Green New Deal

The Green New Deal Will Hit the Poor With Higher Energy Costs

"It's upside-down Robin Hood.”

|

The Green New Deal's goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.

"That's a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced," James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video.

"Renewable is so inconsistent," he adds. "You can't just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers."

Because wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, "renewable" energy requires many more transmission lines, and bigger batteries.

Unfortunately, says Meigs: "You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous."

"Batteries are a lousy way to store energy," adds physicist Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Also, the ingredients of green energy, like battery packs, are far from green.

"You have to consume 100 barrels of oil in China to make that battery pack," he explains. "Dig up 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging is done with oil, by big machines, so we're consuming energy to 'save' energy—not a good path to go."

Still, wind turbines and solar batteries are 10 times more efficient than when they were first introduced! That's not good enough, writes Mills, to make "the new energy economy" anything more than "magical thinking."

"They hit physics limits. In comic books, Tony Stark has a magic power source, but physics makes it impossible to make solar 10 times better again."

The dream of "green" causes us to misdirect resources. Even after billions in government subsidies, solar still makes up less than 1 percent of America's energy—wind just 2 percent. And even that energy isn't really "clean."

"We use billions of tons of hydrocarbons to make the windmills that are already in the world, and we've only just begun to make them at the level people claim they would like them to be built," says Mills. "Pursue a path of wind, solar and batteries, we increase how much we dig up and move by a thousand-fold."

"You gotta clear-cut the forest. These machines kill a lot of birds," says Meigs. "I agree that we should bring down our carbon emissions…but we should also make sure we're spending money on stuff that really works."

There is one energy source, though, that efficiently produces lots of power with no carbon emissions: nuclear.

But people fear it. They point to the Chernobyl plant accident in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.

"The Chernobyl plant design was idiotically bad," says Meigs. They don't make nuclear plants like that anymore.

What about Fukushima?

"Fukushima helps prove how safe nuclear power really is. No one was killed."

I pointed out that people were killed during the evacuation.

"Fear of radiation killed people," responded Meigs. They evacuated older people who didn't need to go.

People fear what they don't understand and what they can't see.

"A dam breaks, and hundreds of thousands of people die. Nuclear plants, their safety, ironically, is actually evident in their accidents!" says Mills.

"More people have fallen off of roofs installing solar panels than have been killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S.," adds Meigs.

Yet after Fukushima, Germany shut down its nuclear plants. That led to higher electricity prices and increased carbon emissions because Germany burned coal to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

Likewise, "in Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont, they shut down their nuclear plant. Guess what happened? Carbon emissions went up," recounts Meigs. "This supposedly green state, ultra-liberal Vermont, went backwards."

If a Green New Deal is ever implemented, says Mills, it would rob the poor by raising energy costs, while "giving money to wealthy people in the form of subsidies to buy $100,000 cars, to put expensive solar arrays on their roofs or to be investors in wind farms."

"It's upside-down Robin Hood," he adds. "That's a bad deal."

Yet a majority of Americans—including Republicans surveyed—say they support some version of it.

COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Will Connecticut Finally Enact Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform?

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. “Yet a majority of Americans—including Republicans surveyed—say they support some version of it.”
    A majority of Americans—including Republicans surveyed are not that bright.

    1. If a deal were proposed that was both New and Green and cut all government spending, I’d support it.

    2. Green. Like a watermelon; Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

  2. “That’s a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced,”

    “Yet a majority of Americans—including Republicans surveyed—say they support some version of it.”

    These things are related.

    It does not help matters when advocates push for perfect solutions instead of recognizing there are trade-offs involved.

  3. “They hit physics limits. In comic books, Tony Stark has a magic power source, but physics makes it impossible to make solar 10 times better again.”

    Yep. The Progressive movement was founded on the belief that humans will naturally evolve into a better society with every type of gadget someone might want as soon as people with guns eliminate and/or convert the allegedly less evolved/educated people. This saves Progressives the burden of learning physics, or the scientific process, or how progress happens through actual humans inventing things. In their eyes, a failure to fly when Tinkerbell dusts everyone with fairy dust is proof that some evil Corporation/ Lobbyist/ Zionist/ Jew/ Constitutional Conservative/ Republican/ Racist/ White Person/ Mysogynist/ Cis-Gender Male needs to be eliminated before everyone tries jumping off a cliff again.

    1. You left out the best part! The modern movement envisions that technology will pave the way, but the restrictions they want to put in place on the economy et al are akin to saying that you can’t use concrete.

  4. As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I don’t really care about the poor. Besides, I’ve read enough Mr. Buttplug and Rev. Kirkland posts to know that the poor vote Republican. That means they’re bad people, so maybe they deserve higher energy costs.

    1. I think you nailed it.

    2. 10/10

    3. fucking beautiful, thing.

    4. You nailed the ad hominem argument.

  5. It’s kinda funny to remember that the horrible back-breaking project that the pigs in Animal Farm made the animals do was…building a windmill.

  6. Why is it that in every picture of AOC she’s either got her mouth open or looks like she’s smirking?

    1. At first I thought it was because news outlets tend to choose unflattering pictures of people they criticize (especially Fox News) but honestly Reason has one of the less awkward pictures of her I’ve seen, even her official Congress photo looks like someone who is just realizing she’s in way over her head

    2. I’m waiting for some smartphone videos of her sexual exploits to surface. I’ll bet we’ll see some pictures of her with something else in her mouth.

      I also would wager she’s very good at giving head, and her making eye contact with those big crazy eyes is a plus.

      1. Looks like she’s been in a few bukakke videos

        1. Wouldn’t surprise me. I’ll be she’s lezzed out at least a few times too.

    3. She’s trying to contain the crazy and it just can’t help but slip out somewhere. Usually it’s the bug-eyes to be honest.

  7. Part of me really hopes that the Dems clean house in 2020 and implement the GND and free college/Medicare/ child care for all. It will be entertaining to see all the wealthy progtards around here lose their shit because they can’t afford exotic vacations, weekend trips to NYC, or sending their kids to fancy prep schools anymore because they have to pay their taxes and electric bill.

    1. And all the middle class people who can’t afford anything anymore because they found out the hard way taxing the “tippy top” doesn’t generate nearly enough revenue

    2. “”Part of me really hopes that the Dems clean house in 2020 and implement the GND and free college/Medicare/ child care for all. “”

      They can’t implement it all. There’s not enough money. It would be fun watching them fail.

      I hear universal health care is back in the NYS legislature. Cuomo may veto it if it passes.

    3. The silver lining of the progs shoving that shit down the throats of America would be the ensuing violent revolution and wholesale slaughter of progressives on a national scale.

      We could finally settle all accounts, with finality.

      1. The progs would first buy off everyone with a universal basic income before shoving anything down our throats. Nobody is going to bite the hand that feeds them. As far as costs go, they will just keep printing the money

        1. That only works for so long, see Venezuela. The difference here being that Americans privately own hundreds of millions of firearms. With most of us being well trained in their use. And a common denominator of firearm ownership tends to be leaning right or or libertarian.

          Which does bode well for the progressives if shit gets real.

  8. “Upside down Robin Hood” pretty much describes every Progressive policy that doesn’t involve handing money directly to the poor….and most of THOSE turn out to be bad for the poor, too.

  9. If you want a foreshadowing will happen if Cortez’s version of the GND is ever implemented, look to what’s been going on in France for the last 24 weeks.

    Urbanite left-wingers, particularly ones who inhabit Megacity One and Megacity Two, should not be dictating a national energy and infrastructure policy that only works for those megalopolises (and not even that, when you take Cali’s HSR project into account).

    1. It will only work for so long before urbanite lefties will have to pay their share too. That’s when they will have to decide just how eco-woke they really are, or if they will go back to being Rockefeller Republicans

  10. And she wonders why people call the GND an elitist pipe dream

  11. “”Unfortunately, says Meigs: “You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous.”””

    Yep, something they don’t seem to understand.

    Wasn’t the GND a non-binding resolution?

  12. “Because wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine”

    This is untrue. Scientists have discovered that the times we assume that the sun has stopped shining, the sun actually continues to shine on the opposite side of the globe.

    1. Great! So we can run trans-global high voltage transmission lines under the oceans to tap into always available wind and solar. Aside from the cost, I think Greenpeace might get upset that it would mess up the migration of whales and other sea creatures

      1. ” I think Greenpeace might get upset that it would mess up the migration of whales and other sea creatures”

        You have a choice to make. Do you want to exploit the energy from the sun or make Greenpeace happy?

        1. There is a limit to how far you can transmit high voltage electricity without significant power loss, and burying the cable under the ocean is not feasible and could be easily disrupted by earthquakes.

          1. Power loss is measurable, but DC is an improvement over AC. The significance of the loss depends on how much you need the electricity. Transoceanic cables have been around since the 19th century. I don’t think I’ve heard Greenpeace raise a fuss over that, if that’s what you are worried about. I would have thought Libertarians would celebrate the increased trade and communications that result from such projects.

            1. Undersea phone cables carry much less electricity than power cables do and the energy (lost as heat) increases with the voltage. The maintenance would be very difficult and costly too. You could build a lot more nuked for the same price

              1. “You could build a lot more nuked for the same price”

                You don’t think Greenpeace would be upset? Or are you just being disingenuous like the rest of my respondents?

                1. Nukes have not killed a single whale, or directly killed any people (except those killed by the Chernobyl fire NOT the radiation). The founder of Greenpeace is now very pro-nuke by the way.

                  1. “Nukes have not killed a single whale”

                    Neither has hvdc power transmission which you seem to oppose on environmental grounds.

        2. Saving whales is way more important. Humans are a cancer on Gaia

      2. thousands of space mirrors.

      3. If we’re going to do that we might as well tap into the telluride currents of eldritch power that flow across the globe as well. Though we risk awakening the Great Old Ones if we do so.

    2. “”“Because wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine”””

      The world could be covered in heavy clouds which the sun cannot penetrate. Yet, the sun still shines.

      How does the sun shining in Greece help the power needs of Canadians?

      1. “How does the sun shining in Greece help the power needs of Canadians?”

        Exactly the same way the sun shining in Canada can help the power needs of the Grecians.

        1. Please explain.

          1. You can read about high voltage dc power transmission at various sites around the internet, or try your library. Other sites will explain the sun and the earth’s rotation on its axis.

    3. This is untrue. Scientists have discovered that the times we assume that the sun has stopped shining, the sun actually continues to shine on the opposite side of the globe.

      This is untrue. Ancient shaman have discovered that you have to sacrifice virgins to make solar eclipses go away.

      1. Shapersons, don’t you mean?

    4. What are you trying to do, electrocute the 100% of all sea creatures???!

    5. mtrueman
      April.24.2019 at 10:37 am
      “This is untrue. Scientists have discovered that the times we assume that the sun has stopped shining, the sun actually continues to shine on the opposite side of the globe.”

      Did your mommy tell you that it was cute when you offer up such imbecilic bullshit?

      1. “Did your mommy tell you that it was cute when you offer up such imbecilic bullshit?”

        It sounds imbecilic, I know, but truly the earth rotates, and where it is night in one place, it is day in another! The sun never stops shining.

        1. It will someday. And who knows when that day will come. For this reason we should make absolutely no changes to how we produce energy.

          1. It’s a shame you don’t understand things or have the ability to reason. As it is, you’re nothing more than a bitchy, sociopathic jizz dumpster, with a tiny chinee chubby for socialist totalitarianism.

            Pretty fucking pathetic if you think about it, but you don’t really think.

            1. A rare wit as always.

    6. “This is untrue. Scientists have discovered that the times we assume that the sun has stopped shining, the sun actually continues to shine on the opposite side of the globe.”

      So…wait…the answer is to spend the resources to effectively create double the needed capacity for a region so that it can provide power to the other side of the planet? I thought the footprint for supporting the US power needs was ridiculous, now we have to power India as well? Sorry, Arizona and New Mexico…and maybe parts of Texas. Hong Kong needs its neon, ya know.

      1. I don’t think you have anything to worry about. We can just route the transmission network to bypass places we don’t want to share our electricity with.

        1. In which case you have the same problem- that the sun isn’t shining in these places 24×7. Either you need enough capacity on the other side of the world, or you have to deal with the fact that at night you don’t have as much power.

          Which of course means it sucks to be in places where the opposite side of the world is the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.

          1. “In which case you have the same problem- that the sun isn’t shining in these places 24×7.”

            Not sure what you are driving at. Is this just more disingenuous drivel or are you actually trying to mount a serious objection.

            1. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn’t worry about the variability of the sun because the sun is always shining somewhere, so we could just transmit power to areas where the sun isn’t shining.

              Yet for that to work, you’d essentially need to install enough capacity to supply your region and the region on the other side of the planet. And of course this ignores the fact that there are times during the day that the sun is shining on places like the pacific ocean where the vast amounts of land necessary for such a scheme don’t exactly exist.

              1. Thanks for your sincere response. Perhaps installing solar capacity in sparsely populated sunny areas like the deserts of north Africa and Australia will help things along. There’s no denying the fact that this is a massive and expensive project that would require global cooperation. But hvdc power transmission does exist and with it we can avail ourselves of electricity produced on the opposite side of the globe. There are still problems to be sorted out like storage. Batteries are still not as efficient as they should be ideally and better ones will probably require mining all manner of rare and toxic minerals, and much the same with the solar panels themselves.

                I’m not sure how much solar power we will eventually need to produce, and that is not something we have to decide at the moment. Now, people are using solar for local needs. Allowing these producers to connect to a grid which lets them transmit this power to others while they are not using it or charging batteries seems a natural step. Coal and nuclear generating is also connected to a grid, so why not solar as well.

    7. Great, so instead of invading other countries for their oil we invade for their sunshine lol

      1. Please don’t take my sunshine away.

  13. According to the Dilbert cartoonist, AOC could save the world. This she could do by reading “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear” by Reason contributor Petr Beckmann, then explaining that even the old-style U.S. and Canadian nuclear power plants are way safer per Gigawatt-year than any other course of electric power.

    1. That’s true, and even the waste isn’t as difficult to dispose of or contain as most people think, but I’d take it a step further and opt for a newer version of nuclear power, like LFTR.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlpeJEKmw

    2. ” U.S. and Canadian nuclear power plants are way safer per Gigawatt-year than any other course of electric power.”

      Nuclear reactors are too safe. We can afford to make them more dangerous. Slipshod construction standards, scrapping environmental and safety regulations will finally make the nuclear industry profitable.

      1. mtrueman
        April.24.2019 at 2:42 pm
        “Nuclear reactors are too safe. We can afford to make them more dangerous. Slipshod construction standards, scrapping environmental and safety regulations will finally make the nuclear industry profitable.”

        And fucking ignoramuses like you can continue to beat on strawmen.

        1. “And fucking ignoramuses like you can continue to beat on strawmen.”

          Others insist the we need to loosen construction, safety and environmental regulations to make the industry viable.

          1. Because those standards are set impossibly high due to irrational fears of nuclear power. It would be like setting automotive safety standards to say a car must withstand a 100mph collision with no injuries to driver or passengers. Its clear that such a standard is impossible to meet and is intended to suppress the industry rather than actually address safety concerns

            1. “Because those standards are set impossibly high ”

              There are nuclear power plants in all the major states, and many minor ones. I assume they conform to standards set by government. Clearly the standards aren’t as impossibly high as you’ve been lead to believe.

  14. left policy destroys lives. film @11.

  15. Shame on John Stossel for writing this. Sure, the facts are on hs side, but AOC’s feelings should drive energy policy!

    Why do you hate science so much??

    1. AOC should quit congress and find a MAN to bang her. Instead of that faggy little soyboy to,while she is currently engaged. A real conservative or libertarian man could fuck the stupid out of her.

      Then she could focus on baking pies, like a good girl.

  16. Constantly namechecking this woman is pointless. She’s just the scowling face on the cover of the Comintern’s latest publication. The whites of the eyes flash, the nostrils flare, and there you have it, the new Che face. She’s just a rebrand.

    1. How have her handlers not done this yet?
      Would be interesting

  17. “Yet after Fukushima, Germany shut down its nuclear plants. That led to higher electricity prices and increased carbon emissions because Germany burned coal to make up for the loss of nuclear power.”

    First, this is Fukushima, where exactly zero died from radiation effects and many died fleeing the non-existent threat (“Factfulness”, Rosling).
    And I’m sure the emissions count does not include the ‘exported emissions’ as a result of buying power from coal-powered sources in neighboring countries.

    1. They ignited have even gotten an Incredible Hulk or two out of the deal.

  18. I missed the counterproposal.

    1. Don’t worry about the weather getting slightly more pleasant?

  19. Disappointed that nothing in this article mentions the big problem with nuclear power right now — spent fuel disposal.

    1. That isn’t a big problem with new plants. The volume of radioactive waste is minuscule anymore.

      1. Unless you live in Nevada.

  20. “More people have fallen off of roofs installing solar panels than have been killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S.,” adds Meigs.
    OK I’m stealing that line and if reason wants to come after me for infringement so be it.

    1. We can easily afford to kill more people with nuclear generated power.

  21. That Chernobyl series on HBO looks amazing.

  22. Wouldn’t it have to get more than zero votes in the Senate to hit anyone with anything?

  23. Modern nuclear is pretty awesome shit by all accounts. I really don’t see why people are against it… It does seem to be a bad idea in some areas, like massive earthquake prone places, but there’s no reason we shouldn’t have fuck tons of them in the geologically stable midwest, Texas, etc.

    Personally I think the future will be a lot more mixed, based on the area. Solar actually CAN pick up a lot of the slack fairly efficiently in sunny ass places, it just can’t be 100% of the power.

    1. ” it just can’t be 100% of the power.”

      It has been since life started on earth. To this day, most plants and animals derive 100% of their energy from solar sources.

      1. Seriously? Yeah, I know that dildo.

        But what plants do has ZERO to do with what humans should do to power an industrial society. Unless/until there are unrealistically massive breakthroughs in both lowering the cost of capturing energy (panels etc) AND storing it (batteries, thermal storage, etc) it will be waaay more expensive than other means… Including nuclear…

        Sure we COULD just spend twice as much money (or more) to power the world in some retarded way, but why would we? Nuclear is better. Hydro can be better. Thermal. And so on.

        As I said, mixed systems seems to be the way forward. Solar may be the solution in Arizona, but it is NOT likely the solution in Canada or Norway.

        1. “As I said, mixed systems seems to be the way forward. Solar may be the solution in Arizona, but it is NOT likely the solution in Canada or Norway.”

          I agree that mixed systems are likely. They exist today. I urge you to look into high voltage direct current transmission of electricity. it is quite possible to transport electricity from places like Arizona to Canada and even places where the sun is not shining. It is not retarded, but the clever application of well understood electrical engineering.

          1. I know about that already. REALLY high power loses less in transmission, hence making it possible to send it long distances with acceptable losses…

            The question is, why bother? If nuclear is cheaper in Canada than building more panels in Arizona (wrecking more of the natural environment I might point out!) why should Canada not just build nuclear plants?

            I live in Washington. We get most of our power from hydro. Why should we not just use hydro, Arizona can do solar if that ever actually makes sense, Canada can do whatever, Iceland has geothermal, maybe some places it might even make sense to… GASP… Burn natural gas or something.

            The market will mostly just sort all this stuff out if the politicians stop meddling. I suspect nuclear would be very popular if it weren’t being knee capped, but I accept lots of renewables will probably be workable in the right spots.

            1. “The question is, why bother? If nuclear is cheaper in Canada ”

              It only seems cheaper. This is due to government subsidies. The most active nuclear programme in the world today is in China, whose government subsidizes the industry. It is subsidized in America too, even getting a free pass in insurance, leaving the tax payer to pick up the tab in the event of disaster. Our science correspondent Ron Bailey is constantly telling us the industry is only viable if we slacken construction, environmental and safety regulations, a suitable solution in a place like North Korea or China, but seems to me a non starter in places like America or Canada where citizens are given a chance to give input in policy.

              “Why should we not just use hydro,”

              Works wonderfully in places like Niagara Falls, but unfortunately hydro floods large areas of river valley and forces people to relocate. Not a popular solution in a democracy. Again it’s in China where you see the most ambitious hydro projects, like the damming of the Yangtse River. I imagine North Korea would share your enthusiasm if they had the same potential as China or Washington.

              “The market will mostly just sort all this stuff out if the politicians stop meddling.”

              If the government stopped meddling, we’d all be using coal. It’s the cheapest and the most retarded.

              1. A few strawmen in there…

                Yes we need saner regulation on nuclear… That doesn’t mean unsafe. Just the time factor along in nuclear approvals borks half the projects. Modern nuclear designs are basically fail proof in geologically sound areas. The industry doesn’t need subsidies, it needs to have the boot taken off its throat, and it would do fine. Note coal kills more people every year than nuclear energy has since it was invented.

                As for hydro, there are lots of areas nobody gives a fuck about, river valley or no. We’ve already built many of the best locations, but people simply need to be done learnt the upsides.

                I guess the moral of your story is that in a democracy people are too stupid and incompetent to make the correct decisions, whereas China is being run by semi rational people… Honestly, I can’t argue with it. Democracies are fucked actually. So we may be doomed to not make the correct decisions because of human stupidity.

                And coal is NOT always the cheapest. That was kinda my whole point. And even if it were, global warming is overhyped. From all my reading, I think it will end up being around 50% of what the UN dildos claim, as per their own numbers and models compared to observed results.

                1. “Just the time factor along in nuclear approvals borks half the projects. ”

                  There’s a lengthy process because democracies allow public reviews and environmental assessments. Not a problem in authoritarian regimes like China. In America, where the public demand the ability to give input and question such a project is a non starter, as I mentioned.

                  “Modern nuclear designs are basically fail proof in geologically sound areas”

                  What exactly is a geologically sound area? Japans best engineers and scientists concluded after detailed study that an earthquake exceeding 8.6 mag were impossible and built Fukushima reactors to withstand such an event. It was a 9.1 mag earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster. We distrust climate scientists and physicists. Do you think it’s wise to put such faith in geologists?

                  “The industry doesn’t need subsidies, it needs to have the boot taken off its throat,”

                  Focussing exclusively on the needs and wants of the industry is a non starter in a democracy, where people believe their needs and wants also need to be taken into account. Again, you are mistaking America’s rambunctious democracy for China’s cowed authoritarianism.

                  ” whereas China is being run by semi rational people… ”

                  I probably admire China as much or even more than you, having lived there, learned the language and loved the place. The rulers are rational people but they are authoritarian. I trust them even less than the leaders of the bourgeois democracies.

                  ” global warming is overhyped.”

                  Maybe overhyped. It’s hard to say. But a warming trend has been observed. So has increased sea levels, increased atmospheric levels of CO2, increased storm intensities, increased ocean temperatures, increased length and temperatures of heat waves, bigger wildfires, etc. The wise Chinese are concerned with this. That’s why they are putting vast resources into solar, nuclear and hydro, lessening their emphasis on coal as they’d otherwise be expected to do, coal being the only fossil fuel they have in abundance.

  24. It’s like the article says. People who want to force us off fossil fuels to “renewable” energy sources don’t understand the science of energy production. As petroleum supplies start to drop, the free market will make research and production of alternative energy sources more cost effective, that’s when we’ll see changes. Government can’t force it. And we should be moving towards nuclear, no reason not to.

  25. […] The Green New Deal Will Hit the Poor With Higher Energy … […]

  26. […] The Green New Deal Will Hit the Poor With Higher Energy Costs John Stossel, Reason […]

  27. […] The Green New Deal Will Hit the Poor With Higher Energy … […]

  28. […] to stave off Armageddon. They’ve read all the studies, polled every person, accounted for every adverse consequence of their policy, and assured us that their policies will be adopted throughout the world to bring […]

  29. […] stave off Armageddon. They’ve read all the studies, polled every person, accounted for every adverse consequence of their policy, and assured us that their policies will be adopted throughout the world to bring […]

  30. Don’t know why so many think nuclear is the answer. It is very expensive to build new nuclear plants. It is expensive to shut old ones that don’t meet current safety specs down, and it is very expensive to get rid of the waste. Even windmills are less expensive. Solar will eventually get there. The Chinese are subsidizing their solar like crazy but the up-front investment will eventually pay off.

    1. A big reason it’s expensive to get rid of the waste isn’t a technical reason btw. It’s NIMBYism. Nobody wants to have the waste in their state.

  31. “The Green New Deal’s goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.”

    The goal is the singular goal the Left always has – Power.

    To the Postmodern Left, all argument is simply rhetorical manipulation to the end of power.
    They use whatever arguments best manipulate you in the moment.
    It is a severe mistake to think they ever believe a word of their own rhetoric. It’s all rationalization for Power.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.