Why the Green New Deal is a Bad Deal for America

Dr. Martin Capages has written an excellent new book entitled Why the Green New Deal is a Bad Deal for America. He very effectively deconstructs the “Green New Deal.” He kindly asked me to write the Foreward for the book, so I am posting a slightly revised version here.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is only the latest, in a long line of politicians, to use climate change as an excuse for world government and global control of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services, aka socialism. The global warming (or climate change, if you prefer) scare has been inexorably tied to socialism since it was conceived in the late 1980s by Maurice Strong (see the details of what Strong did in Christopher Booker’s article on him in the 5 December 2015 issue of The Telegraph, link). In short, he became the founding director of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and later, in 1992, he created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has dominated (some would say “dictated”) the global climate change agenda ever since. In 2015, the then Executive Secretary of the body, Christiana Figueres, said this:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (link)

Christine Stewart, the Canadian Minister of the Environment said to the editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (link)

Former Senator Timothy Wirth, who later became the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton-Gore administration, said the following in 1992 at the UN Earth Climate Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (link)

Thus, global warming/climate change is not a scientific issue, it is an economic and political one. By speculating that climate change is man-made, through our carbon dioxide emissions, and dangerous, the politicians can claim that to save the planet we must form a global governmental body to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and “save the planet.”

However, whether climate change is mostly natural or mostly man-made, is less important than the rate of the change and whether it is dangerous. The rate of global warming over the past 150 years is less than one degree Celsius (1.8°F) per 100 years, this is not alarming and, if anything, it appears to be slowing down in recent decades (Fyfe, et al., 2016) and Javier (2019). Further, our oceans, which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, provide an upper limit on the Earth’s average surface temperature of around 30 degrees C according to studies by MIT atmospheric physicists Newell and Dopplick(Newell & Dopplick, 1979).

So, a climate catastrophe is not headed our way anytime in the next few hundred years, we do have plenty of time to study the matter. According to a study of the Earth’s climate history by Christopher Scotese and the Paleomap Project, at the University of Texas (Scotese, 2015), the average global surface temperature of the Earth over the past 500 million years is about 20 degrees C (68°F). This is over five degrees warmer (9°F) than today, thus we are in an unusually cold period in the Earth’s history. In the past, the Earth’s average surface temperature has been as warm as 28 degrees C (82°F), during these times dinosaurs roamed over the continent of Antarctica and palm trees grew on the North Slope of Alaska, while equatorial temperatures remained about the same as today.

Characterizing the current warming as an urgent and impending crisis is silly considering the scientific evidence we have today. There is no need to remove national boundaries, form a global government and abandon capitalism to “save the world.” Climate changes, we all accept this, perhaps it is mostly man-made, perhaps it is mostly natural, we don’t know. What we do know is that many communities may be affected by climate change. Sea level is rising, the best long-term estimates are that it is rising between 1.8 and 3 millimeters per year. This is not a large rate, perhaps seven inches to a foot in 100 years, much less than the daily tides. But, if it causes problems, seawalls can be built, people can move from dangerous areas or elevate their houses, it is a problem that can be dealt with locally, as it has been for thousands of years. Why use a global solution?

With fossil fuels or nuclear power, which the climate change alarmists want to eliminate, we can cool or heat our buildings if a community gets too cold or too hot. If we get more rain, we can improve our drainage or move out of flood plains. If it gets too dry, we can drill wells for water or move water via aqueducts. The point is, each community needs to deal with its own problems. Climate change is not a problem that must be dealt with globally, the people affected and closest to the problem will deal with it in the most effective and efficient manner, as they always have. You don’t swat flies with atomic bombs.

So, consider Dr. Capages arguments carefully. Capitalism built our current affluent society and lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. Do we really need to throw all of this away and turn all our businesses and property rights over to a world government to fight a possible climate change problem that is hundreds of years away, if it exists at all?

You can order Dr. Capages book on Amazon here.

Works Cited

Fyfe, John C., Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, et al. 2016. “Making sense of the early 2000s warming slowdown.” Nature Climate Change 6: 224-228. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf.

Newell, R.E., and T.G Dopplick. 1979. “Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature.” J. Applied Meterology 18: 822-825. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018%3C0822%3AQCTPIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Scotese, Christopher. 2015. Some thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition from Icehouse to Hothouse. PALEOMAP Project. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/project/Earth-History-The-Evolution-of-the-Earth-System/attachment/575023e708aec90a33750af1/AS:368505070342144@1464869863189/download/Some+Thoughts+on+Global+Climate+Changev21ar+copy.pdf.

 

Advertisements

149 thoughts on “Why the Green New Deal is a Bad Deal for America

  1. Excellent forward, Andy. The surge toward socialism is nothing more than a refined way to put forth communism. The blatant citations about eliminating capitalism and putting in place world order, really spell it out directly. However, polls in the USA are starting to show worry about climate change is way down the list. How can the honest scientists in the climate study profession deal with the hijacking of their focus for this poorly-hidden motive? How lucky we are to have this (and a few others) website to allow us to keep in touch with reality.

    • A further note –

      Socialism has been an economic disaster every single time. You have to wonder about the intellectual capacity of any one advocating socialism. In other words – someone advocating socialism isnt very smart.

      The same people believing that AGW is caused by man & CO2 (the climate scientists and the climate change activists ) also promote socialism as a cure to solving the AGW crisis.

      How well can you trust the climate scientists conclusions if they lack the intellectual capacity to understand that socialsim has always been a failure.

      • joe – the non climate scientist – February 9, 2019 at 5:57 am

        You have to wonder about the intellectual capacity of any one advocating socialism. In other words – someone advocating socialism isnt very smart.

        Joe, it is NOT the “intellectual capacity” that is the problem, ….. it is the nurtured “intellect” that resides in the brain’s “capacity” that is the problem. 😊

        Don’t forget, ….. 80+% of all currently employed Educators in/of the Public Schools are advocating socialism, ….. whether they actually realize it or not. And that is really NOT VERY SMART for them to be doing. They will likely be the “1st ones” to be pushed under the bus … when their students take control.

        • Concur – either way – the basic critical thinking skills have been short circuited.

          Unable to ascertain the obvious failure of socialism

          Unable to ascertain the complexities of climate science

          • No. Some of the people advocating for climate change/socialism are very smart. Smart and intelligent enough to realize that the people at the top of the heap in socialist systems grow wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. THAT is what is driving the socialist movement – people who want heaps of power and luxury who aren’t willing to get down and work for it.

          • “Smart and intelligent enough to realize that the people at the top of the heap in socialist systems grow wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.”

            It’s already here. Fueled by 21 (or 22 trillion) dollars that cannot be paid back in real terms to the lenders. They don’t even like having to kowtow to the party elders, let alone justifying their existence to anyone who represents responsible taxpayers. The federal government is thoroughly out of control and cannot be reined in.

        • That must have been sarcasm. I am a little slow.

          Friedrich A. Hayek, a Nobel prize-winning economist and life-long friend of John Maynard Keynes, wrote the definitive study of socialism, titled, “The Road to Serfdom.” A pivotal chapter addresses precisely the question of “getting it right.” It is titled, “Why the worst get on top,” which should give a clue about the conclusion.

          Anyone who troubles to read just this one chapter, Jones, will find that the only way socialism can evolve has already happened, many times — in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba, Kim’s North Korea, and Chavez-Maduro’s Venezuela, and enough kindred police states to fill a UN picnic basket.

      • They may lack intellectual capacity but their primary goal is political power. Something amply stated in the various quotes.

        Maurice Strong(who made his money in oil) got himself appointed to the committee to study climate change. From the first it was seen as a way to increase the political power of the UN. That goal has remained ever since. He died in China in 2015, where he had fled to avoid indictments for corruption and embezzlement from the UN in the Food for Peace program.

      • OK – so with Socialism you always run out of Food, Water, and Toilet Paper.( and the last straw Vodka).
        But, haven’t you heard? This time it’s going to be different! /sarc

    • I’m shocked that there is a book on
      the Green Bad Deal before the authors
      even figured out what it is.

      The forward does not appear
      to have factual errors,
      and the politics of climate change
      is covered well.

      The science of climate change
      is too complex and fails
      to make the primary point
      that needs communicating.

      I’ll use all caps so
      no one will miss
      the primary point:

      THERE IS NO CLIMATE PROBLEM
      FOR THE GREEN BAD DEAL TO SOLVE !

      FOSSIL FUELS ARE WONDERFUL !

      ADDING CO2 TO THE AIR IS BENEFICIAL,
      BASED ON REAL SCIENCE, NOT HARMFUL !
      https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/02/costs-and-benefits-of-fossil-fuels.html

      Global warming has been good news
      for the average temperature — mainly
      warmer winter nights in higher latitudes,
      where warming is welcome.

      And the extra CO2 is greening our planet.

      Only a fool would want to stop this good news !

      We have 20,000 years of experience
      with global warming, starting with
      Chicago and Detroit under glaciers.

      Today we have two cities
      — still pretty cold in the winter,
      but no more glaciers !

      The average temperature
      in the past 150 years
      has barely changed
      — unusually stable
      for our planet.

      And the average temperature
      since 2003 has been in a flat trend,
      even as CO2 rose a lot.

      That means the rate of global warming
      is slowing down, not accelerating.

      Climate change in the PAST
      20,000 years has been all good news.

      The only bad news is
      the wild guess predictions
      of FUTURE climate change
      — the predictions are always bad news.

      These bad news predictions started in the 1960’s,
      and we are still waiting for the bad news !

      How many decades should we wait before
      we realize the bad news climate predictions
      were nothing but fairy tales, not real science ?

      We’ve already waited for over 50 years,
      and our climate is fine — actually better
      than in the Little Ice Age.

      My climate science blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • This forward would be even better if the primary sources for the Figueres, Stewert and Wirth quotes were provided in the links, rather than secondary sources.

    • Progressives (bleu and red)/Socialism/BIG government are just puppets of the central banking system like the (not)Federal (but private) Reserve and the IMF. Socialism/BIG government will ALWAYS run out of other people’s money to provide Utopia.
      That’s when the money changers/printers in the temple take over. We The People now no longer rule because they no longer need our money and no longer need our votes. For the last 100 years there has been no real capitalism.
      So why blame something that didn’t exist.

      • Money is paper that is printed with technology that makes it difficult to reproduce and spend, without drawing attention to your forgeries.
        It has no intrinsic value, unless we value it as a means to bartering things that do have value. A house , car, cheeseburger, have intrinsic value. The money used to buy them do not, unless the current owners of those products agree that the money can be used to purchase other things of value that they want.
        What we want from a currency is stability of value. That a dollar today is worth, a dollar tomorrow, which is worth a dollar ten years from now. Without that stability long term investments are not worth doing. The value of the money received in the future is too low, to risk the value of the money invested today.
        Banks know this, yet they are involved in nearly all the long term investment projects that are undertaken, and need financing. No group is more exposed to financial risk, due to currency devaluation than banks are. They are in effect the financial policemen that keep the politicians from spending us all into bankruptcy.

  2. Here is a letter to my local newspaper that fits the observation of real sea level rise-

    A recent article in the Times Record said that a study had shown Maine land values were decreasing becasue of tidal flooding. As a past Chair of the Bath Board of Assessment Review I questioned the findings since we had not seen any challenges to the assessed value of shoreline properties which would have been expected if the issue was real. The truth is probably that the study only picked properties that were in the flood zone that decreased in value. Any homeowner knows that there are more than one reason property values decrease. When you link things this way in a study, you are prone to look for correlation and dismiss everything else. Every scientist knows that correlation is not causation. Your alarm clock does not cause the sun to come up, even though both occur about the same time.
    Also, the comment-“Sea levels are projected to rise across coastal New England by 1.7 inches in five years and 3.6 inches in 10 years, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” got my scientific antenna up because they seemed to be exceptionally high.
    So I checked the official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records for Portland and they said- “The relative sea level trend is 1.87 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1912 to 2017 which is equivalent to a change of 0.61 feet in 100 years.” That is 7.32 inches in 100 years! The articles numbers are very wrong compared to the reality published by NOAA.
    You can check my figures at:
    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8418150
    In a nutshell, we are expected to believe that over a ten year period Bath flood prone property values dropped over 4 million dollars, the most in Maine, because of a NOAA recorded 10 year actual rise in the tide of three quarters of an inch! Not the 3.6 inches in the article which is off by a factor of five!
    So we have another 100 years before we see the tide go up by 7.32 more inches. By then you should be able to protect your property value by building a one foot seawall.

  3. I point out everywhere I comment that if man made CO2 is the problem they assume it is then build lots of nuclear power stations that would solve the electricity, heating and liquid fuels problem with no CO2 output. That of course would negate their anti-free market and anti-democracy agenda so they instead scream reeeeeee
    and insist on the failing WDE ( weather dependent energy ) systems instead.

    Their ideology is crazy as AOC constantly shows.

  4. I have yet to read this book. However the synopsis of your foreword is terse and may trigger the curiosity of anyone who is willing to detach themselves from the herd stampede into climate alarmist religion and expand their reading beyond the Green agitprop of the majority of the Western press

  5. As if this was ever any kind of implementable deal for America. A clueless numpty puts forward manifesto unsupported by anything and the media fawns. Either the Dems destroy her, or she destroys them, thats what it will come down to.

    • Bernie Sanders could run in 2020 and he could win. link It’s a long time away in political terms, anything could happen between now and then.

      AOC could work well with Sanders. My guess is that she won’t be the one to tear down the Democrat party and they won’t have the long knives out for her.

      The odds of President Trump’s reelection are all over the place. This site says the odds are better than any other possible contenders. This other site says the odds are against him.

      It’s not too likely, but it’s not impossible that AOC will have a powerful place after the next election. It’s probably a mistake to underestimate her.

      • I think the Dems have made a huge strategic blunder early in the game by ever allowing that basket of bull to see the light of day. They’ve basically shown their hand as openly advocating communism. A huge percentage of this country having spent the balance of their lives while we were FIGHTING communism, this is a non-starter since most of us have a clue how to balance a checkbook. Polls already show Medicare for All, etc. are not getting off Square One.

        No one trusts the G’ment. or wants it to take over our lives and personal choices. Relatively few believe CAGW is anything remotely akin to a “problem” in need of such economic disruption to solve. And even the Millennials don’t want to give up smartphones, air travel, lattes, and burgers. What amazes me is that anyone gave this one inch of traction–it is absurd unto self-parody.

        • “I think the Dems have made a huge strategic blunder early in the game by ever allowing that basket of bull to see the light of day. They’ve basically shown their hand as openly advocating communism.”

          I think you are right. The Democrats are going to be spending a lot of time walking back the crazy ideas in the Green New Deal.

          Between doing damage control on the GND, and harrassing Trump officials, the Democrats don’t have time left to do much else. Here’s a hint to the Democrats (that they won’t take): It’s obvious to the public that you are using House committee’s to harrass President Trump instead of doing the business of the nation. This is going to come back and bite you.

          • Yes, the totalitarians usually get their way by lying about their motives. Here their hubris is showing. However, it takes opponents with credibility to defeat them. Take the pitiful state of Rhode Island as an example. The Democrats have controlled it for 80 years, the economy is lame, the politics is corrupt, taxes are high, government initiatives (public education, social services, etc.) regularly fail. Yet the Republican party is so moribund it can’t challenge the abject failure. If this Green Raw Deal is to be defeated, the national Republicans better get their game on and stop trying to be Democrat-lite.

          • “Yet the Republican party is so moribund it can’t challenge the abject failure. If this Green Raw Deal is to be defeated, the national Republicans better get their game on and stop trying to be Democrat-lite.”

            Yes, this is a big problem. As time goes along I think younger Republicans are going to step up and replace the wobbly Old Guard Republicans. The RNC leader, Ronna McDaniel is doing a lot of good work and is trying to keep all the Republicans on the same page.

            Now is definitely the time the Repubicans need to show a united front. The Democrats always count on them folding, and they do fold, but now is not the time to accomdate these Democrats/Socialists. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

            One thing about it, come November 2020, we will know which Repubicans we want to keep in office and which ones we want to oust from office. As Senator Lyndsey Graham said: “If you don’t stand behind Trump, then we are not going to stand behind you.” And we won’t.

        • And will soon be part of the by them so hated 1% like Pelosi and Sanders and all other high ranking progressives like Al Gore or Maurice Strong.

    • Why is The Nut from NY getting so much MSM attention?
      The US has a hangnail.
      AOC’s (and Bernie’s) solution?
      “Cut off the hand.”
      The Pelosi and Schumer Dem’s solution?
      “Cut off the finger.”

      She make’s the other Dem’s nonsense sound so much more reasonable.

      • Let’s start the Green New Deal in China since they are the world’s largest GHG emitter.
        If they agree, I’m on board!
        In the meantime, I’ll continue to heat my home with natural gas, fly on vacations, drive my ICE car, use my laptop, wear shoes, carry out my food in plastic bags, drink soda with a plastic straw, take out the trash with plastic bags, buy plastic packaged food and enjoy the endless benefits of fossil fuels.

    • “Either the Dems destroy her”

      The bloom may be off the Ocasio rose in the not-too-distant future. Her crazy ideas are going to make the Democrat Party look crazy, too. The Democrat leadership is not going to like that.

      • Tom Abbott
        I believe you are right.

        AOC is the gift that keeps on giving
        for the Republicans.

        A Marxist dingbat.

        The Dumbocrats will have to stifle her,
        and her Green Bad Deal supporters,
        or they will lose in 2020.

        • She managed to tick off Speaker Pelosi even before she was sworn in.

          Self-destruction, I hope. According to crockumentary maker Michael Moore, she’s now the leader of the party, whom “moderates” must follow by becoming Marxists. She’ll be old enough to run for president in 2024, turning 35 on October 13 (!) that year.

      • They were’t crazy about Bernie either, and he’s still a force in the party. You have to understand that there a LOT of crazies in the rank-and-file who will simply pull the lever for whoever backs this dreck. Once AOC understands that she can be a king-maker for others who toe her line, the feces will really hit the rotary air impeller.

  6. Well done Andy.

    Nothing built on a lie has a solid foundation. And it is a lie that climate change constitutes an existential crisis within the next century.

    If the people of the world wants a global government, we have democracy to build it. But it does not appear to be the case, as even the construction of a real European government is being increasingly questioned by Europeans.

    To try to impose something based on a lie on people that don’t want it is a clear recipe for failure and suffering. Only really bad people would do such thing. That they pretend to be better people for doing it is the ultimate in hypocrisy and self-deception.

    • How true Javier, thanks. Many here are following Brexit very closely. Why create a multi-national government, when all it does is impose a tyranny of unelected bureaucrats? Here in the U.S. we have had a rule of bureaucrats, but we were able to elect, for better or worse, a disrupter to try and change that. It seems that in the EU, that can’t happen. It is hard to keep a republic a republic, the trend always seems toward bureaucracy.

      • Polybius anacyclosis, the political cycle rotates through three basic and three degenerate forms of government, ochlocracy -> monarchy -> tyranny -> aristocracy -> oligarchy -> democracy.
        The changes are due to reaction or degeneration. Democracy degenerates into ochlocracy when the virtues of self-rule are abandoned in favor of a populism that tries to marginalize a part of the population.

        Things are not so clear cut as Polybius thought, but it is clear that democracies can and do degenerate when people forget about the alternatives, and when a part of the population tries to monopolize power through control of the bureaucracy, as you mention. Japan is an example of a country that at times has fallen under control of its bureaucracy.

  7. They do not care if it works or not. All they care about is power. The mainstream media which is infected by these fools will never do a full critique. Most will get it sounds stupid but the daily onslaught of race and identity politics will drown out all critiques. The fact she is a fool will be lost by the media treating her with kid gloves. Her opinions, actions or associates will never be investigated by the Media. Never fully examined or analyzed. They will be instead treated as intelligent thoughts. They will even work in the background to make her nonsense sound more plausible so her murmurings do not make her look too dumb. Every day there will be millions of issues. Weaponize all issues with race and identity politics with us white guys as the bad guys. Soon white guys just breathing will be a hate crime.

    Never ever about making things work always about power,

  8. Climate change is not a problem that must be dealt with globally, the people affected and closest to the problem will deal with it in the most effective and efficient manner, as they always have.

    Please stop buying to the language that agrees that climate change is a problem.

    Increasing CO2 is not a problem period.

    The polar bears are fine, Antarctica isn’t melting, multi-meter sea level rise isn’t happening, forest fires are less frequent, floods and droughts aren’t occurring more often nor are hurricanes or extreme tornadoes. Heavy industry and the world’s economy aren’t ever going to be powered by wind mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2 is mostly beneficial.

    • Steve this a conundrum. What is the correct way to argue against the new greed deal?

      I want to say that we don’t need a deal because the “problem” isn’t really a problem. Arguing about costs and a global government taking over validates their “problem.”

      Do I say it’s bad because climate change (small temp change with tiny sea level rise) isn’t really a problem? Which they will say then we should prepare now.

      Do I say that there is no change in climate change (no change in hurricane, droughts, fires…) at all? Which they can bring up small temp and sea level rise.

      I feel like arguing that CO2 is good gets bogged down

      • Derg – February 9, 2019 at 4:43 am

        Steve this a conundrum. What is the correct way to argue against the new greed(sic) deal?

        Derg, your question for Steve is akin to asking ….. “What is the correct way to argue against the beliefs of a Bible believing Creationists”?

        And the answer is, …… “There is no correct way” …… because the religious believers want you to “listen n’ learn” from them, …….. not vice versa.

        Bout the only way to “get their attention” is to …. point out their silliness and then laugh at them, …… or embarrass them in front of their friends or peers for proclaiming their silliness.

      • One reason is perception. We’re scrutinizing things so much more than ever before, that we’re noticing things no one ever noticed before. It’s not as if those things haven’t always happened, we’re just now aware of them.

      • Did you notice all the other problems lumped into the Green New deal? It includes Medicare-for-all, free college, a “living wage” for all, housing. It really has little to do about climate change, and a lot to do with Social Justice. It blatantly shows that “climate change” is just a cover for all the rest.

    • Steve, Don’t conflate “climate change” with increasing CO2 like the alarmists want us to. Climate change happens with or without changes in CO2, it has always happened and will always happen. It is a problem for some and a benefit for some. For those where climate changes cause problems, they can fix it locally or move. No need to disrupt the whole planet and all of civilization for the few affected. As skeptics we should not deny that climate change, regardless of the cause, will cause problems for some people. It will. But, it is not an existential threat to mankind, in fact, globally it can be shown to be beneficial today and for the foreseeable future.

      • Agreed.

        Also, even if climate stopped changing (for the first time in history) some places would still have a “sea level rise” problem, because the land is sinking.

    • Personally I like the argument that local solutions are more cost effective than global solutions.

      Regardless of the cause of climate change – climate ALWAYS changes – you need to deal with it

      However you cannot solve natural climate change by reducing co2. So how can we be sure that changing our entire way of life will be a solution. It may simply make matters worse.

      The problem is that no one knows if nature will dramatically change our global climate next year. Assuming that natural change will not happen is not a solution.

      However, we can certainly say that no single solution will work best in all communities, because each community has a different climate. Thus reducing co2 cannot work globally.

  9. Yes, maybe, but from AOC’s point of view all this is irrelevant. The point of the GND is not to get anything implemented. In fact, the worse it is, the more it gets refuted, the better. Because that will enable the continued assertion that it has only been sidelined or trashed by the vested interests of corporate America and the fossil fuel lobby.

    Everyone has to get clear that rational refutation is entirely pointless. It in fact is helpful to the alarmists and activists.

    They do not want their programs to be implemented. They most especially do not want to be in charge of implementing them. This is not for them anything to do with the warmth of the planet or even the level of global emissions.

    What they are looking for, and have found, is a set of proposals that can be labelled as green and progressive but which are so obviously outlandish that no-one will implement them.

    These proposals are not intended to result in anyone doing anything. The global warming or climate change debate is a cultural not an engineering struggle. People do not demand agreement to either the propositions about it or the programs they advocate because they want anything to happen. What they want is for people to sign up to the spirit of the thing, the rhetoric.

    You will think this is crazy. But ask yourself why it is that all of the social and economic proposals in the GND are actually made unachievable by the other half, the energy policies. These will have the effect of impoverishing precisely the poor that the ND part is supposed to help.

    You may think this is a contradiction. And so it is, if you are looking at implementing the whole thing. It makes it impossible. But if all you want is something a bit more contentful than a slogan which people can sign up to and parrot, the fact that some of your slogans are inconsistent with others is neither here nor there. You can mix and match and be warm on some and less warm on others – because in the end this is about culture and tribe, its not about doing anything economically or socially.

    There is a deep puzzle here, and it is why views on climate science and energy should be polarized on political lines. At first sight it makes no sense. But once you realize that the issue is not science or energy engineering, its public confessions of faith, you see that its not at all puzzling. Its similar to religion or political ideology. The heterogenous set of propositions that the faithful are required to sign up to are inconsistent and often absurd. But you will recite them every Sunday, to show membership.

    If you want to refute this stuff, you have to find another way. Just showing its absurdity will get nowhere. The Moscow show trials were obviously absurd, but pointing it out changed nothing. Think in those terms to understand what you are dealing with here.

    And don’t worry about the energy program. Nothing will happen, but the faithful will still be proclaiming its necessity in 2030.

      • HOW do you stop a religion?

        You kill their leader. Wait. No. That doesn’t work. The Romans tried and it backfired spectacularly.

      • Right now, on the old continent, “Religious wars” returns a whopping 100’000’000 results on BING search engine.
        “Climate change” scores only 19’200’000 .
        “Global warming” does even less good with 2’410’000 results.

        No urge to feel pessimistic but, hey, we now work behind locked armored doors and a trip to the lavatory is quite a protocol ordeal.

        Fighting religious beliefs and induced by dogmas behaviors takes more than peer reviewed papers and intellectually correct discussions. What a shame.

      • Derg,

        How do you stop a religion?

        Wish I knew. I think the answer may be to conduct the argument in religious terms. Find religious and ethical arguments why the stance is wrong.

        A starter might be, the effects on the poor of raising fuel and energy prices. Another might be revealing the funding sources and size of the green lobby.

        I don’t know, really. I think religions tend to die out of themselves, at least these sorts of religions. We are dealing with a sort of cultural revolution. Well, revolutions do tend to a regular cycle of going over the peak and being replaced by a counter revolution or reaction.

        Look at Russia. About 80-100 years on that one. But France was much shorter. I think this one may be getting over its peak. Hope so!

      • You have to replace it with another religion, as with Islam and Zoroastrianism in Persia.

        Or with Christianity vs. Classical paganism and competing Eastern cults such as Mithraism and the worship of Isis and Cybele.

        And later Christianity vs. Germanic and Baltic paganism. Although that replacement was aided by fire and sword, starting with Charlemagne’s burning of the (German) Saxons’ sacred groves, as previously Christianity had fallen to Arabic armies in the Near East, North Africa and Spain, and later the Balkans.

    • Agreed except for the implementation. Working power plants are being demolished daily to prevent their future use as a sign of purity of faith.

      The. Worry in a new religion is never that it is more crazy than the old. Rather that the old temples will be burned to the ground while you and you loved ones are locked inside.

    • US elections are decided by small margins.
      The mature politicians backing the GND are not serious about implementing the program; it is entirely about votes in 2020.
      They are appealing to the immature who think socialism is, like, Fantastic, Dude!and to those groups who consider themselves oppressed.

      VOTE FOR US; the GOP politicians are only interested in taking from the poor and continuing Social Injustice in order to benefit the rich!

  10. Just watched CNN interview a democrat about the “unwilling to work” AOC quote and he dodged the topic in his boilerplate answer. She pressed him again and he admitted it was the first he heard that and he had nothing. LOL
    Hilarious

    • I think you are going to be seeing a lot of that kind of backtracking on the part of Democrats over the details of the Green New Deal.

      They are stuck with it now. 🙂

  11. Thank you Andy and all. The above are very good points – again.

    It has been really cold in Calgary for a week and I am seriously thinking of going back to Thailand. My friends want me to visit them again, but complain that the pool is too warm at +31C. We are close to MINUS 31C here, and I am having a hard time understanding the concept of “too warm”.

    This previous post seems relevant, perhaps because I only had four hours of sleep and it is before-coffee.

    Regards to all, Allan 🙂

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/23/president-trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-hes-right-dana-nuccitelli-is-wrong/#comment-2500074

    The above are very good points.

    We know that climate has always changed. My city’s location was once covered by a mile of ice – a continental glacier, and that was just ~ten thousand years ago – the blink of an eye in geologic time.

    In addition, all we (probably) know is that:
    1) Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, possibly or probably due to human activities.
    2) A hypothetical doubling of CO2 from the so-called “pre-industrial” level of VERY approx. 280ppm to 560ppm would cause AT MOST 1C of global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018) , which is NOT dangerous, but is net-beneficial for humanity and the environment.
    3) Increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial for the environment and humanity, due to greatly increasing plant and crop yields.
    4) In conclusion, there is no credible evidence of dangerous manmade global warming, and ample evidence to the contrary.

    What we do not know for certain is more interesting, but is generally ignored in the fractious climate debate:
    a) What are the primary causes of increasing atmospheric CO2? Why are we so sure it is fossil fuel combustion? What are the other contributors, such as deforestation, agriculture, and other human and natural causes, and how big are they?
    b) If we are so sure that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, how is it that atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes in the modern data record by ~9 months, and by hundreds of years in the ice core record? Are we confident that the future is a significant driver of the past, and if so, why?

    The dumbing-down of the general public, including our idiot/corrupt politicians and civil serpents, is regrettable.

    The dumbing-down of the science community is even more unfortunate.

    Regards, Allan

  12. Every new generation it seems must be innoculated against the virus of socialism.

    Its siren call of free stuff appeals anew to the young without any grounding in history or economics, or even experience of the real world as it is now.

    When even Nancy Pelosi considers your scheme batty, then you’re definitely hanging upside down. No wonder that Alex Ocasio took down the details of her plan from her Web site. Replacing airplanes with intercontinental bridges and getting rid of cows wasn’t playing well in Peoria. The anti-cattle plank especially crashed in vital swing state Wisconsin.

  13. And even Masie Hirono, from tourism-dependent Hawaii, objected to the anti-aviation plank of the program. Few Europeans, Australians, North and South Americans and Asians would be up for a windjammer voyage to remote mid-Pacific islands. Even if retired, with time on their hands.

  14. It’s too bad that so many of the millennials and Gen Z have been brainwashed into embracing the false doctrines of Social Justice. They are programmed to ignore the fact that Socialism DOES NOT result in equality for all, but rather is a mechanism to return to the old feudal systems of old, complete with an inherited Elite and masses of equally poor and oppressed peasants.

    I fear for our Society here in the US not because of the AOC s of the world or the Green New Deal, but because the waves of upcoming voting blocks lack the critical thinking skills to reject them. It’s the same as one famous radio host said about Obama …. the United States can survive Obama, but it won’t survive the voters that put him in office.

  15. The Red Guards, The Great Leap Forward, The Cultural Revolution, Che, and Fidel. The ghoul seemingly overcome has reemerged in Green at our door. Ocasio-Maduro as was stated above will either destroy the Dems or be destroyed by them. I hope she prevails. The watermelon nicely turned inside out for us. Predicting the future is dicey but I’ll go out on a limb and predict a massive increase in donations to Republican candidates in the US. How sweet is it to be able to ask for support from people who see the barbarians at their gate.

    Those of us involved with the GOP will have to ensure that the benefactors of this largess are sincere in their convictions. One of those is the conviction that climate change alarmism is BS. Anything less should not be accepted.

    • If she wins this battle, we as a country were doomed anyway.
      I said back in 2012 that we were facing out last chance to save this country, and the voters rejected that option handily.
      Trump has slowed the decline, but even if he got as many terms as St. Franklin the Roosevelt, he wouldn’t be able to drain the swamp.

  16. Well if my Congress critter Almost Occasionally Concious says we are going to all be dead in twelve years you better listen, she is a genie.

    Yes anyone who can listen to this tripe and believe it is a few cards short of a full deck.

  17. Pretty sure that this is just another turn of the Progressive ratchet, made possible by the success of public school indoctrination. Ridiculous on its face, but many points are automatically acceptable to the conditioned herd. Media will abet this crime against our society. The next wave of populism will be horrific.

    • I’ve lost track of the number of college students who have told me that it unfair that some people have so much more than others. After all, we all work 40 hours a week, so we should all make the same amount.

  18. “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    “All men are born with different capabilities; if they are free, they are not equal; if they are equal, they are not free.” – Solzhenitsyn

    Christine Stewart argues for the end of freedom.

    • This is a false idea. The inequality of people with different abilities is natural inequality: the sighted always sees better than the blind, regardless of the economic system. Socialism cannot abolish it. Socialism abolishes artificial inequality when the strong take away from the weak when the rich can get a better education than the poor, when a man and a woman engaged in the same work receive different wages, etc.

      • If you actually believe “Socialism abolishes artificial inequality” you have suffered a traumatic brain injury. Socialism creates and wields artificial inequality like a finely honed scalpel.

  19. The most telling point in this now is that Dems are desperately trying to get the actual text of their Green New Deal off the internet so people can’t actually read it. Too late! Just like Beso’s dickpic it is out here forever. Nannee had the right idea, never release the full document and keep changing what you do release, then proclaim “We have to pass the Bill to see what is in the Bill.”. Apparently she was not in control of this operation.

  20. The fatal flaw in the Green Deal is that it seeks to destroy the wealth created by fossil fuels upon which it so much depends.

    The snake consuming it’s own tail is the image which comes to mind.

    • What about the Club of Rome, which called itself a global think tank, of whom both Al Gore and Maurice Strong were members, as well as Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates and George Soros. In 1991, it produced a report stating:-

      To form a new global community, industrialized countries must become convinced that civilization faces a threat of global proportion; otherwise they will not acquiesce to diminishing standards of living, freedom and control.

      World leaders must define all global crises so as to assume control of their causes and cures.

      Leaders must characterize national bureaucracies as inefficient and ill equipped to handle the looming crises; describing them as too complex and technical for any single nation to manage.

      All crises must be defined as time sensitive emergencies which require immediate action.

      The images which people see, particularly on television, must be controlled, as images can distort the intended message.

      There must be common agreement between the political elite, in all parties, for the new social and economic order to be established.

      To foster a sense of interdependence mankind must be educated to view themselves as citizens of something greater than nation states.

      The authors then hit upon three conveniently contrived straw men that will help propel civilization toward a new global society; or what they term the resolutique: global warming, global economic development and retooling national economies for global objectives.

      • The Club of Rome was very influential and often promoted world government in order to save humanity from itself. But, the disasters they predicted never happened and many original members (like George Mitchell for example) quit and gave up on it. It is a source of scary quotes, but I’m not sure how much influence they have now. The UN Framework is another beast, it seems to keep on going no matter how wrong it is. Not sure why.

  21. “since it was conceived in the late 1980s by Maurice Strong (see the details of what Strong did in Christopher Booker’s article on him in the 5 December 2015 issue of The Telegraph, link)…”

    Strong is not the originator of the worry. Please refer to worrywarts Plass and Callender pre-1950s. I sat through a rather boring and content free colloquium on the topic in Fall 1974. What Strong recognized was a rich and powerful institution that could be compromised over the issue.

    • Strong originated using climate alarmism as a tool to reach world government to the best of my knowledge. You are correct that climate alarmism existed before he used it. But, Callender did not promote world socialist government, he just thought CO2 would (maybe) lead to too much warming.

  22. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. About the 5th Century.

    Full employment is achieved by the number of people doing handwork in the fields to supply food . I’ve had a little experience with watching the south end of a north bound mule over plow lines. The internal combustion engine was much easier, faster and more productive. Especially with me directing the mule.

  23. There is no way to achieve prosperity under a socialist system. All of the discoveries and innovations which have lead to our current prosperity have accumulated over time through mostly individual efforts, many of which were fortuitous, accidental discoveries. A centrally planned, socialist system has no mechanism with which to “capitalize” on such discoveries, so stagnation and poverty is the inevitable result.

    When a central feature of your socialist plan is to discard the most important elements of our prosperous economy, the failure will be even more dramatic than the usual failure of socialism!

  24. Ms O-C has done conservatives a great favor by exposing in no uncertain terms the agenda of the Left’s Climate Change policy.

  25. The issue is not how right or wrong AOC and crazy Bernie are but how ignorant the choir to which they are preaching happens to be. It goes back to the average IQ, the MSM , and educational system we have here in the U S of A. The fact that somewhere around 50% of people pay no taxes and want free stuff so vote Democrat is a scary situation. A workers’ party in a workers’ state where people don’t have to work sounds great to a very large part of our population.

    • Yep,… it’s for this reason that Democrats are pushing for an abolition of the EC system for electing the POTUS, in direct opposition to the Constitution and founding principles. The FF’s KNEW that they would have to create a system that would hinder the wannabe aristocracies from leveraging the stupidity of the people via “democracy” … ie mob rule. The sewer rats have had a lot of success in destroying the US of A …. they abolished the election of Senators by the State Government, they took control of the Money via the third attempt to implement a central bank, the Federal Reserve (Thank You WWilson – Democrat), bought off large swaths of the public by revisionists interpretations of the Constitution by the fraudulent FDR (Democrat) courts … who gave us Social Security, then created a centralized education system to indoctrinate the masses, …. etc etc …. all implemented by the Democratic Socialist Party of America. ….. now they want to control energy, how u travel, and what you’ll eat.

      It’ll be a miracle if the Constitution survives another 10-20 years.

  26. AOC must get all of her ideas from the movies.
    Train travel only, buy and work locally, limit your footprint and energy use, no citizens with guns.
    Sounds like “Hunger Games” to me

  27. When it comes down to it, it’s the Warmists against the rest. The Warmists are globalists, socialists, communists, SJW’s, anti-capitalists, Gaics, pagans and other dirt worshipers and “scientists”. The other side is notorious for its majority status…and its silence. It’ll take a Tea Party style movement that is large, loud and consistently turns out in sufficient numbers to scare politicians.

  28. With all due respect for the great fight being put here, there is a fallacy of composition running through the campaign.
    1)Karl Marx was trained under David Urquhart of the British Museum, one of Bentham’s and Lord Palmerston’s zoo. So “socialism” is from the British East Indie Company, CEO Adam Smith, defeated in 1783 for a republic, if you can keep it as Benjamin Franklin noted.

    2)Right now it is interesting that HRM Chatham House, Royal Institute for International Affairs, expert opinion on Jan 30 on how to bring the Dems to flout Trumps Paris policy touts a photo-op of AOC. The Green New Deal , from RIIA, would indeed destroy their former colony. No doubt they estimate Germany on-board with the phase out of nuclear and coal. Corbyn has not endorsed it despite a twitter phone-op by AOC (his brother is a serious climate activist).

    3)Dr. John Schellnhuber the decarbonizer of the Potsdam Climate Institute, PKI, was awarded his CBE personally by HRM at the Berlin Embassy in 2004 for his outspoken population target of 2 billion. Only just this month was revealed who signed the crazy diesel limits into law, none other than Chancellor Merkel, then Environment minister in 1998 – even before Gore’s farce. Gore endorsed AOC’s GND – the Dem hopefuls are too fogged to realize it.

    4)Trump is getting in the way of this – no wonder London’s still trying to topple a US elected president.

    In short, as a keen economist noted, the Dems have been Germanized, Green is the new Brown. The GOP couldn’t parody this craziness.

    • Marx was a socialist long before he ever wrote for Urquhart’s “Diplomatic Review” from 1866. Karl wrote the “Communist Manifesto” in 1848 and “Das Kapital” in 1867, based upon previous “work”.

      You could more credibly attribute Horace Greeley to his mentorship, since Marx wrote for “NY Daily Tribune” before the DR.

  29. The GND would reduce America to a pre-civilization Stone Age society.

    Don’t they realize how many would outright DIE under this regime?

  30. The end game appears to be the destruction of the USA. That is the result if the GND was ever voted into existence.

    First, taxes would skyrocket.
    Next, when taxes were not enough saving/investments would be confiscated.
    Next, when that money ran out more and more money would be printed.
    Finally, massive inflation would follow bankrupting everyone.
    At that point everyone would be equal (or dead).

  31. Why the Green New Deal is a Bad Deal for America

    Or

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970

    Or

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970

    There isn’t much new under the Sun.

  32. Anything that stops progress to regress to earlier technology is inhumane and cruel. Capitalism has driven the innovation that has lifted billions out of poverty and disease. Consider the railroad tycoons in the early to mid 19th century. They were wealthy with the same kind of wealth gap we see today. But despite that, they lived without indoor plumbing, air travel, air conditioning, automobiles, cell phones or internet. Compare how they lived against the poorest of their time. Compare them to the poorest of today – the poorest today have indoor plumbing, air conditioning, mass transit, refrigerated food, hospitals, etc, etc, and live better than those wealth railroad tycoons. And those tycoons and the ones that followed are the people responsible for this massive increase in wealth. Despite the increase in population, we all enjoy more comfortable and leisurely lives, better healthcare, healthier and more abundant food.

    It is a huge mistake to turn the clock back to the 18th century. It’s a huge mistake to take the resources away from tycoons and billionaires to essentially try to erase a wealth gap that in 150 years will not be recognizable. Capitalism has allowed a 10x growth in population with improved lifestyle for everyone. No one would think to give up indoor plumbing or even delay it so a fraction of the people in 1850 could put a tiny bit of money in their pocket. What would an 1850 tycoon give for a car, a coach class plane ticket, a refrigerator and any number of conveniences and necessities we now consider a right?

    Let the billionaires keep innovating, so in 150 years we aren’t viewed as the most selfish and short-sighted generation in history. Billions would have died if we acted this way in the 1850’s and we can’t justify killing billions by stopping innovation simply because of a contrived wealth gap. Generationally, we are all richer.

    • A young socialist once told me that if you take away half a man’s income, that man will respond by working twice as hard in order to earn the same standard of living.

      Yes, socialists actually do think that way.

  33. The truth in this is that this trilliondollarbusiness is good for most billionaires. Thats why they all attack against Trump. Only gambling casino billionaires don’t care what happens, and they’ll give support to trump. This matter does not have anything to do with socialism, those idiots are only pawns in this teather.

  34. To “Win this Battle ” .we must recognise that it is a propergaanda war, and they are doing a very good job.

    For example their approach of going up tom a politician and saying “What are you going to do about Climate Change” is very clever. So how does your average politician answer that. Lets face it, your average politician is not all that bright, so we need to prepare them for such a question before hand.

    The same as when they promise lots and lots of “Free Stuff”. So you say “Where is the money coming from. And their answer is the Super rich or the Banks. “So again try to prepare the politician as to how to answer that. Perhaps explain that society is like a pirymide , with the very rich being just the tip, and if we take a few million from that tip, by the time it gets to the bottom its just a few cents per person. By all means try to make the taxation system fairer, but lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    And I say yet again , we must “Prove “to the general public, that the gas CO2, and remember its not carbon, its two parts of Oxygen to one part of gaseous carbon, is not able to “Store”heat, but to simply to pass it on as a different frequency .

    CO2 is the card at the bottom of this incredible “House of Cards” and removing it will cause the whole pile of rubbish to slowly collapse. But there is now a Green Industry out there, and a bit like Enron” its too big to be allowed to fall over, situation. That is how a lot of Politicians appear to view this whole matter.

    So the EPA must first issue a lot of Properganda about CO2 being essential to all life on this planet. Then take it to Court. Then and only then will we ever “Win” this battle for our Way of Life.

    MJE

  35. Yeah, getting rid of 95% of energy production, citizen mobility, food production, . . . Yeah, I’d say that would be bad for any country. Plenty of examples to choose from.

    I guess we can all starve to death together.

  36. The “Earth Charter” Is the work of Steven Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, and Gorbachev.

    Interview: Maurice Strong on a “People’s Earth Charter”

    But, let us be very clear, the UN action is not going to be the only goal. The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and the commitments of people everywhere. And, that is where the political influence, where the long-term results of the Earth Charter will really come.
    http://tinyurl.com/ygq9maj

  37. Rebutting Rockefeller: the chairman of the Earth Charter drafting committee takes issue with this magazine’s expose, “The New World Religion.” The facts show that his objections are not sustainable. (Earth Charter).

    Professor Steven C. Rockefeller has objected to my critique of the Earth Charter, “The New World Religion,” in the September 23rd issue of THE NEW AMERICAN. (See his full letter on page 3). The article, he says, “contains some misunderstandings” about the Earth Charter Initiative which he then purports to correct. Below is my response to a number of his points.
    Rockefeller: “The Earth Charter is the product of a worldwide, cross-cultural, interfaith dialogue on common goals and shared values that has been conducted as a civil society initiative.”
    Response: The global campaign for the Charter is not a grass-roots, bottom-up effort, but a closely controlled, top-down operation masquerading as “dialogue.” The Charter was cobbled together under the leadership of Dr. Rockefeller, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev (representing Green Cross International), Earth Summit I Secretary-General Maurice Strong (representing the Earth Council), and representatives from the government of the Netherlands.
    snip
    Maurice Strong opened Earth Summit I with a “Declaration of the Sacred Earth,” accompanied by “indigenous” animist Earth worship ceremonies — standard practice at UN convocations. The Charter says protecting Earth is our “sacred trust.”Dr. Rockefeller is a leading advocate of the radical “biocentrism,” under which, he says, “the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and ecosystems” against “human oppression.” Biocentrists believe that humans are no more important than other life forms or natural objects. Of course, rocks, trees, and ecosystems speak in words only understood by enlightened souls like Rockefeller and company, who have assigned themselves the noble task of defending these “rights of nature.”
    http://tinyurl.com/qhebu9d

  38. Live & Learn: Maurice Strong
    I never aspired to be in business. I went into business because I only have a high-school education, and I couldn’t get jobs that required higher qualifications. I went into business quite reluctantly, because it was the only place I could get a job.
    http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/live-learn-maurice-strong/

    Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
    Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor
    WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences has selected Maurice F. Strong to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Academy chose Strong, a Canadian and the first non-U.S. citizen to receive the award, in recognition of his leadership of global conferences that became the basis for international environmental negotiations and for his tireless efforts to link science, technology, and society for common benefit.
    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032003

  39. They are alredy running away from it:

    “The mysterious case of AOC’s scrubbed ‘Green New Deal’ details” by Susan Ferrechio | February 09, 2019
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/the-mysterious-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details

    On Feb. 5, the congressional office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a new blog entry under “energy issues” detailing her “Green New Deal” proposal and answering “frequently asked questions.” …

    By the afternoon of Feb. 7, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., removed the document from her website without explanation but following backlash and even ridicule over the radical plans outlined within it, including a call to “eliminate emissions from cows or air travel” — which would functionally ban the latter — and to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

    But on Saturday morning, chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti tweeted that the FAQ page was indeed posted by the Ocasio-Cortez staff but was done so in error. He called the page “an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake …”

    As for the blog post, it has not been restored to her congressional website as of Saturday morning but is available via archive:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq
    and its text saved online:
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

  40. As a resident of Venezuela for 17 years up to recently, I fully agree that socialism is the best way to implement the Green New Deal, witness an oil country without gasoline, people walking and slimming because of the shortage of food, industrial output practically nil, power system functioning intermittently, etc., Venezuela is a precursor and shows the way to go.

  41. Perhaps AOC could make a start on the GND by living up to it. So :
    – no flying to Washington DC,
    – cars, buses, trains only if produced by green energy, therefore she is wallking to DC because even bicycles are produced mainly be non-green energy.
    – Lose the computer and phone – not sufficient green energy to produce them
    By the time she has done this , she will be lost somewhere on the way to Washington and we wont be able to contact her anyway.

  42. I was very surprised by the fact that some of the Americans connect the false theory of global warming in general and the Green New Deal in particular with socialism.

    I am a Russian communist who is convinced that the future belongs to communism (socialism is the first least mature stage of communism, which is characterized by the socialization of the means of production, the organization of production based on long-term planning and the distribution of social wealth exclusively according to the measure of labor invested by each individual in creating this wealth). Communism can only be built on a scientific basis Therefore, neither socialism nor communism have anything to do with stupidity, which the theory of global warming is.

    Maybe it will be interesting to you, for this very reason supporters of socialism and communism are in the front ranks of people in Russia, who categorically reject this stupid theory. The stupidity of the so-called global warming is supported here by the most conservative, reactionary circles.

    Perhaps you should think that the promoters of the Green New Deal are probably not potential socialists at all, but the hirelings of one of the big business factions that are not seeking socialist, that is, fair equality, but more of transnational monopolies’ total control over Americans and all of humanity for the sake of a more sophisticated and deep explotation of human labor and the intellect and to extract much more profit. We, the Russian Communists, think that way.

    • “I am a Russian communist who is convinced that the future belongs to communism” That tells the world all it needs to know about you. Bye, Felicia.

  43. Stupid politicians making stupid statements designed to fool stupid people into thinking they will get more than they do currently if stupidity prevails over not-so-common sense.
    The problem with all of the Green Deal plans is that they rely on people acting in ways that are not in their own best interests.
    If the Green Deal was in my personal best interest it would not require Big Brother to force it on me. I would do it gladly and willingly, because I would benefit from doing it.
    Most of the economic problems in the US stem from the current application of these stupid policies that isolate the payer, from the consumer, and the final recipient of payment. These systems are always unstable, because they tend toward inflationary spiral, until most consumers cannot or will not continue to buy them. A market based system will pull back until the value vs. cost equation is more in line with buyers expectation, if that is economically possible for suppliers to do, or else they will die on the vine, and become a niche product for the wealthy. No government program is going to supply us with flying cars, that the middle class can afford. It would be a great value to the consumer, but the suppliers could not produce them in sufficient numbers at that price level. It is a limitation based on what is economically viable. If anyone could do it, they would be doing it without a government program.
    The market is efficient because the buyer has control over the perceived value of the product, and the choice of many suppliers, AND the choice to forgo ANY purchase and go without, or create it themselves.
    In a Capitalistic system the buyer has control, and the suppliers compete for his money. In a Socialistic system the government has control, and there is no “legal competition”. But there will obviously be black-market competition, because the system is so pathetic at producing what people want and at a price that they think is “fair value”.
    Socialist systems always fail because the suppliers are not in active competition for consumers. And the suppliers try to provide the goods and services, but the incentives are not clear and present in the continued receipt of a paycheck. A good example in the US is the VA medical system. It is not the people in the system that fail the Veterans. It is the way the system is financed and run. And it will be still worse for us, if we choose Medicare for all. Medicare currently pays less than half of the cost associated with the medical care it approves. The rest is paid for by those with private health insurance, being charged more than they would be, if Medicare paid the full cost of the care delivered.
    Our current socialist systems are eating into the American Dream. We need to find ways to lessen that, not expand it into other areas. The Green Deal is the War on Fossil Fuels. It is meant to distract from the failures of the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. It will actually be less successful than the previous Wars, if that is possible.

    • Proving you are clueless is so much easier when you don’t know how to spell, punctuate or structure a sentece correctly. Good job, Buddy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *