Four easy pieces

When $5 trillion is only a start

BETO O’ROURKE must’ve become tired of folks saying he was all sizzle, no steak. Earlier this month his website went from selling T-shirts to laying out policy positions. Which was surprising, because he didn’t focus a lot on policy when he was running for United States senator, hoping his grin and platitudes would get him by Ted Cruz. And it almost did.

But running (far) behind in the polls will sometimes light a fire under a campaign. And this week, Beto O’Rourke is striking matches as fast as the political winds will allow. This time: He’s released a plan to combat the “greatest threat” our world faces, climate change, and spend $5 trillion doing it.

We know, we know, putting scare quotes around Greatest Threat marks us for those climate change true believers. Still, we have a hard time thinking that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, or even the everballooning American national debt. And we need to remind readers of several guest columns over the years that have pointed out potential benefits in climate change, as published in that right-wing newspaper, The Washington Post.

But there’s a considerable slice of the electoral pie dedicated to fixing global warming, and if Bernie Sanders is going for the felon vote, and Elizabeth Warren for the free-college vote, then somebody can grab the environmental baton and run. Beto O’Rourke looks to do that.

So, for $5 trillion dollars, what does your money buy? Four easy pieces:

First, President Beto would “start cutting pollution on day one,” with executive actions. Most notable, he’d re-enter the Paris Agreement.

Oh, Lord, not that again. If you were to take a yellow pad, and list all the good and bad decisions of President Trump’s (first) term, getting out of the Paris Agreement would be at the top of the Good List. The agreement was a sham. Its only point was to punish the United States’ economy. Other countries “promised” to reduce carbon emissions, sometime in the future, after they’d caught up to the roaring American economy, maybe, but until then they’d continue to build coal-fired plants. And few of those countries have their versions of The Sierra Club, the Conservation Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the League of Conservation Voters, et al., which might bring lawsuits against those governments should they not live up to their promises. The United States, on the other hand, might be tied to any of

its promises with the stroke of a federal judge’s pen. Besides—and this really annoys the true believers—the United States’ global warming footprint has been dropping for years. Just Google “United States carbon emissions” and see the graphics.

Part of the $5 trillion bill in a nevernever Beto O’Rourke administration would be paid for, as his website puts it, “with the revenues generated by structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies. This investment will drive economic growth and shared prosperity—spurring job creation and adding to our GDP, reducing energy costs, improving public health, and boosting our overall economic, energy, and climate security.”

You know, because government “investment” drives economic growth. For a rejoinder to that theory, we give you the last American presidential administration, and the current one.

APPARENTLY, this plan would also guarantee a net-zero emissions in this country by 2050. That would be a neat trick, but how, if it were possible, would that have any effect on climate change? China is building 300 coal plants right now, from Turkey to Vietnam, from Egypt to the Philippines. Some experts say India’s coalfired plants alone would overwhelm global goals of reducing carbon emissions. That’s the thing about global climate change: It’s global. Even while the United States reduces its footprint, all that work is more than being canceled out by Asia.

The fourth pillar of Beto O’Rourke’s climate change plan is: more spending. But you knew that. More spending on federal crop insurance, disaster mitigation grants, and investing in the climate readiness and resilience of our first responders, whatever that means. It’s a dog’s breakfast of ideas, but in a $5 trillion bowl. And if you oppose it, you’re pro-pollution, and against your grandchildren.

We suppose it’s smart politics, and there are messages contained in it. The first might be that although Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too young to run for president herself, her Green New Deal might help somebody else stand out from the pack.

It’s a thin message. But then again, so are most bumper-stickers.