Bernie Sanders’ version of the Green New Deal will accomplish the same nothing, but for a mere $16T
by Becket Adams
August 22, 2019
With the exit this week of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee from the 2020 Democratic primary, there is an opening now for one of the remaining candidates to become the champion of climate change.
It looks like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wants to be that candidate.
The Vermont senator’s campaign on Thursday unveiled his version of the Green New Deal, a measure first proposed by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey. Like the original nonbinding resolution championed by the New York congresswoman, Sanders’ proposal promises to create millions of jobs while also eliminating the need for fossil fuels. And such as the plan of the same name unveiled in February, Sanders’ pitch promises to deliver a “more just and equitable future.”
All this for the low, low cost of just $16.3 trillion, according to the senator’s own estimates. Sure, that may be a lot of money, but it is considerably cheaper than the Ocasio-Cortez deal, which could cost anywhere between $52 trillion and $93 trillion.
Sanders’ scheme calls specifically for the elimination of fossil fuels by the year 2050. In return, the senator promises an additional 20 million jobs.
“The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country,” the senator’s plan states, “it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately.”
It adds, “We need a president who has the courage, the vision, and the record to face down the greed of fossil fuel executives and the billionaire class who stand in the way of climate action. We need a president who welcomes their hatred. Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change.”
To fight the deleterious effects of climate change, Sanders proposes the following allocation of public funds:
$40 billion for “frontline communities and “under-resourced groups” to “recover from, and prepare for,” climate change.
$200 billion for the Green Climate Fund.- $681 billion for “low- and moderate-income families and small businesses for a trade-in program to get old cars off the road.”
$1.52 trillion for investing in renewable energy - $852 billion to build “energy storage capacity.”
$526 billion for investing in a “modern, high-volt, underground, renewable, direct current, smart, electric transmission and distribution grid will ensure our transition to 100 percent sustainable energy is safe and smooth.”
$964 billion for “sliding-scale grants for low- and moderate-income families and small businesses to invest in cheaper electricity for these needs.”
$2.09 trillion in grants to low- and moderate–income families and small businesses to “trade in their fossil fuel-dependent vehicles for new electric vehicles.”
$85.6 billion for building “a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure network similar to the gas stations and rest stops we have today.”
$407 billion in “grants for states to help school districts and transit agencies replace all school and transit buses with electric buses.”
$216 billion to replace all diesel tractor trailer trucks with “fast-charging and long-range electric trucks.”
$300 billion to “increase public transit ridership by 65 percent by 2030.”
$607 billion for a regional high-speed rail system that would “complete the vision of the Obama administration to develop high-speed intercity rail in the United States.”
$30 billion for a solar energy storage initiative.
$100 billion to decrease the cost of a new electric vehicle to “at most $18,000.”
$500 billion to research technologies “to fully decarbonize industry.”
$150 billion to “fully decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping and transportation.”
$75 billion to improve roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure.
And much, much more.
The senator’s campaign promises the plan will pay for itself within 15 years, in part by making the fossil fuel industry “pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.” Who knew you could tax and sue $16 trillion out of a domestic industry with a market cap that's a small fraction of that amount.
Most interesting of all, however, is what is largely missing from the 35-page climate change document.
China is mentioned only five times and India is mentioned once. Neither country is recognized explicitly for being the world's leaders in pollution, adding on more than enough carbon emissions to offset any U.S. reductions. Sanders’ proposal never once explains how he intends to address either country's carbon footprint. Nor could he.
In fact, one of the only mentions of China appears in the context of accusing the United States of outsourcing its pollution to foreign countries, which only underscores the point. Another mention of China comes in the context of the senator promising to “support less industrialized nations in the Global South, excluding China, to help them reduce emissions by 36 percent from 2017 levels by 2030.” Also, the word “nuclear” appears only five times throughout the entire document. These mentions appear in a single paragraph, which calls for an end to “the building of new nuclear power plants" and for "a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem.”
In other words, this proposal isn't serious. But at least it costs a lot less than the earlier one!
Link https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-version-of-the-green-new-deal-will-accomplish-the-same-nothing-but-for-a-mere-16-trillion
This is of course a fantasy, but how you going to produce all of that electricity without fossil fuels or nuclear, Bernie?
by Becket Adams
August 22, 2019
With the exit this week of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee from the 2020 Democratic primary, there is an opening now for one of the remaining candidates to become the champion of climate change.
It looks like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wants to be that candidate.
The Vermont senator’s campaign on Thursday unveiled his version of the Green New Deal, a measure first proposed by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey. Like the original nonbinding resolution championed by the New York congresswoman, Sanders’ proposal promises to create millions of jobs while also eliminating the need for fossil fuels. And such as the plan of the same name unveiled in February, Sanders’ pitch promises to deliver a “more just and equitable future.”
All this for the low, low cost of just $16.3 trillion, according to the senator’s own estimates. Sure, that may be a lot of money, but it is considerably cheaper than the Ocasio-Cortez deal, which could cost anywhere between $52 trillion and $93 trillion.
Sanders’ scheme calls specifically for the elimination of fossil fuels by the year 2050. In return, the senator promises an additional 20 million jobs.
“The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country,” the senator’s plan states, “it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately.”
It adds, “We need a president who has the courage, the vision, and the record to face down the greed of fossil fuel executives and the billionaire class who stand in the way of climate action. We need a president who welcomes their hatred. Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change.”
To fight the deleterious effects of climate change, Sanders proposes the following allocation of public funds:
$40 billion for “frontline communities and “under-resourced groups” to “recover from, and prepare for,” climate change.
$200 billion for the Green Climate Fund.- $681 billion for “low- and moderate-income families and small businesses for a trade-in program to get old cars off the road.”
$1.52 trillion for investing in renewable energy - $852 billion to build “energy storage capacity.”
$526 billion for investing in a “modern, high-volt, underground, renewable, direct current, smart, electric transmission and distribution grid will ensure our transition to 100 percent sustainable energy is safe and smooth.”
$964 billion for “sliding-scale grants for low- and moderate-income families and small businesses to invest in cheaper electricity for these needs.”
$2.09 trillion in grants to low- and moderate–income families and small businesses to “trade in their fossil fuel-dependent vehicles for new electric vehicles.”
$85.6 billion for building “a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure network similar to the gas stations and rest stops we have today.”
$407 billion in “grants for states to help school districts and transit agencies replace all school and transit buses with electric buses.”
$216 billion to replace all diesel tractor trailer trucks with “fast-charging and long-range electric trucks.”
$300 billion to “increase public transit ridership by 65 percent by 2030.”
$607 billion for a regional high-speed rail system that would “complete the vision of the Obama administration to develop high-speed intercity rail in the United States.”
$30 billion for a solar energy storage initiative.
$100 billion to decrease the cost of a new electric vehicle to “at most $18,000.”
$500 billion to research technologies “to fully decarbonize industry.”
$150 billion to “fully decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping and transportation.”
$75 billion to improve roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure.
And much, much more.
The senator’s campaign promises the plan will pay for itself within 15 years, in part by making the fossil fuel industry “pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.” Who knew you could tax and sue $16 trillion out of a domestic industry with a market cap that's a small fraction of that amount.
Most interesting of all, however, is what is largely missing from the 35-page climate change document.
China is mentioned only five times and India is mentioned once. Neither country is recognized explicitly for being the world's leaders in pollution, adding on more than enough carbon emissions to offset any U.S. reductions. Sanders’ proposal never once explains how he intends to address either country's carbon footprint. Nor could he.
In fact, one of the only mentions of China appears in the context of accusing the United States of outsourcing its pollution to foreign countries, which only underscores the point. Another mention of China comes in the context of the senator promising to “support less industrialized nations in the Global South, excluding China, to help them reduce emissions by 36 percent from 2017 levels by 2030.” Also, the word “nuclear” appears only five times throughout the entire document. These mentions appear in a single paragraph, which calls for an end to “the building of new nuclear power plants" and for "a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem.”
In other words, this proposal isn't serious. But at least it costs a lot less than the earlier one!
Link https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-version-of-the-green-new-deal-will-accomplish-the-same-nothing-but-for-a-mere-16-trillion
This is of course a fantasy, but how you going to produce all of that electricity without fossil fuels or nuclear, Bernie?
