Election 2020

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren Unveil Dueling Trillion-Dollar Climate Policies

The two Democrats' climate action plans reveal a near limitless faith in the ability of government to reorganize the economy.

|

It's a big day for climate policy in the Democratic primary, as both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden have released major new initiatives to combat climate change and transition the U.S. to a bright, new clean-energy future.

"Science tells us that how we act, or fail to act, in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet," Biden tweeted today. "As president, I will use every authority available to me to drive progress."

Warren was no less sweeping in her rhetoric, saying that "with bold investments, we can fight climate change, achieve the ambitious targets of the Green New Deal, and create more than a million good jobs here at home."

Both plans call for spending trillions of dollars on green technologies in order to decarbonize industry and transition the U.S. to a net-zero emissions economy. Yet there's quite a bit of daylight between the two candidates' proposals.

Biden's Clean Energy Revolution is a more haphazard plan that does its best to squeeze a multitude of progressive hobby horses into a single proposal. It calls for spending $1.7 trillion over 10 years (which he says will kickstart a further $3.3 trillion in state, local, and private investment) to transition the country to net-zero emissions by 2050.

To do this, Biden would invest $400 billion in researching and developing clean energy technologies, build out a high-speed rail network, install 500,000 electric car chargers across the country, and rehab infrastructure and buildings to be more emissions-friendly and climate resilient.

On the regulatory side, Biden would impose new methane pollution limits, strict energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and fuel economy standards "aimed at ensuring 100 [percent] of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified."

His plan also calls for rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement—which President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of—and stepping up federal prosecutions of polluting corporations. Biden's plan also calls for limiting suburban sprawl and exploring greater use of nuclear power.

Warren's Green Manufacturing Plan, by contrast, is much more focused. In it, she calls for spending $2 trillion over 10 years on three major new policies. The first is a "Green Apollo Program," which would, as with Biden's plan, see the U.S. government spend $400 billion on "clean energy research and development."

Warren also calls for a Green Industrial Mobilization drive, which would see the federal government spend some $1.5 trillion on new clean energy products to be used by federal, state, and local governments, or resold abroad. Government purchases of these clean energy products would be limited to those made in America by companies that pay a minimum $15 per hour wage, guarantee 12 weeks of paid parental and medical leave, and allow their employees to exercise collective bargaining rights. Lest you think this will drive up the costs of procuring new green technologies, Warren's plan calls for "tight cost controls" on everything the government buys.

To round out her climate policy, Warren calls for a Green Marshall Plan which would spend $100 billion subsidizing the export of all these new U.S.-manufactured green technologies to foreign polluters as a way of helping them clean up their act. A new federal office would be established to help negotiate these deals with foreign governments.

In addition to being more focused than Biden's plan, Warren's is also more nationalistic and mercantilist, given her plan's explicit goal of boosting both domestic manufacturing and foreign exports. The senator has presented it as one part of her new "Plan for Economic Patriotism."

Both plans reveal a near limitless belief in the ability of government—with enough spending and enough regulation—to totally transform the U.S. economy. That should make all Americans incredibly wary.

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.

88 responses to “Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren Unveil Dueling Trillion-Dollar Climate Policies

  1. Warren’s plan calls for “tight cost controls” on everything the government buys

    Which, to Warren’s worldview, means hiring a team of accountants to review, stamp, and log every invoice, so that every wasted penny is thoroughly accounted for.

    1. I suspect she thinks ‘tight cost control’ just means the accounting department drinks a lot.

      1. two stupid bitches, both determined to ruin the country as fast as possible in the name of fake science and fake economic theories

    2. Of course she can say she will have tight cost controls while narrowing the pool of potential contractors to placate every Democrat economic constituency because none of what she says actually means anything that anyone will hold her accountable for.

    3. Warren’s plan calls for “tight cost controls” on everything the government buys

      She’s using the wrong word. Government can’t control the cost of a product, that’s a function of how much the labor that produces it costs. And at $15/hour + union rules – paid leave, the products are going to cost much more.

      Government can, of course, set price controls, by refusing to pay more than it wants. But as soon as the government decides it’s going to pay $10 for a product that costs $20 to produce, that product will disappear.

      The only alternative is for government to take over the means of production. Given government “efficiency” that will mean whatever the government is pretending to pay for the product, the production cost will be $30 or more.

      She’s the kind of person who looks at supply and demand and says, “It’s just an economic law. Government amends laws all the time.”

    4. Money.
      Power.
      Societal Control.
      Any questions?

  2. “Green Apollo Program”?

    Can we please make it a law to horsewhip, tar and feather, and ride out on a rail any politician who appropriates the memory of a successful engineering program to a pet project that is a completely different kind of problem?

    1. “Green Manhattan Project.”

      1. More like Green Godwinning

        1. “Green Final Solution?”

          1. “Green Soylent Green”?

            (Wait, that won’t work, all of the Green-Soy-Green farmers are now on Trump-free-trade $16 billion welfare, due to the DASTARDLY slant-eyed Chinese GOOKS retaliating against the pure-and-noble TrumpfenFuhrer’s attempts to purify our essences…)

            WHO will step up to the plate, and greenly set us all free?

            Rather that eat Soylent Green just yet, how about GMO-Cootiefied artificial bug meat?

            https://www.slashgear.com/lab-grown-insect-meat-may-be-key-ingredient-in-future-meals-02578803/

            Lab-grown insect meat may be key ingredient in future meals

            1. Socialism Green is People!

            2. It sure is awful that Trump is trying to get a better trade deal with China than the shitty one we had.

  3. I think I will run for President.
    I will just reduce carbon dioxide by killing all the socialists. If they can’t breathe out, they won’t pollute (after the decomposition, but I can project for 40 years, so it’s all good)
    I am still working on how all the plants get by once their food supply is gone, though – – – –

    1. Fertilize the, with the progtards. I think the excellent film ‘Motel Hell’ had a similar plot.

  4. I’m trying to imagine a rational argument for voting for anyone but Trump from the perspective of a libertarian capitalist. Somebody help me out. I dare you.

    The rational argument should acknowledge the existence of single member districts–with all the implications of Duverger’s law–and that the Democrat nominee is likely to support both authoritarian socialism under the guise of fighting climate change as well as Medicare for All.

    1. Fair warning:

      1) “Because Trump isn’t a true Scotsman” seems like a “no true Scotsman” fallacy to me.

      2) “Because I’m in a state where my vote doesn’t matter” seems more like an argument for why you shouldn’t bother to vote for anyone rather than why you should vote for someone other than Trump.

      1. 2) “Because I’m in a state where my vote doesn’t matter” seems more like an argument for why you shouldn’t bother to vote for anyone rather than why you should vote for someone other than Trump.

        Because your vote is still counted as having been for something specific, like a libertarian, rather than being tossed in the “bundle of the illiterate and apathetic whose opinions don’t matter.”

        1. “Because your vote is still counted as having been for something specific, like a libertarian, rather than being tossed in the “bundle of the illiterate and apathetic whose opinions don’t matter.””

          I suspect people are soothing themselves to sleep with a false sense of their principles.

          “I’m such a principled libertarian capitalist that I won’t vote for the alternative to authoritarian socialism” contains an inherent contradiction. I don’t even see that vote as a principled defense of libertarian capitalism.

          I see it as selling your principled opposition to authoritarian socialism short. If I don’t see it as a principled defense of libertarian capitalism, why would anyone else it that way?

          1. I suspect people are soothing themselves to sleep with a false sense of their principles.

            We all wish our principles could be as true as yours, but we are all mere mortals.

            “I’m such a principled libertarian capitalist that I won’t vote for the alternative to authoritarian socialism” contains an inherent contradiction.

            So Trump is the alternative to authoritarian socialism? And what do you call his unilateral economic decrees?

            Do you know what is a better alternative to authoritarian socialism? Libertarianism.

            My vote for an actual Libertarian won’t change CA going to a (D). My vote for Trump wouldn’t, either.

            So which shows a commitment to libertarian principles, a symbolic vote for an actual Libertarian in a context where it doesn’t matter, or a symbolic vote for a slightly-less-socialist economic authoritarian like Trump in a context where it doesn’t matter?

            If I don’t see it as a principled defense of libertarian capitalism, why would anyone else it that way?

            This may come as a shock to you, but you aren’t everyone.

            1. “So Trump is the alternative to authoritarian socialism? And what do you call his unilateral economic decrees?”

              I don’t remember defending Trump’s trade policies. The nicest thing I think I’ve said about them is that I hope I’m wrong about how destructive they are–for the sake of the American people.

              There’s a huge difference between Trump’s bad trade wars and mercantilism (on the one hand) and the explicit authoritarian socialism being espoused by Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Liz Warren, and other Democrat candidates.

              When they’re talking about using the coercive power of government to both socialize the American economy and make it green, they are not kidding. If they get into the White House, our only hope may be that the Republicans will somehow hold onto the Senate and Mitch McConnell will suddenly becomes more principled in opposition than he’s ever been before.

              If you think undoing ObamaCare was hard, wait ’til you see Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

              “America [will] never be socialist, and this administration will fight this central planning disaster,” [Trump] adding that the plan was a “roadmap to destroy the American Economy.”

              —Donald Trump

              https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/435263-trump-green-new-deal-is-the-most-preposterous-thing-and-easy-to-beat

              If the Democrats are using Medicare for All and the Green New Deal (and its cousins) as a vehicle for authoritarian socialism and the best way to frustrate those ambitions is to put Trump back in the White House, then the rational thing for people who oppose authoritarian socialism to do is to vote for Trump.

              We’re not talking about winning a flame war online. This is real like ObamaCare was real. I’m interested in really defeating authoritarian socialism.

          2. It’s the intellectually lazy form of libertarianism that seems to pervade here especially in the open border crowd. No need to analyze reality or conflicts in your principles when against the human condition. It’s a lazy form where the only way your purist ideals work is if you can force everybody to listen to your purist ideals. It’s ironic libertarianism.

            1. Kind of like the libertarians that appear to believe Trump shouldn’t be rocking the boat since we have such awesome trade deals with Europe and China.

      2. Don’t worry Ken, Suderman will write plenty of articles to support whatever garbage the DNC votes into the general election. Orange man will forever and always be bad to the cocktail sipping journo betas

        1. Boehm feels left out by your insults.

          1. Boehm sucks.

            There, now he isn’t left out.

      3. “Because I’m in a state where my vote doesn’t matter” seems more like an argument for why you shouldn’t bother to vote for anyone rather than why you should vote for someone other than Trump.

        Actually, that was my vote the last go-round. But, it’s not quite as simple as you suggest. In New York, at least, automatic ballot access is dependent on getting enough of the vote in the last election. So, for a New Yorker, voting for Trump has no possibility of helping him get elected (because, if NY is in play, Trump will win in a landslide from the rest of the country). But, voting against him for the LP helps ensure they get ballot access.

        Still, it’s not necessarily enough to turn me off in 2020.

        1. That was pretty much my thought process here in Illinois as well, voting for Trump does nothing to help him get elected, but voting for the LP at least helps them get recognition (we don’t have automatic ballot access here)

          1. You’re assuming that’s a good thing. I have become unimpressed with the LP presidential candidates and their runner ups.

            Better the LP should focus on developing voting blocks in states where they can get a foot in the door. Maybe even living up some House seats, or even a US Senate seat.

            Right now their is no fucking way an LP candidate will become president. Period. Maybe a spoiler to ensure a democrat victory, but that’s about it.

    2. I’m trying to imagine a rational argument for voting for anyone but Trump from the perspective of a libertarian capitalist.

      “Anyone” anyone, or “anyone from the current crop of Democrat frontrunners” anyone?

      You and I both live in CA. CA will go to whatever clump of cells has a (D) after its name. Given that your vote is purely symbolic, cast a symbolic vote that at least has symbolic meaning.

      1. CA will go to whatever clump of cells has a (D) after its name.

        You know what you can do with something that’s “just a clump of cells”?

        1. Only if you’re the parent.

          1. Planned, or otherwise.

          2. Not in New York State.

      2. “CA will go to whatever clump of cells has a (D) after its name. Given that your vote is purely symbolic, cast a symbolic vote that at least has symbolic meaning.”

        California went 60/30 for Hillary in 2016. I’d expect Trump to do better in 2020.

        Regardless, please see my response above to the argument about your symbolic vote. I don’t think your protest vote necessarily means to other people what it means to you.

        1. California went 60/30 for Hillary in 2016. I’d expect Trump to do better in 2020.

          I bet you any sum you care to name that CA goes to the (D) next election. Willing to take the bet?

          I don’t think your protest vote necessarily means to other people what it means to you.

          But you think your vote for Trump is going to mean to other people “principled defense of libertarian capitalism?”

          Why do you think that, given your response regarding what I think of my vote?

          1. I’d expect the Democrat to win California, but I wouldn’t expect it to be 60/30–not even with the Democrat winning the support of the Greens with the Green New Deal, etc.

            Average Californian voters are nowhere near as far to the left as the leaders of the Democratic party imagine. They didn’t shut down the bullet train because it was popular.

    3. Because your vote is not just a statement about whom you oppose, it is also simultaneously a statement about whom you affirmatively support. Voting for Trump in order to stop a Democrat, is an affirmative vote for the entire Trump package, whether you wish it to be so or not.

      Because voting for either Team Red or Team Blue is to endorse the ridiculous two-party duopoly that we have in this country, a duopoly that should have died a horrible death decades ago.

      Because voting for *anyone* will very likely not make any numerical difference on the outcome of an election, but it WILL make a difference in having to live with your own conscience thereafter.

      Because if you’re going to vote for a Republican, at least vote for one who isn’t a total asshole.

      1. Voting for Trump in order to stop a Democrat, is an affirmative vote for the entire Trump package, whether you wish it to be so or not.

        ^ This.

        “My victory represents the passion with which the American Public despises my opponent!”
        – No Politician Ever.

        1. No politician ever?

          What about the paradigm altering tweeter-in-chief?

        2. “Voting for Trump in order to stop a Democrat, is an affirmative vote for the entire Trump package, whether you wish it to be so or not.”

          I wrote up top about the obvious implications of Duverger’s law. I suspect some of you aren’t familiar with that.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

          If we libertarian capitalists can use the support of nationalists and anti-trade Trump supporters to prevent an authoritarian socialist from taking the White House, then that is a feature and not a bug.

          Yeah, if we don’t understand the shape of the game board and how the pieces can move, we might make all kinds of crazy arguments about how we should move our knight. Get to know Duverger’s law.

          1. If we libertarian capitalists can use the support of nationalists and anti-trade Trump supporters to prevent an authoritarian socialist from taking the White House, then that is a feature and not a bug.

            Ha! That is a good one. More like: The nationalists and protectionists would be using your support to implement only slightly-less-awful authoritarian bullshit. And you will have endorsed and enabled it.

            I understand Duverger’s Law full well. Which is why I support more fundamental electoral reform, beyond just “vote for the Team Red/Blue asshole in order to stop the Team Blue/Red asshole”. The size of Congress should be vastly increased, executive agencies should be under far more direct legislative control (which means more of a parliamentary approach to doing things), and more electoral innovations with things like ranked choice voting, like what they are doing in Maine and elsewhere.

            1. I support more fundamental electoral reform

              Ooh, ooh, while we are wishing, I wish for a pony.

              I have not done any actual research on ranked choice voting, but I live by one rule: never trust a dude in a tunic if Proggies are for it, you can pretty much assume it is a fundamental affront to republican democracy.

              1. If he understand Duverger’s Law and still relies on posturing and changing the electoral system–to make it seem like Trump isn’t the natural choice to stop the Democrats and and their rabid support for various flavors of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, then he’s probably not dealing honestly . . . which is entirely consistent with what I’ve seen from him in the past.

                We often get these strays from the left who come in here thinking that the only reason we’re not on the progressive bandwagon is because we don’t really understand the issues. There comes a time for all of them when the realization hits them that can’t support their authoritarian and capitalist assumptions with facts, logic, and honesty, and then one of two things usually happens:

                1) They go away and never come back again.

                2) They turn into trolls like Tony and Palin’s Buttplug.

                1. Posted accidentally, Butchered it!

                  “There comes a time for all of them when the realization hits them that can’t support their authoritarian and capitalist [socialist] assumptions with facts, logic, and honesty, and then one of two things usually happens:”

                  You knew what I meant.

                2. Oh, Ken, this is too funny, even for you.

                  Me: I support fundamental electoral reform, which would give more voices a seat at the levers of power in government, including libertarians.

                  Ken: Why won’t you endorse my argument for voting for Trump? You can’t be a real libertarian like me! You must be a leftie troll!

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist
                    June.4.2019 at 8:41 pm
                    “Me: I support fundamental electoral reform, which would give more voices a seat at the levers of power in government, including libertarians.”‘

                    I support energy taken from unicorn farts. I see we are in agreement.

                    1. Chem Jeff lives in a make believe world. Hes no better than freshman high schoolers talking about how great communism is if everybody would just do it their way. Jeff denies reality because it takes too much work to analyze his beliefs against it.

                  2. Pedo Jeffy once again displays his penchant for idiocy.

              2. So your position is, PROG MAN BAD? Huh. I was told that it was only progressives who used emotion over reason. Sure you’re not a crypto-progressive?

                1. FFS you’re stupid. Progtards are an existential threat to individual freedom. Even a dull little twat like you should be able to grasp that concept.

                  Why do you think I’m ready for the eventual time that either Americans show progressives the door, or Americans cease being American in any functional,way? Like the Terminator, progs don’t ever stop. Ever. They just steamroll what they can and use incrementalism to take the rest over time.

                  It never ever ends with them.

    4. It’s Flight 93 Elections for as far as the eye can see.

      “Let’s roll.”

    5. Here’s a rational libertarian argument for voting against Trump:

      To show that trillion dollar (or nearly so) annual deficits are not popular with libertarians.

  5. >>>Yet there’s quite a bit of daylight between the two candidates’ proposals.

    both plans benefit Them not We.

  6. When I see Elizabeth Warren, I make the face Fred Sanford made whenever he saw Aunt Esther.

    1. Fred Sanford and Aunt Esther interacting never fails to elicit deep, hearty belly-laughs.

  7. I do think we’ve reached a tipping point on Climate Change, but not the one Biden & Warren are talking about.

    Fifteen years ago, when the ‘hiatus’ was fresh and hadn’t yet been adjusted back out of the numbers, the people who would be talking Climate Change tended to be at least basically scientifically literate. You would, occasionally, see debates break out between two people of opposing views who actually understood a thing or two about physics and climate.

    Even ten years ago, you had people with pretty solid scientific backgrounds still arguing that the slowdown in warming might only be temporary, might be due to the heat being disguised in various ways, and what have you.

    I predicted about five years ago (when the last El Nino hit) that we would see a sudden ubiquitous and loud push on Climate Change items precisely because the empirical observations aren’t supporting the narrative (even while the goalposts shifted from “warming in excess of 3C/100yrs” to “warming in excess of 1.5C/however-many-years-you-choose”), while trillions of dollars have been lined up for spending and those trillions in planned spending aren’t going to go gently into that good night.

    But there is a very notable change in that there is much more scientific literacy among the ‘deniers’ now than there is among the believers, and the believers act more and more like religious fanatics the further removed they get from empirical data.

    When was the last time you heard an even vaguely science-based argument from a Climate Believer? When was the last time a Climate Believer cited an authority and called you a heretic for questioning it?

    1. God-Gaia told me climate change! Ye heretic denier ye!

      Meanwhile I am the “human carbon sink”!!!
      STOP yer un-clean and Gaia-destroying emissions, ye horrible Reasonoids!!! Be morally superior like MEEE!!!

      I obviously LOVE the Gaia Mama-Earth, as can be clearly seen by my Own Sacred Efforts to Serve as a Human Carbon Sink… Did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his / her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”… Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them that thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink… I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

      PS, the other thing I do to show my Love of Gaia? As a cat-loving, Gaia / Mother Earth Loving, Baby-Seals-loving kind of Morally Superior Personoid that I am, I have to conclude washing cloth diapers, or using disposal diapers, or flushing one’s urine stains or poop stains down the drain, wastefully, is all abhorrent to Gaia. So I fartilize the earth in the back yard with my poop and pee. Poop and pee STAINS remaining on me, you ask? Well, the Earth Mother has kindly, graciously provided us ungrateful sub-humanoids with PERFECT puddy-tats to show us the way! They use neither cloth nor un-natural fibers to clad their babies’ butts, or even to wipe their own… They LICK them clean, in a Gaia-loving way. Most of us can’t lick our own butts, sad to say, so the VERY least we could, and should, be doing, is to use recycled cloth butt-wipes and lick them clean, wasting neither precious water (Gaia-Mother’s precious BLOOD, you know!) nor fiber, nor polluting the Mother Earth with artificial fibers or pollutants. If y’all aren’t doing it like I say, here, y’all are just making the baby seals cry, that’s all I gonna say now… Do as I say, REPENT NOW! Before it is too late!

      1. I no longer have an inside toilet. I built an outhouse in the back from repurposed lumber and do my duty outside, doing my part to end climate change.

        I call on Al Gore and Leonardo DeCraprio to follow suit.

        1. Well, Rockabilly, for yer outdoor outhouse, ye (on a 0 to 100 scale), ye deserve a “10” for coefficient of being “environmentally woke”.

          Use vintage turn-of-the-century Sears-and-Roebuck catalogs to wipe yer butt? Another 20 points for ya!

          Use corncobs instead? 40 points! Total 50 now!!!

          To be as “environmentally woke” as MEEE, now, at the full 100, ye must wipe yer butt with a recycled cloth, then personally lick it clean, for future re-use!!! Wasting neither toilet paper, nor precious fresh water!!!

    2. I predicted about five years ago (when the last El Nino hit) that we would see a sudden ubiquitous and loud push on Climate Change items precisely because the empirical observations aren’t supporting the narrative

      Well it was 5 years ago that that temperature slowdown ended – and empirical observations since then ARE now fitting the models predictions better. And there are in fact scientific studies trying to figure out the causes of irregularities in trends of global surface temperatures – both periods of slower than modeled (1896-1910; 1941-1975; 1998-2013) and faster than modeled (1911-1940; 1976-1997)

      Personally I think they are spending way too much time focusing on what is essentially irrelevant (whether the models can be deconstructed successfully into what is explained v what isn’t) and nowhere near enough on the far more difficult stuff of getting out of climate macrostatistics and into meteorological/local impacts. But for you to assert that science isn’t happening is merely you asserting ignorance.

      1. Yeah I see it a little bit differently too.

        I do think S=C has a point that the Climate Change Consensus has been elevated to the status of dogma by the activists on the left. That by itself is problematic.

        But I don’t necessarily think that “there is much more scientific literacy among the ‘deniers’ now than there is among the believers”. I think instead that both sides of the activist spectrum have more or less realized that the scientific facts don’t really matter as much as the particular catastrophe narrative that they can get persuadable folks to adopt. So the left has the Climate Catastrophe Narrative, and the right has the Socialism Catastrophe Narrative. Scientific fact has taken a back seat to whichever fear-based narrative can sell better. Which is kind of sad, really.

        1. I think OLD people on both sides have adopted those narratives. But mostly as a way of continuing their hoary old battles with each other. Fitting convenient facts into their narrative and ignoring inconvenient ones. And yeah I agree that their intent is simply to persuade folks who they think are persuadable by rhetoric/fear.

          But the key takeaway from climate change facts is really that old people are irrelevant. They/we will soon enough be dead. Whether they come to believe or deny the impact before they die is irrelevant. They are incapable of changing their behavior before they die. And whatever happens will mostly happen after they die.

          I’m not sure the young really understand how much they have to blaze this stuff on their own. Right now, they seem like they are just being coopted into the same old DeRp which is the main function of that narrative – to coopt the next generation onto the road to DeRpdom.

          1. The Road to Derpdom.

            That’s a classic.

            Is it yours, or should I credit someone else when I use it?

            1. Credit Hayek. I just contributed a couple letters.

          2. “…I’m not sure the young really understand how much they have to blaze this stuff on their own…”

            With any luck, they’ll grow up and realize the pile of shit they are supposed to believe is a pile of shit.
            And tell you and the Warrens of the world to stuff it.

    3. They’ve stopped talking about the current temperature and instead started focusing on carbon PPM levels and wildly alarmist future projections for sea level rise.

  8. Biden’s plan also calls for limiting suburban sprawl…

    As I recall this was on the Obama administration’s enemies list, or maybe backers just wanted/expected it to be.

    I like the idea that government spending alone is enough to spur innovation. It defines a problem and identifies an easy path to the solution to that defined problem. What could be more simple?

  9. The twin morons will make good on their New (Green) Deal promises when POO* makes good on his Big Beautiful Wall, Paid For By Those Greasy Rapist Drug Gangs Below The Border promise.

    *President Orange Obstruction

    1. I didn’t think it was possible for you to get more retarded, shriek. But here we are.

    2. “…when POO*…”

      Oh, LOOK!
      Our infantile lefty imbecile now uses an asterisk to prove how imbecilic he is.
      Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

      1. Why does PB need a sock that everyone hates just as much as his PB sock?

        I don’t see the point.

  10. So in other words spend like a drunken sailor, a Republican or a Democrat.

    What happens when there are no more chairs to sit in here? I guess devalue the currency, abscond with 401k money through higher taxes, means testing of old age redistribution, among other schemes.

    1. MMT will save us!

  11. Good grief, no mention of nuclear.

  12. “Warren’s is also more nationalistic and mercantilist, given her plan’s explicit goal of boosting both domestic manufacturing and foreign exports. The senator has presented it as one part of her new “Plan for Economic Patriotism.””

    I see Warren has at least partially learned from 2016 and is trying to coax some of the base away from Trump.

    Which is hilarious when you think about all of the howling at Trump policies.

  13. “Biden would impose new methane pollution limits, strict energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings,”

    If these assholes try to make buildings any more energy efficient, we’re going to be back to the days of no air conditioning and candles.

  14. Jack Johnson: [on TV] I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

    John Jackson: [on TV] And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough!

  15. “The two Democrats’ climate action plans reveal a near limitless faith in the ability of government to reorganize the economy.”

    It’s not that they have “faith” in the ability of government to control the economy. It’s that that control is the *goal*.

    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

    1. Hope we are see a better result… thanks

    2. And this is why progtards have to go.

  16. Of course it will be the call to raise taxes on business and individuals but hasn’t all that hypothetical money already been spent to solve SS, Medicare, free college, family leave, reparations………
    If only I could make a dollar cover so many different expenses. Sigh.

  17. Hope we will watch better result.. thanks

  18. “Government purchases of these clean energy products would be limited to those made in America by companies that pay a minimum $15 per hour wage, guarantee 12 weeks of paid parental and medical leave, and allow their employees to exercise collective bargaining rights.”

    Glad Warren isn’t playing to the unions, or anything.

  19. Here’s what’s NOT in any of the trillion (or multi trillion) dollar climate crisis plans:

    1. The trillion dollars (or multiple trillions of dollars)
    2. Any guarantee that they will have any effect on the climate at all

  20. I have an idea for green energy… How about we dye gasoline and coal green before we burn it? Does that count? It would be a lot more cost effective!

  21. […] Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren Unveil Dueling Trillion-Dollar Climate Policies […]

Please to post comments