Pirate's Cove

Here’s a NY Times op-ed the other dayday

Green New Deal is technologically possible, experts say. But it will cost trillions of dollars, require expansive new taxes and federal programs, and could not be accomplished within the 10-year timeframe that supporters say is necessary. https://t.co/afWa9gOK45

— NYT Climate (@nytclimate) February 21, 2019

So, massively expensive and taxes will skyrocket, along with the government taking away lots of choice and instituting massive controls on our lives.

Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board (featuring racist Sarah Jeong) today

The Green New Deal Is Better Than Our Climate Nightmare

It’s hard to believe, but worth recalling, that during the presidential debates in 2016, not a single question about climate change was put to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. That, of course, was before a plague of hurricanes, droughts and savage forest fires in California and around the world captured the public’s attention; before Mr. Trump brought renewed focus to the very issue he had dismissed as a hoax by fecklessly rolling back nearly every positive policy thing President Barack Obama had done to address it; before a series of frightening scientific reports appeared last year, warning that the window of opportunity to ward off the worst consequences of a warming globe was quickly closing.

It was also long before anyone had seen a nonbinding congressional resolution calling for something called the Green New Deal, an ambitious plan to tackle climate change (and a lot else, too) that earlier this month burst like a shooting star upon the Washington political and legislative scene. The resolution — introduced by Ed Markey, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected Democratic representative whose district covers parts of the Bronx and Queens — calls for a “10-year national mobilization”through giant investments in infrastructure and carbon-free energy. It has since won the full or partial allegiance of a half-dozen Democratic presidential hopefuls who pray that town hall participants or debate moderators will ask them what they think about global warming. Which in turn means that, whatever becomes of the plan, it will have moved climate change — a serious issue that has had serious trouble gaining traction — to a commanding position in the national conversation. That alone is reason to applaud it.

So, it’s a horrible, horrible piece of legislation, which, if you remember, isn’t a bill but a resolution, but, hey, it starts the National Conversation. I don’t think the Conversation is going the way the NYTEB thinks it is. Remember, Democrats were very upset that Mitch McConnell was going to bring it up for a vote in the Senate.

As far as Democrats wanting to be asked what they think of ‘climate change’, heck, I want candidates to be asked questions, as the answers will show what they really want, which is more taxes and fees, a skyrocketing cost of living, and to take more power and restrict citizen’s freedom.

In name and concept, the plan is not new. The term Green New Deal appeared in a column in The Times by Thomas Friedman in January 2007, in which he called for a vast public and private investment program that would throw everything under the sun (including, actually, the sun itself) — wind, solar, nuclear power, energy efficiency, advanced research, tax incentives and a price on carbon — into a massive effort to build a more climate-friendly energy system while also revitalizing the American economy.

The GND does away with nuclear. It actually doesn’t discuss carbon taxes that much, but, then, everyone would be paying a lot more in taxes. Except for all those put out of work due to the skyrocketing cost of doing business. And supporting those who do not want to work.

The NYTEB next attempts to Blame AOC’s staff for releasing the plan with the cow farts, getting rid of air travel, and people people who do not want to work, saying it wasn’t the real plan, when we know it was. That the big idea is to decarbonize the economy (when will the NY Times stop using fossil fuels and make their operations carbon neutral, as well as making their employees do the same in their private lives?). And, of course, some Trump Derangement Syndrome (“the nation must endure Mr. Trump’s boneheaded policies”). They mostly ignore how expensive this would be, how much taxes and fees would go up, how much the cost of living would go up, and how much freedom citizens would lose

Whether such measures will satisfy the activists who have gathered around Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is another matter. After all, her talking points, as well as the resolution itself, speak also of providing higher education for all Americans; universal health care; affordable housing; remedies for “systemic injustices” among the poor, the elderly and people of color; and a federal job guarantee insuring “a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security.”

In other words, despite the flowing rhetoric designed to make it appear super mega awesome, the Central Government will be in all of our private business, clear violations of our privacy and the 10th Amendment. Call it what you want, Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, etc (I like Modern Socialism), the government will own you, and you won’t have a choice. I wonder what the NYTEB will think when the Central Government is dictating how the Times operates?

Read literally, the resolution wants not only to achieve a carbon-neutral energy system but also to transform the economy itself. As Mr. Markey can tell you from past experience, the first goal is going to be hard enough. Tackling climate change in a big way is in itself likely to be transformative. We should get on with it.

Change it to what, exactly? Funny they forget that part. But, yes, let’s have the conversation. Most who advocate this climaidiocy never have to defend it. It’s high to to stick a stake in the heart of the Cult of Climastrology by making politicians explain just what their policies would do.

BTW, there’s not one shred of evidence provided that shows that mankind is responsible for any climatic changes.