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.
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.
It is clear that we are losing the argument. Our governments thirst for power has exceeded peoples capacity for rationality.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking serious money (other people’s, of course)…
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”?
No, because “even if we are wrong on the science, we are right on the policy”. Heads, they win, tails we lose.
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.
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.
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.
The Diamondbacks won: 4 to 1…..
Sept. 20th is the day the Climate Retards plan a Global Climate Strike
Curiouser and curiouser.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“{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.
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.
Booker is aiming for a job in the administration of Biden or Warren. That’s all.
coal is dying
https://www.wsj.com/articles/coal-mine-closures-shake-wyoming-11567589404
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.
So are you.
So what?
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.”
https://www.thegwpf.com/asias-growing-coal-use-could-negate-global-climate-agenda/
Progressives have discovered the ‘T’ word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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!