Democrats are increasingly lining up behind New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a “Green New Deal,” but few, if any, have talked about its actual impact on global warming.
Even if all the Green New Deal’s goals were achieved, it would have a negligible, and likely immeasurable, impact on projected global warming, according to climate model simulation provided by a libertarian think tank.
“I seriously think the effect would — at best — be barely detectable in the climate record,” Patrick Michaels, a climatologist with the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Cato developed its own “Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator” to estimate the amount of warming that might be averted through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon dioxide.
The carbon calculator is based on the so-called “MAGICC” climate model simulator, developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.
So, how much warming would a “Green New Deal” avert by the end of the century? Slightly under 0.14 degrees Celsius, according to Cato’s temperature calculator.
“The year-to-year variation is very close to the total amount of warming that would be ‘saved’ by 2100, according to EPA’s own model,” Michaels said.
And that assumes a climate sensitivity estimate of 3 degrees Celsius. Climate sensitivity refers to the amount of warming that can be expected from a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The United Nations estimates climate sensitivity is anywhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, though an April 2018 study suggested that climate sensitivity is likely on the low-end of the scale.
Indeed, if climate sensitivity is only 1.5 degrees Celsius like the April study found, the Green New Deal would only avert about 0.08 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, according to Cato’s calculator.
Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” calls for a House committee to draft legislation mandating the meeting of “100% of national power demand through renewable sources” within a 10-year window.
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers have endorsed the proposal, and the environmental group pushing it on Capitol Hill, the Sunrise Movement, calls the Green New Deal “the best chance we have to fight climate change.”
Neither the Sunrise Movement nor a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez responded to TheDCNF’s inquiry. TheDCNF asked if either had, or knew of, estimates into how much future warming the Green New Deal could avert.
Supporters have sold the Green New Deal as a way to create “green” jobs and are “the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,” Ocasio-Cortez said in December.
“This is going to be the Great Society, the moonshot, the civil rights movement of our generation,” Ocasio-Cortez said at a panel event alongside 2020 presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“This is the mechanism through which we can really deliver justice to communities that have been underserved,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
While the exact costs of a “Green New Deal” are uncertain, it would likely cost trillions of dollars and amount to the largest expansion of government authority in decades if enacted in its entirety.
“Also, the ‘100-percent renewable energy’ notion is fatuous,” Michael said. “The sun doesn’t shine at night and the wind often is calm over large areas when temperatures are extreme and the electricity demand is high.”
Read more at Daily Caller
What is it with so-called skeptical scientists like Patrick MIchaels, asigning a “warming role” to carbon dioxide?! No warming at all is possibe, there is no “climate forcing” and there is no “greenhouse effect” – all the correct answers are on my site. Come on man, work it out for yourself, you’re supposed to be a climatologist, aren’t you?!
Hans, I agree that CO2 probably doesn’t radiate heat downwards. But it’s accepted that CO2 reacts to a small portion of the light spectrum. This extra heat can travel sideways, carried by the natural circulation of our atmosphere. I’m referring to the circulation from the equator to the poles.
Warming? Just have to blame it on Maxwell’s demons.
Thanks for that, Graham. Instead of counting sheep tonight, I’ll segregate CO2 molecules.
Thanks Sonnyhil, but you’re mssing the most importannt point: heat can not travel from cold to warm, no matter how you reason it. Think deeply about the movement of energy, always downhill. Period. No amount of downwelling, sidewelling, upwelling will make the atmosphere, the oceans or the mountains one nano-degree warmer than it already was thanks to sunlight and the wind taking the heat away. Think heat!
I know that any system will tend toward zero potential, unless influenced by an outside force.
If it was possible to strip the Earth of its atmosphere, the temperature would drop dramatically. You cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere and expect it to behave like before. I’ve read that the temperature differential between the equator and the poles is falling. Why?
AO-C is a cheerleader, the Green New Deal is the game.
Nobody’s gonna tackle Climate Change , it can’t be done. But why not rally the Left in a common cause? Recruit dragon slayers, form an army, conquer Capitalism , live off the loot! Free stuff for all. Dreamy.
“Even if all the Green New Deal’s goals were achieved, it would have a negligible, and likely immeasurable, impact on projected global warming” This does not matter at all. Early in the global warming movement I could not understand why the environmental left didn’t care if their policies would have no real impact.
Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is an excellent example why. This deal has an annual expenditure of $7.1 trillion for socialist programs that have nothing to do with the climate. They are hitch hiking on the climate change fraud and are the reason that the lack of effectiveness of their proposed climate agenda doesn’t matter to them. Other hitch hikers are to force de-industrialization by making energy scarce and expensive, an excuse for new taxes, and expand the power of government, especially the UN. Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that the climate change movement was not about climate. It was to transfer the wealth of the industrial nations to the developing nations. Anyone following this movement recently knows that the developing nations are now pushing extra hard to achieve this goal.
In the end, they get fame and fortune, we get carbon foot-binding.
“What the Green New Deal Will Do”
http://www.gp.org/gnd_full
“Right now, our federal subsidy programs benefit large agribusiness corporations and the oil, mining, nuclear, coal and timber giants at the expense of small farmers, small business, and our children’s environment. We spend billions of dollars every year moving our economy in the wrong direction, turning our planet uninhabitable while imposing the greatest harm on communities of color and the poor. The Green New Deal will instead redirect that money to the real job creators who make our communities more healthy, sustainable and secure at the same time.”
First on the agenda – “The Green New Deal will instead redirect that money to the real job creators” – government.
AND second, “The centerpiece of the Green New Deal is a commitment to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030. Going to 100% clean energy by 2030 means reducing energy demand as much as possible. This will require energy conservation and efficiency; replacing non-essential individual means of transport with high-quality and modern mass transit; and eliminating the use of fossil-based fertilizers and pesticides. Along with these steps it will be necessary to electrify everything else”
Along with these steps it will be necessary to electrify everything else!!!
In 2016 our civilization consumes around 17.7 Terawatts of power (electricity) taken from all sources of energy, namely oil, coal, natural gas and alternative energies such as solar, wind, hydropower and others. Solar and wind provided less than 2% of the demand WHEN OPERATING AT CAPACITY- weather permitting. And Hydro provided about 16% of the demand when operating at capacity – weather permitting. Electrifying EVERYTHING ELSE would add an unimaginable demand on a resource that barely produces 2% of current electrical demand.
The Green New Deal’s “transition to clean energy is not only a visionary plan for a better world, it’s absolutely necessary to ensure we have a world at all.”
“The climate crisis is a serious threat to the survival of humanity and life on Earth.”
NO. We could populate the planet with solar, wind and hydro and never come close to producing 17.7 Terawatts of power (electricity). Green Energy just doesn’t have the “Joules” needed. And NONE of this grand scheme would be possible without subsidies and FOSSILE FUELS for the energy demand needed to build such a scam.
The whole scheme is a LIE. The Green New Deal will only redirect money (power) to the government and rest of us would necessarily have to live like squirrels.
I’m sure if the government mandated battery powered tractors, Elon Musk would over promise and under deliver.
There’s always horses. What did the Wizard of Oz say when he saw a green horse?
Ocasio-Cortez’s plan has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with making the U.S. a socialist society answering only to a one-world globalist organization.
Elizabeth MacDonald just pointed out that AO-C’s plan would cost more than $30Trillion over 10 years, but the tax on the rich would yield maybe $70Billion per year.
What would THAT do to the value and faith in American currency. She’s crazy.
It’s simple. Democrats want more poor people. They will do anything, raise fuel prices, import them illegally, destroy the economy, all to make more of us poor. So they can give us stuff from the public treasury.