by sundance
As Mark Alexander has noted, the so-called “climate change” agenda is all about socialist economic control, as evident in the insane requirements of the GND. According to Alexander, “It may be green on the outside, but is is red on the inside.”
Written as a resolution rather than a bill, the GND reads as a laundry list of socialistic changes attached to the overriding goal of combating climate change by making America 100% dependent on “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources … by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources [and] deploying new capacity.” Along the way, a second chief goal of the GND is to empower “frontline and vulnerable communities,” also known as the victim class.
While those on the extreme Left — including Vox writer David Roberts, who in December authored an extremely long treatise on the GND’s origins and eventual goals — were pleased to see the concept come to life, Roberts and others like him also know that the resolution left a lot of blanks to be filled by actual legislation.
One comparison for the GND could be made to the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is described by author Michael Grunwald as its own “ginormous energy bill.” A significant part of that “stimulus” money went to renewable energy and efficiency projects. But while best known for its support of failed green-energy companies like Solyndra and Ener1, it also created a large funding pool that lifted the solar- and wind-energy industries to the modest market share they now own.
Most of the 2020 Democrat presidential contenders were already behind the Green New Deal in concept, but its introduction allowed them to prove their environmental bonafides. Sen. scumbag-Cory Booker was “excited” to join in, adding, “Our history is a testimony to the achievement of what some think is impossible — we must take bold action now.” Fellow Senator and GND co-sponsor lowlife-Kamala Harris insisted, “We must aggressively tackle climate change which poses an existential threat to our nation.” Not to be outdone, Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren chimed in, “Climate change is real, it threatens all of us, & we have no time to waste to address it head-on.” She’ll also co-sponsor the resolution, which becomes a perfect palette from which these contenders can paint their own proposals to oppose President Donald Trump.
There was one contender with a more serious policy idea, though. Former Congressman John Delaney, who came from a business background and left Congress at the end of last term to concentrate fully on his long-shot Oval Office run, made the case that “the right answer on climate is to do whatever big thing can get done ASAP. … That’s why I support my bipartisan carbon tax-dividend proposal.” In fact, revenue sources such as a carbon tax aren’t being discussed in this rendition of the GND. Nor does the resolution explicitly call for the elimination of fossil fuels as some extremists would prefer. Adding the aspect of “clean” energy allows the inclusion of natural gas, which is generally accepted as a clean fuel. Fracking for it, on the other hand…
While there were compromises and large parts of the plan open for interpretation, the GND is still getting a cool reception from Democrat leadership. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?” asked House Speaker Nancy Pulosi somewhat dismissively. “Quite frankly, I haven’t seen it,” she added, “but I do know it’s enthusiastic and we welcome all the enthusiasm that is out there.”
Translation: She knows it’s pretty extreme, so just wait for her moderated “compromise” offer. By the way, Pulosi also pointedly did not choose commie-Ocasio-Cortez for a new committee on climate change.
Last month, our Brian Mark Weber called out the Green New Deal for what it really is: “a dangerous scam to destroy the country as we know it.”
Republicans, for their part, should certainly lampoon the GND’s most laughable parts — such as its promise of “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work” or “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States … to achieve maximal energy efficiency” or “build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” or to “replace every combustion-engine vehicle” (emphasis ours) — but they must be on guard for those aspects that seem somewhat reasonable by comparison.
We can’t dismiss the chance that some portions of the GND will make it through Congress or be executive-ordered by a future president. After all, people thought scumbag/liar-HillaryCare didn’t stand a chance when it was unveiled in 1993 and failed in a fully Democrat-controlled Congress. But a quarter-century later, Republicans controlled both houses and the White House and still couldn’t get rid of its successor. If nothing else, history shows that leftists are masters of incrementalism, especially when they conjure up a crisis and claim that only they can solve it.
Let’s be mindful of that history when the sun comes out tomorrow and provides its live-giving (albeit unevenly applied) brand of global warming. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/61049?mailing_id=4067&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4067&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
Comments