Report: Green New Deal Could Cost Every US Household $65,000 A Year

From The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

The Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, according to a new report by the right-leaning American Action Forum (AAF).

That comes to an estimated cost of $36,100 to $65,300 per American household per year to meet the Green New Deal’s goals, AAF reported Monday. Those goals include “net-zero” emissions, widespread high-speed rail, guaranteed jobs, universal health care and upgrading every building.

Thus, the potential cost of the Green New Deal could range from 63 percent of the median to nearly 106 percent of what the average household earns a year. The median U.S. household income was $61,372 in 2017, according to government figures.

AAF looked at what it would cost to achieve the Green New Deal’s main goals. For example, eliminating emissions from the electric grid is estimated to cost $5.4 trillion over 10 years. Also, “greening” the U.S. transportation system could cost up to $2.7 trillion, including building out high-speed rail.

Universal health care, on the other hand, would add an estimated $36 trillion in costs to the Green New Deal over a decade — this was included in the proposal despite having nothing to do with the environment.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leaves after addressing immigration rights activists during a rally in front of the White House in Washington

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez walks away from the front of the White House with her deputy communication director Anika Legrand-Wittich (L) in Washington, U.S., Feb. 12, 2019. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” wrote AAF policy analysts, including economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director and adviser to former Arizona Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Holtz-Eakin is now AAF’s president.

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey to introduce Green New Deal resolutions in early February, calling for overhauling the U.S. economy to get greenhouse gas emissions to “net-zero” within 10 years.

The resolution also calls for a slew of welfare programs, from federal job guarantees to universal health care, and for the government to focus on “repairing historic oppression” of certain groups of people. (RELATED: Washington Post Rips Green New Deal: ‘We Can’t Afford Bad Ideas’)

Ocasio-Cortez said the resolution, though non-binding, was needed to take global warming seriously. In a livestream to supporters Sunday night, Ocasio-Cortez said global warming was “going to kill us” if nothing is done.

Republicans oppose the Green New Deal, seeing it as a massive expansion of government to control almost every aspect of American life.

“The American Action Forum’s analysis shows that the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation,” Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso said in a statement.

“Promising new technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization hold the key to significant emissions reductions,” said Barrasso, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Democrats are divided on support for the Green New Deal, despite support from every Senate Democrat running for president in 2020.

Follow Michael on Twitter

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wallaby Geoff
February 26, 2019 10:05 am

AOC will not be happy until the US is turned into a large version of Venezuela. Does she have ANY idea about all this or are we missing something? Is she smarter than we think?

Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
February 26, 2019 10:36 am

Considering I wonder how she remembers to breath iI would say yes she is smarter than I think

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  JOE BANKS
February 26, 2019 11:09 am

Make Alexandria Bartend Again!

Bob Hoye
Reply to  Matthew Drobnick
February 26, 2019 11:38 am

Along with PM Justin Trudeau!

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
February 26, 2019 11:16 am

Does AOC get to play the role of Maduro’s daughter?

(Estimated net worth of $4.2 billion.)

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 26, 2019 12:27 pm

We will be ceding TOTAL economic power and authority of our lives to the “green” Communists. There will be no such thing as “disposable” income or an “Amazon”. Your complete incomes will flow to the State politbureau.

No. Thank. You.

John Tillman
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 26, 2019 1:05 pm

The Maduros haven’t yet had enough time to equal the riches stolen by the Chavez family, but they’re catching up rapidly.

Still, pikers compared to the worldest richest man and fellow klepto-tyrant, Putin, worth an estimated $200 to $300 billion.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
February 26, 2019 1:13 pm

Is she smarter than we think? Her IQ is definitely smaller than her physical measurements.

Just another pretty face.

Don Perry
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 26, 2019 4:02 pm

I think she looks like someone with a serious thyroid problem.

Reply to  Don Perry
February 26, 2019 4:43 pm

Just another pretty thyroid.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2019 7:25 am

She was a stand in on the set of “They Live”. So was Pelosi

No makeup was used. Verified by TMZ

Reply to  Wallaby Geoff
February 26, 2019 3:48 pm

I haven’t decided whether AOC is the most brilliant politician to come along in a long time or whether she’s a complete idiot. She asks for the world but will take what she can incrementally get or she asks for the world expecting it’s all possible by believing in magic?

February 26, 2019 10:09 am

Unfortunately $65,000 a year household isn’t a very compelling argument when the federal government spent an average of $32,400 per household last year on who knows what. We are so inured to massive budget deficits that no one cares anymore. It’s just normal. So what if the government spends an additional 200% a year for the GND? Just print more money or whatever the government does. Impending global financial apocalypse? Nah, bro. that’s crazy talk.

Reply to  stinkerp
February 26, 2019 10:24 am

so you’re saying we shouldn’t count on the guaranteed income thing……

Reply to  Latitude
February 26, 2019 10:47 am


Why not, it’s just money.

Didn’t you know they grow the stuff on trees in the Green world?

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 11:08 am

Is that why American money is green?

Reply to  Hivemind
February 26, 2019 6:32 pm

I thought it was mold from those rich guys leaving it in the banks for so long.

Reply to  Latitude
February 26, 2019 11:07 am

It is not the income but what you can buy with it if there is anything left to buy with it.

Reply to  Robertvd
February 26, 2019 1:55 pm

You will have the ‘choices’ the Soviets had in the 1970s.

Get ready for large blocks of Moscow housing.

No need to buy a car, you’ll all be using public transit, bicycles, or Uber Rickshaw.

TV/media will consist of the Ocasio version of Pravda. Lots of ‘inspirational’ stories of people valiantly striving to reach perfect socialism.

The internet will be used to monitor your social credit score. Too low a score and you can’t get train tickets, your ability to shop in certain stores will be restricted.

A rant like this would get me five years in a re-education camp. The crime? Anti-Ocasio behaviour. Anyone reading this rant would loose 50 points from their social credit score.

Welcome to the Ocasio world.

Reply to  stinkerp
February 26, 2019 10:36 am

Big Government is expensive. Like a cancer it will eventually kill the body when it grows out of control.

Reply to  stinkerp
February 26, 2019 10:48 am

Only rich countries can go green. Only poor countries inflate their currency into worthlessness. If printing was the solution all countries would be rich.

Why so many older people have to find work again? Because inflation killed their savings.

Reply to  stinkerp
February 26, 2019 1:51 pm

I think the whole idea is to create a global financial collapse with 1000000% inflation. That way, all the debt incurred to pay for this insanity would be wiped out by inflation. Only the creditors are harmed, unfortunately, the largest holder of US debt is the Social Security trust fund.

Don Perry
Reply to  stinkerp
February 26, 2019 4:06 pm

To top it all off, she is now advocating that people quit having children. Where does she think money to support an increasingly older population will come from? AOC is incredibly stupid.

Reply to  Don Perry
February 26, 2019 6:01 pm

The money for Social Security will come from euthanizing the old.

Reply to  Don Perry
February 26, 2019 10:25 pm

They will just accept all the climate refugees in the great green dream 🙂

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  stinkerp
February 27, 2019 4:31 am

The Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade,

Now that is a downright silly arsed claim if there ever was one.

There is not enough competent people …… or enough people willing to work, ….. to spend $93 trillion over a decade to revitalize all of Americas buildings and infrastructure.

John the Econ
February 26, 2019 10:16 am

It’s not about the money. Never was. That’s why they don’t care. It’s about control. Of you. Once the state assumes the authority to manage you on the basis of carbon emissions, there will be absolutely no aspect of your life that will be free from potential government interference or total control.

Joel O'Bryan
February 26, 2019 10:16 am

“Promising new technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization hold the key to significant emissions reductions,” said Barrasso, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.”

Well, the good Senator got 2 of those 3 correct. Unless by carbon capture he means growing more forests to be left largely uncut. Photosynthesis is the best carbon capture. For the oceans it’s the carbonate skeletons of phytoplankton (which are powered by photosynthesis) sinking to the bottom to be buried.

And I’m about head out to gym in my p/u truck and utilize some stored carbon to get there and back. Greening the planet. CO2 is our friend. People who talk about CO2 as pollution are just dim-wittted sots IMO.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 26, 2019 10:54 am

Joel O’Bryan

I have noted in the few years I’ve been following climate change the ‘climate sensitive’ (friends, family and occasional acquaintances) repeat the meme that ‘atmospheric carbon’ (if they even include the atmospheric bit, which they rarely do) is going to destroy the planet. But if you simply ask how that works they say ” because everyone knows it does” or something equally stupid.

Tragically, when I point out some facts to them they look at me as if I’M mad!

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 11:21 am

Reason doesn’t work with people like that. They have to be laughed at and mocked.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 12:36 pm

Pfft, come on, it’s just quantum mechanical phenomenon that no one has actually bothered researching in the real atmosphere, but it is known.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 26, 2019 6:07 pm

Dim witted sots is far too mild a term for delusion that would kill every living thing.

We need to WIN this already, or the worst fears of the alarmists will be realized–because of their devastating cures.

I think the only way to win it is to become aware of the areas where greens are CORRECT and encourage that.

Organic and regenerative agriculture can be done by the free market (currently the US government subsidizes candy production and that is a major reason organics are expensive). Unlike solar, wind, high-speed rail and the other blathers, those things do work, some of them spectacularly well.

February 26, 2019 10:23 am

So are these unemployed and unwilling to work going to able to build high speed trains, solar and wind farms and rebuild all buildings in the US? No they won’t so whatever the cost, triple that because of inefficiency.

Reply to  Grant
February 26, 2019 11:03 am

The only thing that will grow under her plan is the number of “unwilling to work”.

Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 10:23 am

Well this is a bit controversial. Firstly, I am absolutely adamant that Universal Healthcare will not cost an EXTRA 36 trillion, so you can subtract a very significant sum from private healthcare payments currently being made by Americans. Large numbers of people will save money on healthcare, others will top up privately as currently. The mass purchasing power of the USG will reduces drug and equipment bills radically. If necessary they will set up state owned manufacturing to produce generic drugs as a non-profit. Generics profiteering is the worst stain on the pharma industry globally.

I would be extremely confident that basic universal healthcare will not cost any more than the current private system excluding 60 million people. So you can strike that $36trn straight away. It may cost more in taxes, but huge savings in HMO plans will more than offset that.

The other really big cost in there is guaranteed jobs. Here the range is so wide that one wonders what assumptions have been made. How many jobs at what salary?

All the others are pissing in the wind in comparison, so all debate initially should focus on healthcare and guaranteed jobs.

Remember: huge vested interests want to maintain the status quo. They will fight dirty, they will lie and then quietly own up like Google did over spying.

When blanket numbers are produced without detailed breakdown of assumptions, I assume until proven otherwise thst they are incorrect.

Not that they are lying, but they have chosen assumptions which are not the most appropriate.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 10:31 am

When blanket numbers are produced without detailed breakdown of assumptions, I assume until proven otherwise thst they are incorrect

Whenever estimates are given for how much a government program is going to cost, you are correct to assume the number is incorrect, however you are incorrect as to the direction – Government programs invariably cost *MORE* than they are estimated to, never less.

Reply to  John Endicott
February 26, 2019 10:53 am

Of few weeks back, Rhys referred to the US as being “uber capitalist”.
So it’s hardly surprising to find that he actually believes that government is more efficient than the free market.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 10:48 am

So you think by having 50% of the population pay for 100% covered healthcare for the other 50% of the population – drastically increasing demand on healthcare services – is going to reduce bills dramatically? That is just crazy talk – pure BS. Perhaps we should just make doctors work as slaves and we can enslave people at birth to be trained as doctors so that we have enough of them.

Set up state owned manufacturing to produce drugs at a non profit? So you think the government should violate patents on pharmaceuticals so they can manufacture and sell them at no profit, taking away the ability for pharmaceutical companies to R&D new drugs?

Could you please do us all a favor and move to Venezuela?

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 10:54 am

They will save money by denying health care to anyone who bucks the system.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 11:21 am

Your number in line will be based on your social score. So it will basically go like this:

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 12:48 pm

“Perhaps we should just make doctors work as slaves and we can enslave people at birth to be trained as doctors so that we have enough of them.”

That’s kind of what they do to Cuban doctors who they contract out to other countries. The Cuban government charges high contract rates to those countries, but pays their doctors a pittance.

Cuban Doctors Revolt: ‘You Get Tired of Being a Slave’

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 10:49 am

There won’t be a place for private healthcare when the ‘Green New Deal’ comes to frution. So, it’s gonna be the ‘State Way’ or the ‘Highway to Misery and an early death’. Think of Castro. Excellent care for party apparatchiks and supporters, and some decent doctors amongst the loyal masses? Not so much for political opponents, homosexuals, and people who didnt think’ the right way. He ran his own private island for the best part of 50 years and still couldn’t make socialism work!

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 10:51 am

It doesn’t matter how adamant you are. The numbers don’t lie.
The idea that having government pay for something is going to reduce the cost of that something runs counter to hundreds of years of experience with government.
It also runs counter to the experience of countries that have actually turned over health care to the government.
What always happens is quality goes down and costs go up.

Ah yes, the old evil “vested interests” who are keeping the pure of heart from creating heaven on earth.
Sheesh, you guys will fall for anything.

William Astley
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 12:23 pm

Facts are facts. The US healthcare costs are out of control.

The problem with for profit hospitals is they make more profit if the costs are higher.

People can shop around for a better deal on a car, people cannot shop around for a cheaper hospital to get bypass surgery.

Diet is the cheapest method to reduce healthcare costs. Roughly 60% of all healthcare cost are directly or indirectly caused by poor diet.

A day in a US hospital costs $5,220 here — versus $424 in Spain.

You may want to consider appendix removal go to Australia — it will be about $12,000 cheaper than the US.

The cost of normal birth in a US hospital is twice the cost as in Australia and five times more than the cost in Spain.

The same is true for C-section procedures — they cost twice as much in the US as in Australia.

Bypass surgery costs $78,318 in the US, versus $24,059 in the UK.

An MRI costs twice as much in the US as in Switzerland.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 1:05 pm

…You can shop around for a doctor or hospital all you want in the US.

As with most claims that it’s just greedy free market profiteers that are causing problems, the reality is far more complex, and like always, the reason is actually the out of control bureaucracy. Other causes are our out of control lawsuit rewards, higher number of medical tests, and a more diverse population with other social factors leading to poorer health. The final reason is that the US leads the world – by far – in medical R&D.

william Johnston
Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 1:09 pm

I just love it when people compare apples to persimmons and claim we should be like the example. Unless and until we convert our culture and values to the offered example, it is nothing but BS.

Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 1:33 pm

Since my previous comment got sent to the bit bucket, I’ll explain it again.

1) Anyone who thinks the US has a free market health care system knows nothing about the US or free markets.

2) By comparing infant mortality and life expectancy, you have proven that you know nothing about health care systems in any country. Those two statistics are famous for their use by those who know nothing but want to sound intelligent.
2a) First, learn a little statistics. Before you can compare two populations, you have to first make sure that the two populations are comparable.
2b) For infant mortality: What’s the average age of first birth between the two populations? What percentage of the pregnant population takes advantage of health care services that are already available?
2c) For life expectancy, how does general health compare between populations, also are there any sub-populations known for being risk takers or especially violent.
3) Another issue is how are the statistics defined and counted. For example, Germany counts any baby that dies within 24 hours of birth as a still birth. In the US it’s an infant mortality. In France, any baby that is born under a certain weight and subsequently dies, is considered a still-birth. In the US it’s an infant mortality.

Once you correct for the many, many differences between countries and how the numbers are gathered and counted, you find that the US is right up there at the top.

As you admit, a big factor in health care costs is nutrition. Unless you go full blown totalitarian, which most socialists would applaud, there is nothing the government can do to impact that.

Drugs cost more in the US because we have to pay for the developing of those drugs. The rest of the world free-loads on US R&D.

Regardless, I love the way people take subsidized prices and proclaim that this means other countries are cheaper.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 1:45 pm

Infant mortality statistics are completely misleading as you say. Some nations require an infant to be 48 hours old before they call it infant death, some require evidence that the lungs and heart were healthy, some require it to be over a certain weight, and some just don’t keep reliable data on it.

David Kahn
Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 3:51 pm

Let me guess. You are so impressed with the efficiency of the one U.S. government run healthcare system, the Veterans Administration, with which all veterans as just so enamored by they love it to death, that it makes sense to put everyone onto a similar system!

Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 7:18 pm

You seem to worship facts, yet you are so bad about abusing them.

While health care costs are going up rapidly, it’s because of too much government intervention, not too little.

As to what you believe to be true, those aren’t facts. People can shop around for hospitals. All it takes is a phone call.

As to your examples, why is it that socialists actually believe that something becomes cheaper for society when it gets subsidized?

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 10:56 am

Rhys Jaggar

Try looking at the UK NHS before making stupid unsubstantiated statements.

Reply to  HotScot
February 26, 2019 11:02 am

It’s like communism.

This time they are going to get it right.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 11:47 am

Obamacare Website: $2 Billion and counting; When Apple, Google, Amazon could have taken healthcare memberships and payments online in months, not years…

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 2:35 pm

“The mass purchasing power of the USG will reduces drug and equipment bills radically. ”

There are massive state healthcare systems in most European countries. No such radical savings are noticeable, to the contrary they tend to be quite inefficient and corrupt.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 4:20 pm

Universal healthcare may not cost extra to the economy, but will require significantly raising taxes, and not just on the rich, as there isn’t enough tax revenue from the rich alone to cover it. Unless employers increase salaries to compensate, there will be a lot of the middle class that takes a huge pay cut. It’s unclear to me how you make the transition fair. And I am absolutely adamant that universal healthcare will kill medical innovation worldwide, as the majority of innovation emerges in the United States, due to our for-profit system. I’m willing to pay somewhat more for my health care, to be the world’s center of innovation and progress in medicine!

Regarding jobs, did you read the actual AAF article? They specifically document their assumptions. There are two job related sections in the Green New Deal. The first one that talks about replacing jobs killed by the green energy transition, which the AAF article doesn’t attempt to measure. That could be single digit trillions over ten years, depending on how many of those workers are transitioned to green jobs, and to what extent each green job needs to be subsidized.

The second section “guarantees a job with a family-sustaining wage…to all people of the United States”. Here they use a policy proposal from a liberal think tank in favor of a universal job guarantee, so it’s a friendly source to the idea. It’s not the AAF article author’s assumptions. The different levels of cost depend on how universal that job guarantee is. The low end implies a federal job for a majority of the currently unemployed. The second step up assumes that these guaranteed federal jobs would increase work force participation (a reasonable assumption), adding to the cost. The steps beyond that include the government padding salaries for those already employed. It’s all spelled out in the liberal think tank policy proposal.

Now, I think the problem you run into there is that you’ve basically implemented communism, where every low end job earns the same salary. I don’t see how you are going to convince people to do certain crappy jobs, when the pay is no better than other easier jobs. And I don’t see how companies won’t just offer lower salaries, knowing the government will pick up the slack. It just seems like a recipe for total economic collapse, even if you could “afford” the cost through taxes.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 26, 2019 4:59 pm

“…The mass purchasing power of the USG will reduces drug and equipment bills radically…”

What planet are you on? It leads to jacked-up prices and corruption when it comes to other goods and services. Vendors love to take advantage of contracts with Uncle Sam. There is less-competition among bidders because of gov’t-required pre-selection, and contracts usually have lots of silly stipulations like involving women or minority-owned business enterprises, “green” disposal or production methods, etc. On top of it all, gov’t oversight is lax compared to that of for-profit companies.

Brian McCain
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 27, 2019 5:23 am

I worked at company in the past that made mobile HVAC systems. We sold a system to Caterpillar for about $300. A very similar system that went into the HUMVEE sold for $8000. About the only difference was one was yellow and one was green.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
February 27, 2019 8:27 am

In your post, you suggested that the health care and job costs are much larger than the other costs (such as green electric grid and transportation), and we should initially ignore the other costs. I’ve already addressed your point about health care and jobs in another post.

In this post, I’ll explain how the AAF article radically underestimates the cost of a green electric grid and transportation. I’m not going to do an exhaustive list (I could, but it would take many pages), just give some interesting examples of large costs that they don’t factor in.

For example, they talk about high speed rail, but what about short distance transportation? Replacing all passenger cars in America with Nissan Leaf electric cars would cost around 7 trillion dollars. Maybe you could find a cheaper car, and maybe you don’t need to replace 100% of the cars, but still any way you look at it, it will definitely be in the trillions. Of course, there’s not enough manufacturing capacity to build that many electric cars, and likely not enough immediately accessible raw materials, so even if you were willing to pay the cost, it’s likely not physically possible to make that many new cars in a decade.

Beyond that, you run into an issue that around half the country rents, and they’ll need some place to plug in their cars. Add another trillion to install charging stations. And if you’re travelling, you might need places to stop and charge — add another trillion or so.

OK, now everyone has an electric car — what happens when everyone plugs in their car at the same time to recharge it? A Chevy Bolt can draw 1400 watts when it is charging, for a total of 8 hours. The average residence draws an average of 1100 watts per hour, so this is a 42% increase in electric power requirements per household. If we are getting rid of fossil fuel heating, and going to all electric heat, that’s another big increase. My conclusion is that it will not be enough to merely replace existing generating capacity with renewables, you’ll also need to add significant new electric power, to cover additional demands on the electric grid. Efficiency gains will help offset some of the requirements, but not enough to avoid spending trillions.

And we haven’t even begun to talk about converting freight trains and trucks to not use fossil fuels. Trillions again!

The AAF article covers building new power plants, and a certain amount of storage, but they optimistically assume 50% nuclear (which the greens will never go for). They don’t cover increasing grid density (to allow better distribution of intermittent power sources across a wider area), or backup generating capacity. I also believe that if you go 100% renewable, you will require some kind of “smart grid” that can throttle end user’s power consumption remotely (for example, disabling charging of electric cars, adjusting thermostats, etc), to handle long stretches of low energy production without resorting to rolling blackouts. All this stuff adds up to trillions more.

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money! If you think any individual item would cost a lot less, feel free to give math that says otherwise, and we can debate it. I’m not against things like improving energy efficiency (which pays for itself over a certain period of time), but I think going zero carbon will require technical advancement, and simply can’t be done at present. The free market will generate these technical innovations as fossil fuels become more scarce, but attempting to force the transition in a decade in the United States is lunacy. There’s also potential for innovation in atmospheric carbon capture, which could outright solve all our problems without needing to reduce fossil fuel use at all.

As has been said many times here, even if the United States does go zero carbon, it will only reduce global temperatures by 0.1-0.25 degrees (depending on your choice of climate sensitivity), and delay a given warming target by around 8 years, due to China and the developing world picking up the slack. I suppose we’ll have to add another couple hundred trillion to decarbonize the developing world?

The alarmist estimated economic cost of continued warming for the United states is 300-500 billion per year. The AAF article itself estimates around 400 billion a year in permanent yearly costs added from switching to more expensive green energy, and that’s ignoring many other economic costs, or any benefits of the added carbon dioxide (such as increased plant growth). I can’t come up with a cost-benefit analysis that suggests decarbonizing is a net win, even taking the alarmists at face value (and I think their cost estimates are wildly exaggerated). I guess if you think the world will literally become uninhabitable due to warming, it’s worth any cost to stop, but science has a very poor record of predicting the apocalypse so far, and I can’t see how this scare is any different…

February 26, 2019 10:28 am

$65,000/year? Well, I’m out of the program, then. I don’t have that kind of money and I really don’t know anyone who does, including my neighbors. We’ll just have to mosey along the old-fashioned way and make do with the real world, not this fantasy world.

The things I would like to say would get The Mods on my –s so I won’t. But seriously, someone should point out that we already have a viable passenger rail system for commuters and cross-country travel. Oh, for the days of steam locomotives and the pleasantries of going to the dining car for lunch. Those were the days, my friend, and while Amtrak doesn’t offer as many routes as the old lines used to offer, there is still PLENTY OF PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON THE BOOKS.

But let her keep rattling on with her expensive program. How did this manage to go from the original $40.5 trillion to $93++ trillion so quickly? And she still hasn’t offered a solution for getting to Hawaii. I don’t think the US Navy is interested in running passenger transportation in the Pacific.

Reply to  Sara
February 26, 2019 10:55 am

Actually, Amtrack is not viable, except for a small handful of runs, it’s highly subsidized.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 2:22 pm

Unfortunately,While Amtrak qualifies as Rail Service, it doesn’t qualify as High Speed Rail. It’s highly unlikely thet the current Amtrak Lines were designed for 200+MPH High Speed Rail trains

Reply to  Bryan A
February 26, 2019 2:41 pm

There are no tracks in this country that can handle trains at that speed. The entire network will have to be built from ground up. In 10 years or less.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2019 5:48 am

Not only that but, realistically, you can’t have high speed and regular rail running on the same tracks for obvious reasons. Which means you’d need to build from the ground up not on existing rail lines but on all new rail lines on land that currently isn’t being used for rail – which means purchasing or taking (via eminent domain) that land. In congested cities (where any such rail lines would inevitably need to pass though/connect to) even should you find such land, it would require major construction/destruction work to convert it from it’s current use (tearing down building, digging new tunnels, etc) all the while making sure not to disturb/damage existing infrastructure (power lines, sewer systems, etc) and/or repairing/rebuilding such infrastructure when disturbing/damaging it is unavoidable.

Bottom line a network of highspeed rail just won’t appear overnight (or in a decades time). It’s a logistics nightmare that requires careful planning and lots of resources, particularly in overdeveloped cities.

For instance. Let’s take a look at the leftist Utopia of California:

The California High-Speed Rail Authority was established in 1996 after decades of advocacy for building a high speed rail system in California – Decades just to establish a government department, that’s even before any plans for building a single rail line were started. But let’s put that aside and assume the Feds can put together such a department as soon as the ink is dry on the next democrat’s presidential signature on the Green New Deal Legislation

The initial funding for the California High-Speed Rail system didn’t materialize until the 2010 Federal stimulus bill – 14 years after the department was created. But let’s put that aside and assume the Feds can pass a funding bill immediately (despite how unrealistic that assumption is. have you looked at how well the Feds have been doing on passing funding for anything lately).

Construction contracts weren’t awarded until 2013, and the groundbreaking ceremony for initial construction took place in 2015. Five years after funding began before *any* construction work has started – that’s half the allotted time and that’s for just one very liberal state. Four years later, Gov. Newsom cancelled the project due to delays and cost overruns (IE unsurprisingly it’s costing more than was estimated). 9 years after construction began and it’s no where close to being finished, so far away, in fact, that a leftist governor cancelled the project. and AOC’s New Green Deal thinks we can get a nationwide network completed in 10 years. Not gonna happen.

Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2019 4:27 am

By “viable”, I did not mean ‘profitable’. Amtrak exists.

Unfortunately, unlike the old passenger lines, it does not serve small cities that now have airports, and the lines that used to be passenger lines are either dedicated to freight or have been turned into nature hiking trails. The only other way to get around without a car is OTR bus lines.

It’s disturbing that the person who proposes these things has no idea of the cost, suitability, or how long it will take to set it up. Daydreams are great, aren’t they? I have lots of them. But building the product is a completely different story, and we all know that.

Reply to  Sara
February 27, 2019 7:48 am

If it’s not profitable, it’s not viable.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2019 12:13 pm

Depends on what your perspective is. Economically, you are correct that in order to be economically viable it needs to be profitable (or at least not operating at a loss)

however, the word viable does not necessarily mean economically.

capable of working successfully; feasible.

So something could be technologically viable (IE it can feasibly be accomplished with the technology we currently have) but not economically viable (IE it would not be a cost effective thing to do).

So when Sara said “a viable passenger rail system for commuters and cross-country travel.” she was saying it’s something that is possible to do (because, in fact it already exists) not that it was an economically viable (because, as you point out, it isn’t).

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
February 26, 2019 12:16 pm

A Million bucks for every mile away from the sun

Reply to  Sara
February 26, 2019 6:39 pm

Hawaii? Didn’t she initially propose “sky bridges” before that was pulled from her website?

Reply to  alexei
February 27, 2019 8:29 am

I was wondering about that myself. She had no plan for getting to Hawaii. I guess she thinks it only exists on TV or something.

Reply to  Sara
February 27, 2019 11:46 am


February 26, 2019 10:30 am

What the economists ignore about the use of “carbon free electricity” is that there is no chance it will work, given current technology, or actually be carbon neutral in practice.
There is a better chance that biotechnology will produce flying pigs well before wind and solar are practical on the grid scale.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 26, 2019 12:53 pm

True. We could find 500,000,000 pounds of gold hidden under Mt. Rushmore to “pay for it” … but IT STILL WON’T WORK!

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 26, 2019 6:33 pm

New “t” shirt:

With enough thrust,

(porcine caricature of Madame AOC with a rocket up her donkey)

Pigs fly just fine.

February 26, 2019 10:31 am

The one thing in the table that is open to debate is the cost of Universal Health Care. Properly done (aye there’s the rub) it could save America money. link

I, personally, would remove Universal Health Care from the table. Evidence from other jurisdictions is that it costs nowhere near $260,000 per household. All that item does is provides people with ammunition to argue against the whole table.

Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2019 10:56 am

The only way universal health care has ever saved money, is by denying service to large numbers of people.

Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 1:13 pm

Not true, in the US drug companies charge whatever they like for medication and are the most expensive in the world. The insurance companies have no interest in negotiating better prices on behalf of their clients, they just pass the charge on. Typically in countries with universal health care the central negotiating power leads to drug cost reductions of a factor of two, e.g. Germany.
Current health care spending in the US is ~$35trillion so the estimate is for no increase over a decade which would be good, although actually total cost will more likely go down.

Reply to  Phil.
February 26, 2019 1:37 pm

As usual, Phil. speaks without any knowledge.
US drugs are more expensive because most countries demand that drugs be sold based on the cost of manufacturing alone, leaving the US to pay for the R&D.
If you don’t think that insurance companies don’t negotiate for lower prices then you are even more ignorant than your posts have made you seem.

Negotiating lower prices is how insurance companies sell themselves to employers.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Phil.
February 26, 2019 1:41 pm

“in the US drug companies charge whatever they like for medication”

False. Like any product anyone tries to sell, there is a price point that maximizes profit by selling the most units at a certain margin. When a provider takes advantage of the market, they are hit with racketeering charges.

The US is essentially subsidizing healthcare around the world. We shouldn’t be allowing socialist nations to put a price on US manufactured goods which only causes them to make up for it by increasing the costs in the US. This is exactly what is happening. If you people get your way with socialized medicine and government price fixing, medical R&D will dry up.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 2:43 pm

I don’t know if it is still in place, but Canada once had a law that required drug companies to sell their product in Canada at the cost of manufacture plus a small percentage. If the drug companies failed to do this, Canada was going to steal the patents and give them to Canadian companies to manufacture.

John Endicott
Reply to  Phil.
February 27, 2019 6:11 am

As other’s have pointed out Phil, you are speaking from ignorance.
1) Countries with universal health care put an artificial cap on the price of drugs (IE price fixing) leaving it to countries like the US to subsidize the cost of R&D . If the US followed suit, you’d have no new drugs as companies could no longer afford the expense of R&D
2) Insurance companies do negotiate better prices on behalf of their clients all the time, it’s in their interest to do so as that’s a selling point for their plans. If you need drug X, you are going to look at the available plans (it’s called competition) and the ones that gets you the best price for drug X will have a better chance at getting your business than the ones that don’t. It’s when there is no competition (such as with Universal Health Care) that it’s not in the interest to negotiate, why put any effort into negotiations when a) you have a captive customer base and b) you can fix prices by legislative fiat and let some other country (like the US) pick up the real costs.

Reply to  John Endicott
February 27, 2019 7:50 am

Minor point, we have two Phils one with a period and one without.
The one without the period is sane.

Bruce Heinzman
February 26, 2019 10:31 am

Your math is off I come up
$728,897 per household.

Reply to  Bruce Heinzman
February 26, 2019 10:57 am

Itemized statement, please….

Bryan A
Reply to  Bruce Heinzman
February 26, 2019 12:17 pm

Did you divide by 10 for per year amount rather than for the entire decade?

CD in Wisconsin
February 26, 2019 10:41 am

If meeting the massive increase in expenditures demanded by the GND is to be accomplished by the printing of more money, GND critics can add the potential of massive inflation (maybe hyperinflation) to the list of serious problems that the GND will cause. Don’t know if massive increases in borrowing and taxation will do the trick.

Between the two world wars in the last century, Germany’s Weimar Republic was forced to print more money to deal with its economic problems (which the GND will also probably create). The result of this massive infusion of money into its economy was the infamous hyperinflation of the 1920s…

If you ignore history’s lessons, you will doom us all the repeat its mistakes. No one will give a damn what the Earth’s climate is doing if we descend into economic chaos. If only GND supporters understood that.

William Baikie
February 26, 2019 10:43 am

Rhys Jaggar is serious I think. At first I figured he was being satirical, but evidently not. Free markets have proven to be the most effective way to reduce poverty and create wealth. We need free market solutions to our healthcare.

Reply to  William Baikie
February 26, 2019 10:59 am

He’s most definitely being serious.
On the other hand, anyone who refers to the US as being uber capitalist knows nothing of the US, or capitalism.

Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 11:16 pm

Agree and the US health system is a mess it isn’t a free market or a regulated market it is hotch potch of the two.

Reply to  LdB
February 27, 2019 7:51 am

It is a regulated market. Highly regulated.
It’s not government owned.

William Astley
Reply to  William Baikie
February 26, 2019 11:34 am

Facts appear to support Jaggar.

Do you have any facts to support your assertion that we need free market solutions to solve the US healthcare crisis?

We need to take some action. Based on current trends the US will spend all of our healthcare dollars on treating type 2 diabetes. Type 2 Diabetes used to be only an late adult disease, it is now due to diet ignorance an epidemic of young people.

The Democrats should go after US health care. The US spends almost twice as much per person on ‘health care’ with worst outcomes.

P.S. Private industry can run the hospitals and clinics under single payer, if that is cheaper or more effective. The first step is getting rid of HMOs and taking immediate action to reduce the US sugar consumption.

(See new Canadian food guide which recommends people drink water rather than sugar pop or fruit juice which mostly sugar. OK based on research to eat whole fruit, just not fruit juice. Canadian food guide was developed based on science to reduce Canadian health care costs. Brits are following the same science based plan.)

“In 2016, the U.S. spent 17.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare. Other countries’ spending ranged from a low of 9.6 percent of GDP in Australia to a high of 12.4 percent of GDP in Switzerland.”
(Reuters Health) – The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates, a new study suggests.
More doctor visits and hospital stays aren’t the problem. Americans use roughly the same amount of health services as people in other affluent nations, the study found.

Instead, health spending may be higher in the U.S. because prices are steeper for drugs, medical devices, physician and nurse salaries and administrative costs to process medical claims, researchers report in JAMA.

“There’s no doubt that administrative complexity and higher drug prices both matter – as do higher prices for pretty much everything in U.S. healthcare,” said lead study author Irene Papanicolas of the London School of Economics and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
“These inefficiencies are likely the product of a number of factors including a reliance on fee-for-service reimbursement, the administrative complexity of the U.S. health care system and the lack of price transparency across the system,” Papanicolas said by email.

Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 11:46 am

Your error comes from your erroneous belief that we have free market health care in the US.

Regardless, when you compare like to like, US health care costs are well below that of the rest of the world.
Like to like means you need to account for differences in the population. You also have to adjust for different definitions used by various health care systems.

US drug prices are steeper because we pay to develop the drugs that the rest of the world free loads off of.

Those who know nothing about health care, always bring up infant mortality.
Did you know that in Germany, any baby that dies in the first 24 hours after birth is considered a still born, and doesn’t count against the infant mortality numbers?
Did you know that in France, any baby that weighs under a certain amount and then dies, is considered a miscarriage and doesn’t count against the infant mortality numbers.
There are other differences, if you care to learn. If your only goal is to defend socialized medicine, then I will expect that you will keep repeating these same bogus statistics.

As to life expectancy, that number is drug down by large numbers of urban youths shooting each other.
When you compare individual populations in the US to comparable populations in other countries, the US does better.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 12:09 pm

Indeed. It’s known as lies, damn lies, and statistics. The left is very good at using statistics to push their lies.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 1:03 pm

Yeah, I can see it now. Doctors work for bartender wages while trying to pay off $200,000 in student loan, not. There will be tons of foreign doctors, only half of whom speak English. Life prolonging treatment will disappear. Only treatments that cure will be allowed so that money will be best spent. If a treatment only prolongs your life by less than 5 years, it won’t pass the cost/benefit analyses. Same with end of life care. Why spend that money when you’re going to die anyway?

John Tillman
Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 1:34 pm

A major difference between health care cost per capita in the US and Switzerland is the American legal system.

Does Ocasio think it’s OK that the families of patients killed by government doctors can’t sue for malpractice?

Before 2005, hospitals in Switzerland weren’t even required to report the estimated 3000 deaths per year in them.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 26, 2019 1:35 pm


Why are my comments almost always greatly delayed and moderated?


Reply to  William Astley
February 26, 2019 7:16 pm

Facts without context is just climate science.

Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 10:50 am

Isn’t this like saying unicorns and leprechauns cost $X?

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 1:00 pm

More detailed than that.

They have line items analogous to the unicorn food, horn polish, tiny black shoes & green pants.

People are way too smart to be fooled by unicorns and leprechauns alone.

Joel Snider
February 26, 2019 10:53 am

Let’s see – I don’t think there was anything stipulating that the Anti-Christ was supposed to be a man, was there?

February 26, 2019 10:57 am

The cost of running high speed rail lines between just about every city in the country is going to be at least that much. All by itself.

February 26, 2019 10:59 am

If the coal fired power plants use the ZECCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Coal Combustion) Process and the Natural gas fired power plants us the ZENGCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Natural Gas Combustion) Process, there wiol be no need for renewable energy of a green grid and it will keep you frompaying for new electricity generation that will be about 3 times as expensive as what you had. and the cost of these processes is a new combustor at a lower cost than the one it replaces and a new flue gas cooler that is cheaper than the one it replaces.

Reply to  Richard Hood
February 26, 2019 2:56 pm

And it will still produce just as much CO2 as the old combustor did. But that CO2 will be magically squirreled away in an “underground sequestration area”, apparently without any cost or other consequences.

When something sounds too good to be true it is to good to be true.

February 26, 2019 11:16 am

Tennessee was an early adopter of expanded medicare. The program is called TennCare. Within a decade program cost were threatening to blowup the state budget. After fierce media and democrat resistance to cutting costs or coverage the Republican Governor proposed a state income tax. We do not have one. He was sent packing by his own party. His replacement was a Democrat with a background in managing healthcare costs. He slashed the rolls with no state income tax.

Most of the Democrats were silent.

February 26, 2019 11:19 am

I am continually amazed that the focus is on money and not the viability of replacement energy. There is no replacement for fossil fuels currently, none. What the green new deal is really saying to everyone is, Get Back in Your Cave!

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Ossqss
February 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Perhaps the focus is on money because everyone working for their living understands from personal experience the need to match expenses to income. However, many do not have experience or info to evaluate viability of a renewable energy grid.


Reply to  Ossqss
February 27, 2019 7:52 am

Attack on many fronts.

kevin kilty
February 26, 2019 11:23 am

It will not cost this much, because there isn’t this much to be gotten from the nation–especially not its savings. And forget about simply taking wealth. The nation’s wealth that is parked in collectables, multi-million dollar properties, and current energy infrastructure, will, via the New Green Deal, die there.

February 26, 2019 11:28 am

I’m all in, but they’re gonna have to take a check. Lets face it, she spent a lot of time behind a bar listening to all of the problems of her patrons . I’m sure like any good bartender she wrote down all the good ideas on a bar napkin and saved them for just this moment. With her experience, what could go wrong. Saving the world is noble work and she should be applauded for her efforts. What’s more, if this works, all we have to do is elect all of our representatives and senators from the vast pool of bartenders across the country. They truly have their thumbs on the pulse of America.

Bob Hoye
Reply to  Don
February 26, 2019 11:47 am

And the former bar customers who can no longer afford to drink at the bar, become bartenders.
In training for Congress.
R i g h t!

Reply to  Bob Hoye
February 26, 2019 11:55 am

Guaranteed jobs and income. I’m starting to get this!

James Clarke
Reply to  Don
February 26, 2019 11:55 am

AOC got these ideas at Boston College, not while she was bartending. Bartending was just a diversion from her true role as one of the Anointed. It was a sad time when she actually had to perform a service for others to make ends meet. Now she has ascended into her true role as a socialist leader, where she will practice giving away other people’s money to everyone, especially herself. No longer will she be burdened with the need to contribute something positive to society. Those demeaning times are now over.

Reply to  James Clarke
February 26, 2019 12:47 pm

Some of the ideas came from the bar tending job.

1) People give her money for doing next to nothing … in general people have lots of money to throw away.

2) If she does it right, her income (tips) is not taxed … taxes are not intrusive.

3) cheating & lying pays

4) she can con people by telling them lies that they want to hear, if she smiles just right.

Reply to  James Clarke
February 26, 2019 1:59 pm

I think her next job in 2 years will be as an activist. I don’t think she’s going to last in Congress. She’s very popular amongst her kind on social media, but IMO she’s making enemies fast in the DNC, and politically that’s where the real power lies. I don’t see how she survives the 25,000-job-loss albatross that is now hung around her neck.

John Tillman
Reply to  icisil
February 26, 2019 2:21 pm

Which is why it would be great if the jobs go to Newark, close enough for 25,000 of her constituents to ask why they aren’t making 125 grand per year.

When even the socialist mayor and anti-American governor were for the AMZN deal, Princess Charming is going to look not just out of step, but out to lunch.

February 26, 2019 11:37 am

That buys a lot of green vests and bonfire material.

Tom in Florida
February 26, 2019 11:40 am

It is going to cost much more than this estimate. Let us consider how much it will cost just to lose the sports industry because they will not be able to sustain on battery power. Hell, the reduction in beer sales alone will cost the government billions in tax dollars. What about all those supporting businesses for sports? Gone along with jobs and tax dollars. You have to realize the domino effect when a major industry drastically reduces or goes completely out.

February 26, 2019 11:52 am

It will not cost this much because not enough of the American people are quite stupid enough to go for this drivel. I hope. If this stuff ever does get voted in it will cost a lot more than the article claims due to millions of Americans like me moving out of the country. Thus the cost per person would double…

John Bell
February 26, 2019 12:01 pm

Why do not the leftists hold MASSIVE tree plantings? No but they march and do lots of other things, the big hypocrites.

Jack Russell
February 26, 2019 12:14 pm

The Red, I mean Green Deal is not needed. L.A. hasn’t been this cold in 60 years. B.C. has the coldest February on record. Believe it or not, the CBC reported this.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jack Russell
February 26, 2019 12:20 pm

Remember, In the winter it’s Climate Change and in the Summer it’s Global Warming

John Tillman
Reply to  Jack Russell
February 26, 2019 2:44 pm

Reported because it’s “extrme weather”, caused, as predicted, by global warming from a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 molceules of dry air over the past century or more.

Except that in 2000, leading “climate scientists” predicted that snow would be a thing of the past, that kids wouldn’t know what it was, and that it would be a rare and exciting event.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 28, 2019 6:37 am

Actually the headline writer wrote that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. The scientist said that “snowfall would become a rare and exciting event” and that “Children aren’t going to know what snow is” and he also said that “Heavy snow will return occasionally” and that when it does “We’re really going to get caught out, snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time”.
Of course another fact you omit to mention was that this was specifically referring to southern England.

Reply to  Jack Russell
February 26, 2019 5:04 pm

I got 12″ of snow on my roof Sunday night.

Out of curiosity I checked records. It wasn’t an official snow record, but I did see that the record high was 78 degrees Fahrenheit in 1932.

Can you imagine the hype today if it would have been 78 in February in Oregon? (rather than 34 and snowing)

Bryan A
Reply to  DonM
February 26, 2019 5:33 pm

We got 13″ of rain in the last 17 hours in Santa Rosa

Reply to  Bryan A
February 26, 2019 7:07 pm

Good thing you are in a long term drought. If you weren’t in such a terrible drought you would probably be seeing flooding similar to 1862.

Bryan A
Reply to  DonM
February 27, 2019 9:54 pm


kent beuchert
February 26, 2019 12:15 pm

Eliminating emissions from the power supply using motensalt Small Modular Reactors would cots roughly
$800 billion. As follows – the U.S.requires 460 Gigawatts of capacity.We already have 92 GWs of nuclear and 30 GW of hydro. That leaves 338 GWs from molten salt reactors. 500 MW reactors cost roughly $1.25 billion each.
We will require 1590 reactors, total cost roughly $800 billion. Costs of power will decrease, as molten salt reactors can produce power with a levelized cost of 4 cents per kWhr. Reactors wil pay for themselves over their extended lifespans of 60 plus years.

Reply to  kent beuchert
February 26, 2019 7:15 pm

But you need to get it done in 10 years. That might up the cost to … what?
$812 billion or 40 trillion?

But if you ask Ocasio she will, based on her fantastic education, tell you about the economy of scale … we’ll get it done for less than 600 billion. And with the peripheral green jobs we’ll make a profit.

February 26, 2019 12:24 pm

$93 trillion over a decade. $36,100 to $65,300 per American household per year to meet the Green New Deal’s goal.

No worries! It’s not real money, you won’t have to pay. It will just be added to the national debt, like all governments do and especially socialist ones.

You won’t have to pay, the bill will just be passed on to all those grandchildren we are saving the climate for.

John Endicott
Reply to  Toto
February 26, 2019 12:54 pm

What grandchildren. We are not supposed to have children according to AOC, no children means no grandchildren.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Endicott
February 26, 2019 5:35 pm

Now…New math, kids will just skip one generation

Reply to  John Endicott
February 26, 2019 6:23 pm

In the Green New Utopia, all children will be like AOC … maybe not having children isn’t such a bad idea.

Kevin R.
February 26, 2019 12:26 pm

Money has absolutely no meaning once she destroys the economy and reduces those lucky enough to still be living to subsistence living.

February 26, 2019 12:29 pm

The cost , in money , is the least of the problems with this GND . What you are risking with the deal , especially in the extreme form demanded by the children of the most liberal communities is the homogeneity of the US itself .
By first reducing and then banning the use of fossil fuels you are denying yourself the asset that provides most of the energy for current lifestyles, the money that will now have to be withdrawn to compensate and the elimination of material that provides for much of modern life from food to clothing . Just buy from India and China people say . Buy with what ? For rich politicians ,and the well healed academics and financiers funding this deal it may not be a problem but they are in a minority. India and China will not hand out food and clothing , steel and rubber , etc to 300million people for nothing , forever. They will want recompense , but fortunately (fortunately?) you have something they need – space. Sell territory , a sort of Louisiana purchase or Alaska purchase in reverse . But then you risk having large areas where Washington’s writ no longer runs.
But that is only half the story , because that would be the legitimate barter market. Judging from the experience of Britain during rationing in 40s and 50s there will be a black market and the crime associated with it. Prohibition , where just one item was banned was surely a warning of what could ensue . And who will run the black market ? Not nice people but the Mafia and cartel types who have successfully run drug smuggling in the US for the last 70 years . Another cause for the social and political disintegration of the formerly United States. And for what gain in the end?

J Mac
February 26, 2019 12:33 pm

Soooo much time, money, and energy wasted on the socialist fraud of AGW/Climate Change.
#WalkAway #GreenScrewDeal

February 26, 2019 12:38 pm

I’m already signed up as unwilling to work. It is better to receive than to give.

Sign up here.

(Worth the click. Very funny. The FAQ section is good.)

Robert W Turner
Reply to  H.R.
February 26, 2019 2:00 pm

Good news!
Based on your application, your new, very important profession under the Green New Deal will be Tide Pod Taste-tester and your new salary will be $195,698/yr.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 2:07 pm

But I’m unwilling to work!

February 26, 2019 12:40 pm

$65,000/yr? No Prob. Get those presses ready. Might want to start printing $500 and $1000 bills again to pay for bread… Not everyone has room to store wheelbarrows.

February 26, 2019 12:51 pm

The US Adjusted Gross Income in 2016 was $10.2 Trillion. That was the aggregate income of all individuals as reported to the US.
From 1945 to 2000 that number grew from $120 Billion to $6.4 Trillion. The real growth was ~ 3% annually. From 2000 to 2016 the real growth was about 1%. Currently the entitlement apparatus is growing faster than the income to pay for it.

Let’s assume by 2020 the AGI is $11.5 Trillion. By then the Federal, State and Local expenditures could be $7 Trillion. Adding another $9.3 Trillion per year on the backs of taxpayers should be a trick.

Apparently they are planning on making many trade offs and giving up much of the $5 Trillion spent to be spent on Social Programs. And then increasing taxes on nonexistent incomes, as well.

For those favoring taxing the 16,000 making over $10 Million annually, keep in mind doubling their taxes only generates $120 Billion.

Should be quite a show. For those commenters above who think it’s doable or a good idea, get your head out of your a..!

Bryan A
Reply to  cerescokid
February 26, 2019 5:44 pm

Simple math, we’ll just increase their taxes 200 fold and use that as the $12 Trillion

February 26, 2019 1:00 pm

Why only households have to pay? How about corporate citizens like Amazon and Netflix who pay no tax on billions in profits

Besides, we dont pay for 1 trillion a year in military spending, we just borrow it.

Heres an idea, instead of taxes and borrowing to pay, how about printing greenbacks using the natural resources of the country as assets to back the currency. Its about time The Fed Reserve had some competition for money creation who uses toxic and worthless MBS , and USTS to back their notes. As Henry Ford once said, if a country can print treasuries to sell for cash they can print the cash.

Reply to  Pft
February 26, 2019 2:38 pm

Why only households have to pay? How about corporate citizens like Amazon and Netflix who pay no tax on billions in profits

Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just collect them. The taxes corporations “pay” get added to the cost of the product/service they are selling. The end user ultimately pays the hidden tax. Politicians like this arrangement as it allows them to demonize the “greedy corporations” while at the same time picking the consumers pocket.

John Endicott
Reply to  Pft
February 27, 2019 5:54 am

Heres an idea, instead of taxes and borrowing to pay, how about printing greenbacks using the natural resources of the country as assets to back the currency.

The Weimer republic (among many other regimes throughout history) tried that idea. When you print money at the amount needed for the Green New Deal, the result will be the same as all those other failed attempts at printing money as a way out of government’s revenue problems: hyper-inflation

February 26, 2019 1:04 pm

The Progressive wing of the Democrat party needs to topple the old leadership immediately! BAU is not going to bring equity to the people. Feed the starving masses. Achieve healthcare as a human right. Keep up the good work AOC. Yes you can. Yes you can.

Donald J Trump

Chris Hanley
February 26, 2019 1:07 pm

… “the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation,” Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso said in a statement …
He is certainly right about that but then forfeits the argument by suggesting other means to reduce emissions instead of dealing with the climate change™ hobgoblin head-on like Trump.
Once you cede to the ‘fossil fuels -> CO2 -> climate change -> bad (going to kill us)’ narrative you’ve lost.

February 26, 2019 1:23 pm

If it’s one thing I absolutely agree with AOC, it’s this: DEFICITS AND DEBTS DON’T F-ING MATTER. (in the USA)

Absolutely nothing changes between $0 debts/deficits (Clinton) and $22 Trillion in debt (with more deficit spending under Trump)


John Tillman
Reply to  Bruckner8
February 26, 2019 1:54 pm

You’re confusing deficits with debts.

Thanks to windfall cap gains taxes in 1999 from the dotcom bubble and the GOP Congress from 1995, Clinton did enjoy one year of a balanced budget, but the US still had debts.

The national debt was $5674 billion in 2000 (not adjusted for inflation). It’s now about $22,000 billion.

The War on Terror, bank bailout, recession and uncontrolled spending by CR under Bush and Obama blew it up.

Reply to  Bruckner8
February 26, 2019 2:49 pm

It was Reagan’s tax cuts, Gingrich’s holding the line on spending plus the tech bubble that resulted in Clinton’s zero deficit. (Of course it wasn’t actually zero because it was still being papered over by Social Security surplus’s. Something that no longer exists.)

Trump’s deficits are small compared to Obama’s, and that’s despite the fact that we have more debt at higher interest rates than Obama’s time in office.

Finally, under Trump federal tax revenue has been setting records.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruckner8
February 27, 2019 6:23 am

Absolutely nothing changes between $0 debts/deficits (Clinton) and $22 Trillion in debt (with more deficit spending under Trump)

Clinton did not have $0 debt. He left office with trillions in debt. (Obama added as much debt as all the presidents from Washington to Bush combined). What Clinton did have happen on his watch however, was a chimera of a “balanced budget” for one year (the debt still rose by $281 billion that year). I say Chimera, because while Clinton managed to pay down the “public debt” (making it look like he was reducing the debt/had no deficit) he did so by borrowing far more money in the form of intra-governmental holdings, selling the debt to agencies that held the securities as assets (mostly Social Security). As well, short-term governmental securities were replaced longer term debt maturing on someone else’s watch.

February 26, 2019 1:32 pm

In a socialist country it works because:

It isn’t real money that they use.

It is usually slave labour.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Davis
February 26, 2019 6:50 pm

“We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”

February 26, 2019 1:52 pm

interesting that your headline number is the upper limit of the estimate, vice half that as the lower limit.

Given that deception, I personally (2 grandchildren below age 2) find even the high estimate worthwhile considering the alternative.

Reply to  chris
February 26, 2019 2:16 pm

Such estimates are almost invariably higher than the upper limit when reality comes to pass.

The alternative being a vibrant economy and growing opportunity and prosperity. What about this do you dislike?

John Endicott
Reply to  Art
February 27, 2019 6:34 am

Indeed. Can anyone name any programs that didn’t end up costing more that the upper limit estimates? I sure there might be one (maybe), but if so that would be the exception not the rule.

Reply to  chris
February 26, 2019 2:50 pm

What is the alternative?

Freedom instead of socialism.
Continued beneficial increases in the world’s temperature combined with more greening from enhanced CO2

John Endicott
Reply to  chris
February 27, 2019 6:32 am

You personally want economic ruin, a short-brutal existence all for no real affect on the environment for your 2 grandchildren instead of the alternative of economic prosperity and the modern conveniences that come with cheap energy. I hope you are not planning on having your grandchildren look after you in your old age because 1) you and they aren’t likely to live that long in the world you prefer and 2) should you and they manage to survive that long, they’d be wise to want nothing to do with someone who would wish such misery on them.

February 26, 2019 1:53 pm

It means nothing to the 50% of households not paying taxes anyway, so it’s really $130,000 for each PRODUCTIVE household out there. So, how fast will the productive folks move from the Productive Class over the Welfare Class? Faster than you can say Communism.

February 26, 2019 1:59 pm

Has anyone even read that study? They assume that 50% of the new low carbon capacity is going to be nuclear in states that have nuclear power, while the greens and AOC obviously want a ban on nuclear power. Then they don’t assume any new transmission costs, while the new wind and solar will require a huge amount of new power lines. And finally, they assume just 4 hours of storage on the grid, which is not even remotely enough to provide any semblance of reliability in a grid that’s mostly intermittent generation with some inflexible nuclear and no gas or diesel, so their modeled grid will be in near permanent blackout due to wind and sun not showing up when required. The total costs should be much much higher than meager 5 trillion.

February 26, 2019 2:23 pm

Oh, why worry about the cost. AOC said that’s no problem, we’ll do it somehow.

February 26, 2019 2:42 pm

Even if they were, You can’t drive high speed train on the the same rails as freight trains. It has to be separate tracks. In essence doubling the existing rail network.

And all in ten years.

Reply to  tty
February 26, 2019 5:06 pm

no economy … therefore no need for freight of any kind.

February 26, 2019 3:22 pm

Tilting at windmills is a first-order farcing of clean, renewable greenbacks and democratic leverage.

Mark Lee
February 26, 2019 4:07 pm

There is only one problem with that analysis. It assumes the economy would continue and the people would have enough money to pay for it. When in reality, the economy would collapse. The inevitable fate of a socialist economy.

High Treason
February 26, 2019 4:14 pm

The only thing with unlimited supply is human stupidity. In Australia, our greenie types and a Labor shadow front bencher approve the end of the entire coal industry. Without coal, we lose around half our export income. Considering we gave away our manufacturing to China, how are we going to pay for our cheap rubbishy imports? Without the export income, the economy totally collapses. Household incomes will collapse, tax receipts will plummet (how can you tax someone with almost no income), unemployment will skyrocket and what is left of our industries will become totally uncompetitive. It will become a race for who can find the best cave.
Likewise, the Green Deal is total lunacy, driven by Utopian visions that are just whimsy that just do not stack up to even rudimentary analysis. With the delusional left refusing to enter in to debate (how bigoted) , just insisting it must be right, no scrutiny permitted, if ever a Democratic President is elected (or fraudulently elected) they will pass this suicidal rubbish immediately.
What is most disturbing is that any human with a brain actually would allow such insanity to become eco fascist law.

February 27, 2019 4:08 am

If AOC says American families can afford her plan it must be true, the woman is a financial genius.
With a salary of $158k she can afford a different brand new $600 coat every time she appears in public.

February 27, 2019 6:22 am

I don’t know why House Resolution 109 (Recognizing Duty of Congress To Create a Green New Deal was not laughed out of Congress.

I don’t know why the kids lawsuit circus also was not laughed out of the courts.

There’s an existential crisis, all right — a crisis of failing intelligence at the highest levels of societal governing.

February 27, 2019 8:50 am

Report: Green New Deal Could Cost Every US Household $65,000 A Year

Smart progressive/marxist/democrap economics there — what a bargain! And saving 0.005 C temp change to boot!

%d bloggers like this: