PU Dumps on the New Green Deal

Next week, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez is reported to be submitting a legislative draft proposal to Congress for the establishment of a “New Green Deal.” The New Green Deal, based upon Franklin Roosevelt’s own “New Deal”, is a concept that has been floating around the nation for over a decade. AOC and cohorts have decided that now is the time to push the New Green Deal forward.

The New Green Deal proposes a plan to move the country from the use of fossil fuels to renewable energy and “zero” emissions of greenhouse gases. But it does not stop there. Included in the plan will be provisions for guaranteeing millions of people “good, high-wage jobs, clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food and a sustainable environment.

The New Green Deal is such a great plan, it will ensure prosperity and economic security for all people in the US, including health care for all. And, it will address the inequalities in racial divide by “repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”

The New Green Deal will accomplish all of this within ten years of implementation through investment in infrastructure and industry.

Who will develop the specifics for the New Green Deal? Politicians, their staffs, government agencies and liberal progressive groups. So what could go wrong? (Think Soviet Union and Chinese 10 year plans and you have the answer.)

Specifics of the Draft Proposal

The Draft Proposal is an outline of what is to be accomplished. It is left up to Congress critters to determine how to implement the plan. A quick look at the plan reveals:

(A) The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:So the idea is to achieve all goals and objectives of the plan within ten years. This certainly sounds like the Soviet Union’s ten year plans for just reforming parts of their economy and not a fundamental transformation of the entire economy. Did not work for them, and will not work for the US.

  • Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; 

This is interesting. The New Green Deal will offer 100% of our national power demands through renewable sources. And in only 10 years.The problem with this scenario is that only 18% of all US energy comes from renewable energy. And this number includes solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power.

Environmentalists do not want more wind power because of birds flying into the blades and dying. Hydroelectric power is out because that would require building more dams. Nuclear power is too “unsafe” and where would the spent power rods be housed. The solar panels needed to power an entire city would take up far too much land space, and powering electric vehicles? Forget about it.

Unless a new source of energy can be found, there is no realistic scenario whereby our current electrical needs can be met with current renewable energy sources.

(Point: Japan has no natural sources of gas and oil for their economy. Everything must be imported in. If anyone could devise a solution for renewable energy, Japan would already have done so.)

  • building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;

This is another progressive boondoogle idea, the building of a national, energy-efficient “smart” grid in a ten year time frame. Before any national grid can be started, the development of the renewable energy sources must be accomplished and work started on the various infrastructure (energy generating plants.)

Also not planned for is the actual resources and labor that will be required to actually build a new power grid in ten years.

The concept of the national, energy-efficient “smart grid” being built is more worthy of being included in a new DREAM Act. 

  • upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;

The New Green Plan foresees upgrading every residential and industrial building in the country for “state of the art” energy, comfort and safety. As of 2017, there was an estimated 137 million housing units in the country alone, not including industrial buildings.

An energy efficient upgrade for each housing unit would involve not just developing the energy sources, but also the delivery system. Homes would require conversion from natural gas to the new source, new appliances like ranges, ovens and water heaters, and new home heating sources. Gas piping would need to be changed, and new wiring installed. Each housing unit would require extensive remodeling.

Of course, there is no consideration of the labor required, the materials needed, and how the costs of each conversion would be paid for.

  • eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

The next goal is to eliminate greenhouse emissions from manufacturing and other industries. Once again, major problems arise.For many industries, there is no current option available to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing process. The technology does not exist. And if it could be invented, then the plants would have to be renovated and remodeled at great cost and time.Advocates of the New Green Plan also want to see greenhouse gas emissions eliminated from agricultural processes. This includes such activities as cattle farming.Cattle emissions (methane) account for 8% of all greenhouse gas emissions. What are the progressives going to do……..put filters over the rear ends of cattle to filter out the gaseous emissions?

  • eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;

Under this proposal, the subject of auto and transportation systems would be tackled. Alternative ways of powering cars, trucks, buses, trains, and planes would have to be developed. Ways to alter current vehicles would need to be developed, or else all current vehicles junked and everyone forced to buy new vehicles. Ain’t gonna happen.Ah, can’t forget the clean water demand.  I remember back in 1960 or so all the television commercials demanding action for cleaning up drinking water. 60 years later, the same is still ongoing. When will it ever end? Maybe there is no real problem anymore, but instead is simply a way of milking the political system further? (Just pondering…..)

  • funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases;

An ambiguous statement, what does “the drawdown of greenhouse gases” really mean? What levels should greenhouse gases be held to? And what is “massive investments?”

This sounds like nothing more than a way to funnel money to pet projects and big donors willing to contribute to Democrat causes. Establish a corporation claiming that they have the technology to reduce greenhouse gases or pull carbon dioxide out of the air, and you get funding. Does Solyndra ring a bell?

  • making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. 

So the idea here is to make the US the king of green energy and export the products to the rest of the world. This program calls for some very big assumptions.

The US really has limited manufacturing capabilities and innovation left. Now, most manufacturing and innovation occurs in other countries and products are built and then imported to the US. But the Democrats believe that they can change this pattern.

First, there is the problem of actually being able to create the new technology being needed. As with electric cars, there are very real problems in development of new technologies.

Then there is the cost of the new technologies and new products. If they can be built, will other nations be able to afford them. And if they can be built, why would China, Japan, Korea and other countries not reverse engineer and build their own products?

Why would other countries harm their own economies to implement practices that harm their own economies? Once again, the authors of the New Green Deal are being impractical in their thinking.

 To Summarize

The New Green Deal is a poorly thought out idea of Progressives and Democrats with their heads in the clouds. No reasonable consideration has been given for the practicality of developing such a plan, nor the logistics required.

The Draft Plan leaves it to government officials to develop the actual plans and objectives, with consideration given to the wants of special interest groups.

No real thought has been given to whether the New Green Deal is actually feasible. Instead, the authors rely upon the grand concept of Roosevelt’s New Deal to guide them. They use the concept as a way to move forward on all the various desires of Progressives everywhere, moving the country left in a more socialist ideal.

Next, we will look at how the New Green Deal is to be paid for. That is a scary thought indeed.

This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!


Written by PatrickPu

Been a cementer from Day 1 and invited to collaborate with Fossten on an Eminent Domain article in March 2016. That "mistake" by Fossten led to me taking a more active blogging role, much to the regret of cementers and other mods alike.

Current focus is on legal issues related to lending, foreclosure, the CFPB and Real Estate in general. Also specialize in "California Stupid" articles, showing how my home state is so totally wacko.

Provides background and context to the issues of the day which frequently sees me tossed in the Sparta Dungeon from what I write.

My dog Gigi assists me in writing, grammar and spell checking. She has her own series, "The Adventures of Gigi" which she writes when not playing, eating, sleeping, or taking walks.

What do you think?

10 points
Upvote Downvote

Leave a Reply


Smoking in Bed

GASP — Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution

Where Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Where In The World Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg?