Unsurprisingly, Study Finds GND Would Do Nothing For Climate Change Even If It Worked

This is something anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, but it is always good to have a study backing up such thoughts. Common sense and logic dictate that the Green New Deal, even if it worked as advertised, would do nothing to combat climate change considering it would only apply to the U.S. and there are other countries that pollute even more than we do.
 
But a study from the American Enterprise Institute looked into this sort of thing and found the same results: the GND, even if it worked exactly as advertised, doing everything it did financially effectively, would do next to nothing to combat climate change.
 
The study, written by Benjamin Zycher, begins by saying that the GND’s central goal is to implement policies that would “reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to ‘net zero’, by 2050 in some formulations,” and that the way it would go about it is by “reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy-producing and energy-consuming capital stock,” which the proposal claims would “increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity.”
 
To Zycher, that is a “’broken windows’ argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.”
 
Zycher then notes that “the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173° by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter… Under the assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083° by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.”
 
In other words, the impact of the GND on climate change would be pretty much unnoticeable even in 80 years. And considering we only have 12 years to live, according to the brilliant AOC, I’d say that’s not a good thing.
 
But Zycher does not simply end there. He also recognizes what the GND’s TRUE purpose is. It is not about fighting climate change, despite what the people supporting it will claim. It’s such a ridiculous and not-at-all well-thought-out proposal that one glance is all anyone needs to tell this wouldn’t work.
 
Replacing every single building in the country? Eliminating cow farts? Those two things alone are pretty darn impossible to pull off, let alone all the other junk in it.
 
No, its true purpose is to fundamentally change the United States into the definition of a socialist country: a country where the government owns the means of production. As Zycher puts it, the GND’s “real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.”
 
It is policy meant to give all the power to those in government while utterly decimating everyone else. Especially considering the GND’s electricity mandate, which would cost tax payers around $490.5 billion a year, and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, or $3,845 per household. According to Zycher, this “impact would vary considerably across the states if the GND were financed through electricity rates rather than the federal budget. Under such a ratepayer finance assumption, the lowest household cost of $222 per year would be observed in Vermont. The highest would be observed in Wyoming: $17,103 per household per year.”
 
And just like that, Wyoming would lose pretty much all of its population. And considering they only have about 577,000 people in that entire state (I was honestly stunned at that number. There are more people in the city of Portland, Oregon than in all of Wyoming?), I’d say that state is particularly screwed by the GND.
 
But do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of that is? Not only would people be utterly financially screwed with an added tax to pay for this GND on top of everything else they need to pay, but this mandate alone would actually HARM the environment more than it would help it.
 
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a ‘100 percent renewable system’ and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas-fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas-fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.”
 
In other words, because wind and solar are so unreliable when it comes to the energy they produce, the backup generators would actually heavily increase greenhouse emissions (you know, that naughty word?). It would actually be WORSE for the environment to switch to wind and/or solar, not to mention they also do not produce anywhere near the same amount of energy that fossil fuel does, so blackouts would be frequent almost regardless of conditions (depending on where you live).
 
So the GND literally cannot even TRY to work as advertised, that is, it cannot do anything favorable to fight climate change, as the electricity mandate alone would work against that goal, even if we could actually somehow afford it, which we definitely cannot.
 
The GND should be considered a complete and total joke, top to bottom, but there are some really stupid people out there who think this is a good idea. Well, once their homes stop having working electricity (and God knows the U.S. can’t literally replace all of its buildings even within a century), their supermarkets are emptied because the farming equipment we currently have would be outlawed so food production would severely decline, and you overall have massive famines and riots, then maybe people will stop thinking the GND is so great.
 
Seriously, the GND is national suicide. It would almost immediately destroy the country in every aspect. And all to perhaps help decrease global temperatures by virtually zero in 80 years.
 
What a great plan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.