Chris White Tech Reporter
September 03, 2019 11:19 AM ET
Sen. Cory Booker announced a pricey climate plan Tuesday, marking a trend as the New Jersey Democrat joins other presidential candidates who are pushing trillion-dollar plans to tackle global warming.
Booker unveiled the $3 trillion plan, which promises to spend on green energy, phase out the use of fossil fuels and create a 100% carbon neutral economy in the U.S. It would require oil companies to pay a carbon fee on coal, natural gas and oil production, while also ending subsidies for energy producers.
“We are facing a dual crisis of climate change and economic inequality,” Booker said in a press statement. “Without immediate action, we risk an incredible human toll from disasters, health impacts, rising national security threats, and trillions of dollars in economic losses.”
The plan lacks details about how the plan will be financed. (RELATED: Bernie Sanders Says His $16-Trillion Green New Deal-Like Plan Will Create 20 Million Jobs)
Booker’s plan aims to “accelerate the end of the use of fossil fuels,” and “barring all new onshore or offshore fossil fuel leases” as well as banning the creation of new fossil fuel infrastructure after 2025. The New Jersey senator would also bring back a ban on crude oil exports, according to the plan. His plan is less ambitious than other presidential candidates.Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed independent who has staked most of his presidential campaign on climate change, introduced a $16.3-trillion plan on Aug. 22, which he says will create 20 million jobs. The idea is similar to the Green New Deal, a piece of legislation that was panned by Democrats and Republicans for being a pie-in-the-sky solution.
Other candidates chimed in as well. Businessman Andrew Yang’s 11,000-word, $4.9 trillion climate plan, which he announced on Aug. 26, is 3,000 words shorter than Sanders’s idea. He also does not specify how many jobs the plan will create, an oversight that could become a sticking point in areas of the country where oil jobs are plentiful.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
16.3 trillion for 20 million jobs is over 800K per job and this doesn’t even count the cost of the 10’s of millions of jobs that will be lost.
How can people who can’t handle simple arithmetic think they are qualified to run for President? These same people consider a 1/2% change in the energy budget over a century or more owing to increasing atmospheric Co2 is ‘substantial’ enough to recklessly obsess about.
The unit of currency that replaced “cents” in Democrat thinking?
“Trillions of dollars”
Do you mean replaced ‘sense’?
Just give $800k to every citizen and the economy will take off all on its own.
Issue more T-bonds which you never intend to settle raise the national debt ceiling and all will be fine.
Dems and Leftists are innumerate, almost by definition.
At the same time that it creating 20 million government jobs, it will also destroy 100 million jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Yes, but they will be GREEN jobs being created which are worth 10 ordinary jobs, so its a win win situation apart from those tens of millions losing their jobs of course
The 10’s of millions without jobs will be green with envy, so doesn’t that count as green?
I wonder what ‘feedback’ mechanism can amplify 1 into 10. Perhaps it’s the same imaginary feedback that amplifies the next W/ ^2 of solar forcing into the 4.4 W/ m^2 of net incremental surface emissions required to manifest the nominal 0.8C temperature increase claimed by the IPCC.
It’s actually a good thing that this is only imaginary feedback, since if all W/m^2 from the Sun were subject to the same imaginary feedback, as first principles dictates must be the case, the surface emissions would correspond to a temperature close to the boiling point of water and we would all be toast, literally.
Is anyone keeping score as to the most expensive climate plan from Democrat contenders?
The least expensive plan?
And the background is that according to The UN IPCC Special Report on 1.5C Warming, we need $122 trillion from private and public sources this century to combat climate change(WUWT, passim).
Then there is the AOC plan estimated to cost $93 trillion.
And from Bjorn Lomborg, we need $1.5 trillion a year going forward to 2030 to achieve the “ unprecedented social and economic revolution “ required.
Or is that just for New Zealand? I forget.
And once again, as Senator Everett Dirksen reminded us,-
“ A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money”.
Absolute expense does not matter, vague cost effectiveness does. Of course, if all are wildly ineffective, the cheaper the better.
Why does someone not pass a law banning all initiatives costing >$1trn for less than 0.5C reduction in temperature? Presidential Decree, anyone?
That would shut democrats up jolly quickly and clear the way for real innovators in the field of environmental science.
Inflation…Dirksen said “Billions”…back then billions were real money, now days, it takes trillions to make an impact.
I know.
I was using “ artistic license”with ‘trillions’!
I can solve the global warming fiasco for much less. All it takes is correcting the science and I’m pretty I can get that accomplished for under a billion dollars. That should be more than enough to bribe enough of the degenerates in the MSM to report the truth …
It is much easier to control people with fear than the truth.
The MSM is in the entertainment business. Shock sells. The truth can be rather boring. If they were however, to begin to realize that credibility keeps customers’ eyes perhaps things might turn around. In this era of information it is very easy to expose mistruths and falsehoods.
The political current that is driving the control levers is another thing entirely. Hopefully true science will wrest control of this usurped juggernaut from the power hungry.
I’ve become increasingly concerned that unless strong steps are taken to wrest control over what is and what is not climate science away from the IPCC and its institutionalized conflict of interest, the science will continue to loose and we will all suffer the consequences.
Well, of course,the three trillion dollars he proposes to spend are not his own!
As with all these scams, follow the money and twenty million jobs doing what.
Yeah … and ban all the trucks and we will create tens of millions of jobs …
Carters.
Those marxist politicians are actually the dumbest.
The teamsters can go back to driving teams of oxen.
How much flatulence will result from that change?
20 mule team wagons work better for hauling freight… besides, they keep the roadbed fertilized. :<)
But it will take weeks for Amazon Prime. Will they be self navigating oxen?
Imagine the traffic reports, “Over turned turnip cart, on the river road bridge has things snarled up for days in both directions.”
Where will all the “trillions” come from? Is it the federal bank? Isn’t the usa already 22 trillion in debt? The green deal will have the next 15 generations stuck in debt from birth!! I have not heard one single politician speak about any companies who can supply ultra low fuels, for example, Carbon Engineering Ltd and there ultra low fuel which can run petrol and diesel cars, if they are going to ban fossil fuels at least show us what you are going to give us in return!
Crushing poverty, misery, and deprivation is what we will get in return.
They could raise some of that 3 trillion by selling Alaska back to Russia.
After all what’s in Alaska other than fossil fuels and Sarah Palin’s relatives.
What good democrat wants either of those in the USA?
(/Sarc)
Booker tells a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He can plan whatever he wants but it’s even less likely to happen than being elected President. Polls have him around 2% and sinking fast.
Trillion $ plan and the cup of coffee a Micky D would cost $5.00.
These “Climate Change” solutions proposed by AOC, Sanders, Booker, IPCC and others, are completely bonkers but fortunately, they are also self-defeating, once the electorate digests the costs and effects involved with them.
In recent elections in Australia the Labour Party (Democrat equivalent) proposed a similar scheme together with taxes to pay for it. They were soundly defeated by the Liberal Party (Republican equivalent) and suffered a Media-surprising defeat at the election.
Democrats are asking for the sun, the moon, the earth and stars. They plan to strike a bargain for just the earth and tell us what a good deal that is.
““We are facing a dual crisis of climate change and economic inequality,” Booker said in a press statement.”
The crisis is in critical thinking. And the economic inequality will be made worse for the poor.
Apparently $5B for a wall was too much for an election promise, how are they going to find $3T.
Wait I guess not all election promises are equal 🙂
As long as they don’t forget the “carbon” content in imports. Or all those “green” jobs will be as bicycle delivery driver at $15/h.
Since there is no way to get honest figures out of China, just divide FF use by GDP. That way, Switzerland will have the lowest carbon tariffs.
/s
That Booker has not joined the herd heading for withdrawal only demonstrates how disconnected he is from the reality that he has zero chance of winning even one Democrat primary.
These Dems are living in self-made echo chambers of handpicked people around them encouraging them, more than a dozen Emperor’s with no clothes.
At this point I think it’s reasonable to assume Pocahontas will win the Dem nomination, and the only 3 people who have a reasonable chance of stopping her rise are senile Creepy Joe, Bernie the Commie, and Kamala the flipflopper.
That’s “Fauxcahontas”. “Faux”, as in fake. It’s a shame Trump flubbed the existing nickname.
The proposals in various US green deals are business as usual in the EU, Japan, Korea, India and China (anywhere developing a modern infrastructure). It surprises non-US residents why you haven’t been doing this stuff for years.
The rest of the developed world has trains which go faster than 90 mph and excellent or improving public transport, renewables, including offshore wind and a whole bunch of other stuff the USA is apparently incapable of rolling out.
This is new technology… it isn’t necessarily green or socialist or too expensive, but it is the future.
There was once a USA which was a world leader in technology and infrastructure…
Like Concorde and the TGV, (and the Great Pyramids of Giza too) many of these grandiose projects turn out to be White Elephants (boondoggle in the USA).
They look good and play well to politicians and national pride. They may even appear to operate profitably after the government writes-off the enormous construction expense. But that debt remains on the nation’s books, meaning that other less glamorous but more cost effective projects don’t get to see the light of day.
Europe is certainly ahead in that these programs have already been tried and failed. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/germanys-energiewende-program-exposed-as-a-catastrophic-failure/
Why should the US follow their objectively bad example? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
The US doesn’t have theyellow vest movement…yet 😉
We will as soon as they push this through:
“It would require oil companies to pay a carbon fee on coal, natural gas and oil production, while also ending subsidies for energy producers.”
Which subsidies for which producers? If they are promoting “green energy” how do they do that without subsidies? Or, are they going to stop subsidizing roof-top solar as well?
What the EU and others do with regard to energy and transportation infrastructure is their business. If they want to jump off an economic cliff because of the “climate change” bogeyman, then go for it. Their funeral. Your Appeals to “New Technology” and the “The Future”, are both irrational and retarded, even for you.
…and they are the highest CO2 polluters
BAU in China is being responsible for more than 28% global CO2 production in 2015 … 1/2% of global countries 28% of CO2 production.
And they have gotten higher by 2018.
If CO2 is a pollution, China is a Gross Polluter topping U.S. and EU combined
“It surprises non-US residents why you haven’t been doing this stuff for years.”
I didn’t realize you were the spokesman for all non-US residents, Griff.
Once again drive by griff drops his poop and runs off before he can see any of the corrections to his nonsense.
In griff’s “brain”, not willing to do stupid stuff is evidence that you aren’t capable of doing stupid stuff.
‘It surprises non-US residents why you haven’t been doing this stuff for years.’
It surprises me how Grift can continually put up ‘monkey-see, monkey-do’ as a viable argument.
Collectivist indoctrination doesn’t allow for much independent thought.
Short answer, Grift: It’s unnecessary and stupid.
griff
“The proposals in various US green deals are business as usual in the EU, Japan, Korea, India and China”
One of the most effing stupid statements I have ever seen on WUWT, and it just had to come from you.
Any of the ‘Green New Deals’ demand trillions of $’s from the US taxpayer which won’t just bankrupt the US, it will short circuit the worlds financial systems and throw the entire world into poverty.
The EU is rebelling against green crap. The French are rioting in the streets, Germany is navel gazing over the vast cost of it’s folly with no effect on CO2, Poland has just said eff it, we’ll burn coal and the Chinese are building/financing over 1,000 coal fired power stations across the planet.
WHAT EFFING PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON GRIFF???? Wake up!!!!!!!
AOC’s NGD is estimated to cost several time total US GDP, and the loony left thinks that reasonable and affordable.
Learn to count FFS! Why are all you lefty’s congenitally stupid?
Griff is just a lying crack, dont give yourself an aneurism responding to his propaganda. He knows full well that “business as usual” in India and China is to burn fossil fuels and become rich, which is one part of the reason you could kill everyone in the US to zero out carbon emissions and the models say it would make a difference of 0.01-0.03 degrees C in 2100.
“…The rest of the developed world has trains which go faster than 90 mph and excellent or improving public transport, renewables, including offshore wind and a whole bunch of other stuff the USA is apparently incapable of rolling out…”
We have trains that go faster than 90 mph. Amtrak’s Acela Express hits 150 mph.
Maybe public transport isn’t “excellent” everywhere, but it is certainly “improving.”
We have renewables, including offshore wind farms (e.g., Block Island Wind Farm in Rhode Island).
What planet do you live on?
griff –
While I don’t agree with you that “renewables, including offshore wind and a whole bunch of other stuff” is “the future.” You are right about railroads. They are absolutely the most energy efficient way to move goods and people.
Years ago, the fact that the CAGW crowd didn’t want nuclear power, hydro, or railroads, but only things that didn’t work like wind and solar, convinced me that the CO2 meme was hoax. If you were really serious about eliminating CO2 you would be building nuclear power plants, and having all freight going over 200 miles moved by rail, and electrify the railroads.
From an engineering viewpoint moving freight by rail makes the most sense. And no it isn’t new technology. I blame the teamsters union for the demise of U. S. railroads
As my sainted mom used to ask, “If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, does that mean you have to as well?”
In griff’s “mind”, the fact that others are doing stupid things is proof that we should start doing stupid things as well.
The first problem with these ideas is that the federal government is already deep in debt and adding even more debt could risk insolvency where the federal government’s tax receipts are not enough to service the debt. None of the Democrat Party candidates have put forward a plan where by the federal government will pay off its debts. The federal government needs to first pay off its debts before it starts such ambitious spending. Taxing the fossil fuel companies will end up pushing up energy costs which we the public will have to end up paying. Making energy more expensive will serve to depress the economy and with it tax revenue. These plans are a total disaster especially when one considers that there is no climate emergency and that the climate change we are experiencing is very small and caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Such plans will kill our economy but will have no effect on climate.
Taxing the fossil fuel companies will end up pushing up energy costs which we the public will have to end up paying.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
‘The public” always pays. The “government” is a poorly run non-profit organization. The political thinking that gave us the change from the “War Department” to the “Department of Defense” has led to too many lost ‘military wars’ in foreign countries (Grenada excepted) and too many lost ‘wars’ at home. The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs et al, ad nauseum. The War on Climate is just more of the same – the people pay…..
Booker made himself unelectable. But, please, don’t tell him.
Ed
As Napolean said, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.
Before 2008 no one even knew what a trillion dollars was.
Now it’s a very popular word with the people who want to spend money that’s not theirs.
That was back in the day when a trillion dollars was considered a lot of money.
The New Scientific Method:
1, Have an Idea
2. Conjure a Conclusion
3. Skip Everything in between
Just like the underpants gnomes…hmm.
(a South Park reference for those that don’t get it)
Phase 1 – collect underpants
Phase 2 – …
Phase 3 – profit!
Why do none of these Marxist Democrats ever consider national security in their plans? Today we have a huge internal combustion engine infrastructure that provides a base of manufacturing and parts for our military capability. The operational status of that military is backed up with our strategic oil reserve. As you kill off the ICE infrastructure in the US you will also damage the ability of the military to maintain and innovate in their equipment. I don’t know of any military equipment, from tanks to jeeps that would meet operational requirements while depending on batteries and charging stations in the field.
It’s like so many of these people can’t see past the end of their nose! Do the Democrats have *any* candidate that can actually think?
“It’s like so many of these people can’t see past the end of their nose!”
Whatta ya mean ……. “it’s like”?
Obviously no thought given to what the fossil-fuel businesses will do if this plan is enacted as they would be immediately unviable.
I perceive a rapid collapse of these businesses followed by the government nationalising them in order to keep the lights on and the economy running.
Good luck making renewables with no fossil-fuelled power (or businesses)
Dizzy Lizzie’s me-too “plan”, much of which she got from Cuckoo-for-Klimate Jay Inslee who recently dropped out of the race also costs $3 trillion. It’s important to note that these idiotic plans if implemented, would have disasterous effects on the economy, far beyond the spending of vast sums of money on a Big Lie. The Dems really have gone full retard on climate, thus ensuring a Trump 2nd term. Goofy Gaff Sleepy Joe’s “plan” is a little less ambitious, so perhaps only half-retard, but his campaign appears to be in trouble.
$3 trillion is roughly $9,000 per US citizen (assuming 327 million population).
$16.3 trillion would be just shy of $50,000 per head.
That’s $200,000 for a household of 4 .
Perhaps the would-be spenders of other people’s money should be obliged to express all these huge numbers in those terms so that people can relate to them.
It would feel like another big mortgage, for every household. Nasty.
These people are mad, and their equivalents here in the UK aren’t much better.
Virtue signalling, pant wetting, herd following numpties, the lot of them.
You are assuming that all US citizens pay an equal amount of taxes. They don’t . . . and even fewer would be paying income taxes (net) under any kind of GND plan currently being offered up, as most would end up unemployed . . . that is, until someone proposes is an attendant plan to force any and all income to be taxed at, say 25%, regardless of any established “low income” quartile.
Based on the federal debt, every citizen already owes a lot more than that. Let us pay off our current debts before we start to borrow more money. Servicing the current debt is already a very significant part of our federal government’s annual expenditures. We the citizens of the USA should insist that our federal government practice fiscal responsibility.
The question to ask, as always with these proposals, is how much effect they will have on global emissions and global warming.
How does this work? That is the question to be asked.
And the answer will be that it does not work at all. First, it will not reduce US emissions directly. But suppose it did. That would potentially take 5 billion tons a year off the table, when it is currently 37 billion globally and rising. So it at best could drop global emissions directly to 32 billion and rising. In three or four years, we would be back at 37 billion.
This scenario, in raw numbers, ie lets go down to 32 globally and then lets go up again to 40 or so, this scenario is one of the ones the greens claim represents planetary disaster.
So will there be indirect effects, if there are not enough direct effects to do any good? Obviously not. Anyone who thinks that America is looked at as an example to be followed is dreaming. It simply is not. Its example will have no effect. The world will carry on increasing as it is now, regardless of what America does.
There is in short no way this road leads in the direction these people claim to want to go.
So move on to the next step, and ask yourself (and them) why they insist on trying to take it.