Sen. Booker Reveals $3 Trillion Climate Plan

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 3, 2019 10:12 pm

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.

Another Ian
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 4, 2019 1:19 am

The unit of currency that replaced “cents” in Democrat thinking?

“Trillions of dollars”

Reply to  Another Ian
September 4, 2019 7:41 am

Do you mean replaced ‘sense’?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 5, 2019 4:10 am

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.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 4, 2019 2:16 am

Dems and Leftists are innumerate, almost by definition.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 4, 2019 7:09 am

At the same time that it creating 20 million government jobs, it will also destroy 100 million jobs elsewhere in the economy.

Reply to  MarkW
September 4, 2019 11:29 am

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

Reply to  tonyb
September 4, 2019 12:56 pm

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.

September 3, 2019 10:20 pm

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”.

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  Herbert
September 4, 2019 4:33 am

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.

Reply to  Herbert
September 4, 2019 7:13 am

Inflation…Dirksen said “Billions”…back then billions were real money, now days, it takes trillions to make an impact.

Reply to  a_scientist
September 4, 2019 7:51 pm

I know.
I was using “ artistic license”with ‘trillions’!

Reply to  Herbert
September 4, 2019 8:49 am

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 …

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 4, 2019 9:31 am

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.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 4, 2019 10:49 am

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.

Andy Espersen
September 3, 2019 10:38 pm

Well, of course,the three trillion dollars he proposes to spend are not his own!

September 3, 2019 10:41 pm

As with all these scams, follow the money and twenty million jobs doing what.

September 3, 2019 11:18 pm

Yeah … and ban all the trucks and we will create tens of millions of jobs …


Those marxist politicians are actually the dumbest.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Petit_Barde
September 4, 2019 6:37 am

The teamsters can go back to driving teams of oxen.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 4, 2019 8:32 am

How much flatulence will result from that change?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 4, 2019 9:09 am

20 mule team wagons work better for hauling freight… besides, they keep the roadbed fertilized. :<)

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 4, 2019 9:39 am

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.”

September 3, 2019 11:30 pm

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!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Sunny
September 4, 2019 9:37 am

Crushing poverty, misery, and deprivation is what we will get in return.

Phil Salmon
September 3, 2019 11:34 pm

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?

September 3, 2019 11:37 pm

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.

old construction worker
September 3, 2019 11:42 pm

Trillion $ plan and the cup of coffee a Micky D would cost $5.00.

September 4, 2019 12:03 am

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.

Steve Case
September 4, 2019 12:10 am

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.

September 4, 2019 12:30 am

““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.

September 4, 2019 12:36 am

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 🙂

September 4, 2019 12:51 am

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.

Joel O’Bryan
September 4, 2019 1:08 am

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.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 5, 2019 10:24 am

That’s “Fauxcahontas”. “Faux”, as in fake. It’s a shame Trump flubbed the existing nickname.

September 4, 2019 1:20 am

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…

michael hart
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 3:33 am

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.

Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 3:33 am

Europe is certainly ahead in that these programs have already been tried and failed.

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.

Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 3:42 am

The US doesn’t have theyellow vest movement…yet 😉

Reply to  Derg
September 4, 2019 9:46 am

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?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 5:14 am

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.

Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 5:23 am

…and they are the highest CO2 polluters

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 6:40 am

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

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 6:49 am

“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.

Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 7:13 am

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.

Joel Snider
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 11:04 am

‘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.

Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 11:08 am


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.


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?

Reply to  HotScot
September 5, 2019 10:28 am

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.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 1:27 pm

“…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?

old engineer
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 2:18 pm

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

Reply to  griff
September 4, 2019 3:52 pm

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.

William Haas
September 4, 2019 1:28 am

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.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  William Haas
September 4, 2019 11:38 am

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…..

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 4, 2019 1:30 am

Booker made himself unelectable. But, please, don’t tell him.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 4, 2019 6:05 am

As Napolean said, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.

September 4, 2019 1:36 am

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.

Reply to  WXcycles
September 4, 2019 2:32 am

That was back in the day when a trillion dollars was considered a lot of money.

JRF in Pensacola
September 4, 2019 3:50 am

The New Scientific Method:
1, Have an Idea
2. Conjure a Conclusion
3. Skip Everything in between

Paul Penrose
Reply to  JRF in Pensacola
September 4, 2019 9:46 am

Just like the underpants gnomes…hmm.

(a South Park reference for those that don’t get it)

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Paul Penrose
September 4, 2019 1:19 pm

Phase 1 – collect underpants
Phase 2 – …
Phase 3 – profit!

Tim Gorman
September 4, 2019 4:45 am

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?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 4, 2019 8:49 am

It’s like so many of these people can’t see past the end of their nose!

Whatta ya mean ……. “it’s like”?

John in Oz
September 4, 2019 4:51 am

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.

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)

Bruce Cobb
September 4, 2019 4:54 am

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.

September 4, 2019 4:54 am

$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.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  sonofametman
September 4, 2019 8:04 am

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.

William Haas
Reply to  sonofametman
September 4, 2019 1:11 pm

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.

September 4, 2019 5:00 am

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.

Albert H Brand
September 4, 2019 5:03 am

This is a reply to griff. The problem with our infrastructure is that it is very old. It costs a lot more to remove and replace then to do it in the first place. Have you ever noticed how long it seems to take do a little repair job. What with diverting traffic for example just to repair a bridge you first have to squeeze in a temporary bridge, then repair and remove the one you just built. How does compare to building new? Probably 5 to 10 times as much. New is easy. Repair is hard.

Jeff Id
September 4, 2019 5:36 am

It is clear that we are losing the argument. Our governments thirst for power has exceeded peoples capacity for rationality.

September 4, 2019 5:41 am

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking serious money (other people’s, of course)…

Tom Abbott
September 4, 2019 5:50 am

From the article: “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,”

As if destroying the U.S. economy with this climate change plan will create jobs.

We can see Yang and Booker and all the rest of these jokers on CNN tonight starting at 5pm EST. It looks like CNN is going to have an audience and will bring in each Democrat candidate individually for about an hour or less where the audience will be able to ask them questions about their particular plan to save the Earth.

I never watch CNN but I’m going to watch this one. The craziness will know no bounds. 🙂

I’m wondering if T-Bone, Cory Booker’s imaginary friend, had anything to do with creating Booker’s version of the Green New Deal. On first glance, I think I see his fingerprint. 🙂

I notice the ENSO meter has taken another drop. If the globe continues to cool, will the Democrats say, “Oh, never mind about that Green New Deal”?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2019 6:48 am

No, because “even if we are wrong on the science, we are right on the policy”. Heads, they win, tails we lose.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2019 11:52 am

There will be a hand-picked audience for the ‘show’. Individuals will be give a printed card before the opening, “Here’s the question you are to ask.” What’s the bet that someone will actually read from the card?

The timetable overlaps a Diamondbacks / Padres baseball game.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2019 12:50 pm

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that every Democrat presidential candidate taking part in the CNN climate change townhall meeting today will at some point invoke the “97%” Big Lie. They will say that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm because of burning fossil fuels. This is a proven lie, but we will see how that doesn’t matter and the candidates will use it (wittingly or unwittingly) because it’s very easy to make such an argument. Alarmists have given themselves an easy way out of actually having to argue the details of climate science. All they have to say is “97%” to shut down the conversation.

Skeptics should spend more time debunking this lie.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2019 7:10 pm

It looks like I shouldn’t have gone out on a limb. I did not take into consideration that none of the questioners would question whether human-caused climate change was real or not. Everyone involved appears to think it is real and they can see it in the weather, so they have no reason to cite the “97%” lie to the true believers..

It’s tough listening to all this delusional thinking. It’s like watching the most delusional inmates in an insane asylum having a debate about human-caused climate change. They really, really believe in what they are saying.

One thing about it, these people are really going to look stupid in about 11 years. Their delusions will be exposed for all to see.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2019 10:49 pm

The Diamondbacks won: 4 to 1…..

Bruce Cobb
September 4, 2019 5:53 am

Sept. 20th is the day the Climate Retards plan a Global Climate Strike
Curiouser and curiouser.

Bryan A
September 4, 2019 6:04 am

They talk about “creating jobs” but how many jobs will their pie in the sky proposals eliminate? And who will fund the war created by the U.S. withholding sales of Coal, Oil and Gas abroad?

September 4, 2019 6:19 am

What’s even worse than the predictions of doom are the tchnologically primitive means they propose to
avoid doomsday. Think small modular molten salt reactors and electric cars and the cost is less than a trillion for the reactors, and yiu have an advanced, cheap electrical grid.

September 4, 2019 6:27 am

Very big numbers and yet again it is time to provide the definition of a promotion:

“In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end of the promotion, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”

Griff–you might write out these lines a few hundred times.

Alasdair Fairbairn
September 4, 2019 7:12 am

Whenever I hear of these grandiose trillion dollar schemes I call to mind the bloke sitting on the branch of a tree, sawing away at the bit attached to the tree.

September 4, 2019 7:59 am

Are we sure that Booker, aka Spartacus, is not a Russian or Arab plant? Banning US exports of petroleum again would certainly be of great monetary benefit to both. I would also assume he would make nice with Iran so Iran would be back full time in the petroleum and terrorism business.

As an aside, Dorian required the evacuation of eight million people along the SE Coast. Imagine for a moment if they all were required to have electric vehicles. Imagine how long with wind turbines, solar panels and battery farms it would take to restore electricity and modern life.

Thompson David
September 4, 2019 8:27 am

Each day of storage in a 1 gigawatt grid scale battery amounts to 20 kilotons worth of energy. Where did you say you wanted me to put it?

Steve Z
September 4, 2019 9:19 am

“{Booker’s] plan lacks details about how the plan will be financed.”

Of course nobody talks about who will pay for these boondoggles, otherwise the future payers wouldn’t vote for them. They’re always talking about how much “climate change” will cost if nothing is done about it, but how does anybody really know what will happen to the climate 50 or 100 years from now when predictions from 40 years ago never materialized, and how to put a cost on an imaginary catastrophe?

If Booker’s plan “would require oil companies to pay a carbon fee on coal, natural gas and oil production”, how much would the fee be, and to whom would it be paid? If it was relatively low, the costs would be passed on to consumers, but consumption (and emissions) would not change much. If it was very high, there would be repeated blackouts, as solar and wind power cannot keep up with demand at night or during calms. The only winners would be the government collecting the carbon fees.

To complete the nitpicking, most “oil companies” do not mine coal, so it would be unfair for them to pay carbon taxes on coal production. Of course, if coal-mining companies were required to pay these fees, coal miners in coal-producing states would vote against Booker or anyone else proposing carbon taxes. WV, VA, PA, OH for Trump in 2020.

James Allen
September 4, 2019 9:59 am

I have a plan that costs 3 billion dollars less than Booker’s plan. Let free people decide how to spend their own money. My plan has no overhead or management costs, it is 100% utilized. There is no need to enroll in my plan, you are automatically enrolled if you don’t vote for Socialists and their endless appetite for theft.

September 4, 2019 10:17 am

Booker is aiming for a job in the administration of Biden or Warren. That’s all.

Steven Mosher
September 4, 2019 10:27 am
Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 4, 2019 11:06 am

Gee, I wonder if THAT’s natural or man-made – as in decades worth of progressive sabotage on the industry, near constant propaganda, and sitting President spending eight years trying to bankrupt coal companies.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 4, 2019 12:47 pm

So are you.

So what?

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 4, 2019 1:38 pm

Coal is not dying – not in the slightest way globally.

“While developing economies such as India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam increasingly turn to cheap coal to meet fast-growing demand for electricity, some nations are ramping up use of renewable energy, although its share of the total fuel mix for power generation is still small.

Asian countries must set more ambitious goals to contribute to global efforts to curb climate change, said Ovais Sarmad, the deputy executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“There are certain countries in this region still relying heavily on coal and fossil fuels as sources of energy, and in some areas that is growing,” he told Reuters in an interview.

“That’s a very, very serious problem because … all those gains that had been made in other parts of the world would be completely negated.”

Joel Snider
September 4, 2019 11:01 am

Progressives have discovered the ‘T’ word.

Bill Powers
September 4, 2019 11:26 am

Corey Is going to “tackle” global warming with our money. Nothing is more nonsensical yet subliminally understood by the brainwashed alarmists, than a politician claiming he was going to tackle a problem with other peoples money.

Why Barack Obama took office and the oceans stopped rising so he bought an oceanside mansion. So what is all this hullabaloo about sea level rise.

Reply to  Bill Powers
September 4, 2019 12:53 pm

Bill Powers

The British Government is preparing to spend £7bn refurbishing Westminster Palace (seat of Parliament, Big Ben etc.)

The building is mere feet from the river Thames high water mark.

No objections from politicians though, so I guess none of them believe in sea level rise, despite all their screeching about a climate emergency whilst within the House of Commons.

Larry Hamlin
September 4, 2019 1:26 pm

This Democrat scheme is total idiocy.

The developing nations led by China and India dominate global energy use and emissions present levels and future growth.

Developing nations energy use in the decade ending in 2018 climbed by 5.5 times greater growth rate than the developed nations and exceeded the developed nations energy use by nearly 50% in 2018.

Additionally all global emissions growth during the last decade was from the developing nations with 2018 emissions nearly 70% higher than in the developed nations.

EIA data shows developing nations energy use will be double that of the developed nations by 2050 with emissions 2.25 times greater than from the developed nations.

These energy and emissions realities are deliberately concealed by the Democrats because they clearly show that any actions by the U.S. or other developed nations to reduce either energy use or emissions are globally irrelevant.

The developing nations completely dominate and control all global energy use and emissions regardless of any dumb energy and emissions schemes the stupid Democrats can try to foist on the American people.

September 5, 2019 7:03 pm

What I find amusing about all the “green new deal” plans is that wind/solar/battery power generators are all created using mostly fossil fuels. Thus massively ramping up their production will *GREATLY INCREASE* fossil fuel emissions over and above the normal increase … probably for decades. How ironic.

Of course, not to mention … where are all those wind turbine and solar power “farms” and necessary massive and extensive battery bunkers going to go? How will all the required rare materials be acquired (lots of mining)? And how will the equipment be disposed after its useful (short) lifetime? Major environmental problems here. Not “green” at all.

If we are going to greatly increase fossil fuel emissions, we might as well just keep on relying on fossil fuels for energy instead of wasting trillions of dollars on very expensive alternative energy sources that are not “green” or “sustainable” with our current technologies. Increased plant food and associated increased crop production, arable land, and growing seasons are major benefits that can’t be ignored.

September 6, 2019 4:24 am

First I would like to say that I love this website and have been reading it for at least 10 years. I believe that the scientific discussion here is very important but will not make one iota of difference to the democrats who are waging a war for control of the United States economy. This is a political war that will only be decided at the ballot box.
The control of CO2 enables the means to control almost every aspect of human activity in the country. This battle will never be won by scientific data but only by political means.

September 6, 2019 9:36 pm

A real objective of the climate fear industry is justifying population control and mass reduction .
Bernie articulated his vision of helping African women during the CNN soft ball question period .
No racism there, just a ahh shucks lets help them have less kids in Africa cause that’s what they want .

To Paul’s point above, I agree in general because the scientists used as proof could have stepped in before it
went religion and political . Most did not . It really is the work of a handful that had the courage to conduct themselves as scientists and not whores . Now is a lot to late and the MSM is not going to let anything interfere with the con job now .
They absolutely hate President Trump and his calling BS on the climate fear industry had them go full on nuts . Forget the truth it’s gone . As Paul says (not his words ) it’s a political peeing contest where tax payers lose . But it could have been way worse so keep on fighting . Thanks to President Trump .
The scientists need to have a seven hour forum to dispel the myths . No Hollywood actors, or rent seekers trying to exploit the scam they created , no ball room dancers . no phony hypocrite climate activists working for the UN and China .

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Amber
September 7, 2019 4:12 am

Bernie is as crazy as a loon. I can’t believe no one has corrected him on his belief that African women want to have fewer children. Life in Africa today is much like life was on the American prairie in the 1800’s. Lots of manual labor to survive, harsh conditions, and short life spans for many babies. It’s why frontier families had lots of children – to help the family survive through distribution of labor and survival by pure numbers. Bernie’s probably *never* had to do hard manual labor just to survive. He therefore simply has no way to understand what African women want!

%d bloggers like this: