As liberal media outlets continue to harp on their climate destruction narrative, Green New Deal proselytizer and self-identified democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) continued to dish out doomsday defenses of her economically-catastrophic climate plan.
RealClearPolitics’ Philip Wegmann cited the concerns of Alaskan Governor Mike Dunleavy in an Oct. 29 tweet posted at 2:14 p.m., which stated, “What happens to Alaska if @AOC's Green New Deal becomes real? @GovDunleavy says, ‘it would impact our civilization as we know it.’”
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Wegmann’s tweet on her own page at 3:13 p.m. on the same day and responded: “Yeah that’s kind of the point.”
Wegmann proceeded to list the governor’s specific concerns in a follow-up tweet that was posted at the same time as his original tweet, saying, “He tells me…Oil would disappear. Gas would disappear. Coal would disappear. Alaska's population would plummet.”
Ocasio-Cortez continued in a follow-up tweet of her own at 3:17 p.m. on Oct. 29:
"The climate crisis threatens our way of life, and we must decarbonize our economy & way of life to save the planet. I wish it wasn’t such a bad situation too, but previous generations failed to act & now young people need to deal w the science of our future & create opportunity.”
Gov. Dunleavy, in response to Ocasio-Cortez’s 3:13 p.m. tweet, noted the following in his own tweet:
“Your Green New Deal would destroy Alaska’s economy. I invite you to visit Alaska, and I can personally show you how we responsibly develop America’s natural resources better than anyone. You’re welcome anytime.”
Estimations have put the overall cost of her Green New Deal (“GND”) at $93 trillion, which dwarfs MarketWatch’s 2017 estimate that all physical “‘narrow money’ (banknotes, coins, and money deposited in savings or checking accounts)” in the world amounted to just $36.8 trillion, $56.2 trillion less than estimated price tag of AOC’s GND. Even if “broad money” were included, which MarketWatch said “includes any money held in easily accessible accounts,” the total would amount to about $90.4 trillion. That’s still $2.6 trillion less than the cost of the GND.
It’s also a wonder whether her view of “science of our future” still mandates the need to ban cow farts or other things.
Other Green New Deal (“GND”) details such as getting rid of all combustion-engine vehicles, arranging to upgrade or replace every building in the U.S. for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, building enough high-speed rail to make air travel obsolete and providing government-guaranteed jobs, housing, education and healthy food, are equally bonkers.
Bloomberg’s Noah Smith wrote a Feb. 8, op-ed headlined “The Green New Deal Would Spend the U.S. Into Oblivion,” and noted that rough cost estimates on the GND, “which doesn’t include all of the promises listed in the FAQ — adds up to about $6.6 trillion a year.”
Smith also noted that “[$6.6 trillion] is more than three times as much as the federal government collects in tax revenue, and equal to about 34 percent of the U.S.’s entire gross domestic product.”
The American Action Forum released a study Feb. 25, which critiqued the GND’s economic effects aside from its $93 trillion price tag, and The Epoch Times summarized some of the study’s core findings:
"Household energy costs are projected to increase under the GND, the study also notes, with optimistic estimates suggesting that electricity expenditures would climb by 22 percent and ‘with an average monthly electric bill in 2017 of $111, the average household could expect around $295 of increased annual expenditures on electricity.'”
Fossil fuel divestment, which the GND calls for, hasn’t even been proven effective to begin with. Microsoft co-founder and liberal billionaire activist Bill Gates conceded that divestment from fossil fuels has done little to impact the environment. “Divestment, to date, probably has reduced about zero tonnes of emissions,” Gates told the Financial Times.
