Green New Deal

The Green New Deal Is Anti-Democratic

|

The Green New Deal—proposed in February by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Markey (D–Mass.)—would require a vast expansion of coercive government power in order to achieve its goal: "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" in only 10 years.

The plan, which has been endorsed as of this writing by at least six Democratic presidential candidates, would not only require a complete reordering of the American economy; it could happen only by trampling over property rights, local and state control, and the autonomy of the American private sector.

Consider the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. First proposed in 2001, it would have spent $2.6 billion to build 130 wind turbines that could have generated 468 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power 200,000 homes. After 16 years and $100 million in private money spent, it was abandoned largely due to delays caused by more than a dozen lawsuits filed by local Native American tribes, fishers, residents, and tourism-related interests.

Implementing the Green New Deal, whose sponsors want to "ensure the use of democratic and participatory processes," would require local, state, and federal approval of some 1,200 projects the size of the now-defunct Cape Wind.

One would be hard pressed to find a utility-scale solar project that has not been stopped or significantly slowed by local opposition and environmentalist lawsuits. A quick review of some major projects shows that it generally takes six to eight years from when a solar farm is proposed until it starts generating electricity.

Since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, power would have to be shifted via high-voltage transmission lines quickly from place to place across the whole country to prevent local blackouts. The proposed solution to that problem is the North American Supergrid, consisting of about 50,000 miles of high-voltage power lines. Yet these also tend to provoke considerable landowner and environmental activist opposition. For example, it took the American Electric Power Company 14 years to obtain approval for a 90-mile high-voltage transmission project in West Virginia and Virginia.

To bypass objections to building a national supergrid, the Climate Institute suggests that Congress grant eminent domain authority to regional transmission organizations—i.e., independent bureaucracies that operate power transmission assets and provide wholesale transmission services within a defined geographic region. Handing the right to seize people's property to such entities might be an efficient way to get things done, but they are not elected bodies and their possession of such powers might not be constitutional.

This partial history of doomed energy projects in the U.S. should be enough to disabuse supporters of the idea that the Green New Deal can be done democratically or without running roughshod over inconveniently located homes, businesses, and natural landscapes. But there's also the timeframe to consider.

The only presently operating offshore wind farm is Deepwater Wind near the coast of Rhode Island. It consists of five turbines rated at 30 megawatts total. Proposed in 2008, that project began operating eight years later. A 2016 plan for powering the United States with 100 percent renewable energy, devised by a team of Stanford and Berkeley researchers, would require building 156,200 5-megawatt offshore turbines. (This plan, by the way, is the closest thing we have to a roadmap for 100 percent renewable energy—and even it suggests a timeframe of 30 years, rather than 10, at a cost of $14 trillion.)

The prospects for onshore wind power are somewhat better. There are about 96 gigawatts of such capacity currently installed. Fulfilling the Stanford plan—which calls for 328,000 new 5-megawatt onshore turbines—would require only a 17-fold increase over the next decade.

Solar photovoltaic farms currently installed in the U.S. meanwhile have a total capacity of 60 gigawatts. According to the Stanford plan's calculations, the country would need to build another 2,324 gigawatts—at a rate of 234 gigawatts per year. In a December 2018 report, the Solar Energy Industries Association said it actually expects installations to rise to 14 gigawatts per year by 2023.

Costs aside, the Green New Deal would require the creation of vast new anti-democratic bureaucracies tasked with stealing property from communities and individuals. And after all that, it still wouldn't meet its goals.

NEXT: Complicated Rules For Foraging Aren't Helping Our National Parks

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.

  1. Or we save ourselves an enormous amount of money and headaches by building a handful of nuclear power plants.

    1. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
      Check For info Here,
      ===> http://tinyurl.com/y39hnxja

    2. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
      Check For info Here,
      ===> http://www.payshd.com

    3. No kidding. Want to turn Democrats against the “Green New Deal”? Point out that just to pay the interest on the debt the country would incur implementing it, the United States would have to cancel Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

      1. the United States would have to cancel Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

        Ok, I like this part of the Green New Deal.

      2. Not true. Seniors would still get a basic income under the Green New Deal. It’s true that Medicaid would be abolished, but only because the Green New Deal would provide Medicare for all Americans.

        You suffer from the delusion that government is limited by the its ability to tax and borrow. Advocates of the Green New Deal understand how Modern Monetary Theory proves that the myth of such limitations is nonsense. When AOC and other GND advocates say they don’t understand why people ask how the government would pay for it, they are being sarcastic: they know very well that the skeptics ask this question because they are deluded by outdated monetary theories. They understand that catastrophic climate change is an existential threat with imminent consequences, that government is the only entity capable of addressing climate change, that government has the responsibility to save the planet, and that it must devise the strategeries and order all of the nation’s resources to avert otherwise certain doom.

        It’s that simple. I feel sorry for the children of anybody who opposes the Green New Deal. Like Nazis and slaveholders, their children will be ashamed of them and will be justly be obliged to pay reparations for their parents’ sins. The science of climate change is so well established that any parent who does not inculcate the values of the Green New Deal in their children is guilty of child abuse. Even if you are a denialist, think about your children and their welfare.

        1. The lack of ability to continue to pay the interest on the debt is clearly a limit on the ability to borrow. Anyone that understands any economics whatsoever, which apparently excludes you, would understand that.

          1. No one who owns a printing press needs to borrow money – – – –

            1. They will when the money they are printing becomes worthless.

        2. Actually MMT does not prove anything. It is one of many competing economic theories and has never been tried.

          I don’t pretend to really understand monetary theory.

          My simple take is that I know money is basically meaningless. Pieces of paper we use to exchange. I am also aware that government through the fed and treasury use various tricks to keep up the illusion that it actually has value. The only reason it does is because us shlubs have faith and confidence in those dollars and in the ability of those institutions to manage the supply.

          The minute you say we will just print more to pay for all this I start thinking about buying more canned goods and ammo. So you can’t say that even if you are kinda doing it anyway.

          People know enough to fear two things inflation and recession.

          MMT as I understand it knows that inflation is what happens if you just print more money. Aha they say we can control that with interest rates and bonds or something. So my silly self says “wait aren’t you already doing that? And aren’t you saying you can build rail lines out of nothing? “.

          The whole thing sounds fishy. How can I have that faith and confidence in something that sounds like controlled bloodletting.

        3. “Advocates of the Green New Deal understand how Modern Monetary Theory proves that the myth of such limitations is nonsense.”

          Sarc or abysmal stupidity.

          1. Got it: Sarc.

            1. I thought “…their children will be ashamed of them and will be justly be obliged to pay reparations for their parents’ sins…” captured the religious zealotry aspect very well.

              Showin’ OBL how it’s really done…

              1. Yeah, that was actually pretty good satire. OBL is like if a retarded child attempted satire.

  2. As far as is concerned, the ability of Government Almighty to fulfill it’s promises to “help us out” with energy-related matters, all I should have to say is, http://www.yuccamountainproject.org/ = Yucca Mountain…

    “Trust us, we’re from Government Almighty, we’re here to help, and all of your energy taxes will go towards long-term, safe storage of nuclear waste”.

    1. Just to be clear, I do favor moving forward with safer, better nuke-tech, but I don’t trust Government Almighty with regards to much of anything… They can NOT be trusted to do ANYTHING, other than to turn everything into political footballs & hand grenades! I’d rather live right next to a nuclear waste dump, or on top of one, than being constantly dodging political footballs & hand grenades, as we are now…

    2. Molten salt reactors can run on all the nuclear waste from older generation plants. Why they aren’t being built is a mystery.

      1. Pretty much because the eco-freaks and their allies and the lawyers want to regulate and sue everything to death, everything except what THEY like!

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/mi…..22e5a0588d If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?

        Has good facts about low-low risks and deaths from nuclear power?

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/mi…..684864128f
        The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don’t Need Renewables

        1. Forbes almost has it.

          The real reason they hate nuclear is because it means we don’t need to give the Left more power.

          1. The real reason they hate nuclear power is that it works.

            The radical environmentalists hate any technology that improves the standard of living of ordinary human beings.

            The attitude of radical environmentalists toward natural gas is illustrative. Thirty years ago, back when all this got started, US environmentalists were all for replacing coal-fired power plants with natural gas since the carbon intensity of the latter is less than half of the former. Of course, they knew that there was no way to do this because conventional natural gas supplies in the US were inadequate. At the time the US was planning enormous LNG import facilities because natural gas demand outstripped domestic supply. Then, a decade later fracking started. Just as soon as environmentalists learned that fracking would provide cheap, domestic source of natural gas, they went from an advocate to opponent of natural gas and began to disseminate all sorts of myths about fracking.

            1. That is true.

              The real question I have is cost and very difficult to get objective numbers on that.

              Basic I get is that high up front cost. Potentional much lower cost over time if nothing goes wrong. So there is some risk in that.

              With natural gas cheap now, I live in a fracking state, why would a utility company make that investment? That I ask if someone knows more.

              There is one a hour drive from me. It has done OK so far as I know. A few problems I read about but it is still going. By now the utility is probably generating profit and lowering cost for me.

              No doubt there are newer technologies in nuclear power but I can understand how a commodity driven market with low margin cannot take the financial risk.

              Help me out here guys. The greenies have no clue.

        2. “everything except what THEY like!”

          And one of the things that often flies under the radar is that eco-freaks and their allies don’t like ANYTHING.

          Even wind power kills birds, and solar power takes up precious land, and both ruin landscapes; and this doesn’t even take into consideration that, of all the possibilities of extracting energy from the environment, these two are the worst of our options.

          These people don’t want humans to find ways to prosper, at all.

          1. These people don’t want humans to find ways to prosper, at all.

            Yup. These are the sort of folks who, for whatever reason, are filled with guilt at the very fact of their existence (this is the same guilt which Catholicism has fed on for nearly two millennia). They would prefer that we all suffer ascetic lifestyles in atonement for the original sin of having been born.

            When they realize that a significant portion of humans don’t experience this, they turn to misanthropy and troglodytism.

            They quite literally are driven by a subconscious compulsion to punish every living human being (themselves included).

            Fuck those people.

        3. Makes no sense to me. The greens say if we don’t act now, millions will die or be severely impacted in 10 years from now.

          Nuclear, in the U.S. has killed zero people. This includes many plant-years of both submarine, warship and civilian nuclear generation facilities. Add to this, nuclear generation technology is safer than ever and getting even safer.

          Sooooo, if we do nothing millions die and the only way out is to plaster hundreds (thousands?) of square miles of the earth’s surface with solar panels and windmills which destroy natural habitats and kill hundreds of thousands of migratory birds each year. But, heaven forbid we even mumble the word nuclear. Of course, heaven save the oil company that allows one duck to die in a sludge pond while hundreds of thousands are killed by windmills.

          Greens aren’t savers of the planet, they are power mongers who want to control the world and expect people to march in straight lines and follow orders.

      2. The same reason golden rice isn’t being grown to fight vitamin A deficiency in poor countries. The folks panicked by pseudo-science yell louder than actual scientists.

        1. Thank you for bringing that up.

          The leading cause of preventable childhood blindness could have been stopped. No downside.

          Because of idiots blocking, hits me right there.

          1. Malaria deaths .vs DDT bans; part 2

  3. As a libertarian, I don’t have to agree with every single thing AOC proposes in order to be a fan of hers. By calling to #AbolishICE, she proves she’s on the right side of history on the most important issue of the Drumpf era. We’d be lucky to have a Congress full of people like her.

    1. We can only dream that when she’s old enough, and by that time, AOC will be a senator, she will run for president.

      1. I’d be proud to vote AOC for President.

        1. Of course you would. Fascists stick together.

      2. I fully expect her to go down in flames within 2 years. I’m kind of surprised that some of the more petty republicans don’t seem to be digging into her residence, and whether she was legally qualified to run in her district in the first place.

        1. I think she could have local staying power. She could easily turn into one of those 40-year career Reps. No way she could ever make it even at the state level, though.

    2. By GOD I’d be overjoyed to have a Congress full of AOCs.

      Nothing would ever get done. They’d propose a zillion pie-in-the-sky schemes and spend all their time bickering and dreaming up Newer New Monetary Muck to pay for it and never ever agree on a single thing.

      1. “Nothing would ever get done”

        You make it sound so attractive.

      2. The constant political bickering would make the current political bickering sound like the Founding Fathers, and it’d make anyone with a 3-digit IQ want to commit suicide.

      3. This is only assuming that Congress full of AOCs are full of AOCs that each have different stupid goals. If they were clones of AOC then not only would they have passed the Green New Deal with a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, they would have passed a Super Dark Green Double-Plus New Deal by now as well.

        The fact that the New Green Deal passed the House in the first place should give us all pause to consider what the House Democrats are smoking, and whether or not it’s proof that the Libertarian principle we hold dear that all drugs should be legal, should make an exception for that.

        (Having said that, considering that chances are that the House Democrats are smoking “WE HAVE POWER TO DO WHAT WE WANT, DARN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, GO FULL SPEED AHEAD WARP 9999999!!!!11!!!1!”, it’s already something that it’s something that Libertarians already want to make illegal anyway….)

    3. “It’s more important to be morally right than factually correct”

    4. See, like I said above: if a retarded child attempted satire.

  4. the country would need to build another 2,324 gigawatts?at a rate of 234 gigawatts per year.

    Divided by 330 megapeople that’s about 50 square feet of silicon a year

    So much for white roofs.

    1. Don’t forget that all the energy for transportation that is currently handled by fossil fuels would have to be replaced by renewable energy. Considering that transportation accounts for almost 30% of energy consumption, and almost all of that is fossil fuel, that’d be another 700 gig for transportation alone.

      Then there’s ore refining and manufacturing, but I’ll let someone else handle that.

      1. Why do you say that fossil fuel is necessary for transportation? Why not wind power? Why not remove the polluting engines from ships and replace them with sails? Why not equip 18-wheelers with solar panels? If the renewable sources are not quite adequate, there are always unicorns and pixie dust.

      2. You missed the part where they replace cars with mass transit. Not only is mass transit more efficient, but it also drastically reduces the number of miles travelled, because nobody wants to use mass transit.

        1. What about trucks?

          1. Why do we need trucks, when people can just get what they need by going to the store? On public transit, of course.

  5. ‘the Green New Deal would require the creation of vast new anti-democratic bureaucracies tasked with stealing property from communities and individuals.’

    It sounds like a typical democrat progressive socialist party plan only multiplied by a zillion and it all started with Woodrow Wilson, the democrat progressive socialist god who got the US involved in WWI, a war that had nothing to do with America.

    Wilson, the democrat progressive socialist god, had to start a military draft to force men to fight in his democrat progressive socialist war of choice.

    Wilson, the democrat progressive socialist god, started a federal income tax to force people to fund his democrat progressive socialist war of choice.

    This is par for the democrat progressive socialist course; Force. Force. Force.

    1. Don’t forget about the Federal Reserve, Prohibition, and direct election of senators. Wilson was a great president. Not a good president, but truly great in reshaping and expanding the powers of the central government.

    2. Don’t forget about the Federal Reserve, Prohibition, and direct election of senators. Wilson was a great president. Not a good president, but truly great in reshaping and expanding the powers of the central government.

      1. Too bad we don’t have time traveling woodchippers.

  6. Of course the GND is undemocratic, at least in the traditional sense of democracy as tallying individual preferences. But those who claim a moral imperative have a mandate to overrule individuals and even majorities.

    What is perhaps worse is the redefinition of “democracy” by these same moralists that is anything but.

  7. Another exciting Democrat enters the Presidential race!

    “Our enemies come into our social media, and they intentionally try to divide us”: Rep. Tim Ryan warns about Russian interference in national news coverage while launching his 2020 campaign

    Being a white male, he has more work to do if he wants to enter my top tier of 2020 candidates. But I already like his tough stance on Russia.

    #TrumpRussia
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia
    #OlbermannWasRight

    1. I’m waiting for Rachel Maddow to announce her candidacy and then we’ll get to the bottom of Drumpt’s collusion.

  8. Your last few paragraphs are wrong. You are comparing rated capacity to demand. However, as you say, the wind does not always blow. Actual output over time averages 15-20% of rated capacity for most applications. You will need to multiply the number of turbines by 4-5 times and add storage mechanisms, which currently do not exist on the necessary order of magnitude to make this even remotely feasible. The only possible mechanism that would work is massive hydroelectric power, but it would require dam building on a scale never seen in history, and it would still not be enough.

    1. Snail Darter veto!!!

  9. Among other reasons the GND is nonsense:

    It requires building or “rebuilding” 15 million homes every year, 15 times as many as we currently build.

    Googling shows high voltage power lines cost from $300K to $1.5M per mile; call it $1M average, and those 50,000 miles of lines would cost $50T all by themselves.

    California’s high speed rail was projected to cost $100B for 500 miles, or $200M per miles. Criss-crossing the US with enough rail to replace airlines would probably require at least 10 east-west (3000 miles each) and 20 north-south (1500 miles each) transcontinental lines, plus untold feeder lines; around 100K miles total, or $20T total.

    All of these lead to the obvious adjective “shoddy” and the obvious noun “inflation”.

    1. The GND in general brings to mind the adjective “idiotic”.

      1. ^THIS

    2. The train line to Hawaii is gonna be pricey.

      1. Nah, there will still be planes to Hawaii. But, of course, only “priority” passengers with the “right credentials” will be able to fly on them. The crash in tourism will lead to a crash in real estate prices enabling those with the “right credentials” to pick up some spectacular homes at bargain prices. Win-Win all around for certain people.

        1. For the *right* people.

          1. The aristocracy of pull.

    3. All of the cost estimates for the Green New Deal are entirely notional. That is, they assume that the goods and services necessary to execute GND projects are procured under normal circumstances. However, the GND projects are all going to be executed in a single decade. There is simply no way to evaluate the cost of a GND project apart from the entire GND, which would create an impossible demand for goods and services.

      The GND is as vacuous as a Miss America contestant’s expressed desire for world peace.

      1. “That is, they assume that the goods and services necessary to execute GND projects are procured under normal circumstances. However, the GND projects are all going to be executed in a single decade. There is simply no way to evaluate the cost of a GND project apart from the entire GND, which would create an impossible demand for goods and services.”

        Precisely.
        Assuming to overturn the existing economy, but yet budgeting costs from that existing economy tells you the people involved are not serious. It’s not that they are lying; the claims don’t get close enough to reality to warrant the claim of “lying”. They are simply fantasy.
        These are not run-of-the-mill liars like Tony, and turd. These are people who have no understanding of what they propose and the results of that.
        Wolkenkuckucksheim; no more, no less.

  10. Glenn Greenwald’s meltdown continues. Can you believe this nonsense?

    As Libya descends even further into anarchy, violence & instability, here was the reaction of Hillary Clinton – a leading advocate of that “humanitarian bombing” – after learning Gaddafi was murdered (he was raped with a bayonet by a mob as he was killed).

    Since #TrumpRussia denialists like him were totally discredited, he’s become even more unhinged. No serious progressive would question Clinton’s record like that. She was literally the most qualified Presidential candidate ever.

    #StillWithHer

    1. “She was literally the most qualified Presidential candidate ever” – I’m laughing so hard I’ve got tears. Only if you believe in fascism was a corrupt, lying fascist like Hillary was qualified. Chortle, chortle. . .

      1. You know OBL is a parody account, right?

        1. Don’t spoil it; the whole point of a parody account is to show us who has a true command of the English language.
          Those who cannot recognize parody deserve the ensuing heart attacks. After all, with the GND the care will be automatic and free. (after a brief wait of a few months)

        2. No, it’s a parody of a retarded child attempting parody. Or something.

  11. “would require a vast expansion of coercive government power”

    That’s their primary goal.

    1. Yeah man watermelons… Green on the outside, red on the inside…

  12. Nothing in the article shows that the GND is anti-democratic. Instead, the authors offer assertions that it couldn’t be done except by anti-democratic methods. The authors don’t in any way show that those anti-democratic methods are proposed by DNG advocates. Maybe that means the GND can’t be done. Or maybe it means that pretty soon now people realizing they can’t vote to make nature behave the way they prefer, will start organizing democratic means to get the GND done. Or maybe something else. But the implications of incipient tyranny are just part and parcel of routine libertarian grousing about government?which to libertarians is all tyranny.

    1. “…routine libertarian grousing about government?which to libertarians is all tyranny.”

      You’re confusing libertarians with anarchists. Not all that many of us are anarchists. Government Almighty is way the hell too big in the USA right now, yes. But we can’t do away with it entirely, unless we totally re-engineer human behavior.

    2. I support the GND and sold my car, now I walk everywhere. I even live in a teepee . How about you?

      1. I’ve done ye one better… I no longer exhale C-Oh-2 or fart methane, them being globabble warmererering gasses… I only exhale rose-smells and fart unicorn farts!

        1. Hats off to you SQRLSY One!!!

          Do you have a flatulence suppressor?

          http://tinyurl.com/y8ca6nyj

    3. Gee SL, perhaps if you RTFA you might avoid making an ass of yourself:

      “Implementing the Green New Deal, whose sponsors want to “ensure the use of democratic and participatory processes,” would require local, state, and federal approval of some 1,200 projects the size of the now-defunct Cape Wind.”

      Pretty strong indication right there that implementing it is certainly not going to be ‘democratic’.

  13. The more we stall on action, the more anti-democratic means will become necessary.

    We could have dealt with this in the 70s with much less effort, but right-wingers beholden to polluting interests just couldn’t bring themselves to think beyond the next election and their own greed. Blame yourselves for the coming AOC socialist dictatorship.

    1. Tony|4.7.19 @ 1:23PM|#
      “The more we stall on action, the more anti-democratic means will become necessary.”

      Shitbag offers one more lefty assertion, hoping someone will mistake it for an argument.

    2. But the nuke plants of the 70s were not good designs. Although they probably could have built molten salt reactors or liquid sodium reactors back then too.

    3. “We could have dealt with this in the 70s with much less effort…”

      You realize that, in the 70s, the problem was global cooling, right?

      1. I don’t realize that because it’s not true. Try reading something of substance instead of screeds with an anti-science agenda. Just like once a week.

        1. Idiot Tony forgets that some of us were alive in the 1970s and saw that bullshit first-hand.

          Try reading something other than leftist bullshit, fucktard.

          1. No you didn’t. The horseshit propaganda you read has convinced you that you did, but you didn’t.

            It was like one article. And it wasn’t right. That doesn’t mean all of science happening now is also wrong.

            1. “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

              You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown.

            2. There was a healthy debate in the 70’s about global climate. Back then they tended to admit that they didn’t understand it nearly enough to make predictions about the future. By the 90’s that changed and you had groups like the IPCC publishing predictions about global warming driven by human CO2 emissions. Of course, all of those early predictions turned out to be horribly wrong. They were more than a standard deviation too high. Nowadays the predicted warming (IPCC again) is much less than it was several decades ago, but they’ve long since lost credibility. This is what happens when you politicize a scientific debate.

            3. Yes faggot, we did. We’re YOU alive in the 70’s? Even if you were, you would have been too busy being ass deep in ass to pay attention.

            4. Tony, you are an idiot.

              I was very much alive in the 70s, and Global Cooling was in the schools (as I was), in the news magazines, and on the TV. It was, “a big fucking deal” and was going to be the end of the world unless we did amazing things and learned to live with less.

              The exact same line of shit we hear from you and the rest of the useless class today.

      2. “We could have dealt with this in the 70s with much less effort…”

        Yeah, yeah. We have only 12 years to actually do something to fix the climate before it’s irreversibly damaged. And we’ve only had 12 years to do something to fix everything for, what, 30 years now?

        By 2012, snowfalls were supposed to be a thing of the past.

        By 2015, the polar ice caps were supposed to have been completely melted, at least during the summer.

        We can go on and on about failed predictions (I can’t personally at the moment, because my brain is fried and I don’t want to google for them right now)…so at what point are we going to accept that global climate change catastrophist just might not know what they are talking about?

    4. “We could have dealt with this in the 70s with much less effort, but right-wingers beholden to polluting interests just couldn’t bring themselves to think beyond the next election and their own greed.”

      First off, it was a Republican who created the EPA in 1970. Second, what was it that stopped the Democrats when they held a supermajority? Third, you would still need as Bernie put it a “global order” to get that to actually work and not just stall time.

      1. The Democrats had a potential supermajority for exactly 4 months during a major economic crisis. What’s stopping Republicans from believing in science and caring about society?

        1. Okay … why did Democrats unanimously vote against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol?

        2. “believing in science” from someone who has no understanding of science beyond the cover of “Popular Science” as vs. “believing in science” from people with degrees in engineering and science?

          It is always interesting that the “consensus” of “science is settled”, always leaves out the majority of scientists and engineers who regularly point out how unsettled the science is. Added to the fact that REAL science is never that settled, based on always being open to new research and new evidence.

          Of course, that requires that you avoid converting your favored “science” into a religion with acceptance based on faith never to be examined it again.

    5. Tony|4.7.19 @ 1:23PM|#

      The more we stall on action, the more anti-democratic means will become necessary.

      ————-

      Tony, no need for government to force others to do what we must. I sold my car and walk. I even live in a teepee.

      1. Well that’s retarded.

      2. Why is it retarded?

        Also, Tony, ‘retarded, is not the preferred nomenclature. Mentally Challanged, please.”

        1. It’s mentally challenged to make your life miserable when it will have no remotely measurable effect on a problem that is global in nature.

          Try telling your friends to stop insisting that there are no such things as global problems because the idea doesn’t conform to bullshit libertarian platitudes. You’ll do more good that way.

          1. “It’s mentally challenged to make your life miserable when it will have no remotely measurable effect on a problem that is global in nature.”

            Shitbag, here, again confuses a lefty bullshit assertion as an argument. Fucking ignoramus.

            1. This is why I favor eliminating progressivism, by whatever means the progressives force us to use.

              1. Again, you manage to be more morally bankrupt then progressives. You’re really a repugnant human being.

          2. It’s mentally challenged to make your life miserable when it will have no remotely measurable effect on a problem that is global in nature.

            Sort of like voting in a representative government, then.

            Face it: your views are of no consequence or significance. The notion of global collective action is a ludicrous fantasy.

            If AGW is real (I am inclined to believe that it is), then it is inevitable. Full stop.

    6. The Slaver speaks.

      Don’t be shy. We know you consider anti-democratic means not merely necessary, but *preferable*.

      You can never read 1984 Part 3, Chapter 3 enough. O’Brien explains the Modern Left.
      http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html

      The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.
      Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’


      1. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

      2. Mitch McConnell understands it far better than me. I don’t see the point in having power if you’re not going to do good with it. To put a target on your back for shits and giggles?

        Purely as a thought experiment, a benevolent dictator forcing a solution to climate change is preferable to the entire species dying. It’s not people on my team who are making that thought experiment relevant.

        1. “Dictatorship NOW!”

          You’re a Tankie, aren’t you?

        2. Don’t sell yourself short Tony, you are all about power.

          The power to tell others what to do.
          The power to make them do as you desire.
          The power to take the fruit of their labors.

          It is a shame you will never actually have any power. If you were to get what you think you want, you would just become another one of the serfs. It would take more skills, more drive, and more intelligence than you have to be one of the powerful ones.

          Just another one of useful idiots is what you will always be Tony.

    7. But weren’t predictions for the 70s global cooling?
      Now, it’s global warming.
      Seems like it was pretty well dealt with

      1. There was one. There were a lot more claims that the earth is flat at the same time. The global cooling bullshit is cherry picking by the most obsessive-compulsive of cherry pickers.

        1. You do your side a disservice by denying the fact that there was indeed concern about global cooling back in the 70s. It really was a thing, and it was more than a single Newsweek article.

          1. But what does it have to do with anything?

            1. Tony|4.7.19 @ 10:03PM|#
              “But what does it have to do with anything?”

              Shitbag, here, either doesn’t understand that being caught bullshitting it the past has no effect on your rep or hopes others ignore that.
              And shitbag is caught bullshitting almost as much a OBL.

              1. Shows you just what kind of vermin we’re dealing with.

                Postmodern leftists are a malignant cancer on society.

            2. People don’t like being lied to, and when you try to insist that concern for global cooling was only a single Newsweek article, we don’t believe you — and we question your motives, and doubt you when you say that people have “always” feared global warming.

              Go ahead and deny the global cooling scare of the ’70s, but my parents remember it, and it’s not all that hard to find articles discussing it. All you are doing is advocating for a “memory hole”, and all it proves is that the *only* reason why you are concerned about global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is because it gives you more power over the lives of individuals.

      2. Nor does it, I hasten to add, have anything to do with the facts of today.

        1. “Nor does it, I hasten to add, have anything to do with the facts of today.”

          Shitbag, here, claims to know “facts”. Shitbag is a bullshitter.

    8. Yeah, it was all the right-wingers that stopped us from solving carbon emissions decades ago.

      It wasn’t Greenpeace and the rest of the environmentalists stridently opposing nuclear power, and Jimmy Carter shutting down nuclear fuel reprocessing, and Senators Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) defending coal with their lives, and Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) shutting down the Integral Fast Reactor program, and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) cutting off the waste disposal that Carter and Kerry made necessary . . .

      1. Jimmy Carter also pushed for coal-fired power plants to replace gas-fired power plants because the Department of Energy had pronounced that the US was on the verge of running out of natural gas. Carter also created the Synfuels Corporation, a $5 billion government-sponsored enterprise, to produce fuel gas and liquids from coal. For those unfamiliar with coal gasification technology, it is one of the most carbon-intensive industries ever developed: not only does it result in enormous combustion emissions of CO2 due to its energy intensity but it also involves enormous process emissions of CO2 due to its basic chemistry. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan shit-canned the Synfuels Corporation.

    9. In the 70s? Are you, like, paying ANY attention? Everything they said ended up being bunk or not happening.

      The play is not to play.

      1. Ah. I just noticed this is a new trope going around I think from MSNBC about how ‘if we did a little bit in each decade since the 70s we wouldn’t die in 12 years’.

        Retards Splendid retards.

  14. I don’t see how any large infrastructure project can be democratic. Reason opposes interstate highways, border walls, power transmission corridors, but it supports equally undemocratic oil and gas pipelines. And Ron has stated repeatedly that nuclear power cannot be profitable unless democratically placed checks like public hearings and environmental and safety regulations are scrapped.

    1. There’s a difference between a project initiated by undemocratic government fiat and undemocratic private interests.

      1. Sure there’s a difference. But these large infrastructure projects I mentioned are all dependent to some degree on government involvement. It’s hard to imagine a border wall or interstate highway without it.

        1. It’s hard to imagine a border wall or interstate highway without it.

          On June 25th, 1910, the River to River road in Iowa was built between 9AM and 10AM. Yes one hour.

          It traversed the state from East to West from Davenport to Council Bluffs. The route followed an old stage coach trail. It was (like most roads of the time) devised, and promoted by private auto clubs.

          Yes, it was dirt and gravel. But it was a road, the locals maintained it privately.

          1. “Yes, it was dirt and gravel. But it was a road, the locals maintained it privately.”

            I can also maintain my driveway privately. I had large infrastructure projects in mind. Like interstate highways, transcontinental pipelines, and the like.

    2. mtrueman|4.7.19 @ 1:50PM|#
      “I don’t see how any large infrastructure project can be democratic. Reason opposes interstate highways, border walls, power transmission corridors, but it supports equally undemocratic oil and gas pipelines.”

      How did you manage to assemble that collection of lies in such a short time? Was is a result of your abysmal stupidity or a hope you could pitch such bullshit and no one would notice?
      Don’t bother with what you normally assume to be ‘an answer’; had enough of dimwits for one day.
      Oh, and fuck off.

      1. Thanks for your input is ‘my answer.’

  15. “Costs aside, the Green New Deal would require the creation of vast new anti-democratic bureaucracies tasked with stealing property from communities and individuals. And after all that, it still wouldn’t meet its goals.”

    Those are the goals. You’re mistaking the goals for the rationalizations for those goals.

    The goal of the Left is always more power for the Left. Any other “goal” they trot out is a *rationalization* for that power, which will certainly never be reached, because then people might question the justification for continuing that power.

    1. Exactly, that’s why the left proposes solutions that don’t solve the problem, but increase the power of the left. If one doesn’t agree to the “solution” that isnt going to work, then you are labelled a racist, child killer, etc.

    2. The GND, if an attempt to imp,event it is ever made, will actually require the rest of us to exterminate the oppressors attempting to implement the deal.

      My freedom is worth more than the life of every progressive in the world.

  16. None of that is anti-democratic per se. However, much of what we like is.

  17. Why are we still talking about this?

    1. Because retarded leftists are taking it seriously for some dumbass reason.

      It’s like they stuck a “KICK ME, I’M AN IDIOT” sign on their butt.

  18. I think the author means “authoritarian” or anti-libertarian, since if AOC and friends can get people to vote enough progressives into office this idiocy would be perfectly democratic. Which should be plenty enough warning to stop worshipping at the alter of “the people think” and regain focus on unalienable individual rights.

    1. True. After all, the real Hitler was elected – – – –

    2. Trumps government, the Repub party and the Demo corporatists do not focus on individual rights. Instead it’s the rights of those with the largest collection of dollars to bribe politicians with.

  19. WHY IS EVERYONE OBSESSING OVER ME?!?

    1. Because she can.

  20. THINK ABOUT IT?..
    Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    >>>>>>>> http://xurl.es/Incomehere

  21. It still must be repeated until people remember – CO2 is plant food. No CO2, no people food.

  22. Even if the Green New Deal worked exactly as designed, people still don’t seem to understand that market based outcomes are already societally optimal by definition. Social engineering doesn’t work because it is a flawed premise, not because the engineer wasn’t smart enough.

  23. The Green New Deal is a position paper, not legislation. Worry about actual legislation that has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing.

    1. Of course it’ll pass. Bits and pieces, over time, eventually all adding up to the same thing. It’s been going on for years. These things tend to accelerate. Graph taxation, state expenditure, regulatory control and notice how they start off at a low level and grow like a rolling snowball. Just imagine a green snowball. Ain’t it pretty.

      That ball has been rolling for quite some time now. Pretty soon it’ll be hard to jump out of its way.

      All over the world governments — democratically elected governments — in plain sight, as a result of long consultation processes, have implemented everything from carbon taxes to plastic bag bans. Most importantly, the Green agenda has been taught in all levels of education for at least a couple of decades. Children go on class trips for Earth Day and to protest climate change. It’s official education policy and it’s the default worldview of the millions of new voters being pumped out of the schools each and every year. This isn’t a future event; this is now. It’s a done deal; it just hasn’t been voted on yet. But that’s a minor detail.

  24. “Costs aside, the Green New Deal would require the creation of vast new anti-democratic bureaucracies tasked with stealing property from communities and individuals.”

    A feature not a bug for the left. It’s no accident that pretty much every major proposal of the left necessitates the expansion of government power and the diminution of citizen’s freedoms…. all for our benefit of course. Only churlish deplorables would refuse the enlightenment of their betters.

  25. “Costs aside, the Green New Deal would require the creation of vast new anti-democratic bureaucracies tasked with stealing property from communities and individuals.”

    A feature not a bug for the left. It’s no accident that pretty much every major proposal of the left necessitates the expansion of government power and the diminution of citizen’s freedoms…. all for our benefit of course. Only churlish deplorables would refuse the enlightenment of their betters.

  26. I would like to try to pierce the informational bubble, most comments agree heavily with the author of the piece.. In doing so, I’m venturing out of my own usual bubble to try to read, consume and reciprocate with new information.

    The author’s underlining main conclusion, “the green new deal is anti-democratic” is based off of past perception and general cynical opinion from anything coming from the public sector in my opinion. I can tell you, that it isn’t based on at least two things:

    1) The green new deal policy proposal. I know this because there is no green new deal policy proposal.

    2) The green new deal resolution that was introduced in congress. This was a resolution, its more like a vision statement, a set of principles, a guidance document, an outline of the scope and solutions they are working towards. All of the details are non-existent, and “THE GREEN NEW DEAL” is basically the brain-child of one organization. Whereas a general green new deal is any number of policy discussions and prescriptions that anyone that believes we should motivate as much US resources as possible to transition to a green economy might support.

    1. Vyse14|4.8.19 @ 2:37PM|#
      “I would like to try to pierce the informational bubble, most comments agree heavily with the author of the piece…”

      I would suggest slavers like you fuck off.

  27. The main idea put forth is that the advocates of the Green new deal will look to coercive govt policies in general. I admit that is absolutely an approach that some might take. But its actually completely the opposite of the actual text of the resolution that started this debate.

    To realize that point, I want to encourage everyone to at least consume some information from the actual architects of the green new deal.

    https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast

    The episode entitled “Meet the policy architect of the green new deal”

    A huge portion of this conversation is explicitly about how the final polices she is developing have crucial democratic input, where she meets with all the stakeholders, the wonks, the impacted communities, the legislatures, the skeptics, etc. She explains how important it is to not create polices that harm the same communities that fossil fuel pollution and transitions disproportionately. Now this is an extremely complicated task, and we at this point have no idea how true any final plan will be to those goals. But the emphasis and care is there.

    I read this reason article because I was in search of critics of a green new deal, a general idea that I am in much favor of. I am hoping you’ll do the same.

    1. Vyse14|4.8.19 @ 2:38PM|#
      “The main idea put forth is that the advocates of the Green new deal will look to coercive govt policies in general. I admit that is absolutely an approach that some might take. But its actually completely the opposite of the actual text of the resolution that started this debate.”

      Which is bullshit.
      Fuck off, slaver.

  28. Finally, this article was a lazy attack that doesn’t comport to any known reality or any yet-unknown sought reality. The fact is the public sector will be crucial to address climate change in any comprehensive/meaningful way…and it has to be addressed primarily in about 6 countries in a profound way.

    1. AGW is bullshit. Nothing needs to be ‘addressed’.

    2. “…The fact is the public sector will be crucial to address climate change in any comprehensive/meaningful way…”

      Lefty imbeciles are convinced that a lame assertion somehow equals and argument.
      Here’s the reverse ‘argument, lefty imbecile: No, it doesn’t.
      Now fuck off, slaver

  29. V: I have evidently made myself insufficently clear – the GND proposes goals with respect to GHG emissions and I use those goals to outline what it would take technically, financially and politically. Given how other renewable energy projects have recently fared politically, I make the reasonable argument that the goals of the GND could only be achieved by setting aside our normal democratic decision making.

  30. The GND will actually be very democratic, in the same way as Hitler’s election was perfectly democratic. The population, indoctrinated as they are, and with millions of kids pouring out of schools every year with Green ideology as their default worldview, they will sure as hell vote it into existence. And they’ll lack the intellectual ammunition to fight its effects and excesses.

    Oh, it’ll be democratic. That’s not the issue.

  31. Sorry, Ronald, but this misstatement needs correction:

    Handing the right to seize people’s property to such entities

    This is semantically impossible. Regardless of whether by “right” you mean natural right, or legal privilege, it simply cannot be a right to violate preexisting right. This is exactly why due process is necessary, the same as with criminal punishment. “Authority” would be, I suppose, less debatable.

  32. Anti-democratic bureaucracies as a means of stealing the property of other people are what governments are made for….

  33. Glad I got some response.

    I’m wondering did anyone listen to or look into any of the other sources I mentioned. Has anyone read any of the actual GND resolution? It is sad, and this is not an attack on this website but just poor representation that the first response on a website called reason.com is “Fuck off”.

    “Lefty imbeciles are convinced that a lame assertion somehow equals and argument.
    Here’s the reverse ‘argument, lefty imbecile: No, it doesn’t.
    Now fuck off, slaver”

    I wasn’t trying to argue that point. If you believe in the science (IPCC, our own EPA, new papers and studies all the time, EXON’s own scientists, etc) which by the comments its clear that some of you do not, but I believe the reader base of Reason is larger and more opened minded than some commentators, an overhaul of an entire economy would only happen if laws are in place to make it so or aid in that process. The market already exists in a framework of laws, which is the bare minimum I meant when I said public sector. Maybe I should have said public action.. anyway.

    I am wondering if Reason.com readers can actually debate in good faith, some won’t but thats expected.

    “I make the reasonable argument that the goals of the GND could only be achieved by setting aside our normal democratic decision making.”

  34. I would say it depends.. on public appetite, awareness, and societal stressors. Some states are already far along on these goals, and others are not. Communities near coasts or forest fires, communities that need more jobs, they could be more receptive than you say. The resolution attacks every part of emissions, but will (if ever) be enacted in many little pieces, and on every level of govt. There are utilities that have made their own investment plans to use increased renewable energy. Just switching offline and then replacing the dirtiest coal plants would lessen so many economic/health impacts.

    Maybe everyone here is against any type of govt plan to do anything.. but I hope we could all agree that lowering asthma rates would be a good thing. Investing in communities that have already lost a coal plant would be a good thing. Seeing huge growth in electric vehicles would be a good thing, economic activity and less pollution.

    Its hard not to go on tangents because there are just so many beneficial aspects of world with dramatically lower emissions.

  35. I’ll leave this as my last point, the 10 years is about ambition and aspiration, but all reductions of GHG, including at some point even extracting GHG means less warming, less severe whether, less suffering. Its not a binary proposition, we either make it in 10 years or we don’t and do nothing, the closer the world gets to net-zero emissions the healthier we will be.

    Again, I urge anyone here to read information that they disagree with but is coming from a reasonable perspective and be open-minded as a good way to reason.

  36. Zero emissions is a pipe dream. Esp without nuclear. Wind? Kills birds, land intensive, no storage. Solar. Inefficient, land intensive, no storage. Not to mention, AGW is most likely bullshit, based on all the times the “experts” have been caught lying (or admitting their nefarious agenda).

    We will not die in 10 yrs if we do nothing.

    Finally, there used to be tort actions that could be taken to deal with externalities. Those were taken from us, the people, by scotus, and now government comes along and says it needs more power to fix past mistakes? Fuck them. I ama conservationist, but it must be handled in a decentralized manner (as basically everything should be).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.