Pirate's Cove

When will the Washington Post give up it’s own use of fossil fuels? If the Editorial Board is giving the opinion of the company, then they should lead, right?

The Democrats’ Green New Deal isn’t right. Here’s a better one.

WE FAVOR a Green New Deal to save the planet. We believe such a plan can be efficient, effective, focused and achievable.

The Green New Deal proposed by congressional Democrats does not meet that test. Its proponents, led by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are right to call for ambition and bold action. They are right that the entire energy sector must be reshaped.

But the goal is so fundamental that policymakers should focus above all else on quickly and efficiently decarbonizing. 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.

And the goal is so monumental that the country cannot afford to waste dollars in its pursuit. If the market can redirect spending most efficiently, money should not be misallocated on vast new government spending or mandates.

In this series of editorials, we propose our own Green New Deal. It relies both on smart government intervention — and on transforming the relentless power of the market from an obstacle to a centerpiece of the solution.

In other words, the GND offered by AOC – let’s face it, she is the face of that turd of a resolution. Markey hasn’t talked about it much, and isn’t getting the press on it, so it’s all on SandyFromTheBronx – is a stupid plan, per the WPEB. They blast it further in the editorial, especially regarding the pie in the sky stuff and how it veers off into dealing with all the non-climate stuff while attempting to say all that non-climate stuff is necessary.

The opinion is a long one, and next delves into the explosion of natural gas usage, noting it is very much replacing coal, which is a good thing, leading to

Natural gas’s displacement of carbon-rich, toxic coal as the country’s top electric fuel source would have seemed a preposterous dream just a decade ago. It has come about with no government mandate and while saving consumers money. When the market demands an outcome, things change fast.

But, they aren’t happy with the market deeming anthropogenic climate change to be low hanging fruit, so

Putting the planet first requires accepting both insights. The government should insist on cutting emissions but, to the largest extent possible, decline to dictate how, instead setting incentives and standards that unleash public and private effort.

Funny how government force is always required, eh? Team Trump should release a Papers Of The USA rule, which deems that the use of fossil fuels and CO2 sucking trees to be national treasures, restricting them for usage for news outlets. Let’s see what the WPEB has to say then.

And, of course they want a carbon tax, the latest iteration where some people get rebates from the government to help out a bit from the massive cost of living increase caused by the govt carbon tax. Which makes citizens even more reliant on gov’t.

Then they discuss “filling in the gaps”, which is government forcing companies to do R&D and create products for “social value”. And

Similarly, a carbon price would encourage homeowners to invest in more efficient appliances or double-paned windows, but renters pay their own electricity bills yet have little say over such decisions. Because of this dynamic, even with a high carbon price, the country would get less investment in energy efficiency than it needs. The government must fill this efficiency gap. Federal standards for appliances and buildings could slash energy waste where price signals failed to do so. Government loan programs could also help low-income people finance money-saving investments.

In other words, Government will force you to spend money on your home, money you may not have. Remember when Democrats yammered about choice? I guess that only applies to killing the unborn (and now, apparently, the just born).

The government must also account for the fact that not all greenhouse-gas emissions come from burning the fuels that a carbon pricing program would reach — coal, oil and gas. How would the government charge farmers for the methane their cows emit or for the greenhouse gases released when they till their soil? How about emissions from cement, ammonia and steel production? The federal government would have to tailor programs to the agricultural and industrial sectors, which might include judicious use of incentives and mandates. Tying eligibility for the nation’s extensive farm subsidy system to environmental stewardship would be a place to start.

Finally, there is transportation, a sector that is deeply hooked on oil and dependent on government decision-making on infrastructure investment. Carbon pricing would deter unnecessary driving and spur the purchase of cleaner cars, but only government can ensure adequate mass transit options. Local governments could help with zoning laws to encourage people to live in denser, more walkable communities. The federal government should also press automakers to steadily improve fuel efficiency.

And farmers and those evil moo cows. And everything. This is pretty much the definition of an authoritarian government, as it is dictating policy for the economy and for our private lives. They want to force citizens to live in Approved Places.

It keeps going on and on, ending with

Good intentions will not solve the global warming crisis. Massive social reform will not protect the climate. Marshaling every dollar to its highest benefit is the strongest plan. Our Green New Deal would do that.

And a centralized government dictating how the economy works and how we live our lives? Nothing could go wrong there, right?

Read: Washington Post Disses Green New Deal, Offers Their Own Silly Plan »