Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would require Americans to rely on unreliable solar and wind energy that would raise electric bills by several hundred percents for every family and business, hit us with power blackouts and brownouts, worsen poverty and do nothing to slow climate change.
Yes, you read that right. Even the drastic, unrealistic and multitrillion-dollar energy schemes in the Green New Deal would have no measurable impact on global temperatures in our lives or our grandchildren’s lifetimes.
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., knows little if anything about climate science. She has come up with a plan that is the equivalent of amputating your leg to deal with an ingrown toenail. The “cure” is far more harmful than the problem it is designed to solve.
Nine of the 10 desired outcomes of Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal mention environmental issues, with a particular emphasis on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from our use of fossil fuels. The goal is 100 percent reliance on renewable energy in 10 years.
This sounds attractive. But there are physical, practical and economic limits to our embrace of renewable energy sources.
Energy is required for everything humans do, and the more expensive it is, the more poverty will be exacerbated.
Whether we like it or not, the world runs mostly on fossil fuels, which have the advantage of very large energy density and availability, day or night, even when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
Solar and wind energy are not free. They are only practical in limited regions, and they require huge diversions of funds to produce relatively small amounts of energy per acre of land and physical resources used.
The intermittency of solar and wind energy causes instability and inefficiencies in the electric grid. Across European countries, the cost of electricity doubles for only a 25 percent reliance on wind and solar power.
And, of course, air travel will likely always be dependent on fossil fuels due to their light weight and high energy density. You don’t want the plane you are riding in to lose power when the sun goes down or on a cloudy day.
It’s legitimate to ask just how much future climate change would be averted if (for example) the world fully embraced the Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The answer is a virtually unmeasurable amount: global warming would be reduced by 0.17 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, even if the agreement’s 2030 goal is extended for another 70 years.
And that assumes computer projections of future warming are reliable. One 2018 study of ocean and atmospheric warming since the late 1800s found that climate models are overestimating global warming from increasing greenhouse gases by about a factor of two.
And even that study assumed that 100 percent of the warming is humanity’s fault. The alarmist U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that the fraction of global warming caused by humans might not be much more than one-half, further reducing the threat of warming.
And the Green New Deal calls for far greater changes than the Paris Climate Agreement does.
James Hansen, the modern godfather of global warming theory, has admitted that only a widespread embrace of nuclear power can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the Green New Deal would eliminate nuclear power.
All this points to a simple fact: for now, fossil fuels are the moral choice. Mandated reliance on expensive solar and wind energy in the U.S. would make our lives much harder and would make energy much more expensive, hurting poor people the most.
And there would be no measurable impact on global temperatures in our or our grandchildren’s lifetimes.
No one can say what the future will bring. Perhaps many years from now there will be monumental advances in solar and wind power and batteries to store such power, making it possible to rely on renewable energy for all our power needs.
But this isn’t not going to happen in time to meet the 10-year deadline the Green New Deal sets for complete reliance on renewable energy. Simply wishing for or mandating scientific advances will not make them take place.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), is Principal Research Scientist in the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Read more at Fox News
Why don’t they stop crediting AOC with this “green deal” because it was all put together by a radical leftist group called The Justice “social justice” Democrats. She has done nothing as she is merely an actor who answered an acting/casting Ad. This “dumb” act, in part is trying to disarm any opposition. She needs ignored and everyone going on with putting their group’s policies put to an end before they begin.
Don’t worry I just listened to a PBS story on my way to work. A government pilot program in Toronto has saved the day. No private cars, tax all energy, ban fossil fuels, bike, walk everywhere and tax, tax, tax. The conclusion of spreading this globalist program everywhere–By 2050 No More Global Warming. What happened to “climate change”???? Well let’s just deal with one hoax at a time, right????
Next month is Earth Day where the Eco-Wackos will parade through the streets making total fools of themselves for a problem that only in their minds
“This sounds attractive.” – This sounds attractive? – This sounds attractive!?
Let us ignore for a moment that this GND is predicated in a politically motivated Global Progressive LIE.
Just focus on the GND’s “energy proposal”.
The GND proposes replacing the entire USA’s current total ENERGY USE from all sources with solar, wind and hydro…. period.
AND it also proposes converting EVERYTHING dependent upon current TOTAL ENERGY TYPES produced from all sources to run exclusively on ELECTRIC ENERGY. Everything from your toothbrush to trains, except airplanes which can fly on their own solar power. Really! A 2 seater solar power plane can circle the globe in 16 months.
But the GND has bigger problems than “just being a government project designed to take over all U.S. energy production”.
When converting FOSSIL FUELS to ELECTRICAL ENERGY two-thirds of the energy in the raw materials actually make it onto the grid in the form of electricity. The current Solar and Wind conversion factors of energy to grid are somewhat lower and less reliable. The most efficient commercially available solar panels on the market today have efficiency ratings of 22.5% for about 3 to 4 hours on a sunny day in July but efficiency can drop to zero from 10 to 16 hours a day due to seasonal variations and such. Wind turbines have efficiency ratings of between 30 percent and 50 percent of rated power output depending upon wind speed, if the wind is blowing hard enough, but not blowing too hard and/or if the temperature drops below acceptable limits and/or icing is taking place.
The gross amount of resources required for the GND energy proposal would have to be sourced ignoring even minimal environmental regulations to get this all done in 30 years. 10 years? Absolutely out of the question (government project!).
The total lack of technically feasible energy storage at the scales required is a non-starter. And grossly over engineering would absolutely be required to provide some minimum level of reliability to meet emergencies.
Given the scale of the GND proposal, the whole undertaking would absolutely REQUIRE extensive fossil fuel powered equipment to even make the attempt possible.
Finally. (ask a physicist) Solar, wind and hydro is just not capable of producing the joules to replace even our current total daily ELECTRICAL production 7/24/365.
So. What about “THIS” sounds attractive?
No Dr Spencer, going 100% “renewable” is not attractive. Ignoring the fact that it is a wholly unreliable source of electricity but to get anywhere near enough generating capacity would be definition destroy our environment with millions and millions of acres covered with wind turbines and solar panels.
And then what happens when the next polar votex happens where the wind isn’t blowing and the solar panels are covered by snow. How many citizens are we okay with dying to protect gaia from nothing?
The sum total of renewable energy humanity has built to date has been expensive and controversial. Its effectiveness is the equivalent of putting your vehicle in neutral descending a hill.
Building more turbines and solar farms won’t solve anything. Germany has proven it.
That’s because Liberal Democrats don’t give a darn if you have to pay a higher power bill because they don’t have to pay their own bills they get the public to pay so they can play just like the Eco-Freaks claim they want to Save the Birds but are willing to allow for hundered of maimed birds over their wreckless devotion to this Global Warming/Climate Change Hoax