Green New Deal fakes climate policy
Plan is a wish list for socializing the economy
Details of Rep. Alexandria OcasioCortez’s long-awaited Green New Deal have dropped. On Thursday, alongside Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, she published a resolution and Q&A document that laid out the aims and tools intended to transform America into a zero-net emissions economy.
At least, that’s how it was sold. Delve into the text, and the climate change-curbing veneer amounts to a Trojan horse for a bigger nationalization of the economy than seen under President Franklin Roosevelt. The sponsors themselves say their goal is the “massive transformation of our society” in a progressive image, rather than simply stopping global warming.
How else can one explain policies that include a federal jobs guarantee, economic security for those unable to work, provision of housing, free health care, higher education for all and a family living wage? Besides calling for electrifying the whole transport system and undertaking a crippling federal financing of renewable energy over 10 years, it reads like a wish list for socializing the economy.
It is hard to make a good faith critique of this plan because it features a nearly complete denial of trade-offs or costs. This is surprising given that Ocasio-Cortez, a freshman Democrat from New York, has a degree in economics.
Consider the environmental policy proposals. Most Americans believe that climate change is happening, is influenced by human activity and has social costs. The idea that private action alone cannot overcome this is a reasonable view.
But even in some parallel universe where it was possible to implement an agenda that would replace the whole country’s energy supply with government-financed renewables, refurbish every building to improve energy efficiency, eliminate gas-burning cars, build extensive high-speed rail and cut the number of flights and cows to near zero, the cost would be astronomical.
Estimates from Stanford engineers of meeting power demand through clean, renewable zero-emission energy sources put capital costs at $14.6 trillion (almost three-quarters of current annual gross domestic product).
That’s why the resolution seeks to mobilize society as in World War II. If the nation can be convinced that the overwhelming social goal is countering the existential threat of climate change at all costs, then people would be will- ing to make sacrifices — be it lost economic growth, fewer flights or less beef.
It’s difficult to make that case when you tack on a myriad unrelated policies. According to the resolution, decarbonization must also be supported by a massive expansion of social spending. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan suggests it’s not true that we must take a hit today to ensure the planet’s future — according to this we’ll be richer too!
We are also told this will be financed by printed money. Ocasio-Cortez subscribes to the view that governments can apparently spend and spend forever, with the only constraint being the capacity of the economy. Yet, even under the crank Modern Monetary Theory model that recommends this, inflation will surely result.
Ordinarily, a pitch to put society on a war footing to adopt expensive power sources, restrict people’s ability to fly and eat what they want, and redistribute vast new sums of printed money would be considered bonkers. Yet Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, have endorsed this resolution.
Maybe they’ve noted that it’s easy to label those who disagree on climate policy as being “deniers” of science. By tagging this a “Green New Deal,” Democrats can shift debate toward radical unrelated positions. But make no mistake, this is a green-painted Trojan horse filled with the biggest single government expansion America has seen since the 1930s.