Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 79: If we stall on the Green New Deal, will we all melt in 12 years?

Raiders of the Lost Ark
It might be said the biggest flaw in every liberal plan is its flimsy foundation.

I was recently told (by a very knowledgeable industry veteran) that in constructing a house, the project’s greatest cost and mental energy comes during the planning stage, particularly when installing the foundation. Not that the rest of the work flows error-free from that point on, but once the concrete’s solidified in the soil there’s at least a basis to establish everything else.

Liberals, as perfectly summed up by their dreamy “Green New Deal” boondoggle, always get things backwards. People like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endlessly jabber on about the benefits of a carbon-free world but obviously devote little thought and consideration to how to arrive there.

A perfect example came to light this week. Even if the “Green New Deal” could clear the enormous political and legislative hurdles facing it, there just isn’t the practical capability in place to support one of the scheme’s key pillars. Josh Siegel reported at The Washington Examiner, “The Green New Deal's plan to ramp up federal funding for wind and solar to reach 100 percent renewable or clean electricity won't be sufficient without addressing transmission lines, which often meet political opposition at the local, not federal, level…

“The Brattle Group projects $30 billion to $90 billion would have to be spent on transmission by 2030 to ‘cost-effectively’ serve ‘the coming electrification of the American economy,’ meaning more use of wind and solar for electricity, and more drivers using transportation powered by electricity. That investment would represent a 20 to 50 percent increase in average annual transmission spending compared to the past 10 years.

“But building transmission is hard. Major long-distance transmission projects require 10 or more years to be approved and developed, because of a diffuse permitting process that is subject to delay because of local opposition from people living near the planned power lines — a problem known as not-in-my-backyard-ism, or NIMBYism.”

Can you think of anything more unsightly than spindly spider-like power transmission lines?

Naturally, the plan’s expensive…and who would pay for this massive uptick in transmission lines? And on whose lands would they be placed? You can’t just stick tall towers in the ground anywhere and string lines across. It doesn’t work that way. Siegel’s story indicates wires could be placed underground (like pipelines), but this would be even more pricey and probably dredge-up environmental concerns in addition.

For what it’s worth, the Trump administration is onboard with boosting transmission capacity, though there’s absolutely no way any sane person would go along with the GND’s call to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030 (or whatever date they picked out of the air). It’s all well and good to decree that the entire country wean itself off carbon belching mechanisms, but if there isn’t a way to transport rural area-produced renewable energy to power hungry urban consumers, people are gonna get awful grumbly when they turn on their air conditioners or latte machines and find they don’t function as anticipated.

More’s the pity. Liberals squander plenty of their own human energy on concocting these crazy ploys but don’t invest any thought into how to actually implement them. That’s the purview of smart people who build things… you know, engineers, architects, surveyors, chemists… not to mention the talented know-how guys and gals pounding the nails and turning the screws.

Much has been written on how AOC and her ilk think the time is now to rid the planet of airplanes and methane expelling bovines (a.k.a. farting cows), but how would the world transform so quickly to begin with? And where’s the evidentiary basis for claiming the earth has only 12 more years to right itself from its present course?

Even assuming the 12-year-number is true (wow, a HUGE leap of faith there), what would the end of the world look like? Would the planet simply become so hot that human beings melt like the Nazis in the movie classic “Raiders of the Lost Ark? Or would the oceans (from thawing of the polar ice caps and glaciers) rise so high everyone drowns? Or would the super-heated climate whip up so many earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, floods, hurricanes and cyclones that cities would simply be smothered by the wrath of Mother Nature?

History reveals plenty of illustrations of scientists and soothsayers forecasting the end times...but we’re still here nonetheless. Reality also shows ancient volcanic explosions shrouded the earth with exponentially more CO2 than humankind could ever hope to produce and release in a span of years or decades. Yet still the third great big ball ‘o gas from the sun persists and some would argue, thrives.

How could this be? And Democrats don’t help their cause with their own hypocritical behavior. Ocasio-Cortez herself frequently flies from New York to Washington and back to her district… shouldn’t she be setting a better example by dragging her green rear through Penn Station in New York City every round-trip? Such sacrifice is too much to ask from the pampered socialism-peddling crew.

Besides, America offers numerous past cases of inspired massive-scale projects to choose from, all of which included solid foundations to start with. Two that stand out are the truly impressive depression-era Hoover Dam (on the border of Arizona and Nevada, supplying enough hydroelectric power today to light millions of homes) and of course, NASA’s successful fulfillment of President John F. Kennedy’s pledge to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth by the end of the 60’s.

Kennedy didn’t live to see Americans reach the lunar surface but he still set the proper people in motion and handed them the capabilities to accomplish big things. There’s no such corresponding spirit with the socialist crowd today -- if anything, they’re suspicious of entrepreneurs and innovative people.

AOC and her followers are fond of saying the “Green New Deal” and climate change are this generation’s World War II. For those who lived through 1939-1945 -- or studied it -- to suggest today’s unsettled climate debate rivals the twentieth century’s greatest challenge to humanity’s survival is insulting. And let’s not forget the same world conflict AOC frequently cites was initiated by socialists, communists and race pushers seeking political domination and subjugation of human rights.

Freedom overcame the socialists then, yet too many shortsighted people forget. The “Green New Deal” may turn out to be like World War II in one sense -- if ever implemented, it could spark a military-type response from the populations whose freedoms were yanked away by the elites.

Fittingly, it’d probably snow the day the shooting starts, too.

To stave off resistance, the ruling class will undoubtedly attempt to take your guns away first. Kurt Schlichter wrote at Townhall, “Cede a monopoly of force within society to the elite and those wonderful, competent and honest folks will totally respect you and work on your behalf. Also, here’s a profitable high-speed rail line from Bakersfield to Fresno I’ll sell you cheap. Just don’t look at the Russiagate soft coup behind the mirror!

“The fact is that an armed citizenry is a true backstop to tyranny, an obstacle to total control over society by a small elite that seeks unbridled power. Will we ever have to use it? We hope not, but think of it as a fire extinguisher for fascism – better to have it lying around than not to have it when you need it.”

No one’s outright forecasting armed insurrection against the Washington swamp creatures, but then again, unbalanced “Green New Deal” kooks aren’t in power right now, are they? Let’s hope that the least of their concerns is a lack of available transmission lines and an unwillingness among state and local authorities to hastily add more.

Just like with building a house, every policy proposal must have a solid foundation. Without proper study and foresight ideas quickly fall apart, especially if they’re weak to begin with. The Democrats’ Green New Deal would be an exorbitant disaster and must be stopped at all costs.

Share this