffer’s 1967 observation correct, when he said
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Can’t say I always agree with everything he wrote but Eric Hoffer (LINK) did write interesting things.

Tom Halla
Reply to  tom0mason
January 24, 2019 6:26 am

Definitely. The green blob fits Hoffer’s description of a mass movement, and how a cause becomes quasi-religious. The True Believers of the Club of Rome are still preaching the same message they were in the early 1970s, and are quite resistant to any facts.

Steve O
January 24, 2019 4:43 am

This is a list that has the stink of being developed by a discussion group. It’s only partially coherent and fails the basic tests. Items on a list such as this should be mutually exclusive, and comprehensively exhaustive. They should reflect an underlying plan.

Regarding 2: What makes “triple” the right level? Why not 3.5x? Why not 2x?

Regarding 5: Improving refrigerant management seems like it belongs at a different level, like it should be one of the bullet points under improving industrial metrics in general.

Regarding 7: Have these clowns ever compared the materials that in a their iPhone with the computers from the 1960’s? Could any of them carry a 50″ television down the stairs when they first came out? Have they ever compared the weight of a 1972 Buick Electra to a modern luxury car? De-materialization happens by itself. If you want to “Ensure” something that is happening by itself then your actual goal is control. Do they have any thoughts on the amount of material required to produce energy from “renewable” sources compared to nuclear?

Regarding 9: Instead of promoting abortion, promoting abstinence outside of marriage, and Christian values related to sexuality would be much more effective. For some reason they’ve chosen a much less effective approach. Has this crowd weighed in on how allowing mass migration is directly counter-productive to the goal of population control?

Regarding 10: Okay, so there is some awareness that their proposals will cause some economic destruction and personal havoc. Give them money. And it looks like they actually have a list of 11 items, as asking the top 10% to reduce their footprint is unrelated to the first part of item 10. Did they do any math on what that impact will actually be? Is the purpose to show leadership. I suggest something that would much more impactful. Those who believe we are facing a crisis needs to start eating bugs. Show us the way. Lead us!

Go eat a damn bug.

January 24, 2019 5:50 am

Hillary leaned over and blew in Occasional Cortex’s ear after her election, to which she said thanks for the refill.

Caligula Jones
January 24, 2019 7:00 am

Ah, the Club of Rome, competing only with tabloid psychics and PhD economists with bylines in the NYT for the title of “How to Be Continually Wrong While Still Being Paid”.

Although you have to hand it to the CoR: they’ve been doing it for decades. Anyone can be wrong, but it takes real expertise to be this wrong this long.

(Funny when you use Google, you get hits for the CoR fan club: The Gruniad, etc. Using you get hits for WUWT, etc. )

“The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021. (See Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library, 1972.

Claim: In 1974, the US Geological Survey announced “at 1974 technology and 1974 price” the US had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

Data: The American Gas Association said that gas supplies were sufficient for the next 1,000-2,500 years. (Julian Simon, Population Matters. New Jersey: Transaction Publications, 1990): p. 90.”

Maybe we should start taxing wrong predictions for World War Green?

January 24, 2019 11:14 am

1. Halt fossil fuel expansion and fossil fuel subsidies by 2020:

If renewables were as capable as you believe, there would be no need to halt future development of fossil fuels, they will wither away on their own. There are no subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

2.Triple annual investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies for high emitting sectors before 2025:

Once again a socialist defines “investment” as government taking money from people who work for a living, and spending it on the stuff I believe to be important.

3. Put a price on carbon to reflect the true cost of fossil fuel use and embedded carbon by 2020:

More CO2 in the atmosphere is a net positive. Warming the world by (at the most) a few tenths of a degree is 100% beneficial. CO2 fertilization is also 100% beneficial.

4. Replace GDP growth as the main objective for societal progress and adopt new indicators that accurately measure welfare and wellbeing rather than production growth.

Oh goody, replace something real and can actually be measured, with feel good measures that can be manipulated at will. BTW, without a growing GDP, none of the touchy feely things that Occassional-Cortex wants, can be paid for.

5. Improve refrigerant management by 2020. Adopt ambitious standards and policy to control leakages of refrigerants from existing appliances through better management practices and recovery, recycling, and destruction of refrigerants at the end of life.

Ah yes, yet another solution in search of an actual problem. I’m guessing that this one was put in here because they wanted a 10 point plan and were drawing a blank after 9.

6. Encourage exponential technology development by 2020:

What the heck is “exponential” technology? Regardless, the socialist once again demonstrates her belief that anything can be done if only we are willing to spend enough OPM (Other People’s Money).

7. Ensure greater materials efficiency and circularity by 2025:

Like most socialists AOC demonstrates her belief that anyone who doesn’t work for government is stupid. The reality is that all businesses reduce waste whenever it makes sense to do so. You don’t need to bribe people to do what is already in their best interests to do.

8. Accelerate regenerative land use policies and adaptation:

Once again, word salad in search of an actual problem. For the most part this is just more government buying land and locking it away so hoi polloi can’t interfere with the elite when they want to enjoy the great out doors.

9. Ensure that population growth is kept under control by giving priority to education and health services for girls and women.

More solutions in search of a problem. Is there anyone in the 1st or 2nd world who hasn’t heard more about family planning than they ever wanted to know? Beyond that, there isn’t a shred of evidence that providing free birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies.

10. Provide for a just transition in all affected communities:

Provide government money for anyone who is put out of work by my stupid policies.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2019 11:37 am

well said MarkW. Only nitpick is the list you so eloquently rebutted is the Club of Rome list, and not Ocrazio-Cortex’s (though the later was no doubt was influenced bye the former).

Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2019 1:36 pm

Obviously these people have either never heard of Eroom’s Law, or are unable to realize its applicability to most technologies.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I’d wear one by my side.
If “if’s” and “and’s” were pots and pans,
There’d be no work for tinkers’ hands.

Stephen Singer
January 24, 2019 11:41 am

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the pin heads she associates with haven’t a clue about the absolute disaster implementing their 10 point plan would cause. Hopefully the current leadership of the Democratic party understands how out of touch with reality she is.

Reg Nelson
January 24, 2019 11:43 am

Stumbling upon an SNL character, from a few years back, that behaves remarkably like AOC and even resembles her a bit.

January 24, 2019 12:35 pm

At least they have begun to admit that redistribution of the wealth of others is a key component of their climate change agenda. At one time they denied this. They avoid having to defend this aspect of their plans by refusing to debate the issue of climate change with anyone.

Eric Brownson
January 24, 2019 1:10 pm

What effect, if any, will this plan have on climate? Anyone?

January 24, 2019 1:23 pm

is this the tippy top to which you refer

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 24, 2019 1:45 pm

Well, that was a waste of my time…… D’OH !!

Reply to  Marcus
January 24, 2019 8:08 pm

Also completely off topic. But what the heck, gotta get rid of the excess bile somewhere.

January 24, 2019 2:02 pm

“eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;”

How are we going to brew/drink beer without CO2?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  fxk
January 24, 2019 4:57 pm

You don’t need CO2 to brew or drink beer. It makes its own 🙂

Spurwing Plover
January 27, 2019 8:42 am

Any Green New Deal is just another way to push for World Goverment all controled by the UN and by Big Green Brother and the Eco-Nazis/Watermelons

%d bloggers like this: