Surprise: Green New Deal Could Skyrocket Gas To $13 A Gallon

And destroy the economy. No big deal, right? Of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to have no care to actually get her Green New Deal passed, and flipped out when the GOP controlled Senate voted on it, so, there is that. Though, the same hyper-far left folks who wrote the GND resolution are supposedly crafting legislation, which has zero chance of passing

AOC’s Green New Deal would boost gas tax $10-$13, ‘destroy economy’

The socialistic Green New Deal, pushed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and winning broad support from Democratic presidential candidates could lead to a $10 increase on a single gallon of gas, according to a new study of the so-called “carbon tax” and the liberal bid to rid vehicles that burn fossil fuels.

The CO2 Coalition’s study, mostly focused on the government’s effort to assign an environmental price on the future “Social Cost of Carbon,” also looked at the ultimate goal of liberals to rid gas-powered autos, key to the Green New Deal.

Executive Director Caleb S. Rossiter said the study calculated what it would cost to get people to trade their gas-powered cars for electric vehicles.

“Obviously we are not going to martial law, so how do you get people to switch?” he said. “They’re not going to grab your car by force, so you have to discourage the use.”

The result: A $10 per gallon gas tax and final price of some $13, or about the cost of shifting to EVs, about $2,700. “That is the economic breaking point of driving gas-powered cars,” he said.

He plans to explain his findings from the report, titled The Social Cost of Carbon and Carbon Taxes ‘Pick a number, any number’ Monday at a noon to 1:30 p.m. event in Room 385 of the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill.

Considering that polls have shown that the majority of U.S. citizens refuse to pay even $10 extra a month for Hotcoldwetdry, this won’t go very far, eh? Plus, hybrids typically have lower resale values than standard vehicles. Go try and lease one. Without massive back-end money from the manufacturer the lease will be very expensive since the residual value is so low. Even an incredibly low money factor (the equivalent of the APR for financing) will only help so much.

Rossiter said that such a high tax “would destroy the economy” and ignore the benefits of carbon in the atmosphere, a key argument of the CO2 Coalition.

Well, fortunately, Warmist supporting the GND also now want a carbon tax

How should we fight climate change? The most progressive Democrats say the answer is something like the Green New Deal, a massive government program aimed at reorienting American society. A more traditionally conservative answer is something like a carbon tax, making greenhouse gases more expensive and letting the market sort it out.

But for some Democrats, either one — or even better, both — will do.

A recent proposal for a carbon tax by Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and supported by a group called Citizens’ Climate Lobby has attracted more than 50 co-sponsors, including nearly 30 House Democrats who also back the Green New Deal.

“I’m for anything and everything that moves the ball forward,” says Democratic Rep. Salud Carbajal of California, who supports both the Green New Deal and a carbon tax. “What the carbon pricing legislation does is move forward the only significant bipartisan legislation that seems to be out there.”

He’s for anything except giving up his own use of fossil fuels and making his life carbon neutral. Hosing your cost of living? He and the rest are good with that.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Surprise: Green New Deal Could Skyrocket Gas To $13 A Gallon”

  1. Kye says:

    For all the talk of how bad the burning of fossil fuels are to the environment the one particular energy source that if used well can solve a vast amount of pollution is always ignored: nuclear power. For the life of me I cannot understand why we are not on a nuclear power plant building spree. If we built just four or five new modern plants in every state the energy problem as far as electric generation and consumption would be solved, the building, engineering and employment situation would get a huge shot in the arm and we’d all be much better off and more energy secure going into the future as electric power becomes more and more used.

    Just a thought.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      I agree. Nuclear can support the planet, but it is more expensive than other energy sources. But needs to be included.

      • formwiz says:

        How can you say that? We nuked 2 Japanese cities!

        Nucular is eeeevvvvviiiiillll. Lefties have held that as their highest canon for decades.

        Traitor!

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          There are reasons that nuclear is less than ideal. Start up is very expensive ($10 billion), it has acute catastrophic potentials that other energy sources do not (e.g., Fukushima, Japan and Chernobyl, Ukraine), some can be diverted for terrorism, the wastes have a long half-life (20 tons/plant/yr) and uranium is a finite resource. That said, all energy sources have trade-offs. In some cases nuclear power plants may be the best option.

          We DID nuke two Japanese cities!

          • formwiz says:

            You build a plant in an earthquake-prone area, it’s not smart.

            You run tests with a guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing, it’s not smart.

            Unless the government’s in on it, nobody’s going to siphon off fissile material.

            and uranium is a finite resource.

            Like Peak Oil?

            We also saved about a million Allied casualties and the Japanese race (according to the Japanese).

  2. Kye says:

    I don’t find any comparative cost study done with nuclear, wind and solar so I would hesitate to say they are cheaper especially when one considers the immense areas needed, the immense government subsidies and their short life span as opposed to nuclear. I just figure with 21st century technology new nuclear facilities would probably knock the socks off everything else regarding electric generation. And they are reliable when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine 24/7/365.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      You’re right. The running costs of nuclear is cheap, but building the reactors is expensive. The cost of containing and monitoring nuclear waste is expensive.

      But with gov’t investment/subsidy, and the increases in technology, nuclear needs to be part of our energy toolbox! Agreed, nuclear energy is ultra efficient compared to fossil fuels and renewables.

      • formwiz says:

        Fossil fuels are more safely handled and more plentiful.

        Until the Jetsons are born, you’re not going to run your car on them.

        PS Building an oil refinery is expensive, too, but you never hear anyone complaining about the cost.

        • Kye says:

          I’d be willing to bet a whole lot more people were killed in “fossil fuel mishaps” than nuclear mishaps. And cars would still run on gas because that’s the best and cheapest way to run them. But electric cars and all the electric appliances would be fueled by clean, safe nuclear power.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7263 access attempts in the last 7 days.