The Washington Post editorial board came out against the Green New Deal resolution championed by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies.
“Good intentions aren’t enough. We can’t afford bad ideas,” the editorial board wrote in its Green New Deal takedown posted Sunday.
While the editorial board agreed with the broad energy goals of the Green New Deal, the Post leveled criticism against the resolution’s 10-year timeline and the inclusion of totally unrelated welfare demands.
“They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be,” the editorial board wrote.
The Post also called the Green New Deal’s goal of reaching “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years “impossible” and criticized the resolution’s “promise to invest in known fiascos such as high-speed rail.”
Ocasio-Cortez joined with Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to introduce Green New Deal resolutions in early February, which not only included aggressive energy goals, but also a slew of welfare and “social justice” goals.
“These expensive aspirations, no matter how laudable, would do nothing to arrest greenhouse-gas emissions,” the editorial board wrote. “As ostensible parts of a Green New Deal, they divert money and attention from the primary mission: rapidly eliminating emissions between now and midcentury.”
Republicans oppose the Green New Deal, which is to be expected, but Democrats are divided on the bill as well.
A video posted online by pro-Green New Deal environmentalists showed Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein criticizing Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution as unrealistic and unable to pass the Senate.
The Post put forward its own Green New Deal proposal — the paper called for putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions and using government to “fill in the gaps” with additional climate policies.
“Pricing greenhouse-gas emissions with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, the economy-wide option, is bigger than the more spectacular-sounding but piecemeal subsidy and mandate programs some environmentalists prefer,” the editorial board wrote.
“But even carbon pricing would not be quite enough,” the Post’s editorial board added. “There are places where the price signal would not come through or be effective. In those circumstances, the government would have to do more.”
The Post also called for the U.S. to remain in the Paris climate accord, which President Donald Trump plans to withdraw from, and ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which would regulate hydrofluorocarbons.
Of course, the Post’s version of the Green New Deal has about as much of a chance of being enacted as Ocasio-Cortez’s bill — almost none.
Read more at Daily Caller
Any deals supported by Liberal Democrats is Bad Deals for Americans it just means More Regulations More Red Tape and Fewer Freedoms
WaPo’s whiplash reminds me of a time when daddies would let the kids sit on their laps and steer the family station wagon.
Oops, too soon, they’re not ready yet. Gotta keep it on the pavement, focus on carbon taxes. Bring it home in one piece.
Consider a Republican candidate getting an endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan. This would harm his chances of getting elected. The Green New Deal is going to have the same impact on the Democratic Party. It is so extreme and impossible to implement it puts the party in a bad light. What makes it worse is so many presidential hopefuls endorse it. In doing so they revel they don’t have a clue as to what can and can not be done engineering wise, they don’t have a clue what is possible economically, not to mention not understanding true science that shows there is no need to act on climate change.
It is often been pointed out on this web site a major reason the climate change movement keeps going despite the lack of valid science is it has so many hidden agendas. The “slew of welfare and “social justice” goals” showa this.