By RICK WHITBECK
When Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others rolled out the “Green New Deal” to America on Feb. 7, they hailed their resolution as a comprehensive plan to address climate change and economic inequality.
The responses I heard upon its release ranged from exuberance to disdain, as my friends and family read, watched and digested the sheer magnitude of the social and economic programs included in the Green New Deal.
The one topic that almost everyone came back to was the sheer cost of implementing the goals laid out in the legislation. How were we supposed to pay for it? What was it really going to cost?
Experts and policy groups were quick to supply some numbers. Over $1 trillion in regulatory and administrative costs. Between $51 and $93 trillion over the first 10 years for full implementation.
But those numbers were crunched and reported on within the first three weeks of the Green New Deal’s launch. What if a group spent some time and studied a portion of the plan in-depth?
That’s exactly what my organization, Power The Future, did. In collaboration with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we undertook a months-long deep dive into the prospective costs of implementing only the energy and climate-related facets of the Green New Deal for a typical household in five representative states (Alaska, Florida, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania).
Using readily-available and public statistics as starting points, we focused our research on four categories:
- Additional electricity demand;
- Costs associated with shipping and logistics;
- New vehicles; and
- Building retrofits.
The results are staggering. We found that a typical household in Alaska would pay more than $100,000 the first year, more than $73,000 for years two through five, and over $67,000 annually after that to implement the Green New Deal’s goals in energy and climate-related changes.
With the median Alaskan household annual income sitting at $66,251, who, if anyone, could afford the Green New Deal?
Before any readers start shouting, “Show me the math!”, we’ve done exactly that. The costs associated with the Green New Deal’s implementation are actually understated. The study excluded the costs to bring air cargo into compliance, for lack of available data.
Alaskans know all-too-well that this is a major pathway for delivery of so many of our goods and would be costly to change. The study also excluded a myriad of other Green New Deal program costs, such as a government takeover of healthcare and a guaranteed jobs program.
There was also no publicly available data on the costs to replace combustion engine-driven snow machines, ATVs, boats or private airplanes, so those weren’t included in the study.
For Alaskans, these are highly-used secondary sources of transportation to/from business, recreational and subsistence activities. Think of the costs associated with replacing each of them with electric capacity-driven alternatives.
Adding those numbers to the equation would likely make the Green New Deal even more gut-wrenching to the average Alaskan household.
The takeaway from all of this is that the Green New Deal sounds great to some on the far left of the political spectrum, but a closer look reveals the Green New Deal to be a smorgasbord of programs that would decimate Alaskan families, who simply cannot afford a $100,000 plus bill.
It’s time for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her far left allies to go back to the drawing board, because Americans will not, nor should not, accept a plan that will bankrupt our country.
Rick Whitbeck is the Alaska State Director for Power The Future, a national non-profit advocating for energy workers and development opportunities, while pushing back on radical green groups and the ideologues who fund them. Contact him at [email protected].
The “show me the math” link is dead. You just can’t make this stuff up . . .
.
Anyway, I’ll make a few risky predictions while you search for the numbers that prove your point.
.
1) Your numbers falsely imply that an Alaska family would pay an extra 100K a year by misusing averages. “The squad” supports a tax the billionaires, not the workers strategy. The idea is to return to the tax system of the 50s and 60s when the richest people in the country paid a top marginal rate of 90 percent. Which would claw back the money that Alaska loses to Amazon.
.
2) You ignore any of the savings that come from investing in green tech. Solar panels cost money. Windmills, wave generation, geothermal all costs money. But then you electricity bills are lowered or even eliminated. The off grid community should love the GND.
.
3) You ignore the economic impact of investment opportunities that come with expenditures.
.
Happy to be proven wrong when you fix that link.
We are being softened up for reparations. And soon only responsible, enlightened companies (Walmart) will be allowed to participate in the global markets based on their social rating. See the Emerging New Civilization Initative from the World Academy/Club Of Rome.
Adam
How are you going to pay for the green tech so we can save? I hate to break it to you but the rich people do not have trillions and if they did most will flee to another country. What will it cost to get off the grid to save? The electric bills will continue to pay for the upgrade just look at ML&P new power plant and whose paying for it.
Just another Communist/Fascist/Nazi Green New Deal. These people should be prosecuted for Treason because this is Aiding and Abetting the Enemies of a Constitutional Republic. We are the only Nation on Earth that was given a Constitutional Republic and now, almost no one will step up to the plate to defend it against all enemies, both Foreign and Domestic of our Republic. We are living in extremely Dark times. Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris
Hmmm, let me see if I have this straight, the group that wants to shut down all mining and resource extraction in Alaska wants everyone to drive an electric car and have a wind generator in their backyard. Where is the copper for all this terrific alternative electric green technology going to come from…certainly not the Pebble mine. If only we could power our world with good intentions. And what about our military? Can’t wait to see the plans for an electric aircraft carrier. It is the fundamental difference between what we want and what we can realistically do. But then the green warriors have no interest in reality. This is why the folks from Greenpeace block oil tankers with a ship made of mined materials powered by a big dirty diesel engine wearing $500.Gortex coats. The scariest thing to me is the number of seemingly intelligent people that buy into this hypocrisy. Clearly critical thinking is no longer taught in America’s schools.
A few points to consider:
1) The Green New Deal is only a resolution. It is not policy.
2) Alaska is already paying through the nose because of global warming. We are paying nearly a half a billion dollars a year in climate related damages, e.g. thawing permafrost, which damages roads, buildings, coastal communities, etc. If global warming is not arrested, this amount will steadily increase and we will be committed to always trying to play catch up by throwing more money at our “leaky vessel.”
https://www.alaskajournal.com/2019-01-02/iser-study-warmer-temps-will-cost-hundreds-millions-year
3) If and when some sort of Green New Deal is implemented, the economy will soar.
https://www.curbed.com/2019/4/18/18484733/jobs-construction-green-new-deal
4) Failure to address the climate crisis will cost us more than money, it will also cost us our freedom: freedom to hunt animals, to catch and eat salmon, to recreate in winter, etc. Failure to address the climate crisis will also drive a migration wave unlike any we have ever seen as places like Arizona, New Mexico, and California become impossible to live in as, “increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat.”
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southwest
5) My main point is this: the cost of not addressing the climate crisis will always be more than the cost of addressing the climate crisis, because the cost of not addressing the climate crisis will only ever compound and become more expensive as time goes on. It makes much more sense to be on the offensive than on the defensive – just like a war. And make not mistake, we need to treat this global crisis with the same degree of intensity and commitment as if we were under attack by a foreign adversary.
By the bye, I know that your readers are going to tear me to shreds (because that’s how we talk to each other now, I guess?) and call me some sort of Outside liberal cuck. FYI: I grew up in the bush of Alaska and have traveled more miles through Alaska by human power than almost anyone alive; I have visited many of the communities that are having to relocate because the sea ice doesn’t freeze in the fall anymore and storms are now eroding their communities; I am a witness to the damage that climate change is having on my/our state. If you want to write me off and pidgin hole me as a cuck, go ahead. Just know that you are wrong.
-Bjørn
It’s not real Bjorn. It’s all a hoax. You have been lied to and brainwashed.
Just a few thousand years ago glaciers extended through and over Anchorage and out into the Pacific.
Who is responsible for the end of that last ice age?
Why would you put any faith in a prediction for fifty years from now by the same people who can’t accurately predict the weather….this afternoon?
All Climate Alarmists’ claims are based on computer models. Computer models Bjorn. The same models that cannot accurately describe past weather pattern with known data of today.
It’s all a hoax Bjorn. All a hoax. Not real.
We are entering a period of diminished solar activity which will lead to global cooling. There, problem solved.
If the Green Raw Deal was free it would still be harmful. Let’s not loose sight of the fact that this is all a hoax. All make believe. All part of the liberal created fantasy reality. It never pays to argue facts with liberals who live in that fantasy. There ARE no facts in that reality.
Man’s greatest survival skill is our brains and our ability to adapt. Any time global changes occur there are winners and losers. Instead of trying (at untold expense) to turn back the climate clock, perhaps we should work harder at adapting to the “change”. Incidentally, all that global warming could be reversed with the eruption of a single good sized volcano spewing tons of particulates up into the upper atmosphere. People rarely make good decisions when they are operating out of fear and incomplete information. Our history is replete with cases of man doing things to try and outsmart nature with disastrous consequences. Now we want to monkey with nature on a global scale? Excuse the rest of us for being skeptical. Jus sayin.
Some of these young Liberals are so demanding about others conforming to their “needs” and “beliefs” that they fail to see reality.
We sure are thankful that our community power is generated by reliable, clean coal. States turning to wind/solar are experiencing stressed grids due to the unreliability of so called “renewable” energy sources. Coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants must be maintained and kept running to kick in when the “renewables” fail, and the entire grids become stressed.
Wind turbines have a useful life of between 10 and 20 years, and the blades are non-recyclable, which is creating issues for landfills.
The “Green New Deal” is simply a blueprint for socialist revolution and takeover of the economy, government and culture of America.
Comments are closed.