Election 2020

Here's What's in Beto O'Rourke's $5 Trillion Plan To Fight Climate Change

O'Rourke wants net-zero emissions by 2050.

|

Beto O'Rourke, the former Texas congressman who's running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, today released a four-part, $5 trillion plan to fight climate change.

The framework for O'Rourke's plan, which is posted on his campaign website, promises he will make quick use of his executive authority, though it also pledges the candidate will work with Congress. O'Rourke is not proposing that the federal government fully fund his plan, which sets it apart from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D–N.Y.) much-criticized Green New Deal. Rather, O'Rourke believes a "$1.5 trillion investment" from the federal government will "mobilize" trillions more in additional investments from the private sector to combat climate change.

Part one of the plan would use of executive authority "not only to reverse the problematic decisions made by the current administration, but also to go beyond the climate actions under previous presidents." O'Rourke says he'll reverse President Donald Trump's decision to back out of the Paris climate agreement, and he promises to strengthen emissions standards, reduce various sources of pollution, and require that federal lands plan for net-zero emissions by 2030.

Part two is where Congress comes in. "In the very first bill he sends to Congress," the plan says, "Beto will launch a 10-year mobilization of $5 trillion directly leveraged by a fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment—the world's largest-ever climate change investment in infrastructure, innovation, and in our people and communities." How are we supposed to pay for that initial investment? The plan doesn't go into specifics, though it does say "structural changes to the tax code" will "ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies."

The proposal does give some specifics on where that $1.5 trillion will go. A total of $600 billion will be invested in "infrastructure necessary to cut pollution across all sectors," including "$300 billion in direct resources through tax credits and another $300 billion in direct resources through additional investments." Another "$250 billion in direct resources" will go to various scientific endeavors meant to determine how to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, as well as "the climate science needed to understand the changes to our oceans and our atmosphere; avoid preventable losses and catastrophic outcomes; and protect public safety and national security."

Finally, $650 billion will be spent on the people whose lives are affected by climate change. O'Rourke hopes this investment will "mobilize" additional spending in such areas as housing and transportation as Americans adapt to the effects of climate change.

The third part of the plan focuses on that guarantee of net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. "To have any chance at limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C and preventing the worst effects of climate change, the latest science demands net-zero emissions by 2050," the plan says. "By investing in infrastructure, innovation, and in our people and communities, we can achieve this ambition, which is in line with the 2050 emissions goal of the Green New Deal, in a way that grows our economy and shrinks our inequality." The plan promises O'Rourke will "work with Congress to enact a legally enforceable standard—within his first 100 days."

"We will harness the power of the market, but also recognize that the market needs rules in order to function equitably and efficiently—not just incentives, but accountability too," the plan adds.

The "latest science" to which O'Rourke's plan refers is a 2018 U.N. report that says the world must cut its dependence on fossil fuels by 2050. Climate activists have seized on this report, claiming we're racing against the clock to save the world. But as Reason science correspondent Ron Bailey explained last month, the doom-and-gloom predictions are exaggerated:

The IPCC asked a group of climate scientists to evaluate how it might be possible to keep the global mean surface temperature from rising 1.5°C above the average temperature of the late 19th century….The report's authors calculated that in order to have a significant chance of remaining below the 1.5°C threshold, the world would have to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 and entirely eliminate such emissions by 2050. So yes, the report says there's an expiration date if humanity decides to aim for that temperature target. But is it an expiration date for doom? Not so much.

According the report: "Under the no-policy baseline scenario, temperature rises by 3.66°C by 2100, resulting in a global gross domestic product (GDP) loss of 2.6%," as opposed to 0.3 percent under the 1.5°C scenario and 0.5 percent under the 2°C scenario. In the baseline 3.66°C projection, the estimate of future GDP losses ranged from a low of 0.5 percent to a high of 8.2 percent. In other words, if humanity does nothing whatsoever to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the worst-case scenario is that global GDP in 2100 would be 8.2 percent lower than it would otherwise be.

Let's make those GDP percentages concrete. Assuming no climate change and an global real growth rate of 3 percent per year for the next 81 years, today's $80 trillion economy would grow to just under $880 trillion by 2100. World population is likely to peak at around 9 billion, so divvying up that GDP suggests that global average income would come to about $98,000 per person. Under the worst-case scenario, global GDP would only be $810 trillion and average income would only be $90,000 per person. Doom?

Part four of O'Rourke's plan cites the parts of the country that have been fighting (or at least prepping for) extreme weather. O'Rourke calls for raising spending by a factor of ten "on pre-disaster mitigation grants that save $6 for every $1 invested"; he supports legislation "to make sure that we build back stronger after every disaster"; he wants to invest "in the climate readiness and resilience of our first responders"; and he says we should support U.S. troops "with technologies that reduce the need to rely on high-risk energy and water supply."

O'Rourke's climate plan is his first major policy proposal. It could set him apart from many of the other 2020 Democratic candidates—though stopping climate change is already the main platform of one other presidential hopeful, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.

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.

156 responses to “Here's What's in Beto O'Rourke's $5 Trillion Plan To Fight Climate Change

  1. The progs really love losers like this guy, and his stupid unsupportable plans.

    1. No they don’t. The progs don’t have much love for Beto. To them, he’s a milqtoast centrist.

      1. Hollywood loves them some Beto though. He’s dreamy (sort of).

        1. He’s a creepy beta male. Maybe that appeals to lesbian feminists, I doubt it appeals to anybody else.

    2. So why does Joe Seyton love him so much. What is wrong with Reason? Why doesn’t he just admit that Beto is a vacuous moron? Instead he soft peddles the absurdity of the New Green Deal and Beto’s nonsensical reality.

    3. I really do think climate change is an incredible risk. The natural environment isn’t valued as highly as it should be. Overfishing, soil depletion, fertilizer runoff, ocean acidification, and tropical deforestation ruin the resiliant buffer systems of nature. So what are we going to sacrifice, and it can’t just the the richest 1% of 1%. Programs need to be cut. Subsidies need to be eliminated. If people aren’t saying this they aren’t serious.

      1. If things really are going to be as ugly as the science experts say, the only real way to stop climate change would be to get rid of at least a third of the worlds population and preferably closer to half. A major global influenza pandemic could do it, but if you really want to stop warming too, a global nuclear holocaust would work best. Anyone who is saying we can adapt by switching to 100% renewables, driving electrics or mass transit, and only using sustainable products is full of shit.

        1. Driving electric cars will achieve the opposite effect to what you think it will. Electric cars require huge battery packs which require a large amount of manufacturing thus nothing is achieved in terms of industrialisation for these cars. Also, disposing of these batteries produces a significant amount of pollution. It is all swings and roundabouts. We do not have the technology to move away from an oil based economy and it is unlikely we will be able to do so for a long time in the future.

        2. That’s the thing: the science experts do not predict that things will get “ugly”. They predict some moderate loss of GDP by 2100 if we do nothing, that’s all.

      2. Spending 5 trillion dollars in a non-workable attempt to stop the temperature from rising isn’t serious either.

      3. (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War… First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

        Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

      4. I really do think climate change is an incredible risk.

        Well, then you disagree with the expert opinion of even the alarmist IPCC report, which puts the “risk” of climate change at a few percent of GDP in 2100, and that’s mostly ignoring the benefits of climate change.

        Overfishing, soil depletion, fertilizer runoff, ocean acidification, and tropical deforestation ruin the resiliant buffer systems of nature.

        And government action against climate change will prevent none of those.

  2. If the democrats run a vapid turd like this in 2020, they will lose big.

    1. He’s far from my first choice. Still, no matter what the Democrats do, Drumpf has zero chance of reelection given how low his approval rating is and how severely he’s damaged the economy.

      1. His approval is higher than Zer0 the Fuckup’s, and he’s done less damage than any Demorrhoid in history.

        He’s still an asshole, but not as bad as they are.

      2. What planet are you from? For someone who thinks they’re Woke, you’re not.
        Your Hate-filled rhetoric is why you are where you are today.

        1. sorry for the misspost, this was intended for the Communist open borders asswipe above you

      3. Typical Neo-Communist drivel. Your hate-filled blindness is the reason why you are, where you are today.
        This is how you more Trump. 🙂

    2. I don’t think there’s a single Dem who can beat Trump today. Biden might be the closest just because he’s not as rabid as the uncloseted socialists. But the Dems would have to acknowledge that Trump won for not being a typical politician who cloaks his lies in fancy words. I see no sign of that much awareness. It’s all the opposite — they see and hear what he did, and it appalls them so much, this speaking to the unwashed masses, that they just double down on elite-speak.

      1. I don’t think there’s a single Dem who can beat Trump today.
        In an election, or behind the gym? Because I think Biden said he would and could. (Tangentially related, I also believe that Trump would bring a gun to a fist fight.)

        1. It would be the funniest fight ever, two clowns slapping each other. I doubt either has ever been punched or punched anyone.

      2. “…But the Dems would have to acknowledge that Trump won for not being a typical politician who cloaks his lies in fancy words…”

        Not likely.
        We’d be treated to another X years’ ‘investigation’ into how that fine, upstanding and deserving Y D-creature could have lost to TRUMP!

    3. Better an empty suit (minus the suit) than some geezer or socialist (or both, if Warren wins the nomination).

  3. $5 trillion sounds like a lot. But keep in mind the planet will become literally uninhabitable within 12 years unless we put Democrats back in charge nationwide. I think it’s a reasonable price to pay for the continued existence of life on Earth.

    #ILoveScience

    1. It’s funny ’cause it’s terrifying

    2. Yes, the scientific observations of a bartender from NY is ironclad.

      1. Just as ironclad as a 9-year-old’s report on soda straws. Anyone who disagrees is just a “denier” and can be justly ignored.

        1. Did AOC ever give anyone a straw in their drink, unprompted? We may have an expose here folks.

    3. “But as Reason science correspondent Ron Bailey explained last month, the doom-and-gloom predictions are exaggerated” Exaggerated? They are pure fantasy. What else is fantasy is bankrupting this country in order to lower CO2 levels to some kind of even measurable levels in the next 20-30 years while China, India and Russia race each other to see who can dump more crap into the air, land and sea. BTW most Libertarians don’t buy the nonsense that climate change is something that can be impacted with carbon taxes, government take over of industry and spending trillions of dollars on ridiculous notions.. and Yes $5 trillion is a hell of a lot of money especially in the hands of dimwitted politicians like Sanders, Beto and AOC.

    4. So the Democrat plan is to attempt to convince Americans that they are the only party which can save the entire world from disaster. I can’t see that one working, especially if you cannot explain to these same Americans that they will have to dramatically change their lifestyles and pay more taxes for the privilege. You have to keep in mind also that America is just one country and is not even top of the list for world polluting nations. You may just convince Americans, But how will you convince these same Americans that they can force other countries to cut their emissions and pollution.

    5. OBL – where is your link, where is the proof that “the planet will become literally uninhabitable within 12 years”?

      You put #ILoveScience on your post – why not some links to valid, scientific studies?

      I don’t think you will, you will just insult and ignore.

    6. You love science yet you believe the planet will be uninhabitable within twelve years? Okay, like a fish I will bite. Will we run out of O2 or will the fraction of C02 be so high all of humanity will be poisoned? Will the Earth become so warm we will become nothing more than blistered corpses lying on the baking sand? Will the glaciers be gone and the oceans will rise so high the Earth will be the water-world portrayed in a stupid movie? As an aside, when was the last dire prediction shown to be accurate?

  4. It’s amazing how they can come up with such nice even round numbers. One would almost think there was no justification for them other than “it’s the most I can think of right now.”

    1. No single human being can conceive of how to effectively spend $5 Trillion dollars. No ten human beings can do it. In fact, probably no 1000 or even 100,000 people can.

      1. 500 carriers. That’ll do it! And electric jets to populate them — the other countries will be so jealous, stuck with their old-fashioned blue navies when we have a green one, and so much of it.

      2. 435 Congressmen figure it out every year though.

      3. Give “free healthcare” to all Americans for 2 years?

    2. 12 is a high as AOC can count when she’s wearing shoes.

      1. Don’t you guys just want to suck on AOC’s toes? People fantasize about her beautifully buggy visage, but they’re stupid and blind. To drag your tongue in between her foot fingers, leaving a trail of your passion like that of a slug is, quite frankly, the dream. The AMERICAN dream.

        1. Just cause she’s hot doesn’t mean I’m going to listen to her.
          No wait, it probably does. But I know she’s wrong about just about everything.

          1. Just because she has huge knockers doesn’t make her hot, and besides with those choppers in her mug getting some skull love would be risky business indeed.

  5. I’m assuming that what the plan contains is fairy kisses and unicorn farts. I figured that with such a sure-fire assumption, I could save time and skip reading the article.

    1. it has enough political speak that anything can will be claimed has fighting global warming including the raise all politicians will get for their heroic battle to save the planet.

    2. I skipped it as soon as I read “5 trillion dollars”, then skipped it again when I read “to fight climate change”.

  6. “Here’s how I’m gonna soak ya.”

    Thanks a lot, Beeto.

  7. “O’Rourke believes a “$1.5 trillion investment” from the federal government will “mobilize” trillions more in additional investments from the private sector to combat climate change.”

    Magical thinking. Just another sap trying to stay relevant, and who has to be loud to make himself heard over the sea of extremists.

    1. I was just going to note this is not how these things work. Private businesses “invest” a couple million in your local congresscritter’s campaign, and they get billions in return.

      IF the government funded some sort of X-Prizes for sustainable energy, I might be willing to accept it, because these usually end up driving multiple investments for the hope of winning one prize. However, instead you just no this plan includes giving subsidies so that businesses will build costly, money-losing ventures that can only be supported by the taxpayers.

  8. mayor pete derangement syndrome

  9. “Think your government spends a lot of money? Hold my beer and watch this.”

  10. “Beto O’Rourke, the former Texas congressman who’s running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, today released a four-part, $5 trillion plan to fight climate change.

    The framework for O’Rourke’s plan, which is posted on his campaign website, promises he will make quick use of his executive authority, though it also pledges the candidate will work with Congress.”

    As the Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, libertarian capitalists should become increasingly Republican.

    The logic of protest votes is out the window now. A protest vote for a Libertarian is absurd when one of the parties’ candidates are openly advocating authoritarian socialism. Surely, there must be some extreme that the Democrats would go to that would make us break for Donald Trump. The only open question is whether the Democrats have passed that point, and with the Green New Deal and its cousins, surely the correct answer is “yes”.

    1. I might add, there is no chance of the Green New Deal or its cousins actually being implemented by democratic means. Even if if someone advocating the Green New Deal were elected president and the bill achieved sufficient support in Congress to pass, as soon as it was implemented, the consequences to the economy will stop being theoretical and start getting real. At that point, support for this kind of thing will fall through the floor. Then, the only question is how authoritarian the Green New Deal people are willing to go.

      Keep your powder dry.

      1. No Green New Deal can be implemented by any means. Its goals are literally impossible. We build about 1M homes a year now. There are roughly150M residences in the country. If you discount the last 20 years as building good enough homes, that leaves 130M to rebuild in 10 years, 13 times as many as we currently do. You cannot find construction workers or materials to do that.

        Rebuild the entire electric power grid? Too many miles, too expensive. The world’s entire budget couldn’t do it, and that’s not to mention the workers and materials.

        Replace airlines with high speed rail? Ignoring Hawaii as being too literal and you are left with building 100 times as much rail as California said it wanted to — in ten years! California estimated $60B — reality says more like $100B minimum. Throw in mountains and the crowded east coast, probably $200B, and that multiplies out to $20T, not counting feeder lines and connecting lines and rolling stock enough to move millions of people every day. Then there’s the fact that you’ve changed a five hour flight into a full day train ride, with sleepers, and productivity goes to hell.

        The only one close to reality is replacing all cars within 10 years. The average car is something like 11 years old. A little extra push could get that to ten years at the end of ten years. Just make Teslas affordable and force other car makers to build Teslas. That’s actually plausible, barely. None of the other goals are plausible in any fashion.

        1. But there’s no need to force that and it’s pretty obvious the market is rapidly moving to an all electric car fleet and likely not even owned by individuals but mostly owned by ride-hailing services

          1. I hope Tesla is wildly successful.

        2. “You cannot find construction workers or materials to do that.”

          Oh yeah?
          Take the guns away from the border patrol, give them boxes of hammers and screwdrivers to hand out, offer $15.00/hr, and watch what can be done!
          Offer full citizenship if they bring in two sheets of plywood or 15 feet of plumbing, 5 year work permits if they don’t bring in material, and Bob’s your uncle.

          1. Take the guns away from the border patrol, give them boxes of hammers and screwdrivers to hand out, offer $15.00/hr, and watch what can be done!

            You’ve never built a house, have you? The cost and delays in building houses aren’t in the stuff you do with hammers and nails, they are in doing all the stuff you need to comply with code, exactly what AOC and the GND wants to make even more restrictive.

        3. “No Green New Deal can be implemented by any means. Its goals are literally impossible.”

          If the Drug War has taught us anything, it’s that there is no government program so expensive, so destructive, and so futile that the government won’t implement it and support it for 40 years.
          The question is how long the American people will tolerate it.

          When the American people were convinced that marijuana was a terrific threat to their children, they were willing tolerate terrible things to stop it. It cost them as tax payers but not at the gas pump. It didn’t cost them when they paid their heating and air conditioning bill. It didn’t cost them when they paid for gas and electricity. People react to price signals.

          You cannot get people to maintain those kinds of sacrifices for ten years by democratic means. You cannot make people stop reacting to price signals without authoritarian means.

          1. It’s one thing to implement a War on (Some) Drugs; it’s another to actually win it.

            And it’s yet another to even try to implement a Green New Deal. Any such legislation would have to allocate the money; there isn’t enough. Even if a dictator were to mandate price and wage controls and gulags for those who would not cooperate, any dictator mad enough to actually write down the goals and what the printing presses had to accomplish would be so obviously insane that he would be overthrown.

            I stand by what I said, and expand upon it: No Green New Deal can be articulated, legislated, begun, or finished.

            1. The break in the equation is the American people’s support.

              The American people will tolerate the drug war to protect their children from crack.

              Price signals on gas, electricity, heat, and air conditioning is another matter.

              At best, the people advocating the Green New Deal are just blabbing for campaign support and donations from hardcore progressives. Let’s hope they’re just full of shit because at worst, they mean what they’re saying, and they understand the obvious implications–which is that they can only implement and maintain the Green New Deal by authoritarian means.

              It is not enough to give people tickets for marijuana. You need police all over the place and you need to throw millions of people in prison for years at a time.

        4. Losers copy winning planks. The 2016 Dem platform promised to try to ban electricity the way the GOP seeks to again ban birth control and plant leaves. But the GOP published a plank promising to harden electrical transmission grid infrastructure. You are witnessing evolution in action with the Dems now copying Trumpistas instead of Ralph Nader.

        5. But you’d have the prelude to Atlas Shrugged in place.

      2. “Keep your powder dry.” I maintain my magazine at about 29% relative humidity. And of course keep it stored in sealed plastic containers [as with primers].

        I hope it never gets that bad, but every day I read something that convinces me otherwise. They are way past going off the rails.

        1. I hope it never gets that bad, but every day I read something that convinces me otherwise. They are way past going off the rails.

          Are we living in different universes or something? Because to hear some people talk, you’d think Democrats were running on a platform of revolutionary Marxism. They’re not. They’re running on a campaign of basically European-style social democracy. Which is more socialism that we now have in this country, it is true. But it’s not gulags and death camps either.
          The Republicans are not running on a campaign of fascist Naziism.
          The Democrats are not running on a campaign of revolutionary Marxism.
          Is there anyone around here living in a reality-based universe?

          1. Which is more socialism that we now have in this country, it is true. But it’s not gulags and death camps either.

            It never is, at first. Just what do you think is going to happen to people who don’t want to give up their cars and their way of life for the greater good? They will end up in prison or with a bullet in the back of their head when they resist.

            1. Britain managed to fully nationalize their entire health care system without resorting to gulags or death camps. How do you think that came about, John?

              Japan built an entire national infrastructure of high-speed rail without gulags and death camps. How did that happen, John?

              I’m not arguing in favor of nationalizing health care or state-run high-speed rail. But can we at least keep the opposition to these things within the realm of reality, and not sound like deranged lunatics screaming about socialism? Because when the opposition sounds like a bunch of kooks, the idea of NHS or HSR doesn’t sound so bad in comparison.

              1. Britain managed to fully nationalize their entire health care system without resorting to gulags or death camps.

                Now it just murders the sick. But that is the kind of shit people like you enjoy.

              2. without resorting to gulags or death camps
                Death panels suffice for now.

          2. But it’s not gulags and death camps either.
            We’re always near the point of throwing a group of people (e.g. Krauts and Japs) in a camp. It just takes the right circumstances.

          3. They are NOT running on a platform of EU style socialism. It goes way beyond that. Medicare for all is beyond any EU health care system I have heard of. The Green New Deal is way too ludicrous for any mainstream EU politician.

            They are not running on Marxism either, for that matter. They are running on pure dictatorial stupidity, trying to one-up each other in who can propose the craziest nonsense. They ought to be called The Twenty (And Counting) Stooges, or the Qui Stoned Cops.

            1. Medicare for all is beyond any EU health care system I have heard of.

              Medicare For All sounds a lot like the French system or the British system, depending on the details. Not saying it’s a good idea. But it’s not exactly the Soviet system or the Venezuelan system either.

              I agree with you that the Green New Deal is not in any way feasible.

            2. They nevertheless get more votes than God’s Own Prohibitionist christianofascists. The looter-infested Dem party only exists because the GOP suppresses the LP with Nixon’s election subsidies. Real JFK Dems need to wake up and reclaim old platform planks.

              1. I know I am responding to a deranged lunatic who spams the board with his own make believe jargon, but you have to be a special kind of out of touch to keep belaboring the GOP Bible-beater trope. It is 2019. Donald Trump is the leader of the Rs now. Rs are pro-mj legalization. Baby-killing remains a bridge too far, to their everlasting credit.

          4. Again, you cannot implement and maintain the Green New Deal by democratic means.

            Even if it were made law, as soon as the price signals hit, the American people would turn against it–just like they did in much more socialist minded countries like Australia and France and those programs were far less expensive and intrusive than what’s being advocated under the umbrella of the Green New Deal.

            Because you haven’t accepted that this program cannot be implemented and maintained for ten years by democratic means doesn’t mean it can be implemented and maintained any other way.

            1. The Green New Deal can’t be implemented anyway. Even AOC says so. It is “aspirational”, remember? Perhaps we should take a look at the GND “seriously but not literally”. It represents what many progressive Democrats think are important priorities with respect to climate change. We can either scream about socialism and gulags, or we can come up with some other responses, that are perhaps more grounded in reality, that people might actually listen to.

              1. >>>Perhaps we should take a look at the GND “seriously but not literally”.

                nah

              2. We are taking it seriously.
                The GND is totalitarianism.

                You and your water carrying can fuck right off

          5. “They’re running on a campaign of basically European-style social democracy.”

            Even worse, they are campaigning on European-style benefits without any of the European-Style costs.

            Show me when Bernie has called for all the great benefits of countries like Norway and Sweden ALONG with the 50%+ total tax rate for the average tax payer.

            Every time someone comes up with “We should be more like the nordic countries” they need to deal with the fact that that means EVERYONE’s taxes go up, not just whomever they define as the Rich this year.

            1. Yup. THe problem with overtaxing the 1 % is that they are only 1 %. Not enough of them .

              1. The other problem is that the 1% will not hang around long enough to be taxed. They will shift their businesses to countries with far lower tax rates. Or, they will find new and better ways to hide their money or better ways to write off profit.
                Alternatively, if they are taxed more, they will pass these taxes on to consumers and prices will rise and with this, inflation.
                Taxing the rich never works and only people who are as stupid as Bernie and his followers will ever believe it can

    2. libertarian capitalists should become increasingly Republican.
      I don’t feel like voting for the brand of perpetual war that lacks the eco-socialism label. I’ll stick with my principles, thanks.

      1. If you’re getting your impression of Donald Trump’s policy from Reason, make sure you keep your horizons as broad as possible.

        The latest accusations of perpetual war in Yemen are way overblown. Trump’s “support” of the Saudi War in Yemen appears to be limited to providing them with intelligence on ISIL.

        Neocons hate Trump because of his reluctance to invade other countries. That’s why McCain hated him–because he promised to work with Putin to defeat ISIS in Syria rather than invade.

        At worst, Trump is no more likely to invade a foreign country than someone on the Democrat side of the aisle. Hillary Clinton, for instance, would much rather invade Yemen or Syria than shake hands with the Saudi Crown Prince or Putin in public. Letting a neocon Democrat or a purist take office who would rather go to war than shake hands with icky people is not principled. It’s naive.

        Not sure what you think you’re getting from a Democrat rather than Trump–and that’s the choice. If the Democrat wins, they’re telling us what they’re going to do with EOs. We’ve had one leading one tell us they’d come after our Second Amendment rights, and now another that plans to implement another version of the Green New Deal.

        If you’re willing to suffer that because of a protest vote, may I ask, what the fuck do you think you’re protesting? It certainly isn’t the Green New Deal, socialism, Medicare for All, or the violation of our Second Amendment rights. What’s the point of protesting those by voting for a Libertarian when you can prevent them by voting for Trump?

        1. Where the fuck did I mention Trump, dude? You said Republican, not Trump. Don’t spew paragraphs at me based on a presumption.

          1. From my original post:

            “A protest vote for a Libertarian is absurd when one of the parties’ candidates are openly advocating authoritarian socialism. Surely, there must be some extreme that the Democrats would go to that would make us break for Donald Trump. The only open question is whether the Democrats have passed that point, and with the Green New Deal and its cousins, surely the correct answer is “yes”.”

            —-Ken Shultz

            1. You said Republican. Somehow you think voting for the aforementioned party means voting only for Trump and like-minded people. TDS, bud. TDS.

    3. libertarian capitalists should become increasingly Republican.

      How about, instead, libertarian capitalists should become increasingly more libertarian and capitalist?

    4. “The logic of protest votes is out the window now. A protest vote for a Libertarian is absurd when one of the parties’ candidates are openly advocating authoritarian socialism.”

      Unless, of course, you’re principled.

      1. Or live in a winner-takes-all state where one party is guaranteed to win all its electoral votes.

      2. Again, is there any extreme that the Democrats could go to that would make you vote for Trump to keep them out of the White House?

        What if they wanted to close the “gun show loophole”?

        What if they wanted to ban “assault weapons”?

        What if they wanted promised Medicare for All and The Green New Deal?

        That last one definitely puts them over that line for me.

        If you’re not willing to vote for Donald Trump to stop authoritarian socialism from being implemented from the White House, then whatever principle you think you’re upholding, it isn’t the one against authoritarian socialism.

        I repeat: They are promising to implement authoritarian socialism by way of the Green New Deal.

        Almost every one of the top six candidates (unsure about Biden) supports the Green New Deal. Donald Trump called it an insane plan do destroy the economy. Game over.

        1. I also like how you think voting for one man is going to stop them. It’s so cute.

          1. Yeah, voting for Trump will keep a Democrat candidate out of office, and all of the leading six candidates (sans Biden whose position I’m unfamiliar with) has endorsed the Green New Deal.

            Once more with feeling, Trump called the Green New Deal an insane plan to destroy the economy. If you vote for Trump, he will veto the Green New Deal. If a Democrat wins office, they won’t.

            That’s the way it works.

        2. Again, is there any extreme that the Democrats could go to that would make you vote for Trump to keep them out of the White House?

          Nope. And, there is no extreme that the Republicans could go that would make me vote for a Democrat to keep them out of the White House. I won’t vote for either one, period, ever again. I would think that someone who is a long-time commenter and member of a libertarian website would have fully internalized the folly of voting for either of the major parties by now.

          1. Nope. And, there is no extreme that the Republicans could go that would make me vote for a Democrat to keep them out of the White House. I won’t vote for either one, period, ever again.

            ^ This.

          2. Ken is a nice guy but he is the biggest Trump supporter on this site.

            Ken, is there a level to which Trump would go which would keep you from voting for him? Or, alternatively, is there a level to which a Democrat could slide right and make you vote for him/her over Trump?

            As a fellow Californian, I recognize that we’re in a safe place where we can vote for whichever 3rd party works for us. But let’s stop pretending bud. I’d vote for Trump over every Democrat in the field. Yes, even over Wayne Messam and Marianne Williamson. But it’s ok to call out Trump where he’s wrong. It’s. O. K.

            1. “Ken is a nice guy but he is the biggest Trump supporter on this site.”

              Suggesting that I’m wrong about how we should support Trump because I support Trump would make you look really stupid in at least two obvious ways.

          3. “Nope. And, there is no extreme that the Republicans could go that would make me vote for a Democrat to keep them out of the White House.”

            So, if the Republican president were burning Muslims in ovens by the millions, you wouldn’t vote for a Democrat, and if a Democrat president were sending dissidents to the gulags by millions, you still wouldn’t vote for a Republican . . .

            Congratulations. You’re entirely irrational.

            For the rest of you who remain rational, there must be a point somewhere between where we were when Trump first took office and the extreme examples above that would make you vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. Try to figure out where that point is. Is it before they try to implement the Green New Deal? Would you wait until after they implement the Green New Deal?

            I look at the Green New Deal see all the candidates in the Democratic Party have endorsed it, and that’s all I need to know.

            I’m starting to wonder if any of you have gone over to Wikipedia and seen what the Green New Deal is all about.

        3. “Again, is there any extreme that the Democrats could go to that would make you vote for Trump to keep them out of the White House?”

          I’ve seriously considered that. Discussed it with people whose opinions I value. And…probably not.

          You, and those who think as you do, ARE the problem. You get exactly what you ask for, and deserve…more of the same.

          1. It is terrible all of this no new wars, three percent growth, rising wages and low unemployment. Boy the country is really getting what it deserves.

          2. Christ you are a narcasistic asshole. You really are.

          3. “You, and those who think as you do, ARE the problem. You get exactly what you ask for, and deserve…more of the same.”

            I see one party’s candidates all endorsing authoritarian socialism, and I see the incumbent denouncing it because it would destroy the economy. If you’re head is so far up your ass that you won’t vote for Trump–not even to prevent us from going down the road to authoritarian socialism, then I’m not the problem.

            1. Let’s see what F’dA refuses to vote against on principle:

              1) “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

              2) “Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

              3) “Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”

              4) “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

              5) “Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”

              6) “Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”

              7) “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

              8) “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

              9) “Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”

              10) “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution

              The time table to achieve all of this is ten years.

              Every Democrat candidate that I’m aware of has endorsed this plan. If you won’t vote against authoritarian socialism if it means voting for Trump and you’re not full of shit–then you might as well be.

        4. I repeat: They are promising to implement authoritarian socialism by way of the Green New Deal.

          This is just more of the scare tactics and fearmongering that Team Red/Team Blue uses every election season to get their herd of tribal members to stampede to the voting booth in order to stop the inevitable wave of destruction that the Other Tribe will surely bring to America. Don’t fall for the bullshit, Ken.

        5. If you’re not willing to vote for Donald Trump Hillary Clinton to stop authoritarian socialism fascism from being implemented from the White House, then whatever principle you think you’re upholding, it isn’t the one against authoritarian socialism fascism.

          You sound more and more like Tony all the time.

          1. Actually, I’d vote for Hillary Clinton if her opponent were advocating authoritarian socialism and she’d credibly denounced it.

            Wouldn’t you?

        6. I think a lot of [people are forgetting that teh green new deal is not just an environmental law its a social justice law that will force people to cat certain ways it is highly authoritarian beyond GIA

    5. As the Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, libertarian capitalists should become increasingly Republican.

      My position is and has been that libertarians infiltrate/co-opt the Republican Party the way socialists have the Democrat Party.

    6. OMG fuck off Republican whore bitch.

      1. That’s about the brightest comment you’ve ever made, you knuckle dragging Okie retard.

    7. Not when Trump is running up near trillion dollar deficits. I won’t vote for either of them.

      1. Actually, Trump backed a bill that would have cut $772 billion from a socialist entitlement program (for the first time ever), but phony “libertarianish” Republicans in the Senate wouldn’t vote for it–because of what it didn’t do.

        https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849

        Trump promised to sign that bill. If Rand Paul and his merry band of shitheads refused to cut $772 billion from Medicaid in the name of fiscal conservatism, that’s hardly Trump’s fault. If the shitheads around here egged Rand Paul on in the name of whatever, that isn’t Trump’s fault either.

  11. Meanwhile all the national news shows are crying about gasoline hitting $3 per gallon. I wonder what a gallon will cost when Beto and his boys get through with the energy industry?

    1. I believe Obama’s popularity hit some its lowest lows during the Gulf Oil Spill, when oil prices shot up. When inflation is low and labor participation is high and wage increases are steady, it’s easy to talk about making sacrifices for the environment.

      This is the problem with decisions being made by government rather than markets. Voting for sacrifices doesn’t actually cost you anything. Price signals are another matter. I made the observation last night–everybody says they care about starving children in Somalia, but what difference does that make if you aren’t willing to grab your debit card and make a donation?

      The carbon tax was far more popular when it was passed in Australia–right up until people started getting their heating and air conditioning bills. Then they came together, threw the government out of the legislature, and repealed the carbon tax.

      Yeah, when gas gets more expensive and those prices start filtering through the economy, shit gets real.

      1. “Voting for sacrifices doesn’t actually cost you anything.” Actually that is virtue signalling from the voting booth; those who do believe they are too far removed from the hoi polloi to be affected by any consequences. By the time they figure out it will most certainly impact them in very concrete ways, it will be a bit too late to “vote” on it.

    2. Shouldn’t matter, since you’re not supposed to have a car. Well, the little people, anyway- Beto and the rest of the ruling class will still have their limousines.

      1. Limousines are full employment for the masses after the elites have destroyed the economy.

      2. the climate warriors preferred limo is a black Cadillac Escalade SUV, and another one for their armed security detail.

    3. When the marks…er, voters start squealing, that is the time to break out the corporate greed conspiracy theories to divert attention from their policies.

      1. The corporations will have already been nationalized; that will be the time to “re-educate” the electorate.

        Amazing how so many think it will never happen to them, once you empower a government to do unto others it will invariably get around to doing it unto you. Good and hard.

    4. In the old days in the eastern bloc, gas was free. But the only people who had cars were important party officials, senior military officers, and powerful individuals who were also Party members in good standing.

      The democrats dream of a similar system to inflict on America.

      1. Well of course they won’t need cars, just take the collective light rail, wherever it will go.

        1. They can walk from their designated living quarters to their designated job. They can walk from their designated living quarters to their designated food receiving center. Efficient central planning will assure that neither walk will exceed 5 miles. No one will need travel to any other locations; such frivolous travel will be considered anti-social behavior.

    5. Well, gas is around $2.32 a gallon around here.
      Of course, there is 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax.
      And 13.625 cents a gallon state tax.
      But the gas is only $2.32 a gallon.

  12. O’Rourke’s plan requires significant technological innovations to be possible. I am not sure how one can make such grandiose claims based on breakthroughs in a field you know little to nothing about.

  13. Good grief. It’s pathetic to see Reason discussing this as if it’s a serious proposal. The only thing that should be said is one long hearty laugh. To walk through the particulars and outline it like it’s something even worth considering much less taking seriously… it’s just unbelievable. It’s not the Reason I grew up on.

    1. Beto wants zero emissions by 2050, I want Ferrari 250 GTO and a weekend in Vegas with Kaley Cuoco. As slim as my chances of getting what I want are, Beto’s are even slimmer.

      What a rube.

      1. weekend in Vegas with Kaley Cuoco
        John, surely you could’ve thought of something more appealing than this, right? For example, a week spent traveling Iceland with Uehara Hiromi is already five trillion times a better dream.
        Get some God damn taste, sir.

        1. Cuoco is fucking gorgeous. Uehara Hiromi looks like a guy. Who wants to hike around a volcano with some guy?

          Figure out which team you are dude.

          1. That’s fucking gross, man. But, I apologize. I shouldn’t have told someone with no tongue to acquire taste; that’s very ableist of me, and it then follows that you wouldn’t recognize the beauty of a cute piano virtuoso either.
            John, you’re a bigger faggot than the Tony Collective™.

            1. You are the one who wants a chick with no boobs, no ass, and who looks like a 12 year old boy. But I am the faggot. Yeah, whatever you tell yourself sweetheart.

              1. Big asses are overrated; tits are for cavemen. A flat-chested or small-chested beauty is the ideal woman. So yes, when you disagree with this universal truth and find disgusting hags attractive, you are indeed a faggot. (But not the faggot, because that wouldn’t be fair.)

                1. Big asses are overrated; tits are for cavemen. A flat-chested or small-chested beauty is the ideal woman.

                  Sure they are, if you are gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

                  1. Don’t know about you guys.

                    Either way is fine with me.

      2. Especially when Kaley’s spending the weekend with me.

    2. Yeah. Also, these people seem to frame climate change and the proposed solutions as a moral issue; thus discussing the economics is pointless. After all, it’s crazy. We know it; they know it.

      1. Yes, they do tend to frame climate change as a moral issue. Perhaps a reality-based conversation on the topic can begin there. Fine, they believe that it is all of our moral duty to stop climate change before it destroys the planet (in their reading of the evidence, anyway). How about we respond by saying that responding to climate change is not the *only* moral duty that human beings have. Protecting liberty, maintaining prosperity, are also moral imperatives. So what is the balance that is to be struck? Obviously we in the libertarian world should push for maximum liberty. And perhaps we can even come up with ideas to counter climate change that also preserve liberty, without us sounding like kooks and nuts screaming about socialism.

        1. Stopping climate change is another Herbert Hoover standstill agreement to benefit totalitarians. In 1931 the Moratorium on Brains helped German National Socialists, today it’s Chinese International Socialists.

  14. “…and require that federal lands plan for net-zero emissions by 2030.”

    Will that include oxygen?

    1. Notice that they only have to plan, not actually deliver – – – –

      1. +1 Plan for later, that way we don’t have to do anything now!

  15. “We will harness the power of the market, but also recognize that the market needs rules in order to function equitably and efficiently…”

    Priceless!

    1. equitably and efficiently
      Pick one and only one.

  16. Part one of the plan would use of executive authority “not only to reverse the problematic decisions made by the current administration, but also to go beyond the climate actions under previous presidents.” O’Rourke says he’ll reverse President Donald Trump’s decision to back out of the Paris climate agreement

    Sounds like a wannabe dictator. And the Paris Agreement is not enforceable as it is not a ratified treaty.

  17. Gorgeous gals like Beto for not being a Christianofascist. The good news is that the LP now sells porcupine earrings and such to ladies who hate Republican nazis but want electricity, jobs and plant leaves to remain legal. These products are in response to demand! Intelligent women are returning to the LP despite our cowardly defective planks–because Soviet Socialist Democrat losers have alienated them! Anyone can see that only hope for improvement is for the LP to pull away enough spoiler votes to defeat Christian National Socialism. Porcupine earrings YES!

    1. I might believe you, if there were any female libertarians.

  18. Looks around: The green policies enact massive taxes and inflation are not turning well for France. Political instability due to taxes, green rationing, never thought I’d see that in France.

  19. Do your part–wear the same blue shirt every day.

    He’s still dreamy. Would.

    1. I hear he carries a half-read paperback novel in his back pocket too.

      1. Yes but which book?

        More importantly does he know what 42 means?

        Even Ted Cruz and Gorsuch know that one.

  20. “O’Rourke wants net-zero emissions by 2050. ”

    Idiot or liar?

  21. How bout we give Beto a blanket party instead it won’t cost a thing & is a helluva lot more satisfying

  22. “Here’s What’s in Beto O’Rourke’s $5 Trillion Plan To Fight Climate Change”

    Mustard stains and gibberish.

    Dems are really holding each other’s beer. Party of, by and for clowns.

  23. I guarantee you that very little if any of the money the progs plan to spend on climate change will result in anything useful. Instead, it will go to grants on things like studying how trans people are impacted by climate change, how inequality is impacted by climate change, and paying layers to sue fossil fuel companies.
    The only tangible things you might see are more bike lanes and public transit projects that cost billions per mile and might be ready in 20 years.

  24. A trillion here, a trillion there…. pretty soon, you’re talkin’ real money.

  25. Hand-waving homo weak on economics.
    Who would have guessed.

  26. Incredibly vague. Another “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”

    If the media cared to direct the same scrutiny to this that it does to a Republican proposal, it’d be torn to shreds in a day.

Please to post comments