By David French
Thursday, February 07, 2019
Ordinarily I wouldn’t write about a resolution introduced
by a freshman member of Congress. But most freshmen don’t have 2.8 million
Twitter followers, and most freshmen don’t have their first resolution covered
by CNN, NBC, NPR, the Washington Post,
Fox, USA Today, and virtually every
other hard-news outlet in the country. It’s being talked about everywhere, so
it’s worth addressing here.
I’ve read it (it’s
only 14 pages), and it’s a perfect symbol of the problems with progressive
environmentalism. It’s a perfect representation of why so many Americans don’t
heed alarmist warnings and why they reject the sweeping reforms demanded by the
environmental Left.
Why? Because when you read the document you quickly
realize that progressivism is the priority, not the environment. In other
words, environmentalism and progressivism are wrongly treated as fundamentally
inseparable.
Before we dig into the text, let me put my cards on the
table. I believe that mankind negatively influences the climate (though the
precise extent of that influence is debatable), that it is in our interests to
prudently reduce carbon emissions — while also seeking economic development at
home and abroad — and that sober-minded cost-benefit analyses of proposed
environmental policies are often lost in the avalanche of alarmist rhetoric.
Like many Americans, I’d call myself “climate-concerned.”
And as a climate-concerned American, I find much of the
most alarmist rhetoric around climate change facially unconvincing. Instead, it
often looks as if the climate argument is pretext for justifying a host of other progressive policies, including
progressive policies that have only the most attenuated relationship (if any
relationship at all) to climate change. There are a few sure-fire tells — does the
progressive climate-change policy inexplicably go after nuclear power? Does it
move into condemnations of racism and sexism? Does it advocate redistributive
economic policies?
The Green New Deal hits the trifecta. First, the text of
the resolution omits nuclear power from the proposal, saying instead that “100
percent of the power demand in the United States” should be met “through clean,
renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” According to fact sheets
distributed by her office, the Green New Deal “would not include creating new
nuclear plants.” It goes on to say that “it’s unclear if we will be able to
decommission every nuclear plant in 10 years, but the plan is to transition off
of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”
But wait. If the planet faces a climate emergency, why
the call to end nuclear power? Writing today in Forbes, Michael Shellenberger argues
persuasively that closing nuclear plants will likely increase
greenhouse-gas emissions as utilities scramble to make up the power shortfall.
He points to the example of Vermont, one of the nation’s most environmentalist
states. Despite an aggressive commitment to renewable energy, its emissions
rose when the Vermont Yankee nuclear-power plant closed. Renewables simply
couldn’t close the gap.
There is much more to say about nuclear power, but given
its enormous (and quite clean and safe) energy output compared with renewables,
any decision to intentionally abandon nuclear power is inconsistent with claims
of a climate emergency and undermines climate alarmism. Indeed, a 2018 MIT
study group argued that nuclear power was “essential to achieving a deeply
decarbonized energy future in many regions of the world.”
Next, the Green New Deal veers early and often into
identity politics. The resolution actually says the following race and gender
issues are “related” to climate change:
(B) a large racial wealth divide
amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average White
family and the average Black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that
results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median
Moreover, it declares that it is the “duty of the Federal
Government to create a Green New Deal—”
(E) to promote justice and equity
by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of
indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities,
deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor,
low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and
youth.
This isn’t environmentalism, it’s intersectionality. And
it’s intersectionality supplemented with a giant dose of income redistribution
and economic populism. As part of the Green New Deal, the resolution laments
the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1 percent and seeks to
“guarantee a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical
leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United
States.”
Oh, and the Green New Deal also includes a pledge that
the federal government will make sure that “all people of the United States”
receive “high quality health care, affordable, safe, and adequate housing,
[and] economic security.” The fact sheet even pledges to provide economic
security for all those who are “unable or unwilling
to work.” (Emphasis added.)
To fight climate change, we have to make sure that Bubba
never has to leave his Xbox.
And, by the way, I haven’t even touched the truly
unbelievable objectives, like “upgrading all existing buildings in the United
States” or the fact sheet’s announced goals of constructing high-speed rail to
such an extent that “air travel stops becoming necessary” and to “replace every
combustion-engine vehicle.” Indeed, the mainstream media is lavishing coverage
on a document that actually contains this sentence (emphasis added):
We set a goal to get to net-zero,
rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be
able to fully get rid of farting cows
and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing
and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid,
overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our
ecosystem to get to net-zero.
Keep in mind, because of Ocasio-Cortez’s immense Twitter
following and the extraordinary media coverage of her every move, her Green New
Deal may now be the most famous environmentalist proposal in the United States.
Nobody has to be a progressive to be concerned about the
environment. Nobody has to be a progressive to respond to climate change. Any
proposal that conditions response to climate change on the adoption of the full
progressive platform is not only doomed to fail, but raises the question of
whether the declared climate emergency is more pretext than crisis. There’s a
need for a serious discussion about our climate. The Green New Deal is not
serious.
No comments:
Post a Comment