Tim Pearce | Energy Reporter
GOP Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz is preparing to introduce a “Green Real Deal” resolution to contrast with Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, according to Politico.
Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her resolution on Feb. 7 and immediately faced criticism for its scope and potential cost, which reached toward tens of trillions of dollars. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez Bungled Green new Deal’s Release. Her Staff Took Its Webpage Offline)
A draft of Gaetz’s resolution, obtained by Politico, recognizes risks to the U.S. from climate change, citing Department of Defense reports that identify certain military assets and bases as at risk to rising sea levels and increasing severe weather events, such as hurricanes.
“Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth,” the draft says.
Energy lobbyists have seemingly received copies of Gaetz’s resolution are beginning to line up behind it in support.
“Congressman Gaetz deserves to be applauded for taking the lead in crafting a bold resolution that identifies actionable climate solutions that will benefit America’s economy, environment, and national security,” Heather Reams, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, said in a statement.
Gaetz’s resolution pushes market-driven innovation and competition from companies developing green energy technology. It does not set any emission reduction goals.
The draft pledges “to reduce and modernize regulations so that clean energy technologies can be deployed, and compete.”
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1105468562276319232
In contrast to the Green New Deal, the draft Green Real Deal resolution takes a positive view on nuclear energy. Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution did not mention the energy sector, causing some controversy among pro-nuclear energy experts.
Gaetz’s legislation takes a wide-ranging approach to cutting emissions through investing in fossil fuel carbon capture technology, new and updated nuclear and hydropower placements, making the power grid more efficient and granting energy companies improved access to public lands.
The resolution pledges to “empower individuals, states, and the marketplace” to develop and disseminate new technology that will cut the United States’ carbon emissions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s a very, very silly resolution.
Gaetz is an idiot.
Like a lot of things the Republicans say; this is less dumb than the Democrats.
But still extremely dumb
Yes RINO crap.
And in the GRD proposal are the core “goals” which are self-contradictory and written at a 3rd Grade level of detail (i.e. no detail just fluffy meaningless words strung together):
There is nothing substantive in the Gaetz GRD proposal. It is simply unicorns and fairy dust magic like AOC’s GND.
And most importantly, it is not the duty of the Federal government to create a GRD… last time I checked the US Constitution.
Sad that morons like Gaetz actually represents hundreds of thousand of more intelligent constituents in his district. No wonder Congress is such a mess. We keep electing morons, Left and Right.
How about a MAGA Deal as a response? That would be up Trump’s alley. More coal, more oil, more gas, maybe more nuclear, and just say no to expensive unreliables.
Not just, “Drill, baby, drill!” and “Dig, baby, dig!” but “Burn, baby, burn!”
If Gaetz’s reply is longer than “Horse S**t”, then he’s wasted ink and pixels.
(AOS is “pixelated” … for real. https://youtu.be/kePxj6QLt8A )
CO2 obsession . . . a disorder manifest in politicians and academics.
Typical RINO crap.
==========
Agreed. History shows, without fail, the cleanest countries on earth are the ones with the greatest per capita wealth. The reason is simple, when you are poor, everything goes to feeding your family. When you are rich you have a surplus to you make sure your family has a good environment.
So, if you want to cut emission, make people wealthier. You cannot do this by taxation, because governments are inherently inefficient. You make people wealthy by increasing the efficiency of the economy, which is done by encouraging free markets and the rule of law.
The market makes people wealthy, so long as the legal system minimizes corruption. The delays and overheads in many legal systems encourages corruption, which corrupts the market, which brings poverty.
Look at the poorest countries in the world. Corruption is rampant. No one wants to invest, because there is the risk your investment will be stolen. What money there is is quickly siphoned off by the powerful and safeguarded in offshore accounts.
CO2 cannot be politicized by conceding it’s a pollution. It needs to be declared a global good and leave it the hell alone. The countervailing platform to Green Nucklehead Deal could be something about cleaning up; real pollutions, waterways, oceans. How about the world’s largest rivers in India and Brazil, etc. The trash in those rivers are to cry about.
This has probably been said already, but this proposed resolution makes two fundamental errors. He seems to assume: 1) all of this will make any difference on atmospheric CO₂ levels, 2) there is actually a need to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels. Other than that, it’s perfectly fine. Well, except the counter-productive CC&S idea, there is never a good enough reason to do that!
Not a reply to your comment, but a year or so ago I was told that it’s easier on the Mods to just say “CO2” rather than CO whatever code you used to add the subscript “2”.
I don’t know why on the moderators end, but that’s what they said.
(I do remember that I felt a bit proud of myself when I figured out how to do a subscript “2” but it doesn’t seem to help them.)
AOC should be called to debate to justify her GND (Green Nincompoop Delusion.) No assumptions that the science is settled, no name-calling. Just the facts. First she has to show the actual evidence- all the conditions that justify the GND need to be put on the table. AOC must herself show that all the conditions that justify the GND are absolutely valid. As she is brain-dead and totally out of her depth, Alinsky’s rules on going out of your depth (in her case, a toddler’s swimming pool) will make her look like the idiot she is. Televise the debate for all to see what an idiot she is. Put Democrats on the spot if they support the GND-make them look like idiots along with AOC. Certainly, she is a prime target for Alinsky’s 13th rule. All those that jumped on the GND bandwagon will look very stupid indeed.
For the record, some of the points that must ALL be satisfied to even contemplate such radical and extremely expensive proposals are-
1) The warming/ “climate change” (whatever it really means without qualification) must be at historically unprecedented rates.
2) It MUST be predominantly caused by human CO2. As any natural component of CO2 rise is beyond human control, the human CO2 causation would have to be well over 50% -probably closer to 90%. It must thus be proven that human CO2 is what drives global temperatures/ “climate.” If natural forces play a significant role, attempts to tame nature will be either nearly impossible or so hideously expensive as to destroy humanity itself.
3) On balance, the global warming/ “climate change” MUST be dangerous. The inconvenient reality that higher CO2 (plant food) is demonstrably greening the planet must be included in to the equation to determine if the balance is tipping toward significantly more harm.
4) It MUST be that radical changes in human behavior will eliminate the dangerous component of global warming/ “climate change” and on-balance, be good for the planet. It is pointless to put vast quantities of human effort and funding in to pie-in-the-sky schemes that do not make a significant difference.
5) The cost of the measures must be weighed up against the good that those trillions could do for humanity in terms of other projects. I estimate that it would cost around 80 trillion to 3 D print aluminium water condensers to provide reliable drinking water and water for key nutritional crops (not wide field wheat and rice which are not high in nutritional value-just calories) for the entire human race. The cost is similar-which would benefit humanity more?-hundred of trillions to take plant food and thus human food out of the system on a belief that CO2 is a dangerous poison or to provide clean water for humans and core crops? Clean, reliable water and food security are 2 of the fundamental needs of humans. The other fundamentals are housing, clothing and entertainment.
ALL of these points MUST be satisfied to even contemplate the GND. If the GND falls foul of just one of the points, it is rubbish.
Is anyone out there able to produce solid evidence that all the conditions are being met to justify debating a GND? If the evidence is so overwhelming, then it is very reasonable that AOC be called to justify her Green Nincompoop Delusion. Like any scientific theory, just a single significant error in the data , methodology or modelling and it is debunked, the same applies here- insufficient(or no) proof that any of the conditions is being met, and it is out the window for the scheme.
Bring it on.
What the GOP needs to understand is that the climate change we have been experiencing is small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So if the Green New Deal were implemented globally it would wave no effect on global climate but it would devastate the global economy and hundreds of millions would perish because of it. If we are anticipating disastrous future events it would be far better to take steps to improve the world’s economy rather than to take steps to ruin it.
Green New Deal…no thanks
Green Real Deal…no thanks
Green No Deal…now we’re talking
I have an idea for them. They should forget trying to control the atmosphere, based on shaky “theories” about climate, and instead just do these 2 things:
1. Help out anybody in the world who gets displaced by climactic events, and
2. Help poor countries improve their standard of living so they will be resilient enough to cope with climate events.
There. We will be done with trying to manipulate the climate, which is guaranteed to be unsuccessful anyway since we don’t control China and India.
The Little Ice Age was the last “climate event”. The “climate event” before it was the Medieval Warm period. Weather events are not climate events. Stop falling for their distorted new-speak and their infinitely variable definitions of “climate”, and everything else they waffle about.
How to sell an unsolicited pig to people who can’t afford it:
#1 – Send in Occasionally-Coherent to proclaim the end of all life on earth in 12 years time, and the need to immediately end all heavy industry and capitalism on a global scale, as the Leftist-Media plays it up as a revelation, instead of immediately rejecting it and her as completely insane.
This of course will attract no votes. But it was not supposed to, it was simply haggling. If you want to sell a pig at market for $50, the ask for $5,000, and get the Ultra-Lefty-Celeb-Media (ULCM) to sing its praises, pump it as a revelation, scare the children, and treat the seller of said pig like a savvy misunderstood unrealistic genius who’s heart is in the right place, i.e. you’ve gotta Haggle!
#2 – Thus, to get the price you really wanted all along from the suckers who never wanted any such pig, you send in a ‘reasonable’ and thoughtful ‘moderate’, to propose a much more ‘reasonable’ and ‘informed’ “Green-New-Deal” alternative. Which the Celeb-Media will openly embrace, in the spirit of global inclusion, and ecumenical ‘bi-partisanship’, and, “Oh look Dorothy! We can make the political system work for the people!”
Thus people who never wanted any pig, are conned to buy a stupid pig for $75 anyway to make the endlessly harping occasionally-coherant nutjobs go away.
But everyone has failed to notice that this is a topic that has no real-world reason to even be floated, let alone discussed as national prime-time ultra-left-celeb-media current affairs, let alone to be adopted as any sort of good government policy path, in any way, shape or form. They just hitched up the Trojan Horse full of enemy and pending urban destruction and towed it inside the city wall!
There’s zero physical reason for any “Green New Deal” to exist.
The whole thing is a scam, there is no material substance behind the claims of its proponents. It is imaginary, a fantasy created for fools, a mere audacious scam, to sell one very over-rated and thoroughly over-priced diseased old pig to fools who never wanted any such pig. And who have no use for it. But who are being conned into buying a less expensive unnecessary unwanted pig, anyway.
An outright rejection of the whole concept of a “Green New Deal” is the only proper response to such a vile and overt political scam, hidden in plain sight. A scam of a whole country and of a global civilization, whole will be expected to follow lemming-like over the cliff to avoid a totally imaginary and non-existent pending planetary apockyclips.
Tar and feather them! Boot them out of the swamp if they dare propose to haggle-out a ‘reasonable’ and ‘informed’ alternative, within such ultra-lefty-celeb-media as they’re all just another part of the scam operation’s dynamic.
Reject 100% of it.
NO DEAL!
Anyone who proposes it or pretends it’s something to be talking about gets no further votes.
Thus people who never wanted any pig, are conned to buy a stupid pig for $75 anyway
==≠=========
Reminds me of gas stations raising the price to $1.50 a liter. When the price drops back to $1.30 you are happy to buy. But the month before, you were outraged at having to pay $1.299 .