Heartland Institute Reacts to Senate’s Unanimous Rejection of Green New Deal

Via Press release:

The United States Senate on Tuesday unanimously rejected the Green New Deal without a single vote in favor. The resolution failed on an unusual 0-57 vote with all Republicans and a few Democrats voting to reject it while the other 43 Democrats voted “present.”

The following statements from environment and climate experts at The Heartland Institute —a free-market think tank— may be used for attribution.


“The Green New Deal is such horrendous policy proposal that not a single senator would go on record supporting it – not even the Green New Deal’s Democrat sponsors.

“Unfortunately, some Republicans foolishly think they need to counter such a horrendous policy proposal by proposing a ‘Green New Deal-lite.’ Yet a 10 percent discount from a thoroughly horrendous proposal is still a 90 percent horrendous proposal.

“Any efforts to impose costly, unnecessary, and globally inconsequential restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on the American people – whether a full-fledged Green New Deal or a Republican-In-Name-Only Green New Deal-lite – is a betrayal of the American working families that would have to pay for it.”

James Taylor

Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy

The Heartland Institute

jtaylor@heartland.org

727/215-3192


“The fact that the Green New Deal could not garner the support of its sponsors, or any of the announced 2020 Democratic contenders, shows it was a farce and not a serious attempt to address either climate change or America’s energy needs.

“Not a single sponsor voted to support the bill – amazing. One wonders why they bothered introducing it if they were not willing to defend or support it. This was pure grandstanding. Democrats thought by voting present, they would not be on the record for supporting the bill. However, by sponsoring and publicly defending it, they already are. Now they have just embarrassed themselves further. The Green New Deal is dead, long may it stay buried!”

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.Senior Fellow, Environment & Energy Policy
The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, Environment & Climate Newshburnett@heartland.org
214/909-2368


For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program – including a live TV remote from Heartland’s studio, which can connect to any station or network in the world – please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@heartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 847/445-7554.

The Heartland Institute is a 35-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000.

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Heartland Institute Reacts to Senate’s Unanimous Rejection of Green New Deal

    • Legislation cannot be killed. It may be temporarily halted and buried, but it will always be around waiting for the next opportunity to rise from the ground and again attempt to wreak havoc like dormant anthrax bacteria.

      • Classic example: The ACA, Obama Care, was not Obama Care, it was Hillary Care revised with the removal of Hillary’s most hideous requirement, that if a doctor accepted money from the system, they could not work outside the system, removed.

        It had just been sitting in a congressional desk drawer for 14 years awaiting an opportunity to be enacted.

  1. The real problem here is not climate science but policy made «science»? Most of problems will disappear if you remove the ideological and political misuse of science.

    • Most of the manufactured problems will disappear if we ignore them.
      Climate change due to CO2 is certainly NOT one of those “problems”. It is a non-problem deserving to be ignored.
      Working on land-use, soil conservation, clean water and air, and long-term energy sustainability (via nuclear), those are problems worth tackling.

        • The problem is the Greenies have convinced everybody CO2 is a pollutant.
          Even people who don’t necessary believe in AGW talk about reducing emissions.
          Recently Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee indorsed Carbon Capture. Why would an MD believe we need to “capture” the necessary ingredient for life on the planet.

      • Working on land-use, soil conservation, clean water and air, and long-term energy sustainability (via nuclear), those are problems worth tackling.

        Exactly, but common sense seems to be in short supply anymore.

    • Take a look at how New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tried to rally behind the Green New Deal today at a press conference outside of the U.S. Capitol. Jason Goodman at ‘Crowdsource the Truth’ caught her speech and then tried to ask her some questions.

  2. After the voting debacle for senate Dems today, various statements were carried to various degrees on Liberal outlets like CNN.

    From cnn.com, I love this unicorn and fairy dust claim from Senator Maria Cantwell, (D-Washington), who did give a brainless “present” vote on the Senate floor today on her fellow Dem’s GND:

    “Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the top Democrat on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, argued that changing to cleaner technologies will be better for the US economy over the long haul even if the transition to them could be challenging.
    “We can transition to cleaner fuels, we can become more energy independent, we can become more energy efficient, and doing so actually creates new jobs that are higher-waged and help us in the future,” she said.

    So I’m curious what the apparent self-educated chemist-scientist Senator Cantwell thinks is a “cleaner fuel”?

    It must not be methane, because the Dems are hard committed to stopping shale fracking that produces abundant natural gas.
    So what what is her “cleaner fuel”? Hydrogen? But from whence does free hydrogen come? Today any industrial stock of hydrogen has come from natural gas or coal. Hydrogen can be produced from electrolyzing water, but that takes enormous amounts of electricity. That’s electricity we don’t have unless we turn on nuclear power or dig for more coal or drill for more gas. And if we’re gonna use natural gas, to make hydrogen, we’re already producing CO2. And to sequester the CO2 takes at least 50% of the energy produced to do so. So we have to drill and frack even more to make even more end hydrogen.

    We could go the nuclear route, but to make electricity to make hydrogen from water, but then why are Democrats so intent on shutting down plants like Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo?

    And we can make more electric cars, but those each needs big battery packs. Millions of cars and trucks means many millions of battery packs. Batteries that require huge fossil fuel consumption to mine the raw ore, to produce the raw metals and materials, to then make the final battery pack. And then the EV car battery pack has to be charged. What?-With coal produced electricity, because we used all the natural gas and oil to mine the minerals, refine the metals, and manufacture the batteries?

    Truly ignorant Dems like Senator Cantwell live in their Liberal fantasy lands of their minds, far-removed from the realities of engineering our modern world. So sad. Washington State has many fine engineers and scientists with an huge aerospace and naval and nuclear presence. Senator Cantwell is just another example of an utterly science illiterate liberal who couldn’t “science” her way out of a 8th grade-level science text.

    Washington State deserves better than Senator Cantwell.

    • I can’t follow the quote marks in the above. Maybe the mods could help you fix it.

      Anthony: please, an edit button.

      • Edit button would require registration and password. Which requires databases and now can be plausibly tracked to you when the West eventually adopts the Google/China social credit score scheme to suppress dissent and unlawful thoughts.

        OTOH, a receipt (a salted hash) could be generated and used as a one-time key for edits…

        • There was, for a short time a few months back, an edit option (as well as like/dislike options). No registration or password was required.

    • Not a single Democrat voted for a program that if they were in power they’d all be working to implement. The real value of this vote was to show the voters that Democrats are totally deceptive.

      • They are just as dysfunctional as the Republicans. Neither party has any capability of passing any useful legislation. It is why the president has had to rule by executive order. It has been happening for a long time, but has accelerated under Obama and now Trump.

        It is only a little while now until a new Cesar arrives and requests emperor status to save the Republic. Will the Senate acquiesce, or murder him? For Rome, it didn’t matter. Within a short time, Octavian had taken the emperor title and “Saved” the Republic.

  3. Just been musing on this a bit.

    While we have the overt rejection of this New Great Leap Forward Deal which utterly humiliates AOC’s attempt to retard Western World growth in the name of unicorns, there is the secondary implications of the how and why.

    Not one senator voted YES. Why was that? They have just for all extents and purposes thrown AOC under a bus and given her full ownership of this turkey.

    Here lays the question. Did they ‘Present’ the 5 Year Plan because they were not willing to commit, publically or otherwise, to the destruction required to bring the plan to maturity, or did they ‘Present’ because they knew it would publically humiliate AOC, punishing her for getting ideas above her station within the Democrats.

    Personally I think the second. This is the – to use an Australian term – Faceless Men publically reminding AOC that they made her, and what they make they can later destroy.

  4. What just happened here?

    The resolution that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, put to a test vote called on the federal government to rapidly eliminate planet-warming fossil fuel emissions; accelerate the deployment of wind, solar and other zero-carbon energy sources; and create a national jobs program. link

    AOC is in the House, not the Senate, so she couldn’t vote for the bill.

    The linked article refers to some Democrat sponsors of the bill, but it sounds like the bill was brought to a vote by Republicans. Was this just a Republican ploy to demonstrate how clueless are the Democrats?

    Every Democrat senator running for president supported it. Now when given the chance to actually go on the record, Democrats are desperate to avoid it.

    I thought the sponsors of a bill were the ones who brought it forward so it could be voted on? I have no clue.

    • Sponsorship is a misnomer. Democrat Senator Ed Markey co-authored the bill with AOC. He did not vote for it.

    • Six Democrat senators sponsored the bill in the Senate. The bill was already submitted so the Senate president can decide to call a vote on a bill already submitted. It was unusual in that bills are usually sent to committee first to perfect the language and provisions but the process is still in accordance with Robert’s rules.

      • Six Democrat senators sponsored the bill in the Senate

        I believe the number of co-sponsors was 12. It been reported that 6 of them are running for president (Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, I’m not sure who #6 is) which is likely where you got that number from.

          • Thank you. For the life of me I couldn’t remember who that 6th one was. Being so forgettable doesn’t bode well for her chances at getting the nomination.

    • I have no clue.

      Understatement of the year.

      AOC is in the House, not the Senate, so she couldn’t vote for the bill.

      Correct, AOC is in the house not the Senate But the Green New deal was not a house only initiative. When it was unveiled it was done so by AOC and Senator Markey. Markey, as should be obvious from the “senator” in front of his name *is* in the Senate.

      The linked article refers to some Democrat sponsors of the bill

      Yes, Senator Markey [D-Mass.] being the point-man for it in the Senate, The full list of the other GND co-sponsors in the Senate are:
      Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
      Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
      Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
      Sen. Harris, Kamala D. [D-CA]
      Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
      Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
      Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
      Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
      Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
      Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
      Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
      Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
      none of which voted YES for the bill.

      but it sounds like the bill was brought to a vote by Republicans.

      Yes, Republicans control the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader (Mitch McConnel, a Republican) controls what bills go to the floor for a vote.

      Was this just a Republican ploy to demonstrate how clueless are the Democrats?

      Yes. The GND was Democrats virtue signaling, bringing their GND to the floor for a vote was Republicans showing them up (the Dems no doubt thought Mitch would never bring it up for a vote just like any other legislation that Dems want that Republicans don’t).

      I thought the sponsors of a bill were the ones who brought it forward so it could be voted on?

      Sponsors of a bill have no control on when, if ever, their bills come up for a vote. They introduce the bill, it usually then goes to the appropriate committee(s) which, after debating and possibly amending it, recommend (or not) for the bill to go to the floor, and then the senate majority leader decides whether and when (or not) to actually bring it to the floor.

    • “Was this just a Republican ploy to demonstrate how clueless are the Democrats?”

      Yes, it was. The Republicans saw that the Green New Deal had such outlandish proposals in it that it didn’t pass the “laugh test” and they wanted to get the Democrats on the record as supporting this craziness.

      The Democrats voted “present” thinking this would absolve them of responsibility.

      I saw a video clip of AOC arguing her GND case in the House of Representatives yesterday. She seemed a little miffed. I don’t think she likes being challenged. This is a common trait of people who think they know it all.

      • Btw, if you don’t know what the “laugh test” is, you should go up to a random individual on the street and tell them the Democrats want to ban cows,and airplanes, and ask them if they agree with that. If the respondent laughs and looks as if they are not sure you are asking a serious question, then the Democrat position didn’t pass the laugh test.

    • He’s all for it as long as he doesn’t have to vote for it before the 2020 election.

    • Politicians and “Pack-Rats ” emerge from the same nest (That is why the Donald as a businessman is having so much fun ) Idiots Isn’t the word to describe the American Democrat Politician if there is somebody “up there ” please, please , wake up, sleeping time is over !

  5. I predicted here, hours after GND was unveiled, the the “Lite” version was being set up in a “Good Cop / Bad Cop” ploy. And I predicted science-challenged Republican support. The GND was not crafted to be acceptable, it was intended to raise the bar so high that somewhat less extreme proposals will seem “reasonable” and innocuous by comparison.

    • Dems are trying to establish the framing. If you establish the framing, you win. If Repubs take the bait and argue on Dems terms, instead of ignoring/mocking/exposing them, Democrats will win; it would then just be a matter of how much of a win. IMO the only win for Repubs is to reject Democrat’s framing by ignoring their imperatives to offer a counter GND, or establish their own framing by co-opting and redefining the GND.

      • Exactly. This is the Democrats leading.

        ‘it was a farce’

        And yet Republicans want to respond with their own farce. So when a New Green Deal is up for vote in Congress, it will be a REPUBLICAN bill. Establishment Republicans are tools.

        • “Establishment Republicans are tools.”

          Yes, and these tools are identifying themselves with the positions they take. The 2020 elections are just around the corner and it looks like we need to replace about 12 Republicans in the Senate and at least 14 Republicans in the House.

          Then we need about 40 additional Republican seats in the House and about 10 in the Senate and this country will get back on track Big Time. No more nasty Democrats nipping at our heels.

          The radical Democrats are holding up progress. We need to turn them into also-rans if we value our freedoms and our future. The Democrats are completely delusional and will take us down the road to ruin if given the chance.

  6. “we can become more energy independent” – Cantwell

    We are energy independent. “More” is stupid.

  7. The Democrat Party long ago went off the rails. That we have Republican’s willing to go along with the economic destruction of the USA is unacceptable. While both major parties are masters at co-opting issues as they arise it is not acceptable to co-opt criminal stupidity. On some issues the only viable alternative is complete opposition. The climate scam is one of those issues.

    Personally I became a Republican because of an issue like this. Always interested in history and current events I found a hard line position against Communism the only only rational response. One party came closest to that position. The other didn’t seem quite certain. All other issues were filtered through this lens. Climate has become like that. You are either on the right side or the wrong side. If you are on the wrong side and in the GOP you took the wrong door. Find your way out.

    • “Climate has become like that. You are either on the right side or the wrong side. If you are on the wrong side and in the GOP you took the wrong door. Find your way out.”

      I think any Republicans who do this will be hearing about it from their fellow Republicans.

      There is no evidence CO2 is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to do anything it wouldn’t otherwise do, so Repubican alarmists should not come to us suggesting we try to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

      That’s the first thing we are going to say: This CO2 problem is a fiction. Now, what do you Republican Alarmists have to say about that? Do you have anything to support claiming CO2 requires fixing? Quoting the “97 percent” lie won’t be sufficient, nor will producing a Hockey Stick chart. There is nothing else you could present to make this case.

      You don’t know how much net warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere, so how do you know its effects? You don’t know the feedbacks that operate on CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, so you don’t know if CO2 adds any net warmth to the atmosphere at all after feedbacks.

      You don’t know practically anything about the atmosphere and CO2 yet you are going to present a fix for it?

      Congressional Republican alarmists should probably expect to get a lot of correspondence like the above.

      Save yourself a lot of trouble. Hold your fire until you hear from Dr. Happer. He doesn’t think CO2 is anything to worry about, and, if our luck holds, Dr. Happer will be making that case in public soon.

  8. Socialism is the attempt to use ideology in the place of facts, logic, reason, experience and above all, timeless principles. Socialism can only be widely implemented through coercion, compulsion, terror and secrecy. So socialists first work to secure control of government.

    In the past 150 years, socialism has been marketed as a way for workers to improve their standard of living, and to put a stop to the greedy capitalist stealing their “excess labor”. When that failed, at the expense of the lives of tens of millions of people, it was recast as a way to increased “fairness” and “diversity” and a cleaner environment. This attempt cannot succeed. It is only a question of how quickly and how deadly its failure will be.

    One common theme among today’s socialists is the insistence that those previous failures, no matter how high the cost in death and misery, were not real socialism. These new socialists insist they would be more successful and less brutal. But since human nature cannot be changed, new socialists will always act like old socialists. And the greater the failure, the more brutal they become.

    The key for those who love liberty is that either we can construct a society based on peaceful and voluntary interaction and economic exchange, or we can reject that. When one rejects peace, the only ways left all must involve violence, suffering and death.

  9. The key for those who love liberty is that either we can construct a society based on peaceful and voluntary interaction and economic exchange, or we can reject that.

    In just the previous paragraph you said that human nature is immutable, then you say, everyone pitch in and change human nature.

    I submit that you need at least these three things held by the public to hold tyranny at bay: Guns, Printing Press and Calvinism.

    • You have just listed three things, which if held exclusively by selected people will make a tyranny permanent. What is required to oppose tyranny is to first identify it, and that requires skepticism. Once magical thinking takes root in the majority of voters, then abandon all hope.

      • “Once magical thinking takes root in the majority of voters, then abandon all hope.”

        The current climate change paradigm is derived from magical thinking. The government financial bookkeeping in most of the Western Hemisphere is the product of magical thinking! Socialism is completely derived from magical thinking. Apparently, it takes about 100 years for the seeds of magical thinking to grow and bear the fruit of hopelessness.

        Perhaps AOC is right for the wrong reasons. Maybe we only have 10 years left before it all goes Humpty-Dumpty!

    • Unfortunately there is no “we” in liberty. That is to say, no mass movement, no herd, no hive. You and I can make a contract between us, and invite others to that contract, and it becomes as you wrote “a” society, like the National Geographic Society, but not THE society which imposes its laws forcefully.

  10. Timing is all. As soon as it became clear that court jester Mueller couldn’t deliver impeachment, the pack of CO2 cards collapsed. The only way the GND could have gained traction was a complete blockade of the Executive.
    Rather like the Clinton impeachment – Glass-Steagall was revoked under immense pressure, the only way it could have been.

    Just wondering how many in Brexit’s Westminster had banked on court jester Mueller?

    • I do wish people who invoke the “repeal of Glass-Steagall is root of all evil” argument would just research the topic more thoroughly. Repeal of Glass-Steagall was simply a political process bending to reality. By the late 1990s Glass-Steagall was an outmoded law. The financial industry had innovated to the point that 90% of transactions were not convered by it; and, the institutions still subject to it, the commercial banks, were being made uncompetitive by it. In effect, repeal of Glass-Steagall was much like the reduction of the old 34% tax on businesses in the new tax law–politics reflecting reality.

  11. “One wonders why they bothered introducing it if they were not willing to defend or support it.”

    I think that is fairly obvious. If you are 8 years old, standing in the check-out line at the market with your mom and you want a candy bar, do you ask her for a candy bar? No…you ask for a horse! The request is ridiculous, especially because you live on the 7th floor of an apartment building in the Bronx! But for just a second, mom considers the possibility, and the nightmare, of having a horse in her current life situation. The immediate panic she feels is gratefully relieved when you dimurly request a candy bar in lieu of the horse. You walk out of the store with the sweet taste of chocolate in your mouth and smile on your lips, as you realise that you are smarter than your mother.

    The smart mom smiles at her child and says: “Your so cute, and, No! you can’t have candy either!

    The GND was a great success for the Democrats, as they got the whole country momentarily thinking about it, paving the way for their more modest requests for power and control to come. It is well and good that the Republicans ridiculed it on the Senate Floor yesterday, but the damage has already been done.

    For Democrats – Mission Accomplished!

  12. So 43 esteemed Democrats voted present on an aggressive proposal from one of their own to address supposed global climate catastrophe according to their own orchestrated media, science, and doomsday clock operators.

    I guess they are now ready move on to new revenue raising ideas to pay for vote-buying efforts and NY subway upgrades.

    • So 43 esteemed Democrats voted present on an aggressive proposal from one of their own to address supposed global climate catastrophe according to their own orchestrated media, science, and doomsday clock operators.

      Not only that but about a quarter of them was co-sponsors of the proposal that they voted present on (assuring that the proposal that so many of them claimed to back would fail). When it came down to it, the GND was too toxic for them to be on the record as voting in favor.

  13. Here’s a little fun.
    Sen. Mike Lee mocks the Green New Deal.
    Dragons, tauntauns, and Aquaman …

  14. I want a bumper sticker that reads “GND 0-57”

    Make that an order of 50 to give out copies to others.

  15. Heh, ‘present’ and scared stiff, but not of climate change, rather of narrative change.
    =================================

Comments are closed.