Green New Deal

Study: Green New Deal Could Cost More Than $90 Trillion

Whether its supporters care is another question.

|

Alex Edelman/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

The Green New Deal—a brainchild of progressive Democrats, particularly Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)—has been controversial since it was released earlier this month. Several Democratic presidential candidates endorsed it, while others have noted that it's not realistic and would be fiscally impossible.

How much would it cost? At least $50 trillion and possibly in excess of $90 trillion, according to a report released today by the American Action Forum (AAF).

The AAF, a center-right think tank that focuses on economic issues, projected costs for six aspects of the Green New Deal: reworking the electricity grid in an environmentally friendly manner, revamping the nation's transportation network to reduce transmissions, and its guarantees of well-paying jobs, universal health care, affordable housing, and food security for each person in the U.S.

First, the power grid. One of the Green New Deal's goals is to meet "100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" in the next 10 years. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in this area would cost at least $5.4 trillion by 2029, the AAF says—not including another $387 billion per year for things like operations and maintenance.

Why so much? The study explains:

We assume that states without nuclear moratoriums build approximately 50 percent of their needed capacity with nuclear power, and cover the remaining 50 percent with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal electricity, and battery storage. States with nuclear moratoriums are assumed to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and storage. This approach raises issues in dispatching electricity, because one needs to cover the difference between available nuclear and peak capacity with both solar and wind resources. Most renewable resources are non-dispatchable, and must be supplemented by storage and other available assets.

This estimate is not an outlier. As Reason's Ron Bailey has noted, a similar plan outlined in 2015 would have cost roughly $7 trillion, while a previous version of that proposal might have cost up to $13 trillion.

For comparison, the electric industry pulled in roughly $390 billion in revenue in 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Around 59 percent of that was accounted for by "generation" costs. Assuming that $230 billion rose to the aforementioned $387 billion, then subtracting $70.5 billion in annual "avoided fuel costs" from the net difference, total electricity costs would go up by 22 percent for consumers, the AAF says. Residential customers, who paid an average of $111.67 per month in 2017, would pay an average of about $300 more per year for electricity. This does not include the trillions it would cost to achieve a completely clean power grid in the first place.

The Green New Deal also proposes "overhauling transportation systems…to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." The AAF's estimate of the cost for this proposal assumes that high-speed trains would replace air travel. While this is not specifically noted in the Green New Deal itself, an overview of the resolution that was apparently published by mistake did include the goal of "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

Doing so would cost between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion, the AAF estimates. The lower figure can be reached by multiplying the 2018 proposed capital cost per mile of California's since-toned-down high-speed rail system ($129.8 million) by 8,263 miles, which is the difference between the number of miles covered by transit rail and by airports in the U.S., as of 2013. Then add on another $166.9 billion for the trains themselves, which in California would have cost about $71.2 million. The higher figure, meanwhile, "assumes replacing all [19,453] air route miles without using existing track," the report says. (There are other reasons why replacing air travel with high-speed rail doesn't make sense, which I outlined here.)

The Green New Deal's jobs guarantee would also cost a considerable amount. The AAF based its estimates here on a 2018 report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that reaching full employment would involve putting roughly 10.7 million unemployed or underemployed people to work. Assuming the average annual cost per job (including an average wage of $32,500) would be $56,000, this would cost a total of $543 billion.

The AAF updated some of those numbers with 2019 data, and found that a federal jobs guarantee would cost $547 billion in 2019, and $6.762 trillion from 2020 to 2019. Both of those numbers would rise if, with a guaranteed job waiting for them, many of those who aren't currently looking for work decide to join the labor force.

Of course, there are also plenty of workers who earn less than $32,500 per year (or $625 each week) who would naturally want to switch jobs in order to make more. Including them "would increase the cost to $3.8 trillion in 2019, $44.6 trillion between 2020 and 2029," the AAF says.

The report also estimates that providing universal health care "will cost roughly $36 trillion between 2020 and 2029." The AAF simply built off a 2016 estimate of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I–Vt.) Medicare for All Plan, which the Center for Health and Economy said would cost $34.67 trillion over 10 years. It's likely an accurate projection, roughly in line with a July 2018 Mercatus Center report, which said Medicare for All would cost the federal government more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

Whether those in favor of the plan care about the cost is another question. Asked on CNN yesterday about the Green New Deal's massive price tag, particularly for Medicare for All, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) suggested that "it's not about a cost."

The fifth aspect of the Green New Deal that AAF addresses is its guarantee of "affordable, safe, and adequate housing." Simply housing the homeless could cost under $12 billion, AAF estimates, citing Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data. But the Green New Deal also calls for "upgrading all existing buildings in the 19 United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification." This could cost trillions, as AAF explains:

A 2012 HUD study evaluated the costs involved in having affordable housing meet the "National Green Building Standard." The results varied across a series of case studies and efficiency levels. Assuming the highest level ("Emerald") is a reasonable proxy for a GND rubric, upfront improvement costs ranged from $13,257 to $34,422 per unit. Applying such costs to simply the 5 million currently available HUD-subsidized housing units yields a cost range of between $66.5 billion to $172.8 billion. Applying such costs to all housing units—since the resolution calls for upgrading "all existing buildings"—yields a potential cost of $1.6 trillion to nearly $4.2 trillion.

Finally, the AAF calculated how much it would cost to ensure that all Americans have food security. Since 2011, the federal government's Healthy Food Financing Initiative has secured about $245 million in taxpayer money. Assuming, based off data from a Pennsylvania food access initiative, that it would cost $75 to improve food access for the 23.5 million people who needed it as of 2009, the AAF said such a program would cost $1.76 billion. Since taxpayers have already put in $245 million, we're left with a remainder of roughly $1.5 billion. "This increased access to fresh food, in conjunction with the income guarantees provided elsewhere in the GND, should meet the plan's goal of food security for all Americans," the AAF says.

All told, implementing the Green New Deal would cost untold trillions. For more, watch Peter Suderman interview Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and a columnist for Reason:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

188 responses to “Study: Green New Deal Could Cost More Than $90 Trillion

  1. …Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D?Calif.) suggested that “it’s not about a cost.”

    Apparently.

    1. If it’s not about cost, perhaps she should seek to pay for the entire deal out of her own pocket.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
        >>>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

        1. Who needs the Green New Deal when we can all make over $6,000 a month. AOC and Ms. Harris should be out signing people up to work with Google. It’ll work at least as well.

          1. Even at 6k a month it would take 10 years at that salary to pay your share of the green new deal cost.

    2. I believe them. If they actually got the power to completely control the economy then i think most of the GND goals would be completely forgotten.

      Its about the power.

    3. I believe them. If they actually got the power to completely control the economy then i think most of the GND goals would be completely forgotten.

      Its about the power.

    4. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

      Just Visit Now…… http://www.SalaryHD.Com

    5. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

      Just Visit Now…… http://www.SalaryHD.Com

  2. But the GND said no new nukes, and indeed, get rid of existing ones.

    (Which is why it’s hard to take the left seriously on climate change, since if they really believed in it, they’d embrace nuclear power)

    1. Yup. They are vehemently opposed to safe, stable, proven, abundant, almost zero-carbon energy source. The risk of even a Chernobyl-style accident once or twice per century should be acceptable to people who are worried about the worst climate change scenarios.

      1. And we wont’ get Chernobyl style accidents since the fault of Chernobyl was the result of government incompetence in an totalitarian state. A Fukashima style accident is far far more likely. But even that was largely a bungling by government bureaucrats who tried to micromanage the incident. In the end, just don’t build nukes in areas subject to tidal waves and earthquakes

        1. And even with Fukishima, no one died as a result of radiation exposure.

          1. I encourage you to watch The China Syndrome – I think it will open your eyes as to the dangers of nuclear power.

            1. Were your eyes open to a then fairly attractive Jane Fonda?

              1. She was and still is attractive.

                1. She was. Still?

                2. Barbarella……….

            2. ++++ Moron Alert ++++

              1. Why are you insulting morons?

            3. I think 2003’s “Hulk” documentary is a far better indicator of the dangers of radiation exposure. Especially gamma rays.

        2. “”And we wont’ get Chernobyl style accidents since the fault of Chernobyl was the result of government incompetence in an totalitarian state”‘

          Well, that explains why they have a problem with it. They want to move us towards the totalitarian state, and if they can’t handle a press release about the green deal, I can’t expect them to be competent with nuclear power.

          1. Chernobyl was essentially just a pile of bricks around a fission core. It was primitive in the extreme. Not even up to Fission 1.0 standards. The Soviets knew better than to impose such as design on the Ukraine, but they were too busy trying to out compete the evil capitalists to care. “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet” and all that. Chernobyl was their showcase, and damn any engineer to the Gulag who dared raise a technical objection.

        3. ” A Fukashima style accident is far far more likely. But even that was largely a bungling by government bureaucrats who tried to micromanage the incident. In the end, just don’t build nukes in areas subject to tidal waves and earthquakes”

          It’s my understanding that the Fukushima accident would have been avoided or the damage minimized had not the carbon-fueled emergency generators been placed higher on the structure. They were washed away or washed over by the tsunami and were rendered unavailable to generate the electricity needed to pump coolant water over and around the core. The core then over heated and you know the rest of the story.

        4. “Chernobyl was the result of government incompetence in an totalitarian state. Fukashima…was largely a bungling by government bureaucrats who tried to micromanage the incident.”

          Thank God we don’t have to worry about government incompetence or micromanaging bureaucrats over here!

  3. Whether its supporters care is another question.

    Actually, it isn’t another question. They’ve come out and said they don’t give a fuck.

    1. It’s not their money, why should they care?

      1. It’s not even other people’s money.

        1. It’s all a conspiracy by the Parker Brothers. Their goal is to destroy money so thoroughly that Monopoly money actually outvalues its real currency equivalence.

      2. Their access to money is limited only by the number supply.

        Team AOC really believes that they can print all the money they need. They don’t even need to print it; they just have to record ever higher numbers in the government’s account and then distribute those numbers to the vendors, contractors, and other beneficiaries of the GND.

        It’s really simple. AOC says so, and she’s the boss.

  4. I said something like this in a weekend thread, but it’s worth repeating every single time that the GND is not awful because it is expensive, it is awful because it would, if vigorously attempted, destroy the US and global economy, impoverish millions, lead to gross human rights abuses, and cause food shortages and maybe even no-shit starvation, right here in 21st century America.

    1. To even attempt to implement this plan will require a totalitarian government. No doubt AOC, Harris, etc. are cool with that because they plan to be the totalitarians.

      1. To even attempt to implement this plan will require a totalitarian government.

        Like John pointed out a few weeks ago, it’s no accident that AOC is invoking climate change as “our World War II,” because that type of economy was a progressive’s wet dream–a top-down, centrally-commanded enterprise that imposed strict rationing on basic goods, drafted people into service, forced private business to provide labor in sufficient numbers towards wartime industries, and did so without a care in the world regarding the cost because “we have to beat those dirty Japs and Nazis.” Every aspect of society was geared towards one purpose, winning the war.

        They consider climate change to be an existential threat on the same level that WW2 was, so they think that there are no measures too extreme and no cost too great to combat it. The problem is that, after Pearl Harbor, there weren’t very many people who questioned the necessity of going to war, other than conscientious objectors, and even they were enlisted to provide labor to support non-war industries like crop harvesting. These commies are the only ones who actually believe that we have 12 years to completely change our ways or we’re going to die; at least half the country thinks they’re a bunch of totalitarian lunatics, and the Green Leap Forward simply confirmed those suspicions.

        1. What Al Gore referred to as the “central organizing principle of the 21st century” at some point in the second Clinton term.

          1. Fundamental transformation of the United States.

            The totalitarians have been exposed for decades. People of good will can’t believe it even when the totalitarians openly say they are totalitarian.

      2. Who said this?

        “So people are like, ‘Oh it’s unrealistic. Oh it’s vague. Oh it doesn’t address this little minute thing,'” she added. “And I’m like, ‘You try. You do it. Cuz you’re not. Cuz you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss.’ How about that?'”

        1. A kindergartner talks like that when they’re throwing a tantrum. AOC is doing a great job providing a collection of totalitarian quotes for future reference.

          1. A person whose mental development never progressed beyond kindergarten level in the body of a 29 year old bartender, cursed with delusions of grandeur.

    2. But it would make me feel better about myself, so gtfo with your human rights nonsense.

      1. Fight for freedom and punch a progressive.

        1. They need to suffer a more existential result than a punch.

      2. In your case I would think sex dolls are a much cheaper and more effective option.

        1. Unfortunately, sex dolls can’t force me to eat my own cum.

          1. Rest assured, some intrepid young AI researcher is working on it.

            1. Stephen Hawking’s voice: “Now get down there and lick every last drop of your sticky shame.”

            2. From your fingertips to my dirty mouth.

    3. It is awful for liberty reasons and for practical reasons. Your stated practical reason is part and parcel of its expense: it could not be implemented, period, because of its expense. There are not enough workers or resources to implement it. It would require labor and resources from the rest of the world, which would require enormous expensive wars or hyperinflation of labor and resource prices. That would set off chain reactions of hyperinflation.

      That is where the global economy gets destroyed. And that assumes people here and around the world would put up with it and not fight civil and global wars as a consequence.

      It simply cannot be done. You may as well ask the ancient Romans to build an aircraft carrier.

      1. That is where the global economy gets destroyed. And that assumes people here and around the world would put up with it and not fight civil and global wars as a consequence.

        Right across the Atlantic, the Yellow Vests have been protesting in France for 15 weeks straight now. People have actually died in clashes with the police in these protests, and it all started over Macron’s ham-handed efforts to impose a carbon tax on fuel–just a small piece of the complete overhaul that AOC wants to impose from the top-down on the entire nation.

        If the Democrats actually tried this, it would cause upheaval on a scale that they’re not prepared for in any way whatsoever. Just imagine community organizers telling minority populations in the ghetto that they’re going to have to work instead of hustle. Or white college students getting enlisted to build railroads out in the middle of nowhere. Or logistics networks getting thrown completely out of whack as airline use is curtailed and taxed into oblivion. Now take into account that half the country hates the Democrats’ guts, and you have a perfect recipe for a no-kidding civil war.

        1. Yes, but it would never get that far. It is as classic a non-starter as has ever existed.

          Suppose they actually put together legislation to start any of these projects. The first thing they’d need would be money. They can’t get enough; it does not exist. They’d have to submit a budget proposal for $10-20T just for the first year to even come close to some theoretical budget.

          Even if they tried to start small and ramp up, they’d still need $2T at the bare minimum, just for lead costs, design costs, whatever. That might seem small, but it would be too high for Republicans, and way too low for Democrats.

          Look what happened to California’s HSR even with all the lies and fraud. They couldn’t get one dime of private money, and the federal money only existed because of Obama. There is no one above President Occasional-Cortex to dump other people’s money on this GND.

          1. “That might seem small, but it would be too high for Republicans, ”

            I’m pretty sure the Kool Aid kiddies strongly backing this approach, just assume that a Tidal Wave election of 2020 will sweep away all Republican obstructionists.

            Of course, any sane person would ask them what happened in 2018. Usually their response is the Republicans stole the election via Gerrymandering and the evil Electoral College.

          2. Does a lack of funding keep those regulations from being in place?

            …didn’t think so

      2. It simply cannot be done. You may as well ask the ancient Romans to build an aircraft carrier.

        brilliant

        1. It can and will.

          The money for GND? Print as much as you want. New Monetary Policy. Done.

          The laws? Change them. Easy, Sandy is the boss.

          The economy? No more economy so shut up. Sandy is the boss.

          Any other questions just wait a sec or two for Sandy to answer. She’s the boss.

      3. a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf|2.25.19 @ 3:22PM|#

        “That is where the global economy gets destroyed.”

        Feature, not bug.

    4. Civil war. Don’t forget about civil war.

  5. “Whether its supporters care is another question”

    They don’t.

    Next question?

    1. They don’t is probably the answer to the next question too.

  6. Can’t we get a 90T loan and make minimum monthly payments?

    1. If we do, and can find enough change under the sofa cushions, we can claim we have a ‘balanced budget’. Moonbeam did, as did Clinton and various lefty scumbags here claimed it was true.

      1. You bet!!!

        1. Trust in Paul Krugman… He’ll follow through on his promises, and mint us qty 90, trillion-dollar coins, pop them in the USA treasury, and we can borrow 90 trillion dollars based on them, to fund this new spending!!!

          Thanks, Paul Krugman, for saving us all !!!!!!!

      2. Time to trot out the “waste, fraud, and abuse” canard.

    2. Just confiscate the contents of Scrooge McDuck’s money bin. That should about cover it. Then we can build a whole bunch of those Arc Reactor facilities that Tony Stark invented to power the Iron Man armor. Maybe Superman could cut loose on some Kryptonian tech while we’re at it.

      Which is all just as realistic as anything AOC has proposed.

  7. “revamping the nation’s transportation network to reduce transmissions”

    wut?

    1. Horse-drawn canals instead of highways, bro.

      1. I used to live in Northern Ohio where ruins of the old Erie Canal occupy several metro parks. Just take those fuckers out of moth balls and you’re good to go.

      2. Provided the horses don’t fart.

        1. Oh yeah; the curse of methane. Guess some class of humans will have to tote those barges…

          1. I guess we will need to import some Africans again.

            1. Hell no; it will have to be straight WASPs this time around. But they need to get a handle on gun control first.

              1. So Catholics get a pass?

                I had no idea you supported pedophilia.

          2. Methane?

            Master Blaster runs Bartertown!

  8. $90 trillion +AOC’s salary to oversee the whole thing.

    1. She, seflessly, won’t take a salary – she’ll just accept that all her living expenses will be covered by the State.

      1. She’ll make sure her boyfriend gets a decent salary though.

  9. You can’t put a price on me getting to see my 41st birthday.

    1. Wait, people normally live that long? /millennial

    2. It would take a lot longer than 29 years for someone to become as crusty as you are. I call BS.

  10. I don’t believe you can just scale something like California high-speed rail costs by miles-of-track. These types of things get less efficient as they get bigger. So this is almost certainly wildly optimistic.

    1. “These types of things get less efficient as they get bigger”

      So the inverse of economy of scale. I suppose if you have to hire directors of diversity and inclusion for every 10 miles that would certainly be a bust.

      1. Right-of-way and environmental litigation alone would blow up the schedule and inflate the costs.

        I also wonder if the demand for raw materials would be enough to cause serious price increases for things like steel. I guess that’s a question of how large this would be relative to existing global markets. Of course, all the raw materials and labor will have to come from unionized suppliers.

        1. You are missing a key, but unmentioned, part of the GND: the federal police force to make sure that this all goes smoothly. Can’t have people doing their own thing. That would be an attack on the country, especially women and minorities. One of the good jobs that the feds will provide is a bunch of thugs will clubs and guns to ensure that the GND benefits all Americans.

    2. The miles of track figure is woefully low. One single east-west track is 3000 miles; one north-south track is 1500 miles. To be truly high speed, you’ll need to avoid transfers, so need at least a dozen cross country tracks. Then all the regional and local ones. I’d bet it;s closer to 100K miles all told.

      1. 19,000 – 20,000 air route miles does seem pretty low. Heck, there are 5,000 public airports and close to 20,000 total airports in the US. I’m not finding good numbers on this right now but it would be interesting to see a mock-up national high-speed rail network that mimics the hub and spoke model of Delta, United, and American.

        1. According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, China plans to build out close to 30,000 miles of high-speed rail. That probably isn’t a bad proxy for the US, but I don’t think they are talking about replacing air travel, either. 100k miles doesn’t seem unreasonable.

      2. Flights to/from LA->SF (and flights to/from intermediate cities on the hs rail route) represent 1% of US flights and is projected to cost $100 billion if completed.

        100 * $100 billion = $10 trillion

        Then you have to add in new solar & wind electrical generation capacity and storage capacity that would be necessary for a reliable system (yet to be invented), which is another $2+ trillion.

        Then consider that the build out is going to require lots of portland cement and steel, and both involve massive CO2 emissions. So, the feds are going to have to reforest or otherwise sequester massive amounts of CO2 to maintain carbon neutrality on the project. Cost: unknown.

        Then consider that the California high speed rail project has been in planning for 25 years and still hasn’t completed a single segment.

        Then consider that the procurement phase of the project is only about three years and the surge of demand for trains and infrastructure is impossible to meet. The same problem with the engineering phase before procurement and the construction phase after procurement. The whole thing is ridiculous.

  11. It might be possible to make a case that Democrats are moving a bit too far left on economics for us Koch / Reason libertarians. Nevertheless, I’ll continue to vote for them anyway because they’re so much better on immigration.

    #LibertariansForAOC
    #SupportTheGreenNewDealIfItComesWithOpenBorders

    1. You’re starting to crack.

    2. When you get net immigration *out* of the US, it will become a moot point.

      1. You don’t see em flocking to Venezuela now do ya?. There gonna demand a wall to keep us in at this rate.

  12. Cost is irrelevant. The GND is an affront to freedom and is morally unacceptable due to it’s tyrannical nature.

    If these Reason writers existed in the 80s, it would be ‘Communism will cost 100 trillion, we can’t afford it’

    No, the point of socialism, communism, and other authoritarian systems isn’t they cost to much, but that they are terrible, evil ideas

    1. No, the point of socialism, communism, and other authoritarian systems isn’t they cost to much, but that they are terrible, evil ideas

      Someone GETS IT! Debating the cost of this insanity is like debating the cost of forced lobotomies and neutering for any American citizen making too much money. Chinstroking crap like this article merely serves to normalize the idea. 20 years down the road we’ll just be inured to the whole thing and merely passively sitting around waiting for GND2.0 to be passed so that we can find out what’s in it.

      By not questioning the premise — merely the cost — Reason’s a part of the problem, not the solution. But who has time for that kind of erudition when Trump said something mean on Tritter, and some hardworking illegal immigrant’s going to be deported to his/her/xer’s home shithole tomorrow.

      1. I wish you ran this magazine

        1. No more “Be nice to Socialists” articles if I ran the joint. No more “illegal immigrants deserve American welfare because Trump is a poopyhead” crap from Shika. In fact, NO MORE SHIKA.

          And Robby would be given an allotment of one “to be sure” per article.

          1. Robby’s been a bit better of late. He hasn’t “been sure” in quite a while.

      2. +1

  13. Beyond the cost and the obvious lunacy of it, imagine the catastrophe it would be for the environment. Making every car in America battery powered would entail making a large portion of the country into a toxic waste dump of used batteries. Creating the number of solar panals this plan contemplates would eat up all kinds of resources and require huge amounts of mining. Same is true for creating all of the batteries. Then all of the windmills would kill off God knows how many species of birds.

    Leftism really is demonic. Everything it says is a lie.

    1. “”Making every car in America battery powered would entail making a large portion of the country into a toxic waste dump of used batteries””

      Every car, every home, every building would contribute to that waste problem. Also, that’s a lot of mining involved. what’s the footprint on that?

      1. And what do we do with the enormous about of debris that results from rebuilding every building in America?

        1. Recycle and reuse it, stupid.

          1. Sometimes you really crack me up. Yeah, just recycle it all. That will work.

          2. Just dump in the holes created by all that lithium mining.

            1. TrickyVic for Secretary of the Interior Minister of Environmental Beauty 2021!

            2. “Just dump in the holes created by all that lithium mining.”

              Just make sure you leave room for the incorrigibles.

            3. Sorry, those holes will be needed to dump the bodies from the mass executions, starvation and accidental deaths. We won’t all be winners but at least the kids….

        2. Ever seen Blade Runner 2049? We just need camps of child slaves scavenging through the debris.

          1. china already does that

        3. Deliver it to AOC’s parents house?

    2. Then all of the windmills would kill off God knows how many species of birds.

      When speaking more directly to climate *change* it was illustrated here a couple weeks ago that if agricultural growing zone were allowed to creep as the climate warms without intervention, farmers in Iowa in would have to adapt to the growing conditions of Missouri by 2100 (and Minnesota to Iowa…). Pretty much every part of the GND is far more drastic a change on a far more drastic timescale. Farmers in Missouri will get done losing eminent domain cases to wind farms just in time for their farms to become feasible locations for solar and, of course, in the warmer stabler atmosphere, the wind farms will be completely useless at generating power.

      1. And they never bother to explain how a wamrer wetter climate would not be more conducive to life.

        1. When I go to south Florida for fun, relaxation, and massage therapy, whether in the late autumn or during the winter, the ideal temperature is about 76 for an afternoon high – who wants it any hotter than that?

          1. 76? Yuck! You can’t even go to the beach, what’s the point of going to Florida when it’s merely 76? I need at least 86 or so degrees to feel in my element, but I suppose everyone is different.

            1. It was 86 this weekend . . . (I prefer it cooler, myself.)

        2. Well, they actually do explain it – sea level rise, more intense tropical storms, tropical diseases moving into some areas, habitat loss/change on time-scales too quick for many existing species to adapt to. Some regions may become drier even if the world is wetter on average, which could disrupt existing food production and distribution. You may not find all that compelling, but there is a rather voluminous literature explaining the potential negative impacts.

          1. Indeed, but it all amounts to cherry picking. Sure some regions will become drier, but the average region will become wetter.

            1. And that’s assumming ANY of it happens at all.

            2. Indeed, and maybe in the long run the net effect would be positive. But in the short and medium term the disruptions could be costly and likely result in a non-insignificant amount of human suffering. A lot of it depends on pace and magnitudes but I think we should at least acknowledge the possibilities.

          2. habitat loss/change on time-scales too quick for many existing species to adapt to

            You’re, likely by proxy, confusing making claims and explaining something. “Cars run on unicorn farts.” is a claim and could be considered an explanation but, in reality, isn’t.

            1. There are good explanations for lots of those impacts. I don’t think we have a good idea of how likely they are for a whole host of reasons, but that’s a slightly different critique.

              1. I don’t think we have a good idea of how likely they are for a whole host of reasons

                Which, reasonably, puts it somewhere on the other side of blind guesswork well beyond anything considered a pipe dream or working theory. You might even say a fantasy, like unicorn farts.

                I can guess whether the coin will land heads up or heads down, I can even be right about my guesses most all of the time without knowing or explaining anything. But if I’m not right and continually have to change my guesses or freely admit that I’m choosing from one of several guesses, then I fundamentally undermine my ability to say whether the guesses are good or that I’m in a position to definitively know.

                1. You might even say a fantasy, like unicorn farts.

                  An explanation for an event that never comes to pass is quintessentially a fantasy.

          3. Except if you look at the actual data, it’s not compelling.

            Sea level rise is extremely slow. 2-3 mm per year. Aside from some low-lying cities and islands that abuse their coral reefs and prevent island growth, almost no one will have any problems.

            Tropical storm data is highly noisy and subject to much interpretation due to changing methods, but it is 100% certain that they have not meaningfully increased in the past century, and by some measures they have decreased.

            Tropical diseases are not bound to the tropics. They are bound by poverty, as anyone with a miniscule knowledge of history can tell you. Yellow Fever was endemic in ENGLAND as recently as the Victorian era. The sanitary revolution eliminated these diseases, not climate.

          4. BS. Sea level has been rising since the last ice age ended. The rate has not accelerated. Thirty years ago Holdren and crew said the Maldives would be inundated by now. The Maldives are still there. Holdren and crew said that decadal temperature would increase unceasingly. There was a hiatus. That hiatus was an embarrassment to CAGW alarmists so they “adjusted” (falsified) the temperature record.

            The other observations are just weather and evolving micro-climate changes. Such change is noise, but the cult of CAGW interprets such noise as evidence that Gaia is unhappy with humans discovering fire. (Remember the end game of CAGW cultists is for humanity to cease CO2 emissions, which are the necessary consequence of humans using fire. Humans have used fire for around a quarter million years, but AOC says we can stop in the next decade.)

            The whole “climate change” issue is all about global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. If surface temperatures don’t change according to model predictions, the models are wrong. However, the Lysenko scientists of the climate cult believe that means that the historical temperature is wrong and have adjusted it to fit the model.

            1. CatoTheChipper|2.26.19 @ 7:00PM|#

              “Thirty years ago Holdren and crew said the Maldives would be inundated by now. The Maldives are still there. Holdren and crew said that decadal temperature would increase unceasingly. There was a hiatus. That hiatus was an embarrassment to CAGW alarmists so they “adjusted” (falsified) the temperature record.”

              Heck, the leftists still trot out Paul Ehrlich from time to time as if he was authoritative about anything. They are shameless.

    3. Creating the number of solar panals this plan contemplates would eat up all kinds of resources and require huge amounts of mining

      To say nothing of the geographic footprint. Powering the entire US off of solar would require an equivalent area about the size of Arizona. That number is a few years old, so maybe it’s gone down by 10s of percent as efficiency has improved, but it’s still huge.
      https://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_236.shtml

      This study says you could produce 40% of US energy needs by covering existing rooftops.

      So you’ve gone from 1 Arizona of solar panels to 1/2 an Arizona of solar panels. Good luck getting that past environmental lawsuits.

      1. “This study says you could produce 40% of US energy needs by covering existing rooftops.”

        I’ve read that flat roofs on commercial buildings have insurance coverage and/or loan covenants that prohibit making holes in the roofs and/or adding weight to them. (Flat roofs are typically not adequately supported for that.)

    4. John, I’m not convinced the raw materials required to construct EV powertrains exist in sufficient quantity to convert auto production over to it in any significant quantity.

      Although those windmills could be a huge plus for home poultry harvesting.

      1. They’re not called “rare Earth elements” for nothing.

  14. I appreciate her enthusiasm, but my goodness she is naive. She majored in international studies and economics – and supposedly graduated cum laude – from Boston University. To any parent considering sending their kid to Boston University I would suggest considering other choices. As to her unrealistic ideas on the GND, I really do believe she thinks that some how new technologies will be developed – if only the whole country (and our government) made it a priority – like sending a man to the moon – and magic batteries that don’t harm the environment will become available, so all that renewable power (on sunny and windy days) can be stored safely, thus eliminating the need for any conventional power plants (including nuclear). The farting cows will be more of a challenge (in her mind).

    1. I’m still wondering what they plan to do with the cows. A mass slaughter? PETA won’t be happy about that! But if they’re kept alive they’ll keep farting.

    2. It’s knowing that your mind is so far open
      That your brain is free to walk
      That makes me tend to leave my cash and guns
      Rolled up and stashed beneath the couch
      And it’s knowing I’m not shackled
      By your words and goons
      And the ink-stained dried-up Marxist line
      That makes me take the backroads
      Cross the rivers out of mem’ry
      That keeps the cow farts ever in my mind.

      1. BTW, The Farting Cows is the name of my Dixie Chicks cover band.

        1. We have a winner…

    3. No, Sandy was and will always be the that bartender from the Bronx who could (and still can) down six shots of Cuervo without taking a breath.

    4. To any parent considering sending their kid to Boston University I would suggest considering other choices.

      She’s going to have to fail up (and then down) a bit more before a significant portion of the people considering BU are going to change their mind because of her, IMO. Those that don’t like her were probably already discouraging their kids from going to BU before the GND and those that agree with her probably think BU should produce more leaders and dynamic thinkers like her.

    5. blondrealist|2.25.19 @ 4:23PM|#

      “…and supposedly graduated cum laude…”

      There’s a joke in there for some of our more vulgar posters.


  15. A Florida police officer has been suspended for allegedly playing Barry White while letting an arrested couple smoke and make-out in the back of his patrol car.

    The alleged incident was captured on video. Florida Today reports the video shows the couple making out. Authorities say the officer played “Can’t Get Enough Of Your Love” and agreed to let them smoke.

    Modern romance.

    1. Someone messed up the link. Sad.

  16. Guillotines are green friendly. It’s way past time to put them to use.

  17. OT: At Deadspin, can the cool kids of the sports Internet become its moral authority?

    “They want to be some kind of moral arbiter, but whose morality?” he said. “They really sound like a parody of being self-serious.”

    Greenwell pushes back at that critique, even as she occasionally embodies it. When explaining that she lives in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood, she added, “but the part where a lot of Puerto Rican families live.”

    “I always want Deadspin to do the fun and silly,” she said. “But percentage-wise, it won’t feel like it did in the old days because the Internet is dramatically less fun.”

    She added: “Trump ruined everything. Barstool ruined everything.”

    Hilarious.

    1. Deadspin hasn’t been the “cool kids” of the internet since about 2008. Now they’re just the “commie assholes” of the internet.

    2. The other stupid thing about that article is how pretentious their staff, past and present, are about being “woke.” These guys are all firmly entrenched in the same media circles as their traditional mainstream counterparts, and thus there isn’t anything special about them anymore that would warrant particular attention. They’re just another cog in the mainstream progressive propaganda machine. You can’t be a “rebel” when you’re parroting the same shit that CNN and MSNBC are on a daily basis.

  18. A Trillion here, a Trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking about Real Money!

  19. Doesn’t the Deal guarantee everyone a living income? Just tax that a bit and no problemo!

  20. $90T in broken windows is a shitload of broken windows, but I suppose the Broken Window lobby thinks of it as an investment.

    1. Microsoft?

  21. $90 trillion? Uh HELLO. YOU CAN JUST PRINT THE MONEY.

    Did you hear that the Little Tyrant from the Bronx wants to make the Electoral College free?

    1. You know, perhaps ridicule, mockery, and scorn are the answer?

      1. Mercilessly.

    2. Or as another guy once said:

      Scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt,
      And anything that may not misbecome
      The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.
      Thus says my king: an if your father’s Highness
      Do not, in grant of all demands at large,
      Sweeten the bitter mock you sent his Majesty,
      He’ll call you to so hot an answer of it
      That caves and womby vaultages of France
      Shall chide your trespass and return your mock
      In second accent of his ordinance.

    3. Sandy is working on the tax break/tax cut thing vis a vis Amazon. Gotta hand it to her, she keeps things hopping.

  22. There are a boatload of typos in this article. For example, “Assuming, based off data from a Pennsylvania food access initiative, that it would cost $75 to improve food access for the 23.5 million people who needed it as of 2009, the AAF said such a program would cost $1.76 billion.” Only $75! What a deal.

    Please do better.

    1. They use orphan editors. What did you expect?

  23. If just one life can be saved, it will all have been worth it.

    1. We have to impoverish everyone, for the children.

  24. GND isn’t about a viable plan, it’s about signaling a commitment to socialism in in the context of Dem party politics. It’s role is to get the 2020 Dem candidates to commit to something ridiculous as a condition of getting support of the socialist wing during the primary so they can’t run back to the center easily later.

    1. GND, Sandy and Malarkey are the Dem’s best and final to out crazy Donnie. Thing is the GND is too dense for those that don’t know the name of the 45th president.

  25. Simpler, and easier to pay for, would be to just reduce the number of humans by a substantial percentage. Nobody has the guts to do that, of course.

    1. Stay tuned.

  26. Humm, are there enough rare earth metals available for this? Let’s I check we get them from China. I’m sure the magic unicorn that craps money will also crap them out.

  27. whats ironic about the GND is that we would have to strip the forest for the building and strip mine all the land to get chemicals and minerals for solar and trains etc to accomplish the Green deal but there would be no green land left when done.

    1. What’s funny is she would probably lead protests at some of the mines, and chemical plants.

  28. Cast never matters, including the cost to human life.

  29. “Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in this area would cost at least $5.4 trillion by 2029, the AAF says?not including another $387 billion per year for things like operations and maintenance.”

    this is a weird thing to say, because you would still spend that money and you wouldn’t reach net zero emissions. So the cast is effectively infinite.

  30. Physicist throws cold water on the requirements of total green energy.

    https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o

  31. The cost of her Green New Deal is equal the the projected Gross World Product for 2019.

    She’s clearly innumerate.

    1. the the?

      I’m clearly illiterate.

  32. The economics seems to pencil out:

    We’re going to cut GDP by 50% while increasing public spending 1000%.

    And well fix the “too many billionaires problem” and the income inequality problem.

  33. I am earn with Google, Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I kept listening to extraordinary humans find to me how an awful lot money they can make on-line so I tested it. everything thought of it as, became all considerable and has definitely changed my lifestyles. For more records go to below site.. http://www.Mesalary.com

  34. I am earn with Google, Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I kept listening to extraordinary humans find to me how an awful lot money they can make on-line so I tested it. everything thought of it as, became all considerable and has definitely changed my lifestyles. For more records go to below site.. http://www.Mesalary.com

  35. When this woman talks she sounds like she is 13 years old? She is 29? I don’t think I have ever known a teenager as dumb as she is let alone someone that is almost 30.

  36. When this woman talks she sounds like she is 13 years old? She is 29? I don’t think I have ever known a teenager as dumb as she is let alone someone that is almost 30.

    1. I agree? I think she sounds young? I prefer politicians who sound older?

      1. That’s just wack.

  37. …and why should AOC, Pelosi, Comrade Bernie, etc. care about the bill?
    Its not their money they’re spending.

    1. And I suspect that our new benign socialist overlords would have a much higher standard of living than the rest of the hoi polloi.

  38. And since China and India alone are currently generating over 30% of global carbon emissions, and historically double their emissions every decade, if we reduce carbon emissions to zero within ten years, they’ll be creating around 3 times the carbon annually that we got rid of.

  39. I imagine Boss AOC will select a President whose first state of the union address will go something like this.

    Say what you will about the tenets of Boss AOC, at least it’s an ethos. And lots of people will require rehabilitation to conform with her ethos.

  40. We all know that that one version of the Green New Deal was absurd. But that doesn’t mean that we do nothing. It’s like Trump saying Mexico was going to pay for the wall. It was obviously a lie, but it showed that he at least cared about doing something with the wall.

  41. Stop arguing cost – which, to its proponents is irrelevant. They don’t care.

  42. Correction to the calculation: we realized we were off by a decimal place so the new estimated cost is $900 trillion. Good thing it’s not more because we don’t know what comes after trillion.

  43. How can it cost $90 trillion when I’ve been told it’s all free shit?

  44. I think that chinstroking crap like this article merely serves to normalize the idea.

  45. I believe them. If they actually got the power to completely control the economy then i think most of the GND goals would be completely forgotten.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.