Chris White Tech Reporter
February 26, 2020 5:42 PM ET
Americans in nearly a dozen swing states could expect to spend roughly $75,000 per year if the Green New Deal is ever implemented, according to a report Wednesday from a conservative nonprofit group.
The Green New Deal would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania, among others, a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted. CEI worked with Power the Future and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on the report.
“Right now, our booming national economy and record low unemployment rate is driven by abundant, domestic, reliable, and inexpensive energy produced by millions of men and women across the country,” Daniel Turner, executive director of Power the Future, said in a statement.
He added: “Any policy that proposes to reverse this success is a threat to jobs, to rural communities, to national security, and to the very prosperity that Americans are experiencing.”
Power the Future is a 501(c)4 group that was founded to promote and defend people who work in the energy industry.
CEI president Kent Lassman made a similar argument.
“Our analysis shows that, if implemented, the Green New Deal would cost for American households at least tens of thousands of dollars annually on a permanent basis,” Lassman said.
“Perhaps that’s why exactly zero Senate Democrats, including the resolution’s 12 co-sponsors, voted for the Green New Deal when they had the chance,” he concluded.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank’s report builds on a study the group produced in July 2019 showing Americans would incur massive expenses if the Green New Deal passes.
The authors incorporated the costs of electricity production within the first year after Green New Deal’s implementation and the costs of a one-time upgrade to buildings and vehicles. They also determined how the plan’s mandate would increase the cost of logistics in a modern American economy.
CEI said the costs could be much higher due to the vague, overarching nature of the Green New Deal, not to mention other variables that could pop up in an economy run exclusively on green energy.
Other reports have made similar findings. The Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion over 10 years, a report from right-leaning group American Action Forum (AAF) noted in 2019.
All told, that amounts to $36,100 to $65,300 per American household per year to meet the lofty proposal’s goals, AAF reported in February 2019. The plan initially intended on producing widespread high-speed rail, guaranteed jobs, universal health care and refurbishing every building in the country.
Republicans in the Senate torpedoed the Ocasio-Cortez’s legislation in March 2019 as Democrats called the vote a dog-and-pony show. The GOP defeated the proposal 57-0; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a socialistic ploy designed to kill the economy.
Still, Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are still on board with the idea. (RELATED: Flashback: Bernie Sanders Says His Green New Deal Can Make Electricity ‘Virtually Free’ By 2035 — But There’s A Catch)
Sanders revealed his own Green New Deal in August 2019, promising everything from “virtually free” electricity and a “hunger-free” transition to green energy from fossil fuels. The democratic socialist’s nearly 14,000-page memo also lays out how he will deal with a variety of social justice issues.
You may find the latest UK court decision interesting in this connexion.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/campaigners-celebrate-heathrow-ruling-as-beginning-of-the-end
This is a dreadful warning to all legislators in countries where there is an independent judiciary. Make sure you mean what you say!
What happened was that Parliament passed the Climate Change Act 2008, which set mandatory levels for CO2 emission reduction. It did this without taking any steps to implement the reductions, or even find out what it would take to implement them. It then signed up to Paris. Again, without taking any steps to even estimate what it would take to meet the commitments it had made.
All this was done in a spirit of showing how virtuous they were, how green, how dedicated to saving the environment. Applauded by the Guardian of course. And with no intention of doing anything differently.
They therefore, in a spirit of careless abandon, as if the Climate Change Act had never been passed, and as if no-one had heard of a thing called the Paris Agreement, started planning to build new roads and more runways. Notably, another runway at Heathrow.
This gave rise to a lawsuit. After all, said the protesters, there is a law, it demands reductions, and here you are at Heathrow doing things that will increase and not reduce them.
To everyone’s horror and dismay, the court agreed. The law says reduce, this is a way of increasing, therefore its unlawful.
We are seeing the collision of reality and dreams. Because the same logic is going to apply to any road scheme, of which there are many. It can be used against any sort of permission for any sort of business activity.
The Greens are now rejoicing, because they see a way of closing down all internal combustion engine use, probably all concrete use, and imports of manufactured goods, which are heavily CO2 loaded. There will be, if the law stands, and the Greens can persuade the courts to enforce it, minimal manufactured goods imports, no airports, no auto or truck industry, no oil or coal fired heating, no building of the conventional sort. Not much industry except for hand crafts making things from locally grown wood using hand made tools, fired by charcoal.
The political class is in shock and awe. They cannot understand that the Greens did not understand what they thought everyone knew, that all these laws are not passed with any intention of implementing or complying. The endless proclamations about global heating and the climate emergency were obviously not meant to be taken literally. And yet somehow the courts are demanding that it all be taken perfectly literally and seriously, just like any other law.
All we ever meant was to have a talking shop where people could identify themselves as being one of us. What on earth has gone wrong?
Meanwhile, the wonderful thing this decision has made clear is what is really required to meet the Green agenda. It really does mean no cars, trucks or planes. it really does mean closing the airports and stopping building in concrete. It really does mean biking to work, and stopping petroleum based agriculture. Get those horses out in the fields to plow. Get those unemployed out there with scythes, and start threshing manually again. it really does mean building tens of thousands of wind turbines, and buying enormous quantities of batteries, and raising the price of the only available energy, electricity, by a factor of 10 or 20. And even then not using hardly any of it, which you will not be able to afford to do, anyway.
Oh my goodness. Whoever would have thought it? Why didn’t someone tell us?
Any reduction of carbon dioxide would be a total waste of money. The Obama EPA, admitted during testimony to Congress that any reduction of carbon dioxide by the US would be symbolic. Al Gore agreed. Trillions of dollars for a symbol? Even if carbon dioxide were a factor only a global reduction would matter. All of the US carbon dioxide is just a drop in the global bucket. China alone would overwhelm our reduction and their agreement in the Paris Accord is no reduction until 2030.The reduction of global temperatures? The United Nations IPCC and the Obama EPA’s computer model titled MAGICC estimates that reducing the US carbon dioxide emissions to zero will prevent a grand total of 0.018 degrees centigrade by 2100. This is the symbol that they are talking about. Why so little? This is true because developing countries like India, and China will not depress their economy with useless and expensive non-solutions. Cheap energy is required to reduce poverty and imposing carbon emission restrictions would encourage poverty by raising the cost of living. The developing countries are not going to make our reduction of carbon dioxide relevant ever. The reality is that the change of temperature is related to natural forces. I can show you data which indicates that the US temperatures were higher in the 1930’s than now when carbon dioxide was 300 parts per million vs 400 parts per million now.
https://youtu.be/hElTSfQEdsk
Reduction of carbon dioxide would have no measurable effect on the environment even if the US could make a significant global reduction. When the temperature increases the oceans act like a giant soda and expel carbon dioxide. Temperature increases fist then carbon dioxide increases. This has been verified by ice core samples for millions of years.The result of carbon dioxide reduction programs: De-industrialization; the higher cost of energy for the poor, the middle class, business and no measurable effect on the environment.The increased cost in California [Similar results in Europe]:clip_image0041.png (577×452)A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris Climate Summit. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release). [If they meet their goals.]By the way, the International Energy Agency claims that United States recorded the largest emissions decline on a country basis, with a fall of 140 million tonnes, or 2.9%. US emissions are now down by almost 1 gigatonne from their peak in 2000. Emissions in the European Union fell by 160 million tonnes, or 5%, in 2019 driven by reductions in the power sector. This is due to our use of natural gas.