Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Democrat Presidential Primary candidate Beto O’Rourke is hoping you’ll find the $5 Trillion cost of his green new deal lite more palatable than the $93 trillion cost of the full Green New Deal.
O’Rourke releases plan to fight climate change with $5 trillion investment and net-zero emissions by 2050
By Kate Sullivan and Leyla Santiago, CNN
Updated 1539 GMT (2339 HKT) April 29, 2019O’Rourke plans to invest $5 trillion over 10 years in infrastructure and innovation and also sets a goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, according to an outline of O’Rourke’s proposal which his campaign put out ahead of a tour of Yosemite National Park on Monday.
The former Texas Democratic congressman’s plan called climate change “the greatest threat we face” and outlined a four-part framework to address this “existential threat” and “growing emergency.”
If elected president in 2020, O’Rourke’s “very first bill he sends to Congress … will mobilize $5 trillion over 10 years — spurred by the single largest investment to fight climate change in history — to transform our aging infrastructure, accelerate innovation, and empower our people and communities to lead the climate fight,” according to his plan.
…
According to his proposal, O’Rourke’s $5 trillion mobilization would be “directly leveraged by a fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment,” and the bill he would introduce to Congress would be funded by “changes to the tax code to ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies.”
…
O’Rourke’s climate change plan would “set a first-ever, net-zero emissions by 2030 carbon budget for federal lands, stopping new fossil fuel leases, changing royalties to reflect climate costs, and accelerating renewables development and forestation.”
…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/29/politics/beto-orourke-climate-change-policy/index.html
From Beto’s website;
…
Start Cutting Pollution on Day One and Taking Executive Actions to Lead on Climate
Beto’s four-part framework starts with a forceful day-one agenda because he knows that delay is tantamount to denial — to misunderstanding the severity and scale of this growing crisis. We will cut pollution on day one, improving the quality of our air, our water, and our public health right away. At the same time, we will create jobs, support communities, and strengthen our economy — not just to compete, but to lead the world in addressing this crisis.
As President, Beto will use his executive authority not only to reverse the problematic decisions made by the current administration, but also to go beyond the climate actions under previous presidents:
- Re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond;
- Reduce methane leakage from existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry for the first time and rapidly phase-out hydrofluorocarbons, the super-polluting greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide;
- Strengthen the clean air and hazardous waste limits for power plants and fuel economy standards that save consumers money and improve public health, while setting a trajectory to rapidly accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicles;
- Increase consumer savings through new, modernized, and ambitious appliance- and building-efficiency standards;
- Create unprecedented access to the technologies and markets that allow farmers and ranchers to profit from the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions they secure;
- Leverage $500 billion in annual government procurement to decarbonize across all sectors for the first time, including a new “buy clean” program for steel, glass, and cement;
- Require any federal permitting decision to fully account for climate costs and community impacts;
- Set a first-ever, net-zero emissions by 2030 carbon budget for federal lands, stopping new fossil fuel leases, changing royalties to reflect climate costs, and accelerating renewables development and forestation; and
- Protect our most wild, beautiful, and biodiverse places for generations to come — including more of the Arctic and of our sensitive landscapes and seascapes than ever before — and establish National Parks and Monuments that more fully tell our American story.
…
Read more: https://betoorourke.com/climate-change/
One question Beto – if you end tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and hike up royalty and compliance costs, won’t they simply pass the additional costs straight on to consumers, causing an economically damaging spike in consumer fuel and energy bills?
It is all very well investing in innovation, but maybe you should hold off pushing up the price of fossil fuel, until that innovation investment yields a viable and affordable alternative.
Would you put that man in charge of coordinating your guests visits to the outhouse at the cottage?
If all this nonsense actually got implemented the costs re ruining the economy for everybody would be a huge amount many times greater than $5 trillion! It would be just as bad as AOC’s Green Machine. There would be no difference really. Beto is an looney.
When we are talking about trillions in this context, are we talking about Short Scale (10EXP12) or Long Scale (10EXP18). But then again, what is 6 orders of magnitude if we are talking utter BS anyway.
While POTUS, Obama pledged $3,000,000,000 to the UN’s Green Slush Fund. On the way out the door he gave the 2nd of $500,000,000.
Trump has backed away from this madness.
The Paris Agreement had no other purpose than to formalize this wealth transfer, and shame the developed countries (e.g., the USA) into parting with the tax payers money.
To “Re-enter the Paris Agreement ” is nothing more than stepping into the lashes for not giving up the money as Obama agreed to. A president Beto will have to offer more money to compensate.
Beto O’Rourke seems to know nothing about climate change, and nothing about the serious issues of the Nation.
His folks should bribe someone to get him into a good university.
Obama got away with those expenditures for two reasons:
– 1. he was on his way out the door.
– 2. As the first minority President, he knew he was un-impeachable by playing the race card.
Beto would have to get an appropriation from Congress to make those payments. Good luck with that.
O’Rourke wouldn’t get the free-pass Obama took advantage of.
Mitch McConnell has already Pledged to be the Grim Reaper of all things Liberal should Democrats run DC again in 2021.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/440041-mcconnell-pledges-to-be-grim-reaper-for-progressive-policies
The greatest threat we face is the prospect of elected leaders tossing trillions of dollars at rent seekers, subsidy miners and just regular ne’er do wells in the cause of facing down a non-existent threat.
Beto’s proposals are bemusing because what is reasonable is not new, and what is new is not reasonable.
There has been as yet no acknowledgement that CO2 is not in control of climate, and that we are not in control of CO2. The natural experiment has been done: 1929-1931, a 30% decrease in human CO2 production with no change in the atmospheric CO2 trend, with temperature increasing to 1942, then decreasing through the years of WWII and post-war reconstruction. Shall we repeat that?
No acknowledgement that there has never been a temperature reversal in the last 550 million years preceded by a CO2 change. And more recently, there was no preceding CO2 change prior to emergence from the Last Glacial Maximum, the descent into the Younger Dryas, the rapid emergence from that to the Holocene Optimum (CO2 280ppm), the gradual descent from that to the present punctuated by the Minoan (CO2 280ppm), Roman (CO2 280ppm), Medieval (CO2 280ppm), and current Warmings, not to mention the beginning (CO2 280ppm) of the Little Ice Age characterized by drought, famine, plague, and peasant revolts, and its merciful end.
No acknowledgement that the GHG efffect of CO2 is at 50% in the first 20 ppm, and declines exponentially after that. So that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%.
It ignores the decarbonization that has been proceeding naturally for the last 1,000 years as we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and potentially to nuclear.
It ignores the fact that plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. We eat them and inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Looks like a win-win to me. 30% of the agricultural increase since 1950 has been attributed to CO2. Satellite pictures show the greening of the earth.
There is no recognition of the existence, much less the importance, of unintended consequences.
This is in fact what we expect of our politicians. We do not expect everyone – and I mean everyone – to fall for it.
Beto’s proposals are bemusing because what is reasonable is not new, and what is new is not reasonable.
There has been as yet no acknowledgement that CO2 is not in control of climate, and that we are not in control of CO2. The natural experiment has been done: 1929-1931, a 30% decrease in human CO2 production with no change in the atmospheric CO2 trend, with temperature increasing to 1942, then decreasing through the years of WWII and post-war reconstruction. Shall we repeat that?
No acknowledgement that there has never been a temperature reversal in the last 550 million years preceded by a CO2 change. And more recently, there was no preceding CO2 change prior to emergence from the Last Glacial Maximum, the descent into the Younger Dryas, the rapid emergence from that to the Holocene Optimum (CO2 280ppm), the gradual descent from that to the present punctuated by the Minoan (CO2 280ppm), Roman (CO2 280ppm), Medieval (CO2 280ppm), and current Warmings, not to mention the beginning (CO2 280ppm) of the Little Ice Age characterized by drought, famine, plague, and peasant revolts, and its merciful end.
No acknowledgement that the GHG efffect of CO2 is at 50% in the first 20 ppm, and declines exponentially after that. So that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%.
It ignores the decarbonization that has been proceeding naturally for the last 1,000 years as we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and potentially to nuclear.
It ignores the fact that plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. We eat them and inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Looks like a win-win to me. 30% of the agricultural increase since 1950 has been attributed to CO2. Satellite pictures show the greening of the earth.
There is no recognition of the existence, much less the importance, of unintended consequences.
This is in fact what we expect of our politicians. We do not expect everyone – and I mean everyone – to fall for it.
Thanks Jimm
The most incredible feature of the COGS (Constantly Offended Green Socialists) is their belief, that no matter what they propose, they will not personally suffer in any way from the impact of their policies.
The AOC’s, Pelosi’s, Caroline Lucas’ and all the other Green shrills, do not picture themselves bucketing water from the stream to wash in cold, before they begin their walk to the fields in search of any crop they can find to eat and see them through to tomorrow.
They do not have a clue, about real deprivation that awaits society devoid of energy, society banned from the use of the only energy available that makes rural life possible.
They do not understand, that once the street lights go out in the major conurbations, the people with even less that the meagre little, available in the middle class households will target those middle class households.
The wealth flight we have seen in major US cities, epitomised by Detroit, which stands out as the poster child of socialist failure/maladministration, awaits anyone with resources if the Democrats ever introduce their desired future.
The difference this time round is there will be nowhere for the wealthy to flee to. The latest plans advanced by the COGS, is a rerun of Pol Pot philosophy.
The other point we need to make or a question that needs to be asked, is why are the fossil fuel companies not resisting this obvious impossible world future? The proposals by the increasingly shrill Democrats/Socialists and the brainwashed institutions across the Western World, can never be implemented.
China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the rapidly developing industrial giant nations in the World, are not interested. Those countries don’t believe in the energy driven apocalypse envisioned by the Western Green advocates. They are continuing to increase the number of middle class economically active people in their societies and see the benefit of doing that. Energy and the availability of reliable low cost energy is driving those growing nations.
Why are the Greens only interested in demanding the Western Nations commit economic suicide, by shutting down its energy options?
Of course they don’t see that. They believe in gun confiscation, except from their security guards.
The most incredible feature of the COGS (Constantly Offended Green Socialists) is their belief, that no matter what they propose, they will not personally suffer in any way from the impact of their policies.
Rod, I don’t know that I totally agree with that.
I think that Beto is an opportunist about what he believes, and that he has a Barak Obama smile and personality, BUT AOC, I think she doesn’t believe there is a downside. I think she believes that:
a) we are only just a little more R&D money away from solar panels that capture and convert 100% of the energy that hits them.
b) just a little more R&D away from solar panels that will not degrade over 12 – 15 years but have a lifespan in the decades.
c) just a little more R&D away from discovering and perfecting cold fusion.
d) just a little more R&D away from perfecting wind power.
e) just a little more R&D away from perfecting battery storage that will allow us to capture all that great free energy we get daily and storing it over night so we can use it.
f) that electricity comes from a non-polluting environmentally friendly source.
g) if the right people are in charge (her and people who think like her) we’re just around the corner from utopia.
I think people like AOC grew up with too much science fiction and too many teachers whose science education was woefully inadequate and so many politicians parroting the same BS that she really believes what she says. I can see it in her eyes when they spin in different directions when she talks.
I was only a child when JFK was elected president. He set the nation on course for the moon landing. But one part of his legacy that, in my opinion didn’t help the nation, was saying that within a decade we will land a man on the moon. Not that the moon landing was bad but since then people seem to believe we can accomplish anything if the government says we can. Consider if he said that a decade earlier. Could that have been accomplished by the end of the 50s? Would people have thought he was nuts?
Remember when zero (Obama) was president? They set CAFE standards for ridiculously high mileage that included the whole line of business (cars AND trucks) and for them to go into effect off in the future. I said to my wife, why, if this is so easy don’t they just set the standards for the next model year? Because they knew that the technology didn’t exist and they assumed the manufacturers would have to create it, OR people would have to get used to smaller, lighter and less powerful cars and trucks and likely more deaths as the vehicles would be made of lighter and lighter materials.
I think the take away from that has been that people think if you throw a lot of money at something, especially with the government’s assistance that you can accomplish what you want like unlimited – non polluting – low cost (or even free) energy.
The top 20% earners pay 87% of all income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay ZERO%…
Who, exactly, isn’t paying their “fair share” of taxes?
Spending $500 billion/year on CAGW is a little less than what the US spends on defense.
AOC’s hilarious Green New Deal proposed spending about $100 trillion to keep CO2 warming below 1.5C (target was originally 2.0C)…
It makes more sense not spend a DIME on CAGW lunacy and enjoy about 0.6C~1.2C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery…
But the top 20% are not paying anything like the same proportion of their earnings as the bottom 80%….
And your point is what griff?
Many of the top US taxpayers are still paying close to 50% taxes on their earning if state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, capital-gains taxes etc., are calculated.
Income taxes are destructive because they penalize good behavior and reward bad behavior.
One flat national sales tax to replace all taxes (and the 76,000 page tax code) is the “fairest” and least destructive form of taxes.
“One flat national sales tax to replace all taxes (and the 76,000 page tax code) is the “fairest” and least destructive form of taxes.”
I like the idea. A national sales tax would also capture all the tax money that is currently being lost in the underground economy. Even criminals would have to pay their fair share of taxes.
It is called the Fair Tax.
It would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes, SS and Medicare tax, etc. and would get the government out of MY financial records. There is a “prebate” given to every household to account for the taxes due for basic living purchases so would still be a progressive tax.
Really great idea but politicians will always be against it because all of their campaign funding is for creating benefit to their supporters which mostly comes from manipulating the tax code.
The Fairtax is a real thing that almost no one has heard of because MSM and most ALL politicians are against the idea of giving up their power to manipulate taxpayers by the tax code.
1.5 C and we’re already 2/3 of the way there.
Wow $5 thousand billion to stop the last 0.5 C!
Get out while you can . . .
Suggest
.
“1.5 C and we’re already 2/3 of the way there.”
I’m not sure exactly where “there” is but from the peak temperature of the “hottest year evah!”, Feb 2016, it has cooled about 0.5C, so whereever “there” is, we are 0.5C farther away from it than we were in Feb. 2016.
The UAH satellite chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2019_v6.jpg
They’re paying a much higher percentage than the bottom 80%… The bottom 50% pay almost no income tax.
No
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/
Fraud is not even either…..
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit
Looking at the income tax data, you’re wrong (as always) griff – at least in regards to the US of A. If you are talking about somewhere else in the world, then fair enough (you’re probably still wrong, but you’ll have to specify where you are talking about in order to be proven wrong).
the top 1% pay an average income tax rate of 26.87%
the top 5% pay an average income tax rate of 23.49%
the top 10% pay an average income tax rate of 21.19%
the top 25% pay an average income tax rate of 17.84%
the top 50% pay an average income tax rate of 15.57%
the bottom 50% pay an average income tax rate of 3.73%
so while it isn’t broken down by 20%/80%, it should be easy enough to determine the 25%/75% numbers to illustrate how wrong you are.
top 25% is given for us at 17.84%.
Top 50% is 15.57% which means the 50-74% group must average to 13.3%
combine that 13.3% with the bottom 50%’s 3.73% gives us a bottom 75% value of 6.92%
17.84% (top 25%) is greater than 6.92% (bottom 75%).
Yes, Samurai — “It makes more sense not spend a DIME on CAGW lunacy and enjoy about 0.6C~1.2C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery…” And use the resources preparing for a) rising sea levels (whether CO2 increases or not) and b) the alternative return of glaciation.
‘….and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies.”
Are these tax breaks unique to fossil fuel companies or available to all companies?
Ssshhhh you aren’t supposed to say that….. You’ll puncture the imaginary subsidy bubble
Highlighted elsewhere;
‘Enforcing our laws to hold polluters accountable, including for their historical actions or crimes;’
Hmmm. If it wasn’t for the industrial revolution we would be faced with a short, brutish cold and unhealthy life in considerable servitude to those with power.
Our increased comforts as a result of industry allowed us to greatly increase our quality and length of life, to put food on the table and a roof over our heads, to allow such things as the rule of law and culture to spread, for democracy to take root and for us to see places and experience things previously only the province of the very rich and powerful.
So I make no apologies whatsoever for the benefits of the industrial revolution, in the great balance sheet of humanity it is a huge plus.
Those that want to scrabble around in the negative part of the balance sheet can do so, but leave those alone who enjoy the benefits of egalitarian civilisation that industry has brought.
tonyb
Judith C has been short of money (looks like Willis E don’t mind her new enlightenment).
I’s say Judith has a new client.
If you’re in manufacturing currently enjoying USA’s low electricity prices, you have a problem.
Don’t leave it to the last minute.
Set-up a parallel operation in China or Vietnam now and make certain you have the space to double quickly.
Australian manufacturers learnt the hard way.
Don’t end up like them . . .
Ummmmm, what ?
Every plan for governmental action requires continual implementation through decisions. Every decision is an opportunity for corruption. The greatest threat we face is a plan.
So, he wants the wealthiest to pay more tax and end a tax break that provides a break of 10s of billions to fossil fuel companies, BUT…….. Then he will hand out a whopping 1.5 Trillion dollars to people or companies of his choice.
This sounds like fraud on a scale never seen before. Welcome to left wing politics aka 1984.
In response to this article, I have in mind a song lyric that is ostensibly about ‘rain’ — but the song is really about peoples’ confusion and expectations when confronted by political plans such as outlined in the article.
“I went down Virginia seekin’ shelter from the storm
Caught up in the fable I watched the tower grow
Five year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmrwAW5-5rU
Note here, that as the verse previous to the one quoted above seems to indicate, the “rain” is really an allegory for the mystery of how to really satisfy people (or maybe for how politicians try to entice people).
— as in the “rain” = “Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground”
New Green Deal.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
What’cha got ??
Once again this insane view that US unilateral action can have an effect on the global climate.
If everyone else carries on behaving as they are, and have said they will, even were the US to vanish, its emissions are such a small percentage that their disappearance would have no effect.
So the argument must be the equally insane view that the rest of the world is looking and will follow the US example. Perhaps because, well, the US is the moral leader of the world, and everyone leaps to follow the US example?
This is complete insanity – to take action in the name of solving or helping to solve a problem, when the action proposed can have no effect on it.
If the theory of global warming is correct, and if disaster is coming, and if everyone else is going to behave as they are and have said they will, then the only rational policy to advocate would be one which attempts to protect the US citizens against the effects of warming.
Trying to deal with the problem by unilateral reductions is like Tuvalu trying to deal with rising sea levels by limiting its emissions. Completely insane.
This really is a chapter out of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Or the madness of liberals.
“Tuvalu trying to deal with rising sea levels by limiting its emissions. Completely insane.”
Sane: Tuvalu loves sea levels, tourism and new airports.
https://www.vilatimes.com/2018/03/01/new-international-airport-terminal-opens-in-tuvalu/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Tuvalu+tourism+new+airports&oq=Tuvalu+tourism+new+airports&aqs=chrome.
Actually, Michel, the 30% reduction in all human CO2 production from 1929-1931 had no effect on atmospheric CO2, and no effect on global temperature which continued to rise to 1942
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Everett Dirksen
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/everett_dirksen_201172
Just replace billion with trillion.
O’Rourke and Stacey Abrams appear to be like regional franchisees of the crazy brand. That comes with a lot of out of state license plates, consultants, and crazy minion staffers.
He and a lot of his ilk are the recession/depression scenario in real life. Of course that opens up the opportunity for a huge stimulus spending spree on whatever like Obama’s Whatever.
If elected president in 2020, O’Rourke’s “very first bill he sends to Congress
As others pointed out, Presidents don’t send bills to congress , it’s congress that sends the bills to the president. The only bills the president sends to congress are the ones he vetoes, which I’m pretty sure isn’t Robert’s plan for the bill he describes.
Biden’s going nowhere. Yes, right now the Big Donors and DNC are trying to pump energy into his pep rally, but that speech he made last night sounded like he needed a 2nd oxygen tank. He’s going through the motions. The only reason he’s leading right now is because of name recognition and the fact that almost all other contenders are waaaaay too scary to the Big Donors.
This guy in a debate against Trump? Are you kidding me? He’s like a lump of warm Crisco left on the railroad tracks. Greasing the Trump train’s way, YEAH!
Not sure why you posted about Joe Biden in response to my post about Robert “Beto” O’Rourke.
Biden’s going nowhere
Remains to be seen. All the other contenders have jumped on the train to crazytown, making Biden seem like the only sane adult in the Democrat’s room (not just to big donors, but to ordinary voters). Which, in part, is why polls* show Biden leading the pack
* yeah, I know, polls aren’t very reliable as 2016 showed us. But they are about the only data we have until the primary votes start coming in.
This guy in a debate against Trump? Are you kidding me? He’s like a lump of warm Crisco left on the railroad tracks. Greasing the Trump train’s way, YEAH!
Trump is not one to underestimate in a debate, to be sure. We all saw how he wiped the floor with the entire Republican establishment field last go round. Not sure which candidate would be able to handle Trump’s debate style the best. Certainly establishment type candidates (like Biden) will fair the worst in a debate with Trump. But I can’t see many of the far-left candidates doing any better. Whatever candidate the Dems pick is going to have to do what none of the Republicans nor Hillary managed to do last time round – figure out how to win a debate with Trump.
Let’s see if we can make this more factual and honest…
As President, Beto AKA “PUTO” will ATTEMPT TO END-AROUND CONGRESS IN A WAY THAT’S REALLY BAD ONLY WHEN TRUMP DOES IT to not only to reverse the GOOD decisions made by the current administration, but also to PILE ON MORE STUPID AND USELESS “CLIMATE ACTIONS” ABOVE AND beyond the STUPID AND USELESS climate actions under previous presidents:
Re-enter the MEANINGLESS Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan FOR ECONOMIC SUICIDE OF EVERY NON-CHINA, INDIA, AND OTHER “DEVELOPING” NATION for 2030 and beyond, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULDN’T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO THE CLIMATE;
REQUIRE REDUCTION OF methane leakage from existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry for the first time WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF COST OR PRACTICALITY, WITH THE UNSPOKEN INTENT OF MAKING OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE IT, and rapidly phase-out hydrofluorocarbons, the SUPPOSEDLY “REALLY BAD” BUT ACTUALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times AS HYPOTHETICALLY POWERFUL AS THE HYPOTHETICAL POWER OF carbon dioxide, WHICH HAS NEVER ONCE BEEN EMPIRICALLY SHOWN TO DO ANYTHING TO “CLIMATE” EVER;
Strengthen the clean air and hazardous waste limits for power plants TO DRIVE UP ENERGY COSTS IN THE HOPE THAT THIS WILL SUDDENLY MAKE WIND MILLS AND SOLAR PANELS APPEAR USEFUL and fuel economy standards that FORCE PEOPLE TO DRIVE SMALL, UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNSAFE VEHICLES THEY DON’T WANT, while setting a trajectory to rapidly FORCE the adoption of zero-emission vehicles THAT NOBODY NEEDS OR WANTS;
Increase APPLIANCE AND HOUSING COSTS through COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY AND INCONSEQUENTIAL new, modernized, and ambitious appliance- and building-efficiency standards [TRANSLATION: NEW WASHERS THAT DON’T GET YOUR CLOTHES CLEAN, REFRIGERATORS THAT DON’T KEEP YOUR FOOD COLD ENOUGH, AIR CONDITIONERS THAT HAVE NO TEMPERATURE SETTINGS BELOW 80 DEGREES, AND HOUSES WITHOUT ANY WINDOWS];
WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY ON the USELESS technologies and USELESS markets that allow farmers and ranchers to profit from GOVERNMENT MANDATES AND SUBSIDIES THAT REQUIRE reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, WHICH WILL DO NOTHING ABOUT CLIMATE BUT MIGHT BUY SOME FARM STATE VOTES;
WASTE $500 billion in annual TAXPAYER CONTRIBUTIONS to UNNECESSARILY “decarbonize” across all sectors for the first time, WITHOUT ANY PRACTICAL WAY TO ACTUALLY DO SO, including AN UNNECESSARY new “buy clean” program for steel, glass, and cement THAT UNNECESSARILY RAISES THE COST OF STEEL, GLASS, AND CEMENT AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM STEEL, GLASS, AND CEMENT;
Require any federal permitting decision to BE UNNECESSARILY INFLATED TO COVER IMAGINARY “climate costs” and “community impacts” “ESTIMATES” WHICH WERE PULLED OUT OF SOME BUREAUCRAT’S ASS;
STOP new fossil fuel leases, THEREBY DRIVING UP ENERGY PRICES, changing royalties to reflect IMAGINARY “climate costs,” TO FURTHER DRIVE UP ENERGY PRICES, and accelerating THE CLEARLY IMBECILIC REQUIREMENTS AND SUBSIDIES FOR USELESS “renewables” development and RELATED DEFORESTATION THAT COMES WITH USING LOW DENSITY POWER GENERATION; and
STOP ENERGY EXPLORATION IN AS MUCH LAND AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN GET CONTROL OF TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA, ENSURING NOTHING BUT THE BLIGHT OF USELESS WIND MILLS AND SOLAR PANELS INVADING our most wild, beautiful, and biodiverse places for generations to come — including ABANDONING ENERGY EXPLORATION IN THE Arctic, ALLOWING THE CHINESE TO DO IT INSTEAD AND WITH MUCH LESS REGARD FOR REAL POLLUTION, and CLUTTERING our SUPPOSEDLY, BUT NOT REALLY, “sensitive” landscapes and seascapes WITH USELESS WIND MILLS AND SOLAR PANELS than ever before — and establish National Parks and Monuments that more PUT AS MUCH LAND UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT ENERGY EXPLORATION CAN BE BLOCKED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, ALL WHILE INSURING THAT [BENO’S/PUTO’S] BUDDIES INVESTING IN “RENEWABLES” “CARBON CREDITS/CAP & TRADE,” AND OTHER SUCH USELESS BULLSHIT CAN ALL MAKE THEIR ILL-GOTTEN BILLIONS (AFTER CONTRIBUTING HANDSOMELY TO HIS CAMPAIGN, OF COURSE).
I think you got the gist of it, though too many CAPS makes it hard to read, so I can’t say for certain.
When Robert Francis O’Rourke jumps up on a lunch counter and starts talking about “white privilege”, everyone around him should hold up a mirror. If he ever starts to make headway in the primary, the crowd will drag him back down with questions about the drunk driving episode that magically went away.
If Be
ato(ffthinks he’s going to impress everyone by bragging how much his administration will burden the taxpayers, he may have a bumpy campaign trail.This should be seen as a positive move, in that it brings forward very specific, time bounded and budgeted proposals rather than high minded principles and dreams.
It allows those of more skeptical mindset to carry out rigorous due diligence on individual proposals, to identify unintended consequences if any and to delineate in detail the effect such proposals will have on daily lives in the here and now.
It is possible for two opposing sides to agree on some individual proposals, whilst disagreeing on others. It creates the possibility for some bipartisan support, rather than tribal trench warfare as is found far too often in US politics.
It is possible to support reforestation without supporting reentering the Paris Climate Treaty.
It is possible to support clean procurement in steel, cement and glass without hammering the oil industry in the near term.
It is possible to support energy efficient homebuilding without supporting carbon neutrality.
Etc etc.
It would also behove Republicans to bring forward alternative proposals, so they are also seen as constructive rather than stonewalling vandals.
The point of debate is to reach conclusions, not to argue for the sake of it.
Reaching any conclusions in this arena requires bipartisan compromise. It does not mean compromise everywhere as red lines will exist on both sides and some may be mutually incompatible at this time.
However if two tribes of politicians are so implacably resistant to dialogue, it is questionable whether either tribe are fit to serve….
If it’s not a problem, why compromise on an unnecessary solution?
Climate change is a given, not a problem. CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.