Thoughts on the Green New Deal

It's about time that I share my thoughts on the Green New Deal. Technically speaking, this was designed as a framework, so there is a lot of guesswork when it comes to specifics. So what do I think? The Green New Deal is unrealistic in its environmental components, and half the proposal doesn't even relate to the environment. It is essentially a liberal extremist proposal hidden behind the guise of environmentalism.



I have given you a quick summary of my thoughts, and most of my comments match what you have likely seen elsewhere. I guess that means you can quit reading. Because of all the issues I see, I still want to let go of a little steam that has been building up. Comments below are more for me than they are for you.

I am not a denier. I would love it if I could snap my fingers and suddenly find all energy sources becoming clean. The Green New Deal proposes switching the entire power grid to clean energy within ten years. That may not be as quick as snapping fingers, but it is still unrealistic.

Another issue is that no energy source is perfect. Overdoing any energy source can have environment consequences. The favorites of wind and solar power both take substantial space to generate power, and both are reliant on the weather cooperating. Wind plants are known to kill birds. There are environmental issues with manufacturing batteries required for solar power. I could add hydroelectric power to the mix, which is known to kill fish.

All of this is further complicated by another proposal. They want to get rid of cars with combustion engines. The Democrats aren't just pushing to develop enough clean energy to offset the loss of such things as coal and natural gas. They also need to boost clean energy to accommodate a massive dump of vehicles on to the power grid. I do not view it as ideal to simultaneously eliminate energy sources such as coal and natural gas while boosting demands for electricity.

Most cars are still combustion, and I would be shocked if any commercial airplanes currently meet the proposed requirements. Is this proposal demanding that anyone buying a car or airplane must commit to replacing them within ten years. Even if they don't, it will be more difficult to find fuel. The impact on cars is especially concerning. People with limited means will be hit harder by such a push.

Aren't the Democrats supposed to believe in equity. The Green New Deal seems to embrace inequitible policies. Perhaps that's why they feel obligated to bundle their environmental proposals with unrelated concepts. Even if this is their reasoning, there is plenty of room for concern.

Among the non-envirinmental concepts is improved access to "higher education." There are different ways that this can be interpreted. If you look more at recent proposals from the Democrats, they are probably looking to subsidize college. Credentialism is an inequitible concept.

Strengthening our credentialist arms race makes it more difficult for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to acquire the credentials required to stand out. Even if they expanded on subsidized college for as long as people are willing to attend, not just to a four-year degree, it's not those with limited means who are most likely to forego an income. This expensive proposal also increases the cost of living, which also disproportionately harms those who are struggling financially. Ultimately, this handout to the poor primarily benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

Other proposals attached to the Green New Deal include guaranteed jobs and health care for everyone. Both of these concepts are highly controversial and have nothing to do with the environment. They are also socialist concepts. As much as the Democrats don't want people to know it, it is possible to believe in capitalism while maintaining an environmental conscience. It is wrong to lump the two together.

Let me make something clear. Opposing the Green New Deal does not mean that someone doesn't care about the environment. It means that someone opposes the proposal as a whole. If someone believes that the harm embedded outweighs the good or that we should be pursuing a more realistic approach to addressing global warming, that should not be sufficient to justify some of the criticism I have been seeing. Attacking the Green New Deal is not the same as attacking climate science.