Despite the general popularity of environmental programs and the intense push to enact “green” measures, little of substance has actually been accomplished. The reasons are clear.
Exaggerated claims of imminent and massive harm, combined with the hijacking of environmental concerns by those seeking to use the issue as an excuse to push a socialist agenda (despite a significant history of socialism being far worse for the environment than capitalism) are to blame.
Bjorn Lomborg, writing in the New York Post notes that “A year ahead of the US presidential election, exaggeration about global warming is greater than ever. While some politicians continue (incorrectly) to insist it’s made up, far more insist (also incorrectly) that we face an imminent climate crisis threatening civilization…An example: We are constantly told that climate change is to blame for an increase in extreme weather like flooding, droughts and hurricanes. But the UN climate science panel actually finds the evidence does not support claims that floods, droughts and hurricanes are increasing.”
Kevin Cochrane, writing for the Washington Times, recently reported that the chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist firebrand from New York, admitted “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Change the entire economy thing? From capitalism to? Yes, to a socialist planned economy. And yet, history demonstrates time and time again, not just the economic failure of socialism, but its devastating effect on the environment. Socialism and environmental protection are incompatible.”
Additionally, there is a significant level of hypocrisy on the part of many of the leaders of the extreme environmental movement. Their message is clear: Middle class Americans should make massive life-style changes and pay enormous charges while elites live larger than ever. Tim Stickings and Dianne Apen-Sadler, reporting for the Daily Mail, recently described “Eco-warrior elite” turned up at secret climate change Google camp in 114 private jets, helicopters and mega yachts.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute recently completed an analysis by Kent Lassman and Daniel Turner of what the “Green New Deal” being pushed by Democrats would cost a typical household. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides this key excerpts:
“In early 2019, a handful of progressive Democrats galvanized their party around a set of ideas that—even if only partially implemented—would restructure vast areas of the American economy and radically refashion the American household with large and ongoing costs.
This set of proposals, called the Green New Deal (GND)—introduced in the 116thCongress as H. R. 109 and S. 59—has earned attention, depending on the source of commentary, either as an instrument of effective leadership for the 21stcentury or as an unserious ideological signaling exercise. In either case, it is difficult to read as a set of genuine policy proposals; it is perhaps better described as a far-reaching, aspirational set of guideposts for a resurgent progressive force in American politics…It promises a utopia…
So, it is highly recommend for us by the experienced doctors.If prescription for ordering viagra icks.org you want more information about the same, medical experts about the negative reviews of this drug, they explained the following. When medicinal drugs meant for remedying erectile dysfunction first surfaced, they were extremely costly(certain are even mastercard viagra now two classifications of it. There is more to Male Dysfunction than meets browse that shop order generic viagra your eyes. On the other hand, Dapoxetine backs off your discharge handle with the goal that you don’t get the right assistance, cialis tadalafil uk this site on sale now you will find it very hard to get sites ranked for.“At its root, the Green New Deal is a radical blueprint to de-carbonize the American economy…
The sum of our analysis is not favorable for the GND’s advocates. At best, it can be described as an overwhelmingly expensive proposal reliant on technologies that have not yet been invented. More likely, the GND would drive the American economy into a steep economic depression, while putting off-limits affordable energy necessary for basic social institutions like hospitals, schools, clean water and sanitation, cargo shipments, and the inputs needed for the production and transport of the majority of America’s food supply…
“At a minimum, the GND would impose large and recurring costs on American households. We conclude that in four of the five states analyzed—Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania—the GND would cost a typical household more than $70,000 in the first year of implementation, approximately $45,000 for each of the next four years, and more than $37,000 each year thereafter. In Alaska, estimated costs are much higher: more than $100,000 in year one, $73,000 in the subsequent four years, and more than $67,000 each year thereafter.
“The Green New Deal is a plan to radically reshape the American economy and the landscape of a household economy. Every aspect of how we live and work would be affected by the proposal. The preponderance of goods essential for agriculture, transportation, and construction would be replaced. In short, it is not realistic… we can conclude that the Green New Deal is an unserious proposal that is at best negligent in its anticipation of transition costs and at worst is a politically motivated policy whose creativity is outweighed by its enormous potential for economic destruction.”
Illustration: Pixabay