The Democratic Party has taken control of the US House of Representatives as a result of the 2018 election. This has resulted in a number of left of center policy proposals with regard to climate change and other economic policies. Perhaps the most prominent of these proposals is called the “Green New Deal” (GND). This has been endorsed by about 40 members of the new Congress and about 8 of the likely 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates. The GND includes a number of proposals including:
- Eliminating nearly all fossil fuel use by 2030, requiring “upgrades” to every home and business building in the country, public transportation programs, creation of single-payer health care, a universal “basic income” program, a federal jobs guarantee, tax increases, and a carbon dioxide tax.
The GND is often attributed to Representative Ocasio-Cortez, but it appears to be largely based on a proposal by Canadian socialists called the Leap Manifesto prepared in the 2000s. Although the emphasis is on climate, there are a number of policy proposals contained in it that are not related to climate change. In the climate area, it would presumably result in the loss of all jobs related to fossil fuels by 2030.
Among the Manifesto’s “initiating organizations” are numerous far-left groups, such as Black Lives Matter–Toronto, Greenpeace Canada and Climate Justice. Socialist organizations endorsing the plan include ACORN, the International Socialists, Socialist Project, and the Socialist Caucus of Canada’s New Democratic Party.
Stricter Government Emission Regulations Is One of the Central Proposals of the Left wing of the Democratic Party
There can be little doubt that climate change reduction through ever stricter government regulations is one of the central proposals of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Could it be that climate change reduction fits in with the doctrines of democratic socialism? I wonder whether those supporting GND realize that they are supporting current doctrines of US democratic socialism? Do they realize that virtually every government program in the world to reduce emissions has failed and there is strong evidence that changes in CO2 atmospheric levels have not had any significant effect on temperatures anyway?
Virtually every effort to reduce global warming and climate change have failed except free market approaches in the US. Presumably socialists are unlikely to try anything except increasing government regulations. And that indeed is what they propose. So the answer in their view is more of what has not worked.
It is easy to make the case that government-imposed decarbonization has been very unsuccessful in reducing human caused emissions. The only approach that has had some success is allowing free market forces to determine emissions. As readers know, I question whether reducing human CO2 emissions is a useful objective, but the democratic socialists are determined to impose ever more government regulations. Now the democratic socialists in the Democratic Party want to double down on these efforts. But there is little evidence that such an effort will achieve any more than previous efforts. The climate warriors seem to be arguing that if we just impose harsh enough regulations, that the alleged “problem” will be solved. More likely, the most that will happen is that the geographic area where the emissions occur will change to areas where there are no such regulations or they are not enforced (such as China). According to climate orthodoxy this will reduce emissions and temperatures. Lots of luck.
To someone with a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. So it is with climate Warriors. They have one class of solution, taxes on energy, in order to win votes and raise dollars for their agenda.
If this made good economic sense for society, investors would be doing it anyway, thru self interest.
But that would not win votes. So they have to invent s false eco-cause and rally naive lemmings behind it. Tax energy overtly thru taxes or indirectly thru regulatory mandates. This raises the prices of different energy sources for a false cause. This generally lowers standards of living and hinders economies, wherever practiced.
It flips environmental science on its head and turns it into a negative force for bad rather than good. Within the biosphere, carbon dioxide gas is simply a force for good. It is required for photosynthesis to take place. This produces green plants upon which food webs are built to sustain higher grazers and predators, including people. Carbon obtained thru our foods and originating from photosynthesis is the second most common element in the human body. Carbon r us. The cycle of life causes us each to emit carbon dioxide back into the air with each breath expelled. Airborne carbon dioxide enables forests and crops to grow. It is about as good a molecule as it gets.
The idea that carbon dioxide governs temperature is not science, just politicized and dishonest eco-science. The big yellow ball that appears in the daytime sky governs temperature.
Only socialist eco-warriors would think otherwise and keep hammering at their one size fits all nail of taxing energy for their own corrupt purposes.