Some Analysis of the Green New Deal

I apologize for linking to Twitchy, whose tone and format I neither enjoy, but it's a good single link to a series of posts.

UPDATE: "Growing number" of Dem 2020 hopefuls signing on to Green New Deal.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

When I read the outline of the Green New Deal, many things jumped out as being impractical or impossible. (carbon neutral agriculture? Carbon negative agriculture? Even if we do come up with super-efficient electrical plows and combines, what about fertilizer?) How are they going to supply southern California with water without constant, reliable electrical power to run the pumps? (Same for my city.)

Those were just some of the questions I had. It's not practical and it's not even good propaganda.

LittleRed1

Grim said...

The first thing that jumped out at me was "guaranteed employment," which was a core feature of the Soviet central planning. The second thing was that some of the monies 'collected' were to be used for reparations for America's sins against favored minority groups -- as assigned by government bureaucrats, rather than some process in which the American people were consulted about what was fair.

Turns out the rest of it doesn't work either, but those two items were enough either by themselves.

douglas said...

It's always amazing to me how people so easily fall for a 'Rainbows and Unicorns' pitch. But then, look how many lottery tickets they sell every week...

David Foster said...

"The Green New Deal proposes eliminating nuclear, natural gas, LNG, oil and coal in the next eleven years."

re LNG: from a US perspective, this is largely an export commodity. If you were a decision-maker in, say, Germany...and you thought there was any significant chance of the GND actually being implemented...would you want to commit several billion $$ to build a port facility for reception of American LNG?....or maybe just stick with pipeline-supplied gas from Russia.

Grim said...

You're right; there's little reason to liquefy it except for export on tanker ships. In addition to the investment issue, it's a national liberty issue for many countries in Eastern Europe. For example, Ukraine might want to buy American LNG to protect it from Russian domination. Will they not be able to do so, because we decide it's immoral to sell it to them? More immoral than leaving them to the Russians?

Another great feature: banning cars that the government deems unnecessary. "You are not authorized private transportation, citizen. Only the Inner and Outer Party is permitted such things, given their increased needs arising from service to the greater good."

David Foster said...

"Only the Inner and Outer Party is permitted such things, given their increased needs arising from service to the greater good."

And, of course, this privilege can be withdrawn at any time. That's the advantage, from the standpoint of the rulers, of government-issued privileges versus actual ownership.

In his memoirs, Russian rocket developer Boris Chertok mentioned a relative who was a talented sculptress. She deeded all of her work to The People, receiving in return some sort of pension. You can bet the pension was subject to being withdrawn at any time for political Badthink.

douglas said...

Eliminating Nuclear? If someone claims to believe that we're facing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and is against nuclear power, I understand immediately that they are neither truly believing what they say, and/or they know absolutely nothing about nuclear power.

Even if you think nuclear waste is a problem, at least it's a problem that we have time to deal with, as they're claiming we don't have with CAGW.

As for the rest, Bjorn Lomborg made the point very well in his documentary "Cool It" that trying to halt global warming was pointless, and money would be much better and more humanely spent elsewhere mitigating the problems (I'll add- if they even exist).

If you look closely enough, you find out it's always about power. Always.